HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2015-07-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
July 10, 2015
Mr. Katurah Roell
2811 Hydraulic Road.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA201200007 — 5th Street Commercial and SP201300027 — 5th Street Development Drive-
Thru
Dear Katurah:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal submitted on June 15, 2015, which is requesting to amend
proffers and application plan of ZMA199900013 and for a special use permit to allow a drive-thru
on approximately 3.6 acres of 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:
The following comments refer to the re -submittal and issues per the neighborhood model
principles:
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Include streetscape 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.
Rev. 4 No Change
Rev..S This principle is met.
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.
Rev. 4 You have now provided the revised plan with an overlay of the approved plan. However,
several of the layers should be turned off, so that one can clearly see if there are any
disturbances proposed for areas that should not be disturbed. It appears there may be
encroachments into the stream buffer. The combined plans need to be revised to clearly depict
the areas of disturbance versus areas of preservation/conservation. .
Rev. 5 The plan has now been revised to clearly depict the areas of disturbance. The plan shows
disturbance in the 100' stream buffer. Please describe how this disturbance has been mitigated.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street
views are attractive and pedestrian friendly.
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 itis 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.
Rev. 4 The Architectural Review Board has addressed this principle in their preliminary review
for buildings that can be seen from the Entrance Corridor, however, there is no change for
buildings that are not visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Rev. 5 Site sections for some of the buildings on the site have now been provided. It is.not clear
that all the buildings on site will have the general details provided on the plan submitted. This
principle is partially met.
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.
2.
Rev. 3 No change.
Rev. 4 No change.
Rev. 5 The parking is still not relegated; however, you are now showing landscaping in front of
the parking. This principle is not met.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed information is provided.
ZMA
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. No objection.
Engineering and Water Resources
Comments from Engineering related to the ZMA have not been received. We will send comments
upon receipt.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
1. The revised plan shows the sewer line moved to accommodate required on-site frontage
landscaping. This is acceptable.
VDOT
The following comments related to VDOT have been provided by Troy Austin:
1. Previous review comments not directly related to the TIA appear to be adequately
addressed. One item of note is that there does not appear to be any improvements to 5th
Street shown on the application plan. Is the applicant not proposing any improvement s to
the 5th Street connection?
2. We are in the process of scheduling a meeting with the TIA preparer and the owner to
discuss the TIA review. This meeting may occur in the next few weeks.
Proffers
.1. Proffer 1 needs to be revised to refer to the correct name on the plan and include the
appropriate dates.
2. .Some concerns to address with Proffer 7 are the following: If improvements are needed
with Proffer 7, will the ZMA need to be amended?
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski:
1. The plan submitted with this round of revisions is entitled .5th Street Development
Application Plan. This title differs from the plan referenced in Proffer #:1.
2. The point of the previous comment regarding the orientation of Building C was simply to
point out a discrepancy in the wording, not to require that Building not be.oriented
parallel to the EC. The proffer would make more.sense and provide greater flexibility for
the applicant if the sentence regarding the orientation of Building C was simply deleted.
3
SP- Drive-Thru
Once in the drive-thru lane, where does the by-pass lane begin? If there are four to five cars in the
driveAhru lane there does not seem to be ample space for a vehicle to bypass the drive-thru
traffic until the vehicle gets to the wide curve in the lane.
The following comments have been provided by Justin Deel:
1. While the required vehicle queue has been provided, any additional queuing will back into
the intersection. This is a concern and should be addressed.
The following comments have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. The by-pass lane for the drive in window needs to be extended the entire length of the
stacking lane.
2. The parking as proposed is okay.
Please see the previous comments above from Margaret Maliszewski regarding the Entrance
Corridor, as they relate to the SP request also.
SP Conditions
We anticipate that recommended conditions of approval for the Special Use Permit will relate to
the concept plan and issues that relate to the Architectural Review Board. Additional information
will be forthcoming regarding SP conditions.
In general, there are some outstanding issues, such as the TIA concerns, that staff recommends be
addressed prior to this project going to a public hearing with the Planning Commission. You have
an extension of a deferral until August 31, 2015. At this juncture, you can ask for a public hearing
with the Planning Commission or request an extension of the deferral from the Board of
Supervisors (BOS). If you request an extension from the BOS your request should be in writing and
include the request, justification for the request and a timeframe for the extension. Please be
aware that there is only one BOS meeting on August 5, 2015, so it is possible the BOS might not
address your request until September. If you decide to request an extension from the BOS, staff
recommends you make your request as soon as possible. Please let us know how you wish to
proceed with the subject rezoning and special use permit requests.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Request an extension of deferral from the Board of Supervisors
(2) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(3) Withdraw your application
If you request an extension of deferral and are granted the extension, a resubmittal 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 are needed a
minimum of twenty-one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing:
0
$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
Please confirm the final amount of the fees with me prior to payment, as the legal ads will be
combined for the SUP and ZMA request.
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 cjzrant@albemarle.org
Sincerely,
ClWdette Grant "
Senior Planner, Community Development
C: FTV Investments, LLC
Enc: Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
W
* 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.
2015 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 03•.-
Dec 03 - -
Dec22
Jan 13
Nov 17a,.,
Dec 17 ,
Jan 05
Jan 27
- - DeG41--
-Tue-Dec-3.0-
Jan 05
Jan 27
Dec 15 =
Jan 14
Feb 02
Feb 24
Jan 05
Feb 04
Feb 09
Mar 03
Tue Jan 20
Feb 18
Feb 23
Mar 17
Feb 02
Mar 04
Mar 16
Apr 07
Tue Feb 17
Mar 18
Mar 30
Apr 21
Mar 02
Apr 01
Apr 13
May 05
Mar 16
Apr 15
Apr 27
May 19
Apr 06
May 06
May 11
Jun 02
Apr 20
May 20
May 25
Jun 16
May 04
Jun 03
Jun 22
Jul 14
May 18
Jun 17
Jun 22
Jul 14
Jun 01
Jul 01
Jul 06
Jul 28
Jun 15
Jul 15
Jul 27
Aug 18
Jul 06
Aug 05
Aug 10
Sep 01
Jul 20
Aug 19
Tue Sep 01
Sep 22
Aug 03
Sep 02
Sep 14
Oct 06
Aug 17
Sep 16
Sep 28
Oct 20
Tue Sep 01
Sep 30
Oct 19
Nov 10
Sep 14
Oct 14
Oct 26
Nov 17
Oct 05
Nov 04
Nov 16
Dec 08
Oct 19
Nov 18
Nov 23
Dec 15
Nov 02
Dec 02
Dec 21
;;:-:;. Jan- ;1.2:2016
Nov 16
Dec 16
Dec 21
an .12:2016 . •, °- .
Dec 07
Jan 06
_,::Jan .1 :1`:20.16,; .
:,Feb.02:2016 .:
Dec 21
Jan'.20.20:1:6. '
.',Feb -01 2016:
Feb 23'2016.
Jan 042016°:.
">' Feb 03:2016 Feb 08 2016-
."Mar: 01.20.16
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with -shadedbackground are not 20,15,
2016 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 S Date Paid By who?
Receipt # Ck# BY:
J
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: �a[3 way PROJECT NAME: SJ ;ee ceynr1'IO�CdG
- `�MrUC -1'lrK
C9 Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
01% ,� 1 r '
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
NaL
Signature D 'e Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
❑ First resubmission
$1.00 for each additional notice+ actual
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $500
i W � (�' = S �. yP; 4 t � ldtt^i}/i 4 Sa�Y � ES t� � t*v�V. m� 24-•.. _� ! 't,. _`��: ��xY �. bs.:.G S� rL�?i :�"/ dam V t�! }'.Y tw r �.... �. � �' � �'kb f i •: ' a y
1.. . ER. i`. n.. h. • 3 ..,,;S ., yF N Lf >.,:.. ..- � Sl. ..., ..... .... .. .: r,, x .. ... f ..�. ..,-. �Er -'�
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
Actual cost
❑ First resubmission .
(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
FREE
ach additional resubmission
$1,000
ryry
� T � 'fid N \�' ] S`l�.. S. e:. n); Y��yZt� .r' ( 1Y 3°y `"a r...tli@y � ;•X f Ul 'Y�� � � ..:it � ��r:: !: Trsti'�, .T+� 3� Y i ;fit 1 �`h .,t>t5k� t�q;,:.,N.i £T l� 4.'ia� 1 ,� �:.�.,. T� �
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
S. 1 3 i F.x S
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'] notice fees will be required
$180
To be Daid 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.
KE CHECI{S TO COUNTi' OF ALI3EMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
MA
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 fit, (50)
cost of first-class postage
Actual cost
i' 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 Paae 1 of 1