HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200600008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2010-10-19vIRGIN�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols
From: Bill Fritz
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: October 19, 2008
Subject: ZMA 2006 -08 Berkmar Business Park
I have reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments:
1. A critical slopes waiver is required.
2. Limited area for landscaping exists in the parking area. Meeting the minimum tree canopy requirements may
require careful species selection. This comment does not need to be addressed at this time and is offered for
information purposes only.
3. Access to the property to the east of this development does not appear to align with the existing or proposed
access to Route 29. An easement from the abutting owner will be required for the access proposed.
4. Proffer 4B states that right of way will be dedicated but relies on dedication of property not under control of
the applicant. As written the proffer states that the applicant shall provide 30 feet from the centerline of the
connector road. As this road is not designed at this point, and based on my prior comment, it is possible that
dedication of right of way will affect features shown on the application plan or may potentially create setback
issues.
5. Proffer 5 states specific stormwater improvements that will be done. I encourage you to speak with Glenn
about these comments. I would not like to see a situation arise where additional improvements are needed based
on the calculations generated during site plan review. The applicant may insist that the improvements may not be
required because they conflict with proffered improvements.
�� OF ALg�
.1 �IRGINI�r..
County of Albemarle
rtment of Communitv Development
Memorandum
To:
Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
From:
Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division:
Zoning & Current Development
Date:
October 15, 2010
Subject:
ZMA 2006 -008 Berkmar Park NMD - 7t" Zoning Comments
My review is limited to the proffers because I understand that the Code of Development and
Application Plan have not changed.
1. I have concern in general about administering proffers as they are currently divided out by
individual property ownership. In the future, when property lines change either as a result of
combining property or adjusting boundary lines, it will be difficult to determine how to apply the
proffers.
2. Please make sure the Chief of Housing has reviewed the affordable housing proffers. I am not
familiar with some of this new language about the owner facilitating down payment assistance.
3. The cash proffer related to transportation has several issues. Please make the payments in
lump sum based on the square footage (the square footage basis is missing from the proffer
for parcel 112G for the $1 payment). The cash proffered is significantly low and appears to not
sufficiently cover the transportation impacts nor does it appear to be a rational basis (1$ of
transportation costs per 1 square foot of building ?). It would be best if the amounts were
rounded to the nearest dollar, rather than $1.32 for example.
4. The proffer related right -of -way dedication continues to involve the gap of the event that the
other property owner does not agree to dedication. Is the road standard adequately captured
by the term "two lane connector road." What should be built if the property owned by others is
not willingly dedicated — a cul -de -sac or what? The dedication reference should state thirty feet
on each side of the centerline.
5. The transit proffer should state that the transit stop will be constructed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any building within Block 2. The construction timing is not tied
down and it could arguably be bonded rather than built.
6. The storm water proffer and any other proffer referring to first site plan or subdivision plat
should include the word FINAL, for final site plan or final subdivision plat.
OF ALBS
� ice; F
SIR 11
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 30 Sep 2010
Subject: Berkmar Business Park (ZMA200600008)
I have reviewed my file for this project, and the new proffer documents which you provided. I understand
that, with the exception of these new proffers, which are only changed in format, the applicant wishes to go
back to the Board of Supervisors with the exact same plan and code of development as was heard in 2008.
Erosion Control:
Therefore, this memo only serves to recap the major issues from past reviews, with one exception; changes
to the Water Protection Ordinance have made proffer 6 obsolete, which should be deleted on all
documents. A timeline for stabilization is now part of the ordinance.
Traffic:
The major and overriding issue with this proposal is the lack of mitigation for traffic impacts. To
summarize;
Traffic impacts are:
Contributions to failing movements at (1) the intersection of Rt. 29 and Woodbrook, (2) the intersect
ion of Rt. 29 and Hilton Heights Road, and (3) the intersection of Hilton Heights Road and Sam's
Club.
Proffers in place of mitigation are;
Approximately $363,000 cash paid in small increments over the life of the project.
Measures which would mitigate impacts (alternatives), and approximate estimated costs are;
1. Spot improvements to turn lanes at intersections, including triple left turn lanes on Rt. 29. Total
cost as estimated by the applicant is $987,152. Total cost including required right -of -way for
widening and receiving lanes is at least twice that, rounded to 2 million, if it were a public project.
2. Berkmar Drive widening, extension and bridge over the Rivanna River. Cost approximately 60
million (Project reference 17 from the draft Places29 Master Plan).
3. Connector Road from Berkmar to Rt. 29, partially on -site. Approximately $500,000, doubled for
right -of -way acquisitions to $1 million if it were a public project.
In each case, timing is a concern, as I try to consistently recommend that required improvements be in
place at the time they are needed. Obviously, small cash contributions do not accomplish this.
Measure 3, the connector road, appears to be the most achievable of the mitigation alternatives. The
proffer for 60 feet of right -of -way on -site is probably not sufficient to build the on -site portion of this road,
as easements will be needed for slopes on either side, and on- street parking (from the master plan) will
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
need a wider section. At the least, it is recommended that a portion of the road could be built on the
applicant's property.
The above figures and mitigation alternatives are based on the latest traffic information provided by the
applicant; the traffic study revision of 30 May 2008, a queuing summary of 5 Jun 2008, and an addendum
memo of 18 Aug 2008, all by the Renaissance Planning Group. These are now somewhat outdated, with a
project build -out year of 2010, and an ultimate horizon year of 2016.
Stormwater Management:
The last remaining major engineering issue from this review was the use of the county stormwater basin to
meet the site's Water Protection Ordinance requirements. To allow this, the agreement reached between
the County General Services Department and the developer is reflected in proffer 5. It is interesting to
note, this proffer does not actually offer to provide anything beyond the ordinance requirements. On the
contrary, it appears to obligate the county to help the applicant. It documents the conditions for allowing
the applicant, at its request, to use an off -site County facility. Not really a proffer, it could be a separate
agreement.
file: E10 —ma GEB BerkmarBusinessPark.doc
pF AL
�'IRGIN��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
October 14, 2008
Mr. Frank Stoner
Stonehaus Development
2421 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA 06 -08 Berkmar Business Park Revision Dated 9/29/08
Dear Frank:
Thank you for your submittal of September 29, 2008. This letter provides a consolidated
set of comments relative to the large scale General Development Plan and Code of
Development. It includes
General Development Plan
Please change the date of the General Development Plan to correspond with the actual last
revision date. For some reason, this plan contained August 18, 2008 as the last revision
date which was actually the date of the prior plan. We do not want to have two different
plans with the same date floating around if the Board chooses to approve your rezoning.
Also, please remove the phrase, "the plan sheets are binding" from the note at the bottom
of the first page. With the changes that have taken place over the last several months
relative to the connecting road and the "fixed" and "flexible" items, this phrase now
makes the paragraph ambiguous. Ambiguity is not your friend as it causes confusion and
confusion means delays in the future.
To fix these two items does not require you to ask your engineer to make changes to the
plans. You may use a marker to mark through the phrase that should be removed and
hand write a new date on all pages of the plans. Then, you can take the plan to a copy
center and make copies of the "revised" plans for us. We will need 2 copies when you
make these changes.
Code of Development
1. The date at the top of the pages of the September 29 Code says August 18. Please
revise so that whatever date is on the front of the document is on the pages as well. It
should not be August 18, 2008.
2. Page 8 — Under the table, "Density, Housing Types and Non - Residential Use by
Block ", please add the following note:
2) The maximum retail square footage is to be counted as part of the Maximum
Non -res. Sq. Ft.
3. Page 10 — Under "Terraces ", the next to the last sentence and the last sentence have
typos. Please fix.
4. Page 10 — Under Expanded sidewalk areas — please replace the last phrase on that
page to say, "for Blocks 3 & 4" instead of "per half block ".
5. Page 12 — under the Typical Terrace and Pocket Park Illustrations, add the following
paragraph:
The pocket parks shown on the Illustrative Plan which is on the large scale
General Development Plan do not meet minimum size requirements shown on
the table for Minimum Green Space and Amenity Areas by Block. The
minimum size requirements established in this table must be met.
6. Page 15 — Under 1. Form, massing, and proportions, please delete the second
paragraph.
7. Page 15 — Fagade treatments -- in light of the images I have sent, please change the
second sentence to say, "Window articulation shall be varied from floor to floor in
both a symmetrical and rhythmic manner. Door openings shall follow the symmetry
and rhythm of window articulation."
8. Page 16 — under Enforcement of Architectural Standards, please use the phrase,
Enforcement of Covenants. This section should say: "Covenants reflecting the
architectural standards above shall be recorded for the property and an Architectural
Review Board (BBP ARB) for the Association will be established to enforce the
preceding architectural guidelines. Prior to requesting a building permit, a letter of
compliance from the BBP ARB will be required provided to the County.
Additionally, a letter of final compliance from the BBP ARB will be required prior to
requesting an occupancy permit from the County and occupancy of the building."
9. Page 21 — the Street Designations and Cross Sections — please add the words, "public
or" in front of "private roads" to correspond with your offer for dedication. Having
proffers for dedication and a street designation of "private" will be confusing in the
future. If necessary, please write in these words on the copy you send to us and we
will scan the copy so there are not questions.
Regarding proffers, please change the dedication of right -of -way proffer to say:
Upon the request of the County after the owner of TMP 45 -112B dedicates right -of-
way, or the right -of -way is otherwise acquired by the County or another public
entity, on its property necessary to construct a two -lane connector road from
Berkmar Drive at the northern entrance to the Owner's proposed development to
U.S. Rt. 29 in the general location between what are presently the Schewels
Furniture and Better Living Furniture stores, the Owner shall dedicate right -of -way
on the Property up to thirty (30) feet from the centerline of the selected alignment
necessary to construct the two -lane connector road. The Owner shall dedicate the
right -of -way in fee simple within one hundred twenty (120) days after the request of
the County or such longer period agreed to by the County's Director of Community
Development upon the written request by the Owner. If the right -of -way is not
dedicated in conjunction with a subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay all costs of
surveying and preparing a plat and all other legal documents necessary to dedicate
and convey the right -of -way that are in a form and have a substance that are
acceptable to the County's subdivision agent and the County Attorney.
Engineering and VDOT comments
I have not heard from VDOT yet on Glenn's memo regarding the traffic study. At this juncture, I
do not expect to hear anything more. I am including with this letter a copy of Glenn's comments
which I emailed you yesterday.
I am noting below the areas on which we agree to disagree:
1. Value of cash for improvements for transportation -- we disagree that the methodology you
have used is appropriate. As a result, we disagree on the amount of money proffered. If the
Board accepts the methodology, we believe that the value of the intersection improvements
should be factored in and the value of the proffer should be more.
2. Proffer of cash for transportation instead of building the connector road — we believe that the
best method for mitigation of transportation is building the connector road and, in the
absence of building the entire road, building the portion on your property. We recognize
that, in the configuration shown on previous plans, the road would have to be partially on the
adjoining property. We think that it is possible that your portion of the connector road could
be built entirely on your property; however, with an easement from the adjoining property
owner, you have a larger area for development on your parcel. The way the proffer is made
with dedication instead of building the road, the burden will be on the County to construct a
portion of the road. We don't know what the likelihood of having this road constructed
solely by the adjoining property owner is. We acknowledge that the Board has indicated that
accepting cash instead of the road is acceptable and will say so in our report.
3. Committing to build only one -story buildings instead of multi -story buildings anywhere in
the development. We believe the Board had an expectation that you would commit to multi-
story buildings elsewhere in the development if they approved single stories on Berkmar.
4. Committing to build single stories that look like 2 -story buildings on Berkmar. We
acknowledge that the Board accepted your offer for 20 foot tall buildings on Berkmar which
look like 2 -story buildings; however, we want to make sure that the Board knows what that
could look like.
5. Allowing for surface parking lots to dominate the frontage by 85% of the "main street" of the
development. We believe that the Board is not clear that the depictions showing buildings
could actually almost all be parking lots. We also believe that the Board is not aware that
you could build these parts of the development first, without building anything on Berkmar.
The Board may accept this proposal; however, we will want them to be sure that they are
aware that what they see may not be what they get. We will remind them that your intent is
to build these areas with buildings; however, you may not be able to do that if you bring in
users with large parking requirements.
3
We will likely be providing some visual images to the board of what items 3, 4, and 5 above
could look like so that the Board is clear on what they are considering for approval.
After you have reviewed these comments, if you wish to meet with me or anyone else on
the comments, please let me know and I will set up a meeting.
When you are ready to resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday.
Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. Please provide 2 copies
of the large scale plan folded, 2 copies of the Code of Development, and a digital copy of
the Code of Development. Please also provide your final proffers with that submittal that
you are sending out to the owners of the property for signatures. If you want us to look at
them one last time, we can do that also. But, we will not advertise the hearing until we
have at least a faxed copy of the final proffers that have been signed and are on their way
back to our office.
After you have resubmitted, staff will contact you to let you know whether all necessary
changes have been made.
A public hearing with the Board of Supervisors 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
Board of Supervisors.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 15 Oct 2007
Rev.2: 13 Nov 2007
Rev. 3: 25 Mar 2008
Rev.4: 29 Apr 2008
Rev.S: 23 Jun 2008
Subject: Berkmar Business Park (ZMA200600008)
The revised rezoning plan and code of development have been reviewed. The following comments are
offered for your use;
1. The plan appears to show off -site work for the basins and connector road. It is recommended that
letters of intent to grant easements, or easements, be obtained from off -site property owners.
Rev.2: nothing received.
Rev. 3: nothing received. This plan shows grading off -site to the north, and the south. Grading for the
connector road appears to need easements. Grading for the basin and for erosion control appear to
be on County property.
Rev.4: A letter of intent was received at the Planning Commission meeting. This is between Nunley,
Wood, and Stonehaus, but only signed by Nunley and Stonehaus. It also has many unresolved
questions within the document regarding necessary improvements.
Rev.5: Off -site work is still shown. It is our understanding that previous agreements have been
terminated by the Nunleys.
2. There are concerns with the stormwater management concept.
a. There appears to be about 5.5 acres draining to the proposed BMP with a removal rate around
68 %, and the facilities are too small to accomplish this.
b. The viability of wetlands in the shadow of the retaining wall is a concern.
c. Ponding at the retaining wall's structural footing is a concern.
d. The County General Services Department has indicated an unwillingness to accept changes to the
county facility for additional detention.
e. It is unclear whether water quality treatment is being offered for the Planet Fun development.
f. If underground facilities are to be used as stated in the narrative, this concept needs to be on plans.
The recommendation to the Board will be that underground facilities are less desirable, because of
the increased maintenance burden and difficulty of inspection and possible replacement.
Rev.2: The BMP next to the retaining wall has been removed with this revision, so items a, b, and c
given above are now void. Items d, e, and f are still valid concerns. The proposal remains to
somehow use Keggler's basin, which appears to present difficulties, or to use some unspecified
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 6
underground facilities. Neither of these concepts appears to be a desirable solution from the County
perspective.
Rev. 3: The stormwater management plan has not changed significantly. Water quality is proposed to
be on -site inlet filters. Water quantity is proposed to be handled in the County basin downstream,
which may not be possible. There are technical issues with the rock blasting required, and issues with
easements and maintenance responsibility. General Services is willing to hand over maintenance
responsibility to the applicant, but if this is not possible, feels the improvements proposed to the basin
will make it more difficult to maintain, and so are not desirable.
In general, most other rezonings are providing more than the bare minimum in stormwater
management and erosion control. This plan is proposing the minimum, and it may not be feasible
without county cooperation in use of the county facilities. If use of the county facility does not work
out, extensive on -site underground facilities will be needed, which is the least desirable scenario from
the county perspective, for difficulties in inspection and maintenance. It is suggested that other
rezonings be referenced, where stormwater management and erosion control are proposed within the
site, and over and above ordinance requirements.
Rev.4: No change. The legalities of making improvements and taking over maintenance for the county
facility are still being worked on. Extra water quality provisions have not been offered.
Rev.5: This has been addressed. The basin is to be modified with items listed.
3. The grading concept appears to be an even 5 -7% grade, with a retaining wall in the back. Perhaps
another grading concept could reduce the size of the retaining wall by making up more grade
differential on -site.
Rev.2: the grading concept appears unchanged.
Rev.3: It is still not clear that the grading concept will work without extensive cooperation from off -
site owners. There are no tie -ins on the north side, and the grading does not include the road. The
grading on the site is essentially unchanged.
Rev.4: Comment not addressed. The grading concept is unfinished at the edges of the plan. Grades
should tie into existing contours so the extent of work is clarified.
Rev.5: The grading concept has changed with this revision to add patio areas between buildings,
eliminate building 3, and change the tie -in at the connector road and the rear of the site. The connector
road tie -in requires off -site work. The tie in at the rear of the property line is in error at elevation 500.
The patios appear problematic at 10% to 14% grade and will likely need retaining walls and stairs.
4. It is recommended that connector road be constructed with this rezoning.
Rev. 2: the plan does not provide any of the connector road beyond the site entrance. The plan would
not even meet current ordinance requirements, which require the road to be built to the property line.
Rev. 3: the connector road is still not shown on the application plan. It has only been proffered in
part, and a complete road is not provided. See comment 6.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 6
Rev.4: No change. Comment not addressed. The road on the plan is incomplete. The proffers are still
ambiguous.
Rev.5: This comment has not been addressed. The connector road has been removed. It is our
understanding that the neighbors no longer wish to participate.
Rev.3: I'm not sure which documents will be binding with this rezoning now. What is the application
plan? It appears only the diagrams in the code of development are binding. This does not include the
grading, layout, and stormwater management concepts included with the "content map" plans.
Rev.4: No change.
Rev.5: This still confusing to me, as some of the items "illustrative plan" appears to be important
commitments.
6. Rev.3: Regarding proffer 3 for transportation:
a. Proffer "a" should be tied to a building permit. The third building permit is suggested to hold until
the necessary transportation improvements are in place and accepted by VDOT. In addition to the
right turn lane, this proffer also needs to include marking a left turn lane on Berkmar according to
the traffic study.
Rev.4: The figure of 150,000 square feet is not in the traffic study or any documentation in the
file. It cannot be supported without factual data. The 60 foot right -of -way is likewise
unsupported. Page 3 of the revised traffic study says the road will be "per the guidelines presented
in the Places29 document." Page 5 of the traffic study says this road will have two lanes, a 10'
median, and bike lanes, landscaping strips, and sidewalks on both sides. This will take 70 feet or
more.
The rezoning should concentrate on the features to be provided on the street. An acceptable
section would be two lanes, bike facilities on or off the street that tie into Berkmar, on- street
parking, planting strips and sidewalks on both sides. This is not inclusive of turn lanes needed for
capacity.
Rev.5: These proffers have been replaced by proposed cash contributions. A right turn lane on
Berkmar Drive is shown on the illustrative plan. It is unlikely that improvements will be in place
when needed, if only cash contributions, and only for a share of the costs, are provided.
Improvements need to be in place when they are needed. For this to occur, the applicant needs to
build the improvements. The full cost of these improvements, by the applicant's figures, is
$609,700. With contingencies, the actual cost of accomplishing these improvements may be
around $762,125. However, the real cost to the county if the project must be undertaken by the
county, is in years of county staff time, which are not currently available.
b. Proffers "b" through "c" as worded do not provide the connector road. It stops at the existing
private drive. The proffer should build the connector road from Rt. 29 to Berkmar Drive with all
necessary right -of -way dedications and entrance, intersection and signal improvements. The plan
should be approved prior to approval of a site plan for the development. The timing should be as
suggested in item "a" above.
Rev.4: The new item "b" does not appear to proffer anything. It starts with a conditional "If a
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 4 of 6
portion of the Connector Road is proposed..." This puts into doubt what is being proposed with
the rezoning. This item should be removed from the proffers.
Rev.5: all proffers having to do with the connector road have been removed. The connector road
issue is outstanding.
7. Rev.3: Please see the separate memo regarding the request to develop in areas of critical slopes.
Rev.4: this has not changed.
Rev.5: no change.
8. Rev.3: Regarding the traffic study provided with this revision;
a. The findings and recommendations do not agree with the plans and proffers.
Rev.4: comment not addressed.
Rev.5: This has been addressed in consistency between study, plan and proffers. The issue now is
a fundamental difference in philosophy on when transportation improvements need to be in place,
what those transportation improvements are, and who will build them. The applicant's proposal is
that improvements be in place some time in the future, that improvements are to be determined by
long range county plans for the area, and that the county will build them with the help of
contributions from the applicant. It is my opinion that this is not a realistic way to address impacts
for development, especially when county staff and money are simply not available. Improvements
should be in place before the development is built and the vehicles are on the roads, the
improvements should be those identified in the study as applicable to the current network, and the
county should not be expected to build them or contribute money.
b. The are a number of failing through and turning movements on Hilton HeightsBerkmar Drive,
Rt.29 /Shewels /Connector Road. In order to address this, it appears that lane improvements should
be specified in addition to the provision of the connector road.
Rev.4: comment not addressed. There are still failing movements at Rt. 29 and the connector road
in the future scenario. Also as indicated by VDOT, the movements at Berkmar/Hilton Heights,
Rt.29/Hilton Heights, and Rt.29/Woodbrook are also in need of mitigation.
Rev.5: This comment has been addressed, and intersection improvements have been identified in
the study.
c. Please provide a graphic of recommended and proposed improvements. It is unclear whether the
necessary turn lane and entrance improvements are provided at the site. It appears lane
improvements are needed both at the site entrances, and at the entrance on Berkmar Drive.
Rev.4: comment not addressed. I have attempted to illustrate the failing movements and proposed
improvements in the attached graphic.
Rev.5: This comment has been addressed. Graphics have been provided.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 5 of 6
d. It should be clarified in the study and on the plan what the circulation pattern is for the site onto
the entrance road. Three entrances are not normally allowed on a road in the site plan review
process. This case seems to be for one -way circulation in and out of the parking garage (an entry
only, and an exit only) and one standard entrance.
Rev.4: comment not addressed. It should be clarified that more than two entrances to the site may
not be allowed during the site plan review process.
Rev.5: This comment has not been addressed. More than two entrances to the site may not be
allowed during the site plan review process.
d. The study does not seem to provide a threshold at which improvements are required. Without this,
it is in the interest of the public to err on the low side, and require improvements at the start of
development, or at least by the second or third building permit.
Rev.4: comment not addressed adequately. We've recently received an e-mail stating 220,OOOsf
could be built without bringing two left turn movement in two of the studied intersections below a
level of service D. This was called an addendum to the study. This is very little information, and
is not adequate. Also, VDOT informed the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting that
levels of service C were acceptable, not D.
Referencing the plan, 60,OOOsf seems like a more reasonable number as a threshold before all
transportation improvements should be in place. This allows the buildings along the road
frontages to be built. Alternatively, the year 2012 could be a reasonable threshold (4 years from
ZMA approval) before all transportation improvements should be in place. In the current process,
the build -out year of 2010 is simply not realistic, and skews the results of the study.
Rev.5: This comment has been partially addressed by offering some monetary contributions.
9. Rev.4: At the Planning Commission, and in meetings, the applicant still discusses not building the
connector road, yet this scenario has not been investigated in the traffic study.
Rev.5: This comment has been addressed in the study revision.
10. Rev.4: Proffer 5 on revegetation shall be construed to mean that when permanent vegetation is
installed, erosion control measures shall be removed, and permits shall be closed. Further grading in
stabilized areas shall require a new plan and permit.
Rev.5: no change.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 6 of 6
(graphics from Rev.4 have been removed to reduce file size)
file: E6 zma GEB Berkmark Business Park.doe
�� OF ALg�
.1 �IRGINI�r..
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: May 6, 2008
Subject: ZMA 2006 -008 Berkmar Park NMD - 5t" Zoning Comments
I remain concerned about how the parking is being proposed. The written description of the
project includes residential units with retail and office; one sheet of the plan speaks of retail
and office and the parking is ONLY based on office use. The applicant is hereby put on
notice that parking is an issue that needs to be further resolved, with a note as mentioned on
the plan at a minimum. Proposed surface parking may be limited by the landscape
requirement of tree plantings.
The eastern entrance and roadway is largely off this property. Is permission from the
adjoining property granted? There are differences between what is shown /stated in the
Code and on the Plan. That can become problematic for future administration / approvals of
this development. What is the status of the narrative entitled "application ?"
The connector road construction involves the property / permission of others. Letters of
intent should be provided at this stage with proffers for dedication of right -of -way by a certain
date. We are hoping to learn from other projects that experienced difficulties due to the
reliance upon other property owners for required improvements.
It is difficult to follow the logic in the proposed rezoning lines. For example, why isn't the
Planet Fun property included? Why isn't building 3 included when it is logically part of the
proposed development?
I have the following additional comments:
1. Proffers
a. Need owners' signatures on proffer for property under contract (Parcels 112
and 112E);
b. The transportation proffer is insufficient. It does not adequately describe
what will be built (standard in terms of road profile, streetscape, etc.), the
alignment and when it will be built. What length of the connector road is this
developer obligated to build? As I understand it, the connector road is
necessary prior to 150,000 square feet of development, with 60,000 square
feet or development and no later than 4 years from the approval of this
rezoning — whichever comes first. The proffer should be revised to reflect
this. Given the fact that the applicant has not provided evidence of
easements or the intent of other owners to provide easements, we are
concerned that this property will develop without the ability to provide the
connector road.
c. The proffer should also clarify when the eastern entrance and road will be
constructed.
d. The Code states a limit to retail uses of 25% of the maximum non-
residential area. This is an appropriate proffer and must list how this is
measured — at build -out or at any point in time? Staff suggests that it would
be most logical to apply that standard at any point in time.
2. Code
a. Suggest you delete the reference to "Nonconforming" landscaping. This can be
addressed with the site plan and may need waivers or modifications.
b. Delete SP requirement for commercial recreation or omit use. Special permits
other than those explicitly listed in the NMD are not permitted to be provided by
SP.
c. Change reference to "conceptual amenity zone" to "amenity area."
d. Explain how amenities will be available in the elliptical areas shown in the
Code. That doesn't seem to be reflected on the plan.
e. Either provide 10% amenity area or request a waiver.
f. Please request any sign regulation variations at this time, to avoid need for
future ZMA. (See Section 4.15). For example, wall signs are limited to a 30
foot maximum height in the NMD unless that is varied.
g. Is there a simpler way to state the change in plane for facades?
h. It is not clear why the Landscape Treatments are listed in the Code. If it is
intended to allow flexibility from or variation to the Zoning Ordinance landscape
requirements, that should be stated.
L Include the missing word in the chart X at the bottom of page 13 starting with
"non."
j. Suggest increasing rear setbacks from 1 foot to something more, like 3 or 5
feet.
k. Suggest changing the 66 foot maximum bldg height to 65 feet for ease of
administration. That will make it equivalent with current standards.
I. Clarify how stepback will be measured. A graphic will help.
m. The last paragraph of XI 2) contradicts what is said in 1). If buildings can be
built in the second development area prior to the primary development area,
that seems to defeat the purpose.
n. Fix typo for "public" on legend for XIV.
o. The reference to spatial enclosure should be ranges, not absolute numbers.
p. Table of Uses IV, delete the old references to "electric ..." and "public uses..."
where the expanded use listing was added.
3. Plan
a. What is the departing line that coincides with the front eastern property line?
b. There appears to be no provision for additional parking, in the event uses other
than office are constructed.
c. There appears to be no area for recreational amenities in the event residential
use is developed.
�� OF ALg�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Elaine Echols
From:
Bill Fritz
Division:
Zoning and Current Development
Date:
May 6, 2008
Subject:
ZMA 2006 -08 Berkmar Business Park
I have reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments:
1. A critical slopes waiver is required.
2. Limited area for landscaping exists in the parking area. Page 12 of the Code of Development
acknowledges that the "at grade parking lots shall be in conformity with Section 32.7.9.7 ". This
appears to imply that a waiver is being sought for landscaping in other portions of the project. The
comment should be removed from the Code of Development as no waiver has been granted.
3. Page 10 of the Code of Development a footnote is provided for Green Space, Civic Area and Amenity
Area. However, I cannot find any details for the footnote.
4. Page 12 of the Code of Development discusses "non conforming plants ". What is meant by this?
5. Access points to the property to the south of this development (Planet Fun) cannot be guaranteed.
This is because the property to the south (Planet Fun) is not part of this rezoning application.
�� OF ALg
�'IRGINZ�`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 2, 2008
Mr. Frank Stoner
Stonehaus Development
2421 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA 06 -08 Berkmar Business Park
Dear Frank:
Thank you for your submittal of April 21, 2008. Glenn Brooks and I have been able to review the
proposal. I have not yet received comments from Zoning, Current Development, or the County
Attorney. I hope to receive these comments on Monday (or Tuesday) of next week to send.
Please see my comments below, Ron White's comments in the proffers, and Glenn's comments which
are attached.
The Connector Road
1. See comments from Glenn Brooks
Large Scale Plan — these comments do not yet include comments from Current
Development and Zoning.
1. The illustrative plan needs to note that parking structures are represented in Blocks 1 and
2.
2. Remove the signature blocks — we don't use these for rezonings or special use permits.
3. Please remove the single story designation for the buildings along Berkmar and the
Connector Road..
Application -- these comments do not yet include comments from Current Development
and Zoning.
1. Page 7 — Parks and Open space needs to match Green Space and Amenities Plan in Code
of Dev.
Code of Development -- these comments do not yet include comments from Current
Development and Zoning.
1. P. 3 and P. 9 — the General Development Plan in relation to green space, amenities,
spatial enclosure, and landscaping is so general, we are unable to see what is really being
offered. You told us that the landscaping shown on the various "options" is what is
intended. That landscaping isn't consistent from option to option. I don't believe that we
will be able to implement the Code if these items are not clarified.
2. P. 5 -- You cannot make commercial recreational establishments by special use permit.
You may leave the statement, `Bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls are prohibited."
If you have any conditions you'd like to have for the remaining commercial recreational
uses, you should add those at the end of the use table.
3. P. 6 — Delete Tier III personal wireless facility
4. P. 7 — Put the second note on page 6 under Restrictions associated with uses above.
5. P. 9 — Change the phrase, "conceptual amenity zone" to "amenity area ".
6. P. 10 — As you know, amenity areas are inadequate as shown. The amenity area must be
at least 10% and you are providing only 5 %. The areas shown for amenities look like
they are only the landscape areas at the edges. I don't know how you get the spatial
enclosure where you are showing amenities. If you wish to propose only 5 %, you should
submit a request for the Board of Supervisors to waive this requirement.
7. P.10 — Please delete the phrase, "Massing and proportion shall be appropriate to the size
and use of the add the following note: If the Director of Planning does not approve
alternative equivalents that are interior to the building being constructed, area(s) adjacent
to the multi - family buildings shown for buildings or parking shall be replaced with
outdoor recreational facilities, as approved by the Director of Planning."
8. Please give us a request for a waiver of Section 32.7.9.6., "Street trees shall be planted
with even spacing in a row either within or adjacent to the public street right -of- way."
9. Page 11 — Although I recommended the wording for storefront glass, Zoning read it to
mean that, inside the building, you would have stacks of storefront glass. At this
juncture, I recommend that you either delete the sentence beginning with, "Additionally,
the first floor..." or alter it to say, "At least one building fronting on Berkmar and one
building on the interior north -south secondary street shall have storefront glass as part of
the exterior wall facing the street."
10. Page 13, Level 1 Spatial enclosure, Please add the following phrase at the beginning of
the second sentence, "Except on Berkmar where no at -grade parking lots are allowed, up
to 1/3 of the required building frontage...."
11. Page 13, Level 2 Spatial enclosure, urban hedges are not defined. They should be
described in the landscape section.
12. Regarding spatial enclosure, I am not sure that you can achieve the spatial enclosure you
have proposed on the connector road.
13. Page 13, Lot and Building Height — the rear setbacks on single family attached buildings
and multi - family buildings is 1 foot, but accessory structures are shown as 3 feet. Please
make the rear setback of the residential buildings 3 feet.
14. We still recommend a minimum of 2 stories for all buildings in the primary development
zone. Also, I don't believe that the full Commission supported having a 20' height for a
one -story building on Berkmar. A 20' height implies a false story and that is not a
desirable situation. Staff does not support a 20' height for a single -story building.
15. After rethinking the variety of possibilities for wording stepbacks, I believe it would be
simpler to propose that buildings of up to 2 stories on Berkmar have a build -to range of
2
1- 10 feet. Buildings of 2 - 4 stories should have a build -to range of 5 — 10 feet and
buildings of 5 stories have a build -to range of 10 — 15 feet.
16. Page 14, item IX. — we recommend that you call this, "Phasing: Primary and Secondary
Development Zones ", and change all "areas" to "zones ".
17. Please provide cross - sections for Berkmar and the Connector Road. Glenn Brooks'
comments provide staff recommendations.
Proffers — these comments do not yet include comments from Current Development and
Zoning or the County Attorney.
1. The affordable housing proffer still does not have the section allowing the County to
choose between units and cash at the time of site plan review. Given the current market,
it is important to have that option.
2. Please see Glenn Brooks' comments relative to the connector street.
3. All owners of the property must sign the proffers. A signature from Berkmar Business
Park LLC by Bondstone Ventures Manager is not sufficient unless the property owners
who are selling their property have given this entity a power of attorney.
This morning, Glenn and I met with the Nunleys at the Better Living site to discuss the connector road.
Glenn is in the process of asking VDOT about one other option relative to signalization at the
intersection of the connector road and Rt. 29. From those discussions, though, we were not able to
ascertain that building of the connector road had been totally worked out in the sense of needing a 60'
r.o.w. The conversations also raised more questions relative to off -site improvements — especially
regarding where easements exist and ability to work within easements.
I provided the copy of the Letter of Intent which you handed me at the 4 -1 -08 Planning Commission
meeting to Glenn. He noted that, within the "Preliminary Feasibility and engineering" section, there is a
sentence that, "Upon conclusion of this phase, all parties will review the design and estimated cost and
make a go /no go decision ". This tells us that the ability to build the connector road for your project on
the Nunley property isn't quite established yet.
I don't know where this puts you for the resubmittal of May 12. Absent a deferral, what you provide for
May 12 is what will go to the Board of Supervisors with our comments and recommendation.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
3