Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 6, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and work session on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 4:15 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Absent was Jon Cannon. Mr. Eric Strucko arrived at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Craddock arrived at 4:39 p.m. Mr. Zobrist arrived at 4:53 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Ron White, Director of Housing and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZMA 2006-00009, 5th Street-Avon Center (Signs #48, 67, 68)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 86.895 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to PD-SC - Planned Development Shopping Center zoning district which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) Approx. 476,355 sq. ft. of commercial uses.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/M1-2A, 76/M1-2B, 76/M1-4A, 77/11E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Claudette Grant
Ms. Grant summarized the staff report.
Frank Cox and Steve Blaine, attorney, represented the applicant.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2006-00009, 5th Street-Avon Center to review and provide comment on the resubmittal. The Commission received staff’s presentation. The applicant did not make a presentation, but offered comments during the work session. There was no public comment. The Commission discussed and answered staff’s questions outlined in the staff report. No formal action was taken by the Planning Commission.
1. Should a critical slopes waiver be processed as part of this rezoning?
The Planning Commission agreed to accept the concept design with the understanding that the applicant would not have to process the critical slopes waiver request until the final site plan, but would include appropriate language in the proffers for mitigation.
2. Should a special use permit for disturbance in the floodway of Moore’s Creek be processed concurrent with this rezoning?
The creek is a vital waterway. The Planning Commission agreed to accept the concept design with the understanding that the applicant would provide appropriate language regarding mitigation in the proffers. The applicant offered to craft a proffer that the entire stream channel has to be substantially restored and that they would pursue with VDOT bridges for stream crossings.
3. Should further work be done by the applicant to reduce encroachment into the stream buffers?
The Planning Commission agreed to accept the concept design with the understanding that the applicant would provide appropriate language regarding mitigation in the proffers. It was noted that there is a pretty significant increase in potential disturbance which the applicant agreed to address in the proffers.
4. Should further work be done by the applicant to assure all areas designated for tree preservation will be preserved?
The Planning Commission agreed subject to the applicant providing an acceptable proffer to include language that the replanting will be done. The preservation areas should be areas where no disturbance is anticipated. Conservation areas will be those areas anticipating tree disturbance and will have conditions for replanting. The tree preservation areas will need to be reduced on the plan and conservation areas designated.
5. Should the applicant commit to the Historic/Archeological Resource recommendation of staff?
The Planning Commission agreed with the applicant about his commitment to provide the Phase 1 study at this point. The applicant was unsure whether they wanted to do Phase 2 or 3. The Phase 1 study would be done before the grading.
Mr. Edgerton asked the applicant if they were willing to commit to LEED certification in conjunction with their LEED Core and Shell proffer.
Mr. Blaine replied that their commitment is to build to the LEED standards. The question is how they determine that. They may need to have a completed project before they get certification. He asked how they can proffer something they may not be able to get until the project is built.
Mr. Edgerton replied that the way it was done in Arlington was that the applicant put up a bond that they will forfeit if they don’t follow through with it. That solves the problem.
Mr. Blaine said that it was really whatever their preference is. Do they want to have a project that meets the environmental standards or is it the certification? It should be one and the same. Is the certification what they are seeking?
Mr. Edgerton replied that the certification was third party. That is not up for debate if they actually get a certification. It is one thing just to do a checklist. A lot of folks who are timid about it only want to go the checklist route. But, the certification he felt would help market the project. The other staff comment that he was concerned about was the unenforceable nature of proffer 9. He believed that is part of the LEED Core and Shell Certification. If the project is actually certified that takes that burden off of staff.
Mr. Blaine noted that some of the language had been deleted. All of that had been simplified into a simple LEED certification, which will clarify that the proffer is to certify.
Mr. Craddock asked if the road improvements would be discussed at another work session.
Ms. Grant noted that staff and VDOT are currently looking at what would be needed for the road improvements. It would be at another work session if the applicant chooses to go to another work session or it would be addressed at the time of public hearing.
Mr. Craddock noted that there was only one intersection specifically noted in the proffers, Elliot Avenue and Route 20, but other improvements, possibly on the I-64 Bridge at 5th Street, might be necessary.
Ms. Grant noted that there were some other suggestions for improvements that need to occur outside of the actual development itself.
Mr. Blaine pointed out that they would be interested in receiving a copy of suggestions. The only comments they have received are staff comments that have been reflected in the work session staff report.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to make sure that Mr. Blaine and the Commission are aware of the comments from VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that staff is waiting for VDOT comments on the particulars to provide to the applicant as to what they believe is necessary.
Go to next attachment
Return to PC actions letter