HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-03-07aLg
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 7, 2016
Mr. Katurah Roell
2811 Hydraulic Road.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Review Comments on ZMA201200007 — 5t" Street Commercial and SP201300027 — 5t" Street
Development Drive-Thru
Dear Katurah:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal of January 19, 2016, in which you have requested proffer and
application plan amendments for ZMA1999-13 and a special use permit to allow a drive through
window. As you know, Claudette Grant, who reviewed your project from 2012 — 2015 is no longer
working for Community Development. In addition, Justin Deel, the reviewing engineer, has also left
Community Development. Glenn Brooks, who left the County as County Engineer last Friday,
provided comments on your last submittal.
On March 2, the Board of Supervisors approved a zoning text amendment to remove the
requirement for a special use permit for drive through windows, replacing it with performance
standards. As a result, the special use permit you have requested is no longer needed.
As you may remember, staff met with you, the owners of the property, and Scott Collins on February
23, 2016 to discuss the outstanding issues. We went over the following issues at that meeting,
although, not in the detail that is provided below. As we said at that meeting, we believe that you
can design a project that both meets the approved fill in the floodplain special use permit and the
Neighborhood Model.
The following items are still outstanding and in need of resolution before staff can recommend
approval of your project. The most recent comments are provided in italics:
1 ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
Conformity with the Neighborhood Model
Pedestrian Orientation — You are showing sidewalks in the right-of-way across the frontage of the
site along 5t" Street and throughout the site which will help to encourage pedestrian movement. To
truly have a pedestrian orientation, however, the building facing 5t" Street should be moved closer
to the sidewalk and a walkway from the public sidewalk to a door or doors at the front of the
building provided. (Comments concerning the need for relegated parking were provided early in
the review.)
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Previous comments and how they have been addressed
follow:
Initial submittal: 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 — see EC comments below:
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
1. When the ARB reviewed the site layout in February 2014, there was no objection to the
orientation of Building C as it was illustrated, with appropriate landscaping. However, proffer
#4 states that all buildings will have their fronts oriented to face 5th Street, and that
orientation is not represented in the layout of Building C. The proffer should be corrected to
accurately reflect the layout.
2. When the ARB reviewed the plan in February 2014, they made a number of comments on the
proposal. Among those comments were: Clearly show all utilities and easements on the plan.
Increase planting area to avoid planting and utility conflicts without reducing the amount of
landscaping proposed. The plan has not been revised to address the planting/utility conflicts.
The primary issue is the EC frontage trees located on and near the sanitary sewer line.
Sufficient on -site planting area has not been provided to accommodate required landscaping,
so the development can't actually be accomplished as shown. It is recommended that the plan
be revised now to show increased planting area and to show that the required landscaping can
be accommodated on site, clear of utilities and easements.
3. Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB is required prior to final site plan
approval. A Certificate of Appropriateness has not yet been granted. Final review (site and
architecture) with the ARB is required.
Rev. 5: Issues related to landscaping and the ARB have been addressed for the portion of the site
along 5t" Street. However, please be advised that even though the ARB may be satisfied with the
frontage treatments, the Neighborhood Model principles still apply and landscaping is not viewed
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
as the preferred alternative to creating relegated parking. Curb and gutter along the frontage of
5t" Street is preferred to the rural cross section shown.
Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities
As noted above, sidewalks are being provided along the frontage of 5t" Street and throughout the
site. During the site review process, there may be a need for striping bicycle lanes along Fifth Street
across the frontage of the site to enhance cycling opportunities for employees and users of the
center.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space — The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of
this site for parks and green ways. This is because much of the property is in floodplain. When it
was originally rezoned in 1999, the floodplain over the parcel was smaller than it is today. At the
time of the rezoning, proffers were made to dedicate an easement for a greenway trail along the
northern portion of the property. A portion of this easement has been dedicated. Since your
original submittal in 201Z staff has provided the following comments:
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.
Rev. 4: The Greenway is now shown on the Application Plan. This principle is met.
Rev S: Thank you for your proposed dedication of the green way easement through your proposed
revised proffers and for clearly showing it on the rezoning plan. Although an easement is an
acceptable form of dedication, you may find that dedication of real property at this location is
advantageous, since the property is located in the floodplain and cannot otherwise be used for the
development.
With this most recent review of the plan and proffers, staff has noticed that there are some
inconsistencies between the existing/proposed proffers and the rezoning plan. The original plan
and proffers included an expectation for steps and a travel way from the proposed parking area
down to the easement that has already been dedicated. Last year's plan dated 3-9-15 removed the
steps that had been shown and proffered with the original zoning plan and proffers. If the Board
wishes to approve this rezoning, the inconsistencies will need to be rectified beforehand.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale — Buildings and spaces of human scale are largely a result of
heights, massing, orientation, and setbacks from the street. When a building is proposed in an
Entrance Corridor, the ARB makes determinations relative to heights, massing and orientation.
Issues related to setbacks from the street are addressed under the topic of Relegated Parking.
Initial submittal: 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
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
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: The principles of Relegated Parking, Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths, and
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale are all important in making a pedestrian oriented place. The
ARB has preliminarily approved the buildings that can be seen from the Entrance Corridor,
however, their preliminary approval does not negate the need for Relegated Parking.
Relegated Parking — Relegated Parking is an important principle that helps create a pedestrian
oriented environment. Parking is relegated when it is placed to the side or the rear of buildings
along a street. Though discussed extensively throughout the review process, this principle is not
met.
Initial submittal: You did not provide any details regarding building and parking location, so, 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.
Rev. 4: No change.
Rev. 5: The current proffered plan shows buildings setback 125 feet from the pavement and
parking between the street and the building. This has been and continues to be an area of major
concern by staff because the Comprehensive Plan recommends that relegated parking occur with
new development. I can see from correspondence in the files that you and Claudette Grant agreed
to disagree on whether or not you needed to meet this principle of the Neighborhood Model.
Planning staff continues to believe that your plan needs to be redesigned so that it can meet the
principle of relegated parking, which in turn helps to create a pedestrian orientation, improves the
ability to create buildings and spaces of human scale, and neighborhood friendly streets and paths.
In addition, since your first submittal in 2012, about 4 years ago, the zoning ordinance has changed
and now a minimum setback of 10' and a maximum setback of 30' for buildings is required. Staff
previously made you aware that this zoning text amendment was in the works and would affect
the plan. Your plan must be modified to reflect the change to the maximum building setback of
30'. You may request a special exception to this requirement from the Board of Supervisors;
however, staff would not be able to support this request.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain — The title of this
Neighborhood Model principle changed in 2015 to help better describe expectations for the
Development Areas. The first recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan for this principle is to
encourage developers to design buildings that fit into the terrain rather than flattening the land for
trademark buildings. The Comprehensive Plan also says that where retaining walls are used, they
should be no taller than six feet and benched, and planted to blend with the landscape.
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
Initial submittal: 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 overlaid 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: It is still difficult to know how your proposal meets this principle because there is no
proposed grading shown on the plan. In addition, there is a 15' retaining wall at the rear of the site
and a retaining wall with no information on height on the south side of the site parallel to 164.
The concept plan approved with SP200700063 showed a 10' retaining wall on the eastern part of
the site. The 15' retaining wall at the back of the site does not meet the County's expectations for
terraced walls rather than high retaining walls; however, we note that this wall also has a flood
protection function.
From our meeting on February 23, it is clear that you wish to revise this plan to conform to the
limits of floodplain disturbance which were approved in 2002 and again in 2008. Making those
changes will likely result in shorter retaining walls, so this may not be an issue in the future.
According to Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner and Acting Chief of Current Development,
current conditions suggest that the proposed development may be more visible from 164 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 may be appropriate.
Zoning
The following additional comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins,
Chief of Zoning:
Rev. 4:
Parking note on plan should read "gross" floor area not "grass".
2. 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 for the plan. Plan shows a total of 139 proposed. Math is also wrong on the
current plan (5.5 x 25 = 137.5, not 98).
Rev. 5: Additional Zoning comments on the latest (January 18, 2016) submittal (with proffers) for
this ZMA are:
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
1. The second access out of the Holiday Inn parking lot will disturb "preserved slopes". These
slopes were previously approved for disturbance with ZMA 1999-13. Since you are
requesting a change to the proffered plan, a special exception may be needed to allow for
this disturbance. If so, it can be requested as part of a resubmittal and processed with the
application as it proceeds to the Board of Supervisors. Staff will have a final answer on this
issue by the time of the Planning Commission public hearing on March 15, 2016.
Engineering and Water Resources
Rev. 4: The following comments related to engineering and water resources for the rezoning were
provided by Justin Deel:
1. The proposed improvements plan shows an inaccurate WPO buffer of 50 feet. The WPO
buffer is 100 feet and should be
shown as such. Disturbances within
the WPO buffer must be approved by
the program authority. Types of
structures, improvements and
activities
which may be allowed in a stream
buffer by the program authority can
be found in Albemarle County Code
17-604.
2. The provided John McNair &
Associates plan, dated 4/29/2002, shows a "proposed FEMA 100-year flood limit" that
appears to be contingent upon the topography proposed with that plan. Your new plan,
dated 3/9/2015, shows what appears to be the same floodplain limits, labeled as
"approved 100' year floodplain per approved FEMA map revision". This floodplain limit
does not appear to be consistent with the FEMA LOMR dated 8/8/2008 (below).
When/how were the floodplain limits you're showing approved? Is there a more recent
LOMR for this area?
Albemarle County
Unincorporated Areas
510006
f-_ r-
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
FEMA LOMR 08-13-1390P
Rev. 5: The following comments were provided by Glenn Brooks, County Engineer:
1. Please have the application show the current floodplain limits according to FEMA mapping.
The proposed line or COOMR lines do not appear to be the current regulatory limits.
2. Please have the applicant clarify the limits of floodplain fill in the context of the previous
approval. It appears that the proposed retaining wall may encroach further than the slope
shown on previous concept plans. This would increase the proposed fill.
3. Please correct the buffer designation on the plan, and clarify the encroachment into the
stream buffers. There is no 50' buffer in the WPO. There is only a 100' buffer. Up to 50' of
encroachment and disturbance is permitted with mitigation. This should be compared to
what was previously approved.
5. Please clarify the frontage improvements on 5th Street Extended. It is not clear what is
being planned with the changes to the entrance and no future signal. Turn lane
improvements should be clarified with VDOT. (Planning staff notes that VDOT said these
can be worked out at the site plan stage.)
VDOT
Rev. 4: The following comments related to VDOT have been provided by Troy Austin:
1. The traffic study submitted to VDOT for review from the County was dated 10/28/14. The
digital copies sent to VDOT from EPR upon request were dated 11/5/14 and 2/16/15. It
needs to be confirmed which study is the correct study to be reviewed.
2. There are some concerns with how the traffic model is set up in the study. We will work
with EPR directly on correcting the model/study.
3. The application plan does not appear to reflect the traffic mitigation recommended in the
traffic study. Prior to the application plan being revised to show the proposed mitigation,
we should make sure that the traffic study is acceptable.
4. The proposed median should be extended to prevent a U-turn movement used to access
the entrance to Building A.
5. Internal circulation of the site may be better served if the entrance and travelway for
Building A closest to 5th Street were revised to be a one-way movement. The parking
spaces between Building A and 5th Street could be angled to accomplish this movement.
Rev. 4: The following comments related to VDOT have been provided by Troy Austin:
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
In general, VDOT has no objections to the application as submitted. There are design
details with the entrance geometry that may need to be modified during the site plan
review process. Some of those details include, but are not excluded to:
a. The 8' radius on the island should be increased to ease the turning movement of
the left -turn from 5t" Street into the site.
b. The 12' width of the egress lane may need to be wider to make it easier for larger
vehicles to making the turning movement_
c. Turn lane warrants will need to be evaluated to determine if additional storage
and/or right-of-way is necessary.
d. A merge lane may be necessary for the egress lane rather than having the taper tie
into the through lane.
Proffers
1. Proffer 1: Title
Rev. 4: The title of the referenced plan should be consistent throughout the proffers and
should be the correct title as shown on the plan. Also if there is a revised date on the plan,
this date needs to also be referenced in the proffers. Proffer #1 needs to reference correct
title of Application Plan and date.
Rev. 5: The title of the proffered plan has been corrected; however, be aware that the
revision dates identified in the proffer will need to be changed if changes are made to the
proffered plan. In addition, please replace the words "Conceptual Site Plan" with the words,
"Conceptual Plan" for consistency and to avoid future confusion.
2. Proffer 2: Uses
Rev. 5: Attachment A USES PERMITTED IN HC and inclusion of the zoning ordinance section
for by -right and special uses for the Commercial — C-1 district are incongruous. The 1999
rezoning included the following proffer:
The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations,
convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
It appears that you no longer wish to be held to this small group of uses; however, the list
of uses in HC which you have chosen to restrict yourself to are mostly contained in the C1
list of permitted and special uses that you have also proffered. You can't proffer uses that
exist in the HC district. You can, however, "proffer out" uses. A good way to do that would
be to review the list of uses permitted by -right and special use in the HC district and cross -
through the ones that you would not want to have on the property. Once clarity is provided
in the uses that would be allowed on the property, staff can provide feedback on the
appropriateness of those uses at this location.
3. Regarding proffer 3; the proffer needs clarification and updating. It is unclear what an "in -
only entrance" is exactly. There is no "Engineering Department".
Rev. 5: This has been corrected.
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
4. Proffer 4: Siting of Buildings
Rev. 5: Staff does not support removal of original proffer number 4 related to the siting of
buildings.
5. Proffer 5: Fuel Islands
Rev. 4: Are fuel islands still proposed? The proffer talks about them but they are not on
the Conceptual Plan.
Rev. 5: You have asked to remove this proffer in its entirety. This proffer needs to be
reconciled with the list of uses that you have proposed which includes convenience stores
with gasoline pumps.
6. Proffer 6: Utilities to be Provided Underground
Rev. 5: Staff notices that between the submittal prior to June 15 and the June 15 submittal,
the proffer relating to undergrounding all utilities was changed. The original proffer read,
All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of
these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for
development of the rezoned properties.
Since placing new utilities underground is required in Sec. 32.7.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,
you cannot proffer it. While undergrounding existing overhead utility lines would create a
more attractive site, staff believes that Sec. 32.7.5.2 is sufficient as a requirement and can
support removal of the proffer altogether.
7. Proffer 7
Rev. 4: This proffer needs updating. It may need to refer to "initial site plan" in the county
process. County Engineering should refer to County Engineer.
Rev. 5: These changes have been made.
8. Proffer 8
Rev. 4: Does this proffer refer to the correct ZMA and SP number?
Rev. 5: Instead of referencing ZMA 99-13, Proffer 8 should reference ZMA201200007.
9. Proffer 8. A. —
Rev. 4: Correct the code reference in proffer 8A to 32.7.9
Rev. 5: The code reference change has been made; however, with the reworded proffer,
there is reference to a proposed greenway trail shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan" [sic].
Because there is no greenway trail shown on the proffered plan, corrections either need to
be made to the proffer or the plan. Also, please note the need to do a 'find and correct"
stroke with the proffers to ensure that Conceptual Site Plans are either the Conceptual Plan
or an initial or final site plan.
10. Proffer B.B. —Steps and a Vehicle Travelway
Rev. 5: Staff notes that between the 51 and 61 versions of the plan under consideration
with the rezoning, steps that are referenced in B.B. disappeared off the plan. Are you
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F
proposing to retain the steps? The proffer indicates that you are. Please consider creating a
connecting Class A path from 5r" Street to the vehicle travel way shown on the plan and
referenced in the proffer. (The travelway is intended for greenway trail maintenance.)
11. Proffer 8. C. —
Rev. 4: Has this been satisfied? If yes, this should be noted.
Rev. 5: This item has been corrected.
SP- Drive-Thru
While the special use permit is not required for a drive through window, the proffered plan will
need to comply with the new performance standards. Minor modifications are needed to the drive
through shown on the plan, however, staff recommends a redesign of the site which will most
likely affect the drive through arrangement.
As I said before, we stand ready to assist you with a redesigned plan and proffers that can meet
the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and your approved special use permit. I look
forward to the Planning Commission's input at Tuesday night's meeting.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols FAICP
Acting Chief of Planning, Community Development
C: FTV Investments, LLC
Scott Collins, Collins Engineering
ZMA 2012-07
PC Meeting March 15, 2016
ATTACHMENT F