Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000039 Legacy Document 2010-12-03R 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