HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800073 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2018-11-16Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201800073
SubApplication Type:
Springhill - Initial
Final Plat
Date Completed:11/06/2018
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/05/2018
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. The road plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval.
2. The VSMP plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval.
3. The landscaping easements should be outside of utility/drainage easements.
4. All offsite easements will need to be obtained prior to final site plan approval.
5. All of the proposed contours should be shown tying into existing contours.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2018
Reviewer:Christopher Perez Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. If building heights are to exceed 30' then the travel ways shall be increased to 26' along one
contiguous side of every structure.
2. All streets, including the 20' private access easement, shall be marked no parking on both sides.
3. A fire flow test shall be required prior to final acceptance.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2018
Reviewer:Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4
feet in height require an stamped engineered design also.
Building or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order
to apply for a demolition permit. Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such. Contact
VDOLI for additional requirements and permits for demolition projects.
Division:
Date Completed:11/05/2018
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:See action letter from November 5, 2018 ARB meeting. ARB-2018-128
Division:
Date Completed:11/07/2018
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/06/2018
Reviewer:Richard Nelson ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:I recommend approval for SDP201800073 - Springhill Village - Initial Site Plan and SUB201800172 -
Springhill Village - Prelim Sub Plat with the following conditions:
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review.
Offsite easements will be required for portions of sewer outside of the right-of-way.
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 12, 2018
Springhill Village - Prelim Sub Plat with the following conditions:
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review.
Offsite easements will be required for portions of sewer outside of the right-of-way.
Date Completed:11/07/2018
Reviewer:Andrew Walker CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:See uploaded letter
Division:
Date Completed:11/16/2018
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 12, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development `
401 McIntire Road, North Wing `=
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SDP201800073
DATE: 11/7/2018
FROM: Andrew Walker
awalker@albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/qds
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3031
The following road names are acceptable, and we have reserved them for this
development:
1. LOYOLA WAY
2. DAUPHIN DR
3. BERWYN LN
Critical Issues
The proposed road name WARWICK COURT IS not acceptable, as there is an existing
WARWICK COURT and WARWICK PLACE.
Per Part I, Section 4-a of the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual
(page 6 of PDF):
"A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or reserved road name in
Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville shall not be approved. An
exception may be made for cul-de-sacs which have the same name as the road
from which they originate (example: "Amberfield Court" which originates from
"Amberfield Drive")."
A new road name will need to be submitted.
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names to our office for review,
in case your first choices are not acceptable.
Resources
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Geographic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Namina and Property Numberina Ordinance and Manual.Ddf
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.or
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
ra
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 2270,
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
November 7, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Christopher Perez
Re: Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Plan & Preliminary Plat
SDP -2018-00073
SUB -2018-00172
Review # 1
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated 24
September 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. The Route 20 entrance requires an Access Management Exception (AME) due to its
proximity to the nearest commercial entrance. An AME was granted for a previously
submitted, very similar, plan and may be acceptable to use for the proposed plan. Our 10
February 2017 AME approval letter should be included on the proposed plans.
2. The curve in Berwyn Lane at the intersection with Dauphin Drive does not appear to be
necessary, but rather aesthetic. A more practical approach should be taken in the design
of this intersection, particularly given its proximity to Route 20.
3. The correct intersection sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is 280 feet; this plan
provides 225 feet (20 mph design speed).
4. The same intersection sight distance concerns from the previous plan for this parcel
remain with the proposed plan, notably the left sight line at the Berwyn Lane intersection
with Dauphin Drive. Profiles will be required to show that adequate sight distance is
achievable. Additionally, the parallel parking along Dauphin Drive obstructs this sight
line.
5. The minimum storage and taper lengths for 55 mph posted speed limit (60 mph design
speed) is 200 feet for each. Please see Appendix F for these details as well as shifting
taper lengths.
6. More detail is required for the Route 20 improvements, including the entrance
improvements for the Gropen Facility.
7. The previously proposed plan (which is very similar to the currently proposed plan) for
this parcel was reviewed by our office on four separate occasions, with the most recent
review letter still containing more than twenty outstanding comments. Previous review
letters can be provided to the applicant if desired.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
November 7, 2018
Christopher Perez
Page 2
8. Note that the final site and subdivision/road plans must show conformance with the
VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable
standards, regulations or other requirements.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
GIRGINIP`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
November 6, 2018
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville VA 22902
SDP201800073 Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Plan
SUB201800172 Spring Hill Village — Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Mr. Collins:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposals referenced above. Initial comments
for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services
Albemarle County Engineering Services
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - Comments pending to be forwarded
Virginia Department of Transportation - Comments pending to be forwarded
Albemarle County Service Authority - Comments pending to be forwarded
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that
will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision Plat approvals. The lead
reviewer will either approve with conditions or deny the plans within 15 days of the site review meeting.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 6, 2018
Subject: SDP201800073 Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Plan
SUB201800172 Spring Hill Village — Preliminary Subdivision Plat
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan/plat referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[ZMA2013-17] A variation was approved by special exception in conjunction with a previous site plan
for the realignment of the internal road system resulting in minor changes to acreage of adjacent blocks
and green space, additionally phasing was altered (see the attached prev approved SE). Thus the current
site plan shall either conform to the approved variation or a new variation is needed to facilitate the
current site plan request. Prior to final site plan/final subdivision plat approval the variation shall be
applied for and acted on.
2. [ZMA2013-17] The application plan requires a cul-de-sac in Block D. The site plan no longer depicts
this cul-de-sac but rather an extension to the private road. This change requires a variation to the
application plan, which shall be acted on by the Board of Supervisors prior to final site plan/final
subdivision plat approval.
3. [ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(a)] COD 3.3 Lot Regulations. Lots 32-44 in Block C lack required frontage on a
public or private street. The proposed private access easement along the rear shall be revised to be a
private street as approved on the application plan. Revise.
4. [ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(a)] COD 3.3 Lot Regulations. The "private access easement" along the rear of
Lots 17-31 in Block C shall be revised to a private alley and labeled as "private alley easement".
[ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(a)] COD 3.3 Lot Regulations. Some setbacks shown on the plan are not
consistent with the Code of Development. Please amend or submit variation request for the change. The
following inconsistencies were found:
• Block A depicts a 20' front setback adjacent to Route 20; however, the COD requires 25'. The
setback shall be measured from the area of the new r/w after the dedication. Revise.
• Block A shows a 5' rear setback; however, the COD requires 15'. Revise.
6. [ZMA2013-17] The proposed yard drainage improvements and associated 10' easement, along with the
storm sewer line and associated 20' easement on the southern property line shall be relocated to permit
the required perimeter landscape screening and maintenance easement. As proposed the drainage and
storm sewer improvements prohibit the screening requirements from being met.
7. [ZMA2013-17] COD 2.3. Establishment of Blocks. Block F and Block G have each been modified over
their permissible 15% size difference from what was approved with the rezoning. Block F shall not be
any larger than 0.72 acres and Block G shall not be any larger than 1.495 acres. Revise.
8. [ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(b)] COD 8.1. Parks. The central community park in Block D shall be a
minimum of 1.13 acres in size. Currently it is only proposed at .94 acres. Revise.
9. [ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(b)] COD 8.1. Parks. Pocket park #4 in Block C shall be a minimum of 0.24
acres. Currently it is proposed as 0.18 acres. Revise.
10. [4.11.1] Decks may project not more than four (4) feet into any requiredyard; provided that no such
feature shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line. On the plans label and dimension all
improvements to include garages and decks, as well as the encroachment into required yards.
11. [4.12.16(c)] Parallel Parking. Parallel parking spaces along the roadway (in parking areas) are required
to be a minimum of 9' x 20'. Currently they are depicted as 7' x 20'. Revise.
12. [ZMA2013-17, 32.5.2(b)] COD 3.3 Lot Regulations. Provide acreages of all proposed lots. The COD
specifies min/max lot sizes. For townhomes it is 1,000 SF minimum & 5,000 SF maximum.
13. [32.5.1(c)] All offsite easements must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan and final
subdivision plat approval, this included easements for offsite utility connections and temporary
construction easements if site work will encroach upon neighboring properties. Prior to final site plan
approval any required easements will need to be plated. The DB page information of this action shall be
provided on the final site plan.
14. [32.7.5.1, 4.1] Water supply and sewage system. Each development and each lot shall be served by the
public water supply and the public sewer system. This development is relying on offsite infrastructure.
Prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval the sewer connection shall either be built or
bonded.
15. [Comment] The existing conditions sheet shall be revised to provide the County's adopted steep slopes
overlay.
16. [ZMA2013-17] Affordable Housing. Designate which lots are the affordable units throughout the final
site plan and final plat. Also, include a summary chart on the cover sheet of each document for tracking
purposes.
17. [ZMA2013-17] Proffers. All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers.
18. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and
the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be
dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
19. [32.6.20)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with the final
site plan.
20. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. On the plan provide a note that states no public agency, including VDOT,
and the County of Albemarle will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide information
on the plans that the alleys shall be dedicated and maintained by the HOA.
21. [32.8.2, 14-3111 Infrastructure improvement plans. Road Plans and WPO application must be approved,
all required improvements must be built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be
reviewed and approved prior to final site plan/ final subdivision plat approval.
22. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(0)] Areas to be dedicated. Provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated for
public use. Prior to final site plan approval any dedications shall take place on a plat to be reviewed by
the County, approved, and then recorded in the Clerk's Office. The DB page information of this action
shall be provided on the final site plan.
23. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. Submit with the final site plan/
final subdivision plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of street trees, private streets
and alleys, open space and any other improvements that are to be maintained in perpetuity.
24. [Comment] The final site plan/ final subdivision plat shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers
have approved the plan. Their comments attached.
Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(c-r�,albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3443 for further information.
Review Comments for SDP201800073 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name:
Springhill - Initial
Date Completed:
Monday, November 05, 2018
Department1DivisionfAgency:
Review Status:
Reviewer:
LMatthew Wentland
CDD Engineering
Requested Changes
1_ The road plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval-
2- The VSMP plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval_
3_ The landscaping easements should be outside of utility/drainage easements_
4_ All offsite easements will need to be obtained prior to final site plan approval_
5_ All of the proposed contours should be shown tying into existing contours_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 11 105120'18
ARB Review/Action
Motion: Mr. Van Der Werf moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations
outlined in the staff report for the Initial Site Plan to the Agent for the Site Review Committee, as follows.
a. ARB -2018-128: Spring Hill Village Initial Plan - Initial Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel
09000000002800)
Proposal: To construct 100 single-family attached residential units with associated site improvements.
Location: 1776 Scottsville Road
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and
recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
o Prior to Initial Plan approval the following items shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the
ARB: None.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None.
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
1. Submit architectural designs for review.
2. Note for future submittals that the Block A building will need to address EC Guidelines
requirements for scale, proportion, massing, detailing, lack of blankness, etc.
3. Remove the footprints of future phase buildings from the plan.
4. A "back of building" appearance will not be appropriate for Block A or Block B elevations facing
Rt. 20.
5. Incorporate sufficient fenestration and detailing to eliminate blankness in the side elevations
visible from Rt. 20.
6. Indicate on the plan the locations of proposed HVAC equipment. Show on the plan how visibility
of this equipment will be eliminated from the Rt. 20 EC.
7. Provide a fence detail in the plan. Indicate size, materials, and colors.
8. Revise the plan to provide sufficient planting area between the property line along Rt. 20 and
the Block A water detention facility, the Block B water detention facility, and the low point
adjacent to the Block B facility, all free of utility conflicts.
9. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural plans. "Visibility
of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
10. Provide on-site planting area along the EC free of utilities and easements.
11. Provide frontage planting in a naturalistic pattern rather than in a strictly linear form.
12. Clarify the extent of tree removal and tree replacement planned with off-site work along the ECs.
Show how an appropriate appearance for the EC will be maintained.
13. Provide on the plan top- and bottom -of -wall elevations for the retaining walls.
14. Round proposed contours where they meet the adjacent condition for a more natural
appearance.
Mr. Binsted seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Review Comments for SDP201800073 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Springhill - Initial
Date Completed: Friday, November 02, 2018 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger LJ CDD Inspections See Recommendations
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit_ Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require an
stamped engineered design also_
Building or structures built before January 1 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a demolition
permit_ Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for srich Contact VDOLI for additional requirements and permits for
demolition projects_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 11 V0512018
Review Comments for SDP201800073 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name:
Springhill - Initial
Date Completed:
Friday, November 02, 2018
DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency:
Review Status:
Reviewer:
Shawn Maddox
U
Fire Rescue
Requested Changes
1 _ If building heights are to exceed 30' then the travel ways shall be increased to 6' along one contiguous side of every
structure-
2- All streets, including the 20' private access easement, shall be marked no parking on both sides_
3_ Afire flow test shall be required prior to final acceptance_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 11 V0512018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Date: December 6, 2017
Re: Request for Special Exception for variations to the Application Plan and Code of Development for
ZMA201300007 Spring Hill Village for changes to the road alignment, adjacent block sizes and phasing.
TMP: 09000-00-00-02800
Magisterial District: Scottsville Magisterial District
School Districts: Cale Elementary, Walton Middle, Monticello High
Zoning District: Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
Summary of Request for Special Exception:
The applicant is requesting minor changes to the Application Plan and Code of Development (COD) for Spring
Hill Village. Specifically, the applicant is proposing a realignment of the internal road system resulting in minor
changes to acreage of adjacent blocks and green space. The applicant also proposes a minor change to phasing.
County Code § 18-8.5.5.3 and § 18-33.5 allow special exceptions to vary approved Application Plans and Codes
of Development upon considering whether the proposed variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development;
(3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning
district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the
approved application. County Code § 18-33.5(a)(1) requires that any request for a variation be considered and
acted upon by the Board of Supervisors as a special exception. This request is consistent with the above noted
considerations. Please see Attachment B for full details of staff's analysis.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to approve the special
exceptions.
Attachments:
A — Application Materials (Applicant justification; revised application plan, revised Code of Development)
B — Staff Analysis
C — Resolution
CONCEPTS, PC
DATE: November 29, 2016
TO: Albemarle County Zoning Office
FROM: Mark Keiser — Terra Concepts, PC
RE: Spring Hill Village — ZMA 2013-00017 — Variation Request
The information below is intended to accompany the Application for Variations and Approved Plans, Codes
and Standards of Development for the above project.
Variations Being Sought:
After approval of the rezoning, and as a part of their review of the Initial Site Plan for Phase 1 of this
project, VDOT decided to revisit their approval of the planned road system. Numerous iterations and option
were explored with VDOT and a consensus was finally reached. The result was that sections of internal
road were realigned. This resulted in changes to acreages of adjacent Blocks as well as Green and
Amenity Space. All of the acreage impacts were within the ranges permitted by the Code of Development.
However, since tables listing these acreages are found on the same drawing (Block Plan -Sheet 3) as the
road realignment, these figures were also updated.
Collaterally, several housekeeping matters were addressed. First, in the Density Table at the top right of
the Block Plan, Block C had been listed to be in Phase 2. The submitted Initial Site Plan included all of
Phase 1 and Block C as well. Staff requested that we change Block C's designation to Phase 1 instead.
This was done. Finally, a note was added to the bottom of the Amenity and Green Space Calculations table
on this sheet.
Since some of this data is also reflected in the Code of Development in Sections 3 and 8, for consistency,
we chose to make commensurate updates in the code as well.
Reasons & Justifications
VDOT determined that two 90 degree intersections, as opposed to the approved curvilinear main road
alignment, would better serve the community in terms of safety and would be more likely to discourage cut -
through traffic between Avon Street Extended and Route 20. By and large we were able to accommodate
the design changes they requested within the limitations outlined in the approved Code of Development, so
we feel that the proposed changes remain consistent with prior approvals and the Code for this property.
That said, we did choose to make the above housekeeping changes associated with comments received
during initial site plan review at this time.
MASTER & SITE PLANNING / ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING / LANDSCAPE ARC11ITECTURE
2046 Rock Quu=y Road Louisa, Virginia 23093 • 434-531-3600 - mkcller@terraconceptspc.com
NOTES(:
1. THIS REZONING REQUEST PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF TMP 90-28 FROM R1 TO NMD.
2. PLAN SHEETS 1 - 3 ARE TO SERVE AS THE APPLICATION PLAN TO ACCOMPANY THE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT. PLAN SHEETS 4 - 8 DEMONSTRATE THE
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT THAT THE OWNER INTENDS TO EXECUTE UPON REZONING APPROVAL.
3. REFER TO THE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PROFFERS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
4. TO ACCOMMODATE Y OF THE SITE, ALL PROPOSED ROADWAYS WITHIN THE EN DESIGNED USING THE
AASHTO GUIDELINES FOR GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF VE - < 400) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTES IN TABLE 1
(GS-SSAR) OF THE VDOT SUBDIVI IDE, WHERE APPLICABLE. (20 ADS 'A', 'B', AND 'D' ARE PROPOSED AS
5. LAND USE TABLE, AMENITY SPACE, AND GREEN SPACE CALCULATIONS BASED ON CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MAY VARY.
6. ROAD B MAY BE WIDENED TO PERMIT ON -STREET PARKING.
AREA OF R.O.W. DEDICATIO14\
'PAF
AMENITY
(0.41
I I \ \
I � \
I I
I \
II I \ \
V A A
DENSITY TABLE
3A PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 2 BLOCKS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE
1 SITE CONSTUCTION.
AREA OF R.O.W.
DEDICATION
AVON PARK PLANTING & MAINTENANCE EASEMENT OVER—/ROUTE 20 IMPROVEMENTS – – – –
I
PHASE 1 \ \� LOTS IN BLOCK D TO BE PROVIDED FOR-
\ \ PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I
0' 20' 40' 80'
160'
VITO CETTA, AIA
Planner and Developer
434-531-2192
vitocetta@me.com
T -'A
7 r '- �XDX J� LDX A
CONCEPTS, P.C.
2046 ROCK QUARRY ROAD
LOUISA, VI]RGIINIIA 23093
PH. 434-531-3600
m keller@terrac®nceptspc.COM
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
Civil and Site Plan Engineering
427 Cranberry Lane Crozet, VA 22932
434-531-5544
clan@alanfranl�linpe.con
o�q�PA_TH OF �,pc
Alan G. Franklin
Lic. No. 35326
o
o
NAL
ISSUED: 05-09-16
SCALE:
11. 12-07-15 - ISP SUBMITTAL:
2.02-02-16 - ISP COND. APPROVAL
3.05-09-16 - FSP SUBMITTAL:
4.12-29-16 - REV. ROAD NETWORK
5.08-04-17 - FSP VOOT COMMENTS
SHEET
OF 37
RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
NAME
SIZE
POA SE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
BLOCK A
0.6 AC.
23
01
12
02
60K SF
BLOCK B
1.4 AC.
23
01
48
02
60K SF
BLOCK C
QAC. 3.3
'2 1
0 1
30
02
60K SF
BLOCK D
A-& AC. 4.6
1
14
40
0
0
BLOCK E
4-4 AC. 1.2
1
8
16
0
0
BLOCK F
-8-7 AC. 0.6
1
6
16
0
0
BLOCK G
QAC. 1.3
1
4
12
0
0
1
PRESUMES DEVELOPMENT
AS NON-RESIDENTIAL USE
2
3A PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 2 BLOCKS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE
1 SITE CONSTUCTION.
AREA OF R.O.W.
DEDICATION
AVON PARK PLANTING & MAINTENANCE EASEMENT OVER—/ROUTE 20 IMPROVEMENTS – – – –
I
PHASE 1 \ \� LOTS IN BLOCK D TO BE PROVIDED FOR-
\ \ PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I
0' 20' 40' 80'
160'
VITO CETTA, AIA
Planner and Developer
434-531-2192
vitocetta@me.com
T -'A
7 r '- �XDX J� LDX A
CONCEPTS, P.C.
2046 ROCK QUARRY ROAD
LOUISA, VI]RGIINIIA 23093
PH. 434-531-3600
m keller@terrac®nceptspc.COM
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
Civil and Site Plan Engineering
427 Cranberry Lane Crozet, VA 22932
434-531-5544
clan@alanfranl�linpe.con
o�q�PA_TH OF �,pc
Alan G. Franklin
Lic. No. 35326
o
o
NAL
ISSUED: 05-09-16
SCALE:
11. 12-07-15 - ISP SUBMITTAL:
2.02-02-16 - ISP COND. APPROVAL
3.05-09-16 - FSP SUBMITTAL:
4.12-29-16 - REV. ROAD NETWORK
5.08-04-17 - FSP VOOT COMMENTS
SHEET
OF 37
SPRING HILL VILLAGE
Code of Development
ZMA # 2013-00017
Dated October 16, 2013
Revised January 21, 2014
Revised March 4, 2014
Revised March 31, 2014
Revised May 16, 2014
Revised July 7, 2014
Revised August 2 8, 2 014
Revised November 8, 2016
�a BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
3.1 Purpose
The regulations contained in this section are promulgated (i) with the intent that the
form of buildings in Spring Hill Village will foster a vibrant pedestrian -scale
neighborhood community, with architectural and landscape elements that complement
and enhance building design and (ii) to create a flexible range of density over the
designated blocks described herein.
3.2 Density Regulations
Table 0 establishes the parameters within which residential and non-residential shall be
developed.
For the purposes of interpreting Table 0, no site .plan or subdivision plat shall be
approved Unless it conforms to the following standards:
A. For residential uses, there shall be a minimum and maximum of residential
dwelling units for Spring Hill Village at full build -out. Within this range, the Owner may
adjust the residential unit type and density by block to meet market and design
considerations.
B. For non-residential uses, there shall be a minimum and a maximum amount of
gross floor area required/permitted. Within this range, the Owner may adjust the non-
residential use and density by block to meet market and design considerations.
Density by Block
Residential Non -Residential
Block
Size
Phase
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
A
0.6 AC.
2
01
122
02
60,000
B
1.4 AC.
2
01
483
02
60,000
C
3.2 AC.
1
01
302
o2
60,000
D
4.5 AC.
1
14
402
0
0
F
1.1 AC.
1
8
162
0
0
F
0.7 AC.
1
6
162
0
0
G
1.4 AC.
1
4
122
0
0
Presumes development as non-residential use.
2 A minimum of 10,000 SF of non-residential use is being proffered for Spring Hill Village.
2
U
OPEN SPACE & AMENITIES
8.1 Parks
The Owner has set aside 2.69 acres of the property as Amenity Space, which is 21% of
the total site area after a small area (0.04 acre) of the current site is dedicated to road
right-of-way. As the plan for the proposed community evolves certain elements may
change size or location in a minor way. Shifts of this nature and magnitude may result in
very minor changes in the acreages associated with Green Space and Amenity Space. In
all cases, the minimum requirements for Green and Amenity Space shall be met.
Comprising the Amenity Area is a central park of just over 1 acre and three pocket parks
located throughout the proposed community. A conceptual design for the park is
reflected within the plan submission. The main park will provide opportunities for both
active and passive recreational activities. A tot lot complex with separate areas for
dynamic and static play equipment are proposed. The play equipment to be installed
shall meet or exceeding the County requirements and will provide safe and age-
appropriate activity areas for children. A pavilion surrounded by paved surface will be a
place for gatherings, events and shaded observation of the tot lot areas. Along the
southern axis of the pavilion a large lawn panel is being set aside for organized sports.
This area will also serve as a spectator area should the pavilion host movie nights or live
performances. It is large enough to accommodate one or more tents that may be used
for special events.
The system of pocket parks is intended to offer a variety of recreational opportunities.
The easternmost Pocket Park is a large, rectangular area taking up most of the property
frontage along Route 20. It can be used for a variety of sports and an area to walk pets.
The central Pocket Park which is not roadside is designed to evolve pursuant to the
direction determined by the future residents of the community. (DELETED - Pocket
Park #3 is an area ad'acent to the main connector road and is a small eddy off of the
road where one can sit and relax on a bench amongst trees shrubs and flowers. Pocket
Park #4 is across the street from #3 and is proposed to be set uD as a shady retreat
within a bosaue of trees.) The westernmost Pocket Park is located at the intersection of
the connector road and Avon Street Extended. It is envisioned as a possible location for
a school bus stop. As such it will provide an alcove with landscaping and seating where
children can await the bus and parents can congregate as they wait for kids to be
dropped off.
As the community develops and its demographics evolve the uses within these amenity
areas may also evolve. It is the Applicant's intent that the central park be developed as
described, but that the residents of Spring Hill Village have a say in how the pocket parks
are used or further improved.
3
STAFF PERSON:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Rachel Falkenstein
December 6, 2017
Staff Report for Special Exception to Vary the Code of Development and Application Plan
approved with ZMA201300007 Spring Hill Village
Applicant's Request
The applicant is seeking minor changes to street design and street location internal to the proposed
development. The changes were a result of VDOT's determination that two 90 degree intersections, as
opposed to the approved curvilinear main road alignment, would better serve the community in terms of
safety and would be more likely to discourage cut -through traffic between Avon Extended (Rte. 742) and
Scottsville Road (Rte 20). The changes were approved by the County Engineer [§ 18-8.5.5.3a5].
These changes result in minor alterations in acreage for Blocks C - G, but no Block changes by more than
0.1 acres, as seen in the revised Code of Development. The new road alignment also influences the Open
and Amenity Space, decreasing acreage from 2.83 acres to 2.81. The number of pocket parks also drops
from five to four. Overall, these variations in open space results less than a 1% difference and still meets
the Neighborhood Model District's (NMD) open space requirements.
There is also a minor change to the phasing plan, where Block C changes from phase 2 to phase 1 [§ 18-
8.5.5.3a3].
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
Each variation request has been reviewed for zoning and planning aspects of the regulations. Variations
are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.5 and 18-
33.9. Staff analysis under County Code § 18-8.5.5.3(c) is provided below.
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
The variation does not pertain to density.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district.
The phasing of block C is changing from phase 2 to phase 1 but does not adversely affect any
other development in the zoning district.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning
application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA201300007 SPRING HILL VILLAGE
TO VARY ROAD ALLIGNMENT, BLOCK SIZES AND PHASING ON APPLICATION PLAN AND
CODE OF DEVELOPEMNT
WHEREAS, the Owner of Tax Map Parcel Number 09000-00-00-02800 filed a request for a special
exception to vary the Application Plan and Code of Development approved in conjunction with
ZMA201300007 Spring Hill Village to vary the road alignment, block sizes and phasing as shown on the
Exhibit entitled "Spring Hill Village Application/Block Plan" dated August 4, 2017 and the revised code of
development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Memorandum prepared in conjunction with the special exception request and the attachments thereto,
including staff's supporting analysis, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions in Albemarle
County Code §§ 18-8.5.5.3, 18-33.5, and 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the special exception to vary the Application Plan and Code of Development approved in
conjunction with ZMA201300007 Spring Hill Village, as described hereinabove.
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Dill
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKeel
Ms. Palmer
Mr. Randolph
Mr. Sheffield