HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400045 Staff Report 2005-01-18STAFF PERSONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
(Site plan and special use permits)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
(Special use permits only)
William D. Fritz, AICP and Glenn Brooks, P.E.
January 18, 2005
February 9, 2005
SDP 04 -45 and SP 04 -24, SP 04 -25 and SP 04 -62 Northtown Center
Applicant's Proposal:
This application requires 5 separate actions by the Planning Commission. The 5 separate actions are for the
following items:
SP 04 — 24 A drive thru for a bank
SP 04 — 25 A drive thru for a restaurant
SP 04 — 62 A drive thru for a pharmacy
SDP 04 — 45 Northtown Center Preliminary Site Plan (The site plan has been appealed to the Planning
Commission by an abutting owner. Therefore, the Planning Commission must take action on the site plan.)
Modification of Section 4.2.3 to allow activity on critical slopes.
The Board of Supervisors will need to take action on only the special use permits.
SP 04 — 24 A drive thru for a bank
SP 04 — 25 A drive thru for a restaurant
SP 04 — 62 A drive thru for a pharmacy
Petitions:
SDP 04 — 45
Request for preliminary site plan approval to allow the construction of a 150,930 gross square foot retail
development. The property is described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A and 111B. The
subject parcels contain approximately 15.9 acres, zoned H -C (Highway Commercial), EC (Entrance
Corridor), and AIA, Airport Overlay. This site is located on the east side of Seminole Trail (US Route 29
N.) immediately opposite Lowes and Kegler's. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is
designated as Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
SP 04 — 24
Request for special use permit approval, in accordance with Section 24.2.2(13) for a drive -in window for a
bank
SP 04 — 25
Request for special use permit approval, in accordance with Section 24.2.2(13) for a drive -in window for a
restaurant.
11
SP 04 — 62
Request for special use permit approval, in accordance with Section 24.2.2(13) for a drive -in window for a
pharmacy.
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is residential ( Carrsbrook and Woodbrook
subdivisions). The area to the south is commercial and large scale commercial development is located across
Route 29 from the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and makes the following recommendations for the special use permits:
SP 04 — 24 A drive thru for a bank — Approval with conditions.
SP 04 — 25 A drive thru for a restaurant — Denial.
SP 04 — 62 A drive thru for a pharmacy — Approval with conditions.
Staff has reviewed the proposed modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on critical slopes and
recommends approval of the modification request.
Staff has reviewed the site plan for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
approval (with conditions).
Planning and Zoning History: The history of the parcel is as follows:
1980 — Comprehensive Rezoning — The zoning designation of the property was changed from B -1, Business
to its current designation of HC, Highway Commercial.
1988 — Application is made for a preliminary site plan to allow the construction of an automobile dealership
(SDP 88 -54 Medlin Lincoln Mercury). This application was deferred indefinitely at the applicants request
after the site review meeting.
1990 — Application is made for a gas station (SDP 90 -64 Heischman 29 North Mobile Station). This
application was withdrawn prior to any action to approve or deny the site plan.
1991 — Application was made for a special use permit and site plan to allow an automobile dealership (SP 91-
57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust and SDP 91 -102 Carrsbrook Auto Preliminary Site Plan). At its meeting on
December 9, 1992 the Board of Supervisors denied the special use permit for outdoor storage and display in
the Entrance Corridor. The site plan was denied as a result of the denial of the special use permit.
1994 — Application was made for an 111,464 square foot retail center (SDP 94 -006 Carrsbrook Retail Center
Preliminary Site Plan). This plan was approved by the Planning Commission on July 19, 1994. This
application included an approval for activity on critical slopes and other modifications. The Planning
Commission action was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The Board reaffirmed the Commission's
action at its meeting on August 3, 1994. The applicant did not submit the necessary final site plans as
required by the Ordinance and the approval of the preliminary plan expired.
K
2000 — Application was made for a 151,785 square foot retail center (SDP 00 -81 North Town Center). This
application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to any action.
2000 — Application was made for a 130,184 square foot retail store (SDP 00 -119 Home Depot at North
Town Center Preliminary Site Plan). This application was denied by the Planning Commission at its meeting
on November 28, 2000. This denial included a denial of a modification for activity on critical slopes and
other modifications (reduction in number of loading spaces, buffer disturbance). The Commission's action
was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The Board reaffirmed the Commissions action at its meeting on
February 7, 2001.
2004 — Applications were made for the current plan. The ARB reviewed the proposal on July 6, 2004 and
was not able to support the application. Revisions have been made to the plan and a new application made to
the ARB; however, review by the ARB is not expected until February 2, 2005. This is after the Planning
Commission hearing date but prior to the Board's review of the special use permits.
STAFF COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for special use permits in the Development
Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The foregoing
analysis pertains only to the three special use permits requested for drive thrus.
The Land Use Plan shows this area as Community Service. Land use in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan calls for a scale and type of development similar to that proposed by the applicant.
The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in accordance with the
Neighborhood Model are provided below:
Pedestrian Orientation — This plan provides for pedestrian connections to the existing sidewalk along
Route 29. Pedestrian connection to the residential development adjacent to this site is not practical due to
terrain and the location of houses.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths — This development does not propose new streets or paths.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — The plan does allow for the potential connection
to an adjacent undeveloped property to the north. Staff and the applicant did consider and pursue the
possibility of connection to the existing commercial development to the south. This connection was
abandoned due to the layout and design of the existing travelways on the properties south of this
development and due to opposition by the residents of the Woodbrook Subdivision.
Parks and Open Space — No parks or public open space is proposed. Undisturbed and landscaped areas as
required by the ordinance are shown.
Neighborhood Centers — This development is only for commercial activity. The development will provide
additional shopping but does not provide for a neighborhood center as defined by the Neighborhood Model.
3
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale — The Architectural Review Board reviewed the plans for this
project in July 2004. The comments of that meeting are included as Attachment D. Based on the comments
of the ARB, staff cannot find that this development meets this standard of the Neighborhood Model.
Relegated Parking — This provision is difficult to achieve on this property. The site is surrounded by
residential development and has significant areas of critical slopes. Staff has stressed the need to preserve
critical slopes on this site to the extent practical. Placing the buildings along the Route 29 corridor would
increase the impact on critical slopes. Additionally, the location of a stormwater basin installed by VDOT
with an easement to the benefit of VDOT is located adjacent to Route 29.
Mixture of Uses — This site is zoned commercially and all proposed uses are commercial. The applicant
could apply for a special use permit for residential development which could provide a mixture of uses. Staff
notes that no review has occurred to determine the appropriateness of using this site for residential
development.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability — No residential development is proposed. Therefore, this
provision is not applicable.
Redevelopment — No development currently exists on this site.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain — This development proposes substantial grading and makes extensive
use of the retaining walls. The property is divided north and south by a stream valley. Development of the
two sides of the stream valley requires extensive grading for access purposes. This development, however,
grades the stream valley not only for access but to allow for the construction of buildings and parking areas.
More detailed comments on the impact on the stream valley are found later in this report in the discussion of
the critical slopes modification.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas — This provision is not applicable as this property is located
entirely within the Development Area.
Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues
related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering staff is able to support the location and
design of the drive thru windows, with a condition for the bank.
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The location of the drive thru windows will not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The
location and design of the windows and travelways are such that they will not be visible from adjacent
property. The orientation of the drive thru windows and slope differences between this site and adjacent
residential uses (the commercial drive thru sites are lower than the adjacent residential property) effectively
eliminates headlight issues which can arise with drive thru windows.
11
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
Drive thru windows are common in this zoning district and along Route 29. Approval of these special use
permits will not change the character of the district.
Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, the
intent of the HC district as contained in Section 24. 1, and the intent of the EC district as contained in Section
30.6. I .Generally these requests are consistent with the ordinance. However, staff does offer the following
comments to address the intent of the EC district. The intent of the EC district is as follows
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of
protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including
preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a
quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of
development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the county's
attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing
to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to
the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance,
all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of
the citizens of the county and visitors thereto.
The ARB was unable to recommend approval of this project. The ARB indicated that both the layout of the
site and the architecture of the buildings, as proposed, were not appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. In
other similar projects the ARB has required that drive thru windows and structures be located away from the
EC and that the drive thru related features be modified to meet the ARB guidelines. The drive thru for the
restaurant (SP 04 -25) is located adjacent to Route 29. Based on the comments of the ARB, staff opinion is
that this drive thru is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and therefore, staff is
unable to recommend approval of SP 04 -25.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
By -right uses in HC, Highway Commercial District include a wide variety of the most intensive commercial
activities. Drive thru windows are common with many of the uses in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5 contains no additional regulations.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved?
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.
The two issues which typically arise in the review of drive thru windows are:
1. Traffic impacts on and off site;
2. Visibility of the site from an entrance corridor.
5
The property has direct access to a signalized intersection which in the opinion of staff will be adequate to
accommodate the expected traffic volumes. The on site circulation is adequate for the proposed drive thru
windows. VDOT has provided the following comments:
§ Intersection analysis needs to be conducted to determine both internal and external turn lane
lengths;
§ Signal time plan will be required;
§ Full frontage (additional lane) improvements are required;
§ Entrance and improvements needed to be designed in accordance with the current design manual
and the Minimum Entrance to State Highway Standards;
§ Plans and drainage comps are required.
Staff has included conditions to address these comments and believes that they may be adequately addressed
at the time of final plan without resulting in any changes to the on site improvements beyond that which
occurs for all site plans and subdivisions.
Staff has previously commented that the ARB staff recommended relocation of the drive thru adjacent to the
entrance corridor. The design of the restaurant drive thru (SP 04 -25) is adjacent to Route 29. Without
support from the ARB, staff cannot support approval of SP 04 -25. The location of the other drive thru
windows has less impact on the entrance corridor and are generally consistent with the ARB design
guidelines and staff is able to support those permit applications.
SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW OF SP 04 -24, SP 04 -25 and SP 04 -62:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The design of the drive thru windows meets design criteria, with a condition for the bank.
2. The entrance with improvements will be adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the drive
thru windows
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The location of the restaurant drive thru window adjacent to Route 29 directly conflicts with
comments of the ARB and the ARB design guidelines.
2. The ARB has not supported the development as proposed.
3. The specific design of entrance improvements is not available at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR SP 04 -24, SP 04 -25 and SP 04 -62:
Staff recommends approval of SP 04 — 24 (a drive thru for a bank) and SP 04 — 62 (a drive thru for a
pharmacy) with the following conditions of approval:
1. Provision of a by -pass lane for the bank, to the satisfaction of Current Development staff.
Staff is not able to recommend approval at this time of SP 04 — 25 (a drive thru for a restaurant). This
recommendation is based on the drive thru's visual impacts on the Entrance Corridor as stated by the ARB,
staff.
REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN AND MODIFICATION OF SECTION 4.2.3 TO ALLOW
ACTIVITY ON CRITICAL SLOPES.
The site plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and found to meet the requirements of the
ordinance with the approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes. The Site Review
Committee cannot approve the site plan administratively due to an appeal of the site plan to the Planning
Commission by an abutting owner. Attachment B includes all letters received from the public on this
application.
The proposed development includes activity on critical slopes. Staff has reviewed this request as required by
Sections, 4.2 and 4.2.5 of the ordinance (Attachment E). This review is divided into two parts, a review for
impact on aesthetic resources and a review of the engineering impacts.
Before this proposal may be approved a modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary. The
request for a modification has been reviewed for both Engineering and Planning aspects.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning Staff.
taff.
This review is focused on the criteria in Section 4.2 and the potential loss of aesthetic resources. County
staff has conducted a stream assessment for the urban area and this stream is one of those identified as having
some value. (This stream water assessment has been conducted by staff and discussed by the Board of
Supervisors but has not yet been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.) Attached is information from
Stephen Bowler on the stream assessment. The stream is designated as a Designed Urban Water Feature.
Staff recognizes that this stream is located in an urban area and designated as a Designed Urban Water
Feature and therefore, some impact on the stream and stream valley may be appropriate. The Neighborhood
Model Design Approaches includes "Site Planning that Respects Terrain" (page 106). For slopes of 25% or
greater, the Neighborhood Model states "Development on steep slopes should be considered with regard to
its impacts on significant systems of slopes as identified on the County's Open Space Plan and the Master
Plan for the Development Area ". The Open Space Plan does identify some of the critical slopes on this
property but the Open Space Plan does not designate the slopes as "Major and Locally Important Stream
Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes ". The Master Plan for this neighborhood is not yet developed. The
Neighborhood Model also states "Significant features identified for preservation in the Open Space Plan, as
well as other environmentally sensitive areas, should be mapped during the Master Planning process ". The
stream assessment referenced above is the first step in the Master Planning process. While the Master Plan is
not yet adopted, the zoning ordinance does not limit the source used to identify aesthetic resources.
Historically, staff has used the Open Space plan as the primary tool to identify resources. However, the
Open Space plan is not the only tool. Field observation, the Open Space Plan designation of critical slopes
on this property and other studies conducted by County staff have led the review staff to determine whether
the critical slopes on this property represent an aesthetic resource. Staff concludes they do not represent an
aesthetic resource.
7
The vision of a Designed Urban Water Feature as stated by staff in the stream assessment document is:
Designed Urban Water Feature: Located in areas designated for high density
residential/commercial/mixed use. As an alternative to complete piping, these corridors can be
managed to provide open space, pocket parks, and water features. It is assumed that these channels
will require engineering intervention of one type or another (piping, channel lining, ponding). This
designation can overlap with creation of ponds for stormwater management. The shoreline can
feature walkways, bike paths, community facilities, and park -like settings, and buffers are managed
accordingly. Tools include: coordination with stormwater plans, proffers, coordination with open
space requirements, landscape design.
The applicant has revised the plan from the original application in an attempted to address the issues
identified by staff. The plan proposes to use portions of the stream valley for storm water management
facilities. The site has limited opportunities for the creation of active or passive recreation areas and no trail
system has been proposed by the County along this stream valley. The area adjacent to Route 29 is
preserved as a stormwater facility. This facility adjacent to Route 29 affords landscaping areas. The ARB
has not reviewed the most recent plans. Staff has attached ARB comments for the original application. The
stream area at the rear of the site is also used as a Stormwater facility. This pond is expected to be a wet
pond. This pond area also provides for screening /landscape opportunities.
A prior proposal to disturb critical slopes on this property was denied by the Planning Commission, with SDP
00 -119 Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan. Both the current proposal and the Home Depot proposal show
disturbance of virtually all of the critical slopes on the site. However, since the prior action on Home Depot,
the County conducted the urban stream assessment and designated this stream corridor as a Designed Urban
Water Feature. This designation acknowledges that activity in the stream corridor may occur. Without this
assessment it is likely that staff would have recommended denial of the critical slopes in a restatement of the
prior Planning Commission action. However, with the stream assessment study and a review of the
Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan, staff does not find that this development results in the loss of an
identified aesthetic resource.
Review of the request by Current Development Engineering Staff.
Critical slopes make up 2.4 acres of the site's 15.9 acres, or 15% of the site area. The plan shows most of
the critical slopes being buried under extensive fill for the buildings and parking areas. This fill is
approximately 27' deep at its maximum, and over 100,000 cubic yards, which is significantly reduced from
the previous plan submissions, as the site grading has been lowered. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning
Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope and retaining wall construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization can
prevent significant movement of soil.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
Stormwater runoff from the existing critical slopes will be replaced by runoff from parking areas, and
buildings. Storrawater management for these areas has been shown on the preliminary site plan, with
mention in the applicant's correspondence that additional on -site measures may be provided with the
final site plan.
"siltation"
The revised site plan shows a basin toward the rear of the site, which makes erosion control easier,
provided diversions can be built to direct runoff to the basin from the retaining wall areas. However,
even with adequate erosion control provisions, which are a limited technology, it is recognized that
siltation may occur downstream. The applicant's correspondence has indicated that they may
evaluate the need for downstream improvements with final plans.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
Please refer to the comments from the planner reviewing this request. These comments may be found
in the prior section of this report.
"septic effluent"
This is not a concern as the site will be serviced by public sewer.
In January of 2001, the Chief of Engineering prepared a list of suggested conditions, or steps the applicant
could take upon resubmission that might address the concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors with regard to critical slopes and stormwater management. Some of these conditions made for
the Home Depot site plan review still appear to be valid;
1. Reduce the parking, and use pervious blocks for less frequented parking areas to reduce runoff.
2. Provide biofilters throughout the parking areas. This was in combination with a large facility
downstream.
3. Provide downstream channel and pond restoration upon project completion.
4. Provide on -site erosion control measures above and beyond the County and State requirements, in
some measure trying to compensate for the limits of the current technology.
Summary of review of Modification of Section 4.2
Section 4.2.5, Attachment E establishes the review process and criteria for granting a modification of Section
4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5a. Staff has included the
provisions of Section 4.2.5b here, along with staff comment on the various provisions (Staff comments are in
italics.)
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case
upon finding that: (Amended 11- 15 -89)
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives
proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an
equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
Strict application of the provisions of Section 4.2 would result in a substantially lower level of
development on this property which is in the Development Area. Less than full utilization of this
property for commercial development may result in increased pressure to identify new commercial
areas to accommodate for the lower level of development on this property.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the
requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties.
Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary
to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
If the request to disturb areas of critical slopes is denied the available area of development is
greatly reduced. The location of the critical slopes is primarily in the middle of the site. Large
scale development of the property is not possible without disturbing critical slopes. However,
development of the site could occur without disturbing critical slopes or with a modification to allow
disturbance of critical slopes to a lesser extent than currently proposed. Staff has not found that
approval would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of
the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
Staff is unable to identify any clear public purpose to be served by granting this modification. Staff
is only able to offer the following observations in response to this provision:
1. Granting the modification treats similarly zoned land in a similar manner. Other parcels on the
Route 29 corridor have been granted modifications to allow activity on critical slopes.
This analysis results in mixed findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. The proposed critical slope disturbance will not result in the adverse impacts identified in Section 4.2
of the ordinance.
2. No identified resources identified in the Open Space Plan or the Stream Assessment would be
adversely impacted by the approval of the modification.
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Alternative development of the property may be possible with no or lesser disturbance of critical
slopes.
2. The ARB was not supportive of the prior version of the application. Its lack of support was not
specific to the critical slopes issue. However, failure of the ARB to support a request for
modification of critical slope disturbance has been considered a negative factor in other reviews.
10
Generally staff finds that this request is consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of Section
4.2.3. If the Commission makes the necessary positive findings required by Section 4.2.5b staff also
recommends approval of SDP 04 -045 Northtown Center Preliminary Site Plan subject to the following
conditions:
The County 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. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design, signal improvements, frontage
and turn lane improvements as well as any associated road plans and drainage plans.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans and road relocation for
access to the sewer pump station.
4. Current Development Division approval of:
a. Minimum sight distances within parking areas /travelways.
b. Design/location of curbed islands in the parking lot.
c. Stormwater BMP plans and calculations.
d. Retaining wall designs for any walls of 4 feet or greater.
e. Landscape plan.
£ Lighting plan.
g. Subdivision plat combining the parcels into a single parcel or realignment of existing parcel
boundaries to result in lots meeting minimum requirements for building construction.
h. Necessary access, utility easements.
5. Fire Marshall approval.
6. Building Official approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Site Plan
B — Letters from the public.
C — Memo from Steve Bowler
D — ARB action letter
E - Sections 4.2 and 4.2.5
F- Open Space Plan Maps
G- Applicant's request for a modification to allow activity on critical slopes.
H- Vicinity Map
181
Attachment D
pF arg�
Lrf2C;l1�ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
July 16, 2004
Kevin Shreiner
The Engineering Group
4800 Southpoint Parkway
Fredericksburg, VA 22407
Fax (4341 972 -4126
RE: ARB- 2004 -64: Northtown Center, Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A, 111 B
Dear Mr. Shreiner:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on July 6, 2004, completed a preliminary review of the
above -noted request. The Board took the following actions.
Regarding the Special Use Permit, the Board by a vote of 5:0, forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning
Commission for the above -noted petition:
The ARB, with extreme prejudice, cannot recommend support for the Special Use Permits at this time. The site
layout, which totally disregards topography and surroundings, the architecture of the buildings, and the landscape,
require significant revisions to make them appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. The SP can be reconsidered when
the layout and architecture are revised and when discrepancies between the plan and architectural elevations have
been resolved.
Regarding the Preliminary Site Plan, the Board by a vote of 5:0,made the following comments and suggestions, which
include staff's recommendations, for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal.
The ARB indicated that, due to the number and degree of fundamental issues with the proposal, and the
disregard for the design guidelines shown in the proposal, the submittal was not worthy of specific comment at
this time.
For the applicant's information, staff's recommendations are included below:
Arrange buildings and building groups parallel to Route 29N.
12
2. Revise building locations to establish a more cohesive development and a clear, organized relationship throughout
the site.
3. Incorporate connecting devices to unify the buildings in the complex.
4. Incorporate the significant natural features (stream, slopes, noteworthy trees) of the site into the development.
5. Revise grading to better respect existing topography. Grading to create a single level development is not
recommended. Terracing the development could help relate the site to both the EC and the surrounding properties.
6. Hold all grading 2' from the buffer.
7. Relocate loading areas to reduce visibility. Move the fast food restaurant loading area away from the EC. Move the
retail shops loading area away from the EC. Use the buildings to maximize screening of loading and dumpster
areas from the EC.
8. Show locations of mechanical equipment. Show that such equipment will not be visible from the EC. Use the
buildings themselves to screen equipment.
9. If cart corrals are proposed, show locations and submit an illustration of the proposed corral for review.
10. If a travelway is incorporated on the south side of the retail shops to connect the Center with the adjacent
development, ensure that there is sufficient landscaping along all visible sides of the retail building and along the
travelway to create an appropriate appearance for the EC.
11. If pedestrian paths are added, add trees at 2'/2" caliper, 25' on center along both sides.
12. Provide interior trees at 2'/2" caliper. Add at least 4 additional interior trees.
13. Provide perimeter parking area trees at 2'/2" caliper, 40' on center, along the travelway on the north side of the site.
14. Revise the spacing and size of trees along the EC to 3'/z" caliper, 35' on center. Intersperse flowering ornamental
trees.
15. Provide full length tree islands in the parking lot. One near the grocery store and one closer to the EC are
recommended.
16. Screen parking rows that are adjacent to the EC with 36" shrubs.
17. Add 24" shrubs interior to the site, among buildings and along the recommended sidewalks /walkways, to integrate
the site and site elements.
18. Resolve the pipe /tree conflicts. Locating trees at least 5' from storm pipes and 10' from sanitary pipes is
recommended.
19. Incorporate at the buildings to soften exterior walls and /or blankness and to help incorporate them into the overall
development.
20. Submit a conservation checklist. Show on the plan appropriate tree protection measures.
21. Provide additional landscaping around the pond to establish it as a landscape feature and to coordinate its
appearance with adjacent landscaping. Provide details if a fountain or decorative lighting are proposed.
22. Provide additional information to clarify the use of the decorative elements in the four -story buildings and to show
that they are appropriate for the EC. Provide more detailed elevations, perspectives, and building details.
23. Revise the south side of the fast food restaurant to eliminate blankness. Revise the north elevation to eliminate the
flat, blank quality.
24. Provide elevations that include the bank drive - through to show that the proposed structure is compatible with the
bank building and the overall development.
25. Provide an elevation of the southwest side of the grocery /retail building. A blank elevation is not appropriate.
26. Provide northeast elevations for each building.
27. Coordinate the building elevations with the site plan in terms of building sizes /heights.
28. Resolve elevation and site plan conflicts regarding the proposed drive - through window for the fast food restaurant.
29. Correct the finished floor elevations on the site plan.
30. Provide material and color samples. Clarify the material of the columns on the four -story buildings.
31. Provide a perspective sketch(es) of the development to: further clarify the proposed overall appearance; to show
that the one- and four -story buildings are compatible in scale; to help clarify the architecture of the buildings.
32. Provide a complete lighting plan for review.
33. Lighting used for decorative effect and lighting used as signage shall be eliminated from the site and buildings, to
the satisfaction of the ARB.
34. Lighting levels throughout the site shall not exceed a maximum of 20 footcandles, with average levels not exceeding
10 footcandles, measured at ground level.
35. All lights shall be full cutoff fixtures.
36. Provide a sign proposal for the overall complex.
13
37. Outdoor display of merchandise visible from the EC is subject to ARB review and requires a Special Use Permit. If
such display is anticipated, indicate proposed locations and identify items for display.
You may re- submit your application for ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules
are available on -line at www.albemarle.org /planning
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Please include a memo outlining how each
comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the
memo also.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Design Planner
MM /jcf
Cc: File
Bill Fritz
14
Attachment E
4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES
These provisions are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving
steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in
recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic
disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the comprehensive
plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes may result
in: rapid and/or large -scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of
natural and man -made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system
failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the
public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions are intended to direct building and septic
system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on
critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding protection of public water supplies
and encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11- 15 -89)
Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address
each concern specified in section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
4.2.5 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Any requirement of section 4.2 may be modified or waived in an individual case, as provided
herein:
a. A developer requesting such modification or waiver shall file a written request in accordance
with section 32.3.10.4 of this chapter and shall in such request address each concern set forth
in section 4.2. No such modification or waiver shall be granted until the commission shall
have considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent in formulating such
recommendation may consult with the county engineer, Virginia Department of Health, water
resources manager and other appropriate officials. The county engineer shall evaluate the
potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accord with current provisions
of the Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, the Commonwealth of
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and Virginia State Water Control Board
best management practices, and where applicable, Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Code.
(Amended 11- 15 -89)
b. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case
upon finding that: (Amended 11- 15 -89)
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives
proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an
15
equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the
requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties.
Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary
to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
c. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it
deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that such
development will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2.
d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any requirement of
section 4.2 only as follows:
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as
an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14 -226 of the Code, or the site
plan, as provided in section 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver
pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or
waiver based upon the findings set forth in subsection (B), amend any condition imposed
by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set
forth in subsection (c).
16