Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000005 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2010-10-18- � 9 �'IRGII�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 October 18, 2010 Neal Wright, P.E. Dominion Engineering 172 S. Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance Dear Mr. Wright: Staff has reviewed your resubmittal for a zoning map amendment that would allow a change in the application plan for the subject parcel in order to permit construction of a new entrance from Richmond Road (Rt. 250). Staff's comments address two issues. First, the need for additional justification for the proposed entrance and, second, the need for an entrance /parking lot design that will meet the County's and VDOT's requirements. Additional Justification for the Proposed New Entrance In the application for this zoning map amendment (ZMA), the "public need or benefit" cited for the new entrance is simply "improved access." Staff needs additional justification for the proposed entrance in order to be able to recommend approval of this ZMA. The County's Zoning Ordinance contains the following provision: 32.7.2.2 In the case of any multi -laved divided highway, no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the commission that: (1) there is no other reasonably practicable access to such development except within five hundred (500) feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative access is available to such development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance within five hundred (500) feet of any such crossover will be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. (32.5.8.01, 7- 15- 81) As staff considers this ordinance section, we note that the restaurant property has been served by the current entrance for over 20 years. Further, other restaurants in the shopping center that are not visible from Rt. 250 have access from Riverbend Drive and New House Drive / Pantops Center. There are also other restaurants (and businesses) along Rt. 250 that do not have direct access from Rt. 250. Staff needs additional justification that responds to this section of the Zoning Ordinance; we need to know why this restaurant needs special consideration. Entrance /Parking Lot Design If sufficient justification can be provided and the proposed entrance is allowed, then the entrance and parking lot must be able to meet the County's site plan requirements and VDOT standards. Based on the resubmittal that now shows both the entrance and the parking lot design, staff is ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 2 uncertain whether it is possible to create a new entrance into the site from Rt. 250 while, at the same time, designing a parking lot with an appropriate circulation and a sufficient number of parking spaces for the restaurant. Staff appreciates the applicant's work to address several issues raised in staff's first comment letter (dated September 3, 2010), however, the proposal needs additional design work in order to demonstrate that an approvable site plan could be based on the application plan. Staff recommends that a new application plan showing the redesigned entrance and parking lot circulation be developed to determine whether the new entrance and parking lot configuration is possible. This new plan needs to follow the recommendations made in the letter from VDOT (Attachment 1), the comments from the County Engineer (Attachment 2), and the additional comments from County staff below. Number of Parking Spaces Required. Current site plans on file list the structure on the site as having 7,211 square feet. Property records in the County's Real Estate department list the building at 7,333 square feet. For the parking calculations, the applicant has listed the building as having 5,400 square feet. Please provide us with an accurate gross leasable floor area and use it for the parking calculations. Also, please clarify what "food retail" means, as used in the parking calculations. It may be more appropriate to use "Food Store," a parking standard referenced in the Zoning Ordinance that allows for 1 space per 200 square feet. Staff needs to know what activities, if any, in addition to the sit -down restaurant are planned for the building. If an application plan can be prepared that meets VDOT and County requirements, except that it has fewer than the required number of parking spaces, the applicant may apply for a waiver from the required minimum number of spaces based on Section 4.12.2 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Restaurants do need sufficient parking, but a request for a few less spaces might be considered. Please submit the information requested on the square footage and the use(s) to support any request for such a waiver. Site Development Plan Requirements. As stated above, staff is concerned that the proposed entrance and parking lot may not be able to meet plan requirements. After reviewing the proposal and analyzing alternatives available, it is staff's opinion that an entrance from Route 250 for this property cannot be safely accommodated. The option submitted could result in a vehicle attempting to find a parking space near Route 250 and ending up in the travelway with no way to turn around. The driver of the vehicle would then have to either attempt to exit the property onto Route 250 using the "entrance only" or back a considerable distance into the parking lot in order to turn around. Vehicles entering this site are immediately confronted with a turn when most drivers would expect to continue straight into the lot. If vehicles are not parked in the handicap spaces, an entering vehicle might attempt to continue straight and would run over the bumpers. The "Drop -Off Zone" can be expected to be a high turnover parking area. As currently designed, after dropping off passengers, vehicles would have to back directly into oncoming traffic. This is not an optimal design. If this site plan were submitted for review, it would be denied because the design is inconsistent with the following two provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle (and also Section 32.7.2.2 quoted above): ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 3 Section 4.12.15f f. Protective barriers and design. When deemed necessary and reasonable to assure that safe and convenient access is provided, the county engineer may require: (1) raised traffic islands at the ends of parking rows to protect parked vehicles and to prohibit parking in unauthorized areas; (2) traffic islands and other such traffic control devices; and (3) a design that provides no parking along the accessways providing the principal ingress, egress and circulation on the site. Section 32.7.2 32.7.2 SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS; CIRCULATION; PEDESTRIAN WAYS; PARKING AND LOADING Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street and on -site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends, the commission or the agent in the review of a site plan may specify the number, type, location and design of access points to a public street together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points. (Added 5 -1 -87) Entrance Corridor /ARB Requirements. The current application plan (dated 9- 20 -10) shows six trees added to the site, two of which are along the Entrance Corridor frontage with one of these in a new "green space" at the northeast corner of the building. Four of the six trees are shown in the interior of the parking lot. The addition of the green space, trees along the EC, and trees in and around the parking area are improvements to the site. The addition of a row of shrubs and three more trees along the EC frontage would bring the site into closer conformance with the EC Guidelines. Previous Current Development comments indicate that a site plan amendment will be required if the ZMA is approved. The additional trees and shrubs would be recommended as part of the site plan. Also, existing site elements including trees, shrubs, light poles, and so on should be added to the existing conditions plan at the time the site plan is submitted. Line Weights Used on Application Plan. When preparing the next application plan, please change the line weights so that parcel lines are lighter than lines denoting building and parking lot outlines. This will make the plan easier to read, especially the entrances and exits from parking areas. Also, indicate the location of the front door of the restaurant in relation to the dropoff. The Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model is a part of the Comprehensive Plan that promotes compact, walkable urban areas. As indicated in the September letter, comments on the proposal's compliance with the Neighborhood Model would be provided when an application plan was submitted that showed more of the details within and surrounding the site. Based on the resubmitted application plan, staff has analyzed the proposed new entrance and reconfiguration of the parking lot for compatibility with the Neighborhood Model principles. This analysis will be included in the staff report sent to the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the Board. Pedestrian In previous comments, staff asked the applicant to accommodate Orientation pedestrians in two different ways. First, staff expressed concern about potential conflicts between pedestrians walking between a parking space and the restaurant and vehicles driving in the lot. There are several issues that need to be resolved with the parking lot design, including the angle of the new entrance, the location of parking spaces adjacent to the entrance, and the circulation in the parking lot. Also, the dropoff location would ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 4 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 require backing out, which may create additional pedestrian /vehicle conflicts. A more effective dropoff would allow vehicles to pull up near the door, drop off passengers, and then continue along the same path to a parking space. Second, staff asked that there be a pedestrian connection from the site to the sidewalk along Rt. 250. The plan now shows a sidewalk connection. If the parking lot can be reconfigured to meet County and VDOT requirements, this principle will be met. Neighborhood As requested by VDOT, the new entrance is right -in only. However, the Friendly Streets circulation through the parking lot and the dropoff do not work well and and Paths must be redesigned in order to meet VDOT and County regulations. Unless this redesign can be accomplished, this principle will not be met. Interconnected This parcel is part of a larger shopping center, so interparcel connections Streets and are not needed. This principle will be met if the entrance is allowed and can Transportation be designed to meet County and VDOT standards. Networks Parks and Open This parcel is part of a larger shopping center and already developed as a Space restaurant with parking lot. The applicant has proposed several small landscaped beds and additional landscaping along Rt. 250. There is only limited room for landscaping on the site. This principle is met. Neighborhood This site is part of a larger shopping center that serves the surrounding Centers neighborhood and beyond. This principle is met. Buildings and This site is already built out; only changes in the entrance and layout of the Spaces of Human parking lot are proposed. No changes in the building or relationship of the Scale building to the parking are proposed, so this principle does not apply. Relegated Parking The location of the parking lot in relation to the restaurant building is not changing with this proposal; the parking lot is located to one side of the building and is visible from Rt. 250. The applicant is proposing to add landscaping along Rt. 250 and may be required to add more to meet ARB requirements at the time of site plan review. This additional landscaping will help screen the parking lot. With the additional landscaping, this principle will be met. Mixture of Uses The proposed restaurant is part of a larger shopping center, so this principle is met. Mixture of This is not a residential site, so this principle does not apply. Housing Types and Affordability Redevelopment The applicant proposes to reuse an existing restaurant building. This principle is met. Site Planning that This site is almost completely built out; only minor changes in the parking Respects Terrain lot and the new entrance from Richmond Road will be added. This principle does not apply. Clear Boundaries This site is not on the boundary, so this principle does not apply. with the Rural Areas 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 ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 5 (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. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand Senior Planner Community Development cc: Hurt Investment Co. River Bend Drive Charlottesville, VA 222911 Jeremy Harvey (via e -mail) Attachments Attachment 1 Comments from VDOT, dated October 1, 2010 Attachment 2 Comments from Glenn Brooks, county engineer, dated September 28, 2010 ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 1:40 PM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00005 Richmond Road Entrance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ZMA- 2010 -00005 Richmond Road Entrance Judy, I have reviewed the above referenced plan and have the following comments: [.1 ATTACHMENT 1 1. The right in only does not channelize traffic properly to adequately discourage an egress movement. The design needs to be similar to the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix f, page F -90. A 50 foot taper offset at 12 feet with a 25 foot radius should be constructed. Also, this entrance appears to be for cars only and truck use needs to be restricted. The width should be 16 feet for cars. If this design causes grading issues with the proximity to the building, the entrance can be moved up to 15 feet away from the building. 2. Adequate signage in accordance with the latest edition of the MUTCD needs to be shown for a do not enter condition for vehicles attempting to exit the parking lot on Route 250. 3. An egress from this site to Route 250 will likely cause weaving issues at the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250. If the entrance is not designed properly to eliminate this concern or if VDOT finds that vehicles are using this ramp as an egress, the department can revoke any issued entrance permits. 4. The internal cutoff of the circulation occurs close to the parking area and there is not adequate room if stacking should occur within the entrance ramp. The internal circulation should be revised possibly to direct traffic into the middle parking row instead of the row adjacent to the highway. If it is desirable to minimize cut through traffic, the internal road can be blocked after the middle parking row and all traffic can flow up the middle row to access either side of the parking lot or to the right for the exit. 5. The design shall be in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual, 2007 road and Bridge Specs and the 2008 VDOT Road and Bridge Standards. Final construction plans will need to show adequate details for the entrance dimensions, grade, and drainage. 6. A Land Use Permit will be required for any construction within the Route 250 Right of Way. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 Attachment 2 Imo..•,. �'• Re j+I ?�tJ` County -DE Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegmt Senior Planner Ram: Glenn BmGk_s, County Engineer Date: 13 Aug 2010 Rev- !: 28 Sep 2010 Subject: Pantaps PDSC new entrance for restaurant (ZMA20100[}D5) Rev- 1_ {28 Sep 21110} The ¢vixd plan has been reviewed. Although this entrmtoe is not angled enough to &ter exiting vehirlm the omcept of channaLzing the entrance to allow only entering traffic helps the situation on the public road. Hovever, the inier ml circulation omurrn is soil present As iltustrated on the Tevised plan below, it is not clear how a €ar trans around, or avoids going out the entrance in this situation A nd to channefae the entrance properly would appear to lake more of the parking area U. i '{2,'�„ _ sir – = ? – '7F IP ',rlai� ..'•'lrii:�iO. Cl:: �f,Lj,: z h.I f I fJ 4 _ .. i 'yy Fxy Lw' I u � "r•I ' (origv—tronrnrr 4s) The proposed newenlrxuce on Rt. 25a Richmond Road, has been mviawed This right- irVnght -out enumxc cu the state road will be up to V DOT W approI+e. HoweYor, it is noted that it is praposcd within the operational area of the iniersmcm. As such, it is likely that exiting cars socking to er►ter through Umpm ZMA 2010 - 00005, Richmond Road Entrance, Neal Wright, October 18, 2010 8 Albemarle County Community Dewelopment Fnginnering Rcyicw oommnenls P.g. 7 of ? dining queuing have the pamntial to block the right -turn lane. A possible mitigationwould be to allow a rlgM -in only, which is possible through channelization. but difficult to cnfar€e The internal site circulation appears Io be compromised, bath by the placement of theenirance next to the building and pedesuiansw and by the re- arrangcmeol of ft parking spaces, which remove; the Circulation loops in the parking lot. II is Fer=mcn&d that the dreulalion laop(s) in the parking lot be reLained, and the entrance be moved cast and channel ized for right -in, if it is to be permitted by V DDT. dft PFP ft r .f r h l P