COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Request to rezone approximately 86.895 acres from LI Light Industrial and RA Rural Area (existing zoning) to PDSC Planned Development Shopping Center District to include approximately 470,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial) uses with special use permit for parking structure.
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg; and Ms. Echols and Ms. Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
March 12, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
On November 7, 2007, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on the subject request and asked that staff work with the applicant on the application plan and proffers before scheduling a public hearing. The Board of Supervisors held another work session on January 16, 2008 to review and comment on the applicant’s revisions to the application plan and proffers which were their attempt to respond to the Board’s concerns discussed during the November 7th work session. The consensus of the Board at that time was that the revised application plan was much improved from previous renditions. The Board agreed that the public hearing could be held on either March 12 or March 19 if the final application plan and proffers addressing outstanding issues were submitted in a manner that allowed time for appropriate staff review and met the Board’s Policy for Submission of Materials for Zoning Applications.
Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
The following outstanding issues were discussed during the Board’s January 16th work session; the current status of those issues follows in italics:
• More detailed information on how the Bent Creek Parkway might alleviate congestion at the I-64 interchange.
The attached memo from Juandiego Wade confirms that the current overall level of service (LOS) for the 5th Street/Interstate 64 interchange is LOS B, which is based on a traffic impact analysis (TIA) completed by the applicant in 2004 with an addendum completed in 2006. The TIA also established the future LOS for the interchange with or without the development to be LOS C. (See Attachment A)
• A guarantee that the shopping center will be built in one phase, though some pad sites could be developed for later use.
The applicant has added Proffer 13: Phasing of Development, which describes that with the exception for the Outparcel labeled “Future Development Area 1” on the Application Plan, the property shall be developed under a single, final site plan.
• A specific commitment to environmental mitigation techniques such as green roofs.
The applicant has provided Proffer 10.D: Rainfall Harvesting, Including Extensive Roof Design and other Measures. This proffer describes the Owner incorporating rainfall harvesting measures, such as impervious surface alternatives for parking and drive isles, cisterns and extensive (“green”) roof technologies. Not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the roof area of the buildings within the North and South Sectors shall employ green or extensive roof design.
• Because of liability concerns about the portion of Bent Creek Parkway located over the old landfill, revise the proffers so that the segment over the landfill would be a private street and be subject to public dedication only at the County’s request.
The applicant has provided Proffer 1.D. Bent Creek Parkway; Landfill Segment. This proffer describes more specifically the portion of the Parkway over the Landfill segment and how it will be designed, constructed, maintained and remediation and reopening in the event of closure. The landfill segment of Bent Creek Parkway will be a private street that is privately maintained, but will be subject to a “public access easement”. This easement will create a perpetual right-of-passage over the landfill segment for the benefit of the public. The owner will reserve this segment for future dedication to public use at the request of the County in its sole discretion.
• Revise the proffers to add language incorporating an adjustment for inflation to the transit subsidy proffer.
The applicant has added language to proffer 12 A. Transit Funding that describes annual adjustments to cost based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• Revise the pedestrian access to include bike accessibility and provide access to Willoughby meeting ADA standards.
The applicant has provided Proffer 3 Greenway Park and Bike/Ped Master Plan. This proffer now incorporates bike accessibility with pedestrian access. Proffer 4 provides for the Willoughby connection or cash in lieu of. It should be noted that staff has determined that it is not likely that such a connection can practically be provided to meet ADA standards due to topography.
• Provide status of the Work Plan for the Avon Street Landfill.
Attachment E is a letter from Jed Pascarella, Environmental Program Planner, at the State of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) stating that DEQ has approved the Work Plan for the Avon Street Landfill.
Special Use Permits
A proposed parking structure (up to 5 levels with a maximum height of 60 feet) located in the south sector of the development has been noted on the application plan and in the development framework. Approval of SP 2007-00004 will allow this parking structure. The plan also notes that “surface parking may be converted to structured parking in conjunction with a special use permit” in the event additional structures are proposed in the future.
· Proffer 1. F. 3. generally describes engineering drawings, plans, and construction documents for all road signal and other transportation improvements to be submitted within sixty (60) days after the first site plan for the property is submitted to the County. Some of these improvements are in the City and require City approval. If the City does not provide a list of conditions for approval of all the City Transportation Plans within six (6) months after the first final site plan for the Property is approved by the County or if the City does not approve City Transportation Plans that meet all of the City’s conditions of approval within six (6) months after submittal by Owner of City Transportation Plans that meet all such conditions, then the Owner shall not be required by the proffers to construct any improvements for which approvals have not been obtained. The Owner also shall not be required by the proffers to acquire right-of-way or otherwise pay for right-of-way in the City for such improvements. Staff is concerned that important needed improvements to the road network in the City that relate to this project are not guaranteed if the City does not respond within the specified times. Staff is also concerned that this proffer does not address who will be responsible for right-of-way acquisition should it be needed.
· Staff is concerned that the applicant has not completely addressed the Planning Commission’s following expectation in its final motion recommending approval: “The ARB’s Guidelines and comments from their report shall be adhered to. If the view shed from the entrance corridor cannot be mitigated the applicant shall make the back of the buildings look like the front of the building.” While the applicant has addressed several of the ARB comments, staff does not feel the following recommendations have not been addressed as expected by the Planning Commission:
1. Maintain a minimum 50’ deep planted buffer on site along the southern/southwestern property boundary, and 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). A consistent on-site landscape buffer has not been provided and there is no specific information provided regarding re-planting in this area.
2. Provide tree islands in the parking areas so that no more than 10 parking spaces run consecutively without a tree island. Trees in all parking lot interiors and perimeters shall be planted at 2½” caliper minimum. There is insufficient information provided to determine that this recommendation has been addressed.
3. Limit illuminated wall signs to the north side of the home improvement, structured parking/retail, and major retail spaces. This issue has not been addressed.
Furthermore, the applicant has not responded to staff’s request for clarity regarding which elements of the Development Framework, Building Zones E and F, will be subject to ARB review.
· The applicant shows areas on the plans that are likely to be disturbances to the stream buffer and possibly to the stream. If so, changes to the layout of the site and road system as reflected in the application plan, particularly Bent Creek Parkway, may need to occur. However, at the rezoning stage the level of detail required to determine the exact disturbance to the stream buffer is very difficult to assess and would be more definitively determined during the site plan stage. The applicant has added a note to the plan that states the following: “waivers to the County’s Water Protection Ordinance, specifically relative to the defined stream buffer requirements, are necessary and shall be applied for by the applicant in order to implement the construction of the 5th Street-Avon Street connector road and the ZMA Application Plan.” Staff is calling this to the Board’s attention as variations to the application plan may be necessary at time of site plan consideration to address ordinance requirements. As with any planned development zoning, all ordinance requirements are still applicable at the time of site plan review. If a variation of the approved application plan is not possible to accomplish ordinance requirements, subsequent amendments to the rezoning may be necessary.
· The proffers need technical revisions to be legally acceptable.
This remains a retail oriented development with an anticipated positive fiscal impact.
View PC actions letter
A - Memo from Juandiego Wade, dated February 15, 2008
B - Proffers, dated March 3, 2008
C - Revised Plans, dated February 19, 2008 (on file in Clerk's office)
D - Development Framework, dated February 19, 2008
E - Letter from Jed Pascarella, dated February 29, 2008
View PC minutes of July 24, and March 6, 2007; and October 10, 2006
Return to regular agenda