TO: Gregory Solis
215 5th Street, SW, Suite 100
Charlottesville, Va 22903
FROM: Claudette Grant
DATE: September 11, 2007
RE: SP2007-00026 Crozet Station ~ REVISED LETTER
Dear Mr. Solis:
On August 28, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above-noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station
PROPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings and a parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 220.127.116.11.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.104.22.168.9 Parking Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban Core, which allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses up to 18 units an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. ¼ mile east of its intersection with Rt. 810
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
In summary, a work session on SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant’s proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken.
The Planning Commission made the following comments about SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station:
1. Most members believe that parking is appropriately relegated on the site with the parking garage at the rear.
2. The unit types proposed are acceptable and the PC noted that the applicant said that more than 15% would be affordable.
3. The height and massing of the buildings is appropriate. The PC did not agree with the ARB recommendations for 2-story buildings for retaining views of the mountains. The PC said that the perspectives that had the support of the community were the ones that should be used.
4. Impacts of the residential units should be met with SP conditions.
Go to next attachment
Return to PC actions letter