COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

 

Project Name:  ZMA 06-09 5th Street-Avon Center

                          SP 07-04 5th Street-Avon Center –                          Parking Structure

Staff:  Claudette Grant

Planning Commission Public Hearing:  July 24, 2007

Board of Supervisors Hearing:  September 12, 2007

 

Owners: New Era Properties, LLC and Avon Holdings LLC (TMP 77-11E)

Applicant: New Era Properties, LLC, with LeClair Ryan as the contact and The Cox Company as the consulting engineer

Acreage: 86.895 Acres

Rezone from: LI Light Industrial and RA Rural Area (existing zoning) to PDSC Planned Development Shopping Center District with special use permit for parking structure.

TMP:   Tax Map Parcel 76M1-2A, 76M1-2B, 76M1-4A, 77-11E

Location:  Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631) bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended and directly bounded on the north by Moore’s Creek. The Willoughby subdivision is also located to the north. Access is Bent Creek Road.

(Attachments A and B)

By-right use:  Industrial , office, and limited commercial uses (No residential use) and agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)

 

Magisterial District:  Scottsville

Proffers:  Yes

Proposal: Approximately 476,355 square feet of non-residential (commercial) uses with special use permit for parking structure.

Requested # of Dwelling Units:  0                           

 

DA (Development Area): Neighborhoods 4 & 5

Comp. Plan Designation: 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)  

Character of Property: The majority of the site is undeveloped with woodland. There is an access road and the former Grand Piano warehouse building both located on this property. An old landfill was located on the eastern portion of the site.

Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial uses such as fast food restaurants are located adjacent in the City. The Willoughby residential subdivision is located nearby as well as I-64.

Factors Favorable:

1.       The road connection from 5th Street via Bent Creek Road to Avon Street Extended creates an additional east/west connection in this portion of the County and City.

2.       This development will add additional commercial/retail uses to a portion of the County (Southern Urban area) where there are currently not many of these uses for the residents.

 

Factors Unfavorable:

Staff has found the following substantive matters for   this rezoning that are still outstanding:

 

1.       This request is located within the I-64 and Avon Street entrance corridors. Several of the ARB comments remain unaddressed.

2.       The Comprehensive Plan Amendment features regarding architecture, urban design, and landscape treatment still need to be addressed.

3.       A completed work plan approved by DEQ regarding environmental concerns relating to the old landfill remains outstanding. A proffer has been provided that will ensure that the work plan is completed and approved by DEQ prior to approval of the first final site plan.

4.       Cultural resources remain to be addressed.

5.       In order to avoid the old landfill, the Greenway trail crosses a stream in a manner that is unknown and goes off site on property not owned by the applicant.

6.       Language for Road Improvements Proffer needs to be revised so that such improvements are satisfied by construction.  

7.       Pedestrian access from Avon Street needs to be addressed.

8.       The potential for a proposed pedestrian interconnection to the adjacent Willoughby development needs to be provided.

 

The following lists technical issues, some of which regard the proffers that are still outstanding.

 

1.       Critical Slopes Waiver request. With additional revised proffer language staff feels that this issue can be recommended for approval.

2.       Location of all stream crossings will need to be identified on plan, including the crossing for the greenway trail.

3.       Language regarding tree conservation areas and the forest stewardship plan need to be provided.

4.       Additional details regarding the passive open space/trailhead park area are needed, such as size, and types of amenities being proposed.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of the aforementioned outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board, inclusive of proffers and the application plan, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of the outstanding issues before the Board acts on this rezoning.  

 

 ZMA 2006-00009 5th Street-Avon Center

 

 

PETITION

PROJECT: ZMA 2006-09/5th Street-Avon Center

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 86.895 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) with proffers and Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) 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 with special use permit for parking structure in accordance with Section 5.1.41.

PROFFERS:  Yes

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

 

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The property is located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631). Uses adjacent to the site include commercial uses such as fast food restaurants and gas stations. Some of the area is undeveloped with woods and Moore’s Creek. The Willoughby residential subdivision is also located nearby as well as Interstate-64.

 

SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL

The applicant has proposed a 476,355 square foot shopping center which includes a variety of commercial retail uses and two (2) additional pad sites for employment uses with a range of 46,391 – 61,855 square feet. (See Attachment C)  A park/open space area and trail are located on a portion of the site. This property is currently accessed from Bent Creek Road off of 5th Street. The proposed access would include the Bent Creek Road access as well as access from Avon Street Extended. The site is easily accessible from Interstate 64.

 

The proposed project is a Planned Development Shopping Center to include an 84,500 square foot grocery store, a home improvement store with 150,000 square feet, a major retail store with 150,000 square feet, one (1) retail area with 19,000 square feet, and one (1) restaurant with 11,000 square feet. A 48,134 square foot parking structure, 65 feet in height, is also proposed to be located between the home improvement store and the major retail store.

  

The parcel fronts two streets - 5th Street via Bent Creek Road and Avon Street Extended. A public street is proposed through the site which connects 5th Street and Avon Street Extended, but also circulates around majority of the site. Two additional thoroughfares run east and west on the site and connect to the main road. 

 

APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST

The applicant has requested the rezoning to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for 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)  in Development Areas: (Neighborhoods 4 & 5).

 

PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY

The western portion of the property is part of the original Willoughby farm, and in the 1960’s and 1970’s it was designated for a major shopping center. From 1975-85 it was part of the Willoughby Planned Unit Development. In 1985, ZMA 85-15 was approved with proffers, rezoning 49.377 acres to LI. In 1989, ZMA 89-14 was approved with proffers, adding 4.516 acres to the LI district.

 

During the 1995-96 review and update of the Land Use Plan, the recommendation for Industrial Service remained unchanged.  In 1997 a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was requested from Industrial Service to Regional Service (the Brass, Inc. proposal, CPA 97-05). After a series of public meetings and joint sessions with the City of Charlottesville, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors a designation of Community Service/Mixed Use. The Board subsequently further refined the recommended Comprehensive Plan language, and was prepared to adopt it at its September 15, 1999 meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant withdrew the project and the recommended language was never adopted.

 

On July 8, 2003, a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 03-02) was submitted and the Planning Commission held the first of three worksessions regarding the request. The revised request included the Avon Street and Grand Piano property, which expanded the project area by 30.48 acres. The Avon Street property was formerly the City landfill.  At its meeting on September 8, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted Comprehensive plan language to be added to the Neighborhood 4 Profile. This property is currently designated Community Service/Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BACKGROUND

A public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006 for the subject ZMA. This public hearing was deferred because staff did not receive pertinent requested information for adequate analysis. The October 10, 2006 public hearing was deferred to a work session on December 5, 2006, at which the applicant agreed to resubmit information that the Planning Commission requested. The applicant submitted revised information, but staff did not have sufficient time to review the new material and provide comment to the Planning Commission for the December 5, 2006 meeting. The applicant gave a presentation and scheduled a follow up work session with the Commission. The Planning Commission also provided the following comments and suggestions of things that needed to be addressed at the next work session, which was scheduled for January 23, 2007:

  

o        The PC wants to try to avoid scheduling a work session again in the future to only receive an update with the PC really not working on any of the issues. 

 

o        In reference to the Commission’s concern Ms. Grant indicated that the revised plan and the proffers have been submitted to staff for staff review.  Staff’s intent is that at the work session scheduled for January 23rd the Commission will have information from staff’s review that will assist the Commission in discussion regarding this project. A traffic study revision has also been submitted and will be discussed at the work session in January.   The Commission had the following concerns or request:

 

o        The PC would like a comparison for consistency of the Comprehensive Plan with the submitted proposed plan.

 

o        The PC would like to see proffers with more commitment to the Main Core and Shell Certification Program.

 

o        What is the applicant’s commitment to providing active recreation space?

 

o        The Commission would like more information regarding the location of existing old growth forest and rock outcrop previously discussed as well as a comparison of these existing natural resources with the proposed plan.

 

o        Ms. Joseph asked to discuss the field densification for the road.  She asked that it be a topic of conversation, particularly about what testing has been done.

 

The next work session was actually held on March 6, 2007 rather than January 23, 2007. The Commission discussed and answered staff’s questions outlined in the staff report. The following information lays out the questions and resolution put forth by the Commission and includes additional discussion between the Commission, staff and the applicant (The current status of each issue follows in bold italics):

 

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. 

 

As agreed upon during the Planning Commission work session on March 6, 2007, the applicant has not submitted a critical slopes waiver request. However, staff feels that the applicant has provided enough information with one exception that could allow the critical slopes waiver to be recommended for approval now rather than during site plan process. The exception is that if additional language in the proffer is provided regarding conditions for erosion and sediment control measures around the Moore’s Creek (similar to what was completed for Biscuit Run) staff could most likely recommend approval of this waiver with the rezoning .     

 

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. 

 

Proffer 7 Moore’s Creek Erosion and Buffer Projects and Proffer 2 Road Improvements address these concerns. There are two additional stream crossings shown on the plans that do not appear to be bridges. One crossing is in regard to the main road on the site and the other crossing relates to the location of the greenway trail going off the site.

 

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. 

 

Staff is aware that some portions of the roads on this site will encroach into the stream buffers. However, staff feels the encroachment of roadways into the stream buffers are minimal compared to the importance of protection of some of the areas around the old landfill that are eroding near the stream banks. Staff also feels that as long as the mitigation in the proffers relating to the Creek and landfill are adhered to that the impact of encroachment on the stream buffers will be very minimal. 

 

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.

 

The applicant has added Proffer 5, Tree Conservation Areas, which generally says that only certain types of land disturbance will occur in areas on the plan noted as “Conservation Areas” The proffer goes on to explain that replacement of trees will be in accord with an approved Greenway Park and Pedestrian Master Plan. While staff finds this proffer to be acceptable, the forest stewardship plan will have to specify what obligations the developer and future owner(s) have. Any replacement of trees will be tied to the site plan review and approval. There are no preservation areas shown on the plan.

 

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.

 

Proffer 9, Cultural Resources describes the completion of a Phase I Historic Resources Survey prior to land disturbance on the site for each such Potential Resource Site to be disturbed. While this proffer begins to satisfy what the Planning Commission agreed to, it is unclear to staff what the intent of the following language in the proffer is: “for each such Potential Resource Site to be disturbed.” Attachment D, specifically describes what staff would like to see in this proffer.

 

The staff, Commission, and the applicant also discussed expectations for commitments to LEED Certification and road improvements.

 

Proffer 6, LEED Standards for Core & Shell Development address LEED Certification and bonding as discussed above with Mr. Edgerton.

 

Attachment E describes VDOT’s recent comments that they are satisfied with the proposed project.

 

Analysis of this project with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model have been previously completed with past public hearing and work sessions. However, the following issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Neighborhood Model remain outstanding:

 

Landfill:

A portion of the proposed site consists of an old landfill. During the March work session with the Planning Commission staff explained that they would be meeting with the State of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) representatives and the applicant to discuss concerns relating to the old landfill. The landfill area contains the connector road through the site, and pads for future employment opportunities/sites, which help to meet the “mixed use” expectations outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the last work session, the applicant has been working on developing a work plan that should address concerns relating to development of this site on a portion of the old landfill. At the meeting on May 2, 2007 with the applicant and DEQ, it was decided that a work plan would be completed and approved by DEQ prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. The applicant agreed to provide a proffer stating this. Proffer 8 describes a completed work plan that is approved by DEQ. To date, the work plan is still being developed and DEQ still needs to approve it. Although the work plan continues to be a work in progress, staff is aware that the applicant has been working towards completing the work plan and eventually getting approval from DEQ. The expected timing for completion of the work plan will not precede the Planning Commission public hearing, but Proffer 8 will require that this be completed prior to approval of the first final site plan.   

 

Greenway Trail:

The plan shows a greenway trail around the perimeter of the site. Part of Moore’s Creek is a boundary for this project and the plan shows the trail adjacent to Moore’s Creek. Initially, the trail was shown entirely on the subject property. Since the applicant and DEQ have begun discussions about the old landfill, the applicant revised the plan to show a portion of the trail crossing the Creek and now located to its’ north on property that is not owned by the applicant. The banks of the Creek are eroding and revealing portions of the old landfill, making it unsafe and not desirable on the subject property as is. Staff anticipates that in order to keep the trail in the original location, this area would need to be filled in. Without a work plan in place it is difficult to know if this would be an acceptable option or not an option at all. Location of the trail as shown on the plan remains an outstanding issue as it might not be feasible for the trail to cross Moore’s Creek.

 

Architecture, Urban design and landscape treatment:

The Comprehensive Plan amendment specifically describes the following treatments that are important elements to the development of this property:

    1. The integration of building facades and rooflines;
    2. Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
    3. Architectural materials and color;
    4. Design of parking areas;
    5. Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular, including traffic calming;
    6. Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
    7. Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to planned public civic and greenway areas;
    8. Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
    9. Recreational and civic improvements.

 

Several of these elements have not been addressed by the applicant. The ARB has also described a need for similar elements to be addressed in this plan, which will be discussed later in the report. At a minimum staff would like something that shows how these elements will be addressed, whether it be on a plan or in the proffers.

 

Pedestrian Orientation:  While sidewalks and trails are shown on the plan the entire site is not readily accessible for pedestrians from Avon Street. One barrier that causes inaccessibility for pedestrians is the environmental concern associated with the old landfill being readily visible on the property. As previously mentioned location of the greenway trail remains an outstanding issue.  If a pedestrian wanted to walk from Avon Street to 5th Street it would be challenging because there are no sidewalks on the main road and the trail may or may not be developed out to Avon Street Extended. This development should be as pedestrian friendly as possible. Staff believes additional efforts, such as adding pedestrian access from Avon Street Extended, are equally important and should be made to meet this principle.

 

Other: The applicant has provided interconnected streets and transportation networks. However, as mentioned in previous staff reports, staff feels consideration should be made for providing at a minimum a pedestrian connection opportunity to the adjacent Willoughby development.

 

While the applicant is providing as shown on the plan a passive open space/trailhead park area; no details of the park have been provided. The size is not known, nor the types of amenities being provided in these spaces. It would be helpful for staff to have more details of this area in order to what level of park/open space will be provided for the public.

Parking on this site is not completely relegated. However, the plan for a 65 foot tall structured parking facility will help reduce the sea of parking shown in the lots. 

 

There are steep slopes, rock, streams, wooded areas, floodplains and sensitive soils located on this site. There are areas on this site where critical slopes will be disturbed and stream buffers will be encroached upon due to locations of the road. Staff feels the stream buffers that will be encroached on by the proposed road are minimal compared to the importance of protection of some of the areas around the old landfill that are eroding near the stream banks.   

 STAFF COMMENT

Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The purpose and intent of the Planned Development – Shopping Centers (PD-SC) district is to permit the development of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers in accordance with the comprehensive plan. These districts serve areas not conveniently and adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities. The existing Light Industry (LI) zoning district provides for industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the PD-SC.

Public need and justification for the change: The County’s Comprehensive Plan supports development in the designated development areas that is consistent with use, density, and form recommended in the Plan. Fifth Street-Avon Center’s uses and form are viewed as being generally in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: There appear to be impacts on environmental, cultural, or historic resources. A significant portion of this site is wooded and much of the proposed development would be located in areas where the Open Space Plan shows wooded areas. Critical Slopes will significantly be removed or impacted by this development due to the needed site grading and public utility extensions (water & sewer). There are stream buffers and floodplains that will be disturbed. As previously discussed and requested, the applicant is now showing conservation areas, but no preservation areas. Much of the site will be disturbed in some manner, although the Moore’s Creek will be preserved.

 

The applicant provides a proffer that begins to address historic resources. However, the language in the proffer does not specifically address staff’s request, which is described in Attachment D.

 

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:

Streets and Roads: The primary impact will be on Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road in the City of Charlottesville. These roads located in the City will need to be upgraded and incorporated into the City street system. City staff has been provided information on the proposal and proffers have been provided to address impacts on the City streets.

 

The existing entrance to the site includes a bridge over Moore’s Creek, which will need to be improved. It is a public right of way that is privately maintained because the bridge was never accepted into the state maintenance system. The applicant has provided proffers to address needed improvements to this bridge.

 

The applicant is not showing curb and gutter or sidewalks on the main road through the development. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment describes the main road through this development in the following manner:

“The former warehouse access road should become a parkway along Moore’s Creek, but should not be designed as a major thoroughfare.  The road need not be improved with curbing, but should, to the extent feasible, be confined mainly to the existing travelway and disturbed area.  To avoid additional disturbance to this stream buffer, sidewalks should not be required on this road.  The greenway along Moore’s Creek is recommended as a pedestrian alternative.”

 

Should this property be subdivided, the subdivision ordinance requires curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and connectivity. A waiver process of the subdivision ordinance is available per Section 14-410 Standards for all streets and alleys.  

Fire, Rescue, Police: The Monticello Fire-Rescue station has been constructed off of Mill Creek Drive Extended and provides service to this site.  Currently, the Monticello station adequately serves this area, meeting response time standards. Response time along the Avon Street Extended corridor of the Development Area is approximately 5 minutes.  However, response times may be affected by continued growth in the area. Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building contains the County’s Police Department, although the police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy of police services recommends an average response time of 10 minutes for all Development Areas.

Stormwater Management: The plan does not indicate conceptual measures for stormwater detention. Since this development proposal lies adjacent to flood plain of Moore’s Creek, the applicant may be considering a detention waiver.  

 

Utilities: Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer service is available to serve the site.

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: Surrounding properties are already experiencing a change in character as new development has already occurred around them in the City  of Charlottesville, and in the County. With residences on the north side of Fifth Street-Avon Center, it is important to protect these residential uses from roads and commercial uses adjacent to them in Fifth Street-Avon Center. Landscape screening and stream buffers may help to protect these residences.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENT

The proposed 5th Street – Avon Center development falls within the I-64 and Avon Street Entrance Corridors. This project was reviewed by the ARB on January 16, 2007. Only one of the ARB’s comments has been addressed. The following list outlines the outstanding ARB comments. Many of these comments relate to the design elements of this site that were previously mentioned in this report as lacking. While staff would prefer to see all of these outstanding issues addressed with the rezoning, it is possible for some issues to be addressed at time of site plan. Staff recommendations follow each item below in bold italics.   

 

1.      Traditional “back of building” materials shall not be used for the home improvement and major retail spaces. Translucent roofing materials shall not be visible from the EC. (Visibility shall be determined by the ARB.) Roofs or parapet walls shall be used to eliminate visibility of rooftop equipment from the ECs.

Staff would like to see this issue addressed as part of the re-zoning through a proffer commitment, although addressing it at site plan is an option.

 

2.      Maintain all grading on site along the southern/southwestern property boundary. Maintain a minimum 50’ deep planted buffer on site along the southern/southwestern property boundary. Planting in this buffer shall consist of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees planted in an informal pattern (not planted in regularly spaced rows).

Although the retaining wall on the south side of the property has been shifted slightly to the east, these issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Staff suggests a proffer commitment to address this concern.

 

3.      Trees shall be provided along both sides of Bent Creek Parkway at 40’ on center, 2 ½” caliper minimum at planting.

     This issue can sufficiently be addressed during the site plan process.

 

4.      Provide tree islands in the parking areas so that no more than 10 parking spaces run consecutively without a tree island. Trees in parking lot interiors and perimeters shall be planted at 2½” caliper minimum.

     Staff suggests a proffer commitment to address this concern.

 

5.      The 30’-35’ light pole height illustrated in the application plan is not approved with the rezoning. Light pole height is subject to ARB review/approval with the site development plan.

     This can be addressed by revisions to the application plan.

 

6.      Illuminated wall signs shall be limited to the north side of the home improvement, structured parking/retail, and major retail spaces.

Staff would like to see this issue addressed as part of this re-zoning through a proffer            commitment, although addressing it at site plan is an option.

 

PROFFERS (See Attachment G)

Staff is concerned with the following regarding the proposed proffers. Staff recommendations follow each proffer in bold italics.

2. Road Improvements. The proffer says in part, “Regardless of whether a road improvement described in Proffer 2 has been accepted by VDOT or the City for public use, no building permit, certificate of occupancy or other County approval shall be denied due to noncompliance with any obligation of Proffer 2 that relates to completion of a public road improvement so long as the plans for such road improvement have been approved by VDOT or the City and sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such road improvement.”

Staff feels that these types of improvements should not be satisfied by bonding. While the language for this proffer has been revised, staff remains concerned that the proffer will be satisfied and building permits cannot be held up, if these improvements are bonded.

 

4. Greenway Park and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan. The proffer makes reference to “a County Park Authority.”

The County does not have such an authority.

 

5. Tree Conservation Areas.  

Page 6 of this staff report describes the concern and suggested additional terms that will need to be followed in order to make this proffer work.

 

7. Moore’s Creek Erosion and Buffer Projects. This proffer describes projects relating to erosion located in the subject area of Moore’s Creek that the County would like to see completed.

While this proffer is acceptable, staff would like the actual map referenced in the proffer to be included.

 

8. Former Landfill Site; Work Plan; Department of Environmental Quality.

Page 7 of this staff report describes the concerns/issues relating to this proffer. In addition to the concerns previously mentioned in this report, a portion of this proffer relates specifically to the construction of Bent Creek Parkway. Staff feels this proffer should also pertain to the entire site development in the land fill area, not just the roadway construction.

 

9. Cultural Resources.

Page 6 of this report describes staff’s concern with this proffer. Staff would like to see   clarification of the proffer language.

 

SUMMARY

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:

 

1.      The road connection from 5th Street via Bent Creek Road to Avon Street Extended creates an additional east and west connection in this portion of the County and City.

2.      This development will add additional commercial/retail uses to a portion of the County that lacks a variety of retail shopping options; particularly as residential development in this portion of the County continues to be built.  

 

Staff has found the following substantive matters for this rezoning that are still outstanding:

1.      This request is located within the I-64 and Avon Street entrance corridors. Several of the ARB comments remain unaddressed. As previously described in this report, some of the ARB’s concerns may be able to be addressed during the site plan process and these would require technical fixes, but staff has also recommended ARB issues/concerns in this report that need to be addressed with the rezoning and are substantive matters.

2.      Similar to number 1 above, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment features regarding architecture, urban design, and landscape treatment still need to be addressed.

3.      A completed work plan approved by DEQ regarding environmental concerns relating to the old landfill remains outstanding. A proffer has been provided that will ensure that the work plan is completed and approved by DEQ prior to approval of the first final site plan.

4.      Cultural resources remain to be addressed.

5.      In order to avoid the old landfill, the Greenway trail crosses a stream in a manner that is unknown and goes off site on property not owned by the applicant. Completion of the work plan approved by DEQ is needed in order to provide feasible guidance regarding the location of the trail.

6.      Language for Road Improvements Proffer needs to be revised so that such improvements are satisfied by construction.

7.      Pedestrian access from Avon Street needs to be addressed.

8.      The potential for a proposed pedestrian interconnection to the adjacent Willoughby development needs to be provided.

 

The following lists technical issues, some of which regard the proffers that are still outstanding:

 

1.      Critical Slopes Waiver request. With additional revised proffer language staff feels that this issue can be recommended for approval.

2.      Location of all stream crossings needs to be identified on plan, including the crossing for the greenway trail.

3.      Language regarding tree conservation areas and the forest stewardship plan need to be provided.

4.      Additional details regarding the passive open space/trailhead park area are needed, such as size, and types of amenities being proposed.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Without resolution of the aforementioned outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board inclusive of proffers and the application plan, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of the outstanding issues before the Board acts on this rezoning.  

 

 

 

SP 2007-04 – Special Use Permit for Parking Structure

 

Engineering Comments: Staff does not have any significant engineering issues regarding the proposed parking structure use.

 

STAFF COMMENT

Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:

 

31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,

The proposed parking structure use is not expected to have extreme impacts on the adjacent properties. The parking structure will be located in a shopping center between a home improvement store and a retail store. The portion of the property where the parking structure is located is adjacent to Interstate 64. The parking structure use may create some elevated noise when in use, but probably not any more than the adjacent highway. As shown on the plan there is a landscape enhancement owned by VDOT.

 

that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and

Considering the proposed use is a shopping center, staff believes that the use of a parking structure is somewhat minimal in nature and will not change the character of the district as an element of an approved shopping center.

 

that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,

Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.

 

with uses permitted by right in the district,

The proposed PD-SC district would be appropriate for the shopping center planned for the property. The PD-SC district allows commercial and service establishments permitted by right in the C-1, CO and HC districts. (Section 25.2.1). One intent of the PD-SC district is to create the development of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers. PD-SC districts are intended to serve areas not conveniently and adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities. Regulations are intended to encourage planned commercial centers with carefully organized buildings, service areas, parking areas and landscaped areas. Parking structures are allowed in the PD-SC district by special use permit (Section 25.2.2). There are small scale commercial uses already located in the vicinity. This proposed development will add a larger commercial venue to a portion of the County that is somewhat underserved with a variety of commercial uses for the residents living near there. This site is also in an entrance corridor. The SP for the structured parking was reviewed by the ARB on February 20, 2007. The ARB’s recommendation follows: “Noting that insufficient information on the architecture of the building was available for review, the ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit and further notes that “back of building” materials shall not be used for the parking structure.”

  

with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,

Section 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES states that “A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in section 32.2.2.” A waiver has not been requested. A site plan will be expected.

 

and with the public health, safety and general welfare.

The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. VDOT and Albemarle County Service Authority concerns have been addressed. (See Attachment F)

 

SUMMARY

 

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:

 

  1. The use of a parking structure will provide an alternative to the “sea” of parking that would otherwise result from surface parking.

 

Staff has not identified any factors, which are unfavorable to this request.

 

  

RECOMMENDED ACTION

 

Staff finds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval of SP 07-04 without conditions.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT A:  Tax Map

ATTACHMENT B:  Location Map

ATTACHMENT C:  General Development Plans, dated June 22, 20067

ATTACHMENT D: Memorandum from Julie Mahon dated February 19. 2007

ATTACHMENT E: Electronic Mail from Joel Denunzio dated July 10, 2007

ATTACHMENT F: Memorandum from VDOT dated February 26, 2007, and ACSA comments dated   

                               February 26, 2007

ATTACHMENT G: Proffers dated June 22, 2007

Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary