Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201700003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-06-30p� .4L 37 COUNTY �IRGi;31� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 June 30, 2017 Justin Shimp, PE Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main Street Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 201700003 KIMCO Dear Justin: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the ZMA201700003 to provide a plan for property zoned PDMC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which does not currently have a plan. A rezoning is required to establish any use of the property, which is the purpose of your zoning proposal. Staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional planning comments • Additional comments from reviewers Planning Comments (Tim Padalino) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report when this proposal goes to public hearing or a worksession. Pantops Master Plan: • This parcel is designated as Urban Mixed Use and Parks on the Pantops Master Plan. Urban Mixed Use supports retail, commercial services, office and a mix of residential types based on the Urban Density land use category. This mixed use land use category is expected to have equal parts of residential and commercial uses. A commercial recreational use is an acceptable use within this designation. Consideration should be given for upper story residential uses as this property is in very close proximity to two major employers. • The parcel also contains a Parks designation that was intended to recognize a band of critical slopes near the retention pond behind the site. These slopes are now designated as managed slopes. They were not intended for inclusion in the proposed park on the adjacent property due to their elevation. As such, staff believes that disturbance of the managed slopes and intrusion of the parking area into this area would be acceptable. Neighborhood Model The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are shown across the front of the site on the rezoning plan. They will need to extend to both the northern and southern property lines. As you know, the County has a sidewalk project scheduled for State Farm Blvd. The plan sheets are attached. If this sidewalk is not constructed before your project is built, you will need to build a sidewalk, preferably in this location, across the frontage. Street trees are or will be needed between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. A sidewalk should be provided from the street to the rear parking lot. This principle is partially met. Mixture of Uses The land use designation of Urban Mixed Use anticipates a mixture of residential and commercial uses including retail, office, and service. A skating rink or other commercial recreational facility would contribute to a mixture of uses in the area. Consideration should be given to adding a residential element. This principle is met. Neighborhood Centers The development relates to the Employment Centers of State Farm Insurance and Martha Jefferson Hospital. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing During the preapplication meeting when an office was proposed, staff Types and Affordability recommended that residential uses be added to the building. Because a mixture of residential and non-residential uses is desired in the area, staff requests that you consider whether or how residential uses might work with commercial recreational uses. This principle is not met. Interconnected Streets A new connecting road at the rear of this parcel is shown on the Master and Transportation Plan to provide for a block configuration supporting the Urban Mixed Use Networks area. Due to the presence of steep slopes and existing development along Hickman Road, it appears that this road would be very difficult to build. As a result, staff believes that providing the road is not essential to your development. Parking lot connections should be provided to TMP 78-63 and TMP 78-20F1 to set up the opportunity for interparcel access. This principle is not met. Multi -modal Staff appreciates the offer for a transit stop across the front of the parcel; Transportation however, it appears that a transit stop at this location would not be Opportunities workable. Two stops at locations closer to the employment centers already exist and are expected to continue in the future. With thanks for the offer, the County asks that you remove the stop from the plan. Bicycle racks on the site could enhance use of alternative transportation modes. This principle is partially met. Parks, Recreational No outdoor amenity area is provided; however, if a skating rink is built it Amenities, and Open will serve as an indoor amenity area. Open space is provided at the rear of Space this parcel which, if made accessible, could provide for a future amenity area. This principle is met. Buildings and Space of The application plan shows a single story building. Provision of a multi - Human Scale story building with articulation of the fagade is desirable, but not essential. If the single story box -like building is to be constructed, it will need features to help break up the massing. Elevations are not essential at this time, but some level of commitment should be made for building articulation to address building scale and massing. More information is needed. Relegated Parking A very positive feature of the application plan is the relegated parking provided with the design. This principle is met. Redevelopment The parcel is vacant at present. This principle is not applicable. Respecting Terrain and Grading at the rear is proposed at 2:1 slopes which are not desirable. Careful Grading and Re- More gentle grading at a 3:1 or 4:1 slope is strongly preferred; however, grading of Terrain terraced retaining walls no greater than 6 feet are also acceptable. This principle is not met. Clear Boundaries with The property is not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary. the Rural Area Not applicable to this request. Additional Planning Comments As of the date of this letter, a community meeting has not been held. Prior to resubmitting the project, a community meeting should be held. Questions and answers from that meeting are often invaluable to a successful project. The application plan notes restrict the use to a 40,000 sq. ft. recreation center. The PDMC zoning district provides for many options for commercial uses. Staff recommends that instead of restricting this use to a skating rink and one story building that you show a building envelope, a parking envelope, natural/undeveloped areas, and any other features that would be desired for any development of the site. These changes will increase future flexibility of the building. Please be advised that residential uses will require a special use permit, which could be requested at this time. Zoning Comments (Amelia McCulley) 1. Property Issues —The application plan shows grading and improvements so close to each side property line that it appears likely that grading/construction easements will be necessary from those property owners (Virginia High School League and State Farm). This comment is provided primarily because without those easements it may impact the ability to build in general accord with the application plan. 2. Application Plan a. Because there may be some change in the number of entrances from what is shown on the application plan, include a note to the effect that either this is not a major element or that the entrances may be changed in number and/or location; b. Using a more generalized plan as the application plan will provide more flexibility with the ultimate development, especially if the actual tenant changes; c. Note #4 on sheet 4 may be useful for identifying the major elements for general accord with the plan; d. Setbacks — While compliance with Section 4.20 setbacks and stepbacks is not explicitly required by the Zoning Ordinance for PDMC, we support the applicant in attempting to comply with them. Because Sect. 4.20 does not apply, there is no need for a front setback waiver. With 3 regards to height, it is confusing that sheet #4 note 6 states both that building heights shall be limited to 65 ft and that 25 ft is the proposed maximum height. We recommend that the plan either not state the height as it is governed by Section 21.4 as a maximum of 65 ft or if a lower height is important, that this lower height only be stated. As noted in the preceding, it would be helpful to know if a lower maximum height than allowed is a major element of the plan. Because the language for the stepback requirements of Sect. 4.20 is in the process of being amended, if you propose to comply with that — you should simply refer to Sect. 4.20; Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl) • Preserved slopes do not match that shown on County GIS. If there is a discrepancy, please explain. • Fill within managed slopes shall meet the design standards as identified in Section 18-30.7.5 of the County Code. • A landscaped island at the end of the 15 -space parking aisle at corner with 24 -space parking aisle (fronting building) should be included if the curved drop-off area is to be retained. • Provide a sidewalk across entire frontage to property lines. Coordinate with County FES department for timing/design. • No more than two entrances to the site is recommended. Connecting the drop-off drive aisle entrance to the parking area would be preferred to the three entrances shown. All three entrances should not be major features for the plan. VDOT will ultimately approve the number of allowable entrances. • Show required HC accessible parking spaces. • Note that slopes exceeding 3:1 will require groundcover landscaping instead of turf or retaining walls. Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer • Provide an approved emergency vehicle turn around at the rear of the building. ACSA Comments (Alex Morrison) There are no capacity issues, but there appears to be conflicts with existing water and sewer. I have the following comments: • Show the existing ACSA sewer on the rear of the parcels. Increased grading will result in vertical extensions of the manholes. Based on the profiles of the sewer during the site plan stage the sewer may need to be upgraded to DIP. • There is no sewer along State Farm Drive so the applicant should remove the lateral depicted on sheet 4. • Show the PVC water main across the frontage of the property. • Conceptual street tree layout across the frontage of the property may be in conflict with the existing water main. • Advise if a fire line would be required for this building. If so, a fire hydrant may be required to meet spacing with an FDC. RWSA (Victoria Fort) - RWSA review has not yet been completed. Comments from the RWSA will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt. • Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal? (TBD) • Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification? (TBD) • Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal? (TBD) 4 • "Red Flags" regarding service provision? (Use attachments if necessary) (TBD) Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (Willis Bedsaul) 1. The proposed entrance will require an access management exception request (AM -E) be submitted for review. Recommend pursuing changes to the layout for fewer entrances. 2. Recommend examining the possibility of adjacent parcel connection. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. See resubmittal schedule is for resubmittal dates. Notification and Advertisement Fees Additional information regarding fees for notification and advertisement will be forthcoming. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or if you need additional information. I can be reached at 434-296-5832 x 3088 or tpadalino@albemarle.org. Sincerely, * Pdd;v,,V--- 0 Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner Enc: Action After Receipt of Comment Letter Resubmittal Form Sidewalk plans 5