The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201200007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-02-05OF AL �'IRGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 February 5, 2014 Mr. Katurah Roell 2811 Hydraulic Road. Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201200007 — 5th Street Commercial Dear Katurah: Staff has reviewed your re -submittal submitted on January 6, 2014, which is requesting to amend proffers and application plan of ZMA199900013 for approximately 3.6 acres on property zoned HC — Highway Commercial. We have a few questions and comments regarding your re -submittal, which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We are always glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: Comments were previously made regarding how the initial submittal addressed the principles of the neighborhood model. You have now submitted a revised plan showing building locations, parking area and sidewalks. The following comments describe how the re -submittal addresses the appropriate neighborhood model principles: Pedestrian Orientation- Proposes a walkable community with sidewalks and paths provided within developments. Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building, parking locations, and sidewalks staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle. Rev. 2 The revised plan now shows proposed sidewalks going into the site from 5th Street and within the site. This principle is met. Rev. 3 The plan is revised again and continues to show proposed sidewalks going into the site from 5th Street and within the site. This principle is met. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Include streetscope elements such as street trees, and accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. Rev. 2 The revised plan now shows some proposed street trees, landscaping and sidewalks. Although staff may suggest a revised landscape plan, in general, this principle is met. Rev. 3 Because of the location of this site in the entrance corridor, a fair amount of landscaping will be expected. There is concern that utility easements may make it difficult to provide the necessary landscaping for this site. Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. The site plan provided shows access to the site from the Holiday Inn access. No other details are provided. Rev. 2 The existing interconnection remains from the Holiday Inn site. If needed, flexibility to accommodate transit needs would be useful. This principle is met. Rev. 3 No change. Parks and Open Space- Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of this site for parks and greenways. Rev. 2 You have described an intention to preserve a significant portion of the overall site as natural areas for public use and benefit. There is no commitment to this. This principle is partially met. Rev. 3 Proffer 8 describes a commitment to the Greenway, but it is no longer shown on the Conceptual Plan. The Greenway should be shown on the Conceptual Plan. Site Planning that respects terrain- Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved. Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle. Rev. 2 While the revised plan does show proposed building and parking locations, there is no commitment to the locations of building and parking, which could change. It is not clear if this principle is met. Rev. 3 Although the revised plan describes a commitment to the building and parking locations, the revised plan needs to be overlayed with the approved plan, which describes areas for conservation easements, FEMA boundaries, etc. This will help determine if there is proposed disturbance to areas that need to be protected. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian friendly. 2 Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle. Rev. 2 The revised plan does not show any street sections or building design, and there is no commitment to the building sizes, so it is hard to know how this principle is met. Rev. 3 The revised plan provides square footage for the proposed buildings. The building size seems appropriate for the site. Without knowing the actual location of areas on the site that need to be protected it is difficult to know if there are too many buildings on the property or if the size of the buildings should be scaled down in size. Relegated Parking- Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on -street parking. Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle. Rev. 2 The revised plan shows parking along 5th Street that is not relegated. This is not consistent with the existing approved plan, which is very specific to certain site design elements, such as relegated parking and buildings closer to the street, that show a relationship to the street. This principle is not met. Rev. 3 No change. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed information is provided. APPLICATION PLAN -DETAILED COMMENTS The revised plan now shows proposed building, parking areas and sidewalks. However, staff is concerned with the orientation of the building closest to 5th Street. As previously mentioned in this comment letter, orienting the building closer to the street so that it has a relationship to the street would provide good urban design. Also, staff recommends relegated parking, particularly for the parking area that is shown adjacent to 5th Street. Rev. 3 This remains an issue. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins: 1. The drive-thru will require a special use permit. 2. Proffers should be consistent when referring to the proffered plan ("Conceptual Site Plan" or "Conceptual Plan" or "5th Street Development Plan"). 3. Proffered Plan must indicate how the plan complies with the earlier special permit for fill in the Flood Plain. This will require an overlay of that approved plan with this proposed plan to verify. 4. The proffer referencing the plan should list the major elements that must be included. 5. The second proffer should update the reference date for the County Code. 6. Should the ZMA references in proffer #3 be updated or added to? 7. In proffer 8A the code section(s) for landscaping should be 32.7.9 as 32.7.9.2 is only a portion of these. 8. Are fuel islands proposed? The proffer talks about them but they are not on the Conceptual Plan. 9. Is Proffer #4 intended to apply to all buildings? If so, building C does not appear to meet it. 10. Prior ZMA review comments that have not been addressed are still applicable. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks: 1. Please see comments of 4/25/13. These are not addressed. 2. The layout appears to change buffer and floodplain disturbances. Provide an overlay to clarify. The previous SP must be followed. 3. A traffic study is needed with the ZMA. It appears uses must be limited, or the 5th Street median extended to limit movements. Lane and signal improvements do not appear possible. These issues need to be addressed with the ZMA. 4. The site layout needs revision when a more legible plan is provided. Entrances are too close to 5th Street. The drive-through entrance/exit appears confusing. There does not appear to be room for adequate stormwater treatment. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. The "front" of Building C does not appear to be oriented to face 5th Street. Proffer 4 and/or the plan should be adjusted accordingly. 2. Proffer 5 references fuel islands shown in the concept plan. The concept plan does not show fuel islands. Proffer 5 and/or the plan should be adjusted accordingly. 3. Clarify/coordinate Proffer 6 and greenway Proffers A and B regarding timing and the phasing of the final site plan(s) 4. Proffer 6 indicates that all new and existing utilities will be underground. This is not consistent with the site plan recently submitted for ARB review. Please clarify. This will need to meet the requirements of the ARB. VDOT The following comments related to VDOT have been provided by Troy Austin: 1. It would be helpful to have a larger scale drawing for review. The plan submitted is too small to allow reading of most of the text. 2. The throat length needs to meet VDOT standards as identified in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. In 3. The traffic study should be performed as part of the rezoning rather than during each preliminary site plan. As part of the study, the turn lane warrants/lengths and the left turn maneuvers into and out of the site should be evaluated. 4. An AM -E spacing exception will be required for the entrance based on the proximity to the 1-64 interchange. Proffers Comments have not been received by Greg Kamptner relating to the proffers. Staff will send comments upon receipt. The following comments/suggestions are in addition to those comments previously mentioned in this letter by staff regarding the proffers: 1. Proffer 1 should be revised as follows: Development and use shall be in general accord with the Plan titled 5th Street Development ARB Plan, prepared by Collins Engineering, dated December 9, 2013 (hereafter the "Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements in the approximate location, number and extent as shown on the Conceptual Plan: a. Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the general location of buildings, walkways, retaining walls and access point to greenway may be made to ensure compliance with Zoning Ordinances. b. Modifications are to be considered in terms of minimizing or improving impacts on adjoining properties and roadways. 2. On page one of the proffers, the last sentence in the first paragraph should say a project known as "5th Street Commercial" 3. The following proffers need to be updated: The section references in Proffer 2; the ZMA number reference and there is no longer an Albemarle County Engineering Department described in Proffer 3; Are proffers 4, and 5 still accurate?; See Engineering and VDOT comments relating to Proffer 7; Proffer 8 may need to be updated (ZMA reference) along with reference to those portions of the proffers that have now been satisfied. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit (within 30 days) 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 Devel opment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral, if you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application 5 If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $1,250.00 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: $228.50 Cost for newspaper advertisement $200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $428.50 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. $228.50 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $657.00 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 email address is cgrant@albemarie.org Sincerely, c Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Enc: Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form on * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise 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 planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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. 2014 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing * Request for PC Public Hearing, Legal Ad Payment Due ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Nov 4 2013 Dec 4 2013 Dec 23 2013 Jan 14 Nov 18 2013 Dec 18 2013 Jan 06 Jan 28 Dec 2 2013 Tue Dec 312013 Jan 06 Jan 28 Dec 16 2013 Jan 15 Feb 03 Feb 25 Jan 06 Feb 05 Feb 10 Mai -04 Tue Jan 21 Feb 19 Feb 24 Mar 18 Feb 03 Maj -05 Mar 10 Apr 01 Tue Feb 18 Mar 19 Mai -31 Apr 22 Mar 03 Apr 02 Apr 14 Ma 06 Mar 17 Apr 16 Apr 28 Ma 20 Apr 07 May 07 May 12 Jun 03 Apr 21 May 21 May 26 Jun 17 May 05 Jun 04 Jun 23 Jul 15 May 19 Jun 18 Jun 23 Jul 15 Jun 02 Jul 02 Jul 07 Jul 29 Jun 16 Jul 16 Jul 28 Aug 19 Jul 07 Aug06 Aug18 Sep 09 Jul 21 Aug 20 Tue Sep 02 Sep 23 Aug 04 Sep 03 Sep 15 Oct 07 Aug 18 Sep 17 Sep 29 Oct 21 Tue Sep 02 Oct 01 Oct 13 Nov 04 Sep 15 Oct 15 Oct 27 Nov 18 Oct 06 Nov 05 Nov 17 Dec 09 Oct 20 Nov 19 Nov 24 Dec 16 Nov 03 Dec 03 Dec 22 Jan 13 2015 Nov 17 Dec 17 Dec 22 Jan 13 2015 Dec 01 Dec 31 Jan 5 2015 Jan 27 2015 Dec 15 Jan 14 2015 Feb 2 2015 Feb 24 2015 Jan 05 2015 Feb 4 2015 Mar 2 2015 Mar 24 2015 Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2014. 2015 dates are tentative. * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise 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 planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: �oF ,v.tyyt Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or l -� Zoning Map Amendment ��ttAN�" PROJECT NUM ER: ZmA ZQ ooc7 PROJECT NAME: S'1 ✓l ! eek- L.omme ruu Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator ko__ LA('A �e l i Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 cost of first-class postage Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of 52,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First r submission FREE Each additional resubmission $1,250 cost of first-class postage Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'I notice fees will be required $180 To be naid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. nit . TJTJ ! Y=#'TJC T(1 !'/liiHITV /lv Al DL'AA A DT r rn A VnnrrvT AT ('r)MMi TNTTV nV.VFT .OPMRNT COT1NTF.R Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage $1.00 for each additional notice + actual Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first-class postage Actual cost Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 6/7/2011 Pate I of 1