The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201700005 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2018-08-31COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Division of Planning (434) 296 — 5923 August 31, 2018 Kelsey Schlein Shimp Engineering 201 East Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972 - 4035 RE; ZMA201700005 Hollymead Town Center (Area C) - Blocks II, III, and VII Dear Kelsey: Staff has reviewed your resubmittal dated July 30, 2018 and offers the following comments: Planning Items which have been addressed with this resubmittal are stfueli Outstanding items are noted.. I- P4ea,, fevis& -appl;, a fiat, , Fr -a+;,, t(+r-emo;,,e-r-e£ ti.-es4e-Blee-i-1-and ojaiify ether- reque4-appJies,4o-I3I r- Week N111. 1 bells nee€ s4o- be updated t V 114ft. ead -a-f B lnel V-l: the ther-equest to4+g-t$ehange-a a suh4€y'ro`ltl T4u;- Ltr�t,nt tu:; cc� el�artgt t€�#lFe ' f �`)e�� c1l�t, i3t t a l+to a striketl�r{ t l� ti �;vi t proposed' it7-red-Ghanges appr-eved under it,'•,.eN,i8ti5Tnzi;cmic-iir ,(Z-MA?A-k-300004}*�-the origin I fvzo, inn a!s( uti4ized-#his fnethod, but nurse eha==s�-�- -Please a 4-a iiete an page4-ef4heCede to elfl i wef-e -der-ZMA20 P00004 and statt-giat any-ehw,,ge-,-Wp vped W44 P)e--sWwf i'fl-f-ed: 4--@Limit-i�r� - --it 4k�e�-nHt--a�c��#ktat�Ly�#�}i33ath� rteE# �-1:3-1�-I��II-%�lx�pc>�tc�t-#aL�e: ire%'e.Wt'.ITffNsul-I]- fleq tw-pt!t-1 ll- 131,-L47' F.ir illhkF, as kviIjk-diffl4 iI t 3: �-lli# I:•I{��}l}3�w xT!'I�•++t�ic�if�'i�li,Nl�iil�`€l �tr�li�,3 #�1#i1-#�ii##' �*4` thi.�'[i�'f.l-�I`r i1:�`!*if4F�i-,FiC•4t- ii�4s•131t�}ri�}�'ti !,a 41t5 49hk4k-i e-,kif4J-1ilt#t'i llkc �itHlIIT-I!Fli 4►, # Fi--i i� a.+-•# 3Jx`# ii# i4;4� ##t#ttii#4 4F ft r�+lti##i'sflslf�J.:.it{+tr�,:�tlt4lto, i4L�kr*it+i 11'7Ii k1: f *# 1,1]t �ilg-gil'lerg111F#iii:torl.-ifv 14 1If-'.Is 14 11 ukL-K i++°+iifIVCA tfIr%N.III d aw-l:l .I riitb01 +. ,.41�f.,�t-sl tP- Fr J L-.1P11itk1.+-, I l� , 1 �5i11h�ftil tv 4-kH'v i.i!iiii ".Jt l— - - i;•. l,•. 1�- �11�1 ly a� i:'-:i�L`l+ltiti `*s!tilt#Fw�♦11'e�Hit' it!11LL'}i}If�� Ott?llrrl StflfFti' �17Y �.�{#F1�1 y,4i.' +A 13:-tease nsi(terthis nuinber as-f va-luaW -t and -if)-you wou 1d1ike-tor-reviseF-B1f�&-] it the fevised-T4 -k 7---44ease4waE - XW-ai!owe,z ;-squaf #t�rl�e i�xiv� 4ei3i gleek 4 tt}431eek i s b +Aiea Res Total fei- Bleeli i slioul.d�i, 4A:- -M-ax} ise=T4a),l"A-4o a+• i�� }-� tthes numbes, and the wl.,+ e-v'afia4E"(Seeee A tfael,., .,4) T� var-iatianwillaffee your totali5'�le A. ftht 8. _ Aeemm:unity meeting ; needed 4o prior- to sehe,d.,liiig a publie i ear-ing with _+l,t, eear-dn`a'-'rcr a with the ni 29 N,..-+1 Gomffluiiity o'--Gomvnite r A-c4-l",es, x� i -owners wW should be +:f;�„d of +i,;., meeting ,,,:11 Iwo ,;io d } la+ Ala.,., le+ fne L,,o i f you ineetliig-. Rev. 7-30-18: Now that there is a clear understanding of your request, staff has some additional information to provide which will be important to your resubmittal. 1. When we asked if you would be providing any proffers, you asked if cash proffers for residential units would be expected. We had an email exchange in April of this year. I never got back with you. We would recommend $3,845.00 attached/TH unit and $5,262 per MF unit. In addition, we would recommend that you provide for 15% of the new units, over and above that originally approved, as affordable. 2. The following items in the proposed revision to the Code of Development need to be changed or additional information should be provided: a) On page 2 of the CoD, the title at the top of the page needs to be revised to match the title as it is on the cover sheet of the Col), with the addition of "Originally Revised From:" before "ZMA 01-20-2001 (Area C)." b) On sheet 5, at the bottom of the page, a proposed revision states that the entire development has a 401,000 square foot maximum. Where is this number coming from? In the proposed revision to Table A, the maximum non-residential total is listed as a proposed 413,000 square feet. g c) In Table B on page 24 of the CoD, there is a proposed revision to the setbacks for Block VII, along with a footnote providing exceptions to the listed setback requirement. Please provide more information on this proposed revision to the setbacks for Block VII. Your intent is not clear. d) In Appendix A, on page 26, the type of permitted use for the Block VII column is proposed to be revised to "Mixed -Use" from "Retail." However, this change is not shown in the continuing column for Block VII on pages 27 or 28. Please revise. 3. We recommend the following changes on the application plan: a) For Block III, the amount of non-residential square footage shown on the plan is 45,750 square feet of retail and office. However, with the proposed revision to Block III in Table A of the CoD, this amount would exceed the proposed new maximum non-residential of 15,000 square feet. The application plan and Code should match. b) For Block VII, the building is labelled with only retail as a use, as residential was not originally permitted in this block. However, with the proposed revisions to Table A, 2 residential units would now be allowed in Block VII in addition to the retail/non-residential uses. Please revise the plan. Neighborhood Model Nwc-"i gc-; -are j paml--wide+his , plieable Neighbor -he analysis to Provide. details will be providedice the a .et seepe of time .- ues! has bee-1 Zoning and Proffers — Ron Higgig Francis MacCall and Kevin McCollum ReNised Code of Develepmen4 sheWd be eerreeted to show either! no ehanges to Block one with ZMA. Proffers Rebeeea RaesdaleM.T. Ne1e�1� r approved 011deF ZA4A[. 1. Signatures for the revised application a. Block III is now divided into two parcels (Now TMP 32-41 K and TMP 32-41 K1), and different parties own each parcel. The changes being proposed within this planned development will affect all of Block III thus the owner of TMP 32-41 K will need to sign onto the ZMA application being reviewed. Provide a revised signature page from the ZMA application with the appropriate documentation that is identified in the application for the ownership of 32-41 K. 2. Application Plan a. The revised numbers from Table A (on page 23) will need to correlate with the square footages shown on the application plan for the proposed blocks. Provide a note on the revised application plan that the change is for the specific square footage revisions associated with ZMA2017-00005. 3. Proffers I Code of Development (COD) 1. Proffers a. Since the application plan noes not need to be proffered but there are proposed changes to the COD, and since COD is proffered, then Proffer #1 needs to be revised to remove reference to the application plan and revise the COD reference with the date of the revisions to that COD. 2. Code of Development a. The revisions on page 5 of the COD match their proposed changes in Table A. if there are further changes proposed or recommended by Planning, then a revision to both Table A and Page 5 will be needed. SEE comment 3.1 a above. Engineering and Water Resources — Frank Pohl No objection at this time. Entrance Corridor — Margaret Maliszewski No objection at this time. ACSA — Alex Morrison The fcVlowing conrrnents are still valid; I hereby recommend approval of both ZMt1's with the folloNNing comments: • All site development plans proposing the extension of public water and!or sewer infrastructure will require a construction plan review by the ACSA. RWSA Wastewater Capacity Certification will be required at the final site plan stage. • Prior to final site plan approval the applicant will be required to enter into a wastewater capacity agreement with the ACSA. Transportation Planner — Kevin McDermott aneten:ni e theassemptions A-M • .dology , c.z,a ;P_ii--#4:&ffI-e making this ,,.a.,.,, fli t !a feview. in the futtife please, ma th-the-Coon y-afld-VDOT--&n-4 c„ development of t4i seepe*w- thes e tnts studies. Resolution of the following issues is still needed: • The traffic analysis states in assumption #5 that a 25% reduction was applied to all trips to account for the Berkmar Extension and then in assumption # 6 a 25% reduction was also applied to background traffic was for two movements to account for the Berkmar Extension. Please explain the difference in these two reductions and how the second one was applied. I see the first in the reduction in overall reduction in trips generated. • Trip distribution describes 10% of the trips as coming from the west. Are those all coming in on Timberwood Boulevard or does that include Lockwood Drive as well? • I would like to have a better explanation as to how the capacity thresholds were developed and set. The analysis says total inbound or outbound peak hour should not exceed 320 but I don't see how that number was arrived at. Were the number of trips just increased in the model until a movement went to failing or if it was already failing until it decreased to a certain level? • I calculated a much higher trip generation by approximately 1000 daily trips under both the by right and the proposed. This is likely partially due to your use of LU code 932 High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant for Bojangies when it should be a Fast Food LU code 934 or 933 but it is difficult to tell without the breakdown of trips by block. Please provide a display or table showing the breakdown of trips by block to assist in the identification of impacts. • The analysis states that the roundabouts were reviewed from a cursory level to ensure adequate capacity is available. There are no statements regarding the results of that review. Please provide these. • Please provide a general evaluation of internal left turn movements and the effect of the increase trips on those to insure adequate capacity in the turn lanes or the need for turn lanes if they do not exist. • There is no trip distribution to the right in right out from Block 1 directly to US 29. Please explain if and how that movement might impact other movements in the corridor. in Rev. 7-30-18: The comments previously provided on the due diligence traffic study were never fully addressed. Both County and VDOT submitted comments, many of which were discussed in r1 follow-up conversation with the Traffic Engineer but there needs to be a documented response to all of the comments for County Transportation and VDOT to be able to make an assessment on the impacts of the ZMA on the surrounding transportation network. County Transportation requests information be provided that addresses both VDOT and County comments regarding transportation impacts. VDOT — Adam Moore Comments from VDOT— attached Action after Receiut of Comments __ .__._.__.__ . _, _ ..., __.__ __ ___ -1 - -------'_C .. J .. - . _a... "___a ....., 1- "J _- _ __ .. _ . _., > .... Please - IiEL=Aetion Afie c r rc vi;i41id'd7' Trf-crcc--`rr�i1t134 atiac-hedl-fteai'-t�ou-have ead thislet4er-, pleaser akeone of tho 3ttif3i�� Rev. 7-30-18: On September 5, 2018 we expect the Board of Supervisors to approve a zoning text amendment to require that action (approval or denial) by the Board of Supervisors take place within 36 months of the date of acceptance for review of a zoning map amendment (ZMA) or special use permit (SP) application. Because you did not request action by the Planning Commission within 90 days of acceptance for review, we need a formal request for deferral in writing, which may be done by email. This request should indicate the date for which you will request action by the Board of Supervisors which must be no later than July 5, 2020. You will need to submit all outstanding information necessary for a Commission action by 120 days from the deferral end date. All submittals need to be made according to the published schedule. We recognize that you are actively pursuing approval of this project, but in accordance with proposed Section 18-33.52 of the Albemarle County Code, we still need a new letter indicating the date by which action will be taken by the Board. We are recommending that if you do not know how long you need, you request the full additional amount of time. If the ordinance amendment is approved and if you do not request a deferral in writing by October 1, 2018, your project will be considered withdrawn. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no f r the first -esubmitt ' A fee of $1750 is required with your resubmittal. The 2018 Submittal and Resubmittal Schedule may be found here: http://www.albeinarle.org/upload/images/fonns_centcr/departments/Community_Development/for ms/schedules/Special_Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf Notification and Advertisement Fees The zoning ordinance specifies that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: 5 $ 406 Cost for newspaper advertisement 215 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 621 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. $ 406.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 1027.00 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. If the ordinance amendment is not approved, please call me to discuss how you wish to proceed. David Benish and I are taking on this project now that Elaine has retired. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Andy Reitelbach Manner Attachments Cm COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Commissioner August 28, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Elaine Echols Re: Hollymead Town Center Area C-Block I, II,131, VII- Rezoning Amendment Application Plan. ZMA-2017-00005 Review #2 - Revised Dear Ms. Echols: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced rezoning amendment application plan as submitted by, Shimp Engineering, PC., dated July 30, 2018 and offer the following comment. Land use 1. The proposed changes to the land uses appear to generate an increased amount of traffic on a trip -generation basis. VDOT recommends providing a traffic impact analysis based on current conditions to analyze the impacts of the proposed changes. 2. This study does not appear to account for the North Pointe development which will increase the traffic on the Route 29 corridor and is under the site plan development stage. This development along with the opening of Berkmar Extended will change traffic patterns in the area. This should be included in the analysis. 3. The study does not include the currently proposed connection of Berkmar Drive (Meeting Street) through to Airport Road. This connection is a significant priority for the county and should be included in the analysis. If further information is desired please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at (434) 422-9866. Sincerely, W&K,I I P W i dam J. e, .E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment v PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA201700005 PROJECT NAME: Hollymead Town Center Area C Blocks 2.3.7 X Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑Resubmittal Fee is Not Required ALdy Reitelbach Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number O 3! "Cal gnature Date Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit — original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE X Each additional resubmission $1,750 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required $180 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic 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. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage 00 for each additional notice + actual Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost 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 6/712011 Page 1 of 1