Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZMA201900001 Application Zoning Map Amendment 2019-04-29
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP# Fee Amount$ Date Paid By who? Receipt# Chit By: f Ac9, Resubmittal of information for ® 4 Zoning Map Amendment PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:. '2 N A 2O 1`t - C)p p 01 Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff ak-A° . ' , Ce' ina PLiroleutsu `I /29 /2m 1 et Signa re o Owner,Contract Purchaser Date N1wle- Scat, 4l'3e4-2it- OCt3 Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory FEES that may apply: ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of$2,688 la First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission(TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 z , Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of$3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission(TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore,at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. > Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty(50)notices $215+actual cost of first-class postage > Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty(50) $1.08 for each additional notice+actual cost of first-class postage > Legal advertisement(published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between$150 and$250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434)972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1 April 29, 2019 Tori Kanellopoulos Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA201900001—999 Rio Road, Response to April 5, 2019 Staff Comment Letter Dear Tori: Below are our responses to the April 5, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the Applicant responses are noted in black. Planning Comments (Tori Kanellopoulos) 1. Provide additional information about the types of pedestrian connections proposed through the parcel. What types of paths or sidewalks are these? Please note that if the single-family units are going to be subdivided for ownership/sale, then Section 14 (subdivision ordinance) sidewalk requirements will apply. Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed pedestrian connections throughout the parcel. The sidewalks and paths are labeled, and cross sections are provided at the end of the Application Plan. The single-family units are intended to be subdivided for ownership/sale and therefore will meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, or where requirements cannot be satisfied, the Application narrative has been updated to reflect any necessary waiver requests. 2. More definition of the proposed uses is needed. For example, what does retail include? What does general commercial service include? Uses need to be at an appropriate scale for this location. The Places29 Master Plan includes uses in these categories that would not be appropriate for the area. For example, commercial/regional retail includes big box stores. All permitted uses should be specifically listed. The Master Plan only includes examples. The "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan provides descriptions and illustrative examples of the uses stated in the Code of Development. To ensure such uses are appropriate for the surrounding area, the Code of Development provides limitations on massing and height of the proposed buildings. For instance, Table D of the original Code of Development limited Block 1's allowable building square footage to two 5,000 square feet building footprints and a height of 45 feet (or four stories). In addition, Table B limited the gross square footage of non-residential uses to 5,000 square feet. 1 Therefore, the Code of Development limited non-residential uses to a maximum of one floor of a building restricted to a 5,000 square foot footprint and 45 feet in height (4 stories). An exception was made to allow 5,000 additional square footage if such additional space was specifically designated for office. This exception was made in recognition of the fact that office uses generally result in less traffic and require less parking and therefore often have less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Importantly, the limitations on the massing of the allowable buildings remains regardless of use. The massing limitations in the Code of Development result in the prohibition of the types of uses that would likely not be appropriate for the area but would be allowed otherwise. For instance, a "Large Format Retail or Big Box" is defined in the Places29 Master Plan as "a retail establishment of at least 80,000 square feet and as much as 250,000 square feet, usually one story in height, and surrounded by surface parking." While a "Large Format Retail or Big Box" use would be allowed under "Community & Regional Retail," the massing limitations of the Code of Development would prohibit them. The massing limitations would likely prohibit the majority of the "Community & Regional Retail" uses. However, these uses are still allowed in the rare case in which one such use fits within the definition of "Community & Regional Retail" while still maintaining a small-scale character. For instance, a "clothing, book, antique, gifts, jewelry, crafts or other specialty retail business" would be considered a "Community & Regional Retail" use and yet would be appropriate for the area and would not be prohibited by the massing limitations of the Code of Development. To ensure clarity, Note 2 has been added to Table A of the Code of Development, which states, "Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015, or second, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If no definition of the use is provided (Code of Development, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance) or if there is uncertainty as to whether such use is included in the uses listed in Table A, then such use must be officially determined by the zoning administrator to be permitted in a particular Block." This Note allows the County Zoning Administrator to have oversight over those uses that might be open to differing interpretations, thereby ensuring the intent to only allow small-scale nonresidential uses. In addition, after meeting with residents of Fowler Ridge Court on April 16, 2019, Note 1 was added to Table A, which prohibits certain uses: "Notwithstanding the above, the following 'Community& Regional Retail' or 'General Commercial Service' uses shall be explicitly prohibited: entertainment or recreation establishments (or similar uses), gas stations, funeral homes and crematories, storage yards, auction houses, convenience stores, and hotels/motels." The Applicant believes four stories, or 45 feet is an appropriate scale for the surrounding area. The subject property is located across the street from two very large and tall churches, Covenant Church and City Church. In addition, the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical 2 Education Center (CATEC) is also across the street, another building with a very large massing. The property to the rear of the subject property is vacant. However, the next two buildings along Belvedere Boulevard are the new senior center and the Belvedere Reserve apartment complex. Both of these developments have very large massing. In addition, due to the grade of the adjacent property, the rear of the single-family homes along Fowler Ridge Court appear as three stories from Rio Road East. The foundations of these homes appear to sit above grade from Rio Road East, with the first and second floors above the foundation. Therefore, the subject property's maximum allowable height of is very nearly consistent with the homes on the adjacent property. The allowable building footprints are also consistent with the surrounding area. The homes along Fowler Ridge have footprints of approximately 2,500 square feet. Therefore, the subject property allows buildings equal to the footprint of only two of the homes along Fowler Ridge Court. The picture below shows a red rectangle representing the footprint of two of the single- family homes along Fowler Ridge Court, evidencing such footprint is approximately equal to 5,000 square feet, the maximum allowable building footprint on the subject property. 61.154E1 62F-313 62F2-A 2033 v ��, 999 wL ✓� o/ ti� 62F2.14 „, 1640 62F2-15 f -.,„ ~ti, 1634 62F2.16 1628 62F2-8 <1114‘.s>ckgscomazi 1622 �Ry �Na LL2 11 NCs, 62F2-10 61.1 61-153 1617 62F2-9 lz »� \ 1611 ./I i 3 The existing zoning on the property is Residential R-4, which allows for single family attached and detached units. Therefore, the existing zoning allows the construction of large single family attached units, i.e. large single building footprints, as demonstrated by the below, which shows the construction of the single family attached homes in Dunlora Park, the new residential subdivision off of Dunlora Drive, very close to the subject property. As shown below, three of these single family attached units equals approximately 8,800 square feet, which is a much larger single building footprint than the maximum allowed on the subject property. 62 F-04--1 62F-04--8 moo)fC?43 z 62F-04..7 V 62F-04--4 5017 61-1 59 �riCk, 4019 62 F-04--5 .y 0 4025 62F-04•-6 . 4031 1 - , c 4� 61.165 R a e# -ay `a s ' o 0.4' OA 62F-04--28 C , a� �� 62F-04--27 62F-04--12 62F-04--2� ,/ 62F;04-13' In addition, in Block 1, where the apartment and commercial buildings are proposed, the boundary of the subject property is 104 feet from the nearest residence. There is a 21-foot strip of land located between the Fowler Ridge development and the subject property, and there is 84 feet of dedicated greenspace (total= 104 feet). For reference, a professional basketball court is 94 feet in length. Therefore, there is substantial distance between the subject property and adjacent residences. However, notwithstanding the above, in response to feedback from the residents of Fowler Ridge Court, the maximum allowable height of the buildings in Block 1 has been reduced to 40 feet (from 4 stories to 3 stories). 3. There is not sufficient interconnectivity within the parcel. VDOT will only approve one entrance for this site. Therefore, there should be a more internal network of streets 4 and/or pathways. If the proposed single-family units will be subdivided for ownership, then they will need street frontage per Section 14. There may be possibility for amenity- oriented lots as well. Blocks 1 and 2 should have greater interconnectivity—there are not sufficient paths or streets shown to connect them. Pursuant to comments provided by VDOT and follow up conversations, VDOT will allow more than one entrance to the site. Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed connections throughout the parcel. The single-family units are intended to be subdivided for ownership/sale and therefore will meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, or if there are requirements that cannot be satisfied, the Application narrative has been updated to reflect any necessary waiver requests. 4. Interconnectivity: Is there any potential to connect to Fowler Ridge, either through a street or pedestrian connection?The deeds and surveys for this area are somewhat complex, however it appears that the County owns the strip of land between Fowler Ridge and this ZMA proposal. While a street connection would be preferred, a pedestrian connection would also enhance interconnectivity. While the ownership of an adjacent parcel was uncertain when the Application was initially submitted, the Applicant has now confirmed with the County Attorney's office that the small strip of land separating the subject property from Fowler Ridge Court is owned by the County. Therefore, a connection between the subject property and Fowler Ridge Court is possible through an offsite easement with the County. The Applicant will need to obtain a sewer easement across this same strip of land in order to develop the Property. The Applicant will reserve the right to provide a small pedestrian path along this sewer easement should the residents along Fowler Ridge Court desire such connection. However, the residents currently do not desire either a vehicular or pedestrian connection and therefore the Application Plan does not show such connection. Importantly, if the residents or other pedestrians of Fowler Ridge Court desire to walk to the subject property, they would still be able to through the existing emergency accessway off of Fowler Ridge Court that leads to the multi-use path. The Application Plan shows how the multi- use path will be extended and pedestrians will be able to access the potential businesses on the subject property off of the multiuse path. 5. Recommendation: Include access to nearby bus stops via multiuse path in narrative since this is a Neighborhood Model goal. Thank you for your suggestion. The connection to the nearby bus stop via the multiuse path has been added to the narrative. 5 6. Show more clearly on the application plan where the proposed multiuse path (MUP) connects to the existing path on Rio and the path on Belvedere Boulevard. As noted previously, Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed connections throughout the parcel, including where the proposed multiuse path connects to the existing path on Rio and Belvedere Boulevard. 7. Are the proposed greenspaces and amenity spaces public or private? Who will have access? The proposed greenspaces and amenity spaces will be private and will serve the residents of the subject property. It is possible certain amenities (such as the small dog park) could be opened to nearby residents (such as those located along Fowler Ridge Court). 8. Consider scale of proposal. Four stories or 45 feet may not be appropriate. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends up to four stories, this is somewhat of an infill development, and three stories appears to better fit the existing scale of the area. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends up to three stories for neighborhood retail, community and regional retail, and general commercial service. As stated previously, while the Applicant believes four stories or 45 feet is appropriate for the subject parcel, in response to neighborhood feedback, the Code of Development has been revised to limit buildings to three stories or 40 feet. 9. Buildings should be set closer to the street (Rio Road), if possible. Drainage easement may preclude this. Please show the exact dimensions of the drainage easement (DB 3527 PG 469) on the application plan, to show the limits of building. The Application Plan has been updated to more clearly show the existing easements on the subject property. There are two existing easements located along Rio Road East, the front of the parcel. Because of the location of these two easements, the proposed buildings must be located a certain distance off of Rio Road East. To accommodate a rectangular shape of the building, the building must sit at a certain distance from the subject property boundary due to the existing utility easements and then extend from there. Thus, this design would result in a fairly large maximum setback (please see Sheet 2 of the Application Plan for more detail). Importantly, the buildable area extends closer to the boundaries of the subject property and therefore this maximum setback will likely not occur along the entire frontage. Instead, a small bump-out of the rectangular building is likely. This will be addressed at the site plan and architectural review stages of development. 10. Maximum front setbacks of 40 feet are not consistent with Neighborhood Model principles. This may be to accommodate the drainage easement or another factor. Please include in the narrative and revise to smaller front setbacks if possible. 6 See answer to comment#9 above. 11. Include in the Code of Development any minimum or maximum lot sizes, if applicable. Otherwise add "lot size: no minimum". Table D of the Code of Development has been updated to state that there are no minimum or maximum lot sizes. 12. Include information on Section 18-4.16 recreational requirements. Will this proposal use 18-4.16 standards at site plan stage, or use different requirements? The recreational standards set out in Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance will apply to the development and shall be assessed at the site plan stage. The following note was added to the Code of Development, "Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all recreational facilities and shall be assessed at the site plan stage of development." 13. Include additional information on how greenspace and amenity areas are being calculated. It appears there is a request to reduce amenity space to 13% instead of 20%. Per definitions of "amenity" and "green space" in Section 18-3, it seems there is considerable overlap between the two types of spaces. It is not possible to tell if only 13% amenity area is being met, or if more is being met when counted as both amenity and greenspace, without additional information. Sidewalks may not count toward the total —a zoning determination would be needed. A sheet for Amenity and Greenspace has been added to the Application Plan to clarify how such areas were calculated. 14. There is a section in the Code of Development labeled "Architectural Standards and Landscape Treatment", which references the Entrance Corridor. Are there any additional architectural/landscape requirements in the COD? If not, that should be stated clearly. The Code of Development has been updated to clarify the above. It now states, "In addition to any architectural, landscape and site requirements illustrated or otherwise included in other sections of this application, the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines of Section 30.6 shall also apply, which may require features and/or treatments over and above those listed in this Code of Development." 15. Revise the Parking table on Page 3 of the Code of Development to show the range of spaces by use (as shown in narrative), and then show the total, instead of just showing the total. The range of potential required parking is provided in Table D of the Code of Development. Note 2 of Table D states, "The precise number of minimum required parking spaces shall be 7 determined at the site plan phase of development depending on density, types of residential units, and commercial uses pursuant to Section 4.12.6." Because the mixture of uses is not certain at this time, we believe the exact number of required parking per use should be addressed at the site plan stage of development. 16. Parking reduction request: Will be evaluated at the site planning stage by the Zoning Administrator. Noted. 17. Recommendation: In the Code of Development, regulate maximum building footprint, instead of square footage. The Code of Development regulates both. Table D of the Code of Development restricts allowable gross square footage to 30,000 and then specifies that the maximum allowable building footprint is further limited to 5,000 square feet. Previously the maximum allowable gross square footage was 40,000 square feet but this was reduced to 30,000 since the building height was reduced from 45 feet to 40 feet (4 to 3 stories). 18. Please clarify: the Code of Development lists two buildings in Block 1, while the narrative lists three. The narrative did not state that there will be three buildings in Block 1. It stated the Applicant envisioned "two, three-story buildings." 19. The Code of Development includes both single-family attached and townhomes. Since townhomes are a type of single-family attached, revise to just include single-family attached. Table A of the Code of Development has been revised from stating "Single Family Attached / Townhomes" to just "Single Family Attached." 20. Please clarify the frontage bui►dout regulation in the Code of Development and what the intent of this regulation is. Frontage Buildout in Table D of the Code of Development was intended to require a certain percentage of the building be constructed within the allowable setbacks. However, this has been deleted from the Code of Development as we do not believe it is a necessary restriction given the other regulations of the Application (such as the buildable area). 21. Please clarify and revise the proposed Rio Road street section. 16 feet for the street trees appears to be unnecessary; 6-8 feet would be more appropriate. The multi-use path should be 10 feet, per Transportation Planning recommendations. Please address 8 the large setback as well; this appears to be approximately 44 feet, which is above the 40-foot maximum in the Code of Development (also see Comment #11). The Rio Road street section in the Application Plan has been revised. The cross section now reflects an extension of the existing improvements along Rio Road East, which consists of 11.5 feet of asphalt and 5.5 feet of landscaping. The existing multiuse path along Belvedere Boulevard is 8 feet of asphalt and 5.5 feet of landscaping. The proposed multiuse path along Belvedere Boulevard will also match the existing improvements. As stated previously, the large setback is due to existing utility easements. The Code of Development has been updated to reflect the larger setback. 22. Revise existing conditions sheet to show ownership of Albemarle County for the emergency access easement between this parcel and Fowler Ridge. The Application Plan has been revised to state that the County is the owner of the small strip of land adjacent to the subject property. 23. In the narrative, address how the applicant would work with VDOT to improve the Belvedere/Rio intersection. For example, would the applicant coordinate with VDOT on ROW dedication, and is that potential loss of ROW considered in this application?Any additional details on meetings with and determinations from VDOT would also be helpful. The narrative has been updated accordingly. 24. Include information in the narrative on any anticipated impacts on public facilities and services (beyond traffic—e.g. schools and fire/rescue); anticipated impacts on natural/cultural/historic resources; and anticipated impacts on nearby/surrounding properties. If there are none anticipated, include that reasoning in the narrative. Due to the small size of the project, there will be no measurable impact on schools, fire/rescue, and natural/cultural/historic resources. The Applicant has coordinated with the surrounding neighborhood to ensure residents are comfortable with the allowable uses, massing, and screening requirements of the Application Plan. For instance, Note 1 of Table A was added to the Application Plan to prohibit certain uses, the allowable height was reduced from 3 to 4 stories, and the screening requirements will be approved by the adjacent homeowners' association. In addition, the Applicant believes the dedication of 8.3 feet in width of right-of-way along Belvedere Boulevard and 1.2 feet in width of right-of-way along Rio Road East for the multi-use path infrastructure, as shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of the Application Plan, is sufficient mitigation of any potential infrastructure impacts from the small sized development. 9 Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan. This classification calls for primary uses to consist of residential uses at gross densities between 6.01-34 dwelling units/acre. Secondary uses in this classification include supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. The proposed rezoning from R-4 Residential to Neighborhood Model District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. No comment necessary. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. Revised comments may be given after additional information is submitted. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met, and additional information is needed. The proposal includes extending the existing multi- use path (MUP) to connect the existing MUP along Rio Road with the MUP along Belvedere Boulevard. This promotes walkability to a mixed-use development. Additional information is needed on the location and types of pedestrian connections within the proposal. Please indicate if sidewalks will be provided internally. Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed pedestrian connections throughout the parcel. The sidewalks and paths are labeled, and cross sections are provided at the end of the Application Plan. Mixture of Uses This principle is met, and additional information is needed. Both small-scale commercial and office uses and residential uses are proposed. Block 2 is proposed to be entirely residential, while Block 1 is a mixture of residential and retail/commercial/office/institutional potential uses. Additional information is needed on the types of potential uses, as the Places29 Master Plan is too broad. 10 Reference to the definition and description of each use is included in the Code of Development. In addition, a Note to Table A has been added stating that if there is uncertainty as to whether a tenant is a certain type of use, the Zoning Administrator shall make a determination. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable. The proposal is not located in a center, however it is near several Neighborhood Service Centers. No comment necessary. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is partially met. A mixture of housing types is and Affordability proposed, including multifamily housing and single-family attached and/or detached units. While the cottage-style single-family units are assumed to be less expensive than typical larger single-family units, they are not formally affordable units. There is no guarantee they will be affordable to residents at or below 80%AMI. No comment necessary. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. Parking is relegated from Rio Road, however there is significant area between the two blocks dedicated to parking. Consider a more internal street network that provides opportunities for relegated parking. A parking reduction was requested, which supports the Neighborhood Model principle of reducing parking and sharing parking when possible. Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed connections throughout the parcel. The sidewalks and paths are labeled and cross sections are provided at the end of the Application Plan. The central location of the entrance allows the parking along such internal street to serve both Block 1 and Block 2. Sidewalks and crosswalks will allow for sufficient pedestrian connections between the blocks. Due to the small size of the parcel, it is difficult to fully relegate all parking. Interconnected Streets and This principle is partially met, and additional information is Transportation Network needed. Consider both inter- and intra-parcel connectivity. If possible, there should be a connection to Fowler Ridge — 11 which maybe a street orpedestrian connection, depending p g on feasibility and community preference. More information is needed on the types of pedestrian connections within the parcel, and how the two blocks will be connected. See above. In addition, the community has expressed a desire not to have any connections from the subject property to Fowler Ridge Court. However, a pedestrian connection will be reserved across the County p p Y ro ert in case one is desired in the future. Multimodal Transportation This principle is met and additional information is needed. Opportunities The existing MUP is being extended, which should be shown more clearly on the application plan. More information in internal pedestrian connections is needed. Recommendation to include access to Bus Route 11 in the narrative, as this access contributes to this principle. The existing size of the MUP was measured. It is 8' along Belvedere Boulevard and 11' along Rio Road East. Therefore, the Application Plan has been updated to match the existing measurements of the MUP so as to provide continuity. Parks, Recreational This principle is met and additional information is needed. Amenities, and Open Space There is not sufficient information to determine if an amenity space reduction request is required, as there is overlap with the greenspace requirements. The variety of green and amenity spaces contributes to the character of the proposal and provides future residents with multiple options for recreation. A green space and amenities sheet has been added to the Application Plan. The Applicant has determined a reduction in amenity space is no longer necessary. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is partially met. The scale of Block 2 Human Scale (residential/cottages) is appropriate for the location and context. However, the proposed building height of four stories in Block 1 does not appear to meet the scale of the area. A commercial and residential building for the area contributes to a mixed-use environment. A three-story building would better fit the context. See ARB comment as well. 12 See earlier analysis on massing. In addition, the allowable height was revised from 45 feet to 40 feet (4 to 3 stories). Redevelopment This principle is met.The existing structures on the property will not be preserved, in order to create a more cohesive development with a density within the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. This can be considered an infill development, given that this is an underutilized parcel surrounded by existing development. No comment necessary. Respecting Terrain and This principle is met. Applicant will need to address related Careful Grading and ARB comment on retaining walls at rear of property. Regrading of Terrain Noted. Clear Boundaries between This principle is not applicable. The proposal is located well the Development Areas and within the Development Areas. the Rural Area No comment necessary. Engineering (Frank Pohl) 1. Turnarounds for emergency vehicles may be required at the end of each parking area. Fire rescue stated this will be addressed during the site plan process. Noted. 2. Existing drainage easements and infrastructure may need to be relocated to accommodate proposed buildings at the corner of Rio Rd and Belvedere Blvd. Due to the existing utility easements, the buildings in Block 1 are setback from Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard a sufficient distance so as not to interfere with such easements and existing utilities. 3. It is very difficult for me to make out the existing roadway improvements (i.e. curb/gutter line, EOP, entrance across Belvedere Blvd.). Please provide a line at the EOP or modify the hatching to provide better contrast on the rendered drawings. The Application Plan has been updated to provide better visuals of the existing easements, including the dimensions of such easements. 13 4. Provide distances to proposed entrances from Rio Road. The Application Plan has been updated to provide the distances from the two proposed entrances off of Belvedere Boulevard, and the distance of the first entrance from Rio Road East. 5. Show drainage easements on proposed plans. A zoomed-in section of the utility easements on the subject property was added to the Application Plan. 6. Will the need for a dumpster in both blocks affect parking? This will be addressed at the site plan stage of development. 7. The County prefers onsite treatment (or at least some %) versus purchasing of offsite nutrient credits. Address quality requirements in the stormwater narrative. Note 5 was added to Table D of the Code of Development, which states, "The Applicant shall be required to provide onsite treatment of 25% of the required stormwater treatment. Such techniques of treatment shall include pervious pavers, micro bio-retention, or other approved measures." 8. County GIS shows a wedge-shaped parcel (62G-01—A) owned by the Belvedere Neighborhood Association between the subject parcel and the Belvedere Blvd right-of- way. If the County GIS mapping is correct, an easement or land transfer will be needed for the northern entrance. If the parcel is shown correctly on County GIS, please correct the plan sheets to show this parcel. Please confirm. As stated in the narrative, there is a small triangular shaped parcel located between the subject property and Belvedere Boulevard that is labeled in the County's GIS as currently owned by the Belvedere Neighborhood Association, Inc. The parcel is a small portion of County tax map parcel 062G0-01-00-000A0. However, pursuant to that certain Certificate of Take dated December 5, 2007, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the County Circuit Court in Deed Book 3617, page 633 (which was enclosed with the original application submission), this parcel was taken by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for Belvedere Boulevard right-of- way. Therefore, the Applicant is able to provide a vehicular accessway through this right-of- way to/from the proposed cottage units to/from Belvedere Boulevard. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. Site access, water supply and other fire code related items will be addressed during the site plan process. It should be noted that if the buildings are to exceed thirty feet in height that travel ways 14 along one contiguous side of the building will have to be 26' of unobstructed width. SNM No comment necessary. Zoning (Francis MacCall) 1. Under Table A: the following language is suggested for uses not listed. "Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance or second, in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If no definition of the use is provided in any of the three noted documents (Code of Development, Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan) then such use must be officially determined by the zoning administrator to e permitted in a particular Block." You may provide alternative language to consider addressing uses. Note 2 was added to Table A of the Code of Development, "Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015, or second, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If no definition of the use is provided (Code of Development, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance) or if there is uncertainty as to whether such use is included in the uses listed in Table A, then such use must be officially determined by the zoning administrator to be permitted in a particular Block." 2. Provided Accessory Uses as BR in both the Residential and Non-Residential Sections. Accessory Uses was added as "BR" in both the Residential and Non-Residential Sections. 3. In Table C, it is not clear what the percentages shown are of the area for each block and the total wins up being confusing. I figured it out, but the numbers could be better defined that the percentages are from the 0.91 acres for Block 1 and the 1.037 acres for Block 2. Table C has been updated to more clearly state that the percentages of amenity and green space were calculated based on the Block 1 and 2 acreages. 4. Note 1 in Table D references build to lines. This note in Table D should be revised to be referenced as setbacks as there is no listed build to lines and only references setbacks. Note 1 of Table D of the Code of Development has been revised accordingly. 5. Parking— Note #2 under Table D references that the requirements of 4.12.6 will apply. Section 20A5e of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance allows you to establish all requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated per subsection 15 20A.5a. Surface parking is considered an accessory use to the primary uses listed in the table. Please consider outlining separate parking numbers for the proposed uses per this section and show that in a Use Requirements and Restrictions section of your proposed Code. To that end, please be mindful that the conceptual plan may not currently show enough surface parking for certain mixture of uses even with a shared parking agreement between different uses (residential and non-residential). Please make it clear with a statement in the Code that parking may limit the establishment of some uses that historically require large amounts of parking and that uses will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The following has been added to Note 3 of Table D, "Minimum parking requirements may restrict some uses that historically require large amounts of parking." The Applicant believes the precise number of required parking should be determined at the site plan stage of development when the specific tenant/ use is more likely to be known. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. Revise the Block 1 buildable area to extend along the full length of Rio Road East and Belvedere Blvd., relegating parking to the interior of the site. Due to the small size of the subject property, it is difficult to meet the County recommendations for a mixture of uses and use types as well as relegate all required parking. The Applicant believes parking is sufficiently relegated. The very small portion of parking along Rio Road East will be screened from the road and will likely be addressed when the Application is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. 2. A planting strip for large shade trees will be needed on the perimeter of all parking areas. Noted. 3. Proposed grading is shown inside the Block 1 buildable area on the plan. The pedestrian connection is shown inside Block 1 buildable area. The section shows street trees and path in the right-of-way. Coordinate the plans with the section regarding street edge, path and slope up to the building. More detail has been provided on the Application Plan. 4. The site is described as mostly flat, but a retaining wall is shown at the rear of the site. Organize the development to eliminate the need for the retaining wall. Ensure there is sufficient planting area along the northeast side of the site. 16 The retaining wall is necessary given the small size of the parcel. The amount of grading is still minimal. There is sufficient planting area along the northeast side of the site. In addition, sufficient screening can be achieved through fencing rather than large vegetative buffers. 5. The design of the 3-4-story building will need to carefully address scale and massing, not just in relation to the EC street, but also in relation to surrounding development. Compatibility without an over-scaled appearance will be required. Noted. See earlier analysis regarding massing compatibility. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. The entrances as shown may not meet Access Management regulations. In particular corner clearance, shared commercial entrances and interparcel access standards do not appear to be met. Furthermore, the County may desire to view Belvedere Boulevard as a collector road based on planned growth. This would introduce spacing standards. The entrance to the site is 222.5 feet from the Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard intersection and the two entrances are 230.64 feet from each other. Therefore, the entrances meet the VDOT requirements to be 215 feet from the intersection and 225 feet apart. These requirements assume Belvedere Boulevard would be considered a collector road. 2. Recommend sidewalk connectivity from Rio Road East onto Belvedere Boulevard. Sidewalk connectivity is provided. 3. Right of Way dedication may be needed on Belvedere Boulevard to accommodate shared use path and sidewalk. Noted. ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. Please see attached comments. No comment necessary. Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. No Objection. No comment necessary. RWSA (Victoria Fort) 17 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: None Known No comment necessary. 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification: Yes, X No No comment necessary. 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: None Known No comment necessary. 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (use attachments if necessary): RWSA approval will be required for any proposed connections or other impacts to the existing RWSA transmission main on site. Noted. 5. A flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. Noted. Transportation Planning (Daniel Butch) 1. Shared-Use Path should be 10ft asphalt (or match existing 9 ft Shared-Use Path if less than 10ft) connecting Rio Rd E and Belvedere Blvd. The cross section of the shared-use path has been updated and will match the existing paths that end along Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard. 2. Internal pedestrian paths should connect to Shared-Use Path avoiding the need to utilize parking area for pedestrians. Sheet 4 of the Application Plan (Proposed Circulation) has been updated to better articulate the proposed connections throughout the parcel. The sidewalks and paths are labeled and cross sections are provided at the end of the Application Plan. 3. Provide vehicular connectivity to Fowler Ridge if possible- which will be turned over to VDOT as public. Provide pedestrian connectivity prior to turn over. Based on feedback from the residents of Fowler Ridge Court, we do not believe a vehicular connection from the subject parcel to Fowler Ridge Court should be made. However, we will preserve the possibility of constructing a pedestrian connection if it is desired in the future. 18 4. Note that the intersection of Belvedere Blvd & Rio Rd E is being studied for long term planning improvements which could result in a potential R-cut or Roundabout improvements with potential Right-of-Way. Noted. If such improvements were to be recommended by VDOT, due to the utility easements along the Rio Road East frontage of the parcel, the proposed site layout would allow for any right-of-way dedication that may be necessary. Enclosed Resubmittal Application Form Staff Comment Letter dated April 5, 2019 Revised Application Plan dated April 29, 2019 Updated Narrative dated April 29, 2019 Boundary Survey 19 .4.0V ALg,, 4r , V®Qtio COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 April 5, 2019 Nicole Scro Gallifrey Enterprises 912 East High Street, Suite C Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-218-0513 RE: ZMA201900001—999 Rio Road Dear Ms. Scro: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900001, 999 Rio Road.We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Review comments are provided below, organized by department or agency: Planning Comments (Tori Kanellopoulos) 1. Provide additional information about the types of pedestrian connections proposed through the parcel. What types of paths or sidewalks are these? Please note that if the single-family units are going to be subdivided for ownership/sale, then Section 14 (subdivision ordinance) sidewalk requirements will apply. • 2. More definition of the proposed uses is needed. For example, what does retail include? What does general commercial service include? Uses need to be at an appropriate scale for this location.The Places29 Master Plan includes uses in these categories that would not be appropriate for the area. For example, commercial/regional retail includes big box stores.All permitted uses should be specifically listed.The Master Plan only includes examples. 3. There is not sufficient interconnectivity within the parcel.VDOT will only approve one entrance for this site.Therefore, there should be a more internal network of streets • and/or pathways. If the proposed single-family units will be subdivided for ownership, then they will need street frontage per Section 14.There may be possibility for amenity- oriented lots as well. Blocks 1 and 2 should have greater interconnectivity—there are not sufficient paths or streets shown to connect them. 4. Interconnectivity: Is there any potential to connect to Fowler Ridge, either through a street or pedestrian connection?The deeds and surveys for this area are somewhat complex, however it appears that the County owns the strip of land between Fowler Ridge and this ZMA proposal.While a street connection would be preferred, a pedestrian connection would also enhance interconnectivity. 5. Recommendation: Include access to nearby bus stops via multiuse path in narrative since this is a Neighborhood Model goal. 6. Show more clearly on the application plan where the proposed multiuse path (MUP) connects to the existing path on Rio and the path on Belvedere Boulevard. 7. Are the proposed greenspaces and amenity spaces public or private?Who will have access? 8. Consider scale of proposal. Four stories or 45 feet may not be appropriate. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends up to four stories, this is somewhat of an infill development, and three stories appears to better fit the existing scale of the area.The Comprehensive Plan also recommends up to three stories for neighborhood retail, community and regional retail, and general commercial service. 9. Buildings should be set closer to the street (Rio Road), if possible. Drainage easement may preclude this. Please show the exact dimensions of the drainage easement (DB 3527 PG 469) on the application plan,to show the limits of building. 10. Maximum front setbacks of 40 feet are not consistent with Neighborhood Model principles.This may be to accommodate the drainage easement or another factor. Please include in the narrative and revise to smaller front setbacks if possible. 11. Include in the Code of Development any minimum or maximum lot sizes, if applicable. Otherwise add "lot size: no minimum". 12. Include information on Section 18-4.16 recreational requirements. Will this proposal use 18-4.16 standards at site plan stage, or use different requirements? 13. Include additional information on how greenspace and amenity areas are being calculated. It appears there is a request to reduce amenity space to 13%instead of 20%. Per definitions of"amenity" and "green space" in Section 18-3, it seems there is considerable overlap between the two types of spaces. It is not possible to tell if only 13% amenity area is being met, or if more is being met when counted as both amenity and greenspace, without additional information. Sidewalks may not count toward the total—a zoning determination would be needed. 14.There is a section in the Code of Development labeled "Architectural Standards and Landscape Treatment",which references the Entrance Corridor. Are there any additional architectural/landscape requirements in the COD? If not, that should be stated clearly. 15. Revise the Parking table on Page 3 of the Code of Development to show the range of spaces by use (as shown in narrative), and then show the total, instead of just showing the total. 16. Parking reduction request: Will be evaluated at the site planning stage by the Zoning Administrator. 17. Recommendation: In the Code of Development, regulate maximum building footprint, instead of square footage. 18. Please clarify: the Code of Development lists two buildings in Block 1, while the narrative lists three. 19. The Code of Development includes both single-family attached and townhomes. Since townhomes are a type of single-family attached, revise to just include single-family attached. 20. Please clarify the frontage buildout regulation in the Code of Development and what the intent of this regulation is. 21. Please clarify and revise the proposed Rio Road street section. 16 feet for the street trees appears to be unnecessary; 6-8 feet would be more appropriate. The multi-use path should be 10 feet, per Transportation Planning recommendations. Please address the large setback as well;this appears to be approximately 44 feet, which is above the 40 foot maximum in the Code of Development (also see Comment#11). 22. Revise existing conditions sheet to show ownership of Albemarle County for the emergency access easement between this parcel and Fowler Ridge. 23. In the narrative, address how the applicant would work with VDOT to improve the Belvedere/Rio intersection. For example,would the applicant coordinate with VDOT on ROW dedication, and is that potential loss of ROW considered in this application?Any additional details on meetings with and determinations from VDOT would also be helpful. 24. Include information in the narrative on any anticipated impacts on public facilities and services (beyond traffic—e.g. schools and fire/rescue); anticipated impacts on natural/cultural/historic resources; and anticipated impacts on nearby/surrounding properties. If there are none anticipated, include that reasoning in the narrative. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan.This classification calls for primary uses to consist of residential uses at gross densities between 6.01-34 dwelling units/acre. Secondary uses in this classification include supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.The proposed rezoning from R-4 Residential to Neighborhood Model District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. Revised comments may be given after additional information is submitted. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met, and additional information is needed.The proposal includes extending the existing multi- use path (MUP)to connect the existing MUP along Rio Road with the MUP along Belvedere Boulevard.This promotes walkability to a mixed-use development.Additional information is needed on the location and types of pedestrian connections within the proposal. Please indicate if sidewalks will be provided internally. Mixture of Uses This principle is met, and additional information is needed. Both small-scale commercial and office uses and residential uses are proposed. Block 2 is proposed to be entirely residential,while Block 1 is a mixture of residential and retail/commercial/office/institutional potential uses. Additional information is needed on the types of potential uses, as the Places29 Master Plan is too broad. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable.The proposal is not located in a center, however it is near several Neighborhood Service Centers. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is partially met. A mixture of housing types is and Affordability proposed, including multifamily housing and single-family attached and/or detached units. While the cottage-style single-family units are assumed to be less expensive than typical larger single-family units, they are not formally affordable units.There is no guarantee they will be affordable to residents at or below 80%AMI. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. Parking is relegated from Rio Road, however there is significant area between the two blocks dedicated to parking. Consider a more internal street network that provides opportunities for relegated parking. A parking reduction was requested,which supports the Neighborhood Model principle of reducing parking and sharing parking when possible. Interconnected Streets and This principle is partially met, and additional information is Transportation Network needed. Consider both inter-and intra-parcel connectivity. If possible,there should be a connection to Fowler Ridge— which may be a street or pedestrian connection, depending on feasibility and community preference. More information is needed on the types of pedestrian connections within the parcel, and how the two blocks will be connected. Multimodal Transportation This principle is met and additional information is needed. Opportunities The existing MUP is being extended, which should be shown more clearly on the application plan. More information in internal pedestrian connections is needed. Recommendation to include access to Bus Route 11 in the narrative, as this access contributes to this principle. Parks, Recreational This principle is met and additional information is needed. Amenities, and Open Space There is not sufficient information to determine if an amenity space reduction request is required, as there is overlap with the greenspace requirements.The variety of green and amenity spaces contributes to the character of the proposal and provides future residents with multiple options for recreation. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is partially met.The scale of Block 2 Human Scale (residential/cottages) is appropriate for the location and context. However, the proposed building height of four stories in Block 1 does not appear to meet the scale of the area. A commercial and residential building for the area contributes to a mixed-use environment. A three-story building would better fit the context. See ARB comment as well. Redevelopment This principle is met. The existing structures on the property will not be preserved, in order to create a more cohesive development with a density within the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. This can be considered an infill development, given that this is an underutilized parcel surrounded by existing development. Respecting Terrain and This principle is met. Applicant will need to address related Careful Grading and ARB comment on retaining walls at rear of property. Regrading of Terrain Clear Boundaries between This principle is not applicable.The proposal is located well the Development Areas and within the Development Areas. the Rural Area Engineering(Frank Pohl) 1. Pending Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. Site access, water supply and other fire code related items will be addressed during the site plan process. It should be noted that if the buildings are to exceed thirty feet in height that travel ways along one contiguous side of the building will have to be 26' of unobstructed width. SNM Zoning(Francis MacCall) 1. Please see attached comments. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. Revise the Block 1 buildable area to extend along the full length of Rio Road East and Belvedere Blvd., relegating parking to the interior of the site. 2. A planting strip for large shade trees will be needed on the perimeter of all parking areas. 3. Proposed grading is shown inside the Block 1 buildable area on the plan.The pedestrian connection is shown inside Block 1 buildable area. The section shows street trees and path in the right-of-way. Coordinate the plans with the section regarding street edge, path and slope up to the building. 4. The site is described as mostly flat, but a retaining wall is shown at the rear of the site. Organize the development to eliminate the need for the retaining wall. Ensure there is sufficient planting area along the northeast side of the site. 5. The design of the 3-4-story building will need to carefully address scale and massing, not just in relation to the EC street, but also in relation to surrounding development. Compatibility without an over-scaled appearance will be required. VDOT'(Adam Moore) 1. Please see attached comments. ACSA(Richard Nelson) 1. Please see attached comments. Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. No Objection. RWSA(Victoria Fort) 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) RWSA approval will be required for any proposed connections or other impacts to the existing RWSA transmission main on site. 5. A flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. Transportation Planning(Daniel Butch) 1. Shared-Use Path should be 10ft asphalt (or match existing 9 ft Shared-Use Path if less than 10ft) connecting Rio Rd E.and Belvedere Blvd. 2. Internal pedestrian paths should connect to Shared-Use Path avoiding the need to utilize parking area for pedestrians. 3. Provide vehicular connectivity to Fowler Ridge if possible-which will be turned over to VDOT as public. Provide pedestrian connectivity prior to turn over. 4. Note that the intersection of Belvedere Blvd & Rio Rd E is being studied for long term planning improvements which could result in a potential R-cut or Roundabout improvements with potential Right-of-Way. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at Notification and Advertisement Fees Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. • Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3270. Sincerely, Tori Kanellopoulos Planner Department of Community Development enc: Action After Receipt of Comments VDOT,ACSA, and Zoning Review Comments Resubmittal Application • ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for _x ,water _x_sewer water to existing structures only not in jurisdictional area. 2. Distance to the closest water line-if in the development area is on site feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is_125 feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification_x_Yes No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal 7. Red flags"regarding service provision(Use attachments if necessary) _RWSA transmission main is on site. RWSA approval will be required. Callout abandonment of existing water meter during site plan review. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,Virginia 22701 Stephen C.Brich,P.E. Commissioner April02,2019 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Tori Kanellopoulos Re: DMA 2019-00001 Rio Road East-Rezoning Review#2 Dear Ms.Kanellopoulos: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation &Land Use Section has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shiinp Engineering, dated 19 February 2019, and offers the following comments:. 1. The entrances as shown may not meet Access Management regulations. In particular corner clearance, shared commercial entrances and inter parcel access standards do not appear to be met. Furthermore, the County,may desire to view Belvedere Blvd., as a collector road based on planned growth. This would introduce spacing standards. 2. Recommend sidewalk connectivity from Rio road east onto Belvedere Boulevard. 3. Right of Way dedication maybe needed on Belvedere Boulevard to accommodate shared use path and sidewalk. If further information is desired,please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. Sincerely, l Adam J. oore,P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency • oF ._ toe.� . jp �IRGINtA County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Tori Kanellopoulos From: Francis MacCall Division: Zoning Date: 04/03/2019 Subject: Initial Review Comments for ZMA2019-00001 999 Rio Rd E The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application. 1. General Development Plan a. No comment 2. Code of Development a. Under Table A: The following language is suggested for uses not listed. "Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance or second, in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If no definition of the use is provided in any of the three noted documents (Code of Development, Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan)then such use must be officially determined by the zoning administrator to be permitted in a particular Block." You may provide alternative language to consider addressing uses. b. Provided Accessory Uses as BR in both the Residential and Non-Residential sections. c. In Table C it is not clear what the percentages shown are of the area for each block and the totals wind up being confusing. I figured it out, but the numbers could be better defined that the percentages are from the :91 acres for Block 1 and the 1.037 acres for Block 2 d. Note 1 in Table D references build to lines. This note in Table D should be revised to be referenced as setbacks as there is no listed build to lines and only references setbacks. ' Zoning Review Comments for ZMA201900001 e. Parking — Note#2 under Table D references that the requirements of 4.12.6 will apply. Section 20A5e of the ACZO allows you to establish all requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated per subsection 20A.5(a). Surface parking is considered an accessory use to the primary uses listed in the table. Please consider outlining separate parking numbers for the proposed uses per this section and show that in a Use Requirements and Restrictions section of your proposed Code. To that end please be mindful that the conceptual plan may not currently show enough surface parking for certain mixture of uses even with a shared parking agreement between different uses (residential and nonresidential). Please make it clear with a statement in the Code that parking may limit the establishment of some uses that historically require large amounts of parking and that uses will be evaluated on a case by case basis. e Application Narrative February 19,2019 999 Rio Road East Rezoning Updated April 29,2019 Updated information is provided in red. PROJECT PROPOSAL Basic Overview—Public Need or Benefit: Tax Map Parcel Owner Acreage Zoning Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation 06100-00-00-154B0 Windmill 1.91 R-4 Urban Density Ventures LLC Residential On behalf of Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC, the contract purchaser of property designated on the County of Albemarle, Virginia(the "County") tax maps as parcel 06100-00-00-154B0 and having an address of 999 Rio Road East(the"Property"), we propose to rezone the Property from Residential R-4 to a Neighborhood Model District (NMD). The Property contains approximately 2 acres. We propose designating the acre fronting Rio Road East for mixed-use, with the rear acre designated solely for residential. We envision the mixed-use portion of the redevelopment to consist of two, three-story buildings with 5,000 square foot footprints (15,000 gross square feet). One building will contain approximately 12 small, one-and two- bedroom units. The second building will consist of 8 additional units on the second and third floors, with the remaining 5,000 square feet on the first floor designated for commercial. The commercial space will likely consist of professional offices and/or a small café. The design of the mixed-use portion of the Property will be dependent upon the eventual tenant(s). Therefore, we would like to maintain flexibility to adapt to a variety of potential users. Thus, we propose ranges for the proposed residential density and commercial space within the mixed-use portion of the Property: residential density of 8 to 32 units and commercial space between 500 and 5,000 square feet,with the exception of allowing up to 10,000 square feet of commercial if it is specifically designated for office space. Due to the possibility that no commercial users would be interested in the Property, the required minimum amount of commercial in the mixed-use block has been reduced from 500 square feet to 0 square feet. Similarly, we envision the residential portion of the Property to consist of 10-12, small 800 to 1,700 square foot, single family detached "cottage"units; however, we request flexibility to adapt to the market. Therefore, we propose 8-14 single family units—detached or attached. The Property is surrounded by some residences—mostly from the Belvedere and Dunlora subdivisions. We believe the eventual commercial users will provide neighborhood services to such residences, as well as the residents of the Property itself. The Property is also situated in close proximity to several religious institutions and across the street from the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center(CATEC). The commercial users will likely also serve 1 visitors, students and employees of CATEC and the surrounding religious institutions as well. Therefore,the proposal will complement and look to serve surrounding properties and communities. In response to neighborhood feedback, we have revised the Code of Development to prohibit certain uses. The following Note 1 of Table A has been added, "Notwithstanding the above,the following `Community& Regional Retail' or `General Commercial Service' uses shall be explicitly prohibited: entertainment or recreation establishments (or similar uses), gas stations, funeral homes and crematories, storage yards, auction houses, convenience stores,and hotels/motels." The intent of the small "cottage"units is to provide less expensive, single family detached homes. Currently, the Charlottesville-Albemarle market has a very limited number of newly constructed single family detached homes that are affordable to the"middle market"buyer. As of February 19, 2019, according to Zillow, there are 44 single family detached homes for sale with a Charlottesville address that are at or under$350,000. Of those, only two were constructed within the previous 3 years. Consistent with national trends, the Charlottesville-Albemarle market has a clear"missing middle." To afford a home for$350,000, assuming typical mortgage terms of a 20%down payment($70,000) and an interest rate of 4.5% over 30 years,to avoid spending more than 30% of one's income on housing, a family must have an annual income of at least $68,000 to afford a$350,000 home. According to the Census American Community Survey (ACS) yearly surveys,the median household income for the Charlottesville,Virginia metro area was $66,853 in 2017. The intent is for the cottage units to serve the needs of the median household in the area, where there is currently a clear unmet need. As of April 29, 2019, according to Zillow, there are 32 single family detached homes for sale with a Charlottesville address that are at or under$350,000. Of those, only one was constructed within the previous 3 years. In addition, since the first submittal of the Application,the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission(TJPDC)has provided a regional housing assessment (the "Housing Assessment"). The Housing Assessment revealed several pertinent statistics and conclusions: • There is definitively a housing affordability crisis in the area. o 8,990 Urban Renters (City of Charlottesville and Development Areas of Albemarle County)pay more than 30%of their incomes for housing costs o 2,560 Urban Homeowners pay more than 50% of their incomes for housing costs • High housing costs in the Urban Areas are causing households to rent or purchase in surrounding localities and commute to work. o 1,400 workers commute to Charlottesville or Albemarle from Augusta County alone 2 o Assuming a cost of approximately 0.58 cents per mile paid 20 days out of the month, commutes can cost between$348 to $766 per month depending on the distance(commuting from Lake Monticello versus Lovingston) o Commutes have an environmental impact from the exhaust of increased cars. Commutes also result in less involvement in communities and time away from families. • There is a need for new, smaller,more affordable housing in the Urban Areas. o The cottages are intended to sell for between$280,000 and $380,000—according to the Housing Assessment, an Affordable Unit Purchase Price for households who make 100%of the area median income are: $298,000 for one person, $344,000 for two people, and$384,000 for three people. Therefore,the cottages will meet the needs of those intended: the"middle market"buyer. o The Housing Assessment states, "Zoning ordinances that specify the number of units per acre,rather than a Floor Area Ratio that relates the amount of space to the amount of land, incentivize units that are larger and typically more expensive." It also states, "Zoning by the number of units per acre is a disincentive to building smallertmore affordable units." By rezoning the Property,the Applicant is able to overcome this disincentive. o Households are relatively small—63.1%of all households in the region had only one or two persons in 2010 and the average household size in 2018 was 2.45 persons. In addition to the other revisions noted herein,the following updates have also been made to the Code of Development: • The front, side and rear setbacks have been modified from 10', 8' and 0' to 5', 3' and 10', respectively. While the front and side setbacks have been reduced,the rear setback has been increased. The reason for the larger rear setback is because the layout of the units is such that the rear of the units abuts either Belvedere Boulevard or existing residences along Fowler Ridge Court and Shephard's Ridge. Therefore,the rear setback will provide an additional buffer between the Property and such existing residences. • A restriction related to"Ground Floor Ceiling Height"has been removed. If the Applicant constructs commercial space in Block 1, it will be required to provide ceiling heights per building code. However, it is uncertain whether this location is viable for commercial uses. The area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as"Urban Density Residential,"which allows for and encourages mixed-use designs (of neighborhood- scale), however, it does not require such designs. Importantly, even if the Property were to be developed without commercial uses, it would still provide a mixture of housing types at the recommended density, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3 • Certain stormwater management facilities and other standard utilities have been added as permitted uses in Table A. Intent of Neighborhood Model District: According to Section 20A.1 of the County Code,the purpose of the Neighborhood Model District is "to encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics: • Pedestrian orientation; • Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; • Interconnected streets and transportation networks; • Parks and open space as amenities; • Neighborhood centers; • Buildings and spaces of human scale; • Relegated parking; • Mixture of uses and use types; • Mixture of housing types and affordability; • Redevelopment; • Site planning that respects terrain; and • Clear boundaries with the rural areas." In addition, "the NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other..." Importantly, according to Section 20A.2(b), "an application is not necessarily required to possess every characteristic of the Neighborhood Model ...in order to be approved as an NMD." The County Code continues, "the size of the proposed district, its relationship to a larger neighborhood, or other similar factors may prevent the application from possessing every characteristic." As noted by the County Code, the small size of the Property and its proximity to nearby residences may prevent the proposed development from containing certain NMD characteristics. However, a rezoning of the Property to NMD is still warranted in order to achieve a mixture of uses and use types. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Property's land use designation is Urban Density Residential,which calls for density between 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density ranges from approximately 8 to 24 dwelling units per acre (8-14 units within the residential and 8-32 units within the mixed- use portion of the Property). Therefore, the proposed residential density is consistent with the Property's land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 In addition, the Urban Density Residential land use designation calls for a maximum building height of 4 stories or 45 feet, with two or more housing types preferred in each development. We are proposing two, three-story buildings—with the flexibility to increase the height of such buildings limited to four stories. In addition,we are proposing two housing types: single family and multifamily units. In response to neighborhood feedback,we have revised the maximum allowable height from 4 stories to 3 stories (45 feet to 40 feet). Neighborhood, Community&Regional Retail, Office/R&D/Flex, Institutional, and General Commercial Service are secondary land uses in the Urban Density Residential land use designation, with a limitation on retail-only single-building footprints of 5,000 square feet. Per Table A, only the uses listed above that are secondary uses within Urban Density Residential are allowed on the Property. In addition, per Table B of the Code of Development, retail uses are limited to 5,000 square feet. Therefore,the commercial space within the mixed-use portion of the Property is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As stated earlier, in response to neighborhood feedback, we have revised the Code of Development to prohibit certain uses. The following Note 1 of Table A has been added, "Notwithstanding the above, the following `Community& Regional Retail' or `General Commercial Service' uses shall be explicitly prohibited: entertainment or recreation establishments (or similar uses), gas stations, funeral homes and crematories, storage yards, auction houses, convenience stores, and hotels/motels." The applicable Parks and Green Systems Map shows a multi-use path extending along the front of Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard, linking the Property to the Rivanna Trail. Our Application Plan shows such extension, consistent with the Parks and Green Systems Map of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Bus Route 11 is accessible from the multi-use path,thereby allowing pedestrian connectivity from the Property to public transportation. The proposal also achieves other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as, Objective 4 of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan, which states, "Provide for a variety of housing types of all income levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas." As stated earlier, allowing smaller-sized, single family detached housing, enables the construction of a less expensive housing product type—meeting the needs of an underserved section of the community. Characteristics of Neighborhood Model Districts: • Pedestrian orientation; As noted above,the proposal consists of extending the existing multi-use path, linking the Property to the extensive Rivanna Trail network. This 5 will allow residents of the development easy access to this extensive trail network as well as the parks and green spaces located along such trails. In addition, Bus Route 11 is accessible from the multi-use path. Therefore,the Property provides pedestrian accessibility to public transportation. • Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; The extension of the multi-use path, noted above, will also contribute to the eventual connection of the Rivanna Trail to the Belvedere subdivision, allowing such residents to enjoy walkable access as well. There is very little internal street network due to the small size of the Property. • Interconnected streets and transportation networks; As noted above, there is very little internal street network due to the small size of the Property. The extended multi-use path does provide connection to the Rivanna Trail and Belvedere subdivision. There is a small 20-foot strip of property owned by Bondstone Ventures, LLC, successor to Robert Hauser Homes, Inc., located between the Property and the subdivision on Fowler Ridge Court. Therefore, the project cannot connect to such residences. It has since been determined that this small 20-foot strip of property is owned by the County. However,upon discussing the project with the surrounding neighborhood, it was determined that no connection is desired. If pedestrians wish to walk from Fowler Ridge Court to the development,they are able to do so via an existing emergency accessway that extends from the Fowler Ridge Court cul-de-sac to the multi-use path along Rio Road East. Therefore,the residents of Fowler Ridge Court can still easily walk to the development, if they desire. In addition, a certain amount of control over the required screening between the development and Fowler Ridge Court was given to the residents living along such road. Note 4 was added to Table D, which states, "Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.7, the parking areas along the southeastern boundary of the subject property are required to be screened. In addition to Section 32.7.9.7(b), the 6 Applicant shall provide three different reasonable types of screening options to the Shephard's Ridge Homeowners' Association which consists of the residents who live immediately adjacent to the Property. At minimum, at least one such option shall include a fence up to seven-feet in height. By a majority vote at a duly authorized meeting of the members of the homeowners' association, the association shall choose one of the three options provided. Such meeting shall be called within thirty(30)days of receipt of written notice from the Applicant and/or its assigns. In addition, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If the Applicant does not receive a response within thirty (30)days of receipt of the Applicant's written notice to the applicable homeowners' association, such lack of response shall be considered an approval." In addition, Bus Route 11 is accessible from the multi-use path. Therefore,the Property provides pedestrian accessibility to public transportation. • Parks and open space as amenities; The proposal consists of a shared common open space on the residential- only portion of the Property. Such common space will include landscaping to shelter quiet spaces to read or gather, as well as natural playscapes. The area between the apartments and entrance to the Property in the mixed-use block will be landscaped and usable for a small dog park. In addition, within the mixed-use portion of the Property,the space at the corner of the 5,000 square foot buildings will be used as a plaza serving the residential and commercial tenants. • Neighborhood centers; Not applicable. The Property is not located at a"Center." • Buildings and spaces of human scale; The buildings will likely be three-stories. Per Table B of the Code of Development, buildings on the Property are restricted to a maximum of four-stories and 45 feet, consistent with a human scale development. 7 In response to neighborhood feedback, we have revised the maximum allowable height from 4 stories to 3 stories(45 feet to 40 feet). • Relegated parking; The parking is relegated to behind the buildings fronting Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road East. The streetscape along Belvedere Boulevard will consist entirely of building frontage and/or greenspace. • Mixture of uses and use types; The proposed redevelopment consists of commercial space, multifamily units, and single-family units thereby achieving the goal of a mixture of uses and use types. • Mixture of housing types and affordability; The proposed redevelopment consists of multifamily and single-family units. The single-family units are intended to be less expensive than the average home on the market in the area—see"Basic Overview—Pubic Need or Benefit" above. • Redevelopment; The Property currently consists of an abandoned single family dwelling and shed. We propose to redevelop the Property into a mixed-use development with various uses and housing types. • Site planning that respects terrain; and The Property is mostly flat and therefore redevelopment will involve very little land disturbance. • Clear boundaries with the rural areas Not Applicable. The Property is not nearby the boundary between the rural and development areas. According to Section 20A.9(a)(4) and (b)(4), the minimum area devoted to green space and amenity space may be reduced by the Board of Supervisors. When making such reduction, the 8 Board shall consider: (1) the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas, and amenities, (2)the known future uses of the adjoining properties; and (3) whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Per Table C of the Code of Development, 20% green space is proposed, meeting the requirements of Section 20A.9(a)(4). However, only 13% of the Property is available for amenity space. We would like to request a reduction to allow the percentages of amenity space noted in Table C of the Code of Development. As noted previously, the extension of the multi-use path would allow residents of the development access to the Rivanna Trail and the parks and green space along such network. Nearby parks connected by this trail include McIntire Park, with amble recreational fields and courts, skate park, and proposed botanical gardens. Given the development's walkable access to the Rivanna Trail,the common area at the center of the residential portion of the Property as well as the green space and plaza along the sides of the mixed-use buildings,the development has sufficient amenity space. Given the constrained size of the Property, it is difficult to achieve the other NMD goals of a mixed-use development with varying uses and use-types without a reduction from the 20%required amenity space of Section 20A.9(b)(4). The Application Plan has been updated and a specific green and amenity space sheet has been added. Pursuant to the revised Application Plan,the 20%requirements for amenity and green space will be met. Therefore, the Code of Development has been updated accordingly and the Applicant no longer requests the reduction noted above. Please see the Application Plan for further detail. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES & PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Transportation Impacts: VDOT has committed to conducting a traffic study of the corridor, specifically focused on the intersection of Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard. The Applicant will work with VDOT and other impacted landowners to ensure the improvements recommended by VDOT come to fruition,thereby enabling the improved safety and functionality of this important intersection. As of April 29, 2019,VDOT has still not completed their study of this intersection. However, VDOT has preliminarily endorsed a Restricted Crossing U-Turn(RCUT)Intersection. An RCUT would prohibit left turns out of Belvedere Boulevard and instead redirect such traffic to a designated location along Rio Road East where a U-turn can be made. The benefit of this design is that it will address what has been stated as the most critical dysfunction of this intersection: left turns out of Belvedere Boulevard. Such turns are often delayed due to the continual flow of 9 traffic on Rio Road East. By allowing traffic desiring to turn left from Belvedere Boulevard to turn right and then U-turn at a designated location, delays will be minimized. In addition, RCUT intersections have far less conflict points than signalized intersections. In signalized intersections, collisions occur when cars do not stop at the signal and crash with oncoming traffic. These crashes are especially severe because they often result in T-bone collisions. In contrast, RCUT intersections conflict points almost exclusive are related to merging (or diverging), which result in far less severe crashes. The Applicant will work with VDOT by providing construction easements as needed. If a traffic signal is ultimately desired,the Applicant will allow for easements for such permanent equipment as well. If a roundabout is ultimately desired, due to the large amount of right-of-way for Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard, as well as the restricted buildable area due to various utility easements along Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard, sufficient area will remain available for right-of-way dedication for construction of a roundabout, if necessary. In addition,the Applicant believes the dedication of 8.3 feet in width of right-of-way along Belvedere Boulevard and 1.2 feet in width of right-of-way along Rio Road East for the multi-use path infrastructure, as shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of the Application Plan, is sufficient mitigation of any potential infrastructure impacts from the small sized development. The estimated vehicular trips from the proposed development are as follows: Assuming 5,000 square feet of General Office and 5,000 square feet of Retail: AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total Single Family Detached 210 14 units 3 10 13 11 6 17 Multi-Family Housing 220 32 units 5 14 19 14 9 23 Retail 814 5000 sf 12 12 23 19 19 37 General Office 710 5000 sf 11 1 12 1 6 7 Total 31 36 67 44 40 84 Assuming 10,000 of General Office: AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total Single Family Detached 210 14 units 3 10 13 11 6 17 Multi-Family Housing 220 32 units 5 14 19 14 9 23 General Office 710 10000 sf 19 3 22 3 11 14 Total 28 26 54 27 27 54 The two tables above estimate the number of vehicular trips upon redevelopment of the Property. The first table assumes the commercial portion of the Property consists of 5,000 square feet of Retail and 5,000 square feet of General Office. The second table assumes the commercial portion of the Property consists of 10,000 square feet of General Office. 10 The first configuration of the Property would produce the most amount of traffic. In this scenario,the total number of additional "peak"hour morning trips would be 67 and the total number of additional "peak"hour afternoon trips would be 84. The total number of annual average daily traffic (AADT) for 2017 on Rio Road East was 28,000. Therefore, the total number of additional vehicular trips from the development will be minimal compared to the existing traffic pattern surrounding the Property (0.3%to 0.2%increase). Parking and Loading Needs Study: There is a total of 69 parking spaces proposed within the project. Of those, 47 will serve the mixed-use block and 22 will serve the residential-only block. Within the mixed-use block,the minimum required parking spaces varies depending on the mixture of residential and commercial. The below details the extremes of the required minimum parking spaces based on differing mixtures of uses and use-types. The below is based on the minimum parking requirements outlined in Section 4.12.6 of the County Code: • 1.50 parking spaces per one-bedroom multifamily unit • 2.00 parking spaces per two-bedroom multifamily unit • 2.00 parking spaces per single family detached unit • 2.00 parking spaces per townhome (or single family attached unit)with 2 or more bedrooms • 1 space per 200 square feet of net office floor area(80% gross floor area) • 1 space per 100 square feet of retail sales area(80% gross floor area) for the first 5,000 square feet Assuming the minimum allowable density and no commercial space,the minimum required parking for the mixed-use block is 12 parking spaces. • The total above assumes all one-bedrooms (1.5 x 8 units= 12 parking spaces) Assuming the maximum commercial space and maximum allowable density, the minimum required parking for the mixed-use block is 124 parking spaces. • The total above assumes 32 two-bedroom multifamily units(2.00 x 32 units = 64 required parking spaces) • The total above assumes 5,000 square feet of retail (40 required spaces) and 5,000 square feet of office space (20 required spaces) *The numbers above have been updated to reflect the minimum and maximum allowable uses and mixture of use types. Previously, it was based on a zero-sum tradeoff between whether commercial or residential would be built. While such tradeoff between building residential or commercial in Block 1 is the practical reality, it does not capture the abstract minimum or 11 maximum allowable buildout of the Property and thus the Parking and Loading Needs Study has been updated accordingly. Assuming the maximum allowable density, the minimum required parking for the residential- only block is 28 parking spaces (2.00 x 14 units). Assuming the minimum allowable density, the minimum required parking for the residential-only block is 16 parking spaces (2.00 x 8 units). Therefore, combining the two blocks, the minimum parking requirement will range from 28 parking spaces to 152 parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 4.12.10 of the County Code,parking spaces are allowed to be shared among two (2) or more uses that typically experience peak parking demands at different times. The code continues, "because parking spaces are shared,the total number of parking spaces that would otherwise be required may be reduced." The zoning administrator may reduce the aggregate minimum number of required parking spaces, provided each use participating in the shared parking experiences peak parking demands at different times. As per the trip generation tables above, it is clear the commercial and residential uses experience peak parking demands at different times. In the morning "peak"hours, for the Retail and General Office uses, on average, 19-23 cars are estimated to enter the site and 3-4 are estimated to exit. In contrast, for the residential uses, on average, only 8 cars are estimated to enter and 24 are estimated to exit. This demonstrates that in the morning"peak"hours, the commercial uses will likely generate more traffic entering the site while the residential uses will likely generate more traffic exiting the site. The reverse occurs in the afternoon"peak"hours. In the afternoon"peak"hours, the commercial uses will likely generate more traffic exiting the site while the residential uses will likely generate more traffic entering the site. Due to the relationship of the above uses, we request the maximum aggregate reduction of the minimum required parking spaces (35%). If such a reduction were granted,the range of minimum required parking spaces would be reduced to between 18 and 99. Therefore,with the 35%reduction,the 69 proposed parking spaces will not be able to accommodate the entire range of possible mixture of uses and use-types. The following has been added to Note 2 of Table D, "Minimum parking requirements may restrict some uses that historically require large amounts of parking." The precise number of minimum required parking spaces shall be determined at the site plan phase of development depending on density,types of residential units, and commercial uses pursuant to Section 4.12.6. Stormwater Management Facilities: Stormwater will be addressed by an underground detention/BMP located in the parking lot of the mixed-use lot as shown on the enclosed conceptual grading plan. Note 6 of Table D was added to the Code of Development, which states,"The Applicant shall be required to provide onsite treatment of 25%of the required stormwater treatment. Such 12 techniques of treatment shall include pervious pavers, micro bioretention, or other approved measures." IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES None. There are no streams or critical slopes located on the Property. Currently, the Property consists of a vacant single-family home and shed. The front of the Property is cleared, with well-maintained landscaping, while the back of the Property consists of a wooded area. The Property also slopes slightly in the back portion; however, such slopes are minimal and therefore redevelopment of the Property would consist of very little land disturbance. PROPOSED PROFFERS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS Due to the small size of the proposed redevelopment, we do not believe there are appropriate proffers needed to address the minimal, if any, impacts from the development. Due to the small size of the project,there will be no measurable impact on schools, fire/rescue, and natural/cultural/historic resources. The Applicant has coordinated with the surrounding neighborhood to try to ensure residents are comfortable with the allowable uses, massing, and screening requirements of the Application Plan. For instance,Note 1 of Table A was added to the Application Plan to prohibit certain uses,the allowable height was reduced from 3 to 4 stories, and the screening requirements will be approved by the adjacent homeowners' association. In addition, as stated earlier,the Applicant believes the dedication of 8.3 feet in width of right- of-way along Belvedere Boulevard and 1.2 feet in width of right-of-way along Rio Road East for the multi-use path infrastructure, as shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of the Application Plan, is sufficient mitigation of any potential infrastructure impacts from the small sized development. OTHER SPECIAL STUDIES/WAIVERS Fire Access Along Eastern Boundary of the Property: There is a small, 20-foot strip of property located between the Property and Fowler Ridge Court. This property is utilized as a portion of the required fire access for the development along Fowler Ridge Court. It may have been conveyed as an easement to the County by that certain deed dated October 3, 2016, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the County Circuit Court in Deed Book 4830,page 20 (enclosed). The Applicant will coordinate with the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)to ensure the correct ownership and acquisition of a necessary sewer easement for development of the Property. The Fowler Ridge Court community's fire access consists of a 50' easement through: (1)this 20- foot strip of land, (2) a portion of Fowler Ridge Court itself, and(3) designated open space 13 between existing homes and Shepard's Ridge. See the enclosed plats for reference. No portion of the Property acts as fire access for the adjacent communities. The Applicant will supplement its application with an updated survey of the Property evidencing the above. Incorrect GIS Label of Ownership of Adjacent Property: There is a small triangular shaped parcel located between the Property and Belvedere Boulevard that is labeled in the County's GIS as currently owned by the Belvedere Neighborhood Association, Inc. The parcel is a small portion of County tax map parcel062G0-01-00-000A0. However,pursuant to that certain Certificate of Take dated December 5, 2007, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the County Circuit Court in Deed Book 3617,page 633 (enclosed), this parcel was taken by the Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT) for Belvedere Boulevard right-of-way. Therefore, the Applicant is able to provide a vehicular accessway through this right-of-way to/from the proposed cottage units to/from Belvedere Boulevard. Waiver Requests The Applicant requests several waivers. 1. Private Street Authorization The"fire lane"designation in Block 2 will provide access for emergency vehicles. It can be covered with reinforced material to allow for the ease of travel of such emergency vehicles while also allowing the growth of natural grass and vegetation. Therefore, the central greenway can support the tonnage of emergency vehicles yet be enjoyed as an active amenity space. This private street will also provide the required "frontage"for the lots located furthest from Belvedere Boulevard. Section 14-233 provides the regulations for the authorization of private streets in the development areas. According to these regulations,the commission may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one(1)or more new private streets when, "the proposed private street(s) would enable the principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street,without diminishing other principles of the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances: (i)the subdivision would have a streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model; (ii)the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan; (iii)rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a common amenity; (iv) a significant environmental resources would be protected; or(v)relegated parking would be provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided." We request private street authorization for the "fire lane"on the Application Plan to allow for the cottage courtyard design. The design is in keeping with neighborhood model principles, such as, encouraging active greenspace and pedestrian connectivity. The cottage courtyard design encourages a community by providing a communal gathering space and forcing residents to park in designated locations and then walk to 14 their individual homes. This results in community interactions that are less likely to occur in a traditional neighborhood design. Moreover, as per(iii) above,the design allows for the buildings to face a"common amenity." Pursuant to Section 14-234(C),the agent and the commission may authorize one or more private streets in a subdivision if it finds that"one or more of the circumstances described in sections 14-232 or 14-233 exist and it determines that..." (1) "The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision;" As stated earlier, the private street will be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Reinforced material will be placed beneath the vegetation along the private street/fire lane that will be able to support the tonnage of emergency vehicles. (2) "The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed private street;" The comprehensive plan does not contemplate a public street through the middle of this parcel. It does not contemplate a cottage courtyard design. However, the comprehensive plan does have the goals to "provide for a variety of housing types of all income levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas. " The cottage courtyard design achieves both these goals. (3) "The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street;" A homeowners'association will be formed upon development of the residential units and such association will bear the cost of maintenance of the central green. (4) "Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose,the private street will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location;" and The private street will be restricted to emergency vehicles only. (5) "If applicable,the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law." 15 This is not applicable as the Property is not within a flood hazard overlay district. In keeping with the principles of neighborhood model design and upon meeting each of the conditions of 14-234(C)noted above,we request authorization of a private street as designated in the Application Plan. 2. Waiver of Various Private Street Design Requirements While we request authentication of a private street for a portion of the central green,the purpose of such request is to allow access of emergency vehicles and street frontage for the residential units furthest from Belvedere Boulevard. The intent is not for the private street to accommodate vehicular traffic. Instead, we would like the area to serve as an amenity area. To accomplish these purposes, several private street design waivers will be necessary. (1) Section 14-410(H)requires curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Because no vehicular traffic will be allowed along the private street such infrastructure is not necessary. Section 14-410(I)allows the commission to grant variations or exceptions for such requirements. (2) Section 14-412(A)(2)(b)(ii) requires the entire street to be surfaced per Virginia Department of Transportation standards. However, the private road is intended to be utilized as a central greenspace, accessible only to emergency vehicles. Section 14-203.1(B) allows the agent or commission to approve variations or exceptions from any requirements of Section 1400 through 14-441 upon several findings. Per 14-203.1(B)(2), "the agent or commission may approve a request for a variation to substitute a required improvement upon finding that because of an unusual situation,the subdivider's substitution of a technique, design or materials of comparable quality from that required by the applicable regulation results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement in the applicable regulation." The substitution of reinforced material able to support the tonnage of emergency vehicles while still allowing natural grass and vegetation to grow is an improvement over the requirement of a paved surface. Per 14-203.1(B)(3), "the agent or commission may approve a request for an exception from any requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (i)because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to, the unusual size,topography, shape of the site or the location of the site; or(ii)when strict adherence to the requirements would result in significant degradation of the site or to adjacent properties', causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the 16 orderly development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices." Strict adherence to the requirement of paving all private streets would result in the loss of a central greenspace, i.e. the degradation of the site and inhibiting the orderly development of the area. Because the above two conditions are met,we believe a waiver of the requirement for paved surfaces on private streets should be granted. 3. Waiver of Prohibition of Double Frontage Lots The Applicant requests a wavier to allow for double frontage lots in Block 2 between the emergency accessway and Belvedere Boulevard. As stated previously,the fire accessway will be a"private road"and can be covered with reinforced material to allow for the ease of travel of emergency vehicles while also allowing the growth of natural grass and vegetation. Therefore,the central greenway can support the tonnage of emergency vehicles yet be enjoyed as an active amenity space. Overlaying the emergency access and greenway provides an efficient use of space, and maximizes the amenity/outdoor space for the residents. Section 14.401 of the County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the development of double frontage lots for single family detached and attached residential uses. The purpose of this regulation is to prohibit development designs that would result in street frontage along the rear and front yards of a single-family residence, which in theory would substantially impact the privacy and enjoyment of such homes. However, Section 13.203.1(B) allows the agent or Planning Commission to vary or allow an exception from this prohibition. We request an exception from such prohibition to allow double frontage lots between Belvedere Boulevard and the emergency accessway, consistent with the Application Plan. Technically the lots have "frontage" on the greenway, which functions as a shared amenity space, although it has fire access capacity. The length of the lots provides sufficient space for a dense vegetated screen between Belvedere Boulevard and the residences, minimizing the impact on the rear yard of the residences/homes. The interior greenway design is in accordance with neighborhood model principles as it centralizes and encourages outdoor shared greenspace. In addition, the proposed small residential units allow for as much greenspace as possible. Strict adherence to the requirements of Section 14.401 would prohibit the cottage courtyard design on the Property. Therefore, not allowing for an exception to the restriction related to double frontage lots would be a substantial injustice resulting in degradation of design, is not supported by the principles of the neighborhood model and inhibits the orderly development of the area. 4. Waiver for Offsite Parking The Applicant also requests a waiver for the requirement that parking be provided on each lot for each single family detached unit. Instead,we propose the single family detached units be served by a stand-alone parking area along the rear of the Property. 17 According to Section 4.12.5, all parking spaces shall be established on the same lot with the primary use to which it is appurtenant, except as authorized by Section 4.12.8. Section 4.12.8 states, "The alternatives described herein are intended to promote more creative design, allow higher density in those zoning districts in the development areas, and reduce impervious area by allowing the parking requirements of this section to be satisfied, in whole or in part, by street parking, shared parking, and off-site stand-alone parking." According to Section 4.12.8, certain waivers and requirements shall be provided at the site plan stage of development. Accordingly,Note 3 has been added to Table A of the Code of Development, which states, "Stand alone parking and parking structures shall be subject to screening regulations and other restrictions outlined in Section 4.12." 18 , \\ TMP 62F2-X 3y 9 'L N/F DUNLORA V LW \\ yp . IF DB 4777 PC 703 S47'35'35"E 184.00' IS' \\� 4b).... �oG����� # N. . . .. \ / NOTES: o • , 1. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED si WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND DOES NOT THEREFORE NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL 'cWi •• ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY or SHOWN HEREON. f' " i 2. HIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM a 1 N 1 AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY DONE AS TMP 61-154B Fe PER THE DATE•OF THIS PLAT USING N/F WINDMILL ca 2 MONUMENTS FOUND TO EXIST AT THE VENTURES LLC Q. c v TIME OF THIS SURVEY. F 3. THERE WERE NO PLACES OF HUMAN DB 4505 PC 218 BURIAL.OBSERVED WHILE CONDUCTING 7.3' 1.918 AC. I THE FIELD SURVEY. I 4. THE AREA SHOWN HEREON IS _ LOCATED IN ZONE "X' AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN AS I SHOWN ON FEMA MAP NO N. I 51003CO279D, EFFECTIVE DATE FRAME SHED �^ FEBRUARY 4. 2005. HIS `1 o DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY E R. GRAPHIC METHODS, NO ELEVATION TMP 62F-E2 3' c�� STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED AS A A N/F COUNTY OF g m S a. PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. ALBEMARLE ,o a, 5 i` 5. 'THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R4 m DB 4830 IV 20 N E. �.�. RESIDENTIAL. (--3461' \ y R 6. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE 'MEADOW CREEK WATERSHED, AND IS FRAME .. NOT IN AN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL SHED DISTRICT. r— _ - — 9. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE 45.4' ENTRANCE CORRIDOR AND AIRPORT IMPACT AREA ZONING DISTRICTS. ]0 10. OWNER OF.RECORD: WINDMILL V ��WV�y g VENTURES LLC I 11. SOURCE OF TITLE:DB 4505 PG 218 • !WM M q 1 STORY v a x�� a BRICK c x M #999 I o CO t 99.6' —.--4 43.9' I .�\`` O W tf. ,7 '`e. LEGEND w a IF IRON PIN FOUND y IS IRON SET s. DRAINAGE EASEMENT c 3 N WV WATER VALVE IF DB 3772 PG 366 o a WM WATER METER III Ih,`3 0 0 \ UT1UTY EASEMENT 24/ N2608'0TW J 14.80' b'd' ._. DB 3563 PG 682 • • N44'S3'39'W 40.51 �� -- - - N44131'52"W 79.79' CURB RIO ROAD EAST VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 40 0 . 40 . 80 120 DB 3772 PG 366 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ SCALE: 1"=40' O*�cNLTH oF`2 "• PLAT SHOWING A BOUNDARY MERIDIAN TIMOTHY RAY MILLER > SURVEY OF LIC. No. 2065 TAX MAP 61 PARCEL 154B PLANNING GROUP,LLC RIO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 440 Premier Circle,Suite 200 ALBEMARLE;COUNTY,VA Charlottesville,VA 22901 l q'V0 SUR\JC' SHEET: H 2 1 (P).434.882.0121: DATE: MARCH 0,2019. FILE: 999 E RIO BNDY.DWG Code of Development The following is a Code of Development ("COD") drafted in accordance with Section 20A.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, Virginia and specific to tax map parcel 06100-00-00-154B0. This Code of Development establishes the unifying design guidelines, specific regulations and block characteristics. The COD also provides certainty about the permitted uses, locations and appearance of central features. I. Table of Uses by Block(Section 20A.5a) The table below establishes the permitted and prohibited uses by block. "BR" = By-Right, "SP" = Special Permit, "N" =Not Permitted Table A. Uses: By Right, by Special Permit, and Not Permitted BLOCK BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Mixed-use Residential Residential Single Family Detached N BR Single Family Attached N BR Multifamily BR N Accessory Uses BR BR Non-Residential Retail (Neighborhood, Community& Regional) BR N General Commercial Service BR N Auto Commercial Sales& Service N N Office/R&D/Flex BR N Light Manufacturing/Storage/ Distribution N N Heavy Manufacturing/Storage/ Distribution N N Warehousing / Distribution N N Institutional BR N Stand-alone parking and parking structures BR BR Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the BR BR Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. Temporary construction uses BR BR Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public BR BR water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 1 Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan BR BR or subdivision plat. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities. BR BR Accessory Uses and Buildings including home occupation, Class A and BR BR storage buildings. Notes to Table A: 1. Notwithstanding the above, the following"Community & Regional Retail" or"General Commercial Service" uses shall be explicitly prohibited: entertainment or recreation establishments (or similar uses), gas stations, funeral homes and crematories, storage yards, auction houses, convenience stores, and hotels/motels. 2. Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015, or second, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If no definition of the use is provided (Code of Development, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance) or if there is uncertainty as to whether such use is included in the uses listed in Table A, then such use must be officially determined by the zoning administrator to be permitted in a particular Block. 3. Stand alone parking and parking structures shall be subject to screening regulations and other restrictions outlined in Section 4.12. II. Development Square Footage Proposed and Residential Density (Section 20A.5b and c) Table B. Density, Housing Type and Non-Residential Use by Block MIN MAX MAX Permitted MIN Non- Approximate Block MAX Non- Block Size Dwelling Dwelling Gross Housing Residential Residential SF Units Units Density Types SF Block Block 1 5,000 (+5,000 if 37,900 SF additional SF Mixed-use (0.87 acre) 8 32 35 DUA Multifamily 0 designated specifically for office) Block 2 Single Family Residential 45,300 SF 8 14 14 DUA Detached, 0 0 (1.04 acre) Single Family Attached 5,000 (10,000 if MF, SFD, at least 5,000 of TOTAL 83,200 SF 16 46 24 DUA 500 total designated (1.91 acre) SFA specifically for office) 2 IiI. Green Space & Amenities (Section 20A.5d) Table C. Minimum Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block Amenity Green Amenity BLOCK Area Amenity Space Green Green Space & Green MIN SF Area % Amenities MIN SF Space % Elements Space % Block 1 Outdoor Plaza 20% Outdoor 20% with Landscaping Plaza with and Seating; Multi- Mixed use 7,600 (7,600 of Landscaping 7,600 (7,600 of Use Path; Small 20% 37,900 and Seating; 37,900 Dog Park; total SF of Small Dog total SF of Streetscape and Block 1) Park Block 1) Other Designed Landscaping Block 2 Sidewalk, Sidewalk, Central 20% Central 20% Greenspace, Greenspace, (9,100 of Natural (9,100 of Natural Residential 9,100 45,300 Playscape, 9,100 45,300 Playscape, Multi- 20% total SF of and Other total SF of Use Path, and Block 2) Designed Block 2) Other Designed Landscaping Landscaping 20% 20% TOTAL 16,700 (16,700 of 16,700 20% (16,700 of 83,200 83,200 total SF) total SF) Notes to Table C: 1. Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all recreational facilities and shall be assessed at the site plan stage of development. IV. Architectural Standards and Landscape Treatment (Sections 20A.5g and h) In addition to any architectural, landscape and site requirements illustrated or otherwise included in other sections of this application, the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines of Section 30.6 shall also apply, which may require features and/or treatments over and above those listed in this Code of Development. 3 V. Lot & Building Height Regulation (Section 20A.i) Table D. Lot and Building Regulations BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Mixed-use Residential Building Height Stories 1 Min. -3 Max. 1 Min. -3 Max. Height 40' 35' Setbacks Front 0' min. —45' Max. 5' Side 0' Min.-45' Max. 3' Rear 0' 10' Stepbacks - - Other Allowable Gross 30,000 - Building SF Maximum Building 5,000 - Footprint SF Lot Size (Min. or Max.) None. None. Residential Units 0 Min. -32 Max. 8 Min. - 14 Max. Allowable Residential Unit Type Multifamily Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached Parking MIN Required (35% 8 -81, depending on 10 - 18, depending on unit reduction) mixture of uses count etc. Total Required 18 -99, depending on mixture of uses Notes to Table D: 1. Porches, eaves and awnings shall be considered part of the structure and shall not extend closer to the street than the required setbacks. 2. The precise number of minimum required parking spaces shall be determined at the site plan phase of development depending on density, types of residential units, and commercial uses pursuant to Section 4.12.6. Minimum parking requirements may restrict some uses that historically require large amounts of parking. 3. Pursuant to Section 4.12.10, an aggregate reduction of 35% shall be applied to the total minimum required parking produced by Note 2 above. 4 4. Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.7, the parking areas along the southeastern boundary of the subject property are required to be screened. In addition to Section 32.7.9.7(b), the Applicant shall provide three different reasonable types of screening options to the Shephard's Ridge Homeowners' Association which consists of residents immediately adjacent to the Property. By a majority vote at a duly authorized meeting of the members of the homeowners' association,the association shall choose one of the three options provided. At minimum, at least one of the options provided shall include a fence up to seven-feet in height. Such meeting shall be called within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the Applicant and/or its assigns. In addition, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If the Applicant does not receive a response within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Applicant's written notice to the applicable homeowners' association, such lack of response shall be considered an approval. 5. Dumpsters and Dumpster Pads on the Property shall be screened pursuant to Section 4.12.19. 6. The Applicant shall be required to provide onsite treatment of 25% of the required stormwater treatment. Such techniques of treatment shall include pervious pavers, micro bioretention, or other approved measures. 5 .} , �` ,, . ,� .� yvii �40 ow Ali ,, . �# w :L* • -, " ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT ;• • e38 ' �, e tr. ' _. .� k APPLICATION PLANr � :� ritt., ; t .:.+ �. , , : . 999 RIO ROAD Ni is, « ,, .d •��' � : . 40.1 ,� .;�* w : . • " `�, 4 %' t. r TMP 61-154RB _ ,.....1/11!ii ......,,, ,� 1 .. �, -�� �. ,1k ' _ � .`it. -; 1 -ifiviks..,, ,:� ►_s, Submitted 19 February 2019 OW_OA • �.., .,, i 1 �s .�! t�1f ' �•4.• �` ,, . . - t .` • • �. - • 1 ?I Revised 29 APRIL 2019 i��'i, `. ' a �� ♦ i ` *+ yN. - k ' - �.., taa {w. 'G •a i�. .. - . t-.,.. t� + � ( •� :yam 9.:�!Y t. �� +. ._ r t l f. ,� 4 4 ` K, :? .- . . • .,.&. Context Map . • `+► •� ! �. '' a Ir , -^. /� i* 'irti 4I 4 o ," 1:-.-- ' : '� Sheet 1 of 8 f ' ' . -...--4 - : iv . .0 ., ; 1 , - .4 . ,. -.4 :01, r't ,` .,. 4'�►�• `•• - oorproject number: 19.006 ,, / • • IP A,-IS% .47arn#5^% ' 1 7r"7.1. ) lire • • itst ,,iti: -.. , . 4, , iprillip ,,,,i, 4.Z.* ,, „y,. 2 104 Or I . -• • E l 'ift"; 4 - O1 • elf >lb -... 4 r.. ,,, . • h f•� { r a� ax �_` ', li .��!�7` - 3s `�a+. ,N. -'•�' } 4"': Y I �•. Ilk -%at ` ' , ': f ` ' '"x. -f �" r- . *4. _ INDEX OF SHEETS '� -tii...7. N : y r w * --'� :` + '' i:Au ' -' ' ! ,` `` 1 - Cover & Context Map Ply# .111pf A t 4* ` 14, e - ,` i'' 2 Existing Condit , ,',. ' .r. ' 4,lif 3 Block Network •.41, ., • �. t t , mf ' 4 - Buildable Area + 4 ..,,i.. .... *' ,� .•-► ,,� `' >~ � 4 Conceptual Stormwater & Grading Plan : � ,� _ 5 Proposed Circulation " .4 .. :. - , �, - Amenity ape Diagra m 0. 6 Landscape 1 :: � • • ,,- ��,; ,,Illir'' - . �`` , tale rPet. , a 7 - Conceptual Street Section �` '� L ! `'` �" "� -Rio Road JL . J ,�, ' ►; : ," � �, •► �:� •"`° . , ,, . 4 . .iilw • ... -0 ' -ti . , 8 - Conceptual Street Section 4_ ,040.1*,..: 411r.fit.: .,, �' °t ( •� , a „�. *: j g r T> , ,,- -Belvedere Boulevard . . 1141!1264( 'Alt + �".‘ 3 .(» " 'Aitiles !� # `i - ,� 1y/ A '' • It '. w�s 4 - .1 .4W '.-. . , - ' Al :.. . ,,.... .„,,, a.a - 4 `. 4 "g ' �ci ter' �� a 1t4,,k� "+''..,;a .. +.'S.' .,- r '+•.• • b• , *ft e % 1......„ t P.• i:r. $ , ... • Allig. ' 41. , . ',,,. lit :I! •I,N04.4iH"; '1r • w. • 4 * T.0 .4_, { " . 4 „. . i v, -, ,.. • ..... ,....„ 2 � _ ' �y.,- ,,_ A __• : CHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Image provided byGoogle Maps L. • �' - -' ��� �i`� \ - 4;4, c . _ J - - - ' \ -, 11 r i //J// ` \ 11�\� r ,e/ - _ ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT ,,; ;.:1, 1 1 I \ I ` -- - -, ,`; ," : - ` - • ` ` f ',if,. '` k �//7/ ;�1111l \1\\ \\ / J I //';\ `t ^ APPLICATION PLAN �� i - i---;-,-...-?,:--„2"------ - � % I `I \� l �"` a s 3�n 3ti. \ \ ' I !f 1 -".,. 3 /i,/' - n 11 Y L j ' \ N —,,,,;� , I ; — — , I _ _ ,,x t 3, Q a r — \ ,,�, x \d! �� lY \ ,\ _ '% .� ' 999 RIO ROAD G /' %- r /� / 1 I r \ - J rst� J \ ! Is'\ ///' 11 1\ \ - ti t y r _ , r �;r // EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 -' R j "'/,, ! �',I I Y,'I 1 \ Sheet 2 of 8 N. / fill I I ` - / , � /,,,„„,/,///,, , �/,,, / 1 �1 \ t / I I I / /� • ,. / / / , / / / \ 'ii /iL // c- J\ \ \ I t N. _d\ • r / ,-;/ 2 - - I ! .1' i/ / .___ -J \ ' '� Existing Easments r r ' \ \ 1 I ! ' /i/t ._ �_ -i i . j-/ Belvedere _ ��_ r r - \ r I I I / , \ s _ - - -�2; \ 1I \ / ...i/opt.- -- --- --- .---/ /' , /' _ N \Belvedere Boulevard ,_�, ', ,' �i ,'/' //, ,'�/ , - Y .„ .... - _ _ \ \ , �, Existing / / / / �/ /" \ \ n. /^ I t { Drainage / / TMP 2F2-X '/ / / / '/ /%%= \ \ / / / rl Easement I / DB 47171103 / / - `\�,�� \\ ` ��, \ Existing �� / r / / / / -/- ^�\\ ` \ ` / ` • 1! Draina a /i / DB 3772 / NIF unlora v LLC , / i,C / ` \ \ \\ g \ 1 r1 ' P9 366 ' // /Use:Vacant % ' ;; \\ \ `� ` , Easement ,�/ 1 t ! I — / // // / /i ///.//��, //i^j1\\\\` \ --„, \\ �\ �`, DB3772 ' /,// / / / / / \ \ \` pg 366 \ / I J TMP61.1546 / / / / i , /i/ / `\ \�� ry �\ DB 4505-218 / , , /i I / / „ ' ` /\ ` ` \ - / \ I ��� Existing , / / /// /.. -.\ \\ \ :„....\\ \ \ s Windmill Ventures,LLC , / <, , / ,/� ,,�/ // y� \\\\\� \ \ \\ \ '/ / ......--\.. ..,.- _ - / � Utility 1.91 Acres / <c r�// if \• _ ; \ Easement Zoned:R-4 Residential / \.�/ / c \ `\\ \�+\\< '/\ \` \`�\\` ' j \ L_1 , t TMP 62F2-E2 i \ /, �i / \ 1 I \ I1 \\\\� \ I ^` ` \ \V\`� - y\ \ — — — / \ N. \ \ t ! 1 I ` f \ \ \ \ \` Existing %�/ 1 L I i TMP 62F2-A TMP 62F2-13 r-, / 1/ \ , �J j / /< \\\t \\ r I I I�;\\ .; �;\ \ \ � Utility 1 f DB 4830 27-TS J —f— r— �/ ��+` -- -/ f I County of Albeme 1 DB 47171703 DB 47171703 \ \ \ 1 I P•\`�\� \ �� �/ I - . , �-G•- �\ \ \ . > Easement ,�+ 1 Use:Vacaq ! r NIF Dunlora v LLC NIF Dy�ora v LLCM\�,. 1 1 ,- ` ,`' \1\\\ \\ , \\\ • \�\ \ \„ DB 3563 %�/ 1 ' i I / ! r -- — 1 U, e:Vacant � I `\\\ \\,\ \\\\ \\ \ \ \� \ \ �\ ` , _ ���� I ` I Use:Vacant 1 / i 1 \\\ \ `�\\\\\\`� \�\ `� .����\ pg 682 %�� 'I IA I TMP62F2-B• r I I //�i I / /S, �\ \Y\\,Y\11,\\\�\\\\\ \\�\� ���� �� ��� =/ '/ DB�7TTI703� r 1 ( / / 1 / l , ,I I \ \ \ \ \\ ) ` \ _ '/� \ �NIDunloravLLC o I---�— I / 1�1 / / ! Y 1\�' \I \ \ 1Y\ ,\ �. � ,%/ ii I / / I ! / / / Y 1 l I �r I17\ \ / I I O /rll iUse:Vacant I \ ` - I // , / /� \1 �'(1 // / /' ' ' //// , I 1 Y\ \l Olt Yl'1 1\ \\ �\ \ �F W #/ I I r / / / 1 / / / / I I 1 \ II - co r�/ \ � r f/1I �-- - - \ `• 1 I / / / /// �' / ! / // /'/�,/ ' 111'f1l�i III \ ._.......„... ��/ \ I r \ —I- \ I I r 1 / - /�, p.% ice; - .\ \ / f \ I 1 I ) ` r� I�1 ! 1 7rr Y = ����/,/�� % ice �i� � � � i / (l // � ` l/ f I '' - 1 f 1 / �I--1---r-1 ` Ilr'1 /I 1 I1 I rr� %i %i ////i i, �ii j� = i 11 t _� % --"`y , `'r. 1 1 r fir- i i ' / ' -- -� \ 4 - - —'J-- — 7 �\ ` \ , �e/, ! .� ,,' / II•- --7 � I 1 ( i1 1 I � � 11j I n I 1 1 1 l�r!!I! r� �' /i/i /i� � �s - /> � `�� � \ ,\ I - / /f / \ ri I \ , 1 �1 I \ u \ I J I 1 1 r r r r , i-, _ -—�� . , -, <_' �_�,, , Graphic Scale: 1 =40 \ ` /' I -_ :\ / // / I 1 \ I I f I i I 4 JII lI . I III lI r1 f 1/f r rr r %,-_'6 _=-; -1'_ , l \ "- / �, _ - " =�`�� \ Dimensions measured from ' /, ! / 7 1 _ / _ J J I I i / I I II 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 r I I \------ -/ - _ ` == =,,--,,,\ \ / - ,; - _ - �� back of proposed multi-use path \ 4/ ' / , ! �- I i r / I / I I I 1 11 I 1 I 1 1_L _ _=�i- -- , I \ ` / ...."/ ,,,,,,,,-, -- ,� „ `\ / ! / / / I , 1 YI11I II , , - 1_�� - III III %/, ��� � � / 1'� / / 1 /' I h— — --1 r/' f1fll I, \ \ lY \ICI `, _`- -_ \ ` 1111IIII1 // i �7/ ' � -� -�� �� ; TMP61-154B \- �' 1 // / 1y j i I I ! /� J f I !1 \ \1\1\\\ - ---- ^ , \ 1 f 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 Ir ,/ i/�,, _ - _` /, 1 `/ /" / // / -- �- — II I i t , I I f I 1 ` 1 \Y1\\1�~- �l�� \\ \ \ / h ! r 1 1 1 1I� - -� / / C -{ 1 1\ / J,✓ \\1\ `1 - , `�. . \ 1/ ! 1 I I I 1 \ L - / t ,,,� ! _ - _ �, Submitted 19 February 2019 / / L/--1/ , ". / 1 I 1 , , / , ��► \�� t..� \�`, ,,\ . , � , , , /, , I , I , , / " -- 1 -- - -► REVISED 29 APRIL 2019 100 0 100 200 300 project: 19.006 I Graphic Scale: 1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. • 11 11 ; /' /' /l ,1 < ` ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT / �/ // `\ APPLICATION PLAN Ir /' '' 999 RIO ROAD 1 J , BLOCK NETWORK ' \ ' \ Sheet3of8 \ , I \ \ - - \ / _\, \ , ... \ r / \ N. \ 1 \ \ r \ N. " ,Belvedere Boulevard / - - \ / ,' \ \ / \ r / / / / / > ) / / / / / / / - - ../ / / / / / I / / - / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / // / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ( / / / // �/ I / / / / / / / I ,/ ,/ ,/ / / // I .- _ / / / // / I N / / /CO / / / / / / ! / c / / / / / \ / / / / / OS / / / / 0 // , / \ / Ce / \ / / / \ / BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 /' / < , / < Mixed Use Residential \ / . .87 ac I 1 .04 ac ,r / /' / / / / ) r I r ., r r - \ \ , \ \ \ ) / / I `\ 1 I I r _\� \ \ \ / / \ / I 1 ' \� r I r' //r /, - - - _ \\, \ \,)/,' // \` TMP 61-154B I \ 1 1 I \ / / / /-' // / I \ 1 I ; ' `\ / / -� - '/ ' Submitted 19 February 2019 I 1 1 / c / — // `- \ / 1 , '\ / \ / / 1 REVISED 29 APRIL 2019 40 0 40 80 120 - project: 19.006 1--rl-rl-1 I Graphic Scale: 1"=40' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 1 I , / / / ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT / / ' APPLICATION PLAN i J -/ / J \ , 999 O ROAD �f" - - -- BUILDABLE AREA I \ - C,01VC �IAL STORMWATER \ & GRA[ rNG PLAN ., I , - Sheet 4 of 8 - - - --: I- -- \ \ - /\ \ .. \ 41 _ \ N Belvedere Boulevard \ ,' / // _ ) > > / / / / / fk • •' IIIIMIsSmalIII -12 - " i / , / / �� , Dog f i ,/ , , ,/ i 74 // Park, _ 1 I /' / / /� /� , I ,FPOIFFIr: / 1 ' < Z ,_ J / / / / / / r i / 78 / //' // // /// / / Central ,. // // // / / , / / / / Green .i, ,e / ,' ,' / / Cy • o /I , i Private Road/Fire Lane 'f�;. /' // // ,' ,' �i W i i - 76 . ,t / / / ,/ �,/ i p _ se Buildable/Area O, tdoor Plaza I ' t • /' /' /' / IX I O / / / \ Stor�nwat:r �76 /. / / ' \ / / / / / ;4 BLOCK 2 / // / / / / \ Residential - Buildable Area // / / /� ,' /� <' �f / • / / / / ..r ' 1 �o 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , o i ' / A / / J \ /-, '� � � J f - - - ,\\ \ /' /' \' TMP61-154B / J r- , / \ / ' i, ' ' `\ / - -J // ' Submitted 19 February 2019 I , i `` i / \ _ , \ REVISED 29 APRIL 2019 40 0 40 80 120 project: 19.006 1--rl—rl-1 I Graphic Scale: 1"=40' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. I , ! ' ' ' ' ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT ► / APPLICATION PLAN / ' ' 999 RI O ROAD / - - - PROPOSED CIRCULATION ` ` - Sheet5of8 r \ 1 1 ' I \ N Belvedere Boulevard 23o.s4' ... • • ' t 1 ', / // /_ _ - - -\;, \ , \ ,8' Multi Use Path !' - • • • • 1 \! /' // / /// • // / 222.50' / • I I / // / / / / / / / / / 41111' / ..) \\01 . _ . . ,, i , / ,../ „ / / / • / i �, w I , 1 / // / /// ,.:.... .,...„. I‘ ) . . . / , i .,,, / , ,.... ..4..._,, . ..,,,,,, ..,. ....„ 1,, / , // / ;Orr - 1 I i 1� Possible Future / , , / / I / I 1 Interparcel / / // I f 1 I 3 r -�: f..y:`., I o ' - ' ConnectionI i ! / / , �// / ' I / I1 / / / cn I f - 'at 1 7 I I1 120' Private Road/Fire Lane ' / / / // �/ 1 i• .-- i ,--- ..--. - K7',: `..‘,': ' 1,t-'..: ) o / , , r. ' y,...ill , I y f / / / / \ l O 1 1 /' /0 1 / / // \ / / 20 l I I___-Ii / / / / \ / / I ' 1 i / I ' 3 / / \ / / / I .4 w • 1 ' / / I ' y / / ) / / \ 1 — — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / / / W 1 / / / 11' Multi .`q4; , •r: ,�:• 5 / , , I /' ' Use Pat 20vemiiimitlani • `°' d / ) ; I 0 . it / Circulation KeymmaimpoimpimmusR'• • ►� ; PEDESTRIAN - - / - - - - VEHICULAR 1/ \ `� ! I ! /� - - \\ 1, // / TMP 61-154B I \ I 1 \ I / / 1 ), / Conriec ion to I 1 ' I / , r- // / Existing Path I 1 ; ' `\ / / , - J // / Submitted 19 February 2019 S stem 1 \1 , / \\ \\ // _ , \\ REVISED 29 APRIL 2019 40 0 40 80 120 project: 19.006 1-11-111 I I Graphic Scale: 1"=40' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. I I I I , i I I I I / / / I ./ ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT - Amenity Description SF // �' \\\ APPLICATION PLAN l A 61 Courtyard 2271.01 ; J /' ,'' _ , ,' _ _ _ 999 RIO ROAD B B1 - Dog Park 1126.78 / , ' J _ C B1 - Multiuse Path 1393.59 / ( r - ( - — AMENITY & LANDSCAPE D B2 - Courtyard 8004.01 \ �, , _ _ _ ,� b`IAGRAM E B2 - Dog Park 969.31 \\ , \ - — — — — — � '/ , ! Sheet 6 of 8 j F B2 - Multiuse Path 636.84 ; \ I G Site - Landscape 9844.84 —I \ i / 24246.38 29% - - — -- / _ �, / \ \ \ I r / / \ Belvedere Boulevard ,� I ' ) > , F , , , , ! / / , , , , , , , _ , , - , , / 1 ,/ , - , , , , , , , , < _ _ , , , , , / , , , N . , w - _ -.._ .__...,-. . .., , _ ,,_.__ - _.„- . . .., / C -- — , , „, - -. - - _ _ - -o-- — _ .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / B� - V E i '' /' ,' ' 70 72 72 J o /' / / ' /. 74 - , 9 / / / (� Small I �: �� i , / / / / ` 1 ,f1� /� / Dog -7 o i ' /� /' /� /�/ Park _ t _ / / / / k �,� - - - Ill78 ;,q ' ' ' II _ o ,I i / ' / / / / I / F f.( ,,'• I I i! // /// ,// /' i' / I ' _ ....,... 0 I , / / r I -- -Qutdoor Plaza T Private Road/Fire Lane / / , , (elis �" ' D Central Green 76 - '' � / / / W I /� GG ----- 1 i — Io , /' �' /' / / O I se- Buildable Area � - o , / / /ce / P .,---,__ _76.___________ 76�_ • d' / / / ! 1 ' G-ALLAREAS OT BUILDABLE, / 74 I / ,/ // / \/ \ // /' o NARKING OR AMENITY / o // / / *' \ ' r BLOCK 2 /> // // 1 ; I• Residential- Buildable Area o / t o ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 o p 0 o Key I ;._�! ` i AMENITY AREA A — .�. ...�, .4. ,�. . � ,z :mm,�� / LANDSCAPEr \ 1 I ,� \ �> \ \ \ ' / MULTI-USE PATH ' I , I I N / /� - - 1 ,�/ / I 1 TMP 61-154B 3 i ` \ , / , /— // / I I I i I i i � ! c / / r .. J // ! I I I _ _/, \ .- , Submitted 119 February 2019 ) \ ' I REVISEID 29 APRIL 2019 3 "Notwithstanding the green and amenity spaces depicted on this Application Plan, the Code of Development shall regulate the minimum required green and amenity spaces. / I Therefore, provided such requirements are satisfied, non-substantive changes to the depicted design are allowed." 40 0 40 80 120 project: 19.006 3 I Graphic Scale: 1"=40' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. , ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 APPLICATION PLAN Mixed Use Residential 999 RIO ROAD Belvedere Boulevard Belvedere Boulevard i CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTIONS Right-Of-Way O Right-Of-Way BELVEDERE BOULEVARD Sheet 8 of 8 0 0 1 0 0 �pY 2C 2� 4 Atiatii O _ O ry ° °1 - O a rn ) a 0 a w a w w -0 w -p c o c o X ° X ° W a_ Wi d iMilinikiNA ‹ 8.3' ›. /Mina\ ..c 8.3' in �' CURB DEDICATION , CURB DEDICATION aiiiiiiiiiiiii TO REMAIN Onimommimmi1 ^ TO REMAIN 11' > 2.5' <—3' 8' 10' >I < 11' = 2.5' E-3' 8' 10' TM P 61-154B TRAVEL LANE LANDSCAPE MULTI-USE PATH MINIMUM SETBACK TRAVEL LANE LANDSCAPE MULTI-USE PATH MINIMUM SETBACK STRIP STRIP Submitted 19 February 2019 REVISED 29 APRIL 2019 5 0 5 10 15 project: 19.006 LI-11-ii I I Graphic Scale: 1"=5' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE °F� Department Community Development CT© . Planning Services Division 401 McIntire Road North Wing• Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 frfi P Phone: (434)296-5823 • Fax: (434)972-4035 Transmittal From: Tori Kanellopoulos Date: 05/02/19 To: OFrank Pohl-Eng OFrancis MacCall -Zoning ODaniel Butch-Planning ORichard Nelson-ACSA *Margaret Maliszewski -ARB OMichael Dellinger- Inspections *Shawn Maddox- Fire and Rescue 0 OAdam Moore-VDOT 0 JOB#/FILE NAME:ZMA-2019-00001 -999 Rio Road We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Prints LI Plans ❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ❑ Other # of Date Description Copies 1 4/29/19 Comment response letter (original also included) 1 4/29/19 Updated narrative and Code of Development 1 4/29/19 Updated application plan 1 3/20/19 Updated survey These are transmitted as checked below: ® For review and continents ® For approval ❑ Other Remarks: First resubmittal of ZMA2019-1. Applicant is planning to go to the Planning Commission on June 25th and therefore will probably not resubmit before the Planning Commission. Comments are due in City View or email by: 05/29/19 Signature: Tori Kanellopoulos