Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400045 Staff Report 2005-02-18emda County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Northtown Center (SDP 04 -45 Preliminary Site Plan and SPs 04 — 24, 25 and 62 for Drive Thru Windows) The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the above items on January 18, 2005. Action on all items was deferred to allow the Architectural Review Board to consider additional information submitted by the applicant. Attached to this memo is the information (elevations) the applicant provided to the Architectural Review Board. Also attached are letters received from the public since the Planning Commission's review in January. The Architectural Review Board discussed the Northtown Center project at its meeting on February 7, 2005. (The action memo is attachment A.) The Board did not recommend support for the application with the exception of the special use permit for the Pharmacy Drive Thru Window (SP 04 -62). Current Development Staff continues to recommend approval of this application. However, staff does recommend an additional condition to address the comments of the Architectural Review Board. The new conditions are: The north, west, and south elevations shall be fully designed to the satisfaction of the ARB. The north, west, and south elevations shall not have the appearance of un- designed rear elevations. Landscaping in the vicinity of the pharmacy shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the ARB. The Architectural Review Board did not support the special use permit for the Bank (SP 04 -24) because of the lack of architectural design for the drive thru made evaluation impossible. Current Development Staff had previously recommended approval of that special use permit because it was believed that the drive thru location was consistent with Entrance Corridor Design guidelines. Based on the Architectural Review Board's findings staff now recommends denial of SP 04 -24. The Architectural Review Board did not support the special use permit for the restaurant (SP 04 -25) because the location of the drive thru and the architecture of the building make the proposal inappropriate for the Entrance Corridor. Current Development Staff had recommended denial of that special use permit for the reasons stated in the original report and that recommendation stands. The Architectural Review Board did not support the disturbance of critical slopes, stating that the proposed grading was not consistent with the design guideline of respecting existing topography. The Board did state that with additional information from the applicant it may be possible to support grading on critical slopes but, without more detailed information, it was not possible to determine the impact of the development on the Entrance Corridor. The ARB's comments were based on the ARB's Design Guidelines. The comments of the Architectural Review Board may be considered by the Commission when making findings under Section 4.2.5a and b. In order for activity on critical slopes to be permitted, the Commission needs to consider the agent's recommendation (Section 4.2.5a) and find that at least one provision of Section 4.2.5b has been satisfied. (Section 4.2.5 b is written with OR statements, any one of which needs to be satisfied.) The comments of the Architectural Review Board have not resulted in a change in staff s recommendation to the Commission because the ARB did not state that disturbance of the critical slopes results in the loss of an aesthetic resource. The ARB's discussion did not indicate that grading on the slopes could never be approved under any design concept. If it had, staff would have likely changed its recommendation and found that grading on the slopes represented the loss of an aesthetic resource. Instead, the ARB determined that the proposal was inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and that a full assessment of impacts could not be made with the information provided. Consequently, the ARB's comments have not resulted in a change in staff's recommendation to the Commission on this point. Section 4.2.5b states: 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 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) Staff is unable to recommend to the Commission that any of these criteria are clearly met by this application. The ARB's recommendation that the disturbance of the critical slopes is inconsistent with the ARB design guideline that development respect topography is evidence that the proposed disturbance would be detrimental to the public welfare. Therefore, staff recommends that the findings required to grant a waiver under subsections 4.2.5(b)(1) or (2) cannot be made. The purpose and intent of the Entrance Corridor District is stated in Section 30.6.1: 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. Previously staff had stated that this site may be developed without, or with significantly reduced, impacts on critical slopes. Staff is unable to clearly identify any public purpose to be served by approval of the modification to allow activity on critical slopes and recommends that the finding required to grant a waiver under subsection 4.2.5(b)(3) cannot be made. Summary: Staff makes the following recommendations: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR SP 04 -24, SP 04 -25 and SP 04 -62: Staff recommends approval of SP 04 — 62 (a drive thru for a pharmacy) with the following conditions of approval: 1. The north, west, and south elevations shall be fully designed to the satisfaction of the ARB. The north, west, and south elevations shall not have the appearance of un- designed rear elevations. 2. Landscaping in the vicinity of the pharmacy shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the ARB. Staff is not able to recommend approval at this time of SP 04 — 25 (a drive thru for a restaurant) and SP 04 — 24 (a drive thru for a bank). This recommendation is based on the drive thru's visual impacts on the Entrance Corridor as stated by the Architectural Review Board. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SDP 04 -045 Northtown Center Preliminary Site Plan [Note: Section 4.2.5(a) establishes only procedural requirements (written request, recommendation by agent after consulting with various officials, including the county engineer who looks at soil and water issues), not substantive criteria that govern how the commission is to evaluate the request; the substantive criteria to govern the decision are in section 4.2.5(b).] As noted above, staff has made no positive findings under the criteria for granting a modification found in Section 4.2.5b. If the Commission makes the necessary positive findings required by Section 4.2.5b and approves the disturbance of critical slopes, staff 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. f. 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. Attachment A: ARB action memo Attachment B: Letters from the Public Attachment C: Building Elevations Lrf2C;l1�ZA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 16, 2004 Kevin Shreiner The Engineering Group 4800 Southpoint Parkway Fredericksburg, VA 22407 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: 1. Arrange buildings and building groups parallel to Route 29N. 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'/2" 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. 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