Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000010 Staff Report Zoning Map Amendment 2011-09-13COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Staff: Claudette Grant Overlook and SP 2010 - 00039, Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: September 13, 2011 To be Determined Owner(s): Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC, c/o Applicant: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, P.C., David S. Witmer representing the owner. Acreage: 2.089 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential Development (PRD) - residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential units are proposed. TMP: TMP 078000000055A7 By -right use: Residential (3 — 34 units /acre) with Location: In the eastern corner of Pantops limited commercial uses Mountain Road and U.S. 250 in the Community of Pantops. (Attachment A) Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend the Requested # of Dwelling Units: None application plan adopted with the original rezoning to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to show offices and is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow those offices in a PRD district. DA (Development Area): Pantops Community Pantops Master Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential (6.01 -34 units /acre) in the Pantops Development Area. (Attachment B) Character of Property: The property is currently Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the vacant, with a significant number of trees and other east is vacant and zoned residential (Glenorchy). The shrubs. The ground slopes towards U.S. 250, with a property to the north is residential. The property steep slope along the right -of -way. directly to the west on the opposite side of Pantops Mountain Road is offices. The property to the south on the opposite site of U.S. 250 is commercial, with a hotel and restaurant closest to the road. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. Development of the property as 1. The proposed office use is not in compliance with professional offices will include another use the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling in the Pantops Place PRD, thereby justification has been provided for developing increasing the mix of uses. office, rather than residential uses on the property. 2. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in the VDOT right -of -way along U.S. 250 and grading /construction easements will be necessary to construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property. 3. The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but has provided no explanation or justification for the request. 4. The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such a waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 1 cannot be granted later in the site plan process, the applicant will be left with an unbuildable project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook because the office use proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation and all by -right uses in the PRD district have been proffered out. Staff recommends denial of SP 2010 - 00039, Offices because the office use proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation. Should the Commission determine that the office use is appropriate, the items listed under "Recommendation" at the end of this staff report need to be addressed prior to approval of the zoning map amendment and special use permit. ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: September 13, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook SP 2010 - 00039, Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices PETITION ZMA201000010 Peter Jefferson Overlook and SP201000039 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices. PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential units are proposed. SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01 -34 units /acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250 /Pantops Mountain Road. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 07800- 00- 00- 055A7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna CHARACTER OF THE AREA The subject property is located north of and fronts on U.S. 250 in the Pantops Development Area. The area to the east is the Glenorchy subdivision, which currently has several residences on it and more planned. The property to the north is also residential, including the Jefferson Heights Senior Living units and the Westminster Canterbury facility. The property directly to the west on the opposite side of Pantops Mountain Road contains smaller office buildings similar to those proposed as part of this rezoning and special use permit request. The property to the south on the opposite side of U.S. 250 is commercial, with a hotel and restaurant. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to construct two professional office buildings: one, two story building with 10,518 square feet and another two story building with 22,848 square feet, totaling 33,366 square feet of office space. Surface parking that will serve the office buildings is also proposed. The applicant has requested a ten percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces. (See Attachment C: Application Plan) APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant wishes to replace the residential units that were originally approved for this parcel when it was rezoned to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with "neighborhood scale office buildings." In the application, the applicant states the following: "In growth areas, the comprehensive plan recommends neighborhood services in scale appropriate structures to offer convenient services in residential areas. This site is unique in that it is both part of a residential area and on a main commercial corridor with close proximity to the relocating Martha Jefferson Hospital. This rezoning allows for a convenient location for professional services to the residents of Westminster Canterbury and for a commercial presence along the route 250 corridor." ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 3 PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY With the comprehensive rezoning in 1980, this property was rezoned to Planned Industrial Park Since then, several rezonings have been approved that have included the subject parcel or a portion of it: ZMA 1988- 00017, approved February 15, 1989, rezoned a larger area from R -1, Residential to R- 10, Residential. ZMA 1997- 00003, approved August 13, 1997, rezoned a larger area from R -10, R -1, and R -6, Residential, to allow for the expansion of the established retirement community and to allow professional offices. ZMA 1999- 00001, approved January 12, 2000, rezoned an area from R -1, R -6, and R -10 to PRD to allow up to 130 dwelling units in a retirement village. ZMA 1999 - 00009, approved December 8, 1999, to amend ZMA 1997 -00003 to allow for additional independent professional office buildings along the frontage of Rt. 250E. These buildings have been built west of Pantops Mountain Road. ZMA 2001 - 00011, approved October 3, 2001, to amend the proffers approved with ZMA 1999- 00001. ZMA 2004 - 00009, approved April 20, 2005, to rezone an additional adjacent parcel from R -1, Residential to Planned Residential Development (PRD), with proffers. CCP 2010 - 00001. On May 4, 2010, the Commission held a worksession to consider whether a rezoning of this parcel from PRD to Commercial Office would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Commission was asked to determine if a commercial office and bank with drive -thru lanes would be appropriate at this site. The Commission advised that in lieu of residential uses at this location, nonresidential uses could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan provided that they provided services oriented to the surrounding residential neighborhoods on that side of Rt 250. The Commission asked that the applicant work with the surrounding neighborhoods in identifying appropriate uses and the design for the site. ZMA 2010 - 00010 /SP 2010 - 00039. On January 18, 2011, the Commission held a worksession on these companion projects. The Commission considered four questions, as proposed by staff. Staff will comment on how well the current proposal meets the Commission's direction in the "Staff Comments" section, found later in this report. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Pantops Master Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan, does not recommend office uses at this location. Instead, it designates this area for primarily residential uses with some related neighborhood services. This area is described in the Pantops Master Plan as Luxor/Westminster Canterbury it is "located on the north side of Route 250, west of the Glenorchy development and includes Luxor, Rite Aid Pharmacy, Westminster Canterbury, the American Legion, and the Montessori Community School. The edge of this neighborhood is formed by natural features, with a stream to the east and the power line to the north. The Neighborhood has been shown separate from Rivanna Ridge on the south side of Route 250, since Route 250 forms an edge condition and this area has mixed commercial land use characteristics. Connections for bikes and pedestrians from the north side of Route 250 to Rivanna Ridge will be critical regardless of ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 4 Place -Type designations. Most of this neighborhood has a plan of development approved or under review, except for several properties that front on Route 250, including Aunt Sarah's and the frontage properties of Westminster Canterbury. Residential use is expected with the Pavilions townhouse project, which includes over 300 townhouses behind Rite Aid and between Westminster Canterbury and south of Fontana." The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following for this neighborhood in Pantops: The Luxor commercial development and Rite Aid pharmacy area represent an emerging Community Center. New residential development should respect existing residential developments and the school use adjacent to the Community Center. The American Legion Hall and Montessori Community School provide a transition to the commercial corridor on the north side of Route 250. They should be retained as supporting uses to the residential uses nearby. Create and preserve a vegetated buffer along Route 250 from Glenorchy Drive to Pantops Mountain Road to help retain the rural /residential character of this part of Pantops. From Pantops Mountain Road heading west, create an urban character with building orientation to Route 250. Staff's comments below address how well the proposal conforms to the Pantops Master Plan. Then, staff addresses how well the proposal conforms to the Neighborhood Model. Finally, staff addresses how well the proposal meets the guidelines in the Economic Vitality Action Plan. Specific requirements or recommendations in this section are in bold italics. Pantops Master Plan: Limit "strip development" of Although the proposed offices continue a strip development Route 250 characteristic along Route 250, offices are better than "strip commercial" buildings. Additional vegetation is needed to further prevent the appearance of "strip" development if an office use is approved. (recommendation) Create and preserve a The recommended vegetated buffer shown on the application vegetated buffer along Route plan will not meet ARB requirements. So staff cannot be certain 250 from Glenorchy Drive to that, if the rezoning is approved, the applicant will be able to Pantops Mountain Road to help meet ARB requirements without a variation or another rezoning retain the rural residential to amend the plan. The landscaping shown on the application character. From Pantops plan should meet ARB requirements. (recommendation) Mountain Road heading west, create an urban character with Since this proposal was first considered by the Planning building orientation to Route Commission at a worksession on May 4, 2010, the proffered 250. hedgerow and fieldstone wall have been retained. Connections for bikes and A sidewalk along Route 250 is provided. However, there is no pedestrians from the north side connection to the building entrances, unless a pedestrian follows of Route 250 to Rivanna Ridge the sidewalk to Pantops Mountain Road, turns up the road and are identified as critical in the walks into the site along the entrance drive. A public sidewalk master plan. along Route 250 is anticipated by the Master Plan to provide pedestrian access to the buildings, as well as access to other uses along Route 250. Staff believes that steps or a similar connection should be provided. (recommendation) Property recommended for Some neighborhood service uses can be accommodated in Urban Density Residential Use; areas shown for Urban Density Residential if they serve Neighborhood Service uses neighboring residential areas. The application doesn't indicate ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 5 can be accommodated in these the type of offices proposed to see whether there is a areas relationship to the neighboring residential areas. Office and neighborhood service uses are already available nearby. This information is needed, requirement Professional Offices should Over 33,000 square feet is proposed and one building has have building footprints of not almost 23,000 sq. ft. The amount of square footage requested greater than 10,000 square feet may or may not be problematic. What will be problematic is and building area should be no how the proposed design can meet existing proffers, greater than 20,000 square Entrance Corridor Guidelines, and site plan requirements. feet. These issues are further explained later in this staff report. The Neighborhood Model: Staff's analysis below indicates how well the proposed development meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian Orientation A sidewalk is shown along Route 250 and other sidewalks are shown internal to the development. A connection, such as a set of stairs, should be provided between the sidewalk and the entrances to the buildings along Route 250, recommendation Neighborhood Friendly In order to make the external and internal streets Streets and Paths neighborhood friendly, street trees should be provided between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. While the "clear zone" required by VDOT would not allow street trees between the sidewalk and street along the easternmost stretch of U.S. 250, as soon as the taper begins for the right turn lane, the street trees could be placed between the curb and the sidewalk. (recommendation) The front yard, between the sidewalk and the building, should have trees and shrubs that meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines. Staff recommends that along U.S. 250, both the tree lawn and the sidewalk be 8 feet in width. Along Pantops Mountain Road, a minimum tree lawn of 6' and a sidewalk of 5' are recommended, along with a minimum front yard of 4' for a total of 15' from the pavement along Pantops Mountain Road. (recommendation) Interconnected Streets and The application plan now shows U.S. 250 as an urban Transportation Networks section across the frontage of the site. Pantops Mountain Road is a private street owned by Westminster Canterbury. While an access easement has been provided across the property at this location from Pantops Mountain Road, it is our understanding that Westminster Canterbury controls the amount of activity that can be served by the easement. Please provide evidence that the access easement can be used for the intended purpose. (recommendation) Relegated Parking Parking is appropriately relegated with this design. Parks and Open Space No additional open space is required for the PRD. The application plan now reflects a 15 -foot buffer adjacent to Glenorchy and maintains the existing mature hedgerow and fieldstone wall. Neighborhood Centers This site is near the Rivanna Ridge shopping center. The Luxor Place rezoning was approved in part, on the basis that ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 6 Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County's Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The proposed Peter Jefferson Overlook office development would support the Plan by providing additional professional office space. However, additional office space, if necessary, could be provided in areas that are designated for office space, rather than in areas designated residential. Developing office space in an area designated for it would be more in compliance with all parts of the Comprehensive Plan. ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 it provided a neighborhood service area /center serving the north side of Route 250. The Pantops Master Plan does not recommend additional centers for this property. Buildings and Spaces of No building elevations have been provided with the rezoning, Human Scale as discussed later in this staff report. Two -story buildings are appropriate at this location. However, a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk to the buildings from U.S. 250 is needed. No such connection is shown on the plan. In addition, the applicant should work with Monticello to determine if any impacts to the viewshed exist and should be mitigated. recommendation Mixture of Uses The addition of offices to the PRD will help create an appropriate mixture of uses in the district. Mixture of Housing Types No mixture of housing types is proposed with this rezoning. and Affordability The Pantops Place PRD provides housing for senior living, and a mixture of housing types is provided on the adjacent Westminster Canterbury property. Redevelopment This principle is not applicable. Site Planning that Respects The site rises to 20 feet above U.S. 250 and contains critical Terrain slopes, some of which were created with construction of U.S. 250 and Pantops Mountain Road. The applicant has been advised to apply for a critical slopes waiver. However, this was not done, so an analysis of the critical slopes has not been done. Staff recommends that these waivers be applied for along with the rezoning so the applicant isn't left with an approved application plan and no way to develop the project. It is recognized that grading will be needed on this property, but the prior development proposal worked more closely with the terrain than this proposal. This proposal will require easements for grading and possibly construction from adjacent property owners. No evidence of these easements has been included on the plan or in supporting material. Without such evidence, staff cannot be certain whether the proposed design can be constructed. The applicant should provide evidence that adjacent owners will provide the necessary easements. (recommendation) Clear Boundaries with the This principle is not applicable because the property is Rural Areas located entirely within the Pantops Development Area. Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County's Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The proposed Peter Jefferson Overlook office development would support the Plan by providing additional professional office space. However, additional office space, if necessary, could be provided in areas that are designated for office space, rather than in areas designated residential. Developing office space in an area designated for it would be more in compliance with all parts of the Comprehensive Plan. ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance: PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. (Amended 8- 14 -85) Staff believes that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) district because it is not sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site. The proposed development of the site appears to be overdeveloped as evidenced by the following: Off -site grading and construction easements, which are needed to construct a retaining wall; The site design shows the requirement of street trees planted in the right -of -way, and; A parking reduction is needed. Staff does not believe this proposal is an example of "appropriate and harmonious physical development" or "creative design." Planning Commission Worksession on January 18, 2011: The Commission held a worksession on these projects on January 18, 2011. The Commission considered four questions raised by staff and provided direction, as noted below. Following the question and statement of the Commission's direction, staff comments on how well the current proposal meets that direction: Is the proposed office use in conformity with the Land Use Plan? The general consensus of the Commission was that the proposed office use does not comply with the Land Use Plan, although they felt that there could be an office use that conforms to the Plan. Some Commissioners felt the proposal was acceptable. Other Commissioners thought that there needs to be a tighter relationship between the office use and whatever use is with the surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission stressed the importance of getting community input, in particular from the Pantops CAC. (Action Memo January 18, 2011, Attachment D) ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 8 The Pantops CAC discussed this rezoning on January 24, 2011. The members were split over whether more offices were necessary in the area. They also expressed concern whether residential would be an appropriate use for this site and about traffic concerns from both office and residential uses. A list of their comments is included as Attachment E. Staff notes that both the Commission and the CAC were split on whether the office use could be in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan. Staff also notes that: 1) The Pantops Master Plan recommended limited strip development (non- residential) westward along Route 250; 2) Neighborhood serving commercial /office areas already exist nearby Qust to the south and east of this site, and, 3) The current proposed office use only is an improvement over the previous office commercial (bank) proposal. 2. Are the scale and design of the development appropriate? The Commission was open to a nonresidential use if it complimented the residential uses in the vicinity. Some Commissioners felt that residential uses might not be optimum on this corner because of traffic volume on U.S. 250. One Commissioner said that the applicant would have to present a compelling case for a nonresidential use to get his support. Staff notes that the proposed design is similar in scale to the nearest residential buildings. However, staff does not believe a compelling case has been presented for a nonresidential use on this parcel. Staff also notes that so much development is proposed on this site — building square footage and parking —that landscaping required by the ARB will be in the right -of -way for U.S. 250 and the retaining wall in the rear will require a grading and possibly construction easement from the adjacent property owner. 3. Should the remains of the stone wall and hedgerow on the easternmost side of the property be preserved and retained? The Commission wanted input from the Pantops CAC before making a recommendation on the wall and hedgerow. These two features may have an impact on scale and design of the proposal. There were comments that the applicant may be proposing too much building and parking for the site. Input on these items was also requested from the Pantops CAC. The Pantops CAC noted on the matter of the stone wall and hedgerow that, unless there is some historic significance, the hedgerow can be disturbed. Staff notes that the current proposal shows the stone wall and hedgerow in place, cleaned up, and some of the stones possibly used to form the low retaining wall on that side of the property. 4. What type of frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East? A sidewalk in or adjacent to the right -of -way is essential and is called for in the Pantops Master Plan. A separation between the sidewalk and the fast - moving traffic on U.S. 250 is needed, according to the Master Plan. The sidewalk should not be right up against the building. If it is possible to place trees in the landscaped strip between the travel lanes and the sidewalk, they would be welcomed. Staff notes that the sidewalk has been placed adjacent to U.S. 250, but there is no connectivity between these sidewalks and the front entrances of the proposed buildings. Also, the street trees are located within the right -of -way on U.S. 250, not on the subject ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 9 property. The street trees could be placed between the sidewalk and the right turn lane once the taper begins. Public need and justification for the change: Staff does not believe there is any public need or justification for changing the use proposed for this site from residential to office, and the applicant has not provided sufficient justification. As previously mentioned in this report, neighborhood serving offices and commercial space is already available nearby. This proposal continues to extend existing office /commercial type development further east on Route 250, which is discouraged in the Pantops Master Plan. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: The design of the proposed office development does not work with the site as well as the previously proposed residential use did. This proposal will require grading, and possibly construction, on adjacent property and planting of trees in the VDOT right -of -way, rather than on the subject property. Easements /permission to allow this needed activity has not been provided by the applicant. There are no cultural or historic resources on the site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: VDOT has indicated that: The right turn lane and taper will need to be extended, as will the left turn lane and taper from U.S. 250 into Pantops Mountain Road. The installation of the sidewalk will require removal of the ditch and installation of a closed storm sewer system. The sidewalk will need to be on a 2% cross slope and the location where the sidewalk is placed near the intersection at Pantops Mountain Road is in a ditch section between 3 culvert outlets. Street trees cannot be placed on 2:1 slopes. They need to be on relatively flat areas. (See Attachment F). Schools: No residential units are proposed, so no impacts are expected on the schools. Fire and Rescue: The Monticello Fire /Rescue Station off Mill Creek Drive is the nearest station. Utilities: The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity issues have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA): Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (Attachment G). Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The primary impact anticipated on surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the office buildings are constructed and occupied. PROFFERS Attachment H contains the current draft proffers. Staff suggests that the applicant consult an attorney or other qualified professional to make sure that: a) all of the proffers that were part of the previous rezonings that included this property have either been satisfied or are listed as proffers in this rezoning, and b) that all proffers are stated in the appropriate language. Individual proffers are described below: ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 10 Proffer 1: This proffer removes from the Planned Residential Development district all of the by- right uses allowed in this district. Staff does not support this proffer, as written. The applicant has removed all by -right uses that might be located on the site, leaving no potential uses for the site unless either a special use permit is approved or the property is rezoned again. The applicant has included an SP for office uses, since that is the use proposed. Further, the County Attorney is not satisfied with the wording of this proffer, so it needs to be revised. Proffer 2: This proffer requires the applicant to provide sidewalks as shown on the plan and indicates that the owner shall maintain those sidewalks not within the VDOT right -of -way. Staff and the County Attorney note that this proffer should include a schedule for when the improvements will be installed. Proffer 3: This proffer states that the owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with VDOT for maintenance of landscaping within the right -of -way along the frontage of the property. The County Attorney notes that VDOT would probably require such an agreement as a condition of allowing the landscaping in the right -of -way. However, as stated above, staff believes that the landscaping should be located on the property rather than the right -of -way because it is an Entrance Corridor requirement. If it is located in the right -of -way, VDOT could remove the trees and other landscaping, if VDOT determined it to be necessary. Staff does not support this proffer. Proffer 4: Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the parcel, the owner shall complete the improvements to the turn lanes on U.S. 250 as shown on the application plan. Staff notes that these turn lane improvements are not actually shown on the application plan; they are referred to in text statements. This is not the same as showing the actual design on the plan. Second, the notes contain a reference to "...recommended by AASHTO standards for a 35 mph design speed." This should be for "a 45 mph design speed." Staff and the County Attorney recommend that this proffer be triggered by the first, not any building and the language should be revised to require the extension of the turn lanes since they are there already. The standards referenced should be VDOT's, unless VDOT specifically refers to the AASHTO standards. The County Attorney and staff have provided sample language: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the Property, the Owner shall complete construction of the extension of the existing right turn lane and taper, the existing left turn lane and taper, and any additional related improvements required by the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT ") (collectively, the "extension improvements "). The extension improvements shall be constructed to VDOT standards. For the purposes of this proffer, construction of the extension improvements shall be deemed complete when it is constructed in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT, and the County Engineer has determined that they are safe and convenient for vehicular travel. Proffer 5: The treatment of the fieldstone /hedgerow on the eastern side of the property shall be consistent with the notes as shown on the proffered Application Plan. Staff has several problems with this proffer. First, treatments shown on the application plan do not have to be proffered. Second, there should be a time by which the treatment would be completed. ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 11 Third, there may need to be a maintenance agreement proffered to ensure that the fieldstone wall and the hedgerow are kept in good condition. Staff Comment on SP 2010 - 00039 - Request for Professional Office Uses in the PRD Planned Residential Development District Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? No detriment to adjacent properties is anticipated from the requested office use. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district could change and become more commercial in character than the residential intent of the PRD district. The proposed addition of two new, office buildings begins to create a slow change in character of this portion of the Route 250 corridor, which was intended to provide more residential uses with perhaps smaller scale commercial uses that compliment the residential areas in the neighborhood. The proposed addition of offices to this district along with the existing adjacent offices and commercial uses across Route 250 begins to create a district that appears to be more commercial in nature. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The PRD district has characteristics that tend to be more residential in nature than commercial. However, professional office uses are permitted in the PRD district with a special use permit. The applicant is proffering out all the by -right uses in the PRD district, leaving only the commercial office use to be allowed in this district. Staff does not believe that having this use serve only as a commercial office building makes it in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. It becomes more of a commercial use. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? As previously mentioned, professional office uses are allowed in the PRD district with a special use permit. Depending on the scale and intensity of the proposed office use it could be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The applicant has not provided much detail regarding the proposed uses in the building, so it is difficult to definitively determine if this use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by -right in the PRD district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the location requested. There are no safety concerns with the proposed professional office use. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. Development of the property as professional offices will include another use in the Pantops Place PRD, thereby increasing the mix of uses. Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning: ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 12 1. The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling justification has been provided for developing office, rather than residential, uses on the property. 2. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in the VDOT right -of -way along U.S. 250 and grading /construction easements will be necessary to construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property. 3. The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but has provided no explanation or justification for the request. 4. The applicant has not applied for a Critical Slopes Waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such a waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted later in the site plan process, the applicant will be left with an unbuildable project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook because the office use proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation and all other by- right uses have been proffered out by the applicant. Staff recommends denial of SP 2010 - 00039, Offices because the office use proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation. Should the Commission determine that the office use is appropriate, the items listed below should be addressed prior to approval of the zoning map amendment and special use permit: 1. The applicant is showing too much development for the site; the square footage of the building(s) should be reduced so that the buildings, sufficient parking to meet ordinance requirements, and landscaping can be accommodated on the parcel itself. If any easements are necessary from adjacent property owners, the applicant should show that the adjacent owners are willing to grant these easement(s) in order to demonstrate that he will have a developable project. 2. The applicant needs to show a pedestrian connection between the sidewalk along U.S. 250 and the building entrances. 3. The landscaping shown on the application plan should meet ARB guidelines. 4. The applicant should apply for a critical slopes waiver. 5. All of the by -right uses listed in a Planned Residential Development district should not be "proffered out." Some should be retained to allow flexibility in development. 6. The proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted above under the description of each proffer. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Zoning Map Amendment: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook with the proffers provided. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Special Use Permit: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP 2010 - 00039, Offices. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit: Move to recommend denial of SP 2010 - 00039, Offices, based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Pantops Master Plan Land Use Map ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan, dated August 1, 2011 ATTACHMENT D: January 18, 2011 Action Memo ATTACHMENT E: Pantops Community Advisory Council comments, January 24, 2011 ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated July 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT G: Electronic Mail from Gary Whelan, dated April 8, 2010 ATTACHMENT H: Draft Proffers ATTACHMENT I: Approval Letter with approved proffers and plan, dated April 28, 2005 ZMA 2010 - 00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010 - 00039, Offices Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011 Staff Report, Page 14 aL L IRGll`�t4' ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Project Name: ZMA 2010 -010 Peter Jefferson Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP Overlook Planning Commission Work Session: Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density January 25, 2011 Owners: Peter Jefferson Overlook LLC (c /o Applicant: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering David Witmer) Acreage: 2.088 acres By -right use: 14 residential units Proposal: Request to determine if office use Proffers: Yes, associated with by -right and plan are appropriate at this location. residential zoning of the property DA (Development Area): Pantops TMP: 78 -55A7 Magisterial District: Rivanna Character of Property: undeveloped Use of Surrounding Properties: Senior living, assisted living, residential, office, retail and hotel in an office park, and open space /undeveloped RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant modify his plan as recommended in this staff report. ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 1 STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: JANUARY 18, 2010 ZMA 201000010 PETER JEFFERSON OVERLOOK SP 201000039 PETER JEFFERSON OVERLOOK OFFICES Petition: PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential units are proposed. SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use. PROFFERS: NO. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01 -34 units /acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250 /Pantops Mountain Road. (See Attachment A) TAX MAP /PARCEL: 07800- 00- 00- 055A7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Background: This proposal to amend the Pantops Place PRD for the development commonly known as Jefferson Heights on Route 250 East in Pantops was submitted in November 2010. The applicant wishes to have offices on the frontage of Route 250 rather than residential units. A rezoning and special use permit are required for this change. In May of 2010, the Commission held a worksession to discuss a proposal for offices and a drive - thru bank on the same property. The staff report for the worksession can be found here.s The questions for the Commission and conclusions from the worksession are below: 1. Are the proposed uses in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission said that the proposed non - residential uses are not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, but there might be non - residential uses that could be approved at this location provided that they provided services oriented to the surrounding residential neighborhoods on that side of Rt. 250. 2. If the proposed uses are in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, are there recommendations to address impacts? Members of the Commission suggested the following things occur, should a different proposal be brought forward: • Include residents of Glenorchy and Ashcroft in the discussions who might end up coming out at Hansen Road as opposed to Hanson Mountain Road in discussions • A suggestion made to continue to protect the southern perimeter or boundary and the rock wall, which was talked about in the previous proffers, in order to honor that commitment. • A suggestion was made that the request should go back through the Pantops Advisory Committee for further discussion, study and input. • It was noted that there were no pedestrian cross walks at the signals on Route 250, which was in the plans for the future. • It would be important for the applicant to talk with the adjacent residential neighbors regarding the proposed parking. ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 2 Mr. Morris suggested if it was going to go against the Pantops Master Plan it has to have great benefit to the residents. Otherwise, the master plan should stay the way it is. In summary, the Planning Commission advised that in lieu of residential uses at this location, non- residential uses could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission asked that the applicant work with the surrounding neighborhoods in identifying appropriate uses and the design for this site. No formal action was taken. Purpose of the Worksession At this time, the staff has completed its initial review of the current project and requested changes to the project. To find out whether the Commission agrees with staff, the applicant has asked for a worksession prior to making any changes. As an initial response to the Commission's recommendations, staff offers the following which are further discussed in the staff report: Are the proposed uses in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan? Staff believes that the use is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant may be able to provide additional information that will show that the use is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed uses are in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, are there recommendations to address impacts? To staff's knowledge, none of the items identified by the Planning Commission in the Background section above have been done. Work with the neighborhoods would be essential prior to making changes to the proposal. In addition, the applicant and staff request input on the following: • Is the proposed office use in conformity with the Land Use Plan? • Are the scale and design of the development appropriate? • Should the remains of the stone wall and hedgerow on the easternmost side of the property be preserved and retained? • What type of frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East? Characteristics of the Site & Area The property is vacant and consists of 2.088 acres which comprises the frontage of the Pantops Place PRD on Route 250 East. There is an existing hedgerow and remains of a stone wall along the eastern property line. The property is approved for 14 single family attached units, which would be phases II and III of the Cottages of Jefferson Heights development. To the north is the Westminster Canterbury retirement community zoned PRD Planned Residential Development. Located to the west of the site are office uses also zoned PRD. Properties across Route 250 from the site are PDMC Planned Development Mixed Commercial as part of the Peter Jefferson Place office and business park with site - Pantops Mountain Road is on left side of picture uses that include offices, restaurant, hotel, and open space. ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 3 Medical Offices in front of Westminster Canterbury Peter Jefferson Place across Route 250 East Specifics of Proposal The applicant is proposing two office buildings with parking. One building would have 10,176 sq. ft. and the other would have 24,192 sq. ft. No drive - through facilities are proposed. Both buildings are two stories. Attachment B illustrates the proposed development. The layout of the development shows buildings "facing" Route 250 East with parking to the side and rear of the buildings. Retaining walls will be needed on the northernmost property line as well as the easternmost property line. All of the site will be disturbed and permission for off -site grading will be needed from adjoining owners. As proposed, Route 250 East would continue as a rural cross - section and a sidewalk would be against the building. Access to the buildings would be from the front and back. QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION: Is the proposed office use in conformity with the Land Use Plan? The site is designated Urban Density in the Pantops Master Plan which calls for primarily residential uses, especially at this location in Pantops. The Pantops Master Plan emphasizes that commercial uses be located in the nearby neighborhood centers of Luxor and Rivanna Ridge. The Urban Density Residential land use designation recommends 6.01 — 34 residential units per acre with support uses and some non - residential uses. Non - residential uses are to be on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. Neighborhood Service areas are intended to provide neighborhood retail uses such as a newsstand, small restaurant, bakery, convenience store without gas pumps, pharmacy, florist, small professional office, daycare, other services, or live /work units. This may include retail of less than 4,000 square feet; live /work units above office and /or retail; small office buildings less than 20,000 square feet and no building footprint over 10,000 square feet; and studios /cottage occupations. The Pantops Master Plan also recommends the following for this area of Pantops: • Create and preserve a vegetated buffer along Route 250 from Glenorchy Drive to Pantops Mountain Road to help retain the rural /residential character of this part of Pantops. From Pantops Mountain Road heading west, create an urban character with building orientation to Route 250. • Limit "strip development" of Route 250 East • Redevelopment, infill, and new development within Pantops are expected to occur in a manner that is wholly consistent with the Neighborhood Model and the Pantops Master Plan design principles. Suburban land use patterns should not be continued and innovative sustainable design practices and mixed use approaches are encouraged. ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 4 The Planning Commission previously commented that an office use might be in conformity if the services are oriented to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. To date, the applicant has provided no information other than the request for "office use ". Staff believes that it would be important to know how the offices would serve surrounding residential neighborhoods prior to moving forward with the request. In terms of size, the Master Plan recommends that offices not exceed 20,000 square feet. Two buildings are proposed on the 0.757 acre site which, have a combined square footage of approximately 35,000 sq. ft.; one of the buildings is over 24,000 square feet. The Pantops Master Plan does not speak to maximum square footage by site; however, one of the proposed buildings exceeds the size recommendations and the site is fairly small for the amount of development proposed. Design, however, is key with density and intensity of use. A modified design might support the amount of square footage proposed. Are the scale, and design of the development appropriate? In terms of scale of the development, the applicant has provided a design that shows 2 -story buildings and parking covering almost the entire site. In order to create sufficient area for the proposed improvements, the applicant must remove the previously proffered hedgerow and remnants of a stone wall for grading and retaining walls. More discussion will be provided on the hedgerow and stone wall later in this report. Based on the plan provided, staff believes that the amount of development proposed for the site may be more than the site can reasonably support because of the impacts from grading and the need for what may be large retaining walls. The proposed development is in the Entrance Corridor. The Design Planner has said that the site design and the presence of a retaining wall on the north side of the parking lot will likely make it impossible to meet the Entrance Corridor planting guidelines. Although no elevations have been provided yet, the Design Planner has noted that in order to have an appropriate appearance for the EC, the EC elevations must have the appearance of primary building facades. East and west elevations of both buildings will also need to be fully designed; a "back of building" appearance will not be appropriate. In terms of design, staff believes that there are several positive aspects. Two -story buildings and parking that is relegated, as shown on the plan, are in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. The site provides for good internal pedestrian access. Staff believes that modifications to the design are needed, though. Two entrances from Pantops Mountain Road are not recommended. Smaller buildings or a single building with 20,000 square feet would likely generate a reduced parking requirement which could reduce the need for some retaining walls. Should the remains of the stone wall and hedgerow on the easternmost side of the property be preserved and retained? The hedgerow and stone wall were identified as important features to preserve in the initial PRD zoning, subsequent rezonings, and in the Pantops Master Plan. The applicant has indicated on his plan that the existing fence and wall will remain undisturbed; however, to install the 6' high retaining wall also shown on the plan, disturbance will have to take place. To avoid disturbance an even taller retaining wall may be needed. The amount of disturbance could be reduced with a smaller building or buildings and fewer parking spaces. The applicant has verbally indicated that he would like to remove the stones that were part of the wall across his property and then, potentially rebuild a stone wall using the stones. Photos of the hedgerow and remains of the stone wall are provided on the following page: ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 5 Hedgerow from across Route 250 East Hedgerow from site looking to Route 250 East Remains of stone wall in hedgerow The remains of the wall aren't visible from a distance but they are interspersed in the hedgerow of trees that this site from the adjoining property owned by the Easters. The Easter property contains a Christmas tree farm and is shown for neighborhood density on the Pantops Master Plan. f■ i Historically, hedgerows have been used to mark the boundaries between properties. Although it is unknown how long this hedgerow has been in place, it has been providing a separation of properties for some time. The width ranges from about 20 — 40 feet. Staff believes that this hedgerow is valuable in terms of providing a visual separation of existing and future uses as well as helping the transition from a rural to urban appearance along Route 250 East and should be retained. What type of frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East? According to the Pantops Master Plan Route 250 East is intended to transition from rural to urban from 164 to Pantops Mountain Road. • A landscape buffer or additional landscaping is to be provided across the frontage. • Route 250 East is to be multimodal, providing sidewalks, bike lanes, and other pedestrian crosswalk and safety features. • Asphalt pedestrian paths or concrete sidewalks of at least 8 feet in width should be provided on both sides of Route 250 East. Planting strips of at least 8 feet in width for street trees should be provided between the curb and the sidewalk or path. • Entrances to buildings should be provided from Route 250 East to allow pedestrian access from the sidewalk. The current frontage conditions are shown below: purl;- Frontage of site on Route 250 East Frontage across medical offices west of Pantops Mountain Road ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 6 The Master Plan does not recommend that curb and gutter be provided across the frontage, nor dictate that the frontage should remain as a rural cross - section. It does, however, recommend that a sidewalk or pedestrian path be provided and that sidewalk or pedestrian path be separated from the travel lane. The plan provided with the rezoning doesn't respond well to the sidewalk and landscape frontage recommendations. A sidewalk is shown across the front of the building, but it is not designed as a public sidewalk along Route 250 East. There are no planting strips. Entrances to the buildings allow pedestrian access from Route 250 East, but not from a public sidewalk. Staff believes that the most important feature for the frontage is a sidewalk or path separated from the travelway by a minimum of an 8 foot planting strip. If street trees are to go in the planting strip, the planting strip may need to be wider to be able to maintain a clear zone on Route 250 East and meet VDOT requirements. Installing all of these improvements may be easier if the frontage is upgraded to curb and gutter instead of a rural section as it is now. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information provided for review, staff believes changes to the plan are needed prior to proceeding further with the rezoning. At the last worksession, staff recommended that any future development include the following things: • Provide screening and buffering where needed • Provide relegated parking • Provide a sidewalk on Route 250 • Provide landscaping on Route 250 consistent with the Pantops Master Plan • Preserve the hedgerow and wall on the property • Preserve Monticello viewshed • Provide a two -story building • Work more closely with the terrain • Demonstrate ability to use Pantops Mountain Road Of the items above, the applicant has shown two -story buildings, provided for relegated parking and said to staff he will provide the appropriate documentation relative to use of Pantops Mountain Road. The other items are still needed. The Planning Commission also asked that the applicant meet with nearby residents as well as provide a use that serves nearby residential developments. To date, the applicant has not met with nearby residents nor provided information on how the proposed office use serves surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with nearby residents, provide a use which serves surrounding residential neighborhoods, and modify his plan as recommended in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS A. Property Map and Aerial Map B. Application Plan for Peter Jefferson Overlook, prepared by Shimp Engineering dated 10/18/10 ZMA 2010 -10 and SP 2010 -15 PC January 18, 2011 Page 7