HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000010 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2011-06-29COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
July 20, 2011
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
P.O. Box 1113
Troy, VA 22974
RE: ZMA 2010 - 00010 /SP 2010- 00039, Peter Jefferson Overlook
Dear Mr. Shimp:
Staff has reviewed your resubmittal dated June 20, 2011 for the proposed Peter Jefferson
Overlook office development. Since you have indicated you would like to take this project before
the Planning Commission for a public hearing, staff has prepared the following comments
approximately as they would be incorporated into a staff report for the Planning Commission.
At this time, staff will not be able to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment and
special use permit to the Planning Commission until the following items have been addressed:
The amount of development proposed for this site is greater than what can be
accommodated on a site of this size and with this topography; a general rule of thumb is that
approximately 10,000 square feet of development can be accommodated per acre. This
parcel is 2.088 acres with 34,944 square feet of office space proposed. While some
flexibility in the 10,000- square foot figure is expected, the amount of development proposed
is almost 15,000 square feet above what is reasonable to expect on this site. The result is
that temporary —and possibly permanent— easements for grading, construction, and /or
landscaping offsite will be necessary on all four sides of the site. Further, the applicant has
requested a ten percent reduction in the required parking (see #4 below), and the fieldstone
wall on the south side of the site must be relocated to accommodate the parking.
2. Staff has requested that the applicant provide an urban section along Rte. 250, including
curb and gutter, an 8 -foot wide planting strip with street trees, and a 6 -foot sidewalk. This
section was worked out with the assistance and agreement of VDOT. However, the
application plan provided shows a narrower planting strip and narrower sidewalk with the
street trees placed behind the sidewalk on a 2:1 slope. VDOT has indicated that this
placement for street trees is unacceptable (Attachment A) and the Design Planner has
indicated that the landscaping does not follow ARB guidelines and should be changed prior
to approval of the ZMA /SP, rather than waiting for ARB review during preparation of the site
plan (Attachment B).
3. The installation of the sidewalk along Rte. 250 will require removal of the drainage ditch and
installation of a closed storm sewer system. The sidewalk will need to be on a 2% cross
slope. Also, the location where the sidewalk is placed near the intersection of Pantops
Mountain Road is in a ditch section between three culvert outlets (VDOT comment #3).
4. The applicant has requested a ten percent reduction in the required number of parking
spaces. Justification for this request needs to be provided, including the location of bus
stops. Any transportation demand management or other techniques that will be used to
lessen the need for parking should be described and shown on the application plan
(Zoning).
5. Changes are needed in the eastbound left turn lane and in the right turn lane on Rte. 250
(see VDOT comments #1 and #2).
6. Offsite easements appear to be required to build the retaining walls on the east and north
sides, and safety provisions should be provided on the uphill side to the north, as the
neighbors will be left with a dropoff (County Engineer).
7. The following additional changes need to be made on the application plan:
a. The note adjacent to Pantops Mountain Road that reads "Additional Landscaping to
be provided for WCBR" is in the right -of -way for the road, which is private. An
easement will be required for the plantings. Also, the note provides no detail on what
will be planted or when (Current Development).
b. Offsite to the east a note has been added that reads, "Area to be revegetated with a
mix of shrubs and trees." An easement will be required for these plantings. Also, the
note provides no detail on what will be planted or when (Current Development).
c. Street trees cannot be placed on 2:1 slopes; they need to be on relatively flat areas
(VDOT comment #4).
8. The Design Planner has provided an extensive list of comments (Attachment B). These
comments need to be addressed and shown on the application plan and existing conditions
sheet.
9. Staff notes that several of the recommendations /requirements stated in the comment letter
dated December 3, 2010 in the sections "Recommendations from Pantops Master Plan" and
"Neighborhood Model" have not yet been addressed. These two analyses will be included in
the staff report after modification to reflect those changes that have been made on the
application plan that will be presented to the Planning Commission.
Proffers or SP Conditions
Staff is still reviewing the proffers that were provided with this resubmittal. The proffers will need
to be modified to reflect County policy and the standard language used for similar proffers.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can
be found at this address:
http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Develo
r)ment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zonina Mar) Amendment Schedule.r)d
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
More information about each of these options is attached.
If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $ 0 is required with your resubmittal. Please
use the form provided with this letter.
If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a
minimum of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing:
$ 0 Cost for newspaper advertisement
0 Cost for notification of adjoining owners
$ 0 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 0 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 0 Total amount for all notifications
Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes
place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Fees may be paid in advance and
a payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be
paid at the same time.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone
number is (434) 296 -5932, x. 3438, and my email address is Jwiegand @albemarle.org
Sincerely,
Judith C. Wiegand
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC
c/o David S. Witmer
912 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Judith Wiegand
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:25 PM
To: Judith Wiegand
Cc: Glenn Brooks
Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Judy,
I have reviewed the application plan and have the following comments:
1. An eastbound left turn analysis was submitted to VDOT as requested that identified the queuing at the intersection
of Route 250 with Pantops Mountain Road. The 95th percentile queue is 149 feet. AASHTO recommends that an
auxiliary lane contain components for deceleration and storage. It is acceptable to allow a speed differential of 10 mph to
occur within the through and taper lanes. The recommended taper length is 100 feet and deceleration and storage length
is 424 feet. The existing left turn lane has 100 feet of taper and 225 feet of deceleration and storage. It appears that the
deceleration and storage lane could be increased by approximately 200 feet before there is a conflict with the dual left turn
lanes for State Farm Blvd.
2. The right turn lane according to the same recommendation should have a 100 foot taper and a 305 foot deceleration
and storage lane.
3. The installation of the sidewalk will require removal of the ditch and installation of a closed storm sewer system. The
sidewalk will need to be on a 2% cross slope and the location where the sidewalk is placed near the intersection at
Pantops Mountain Road is in a ditch section between 3 culvert outlets.
Street trees cannot be placed on 2:1 slopes. They need to be on relatively flat areas.
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
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:
Judy Wiegand
FROM:
Margaret Maliszewski
RE:
ZMA- 2010 -10 and SP2010 -39: Peter Jefferson Overlook
DATE:
June 29, 2011
I have reviewed the application plan with revision date of 6/1/2011 and the proffer form and I
have the following comments:
1. Landscaping is shown on the application plan. Not all Entrance Corridor planting guidelines
have been met with the landscaping illustrated. Landscaping shown on the application plan
should not be considered approved. If the rezoning is approved, additional planting will be
required at the site plan /ARB review stage.
2. The trees proposed along the Entrance Corridor should be placed on site. This change
should be made on the application plan and should not wait for revision by the ARB with the
site plan.
3. Clarify on the plan how the proposed landscaping along Pantops Mountain Road
coordinates with existing trees in that area. Clarify the note regarding additional landscaping
to be provided along Pantops Mountain Road for WCBR. Note that EC guidelines require a
minimum of 21/2" caliper trees spaced 40' on center in this area.
4. A retaining wall is proposed on the north side of the site. Part of this wall may be visible from
the EC. Wall material and color may be an issue.
5. It appears that the location of the retaining wall on the north side of the site will make it
difficult, if not impossible, to meet the guideline regarding on -site perimeter parking lot trees.
It is recommended that the plan be revised to accommodate the perimeter parking lot trees
on the north side of the site.
6. A grading easement is shown on the adjacent parcel just north of the northern retaining wall.
A note indicates that the area is to be re- vegetated. Consequently, the required easement
would be a grading and planting easement and should be labeled as such.
7. A review of SDP2002 -91: Pantops Place Phase 1 Minor shows several utility lines in the
vicinity of the grading easement and retaining wall which would, presumably, make the
proposed work in that area difficult to accomplish. Also, the application plan does not show
the extent of mature landscaping that exists in the area of the easement and wall. It is
recommended that the application plan be revised to show the existing conditions in and
around the vicinity of the proposed grading easement and wall to clarify the feasibility of the
proposal and the extent of impacts the proposal would have. (See #3 above for other
existing conditions coordination issues.)
8. Notes indicating that primary building entrances face the EC have been added to the plan.
The ARB will require that the EC elevations look like primary building elevations. It should
be noted that the east and west elevations of both buildings will also need to be fully
designed; a "back of building" appearance will not be appropriate.
9. The reconstruction of the historic stone wall and the use of some field stone for the retaining
wall in the southeast corner of the site are appropriate.
10. Regarding Proffer #4, it is re commended that the referenced hedgerow be shown on the
application plan and the wording be coordinated with the notes on the plan.
11. Note that the monument sign location shown on the plan will not be reviewed /approved until
a sign permit application is made.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
� �'JRGINZP
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before 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.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last pane of vour comment letter with vour
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request 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.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
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.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
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 choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A.
For a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
3.
Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ...............................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B.
For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee...................................................................................
............................... .......................$1000.00
C.
Amendment to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D.
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N.
Required notice:
1.
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2.
Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3.
Published notice:
Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual
cost
Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Payment
Deadline
Legal Ad Run 1
Legal Ad Run 2
PC Date
17- Jan -11
24- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
8- Feb -11
31- Jan -11
7- Feb -11
14 -Feb -1 1
22- Feb -11
7- Feb -10
14- Feb -10
21- Feb -10
1- Mar -10
21 -Feb -1 1
28 -Feb -1 1
7- Mar -11
15- Mar -11
14- Mar -11
21- Mar -11
28- Mar -11
5- Apr -11
28- Mar -11
4- Apr -11
11 -Apr -1 1
19- Apr -11
18-Apr-1 1
25-Apr-1 1
2- May -11
10- May -11
2- May -11
9- May -11
16- May -11
24- May -11
16- May -11
23- May -11
30- May -11
7- Jun -11
30- May -11
6- Jun -11
13- Jun -11
21- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
27- Jun -11
4- Jul -11
12- Jul -11
4- Jul -11
11- Jul -11
18- Jul -11
26- Jul -11
18- Jul -11
25- Jul -11
1 -Aug -1 1
9- Aug -11
1 -Aug -1 1
8- Aug -11
15- Aug -11
23- Aug -11
22- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
5 -Sep -1 1
13- Sep -11
5-Sep-1 1
12-Sep-1 1
19-Sep-1 1
27- Sep -11
12-Sep-1 1
19-Sep-1 1
26-Sep-1 1
4- Oct -11
26-Sep-1 1
3- Oct -11
10- Oct -11
18- Oct -11
10- Oct -11
17- Oct -11
24- Oct -11
1- Nov -11
24- Oct -11
31- Oct -11
7 -Nov -1 1
15- Nov -11
14- Nov -11
21- Nov -11
28- Nov -11
6- Dec -11
21- Nov -11
28- Nov -11
5- Dec -11
13- Dec -11
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
Payment
Deadline
Legal Ad Run 1
Legal Ad Run 2
BOS Date
17- Jan -11
24- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
9- Feb -11
7- Feb -11
14- Feb -1 1
21- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
14- Feb -1 1
21- Feb -1 1
28- Feb -11
9- Mar -11
14- Mar -11
21- Mar -11
28 -Mar -1 1
6- Apr -11
28- Mar -11
4- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
20- Apr -11
11 -Apr -1 1
18 -Apr -1 1
25- Apr -11
4- May -11
25-Apr-1 1
2- May -11
9- May -11
18- May -11
9- May -11
16- May -11
23- May -11
1- Jun -11
23- May -11
30- May -11
6- Jun -11
15- Jun -11
13- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
27- Jun -11
6- Jul -11
27- Jun -11
4- Jul -11
11- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
11- Jul -11
18- Jul -11
25- Jul -11
3- Aug -11
25- Jul -11
1 -Aug -1 1
8- Aug -11
17- Aug -11
15- Aug -11
22- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
7- Sep -11
22- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
5- Sep -11
14- Sep -11
12-Sep-1 1
19-Sep-1 1
26-Sep-1 1
5- Oct -11
26-Sep-1 1
3- Oct -11
10- Oct -11
19- Oct -11
10- Oct -11
17- Oct -11
24- Oct -11
2- Nov -11
24- Oct -11
31- Oct -11
7- Nov -11
16- Nov -11
14- Nov -11
21- Nov -11
28- Nov -11
7- Dec -11
21- Nov -11
28- Nov -11
5- Dec -11
14- Dec -11
2011 Submittal and Review Schedule
pecj aJ Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written cornmenis and Earliest Planning commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal
Rates
Comments lo applicant
for decision on whether
to proceed to Public
Hear ng *
Decision for Public
Hearing & Legal Ad
Fee Due °"
Planning
Commission Public:
Hearing
N'-D soc-ner tha i
Monlay
Wednesday
Mends
Tu -qgda
Jar 3
Feb 2
Fels 7
Mar 1
Tue .tan 18
Feb 16
Feb 21
Mar 15
Feb 7
Mar g
Mar 14
Apr 5
Tue Fein 22
Mar24
Mar 28
Apr 10
Mar 7
Apr 6
Apr 18
May 10
Mar 21
A r20
May 2
May 24
A r 4
May 4
Mav 16
JJn 7
A r 18
Mai 18
Tue May 31
Jun 21
Mav 2
,tun 1
,tun 24
Jul 12
May 16
Jun 15
Tue Jul 05
Jul 26
JUT 6
Jul 6
Jul 18
Aug g
Jun 20
Jul 20
Aug 1
Aug 23
Tree Jul 5
Aug 3
Aug 22
Sep 13
Jul 18
Aug 17
Tue Sep 56
Sep 27
Aug 1
Aug 31
SGP 12
Oct 4
Aug 15
Sep 14
Sep 26
oct 18
Tue Sep 06
Oct 5
Oct 10
Nov 1
Sep 19
Oct 19
Oct 24
Nov 15
Oct 3
Nui 2
No-+ 14
Dec 6
Oct 17
Nov 16
Nov 21
Dec 13
Nov 7
Dec 7
Dec 19
Jan 10 2012
Nov 21
Dec 21
Jan 2 2012
Jan 24 2012
Dec 12
Jan 11 2012
Tore Jars IT 201,2
Feb 7 2012
Dec 19
Jan 18 2012
Jan 20 2012
Feb 21 2012
Jan 2 2012
Feb 1 2012
Feb 13 2012
Mar 6 2012
Tue .Jars 17 2812
Feb 15 2012
Feb 27 2012
Mar 20 2012
Dares shown in halics are charges due ro a is ounry holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to liscuss conimen-s of reviewers and advice that changes that are needed are
significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing_ If changes
needed are minor, the plan nerwill advise that the project go to public hearing_
* Lecal ad fees must be paid 22 days in advance of the 'fanning Commission public hearing. An additlonal legal ad fee will
need to be paid 22 days in advance of the Board of Supervisors public hearing. If an
applicant decides to go to public hearing against the aduir_e of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely
result Generally, the applicant -ArilI will have only one opportunitylo defer the PC public hearing for the project once d has
been advertimd for puaiic hear ng_ Addlional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a
rnajor change i n th a project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been broug ht
to the applicart's attention.
**t Beard of Superviso -s' works ssions and pubic hearirgs will be scheduled after the Planning Cornmision'3 action on
applications_
FOR OMCEUSsE4NLY Sr# arZ41A #
l ix Am L$ Due Paid.- — — -- I$- who? R&x" N
Resubinittal of information for Special Use Permit or
Zoning Map Amendment �
PROJECT NUMBER. ZMA ?4l &000l0vSP20l&0 039 PROJECTNAME. Pk4erleffersan Overlook
Reutmitital Fee is Requi red
Judith C. Wiegsmd
Cooununily development ProjeCtCoordumtor
_JCW July 20,201. L
Signature date
0 PtrRcquest
Justin Shirnp
Name of Applicani
Sigpamre
FEES
X BmbuftW Fee is Not Required
(434) 2U7 -8086
Phone Number
date
Resubm filial fees for Special Vw Pwmlt -- origlaW Special Use Permit fee of $1.004
X Firslresubnisseon
FREE:
E) Each additional iem&anission
$.90L1
rust rd Orsttlms postage
ReaubmkW !lees f ff ori&W Special Use Fermi# fee of 52,0W
U Firstresubunissim
FREE
0 Each addUiona] iesuhmission
$1.004
Resubmitud fees for original 7,aning MapAmcndmeni fee of $2.500
0 Fir- Amsubmnissicn
F12k:E:
0 Eachadduianal resubmission
$1,25[:
rust rd Orsttlms postage
Rcsubmklal flees for origbral 7,ardng Map Amendment foe or $3,'W
0 Firsi resubm9ssicri
6REiF:
0 Eachadditionad resubmjL sbm
$1,75[:
U DE&rral of scheduled public hcarinp at applicant's request— Add'] notice leeswill be required
$L90
To be paid after staff re,,icw for public notice:
V1051 applications for Special Use Permits and 7m ing Map Amendment require at least one public bearing by the PlznRIng Cammissbn
and one public hearing by the Beard orS)jpervisors. VirghrkaSlale Cade requires chat notice for public hearings be mode by puhlAbip
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mai€ing letters to adommi props rty owners T ien:fom at lease taro lees far public mrtiee
are required before aZoning Map Amendment Tna} be heard by the Board of Sopervisom The total fee [or public FK6M will be
prorided to the appllewit aftertbe final coat b determined and mass be paid before the applicatlon ishemrd by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY or ALREALkRLEMAYMENTATCOMMUAITY DEVELOPMEl4TCOUNTER
> Prepadng amd mel]IngardeBvedm&upto tlity (50) matioes
$2llri r actual coat ofnrsklasspostalge
> PmTarrng End mal]IngardoNveriggeacb wM a am?rnity {5G)
5L Go rarewh MI iiuwinallne r actvat
rust rd Orsttlms postage
> La lgWadtiertisementjpub] h bed twlcelntoFwsWrior each pubikfiewtngr
Actual Mt
uimof$NOrix(u lofd eLioms)
Cmaty of Albemade Ilepartmeml of Clammunity Dmlopment
401 McIntire Road ChariotiranUk, VA 22902 Vaioe: (4341 296-M2 (43.4) 972 -1126
WIM 11 Pam L d L
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: Judy Wiegand
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA- 2010 -10 and SP2010 -39: Peter Jefferson Overlook
DATE: June 29, 2011
I have reviewed the application plan with revision date of 6/1/2011 and the proffer form and I have the
following comments:
1. Landscaping is shown on the application plan. Not all Entrance Corridor planting guidelines have
been met with the landscaping illustrated. Landscaping shown on the application plan should not be
considered approved. If the rezoning is approved, additional planting will be required at the site
plan /ARB review stage.
2. The trees proposed along the Entrance Corridor should be placed on site. This change should be
made on the application plan and should not wait for revision by the ARB with the site plan.
3. Clarify on the plan how the proposed landscaping along Pantops Mountain Road coordinates with
existing trees in that area. Clarify the note regarding additional landscaping to be provided along
Pantops Mountain Road for WCBR. Note that EC guidelines require a minimum of 2%" caliper trees
spaced 40' on center in this area.
4. A retaining wall is proposed on the north side of the site. Part of this wall may be visible from the EC.
Wall material and color may be an issue.
5. It appears that the location of the retaining wall on the north side of the site will make it difficult, if
not impossible, to meet the guideline regarding on -site perimeter parking lot trees. It is
recommended that the plan be revised to accommodate the perimeter parking lot trees on the
north side of the site.
6. A grading easement is shown on the adjacent parcel just north of the northern retaining wall. A note
indicates that the area is to be re- vegetated. Consequently, the required easement would be a
grading and planting easement and should be labeled as such.
7. A review of SDP2002 -91: Pantops Place Phase 1 Minor shows several utility lines in the vicinity of the
grading easement and retaining wall which would, presumably, make the proposed work in that
area difficult to accomplish. Also, the application plan does not show the extent of mature
landscaping that exists in the area of the easement and wall. It is recommended that the application
plan be revised to show the existing conditions in and around the vicinity of the proposed grading
easement and wall to clarify the feasibility of the proposal and the extent of impacts the proposal
would have. (See #3 above for other existing conditions coordination issues.)
8. Notes indicating that primary building entrances face the EC have been added to the plan. The ARB
will require that the EC elevations look like primary building elevations. It should be noted that the
east and west elevations of both buildings will also need to be fully designed; a "back of building"
appearance will not be appropriate.
9. The reconstruction of the historic stone wall and the use of some field stone for the retaining wall in
the southeast corner of the site are appropriate.
10. Regarding Proffer #4, it is re commended that the referenced hedgerow be shown on the
application plan and the wording be coordinated with the notes on the plan.
11. Note that the monument sign location shown on the plan will not be reviewed /approved until a sign
permit application is made.
• My vision for Rt. 250 and retaining walls don't fit together
• What is the increase in traffic? I'm not opposed to offices, but, don't compromise the
future because of economic desires.
It. should be something other than residential. The property.needs a different use
• I live on 250 and wouldn't want to promote it to others
• I have no strong opinion but I do have concerns.about traffic.
• I want no further development, period.
• Residential is my first preference
• Traffic is a problem. `I prefer residential.' but there should be further options. To convert
the property,to commercial may cause`creep to occur.
• I want to see a traffic study. I have traffic concerns on the entrance road. Safety is a
concern, especially for residents of Westminster Canterbury
• I feel strongly that sticking to the Master Plan is important. I want to keep a rural
residential feel for that part of the road.
• Unless there is some historic significance, the hedgerow can be disturbed.
Attachment E
R ilfl llllf
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
December 3, 2010
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering PC
P.O. Box 1113
Troy, VA 22974
RE: ZMA201000010 and SP201000039 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Dear Justin:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for an amendment to the Pantops Place PRD.and special
use permit for an office use. As you know, a similar project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan earlier this year.. The staff report dated
May 4, 2010 is attached for your information. Staff notes that it was important to the Planning
Commission that you meet with nearby residents to discuss your proposal before bringing it to the
.Commission as part of a rezoning.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning proposal submitted in October and has a number of questions and
comments which we believe should be resolved before your project goes to public hearing. We
would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are consolidated below.
Planning
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Pantops Master Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. Specific requirements or
recommendations in this section are in bold italics. Recommendations are made to help bring the
proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.. As a rule, the Planning Commission looks
closely at recommendations, of the Comprehensive Plan before making a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors on whether to approve a project.
Recommendations from Pantops Master Plan
Limit "strip development" of Route
.250
The application plan reflects offices rather than "strip
commercial" buildings. Additional vegetation is needed-to
further prevent the appearance of "'strip" development if
an office use is approved. recommendation
Create and preserve a vegetated
The recommended vegetated buffer is not provided on the
buffer along Route 250 from
rezoning plan. The proffered hedgerow and fieldstone wall
Glenorchy Drive to Pantops
along the common boundary with Glenorchy have not
Mountain Road to help retain the
been retained. These items were discussed at the May 4,
rural residential character. From
2010 Planning Commission meeting and staff believes the
Pantops Mountain Road heading
should be retained in any rezoning proposal.
west, create an urban character
(recommendation)
with building orientation to Route
Although prior rezonings on this property included a proffer
250.
to grade the frontage along US.250 East for a future
Connections for bikes and
A sidewalk along Route 250 is provided across the front of the
pedestrians from the north side of
proposed buildings; however, it is not intended for public
Route 250 to Rivanna Ridge are
access. A public sidewalk along Route .250 is anticipated
identified as critical in the master
by the Master Plan at this location. Staff believes it should
plan.
be provided with this plan, as indicated in the staff report
for May 4. recommendation
Property recommended for Urban
. Professional office uses can be accommodated in areas shown
Density Residential Use;
for Urban Density Residential if they serve neighboring
Neighborhood Service uses can
residential areas. The application doesn't indicate the type of
be accommodated in these areas
offices proposed to see whether there is a relationship to the
neighboring residential areas. This information is needed
(requirement)
Professional Offices should have
Approximately 34,000 square feet is proposed and one building
building footprints of no >10,000
has 24,192 sq. ft. The amount of square footage requested
square feet and building area
may or may not be problematic. What will be problematic is
should be no> 20,000 square feet
how the proposed design can meet existing proffers, EC
Guidelines, and site plan requirements. These issues are
further explained later in this letter.
Neighborhood Model
All proposals are reviewed for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model.
Staff has made comments on each of the principles below as they relate to your proposal.
Pedestrian Orientation
A sidewalk is shown across the frontage of the property and
other sidewalks are shown internal to the development.
Although prior rezonings on this property included a proffer
to grade the frontage along US.250 East for a future
sidewalk, staff believes it is now time for the sidewalk to
actually be provided. Staff recommends that, instead of
or in addition to the sidewalk across the front of the
building, a sidewalk be provided in the no.w. along US
250 to allow for the public to walk.safely and
conveniently along the public street and to connect to
the adjacent residential development.
(recommendation) Additionally, sidewalks will be
needed along Pantops Mountain Road to the entrance of
the Jefferson Heights cottages and apartments.
(recommendation and may be a requirement during site
plan stage)
Neighborhood Friendly Streets
In order to make the external and internal streets
and Paths
neighborhood friendly, street trees should. be provided
between the back of the curb and the sidewalk.. The front
yard, we nd- the - building, s
trees and shrubs that meet EC Guidelines. Staff
recommends that along US.250, both the tree lawn and -the
sidewalk be 8 feet in width. Along Pantops Mountain
Road, a minimum tree lawn of 6' and a sidewalk of 5' are
recommended, along with a minimum front yard of 4' for.
a total of 95' from the pavement along Pantops
More detailed comments may be provided at a later date after more detailed plans are provided.
3
Mountain Road. recommendation
Interconnected Streets and
US 250 is a rural section across the frontage of the site.
Transportation Networks
Conversion to an urban section at this location is
recommended. Pantops Mountain Road is a private street
owned by Westminster Canterbury. While an access
easement has been provided across the property at this
location from Pantops Mountain Road, it is our
understanding that Westminster Canterbury controls
the amount of activity that can be served by the
easement. Please provide evidence that the access
easement can be used for the intended purpose.
recommendation
Relegated Parking
Parking is appropriately relegated with this design.
Parks and Open Space
No additional open space is required for the PRD; however,
as previously mentioned, proffers to maintain a 15' buffer
adjacent to Glenorchy, maintain the existing mature
hedgerow and fieldstone are in conflict with the
proposed development on the east side of the site. This
issue must be rectified (requirement)
Neighborhood Centers
This site is near the Rivanna Ridge shopping center and no
additional centers are recommended on the Pantops Master
Plan for the property.
Buildings and Spaces of Human
No building elevations have been provided with the
Scale
rezoning, as discussed later in this letter. Two -story
buildings are appropriate at this location and a pedestrian
entrance to the building from US250 is needed. It is not
clear from the plan whether such an entrance is being
provided. In addition, the applicant should work,with
Monticello to determine if any impacts to the viewshed
exist and should be mitigated recommendation
Mixture of Uses
The addition. of offices to the PRD will help create an
appropriate mixture of uses in the area.
Mixture of Housing Types and
No mixture of housing types is proposed with this rezoning
Affordability
and none is needed. The Pantops Place PRD provides
housing for senior living and that a mixture of housing types
is provided on the adjacent Westminster Canterbury
property.
Redevelopment
This principle is not applicable.
Site Planning that Respects
The site rises to .20 feet above Route 250 and contains
Terrain
critical slopes, some of which were manmade with
construction of Route.250 and Pantops Mountain. Road. It is
recognized that grading will be needed on this, property, but
the prior development proposal worked more closely with
the terrain than this proposal Tall retaining walls are not
recommended for any development. Terraced retaining
walls of approximately 6' in height are recommended, if .
retaining walls are nee de recommen a ion
Clear Boundaries with the Rural
This principle is not applicable because the property is
Areas
located entirely within the Pantops Development Area. .
More detailed comments may be provided at a later date after more detailed plans are provided.
3
Zoninci
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin:
1. Please provide an amended Application Plan showing the whole Pantops Place PRD and how
this project fits into the PRD as a whole. The more detailed plan you have already provided
can serve as the detail for the area.
2. Please correct the parking calculations contained on page 4 of the Application Plan from
"26,923 SF Gross" to "26,923 SF Net." Additionally, please provide further information on the
10 %parking space reduction noted on page 1 of the plan and note the reduction in the number
of spaces on page 4. Page 1 indicates that there is pedestrian access and bus service. How
does this play into your requested parking reduction.
3. The proposed setbacks noted in the text on the plan don't appear to be consistent with the
design shown on the plan. Please confirm that the proposed setbacks for this site are met,
particularly on the easternmost property line.
Current Development
The following comments have been provided related to how your proposal may or may not be able
to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future by Bill Fritz:
1. No loading spaces are shown. (The applicant may request a waiver of this requirement.)
2. Off site grading is shown. (Off site grading will require easements.)
3. The site is largely impervious. This will complicate providing adequate stormwater
management facilities.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to transportation, engineering and water resources have been
provided by Glenn Brooks:
1. The first entrance on Pantops Mountain Road should be removed. This would interfere with
an already establish traffic pattern on this steep curve, where access and a right turn lane are
already provided for the intersection just up the hill. .
2. The applicant needs to address the impacts of additional traffic.. The intersection on Pantops
Mountain Road should be analyzed for future buildout, and will be limited to free flow
conditions. The signal on Rt. 250 should be analyzed.
3. Off -site easements will be required to build these retaining walls; and safety provisions should
be provided on the uphill side, as the neighbors will be left with a drop -off.
4. It is recommended that a complete concept be provided for stormwater management on the
plan, rather than notes.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
The application plan shows that some of the Entrance Corridor landscaping guidelines have
not been met. In particular, EC trees (3'h" caliper large shade trees spaced 35' on center, with
acceptable substitute for EC trees.
2. Perimeter parking lot trees have also not been provided (2'/2 caliper trees 40' on center) in all
required locations.
3. A 240' long retaining wall (3' high) is proposed, running parallel to the EC. If a wall of that
length and proximity to the EC is approved, it will require considerable detailing in the design to
achieve an appropriate appearance. A material with appropriate scale and color will be
L!
required. Materials like Redi -Rock will not be considered appropriate for walls with this level of
visibility. The wall may require detailing at intervals to relieve the length. Landscaping along the
wall will be required. The absence of Entrance Corridor trees, combined with the length of the
retaining wall, is a concern. A feature like this wall would typically require planting beyond the
standard minimums to achieve an appropriate appearance. It is recommended that the
applicant demonstrate that the planting guidelines can be met and that the retaining wall can
be designed to achieve an. appropriate appearance for the EC.
4. Other retaining walls are proposed at the southeast corner of the site. (6' high) and along the
north side of the site (height not indicated). Similar design issues apply to these walls,
depending on visibility. It appears that the site design and the presence of a retaining wall on
the north side of the parking lot will make it impossible to meet the guideline regarding
perimeter parking lot trees. The maximum height of the north wall should be indicated on the
plan. Again; it is recommended that the applicant demonstrate that the planting guidelines can
be met.
5. Sidewalks- are shown along the EC frontage, with sidewalks accessing the EC sides of the
buildings. This suggests that the EC sides of the buildings are actual building fronts, but
architectural elevations have not been provided for review, so it is recommended that the
applicant confirm this. To have an be appropriate appearance for the EC, the EC elevations
must have the appearance of primary building facades. East and west elevations of both
buildings will also need to be fully designed; a "back of building" appearance will not be
appropriate
VDOT
Comments from VDOT are attached.
ACSA/RWSA
The following comments were provided by Victoria Fort of RWSA:
SP201000039
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
ZMA201000010
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
ACSA comments are attached.
Proffers
This proposed zoning map amendment is subject to 3 sets of proffers and 2 different
application plans and will not meet various proffers with the proposed use. Please provide a
clear set of proffers indicating the commitments to be made for this part of the PRD. At a
minimum, the Applicant will need to address proffers 1 and 4 of.ZMA 2004 -9, as well as
proffers 1, 6, 7 and 8.
2. Additional comments may be provided in the next two weeks from the County Attorney's office
regarding the formatting of the proffers.
5
Special Use Permit Conditions
Since the type of office proposed is unknown, it is difficult to make recommendations on any
conditions. Once the type of office is know, staff may be able to recommend conditions to ensure
that a. relationship with nearby residential uses is maintained.
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.orq in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR
(2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the
information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the
County), OR
(3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral.
(Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set
with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission.date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these. actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a
public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal.
Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, a public hearing with the
Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that-the project is ready to proceed
to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff
report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application.. The only
exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project
proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought
to the applicant's attention. As always, .an applicant may request deferral at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols
Principal Planner.for the Development Areas
C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Information from Service Providers
ZMA201000010 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service.
2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50' distant.
Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi.
3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 60' distant.
4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known
5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes _� No
6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known
7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): none known
COMMONWEALTH Of VI:RGI A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE; VA 22911
Gregory A. Whirley
COMMISSIONER
December 3, 2010
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the November, 2010 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP- 2010 -00032 Avon Street / Ross / AT &T CV376
• Show sight distance on Woodchuck Ln, route 874 in accordance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendix F.
SP- 2010 -00033 Four Seasons Learning Center
• According to ITE Trip Generation code 565, 40 students will generate 179 trips per day and 64
students will generate 286 trips per day. Although the increase in proposed traffic does not meet
the TIA threshold for volume alone, the County may want to consider some traffic data for
parking needs or sight lines based on the history of this site.
SP- 2010 -00034 Glenn A. Hall (Scott Clark)
• VDOT has scheduled a time to check the sight distance along route 640 at the intersection for
Braxton Road and will send a follow up evaluation of the findings.
SP- 2010 - 00035, 00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club (Joan McDowell)
• VDOT has met with the applicant to check sight distance at the entrance and some clearing will be
required and a sight line easement may be required. The applicant needs to submit a plat at the
intersection of the entrance to Owensville Road showing the sight lines and any needed easements
for commercial sight distance.
SP- 2010 - 00036, 00037 MonU Park (Scott Clark)
• VDOT has previously checked sight distance for this site but at a slightly different location. I
believe that this location will be able to clear and obtain commercial sight distance but I suggest
the applicant request that a VDOT Permit Inspector meet them at the site to ensure the location is
adequate.
• Left and right turn lane warrants need to be submitted and if either is warranted, they need to be
added to the plan.
SP- 2010 -00038 Badger Industrial (Phil Custer)
. • No comments
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
— SP- 2010 -00039 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices (Elaine Echols)
• According to ITE code 710 for general office, this site should generate 486 trips per day and 109
trips during the peak hour. This site does not meet the requirements for a Chapter 527 TIA.
• An increase in traffic at the intersection of the. private road with Route 250 may cause queuing
problems at the eastbound Route 250 left turn lane. An queue analysis should be submitted for
this left turn movement.
SP- 2010 -00040 Clifton Lake (Glenn Brooks)
• VDOT Culpeper District Planning has concerns about the private road connection to Milton
causing an increase in cut through traffic within this subdivision to the intersection at Route 250
because of the lack of sight distance. Planning has recommended that the county consider limiting
this connection until such time that the sight distance is corrected at Route 250.
ZMA -2010 00009 Republic Capital (Ervn Brennan)
• Recommend that this site ensures that parcel 32 -22N has adequate access to Northside Dr. if the
property is to be developed.
• The reference in the proffers to adequate road improvements is very unclear.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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: Elaine Echols
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA- 2010 -10 and SP2010 -39: Peter Jefferson Overlook
DATE: November 17, 2010
The application plan shows that some of the Entrance Corridor landscaping
guidelines have not been met. In particular, EC trees (31/2" caliper large shade trees
spaced 35' on center, with interspersed ornamentals) have not been provided. The
biofilter trees are not considered an acceptable substitute for EC trees.
Perimeter parking lot trees have also not been provided (2 1/2" caliper trees 40' on
center) in all required locations.
A 240' long retaining wall (3' high) is proposed, running parallel to the EC. If a wall of
that length and proximity to the EC is approved, it will require considerable detailing
in the design to achieve an appropriate appearance. A material with appropriate
scale and color will be required. Materials like Redi -Rock will not be considered
appropriate for walls with this level of visibility. The wall may require detailing at
intervals to relieve the length. Landscaping along the wall will be required. The
absence of Entrance Corridor trees, combined with the length of the retaining wall,
is a concern. A feature like this wall would typically require planting beyond the
standard minimums to achieve an appropriate appearance. It is recommended
that the applicant demonstrate that the planting guidelines can be met and that
the retaining wall can be designed to achieve an appropriate appearance for the
EC.
Other retaining walls are proposed at the southeast corner of the site (6' high) and
along the north side of the site (height not indicated). Similar design issues apply to
these walls, depending on visibility. It appears that the site design and the presence
of a retaining wall on the north side of the parking lot will make it impossible to meet
the guideline regarding perimeter parking lot trees. The maximum height of the
north wall should be indicated on the plan. Again, it is recommended that the
applicant demonstrate that the planting guidelines can be met.
Sidewalks are shown along the EC frontage, with sidewalks accessing the EC sides of
the buildings. This suggests that the EC sides of the buildings are actual building
fronts, but architectural elevations have not been provided for review, so it is
recommended that the applicant confirm this. To have an be appropriate
appearance for the EC, the EC elevations must have the appearance of primary
building facades. East and west elevations of both buildings will also need to be fully
designed; a "back of building" appearance will not be appropriate.
Gary Whelan
From: Gary Whelan [gwhelan @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Thursday, April•08, 2010 10,32 AM
To: 'Rebecca Ragsdale'
Subject, CCCP201000001 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Rebecca,
The Cottages preliminary plan was previously approved by the Service Authority. We don't have additional comments
regarding potential rezoning or SP requests other than to say capacity exists in our system for this'item. Technical or
engineering comments will be addressed at the site plan stage,
Gary
IA
ATTACHMENT G