ZMA 2006-00009 5th Street-Avon Center

SP 2007-00004  5th Street-Avon Center-Parking Structure



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



Cilimberg, Echols, Grant






November 7, 2007



ACTION:    X          INFORMATION:  



  ACTION:             INFORMATION: 






New Era Properties, LLC and Avon Holdings LLC (TMP 77-11E)/New Era Properties, LLC, with LeClair Ryan as the contact and The Cox Company as the consulting engineer.



On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. (See Attachment V) The staff report provided in Attachment V gives pertinent background regarding this project in the Planning and Zoning History section (Pages 3 - 4) and in the Background section located on pages 4 – 5. This project is a result of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was adopted on September 8, 2004. (See Attachment VI) This proposal was scheduled for a public hearing with the Board on September 12, 2007; however the applicant requested a deferral of the public hearing and a work session with the Board. During the Commission public hearing, the Commission discussed the proposal and recommended approval subject to a number of matters being addressed prior to the project being considered by the Board of Supervisors. Each of these items and the status of the applicant’s response to date is provided in the Discussion section that follows.



Since the commission’s public hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised general development plan and proffers in response to the Planning Commission action. The following bullets describe matters that the Planning Commission identified to be addressed and the current response provided by the applicant (shown in bold italics):    


Applicant’s response: Proffers dated September 4, 2007 were submitted and reviewed by the County Attorney who has identified some items that remain to be addressed.


§         The proffers shall include, but not be limited to, urban design.  The applicant agrees to build the entirety of the project in accordance with ARB urban design and landscape standards.  The portion of the property that is outside of ARB jurisdiction will be overseen by other staff members. Proffer 11 is satisfactory to the County in terms of addressing items not subject to the ARB’s review.

Applicant’s response: The applicant has included proffer 11-Architectural Guidelines, which makes the project design and construction conform with the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Guidelines.


§         With respect to roads, there shall be substantial completion of all road improvements before the center is occupied.

Applicant’s response: While the applicant has provided revised proffers 2C & D that describe completion of construction for Bent Creek Parkway and Avon Street Improvements within three (3) years from the date of approval of a final site plan within the project, staff continues to have concerns with this timing and recommends the proffers be revised to say that the road will be completed by the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO).  


§         With respect to the trail link issues, the commitment regarding the pedestrian link on Bent Creek Parkway will be complied with.

Applicant’s response: The trail link on Bent Creek Parkway as shown in the power point presentation graphic during the Planning Commission public hearing is now shown on the General Development Plan.


§         With respect to transit, the park and ride and transit stops as proposed are adequate.  The Bent Creek Parkway satisfies any cash proffer with respect to transit. 

Applicant’s response: No additional submittal needed.


§         The proffer with respect to tree preservation shall be two trees for every tree removed in the conservation area. 

Applicant’s response: Proffer 5-Tree Conservation Areas includes the following language: replacement shall be two trees of similar species or quality for each removed, or destroyed tree.


§         A licensed arborist will be engaged and assist throughout the construction project for the maximum preservation of trees on the project. 

Applicant’s response: There is no commitment to a licensed arborist to be engaged. The applicant does include proffer 5, with the following language: “Within the areas depicted on the Application Plan as Conservation Areas, no land disturbing activities shall occur except in accordance with Best Management Practices as defined by the Virginia Department of Forestry. Management of Conservation Areas on the Property for any other purpose, including wildlife habitat improvement, shall be in accord with a forest stewardship plan approved by the County of Albemarle. Staff does not believe the language in proffer 5 meets the Planning Commission’s expectation, which was intended to assure preservation of as many trees as possible.


§         The DEQ work plan will be completed and in place prior to the first site plan and the applicant shall provide a copy of the DEQ work plan to staff and the County Attorney’s Office as soon as possible. Bent Creek Parkway is one of the key components of this project and it will be dedicated to public use.  The County Attorney’s Office needs to figure out whether there will be any potential liability with that land being transferred to the County.

Applicant’s response: Proffer 8 states “As a condition for the first, final site plan approval, the Owner shall have obtained Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) approval of a work plan (“Landfill Work Plan”). The applicant and the County Attorney staff have been working together on this issue; however, this proffer is still not satisfactory to the County Attorney staff. The applicant and staff will need to reach an agreement with VDOT regarding the underlying responsible party for the road. An adequate proffer that will address the DEQ work plan as it relates to the dedicated public use of Bent Creek Parkway will need to be provided.


§         The stormwater proffers are to be drafted consistent with the Biscuit Run standard of 80 percent erosion control.

Applicant’s response: Proffer 10. A. Erosion and Sediment Control describes that the Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate of eighty percent for the Property as determined by the Program Authority.


§         The reseeding necessary and timing of reseeding will be crafted to meet the stormwater commitment in the Hollymead Town Center A-1 rezoning.

Applicant’s response: Proffers 10. B & C. Stormwater and Revegetation address stormwater management to achieve a removal rate 20% better than would otherwise be required by the Water Protection Ordinance, up to a maximum of eighty percent removal rate for each Phase. Within nine (9) months after the start of grading under any erosion and sediment control permit, permanent vegetation shall be installed on all denuded areas, except for areas the Program Authority determines are otherwise permanently stabilized or are under construction with an approved building permit.


§         The applicant shall satisfy the City with respect to frontage and street improvements.

Applicant’s response: Proffer 2. E. 3. describes that the Owner shall submit to the City of Charlottesville for approval engineering drawings, plans, and construction documents for all road, signal and other transportation improvements.


§         The cultural resources will be designated satisfactorily to staff by a map attached to the proffer.  A Phase I Study will be done prior to any grading.

Applicant’s response: Proffer 9 Cultural Resources includes Exhibit B, which is a map attached to the proffer regarding cultural resources designations. This proffer also states that a Phase I Study will be done prior to land disturbance and the consultant conducting the survey shall follow federal and state guidelines and legislation in conducting the Phase I Survey.


§         The applicant will use its best efforts to work with VDOT with respect to enhancement of the VDOT easement area along I-64.

Applicant’s response: No additional submittal needed.  


§         The ARB’s Guidelines and comments from their report shall be adhered to. If the view shed from the EC cannot be mitigated the applicant shall make the back of the buildings look like the front of the building. While proffer 11 addresses things not in the ARB’s review and meets legal wording requirements, there has been no proffer provided that addresses the ARB’s concerns for portions of the project that are visible from the entrance corridor. (See Attachment IV)

Applicant’s response: Proffer 11 Architectural Guidelines specifically addresses in a statement that the traditional “back of building” materials shall not be used for the home improvement and/or major retail spaces contemplated within the project. However, it does not address the ARB’s concerns for portions of the project that are visible from the Entrance Corridor.  An adequate proffer that will address the ARB’s concerns for portions of the project that are visible from the Entrance Corridor will need to be provided.


§         The application plan referred to in the proffers will constitute all of the graphics. All of the plans and illustrations as presented on 7-24-07 would be incorporated as part of the application plan.

Applicant’s response: The applicant has made the changes to the application plan in accordance with the Planning Commission expectation.


Special Use Permits

There is also a request for a special use permit for a parking structure that will be located between the home improvement and major retail stores. Staff believes the special use permit request is appropriate.


The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2007-00004, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure with no conditions.


The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this project with the expectation that issues identified by staff and the Planning Commission at the time of the Commission’s last public hearing would be addressed by the applicant. While the applicant has addressed a number of those issues, the following are still outstanding:

• Finalization of proffers in accord with County Attorney recommendations for acceptance.

• Proffer 2 C & D relating to timing of construction and improvements of roads.

• Request for a licensed arborist to assist throughout construction.

• County Attorney’s acceptance of proffer 8 relating to the DEQ work plan and the responsibilities for Bent Creek Parkway when dedicated for public use.

• ARB concerns for portions of the project visible from the entrance corridor.


Staff recommends that the Board confirm the expectations of the Planning Commission and identify any additional matters it feels should be addressed before this matter is advertised for public hearing.



Attachment I: General Development Plan dated August 7, 2007 (on file in Clerk's office)

Attachment II: Proffers dated September 4, 2007

Attachment III: Land Use and Development Guidelines Summary dated August 21, 2007

Attachment IV: ARB comments dated August 27, 2007

Attachment V: Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 2007

Attachment VI: Final CPA language amended September 8, 2004

Return to PC actions letter