Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200800003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2010-04-02�'JRGINLP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 April 2, 2010 Ms. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 RE: ZMA -08 -003 Albemarle Place - Zoning Map Amendment Comments revised April 5, 2010 to include VDOT comments Dear Ms. Long: Thank you for your recent re- submittal received on March 1, for the above noted project for Tax Map and Parcels 061 WO- 03- 00- 019AO; 061 WO- 03- 00- 019BO; 061 WO- 03 -00- 02300; and 061 WO- 03 -00- 02400. We have a few questions and comments which are indicated below: Proffers: Planning: • It is helpful to submit the proffers with track changes, so that staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors can have a version of the proffers that shows the original proffers with the proposed changes. It is confusing to rely on two sets of proffers, please submit one amended set of proffers that contains the pertinent original approved proffers along with the requested changes. • Regarding your request to modify Proffer 14, Substituted Transportation Improvements, my letter to you, dated July 30, 2008, suggested wording from Larry Davis regarding this proffer. It does not appear this wording is being used. Please provide clarification since the language you have provided is not what Mr. Davis suggested you use. We suggest you use the language provided by Mr. Davis, which I have included as follows for your guidance. 14. The Owner, upon approval by the County's Director of Community Development, may construct alternative improvements to Route 29 in lieu of those improvements required by Proffer 8(B) and other proffered improvements to northbound Route 29. Such alternative improvements shall be constructed within twelve (12) months after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within Albemarle Place. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. These alternative improvements shall be in addition to any other improvements required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The request to construct these alternative improvements shall be made in writing to the Director of Community Development within sixty (60) days after the first final site plan for the initial phase of Albemarle Place is approved by the County and shall include all plans and drawings deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. Such request shall suspend the deadline for the City to approve any plans pursuant to Proffer 8(B). If the County does not approve the request to construct these alternative improvements within six (6) months of this request, the Owner shall be obligated to construct the improvements required by Proffer 8(B) in the County and to construct the improvements required by Proffer 8(B) in the City if the City approves those plans within six (6) months after the County's denial of the request to construct the alternative improvements or six (6) months after the first final site plan for the initial phase of Albemarle Place is approved by the County, whichever occurs later. The Owner shall diligently pursue approval of the plans. Engineering and Water Resources: The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to engineering and water resources: • In proffer 12, it is recommended that the request year be moved out to a date equal to the date of the last certificate of occupancy issued. It is further recommended that the plat and plan approvals, construction permits at no cost be removed from the proffer. It is not clear that county staff can waive these fees, or contract professional services to prepare plats and plans. It is reasonable to expect that off -site easements or right -of -way be provided at no cost, as the county may have the opportunity to require these be dedicated by the neighboring land owner. VDOT.- The following comments have been provided by Joel DeNunzio related to VDOT matters: Proffer 11 states that the signals will be installed at the request of VDOT or the County but in any event prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits in the proposed buildings. There should be something in the proffer that states that the signals will only be installed when warranted by the traffic volumes within the site. It is possible that the first occupants will not necessarily warrant a signal and then the proffers will limit the developer because VDOT will not allow the signal and the county won't issue occupancy permits. Zoning: The following comments have been provided by Sarah Baldwin related to zoning matters: • As in prior comments, please provide us with a revised application plan to clearly show proposed phasing of improvements. • Proffers 9 & 10 are not changed; however, Zoning has requested the ROW dedication (see attached correspondence). Please address the intentions to either satisfy or amend the proffer. • Proffer 1C regarding the overall landscape plan still needs to be addressed. Architectural Review Board: The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to entrance corridor guidelines: *The original proffers for this project required phasing in which the first site plan for the development would include landscape improvements to serve Blocks A -D. In its previous review of the Albemarle Place proposal, the ARB focused on the need for a consistent streetscape along Route 29 and along Hydraulic Road. The original proffer allowed for a consistently designed and planted streetscape. Proffer 1C states that landscaping will be reviewed by block at final site plan review. This is a positive revision from the last submittal which proposed building -by- building site plan review and landscaping. Staff recommends that you should be aware that the landscape plan approved with the first block site plan will likely establish the character of the planting that will be required on the remaining blocks. Sign Regulations: Architectural Review Board: • The larger sign sizes proposed with this amendment are already applied all along the Entrance Corridors. The larger sizes are not expected to create a negative impact in this case, if all EC sign guidelines can still be met. Staff recommends you should note that the ARB will require a comprehensive sign review for the development during their review of the site plan. Also, as with all signs throughout the ECs, the allowable sign area will be viewed as a maximum allowable that can be achieved only if EC Guidelines can also be met. Furthermore, if conditions allow for multiple freestanding signs in close proximity within a single block, coordinated freestanding sign design will likely be required by the ARB. Code of Development Appendix A — Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block: Zoning: • Some uses have been added by right to the COD, which may not be appropriate for the development: such as body shop, and motor vehicle sales. Zoning recommends that they be removed or only allowed by SP. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance does not define "Educational, technical and trade schools." Please clarify what use is intended. You may also want to consider adding temporary events by SP to the permitted uses table. Planning: • The following uses are listed as permitted in the Use table; however, they do not seem appropriate in this development: Animal Shelter, Self- storage facilities, Hospital and Wholesale Distribution. Please explain the allowance of these uses in this development. • Staff is currently working on a zoning text amendment regarding wayside stands. The allowance of this use may need to be adjusted in the use table. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA): The following comments have been provided by Justin Weiler related to water and sewer matters: • As previously stated, RWSA does not currently have sewer capacity in the Meadow Creek Interceptor for this development. However, an upgrade of the interceptor is currently underway. The project has been bid and construction is anticipated to start this month with an anticipated 18 month construction window; however, the completion date of this project is not guaranteed. Other Issues• The following items are recommendations we suggest that will assist you as you move this project forward and may make future modifications less cumbersome: • As previously discussed, please consider other modifications to the Code of Development. • The County requires authorization from all property owners for certain rezoning amendments. This is something you should consider as you draft deed and covenant language because absent a provisionVanguage for this type of approval, obtaining all owners' authorization for substantive amendments could be difficult in the future. • The setback or build -to range needs to be clearly described. Setbacks were not provided in the code of development. This needs to be clarified particularly regarding the major external roads. Exceptions can be made to this requirement for certain facilities, such as a sewage pump station, provided the necessary streetscape can still be provided. • In order to avoid confusion we recommend that Proffer 6 and any other proffers with similar language be revised to tie the requirement of approval to the first site plan or plat and not to a time period AFTER that approval. • We also recommend you consider changing references /triggers within the proffers from issuance of certificate of occupancy to issuance of building permits. Resubmittal or Public Hearing State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. (The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date.) We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER] you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the County, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days are resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Planning Division C: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC Attachments