HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400074 Staff Report 2004-10-19STAFF PERSON: William D. Fritz, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 19, 2004
SDP 2004 — 074 Gazebo Plaza Preliminary Site Plan
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan for a
shopping center consisting of approximately 180,000 square feet with access to Hansen Mountain Road.
The development is on 37.75 acres zoned PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 53 is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District on Hansen Mountain Road [Route # F179] at its intersection with
Richmond Road [Route 250]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density
Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Service in Urban Neighborhood 3.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The site is developed with a single family dwelling accessing Hansens Mountain Road. The property is
mostly open with some tree cover near Hansens Mountain Road and at the rear of the site. A high
voltage power line is also near the rear of the site. An intermittent stream is located on the eastern
boundary of the site. The slope of the property rises from away from Hansens Mountain Road and some
critical slopes are scattered around the property.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property has the following relevant history:
SDP 80 — 44 — The Planning Commission approved a site plan on October 14, 1980 for this property.
The building and parking configuration as well as the entrance location are similar to the current
application.
December 10, 1980 — The zoning on the property was changed from B -1, Business to PDSC, Planned
Development Shopping Center as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the County.
ZMA 98 -07 — This was a proposal to rezone the property to allow multi - family residential. The
application was withdrawn prior to any action or recommendation.
ZMA 02 -11 and SPs 02 -52, 53, 54 and 55 — These applications were for a clustered development of
residential mixed with commercial and including a parking structure. The Planning Commission held a
work session for these applications on July 15, 2003. The applications were withdrawn by the applicant.
The zoning of this property, PDSC was established on December 10, 1980. The plan approved by the
Planning Commission in October 1980 is considered to be the application plan in accord with the
provisions of section 8.5.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This project is subject to a seldom used provision of the Zoning Ordinance, 8.5.5.2. Site Plans for
Planned Developments are reviewed under either 1) the current zoning ordinance or, 2) the ordinance in
effect when the Planned District was established. The choice of which ordinance to be used is at the
discretion of the applicant. The applicant originally asserted that this project is subject to the ordinance in
effect on October 14, 1980, the date the site plan was approved. Because the Planned District was not
established until December 10, 1980 this property is subject to the ordinance adopted on that date. The
1
applicant has been informed of this determination. The applicant does not want to use the ordinance
currently in effect to review the site plan; therefore staff has reviewed this application against the
ordinance in effect at the time the PDSC zoning for this property was established. Staff has provided the
Planning Commission with a full copy of the 1980 ordinance on CD. Staff would like to point out the
following major differences between the current ordinance and the ordinance in effect in 1980 as they
relate to this application:
- Critical Slopes — the 1980 ordinance prohibits construction of a structure on critical slopes
without a modification whereas the current ordinance prohibits all activity on critical slopes.
- Yard Requirements — the 1980 ordinance does not require the maintenance of any undisturbed
buffer between commercial and residential property as required in the existing ordinance.
- Entrance Corridor — the 1980 ordinance has no Entrance Corridor requirements.
- Landscaping — the 1980 ordinance has very limited landscaping /screening requirements.
- Parking — the 1980 ordinance requires all parking to be within 500 feet of the entrance of the
building it serves. The current ordinance has no such requirement.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This area is shown as Urban Density Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood
Service in Urban Neighborhood 3. Approximately 80% of the area is shown as residential and 20%
commercial.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
Planning Commission review is required by the 1980 Zoning Ordinance. The 1980 Ordinance does not
allow for administrative review of site plans. Review by abutting owners has also been requested.
STAFF COMMENT:
All site plans in Planned Developments are reviewed for consistency with the approved application plan.
In this case, the application plan is the site plan which was approved by the Commission on October 14,
1980. The layout of the site plan currently submitted for review has been determined to be consistent
with the approved application plan. However, staff does note the following differences between the site
plan submitted for review and the approved application plan:
1. The approved application plan showed a significantly larger area of grading to the rear of the site
than the site plan currently under review.
2. The approved application plan did not show any retaining walls. The site plan currently under
review makes significant use of retaining walls. Some of these walls are up to 30 feet tall.
Staff found that the site plan submitted for review was consistent with approved application plan as the
area of disturbance is less and the use of retaining walls allows for reduced grading while keeping the
general layout of development the same.
This application was reviewed by the Site Review Committee and comments were provided to the applicant
indicating the revisions required to make the site plan consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant submitted a revised plan addressing some of the comments and a response stating that it was his
opinion that the plan was subject to the ordinance in effect in 1968 which caused some comments to, in his
opinion, not apply to this project. Staff contacted the applicant and stated that the 1968 Ordinance did not
apply to this project but that he could use the ordinance adopted on December 10, 1980 and that this plan did
not address all the provisions of that ordinance. The applicant elected to move forward with the review of
the plan based on the December 10, 1980 Zoning Ordinance.
2
The plan does not satisfy the following ordinance provisions without plan modification or Planning
Commission approval of modifications of the ordinance:
4.2.3.2 — Structures are located on critical slopes.
4.12.3.3b — Parking is located more than 500 feet from the building which it serves.
4.12.6.1 — The site does not have safe and convenient access.
32.4.27 — The entrance does not have VDOT approval.
32.5.8.1 — Roads serving this site are inadequate.
32.5.24 — Approval constitutes a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Staff arrived at the above recommendations by considering the following:
4.2.3.2 — Structures are located on critical slopes.
Two of the proposed buildings are located on slopes of 25% or greater and the applicant has not submitted a
waiver request addressing the provisions of the ordinance. The area of critical slopes impacted is extremely
limited and the application plan for the property does show these slopes being impacted. Approval of a
modification request would be consistent with the approved application plan and the commission may choose
to approve the modification request. However, staff has not analyzed the engineering impacts, or protective
or special measures that might be needed to minimize adverse impacts because the applicant has not
submitted any information for review. Without this analysis staff cannot support a modification.
4.12.3.3b — Parking is located more than 500 feet from the building which it serves.
Parking near Hansens Mountain road is more than 500 feet from the entrance of any building. The Planning
Commission may approve a modification of this distance. Staff notes that this provision was routinely waived
when it was in the ordinance and ultimately the ordinance was amended to eliminate this requirement. The
500 foot limit existed in the ordinance in effect at the time of the approval of the site plan for this property
(October 1980) and the plan was approved. While no specific action was taken to approve a modification of
the distance, approval of the plan implies that a modification was granted. The parking on the application
plan (the plan approved in October 1980) has nearly identical distances from buildings as shown on the site
plan currently under review. Staff can support a modification of this distance as it is consistent with the
approved application plan and no other location for parking meeting this distance requirement could be
approved without modification of the application plan and because the original plan approval showed the
parking in the same general layout and because the ordinance was ultimately amended to remove this distance
provision.
4.12.6.1 — The site does not have safe and convenient access.
32.4.27 — The entrance does not have VDOT approval.
32.5.8.1 — Roads serving this site are inadequate.
32.5.24 — Approval constitutes a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided comments on this application and referred to its
prior comments provided during the review ofZMA 02 -11 and SPs 02 -52, 53, 54 and 55. (Attachments C
and D) Without a recommendation of approval by VDOT, staff cannot recommend to the Planning
Commission that the site may be accessed safely. VDOT has not informed the County that it will issue a
commercial entrance permit for this property. From VDOT's, comments only access to a signalized
intersection with adequate design on Route 250 will accommodate the proposed development and no
potential signalized intersection has been identified. In response to the VDOT's comments, the applicant has
stated:
1. This project is the only "by- right" use of the property. We understand that Hansen Mountain Road is
a frontage road created by the construction of I -64. Any deficiency which might exist in relation to
the intersection with Route 250 already exists with or without this project. We respectfully believe
that these deficiencies are a VDOT issue, not a Gazebo Plaza issue. Since there is only one "by right"
use which can be made of this property, that right, including the right of access to Hansen Mountain
Road, cannot lawfully be curtailed.
2. The Route 250 East Corridor Study is conceptual in nature and does not allow for our "by- right" use
of the property. We again respectfully request our "by- right" use of the property be approved in
accordance with the October 14, 1980 Development Plan.
A complete copy of the applicant's responses to the Site Review Committee comments is included as
Attachment E.
SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS:
Staff finds that this application does not comply with the requirements of the ordinance as they existed on
December 10, 1980. Specifically this plan does not address the provisions of section 4.2.3.2. Staff also funds
that sections 4.12.6.1, 32.4.27, 32.5.8.1 and 32.5.24 are not satisfactorily addressed due to VDOT's concerns
as stated in letters dated September 15, 2004 and November 5, 2002. Staff is able to support one
modification necessary for this development to allow parking in excess of 500 feet from the building it serves,
but is unable to approve a modification for critical slopes or to make positive findings on issues of access.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends denial of the site plan.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this application staff offers the following possible
conditions of approval:
The Community Development Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not
be signed until the following conditions have been met:
1. Current Development Engineer Approval of Stormwater Management plans and calculations.
2. Current Development Engineer Approval of Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
3. Current Development approval of landscape plans.
4. VDOT approval of commercial entrance permit and necessary road improvements.
5. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval of water and sewer plans.
6. Fire Official Approval.
7. Approval of road name for access to the site.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Reduced Preliminary Site Plan
C. VDOT comments on Gazebo Plaza Preliminary Site Plan
D. VDOT comments on ZMA 02 -11 and SPs 02 -52, 53, 54 and 55
E. Applicant's response to the Site Review Committee comments.
F. Letters from Abutting Property owners and other members of the public.
M