HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200007 Review Comments 2016-02-12Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201200007
SubApplication Type:
5th Street Commercial
Date Completed:11/06/2012
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:With this proposal, no information has been provided to indicate how the proposed uses will be
structured, oriented or otherwise designed. Consequently, potential impacts on the Entrance Corridor
cannot be assessed. It is recommended that at least a conceptual site layout be provided for review.
Division:
Date Completed:01/02/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/26/2013
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/05/2014
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/20/2014
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/12/2015
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/06/2012
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/30/2012
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/26/2012
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:-Would not recommend removing "Hotels, motels and inns" from uses due to the existing hotel on
site.
--Would recommend that the proposed Application Plan include a conceptual location for buildings.
Division:
Page:1 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2016
--Would recommend that the proposed Application Plan include a conceptual location for buildings.
Date Completed:11/12/2012
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:I cannot tell what exactly is being requested. Please have the applicant clarify. Are the plat and
grading exhibit showing something new? What is the change requested? If it is only the new uses,
why are the exhibits included? If they are needed, please clarify why, and show the correct 100'
stream buffer.
Division:
Date Completed:11/08/2012
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA Dated 10/15/12
No Comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:01/16/2013
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/04/2013
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:-Still recommend that an application plan be proffered with the ZMA.
- The amount of parking shown on plan (221 spaces) might be overly parked. For instance, if all of
the buildings were "retail", the shopping center parking requirement of 5 spaces/1,000 gross sq. ft.
(for centers over 25, 000 sq. ft.) would be 127 spaces. 120% of that would be 152 spaces. However,
different uses could generate larger requirements (e.g. restaurants) if spaces were calculated for
each individual building and use.
Division:
Date Completed:01/28/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/25/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
I am in receipt of the proffer statement received on 18 Apr 2013.
Regarding the proposed change to proffer 1; The proffer should not reference a plan which is not
proffered. The plan referenced is too small to be legible, and needs to be updated.
Regarding proffer 3. The proffer needs clarification and updating. It is unclear what an “in-only
entrance” is exactly. There is no Engineering Department.
Regarding proffer 7; This proffer needs updating. It may need to refer to “initial site plan” in the
county process. County Engineering should refer to County Engineer.
Division:
Date Completed:04/26/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Division:
Page:2 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2016
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:04/29/2013
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:My comments are the same as my 1/4/2013 comments. I still believe that a proffered Application
Plan is needed in order to adequately review this development.
Division:
Date Completed:02/03/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/21/2014
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Please see comments of 4/25/13. These are not addressed. Further comments are;
- The layout appears to change buffer and floodplain disturbances. Provide an overlay to clarify. The
previous SP must be followed.
- 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.
- 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.
Division:
Date Completed:01/22/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/30/2014
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/20/2015
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/12/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/06/2015
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:-Proffer #1 needs to reference correct title of Application Plan and date.
-Reference date for County code should be adjusted to be the time of approval of ZMA or, remove
any reference to date.
-Building C does not appear to meet proffer #4.
-Correct the code reference in proffer 8A to 32.7.9
-Parking note on plan should read "gross" floor area not "grass".
-Parking requirement should be 5.0 spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. for total shown of 26,300 sq. ft.
This is 131.5 spaces (26,300/1,000 =26.3 x 5.0). With the daycare of 25 spaces this totals 157 forthe
plan. Plan shows a total of 139 proposed. Math is also wrong on the current plan (5.5 x 25 = 137.5,
not 98).
Division:
Page:3 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2016
-Building C does not appear to meet proffer #4.
-Correct the code reference in proffer 8A to 32.7.9
-Parking note on plan should read "gross" floor area not "grass".
-Parking requirement should be 5.0 spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. for total shown of 26,300 sq. ft.
This is 131.5 spaces (26,300/1,000 =26.3 x 5.0). With the daycare of 25 spaces this totals 157 forthe
plan. Plan shows a total of 139 proposed. Math is also wrong on the current plan (5.5 x 25 = 137.5,
not 98).
Date Completed:05/07/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/15/2015
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/31/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Topography should be clearly shown and labeled, confirming that the shown 100 year floodplain is
consistent with the revised elevations in the FEMA LOMR, dated 8 August 2008.
Division:
Date Completed:07/10/2015
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/10/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: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 C 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. The revised plan shows the sewer line moved to accommodate required on-site frontage
landscaping. This is acceptable.
Division:
Date Completed:02/12/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. The first paragraph of Attachment A should be deleted.
2. Current conditions suggest that the proposed development may be more visible from I64 than was
previously thought. The degree of visibility can be considered when the site plan is reviewed by the
ARB. Site sections, perspectives, sight lines, etc. will be useful at that time. Depending on the result
of those studies, additional trees may be needed on the south and east sides of the site. If the
retaining wall is visible, terracing will be appropriate.
Division:
Date Completed:02/11/2016
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Please refer to consolidated comments through the coordinating planner.
Division:
Page:4 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2016
Date Completed:02/12/2016
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:5 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2016