Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment- � 9 �'IRGII�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (4341 296 -5832 August 10, 2010 James A. Morris 520 Woodlands Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201000004 James Morris - ZMA Dear Mr. Morris: Fax (4341972-4176 Staff has reviewed your initial submittal to rezone TMP 060A0090002400, a 2.407 acre parcel, from Rural Areas (RA) to Commercial Office (CO). We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning: Review of the proposed application has included two previous Planning applications on this parcel: • ZMA 84 -05 Tom Newell - incomplete application (Void) • ZMA 85 -12 Green Acres Land Trust - applicant proposed conversion of an existing, two -story single - family dwelling into professional offices with parking provided east of the structure. One proffer was offered: "It is proposed that if this property is zoned commercial office the existing structure will remain the same size or a replacement structure will be of similar size." Staff recommended denial of this application for the following reasons: • The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; • The request is inconsistent with the statement of intent of the CO, Commercial Office District; o Staff opinion is that a reasonable use can be made of the property under existing zoning; o Staff is concerned that a commercial designation of the property could result in similar rezoning requests in the area. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of ZMA 85 -12 on June 4, 1985, based on the above findings; Board of Supervisors unanimously denied ZMA 85 -12 on July 17, 1985. Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are also provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The subject parcel is located in the Rural Areas land use designation; in the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed; and on an Entrance Corridor. The Growth Management section of the Plan states, "The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource protection is the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach." Development is discouraged in the Rural Areas . The proposed rezoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, staff will recommend denial of this application. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date after more detailed plans are provided. Zonin The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: 1. Although the Applicant's suggested use is permitted under Commercial Office, a rezoning of this property will require larger setbacks (based on commercial adjacent to residential and RA zoning). A side setback of 50 feet (Ch 18- 21.7(b) from the existing house to the adjacent parcel (Tax Map 60A- 09-24) does not exist according to the physical survey submitted by the Applicant. That distance is currently only 40 feet. Rezoning the property does not allow the use of a building which does not meet the setbacks. Therefore, in addition to approval of a rezoning, a variance is necessary in order to use the existing structure for commercial use. A variance merely created by a rezoning does not meet the State Code criteria for granting a variance and would not be supported by Staff. The Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as " a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the size or area of a lot, or the size, area, bulk or location of a structure when the strict application of this chapter would result in unnecessary or unreasonable hardship to the land owner, and the need for the variance would not be shared generally by other lots, and provided that the variance is not contrary to the 2 intended spirit and purpose of this chapter, and would result in substantial justice being done (Ch 18 -3- 21). 2. Additionally, rezoning this property to CO is in direct conflict with planning and zoning principals. Commercial zoning is this area bears no relationship to the adjacent residential properties or surrounding areas. Current Development The following comments have been provided related to how your proposal may or may not be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future by staff member's name: Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by staff member's name: Public Facilities The following comments have been provided Jack Kelsey related to sidewalks along Barracks Road: The existing curb and sidewalk on Barracks Road ends at the eastern corner of the parcel identified in the rezoning below. We have a current CIP project to extend the curb & sidewalk north to the Old Salem Apartments (see attached map) that will complete a crucial pedestrian connection to the CTS stop on Georgetown Road. Based on County GIS mapping there appears to be adequate right -of -way for the sidewalk improvements in front of this parcel, however this rezoning provides an opportunity for a proffer to supplement County funding of this project. We are not presently working on this project, but it is high on the priority list. Please let me know if you need additional information. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Maragret Maliszewski: As part of this proposal, the driveway and turn - around would be expanded to accommodate parked cars. This is not expected to have an impact on the Entrance Corridor if the wooded character of the front of the site (the frontage along the EC) is maintained. VDOT Comments from VDOT are as follows: A commercial entrance meeting the requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendex F will need to be constructed at this site. The entrance will need to meet spacing standards along Route 654 with Adequate sight distance and minimum dimensions for a commercial entrance. Route 654 is classified as Urban Minor Arterial and the minimum spacing of full access connections is 660 feet. Proffers 3 Although the application states that the existing structures would be used to located a small personal office and a chiropractor office if a CO zoning is approved, unless a proffer offered by you and is approved by the Board of Supervisors to eliminate all other potential by -right and special use permit uses allowed in the CO District those uses would be available. Please contact Joan McDowell to discuss the proffer format, if desired. Fire and Rescue The following comment has been provided by James Barber: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. ACSA Comments were provided by Gary Whelan from ACSA (attached). Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, 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, a 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. 2 Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner, Rural Areas Planning Division attachments Rev. 6 -1 -10