Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000009 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2011-04-27ALg�,�'P IRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 May 4, 2011 Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA 2010 -0009, Republic Capital Amendment Tax Map 32, Parcel 22 Dear Ms. Joseph: Fax (434) 972 -4012 Thank you for your recent resubmittal on April 4, 2011 regarding the above noted tax map and parcel for a zoning map amendment to amend and consolidate proffers associated with a development on the subject parcel approved on December 2, 1987, November 20, 1987, and February 18, 1988. The information provided with your resubmittal has been reviewed and comments are summarized below and in the attachments. Please note that it was the consensus of the reviewers that proffer #1 could be eliminated because Health Department approval would restrict the uses if the capacity was not available and would be required before site plan approval, and proffer #3 could also be eliminated because tax map /parcel 32 -22C is no longer an active parcel. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (VDOT) Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A. ZONING COMMENTS The parcels included in the 1987 proffered plan no longer correspond to the parcels as they exist today. Subsequent research revealed that there are two parcels that have been subdivided since 1987 that are still subject to the proffered plan as shown in Attachment B (32 -22C5 & 32 -22M). Please note that the proffered plan may be removed or changed regarding tax map /parcel 32 -22, but the two subdivided parcels would still be subject to the 1987 plan. It is recommended that the applicant consider adding these parcels to the current rezoning; however, if the parcels are not added to the rezoning, a proffer providing a connection to tax map /parcel 32 -22C5 would be required. Specific comments regarding the proposed proffers are provided in bold italics in Attachment A. ZMA 2010 -9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 2 DESIGN PLANNER COMMENTS For those portions of the development that are visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, the EC Guidelines will apply in addition to any architectural proffers. The applicant should note that Architectural Review Board approval will be required prior to final site plan approval, and the ARB review will include both the site and architectural designs. Consequently, the County review associated with proffer #6 will occur after the applicant has completed the ARB review process. For reference, the applicant's architectural proffer reads as follows: The exterior architectural styling of the buildings will be reasonably consistent throughout the project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction with brick, stucco, textured concrete or masonry facades, finished in natural earth tones on all building sides, facing residential zoned land. Comments: 1. "Shall" is typically used instead of "will" in this type of application. 2. "Reasonably consistent" is vague. 3. The facing material of walls may be of concern to neighbors, but the construction of the wall is not a concern for the rezoning. 4. Using the modifier natural with earth tones doesn't really place a limit on color. Neutral, meaning not pronounced, is somewhat more workable (though still left open to considerable interpretation). 5. As written, the proffer does not specify who will review for the architectural issues or when the condition must be met. Based on these comments, revised wording for the architectural proffer is recommended in Attachment A. 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 Board of Supervisors based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Board of Supervisor'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 Board of Supervisors 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) resubmit your application, b) request withdrawal of your application, c) request to schedule your application for a specific Board of Supervisors public hearing date as mutually agreed to with staff, or d) 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. 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, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a report will be prepared to go to the Board of Supervisors. ZMA 2010 -9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 3 If you wish to meet with staff after you review these comments, please contact me and I will set up a meeting. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner (434) 296 -5832 x 3029 ebrennan@albemarle.org cc: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Sarah Baldwin, Zoning Glenn Brooks, Engineering Bill Fritz, Current Development Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Victoria Fort, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Northern Drive, LLC P.O. Box 7885 Charlottesville, VA 22906 k� �'IRGIly1�' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Eryn Brennan From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: April 27, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 — 09 Republic Capital I have reviewed the revised proffers and offer the following comments: Proffer 1 could be shortened to simply state that not more than 225,000 square feet of building space will be constructed until public sewer is available. The other portion of the proffer is simply stating requirements that already exist. If public sewer is not available no site plan will be approved without Health Department approval. This proffer does not state that the 225,000 square feet of building will have to be connected to public sewer when it becomes available. Proffer 2 should cite by section number the restricted uses. Proffer 3 lists a parcel that is not included in the description of the rezoning and does not appear on the tax maps. Proffer 4 should state who gets to make the determination of capacity and how it will be made. Proffer 5 appears to conflict somewhat with the ordinance. The setback in the HI district adjacent to residential is 100 feet for structures and 30 feet for parking (26.10b). The proffer states the setback will be 75 feet. A proffer cannot reduce an ordinance requirement. Where is the berm to be constructed? In the 30 foot buffer required by the ordinance or somewhere in the expanded 50 foot buffer. Also, the proffer does not specifically state the length of the berm or that it will run parallel to the adjacent residential property. Proffer 6 should be eliminated. What is "reasonably consistent "? It should be verified if this property is subject to ARB review. If not, perhaps the proffer could be changed to subject the property to ARB review. Proffer 7 would permit travelways and loading spaces, including pavement to allow truck turning movements within 150 feet of Airport Acres. Also, I believe this proffer would permit a building to be located 100 feet from Airport Acres and have parking on the east and west side of the building 100 feet from Airport Acres. Proffer 8 is best addressed by the County Engineer. Please be aware that during site plan review the County may require the construction of travelways to adjoining properties. However, the County cannot require easements be granted to allow us of the travelway by the adjoining property. (32.7.2.5) �'IRGI1`�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Eryn Brennan FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA200100009: Republic Capital Amendment DATE: April 20, 2011 Comments are provided below on proffer #6, which relates to architectural issues. For those portions of the development that are visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, the EC Guidelines will apply in addition to any architectural proffers. The applicant should note that Architectural Review Board approval will be required prior to final site plan approval, and the ARB review will include both the site and architectural designs. Consequently, the County review associated with proffer #6 will occur after the applicant has completed the ARB review process. For reference, the applicant's architectural proffer reads as follows: The exterior architectural styling of the buildings will be reasonably consistent throughout the project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction with brick, stucco, textured concrete or masonry facades, finished in natural earth tones on all building sides, facing residential zoned land. Comments: 1. "Shall" is typically used instead of "will" in this type of application. 2. "Reasonably consistent" is vague. 3. The facing material of walls may be of concern to neighbors, but the construction of the wall is not a concern for the rezoning. 4. Using the modifier natural with earth tones doesn't really place a limit on color. Neutral, meaning not pronounced, is somewhat more workable (though still left open to considerable interpretation). 5. As written, the proffer does not specify who will review for the architectural issues or when the condition must be met. Based on these comments, the following wording for the architectural proffer is recommended: The exterior architectural style of the buildings shall be consistent throughout the development. Facades shall have brick, stucco, textured concrete or other masonry facing in neutral earth tones on all sides facing residential zoned land. For the sides of buildings facing residential zoned land that are not visible from the Entrance Corridor, the style, color and materials shall be subject to Design Planner approval with the building permit. Phone (434) 296 -5832 Lrf2C;l1�ZA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia Joseph. ASLA, AICP Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 FROM: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner DATE: February 1, 2011 RE: ZMA201000009 Republic Capital Dear Ms. Joseph: Fax(434)972 -4176 On January 18, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above -noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832. ZMA- 2010 -00009 Republic Capital — Planning Commission Work Session Comments The Planning Commission held a work session to review the proposal to amend and consolidate those proffers associated with the development on the subject parcel approved on February 18, 1988. The proposed amendments pertain primarily to consolidating the proffers regarding the buffer area adjacent to Airport Acres and reducing the depth of the buffer. The applicant submitted a request on November 15, 2010 to reduce the buffer area to 50' and impose a building setback of 75' (instead of the required 50') from the adjoining residential district. Both staff and the applicant presented PowerPoint presentations. The Planning Commission held a discussion, asked questions, took public comment, and provided suggestions. The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant's next submittal and responded to the questions posed in the staff report, as follows: Issue 1: Buffer Reduction Question: Should the buffer be set at 50' and setback be set at 75' as proposed by the applicant in the proffer amendment, or should the buffer and setback comply with buffer and setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance? The conclusions were: Buffer: Two of the three abutting neighbors had been contacted and were okay with what was being proposed. The third neighbor came to the meeting and wanted a higher berm. A 10' high berm at 3:1 on either side that is not part of the 50' buffer makes for a 110' wide area in which no buildings or parking would be allowed. The PC expressed general support for this alternative proposal. Mr. Franco was okay with a reduced buffer if the neighbors can be convinced to go along with what the ordinance requires. He would also prefer parking not to be located along the edge of the Airport Acres properties, and would like a cross - section through the site to understand what the neighbors would see with a reduced buffer. Question: Should the applicant provide for a future interconnecting road between US Route 29 and Lewis & Clark Drive as provided in the UVA Research Park proffers and as shown on the Places 29 Master Plan? The conclusions were: Road Connection: Regarding the road connection, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to explore the feasibility of an interconnection. Nothing has to be built right now. The goal is to make sure the opportunity for the connection is not precluded in the future. The first step is to see whether a road can be achieved topographically on this site. The Planning Commission also expressed general support for allowing a 35' building height. No formal action taken. • ^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM RE: Zoning comments provided to applicant regarding initial application submittal DATE: December 3, 2010 ZONING COMMENTS In reference to the plan: 1. The type of screening trees and shrubs proposed in the buffer should be provided on the plan. 2. It appears that the submitted plan is only a portion of the proffered plan. Please submit a complete plan depicting the entire development as previously proffered in proffer 4. In reference to the proffers: 3. The applicant should consider combining proffers 2 & 3 and consider adding heavy equipment & storage to the prohibited uses. In addition, the applicant should consider referencing the Ordinance section and date. 4. The current rezoning application must be referenced by the date and title of the plan in proffer 4. 5. Proffer 5 (1- 18 -88) refers to added development; hence, the proffer should reference the prior rezoning application number, proffer number, and date of approval. 6. The applicant should consider using the screening language in section 32.7.9.8 for proffer 6. The applicant should clarify the tree type and whether or not only a single row of trees is proposed. Change to last sentence from "total distance" to either "minimum total distance" or "setback" for clarity. Spell out 75 "feet." 7. Proffer 6 (1- 18 -88) should list the berm as a minimum height. 8. The applicant should consider changing proffer 11 (12 -2 -87) to refer to Design Planner approval prior to issuance of a building permit. ALg�,�'P IRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 December 3, 2010 Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA 2010 -0009, Republic Capital Amendment Tax Map 32, Parcel 22 Dear Ms. Joseph: Thank you for your recent submittal of an application on October 18, 2010 regarding the above noted tax map and parcel for a zoning map amendment to amend and consolidate proffers associated with a development on the subject parcel approved on December 2, 1987, November 20, 1987, and February 18, 1988. The information provided with your initial application has been reviewed by the Department of Community Development, including the Planning Division, the Zoning and Current Development Division, the County Engineer, Architectural Review Board staff, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Comments from all reviewers are summarized below, following the Neighborhood Model analysis. Staff recognizes that although the ZMA request is for proffer changes, those proffer changes affect the plan of development previously proffered for a rezoning application and approved on February 18, 1988. At that time, concept plans were more general and many of the County's regulations and policies have since changed. Due to the length of time that has passed since the previous rezoning, staff will be providing recommendations on how to make the concept plan comply more with today's standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Industrial Service, which allows warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). The requested zoning map amendment and proffer change is consistent with these designations. The Places 29 Master Plan has been in development for five years, and while the Plan has not yet been adopted, it is expected to be approved in early 2011. The plan shows a proposed road through this property connecting US Route 29 with Lewis & Clark Drive. Although the exact location of the road has not yet been determined, it was modeled as an interconnection necessary to facilitate increased traffic ZMA 2010 -9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, December 3, 2010 2 flow associated with the new development in this part of the County. At this time staff feels it is appropriate to consider making provisions for the future connection either through this property, or via a road within this development, to the connecting road. Such a provision could be made through a proffer of dedication of right -of -way on demand for a connection to Lewis & Clark Drive. Since the exact location for the connector has not yet been determined, the County would only request the dedication when a plan for the connector road has been developed. Alternatively, the rezoning application concept plan could show a connection to the adjoining property. Neighborhood Model: Staff has determined that only four of the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model apply to the application request, and these are addressed below: Pedestrian The existing concept plan did not anticipate pedestrian access; however, current site Orientation plan and subdivision policy will require sidewalks to be provided with the new development. Interconnected The existing concept plan shows interconnected travelways within the development; Streets and however, a provision for a future connector linking US Route 29 and Lewis & Clark Transportation Drive would ensure interconnectivity to the larger transportation network in the area. Networks Parks and Open Although the buffer is proposed to be reduced, the berm and plantings proposed in Space the buffer area would mitigate the impact of the development on adjoining properties. Therefore, the reduced buffer would not have an adverse impact on the open space of the site. Relegated Parking is currently relegated on the existing concept plan. If the concept plan is Parking revised, this condition should be maintained. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS The County Engineer has recommended that the development provide a traffic study (VDOT 527) and provide appropriate mitigation as required. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT The new landscape /screening /setback proffer conflicts with existing proffer number 4. If the applicant's intent in amending the proffers is only to decrease the buffer without making any changes to the building locations on the proffered plan, then the proffered plan may not need to be changed. However, if the applicant would like to increase the buildable area, they would need to change the proffered plan. ZONING COMMENTS In reference to the plan: 1. The type of screening trees and shrubs proposed in the buffer should be provided on the plan. 2. It appears that the submitted plan is only a portion of the proffered plan. Please submit a complete plan depicting the entire development as previously proffered in proffer 4. In reference to the proffers: 3. The applicant should consider combining proffers 2 & 3 and consider adding heavy equipment & storage to the prohibited uses. In addition, the applicant should consider referencing the Ordinance section and date. 4. The current rezoning application must be referenced by the date and title of the plan in proffer 4. 5. Proffer 5 (1- 18 -88) refers to added development; hence, the proffer should reference the prior rezoning application number, proffer number, and date of approval. 6. The applicant should consider using the screening language in section 32.7.9.8 for proffer 6. The applicant should clarify the tree type and whether or not only a single row of trees is proposed. ZMA 2010 -9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, December 3, 2010 3 Change to last sentence from "total distance" to either "minimum total distance" or "setback" for clarity. Spell out 75 "feet." 7. Proffer 6 (1- 18 -88) should list the berm as a minimum height. 8. The applicant should consider changing proffer 11 (12 -2 -87) to refer to Design Planner approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Please see suggested language below. DESIGN PLANNER COMMENTS The proposed reduction in the size of the buffer is not expected to have an impact on the Entrance Corridor. Based on Zoning's recommendation regarding proffer 11, the applicant should consider revising the language of the proffer as such: The exterior architectural style of the buildings shall be consistent throughout the project. Facades shall have brick, stucco, textured concrete or other masonry facing in neutral earth tones on all sides facing residential zoned land. The style, color and materials shall be subject to Design Planner approval prior to building permit issuance. WATER AND SEWER COMMENTS The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) has provided the following comments: ZMA201000009 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known Comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have not yet been received. Comments will be forwarded to you once they are received. 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 ZMA 2010 -9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, December 3, 2010 4 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 were not brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. After you have reviewed these comments, if you wish to meet with staff on the comments, please let me know and I will set up a meeting. Please contact me at (434) 296 -5832 x 3029 or e-mail me at: ebrennan@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner cc: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Sarah Baldwin, Zoning Glenn Brooks, Engineering Bill Fritz, Current Development Victoria Fort, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Northern Drive, LLC P.O. Box 7885 Charlottesville, VA 22906