Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700063 Legacy Document 2010-11-03 (5)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2007-063 5th Street Staff: Judith C. Wiegand Development Fill in the Floodplain Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: April 8, 2008 May 14, 2008 Owners: Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc. Applicant: 64 and Fifth, LLC, represented by Katurah S. Roell TMP: 76-55A and 76M1 -1 Proposal: The applicant proposes to place fill in Location: Approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64 the floodplain in order to construct a convenience store with gas pumps, a sit-down restaurant, and on the east side of 5th Street, north and east of associated surface parking. (Attachment B) the Holiday Inn. The property is bounded to the north by Moore's Creek and to the east by Biscuit Run. (Attachment A) Existing Zoning and By -right uses: Magisterial District: Scottsville HC - Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use); AIA - Airport Impact Area - Overlay to minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land; EC - Entrance Corridor Overlay District — overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts; and FH - Flood Hazard Overlay District — agricultural, recreational, 'and utility location uses which will not pose a danger to life or property in the event of a flood. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. There have been no significant changes in The following factor is unfavorable to this request: circumstance since SP 1999-059 was 1. The County Engineer does not support this approved by the Board of Supervisors in request based on concerns regarding good practice 2002. and policy, proximity of floodwaters to occupants, 2. The applicant has shown that fill in the integrity of fill slopes in the long term, and the floodplain is possible without raising the flood precedent it sets. elevation or having an impact on neighboring Staff and the Planning Commission did not properties. recommend approval of the original rezoning and special use permit for this project due, in part, to concerns regarding impacts to the floodplain. However, the Board, after additional information, review, and consideration of these factors, approved both the rezoning with proffers, including a proffered plan that establishes use of the property, and the special use permit for fill in the floodplain. Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5th Street Development, April 8, 2008 2 RECOMMENDATION: There have been no changes in the development proposal for this property since the original rezoning and special use permit were approved by the Board. Although since that approval FEMA has issued new floodplain maps, they have not materially changed the floodplain boundary as it existed at that time. Therefore, staff finds no change in circumstance since the Board's prior approval of this special use permit that would change the basis for that decision and, therefore, recommends approval of SP 2007-063 for Fill in the Floodplain with the following conditions of approval: 1. The fill in the floodplain shall be shown on a site development plan and shall be in general accord with the "Conceptual Site Plan," dated January 8, 2002, and most recently revised on March 10, 2008, except as may be modified in order to meet the requirements of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, as determined by the County Engineer. 2. The County Engineer's approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. 3. The County Engineer's receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter of map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence. 4. The County Engineer's approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. 5. The County Engineer's approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts] of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5th Street Development, April 8, 2008 3 PETITION PROJECT: SP 2007-063, 5th Street Development PROPOSED: special use permit for fill in the floodplain, no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use); AIA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land; and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional -scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Community Service - community - scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Development Area 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X No LOCATION: approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64 on the east side of 5th Street, north and east of the Holiday Inn. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-55A, 76M1-1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY May 22, 2001 The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 —1, recommended denial of ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 to the Board of Supervisors. A copy of the staff report, which gives the most in-depth analysis of SP 1999-059, the minutes of the meeting, and the Action Letter are included in Attachment C. June 20, 2001 The Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to refer ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 back to the Planning Commission to address questions raised by the Board. A copy of the minutes of the Board's meeting and the Action Letter are included in Attachment D. May 7, 2002 The Planning Commission by a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of ZMA 1999-013, subject to the attached proffers, and recommended approval of SP 1999-059, as presented. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Letter are included in Attachment E. June 5, 2002 The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059. At the time of the hearing, the proffers had not been signed by the appropriate person and a change was necessary in the language of one of the proffers, so action was deferred. A copy of the minutes and Action letter are included in Attachment F. July 3, 2002 The Board approved ZMA 1999-013, with a proffered plan and other proffers dated 5/7/2002, and approved SP 1999-059 to allow fill in the floodplain. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Letter, including the proffers, are included in Attachment G. BACKGROUND When ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 were presented to the Planning Commission in May 2001, the staff report contained a pertinent analysis of the Special Use Permit for Fill in the Floodplain. This staff report, as well as the minutes for both the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2002 and the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 20, 2002, are included here to provide a chronology of the discussion that ultimately led to approval of both the ZMA and the original SP. This ZMA requires a Special Use Permit for Fill in the Floodplain in order for the proffered plan to be implemented. Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5" Street Development, April 8, 2008 4 Since ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 were approved by the Board in July 2002, the applicant has not submitted a site plan for approval or done any work on the site. Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that if the use, structure, or activity for which a special use permit is issued is not commenced within twenty-four (24) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned or expire. In July 2004 the Special Use Permit expired. The applicant has almost completed the process of granting the greenway easement, in fulfillment of ZMA Proffer # 8. All of the other proffers "kick in" at the time of site plan approval. When the first application for fill in the floodplain was made (SP 1999-059), the 1980 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were in effect. The FIRM showed virtually the entire proposed site in the floodplain. The applicant obtained from FEMA a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), dated July 5, 2000. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer at that time, signed off on the LOMR on March 31, 2000. A LOMR indicates that FEMA will revise floodplain boundaries to incorporate areas that will be filled. The effect of the letter is to remove a property and/or structure from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the FIRM. Then, on February 5, 2005, FEMA issued new FIRMs, which automatically supersede any existing LOMRs. Recognizing that there were a number of LOMRs that were no longer in effect because of the new FIRMs, FEMA issued a letter revalidating a list of LOMRS. However, the LOMR for this project, 5th Street Development, was not included. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition be placed on the new SP that, prior to site plan approval, the owner obtain a new LOMR from FEMA. DISCUSSION The purpose of the 24 -month provision for special use permit approvals in the ordinance is to allow any subsequent changes in circumstance to be considered and ordinance changes to be applied should an extension or reapproval of the special use permit be requested. The following analyzes the new special use permit according to the criteria in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. As a result of the Dewberry and Davis study prepared in support of the special use permit approved in 2002, the Engineering Department determined at that time that filling the portion of the floodplain as proposed in this project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. The current County Engineer, Glenn Brooks, has expressed opposition to the fill in the floodplain as proposed for several reasons, including unforeseen impacts. (Attachment 1) However the action of the Board to approve the rezoning in 2002 established uses and a proffered plan that cannot be achieved without approval of this special use permit. Approval of the special use permit will allow uses and the proffered plan approved under the prior rezoning to be developed on this site that can complement the adjacent hotel and provide services to travelers on the nearby interstate highway. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this site and the character of the floodplain, but it is not expected to change the character of the commercial nature of this area since the proposed development is consistent with existing development of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, 4 Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5th Street Development, April 8, 2008 5 There are several zoning districts on this site: Highway Commercial, Light Industrial, Flood Hazard Overlay, Entrance Corridor, and Airport Impact Area. The relationship of the SP to each district is discussed below: The intent of the Highway Commercial (HC) District is to permit development of commercial establishments primarily oriented to highway locations rather than central business concentrations. The SP will permit development of the site with commercial, highway -oriented establishments. The Light Industrial District covers the portion of TMP 76M1-1 that is east of Biscuit Run and, therefore, is not subject to this SP. The intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District is "for the purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, these provisions are intended to restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment." The district is also intended to help the County qualify for the National Flood Insurance Program. If approved, the SP will allow sufficent fill in the floodplain to remove this site from the floodplain. It will, therefore, be out of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The intent of the Airport Impact Area Overlay District is to recognize airport -related hazards which may endanger lives and property and/or create obstructions which might reduce the utility of the airport. The SP will have no impact on this district. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is to protect the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources. The applicant is expected to obtain the Architectural Review Board's recommendations prior to site plan approval. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The applicant has proffered several uses in the Proffers, dated May 7, 2002, including the restaurant and convenience store shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. (Attachment G) The proposed uses enabled by the prior re -zoning are permitted within the property's applicable zoning districts and will serve both travelers through and residents of the area. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no supplemental regulations governing restaurants and/or convenience stores in Section 5.0. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Engineering Department ultimately determined prior to approval of the ZMA and SP in 2002 that filling in the defined portion of the floodplain would not have an adverse impact on public health, safety and general welfare. The current County Engineer has expressed opposition to the fill in the floodplain as proposed for several reasons, including proximity of floodwaters to occupants and the integrity of fill slopes in the long term. (Attachment 1) SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. There have been no significant changes in circumstance since SP 1999-059 was approved in 2002. 2. The applicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation or having an impact on neighboring properties. Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5" Street Development, April 8, 2008 6 The following factor is unfavorable to this request: 1. The current County Engineer does not support this request based on concerns regarding good practice and policy, proximity of floodwaters to occupants, integrity of fill slopes in the long term and the precedent it sets.Staff and the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the original rezoning and special use permit for this project due, in part, to concerns regarding impacts to the floodplain. However, the Board, after additional information, review and consideration of these factors approved both the re -zoning with proffers, including a proffered plan, that establishes use of the property and the special use permit for fill in the floodplain. RECOMMENDATION There have been no changes in the development proposal for this property since the original rezoning and special use permit were approved by the Board. Although since that approval FEMA has issued new floodplain maps, they have not materially changed the floodplain boundary as it existed at that time. Therefore, staff finds no change in circumstance since the Board's prior approval of this special use permit that would change the basis for that decision and, therefore, recommends approval of SP 2007-063 for Fill in the Floodplain with the following conditions of approval: 1. The fill in the floodplain shall be shown on a site development plan and shall be in general accord with the "Conceptual Site Plan," dated January 8, 2002, and most recently revised on March 10, 2008, except as may be modified in order to meet the requirements of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, as determined by the County Engineer. 2. The County Engineer's approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. 3. The County Engineer's receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter of map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence. 4. The County Engineer's approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. 5. The County Engineer's approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts] of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Staff notes that a site plan will be required for this use and that issues in need of resolution for the site plan include: 1. The precise amount of fill necessary to accommodate the actual uses to be constructed on the site and the necessary parking. 2. Compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance 3. Sufficient mitigation, as determined by the County Engineer and Water Resources Manager, for the encroachment of the fill into the 100 -foot stream buffer along Moore's Creek. ATTACHMENTS: A. Location Map B. Conceptual Site Plan, dated January 8, 2002, and most recently revised on March 10, 2008, C. A Copy of the Staff Report, minutes, and Action Letter from the Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2001. D. A copy of the minutes and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 20, 2001. E. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action letter from the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2002. F. A copy of the minutes and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 5, 2002. G. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 3, 2002. Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5" Street Development, April 8, 2008 H. A copy of the final, signed proffers, dated May 7, 2002. I. A copy of the County Engineer's comments, last revised March 31, 2008. kWrch 24, 2WO EXIST. BRIDGE THAT SERVED FORMER OLD LYNCHBURG RD.-` .. ............ . >1 CITY OF 50GREENWAY CHARLOTTESVILLE EASEMENT ................ N., \�77 ............. :w ........... CORPORATE LIMITS ......... ......... ........... ............ . ...... ...... ..... . . ... . . A400 . .. .. . .......... 46 ............ COUNTY T Y' OF 7, NOTE: ZONING PERMIT AMENDMENT An0AR)EI GREENWAY —ECIAL USE PERMIT T. M. P. 76-55A EASEMENT ZONED: HC SPA 99-13 SP 99-59 1.306 AC. .. . ... ..... .......... ............. .... .... ...... A ............. ........ .. ............ ........ ...... ­� . ............ �%, ........... .................................... .......... 0 0 C', 0 0 0 0, L 0 0 0 ID 0. 0/ C) u 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/ ..... \'\ .T.M.P. 76M(1) -2A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0/ . // ................................. 0 0 C) 0 0 0/ 0 01 0 () 0 6 ...... ........ -0 0 0 OLD TEBB'S LANE 01 STREAM BUFFER"0 ,? 0? ........................ . ..... ............ ....... ... TE. RTE. 631 CONN.)N ,q DISTURBANCE AREA J J�// \ 1835, P. 742 0 0 0 C) D ZONED: HC u ()"o Cj T.M.P. 76M1-1 �PORTION) 000 0 0 0 C-) 0 .............. ... ZONED: C�, � () u , _ 0 / :::::,o -- 0 , 0 C) 0 2.765 AC. 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 / () 0 C, 0 0 . ....... ....... ................... . C) 0 0 0 () 0,// 0 0 0 1, 0 L? 'T 1 PORTION)�� -0 M.P. �61VI`I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZONED: Ll 0 c- (D 6.333 AC. - T.M.P. 76-55C C, ID 0 0 0 0 ........... I .......... .............. J0 0 0 0 0 ...:..........i........... I ............................... 0 , 0 0- 0 .................. .......... ............ ............ ­.� .. ....... ...... . ... .. .. ............ GREENWAY c o C) ...... ..... EASEMENT C 0 c) 0 D 0 0 0 0-0 u, . / , I... .................................... i c) . )"o 7 L) �_, � ) 0 0 0 C) ........... loc. 0 ...... ... .......... . ....... 0 ........................... ..................................... .......... 0 ..... .. ... ...... I ............ C INTERSTATE 64 — - — — - — — - — 40' 80* 120' TH 11V11 L. 101U11 t o(gr l0 2—e PROJECT NO. 207152 DWG. DATE: 04-02-02 IDESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: APPROVED: SCALE: AS NOTED SHEET NUMBER: C-1 I OF 4 SHEETS Attachment B i GENERAL NOTES: �O\0 ° SITE INFORMATION 8Y: �° ROUDABUSH, GALE AND ASSOCIATES ALBEMARLE COUNTY OfL�Z 914 METAL DISK N MONTICELLO ROAD BENCHMARK k6 S.E. .- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 0 / I i % DATE: JANUARY 26, 2000 CORNER OF 380.6 4LNo � ELEVATION - 380.60 � // /'" / � .a � o � TOPOGRAPHY: FLOODWAY** FEMA BASE �' //> N o EXISTING TOPO TAKEN FROM ELEVATION*� �' // I! / / \ o w v z o ROUDABUSH, GALE AND ASSOCIATES - Ir _ z m SITE PLAN DATED JANUARY 26, 2000 /�"/ /' I�/ FEL!LQA BASE N FLOODPLAIN** \ /,/ % / /l""' / / F9QOD * 7 O SITE DATA: "O / ELEVATION L,J N z TA% MAP 76M (1)-1 �i�= ;1 nJ� / / m TAX MAP 76-55A ` ;, I,:l- / -�iJ} j` \ z o 100' L ' ,, .�.,,�„ / // / ENWAY „ ...� / EAS MENT / a Z BENCHMARK IS ESTABLISHED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER / '� MOOECTIONR2EK Z . OF HEADWALL STAMPED ALBEMARLE COUNTY BENCHMARK �., �.•' EXISTING 12\' CHARLOTTESVILLE w a 6 ELEVATION = 380.60 WATERLINE' I - �. /f .� 200' \ /' PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT /' �/ \,,I /� ,t \�\ / r �MOORES CREEK m w w NIN BASED ON PROFFER 7 / I / / /� i \ / .SECTION 1 PARCEL AT - TMP 76-55A HC /I r - \ \ / PARCEL A2 - TMP 76-55A (OLD TEBB'S LANE) HC % J ( /> // ..� PARCEL A3 -TMP 76M 1)-1 HC /� `� �',.- I Y' ///� i �._/� _ CORPORATE PARCEL A4 - TMP 76M(l)-1 (RESIDUE) L1 i190' IT�aA{j j• = j �.._ - LIMITS Q _ NOTE: PARCEL Al. A2 AND A3 BOUNDARY - -- - SFC) 0 Rtt� I"`v� �1 LINES TO BE ADJUSTED BASED ON FUTURE SITE PLAN / N SETBACKS: \ _ '1 �, P �'• i / s 20. \��•O L ry p 30' FROM ANY PUBLIC STREET RI . T OF WAY - r 7 S8 r - i i _� — - _B,' l7J \Indy T P O�F _ 7 K- m J. / 1, REE E RENT �– Ln r-_ a Y 50' FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL OR RURA4 AREA DISTRICT -.. ; LOC ATI N: 6 `. \ r '"•$,.;.p.C�PFI�C./ �fPG .9• 4 ^s\�. .`� .... ACS `F_ / ON 5TH STREET NEAR INTERSECTION OF ST STREET & •�a \C _ a INTERSTATE 64, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA �j� ;•< �/ �.- / fLOH 2;,.r� "' Cfdt�WW-$FI /i v c LL u .;l 691 I ' /OBLD. N1 \ MIft9AT N __TacN '`�ALBEMARL�1 vJ C w >, :� m > g\- / PROPOSED a ,^ L` MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:-� P !% / CONVENIENCE SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT / / 1 ��� • I ;+`! ' \ / / STO E I ti ! / $+ 1\ \ - 20' \ - EXIST. OLD '- III//� / >`- I E WN R: ;/ /,,�5'( I / L ta. ..✓ r.%i / `` e.� /�_ _. ( .~.ROAD BED 4/ .% i,/,� /41 R 27 ' / LJ Y / \\ // �c - "RP Z ' 66.6]' i�` :gm .. VIII MORRIS CREEK YACHT CLUB, INC. , ,I It' ,% d99.p ELE 38 e / ,.H ///�, �l,\•� ,.1 14'�Pi WA ., IIIIIL - /7/,'� a N CHARLOTTESVILLE,E VA 22902 / : ; I I /' J l'., 1�. 1 1, p 5- / - ' Op •i/r / > ",/meq .., ..• _ �/ \ / _ / 1 v c �- OOP I - xo• 1 t ' tia•\ _`OBSERRACE STREAM .1.00 \v ... 111 Ill /� �, /p�'F - Z EXISTING CONDITIONS: ii / �� / /�1 -�\� .'•, O p,OVO / / 5 / / .BUFFER �I � / 7/ �/ / U ,6 PARTIALLY WOODED LOT / / / > /�� 1\ �. 4 / (� ,e• 1 %...__�' l:,/ l' U' I .\ / e•,"' �\ /°`ate L i © \ '4 /ld /S / L . UTILITIES(APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHO N) ! O WATER: ON ADJACENT SITE & 5th STREET // �`i•' _ .- / \ �5� - Je's' °• / /�) �)^ C) ) �'1 ////' :•� / sV ,��,_/ q p .Gu �..� FIRE HYDRANT: ON ADJACENT SITE // \ 3 ,PQOPO$ED / / �� 1�' it „O / / / o' U' OE;-///' �. ' i �/ SANITARY SEWER: ON SITE /.;' �' , }. 'ENTRANCE '- / r�%` �� - 'q, �" 6p- /. ' // _ / / zr� q, p / - /_ �'� (1 _O U r ' / 1. !y /� r �/4 / 11 ELECTRICITY: ON SITE / PER VDOTa r / /\i '\ \) r3" I Rw r / RIPRAP STILLING > Ci U r) V C �}., 1 7 /h \ / COMMENTS \ �/ /^/� I I'' \ '' In - Z" ' / / h ; "�' BASIN AT O o, C� O Ci / l '7 '� / \ f /\{ \\ ! / v� '�r..9 (�xo'� mL386. /� /,v f 'i ./ r FEMA PROPOSED BUILDING U > % / / 1 \ \ rs \ / \-' / I� \ m / W _ _ / UNDERDRAIN o L✓ 1 / * - \ �' \ I / 3 " ArFR a• OUTLETS TYP. / O O O C1 �L? O / / / ' F�ODPLAINti BUILDING j/1: CONVENIENCE STORE �/ -/ / \ oy^ .�(°. '„ \� ^ / „ , / n �/\1 J J , Q Q O r /WC BUILDING jJ2: RESTAURANT / / / \pR OSED I I� \ \ / IP�,.i• 1 i / 9 A(6' lr 11 / O 'J �-% `� ENTER ONLY ^aoGT \";. _� \ ! ' / i / / / (- +�_ �• \ (. //1/ o 0 0 o a- / OF , \ _ Fr.F' \ I I \ / / ��T RETAINING e PODi O C� j r /SC SIGN' R \' i pN�t'�� 1 �A 'o ' / ( WALL w RAIL -� j S UlT l /FLOODPLAIN*e • 0' 2 �`\ I g0 g // / 6� ECT/ R FEMA, _ A2 w 16 / '47 1 -. />/' �` ON �N / / / / FL'OODWAY ° Opp / / ' �U1oo0 O O 2 J E FEMA �. �. SES ✓� F.P O / I { . '4J(") STREA / FLOODWAY* ,'• �� / -..� .� 2�o Nks v ( I �qCi 1 i / ��+, / C`i U @'rr°o (BU FEF , .n O / ✓ y� I I i Jss,3 / l� C ; O Wiwi.�7 ` U / (� e• A r PRCiP D xK �K FLOOD LIM CI 1.170' 100-Y C) <? ) 0) (i / '� !:• ,y / / \ % 10�� , { � 1 /' /�PL7R OFA / -"/ / / \EN\R. CF\ ! \I BLD. 2 / / / e/ '/ C' GzCf' J O C!�° 'C, U C /.� / l i / ... !....)/ GRAD L. COLONS ? PROPO ED / I BOUNDARY«%, /� ti / a • / / '� ECT R\ ,\ ! RESTAURANT �.4- / /0 UN 9.360 50. iT. P : l Q " v r .`� N T \ \� _ 8o X 11T / / / ' J C STREAM F.F.\ LEV, 389' �. i' / ///� \ / / /• > \•, •- I / D y / 1 NO DISTURBANCE AREA PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING q1: 18'+/- BUILDING j)2: 18'+/- /LAND USE' BUILDING j)1: 5,000 sq. fl BUILDING jJ2: 9.360 sq. fi TREE COVER REQUIREMENT: TO BE DETERMINED WITH SITE PLAN PARKING REQUIREMENTS; CONVENIENCE STORE (BLD. #1): 1 SPACE PER 200 SQ, FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA GAS SALES: NONE REQUIRED EATING ESTABLISHMENT (BLD. j/2): 13 SPACES PER 1000 SO. FT. GROSS FLOOR A BUILDING j)1: 25 SPACES (9'x18') INCLUDING 2 H/C SPACES BUILDING j)2= 122 SPACES (9'x18') INCLUDING 5 H/C SPACES SITE PARKING TALLY: REQUIRED REGULAR PARKING: 147 SPACES (9'x18') PROPOSED REGULAR PARKING: 107 SPACES (9'08') 47 SPACES (10'x18') REQUIRED H/C PARKING: 6 SPACES (8'X18) PROPOSED H/C PARKING: 7 SPACES (8'X18') REOUIRED TOTAL: 153 SPACES PROPOSED TOTAL: 161 SPACES GARBAGE/TRASH STORAGE: MASONRY ENCLOSURES WITH GATES LIGHTING TO BE DETERMINED WITH SITE PLAN SIGNAG NO SIGNAGE OTHER'THAN DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME BUILDING SIONAGE MAY BE SUBMITTED LATER AS A SEPARATE SITE PLAN AMENDME STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION: MITIGATION PLAN TO BE SUPPLIED WITH-. FUTURE SITE PLAN . STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DETENTION NOT REQUIRED �E STORMWATER QUALITY TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH BIOFILTERS, "'ST AND BASIN USING INTERNAL DRAINAGE WITH DISPERSED OUTFALLS qrF PLAN TO BE SUPPLIED WITH SITE PLAN 6q E & S PLAN WILL BE PHASED TO INSURE THAT NO FILL WILL BEPLACED 8 FLOODWAY LINE F-NGINEERED FILL: FILL PLACEDINTHE FLOOD PLAIN SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PER FEMA REQUIREMENTS. THE STABILITY OF THE FILL WILL BE ASSURED THROUGH AN ENGINEERED FILL DESIGN WITH VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION AND GEOTE FABRIC REINFORCEMENT OF THE SLOPES, AS NEEDED, FACING THE FLOODWAY THIS 15 BASED ON THE MEAN VELOCITY OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD OF 4.4 F.P.S. F MOORES CREEK AND 4.1 F.P.S. FOR BISCUIT RUN, PER THE FEMA LOMR DATED 7-05-2000 yls r !lI /// ' ^ TOP LL.386.0 © 1 pl v<� / / I / / 1 / e, ae (�O o U U U C f h"//;rl ( )\ /� \ /f/ / / �Ooo�OOOQ ��% / / T ..f. �' ' U �/ / • U U fr r < c sl/ Z Q / tz ! C. C? U C 7 ,, U �� .� /� / / / 1..GREEN AYJ / Z . I I /,;. (�q-21� •Te7 s �a / r/M� tr.Yo o Tgp bF>„ ' / `. , `� / / / Q Z T.M.P. 76-55C I r /, / titin 1�' / Die < �K L� y EASEM NT / / I/ LU r' 75 ry LL ILL .o ,xxam o �-, U'\/!. 26 REA I 11 /J',...�� ¢. .'/ f J a rl ` ,� °1 r "/.: / / / / W O J / / / / / / '. °TDA ,/ - ec. .o• �\ t /. s'o I, ` U r n�� r Z. / / / / } Wg2Ra ° ' - 1 / oIsoox ` C: Cr _, `> .� U f/ rr / : % % / / PARCEL A4 ~ X11 I'//!/� ,b/i� � / I / .RESIDUE �/ �/ J LU LL /// / ,.�; / , •i/ / : / / �r y:.. /� �!` 6.33 AC. / �1��� 5 / ^ U i U'' Q C' j 8/g U\i l f ;ZONED: L1 / I O C �/, SEC T R� E— .:�// o, ( / / / ), / (: / Tl0/V UN / ! , F-- Z LLJ ....... ..L...... ) Ljj Lu /:, ///✓.mac„\ ` /.Yy., ,' 1 �•�� / i/ tz�uaal 1 BUFER C �. / i.. I l � Q -1 Pft�OPOSEU WATER QUALITY BASIN // t ILL G , / / W N cI• Q �/ �J RETAIJyI .JOP OF ! / ** ' FLOODWAY U l ,,,,.r I _ WAL/L p1/ IL / CJ (1 BANK /` / / �/ ��/�' "; °7 7e5=L= _i 11 CI 0 BANK'-, i/ / ! / / z VJ w 23 p` C / �/ / r /FLOODPLAIN NTOP — i /1G•P p3. p ® ___p � comora / / � / ! Lo 1001MITAR N2 --r.:-, 1 — ® //;✓ �/ /. i r , r / i /� / / / % / f (u O FEMA 20 Poaiar • FLOODWAY* // ,—• / —/ _ I �:> - *FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN LINE BASED ON FLOOD INSURANCE FEMA �" I I / / ' / INTERSTATE 64r / / PROJECT N0. 207-52 * / TIAP 76 -SSA' ' DWG. DATE: 01-08-02 RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PANEL 269 OF 575 / FLOODPLAIN /c-� / / / ( l QI S MAP NUMBER 510006 0269 D, EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2005 INTERSTATE 6/4 j! / �/ / �P ATE Ip DESIGN BY: SITE * * BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (BFE) BASED ON • - . / ' /� / y\� DRAWN BY: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY / Fl00DWAY** i Mp (PANEL 220 OF 475 COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 510006 - , 220 8 EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1980; REVISED TO / /• 0' 40' 80' 120', APPROVED: REFLECT LOMR DATED JULY 5, 20001 AND DEWBERRY & 1 / - 7 d TMP 76M (1)-1 DAVIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDOM DATED APRIL 3, 2001 USING / r ' THE APPROVED FEMA FLOOD MODEL OF THE JULY 5, 2000 ** j/ - FEMA BASE / SCALE! AS NOTED FLOODPLAI, J FLOOD / / % LOMR. -- • • r ELEVATION* / (UNLESS R INTERVAL NT DRVA OTHERWISE) ANT ERSTq)E 64 SHEET NUMBER: TILE / _ ***PROPOSED 100 -YEAR LIMIT BASED ON BASE FLOOD ' VICINITY MAP ^ OR ELEVATIONS FROM THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR 1 ;/ �_� ALBEMARLE COUNTY PANEL 269 OF 575 MAP NUMBER \ '� 510006 0269 D. ECFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2005 n \� 1 �' f NOT TO SCALE OF 4 SHEErs Attachment B 0 430 _ -. _ _ - __ .... _ ... __. _ _ ..430 - 430 930 _I I m I w I. -_ - .. - _ ... - _ m 420 of - J w o 'J m :m1 j wz . 420 aI zl • --__ - - 1' I 410 • N cO __ _ _ _ _ m rn S o ¢ I 3I 410 400-r.I. al 1W PR POSE WATER �� PROPOSE RFT, 1=I 01 - - 0 FXLODOTODSUDYALB. �7 400 ... QUALITY, BASIN �� BUILDING X2 / 9.360 50. 1 rc a ## FLOOD BASED ON i� 390 390 ELEV.=E 383 BF PROPOSED WATER OUALITY BASIN i... I, ALMA%. e. FLOODSTUDY 380 .. I \ _ -. _ ... .. _ R WALING .._ Z _. O E)� _, 100 YEAR F,Lq ELEV 383 lB I } ; _ _ 380_ 370 _ _ _,. _.-.- .._._. -_. .. .._ _. _. -. . . -. _ ._. _.._.. - _._ "" __ - -- I_ L _ .. ., _ .- . _ _. w _ ..__. _- -, - I 370wi. .360 _ I 360__- I _ ... 360 l 0+0000+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+6I0 0+70 0+80 0+190 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00 2+10 2+20 2+30 50 2+60 2+70 2+80 2+90 3+00 3+10 3+20 3+30 3+40 3+50 3+60 3+70 3+80 3+90 4+00 4+10 4+20 4+}0 4+40 4+50 4+60 4+70 2+40 2+ - f 350 4+80 4+90 5+00 5+10 5+20 5+30 5+40 5+50 5+60 5+70 5+80 5+90 6+00 6+10 6+20 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+ 10 1+20 I+30 1+40 BISCUIT RUN SECTION 1 350 6+00 6+10 6+20 6+ 430-.i_zl rc 41 0 430 930 _I - -- -_ - .. - _ ... - _ m __.-._..___ -_ j J w m zo zl, i 1 400 aI 1 • --__ - - Xd ON u a CO c O • N cO __ _ _ _ _ m rn S ooI41C• noal' ',• C 1 O FLOOD j O 1 �� j 140C - 410 1=I -- _I._ •, FXLODOTODSUDYALB. �7 139- CMB HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" - 20' DYB.F c F 1 o I -- _.. .- 390. t ELEV.=E 383 BF PROPOSED WATER OUALITY BASIN i... VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' 9• S0. FT. - ---------- — .._ J 400 g - 1 _ ~_ rc , �._.. I BIO -FILTER _ j 360__- = _ 100 YEAR FL OD - ELEV. 383 BFE ) - g , _ ___ . -.._ _ .._ _ a_. . _.. -_ _, _.. _ _.__. _ _- _ __ .___. __. .. ___. _. _,_ __ __ .__.__ - I- . _____ - 360 350 00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+ 10 1+20 I+30 1+40 I - - 4+I 4+ 0 5+00 70 3+80 3+90 4+ 1+50 i+60 1+70 1+BO 1+90 2+00 2+10 2+ 00 4+10 4+20 4+30 4+40 4+50 4+60 4+JO 80 9 20 2+30 2+40 2+50 2+60 2+70 2+80 2+90 3+00 3+10 3+20 3+30 3+40 3+50 3+60 3t 1 5+10 5+20 5+30 S+90 5+50 5+ I- 1 60 5+70 5+80 5+90 350 6+00 6+10 6+20 6+ _ - - ,370.1_ o - � - BISCUIT RUN SECTION 2 - 430 41 0 410 930 ,3,III ,3,II� a z I � z z �L. 400 zl, i 1 400 _III • --__ - - ... I.. -. _. -- - __ _.-. _ .... ___ -. -I .. _"__"_ __._ . __ _ _ _ _ FLOOD ..z a #FLOODST _ _ .. 4 G ._ 410. 410 1=I -- _I._ OP Dp' UIL BUILDING. -- -- - N o o HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" - 20' DYB.F c F 1 o I 390 390. t a PROPOSED WATER OUALITY BASIN _ VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' 9• S0. FT. - ~ .._ .. 400 g - 1 _ ~_ rc , _g 380 I BIO -FILTER _ ( j BIO -FILTER BIO -FILTER _ a = _ 100 YEAR FL OD - ELEV. 383 BFE ) - g 380 a —� - 390 _ 390 DUALITY -BASIN- - --- - —��; __-----"� _ .. , ,: .ON ALB. FLOODSNUDY� _ - - ,370.1_ o - � - 1 - - - - _ I 370 ' 360.1 w o aw o - o D o LL I 360 I p YEAR �OBFE) _ 380 2005, BASED ON BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS (BFE). _ -- - - 350 350 ELEV 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00 2+10 2+20 2+30 2+40 2+50 2+60 2+70 2+80 2+90 3+00 3+10 3+20 3+30 3+40 3+50 3+60 3+70 3+80 3+90 4+00 4+10 4+20 4+30 4+40 4+50 4+60 4+70 4+80 4+90 5+00 5+10 5+20 5+30 5+40 5+50 5+60 5+70 5+80 5+90 6+00 6+1 o fi+20 6+. r00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 I 370. MOORES CREEK SECTION 1 I 430 _ 930 ,3,III ,3,II� a 420 420 zl, i 1 I i _III n g a ~ of G 410. 410 1=I -- _I._ - -- -- - N o o HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" - 20' o-� o o a VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' a -JI o. ~ 400 400 rc o I PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED# ISO. 'KT. ^ - ( : #* MAX. FLOOD BASED 390 FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN LINE BASED ON FLOOD INSURANCE 390 DUALITY -BASIN- - --- - _ �_ _ _ _ 5.000 --- -- - __-----"� _ .. , ,: .ON ALB. FLOODSNUDY� _ - _ �_ # RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNT, PANEL 269 OF 575 _ MAP NUMBER 510006 0269 0, EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 380 _ - - -- - - - p YEAR �OBFE) _ 380 2005, BASED ON BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS (BFE). _ -- - - - ELEV I 370. 370 I 1 I 360 #�k BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (BFE) BASED ON 360 I - - - - - _ _ ._ I FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY (PANEL 220 OF 475, COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 510006 B, I I 350 EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1980; REVISED TO REFLECT 350 IS LOR DATED JULY 5, 2000) AND DEWBERRY & DAVIS )0 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 7+00 I+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 I+50 1+60 1+70 I+80 1+90 2+ 00 2+70 2+20 2+30 2+40 2+50 2+60 2+70 2+80 2+90 3+00 3+10 3+20 3+30 3+40 3+50 3+60 3+70 3+80 3+90 4+00 4+10 4+20 4+30 9+40 4+50 4+60 4+70 4+80 TECHNICALMMEMORANDOM DATED APRIL 3, 2001 USING THE APPROVED FEMA FLOOD MODEL OF THE JULY 5, 2000 LOMR. M 00 R ES CREEK SECTION 2 m O OJ am Ln DJ E QaTa"= LLI rd 0) 3-. N v V Z N 0 J a 1 o 3 3 ,,1,TH OF P DAVID L. COLUNS Z uc . 7 o gr. to z" e "/�SiONAL E�� WC G FDZ J -) W } OWIL-LZ �0 LL O 0 p U W W z w LLJ Q m (n W F a LO PROJECT NO. 207152 DWG. DATE: 01-08-02 DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: APPROVED: SCALE: AS NOTED SHEET NUMBER: C-3 OF a SHEETS Attachment B fQALBEMARLE COUNTY ` / °f�'n `b BENCHMARKH6 3 METAL DISK N S.E. \ CORNER OF HEADWA4L �' /� /�// ? ELEVATION = 380.60 FLOODWAY** FEMA BASE /' ./ /�� /` /r /'/'I -sq. FO ELEVATIION* FLOODPLAIN** i IN h Ix ` EXISTING 12" O o\. P FEMA -j FLOODPLAIN* P FEMA * / FLOODWAY / / i \ 'EMA BASEFLO \ :LEVATIION* \ V \mss. gym. 3"M to o Z w w � m o N � s m Ld CITY OF o CHARLOTTESVILLE WATERLINE O CORPORATE V Z LIMITS �/. I /lam � ' ' `` '/' e'srcumor j ) /. / .. ' � \ V� CMOO A -� v � � � �• ,- � SO COUNTY OF c0 m I a 7 srcemere ALBEMARLE I '% / _ C / U N •y6h%/' ,/ fir.' / \ 'TOP OF \ �\ ] -� X_ 3,y \ /,�' O d a m o ''t\ •(t'• \\ I :' // /�I '/•a �' �' , �'' / Wsycom e ` _ \� -l` /troi»n"' _ Q 0 0 O r BANK \ l 5 /)\ I I Y i i. 4j� •3h/ / a' rcemore / / /' / z, -w low \ I Vr N E -'/ // Oho $' / ♦ - rna�v 2o's Q\ 1 t 1 ©� orei2' oP.i/% ' l :\ zo©nox . - t4•Pa mr_ TOP OF \ \ w v o PARCEL Al as°eme / BANK / T.M.P. 76-55A o5 I.O. ycem r ,29 /1P ,4'Wolnel© p fowl , \ C o /r�e' \!, ZONED: HC /' o \ CQ /'\�nul4 . // E a-Syca 12 'ceew.i $ ±i� _ . NET K% tz-ce'Sb�"\ , • '�' rn .. DRANT / iw ///\ \\ \o�l� ,o'srcemereQ �fe � v N .4$ "v Wd \\ Ct ta'SYeomure /' / T / N _ /h3�� ,o5rcemoe m I O '/,`J%/lo•ce� �s _ /� D --� % \/�--f 14'C.. e'Treo / �., / — / ' �\ /% e • =1 e oso1eP ��v , \ �v _ \ I \ /�ji"'G 2o'eocy.( ®m e �� I�/, + / eL-, \ O J o. j�" / / / Y\\ /� ' \'9\ ✓,p - / �` 1 \ \\\ \A3• / �/ l / , / TOP OF / // / / /FLOODPLAIN`.. eov f ✓•� I \ \\\ / ,\!r% s / I _z_ ,/ /e ,/ © BANK - \ T.M.P.ARCEL A3 76M(1) -2A T.M.P. 76M1-1 ' ZONED: HC 6 F.LOODWAY*/ o \/P T PARCEL A2 OLD TEBB'S LANE T. RT. 631 CONN.) B. 1835, P. 742 ZONED: HC T B Dem w76•Tree 1 r / / / a ' / \ / / / - e APPROXIMATE // •/ ' \ :J,� 72j a I p ^ I TREE LINE I` srcamar 20- 21 DPO'�"ONALO �"? r.,MP. 6- 5-5555 \ito•Asn!O m,, / r G /.; . / / / J y/ , � I I •a4 ,Dn6/ ./ I 1 I � 12•uePle , , I / I I / �l' •! I 1 I I ,Q � / � I / ao'srcemore / T / / /�, / ' / :/ / � /r / / \/ -- 1 • i I ao ! / , I I j12 ..pl. , tswolw, z MOPIe ,z•sess. ." //i� i `' / % / 33'01 20" E L �I / f !1I7�s. ® TISP OF f' / / I , /// / r l / / I' / / i r/ , / r/ / / /'y \ \/ i — _ _ _ Z Q za •' / w rcomore / / I 1 60.66 / BANK / / //:' / ' / % / % / /�r1z•Popmr I Dfl'Asn 2o'Mo2o'Asn z6•Asn Q/ 161— b,., (n W z I I6lree p Z S „/ _/ 24Aeh PARCEL A4 /��/ 9 , / l l \ - 15'OeN / // '°q ii` / / / / O 0- LL N 32-59'25" E / // / 1 / J / wv ,. lo'Aen „'ueple IS•Aeh /, RESIDUE U ,35711kr'i , - / 1/j" G\/ _. ;. \ . ,/ / f /, / /' ,U•Muple r ,0•Ash / p,2•Ash ,S- 1 / r/ / ,' / / / / / / I . M.P. 7 V M 1 — 1 / i \ O J > /� / ,z'Aen • ._ ,B=sycomore 1 �' / / y, ' ' J / / / h J J oAen oAsn , ® Q2aPen / ,' / / /ZONED: L1 / / / / \ D > 0 aMopre 2Nn aosrcemere/ /, r /// / ,' • �/ 1 / / LU 2 I— i1i/,, I (DIV.h t1 ,� N 63 47 07" W /� / 11 Asn _ �z4'sycemore / / / / / /f / / / , , / o / / \ z /. P' r / / ! /'11 • — P zo'srco o / /// _ / / / / / / / // ! / / / / O 0 �L. 0 6o I app a—.�_ ♦ I zoAn \a �ezo roman /% / /,/ / / % % / j / l l / \ r�F�11 U 2'fAOPIe r L lfl'Aeh so•sr - / , / i//% /; ( e^� / \ t./ I.IJ Z W 26'Srcamom I / / r / / / / / / / l , / z Q J Lu D�Iji /ree ,fl 6YcreePle' G3 TOP of / / / / / / / // 1`—r•y `r Q ! `'•' ®, ;y�/ l0 2z'srcam (55,/ I 22•MOPIe I BANK , / \ / /' 'FLOODWAY/' * \ vJ r.\ 0. "Pill IZ AsnO _ /� / / / I _ �"", W iBsY Wm,ply e ` , t l 20 sl 265 more ('� '. /-' / rJ/ / l l l *.sk/ / / / / � �� /�/ / I (y.�c 26 sr ir6mor ,CAsn 16"P (D / �� ��//�'/l / l l % �LOOD�IAIN, / r /I m I Yo..LBM°P°4•S�emem ®/.. •,t,,,c„ / / 5 82'04'42' W 308.74' r / I 1— \ N88'32'0/ " W ' '—' / /� i / / / l / / •_ — L(i 650.37' zo aoplar ,7 % T _ INTERSTATE 64 j�_ � FLOODWAY** , ,�.'/J / / , PROJECT N0. 207152 INTERSTATE 64 DWG. DATE: o,-oB-oz FEMA/N� F4'gMp 6q * FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN LINE BASEL ON FLOOD INSURANCE I FLOODWAY* / /J• / ;/! / / / / / ' / r / / / DESIGN BY: RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTYPANEL 269 OF 575 DRAWN BY: MAP NUMBER 510006 0269 C. EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUAIZY 4•, - / % 2005\ ••• FEMA APPROVED: FLOODPLAIN* 0' 40' BO' 120' **BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (BFE) BASED ON"—'�••�^.,, - /' SCALE: As NOTED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY ** FEMA BASE / (PANEL 220 OF 475 COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 510006 FLOODPLAIN . FLOOD '/ { / CONTOUR INTERVAL = I' 0220 B EFFECTIVE BATE: DECEMBER 16. 1980: REVISED TO - * r r SHEET NUMBER: REFLECT' LOMREFFECTIVE DATED JULY 5. 2000) AND DEWBERRY & ELEVATION /' / r / (UNLESS LABELED OTHERWISE) TDAVIS HE APPROVEDA FEMA FLOOD MODEL MODEL OF THE JULY05, 20000 3$ /4 OF 4 SHEETS Attachment B �2 Amy 2 9� -1- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development _ ___�__•____ __ �0_LM�lntar�P,oad,_Iioom_2.L8 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 May 24, 2001 Robert T. Smith P O Box 7120 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-99-13 Young America and SP -99-59 Young America Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 2001, by a vote of 3-1, recommended denial of the above -noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to review the above -noted petitions at its June 20th meeting. If you'have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael Barnes Planner MB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey (3 Attachment C I ZMA 99-13 Young America (Sign #981- Request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC, Highway Commercial uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial and an unzoned, abandoned highway, right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 -Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in —the Scottsville Magisterial-District-and-is-desi-gnated-fortndustrial-and-Regional-Service-uues in -Neighborhood -5-a identified in the Comprehensive Plan. (Michael Barnes) AND SP -99- Youna America (Sian #951– Request for Special Use Permit approval of approximately 4.00 acres for fill of the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Property is located on approximately 12.897 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial and HC, Highway Commercial. It is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 -Parcel 1 and Tax Map 76 - Parcel 55A and is located on the east side of 5th Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. (Michael Barnes) Mr. Barnes presented the staff report. Mr. Finley asked about the statement that the BMP can't be in the floodway. Is this for quality? Is there concern about runoff going into the floodway. Mr. Barnes the concern is the quality not quantity. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any comparison to the floodplain fill at the North Garden firehouse. Mr. Barnes said that any site would have to treat its impervious cover. The fuel tanks are not an issue as the site would be above the floodplain. The site would not come under floodplain regulations once the site is graded above the floodplain. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the North Garden fire department had extremely specific plans. Mr. Finley said that the County does allow fill in the floodplain if you meet the design conditions. Mr. Thomas asked if there was a preliminary site plan. Mr. Barnes said that the plan supplied in the packets is what staff has received thus far. The applicant applied a site plan with no topography.. Mr. Rieley asked the applicant to address the commission: Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, has been working for 3 % years on this project with the staff. Staff had asked us to put the two applications together. The owners engaged Dewberry & Davis to conduct a study on Moores Creek and were able to get 1 '/2 acres out of the floodplain, which was approved by FEMA. We hired Roudabush & Gale did a study and came up with 3 '/z acres, the owners bought an additional 8 acres that is currently zoned LI. VDOT abandoned a small strip of road that went off of 51h Street Extended and dead -ended. VDOT deeded this over to the owners. The owners currently control the full 3'/Y acres: We went back to Dewberry '& Davis with the plan from Roudabush and got it approved by FEMA. FEMA allows you to increase the flow by a foot, but Albemarle County says zero: The study said it was about a quarter of an inch, there is no raise on other people's property. We have had a traffic analysis and a wetland delineation report done. A conceptual site plan has been provided. Potential users want to know that it is zoned for the use before they will consider the property. Following approval, a firm site plan showing stormwater detention, and VDOT requirements will be shown, will be provided. We will have to meet with the ARB. We don't know the cost at this time. The County currently collects $639 in taxes on property that cannot be used. Mr. Thomas asked if the property across Fifth. Street is this filled in. Mr. Smith replied yes. He said that the applicant is anxious to move forward. Mr. Thomas verified that there would 3'/Z acres outside the floodplain when the filling is done? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13 . Attachment C/o DRAFT MINUTES SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2001 Mr. Smith said that they would probably,only get about 3 acres of usable ground because of the required slopes. Mr. Thomas verified that the building next to Moores Creek is in the incorrect area on the,drawing. Mr. Smith said that could be moved back. There being no further comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing. Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to see as much of the property rezoned as possible. It is not close to residential areas so it will not infringe on the communities. Mr. Finley asked if the engineers have concluded that they can meet county engineering requirements. Mr. Smith replied yes. They have met several times. They have agreed that what is approved by FEMA is doable. There are a lot of procedures that we have to go through once the rezoning is approved. Mr. Finley pointed out that they would be within the 100' stream buffers. Mr. Smith verified that they can get within 50' of the stream with mitigation. That mitigation has not been verified. Mr. Rieley stated his concern about the number of unanswered questions. The primary issue of the floodplain seems to be addressed, but there are others that have not been addressed. Rezoning is a major threshold for us. We need to know what itis before we rezone. This property is in an entrance corridor and in a highly visible location. He would like to see a plan that deals with mitigation, and includes a concrete proposal for layout of property. It would be inconsistent with what we have done with other properties to rezone without seeing a concrete plan. Ms. Hopper agreed. She asked staff about the floodplain fill in that it seemed that the ordinance requirements were met. Mr. Barnes said it sounds like the ordinance speaks to several different requirements. There are other issues including the fill shelf cover. Mr. Rieley pointed out the issues of the stormwater detention and the water quality. Mr. Barnes added that the mitigation plan tremendously on the proposal. He is not sure if there is room for mitigation on site. - Ms. Hopper said it sounds like the two applications are necessarily interlinked, and it is hard to grant one without the other. Mr. Thomas asked if the special use permit could be approved without the rezoning. Mr. Finley said that the engineers need to reach agreement on the four points on page eight. Mr. Smith stated that their engineers said there were no problems with the third and fourth items, the fifth item had to do with the building being shown in the incorrect area. Mr. Finley said that if the engineers are agreeing that you can meet the requirements, it seems like you could come back with specific users. Mr. Smith said that it is a very difficult situation to market in the state that it is currently in. He said that until we know the layout, there are things that cannot be addressed, such as mitigation. Mr. Rieley said that Mr. Smith expressed his concerns exactly, in that without further specificity, they can't tell how these issues will work out. Ms. Hopper responded to concerns about fairness to property owner, they have purchased land in floodplain, the value (6 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14 Attachment C 5 2001 DRAFT MINUTES SUBMITTED NNE , would in improving the property. Mr. Thomas asked how the applicant would get someone to purchase the land unless it is out of the floodplain, which requires a ZMA and an SP. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Thomas that this property can be developed. He said he would hate to deny this application, as there is 1 -year waiting period after denial by the board. He would like for the applicant to request and indefinite deferral to work on buyers. Mr. Smith stated that part of this is zoned industrial, he asked if there was any industrial use shown. Mr. Rieley said that Mr. Smith needed to come with a proposal showing more specificity. Mr. Thomas said he thought that the County engineering department could make it work. Mr. Rieley pointed out that there were three potential courses of action, approval, denial, or accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Mr. Smith said he would rather not defer. Ms. Hopper moved for denial of ZMA-99-13. Mr. Finley is reluctant to vote for it, but the project could be approved with adequate information. Ms. Hopper said that this plan is not adequate. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1 with Mr. Thomas voting no. Ms. Hopper moved for denial of SP -99-59. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1 with Mr. Thomas voting no.. With no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary Recorded and transcribed by Lynda Myers, Recording Secretary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2001 15' Attachment C is STAFF PERSON: MICHAEL BARNES PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 22, 2001 BOARD OF .SUPERVISORS DATE: JUNE 20, 2001 ZMA 99-13 YOUNG AMERICA SP 99-59 FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc., through its agent, Robert T. Smith, is seeking to rezone a portion of TMP 76M1-1 (the portion west of Biscuit Run, which is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI)) and an abandoned, unzoned right-of-way (the old Fifth Street Extended roadway (Old Rt. 63 1)) to Highway Commercial (HC). The applicant also owns TMP 76-55A which would be combined with the other properties for future development (see Tax Map — Attachment A). Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant also requests permission to fill the floodplain at the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. If permitted, the fill would be on TMP 76M1-1, TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way (See hatched area on Attachment B). Both the rezoning and the fill in the floodplain would allow for uses roughly defined as a "sit- down restaurant" and a "convenience store" (See Concept Plan — Attachment Q. Petition for Rezoning and Special Use Permit: The applicant requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 -Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00 acres for grading in the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1, TMP 76- 55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light Industrial),HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning, respectively. Character of the Area: The site is located on Fifth Street Extended at the County/ City border. It is also the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. The majority TMP 76-55A is in the floodplain. All of TMP 76M1-1 is in the floodplain, except the part that is across Biscuit Run, which contains critical slopes. Interstate 64 and the Holiday Inn form the southern boundary of the site. The Christian Aid building (the former Virginia Power office) is across Fifth Street. The Waffle House is across Moores Creek in the City. Finally, the undeveloped land owned by Brass, Inc., which is zoned Light Industrial (LI) is to the west of the property. The I-64 interchange is approximately 600 feet from the proposed entrance for this site. Attachment C 1?5 �� Zoning and Subdivision History: There is no rezoning history related to this site. The property was subdivided sometime prior to 1968 according to Subdivision File 878. The Holiday Inn South was constructed on the adjacent parcel TMP 76-55C under Site Plan File 173. By -right Use of the Property: TMP 76-55A is zoned HC. Its by -right uses are limited to the area outside of the floodplain. Actual acreage outside of the floodplain is unknown. TMP 76M1-1 is zoned LI. Actual acreage outside of the floodplain is also unknown. Its by - right uses also limited on the eastern portion of the property due to the presence of critical slopes. Staff has been working with the applicant to assess the development potential of the property but has been unable to complete its assessment due to the need for additional information. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant's request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on their desire to lease or sell a developable site to an unspecified user(s). While a conceptual plan for a restaurant and convenience store was submitted for review by the Site Review Committee, the plan was not proffered nor is it under review as a preliminary site plan. In short, this is a speculative venture. In order to define the potential of the site to a potential client, the applicant must be able to define the maximum footprint available. To achieve this maximum footprint, the applicant needs to know the maximum area of floodway fringe that the County will permit to be filled. The applicant argues that the Dewberry and Davis studies have defined the maximum area for the fill. Using these studies as their basis, they feel that the County should approve their request to fill. Furthermore, they maintain that the engineering and planning costs necessary to define other potential development impacts (e.g. traffic, environmental, visual, etc.) are only justifiable after they have been granted a rezoning and special use permit for fill and have a potential tenant or buyer for the property (see Concept Plan — Attachment Q. Recommendation: Due to the lack of specific information available for this review, staff cannot recommend approval of the Special Use Permit or the rezoning at this time. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as both Regional Service and Industrial Service. Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. TMP 76-55 is Highway Commercial, and TMP 76M1-1 is Light Industrial. A change in zoning for TMP 76M1-1 would be inconsistent with the Plan's designation of Industrial Service; however, because of the peculiarities of the properties, staff believes rezoning a.portion of the property as a part of a complete, well-developed proposal should be considered. The reason staff believes a rezoning may be appropriate based on the following logic. Staff recognizes that Biscuit Run forms a natural dividing line. It bisects TMP 76M1-1 leaving the western side (the portion proposed to be rezoned) too small to have a significant industrial purpose. Bridging Biscuit Run to connect both sides of TMP 76M1-1 would be costly. As a result, the western portion of TMP 76M1-1 seems to logically fit with TMP 76-55 and its Highway Commercial uses. In staff's opinion; the .eastern portion should remain Light Industrial Attachment C A as the applicant has proposed. This would enable it to be incorporated into the Brass, Inc parcel which is also zoned Light Industrial. Please note that this analysis of the possible rezoning outcomes does not take into account the floodplain issue. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine that filling the floodplain is not proper, then there is no real reason to change the zoning at this time. The Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy directly addresses Fifth Street north of the interchange. This property is directly affected by this policy. The Policy recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service business, which primarily rely on the interstate traveler. The rezoning proposal seems to fall into the latter category. The Policy also recommends that highway -oriented business be clustered with common access point. On the surface, the proposal's use of the Holiday Inn's existing entrance seems to meet this recommendation also. However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT's and staff's concerns related to traffic, internal circulation and off-site improvements that this proposal might necessitate. Finally, the Policy recommends that "[The] maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in the review of application for development. Such review shouldoccur in the early stages of the development process (i.e. rezoning petition, special use permit application, etc) and should address such matters as: control of access,..., landscaping and buffering, setback, lighting, building mass and height and orientation in regard to aesthetic concerns." The applicant has not sufficiently addressed these matters. Finally, staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff makes note of the relationship of development proposals with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model that were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows: • Pedestrian Orientation • Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths • Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks • Parks and Open Space • Neighborhood Centers • Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale • Relegated Parking • Mixture of Uses • Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability • Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment • Site Planning that Respects Terrain Clear Edges Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 — 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section) 1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain). The proposal does not respect the potential for greenways in the area, as proposed in -the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment E). As conceptually proposed, the convenience store and a portion of the fill are within their proposed 50 -foot greenway buffer. Development of iq Attachment C ,� the site would make the construction of a pathway through this section difficult. Finally, the development has not proposed any improvements to the section of the greenway within their site. Please note that the County usually, attempts to garner a 100 -foot easement for its greenways., Secondly, the plan, as proposed, violates Section 17-321 of the Water Protection Ordinance. This section allows for limited disturbance within the landward 50 feet of the 100 -foot stream buffer. This plan proposes placing a building and fill within the waterward 50 feet. Even.if the submitted plan could be modified to remove the disturbance outside the waterward 50 feet, the applicant has not proposed a mitigation'plan for the disturbance in the landward 50 feet, as required by Section 17-322 of the Water Protection Ordinance. 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. There are no residential subdivisions in close proximity. 3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads. The applicant needs address the potential impacts to Fifth Street through completion of a traffic study. .4. A sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks) The site contains two important sections of the proposed greenway trail. The first runs along Moores Creek. The second runs along Biscuit Run south and connects with the Foxcroft and Mill Creek Subdivisions. The development has proposed no improvements to these sections of the greenway on their site. Improvements could have been provided in the form of a Class A trail or rehabilitating the bridge which crosses Biscuit Run at the confluence (see Attachment E). 5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks). Since the site is so close to the I-64 interchange and contains both steep slopes and floodplain, street interconnections to parcels either across Moores Creek or Biscuit Run are not recommended for this site. 6. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments. The question of underground utilities was not discussed. However, they could be provided easily on this site. 7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. The proposed site design does not minimize the impervious cover. An inefficient layout of parking creates large expanses of asphalt. The applicant did not proposed a means for treating water quality. From the layout, it can be inferred that the intent was to use the remainder of the floodplain for water quality Best Management Practices. Sections of the Water Protection Ordinance limit the use of Best Management Practices in the floodplain. Attachment C j 8. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated Parking) The proposed plan places the fuel canopies directly adjacent to Fifth Street Extended. The buildings are placed at the back of the site and as far away from the road as possible. It is also difficult to assess the visual impacts that this development could have when seen from the I-64 Bridge over Biscuit Run. The applicant did not address the impact concerns to the Entrance Corridor raised by the Design Planner. Therefore, the plan has not yet been submitted to the Architectural Review Board for comment. 9. Where site illumination is proposed, down -directed and shielded lights should be used. The applicant did not provide information on lighting; however, any proposed lighting will need to meet the County's Lighting Ordinance requirements. 10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than Abandonment) There are no buildings on the site. Only an old bridge crossing Biscuit Run. Specific standards for commercial development in the Land Use Plan'also apply to this site. These standards are as follows: 1. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. (Clear Edges) This rezoning is proposed for Neighborhood 5 which is part of the Urban Area 2. Highway -oriented commercial development should be located in clusters with common access points. Highway -oriented commercial development not located in such clusters should utilize service roads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of intersections on higher volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated for commercial development should not be less than three acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow unified access. The proposed rezoning is for a "clustered" development that is served by a single point of access. Questions of how the traffic generated by uses at this location remain unanswered. 3. Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by traffic analysis. A traffic analysis has been performed. Staff and VDOT have raised concerns with this analysis. To date, those concerns have not been resolved. 4. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects should be adequately addressed at rezoning. There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity. The area is characterized by office and commercial uses. 5. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with.infill_of.existing. 2t Attachment Cj commercial areas. (Mixture of Uses and Centers) The project does not propose a mixed-use component. Due to the proximity to the interstate and the size of the site relative to the floodway, the possibilities for mixed-use are limited. 6. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a commercial rezoning request. Utilities are adequate to support this proposal. STAFF COMMENT: Analysis of the Rezoning Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The purpose and intent of the HC Zoning District is to permit development of highway related commercial uses. The proposal meets the intent of both HC zoning and the Interstate Interchange Policy Public need and justification for the change The public need for the rezoning is not immediately obvious. There are already several gas stations and restaurants in the area. However, an argument might be made that this,rezoning serves to make better use of the land in the Development Areas. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Water and Sewer — Water and sewer service is available to the property. Roads — The traffic impact of this site are not yet understood. The applicant has been requested to provide additional information for staff analysis. Stormwater management - Stormwater management plans were not submitted as part of this proposal. It remains a question if the conceptual plan can provide stormwater treatment without utilizing the floodway. Anticipated impact on natural cultural, and historic resources No impact is expected on cultural and historic resources. With regard to impacts on natural areas, the impacts to the stream buffers have not been addressed. At present, no impact is anticipated to the critical slopes on the eastern side of Biscuit Run. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail. Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads. Analysis of Special Use Permit The amount of floodplain' on this site makes it difficult to develop. When a property is in the I The one hundred -year floodplain is the entire area subject to a one hundred -year flood. In Albemarle, all areas subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred -year flood as defined on the FEMA flood insurance maps determine the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Z Z Attachment C one hundred -year floodplain, the construction of buildings is prohibited. However, under a special use permit, fill can be placed in the part of the floodplain named the floodway fringez. The fill enables the building to be raised above the floodplain and thus escape the building prohibition. The ability to perform this fill is based on an engineering. study that determines the limits of floodplain, the limit of the floodway3 and the one hundred -year flood elevation. This study also needs to define the impacts to upstream and downstream properties. Floodplain studies, performed by Dewberry and Davis, delineated portions of the two properties which are either outside the floodplain, in the floodway fringe, or in floodway (Please see the Engineering Comments below for a full discussion of the Dewberry and'Davis Study). A small portion of TMP 76-55A adjacent to Fifth Street is outside of the floodplain. The remainder is in the floodway fringe. A portion of TMP 76M1-1 on the west side of Biscuit Run is in the floodway fringe. The rest is in the floodway. The portion of TMP 76M1-1 to the east of Biscuit Run is out of the floodplain. Under this determination made by Dewberry and Davis, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has accepted, the applicant could fill the part of the floodway fringe which has hatch marks (see Attachment B), if approved by Albemarle County. The Dewberry and Davis study asserts that the fill in this area will not increase the 100 -year flood elevation. If the flood elevation is not increased, the rule set forth County zoning regulations, then the County may permit the fill by approving the Special Use Permit, provided that all remaining portions of Section 30.3.6.1 and 31.2.4.1 are met. Engineering Department Analysis (Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (Flood Hazard Overlay District)): Engineering has reviewed the conceptual plan, hydraulic models, cross-sections and documentation submitted, by the applicant, in support of the request for filling in the floodplain of the Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Their comments are as follows: Floodplain Analysis 1. The floodplain analysis demonstrates that the area of the proposed fill is an area of "ineffective flow". This is primarily due to the its location between the two intersecting streams and the effects. of the flow constriction caused by the Interstate 64 and the Fifth Street bridge abutments. As a result the analysis was able to demonstrate that the proposed fill in the floodplain had insignificant onsite impact (0.02 ft. increase) to the 100 year storm water surface elevation and no impact to upstream or downstream properties. Conceptual Plan 2. The label on the bold line, shown following the bottom of the proposed slope, needs to be corrected. This represents the. "Floodway Line as taken from the Dewberry & Davis Study" z The floodway fringe is defined as those portions of land within the Flood Hazard Overlay District subject to inundation by the one hundred -year flood, but lying outside the floodway. 3 The floodway is defined as that portion of the Flood Hazard Overlay District that is required to carry and discharge the waters of the one hundred year flood without increasing the water surface elevation at any point more than one (1) foot above existing conditions. 2� Attachment C 3. The 100 -foot stream buffers must be shown and labeled along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run in accordance with Section 17-317 of the Code. 4. The portion of the proposed fill adjacent to Moores Creek encroaches, and in some areas eliminates, the stream buffer. Encroachment within the landward 50 feet of the buffer may be authorized pursuant to Section 17-321, provided a mitigation plan is submitted in accordance with Section 17-322. The plan must be revised to keep the land disturbing activity within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer and a mitigation concept is proposed. 5. This development will be required to provide onsite stormwater management and conceptual facilities will need to be provided on the concept plan. Please note that stormwater management facilities will not be allowed within the limits of the floodway. Conclusion Before the Engineering Department can finalize their recommendation regarding the approval/denial of this application and generate conditions of approval for consideration, comments #3, 4 and 5 will need to be addressed and information. submitted to the Engineering .Department. Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be ofsubstantial detriment to adjacent property. As a result of the Dewberry and Davis study, the Engineering Department has determined that filling the defined portion of the floodplain will not have an adverse impact to adjacent properties. However, outstanding questions related to stormwater management, greenway trails, and visual impacts remain as unresolved potential impacts to surrounding properties and/ the community. that the character of the district will not be changed thergbv. Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail. Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. With the many outstanding concerns raised by staff remaining to be answered, it is difficult to assess if use of the, site can fit harmoniously into the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and Neighborhood. with the uses 12ermitted by right in the district. The adjoining use is a hotel. If designed properly, the site could mesh well with the adjoining use and any other uses that would be permitted in this district. . with additional regulations provided in Section S. 0 of this ordinance. Again, the applicant has not defined the use. Therefore, it is difficult to judge potential conflicts 2 Attachment C with Section 5.0. and with the public health safety and general welfare. The Engineering Department has determined that filling the defined portion of the floodplain will not have an adverse impact to adjacent properties. Still, the undefined nature of the project makes any determination of impacts to this criterion difficult. SUMMARY: The applicant has chosen to bring the Rezoning and Special Use Permit request in front of the Planning Commission without answering many of the questions that staff has raised (see letter from the applicant's agent, Attachment D). The applicant's responses to this point have been mainly aimed at answering Engineering's concerns related to the fill. Staff, however, still believes that other impacts are of equal importance as the engineering concerns related to fill. The applicant has failed to show how they will mitigate the traffic impact from the site, mitigate disturbance within the 100 -foot stream buffer, mitigate stormwater runoff, mitigate the visual impact to the Entrance Corridor road, meet the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy, etc. Finally, the Engineering Staff still has several unanswered questions about the fill in the floodplain. Staff is somewhat sympathetic to the circular argument within which the applicant finds themselves (i.e. the applicant cannot find a tenant or buyer until they have determined the amount of permitted fill and they cannot demonstrate mitigation of the development and fill until they have found a tenant or buyer). However, this is a circular argument created by the applicant and not the County. If the applicant would bring a complete proposal to the County, the County could then evaluate all impacts to the site and surrounding properties. Until staff has a clear understanding of the potential impacts, staff cannot recommend approval. Staff has pointed out these issues to the applicant, but the applicant desires a determination from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on whether fill in the floodplain at this location will be permitted. The applicant has put aside staff's request for more information related to the future intent of the site until they have received this determination from the Commission and the Board. Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. The applicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The lack of information and definition of the project. makes it difficult to assess if filling the. floodplain is a worthy activity. 2. The lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess the project's impact on a wide variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental, and greenway impacts, etc.) RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff cannot recommend approval at this time because the applicant has failed to def .solutions to a wide range of potential impacts. Permitting the fill to occur before these impacts can be assessed could lead to irreparable impacts to the floodplain. Staff believes that the.applicant Attachment C 7 should more fully develop their proposal before the Commission and the Board consider the applicant's request. to rezone TMP 76M1-1 and provide a Special Use Permit for fill on TMP 76M1-1 and TMP 76-55A. Attachments: A — Tax Map B — Fill Proposal C — Application Plan D — Applicant Letter to Staff E — Comprehensive Plan's Greenway Recommendations for the Area 2� Attachment Ci RGI. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 July 10, 2001 Robert T. Smith P 0 Box 7120 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-1999-13 Young America; TM 76M1, Parcel 1 and TM 76, Parcel 55A & 55C SP -1999-59 Young America; TM 76M1, Parcel 1 and TM 76, Parcel 55A & 55C Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 20, 2001, referred the above -noted petitions back to the Planning Commission to address questions raised by the Board. Please note those questions in the attached copy of the draft minutes of the Board's discussion and action. Also, please coordinate with Michael Barnes of my staff in the further review and re -scheduling of these petitions. If you, have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cili berg Director of Planning & Cc munity Dev lopment VWCljcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Michael Barnes Attachment D June 20, 2001 (Reguiar Night Meeting) (Page 1) DRAFT (The next two items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #98). PUBLIC HEARING on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment of approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Znd LI & HC. TM76M1,P1;TM76,P55A &TM76,P55C. Loc on approx 9.099 acs on E side of 5th St Extjust N of intersec w/1-64. Scottsville Dist. (Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in the Comp Plan.) Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the-aTy Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP -1999-59. Young America (Sign #95). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to approve approx 4.O acs of approx 12.987 acs for grading in floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Znd LI & HC. Portions of TM76M1;P1;TM76, P55A&TM76,P55C. Loc on E side of 5th St Ext just N of its intersec w/1-64.- Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs reports. He noted that the request is to rezone an area west of Biscuit Run currently zoned LI and also an abandoned unzoned right-of-way for the Old Fifth Street both to HC. Concurrent with the rezoning the applicant is requesting to fill in the floodplain at the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. The request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on the desire of the applicant to lease or sell a developable site to an unspecified user or users. Staff has a conceptual plan for a restaurant or convenience store submitted for review. The plan has not been proffered and is not under review as a preliminary site plan. In order to define the potential of the site to a potential client, the applicant feels he must be able to define the maximum footprint available. To achieve the maximum footprint the applicant needs to know the maximum area of floodway fringe that the County will permit to be filled. This is an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for both Regional Service and Industrial Service. Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. This change in zoning would be inconsistent with the Plan's designation of industrial service. However, because of the peculiarities of the properties, staff believes rezoning a portion of the property as a part of a complete well-developed proposal should be considered. This area also falls under the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy which recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service businesses primarily relying on the interstate traveler. This rezoning proposal falls into the highway service business category. Policy also recommends that highway -oriented businesses be clustered with a common access point. The proposal's use of Holiday Inn's existing entrance seems to meet this recommendation. However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT and staff concerns related to traffic, internal circulation and off-site improvements that this proposal might necessitate. The Policy also recommends that the maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in the review of applications for development. Staff does not believe the applicant has sufficiently addressed those matters at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said when this request was before the Planning Commission, there were several issues raised during the discussion. "Staff has provided an Executive Summary which notes some of the activities and information received since the Planning Commission's meeting. A fiscal impact analysis performed by both the applicant and staff shows a revenue benefit to the County, if the project were to be approved and built. While positive revenue generation was seen as a mitigating issue by some of the Commissioners, it appears that the Commission's recommendation for denial was based on outstanding design issues, unresolved environmental impacts and traffic concerns raised in the staff report. The applicant's revised Concept Plan has not been submitted to the County as either a proffered plan or a site plan, thus it has not gone through the County's site review process and its merits have not been evaluated. The plan does show an on-site detention basin and reduction of the fill that is outside of the waterward 50 feet of the 100 -foot stream protection buffer. The plan and proposal still have several outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Some of the issues are: lack of a mitigation plan for impact of to the stream buffer; lack of a sufficient traffic study; undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor; and greenway trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan have been ignored. Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department has identified two items that have not been provided on the Concept Plan-- the 100 -foot stream buffer and a mitigation plan:. The Engineering Z� Attachment D June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) DRAFT Department has recommended, after reviewing the latest information, six conditions for consideration should the Board decide to take action on the SUP. Those conditions are set out on Attachment C, as part of the staffs report. The Planning staff is recommending a seventh condition that would delay any of the fill activity occurring until a final site plan is approved. Staff has identified a favorable factor to the request being the applicant showing that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation. Unfavorable factors include the lack of information and definition of the project which makes it difficult to assess if filling the floodplain is a worthy activity; and the lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess the project's impact on a wide variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental and greenway impacts). Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not recommend approval of this request because the applicant has not provided or defined solutions to a wide -range of potential impacts. Staff believes the applicant should more fully develop the proposal before the Commission and Board considers the request to -rezone and approve the SUP for fill. The Planning Commission agreed, and at its meeting on May 22, 2001, recommended denial. Before denying the request, the Commission recommended the applicant defer the request to allow additional information to be developed and provided. Instead the applicant requested the Planning Commission to take action. Mr. Dorrier said it is apparent that there are many unanswered questions about this application. He asked who is pushing it to the Board for a resolution. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requested that the request be acted on by the Commission and move forward to the Board. With no further questions of staff at this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to address the Board. Mr. Bob Smith said he is a commercial real estate broker representing the applicant. Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Dale Ludwig who also represents the owners and is available to answer questions. He also introduced Mr. Jim Pagleesy, of Dewberry & Davis, who have done the floodplain study for the applicant. Mr. Smith stated that back in 1997 the owners approached him and asked his help in marketing this property. In discussing the matter with County staff, he was told that the one -acre parcel was zoned HC and was located in the floodplain. He was told that there was nothing that could be done until the parcel was removed from the floodplain. The applicant then retained Dewberry & Davis to research the matter. The applicant received approval from FEMA to remove one acre from the floodplain. The applicant then approached VDOT about what was necessary. VDOT's requirements were costly so the applicant reconsidered the matter. The applicant was told that they would have to get a wetlands study before they could proceed. That study was cleared, approved and accepted by the County staff. The applicant then asked Raudabush & Gale to determine what might be removed from the floodplain. Raudabush and Gail estimated three and one-half acres. The applicant took this information to Dewberry & Davis who then conducted another study. The first study was done on Moores Creek and the second was done on Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. FEMA gave its approval on July 5, 2000. Mr. Smith said in order for the applicant to be able to develop the land, he needed to purchase some old abandoned property in the back of Old Lynchburg Road. VDOT did vacate that section of the state road. The applicant has been working on this plan for five years and has received a lot of support from County staff. If the Board were to approve the rezoning and special permit requests, the applicant is aware that before he can improve on the property, a site plan must be approved. He is also aware that the applicant would need to get approval from the ARB, submit a mitigation plan to be able to get within 50 feet of the stream, prepare a stormwater detention study and submit a runoff control plan. Many of these programs are very expensive to do. Mr. Smith said if the applicant does not know for sure that he can use the property, it does not make much sense to go forward. The applicant has not been able to convince potential buyers to configure their layout on the property. The project will take a lot of work. There will be two users. There will be cross easements for parking and travel. It will be very intense. Mr. Smith stated that he designed the Rio Hill project several years ago. That was a much bigger project, but required one- half the work of this project. The applicant needs the Board's support and understanding. The economic impact to the County is significant and should be considered. . Mr. Dorrierasked why a proffered plan had not been submitted. Mr. Smith responded that no Z� Attachment D June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) DRAFT potential user is going to consider the property without a guarantee or a deed to the property that they can use. Currently there is no way the land can be used. It cannot be built upon and the zoning is part industrial, part HC and part unzoned. Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant wants the entire property zoned HC. Mr. Smith replied, "yes". As part of the conceptual plan, the applicant chose what was thought to be the highest generating type users. The applicant had a traffic study done on those two users. That information was submitted to the County. The applicant has proffered an easement to the greenway along both Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board does not have a proffer in writing. Mr. Smith responded that it was part of the zoning application. Mr. Davis replied that the County has not received a legally signed proffer. Mr. Dorrier asked if a zoning amendment is usually considered along with a proffered plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes", in almost every case. Mr. Dorrier asked if the matter before the Board is unusual. Mr. Cilimberg said the more unusual aspect is the limited size and the amount of floodplain. It is not unusual in terms of a parcel of land needing a different zoning for marketing purposes. He cannot think of a rezoning request in recent years that the Board has considered without proffers that address design and uses. Mr. Smith then read from the application "if this property is rezoned from LI to HC the owners will grant 20 foot easements to be added to the proposed greenbelt trail system as shown in red on the conceptual plan accompanying this zoning request." Since then staff has asked that it be increased to 50 feet and the applicant agreed. Mr. Davis stated that having that language on the application plan is not the required process to make a proffer. It has to be in a document signed by the owners. Mr. Smith said that the applicant has committed to do it and will. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier said that this property lies in a problematic area because there are three different zonings. Mr. Cilimberg said the roadway was not zoned but by default it. becomes R1. Mr. Davis said "no", it is just not zoned. Mr. Cilimberg said the larger part of the property is zoning LI. The HC exists on the front. Mr. Smith then pointed out on a map the different zonings. Mr. Dorrier clarified that what the Board is considering is not a down zoning or an up -zoning but a lateral zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said that _.he's not sure what LI to HC would be considered. Mr. Dorrier asked if the problem with the site is the floodplain and the slope thereof. Mr. Cilimberg said the floodplain is the very restrictive aspect of the site physically. Mr. Dorrier said he does not feel that the Board has enough information. In his opinion, the Board needs more information about the floodplain and the potential use of the site. It bothers him that the Planning Commission has denied the proposal. Ms. Humphris stated, that she tried to make a list of the things that staff and the Planning Commission said they needed. She does not believe it is known exactly what is in the request about the greenway. She thought it very interesting the statement in the letter from FEMA about providing the delineation of the floodway as separate from the floodplain. It states that "the floodway is provided to your community as a tool to regulate floodplain development, therefore, the floodway modifications described in this letter and map revision, while acceptable to FEMA must also be acceptable to your community and adopted by appropriate community action as specified in their regulations". This proposal is for development in a large floodway area Which requires an enormous amount of fill. It would be unusual for this Board to approve a rezoning and a SUP without considerably more information about what is going to happen on that piece of land. Ms. Thomas asked if staff has a list of things that are necessary. The Board has four items plus the conditions recommended by Engineering should the Board approve the request. Mr. Tucker said he suggested to Mr. Cilimberg that perhaps the applicant could proffer those items in greater detail so that the Board receives them at the time the site plan is submitted. As he understands it, the applicant feels he is in a "catch-22". The applicant cannot sell the property because no one wants to contract with him unless it is rezoned. Therefore, the applicant cannot define what needs to be on the property in order to provide the requested information. Perhaps if there were a proffer the applicant would do it. Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would provide the mitigation plan for the impact on the stream buffer prior to the proffer or would he proffer to provide the plan as part of the site plan. Mr. Tucker . 3O Attachment D June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) DRAFT suggested the latter; the applicant would proffer to provide the plan at the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said he believed that particular item was included among the Engineering Department's six conditions for the SUP and for the floodplain intrusion or fill in the floodplain. He believes the third issue, the undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor, begins getting into overall site design that then says the applicant needs to present a proffered plan. That has been a real difficulty for the applicant. What the applicant has provided is simply a concept at this time. The applicant cannot say that concept is what will be on the site. Certainly that would be along the lines of what has been discussed during the staff review period. Mr. Martin asked if, in order to get the zoning, the applicant needs to show how he will mitigate the impacts to the Entrance Corridor, or can the applicant proffer at this time that he will present at site plan stage a plan to mitigate impacts. Mr. Cilimberg said the former. The latter could happen on any by -right development. What the ARB is limited to is what is put before them in terms of whatever those uses are. Whereas in a zoning case you can look at uses, locations and relationships to not only the Entrance Corridor but any other adjacent properties, if the applicant will proffer those things through a plan. Mr. Dorrier said that it seems like HC will cause more runoff which will cause more problems with the flood area. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it depends on the extent and type of development and the amount of impervious cover. Typically when you are dealing with a SUP for fill in the floodplain you are doing it based on a site plan. You know the particular area of disturbance. Mr. Davis said there appear to be two issues. One issue is the rezoning, whether or not that is appropriate. Staff has laid out that analysis. Perhaps with the proffer that addresses the zoning issues the Board could go forward with the zoning decision. The more problematic application is the SUP because the Planning staff typically wants to see a site plan to determine how much of the floodplain should be filled based on a specific development plan. What Mr. Smith has indicated is that he does not have that yet. That is his dilemma. He feels he needs the SUP in order to market the property. Previously that has not been the case when applications are made. Typically the Board sees a SUP application for the floodplain with a specific development plan. That is the frustration Mr. Davis feels staff has had in reviewing the application. Mr. Thomas said she is very sympathetic to this plight. Mr. Martin said this is not the first time the "Board has seen such a situation. Ms. Thomas said there is no way the Board can put conditions on a rezoning. Those have to be proffers. The conditions possibly could deal with all of the issues in the SUP. She feels even that will have to be deferred because that was not what staff thought the Board was going . to do when they prepared the staff report. Therefore, she would not be confident that all conditions necessary to do that rather strange move of having a SUP before there is a plan are concluded in what is before the Board. The Board has a rezoning request without proffers and a SUP that may not contain all of the conditions necessary. Mr. Dorrier asked if this application is denied, whether the applicant could make another application in the future. Mr. Davis responded that the Zoning Ordinance precludes substantially the same zoning request from being re -filed for one year.. So, if it were denied, it would prevent the applicant from filing the same application for that time period. He believes that staffs recommendation would be to defer the matter. Mr. Dorrier then moved to refer ZMA-1999-13 and SP -1999-59 back to the Planning Commission for additional work with staff and applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mr. Bowerman said that he does not want to create the expectation of a certain type of development by a rezoning that then becomes more legislative, after the fact ,when the Board does not know the intensity to which the property can be used without all the information. The Board does not want to get in a box itself based upon a rezoning without necessary proffers. Ms. Humphris said the staff planner commented that he was not sure there was room for mitigation on site. If the Board does not know what is planned, it does not know what is possible. The Board is in a difficult situation. 3 Attachment D °j June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) DRAFT Mr. Perkins asked what are the current by -right uses. Mr. Cilimberg said there is approximately one acre HC which allows all by -right uses as well as an application for a SUP. The two to three acres that are LI by -right has not been marketable for them. Mr. Davis noted that there are a wide range of uses allowed in LI by -right. Ms. Thomas stated that even with those uses the applicant will need a SUP to use the floodplain. Mr. Tucker stated that whether it was zoned all HC, or as it is, the applicant still has to go through the SUP process for the floodplain. Ms. Thomas said even if the Board approved SUP, the applicant still would not have the zoning he feels is also necessary for marketing. Mr. Tucker said the SUP would probably be similar in requirement whether it remains as it currently is or if it was all HC. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the applicant attempted to show two uses that would be high traffic generators logical in that area and provide for the most likely maximum extent of development. With respect to the floodplain fill, the applicant has presented a worse case scenario. Theoretically the applicant could come in with a plan of lesser development which would not require as much fill. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Smith if the zoning amendment with proffers would help. Mr. Smith said that to get.a site plan approved all of the things the Board is discussing must be addressed. Mr. Martin asked if the applicant were to receive the zoning with the proffer that was offered would that help with marketing the project. Mr. Smith said it would. Ms. Thomas asked if this is the case, even though the applicant only had the rezoning, he would not know if he could use the floodplain. Mr. Smith answered," no". Ms. Thomas then asked if having the SUP, to show that the land could be used, would help market the property. Mr. Smith stated that County staff, on several levels, has recommended that the applicant request the rezoning and SUP simultaneously. Mr. Smith referring to a map of the property showed the Board what FEMA had approved being removed from the floodplain. By doing this, the applicant would only raise the level of the floodplain 2/100s of an inch. Nothing will be raised offsite on any other property. Mr. Smith said that if it were not for the County's requirement regarding the level of the floodplain, this matter would have been settled a long time ago. With this condition, however, the applicant has had to be very careful. Ms. Hurnphris asked what would be different should the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas said that was up to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said he heard the Board say that, in its action, it expects the applicant to be offering proffers to address issues that have been identified by .staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas added that staff would be reworking recommended conditions. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff would work on the final conditions necessary for fill in the floodplain for the SUP. He understood the Board to say that included among the proffers, the Board would want to have an application plan or conceptual plan of development so that it has an idea of how that development relates to the overall use of the property. He said that staff is going to be trying to guide the applicant back to the Planning Commission with something that is more substantive. M.7m'i lt� 'S+h t�Y u��iTriroe zl?i�S v � ati�� fj�K �.�x i' ii i J4 u . I M rrrn�=:.r.., 4...n/n. w..u!:.,,..4icrc_oniimorta4crl.N1`C��.r(„1nfi.it�fl ll S�t.SF1 P.?lll'9IIP.G�.hfirorn;'tth:estaffs.,report.;,;She.,asked if the I'T'h'ene.W_ no,mitigation plan -tor Staff and V06feexp_ressed raised oose'd'ao theawo,.sections of the jround utilities were not mentioned Staff indicated in its report thatere viroia e lilies , ,Thisu�(oes �not�minjrnize,the impervious cover, 7) Although there are now two '.ities � 1, iii i u j, Wlr r i nfi } rY i..:.l 1 np �r4hereswas'no p'roosal for treafing•waterquality 8)7The bwlding orientation was not to Board p,refers�9))yThe,fuel,canopy is�too close toahe street which is a problem m.the or, and 10) The large amount of fill vvould"dimmisl `the aesthefic value of the:creek-and the Ms,3,Hu,mphcls,said those are,some,.of the. things that pulled out"and fe'els'.shoiald be dealt Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. 3z Attachment D COUNTY UY ALBLA IWAILLl, Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 May 15, 2002 Robert T. Smith P O Box 7120 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP -1999-059 Young America Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 2002,by a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of ZMA-1.999-013 Young America, subject to the attached proffers and SP -1999-059 Young America as presented. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 5, 2002. Please note that review -of public hearing items begins at 1:30. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. c ---.Sincerely, Mieriael Barnes Planner M B/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Attachment E Public Hearing Items: ZMA-99-13 Young America (Sign # 70) — Requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 - Parcel 1 and is located on the East Side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. AND SP -99-059 Young America (Sign #67) - Request for Special Use Permit approval of approximately 4.00 acres for fill of the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Property is located on approximately 12.897 acres zoned LI (Light Industrial) and HC (Highway Commercial). It is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 -Parcel 1 and Tax Map 76 -Parcel 55A and is located on the east side of 5th Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barnes presented the'staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He stated that this was a follow up executive summary from the May 22nd meeting last year on this issue at which time the Commission recommended denial. The Board of Supervisors took the following action: At its June 20, 2001 public hearing, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide information on the following 10 items before it would reconsider the request: 1. Provision of a 100 -foot easement for the greenway trails 2. Provision of improvements to the greenway trails. 3. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts to the creek and greenway trail. 4. Restriction of all buildings (and land disturbance) outside of the waterward 50 -feet of the stream buffer. 5. Allay staff's and VDOT's concerns related to traffic (by possibly revising the traffic study). 6. Place all new the utilities underground. 7. Minimize impervious cover. 8. Provide a plan for managing stormwater quality. 9. Provide a building orientation towards the street. 10. Locate the fuel canopy so that the impacts to the Entrance Corridor are minimized. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the applicant has dealt with most of these issues. He pointed out that the new plan has been proffered and provides most of the information requested. The applicant as noted in the excerpt of the staff report as follows has dealt the issues: In the discussion below, staff has analyzed how the applicant has addressed the Board's concerns. Attachment A is the current proffered plan of development. Attachment B contains the applicant's .proffers. DISCUSSION: A Proffered Plan of Development: The proffered plan and its level of detail are one of the biggest improvements over the previous concept plan shown to the Board and the Commission (Attachment A). Staff believes that the proffered plan Planning Commission — May 7, 2002 Attachment E SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 3 represents a significant improvement because the project, which still remains largely a speculative venture, will be developed in keeping with the Commission's and the Board's intent. Please note that since the parcels' development remains speculative, the ultimate user may wish to shift buildings, parking, etc. The intent of the proffers and the remainder of this report that are to list the items which staff believes are an important part of an eventual site plan. Those items not specifically listed may be altered at the site plan stage if found to be generally in accord with the proffered plan. Therefore, the Commission is encourage adding any items that may have been overlooked by staff. Finally, the applicant has also proffered a specific list of uses for the site (Attachment B). These uses are in keeping with the uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy. Greenway Trails: The applicant has proffered a plan (Attachment A) that provides for a greenway easement along both sides of Moores Creek and along the eastern side of Biscuit Run. These areas are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as potential areas for greenway trails and the development of trails in this area is of high importance. The dedication of these easements as well as the $500.00 dollar contribution towards repair of the bridges which will serve as stream crossings for the greenway are seen as positive attributes of the project by staff. Finally, the applicant is. proffering to provide additional vegetation screening between the project's proposed buildings and the greenway trails to mask the development from the trails. The vegetation shown on the proffered plan is for illustrative purposes and may be shifted at the site plan stage to meet the intent of screening the development from the greenway trail. Reduction of Stream Buffer Impacts: The applicant has reduced the impacts to the 100 -foot stream buffer by reducing the area of fill slightly and pulling all grading and construction activities (except for the greenway trails) outside the waterward 50 feet of the buffer. The encroachment of the project into the 100 -foot stream buffer along Moores Creek will be offset by a mitigation plan approved by the County's Engineering Department. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts: The applicant remains uncertain who the eventual users will be on this property. A traffic study based on the impacts :shown on the concept plan might not address the actual traffic impacts arising from the eventual users of this. Therefore, Proffer 7 (Attachment B) lays out the conditions whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. Then, the mitigating improvements, shown as necessary by the study, will be required on the site plan. The applicant is also working with the Holiday Inn to better manage traffic around the interface of these properties and 5th Street through the modification of the Holiday Inn's current two-way entrance to an "in -only" entrance. This modification will minimize traffic turning conflicts adjacent to 5th Street. Stormwater Management: The applicant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes that a viable solution can be produced at the site plan review stage. The precise location of the stormwater best management practices will be determined at the site plan stage. The Engineering Department has also reviewed the impacts to the floodplain. The impacts to the floodplain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mitigation of Impacts to the Entrance Corridor. The most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and the later reviews b� the ARB staff. The applicant has proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from 5t Street. Additionally, the store will provided a fagade onto 5th Street and align the store parallel to 5th Street. The applicant is also proffering to place the fuel Planning Commission — May 7, 2002 Attachment E SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 canopy and pumps behind the store. The exact location of the pumps and canopy may be altered slightly at the site plan stage, but the applicant will keep the majority of the canopy's visual impacts obscured from 5th Street by placing it behind the building. Furthermore, the concept plan also shows a Landscape area adjacent to 5th Street. Finally, the applicant has proffered to underground the utilities on the site. Most of these proffered items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan stage. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Thomas stated that he had heard a lot of concerns from the property owners west of Fifth Street on the other side about the floodwater back up. As the water comes under Fifth Street is it still able to spread out without pushing it back under the Fifth Street Bridge. Mr. Barnes stated that Glenn Brooks of the Engineering Department would be able to address the floodplain issues. Mr. Brooks stated that in short, yes. Fill is approved by -FEMA and their criterion is that it raises the floodplain elevation by no more than one foot. He noted that from the County's perspective they had gone over and above that because they had a study which was conducted for the Moore's Creek Watershed done back in 1996. That accounted for future land development zoning and came up with actually higher elevation in the floodplain than FEMA had. We asked the applicant to use that, which they did. Staff feels that will cancel that effect. Mr. Edgerton asked where the 100 -year floodplain was located on the plan. Mr. Brooks pointed out that the red dashed line was the new 100 -year floodplain. The old floodplain is shown up by the existing parking lot. Mr. Barnes :stated that on the diagram that came out of the study, essentially the floodplain is shown in the blue and yellow. What you do is divide the floodplain into the area that during a flood the water would move through and that would be the flood way. Then the blue part is the floodplain fringe. That is the holding area more than an area of constant flow. The determination was that they could fill the area in blue and take out that volume. It was more of a storage reservoir area than an area that restricts flow. Therefore, it does not cause a net increase in flow in the floodplain elevation in the 100 -year flood. Mr. Edgerton ascertained that the entire proposed development site is in the floodplain. Mr. Edgerton stated that if they approve this, then they would be approving a special use permit to actually build in the existing floodplain. They were redefining the floodplain. Mr. Brooks stated that they would be altering the floodplain. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked that the applicant come forward. Bob Smith, commercial real estate broker, stated that he represented the property owner in handling this problem and then to market the property. Other persons present were Mike Collins, representative out of .Portland, Maine; Dale Ludwig, who represents the Erin Company and owns the Holiday Inn South and the Days Inn; and David Collins, of John McNair Associates, who have worked with Newbury and Davis who were the engineers two years ago that got FEMA to approve the change in the flood way. There has been a lot of work been done in the early stages. He noted that they have done everything possible to address the concerns and the questions raised by all of the County staff. They have been a little vague in their presentation because they have not been able to market this property. There isn't the kind of user that they anticipate having on that property that are going to come in and spend a lot of time to work out a Planning Commission — May 7, 2002 Attachment E40, SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 site plan if they don't think there is a possibility that they can use it. They have all backed off and said that when we get the property so that it is usable, then they will sit down and talk about this. He thanked the staff for their assistance with this matter, and noted that they would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Loewenstein stated that there was one person listed on the sign up sheet to speak. He asked Tom Beasley to come forward to speak. Tom Beasley stated that he owned the property on the west side of Fifth Street in the City of Charlottesville. He noted that he was not speaking against the project, but was just concerned about the floodway and floodplain. If you check with the City, in 1984 — 1986 he spent a lot of money with the Corps of Engineers. He hoped that someone has thoroughly researched the flood way through here. The City of Charlottesville has a lot of information on this and is very concerned about the flood way. He hoped that the County was as well. He pointed out that a lady drowned in this area many years ago. .That area has been under water three times since he owned the property. Ms. Hopper asked when did the applicant purchased the property. Mr. Beasley stated that he purchased the property in 1978. He noted that he was concerned about the floodplain and the flood way to protect his property. He pointed out that the whole hollow on the Virginia Power property has been under water. Ms. Hopper asked what was the applicant's involvement was with the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Beasley stated that an extensive amount of work was done on his side of Moore's Creek to widen the flood way in order to decrease the floodplain. As previously stated, the flood way is only a reservoir. The floodplain is where the water travels. Mr. Thomas asked when he had to widen the flood way, was he filling in and building a new building on infill. Mr. Beasley .stated that he had to widen the flood way so that the water would not carry into the 100 -year floodplain. Ms. Hopper asked why he had to do that. Mr. Beasley stated to meet the Corps of Engineers' standards. He noted that it cost lots of dollars. Therefore, he was concerned if they did not widen it that everybody upstream would suffer. David Collins, with John McNair and Associates in Waynesboro, Virginia, stated that he had been working with Mr. Smith and Mr. Ludwig since September on this project. They worked with Newbury and Davis who did a flood study. They did a combined study for the City and County for these two creek basins. A lot of that is statistics, but it is the best that they have to represent flood elevations. What we did with this study with Dewberry and Davis was to show that adding this fill to where these two creeks come together would not increase the flood elevation more than a couple hundreds of a foot. The flood way is what is carrying that water and we are staying out of that flood way. Those studies have been approved by FEMA. They have been accepted by the County. The fill that we are placing in the floodplain will not increase the elevation of the flood. He understood the concerns about the west side of Fifth Street, but thought that the impact of the flooding on the west side of Fifth Street was due more to the bridge and the road being a constriction there. He noted that he did not know what the Corps of Engineers was trying to work with Mr. Beasley on. He guessed that they were trying to make the alignment work out better for the opening of the Fifth Street Bridge. Down stream from Fifth Street Bridge the fill is not an impact to raise the flood elevations. This is based on the studies that Dewberry and Davis did that FEMA and the County has accepted. Mr. Thomas asked if he was actually saying that there is no restriction on the lower side of the bridge letting the water out. Attachment E Planning Commission — May 7, 2002 SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 .3 Mr. Collins stated that was correct. Mr. Finley stated that Mr. Brooks mentioned that using the runoff from the data that you have received from the City and County, that your calculations show the floodplain to be a bit higher than the FEMA line. Mr. Collins stated that what Mr. Brooks was getting at is that this is a FEMA floodplain and it is a FEMA floodplain issue. In this particular case, the FEMA flood study was done and is approved. A different study was done on the fill. The City and the County, along with Dewberry and Davis, feel that there have. been changes brought about due to development. What Mr. Brooks was getting at was that the study that the City did might say that the 100 -year flood elevation would be here and FEMA's flood elevation 100 - year study would say it is in a different location. The study that we did about this particular fill says that regardless of whether we use this study or the other one, putting that fill in that site will not raise those elevations. He stated that it was statistically insignificant. Mr. Edgerton asked by taking these studies into consideration if there is an appropriate response to the gentleman's comment that this property has been under water three times in the last twenty years. He noted that his personal observation was that the 100 -year floodplain was really misnamed because we are getting a lot more torrential storms. Is there any accounting for that in any of these studies? Mr. Collins stated the study that the City and the County have done attributes that to the impact of the new development in these basins. He did not think that is taken into account by the FEMA floodplain study. Mr. Edgerton asked if any of the impervious surfaces were taken into account by either of the floodplain studies. He asked if they considered that dirt or asphalt was going to be filled in the surface shown in blue on the plan because that would make a significant difference in the amount of water that would run off this property. Mr. Collins agreed that would make a difference, but that when they get to the site plan stage there will be soil/water retention structures put into place that will take care of the run off. Mr. Edgerton asked if the actual study addressed that. It seemed to only address how much the floodplain can be reconfigured without creating an impact. Mr. Collins stated that it did not. If all you were looking at was this one site, it is pretty insignificant relative to the entire basin. He noted that it was one more piece, but the water from this site will actually be gone before the floodwaters from the entire basin get to the property. Ms. Hopper asked if the FEMA study assumes that the surface is all dirt. Mr. Collins stated no, because when the FEMA flood study was put together, he thought that the Corps of Engineers would have determined the run off from different sites. They would have considered the run off from roofs, pavements, fields, or whatever. The study that Dewberry and Davis did for the City and the County combined did take into account increased development over the last twenty years. Mr. Brooks might be able to address that better. In that study, because of the increase in run off that the entire basin indicates, they have asked us to raise our site a little higher so that a flood would have no impact: Mr. Thomas asked if this site would affect anything up stream or cause any back flow. Mr. Collins stated no, that the back up west of Fifth Street is really due more to the Fifth Street bridge. Once you get below the bridge, there is a cleaner sweep. Mr. Thomas stated that the bridge was just too small to handle the water. Mr. Finley stated that since the run off of your site is so insignificant, you probably wouldn't be required to Planning Commission—May 7, 2002 SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 Attachment E have a detention area. Mr. Collins stated that would depend on what the County Engineer will accept. Due to the proximity to the creeks, the detention area will not be required, but water quality will be. He noted that the water quality issues would inadvertently address some of that. We will use structures that water will go in to and soak in to the soil, filter and then run out at a slower pace. There will be storm water quality issues that we will need to address. This has not been designed at this point. We have been trying to leave space to account for it. Ms. Hopper asked if the change in the property would affect other sites. Mr. Collins stated that according to our study it should not. We would not be raising the elevation of the water surface at all. Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing. Dale Ludwig stated that he has been associated with the property for 15 years. The last time it flooded was late November 1987. It flooded on the west side of the bridge on Fifth Street. The reason it flooded was that all of the debris washed down on the west side, and got caught in the bridge that backed to the Virginia Power site. Our property did not affect that. He noted that he has not seen it flood since 1987. All of the other issues will be addressed in the site plan. He noted that they were just looking for approval for the fill area. Mr. Edgerton stated that in addition to the flood issues that they had talked about, another concern is the marked 100 -year stream buffer that runs along Moore's creek. He pointed out that is being violated by this plan along the north side. There is a lot of grading in that area that will not leave the 30 -foot buffer. He noted that about a third of the buffer along that stream would be lost. Ms. Hopper asked Mr. Barnes to update them on this. Mr. Barnes stated that actually the red line on this plan shows 50 feet from the top of the bank. Ms. Hopper asked if that would be 50 feet on each side. Mr. Barnes stated that the original plan did not show all of the 100 -year floodplain, which was one of the problems. They showed a 50 -foot buffer off the creek and the impact. They did not have a mitigation plan. On the plan submitted for tonight, they are filling down into the floodplain up to the fifty -foot line. They are leaving enough room to get equipment in there. Mr. Edgerton is correct that they are encroaching on that part which is allowed under the Water Protection Ordinance if they have a mitigation plan, which has been accepted by the Engineering Department. He stated that it was about 40 feet into the 100 -foot buffer. Mr. Loewenstein asked for other comments. He noted that they would take two separate actions. The first action would be for the ZMA. Mr. Finley made a motion for approval of ZMA 99-13 with the proffers as submitted. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Ms. Hopper noted that she shared Mr. Edgerton's concern about encroaching on that buffer. She felt that her questions about the floodplain were well addressed. The reason she was going to vote for approval of this application is because it does meet the goal of infill, higher density and doing what they have been talking about. It is a difficult parcel to achieve infill because of the floodplain issues. For that reason, she was going to vote for approval. Attachment E Plamiing Commission—May 7, 2002 2� SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 The motion was approved (4:1) (Edgerton — No) (Craddock — Absent, Rieley — Absent) Mr. Loewenstein asked for a motion concerning SP -99-059. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP -99-059 for Young America. Mr. Finley seconded the motion. The motion was approved (4:1). (Edgerton — No) (Craddock — Absent, Rieley — Absent) Work Session ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums (Sign #64,65) — Request for a work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed rezoning of 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (H -C) to Residential (R-15) to allow 124 two-bedroom units in five buildings. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. Mr. Craddock arrived at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Loewenstein noted that this was not a public hearing and that the matter will not be open for public comment tonight. Public comment will be entertained at future meetings. Ms. Echols presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) She noted that the purpose of this work session is to discuss the big picture issues. The applicant is seeking direction from the Commission as to the proposed rezoning and its associated density uses on off-site improvements and layout. The Comprehension Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Service, which includes neighborhood, scaled commercial specialty shops, professional and office uses, retail, wholesale and businesses within a community. It also includes urban density residential uses as a secondary use. At the end of the report staff has outlined several questions that needs to be answered at this work session. Is non -mixed use development appropriate at this location given the Comprehension Plan designation? Is a residential development appropriate at this location given the Neighborhood Service designation? Is the parking appropriately relegated? Is pedestrian access shown appropriately? From talking to the applicant today, it appears that a solid surface for pedestrian access can be achieved. We also talked with the applicant and VDOT about the separate crossing over Morey Creek to provide a separate crossing for walkers. Staff is working with VDOT to flush out some more options. Are the interconnections appropriate? Should provisions be made for mass transit? Since the staff report was written, staff has researched the options for mass transit at the site. UTS has declined to extend service to the site because they do not go to apartment complexes unless there is a critical mass. For CTS to extend service to this area, it would cost the County between $65,000 and $75,000 to add another bus. Staff is now concentrating its efforts on bike lanes to try to get bike lanes to connect to the ones at Fontaine Research Park. Do the perspective drawings adequately address the human scale principal? Does the site plan appropriately respect the terrain? The topography is shown on the plan behind Ms. Hopper. Staff notes that there will be some need for retaining walls. With those questions in mind, Ms. Echols finished her staff report and asked if there were any questions. Glenn Brooks was present to represent the Engineering Department to answer any questions about the floodplain or storm water. Mr.'Loewenstein ascertained that the applicant was present and that the Commissioners could address questions to the applicant. Mr. Finley stated that staff mentioned that provisions needed to be made for mass transit. He asked what Attachment E Planning Commission—May 7, 2002 40 SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION — MAY 21 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young AGENDA DATE: America/ Morris Creek Yacht Club I May 7, 2002 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests a ACTION: zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are CONSENT AGENDA: located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light ACTION: No Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 - Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street ATTACHMENTS: Yes Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is -located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in REVIEWED BY: Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00 acres for grading in the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1, TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light Industrial), HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning, respectively. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg I BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: On May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the rezoning and special use permit requests for this project. The Commission recommended denial of the requests to the Board of Supervisors based on the applicant's inability to commit to or provide detail to the following broad concerns: Ea The lack of a mitigation plan for impact to the stream buffer; The lack of a sufficient traffic study; © Undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor; Greenway trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan were not provided for; and, © The inability to provide a proffered plan of development. At its June 20, 2001 public hearing, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide information on the following 10 items before it would .reconsider the request: 1. Provision of a 100 -foot easement for the greenway trails 2. Provision of improvements to the greenway trails. 3. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts to the creek and greenway trail. 4. Restriction of all buildings (and land disturbance) outside of the waterward 50 -feet of the stream buffer. 5. Allay staff's and VDOT's concerns related to traffic (by possibly revising the traffic study). 6. Place all new the utilities underground. Attachment E actual traffic impacts arising from the eventual users of this. Therefore, Proffer 7 (Attachment B) lays out the conditions whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. Then, the mitigating improvements, shown as necessary by the study, will be required on the site plan. The applicant is also working with the Holiday Inn to better manage traffic around the interface of these properties and 5th Street through the modification of the Holiday Inn's current two-way entrance to an "in -only" entrance. This modification will minimize traffic turning conflicts adjacent to 5th Street. Stormwater Management The applicant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes that a viable solution can produced at the site plan review stage. The precise location of the stormwater best management practices will be determined at the site plan stage. The Engineering Department has also reviewed the impacts to the floodplain. The impacts to the floodplain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mitigation of impacts to the Entrance Corridor The most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and the later reviews by the ARB staff. The applicant has proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from 5th Street. Additionally, the store will provided a fagade onto 5th Street and align the store parallel to 5th Street. The applicant is also proffering to place the fuel canopy and pumps behind the store. The exact location of the pumps and canopy may be altered slightly at the site plan stage, but the applicant will keep the majority of the canopy's visual impacts obscured from 5th Street by placing it behind the building. Furthermore, the concept plan also shows a landscape area adjacent to 5th Street. Finally, the applicant has proffered to underground the utilities on the site. Most of these proffered items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan stage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 99-13 with the attached proffers and SP 99-59. q 2, Attachment E I �NI F �I NOT c. L` SIS INFORMATION BY: ROUOABUSH, GALE AN0 ASSOCIATES 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA DATE: JANUARY 26, 2000 TOPOGRAPHY: EXISTING TOPO TAKEN FROM ROUOABUSH, GALE AND ASSOCIATES SITE PLAN DATED JANUARY 26, 2000 SITE DATA: TAX MAP 76M (I)-1 TAX MAP 76-55A BENCHMARK 15 ESTABLISHED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HEADWALL STAMPED ALBEMARLE COUNTY BENCHMARK /6 ELEVATION . 380.60 NI : PARCEL AT - TMP 76-55A : HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PARCEL A2 - TMP 76M(1)-1 : LI- LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (EXISTING) REQUESTED REZONING TO HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PARCEL A3 - OLD TEBB'S LANE : NOT CURRENTLY ZONED REQUESTED REZONING TO HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PARCEL A4 - TMP 76M(1)-1 (RESIDUE) : Ll- LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NOTE: PARCEL A1, A2 AND A3 BOUNDARY UNES TO BE ADJUSTED BASED ON FUTURE SITE PUN SETBACKS: 30 FROM ANY PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY 50' FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL OR RURAL AREA DISTRICT LOCATIO ON 5TH STREET NEAR INTERSECTION OF 5TH STREET & INTERSTATE ROUTE 64 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: SCOTTSVILL.E DISTRICT OWNER/DEVELOPER: MORRIS CREEK YACHT CLUB, INC. 1200 FIFTH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 EXISTING CONDITIONS: ATTACHMEN ALBEMARLE COUNTY BENCHMARK y6 /''• METAL DISK ON S.E. CORNER OF HEADWALL ELEVATION 380.60' JF' / ,q9 • s FLOODWAY�. 2AD' i �ypSS / �•'' , \� SSu LINE* p •', ''WN" 34hp \ Z '^ 5IT LOODPLAIN LINE 100 , f, \ pr w u o . sCREENWAY i u MOORES CREEK EXISTING ) -! J "`• �A''1 '*`•"•'' '"'•SECTION 2 �S, 200' WAT .i..'/'./i'. ............ ":'�1 illi•:`:•_:{i:`i'. E;r::.:'i.i}?:�}:ir}iE: i:: _ i8. CCII�OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT E N / //`h'.xr LO ESVILLE W BASED ON PROFFER g 7 �� "'`as:.,_,,,, �"^'++. `rX MOORES tCREEK.'•'•:..''.•'i{".;" z es 190 rCORPORATE _ \ _ . ✓ , . .... ........... ..„.. _.�......................... _i ...::f . .... +.,.: __ _. 'R„ LIMITS In o/V / , , _a.. ... _ . .. .. ... .. . _................:. cc•�kt•+ter -• -_-•. "tr ^T' o............. - ... •.,; :�: ,.. `.... ```>.� ti; �:/Y,. !�. • ;::r.'...: % '`* ! �' ` "'ORffK s`->nc-*..+c.>e�`Rti.-5:.x,.:...-;,,«..:c_1a1 Ft? m e 'Vl N I ` ./<$ :/,/,• /9' 'Sp S9''i' p•;y''}i::'r e.::•• ..�. :.TOP.•.. :y'"E, •.. _ _ ii% y/..,. \ ! .i ,/ /'. i./ • •• . vi :.' :,.: - .. ' :. :[,;! SANK'..;.y,,::.{'-' .'}?¢.t, +.,Ai?.',1 -.S - ,�M!=..#'Sa+._ ! Vf O1 ••. o ® 20?OREENWAY' .0 _ =-;.;Tie "'d� �" / 0 0 ( .�• J 'S: / ,,:, ?!�'j ,.•1' z��•"" e 1 ...":•:':••:;'.: _.. 7� tai .��•s�`� � Eu BLD. fa 1 ..... ..J, 1 ... ....: {r:_ e? -.'?;?i;':•:> f<i:� { . i ✓ / COUNTY OF•" , ;!.? p;%'` . a .. .I I w J' 1 il. 1.i %'• ,Ao:n ,, et,0' PROPOSED R" "�-�•�,•� :.. `'TBBy g n= \ _ _, MfI1GATfON TDP OF 'ii\ 1•/. W n , ''~ ALB MARLE jt .,.4 a! / CONVENIENCE /1 d� /i' r - .•_`� '� .CNE.. ::BANK �a ''iia, '� I � �J � r 1-.� ,: !•' � STORE .' �20 y_ F.F' i ; , }:, `:. v` °•,;r 5.000 so. FT. .,y / .. `...,.'\,,rt\\ ✓ •L - TOD c r !!Ilii , i•. !i.'. ' L = I m E_ 75' % 86.87'! /0' .._.`... .: t, .,..:.... '..: A / 'k ; !::. .. :. -::r . TLREENWAY : !v,' - +-• TP ...r no• ..<v .: .. ,'r. ...,. .sti'; �i S..REAM: `•hii:} i:i�iE� cl '. F.F. ELEV. / / S- ::i�i` .'�::�:���:'iii'�;: `'�: •(Lt — _ � _ S , v,••. f t •_....,.,� ^:,, :::::.:t<b:i`:f:'?'::fsiii'�`::BUFFfR;:':•:':i•.z'r:ii {;ftiSEMENT:7ii; •iii:':ii::;>.:4 _ I _ d, o 'o i o J Z f ct1' a r b U / .. •: •r / •s,, :., \•�. ip J '' ♦,,. � �.,, ... -ii'r }:`Y::•:.::.:::'isr•.:.::::.:.:rc:�::.::::.•;:::::.:::.::•:.��::r"::.i•::.: .: :::: : w /r� C 1 /// iE' \,: s 5 P i ( I .- ::�.i)):•::i•`:.:'^?isdi`r:'?ri.:::::.::::.:. ::c.::•:+:: a:.'.' a•�, o � O ... .............:.... C m P AR YED TWl LO t(! WOOD r � \ .'hi • ,/(J, '� r UTILITIES: (APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING U TIES SHOW 300' �, a l`t' y •v•TM" _ / u• / - .,"T ^ ""'TrP?OF,,:'.:1 r. O rd•� s PROPOSED i 1 ,• .,••; . ^ '�96'; \ .:••o::+�:[:_. ::i:: r 1 rG 1 WATER: ON ADJACENT SITE T SITE STREET „;. , .:+7 .../• t '' r• ^__ FIRE HYDRANT: ON ADJACENT 917E � � �. i 1e• !,p�,,.�� � 12 S7- . .iQ . �`'� / � /.�- / ,ar` .. T ,i. \ � � _ B1,WK•�5: :.:.,. •.i�: `� : l:(' , ` . SANITARY SEWER: ON SITE PER VDOT /� i v t '� l i• `/ �•.;!' ! ,:',r • 9/S JTv Ll J/i ! E ELECTRICITY: rS COMME j� -TC c ; � `'tea J / .- I C^• H , u ON SITE �' \ \ � �'y.�lV'„ \ °`• ` _ .• PR D 1 O ncc. .rw;, / 4 t\`` \�. ��� , 4• ._ %"_'.; .a,r4! �../ I . \ STILLING 4N '�,.,. �.,%,� vJi• }{:\ OPOS B I IN • l\� 1%\ A� '\,A, ' / / /--.•4yc/!'.... / !r ! BASIN _ •..l 'v?� �•�.. ''_ .ijii..:.: BUILDING /1: CONVENIEN STORE 4 \\,•� Rpm 1 r l'!;`i',,• BUILDING j PROPOSED \.��,� A�' !• / 9 Sl'+Q : / (TYP,) ftKy:�\ �., ` ,/I - LD 2: RESTAJ r' *,r, t G ENTERXNLYJ•°.'�� c h �::•S3;✓;:a.•%�•,'i;��hg'',.1,:/ ?;*:r,'.">:. ,ltr' /}Q slc SfA�7'��O a a'J V\�,\� ,.\ .:�<p"oC,i,eA.i7:f•.l�F ` /`w� J)`y'• 1i Pd.QG1Cu�i Cd b 'mtr / / ^� d� 4 a.• ..+. , Al!%i!%: !J,.%i1 ';+i.rr',r�i., S rRv,EAnMomJ_. `BUFFER ,5i ; C�Z rf rff .: i:•i}:}i!cf.r'.:ii4�`%' i•l�'i�;'rr'1:i:r:{2�: ii! • .f *':'it'•i / C \. 4 i•• rlr;� Vii!: :7f.$::w • C \\\\ ` •JY /$/d / :l: %yt""� ,_fir/! ,J;.�:: }: :•.: ,::.:. �::::.r.,:: -:.::: ! 100' � � ••tia \. ..-/ d .^�.,, /;-. 'r-, ` /-t ` - �/, .;:K.::i:i i5i.};fi::i?:•�.i .;•i ;C•fi e i-: .`s�w� � �:•+,.�. $�� � m ff��' :'f l:� PROPOSED MA =\\ F - \, E �i:-;air: is "�'.•.i;::::}:ii: ? i.':; y;? i y:::fr' �: a ` ,o• i l.'i ,:lt1:J 1 100- FL000 YELIARI!tii !�':!•:::::�•:::; �•.OP (SFE 3M4) y `✓ J�••* �.i•%cr:.E!•i::�?�:iii::?�2i:}:i::ii.ii:2.i �8.•':•; . J� B/ 4\ P ,•.\ i' r BLD. 2 r! r„ L 'J q•-•}F.Fd?}i:iF + DA y ro L GDUl6 _'r UPROPOSED v / r V > , r ' _ ! r) S .'I w. o3ve ECT/ •R(//y ;.::T RESTAURANT Il, '!•!:i •r '-' ••� `'l.J ,..., `� ,tF Gl ..;,4cy:'.c.i.i.:::•:v::^a�a.:: :•.:: ON 9.360 w. Fr. / r J !i .,r1 PROPOSED /j y ILDING /1 18'+/- J /.. r %' !^ STREAM BUFFER ` <. ,E;% 0 'O ruA: /!' •ox n7 / - , BOUNDARY �) ';;C?;:;:? r : i ULLDIHG 18'+/- //// 1 a.• ,/./'.. iJ.: i r (',...7-1_Oy_IURBAvCE AREA`' / \ 1' ;!.li� rf/ �� i F.F. EIEV. 3•st J ^ ! rl';r i;ij FOR r3 _ `} �s o� \ / REZONING('-' ;� r. ".� .V, d"::`":+ /ONALE BU INC # 1: 5.000 s ft. O Jl 1 ^ %\ .•�iBrl .-% !•.. `s-'' ':•:;ir:::d"r}ii•{yi3'' {{gi�pp .... ... j :i ir:'r'�':?r', BLIILOING /2: 9.360 sq. R.•.J'i(/ R �• ! \ r r�>,i,lNdi 3..r �, V v .,•y�ltf,, J {J.: {:::.i... .. ...... ... .... f. . / F t i'ty:/ • , t f, ! i;(.r; /:_ _ J '�. v n, _ AIh L : i'Yi::i ::::::.•.•i�:.•:::.::.:.:::.: TREE COVER REOLIIREMFNi: < rl ! w4a . ('::°u!' ,\•' �� ( f . rtt� , -''-r �. .::r{:: ;-}':': }:: -. .•!; - . �: r /a ��•;;:cc.:::.�:.car.:�cc �e,.:.:.:.:'E'C!=C(i:,a• TO BE DETERMINED WITH SITE PLAN 61 !!!.,f / .�� m�` 't rc„ iii; •:../ - / 1:/.�r}:;:i?.ir:?i.i::2.5!:::ci}Sr, h:?ii,i:!:j% G ' N 3301'20' E ..l' sr: if:: ii! / _ _...... PARKING REQUIREMENTS; l 1 60.66' i� ! J %� CONVENIENCE STORE BLD. 1 1 P _ f �>i?r�.i�S{i.�'.:('<if� izi�5aii:i �:-i:::. ( /) SPACE PER 200 50. FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA O ! ,^� .t /:/ p• ; ! 1 \„I /T u• i, i;^�;/ i7Y1 _ , iJ '' J !/ : .................................F U CAS SALES: NONE REQUIRED t \ q/�/ / )�i !!!, `� ./j ^ t�, c_) `f'�' �% .. F''•:.:r':rS.r:?r:'ri:ia1E?r::•i2L I EATING ESTABLISHMENT (BLD. i2): 13 SPACES PER tODO S0. Ff. GROSS FLOOR AREA �I,nQ;J 1'i .,�; q, R: ( ! ! , _ '`'•'r' • • Z y� "rl/ \ ://✓ Q- t / ,11W \ 1 % sj47(ta:•S:i}":.;.':.::•..: ...... :.. Q T.M.P. 76-55C C \ r ~ "d6A„ / ,! , : '' -, _� `•..''T6P.. OF ^J ( GREENwAY'r:;:+�' z BUILDING /1: 25 SPACES (9'x18') INCLUDING 2 H/C SPACES �' ill/!/ l j ... C ''K J. > ..'F:`..:•%'•�:.`'•::EIIENF}+' Z Z BUILDING /2= 122 SPACES (9'x18') INCLUDING 5 H/C SPACES - �! !%'/1// `T , i �••.`, s '1 % ) ^.1: C. £CTiO RUN r. �_) ,- ) ,`.,7� r .•i% :i { :asi?E.)i ?:r:'r�-:i� W l ��/ f .Zj+ ! � !0 -.,c , , : lir N .'�. , ! �,•'' .�...... ............................ . � � 1..7 . ✓<Yiff/ y0 f� W'Eg1p��� n. `a� ��� I �.., .. J,.. ._`t' ',fi!r J'"',+F�%'i4:i;c.;:::}:{:Cii:{2•;'r:i i'bI;'r';•7. �I SITE PARKING TALLY•::�;': :••. Ce '/ -^CII l : ^' w�.•,''/ REQUIRED REGULAR PARKING: 147 SPACES 9'x18' N 3759'25' E?/ ��� / r ..� ,J .i A, • ..)., _i -i, �r .. .gpi•;i?: ::5fi:•ii: i' }''S}yi PROPOSED ( ) // //35;71 y%I ,o• •-, :( rl, :� /-t i?'v�.! ::.lf: i":'.%:r" ?:; {:: /:L_u ("� > 0 OSED REGULAR PARKING: 107 SPACES (9'x18) ,/r / 7r, . '!f _`,,1-' ,-; i -J ,- �� r:......:.....:.::f.:•::'i:::}i�;r:i F.1:?ea%,. 47 SPACES (10'x18) `.J ,-rf✓L-�'i::r.:.: .:.c...: ::.:.:. ._ ..: .:.: ::. .J s kr ..'D„'r / if r " iy` �'' •'� - f' r°;:.,.k::,:::.•,:::::'.:..:;:'•::•:`: , �`':_`:`;;:'::;::;. f,�QG3C5C�-IS Q4 F— f REQUIRED H/C PARKING: 6 SPACES B'%18 /- 1,;..` '✓ ` W W PROPOSED H/C PARKING: 7 SPACES (8'X18') • // j /�' �! '.g/, Y+ r "�•: n rtiK ":' ,- Lr) > U i ` REOUIR D TOT 1 P , / !! r / / / ; .0 / 1 l,..'% ?' j 'loo ”; / `� RESIDUE W Q _I PROPOSED TOTAL: 561 SPACES /,%N 63'47'07-eN al -f �: l /•/1 in';':i- - STREAM, r '�` •. :!'>:.:-:':,::. i:i'<i?....... .:::::,:ai i::::' , - —� i :/;, f.;•::.;......• 6.33 AC. > '30.87). , /$ rr • i i/r!' I :,� , `BUFFER' / \ Q GARRA . /TR CH c7p M. / % + 1 , '"✓ Ln 'z •.a„ i' 1 f' ED: L1 MASONRY ENCLOSURES WITH ' /' ''� l 'i {"i 'v .y:':'•r};.... W GATES / � `•Z9 i:r r. - '( P / f /�fIi, i:d!rr.(r::fy.!if!'' I •' • ..:-- • 1--. -;,!,-% ~ ,F` •i;r.•,r:?�.:';r.r�i:'•:�::::i::''.'�.�"�i' rr�iy i:�i- :2:';:'J;�T::gr�:.`'•.i}`.<Si'.i .:: i;•......W W [W TOB TERMINED WITH SITE PLAN ROPOS D WATER DUALIBASIN' Yi I , , — f: TOP =OF'-• l:;•`rs:�3;�:'.•.:�i�.:<:>?; l:6 V ..:_._... ce _ 386. - — - ---- y •. / U NO SI E OTHE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THI9 TIME ! / �•!'����'-�•'.°.-��-��••-•���•�'••�'�'.•••'••••�•'��•�.��'•.�•� . r., ..._..cx::.:-•:c--- `, BUILDING EAU SUBMITTED LITER AS A SEPARATE SITE PLAN AMENDMENTce 2 Ln (/1 O Q ,1 - �r .._--•_-.....:a__,_,_,._ _.__ , a °,.i .." ,- ,� f +'<fi r f S E7 2 308 74 O U a MITIGATION PLAN TO BE PPUEO SITE PLAN t ' I N 86' fi50.37' " r ! X. - W PROPOSED * ak 4, 32'09" W - c.:....._, D 4'4 9TORMWATER MANAGEMENT: t DETENTION NOT REQUIRED / )00-Y�' STORMWATER QUALITY TO BE ADDRESSE ROUGH FILTERS, SWALES, AND BASINS *FLOOOWAY/FLOOOPWN UNE BASED ON FLOOD INSURANCE LIMIT USING INTERNAL DRAINAGE WITH DISPERSED ACLS RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY, PANEL 220 OF 475, PLAN TO BE SUPPLIED WITH SITE PLAN COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 510006 0220 B. EFFECTIVE O�tu E 8 S PLAN WILL BE PI-IASED TO INSURE THAT NO WILL LACED BEYOND DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1980; REVISED TO REFLECT LOMR FLOODWAY UNE DATED JULY 5, 2000. J f JHT •�:/, �'. ,1.. IMP 76-55A PROJECT NO. 201104 f �I� a ` BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (BFE) BASED ON DWG. LUTE: 01-08-02 FLOODWAY . 64 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY (PANEL ---FLOOD LAIN J UNE * �Q' y I DESIGN BY: DLC 220 OF 475. COM UNITY -PANEL NUMBER 510006 0220 B. �/----•+ELL 1 - EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1980; REVISED TO REFLECT / LINLFILL* DRAWN Br: CEN ENGINEERED FILL: LOMR DATED JULY 5, 2000) AND DEWBERRY & DAVIS _� --�� /1 i / DEN PLACED IN THE FLOOD PLAIN SHALL BE COMPACTED TO L W OF THE MAXIMUM TECHNICAL MEMORANOOM DATED APRIL 3, 2001 USING THE -�, Il\ O' 40' 80' 120' TMp )pI (1)_I APPROVED: OLC DENSITY PER FEMA REQUIREMENTS, THE STABILITY OF THE FILL WILL BE ASSURED APPROVED FEMA FLOOD MODEL OF THE JULY 5, 2000 LOMR. 4 SCALE. t Q. THROUGH AN ENGINEERED FILL DESIGN WITH VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION AND GEOTEXTILE \ "• FABRIC REINFORCEMENT OF THE SLOPES, AS NEEDED, FACING THE FLOODWAY THIS IS BASED ON THE MEAN VELOCITY OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD OF 4.4 F.P.S. FOR ### ALBEMARLE COUNTY FLOOD STUDY FOR MOORES CREEK AND / MOORES CREEK AND 4.1 F.P.S. FOR BISCUIT RUN, PER THE FEMA LOMR DATED BISCUIT RUN DATED 1996 AND APPROVED FEW LOMR DATED t /' CONTOUR INTERVAL 1' A 6/ -•--•- --- 7-05-2000 JULY 5, 2000 SET THE PROJECTED FUTURE WATER SURFACE (UNLESS LASEL!:0 OTHERWISE) VICINITY MAP Attachment ELEVATION AT 385.5 INTERSTATE) 64 , NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT B Original Proffer: 4/3/02 Amended Proffer 4/29/02 (Amendment # 2) PROFFER FORM Date: 5/7/02 ZMA #: 99-59 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M-1 A4 and A3 2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning -Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby. voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the. conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. The development of the site will be in .general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on 2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops, convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops. 3. Vehicle access from 5a' street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn shall be modified to be used as an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation:standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. 4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5`h Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties 7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76 Parcel 55C). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5a' Street; an extension of the turn lane in the northbound lane of 5`h Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn lane from 5`'' Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development. 8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E). This easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59. In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall: A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This Attachment E I A'ITAC�-1M•ENT B vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties. B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway easement shall be constructed in the"approximate locations shown on the Conceptual_ Site Plan, These improvements shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and maintained by the owner. C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This -contribution shall be made prior to Final Site Plan approval. Signatures of All Owners OR Signature of Attorney -in -Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Names of All Owners Date Printed Name of Attorney -in -Fact 46 t COUNTY 0Y ALS EIVIAKLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 June 26, 2002 Robert T. Smith P O Box 7120 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE:. ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP -1999-059 Young America Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 5, 2002, unanimously deferred the above -noted requests until signed proffers are received. Once the proffers are received, this will be placed on the Board's consent agenda for approval If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne imberg Director of Planning & Com(L VWC/jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Tex Weaver Steve Allshouse Matt Grimes, VDOT Development E 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)e 1) A r aular meetinq of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 5, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegianl Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. on the Agenda. Mr. John Martin said he would like to spea about the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's (Rivanna) water supply recommendations which have been t e subject of public hearings and been well received. He suggests that consistent with the philosophy contai ed in the Natural Resources Section of the County's Comprehensive Plan, at some point Rivanna's reco mendations be reviewed for compliance with the Plan. Rivanna's recommendations contain statements of public policy with respect to the importance of the watershed. Those kinds of policy determinations ar within the province of the governing body, and not completely in the province of Rivanna. He thinks th re should be a record showing that the Board of Supervisors agrees with those policy statements. V ith respect to the current Comprehensive planning of the Rural Areas section, he thinks there is a disconr ect between Rivanna and that element. Rivanna's recommendation contains a statement saying: "W should have no higher priority than protection of our watersheds." He agrees with that, but the draft of a Rural Areas chapter does not give sufficient aft importance to protection of the watershed which h feels is of pre-eminent importance. He thinks it would be worthwhile if Rivanna had some input into the d ing of that chapter. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation was skipped temporarily since the recipient was not present at this time. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. M tion to approve Item Nos. 6.1 through 6.7, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as inyormation (Note: Discussion concerning individual items will be shown at the end of the staffs report one ch item), was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vole: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrierl Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: Octob�r 3, 2001; January 16, February 6, February 20, March 6 and March 20, 2002. Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of F ruary 20, 2002 (Pages 21 through 23) and found them to be in order. Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of M rch 20, 2002, and found the minutes to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of ebruary 6, 2002, Pages 27 (beginning with Item #12) to the end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of and found them to be in order. Neither Ms. Thomas nor Mr By the recorded vote set out Item 6.2. Extension of Street Light Appalachian Electric Power Company. 6, 2002, Pages 1 through 16 (ending with Item No. 10), had read the minutes which had been assigned to them. the minutes which had been read were approved. nt with American Electric Power (AEP), formerly It was noted in the staff's report tha American Electric Power (AEP), formerly Appalachian Electric Power Company, provides power for 87 str et lights located in Southern Albemarle between from Keene and Scottsville. The 1990 Agreement betty en the County and AEP has expired. AEP has offered to extend the terms of this agreement on a m th-to-month basis. The County pays AEP approximately $5600 per year to power street lights in Sou hern Albemarle. Staff has enjoyed a good working relationship with AEP and is satisfied with the service pr ided by this company. It recommends that the Board Attachment F � ; June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) Mr. Barry Marshall said he is a member of t in agreement that the Highway Department should Church goes there or not. He hopes the Board will something done. He said they will not be building a turn down their request for a special permit at this ti Mr. Bowerman said he has concluded that th detriment to the existing situation. As the church gro% Sundays. The major activity on Sunday is generally: familiar with Barracks Road at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday weekdays. Therefore, he moved to approve SP -20C by the Planning Staff. Mr. Rooker said there were several concern+ Drive. He asked if there can be a condition imposed members. He thinks the 32 parking spaces for a chi the size of the congregation. church, but he arrived late. He said everyone here is something about the intersection, whether St. David's hold the church hostage in its effort to get urch for several years. He asked that the Board not addition of the church is not going to be a significant s, he thinks they will have activities there beyond a time when people are still in their homes. He is not but it can't be as bad as it is at 5:00 p.m. on -057, subject to the seven conditions recommended expressed about people parking along Colthurst o prevent parking along Colthurst Drive by church ch that will hold 125 people, appears to be small for Mr. Bowerman said parking is based on the Ilumber of square feet in the church. Ms. Thomas said the church wanted more p amount of impervious paving in a watershed area thr number of parking spaces. She thinks parking can said it is a VDOT road, so they would restrict parking signed. Ms. Thomas said she does not know how pi people in the subdivision have parties, so sometime: The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier w road go in the Six -Year plan in the near future. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should intersection. Mr. Tucker suggested that after the B requesting that VDOT do a speed analysis. Mr. Cil4 study. I Roll was called at this time, and the m AYES: Ms, Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier NAYS: Mr. Rooker. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. rking spaces, but it is the Board's desire to limit the led the Planning Staff and Commission to reduce the Nays be kept back from an intersection. Mr. Davis >n it. He does not know how the road would be ng could be restricted entirely on Colthurst because ere would be that type of parking. said he thinks the Board might recommend that the also request that VDOT lower the speed limit at that and votes on this request, that it take a separate action ibero said VDOT has already said they will conduct the carried by the following recorded vote. Mr. Perkins. (Note: The conditions of approval are se out in full below.) 1) The church shall be limited to one s ucture with a maximum one hundred twenty five (125) seat sanctuary; 2) Commercial setback standards, as at forth in § 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintaied adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts; 3) There shall be no day care center r private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit, or am ndment to this permit; 4) There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this permit; 5) Construction of the 125 -seat sanct ary shall commence on or before the expiration date of a signed final site plan bas d on preliminary site plan SDP -01-117 (as shown on the plan dated April 19002, and prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC). If SDP -01-117 pines or is withdrawn without the signing of a final site plan, this permit shall expire fie (5) years from the date of approval of this permit; 6) Health Department approval of w II and septic systems; and, 7) The applicant shall reserve for p lic dedication to public use, upon demand of the County, a ten (10) foot strip of rig t -of way along the frontage of the property adjacent to Barracks Road for turn lane and taper improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive rsection. Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign # 70). Public hearing on a request to r zone approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Loc on approx 9.099 acs znd LI & an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. Portions of TM 76M1, PI 1 loc on E sd of Fifth St Ext just N of its intersec w/1-64. (Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in the Comprehensive Plan.) Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.) ,J �7 g Attachment F June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) Agenda Item No. 18. SP -1999-059. Young America (Sign #67). Public hearing on request for approval of approx 4.00 acs for fill of the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Loc on approx 12.897 acs znd LI & HC. Portions of TM 76M1, P 1 & TM 76, P 55A. Loc on E sd of Fifth St Extd just N of its intersec w/1-64. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requests a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 3.5 acres to allow Highway Commercial uses on properties located on about 9.099 acres zoned Light Industrial and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. The special use permit is for approval of approximately 4.0 acres for grading the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties and the abandoned right-of-way comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned Light Industrial, Highway Commercial, and no zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said that on May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed these requests. The Commission recommended denial based on the applicant's inability to commit to or provide detail to several broad concerns. At its meeting on June 20, 2001, the Board agreed with the Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide information on 10 items before it would reconsider the request. The applicant has worked on those 10 areas of concern and has submitted a plan to address those issues. Mr. Cilimberg said a proffered plan of development has been submitted. Some aspects of the plan remain speculative in that the ultimate user has not been identified, and there may be a desire to shift the location of some parking. The intent of the proffers is to list the items which staff feels will be important to the eventual site plan, although items which are not specifically listed may be altered if found to be generally in accord with the proffered plan. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a proffered list of specific uses of the site. Those are in keeping with uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate/Interchange Development Policy. Regarding Greenway Trails, the applicant proffered provision for a greenway easement along both sides of Moores Creek and along the eastern side of Biscuit Run. The dedication of these easements, as well as a $500.00 contribution toward repair of the bridges which will serve as stream crossings for the greenway, are seen as positive aspects of this proposal. The applicant has proffered additional vegetative screening between the project's proposed buildings and the greenway trails to mask the development from the trails. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has reduced the impacts to the one hundred foot stream buffer by reducing the area of fill slightly and pulling all grading and construction activities outside the waterway 50 feet of the buffer. In other words, it is to maintain a sufficient area of buffer even though it would be reduced from the one hundred foot stream buffer that is normally in place. He said the encroachment of the project in the one hundred foot stream buffer along Moores Creek will be offset by a mitigation plan approved by the County's Engineering Department. He said the applicant remains uncertain as to who the eventual users of the property will be. As to mitigation of traffic impacts, Proffer No. 7 lays out the conditions whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. The mitigating improvements shown as necessary by the study will be required on the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said as to stormwater management, the applicant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes a viable solution can be produced at the site plan review stage. The impacts to the flood plain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Cilimberg said the most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and later reviews by ARB staff. The applicant has proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from Fifth Street. He also proffered to place the fuel canopy and pumps behind the store. Most of these proffered items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan stage. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of both ZMA-99-13 with proffers, and SP -99-59. He said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:1, recommended approval of both. The one dissenting vote was caused by concern about the flood plain. He said the proffers associated with this request have been signed, but the signatures have not yet been verified as valid so the proffers can be accepted by the County. The Board can go ahead with the public hearing, and if the Board wishes to approve the request it would need to be based on condition that the signatures be verified. Mr. Rooker asked about Proffer No. 7 concerning the traffic study and the possibility of a traffic light. He asked if the applicant would be required to build those improvements before getting a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the intent. They would be required to construct because this is a rezoning and they are proffering to do the things set out in No. 7. Mr. Davis said the proffer says these things would have to be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Dorrier asked what bridge will be improved. Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, said it is an old bridge that crosses Old Lynchburg Road just a short distance off of Fifth Street. y� Attachment F 1 June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) Mr. Rooker asked about the entrance and exits of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the entrance is into and out of the Holiday Inn South parking lot. Mr. Rooker said he was trying to distinguish this case from the last one. Mr. Davis said this is a rezoning request, and they have proffered the improvements. Mr. Dorrier asked about the greenway easement. He asked if that land is being proffered to the County. Mr. Smith said "yes." At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Bob Smith said he represents the applicant. Present with him are Mr. Dale Ludwick, Manager of the Holiday Inn South, the people who own the property, and Mr. Dave Collins of John McNair Engineers. He said the applicants started working on this project in 1997. They submitted the rezoning application and the fill application in September, 1999. They did a wetlands report in 1999, a FEMA report in 2000, and got VDOT's approval in 1999 after getting a piece of property from VDOT which it had vacated. The applicants have worked with the ARB, the County's Engineering Department and other County staff in order to get this project moving. They worked with Parks and Recreation on the Greenway part of this project. It seems to be a very important piece of property for the greenway project since it will link up Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. He said the Holiday Inn people granted them permission to use their property just last Saturday. He then showed to the Board a picture of the people in the community who came to that ceremony (copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Smith said he did a fiscal impact study on this property about a year ago. He determined that the current taxes are about $1400 a year, If the property is developed as requested, he calculates that the taxes would amount to $267,000. He gave this information to the County's Fiscal Impact Planner, and the figure was corrected to be about $279,000. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Rooker asked him about Proffer No. 2 which restricts uses on the property. He asked if it can be envisioned that the property might become a truck stop. Mr. Smith said "no", the property is not big enough to accommodate that type of use. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a problem eliminating that as a potential use. Mr. Smith said he did not think so. Mr. Rooker said the property is very close to streams and having it as a truck stop would lead to the potential for polluting the streams. Mr. Smith said "truck stop" was added at the recommendation of County staff. They do not anticipate that being one of the uses. Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Smith would have a problem with taking that language out. Mr. Smith said "no." Mr. Dorrier said it is recommended in the proffers that certain greenway areas be given to the County. Mr. Smith said it would be through an easement to the County, but the applicants will retain ownership of the property. Ms. Thomas asked if it is an easement for use of the property as a pathway. Mr. Smith said "yes." They have also agreed in the proffers to build a set of steps down to the greenway and a vehicular travelway. In the future, if there were need to get equipment into that area, there would be access. They have agreed to leave the other side of Biscuit Run in its natural state, undisturbed. Mr. Davis said that is in Proffer No. 8 where they proffer a vegetated buffer of the development from the .greenway in addition to the other regular landscaping requirements. Mr. Rooker asked if providing access to the greenway by easement is something commonly done, rather than granting a fee in the property. Mr. Davis said it has been done both ways. He said some owners prefer to dedicate the property because it eliminates any liability issues they may have. The State Code somewhat protects owners from liability in these types of issues. It has been done both ways. Mr. Rooker asked if the County Attorney's Office has a standard agreement form they use for this purpose. Mr. Davis said they have a standard type of agreement which basically provides that the property will remain in a natural state and it gives the County the right to have access through it for purposes of the greenway system. Mr. Dorrier asked about an area shown on the plat, and asked if it were being proffered to the County. Mr. Smith said "no." It will be undisturbed. Ms. Thomas said that property is part of Proffer No. 8A which says there will be a vegetated buffer. They will own the property, but are proffering to keep it vegetated as a buffer. Mr. Smith said originally they were going to grant the greenway easement on the other side of Biscuit Run, but the greenway people wanted it on the opposite side, so it was reversed (please see copy of Conceptual Site Plan on file). Mr. Steve Barnes, Planning staff, said the buffer that is referred to in Proffer No. 8A is along the 3:1 fill slope. That is where the plantings would go. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Dorrier was pointing to the mitigation plan area, not the easement. Mr. Davis said that will also be an undisturbed vegetated area. At this time, Ms. Thomas asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas said she was trying to picture how this area will be used. There is a hotel being built at the present time on the other side of Fifth Street, and then there is this hotel. Sometimes, people staying in hotels become pedestrians and she asked if there is any easy way to get to the shopping areas which are actually inside the City's limits. There are no sidewalks on this part of Fifth Street, and there is no other way proposed for walking. The Greenway goes along the waterways and not across them. Mr. Barnes said the $500 would be used to repair the one bridge that would allow one to cross Moores Creek. It is a pedestrian means of getting to the area Ms. Thomas has mentioned. Mr. Barnes said a challenge faced in developing Attachment F_ June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) an easttwest movement for the greenway system in this area is getting across Fifth Street, but that is an issue which is bigger than this project itself. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this project is in keeping with the area, and he will move approval. Mr. Davis said staff does not have proffers on which it has been able to verify signatures. He would request that the Board defer these petitions until the next meeting. He suggested that the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 18 be held before deferring. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing on SP -1999-059, since she had not mentioned that item when the other public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Dorrier then moved for deferral of ZMA-1999-13 and SPA 999-059 until the proffers are in hand and the signatures thereon have been verified by the County Attorney. The petitions will then be included on the next available agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. He said on the site plan where the 3:1 slope and the fill is shown, there is a notation saying "proposed boundary for rezoning." He asked if that means on-site the zoning is Highway Commercial and off-site the zoning is still Light Industrial. Ms. Thomas said that was her assumption. Mr. Bowerman said it is almost all in the greenway. Mr. Barnes said the part of their parcel which is not under consideration is a wedge which (on the plan) continues off to the right, and is adjacent to several allied parcels which are off to the right. Mr. Cilimberg said the natural dividing line ended up being the stream. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. gende4tFill and waste. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1, efinitions, & Sec 5.1.28, Borrow, fill, or waste areas, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, t add definitions related to borrow, fill or waste activities, to amend the types of materials that may be place . a fill & waste area from soil & rock to soil & inert materials such as rubble, concrete, bricks, broken brickk& blocks & to amend the regulations applicable to borrow, fill or waste areas & activities including, but ftct limited to, reducing from 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet the threshold at which the activity is subs t to an approved plan, requiring ongoing maintenance of the activity area & delineating prohibited locations, ours of operation, duration limitations & surety and reclamation requirements. (Notice of this public hearing wa \partof n in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.) Mr. Barnes saidas a request from a citizen to expand the list of materials that would be deemed acceptable in fieste operations. This list would be expanded to include soil, rock, asphalt, block, brick and concretph was of concern to the Planning Commission and they did not recommend adding roaemen sphalt as acceptable fill and waste materials. Beyond what the applicant requested, staked at items. One was the environmental effects of expansion of the list, and the second was aesimpacts. a environmental impact was dealt with by extending stream buffer protection as founhapter 17 o e County Code. Basically, it would disallow fill in areas protected by the Water ction Ordinance, nd there could be no fill in flood plains. There was discussion of using fill mals as part of strea bank stabilization. That is an item staff decided not to study because they feels not related to the or inal request. There is another zoning text amendment request pending which deal with that question. Mr. Barnes said as to aesthetics, staff put a limitati on the amount of time that a site can be used as a fill or waste area, and also defined what the ultimate ap karance of the site should be. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Thapplicant was not present. Mr. Jeff Werner was present to speak for the Piedmont Envir mental Council (he handed in quite a lengthy statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office). He said that phalt is a petrochemical product, and such products are not inert. Also, asphalt is a recyclable material. hopes that no decision by the County would ever encourage dumping in lieu of recycling. He said PEC a§ks if it is in the best interest of the community to allow asphalt to be dumped on the countryside. He said soNe rather shaky arguments have been put forward which advocate rural dumping over recycling or proper diposal, If that logic were adhered to, it might not be long before inert fiberglass insulation, non -biodegrade a asphalt roof shingles, and other environmentally stable items such as old tires and used appliances might a legally dumped. Mr. Wayne Russell distributed photos of an illegal dump on the property adjoini his property. He opposes this amendment. He submitted a petition containing 100 names requesting that mp materials remain at the dump. They cannot follow the logic that any low spot in Albemarle County sh Id be subject. to this type of dumping which includes conduits, etc. In addition, there are reactive materials s has steel, which have a laceration, puncture hazard, It is not only bio -hazards, or petroleum, or even asbe os. He understands this amendment, if one obtains a permit, would allow this to take place county -wide. a asked who would be liable if the County legalized what is illegal now. He said all of these things can be sc ped up with a front-end loader. He has over 30 years in the construction business, and s this is all oes in a opper. a sai w en an old building is torn down, it has Attachment F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 July 11, 2002 Robert T. Smith P0Box 7120 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP -1999-059 Young America Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 3, 2002, took the following actions: • ZMA-1999-013. Young America —Approved subject to proffers dated 5/7/02 and signed by Kevin P. Mahaney, President for Morris Creek Yacht Club (copy attached). • SP -1999-059 Young America —Approved as submitted. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V• V. Wayne C' mberg Director of Planning & Com unity De lopment VWC/jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Matt Grimes Attachment G July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Countv, Virginia, was held on July 3, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Dennis S. Rooker. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W, Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegianc Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Mr. Dorrier invited everyone to attend mentioned the naturalization ceremony at Mo Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Ms. Lois Rochester, representing the Lel not to withdraw the emergency water resolution ai emergency would send a message to the public tl and destined to get worse, Heavy summer rains' water is plentiful. In actuality, most such rainfall c develop an easy -to -understand measure that pro, various drought conditions is commendable and develop, to get approval from all the players, and to maintain the emergency status quo so that con timely fashion, if and when needed. to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Vice -Chairman, Mr. Fourth of July Parade in the town of Scottsville and also Ilo on July Fourth. Not Listed on the Agenda. ue of Women Voters, said the League urges the Board this time. They fear that an official lifting of the at all is well. In fact, the on-going drought is serious iat replenish the reservoirs only give the illusion that sickly drains away. The staffs recommendation to des the public the status and appropriate actions for could be implemented. However, it will take time to o educate the public. In the interim, it seems prudent ervation measures can be declared and enforced in a The Board agreed to pull Consent Agend4 Item 7.7 and to talk about it later in the meeting Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution of Appreciation to H. Carter Myers, III. Mr. Dorrier read the Resolution of Appreciation into the record: ,,On behalf of the citizens, local governmei it staff and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, I would like to recogniz H. Carter Myers, III, for his outstanding efforts in serving on the Commonwealth Tiansportation Board from February, 1994 until June, 2002, a truly significant and impress ve accomplishment. "We are most grateful for the time, energy and dedication he has committed to serving the transportation needs of this region. W particularly appreciate his responsiveness to local transportation needs as expressec by the Board of Supervisors and by individual citizens of the community, and for his support of funding for primary road improvements in the county. We also rec gnize the important support he has given to major transportation projects such as the widening of Route 29 North and the Meadow Creek Parkway which have and will enhar ce area mobility and traffic safety." On a personal note, Mr. Dorrier thanked the County, particularly the two ISTEA grants for Mr. Myers said he is very honored to rece Board have worked well together over the years, Parkway, he believes the City is comfortable now to keep a sense of urgency in this project. He sai section north of Rio Road is still there for the futui from Scottsville, and also from Monticello. Out of he thinks that both will ultimately receive national] Mr. Myers said he thinks it will be imp acceptable to the community that will help to c development on both sides of the River, he se community. He said the Charlottesville-Alberr new Commonwealth Transportation Board me to say that the area could not have a better ap closely with Mr. Davies who has followed trans will be very responsive. The one thing there r Bypass. His main concern is that the process to start over if the Fourth Circuit Court and Ju( long-term disruption for this community. Myers for what he has done for the southern part of town of Scottsville. ve this recognition from Albemarle County. He and the xcept for one issue. As to the Meadow Creek ith the plans for their section, and he has asked VDOT d, the possibility of Meadow Creek continuing on the e. He said it has been a joy to work with the people that, two ISTEA projects meet national significance and recognition. nt to somehow find an eastern connector that is ,act the east and north. With business and residential hat as the most critical long-term traffic need of the MPO is working on it. The County might work with the er to try and get funding for a study. Also, he would like itee for the CTB than Butch Davies. He has worked -tation issues over the years, and Mr. Myers thinks he it be disagreement about is the Western Route 29 be restarted. It is possible the whole thing might have Moon rule in such a way, but he thinks it would be a 53 kit Attachment G July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Myers sees an e d to the State budget crisis. Mr. Myers said he thinks the State budget crisis is a little overblown. The rivatizati0n at VDOT has been successful. No one thought there would be a bridge over 1-95 to conn ct 1-295 to the east and Chippenham Parkway south. He said that road was done with private funding. opefully, bond issues will pass in Northern Virginia and Tidewater to relieve a big burden on the Coonwealth. Quite frankly, he thinks that at some point in time there will be a need to look at a user fee f r the gas tax. He is not opposed to tolls. He grew up in Petersburg, and paid tolls for 40 years to drive to Richmond and Chesterfield County. Those tolls paid for half of their roads. Mr. Myers said the new Transportationommissioner is very capable. There is now a professional running VDOT and that will be goo . They need to rebuild their human infrastructure. Overall, he thinks there will be real improvement at VDOT, and the funding situation will be cured. He said all have to work together to find solutions f traffic. As much as he thinks transit is good, it is difficult to get people to ride buses. He would also like see a better job done for the trails system. He said the Rivanna Trails group has a lot of energy, but m re could be done. He said it has been a please to serve the County, and he is a resource for the future. Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution in Commission's (TJPDC) 30th Anniversary. Mr. Dorrier read the following ,,On behalf of the citizens, Local G Albemarle County, I would like to c Commission on the occasion of its TJPDC has been a valuable regioi our community's quality of life. It h transportation planning efforts foci alternative transportation options. trends and to raise critical issues r patterns to a high level of commur and energy to housing, juvenile jw other pressing regional issues. It I community forums and interactive promote informed citizen participaj Mr. Dorrier presented the n Thomas Jefferson Planning District Mr. Rue said he has only been a goes to everyone who has volunteered ti another plaque 30 years from now. Agenda Item No. 7. Consent I Bowerman, to approve Items 7.1 throu accept the remaining items on the Con carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas. Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Rooker had read the acceptable. No other minutes had been By the recorded vote set presented. ition of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District into the record: rnment staff and the Board of Supervisors of gratulate the Thomas Jefferson Planning District rtieth year of service to our community. The partner in wide-ranging planning efforts to better > been a leader in coordinating area -wide ng on creating effective road networks as well as has continued to monitor regional demographic Sting to population growth and development F attention and dialogue. It has also devoted time ;e, workforce and employment, cultural tourism and s brought these topics to the public's attention via eetings designed to enhance awareness and n in public policy decision-making." to Mr. Harrison Rue, the new Executive Director of the ident of the area for about six months. This award really to the Commission for the last 30 years. Their goal is to earn inda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. 7.6 and 7.8 through 7.11, to pull Item 7.7 for discussion and to it Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion rkins and Mr. Rooker. ary 6, March 18(A), May 1 and May 15, 2002. of March 18, 2002 (Afternoon) and found them to be bove, the minutes of March 18, 2002 (A) were approved as Item 7.2. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #70), Proffers. Item 7.3. SP -1999-059. Young America (Sign #67). Both petitions had been deferred from the Board's meeting on June 5, 2002. It was noted in the staffs report that at the Board's meeting on June 5, 2002, a public hearing was held on the Young America/Morris Creek Yacht Club application (Petition #'s ZMA-99-13 and SP - 99 -59). While the applicant provided a set of proffers, the person signing the proffers was not legally enabled to do so. A legally signed set of proffers has now been received. Additionally, the applicant struck the language in Proffer No. 2 which would have allowed "truck stops" as a by -right use on the site, 11 Attachment G July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) per the Board's directive. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-1999-13 with the proffers submitted and approval of SP -1999-59 as presented. As recommended by staff, ZMA-1999-13 was approved subject to the following proffers, and SP -1999-59 was approved as presented. Original Proffer: 4/3/02 Amended Proffer: 6/6/02 (Amendment PROFFER FORM Date: 5/7/02 ZMA #: 99-59 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-55A 2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on April 2, 2002. 2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops. 3. Vehicular access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA- 99-13 and SP -99-59 shall be provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. 4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5th Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties. 7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76, Parcel 55C). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5th Street; an extension of the turn lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn lane from 5th Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development. 8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E). This easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA-99-13 and SP -99-59. In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall: A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner Attachment G 501", July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and'the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties. B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway Easement shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and maintained by the owner. C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be made prior to Final Site Plan approval. (Signed) Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres. Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres.. for Morris Creek Yacht Club for Morris Creek Yacht Club 6-13-02 Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date Item 7.4. Resolution to amend the Albemarle County Personnel Policy pertaining to military leaves of absence for County employees. It was noted in the staff's report that legislation passed by the 2002 General Assembly and approved by the Governor amended state law (Virginia Code §44-93) pertaining to military leave for state and local government employees. State law provides that such employees are entitled to a maximum of 15 paid days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year. Once this 15 -day period is exhausted, an employee typically begins to receive military pay and is placed on unpaid leave status by the locality. Under this legislation, local governments have the enabling authority to pay the difference between an employee's regular pay and the military pay received. The proposed changes to County personnel policy implement this enabling authority and would bring current policy in line with state law. Specifically, the proposed policy provides that, for any employee who is engaged in active federally funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County will make up the difference in pay between the employee's regular pay and the military pay received during the period of active military service, for up to six months. At the expiration of the six-month period, the employee may apply for a three-month extension of the pay differential. The policy revisions also provide that employees will accrue leave and seniority in accordance with current County leave policies. Finally, the policy provides that, during the period of active duty military service, an employee's health insurance coverage may continue with no change in coverage from what the employee has during regular employment. Extended health care coverage may continue for the lesser of 18 months (under COBRA) or the day after the date on which the person fails to apply for or return to a position of employment with the County as required by Federal law. At the employee's request, the policy provides that the County shall pay the employer portion of the applicable health care premium during this period, with the employee continuing to pay the cost of dependent coverage. Many localities are adopting similar changes in light of the Federal military call-up that has occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States and subsequent military operations overseas. Currently, at least one County employee is serving on an active duty basis overseas and would be affected by this policy change. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and revised policy. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the revised policy which follows: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, changes to state law authorize the Board of Supervisors to provide enhanced benefits to County Employees called into military service, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends Section P-83, Military Leave, of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy, as follows: Section P-83. Military Leave Upon presentation of a copy of final orders or other equivalent notice, an employee who is a member of an officially -recognized reserve or national guard unit shall be entitled to 15 work days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year and shall be paid regular pay. An employee who is drafted, volunteers for full-time military service or is called to active duty in the uniformed services shall be placed on military leave without pay when military leave is exhausted. However, for any employee who is engaged in active federally - funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County, Attachment G Executive Suinunaiy COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young America/ 3, 2002 E F J Morris Creek Yacht Club SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: X INFORMATION: The applicant requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1 -Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00 acres for grading in the floodplain.of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1, TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light Industrial), HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning, respectively. ATTACHMENTS: IFREVIEWED BY: MDB STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes, Mr. Cilimberg Resolution i View Recommendation DISCUSSION: At -the June 5, 2002 meeting, the Board held a public hearing on the Young America/ Morris Creek Yacht Club application (ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59). While the applicant had provided a set of proffers, the person signing the proffers was not legally enabled to sign the proffers. Attached is legally signed set of proffers. Additionally, the applicant has struck the language.in proffer number 2, which would have allowed "truck stops" as a by -right use on the site, per the Board's directive. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 1999-13 with the attached proffers and SP -1999-59 as presented. View Proffers Return to Consent Agenda _ 57 Attachment G httU://www.albemarle.org/bos/agenda/20020703/Youngainericaexecsu=ary.htm — - 7/1/2002 Proffers 4/3/02 6/6/02 PROFFER FORM Page 1 of 2 Original Proffer: Amended Proffer (Amendment # 31 Date: 5/7/02 ZMA #: 99-59 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-55A 2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the pian entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on April 2, 2002. 2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops. 3. Vehiclar access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be provided 1 by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the subject - properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. 4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5th Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties 7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76 Parcel 55C). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5th Street; an extension of the tum lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn lane from 5th Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development. 8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the. "Greenway Easement' as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E). This easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59. hi conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall: A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of screening -the development from the prop.osed..greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.. This vegetated buffer shall 5g Attachment G httD://www.albemarle.or.2:/bos/agenda/20020703/Yotulgamericanproffers.htm - - - Proffers Page 2 of 2 be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties. B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway Easement shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and maintained by the owner. C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that fonnerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be made prior to Final Site Plan approval. Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney -in -Fact Printed Name of Attorney -in -Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Return to Executive Sammary �1 Attachment G http://www. albemarle.orR/bos/agenda/20020703fYoungamericanproffers.htm Original Proffer: 4/3/02 Amended Proffer 6/6/02 (Amendment # 3 ) PROFFER FORM Date: 5/7/02 ZMA #: 99-59 �ax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-55A 2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan', prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on April 2, 2002. 2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops. 3. Vehiclar access from 5`h street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. 4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5a' Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. 6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties 7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76 Parcel 55C). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to; a traffic signal at the entrance from 5`s Street; an extension of the turn lane in the northbound lane of 5a' Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn lane from 5`h Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development. 8. The Owners shall grant an casement -to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E). This easement shall be granted within 90 days .of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59. In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall: A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, This LeD Attachment H vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties. B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway Easement shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and maintained by the owner. C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be made prior to Final Site Plan approval. Aof 1 s rs rin d Names All O ers Date OR Signature of Attomey-in-Fact . (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney -in -Fact l0� Attachment H 0"1' C �'fRGR�P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand Tamara Ambler From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 28 Jan 2007 Rev. 1: 25 Mar 2008 Rev.2: 31 Mar 2008 Subject: 5"' Street Development (formerly Morris Creek Yacht Chub, Inc. SP 199900059, ZMA199900013) Consistent with the recommendation made two months ago for the Hartman Property proposal in Pantops (SP200700057), I am recommending that his special use permit application be denied. The reasoning is essentially the same, and it is outlined below. It is not good practice or policy to allow extensive fill in the floodplain for purposes of adding development capacity. Fill to this extent may have unforeseen impacts. In addition to those considerations given in immediate engineering studies, there are other considerations. Future occupants will be alarmed at the proximity of floodwaters, and flood levels historically increase. Fill slopes may be structurally affected in the long term. Most significantly, this sets a precedent to fill in floodplains where it is not strictly needed for access, utilities, or the reasonable use of a parcel. By reasonable use, I mean it might be possible to allow fill for one building or a small site plan, but it is not necessary to fill the entire floodplain, or close to it. I realize this has been approved previously under different administration and a difference commission and board. I recognize that this commission and board may wish to approve it again for those reasons. However, I feel I must try to remain consistent in my recommendations since becoming the County Engineer last year. U? - Attachment I