ZMA202200011 Correspondence 2023-02-21WILLIAMS MULLEN
Direct Dial: 434.951.5709
vlong@williamsmullen.com
Bee Safe Self -Storage Facility
ZMA202200011
Response to Staff Comments Dated January 12, 2023
To: Cameron Langille
From: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
Re: ZMA202200011 Bee Safe Self -Storage Facility
Date: February 20, 2023
General Application Comments:
1. Please clarify the building footprint in square feet in the narrative and on the concept plan.
Response: The narrative and concept plan have been updated accordingly. In addition, the maximum
footprint of 60,000 SF is included as a proffer.
The Places29 Master Plan recommends a 10' wide multi -use path for bicycles and pedestrians along
the parcel frontage. The concept plan shows a 5' sidewalk along the parcel frontage with Route 29,
and labels an area for future dedication to the County in order to construct a shared use path. In order
to be consistent with the Master Plan, the applicant should consider revising the application so that a
commitment is made to providing a 10' wide multi -use path along the parcel frontage. See
Transportation Planning staff comments for further information.
Response: Per our email correspondence with you of January 31, 2023, the sidewalk has been
widened to 6 feet.
3. Please see attached ARB staff comments. There are several items of concern that should be addressed, as
follows:
a. Please consider revising the glass and stone elements at the northwest corner of the
building to meet Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. This will help orient the front fapade
toward Route 29 and the Entrance Corridor.
Response: The final design and architecture of the building will be provided at the site plan
stage and will meet the entrance corridor design guidelines at the site plan stage. The
location and orientation of the building has been designed to minimize the impact to the
existing steep slopes, provide adequate fire access and general vehicular circulation
around the building, and maintain enough area for landscaping required by both the zoning
ordinance and as expected to be required by the ARB at the site plan stage. While the
building orientation is not entirely parallel to Route 29, it is as close to parallel as possible
when balancing the reality of the relatively narrow width of the parcel along Route 29 and
the various (often competing) goals mentioned above. Making it more parallel to the
Entrance Corridor would require significant impacts to the existing steep slopes, which
would be inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model Principle of "Respecting Terrain and
Careful Grading and Re -grading." In addition, it would reduce the size of the planting area
on the western and southern sides of the parcel, which we do not believe is consistent with
the ARB design guidelines, and would make it challenging to comply with required
landscape regulations. However, the fact that the building is set back an appropriate
distance from the Entrance Corridor provides sufficient area for additional and required
landscaping along the Entrance Corridor for full review at the site plan stage. The
building's proposed location slightly back from the Entrance Corridor provides an additional
benefit as well, in that any potential impact of not having the building entirely parallel with
the EC will be minimized. If the building were closer to the Entrance Corridor, the fact that
it is not entirely parallel to the EC would be far more noticeable. Regardless, we believe
that a carefully balancing of these competing goals and preferences is appropriate, and
that the building location and orientation furthers all those goals as much as reasonably
possible, especially given the size and shape of the parcel.
b. Please provide further information regarding how the interior portion of the building visible
through the glass along the front fagade will be utilized. If this will be illuminated with interior
lighting at night, this could conflict with EC Design Guidelines.
Response: The final design and architecture of the building, including illumination, will be
determined during ARB review at the site plan stage. We do not believe there is anything
about the rezoning application and concept plan that would limit the ARB's ability to address
this issue at the site plan stage.
c. Please show the existing and proposed tree line on the concept plan. The concept plan appears
to only show proposed landscaping along the frontage with Route 29 and along a segment of
the southeastern property boundary. Landscaping requirements of the EC may require
additional plantings to screen the parking spaces and other portions of the structure, parking
lot, travel ways, etc.
Response: The updated concept plan shows the existing tree line. In terms of landscaping,
the development will meet the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance and the
ARB at the site plan stage, and we understand that the ARB may require additional plantings
beyond that which is shown on the concept plan. Nevertheless, additional plantings have
been added to the northwest corner of the concept plan.
d. The applicant should consider providing additionally vegetative screening measures (trees
and shrubs) along the north and south parcel boundaries to properly screen the structure
from the EC/Route 29.
Response: The development will meet the landscaping requirements of the zoning
ordinance and the ARB at the site plan stage, and we understand that the ARB may require
additional plantings beyond that which is shown on the concept plan. Nevertheless,
additional plantings have been added to the northwest corner of the concept plan.
e. Please provide additional exhibits/drawings that clarify the visibility of the front (west), north,
and south facades of the structure from the EC.
Response: The final design and architecture of the building will be provided at the site plan
stage and will meet the entrance corridor design guidelines at the site plan stage, and
detailed renderings as may be required by the design guidelines will be provided at that time.
We have enclosed general illustrative renderings with this rezoning application to assist in
review for the rezoning application only. These renderings have been updated since the
original application, and are dated February 16, 2023.
f. Please be aware that the wall signs shown on Sheet A-000 of the concept plan will likely not
meet EC requirements (size, color, etc.).
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
4. Please see Engineering comment #1. The grade of the travel ways/vehicle access aisles cannot exceed 10%
slope.
Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to indicate the grade of the access aisles will not exceed
10%.
5. Please see attached VDOT comment #1. The entrance onto Route 29 will require an access management
exception for spacing due to the proximity of other driveway entrances on adjacent parcels. This is an
advisory comment that can be handled at time of site plan review.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
6. Please be advised of Fire Rescue comments and ACSA comment #8 regarding the need for fire
hydrants and fire flow requirements for the proposed use.
Response: See comment response to Fire/Rescue and ACSA's comments below.
7. At the community meeting for this project, residents of the Branchlands neighborhood to the east and
southeast expressed concern about the ability of the existing stormwater pond at the northeast corner
of the parcel to handle increased runoff that would be generated by redevelopment of the parcel. In the
narrative, please identify the measures that the developer will undertake to ensure that stormwater
will be managed in accordance with County and State regulations to reduce overflow and flooding onto
adjacent parcels and Hillsdale Drive.
Response: The final site plan application will be required to demonstrate compliance with all
applicable state and local regulations regarding stormwater management and erosion and sediment
control. The concept plan shows an onsite conceptual stormwater management facility that would
drain into an existing outfall channel and then to an adjacent regional stormwater management
facility. The narrative now includes language stating that the development will meet the requirements
of the County's Water Protection Ordinance and Department of Environmental Quality which provides
assurance that overflow and flooding will not occur on adjacent parcels or Hillsdale Drive. Regardless,
we understand that a requirement of final site plan approval will require compliance with all applicable
regulations, including a stormwater management maintenance and access agreement and
construction bonds.
8. At the community meeting, members of the public expressed concern with exterior lighting on the site,
particularly for lighting at the rear (east) side of the property. The applicant's representatives indicated
that the only outdoor lighting that will be installed at the rear of the parcel would be wall -mounted lights,
and no free-standing light poles would be included around the perimeter of the travel way. Staff
acknowledges that the site would be required to meet all lighting regulations from the Zoning
Ordinance at time of site plan review. But further commitments to reducing lighting at the rear (east) of
the parcel may be beneficial to address the concerns of the public.
Response: A proffer has been provided to state that pole mounted lights will not be used in the area to
the rear of the building unless required as a condition of site plan approval, and in such instance, they
will be fully shielded from the eastern property line.
9. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan comment section below, the Places29 Master Plan has specific
building footprint and building height recommendations for this parcel based on its future land use
classifications. The concept plan and narrative note that the gross floor area of the structure would be
122,500 sq.ft. and 65' tall (3 and four stories). Is the applicant intending to commit to the exact gross
floor area and number of stories for this use?
Response: Proffers have been provided to commit to the number of stories along the frontage of
Route 29, as well as a maximum building footprint of 60,000 square feet, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Centers.
10. Additional comments on the concept plan/application may be forthcoming pending completion of
Zoning Division review.
Response: As of the date of this response, Zoning comments have not been received or posted to
County View.
Proffers:
1. No proffers have been submitted at this time. If a proffer statement is included on a future submittal,
additional comments may be forthcoming.
Response: A simple proffer statement has been provided with this submittal, which commits to the major
elements shown on the concept plan.
(responses to staff comments continue on following page)
Neighborhood Model
Responses below are to only those Neighborhood Model Principles that were identified as not being
met, or not fully met in the comment letter dated January 12, 2023.
Pedestrian Orientation This principle is not fully met. To be fully consistent with this principle, the application
would need to commit to providing a 12' wide landscaping median and a 10' wide multi-
use path adjacent to Route 29, as recommended by the Places29 Master Plan.
Additionally, a sidewalk (with ramps) extending from the multi -use path to the travelway
could be provided with a crosswalk to connect to the sidewalk in front of the proposed
parking spaces. Response: Per email correspondence dated January 31, 2023, the
sidewalk has been widened to 6 feet to meet this principle.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is partially met. In the larger vicinity of the parcel, a mixture of non-
residential and residential uses exist. However, the Places29 Master Plan does
recommend a mix of uses on the subject parcel, both residential and non-residential uses
as indicated by the Urban Mixed Use and Urban Density Residential future land use
classifications. Response: The narrative has been updated to provide additional context
for the use related to the nearby residential. While the Project itself does not include a
residential component, when considered in the context of the larger surrounding area
around the Project, which already includes a variety of housing, the Project is consistent
with the PL29 MP and Neighborhood Model, as it is providing the needed secondary
use for the existing residential communities. This use will provide particularly convenient
storage for those existing nearby multi -family, attached, and senior living residential
communities, among others, including wine storage.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is not met. No residential uses are proposed with the ZMA, and the
and Affordability
Places29 Master Plan recommends Urban Density Residential uses on approximately
2.5 acres of the parcel. The Urban Mixed Use category also allows for residential uses
within that land use classification. The applicant should revise the narrative to explain
why no residential uses are proposed. Response: The narrative has been updated to
provide additional justification and context for the proposed use related to nearby
residential communities. While the Project itself does not include a residential
component, when considered in the context of the larger surrounding area around the
Project, which already includes a variety of housing, the Project is consistent with the
PL29 MP and Neighborhood Model, as it is providing the needed secondary use for the
existing residential communities nearby, as well as those throughout the County. This
use will provide particularly convenient storage services for those existing nearby multi-
family, attached, and senior living residential communities, including wine storage
Interconnected Streets
This principle is not fully met. To be fully consistent with this principle, the application
and Transportation
would need to commit to providing a 12' wide landscaping median and a 10' wide multi -
Networks
use path adjacent to Route 29, as recommended by the Places29 Master Plan.
Additionally, a sidewalk (with ramps) extending from the multi -use path to the travelway
could be provided with a crosswalk to connect to the sidewalk in front of the proposed
parking spaces. Response: Per the email correspondence dated January 31, 2023, the
sidewalk has been widened to 6 feet to meet this principle.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is not fully met. To be fully consistent with this principle, the application
Opportunities
would need to commit to providing a 12' wide landscaping median and a 10' wide multi-
use path adjacent to Route 29, as recommended by the Places29 Master Plan.
Additionally, a sidewalk (with ramps) extending from the multi -use path to the travelway
could be provided with a crosswalk to connect to the sidewalk in front of the proposed
parking spaces. Response: Per the email correspondence dated January 31, 2023, the
sidewalk has been widened to 6 feet to meet this principle.
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is generally met but could be strengthened by making some form of
Human Scale
commitment to limiting the height of the structure to three (3) stories closest to Route 29,
as stated in the narrative. Response: Notes have been added to the plan, and proffers
have been provided for the commitment to the plan, including specific commitments to
the number of stories along Route 29 and the maximum building footprint.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
1. Construct a 10 -foot shared use path with six feet minimum of buyer strip along the western edge of the property
along US 29 rather than building a five-foot sidewalk.
Response: Per the email correspondence dated January 31, 2023, the sidewalk has been widened to 6 feet.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
1. The building is not oriented parallel to the EC street. A shift in the glass and stone element at the northwest end
of the building could allow this guideline to be met
Response: The final design and architecture of the building will be provided at the site plan stage and will
meet the entrance corridor design guidelines at the site plan stage. The location and orientation of the building
has been designed to minimize the impact to the existing steep slopes, provide adequate fire access and
general vehicular circulation around the building, and maintain enough area for landscaping required by both
the zoning ordinance and as expected to be required by the ARB at the site plan stage. While the building
orientation is not entirely parallel to Route 29, it is as close to parallel as possible when balancing the reality of
the relatively narrow width of the parcel along Route 29 and the various (often competing) goals mentioned
above. Making it more parallel to the Entrance Corridor would require significant impacts to the existing steep
slopes, which would be inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model Principle of "Respecting Terrain and Careful
Grading and Re -grading." In addition, it would reduce the size of the planting area on the western and southern
sides of the parcel, which we do not believe is consistent with the ARB design guidelines, and would make it
challenging to comply with required landscape regulations. However, the fact that the building is set back an
appropriate distance from the Entrance Corridor provides sufficient area for additional and required
landscaping along the Entrance Corridor for full review at the site plan stage. The building's proposed location
slightly back from the Entrance Corridor provides an additional benefit as well, in that any potential impact of
not having the building entirely parallel with the EC will be minimized. If the building were closer to the
Entrance Corridor, the fact that it is not entirely parallel to the EC would be far more noticeable. Regardless,
we believe that a carefully balancing of these competing goals and preferences is appropriate, and that the
building location and orientation furthers all those goals as much as reasonably possible, especially given the
size and shape of the parcel.
2. The interior illumination of the glass corner could have negative impacts along the EC street. Describe how
the space will be used, explain the design and materials at the 4th story, and indicate the proposed
hours the space will be lit.
Response: The final design and architecture of the building, including illumination, will be determined
during ARB review at the site plan stage. We do not believe there is anything about the rezoning
application and concept plan that would limit the ARB's ability to address this issue at the site plan
stage .
3. Show existing and proposed tree lines on the application plan so that impacts can be determined.
Response: The updated concept plan shows the existing tree line.
4. Trees are needed at the perimeter of the paved area to help offset the mass and scale of the building. It appears
that this cannot be accommodated consistently with the proposed site layout
Response: The development will meet the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance and the
ARB at the site plan stage, and we understand that the ARB may require additional plantings beyond
that which is shown on the concept plan. Nevertheless, additional plantings have been added to the
northwest corner of the concept plan.
5. Show how the retaining wall will be treated to reduce the impact at its length. Show howtrees will be
planted at the base Note that the development that was previously approved for this site included a
permanent landscape maintenance easement on the property to the north
Response: The final design of the retaining wall, including landscaping associated with the retaining
wall, will be addressed during ARB review at the site plan stage. As shown on the updated
conceptual illustrative renderings, it does not appear that the retaining wall will be visible from the
EC given the building's layout and orientation, and the mature vegetation on the on -site steep
slopes and on the adjacent parcel. Regardless, we understand that at the site plan stage details
about the retaining wall and associated landscaping will be required and will be reviewed for
consistency with the zoning ordinance and ARB design guidelines.
6. Provide drawings to clarify the visibility at the building from distances on the EC street.
Response: Revised illustrative renderings have been provided to demonstrate the visibility of the
building from the EC, however the final design of the architecture of the building, landscaping, and
retaining walls, will be addressed during ARB review at the site plan stage.
7. Note for potential future applications that the wall signs do not appear to meet the EC sign
guidelines Potential issues include the proportion of the overall sign to the stone walls the
proportion of the graphic element to the text, the sign type (should be individual channel letters),
illumination of the graphic element.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
8. The appearance of the safety railing on the retaining wall is a potential issue
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
1. Per 18-4.12.17. maximum slope of vehicle access aisles is 10%
Response: The concept plan has been updated to show that the slope of vehicular access aisles will not
exceed 10%.
2. Please note that SWM must outfall to a conveyance system
Response: Noted. All stormwater management facilities will adhere to applicable County and DEQ regulations
at the site plan stage.
Department of Fire & Rescue
1. Fire rescue has no objection to the ZMAas concept plan addresses access and water supply. keep in mind that if
project makes it to site plan phase, specifics on maintaining unobstructed travelways of an appropriate width
for emergency apparatus, based on building height, needed fire flowand available fire flowwill be concerns for
fire rescue.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
VDOT
1. The entrance location will require approval of an Access Management Exception prior to final site
plan approval.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
2. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices
B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
ACSA
1. Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes
2. What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Existing
site was served by water/sewer.
3. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan?
Pressures in this area may be high. A pressure reducing valve is required where pressures
exceed 80 psi.
4. Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? None known.
5. Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? None known.
6. Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the
site plan/plat stage?
7. If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you foresee?
8. Additional comments? A fire hydrant may be needed to serve the site.
Response: Noted. We understand this will be reviewed at the site plan stage.
102137266.2