HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200900001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2012-05-180
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
May 18, 2012
Ms. Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA200900001/5" Street — Avon Center Amendment
SP2010-003 51h Street — Avon Center — Parking Structure
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal requesting to update the application plan amendment,
review the critical slope waiver exhibit, and to amend the proffers.
We have discussed some of these comments during our meeting on May 11, 2012. 1 have included
all the comments I have received to date in this letter. If we receive any additional staff comments
after this letter is sent to you, I will send them to you immediately. The bullets below summarize
the major issues and concerns with the latest submittal:
• The application plan does not meet the minimal Section 8 requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and will need to meet this requirement prior to scheduling a public hearing.
• The form of development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is based on the
information shown on the plan or commitments provided in the proffers. It is difficult to
determine the potential development.
• There needs to be an assusrance that there will be uninterrupted full sidewalk and bicycle
connections provided from 5t" Street to Avon Street. The current plan does not clearly
show these types of connections.
• Impacts to the Entrance Corridor cannot be determined based on the information
provided.
• The current cash proffers provide less than what was committed to in the approved
proffers for greenways, transit, and pedestrian connection to adjacent neighborhood.
The details regarding the summarized information above are provided in the remaining letter,
along with details regarding the proffers.
Page 1 af8 Revlsed4-15-11 eke
Staff acknowledges that the revised application plan now includes some additional notes, street
and sidewalk sections and other pertinent requested information, however, many important
features such as building and road/travelway locations still are not shown on the plan. As
previously stated in our staff comment letter, dated April 2, 2012, and based on this resubmittal, it
is still difficult for staff to review your request for consistency with recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan for this site because very little detail is shown on the Application Plan.
We understand that you are proposing amendments to the application plan and proffers which
are intended to maximize the flexibility for locating buildings and improvements on-site. Your
request has been driven by difficulties you have faced in trying to market the site under the
current zoning action. However, as discussed at our meeting on May 11`h, staff must evaluate any
proposal on this site against the goals, objectives and recommendations of the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides very specific recommendations for the
development of this site, including expectations for the form, scale and orientation of buildings, as
well as expectations for supporting infrastructure, facilities and services to the site and immediate
area. As previously stated the level of information provided in the draft application plan and
proffers does not allow staff to determine whether these specific recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan are being addressed with this proposal.
At this point in time, based on the current draft of the application plan and proffers, staff opinion
is that the following recommendations have not been met with this proposal. The outstanding
Comprehensive Plan recommendations are provided below, with staffs evaluation of the
proposal's consistency with these recommendations shown in red, and brackets.
• The Comprehensive Plan describes "The western commercial area is intended to be a compact,
high density area which mixes retail businesses, services, public facilities and civic spaces.
(One park area/open space is shown in the greenway area, but no civic spaces/open spaces
have been shown within the development sections or committed to in the proffers within the
development envelopes (areas A and B). It is unclear if any are to be provided.] Large footprint
retail of a regional nature may be appropriate in the western portion of the site. [This is not
specifically shown on the plan; however, based on our meetings, staff understands this is your
intent.] Specifically, buildings should be oriented to the major roads; [The development plan
does not show (or note by text) expected building -to- road relationships, nor do the proffers
commit to buildings being orientated to roads] designed, sized and massed with consideration
for adjacent and nearby smaller uses in the Center and on the larger site; [Since no building
information is depicted on the plan, or described by notes on the plan, or in the proffers (other
than the maximum floor area and height of anchor stores) there is no way for staff to
determine whether this expectation will be met.] and parking should be relegated to the
greatest extent possible." [No parking areas or buildings have been shown on the plan; no
commitment has been made by note on the plan or as a proffer to relegate parking.]
• As previously discussed, perhaps the following architecture elements, also described in the
Comprehensive Plan, provides a level of detail that you would like to have some flexibility with
Page 2 ofS
Revised 4-25-11 eke
due to potential change request from tenants. However, this development is located in the
Entrance Corridors and it is important that some of the architectural elements described in the
Comprehensive Plan be addressed in some manner. As we discussed, perhaps tying the
architectural features of buildings and spaces within the development to the architectural
features of buildings that go through the ARB review might be an option that works. As
discussed, we suggest you work with Margaret Maliszewski regarding appropriate action. "The
architecture, urban design and landscape treatment of the property should be carefully
integrated to ensure that the visual interest, massing, scale and organization of the
development contributes to the role of the site as a town center and commercial focal point
for the Southern Urban Area. The town center area should provide a functional, attractive and
distinct destination for shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the larger
neighborhood with particular emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural and
landscape design guidelines should be prepared to address:
o The integration of building facades and rooflines;
o Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
o Architectural materials and color;
o Design of parking areas;
o Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicular, including traffic calming;
o Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
o Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to
planned public civic and greenway areas;
o Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
o Recreational and civic improvements.
[As noted in the previous recommendation, due to the limited information provided
regarding the location, form and relationship of buildings, parking, roads, and public areas
(civic areas, walkways, etc.), there is essentially no commitment or assurance that the
above noted expectations will be met with this development.)
In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as environmental and
aesthetic considerations, a mid-sized big box model is recommended for this site.
Development of "super -sized" big boxes is not appropriate due to the site's relatively high
exposure to three Entrance Corridors, immersed location within older neighborhoods with
established character and scale, and the desire to mix and balance uses on the site and
create a bona fide town center. As a base guideline for maximum building footprints
(excluding garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings, storage areas and grocery
stores), the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000 square feet. For the
purpose of this definition, a grocery store is not considered to be a big box. [The intent of
this section has been met with the proffer regarding the building size and total square
footage of large scale retail buildings.] Buildings of increased footprint may be considered,
subject to demonstration by the applicant that the environmental impact of such increased
footprint can be offset by (a) design that is sensitive to architectural massing and quality,
(b) building that complements the setting of the larger project, (c) parking and traffic
accommodation that complements building form, pedestrian access, and building siting,
Page 3 of8
RMd4-25-I1 eke
(d) environmental design that enhances existing natural conditions within areas to be
conserved, and (e) a commitment to a project phasing plan that ensures that a mix of retail
uses of varying size and scale will be developed concomitantly with the expanded big box
use." [The level of information provided in the revised application plan and proffers do not
assure that the form of development recommended in the Comprehensive Plan will be
provided to any degree on this site. The proposed plan of development and proffers would
allow a conventional form of commercial development to occur, similar in character to
older strip developments and not consistent with recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.]
• The Comprehensive Plan calls for an integrated transportation system inclusive of roadway
improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and site design to accommodate mass
transportation. While the application plan shows a greenway system that is suppose to
provide sidewalk and bicycle connections to on and off site users, the potential location for
the greenway system, due to topography and proximity to the creek, could make it difficult
for the greenway system to act as a viable pedestrian and bicycle connection for users of
the development. The proposed greenway may be more appropriate as a recreation
feature. [Providing a cross section of the proposed Bent Creek Parkway will be crucial in
our need to determine diverse viable modes of transportation for this site. The expectation
is that there be viable pedestrian and bicycle facilities through the site, from Avon Street to
51h Street usine Bent Creek Road and/or other internal roads on the site.l
• Please see the April 2, 2012 comment letter which included other comments relating to
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Also, as we previously discussed and as a reminder, if you plan to subdivide a portion of
this project area that is partially in the City and County, please keep in mind that proffers
and legal ads would need to be revised to accommodate the change and staff will need to
be involved in such changes.
• The Zoning staff has determined that the application plan does not adequately meet the
submittal requirements of Section 8. This is a technical requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance and needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
through a revision to the plan that meets the minimal requirements for a submittal. This
needs to be completed prior to scheduling of a public hearing. A waiver of Section 8 is not
applicable.
• Section 8.5.e.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that conceptual grading/topography be
shown on an application plan, and you have provided this. However, the plan notes
grading and fill within the floodplain, which requires approval of special use permits. These
special use permits are not being requested at this time. We request that you either
remove these grading/fill areas (shown in the floodplain) from the plan or note that they
are subject to future special use permit reviews and that action on this rezoning request
does not imply approval of a special use permit for any grading/fill activities in the
floodplain.
Puge 4 of8
Re ised 4-25-11 eke
• It is recommended the application plan provide atypical section for the proposed
connector road to establish typical features. An uninterrupted sidewalk system is
anticipated through the site from Avon Street to 5u' Street.
• As noted in Margaret Maliszewskfs comments, no information has been provided to
indicate how siting, architecture and/or landscaping will be used to eliminate/reduce the
impact of rear building elevations on the entrance corridor. Based on the information
provided, staff cannot advise the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors on the
extent of the impact to the Entrance Corridor. Margaret provided the following
comments:
The proposed development will be visible from the 1-64 and Avon Street Entrance
Corridors. EC Guidelines state that building forms and features should be compatible with
the forms and features of significant historic buildings in the area. Experience has shown
that this guideline has been difficult, if not impossible, for applicants to meet when large
box -like buildings are situated with their backs facing the Entrance Corridor. The proposed
development will include large-scale buildings with an inward focus, resulting in the rear
elevations of large buildings facing the EC. No information has been provided to indicate
how siting, architecture and/or landscaping will be used to eliminate this concern and to
ensure an appropriate appearance for the EC. The development could result in a negative
impact on the ECs. Lacking information that demonstrates otherwise, a recommendation
of support cannot be given.
• The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been
provided by Alexander Morrison:
Previous comments requested that you show water/wastewater utilities on the plan sheet.
The latest submission shows some, but not all utilities on this property. There is a 12"
waterline with a meter and 2 hydrants. Please see the attached, which is a GIs map of the
utilities. This comment still needs to be addressed.
City of Charlottesville
Comments from Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services relate to proffers
and have been incorporated within the proffer section below:
Proffers
(Where applicable, the proffer comment is followed by the source for the comment in
parenthesis)
1. Road Improvements A. Bent Creek Road and Srh Street Intersection. On lines 4-5, we
suggest using "prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy" instead of "as a
condition of approval of the first certificate of occupancy." The suggested language is
consistent with the language used later in the proffer statement. (County Attorney)
Road Improvements B. Bent Creek Road Bridge. On lines 2 -3, same comments as above.
(County Attorney)
Road Improvements C. Bent Creek Parkway From Bent Creek Road to Avon Street
(Excluding the Landfill Segment). Please clarify if this road will be a rural or urban cross
Page 5 of8
Revised 4-25-I1 AF
section. As previously mentioned, it is possible for the road to be both in different sections.
This proffer refers to both, please describe what you intend to use.
• Be aware that the references to "waivers" and section "32.7.2.8" may be changed before
this goes to the Board of Supervisors for action (County Attorney)
Road Improvements D. Bent Creek Parkway; Landfill Segment. 1. Status of Landfill
menta 4. Maintenance. Staff has met with VDEQ regarding this old landfill and the
"landfill segment" as indicated in the proffers. It does not appear as though it would be in
the County/s interest to accept any responsibility for this landfill through dedication of
land, be it right-of-way, road or trail within this landfill, as contemplated in proffer 1.D.1
and 4. (Engineering)
6. Remediation and reopening in the event of closure. Why was the last sentence added?
In a scenario like this additional transportation impacts would occur to the access point in
the City. Did traffic studies account for this? (Engineering and Planning)
Road Improvements F. Transportation Proffers Compliance. 3. The City is concerned with
the statement regarding the developer not being responsible for right-of-way. If these
improvements are needed then the developer should be responsible for all aspects of the
project. (City)
G. Transit Stop; Park and Ride Lot. Reference to the county Transportation Planner and
Charlottesville Transit Service ("CTS") need to be revised. (Planning)
2. Greenway Dedication.
• The references to the "Application Plan" should be changed to "Application Plan
Amendment." (County Attorney)
3. Dedication for Greenway Park; Cash Contribution for Greenway Trail, Greenway Park and
Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan.
• The references to the "Application Plan" should be changed to "Application Plan
Amendment." At the end of paragraph 2, the County would prefer that the proffer not
have the sunset clause since it is no longer a "15.2-2298" locality for proffer purposes.
Paragraph 3 is the cost of Irving adjuster for the cash proffer, and it appears in 3 places in
the proffers. It could appear just once and cross-reference the proffers to which it pertains.
It is possible that we may have new language regarding how to deal with the lag time
between the change in calendar years and the fact that the M & 5 numbers are not
available for the preceding calendar year until around April 1. This potential change is
currently being discussed. (County Attorney)
4. Cash Contribution for Pedestrian Link to Willoughby Subdivision
• See comment to proffer 3 regarding the cost of living adjuster. (County Attorney)
• The changes to proffers 2, 3 and 4 for the Greenway trail appear to place the onus of all
planning and construction and much of the cost on the County. Typically in these scenarios,
the trails and connections are constructed and dedicated by the developer, without a
sunset clause. A class-A trail as defined in the Greenway Plan (roughly the same as a Class
A type 2 trail in the Design Manual —wide paved surface with grades for ADA), and a bridge
over Moores Creek, will cost more than is currently proffered. (Engineering)
• County staff is currently in the process of doing a cost evaluation to determine an
estimated cost of this proposed pedestrian link. Staff will provide this information to you
once it is completed. We are concerned that this revised proffer will not be sufficient for
the construction of this pedestrian link. (Planning)
Page 6 of8
Revised 4-25-11 eke
6. LEED Standards. Proffer 6 seems unenforceable. The county has no involvement in the
LEED standards, and the changes seem to exempt the applicant from actually achieving the
certification. This is not clearly understood. (Engineering)
7. Moore's Creek Erosion and Buffer Prolects. Proffer 7 does not seem to be clear in what is
being completed when and by whom. This proffer appears to need updating to clarify this
information. (Engineering)
8. Former Landfill Site: Work Plan* Department of Environmental Quality. Discussions
during the May 11, 2012 meeting with DEQshould address concerns from County staff and
DEQ relating to Proffer 8, which should be modified to indicate the Landfill Work Plan
should be approved prior to the approval of any development, construction or grading plan
for the property, and to make the County an approving authority. (Engineering)
10. Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Quality Management. D. Rainfall
Harvesting and Roof Desien.
• Second to last sentence in this proffer, (begins with Final Rainfall Harvesting design........)
appears to have a typo. (Planning)
• Be aware that before this rezoning is before the Board of Supervisors for action, the term
"preliminary site plan" may be changed to "initial site plan." (County Attorney)
12. Transit Funding.
• The City has the following concern: the original proffer offered 20 cents per square foot of
floor space on an ongoing basis for transit improvements. The revised proffer is for a flat
amount, one-time contribution of $100,000. To be a viable contribution this proffer needs
to be ongoing. (City)
• Staff needs to complete an assessment of the proposed contributions (potential use of the
funds and the cost for providing service to this site) with City/CAT staff. This information
will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. (Planning)
• See comment to proffer 3 regarding the cost of Irving adjuster. (County Attorney)
There may be additional need for future clarification or questions regarding the proposed proffers.
In conclusion, while staff understands the applicant's situation with regards to wanting ultimate
flexibility in how this project is developed, staff has to provide guidance to the Public, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors with regards to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance. We recommend that the outstanding issues mentioned in this letter be addressed
prior to public hearing.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter' which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Page 7 of8
Revised 4-25-11 eke
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
carantiala Ibemarl e. ore
Sincerely,
4A& J --
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development
c: Alan Taylor, River Bend Management, Inc.
enc: Albemarle County Service Authority Map
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Page 8 oj8
Rewi d4-25-11 Al
Oates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
' The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. It changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
"The lenal ad deadlines jc Iha tact data of whieh 3^. _�pf�ani �_n derido �uhefher to r_ci rb.m� n _
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline Planning
and Decision for Commission Public
Public Hearing *' Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Dec 19 2011
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Toe Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
Feb 27
Mai -20
Feb 6
Mai -7
Mar 12
Apr 3
Tue Feb 21
Mai -21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 30
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
Ma 14
Jun 5
Apr 16
May 16
May 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jur. 25
Jul 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Au 1
Aug 20
Sep 11
Jul 16
Aug15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17
I Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct 31 1
Nov 12 1
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 18
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
Jan 8 2013
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7 2013
Jan 29 2013
Dec 3
Jan 2 2013
Jan 14 2013
Feb 5 2013
Dec 17
Jan 16 2013
Feb 4 2013
Feb 26 2013
Oates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
' The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. It changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
"The lenal ad deadlines jc Iha tact data of whieh 3^. _�pf�ani �_n derido �uhefher to r_ci rb.m� n _
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP tl or ZMA 4
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
Fee A nea a s Date Paid Bywhu?
Re aaR
ClaV
By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
Zoning Map Amendment is
PROJECT NUMBER: 4MA �Clfl C20 M( PROJECT NAME: �;'"Sf�ep '',A,/a.,C),_,-t<,,- A wla,vdrne.,(—a„..
�?OID —603Park+'115 Sfvz.c.(ur,
/1 E3Resubmittal Fee is Required /J a aubmHtal Free is Not Required
(, I/)AArAC}�-P_
(11 0124-f I—, �' p�� q,.._Y� L�i JJg'I la..
Community Development Project Coordinator -Signature D e
yah rie_ Lona
Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit — original Special Use Permit fee of 1000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
5500
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ Fastresubmission
£REE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zo ng Map Amendment fee of S3,500
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resy ission
$1,750
❑
Deferral of sybeduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'I notice fees will be required
$180
To be Paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are
required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by me Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided
to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAPF l Fr %(Q Trl MIINTV AF AT 31rW d111 FIV A VMFNT AT V"MMONYTV 1rrvri nPasrvT r ninuTwu
D Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty(50)notices
$200+ actual rust offirst-class postage
D Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty(50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual
cost of fust -class postage
D Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of$280 for total of4 publleathers)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 9724126
4282011 Page 1 of 1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 9 Mar 2012
Rev. 1: 27 Apr 2012
Subject: 5' Street Avon Center (ZMA200900001)
Rev. 1, 24 Apr 2012:
It is recommended that the application plan not show any grading within the floodplain unless a Special
Use Permit for fill in the floodplain accompanies the rezoning. Otherwise, it is recommended that the
stormwater features be removed from the floodplain. This includes the roadway, which cannot be
constructed without the special use permits.
It is recommended the application plan provide a typical section for the proposed connector road to
establish typical features.
We have met with VDEQ regarding this old landfill and the "landfill segment" as indicated in the proffers.
It does not appear as though it would be in the County's interest to accept any responsibility for this
landfill through dedication of land, be it right-of-way, road or trail within this landfill, as contemplated in
proffer 1.D.1 and 4
It is not clear to me why the verbage is added in proffer 1.D.6.
The changes to proffers 2, 3 and 4 for the Greenway trail appear to place the onus of all planning and
construction and much of the cost on the County. Typically in these scenarios, the trails and connections
are constructed and dedicated by the developer, without a sunset clause. A class -A trail as defined in the
Greenway Plan (roughly the same as a Class A type 2 trail in the Design Manual — wide paved surface with
grades for ADA), and a bridge over Moores Creek, will cost more than is currently proffered. It is worth
noting that the developer of Hollymead Town Center likens this to building a road, and is talking with the
County about going back to the Board for relief from this requirement.
Proffer 6 seems unenforceable. The county has no involvement in the LEED standards, and the changes
seem to exempt the applicant from actually achieving the certification. This is not clearly understood.
Proffer 7 does not seem to be clear in what is being completed when and by whom. This proffer appears to
need updating.
Proffer 8 should be modified to indicate the Landfill Work Plan should be approved prior to the approval
of any development, construction or grading plan for the property, and to make the County an approving
authority. Our meeting with VDEQ revealed that the state agency is uncomfortable with any involvement
in the project beyond the state statutes where they have direct responsibility. Therefore, if the County
wants any cosmetic or environmental remediation of the landfill site, the proffer should be such that the
County will be in a position to require it, in which case the VDEQ personnel can provide expert advice and
guidance. Examples are in item 8B, where the county wants exposed metals removed or capped, but
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
VDEQ indicates they are not empowered to require it, or in item 8C, where VDEQ has indicated that they
do not want to be involved in road or other infrastructure construction where it does not directly relate to
remediation or containment of the landfill.
There is not enough detail on this rezoning plan for further review. All features seem to be only potential
or subject to change.
Comment from 9 Mar 2012:
It has been almost two years since I worked on this zoning map amendment. Looking at the files, it
appears to be substantially the same as the last review with some minor corrections. I do not have any
additional comments.
I can see since 2009 I have made an effort to compare only to the originally approved rezoning. However,
the plan seems to have gotten sketchier and sketchier with each revision. All that remains really is the
connector road, and the stormwater locations. But, now even the stormwater locations are indicated to be
"potential". If this lack of specificity works for zoning, this is fine, because the current locations are
outdated, as the county does not currently approve these facilities in flood plain. In addition, the special
use permits for crossing the floodplain are still outstanding, and the connector road is not really possible
without them.
I could not do anything with the plan sheet showing critical slopes submitted with this revision. The
zoning plan has so little detail, there is not enough information to adequately process this waiver. I am also
not certain whether to credit all the areas indicated as man-made.
file: E2 zma2009-1 GEB 5thAwn.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 .
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 2, 2012
Ms. Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA200900001/51h Street —Avon Center Amendment
SP2010-003 5th Street'— Avon Center — Parking Structure
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal requesting to update the application plan amendment,
review the critical slope waiver exhibit, and to amend the proffers.
We have discussed some of these comments during our meeting on March 28, 2012, which
included Sarah Baldwin and Alan Taylor. I have included all the comments I have received to date.
I will send you any additional comments received after this letter is sent to you once I receive
them. As discussed during our meeting, majority of the comments in this letter focus or reiterate
on issues that should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing.
Planning
In regards to the Application Plan, based on the information submitted, it is difficult for staff to
review your request because very little detail is shown. We understand that there are several
unknown aspects regarding this proposal and that future development is often based on the initial
development occurrences, which are currently still pending. As a result, you wish for this project
to develop in a flexible manner. As we have discussed, the staff comments need to be based on
some definitive information that you will need to provide. This is the main context by which the
following comments are based:
The following comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. These items need to be
addressed prior to your proposal going to public hearing. (The Comprehensive Plan Amendment
language is in bold. See below):
• The Application Plan shows a proposed Bent Creek Parkway and the Comprehensive Plan
amendment describes the following: "The former warehouse access road should become
Page 1 of 7 Revised 4-25-11 eke
a parkway along Moore's Creek, but should not be designed as a major thoroughfare.
The road need not be improved with curbing, but should, to the extent feasible, be
confined mainly to the existing travelway and disturbed area. To avoid additional
disturbance to this stream buffer, sidewalks should not be required on this road. The
greenway along Moore's Creek is recommended as a pedestrian alternative. It is not clear
from the proposed Application Plan how Pedestrians using the greenway will have access
to the proposed development. Staff suggests crosswalks/sidewalks/pathways that will be
incorporated in strategic locations so that pedestrians will be able to easily have access
between the greenway and the development. It is possible and was most likely intended
for the existing road to be improved as suggested in this Comprehensive Plan language and
for any newly constructed portion of the road (along with other newly constructed roads
within the development) to be done with an urban cross section that would include
sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes, etc. This could help with pedestrian connections that
will be needed for the interior and exterior of the development.
• The Application Plan shows conceptual site circulation. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment describes that "One of the new roads on the site should be designed as a
main commercial street traversing the town center into this portion of the site. The road
should have curbing, sidewalks, street trees, and other Neighborhood Model elements.
To accommodate service traffic primarily, a second new road segment should be
considered at the southern portion. of the site." The conceptual site circulation should be
more specific. Proposed street sections should be included on the Application Plan that for
example, show sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees.
• The Comprehensive Plan describes the following: "The western commercial area is
intended to be a compact, high density area which mixes retail businesses, services,
public facilities and civic spaces. Large footprint retail of a regional nature may be
appropriate in the western portion of the area. Specifically, the buildings should be
oriented to major roads; designed, sized and massed with consideration for adjacent and
nearby smaller uses in the Center and on the larger site; and parking should be relegated
to the greatest extent possible." The Application Plan does not show any building
footprints. It would be helpful if some building footprints were shown with perhaps a note
on the plan referencing a commitment to the design elements as described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• As we discussed during our meeting, perhaps the following architecture elements, also
described in the Comprehensive Plan, provides a level of detail that you would like to have
some flexibility with due to potential change request from tenants. However, this
development is located in the Entrance Corridors and it is important that some of the
architectural elements described in the Comprehensive Plan be addressed in some
manner. As we discussed, perhaps tying the architectural features of buildings and spaces
within the development to the architectural features of buildings that go through the ARB
review might be an option that works. As discussed, we suggest you work with Margaret
Maliszewski regarding appropriate action. "The architecture, urban design and landscape
treatment of the property should be carefully integrated to ensure that the visual
interest, massing, scale and organization of the development contributes to the role of
the site as a town center and commercial focal point for the Southern Urban Area. The
town center area should provide a functional, attractive and distinct destination for
Page 2 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the larger neighborhood with particular
emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural and landscape design guidelines
should be prepared to address:
o The integration of building facades and rooflines;
o Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
o Architectural materials and color;
o Design of parking areas;
o Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular, including traffic calming;
o Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
o Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to
planned public civic and greenway areas;
o Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
o Recreational and civic improvements.
In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as environmental and
aesthetic considerations, a mid-sized big box model is recommended for this site.
Development of "super -sized" big boxes is not appropriate due to the site's relatively
high exposure to three Entrance Corridors, immersed location within older
neighborhoods with established character and scale, and the desire to mix and balance
uses on the site and create a bona fide town center. As a base guideline for maximum
building footprints (excluding garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings, storage
areas and grocery stores), the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000
square feet. For the purpose of this definition, a grocery store is not considered to be a
big box. Buildings of increased footprint may be considered, subject to demonstration by
the applicant that the environmental impact of such increased footprint can be offset by
(a) design that is sensitive to architectural massing and quality, (b) building that
complements the setting of the larger project, (c) parking and traffic accommodation
that complements building form, pedestrian access, and building siting, (d)
environmental design that enhances existing natural conditions within areas to be
conserved, and (e) a commitment to a project phasing plan that ensures that a mix of
retail uses of varying size and scale will be developed concomitantly with the expanded
big box use."
As discussed, the language in the proffer relating to a phasing plan does not appear to be a
phasing plan. It does not provide a timing element and it appears that buildings can be
built in phases A or B during the development process. This being the case, we suggest you
eliminate the phasing plan or include some additional language that makes the phasing
plan tied to a timeframe with definitive actions for each phase. The following is described
in the Comprehensive Plan "Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that maximize
the range and mixture of uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses
and addresses all parts of the site during the development of the project."
The following items relating to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in bold) are provided to you
as advisory comments or reminders of items that are important for this proposed development:
Page 3 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
"The intersection of existing and new roads with the Bent Creek Bridge should be
designed to avoid or minimize disturbance to the one hundred year flood plain, stream
buffer, and the preserved area located above and to the east of it."
"Development within this area should achieve moderate to high levels of density
inasmuch as (a) the existing and planned transportation network, utility, and other
public infrastructure as the capacity to support such development and (b) there is no
remaining undeveloped land of significant area within Neighborhoods 4 and 5 that can
meet the Comprehensive Plan's Regional Service development criteria. The continuation
of employment opportunities is significant and valuable in this location, particularly in
the eastern portion of the site but also throughout the town center area. The existing
Light Industrial use opportunities available under the current zoning may be used to
support and encourage development of flex space and/or other employment -oriented
uses along Avon Street Extended."
"Development on the site may balance retail with employment -based uses and other
land uses."
When we met we discussed the possibility of providing sidewalks in the travel
ways/parking areas. Some examples of where this type of sidewalk has been done are the
shopping center with the Giant grocery store located on Pantops, Target located at the
Hollymead Town Center and Whole Foods located on Rio Road in the City of
Charlottesville.
• Also, as we discussed, if you plan to subdivide a portion of this project area that is partially
in the City and County, please keep in mind that proffers and legal ads would need to be
revised to accommodate the change and staff will need to be involved in such changes.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin:
• The revised submittal must meet the requirements of Chapter 18, Sections, Planned
Development districts and Section 25 Planned Development -Shopping Centers. Also see
Section 8.5.1 for application and documents to be submitted.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
• The stormwater locations shown on the Application Plan are indicated to be "potential". A
better level of commitment needs to be made regarding the location of stormwater
facilities. The current locations shown for stormwater facilities are outdated. The County
does not currently approve these facilities in the flood plain.
• The special use permits for crossing the floodplain are still outstanding, and the connector
road is not really possible without them.
• It is difficult to review the plan sheet showing the critical slopes that was submitted with
this revision. The Application Plan shows so little detail, there is not enough information to
adequately process this waiver. It is also unclear whether to credit all the areas indicated
Page 4 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
as man-made. Please provide adequate information for review of critical slopes
disturbance and waiver request.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
• Although no buildings or site layout are shown, it is anticipated that the development will
have an inward focus and will include large-scale buildings. This will likely result in the rear
elevations of large buildings facing the 164 EC. Standard "back of building" designs will not
be appropriate for elevations visible from the EC. With no architectural designs available
for review, proffers regarding materials, forms, scale, blankness, trademark designs,
equipment, screening, lighting and signage would be appropriate to better guarantee
appropriate appearances.
ASCA
The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been
provided by Alexander Morrison:
• This will require Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification at the site plan
stage.
• The rezoning documents should show existing ACSA utilities and easements.
RWSA
The following comments related to waterline issues have been provided by Victoria Fort:
• RWSA previously issued a flow acceptance for this project; however, the flow capacity
certification has expired. Prior to site plan approval, a new request should be sent to
RWSA for acceptance of sewage flows with updated flow numbers based on the changes to
the site.
• While not a 'red flag' issue, RWSA is concerned about the storm water outfalls to Moores
Creek for this project. We own a sewer interceptor that runs along the north bank of
Moores Creek and we will want to review the proposed storm outfalls (at the site plan
stage) to ensure that they will not alter the stream in such a way.that causes increased
erosion along the north bank.
VDOT
We will provide these comments once we receive them.
Proffers
1. Road Improvements A. Bent Creek Road and 5th Street Intersection. references a document
called "Schedule I" as being attached. Please attach this document as well as other
attachments/exhibits referenced in the proffers.
Road Improvements C. Bent Creek Parkway From Bent Creek Road to Avon Street
(Excluding the Landfill Segment). Please clarify if this road will be a rural or urban cross
section. As mentioned above, it is possible for the road to be both in different sections.
This proffer refers to both, please describe what you intend to use.
Page 5 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
Road Improvements F. Transportation Proffers Compliance. 1. For clarification, is this
referring to a specified width?
2. Greenway Dedication. Need to define or provide the location of the area for dedication.
The greenway trail should contain a trigger for dedication to the County, such as at site
plan or subdivision plat.
The proposed Greenway should be conveyed through subdivision.
3. Dedication for Greenway Park; Cash Contribution for Greenway Trail, Greenway Park and
Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan. The cash contribution should be subject to Marshall Swift
Index.
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient. For example, the $150,000 may be just
enough for trail development and stone dust surfacing along the Creek corridor. It will not
be enough to bridge the much needed connection over Biscuit Run or provide much in
amenities for a trail head parking facility. Can the applicant provide a portion of the
improvements?
The Bridge over Biscuit Run provides an important link to a future commuter bike/ped
route along Moores Creek . It is considered a high priority in terms of a transportation
option.
The ten (10) years time frame is not enough time. We will need between 15 to 20 years.
4. Cash Contribution for Pedestrian Link to Willoughby Subdivision. The cash contribution
should be subject to Marshall Swift Index. There should be more flexibility in the remaining
cash. It is suggested that "maintenance" be removed and remaining cash go to general
CIP.
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient.
The ten (10) years time frame is not enough time. We will need between 15 to 20 years.
6. LEED Standards. For clarity, the LEED standards should apply to all buildings, not just retail.
12. Transit Funding. What constitutes service to the property? For example, will service go to
the interior of the development or will it run on the main exterior roads (5th Street, ext.,
Avon St.)?
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient.
Page 6 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
The cash contribution should be subject to Marshall Swift Index. The date to extend the
contribution should be more than eighteen (18) months. We suggest 5 years, although
inquiries should be made to Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) to determine when transit
service is anticipated.
13. Is phasing necessary?
14. E. 4. And F. 1. should have consistent language in reference to Floor Area vs. sfgfa, unless
there is a reason for the difference.
There may be additional need for future clarification or questions regarding the proposed
proffers.
Other
Are there any proposed changes to SP 201000003 for the parking structure? What is the intent
regarding the location of the structure?
Comments from the City of Charlottesville are attached.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cgrant@albemarle.org
Sincerely,
0��- � --SA-
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development
c: Alan Taylor, River Bend Management, Inc.
enc: Memorandum and electronic mail from Willy Thompson, City of Charlottesville
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Page 7 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
To:
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From:
Willy Thompson, Neighborhood Planner
Date:
March 28, 2012
Re:
Avon Center ZMA
The City has the following comments and concerns with the Avon Center ZMA
applications:
1. Regarding the Proffer Statement section F.3., the City cannot be bound by the six
month time limits. The improvements are required and the City will conduct its
review in the most expedient manner possible. Please have them remove the time
City -related time constraints.
2. Also under section F.3., the City is concerned with the sentence that states, "The
Owner also shall not be required by this Proffer Statement to acquire right-of-way or
otherwise pay for right-of-way in the City for such improvements." The City asks
that a clause be added which requires the Owner to reimburse the City for any right-
of-way the City has to purchase.
3. In regards to section 7, "Moore's Creek Erosion and Buffer Protects," the City wants
to ensure than any work done on the County side of Moore's Creek is also done on
the City side.
Claudette Grant
From: Thompson, Willy [thompsonw@charlottesville.org]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:52 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Cc: Gensic, Chris
Subject: FW: Avon Center comment - trail or parkland request
Attachments: AvonCenterTrailRequest.pdf
Hi Claudette. Here are some comments from Parks and Rec regarding a piece of property just inside the City. Let me
know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Willy
From: Gensic, Chris
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Thompson, Willy
Cc: Dan Mahon (dmahoncd)albemarle.org)
Subject: Avon Center comment - trail or parkland request
Willy,
The developer of Avon Center owns a small parcel of land on the City side of Moore's Creek. We would like seek either
a) a trail easement thru this parcel as shown on the map, or b) fee simple ownership of the parcel to be added to the
park system and used as a future trailhead area.
Our GIS map shows this land to be in both the floodplain and floodway, and therefore has very limited development
potential, but would be useful as parkland.
We have permissions from the adjacent property owners and are about to get the last easement we need to connect 5th
Street to Bent Creek along Moore's Creek. This parcel is the only piece left to complete.the trail in this corner of the
City.
See map attached.
Thank you,
Chris Gensic
Park and Trails Planner
City of Charlottesville
970-3656 989-0061
Avon Center - Trail easement request
0 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. 'These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application: The
only exception to this rule will -be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
if at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A. For a special use permit:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
3. Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..........................................................................................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee.............................................:...........................................................................................$1000.00
C. Amendment
to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee....................................................................................................................................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N. Required notice:
1.
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee....................................................................................................................................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2.
Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee........................................................................................................................................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3.
Published notice:
Fee......................................................................................................................................Actual
cost
Page 3 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule -
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning
Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Dec 19 2011
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Tue Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
Feb 27
Mar 20
Feb 6
Mar 7
Mar 12
Apr 3
Tue Feb 21
Mar 21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 30
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
Ma 14
Jun 5
Apr 16
May 16
May 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 25
Jul 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 20
Sep l l
Jul 16
Aug 15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 12
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 18
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
Jan 8 2013
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7 2013
Jan 29 2013
Dec 3
Jan 2 2013
Jan 14 2013
Feb 5 2013
Dec 17
Jan 16 2013
Feb 4 2013
Feb 26 2013
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
** The. lanal ad deadline is the last date at \nihirh nn annlirant can deciria whether to resubmit nr nn
T
O
� O
0
(7
Ci
KA -1
�L
U
r= '
W
E
zm
m c
CL
�L
'a m
Q TU
m U
M
t
4.
O
E 'N
C
U C
O O
3 U
o �
U- _
r cu
O
y
in
cn
O
m
\
�•
-1
-i
\
rl
rl
C,1
co
N
\
r\
m
c
\
m
c
Z
r+
\
C
r.l
Ln
Gi
Ln
to
(D
m
\
l0
N
�
N
�
W
co
CO
Ln
M
(V
n
m
O
-i
o
O
-i
r`
-1
lz�*
- i
--i
Ln
rt
N
N
r 1
T
N
N
C�1
C\l
N
N
CV
C•1
C\1
N
C\l
(NN
c -i
CV
N
N
CVV
C
N
N
C`I
CN
CN
T
T
T
r
T
T
r
'r
r
T
T
r
�
T
T
�-
T
-•
\
T
\
T
\
T
\
T
r
\
d'
\
!b
\
I
\
\
\
m
(
\
O
\
aO
\
7
\
u7
C •!
\
m
\
O
\
M
C\"
r
O
m
CD
c�
��•�T
■L't
��.ii
�y
n_l ,
m
=
`1
\
N
m
N
N
N
\
N.\
\
N
\
N
\
=t
04C
\
ri
^
T
N
\
m
M
\
d"
Q
LCA
\
(D
\
r,
I�
1`
O
Q1
(m
T
O
T
T
N
N
ri
T
H
T
rf
�J
Q
U
(V
J
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
T
T
CV
(N
N
N
CV
N
CV
N
CN
N
N
(\I
N
N
N
CN
N
N
N
N
N
C4
(D
O
O
I-
N
(D
O
O
zr
O
T
M
m
O
m
M
Il
T
LO
M
LO
CD
O
T
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
o
\
(�
\
T
\
CA
\
00
\
tC)
\
O
\
(•�
•\
O
\
N
\
t`
\
d'
\
N
\
rn
\
O
\
O
C
O
O
CN
O
T
m
CN
O
N
N
(\I
rn
T
O
C`I
T
N
CV
N
(14
T
N
CN
N
T
N
N
CN
T
N
T
I-
I`
O
c0
cA
O)
O
O
r
T
Nr
L.1..
N
N
N
CN
co
co
Zr
V'
Lo
Lo
co
co
T
T
T
T
T
T
Q
(Q
R
G7
N
J
:�-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
\
\
\
N
CN
N
N
N
N
N
(D
(A
C7
('7
O
Lf)
(31
(A
C7
Imo•
T
cf'
N
\
CD
C7
(D
1-
O
tt'
0\0
N
61
CA
(=
N
C")
(M
T
C'">
M
N
61
O
CO
'C
T
T
OM
N\
(D
M
O
O
I`
A
N
N
CS)
T
T
\
tp
N
p
T
r\
\I
T
T
CSI
T
T
T
T
nI
T
T
T
N
T
T
C
N
N
LO
(D
co
I-
CO
O
M
M
O
O
T
r
p\.
N
M
m
LO
T
T
T
T
Q
T
T
cz
Q�
N
N
CN
CN
N
N
N
N
N
CN
C4
N
N
N
CN
CN
(y
N
N
N
N
N
(V
-
m
:c- •
!�
p..
Tc
G
OI
\
CO
M
I\
N
N
(D
O�
p
L()
M
(D
O
O
M
�-
\
LO
N
N
(D
N
N
T\
T
M
�-
N
r
�-
('7
N\
p
rCD
6]
T
O
N
O
T
N
fC
nl.
r
N
N
d
L j
(D
T
r
c
T
r\
�--•
r..
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.N
N
N
N
N
N
rl
rl
r♦
<-•I
rl
ri
e -i
ri
t1
rl
rl
� 1
c'i
c -i
.�-i
i I
i -i
�
<-•I
c• -I
�-i
c1
--I
c -i
O
d'
I,
!b
Lc
O
m
4
(o
N
Ln
O1
IZ
-i
O1
m
(D
m
a'
CO
(c
N
\
r1
\
N
\
O
\
\
N
\
\
rl
\
ri
N
\
N
m
\
m
d
\
U1
\
\
\
\
r,
Cq
CT
Q1
rt
O
c -I
t-1
H
N
ri
H
rf
d
14
U
1Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(D
O
O
I-
N
(D
O
O
zr
O
T
M
m
O
m
M
Il
T
LO
M
LO
CD
O
`
r -
T
T
N
N
CO
M
zr
T
M
LC)
CO
N
CO
O
T
O
O
r
r
N
Nr
L.1..
Q
(Q
J
:�-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
(D
(A
C7
('7
O
Lf)
(31
(A
C7
Imo•
T
cf'
N
\
CD
C7
(D
1-
O
tt'
0\0
N
61
CA
(=
N
T
N
M
\
�
N\
Lo-
N\\
O
T
N\
M\\\
N
N
O\
N
CV
T
N
;. :
NI
N
c i
\I
W
M
M
r
O
O
T
�-
T
T
T
Q
N
N
CN
CN
N
N
N
N
N
CN
C4
N
N
N
CN
CN
(y
N
N
N
N
N
(V
-
:c- •
!�
p..
Tc
O
OI
\
CO
M
I\
N
N
(D
O�
p
L()
M
(D
O
O
M
�-
\
LO
N
N
(D
N
N
T\
T
M
�-
N
r
�-
('7
N\
p
rCD
6]
T
O
N
O
T
N
nl.
r
N
N
d
L j
(D
T
r
c
T
r\
�--•
r..
m
•
w
c
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or`�
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: Jffl A9rwwq4,rao o( -;.L PROJECT NAME: � J��n
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required M ---Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
r �o 1;2
/12-
(�-64munity Uevelopment Project Coordinator Signature . Date
Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee o ,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit f f $2,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250
;.
9N NUMN
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amen ent fee of $3,500
.❑ First resubmissionFREE
D Each additional resubmission $1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled pollic hearing at applicant's request I $180
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission .and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property, owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are
required before a.Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided
to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the.application is heard by a public body.
1%4A1TV rTTFruc TO rOTTNTV nF AT.RR.MARURIPAVMF,NT AT C.(1MMTTNTTV DWELOPMRNT COTTNTER
➢. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200+ actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice +actual
cost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126.
4/25/2011 Page 1 of 1
�'JRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 6, 2010
Ms. Valerie W. Long
Williams Mullen
321 East Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200
RE: ZMA-09-001 5`" Street — Avon Center - Zoning Map Amendment
SP2010-003 5`" Street — Avon Center — Parking Structure — Special Use Permit
Dear Ms. Long:
Thank you for your re -submittal of ZMA 2009-001 and SP2010 -003, both received on September 7`" for
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76 -M1 -2A; 76 -M1 -2B; 76 -M1 -4A; and 77-11E.
We have a few questions and comments which are indicated below:
Application Plan:
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to the Entrance Corridor
Guidelines:
• Notes #2 and #3 on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan need additional clarification.
a. In #2, "accommodate vehicular access" isn't clear. Based on the last paragraph of page 1 of your
September 7, 2010 letter, it means a travelway will surround the landscape/amenity area.
b. Similarly, "accommodate pedestrian access" isn't clear and your letter suggests that it means a pedestrian
path will surround the landscape/amenity area. It seems reasonable that pedestrian paths would also be
provided through the landscape/amenity area.
C. Note #2 says, "The landscape/fountain area shall be integrated with the north/south corridor." Does
integration refer to size, location, or similarity of planting and streetscape features, or something else? If
there is a minimum size requirement for the landscape/fountain area, this should be specified.
d. In #3, saying a landscape/fountain area might contain a fountain is confusing.
The following is suggested wording to replace notes #2 and #3. This rewording is intended as editing — not re-
design of the proposed development. If this wording does not clarify your intent for the design, your intent should
be further clarified so the wording can be made more understandable.
The north end of the north/south corridor shall terminate in a landscaped plaza. The plaza shall be
designed at the site plan stage. The plaza shall be designed such that it acts as a focal point in the
streetscape and provides an amenity for those using the center. The plaza may include a fountain. Any
1
paving, seating, lighting, street furniture (trash cans, etc.), signs, or other streetscape elements included in
the plaza shall be coordinated with the overall streetscape of the north/south corridor. Pedestrian paths
shall be provided through and around the plaza. A vehicular travelway shall surround the plaza.
Planning:
e If the Pedestrian Friendly Corridor Conceptual Section shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan is intended for
the north/south corridor, reference to this may also be helpful.
Development Framework in Application Plan:
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning:
eThe condition in #2 under Building Zones C/E and F in the Development Framework on Sheet 4 of the
Application Plan refers to the full length of the North/South Street. Because the intent is for the condition to apply
to the full extent of the North/South Street from Building G to Building A, it is recommended that this condition be
moved out from the Zone C/E and F section of the framework to avoid confusion. It is suggested that this be
moved to the general Development Framework section. Also in the same condition #2 just described, it is
recommended that "but not limited to" be added after the words "such as" in the parentheses.
e On Sheet 4 of the Application Plan, the section called Maximum Floor Area, Total Project (page 2) of the
Revised Development Framework, the first sentence refers to ZMA 2006-09, should this refer to the current ZMA?
e In the same section of the Revised Development Framework as described above should the sentence stating
....the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared in support of the ZMA. be more specific to describe which ZMA is being
referred to?
Proffers:
Planning:
e On page 1 of the proffers, should paragraph 5 describe the Development Framework is now part of the
Application Plan?
e Per proffer 8D and as stated in your response letter dated September 7, 2010, please provide a copy of the DEQ
approval of the Landfill Work Plan.
e Proffer 13 Phasing of Development does not describe a timeline. For example, when will phase 2 begin? Does
all of phase 1 need to be complete before pursuing phase 2?
e Proffer 13 A. (10) states that buildings within phases may be built individually..... Should similar language be
included in Proffer 13 B. (1)?
Current Development:
The following comments have been provided by Bill Fritz related to site plan concerns:
e The intent of the phasing of the buildings is unclear. The proffers clearly lay out what infrastructure
improvements must be done with the initial phase. It appears that the phase 2 improvements could either be
required as part of phase 1 or can be addressed with provisions in the ordinance.
Zoning:
The following comments have been provided by Sarah Baldwin related to zoning matters:
• Please include reference in the proffers that the Applicant will need to apply for SP's for the greenway bridges
that cross over the floodway per Section 30.3.05.2.1(2).
• Proffer 8D states that the Applicant intends to "substantially complete" the landfill work plan prior to the
issuance of any permits. It is recommended that the Applicant provide reference to completion of the plan before
any c/o is issued.
e Please provide copies of any code or legal references that are mentioned in the proffers.
2
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
*Regarding the Proffers, at the bottom of page 8, the word "extend" should be "extent".
*The building layout has changed from the original approved plan and the building letter designations in the
Development Framework have stayed more or less the same. Architectural conditions were established in the
original framework for Building Zones E and F. In the original plan, those zones differed in character from Zones
B and D. With the current reorganization of the plan, Zones B and D are now very similar to Zones E and F and are
an integral part of the organized building layout, but the architectural conditions outlined in the proffers and the
Development Framework do not apply to Zones B and D. Is this the goal for this development? It seems that the
pedestrian access condition should apply to the north/south facades of Blocks B and D, if not the east/west facades
of B through F.
VDOT
The following comment has been provided by Joel DeNunzio regarding traffic concerns.
• Regarding the responses in your September 7, 2010 letter to the previous items of concerns from VDOT, these
concerns can be addressed at the site plan phase with the revised Traffic Impact Study.
Resubmittal or Public Hearing
State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning Commission within
90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The
Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. (The date that
the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the
submittal date.)
We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER] you:
• Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule OR
• Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance
with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the County,
OR
• Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral.
If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days are
resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.or,- in the "forms" section at
the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you
have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In
those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional
resolution is needed.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready
to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report
will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning
Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will
be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues
identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may
request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information.
3
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Planning Division
C: New Era Properties, LLC
Avon Holdings, LLC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 .
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 2, 2012
Ms. Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA200900001/51h Street —Avon Center Amendment
SP2010-003 5th Street'— Avon Center — Parking Structure
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal requesting to update the application plan amendment,
review the critical slope waiver exhibit, and to amend the proffers.
We have discussed some of these comments during our meeting on March 28, 2012, which
included Sarah Baldwin and Alan Taylor. I have included all the comments I have received to date.
I will send you any additional comments received after this letter is sent to you once I receive
them. As discussed during our meeting, majority of the comments in this letter focus or reiterate
on issues that should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing.
Planning
In regards to the Application Plan, based on the information submitted, it is difficult for staff to
review your request because very little detail is shown. We understand that there are several
unknown aspects regarding this proposal and that future development is often based on the initial
development occurrences, which are currently still pending. As a result, you wish for this project
to develop in a flexible manner. As we have discussed, the staff comments need to be based on
some definitive information that you will need to provide. This is the main context by which the
following comments are based:
The following comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. These items need to be
addressed prior to your proposal going to public hearing. (The Comprehensive Plan Amendment
language is in bold. See below):
• The Application Plan shows a proposed Bent Creek Parkway and the Comprehensive Plan
amendment describes the following: "The former warehouse access road should become
Page 1 of 7 Revised 4-25-11 eke
a parkway along Moore's Creek, but should not be designed as a major thoroughfare.
The road need not be improved with curbing, but should, to the extent feasible, be
confined mainly to the existing travelway and disturbed area. To avoid additional
disturbance to this stream buffer, sidewalks should not be required on this road. The
greenway along Moore's Creek is recommended as a pedestrian alternative. It is not clear
from the proposed Application Plan how Pedestrians using the greenway will have access
to the proposed development. Staff suggests crosswalks/sidewalks/pathways that will be
incorporated in strategic locations so that pedestrians will be able to easily have access
between the greenway and the development. It is possible and was most likely intended
for the existing road to be improved as suggested in this Comprehensive Plan language and
for any newly constructed portion of the road (along with other newly constructed roads
within the development) to be done with an urban cross section that would include
sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes, etc. This could help with pedestrian connections that
will be needed for the interior and exterior of the development.
• The Application Plan shows conceptual site circulation. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment describes that "One of the new roads on the site should be designed as a
main commercial street traversing the town center into this portion of the site. The road
should have curbing, sidewalks, street trees, and other Neighborhood Model elements.
To accommodate service traffic primarily, a second new road segment should be
considered at the southern portion. of the site." The conceptual site circulation should be
more specific. Proposed street sections should be included on the Application Plan that for
example, show sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees.
• The Comprehensive Plan describes the following: "The western commercial area is
intended to be a compact, high density area which mixes retail businesses, services,
public facilities and civic spaces. Large footprint retail of a regional nature may be
appropriate in the western portion of the area. Specifically, the buildings should be
oriented to major roads; designed, sized and massed with consideration for adjacent and
nearby smaller uses in the Center and on the larger site; and parking should be relegated
to the greatest extent possible." The Application Plan does not show any building
footprints. It would be helpful if some building footprints were shown with perhaps a note
on the plan referencing a commitment to the design elements as described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• As we discussed during our meeting, perhaps the following architecture elements, also
described in the Comprehensive Plan, provides a level of detail that you would like to have
some flexibility with due to potential change request from tenants. However, this
development is located in the Entrance Corridors and it is important that some of the
architectural elements described in the Comprehensive Plan be addressed in some
manner. As we discussed, perhaps tying the architectural features of buildings and spaces
within the development to the architectural features of buildings that go through the ARB
review might be an option that works. As discussed, we suggest you work with Margaret
Maliszewski regarding appropriate action. "The architecture, urban design and landscape
treatment of the property should be carefully integrated to ensure that the visual
interest, massing, scale and organization of the development contributes to the role of
the site as a town center and commercial focal point for the Southern Urban Area. The
town center area should provide a functional, attractive and distinct destination for
Page 2 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the larger neighborhood with particular
emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural and landscape design guidelines
should be prepared to address:
o The integration of building facades and rooflines;
o Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
o Architectural materials and color;
o Design of parking areas;
o Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular, including traffic calming;
o Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
o Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to
planned public civic and greenway areas;
o Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
o Recreational and civic improvements.
In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as environmental and
aesthetic considerations, a mid-sized big box model is recommended for this site.
Development of "super -sized" big boxes is not appropriate due to the site's relatively
high exposure to three Entrance Corridors, immersed location within older
neighborhoods with established character and scale, and the desire to mix and balance
uses on the site and create a bona fide town center. As a base guideline for maximum
building footprints (excluding garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings, storage
areas and grocery stores), the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000
square feet. For the purpose of this definition, a grocery store is not considered to be a
big box. Buildings of increased footprint may be considered, subject to demonstration by
the applicant that the environmental impact of such increased footprint can be offset by
(a) design that is sensitive to architectural massing and quality, (b) building that
complements the setting of the larger project, (c) parking and traffic accommodation
that complements building form, pedestrian access, and building siting, (d)
environmental design that enhances existing natural conditions within areas to be
conserved, and (e) a commitment to a project phasing plan that ensures that a mix of
retail uses of varying size and scale will be developed concomitantly with the expanded
big box use."
As discussed, the language in the proffer relating to a phasing plan does not appear to be a
phasing plan. It does not provide a timing element and it appears that buildings can be
built in phases A or B during the development process. This being the case, we suggest you
eliminate the phasing plan or include some additional language that makes the phasing
plan tied to a timeframe with definitive actions for each phase. The following is described
in the Comprehensive Plan "Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that maximize
the range and mixture of uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses
and addresses all parts of the site during the development of the project."
The following items relating to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in bold) are provided to you
as advisory comments or reminders of items that are important for this proposed development:
Page 3 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
"The intersection of existing and new roads with the Bent Creek Bridge should be
designed to avoid or minimize disturbance to the one hundred year flood plain, stream
buffer, and the preserved area located above and to the east of it."
"Development within this area should achieve moderate to high levels of density
inasmuch as (a) the existing and planned transportation network, utility, and other
public infrastructure as the capacity to support such development and (b) there is no
remaining undeveloped land of significant area within Neighborhoods 4 and 5 that can
meet the Comprehensive Plan's Regional Service development criteria. The continuation
of employment opportunities is significant and valuable in this location, particularly in
the eastern portion of the site but also throughout the town center area. The existing
Light Industrial use opportunities available under the current zoning may be used to
support and encourage development of flex space and/or other employment -oriented
uses along Avon Street Extended."
"Development on the site may balance retail with employment -based uses and other
land uses."
When we met we discussed the possibility of providing sidewalks in the travel
ways/parking areas. Some examples of where this type of sidewalk has been done are the
shopping center with the Giant grocery store located on Pantops, Target located at the
Hollymead Town Center and Whole Foods located on Rio Road in the City of
Charlottesville.
• Also, as we discussed, if you plan to subdivide a portion of this project area that is partially
in the City and County, please keep in mind that proffers and legal ads would need to be
revised to accommodate the change and staff will need to be involved in such changes.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin:
• The revised submittal must meet the requirements of Chapter 18, Sections, Planned
Development districts and Section 25 Planned Development -Shopping Centers. Also see
Section 8.5.1 for application and documents to be submitted.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
• The stormwater locations shown on the Application Plan are indicated to be "potential". A
better level of commitment needs to be made regarding the location of stormwater
facilities. The current locations shown for stormwater facilities are outdated. The County
does not currently approve these facilities in the flood plain.
• The special use permits for crossing the floodplain are still outstanding, and the connector
road is not really possible without them.
• It is difficult to review the plan sheet showing the critical slopes that was submitted with
this revision. The Application Plan shows so little detail, there is not enough information to
adequately process this waiver. It is also unclear whether to credit all the areas indicated
Page 4 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
as man-made. Please provide adequate information for review of critical slopes
disturbance and waiver request.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
• Although no buildings or site layout are shown, it is anticipated that the development will
have an inward focus and will include large-scale buildings. This will likely result in the rear
elevations of large buildings facing the 164 EC. Standard "back of building" designs will not
be appropriate for elevations visible from the EC. With no architectural designs available
for review, proffers regarding materials, forms, scale, blankness, trademark designs,
equipment, screening, lighting and signage would be appropriate to better guarantee
appropriate appearances.
ASCA
The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been
provided by Alexander Morrison:
• This will require Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification at the site plan
stage.
• The rezoning documents should show existing ACSA utilities and easements.
RWSA
The following comments related to waterline issues have been provided by Victoria Fort:
• RWSA previously issued a flow acceptance for this project; however, the flow capacity
certification has expired. Prior to site plan approval, a new request should be sent to
RWSA for acceptance of sewage flows with updated flow numbers based on the changes to
the site.
• While not a 'red flag' issue, RWSA is concerned about the storm water outfalls to Moores
Creek for this project. We own a sewer interceptor that runs along the north bank of
Moores Creek and we will want to review the proposed storm outfalls (at the site plan
stage) to ensure that they will not alter the stream in such a way.that causes increased
erosion along the north bank.
VDOT
We will provide these comments once we receive them.
Proffers
1. Road Improvements A. Bent Creek Road and 5th Street Intersection. references a document
called "Schedule I" as being attached. Please attach this document as well as other
attachments/exhibits referenced in the proffers.
Road Improvements C. Bent Creek Parkway From Bent Creek Road to Avon Street
(Excluding the Landfill Segment). Please clarify if this road will be a rural or urban cross
section. As mentioned above, it is possible for the road to be both in different sections.
This proffer refers to both, please describe what you intend to use.
Page 5 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
Road Improvements F. Transportation Proffers Compliance. 1. For clarification, is this
referring to a specified width?
2. Greenway Dedication. Need to define or provide the location of the area for dedication.
The greenway trail should contain a trigger for dedication to the County, such as at site
plan or subdivision plat.
The proposed Greenway should be conveyed through subdivision.
3. Dedication for Greenway Park; Cash Contribution for Greenway Trail, Greenway Park and
Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan. The cash contribution should be subject to Marshall Swift
Index.
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient. For example, the $150,000 may be just
enough for trail development and stone dust surfacing along the Creek corridor. It will not
be enough to bridge the much needed connection over Biscuit Run or provide much in
amenities for a trail head parking facility. Can the applicant provide a portion of the
improvements?
The Bridge over Biscuit Run provides an important link to a future commuter bike/ped
route along Moores Creek . It is considered a high priority in terms of a transportation
option.
The ten (10) years time frame is not enough time. We will need between 15 to 20 years.
4. Cash Contribution for Pedestrian Link to Willoughby Subdivision. The cash contribution
should be subject to Marshall Swift Index. There should be more flexibility in the remaining
cash. It is suggested that "maintenance" be removed and remaining cash go to general
CIP.
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient.
The ten (10) years time frame is not enough time. We will need between 15 to 20 years.
6. LEED Standards. For clarity, the LEED standards should apply to all buildings, not just retail.
12. Transit Funding. What constitutes service to the property? For example, will service go to
the interior of the development or will it run on the main exterior roads (5th Street, ext.,
Avon St.)?
Staff needs to complete research regarding the proposed contributions, as staff is not sure
that the proposed contributions are sufficient.
Page 6 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
The cash contribution should be subject to Marshall Swift Index. The date to extend the
contribution should be more than eighteen (18) months. We suggest 5 years, although
inquiries should be made to Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) to determine when transit
service is anticipated.
13. Is phasing necessary?
14. E. 4. And F. 1. should have consistent language in reference to Floor Area vs. sfgfa, unless
there is a reason for the difference.
There may be additional need for future clarification or questions regarding the proposed
proffers.
Other
Are there any proposed changes to SP 201000003 for the parking structure? What is the intent
regarding the location of the structure?
Comments from the City of Charlottesville are attached.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cgrant@albemarle.org
Sincerely,
0��- � --SA-
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development
c: Alan Taylor, River Bend Management, Inc.
enc: Memorandum and electronic mail from Willy Thompson, City of Charlottesville
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Page 7 of 7
Revised 4-25-11 eke
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
To:
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From:
Willy Thompson, Neighborhood Planner
Date:
March 28, 2012
Re:
Avon Center ZMA
The City has the following comments and concerns with the Avon Center ZMA
applications:
1. Regarding the Proffer Statement section F.3., the City cannot be bound by the six
month time limits. The improvements are required and the City will conduct its
review in the most expedient manner possible. Please have them remove the time
City -related time constraints.
2. Also under section F.3., the City is concerned with the sentence that states, "The
Owner also shall not be required by this Proffer Statement to acquire right-of-way or
otherwise pay for right-of-way in the City for such improvements." The City asks
that a clause be added which requires the Owner to reimburse the City for any right-
of-way the City has to purchase.
3. In regards to section 7, "Moore's Creek Erosion and Buffer Protects," the City wants
to ensure than any work done on the County side of Moore's Creek is also done on
the City side.
Claudette Grant
From: Thompson, Willy [thompsonw@charlottesville.org]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:52 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Cc: Gensic, Chris
Subject: FW: Avon Center comment - trail or parkland request
Attachments: AvonCenterTrailRequest.pdf
Hi Claudette. Here are some comments from Parks and Rec regarding a piece of property just inside the City. Let me
know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Willy
From: Gensic, Chris
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Thompson, Willy
Cc: Dan Mahon (dmahoncd)albemarle.org)
Subject: Avon Center comment - trail or parkland request
Willy,
The developer of Avon Center owns a small parcel of land on the City side of Moore's Creek. We would like seek either
a) a trail easement thru this parcel as shown on the map, or b) fee simple ownership of the parcel to be added to the
park system and used as a future trailhead area.
Our GIS map shows this land to be in both the floodplain and floodway, and therefore has very limited development
potential, but would be useful as parkland.
We have permissions from the adjacent property owners and are about to get the last easement we need to connect 5th
Street to Bent Creek along Moore's Creek. This parcel is the only piece left to complete.the trail in this corner of the
City.
See map attached.
Thank you,
Chris Gensic
Park and Trails Planner
City of Charlottesville
970-3656 989-0061
Avon Center - Trail easement request
0 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. 'These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application: The
only exception to this rule will -be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
if at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A. For a special use permit:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
3. Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..........................................................................................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee.............................................:...........................................................................................$1000.00
C. Amendment
to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee....................................................................................................................................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N. Required notice:
1.
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee....................................................................................................................................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2.
Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee........................................................................................................................................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3.
Published notice:
Fee......................................................................................................................................Actual
cost
Page 3 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule -
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning
Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Dec 19 2011
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Tue Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
Feb 27
Mar 20
Feb 6
Mar 7
Mar 12
Apr 3
Tue Feb 21
Mar 21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 30
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
Ma 14
Jun 5
Apr 16
May 16
May 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 25
Jul 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 20
Sep l l
Jul 16
Aug 15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 12
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 18
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
Jan 8 2013
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7 2013
Jan 29 2013
Dec 3
Jan 2 2013
Jan 14 2013
Feb 5 2013
Dec 17
Jan 16 2013
Feb 4 2013
Feb 26 2013
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
** The. lanal ad deadline is the last date at \nihirh nn annlirant can deciria whether to resubmit nr nn
T
O
� O
0
(7
Ci
KA -1
�L
U
r= '
W
E
zm
m c
CL
�L
'a m
Q TU
m U
M
t
4.
O
E 'N
C
U C
O O
3 U
o �
U- _
r cu
O
y
in
cn
O
m
\
�•
-1
-i
\
rl
rl
C,1
co
N
\
r\
m
c
\
m
c
Z
r+
\
C
r.l
Ln
Gi
Ln
to
(D
m
\
l0
N
�
N
�
W
co
CO
Ln
M
(V
n
m
O
-i
o
O
-i
r`
-1
lz�*
- i
--i
Ln
rt
N
N
r 1
T
N
N
C�1
C\l
N
N
CV
C•1
C\1
N
C\l
(NN
c -i
CV
N
N
CVV
C
N
N
C`I
CN
CN
T
T
T
r
T
T
r
'r
r
T
T
r
�
T
T
�-
T
-•
\
T
\
T
\
T
\
T
r
\
d'
\
!b
\
I
\
\
\
m
(
\
O
\
aO
\
7
\
u7
C •!
\
m
\
O
\
M
C\"
r
O
m
CD
c�
��•�T
■L't
��.ii
�y
n_l ,
m
=
`1
\
N
m
N
N
N
\
N.\
\
N
\
N
\
=t
04C
\
ri
^
T
N
\
m
M
\
d"
Q
LCA
\
(D
\
r,
I�
1`
O
Q1
(m
T
O
T
T
N
N
ri
T
H
T
rf
�J
Q
U
(V
J
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
T
T
CV
(N
N
N
CV
N
CV
N
CN
N
N
(\I
N
N
N
CN
N
N
N
N
N
C4
(D
O
O
I-
N
(D
O
O
zr
O
T
M
m
O
m
M
Il
T
LO
M
LO
CD
O
T
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
o
\
(�
\
T
\
CA
\
00
\
tC)
\
O
\
(•�
•\
O
\
N
\
t`
\
d'
\
N
\
rn
\
O
\
O
C
O
O
CN
O
T
m
CN
O
N
N
(\I
rn
T
O
C`I
T
N
CV
N
(14
T
N
CN
N
T
N
N
CN
T
N
T
I-
I`
O
c0
cA
O)
O
O
r
T
Nr
L.1..
N
N
N
CN
co
co
Zr
V'
Lo
Lo
co
co
T
T
T
T
T
T
Q
(Q
R
G7
N
J
:�-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
\
\
\
N
CN
N
N
N
N
N
(D
(A
C7
('7
O
Lf)
(31
(A
C7
Imo•
T
cf'
N
\
CD
C7
(D
1-
O
tt'
0\0
N
61
CA
(=
N
C")
(M
T
C'">
M
N
61
O
CO
'C
T
T
OM
N\
(D
M
O
O
I`
A
N
N
CS)
T
T
\
tp
N
p
T
r\
\I
T
T
CSI
T
T
T
T
nI
T
T
T
N
T
T
C
N
N
LO
(D
co
I-
CO
O
M
M
O
O
T
r
p\.
N
M
m
LO
T
T
T
T
Q
T
T
cz
Q�
N
N
CN
CN
N
N
N
N
N
CN
C4
N
N
N
CN
CN
(y
N
N
N
N
N
(V
-
m
:c- •
!�
p..
Tc
G
OI
\
CO
M
I\
N
N
(D
O�
p
L()
M
(D
O
O
M
�-
\
LO
N
N
(D
N
N
T\
T
M
�-
N
r
�-
('7
N\
p
rCD
6]
T
O
N
O
T
N
fC
nl.
r
N
N
d
L j
(D
T
r
c
T
r\
�--•
r..
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.N
N
N
N
N
N
rl
rl
r♦
<-•I
rl
ri
e -i
ri
t1
rl
rl
� 1
c'i
c -i
.�-i
i I
i -i
�
<-•I
c• -I
�-i
c1
--I
c -i
O
d'
I,
!b
Lc
O
m
4
(o
N
Ln
O1
IZ
-i
O1
m
(D
m
a'
CO
(c
N
\
r1
\
N
\
O
\
\
N
\
\
rl
\
ri
N
\
N
m
\
m
d
\
U1
\
\
\
\
r,
Cq
CT
Q1
rt
O
c -I
t-1
H
N
ri
H
rf
d
14
U
1Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(D
O
O
I-
N
(D
O
O
zr
O
T
M
m
O
m
M
Il
T
LO
M
LO
CD
O
`
r -
T
T
N
N
CO
M
zr
T
M
LC)
CO
N
CO
O
T
O
O
r
r
N
Nr
L.1..
Q
(Q
J
:�-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
(D
(A
C7
('7
O
Lf)
(31
(A
C7
Imo•
T
cf'
N
\
CD
C7
(D
1-
O
tt'
0\0
N
61
CA
(=
N
T
N
M
\
�
N\
Lo-
N\\
O
T
N\
M\\\
N
N
O\
N
CV
T
N
;. :
NI
N
c i
\I
W
M
M
r
O
O
T
�-
T
T
T
Q
N
N
CN
CN
N
N
N
N
N
CN
C4
N
N
N
CN
CN
(y
N
N
N
N
N
(V
-
:c- •
!�
p..
Tc
O
OI
\
CO
M
I\
N
N
(D
O�
p
L()
M
(D
O
O
M
�-
\
LO
N
N
(D
N
N
T\
T
M
�-
N
r
�-
('7
N\
p
rCD
6]
T
O
N
O
T
N
nl.
r
N
N
d
L j
(D
T
r
c
T
r\
�--•
r..
m
•
w
c
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or`�
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: Jffl A9rwwq4,rao o( -;.L PROJECT NAME: � J��n
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required M ---Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
r �o 1;2
/12-
(�-64munity Uevelopment Project Coordinator Signature . Date
Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee o ,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit f f $2,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250
;.
9N NUMN
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amen ent fee of $3,500
.❑ First resubmissionFREE
D Each additional resubmission $1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled pollic hearing at applicant's request I $180
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission .and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property, owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are
required before a.Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided
to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the.application is heard by a public body.
1%4A1TV rTTFruc TO rOTTNTV nF AT.RR.MARURIPAVMF,NT AT C.(1MMTTNTTV DWELOPMRNT COTTNTER
➢. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200+ actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice +actual
cost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126.
4/25/2011 Page 1 of 1
County of Albemarle
Department of Communitv Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: ZMA 2009 -15th Street -Avon Center
The following comments are in response to the Applicant's 2nd rezoning submittal.
1. A portion of the greenway trail that the Applicant has proffered (Proffer 2) requires a bridge since it
crosses over Moore's Creek and is in the floodplain. In accordance with Chapter 18-30.3.05.2.1(2), a
special permit will be necessary to construct a bridge in the floodplain. Any bridges, culverts or other
structures in the floodplain require a special use permit. Although the Applicant is not required to
apply for an SP with the rezoning, it would eliminate the need to do so at a later date.
2. Staff suggests that the Applicant change the language of the proffer to allow for installation of the
trail by the first certificate of occupancy and the dedication of the trail within six months thereafter.
This would allow for staff to inspect the trail and the Applicant to fix any discrepancies that may exist
prior to the County accepting the dedication.
2. Under Proffer 3, second paragraph, please clarify that the master plan will be submitted as condition
of approval for the first final site plan.
3. Proffer 81) of the existing approved proffers and the proposed amended proffers offers, among other
things, that the County is provided with a copy of the Landfill Work Plan and all backup data. Since
Staff has been advised that DEQ has approved the Landfill Work Plan, please provide the County with
this documentation.
4. Please update Proffers 7 and 8 to reflect the approval of the Landfill Work Plan and any
implementation steps that are occurring. Staff recommends changing the deadlines for both Proffers to
an earlier date, such that the Work Plan is implemented prior to the first final site plan or issuance of
the first building permit.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: July 7, 2010
RE: SP -2010-03 and ZMA-09-01: 5`h Street Avon Center (Related applications: ZMA-06-09,
SP -07-04, ARB -06-135)
I have reviewed the documents submitted for the above -referenced project. I have the following comments.
In my last round of review (memo dated March 17, 2010) I made comments about the
1. "extensive roof design",
2. increased building areas,
3. unclear wording in the development framework, and
4. height of the parking structure.
Item #1 has been clarified in the recent submittal.
No response was made to item #2. I had noted that the current plans shows buildings with larger areas than
were previously shown, and that this could make it more challenging for the building designs to meet the
EC Guidelines. I recommended that particular attention should be given to establishing appropriate scale,
wall treatment, and connecting devices. These comments were made as advance notice of issues likely to
arise in future ARB review. These comments still apply. Although the applicant is not required to make
any changes at this time, acknowledgement of the potential future issues would be appropriate.
The applicant's response to #3 was to say that they could work with ARB staff to clarify this language or to
eliminate it. I would be happy to work with the applicant to resolve this issue, but it isn't solely an ARB
issue. I still recommend that the language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones
C/E and F" be revised to more clearly and simply state the intent.
Regarding item #4, the applicant responded that the proposed height of the parking structure hadn't
changed. I had indicated that the height of the buildings illustrated in drawings previously reviewed by the
ARB were much shorter than the proposed height. My comments were made as advance notice of issues
likely to arise in future ARB review. I also included a caution and recommendation regarding deck -top
lighting, which the ARB has dealt with since the original approval of this rezoning. A roofed parking
structure, with one or more levels below ground, could resolve many of these issues. My previous
comments still apply. Although the applicant is not required to make any changes at this time,
acknowledgement of the potential future issues would be appropriate.
pF AL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832 Fax (434)972-4012
April 2, 2010
Ms. Valerie W. Long
Williams Mullen
321 East Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200
RE: ZMA-09-001 5th Street — Avon Center - Zoning Map Amendment
SP2010-003 5th Street — Avon Center — Parking Structure — Special Use Permit
Dear Ms. Long:
Thank you for your recent submittal of SP2010 -003 and your recent re -submittal of ZMA 2009-
001, both received on February 16th for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76-M 1-2A; 76-M 1-2B;
76 -M1 -4A; and 77-11E.
We have a few questions and comments which are indicated below:
Application Plan:
Planning
• Show the dimensions for the Pedestrian Friendly Corridor Conceptual Section shown on Sheet number 2 of
3.
• The interior circulation is unclear. For example, what will be the circulation layout for Building G?
Zoning
The following comments have been provided by Amelia McCulley and Sarah Baldwin related to zoning
matters:
• The Application Plan Amendment appears to contain more changes, aside from the mentioned
phasing. Rather than rely on two application plans, please submit one amended plan that contains
original approved features along with the revised phasing and changes. Some noted changes include the
absence of 100 year floodplain, pedestrian connection to Willoughby and roundabout at Bent Creek
Road and building layouts.
Current Development
The following comments have been provided by Bill Fritz related to how your proposal may or may not
be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future:
• In the "north sector" an amenity is shown at the end of "Conceptual Site Circulation". It is not clear if
this site circulation is pedestrian or vehicular. If vehicular, a conflict with the amenity may occur.
• The amenity in "north sector" is not defined.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to engineering and water resources:
• It is not clear on the proposed plan if the road layout and roundabouts are changing. This should be
clarified, either by better correlation with existing plans, or defined changes.
Proffers
Planning:
• We have previously discussed the need for the proffers to be submitted with track changes, so
we can have a version of the proffers that shows the original proffers with the proposed changes.
Please submit this.
• Rather than rely on two sets of proffers, please submit one amended set of proffers that contains the
pertinent original approved proffers along with the requested changes.
• Please clarify proffer l OD. Is the only change the second sentence? Is the rest of the approved proffer still
the same and a part of proffer l OD?
• Proffer 13 A. 9. Describes that a sidewalk and plaza/amenity area including all landscaping for such area
will be completed with Phase 1. Will landscaping in the amenity area be affected when Phase 2 occurs?
• Proffer 1. G. of the approved proffer states that the Owner shall provide a paved parking area on the
Property consisting of no less than twelve (12) spaces either: i) within the area labeled "Future Development
Areal" ....... or ii) in conjunction with the construction of a parking area for another use,.... The revised
Proffer 13 C. states that the outparcel area shown on the Original Application Plan as "Future Development
Area 1" shall not be developed. Given the revised language in Proffer 13C, do you still want proffer 1. G. to
provide the option it describes?
Zoning:
• Please address when Proffers 4 & 5 will be completed since they do not appear included in amended
Proffer 13 -Phasing.
• Proffer 1G addresses a transit stop; park and ride lot within the "Future Development Area," which has
been removed with this submittal. Please address this proffer and an alternative location for the transit
stop.
Current Development:
• Proffer 6 states in part "Prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed LEED Compliant
Commercial Space..." Aren't all of the commercial spaces intended to be LEED Compliant?
• Proffer IOD. What is "extensive roof design"?
• Proffer 13 should include parking as a feature to be built in phase one.
• Do the revised proffers affect the size of buildings B and D?
Engineering:
• What is meant by "extensive roof design" in Proffer IOD?
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
• The proposed replacement text for the second sentence of paragraph l OD of the original proffers mentions "extensive
roof design". This phrase isn't clear. Also, Buildings are proposed with larger areas. This could make it more
challenging for the building designs to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular guidelines that may become issues are those
that deal with human scale, the treatment of long walls, and the use of architectural connecting devices.
Staff recommends the following: In the proffers (and wherever else it might appear), rewrite the "extensive roof
design" phrase to clarify its meaning. You should be aware that the larger building areas will likely make it more
challenging to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular attention should be given to establishing appropriate scale, wall
treatment, and connecting devices.
Development Framework:
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to the Entrance Corridor
Guidelines:
• The language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones C/E and F" is
vague and will make future review difficult. Among the unclear phrases are: facades... oriented within a
streetscape and urban design form, facades and rooflines ... integrated with the north/south streetscape,
and integrated into streetscape design. Does this mean facades and rooflines will be either perpendicular
or parallel to the north/south street? Does "integrated into streetscape design" mean something more
than "will be present"?
Staff recommends you revise the language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones
C/E and F" to more clearly and simply state the intent.
Planning:
• The approved Development Framework includes language that states that the parking and parking
structures are subject to subsequent parking impact study. This should also be included in the revised
Development Framework.
• Please explain the increase of Building Zone G to 90,000 sfgfa described in the revised Development
Framework from 75,000 sfgfa described for Building Zone G in the approved Development Framework.
• See the attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment, approved September 8, 2004. Land Use S. states that
the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000 square feet. Please explain the maximum
individual anchor store size of 160,000 sfgfa shown in the revised Development Framework. This is an
increase from that described in the approved Development Framework showing a maximum individual
anchor store size of 150,000 sfgfa.
• Please explain the planned uses that are no longer shown on the revised Development Framework.
Engineering:
• The change in the mix of uses may require a revision to the traffic study. The traffic generation tables
should be revised and an assessment made of the possible impacts of the proposed changes. The county
will defer to VDOT on traffic study requirements.
Other Issues:
Current Development:
• The stream crossing SP necessary to provide access to this property should be submitted and reviewed
at the same time as this rezoning amendment.
Critical Slopes Waiver:
Engineering:
• The critical slope waiver is recommended for approval. However, your analysis letter necessitates the
following comment: There is almost always a small risk of (1) large scale movement of soil, (2)
excessive stormwater runoff, and (3) siltation. These risks are not eliminated, but minimized as much as
can be expected. In addition, the "limits of disturbance" on the plan will need to be expanded slightly to
accommodate construction erosion control, and permanent stormwater management at the perimeter.
SP 2010-003 — Parking Structure:
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
• Parking structure height is proposed up to 5 stories, which is equivalent to 60'. 60' is double
the height of buildings illustrated in site sections that were reviewed by the ARB under ZMA-2006-
09/ARB-06-135. Any parts of proposed parking garage(s) that will be visible from the ECs will be
required to meet all of the EC Guidelines. This means that even if the "back" of the structure is visible
from the EC, the ARB will likely require that it be designed as a "front". The taller the structure, the
more likely it will be visible from the ECs. Deck -top lighting will likely be an issue that will be
challenging to overcome. Staff recommends a roofed parking structure; with one or more levels below
ground is recommended.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA):
• The flow acceptance for this project has been issued, but will expire in January 2011 if this project is
not under construction by that time.
• RWSA is concerned about the storm water outfalls to Moores Creek for this project. RWSA owns a
sewer interceptor that runs along the north bank of Moores Creek and RWSA will want to review the
proposed storm outfalls (at the site plan stage) to ensure that you will not alter the stream in such a way
that causes increased erosion along the north bank.
Fire Rescue:
• Approval is based upon letter from agent of applicant dated February 16, 2010.
Planning:
• The following section of the Zoning Ordinance is provided for your information and guidance
regarding parking structures:
§32.7.2A PARKING STRUCTURES
(Added 2-5-03)
In addition to all other requirements, each parking structure shall be subject to the following:
a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The
elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan.
b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed
parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses.
c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened
from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community
Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible
from public view.
d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential
development.
e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures
will not routinely shine directly outside the structure.
• While staff understands that you do not anticipate the development of a parking structure for several
years, due to the environmental sensitivity of the area, staff is concerned about extending this SP for an
additional 10 years. The language of § 15.2-2209.1 of the Code of Virginia automatically extends this SP
until July 1, 2014.
VDOT
Comments from VDOT are attached.
Resubmittal or Public Hearing
State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning
Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a
deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the
Commission's action. (The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be
made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date.)
We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER] you:
• Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review
schedule OR
• Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in
accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the
applicant and the County, OR
• Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral.
If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days
are resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the
"forms" section at the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of
your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your
review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all
substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the
project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the
newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning
Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to
this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the
applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's
attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Planning Division
C: New Era Properties, LLC
Avon Holdings, LLC Rev. 3-29-10
Attachments
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant
From: Bill Fritz
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: March 23, 2010
Subject: ZMA 2009 —15 1h Street Avon Center
I have reviewed the information submitted in support of this application and offer the following
comments:
In the "north sector" an amenity is shown at the end of "Conceptual Site Circulation". It is not
clear if this site circulation is pedestrian or vehicular. If vehicular, a conflict with the amenity
may occur.
The amenity in "north sector" is not defined.
Proffer 6 states in part "Prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed LIKED Compliant
Commercial Space..." Aren't all of the commercial spaces intended to be LEED Compliant?
Proffer 10D. What is "extensive roof design"?
Proffer 13 should include parking as a feature to be built in phase one.
It is unclear to me if the revised proffers affect the size of buildings B and D. (See page 5 of
comparison of proffers)
Critical Slopes Waiver
The critical slopes waiver request appears to contain all the information to allow review of the request.
At this time I offer these comments (I recommend you and I sit down to fully discuss the waiver.)
The applicant discusses loss of aesthetic resources and states that the landscaping and
preservation requirements and other features set forth in the application plan will address this.
This information is not detailed and I would like to discuss this with you further before a full
analysis of this waiver is concluded.
In the prior rezoning I offered the following comment "I continue to be concerned that no critical
slopes waiver has been reviewed and the stream crossing SP is not being reviewed at the same
time as this rezoning." The applicant is stating in the justification for the critical slopes waiver
that the County "by approving ZMA 06-09, determined that the project was appropriate for this
area and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, granting the waiver would not be
detrimental to the orderly development of the area since it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan." This argument, along with other similar statements in the applicant justification for
granting a waiver tend to imply that the waiver must be granted because it forwards the prior
zoning action. We should discuss how to address this.
General Comment.
As I have stated before and continue to state I remain concerned that the stream crossing SP necessary
to provide access to this property is not being reviewed at the same time as this rezoning.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: March 17, 2010
RE: SP -2010-03; and ZMA-09-01: 5t" Street Avon Center (Related applications: ZMA-06-09,
SP -07-04, ARB -06-135)
I have reviewed the documents submitted for the above -referenced project. I have the following comments.
Issue: Proffers
Comments: The proposed replacement text for the second sentence of paragraph IOD of the original
proffers mentions "extensive roof design". This phrase isn't clear. Also, Buildings are proposed with larger
areas. This could make it more challenging for the building designs to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular
guidelines that may become issues are those that deal with human scale, the treatment of long walls, and
the use of architectural connecting devices.
Recommendation: In the proffers (and wherever else it might appear), rewrite the "extensive roof design"
phrase to clarify its meaning. The applicant should be aware that the larger building areas will likely make
it more challenging to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular attention should be given to establishing
appropriate scale, wall treatment, and connecting devices.
Issue: Development Framework
Comments: The language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones C/E and F" is
vague and will make future review difficult. Among the unclear phrases are: facades... oriented within a
streetscape and urban design form, facades and rooflines ...integrated with the north/south streetscape,
and integrated into streetscape design. Do this mean facades and rooflines will be either perpendicular or
parallel to the north/south street? Does "integrated into streetscape design" mean something more than
"will be present"?
Recommendation: Revise the language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones C/E
and F" to more clearly and simply state the intent.
Issue: Parking Structure
Comments: Parking structure height is proposed up to 5 stories, which is equivalent to 60'. 60' is double
the height of buildings illustrated in site sections that were reviewed by the ARB under ZMA-2006-
09/ARB-06-135. Any parts of proposed parking garage(s) that will be visible from the ECs will be
required to meet all of the EC Guidelines. This means that even if the "back" of the structure is visible
from the EC, the ARB will likely require that it be designed as a "front". The taller the structure, the more
likely it will be visible from the ECs. Deck -top lighting will likely be an issue that will be challenging to
overcome.
Recommendation: A roofed parking structure, with one or more levels below ground is recommended.
�'JRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
July 31, 2009
Ms. Valerie W. Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA-09-001 5th Street — Avon Center - Zoning Map Amendment
Dear Ms. Long:
Thank you for your recent submittal received on June 15th for the above noted project for Tax
Map and Parcel 076M1 -00-00-004A0; 076M1 -00-00-002A0; 076M1 -00-00-002B0; 07700-00-
00-0011E0.
The following comments are provided to help you to amend the proffers of approved rezoning ZMA2006-
00009, which rezoned 81.94 acres and meet requirements for PDSC (Planned Development Shopping
Center) District for the operation of a shopping center, and address staff concerns:
Planning:
• We have previously discussed the need for the proffers to be submitted with track changes, so
we can have a version of the proffers that shows the original proffers with the proposed changes.
This needs to be submitted.
• As we have previously discussed, the proffers submitted, refer to a variation request that has
not been submitted. Formal variations should be submitted and processed with a site plan or
subdivision. We can provide advisory comments on a variation in advance of a formal submittal
so that you can have some idea of what to expect or accommodate as part of your submittal.
Another alternative or suggestion is for you to provide a revised plan along with your revised
proffer amendment request. These two documents could be processed together.
• Providing a phasing plan that visually shows what areas on the plan will be phased during each
particular phase would help clarify the phasing of the development.
Zoning:
9 As previously discussed the need for special use permits is an important element for this rezoning
because of the many environmental features that will be disturbed. Staff strongly recommends that the
special use permits needed for stream crossings and critical slopes be processed at the rezoning stage.
• The Application Plan needs to be revised to show the proposed changes.
Architectural Review Board (ARB):
• The submittal includes an answer to the question, "What impact will there be on the County's natural,
scenic and historic resources". The answer indicates that the proposal both will and will not impact
natural resources. Please revise the answer to clarify these statements.
• Does Exhibit A illustrate the full extent of proposed layout modifications? If not, provide complete
information.
• If the newly proposed stormwater quality management facility will be visible from the Entrance
Corridor, its design and treatment must conform to the EC Guidelines.
• In Proffer #3, the following needs to be revised "as if not less than" to clarify the meaning.
• Revise Proffer #5 to indicate which buildings will be constructed during Phase 1.
• In Proffer #5.13, clarify what "pad -site ready form for development as market conditions allow"
means. Does this include final grading, utilities, etc.?
• Proffer #5.13.A.8 states that "all other site work necessary to construct the Project" will be completed
during Phase 1. Does this mean that all parking areas will be established? If so, the landscape plan
referenced in Proffer #5C must include trees that are required in and around parking areas.
• Is site lighting included in Phase I?
• Clarify the meaning of Proffer #5C. What does "Detailed Landscaping Plan" mean? Does it mean that
landscaping will be planted where future buildings will be constructed, so that the plants will have to be
removed to accommodate the buildings? What does "attractive appearance" mean in terms of plant
types, sizes, spacing, quantity, etc.?
• Revise Proffer #5C to indicate when the landscaping will be installed.
Fire Rescue:
• Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to
field inspection and verification.
Engineering:
• Outstanding issues were discussed during a meeting on July 8t' with you and the owner's
representative. Proposed changes are expected to the application plan and proffers per that meeting.
Other Issues:
• Proffer 6 LEED Standards — Why go through all of the steps to meet the minimum criteria and
not get LEED certified? We suggest you go for the minimum standards for LEED certification
and seek to obtain certification at the minimum level or better within two (2) years from the date
of the Certificate of Occupancy.
• Proffer 4 Transit (revised proffers) — It is recommended that the applicant provide the transit
assessment to the County or its designee for seven years. Additionally, it is recommended that the
applicant provide funding for a hybrid bus. County staff will work with Charlottesville Transit
Service to identify the type of hybrid bus to be purchased.
Although we have recently met, after you have reviewed these comments, if you wish to meet
with staff regarding the comments, please let me know and I will set up a meeting.
When you are ready to resubmit, please provide that re -submittal on a re -submittal Monday (see attached
schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your re -submittal. After you have
resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public
hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved
or if additional resolution is needed.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the
project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the
newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning
Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to
this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the
applicant or more issues identified by staff that has not previously been brought to the applicant's
attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting.
Additional questions or comments may occur at a future date. If you have questions or need
additional information, please feel free to call me at 296-5832 x 3250 or send me an e-mail at
cgrant@albemarle.org .
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
C: New Era Properties, LLC
Avon Holdings, LLC
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Claudette Grant
From:
Bill Fritz
Division:
Zoning and Current Development
Date:
July 22, 2009
Subject:
ZMA 2009 —1 Avon Center
I have reviewed the revised proffers submitted for review. I have not seen a copy of the existing proffers
with the revised proffers added. This has made review of such complicated proffer language somewhat
problematic. I can offer the following comments however:
1. Please discuss all LEED language with Gerald. He is LEED certified and will be able to assist you.
2. Page 3 item 5C discuses landscaping. It includes language which is not defined an could lead to
confuse in the future. Some examples of undefined language includes:
a. "Pad Ready". Does this include final grading, utilities etc.
b. "Detailed Landscaping Plan". What does this mean? An accurate plan showing 1 tree
could be considered a "detailed" plan.
c. The "Detailed Landscaping Plan" is intended to ensure the area maintains an attractive
appearance prior to buildings being constructed. Does this mean that the "pads" will be
landscaped? Is landscaping to be installed that will ultimately be removed or relocated?
Phone (434) 296-5832
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
MEMORANDUM
Claudette Grant
Margaret Maliszewski
ZMA-2009-01: Avon Center
July 15, 2009
Fax (434) 972-4126
I have reviewed the submittal for the above -referenced application and I have the
following questions and comments for the applicant. Additional/alternate comments may
be provided once revisions and clarifications have been received and reviewed.
1. The submittal includes an answer to the question, "What impact will there be on
the County's natural, scenic and historic resources". The answer indicates that the
proposal both will and will not impact natural resources. Please revise the answer
to clarify these statements.
2. Does Exhibit A illustrate the full extent of proposed layout modifications? If not,
provide complete information.
3. If the newly proposed stormwater quality management facility will be visible
from the Entrance Corridor, its design and treatment must conform to the EC
Guidelines.
4. In Proffer #3, revise "as if not less than" to clarify the meaning.
5. Revise Proffer #5 to indicate which buildings will be constructed during Phase 1.
6. In Proffer #5.13, clarify what "pad -site ready form for development as market
conditions allow" means.
7. Proffer #5.13.A.8 states that "all other site work necessary to construct the
Project" will be completed during Phase 1. Does this mean that all parking areas
will be established? If so, the landscape plan referenced in Proffer #5C must
include trees that are required in and around parking areas.
8. Is site lighting included in Phase 1?
9. Clarify the meaning of Proffer #5C. Does it mean that landscaping will be planted
where future buildings will be constructed, so that the plants will have to be
removed to accommodate the buildings? What does "attractive appearance" mean
in terms of plant types, sizes, spacing, quantity, etc.?
10. Revise Proffer #5C to indicate when the landscaping will be installed.
ZMA200900001/51h Street –Avon Center Amendment
SP2010-003 5th Street–Avon Center– Parking Structure
Outstanding Staff Comments
Upon review of the re -submittal, inclusive of applicant's response letter, revised application plan
amendment, and revised proffers, dated June 6, 2012, staff provides the following comments:
• Zoning has determined that the latest application submittal meets most of the minimum
requirements of Section 8.
Application Plan
• If changes to the plan are made, it is recommended that the plan identify that this project is
located in the Entrance Corridor (EC) and is in the AIA overlay districts.
• Clarify what appears to be a building located over the site circulation. This building also appears
to be in the two different building areas.
• The proposed development will be visible from the 1-64 and Avon Street Entrance Corridors. EC
Guidelines state that building forms and features should be compatible with the forms and
features of significant historic buildings in the area. Experience has shown that this guideline has
been difficult, if not impossible, for applicants to meet when large box -like buildings are situated
with their backs facing the Entrance Corridor. The proposed development will include large-
scale buildings with an inward focus, resulting in the rear elevations of large buildings facing the
EC. No information has been provided to indicate how siting, architecture and/or landscaping
will be used to eliminate this concern and to ensure an appropriate appearance for the EC. The
development could result in a negative impact on the ECs. Lacking information that
demonstrates otherwise, a recommendation of support cannot be given.
Development Framework
• Note G on page 1 is not necessary.
Proffers
• Page 1 Introductory Paragraphs
The heading refers to the project as "Fifth Street–Avon Center" while the third introductory
paragraph and the application plan refer to it as "5th Street – Avon Center." Though a very minor
point, these should be consistent. There's a typo in the first line of the fifth paragraph: "As part
of t -he rezoning application ZMA 2009-001".
1
FRUMTOV, O-UTIS M 11
• Proffer 1B
Suggest that this proffer specify when widening or replacing must be "complete" prior to the
issuance of the first CO — "when the County Engineer shall have determined that the bridge is
safe and convenient for traffic."
Is there any significance to the requirement that the bridge be completed "prior to issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy for the Property" when most of the other proffers (Proffer 1C is
another variation) state "prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the
Property"? If so, the difference needs to be explained; if not, the language should be consistent.
• Proffer 1C
Is there any significance to the two underlined clauses in the requirement that the road be
completed "as a condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building
within the Property" when all of the other proffers require completion of the improvement
"prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Property" (i.e., no reference to
first building)? If so, the difference needs to be explained; if not, the language needs to be
consistent.
• Proffer 11)(6)
The following needs to be clarified: It may be difficult to state, but by what date or event would
the Owner have to start remediation and how long would the Owner have to complete the
remediation? Do all DEQ orders of remediation specify these deadlines and if so, could they be
put into the proffer?
The penultimate sentence states that the "County" may authorize the deadline to be extended.
The proffer should identify the officer who may grant the extension, e.g., the County Director of
Community Development.
• Proffer 1F(3)
This proffer should allow for longer than 6 months to obtain approval of plans, or allow for some
type of extension if needed. Things might not go according to plan under this proposed proffer;
there are transportation impacts that could go unaddressed. Since no plats, plans, building
permits or CO's are withheld until these improvements are installed, why can't the deadline be
extended well beyond 6 months to accommodate the delays there may be in commenting,
responding to comments, revising plans, and so forth.
• Proffer 1F(3)
2
ATTACHMENT D
Jim Tolbert with the City remains concerned with the language in this proffer, which puts the
responsibility of right-of-way work on the City instead of VDOT who is requesting these
improvements.
• Proffer 2
The first sentence should be clarified because it could be read to mean that if the County, for
whatever reason, delivered the notice prior to final site plan approval, the proffer would be
ineffective even though the Owner probably meant to say that if it was delivered prior to final
site plan approval, it would have until 6 months after that approval, rather than 6 months after
the date of the notice.
• Proffer 3
In the second paragraph, suggest that the reference to the "Greenway Trail" in subsection (a) be
followed by a reference back to Proffer 2, such as "described in Proffer 2" or "identified in
Proffer 2." Also,.the County would prefer to not have the last sentence of the second paragraph
included.
In the third paragraph, the County is limited by Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.3(6) to either the CPI -
U or the Marshall and Swift Index, the new underlined text, though liberal, is constrained by
State law. To address the issue arising from the fact that the information for the annual inflation
adjustment is not available until around April 1 of the following calendar year, suggest adding
language such as the following: "The annual adjustment shall be effective on and after the date
the Index value from the preceding calendar year is published."
• Proffer 4
A very minor point in the middle and at the end of the paragraph —there are references to
"paragraph 4" whereas Proffer 11) (1) refers'to "Proffer 8" and Proffer 6 refers to "Proffer 6"
Whether "paragraph" or "Proffer" is used, the reference should be consistent.
• Proffer 5
Another very minor point four lines from the end of the paragraph — there is a reference to the
"County's Director of Community Development" where elsewhere in the proffers the clauses
"County Director of Community Development" (e.g., 1G) and just "Director of Community
Development" (e.g., 11)(4)) is used. These references should be consistent.
• Proffer 7
Exhibit A needs to be attached when the final proffers are submitted. In the first clause of the
penultimate sentence, it appears that "Projects" should be "Projects"'.
ATTACHMENT D
• Proffer 8
In the heading and in the body of this proffer, is the landfill "site" the same thing as the landfill
"area" as used and identified in Proffer 5? If so, the references should be consistent.
In the first paragraph, should the underlined text which refers to preliminary site plan approval
and grading permit approval also refer to a preliminary subdivision plat approval?
• Proffer 8B
The same comment as for Proffer 4.
• Proffer 8D
os
The same concern regarding diligent pursuit as for Proffer 1F (3). Line 3 should be clarified to
state whether the Owner will provide the County with a copy of the submitted or the approved
Landfill Work Plan. In the sixth line, is the obligation that the work described in the Landfill Work
Plan be "substantially completed" clear enough in the context of the proffer? The proffer does
not state who determines or confirms completion of the work. It seems DEQ should be the one
that determines whether the work is substantially completed or completed, or at least have a
say? The County always has concerns when the deadline for completing an obligation is tied to
the CO.
• Proffer 8
Staff has recommended that the applicant revise proffer #8 to include County Engineer review
and approval of the landfill work plan. The applicant has objected stating
"we are not comfortable requiring that the County be an approving authority for the work plan.
Regulatory issues involving landfills are within the exclusive jurisdiction of DEQ, and its authority
is broad."
DEQ has informed staff the remediation of this landfill in its current state is not subject to full
regulation under the landfill closure standards. Without further clarifying proffer language, staff
is concerned that the remediation standard that DEQ can approve will not meet our community
expectations. As one example, there is an area involving exposed solid waste with some large
metal products on a steep bank of the creek. DEQ could approve the solid waste remaining as it
currently is with the addition of chain link fencing. In staff's opinion, the exposed large metal
products should be removed. Furthermore, the use of chain link fencing in the floodplain is not
advisable.
Staff recommends that the applicant revise proffer #8 to establish minimum performance
standards to guide the landfill work plan. These standards should include:
4
ATTACHMENT D
1. There shall be no exposed solid waste. All areas are to have a cover of 2 feet of topsoil
or equivalent as approved by the County.
2. All areas shall be stabilized according to Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control program
standards with Permanent Seeding per standard 3.32 of the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook.
3. The site shall be inspected annually to ensure that conditions 1 and 2 remain satisfied,
and shall be subject to standards as given in the Zoning Ordinance sections 18-
5.2.28.a.1,18 -5.2.28.a.5, and 18-5.2.28.b.1 through 5.
Proffer 10B
Location of the facility described in this proffer is not acceptable. It is shown in the flood plain,
which is not supported by staff.
• Proffer 10D
Minor point on lines 1 and 5 for stylistic consistency: "The Owner. . ."
• Proffer 12
The same comment as for Proffer 4.
• Proffer 12
Jim Tolbert with the City of Charlottesville remains concerned with the decrease in the level of
commitment towards transit funding.
• The response letter says that the cash proffer contribution in Proffer 12 for transit is comparable
to other projects of that size. Provide more information regarding this statement. The revised
proffer 12 is a significant amount less than what was previously approved.
• There are many comments contained in the response letter which do not carry over to the
proffers, leaving the proffers unenforceable, such as (but not limited to) where parking areas
will be located, or that a civic center be located somewhere within the project or how buildings
will be oriented.
• The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. requests the following consideration: Consider our
Monticello Viewshed Guidelines as building materials for the shopping center are selected.
Monticello appreciates the applicant's attempt to mitigate potential impacts from Monticello.
Please see attached guidelines for quick reference. Consider including a proffer that considers
the Monticello viewshed with the submission of the proposed rezoning amendment. The proffer
should include the following elements:
• Earth -toned roofing
5
ATTACHMENT D
• Earth -toned siding on the fagade facing Montalto
• Landscaping to break up the fagade of the building
Additionally, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. would greatly appreciate the opportunity to review
the material choices'with the applicant in person to offer comments and suggestions.
r, I -
47ci` •'
MONTICELLO VIEWSHED GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPERS
1. Monticello is renowned for its vistas. Those from three areas are paramount:
a. From the northwest terrace (elevation 871 feet). This promenade is where visitors
exit from the house tour and begin to explore the landscape.
b. From the shuttle bus stop northeast of the house.
c. From the "First Roundabout," the uppermost road that encircles the house. This
primary pedestrian road is approximately a half -mile in circumference.
2. Parking lots are best concealed when located on the far side of the building (as viewed from
Monticello) and the area broken up by plantings. -
3. Building facades are less intrusive if articulated and not monolithic.
4. Earth -tone colors such as reddish -brown brick help to soften the visual impact of a building.
If not adopted for the street side, consider it for the back of the building if it faces Monticello.
5. Dark roofs (black, gray) are preferred. Expansive flat roofs can be camouflaged by mottled
patches of light and dark stone.
6. Screening by a long narrow border of trees of a single species should be avoided.
ATTACHMENT D
7. Consider a canopy of lofty trees (such as tulip poplars) to screen out development if the vista
from Monticello is angled down on the site. The lower limbs of the trees can be pruned to
open ground -level views while protecting the vista from Monticello.
8. The lighting of buildings and parking areas should be shielded to eliminate glare.
ATTACHMENT D