HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800023 Staff Report 2020-05-19ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201800018 and
Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
SP201800023, River's Edge
Planning Commission Hearing: May 19,
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
2020
Owner: Rivers Edge Associates and Rivers
Applicant: Justin Shimp and Kelsey Schlein,
Edge Holdings LLC
Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Rivers Edge
Holdings
Acreage: TMP 32-5A1 is 27.71 acres and
Rezone from: RA Rural Areas to PRD Planned
TMP 32-5A0 is 4.81 acres, for a total of
Residential Development
32.52 acres.
Special Use Permit: Request disturbance of
preserved steep slopes to accommodate the
development of private facilities (accessway and
stormwater management) for the proposed
rezoning development
TMP: 03200-00-00-005A1 and 03200-00-
Location: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane at
00-005AO
Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north
from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and
Route 29.
School Districts: Baker Butler E.S.,
Current by -right use: Rural Area 0.5 units/acre
Sutherland M.S., Albemarle H.S.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers: None
Proposal: Rezone two properties from
Requested # of Dwelling Units per ZMA:
Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential
Maximum of 100 dwelling units; 50 units are size -
Development (PRD). Request for a special
restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 1,200
use permit for the disturbance of preserved
sq. ft. each and the other 50 units are size -
steep slopes to accommodate the
restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 900 sq.
development of private facilities (accessway
ft. each.
and stormwater management) for the
proposed rezoning development.
DA (Development Areas): Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
neighborhood in the Places29 Master Plan
Residential and Private Open Space per the
Places29 Master Plan
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
Affordable Housing Provided:
Affordable Housing AMI (%):
❑O Yes ❑No
Minimum 15 percent affordable units at 80 percent
AMI.
Character of Property: Two parcels
Use of Surrounding Properties: There are
totaling 32.52 acres with approximately
several commercial properties to the north, and
fourteen single-family detached houses and
U.S. Army facilities. Rural Area properties
a paved accessway that creates a loop
(currently forested) are to the east and south. The
through the site and connects to the
parcel directly south is currently undeveloped but is
entrance at Route 29. Parcels are heavily
in the Development Areas.
forested and surrounded by the Rivanna
River.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The rezoning request and special
1. The density proposed with the rezoning
use permit request are consistent
application is above the recommendations
with the majority of the
within the Places29 Master Plan (however,
recommendations within the
staff defers to the Commission's evaluation
Places29 Master Plan and the
of the proposed density).
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The request to disturb preserved steep
2. The rezoning request is consistent
slopes with the special use permit
with the majority of the applicable
application could potentially create
Neighborhood Model Principles.
negative environmental impacts: erosion
3. The rezoning provides affordable
and sedimentation of the Rivanna River;
rental housing that meets the
and loss of wildlife habitat.
housing policy within the
Comprehensive Plan for a period of
10 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the
unfavorable factors. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request ZMA201800018 with
the following change:
1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in
the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the Commission's evaluation of the
proposed density).
Special Use Permit: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request
SP201800023 with conditions.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 19, 2020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 032000000005AO and 032000000005A1
LOCATION: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane. Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles
north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29.
PROPOSAL: Rezone two properties from Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential
Development (PRD). Request for a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved
steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (entrance and
accessway) for the proposed rezoning development.
PETITION: Rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Areas (RA), which allows agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned
Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses. A maximum of 100 units are proposed for a gross density of
approximately 3 units/acre, and a net density of 12 units/acre. A special use permit for the
disturbance of preserved slopes for "Private facilities on preserved slopes" pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section 30.7.4.b.2. Request for central sewerage and central water
system per County Code Section 16-102.
ZONING: Rural Areas (RA)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Flood
Hazard Overlay; Airport Impact Area
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential use (3-6
units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale
non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features- privately
owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and
other environmental features; in the Hollymead Area of Places29 Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission heard the applicant's request for approval of
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, provided comments on, and deferred action at the
applicant's request. The deferral was to allow the applicant time to address the issues and
requests for additional information identified below:
1. Density: Additional information needed to make a determination on the request for
density above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan (Places29 Master
Plan).
2. Stormwater Management: Additional information on stormwater management and
treatment, especially more treatment onsite and incorporation of any low -impact design
methods.
3. Entrance: Concerns with the 'oxbow' entrance to the site (road with river on both sides).
Request for additional information if other designs for the road are feasible.
4. Parking: Consider if other parking options (including a reduction in parking spaces and
permeable pavers) are feasible.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
5. Unit Design: Additional information on how units will be stacked, and how that design will
look and function. Concern with what happens if insulation of units gets water damage.
Consider fire -wise design standards from the Department of Forestry.
6. Utilities: Additional information on ownership and maintenance of the central sewerage
system, and what happens if the system fails.
7. Schools: Concern with capacity of school system.
SPECIFICS OF THE APRIL 14, 2020 ZMA UPDATED APPLICATION PLAN
PLEASE REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR MARCH 10, 2020 (Attachment A) FOR
INFORMATION ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, PLANNING AND ZONING
HISTORY, CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPLICANT'S
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE, AND GENERAL IMPACTS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION HAS
NOT BEEN CHANGED OR UPDATED SINCE THE MARCH 10, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING.
Since the Commission's meeting in March 2020, the applicant has updated their ZMA
application plan (Attachment B). Specifically, the applicant has made the following changes:
Revised the maximum gross floor area (GFA) from 1,200 for each of the 100 units
to 1,200 SF for 50 units each and 900 SF for the other 50 units each;
The total residential building footprint area has been revised to be 60,000 SF from
50,000 SF. The buildable area has not been revised, just the total building
footprint area. Buildings are still outside of steep slopes, stream buffers, and the
floodplain;
Revised stormwater management notes to say that if level spreaders cannot be
provided, channelized flow through slopes may be used.
The applicant has also coordinated with Engineering staff and agreed to a condition with the
Special Use Permit to provide 75 percent of stormwater treatment onsite, exclusive of forest
and open space.
The applicant has responded to some of the Commission's comments as shown on the
revised application plan (Attachment B) and as follows. Additional responses may be
provided by the applicant during the public hearing:
Density: Additional information needed to make a determination on the request for
density above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan (Places29
Master Plan).
Density was discussed during the first Planning Commission public hearing on March 10,
2020. Commissioners and staff discussed the lack of precedence for this type of request.
The only precedent staff is aware of is additional units (beyond the Comprehensive Plan
designation) approved with Riverside Village due to the additional affordable units
provided. During the March 10 meeting, Commissioners expressed that this application
was unique due to other aspects beyond the density request, including unique unit types
and preserving a significant number of existing trees. Commissioners also discussed the
impact of dwelling units, considering associated impacts with the size of units (such as
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
required parking). Commissioners also mentioned that the proposal was for 100 units all
size -restricted at 1,200 square feet, meaning that none were `accessory'. The applicant
has since resubmitted the application with 50 units restricted at 1,200 square feet and 50
restricted at 900 square feet. Commissioners discussed the possibility of other density
bonuses, such as low -impact development design for stormwater management and other
design standards currently used by other localities. Currently, the County has density
bonuses for affordable housing, clustering development, preserving wooded areas, non -
required road improvements, and dedicating land to public use. However, these bonuses
are only available to conventional zoning districts, not planned districts. Staff would
welcome direction and guidance from the Commission on what factors could be
considered when proposals are submitted above the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff defers to the Commission's analysis of this request for
density above that recommended in the Master Plan.
Additional information regarding density and prior actions is provided in Attachment 9 of
the March 10, 2020 staff report and is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan and
Affordable Housing sections of that report.
2. Stormwater Management: Additional information on stormwater management and
treatment, especially more treatment onsite and incorporation of any low -impact
design methods.
In coordination with Engineering staff, the applicant has agreed to a condition to provide
a minimum of 75 percent of stormwater treatment onsite, exclusive of forest and open
space. This is now Condition #6 for the Special Use Permit. Staff believes this concern
has been addressed.
Entrance: Concerns with the 'oxbow' entrance to the site (road with river on both
sides). Request for additional information if other designs for the road are
feasible.
As the applicant stated during the public hearing, it would not be feasible from a cost and
design standpoint to elevate the roadway, as significant and intense construction and
design would be needed to support the weight of a fire truck. An additional
ingress/egress for this parcel would be challenging and expensive to implement.
Fire/Rescue does not require a second point of access, as the units are sprinklered.
Based on the rock -based geology of this site, erosion to the point of impacting the
existing ingress/egress does not appear likely. Staff believes this concern has been
addressed.
4. Parking: Consider if other parking options (including a reduction in parking
spaces and permeable pavers) are feasible.
The Commission discussed the proposed parking layout of this development, if
permeable pavers could be used, and if there was any way to coordinate with staff and
reduce parking. The applicant has not provided additional parking information at this
time. Staff usually considers parking reduction requests during site planning and
considers factors such as walkability and access to transit. Given the location and lack of
public transit at this site, it is unlikely staff would support a parking reduction request.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
However, the amount of parking and types of materials used for parking can be further
evaluated at the site planning stage.
Unit Design: Additional information on how units will be stacked, and how that
design will look and function. Concern with what happens if insulation of units
gets water damage. Consider fire -wise design standards from the Department of
Forestry.
The applicant has not provided updated information at this time. The applicant did
respond to the concern with insulation becoming water damaged, stating that, since
these units are outside of the floodplain, that scenario is unlikely, and that insulation
could be replaced if needed. The applicant may address these questions and concerns
during the public hearing. Staff defers to the Commission on whether this concern is
addressed.
6. Utilities: Additional information on ownership and maintenance of the central
sewerage system, and what happens if the system fails.
The proposed central sewerage system will be privately owned and maintained. It will
connect back to public utilities. It is the responsibility of the property owner to upkeep the
maintenance of this system and respond if it fails. It is the responsibility of A CSA to
maintain and repair the public utilities with this development, including public water and
the public connection to the sewerage system. Attachment 7 in the March 10, 2020 staff
report outlines the applicant's request. Additional analysis on the central system is
provided in the following section. While central systems are uncommon in the
Development Areas, one was approved with the Emmerson Commons/Blue Ridge
Cohousing development in Crozet (ZMA200700012). The purpose of the private system
in both of these requests is to allow connection to the RSWA public sewage system and
is not intended for provide the primary sewage treatment for development. Staff believes
this concern has been addressed.
7. Schools: Concern with capacity of school system.
Additional analysis of schools and capacity is provided in the March 10, 2020 staff report,
including the recommendations contained in the Albemarle County Public Schools' `Long
Range Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations'. The proposed development
would add approximately 21 students to County Schools. There are no proposed
relevant projects in the current CIP. Staff believes this concern has been addressed.
UPDATE ON CENTRAL SYSTEM REQUEST
Staff is providing an updated analysis of the central system request since the March 10,
2020 Planning Commission public hearing. Staff did not include a full analysis per the
recommendations in Objective 9 of Chapter 12 (Community Facilities) in the March staff
report. The full analysis is now included as follows.
The applicant is requesting approval of a central sewerage system for the proposed
residential development (Attachment 7), which requires approval from the Board. This
approval does not require action of the Planning Commission, although it may be part of the
Commission's consideration and discussion, and is included in the motion for the rezoning.
The development would connect to public water and sewer.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
Section 16 of the County Code defines a central sewerage system as a system designed to
serve three or more connections. The proposed central sewerage system would serve 100
dwelling units and would require a sewer lateral connection to each dwelling unit. The
central system would use a private sanitary force main, which would tie into a new public
sanitary manhole adjacent to Route 29. The manhole would connect to a public gravity main
under Route 29 and then to the existing public manhole at the RWSA pump station. The
applicant includes the following information on monitoring the system: "The pump station will
consist of a remote monitoring system that will be managed by a contracted professional
third party, a backup generator in case of loss of power, and an onsite alarm system in case
of failure."
There do not appear to be feasible alternatives for utilities for the site. The site is in the
Development Areas and has environmental and topographically constraints; therefore,
drainfields would not be appropriate. Given the steep slopes, stream buffer, and floodplain
constraints, connecting to adjacent parcels may be infeasible and would require significant
impacts to environmental features. The proposed central system ultimately connects to
public utilities. ACSA provided the following comments: "This site has restrictive access,
which would make routine maintenance to the pump station a challenge. This pump station
is also serving a single parcel, so there will be no other developments connecting to the
proposed pump station."
Staff reviews requests such as this for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and also for
technical feasibility. County Engineer and Health Department approval of the final system
specifications will be required prior to construction. The Comprehensive Plan discourages
central systems in the Development Areas. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to
discourage both drainfields and extensive private systems serving as the primary treatment
system for a development or multiple developments in the Development Areas. However,
this proposed development is proposing public water and some private sewer facilities that
ultimately connect to public sewer utilities. The private sewer utilities would only serve this
site. Given that the private utilities are limited, connect to public utilities, and are limited to
only this development, staff has no objection relevant to the Comprehensive Plan.
A favorable recommendation of approval of this ZMA application by the Planning
Commission will be a finding that the use of a central system to provide connection to the
nearby public sewer system is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is in the process of submitting the required application materials per 16-102(1-
4) for the review and approval of the design of the facility by the County Engineer, Health
Department, and ACSA.
There are no proffers proposed with this application.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
ZMA201800018 AND SP201800023: SUMMARY AND MOTIONS
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request and special use permit request are consistent with the
majority of the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable
Neighborhood Model Principles.
The rezoning provides affordable rental housing that meets the housing policy
within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The density proposed with the rezoning application is above the
recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the
Commission's evaluation of the proposed density).
2. The request to disturb preserved steep slopes with the special use permit
application could potentially create negative environmental impacts: erosion and
sedimentation of the Rivanna River; and loss of wildlife habitat.
RECOMMENDATION: ZMA201800018
Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff recommends approval
of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the following change:
Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended
density in the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the Commission's
evaluation of the proposed density).
RECOMMENDATION: SP201800023
Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as favorable, staff
recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP201800023 River's Edge, with
the following conditions:
1. The limits of disturbance within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District shall be
limited to the sizes, locations, and extents of disturbance as proposed in the "River's
Edge: Steep Slopes Disturbance" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and
dated February 28, 2020.
2. Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan
and water protection ordinance plan for River's Edge shall be in general accord with the
same improvements and grading shown on the exhibits "River's Edge: Road Grading +
Profile" and "River's Edge: Conceptual Stormwater" in the "River's Edge: Zoning Map
Amendment Application Plan" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and
dated February 28, 2020.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
3. If blasting of rock becomes necessary, the applicant will submit a blasting plan subject to
review and approval by the County Engineer and other Authorities having jurisdiction
prior to commencing such activity.
4. Two -layer erosion and sediment control measures will be installed around the perimeter
of the site, where feasible, at the discretion of the County Engineer.
5. Erosion and sediment control basins and traps will not be located within the floodplain
limits.
6. A minimum of 75 percent of stormwater treatment must be provided onsite, exclusive of
forest and open space.
PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for ZMA201800018:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the finding
that the use of a central system to provide connection to the nearby public sewer
system is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201800018, River's Edge (state reasons for
denial).
C. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP201800023, River's Edge, with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
D. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit
Move to recommend denial of SP201800023, River's Edge (state reasons for denial).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: March 10, 2020 Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment B: Updated Rezoning Application Plan, dated April 14, 2020
Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes for March 10, 2020 Meeting
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
STAFF REPORT
Project Name: ZMA201800018 and
Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
SP201800023, River's Edge
Planning Commission Hearing: March 10,
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
2020
Owner: Rivers Edge Associates and Rivers
Applicant: Justin Shimp and Kelsey Schlein,
Edge Holdings LLC
Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Rivers Edge
Holdings
Acreage: TMP 32-5A1 is 27.71 acres and
Rezone from: RA Rural Areas to PRD Planned
TMP 32-5A0 is 4.81 acres, for a total of
Residential Development
32.52 acres.
Special Use Permit: Request disturbance of
preserved steep slopes to accommodate the
development of private facilities (accessway and
stormwater management) for the proposed
rezoning development
TMP: 03200-00-00-005A1 and 03200-00-
Location: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane at
00-005AO
Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north
from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and
Route 29.
School Districts: Baker Butler E.S.,
Current by -right use: Rural Area 0.5 units/acre
Sutherland M.S., Albemarle H.S.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers: None
Proposal: Rezone two properties from
Requested # of Dwelling Units per ZMA:
Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential
Maximum of 100 dwelling units; size -restricted to a
Development (PRD). Request for a special
maximum gross floor area of 1,200 sq. ft. each
use permit for the disturbance of preserved
steep slopes to accommodate the
development of private facilities (accessway
and stormwater management) for the
proposed rezoning development.
DA (Development Areas): Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
neighborhood in the Places29 Master Plan
Residential and Private Open Space per the
Places29 Master Plan
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
Affordable Housing Provided:
Affordable Housing AMI (%):
❑O Yes ❑No
Minimum 15 percent affordable units at 80 percent
AMI.
Character of Property: Two parcels
Use of Surrounding Properties: There are
totaling 32.52 acres with approximately
several commercial properties to the north, and
fourteen single-family detached houses and
U.S. Army facilities. Rural Area properties
a paved accessway that creates a loop
(currently forested) are to the east and south. The
through the site and connects to the
parcel directly south is currently undeveloped but is
entrance at Route 29. Parcels are heavily
in the Development Areas.
forested and surrounded by the Rivanna
River.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The rezoning request and special
1. The density proposed with the rezoning
use permit request are consistent
application is above the recommendations
with the majority of the
within the Places29 Master Plan.
recommendations within the
2. The request to disturb preserved steep
Places29 Master Plan and the
slopes with the special use permit
Comprehensive Plan.
application could potentially create
2. The rezoning request is consistent
negative environmental impacts: erosion
with the majority of the applicable
and sedimentation of the Rivanna River;
Neighborhood Model Principles.
and loss of wildlife habitat.
3. The rezoning provides affordable
rental housing that meets the
housing policy within the
Comprehensive Plan for a period of
10 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the
unfavorable factors. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request ZMA201800018 with
the following changes:
1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in
the Places29 Master Plan.
2. Update the application plan to show a public multi -use path along the full frontage with
Route29.
Special Use Permit: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request
SP201800023 with conditions.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos
PLANNING COMMISSION: March 10, 2020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 032000000005AO and 032000000005A1
LOCATION: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane. Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles
north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29.
PROPOSAL: Rezone two properties from Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential
Development (PRD). Request for a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved
steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (entrance and
accessway) for the proposed rezoning development.
PETITION: Rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Areas (RA), which allows agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned
Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses. A maximum of 100 units are proposed for a gross density of
approximately 3 units/acre, and a net density of 12 units/acre. A special use permit for the
disturbance of preserved slopes for "Private facilities on preserved slopes" pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section 30.7.4.b.2. Request for central sewerage and central water
system per County Code Section 16-102.
ZONING: Rural Areas (RA)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Flood
Hazard Overlay; Airport Impact Area
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential use (3-6
units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale
non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features- privately
owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and
other environmental features; in the Hollymead Area of Places29 Master Plan.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject properties are located at 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane, to the east of Route
29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and
Route 29. The site has a narrow paved accessway that starts at the entrance to the site at
Route 29 and creates a loop through the middle of the site. There are approximately
fourteen single-family houses on the site. The site is mainly forested and is surrounded by
the Rivanna River. (Attachment 1)
Several commercial uses are located north of the site, including building and roofing
materials sales, an electric company, and modular home sales. U.S. Army facilities are also
located to the north. Rural Area parcels (currently forested) are to the east and south. The
parcel directly south of the site is also in the Development Areas (and is adjacent to North
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
3
Pointe) but is currently undeveloped. The residential Camelot and Briarwood neighborhoods
are across Route 29 and approximately 0.25 miles from the site.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Planned Residential
Development (PRD) to allow up to 100 dwelling units. Each dwelling unit is restricted to a
maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet. The units will all be rental units, as the
property cannot be feasibly subdivided. Access to the site will be provided using the existing
entrance off of Route 29. The existing accessway will be widened from 12 feet (of travelway,
plus some shoulder area) to 28 feet (with 20 feet of travelway and 4 feet on each side for
shoulders). Widening the accessway is the only option for future development of the site and
necessitates disturbance of preserved slopes.
Civic, recreation, and open spaces are proposed, consisting of:
• A club house, within an existing 4,000 sq. ft. structure near the entrance to the site
• A multipurpose court
• A public pedestrian path that leads to the adjacent parcel TMP 32-22K1 (where future
connections may be possible, eventually connecting to North Pointe) and to Route 29
• A network of private primitive trails, minimum 2,600 linear feet
• A minimum of two (2) playgrounds or equivalent, which will likely be natural
playscapes
The applicant has requested review and approval of a central sewerage system per 16-102
(Attachment 7). This request requires Board of Supervisors review and approval. The
applicant proposes a private pump station that would connect to a public manhole.
The applicant is also requesting a special use permit for disturbance of preserved slopes to
widen the accessway and for stormwater management (Attachment 5).
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has provided a narrative and concept plans (Attachments 3, 4, and 5).
COMMUNITY MEETING
The required community meeting was held on January 17th, 2019, at 6:00 PM at the
Hollymead Fire Station, during the regularly scheduled Places29 North CAC meeting.
Community members in attendance asked questions regarding the type of housing being
provided, how the rental units would function, about the central system approval process,
and if any transportation improvements were needed.
The applicant responded that the dwelling units will be size -restricted and likely modular
housing. The units will be long-term rentals (a year or more) and will not be used for short-
term rentals. The applicant explained that a central system requires Board of Supervisors
approval, that the applicant will need to coordinate with ACSA to go under Route 29 for
water and sewer service, and that they will need a private pump station for their site. The
applicant said that a right turn lane will likely be needed for the site entrance. The main
concern heard was how a school bus would be able to stop at the site. The applicant
responded that a loop may be feasible, or an area to safely pull over. Staff recommends the
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
applicant coordinate with Albemarle County Schools when developing a location for a bus
stop. When this application was presented to the CAC, only 60 units were proposed, versus
the current 100 units proposed. However, the revised application significantly clusters the
proposed units, and the overall area impacted by the development remains the same.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
CCP201800004: A work session for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was held
with the Planning Commission on October 16, 2018. Additional information is provided in the
staff report for CCP2018-4 (Attachment 11) and in the Planning Commission minutes
(Attachment 12) from the meeting. The Planning Commission found that net density should
be used to calculate density for the site, and should use the more accurate GIS-data, not the
area shown as Parks/Green systems in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission
also found that transferring density with the adjacent property (TMP 32-22K1, not part of this
rezoning request) was not appropriate.
There is no other previous planning and zoning history for this site.
ZMA201800018: ANAYLSIS OF THE REZONING REQUEST
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable policies in the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The request meets the Growth Management policy (CH 3), which
directs new development and infrastructure to the Development Areas. The Development
Areas Chapter (8) recommends that the urban neighborhoods (which include Places29)
have a variety of housing types and have extensive infrastructure and services. The
proposal meets the policy of having clear boundaries with adjacent Rural Areas. The
development clusters units together and maintains the existing forested riverbank boundary
with the Rural Area. The proposed development is in an Entrance Corridor and is providing
the 50-foot forested buffer called for in the Places29 Master Plan.
Analysis of the Places29 Master Plan
These properties are designated Neighborhood Density Residential in the Places29 Master
Plan, which calls for a density range of 3 to 6 units per acre:
Neighborhood Density Residential. This designation is used in areas around Centers where
single-family detached and attached housing with a gross density range between 3 — 6 units per
acre is desired. This designation is also applied to existing residential areas with densities within
or below this range (see Land Use Table LU2). This designation is essentially the same as the
Neighborhood Density Residential designation in the 1996 Land Use Plan.
Primary uses: single-family residential, including two or more housing types.
Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood,
live/work units, open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and
institutional uses are encouraged to locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents
throughout the surrounding area, and so they benefit from co -location with other
neighborhood -serving businesses. However, they may be located by exception in areas
around Centers designated Neighborhood Density Residential provided they are
compatible with surrounding uses.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
The Development Areas Chapter (8) calls for Master Plans to guide new development in the
Development Areas. Strategy 8c states that density should be calculated using net density,
by excluding areas not suitable for development, including steep slopes, stream buffers,
floodplain, and areas identified as Parks/Green systems. The proposed development has a
gross density of 3 units per acre and a net density of 12 units per acre. The Master Plan
recommends a maximum of 51 units using the calculation of net density. 100 dwelling units
are proposed with a range of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, which is double the
recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. All units are sized -restricted, with a
maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 1,200 square feet each.
The applicant has included information regarding accessory units in their narrative as
justification for the additional units. Specifically, the applicant has compared the additional
density proposed with this development to be comparable to a more traditional single-family
development with accessory units, which are permitted in the zoning ordinance and do not
count towards overall density. The applicant compares the following scenarios:
• The applicant could construct larger single-family homes, each of which could
have an accessory dwelling unit, which would not count toward density.
0 3,000 square foot house could have an accessory unit that could be 1,050
square feet in size.
0 4,000 square foot house could have an accessory unit that could be 1,400
square feet in size.
• Or, as the applicant proposes, the applicant could construct 100 units and size -
restrict the units, so that the overall impact would be similar to 50 larger single-
family units.
Additional information regarding density and prior actions is provided in Attachment 9.
Additional relevant language within the Comprehensive Plan that relates to housing and
density includes:
• Chapter 8 states that housing in the Development Areas should be provided at a
variety of price points, including affordable housing. The proposed development
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
6
provides a unique housing type in the County. There appears to be an increasing
demand for smaller units, especially as household sizes decrease nationally.
Objective 4 of this Chapter is to "Use Development Areas land efficiently to
prevent premature expansion of the Development Areas". The proposed Planned
Residential Development clusters units together on the site, and includes
duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
Objective 4 of the Housing Chapter (9) is to `Provide for a variety of housing types
for all income levels and help provide for increased density in the Development
Areas." In addition to the proposed housing types, the applicant is providing
affordable housing in accordance with the Housing Policy.
There is not sufficient guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for staff to determine when it
may be acceptable to exceed the Comprehensive Plan. Master Plans are drafted and
adopted through a community -driven process, including review of the future land use
categories and designations. Therefore, staff has included exceeding the recommended
density in the Master Plan as a 'factor unfavorable' with this application and previous
applications and recommends that the density be reduced to meet the recommendations in
the Master Plan.
Affordable Housing: The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing units,
meeting the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan (Strategy 6b, CH 9). Since the
units will be rental, they will be affordable for a period of 10 years. The Housing Planner has
reviewed the request and found that it is consistent with County policy. The Housing Planner
has also noted that on September 18, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution
to adopt a future policy on anti -displacement measures for new development that results in
existing residents needing to relocate (Attachment 10). The Housing Planner has provided
draft guidelines for the applicant to review. At this time formal guidelines have not been
adopted; if guidelines are adopted by the Board while this application is under review, it is
expected that the applicant coordinate with the Housing Planner to meet the guidelines.
The properties are also designated Privately -Owned Open Space/Environmental Features
(Parks/Green systems):
Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features. This designation includes open space
that is owned and managed by private or semi-public entities, such as homeowners associations,
private homeowners, commercial or business park land owners, and others. These areas consist of
recreational and passive open space amenities, and may include floodplains, steep slopes,
wetlands, and other areas with environmental constraints where construction of buildings is
discouraged (see Land Use Table LU2). The Future Land Use map shows Privately Owned Open
Space/Environmental Features in a darker green (than the Public Open Space described above).
Primary uses: semi-public open spaces, such as semi-public parks, greenways, trails, and
other recreational and passive open spaces that are owned by homeowners associations or
other similar entities and are open to property owners and their guests.
Secondary uses: related institutional uses.
The Parks/Green systems designated areas are preserved with this development, with
some disturbance of preserved slopes required (however, the Comprehensive Plan shows
the slopes that will be disturbed as Neighborhood Density Residential, as there is an
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
existing accessway on these slopes). The development contributes to trail connections that
Parks and Recreation has identified as significant. Providing a future public access with the
adjacent parcel to the south (TMP 32-22K1) allows for future connections to North Pointe
and the greater greenway system. There were no major concerns heard at the CAC
community meeting for this application.
The following maps compare the applicant's proposed public trails to the recommendations
in the Master Plan:
Existing paved — ---'—' _ - _ _ _ us 29
-- road to become
pedestrian path
Ll FEMA 2'
Future pedestrian C j
connection across - - Existing structure ��JGIC
Flat Branch to ' to be preserved
'rMP 32-22K 1 • e and repurposed as
\ vtM,1 FE 186� I amenity for TMP
sl�, � l 32-5A and 32-5A1
The above right image shows the map from the Parks/Green Systems in the Places29
Master Plan, which "shows the recommended network of existing and proposed trails, multi-
use paths, and bicycling facilities that would provide convenient non -vehicular connections
between different parts of the Development Areas" In consultation with Parks and
Recreation, staff has determined that providing an internal private trail system is acceptable,
and that a connection to the adjacent NGIC parcel is not necessary. Staff finds that a future
public connection with the adjacent parcel to the south (TMP 32-22K1) would allow for the
trail network to connect to North Pointe and therefore to the greater trail network. Staff
recommends that the applicant provide the multiuse path along Route29, as there will be a
future connection across Route29 that follows the river and completes an important section
of the greenway.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Neighborhood
Model Principles and found that it is consistent with the majority of the principles. The
detailed Neighborhood Model Analysis can be found in Attachment 8.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Relationship between the application and the intent and purposes of the requested
zoning district:
The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning district is to:
• "encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward
impact on the surrounding area in land development... promote economical and
efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious
physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the
county and the area in which it is located. "
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
• `provide for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses
ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection
of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and
preservation of agricultural activity."
Staff reviewed the request and has found that this rezoning meets the purposes and intent
of the PRD. The proposal includes a variety of housing types (single-family detached,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes), 25% open space, a forested buffer along Route 29, and
recreation. The development clusters dwelling units and preserves most of the site for open
space. While PRD's are generally recommended for areas with Comprehensive Plan
recommended densities of 15 units/acre or more, staff finds that PRD is an appropriate
district for this site, as the significant environmental features require "careful planning with
respect to impact", as the intent of the zoning district states.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
The applicant provided estimated traffic counts and right turn lane analysis within the
narrative (Attachment 6). VDOT reviewed the application and traffic information and does
not anticipate a significant traffic impact. A traffic study was not required. The existing AADT
between Airport/Proffitt Roads and Camelot Drive is 39,000 vehicle trips. The proposed
development would add 543 weekday trips, with 35 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak
hour trips.
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Baker Butler Elementary School, Sutherland Middle
School, and Albemarle High School. The applicant has provided the following estimates for
new student counts, based on calculations provided by County Schools:
Type of Dwelling Unit
Elementary
Nliddle
High
Total
Multifamily
0.12
0.03
0,05
0.21
100 Units
12
3
11
Of these three schools, both Baker Butler Elementary School and Albemarle High School
are projected to continue to exceed capacity. Albemarle County Public Schools' 'Long
Range Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations' (July 11, 2019) identifies
'moderate capacity conflicts' for Baker Butler E.S. and 'high capacity conflicts' for Albemarle
H.S.
The report recommends the following for Baker Butler E.S.: "Student enrollment is projected
to be just at capacity at the two schools combined. However, Baker -Butler is currently over-
enrolled and capacity conflicts are projected to worsen over time. On the other hand,
Broadus Wood, the district directly adjacent to Baker -Butler has ample capacity of
approximately 100 seats. LRPAC again recommends a redistricting study if the capacity
situation at Baker -Butler worsens. Long-term forecasts show this northern area growing
substantially. If forecasts prove out, a new elementary school will be needed."
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
9
The report recommends the following for all three County high schools: "The Division has
embarked upon a "center" based strategy to address capacity issues at its three
comprehensive high schools, in particular at Albemarle High School. This agile approach
addresses both instructional and capacity needs in an efficient manner. Long-term county
population growth is forecast to grow by 44% over the next thirty years. That could yield
another 1, 800 high school students, roughly the size of the current AHS."
As the Places29 Master Plan is fully realized, growth must be closely monitored since
Albemarle High schools does not have the long-term capacity to support additional
residential growth expected in this part of the County. However, dedication of land for two
new elementary schools are proffered commitments of other large developments in the
Places29 Development Area. This includes a 7-acre site within Brookhill and a 12.85-acre
site within North Pointe. The Brookhill development also has a proffer requiring dedication of
an approximately 60-acre site along Berkmar Drive that could be used for a comprehensive
public high school. There are no proposed relevant projects in the current CIP.
Fire and Rescue:
Fire/Rescue had no objection to the proposal
point of access is not required.
Since the units will be sprinklered, a second
Utilities:
The proposed development is in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. The applicant is
requesting a central sewerage system, with analysis provided below. The proposal shows a
public waterline, per ACSA's review comments, as follows: `Parcel is located in the North
Fork South Zone Special Rate District. Due to the demand for fire hydrants a public water
main will be required. ACSA may request these units be individually metered." ACSA has no
objection to the proposal.
Request for Central Sewerage System:
The applicant is also requesting approval of a central sewerage system for the proposed
residential development (Attachment 7), which requires approval from the Board. This
approval does not require action of the Planning Commission. The development would
connect to public water and sewer.
Section 16 of the County Code defines a central sewerage system as a system designed to
serve three or more connections. The proposed central sewerage system would serve 100
dwelling units and would require a sewer lateral connection to each dwelling unit. The
central system would use a private sanitary force main, which would tie into a new public
sanitary manhole adjacent to Route 29. The manhole would connect to a public gravity main
under Route 29 and then to the existing public manhole at the RWSA pump station. The
applicant includes the following information on monitoring the system: "The pump station will
consist of a remote monitoring system that will be managed by a contracted professional
third party, a backup generator in case of loss of power, and an onsite alarm system in case
of failure."
There do not appear to be feasible alternatives for utilities for the site. The site is in the
Development Areas and has environmental and topographically constraints; therefore,
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
10
drainfields would not be appropriate. Given the steep slopes, stream buffer, and floodplain
constraints, connecting to adjacent parcels may be infeasible and would require significant
impacts to environmental features. The proposed central system ultimately connects to
public utilities. ACSA provided the following comments: "This site has restrictive access,
which would make routine maintenance to the pump station a challenge. This pump station
is also serving a single parcel, so there will be no other developments connecting to the
proposed pump station."
Staff reviews requests such as this for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and also for
technical feasibility. County Engineer and Health Department approval of the final system
specifications will be required prior to construction. The Comprehensive Plan discourages
central systems in the Rural Area; however, it does not contain guidance on central systems
in the Development Areas. Staff has no objection relevant to the Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant has submitted the required application materials per 16-102(1-3), however has not
yet submitted 16-102(4). Review of the full materials by the County Engineer, Health
Department, and ACSA will be required prior to approval.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources:
There are no known cultural or historic resources on the site. There are significant
environmental resources on the site, including steep slopes and a portion of the Rivanna
River (Attachment 2). The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit to disturb steep
slopes to install a paved vehicular accessway for the development and to provide access to
the river for stormwater management purposes. Additional analysis is included in the
Special Use Permit section of this report.
While there will be some impacts to environmental resources with this development, the
County Engineer and Planning staff find the impacts to preserved slopes to be acceptable
and find that there would not be substantial negative impacts. No buildings or parking are in
steep slopes or the stream buffer. Disturbance of preserved slopes is necessary to allow for
vehicular access to the site. Buildings and parking are not permitted in preserved slopes,
stream buffers, or the flood plain. The proposed development provides trails throughout the
development to give residents access to the scenic environmental resources on the site.
Potential negative impacts to environmental features are considered against the beneficial
aspects of the proposal, including providing affordable housing and directing development to
the Development Areas.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
No significant impacts are anticipated on nearby and surrounding properties. The two
parcels included in this development are surrounded by the Rivanna River. The
development preserves the existing vegetated area surrounding the property. There is no
connection to the NGIC properties to the north. In the future, there may be a pedestrian trail
connection with the property to the south, which would be a beneficial connection to the
greater trail system.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County's growth management policy states that new residential development should
occur in the designated Development Areas where infrastructure and services are provided,
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
11
rather than in the Rural Area. This proposal provides several housing types and provides 15
percent affordable units.
PROFFERS
There are no proffers proposed with this application.
SP201800023: ANAYLSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Special Use Permit request per 18-30.7.4(b)(2): "The only use permitted by special use
permit on preserved slopes are private facilities such as accessways, utility lines and
appurtenances, and stormwater management facilities, not otherwise permitted by right
under subsection (b)(1)(e), where the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of
the preserved slopes to locate the private facilities."
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.39(B) states that the Commission, in making its recommendation, shall consider
the same factors found in Section 33.40(B):
1. No substantial detriment. Whether the proposed special use will be a substantial
detriment to adjacent parcels.
There is no anticipated detriment to adjacent parcels. The disturbance of the preserved
slopes is entirely contained to the site. Both the site and the boundaries of surrounding
parcels contain environmental features that permit very limited development or disturbance,
including preserved slopes, stream buffers, and floodplain. There are no structures on
adjacent parcels that are near the proposed disturbance area, nor would there be in the
future. Disturbance of steep slopes for the accessway removes terrain prone to erosion,
however, it also increases runoff.
The applicant would need County Engineer review and approval of a VSMP application
meeting the steep slopes standards of County Code 18-30.7.5 prior to any disturbance
activities. The application states that: "The disturbed material is expected to be mostly rock,
which does not require mass earthwork and movement of dirt... The areas of disturbance will
be limited to cutting and excavating the slopes, with no mass grading of the steep slopes
planned, protecting downstream areas below. Any land disturbance will comply with
applicable Virginia DEQ and Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance Regulations."
The County Engineer has no objection to the Special Use Permit request to disturb steep
slopes for the accessway. The County Engineer also has no objection to disturbance of
slopes for the purpose of stormwater management facilities. The County Engineer has
reviewed the general locations of the proposed facilities and found them to be acceptable.
It should be noted that while disturbance of steep slopes is needed for the accessway,
disturbance of steep slopes for stormwater management facilities may not ultimately be
needed during site planning. The applicant has chosen to include the disturbance request
for the stormwater management facilities with this application so that the full request is
contained in one special use permit, and the applicant does not need to submit an additional
special use permit request in the future, should the disturbance be necessary.
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
12
2. Character of the nearby area is unchanged. Whether the character of the adjacent
parcels and the nearby area will be changed by the proposed special use.
No change to the character of the nearby area is anticipated. Disturbance of preserved
slopes is for widening the existing accessway to the development to meet County standards
and for stormwater management facilities. The accessway will not be a private street. It will
have the design and appearance of a rural road section, widening the existing accessway
from 12 feet (of travelway, plus some shoulder area) to 28 feet (with 20 feet of travelway and
4 feet on each side for shoulders). This wider accessway is needed for safe and convenient
vehicular travel, and for access for emergency vehicles. Further development of the site is
not feasible without widening the accessway. The majority of the preserved slopes are left
unchanged with this development, and the wooded character of the immediate area
remains.
3. Harmony. Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter,
The purpose and intent of the steep slopes overlay district per 18-30.7.1 is "to establish an
overlay district on those lands within the development areas of the county as delineated in
the comprehensive plan which have steep slopes and for which additional development
design care and consideration must be given, prior to permitted development occurring."
Disturbance of preserved steep slopes: "should be subject to appropriate consideration
and care in their design and construction in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope
areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the
unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of
soil and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and
to enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development
areas of the county." The applicant's justification (Attachment 5) addresses how each of
these provisions are met. The County Engineer concurs with this analysis. The applicant
will need to meet all relevant County and State standards for slope disturbance and
stormwater management, including the standards in 18-30.7.5 and an approved VSMP
application.
a. with the uses permitted by right in the district,
By -right uses permitted in preserved steep slopes per 18-30.7.4(b)(1) include necessary
public facilities, existing structures, and trails. The expanded accessway follows the existing
accessway and will provide necessary access for the proposed dwelling units requested
with the rezoning application. Although the requested density is above the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation, any future development would require upgrading this accessway.
There is also sufficient space for the proposed trails throughout the site.
b. with the regulations provided in Section 5 as applicable,
There are no applicable regulations in Section 5.
c. and with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Based on the above analysis and the application, staff does not anticipate that the steep
slopes disturbance would negatively affect public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally,
the disturbance of steep slopes allows for development of the site and is consistent with
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
13
major aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, including providing development in the
Development Areas and providing affordable housing. While the proposed density is above
the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, any further development of this site
would require disturbance of slopes for a safe accessway of sufficient width and potentially
for stormwater management facilities.
4. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed special use will
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The favorable aspects of this proposal are weighed against the unfavorable aspects. While
the proposed development may have some negative impacts on environmental features,
staff finds the overall benefits outweigh these impacts. Additional analysis of the benefits of
the proposed development are in the above rezoning analysis and include: providing
affordable housing; providing a unique housing type; and directing development and density
to the Development Areas.
The Natural Resources Chapter (Chapter 4) highlights the importance of protecting water
and topographical resources in the County, especially the water quality of the Rivanna
River. Strategy 5c states that steep slopes in the Development Areas should be protected,
especially those adjacent to streams. While this development request requires disturbance
of preserved steep slopes, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable
factors of the request. Land shown as Parks/Green systems in the Comprehensive Plan is
preserved with this development. The proposal is located in the Development Areas, is
providing affordable housing consistent with County policy, and is providing a unique type of
housing that is not currently provided in the County. Development of the site would be
infeasible without disturbance of preserved slopes, as the only means of access to the site
is through preserved slopes.
Engineering staff has commented that disturbing preserved slopes for stormwater
management purposes is acceptable, especially as the disturbance will ultimately result in
stabilization of the river bank. Engineering staff finds that accessing the river may be
necessary for stormwater management, however the applicant may decide to pursue an
alternative design at the site planning stage if desired.
The County Natural Resources Manager commented on the importance of protecting
biodiversity and on the existing stream quality issues in the Rivanna River:
"Segments of the North Fork Rivanna River (NFRR) are designated as impaired by Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for recreation (based on levels of coliform
bacteria) and aquatic life (based on benthic macroinvertebrate data) ... this section of the
NFRR has been identified as Threatened/Endangered waters by the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries... due to observations of state or federally threatened or
endangered freshwater mussels. The Rivanna River Corridor, which includes this project
site, was identified as one of three Conservation Focus Areas in the County (Figure 8 in the
amended Natural Resources Chapter). Conservation Focus Areas have significant
biodiversity resources and high conservation value. In the case of the Rivanna River
Corridor, there is habitat connectivity throughout much of the focus area. Impacts to natural
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
14
resources in the Conservation Focus Areas should be minimized and avoided when
possible. "
The proposed development contains new trails near the River but does not have any direct
access to the River. There is existing development on the site, and the proposed
development uses nearly the same location for its upgraded accessway as the current
paved accessway. No subdivisions are proposed with the development request, and the site
would remain as two parcels only (or be combined into one parcel). Therefore, staff does not
find that the development would cause habitat fragmentation. Some of the existing houses
on the site are within preserved slopes and stream buffers. The new development would not
have any houses or parking areas within slopes or stream buffers. The proposed
development is not in a water supply watershed.
ZMA201800018 AND SP201800023: SUMMARY AND MOTIONS
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request and special use permit request are consistent with the
majority of the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable
Neighborhood Model Principles.
3. The rezoning provides affordable rental housing that meets the housing policy
within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
The density proposed with the rezoning application is above the
recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan.
2. The request to disturb preserved steep slopes with the special use permit
application could potentially create negative environmental impacts: erosion and
sedimentation of the Rivanna River; and loss of wildlife habitat.
RECOMMENDATION: ZMA201800018
Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff recommends approval
of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the following changes:
1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended
density in the Places29 Master Plan.
2. Update the application plan to show a public multi -use path along the full frontage
with Route29.
RECOMMENDATION: SP201800023
Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as favorable, staff
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
15
recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP201800023 River's Edge, with
the following conditions:
1. The limits of disturbance within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District shall be
limited to the sizes, locations, and extents of disturbance as proposed in the "River's
Edge: Steep Slopes Disturbance" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and
dated February 28, 2020.
2. Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan
and water protection ordinance plan for River's Edge shall be in general accord with the
same improvements and grading shown on the exhibits "River's Edge: Road Grading +
Profile" and "River's Edge: Conceptual Stormwater" in the "River's Edge: Zoning Map
Amendment Application Plan" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and
dated February 28, 2020.
3. If blasting of rock becomes necessary, the applicant will submit a blasting plan subject to
review and approval by the County Engineer and other Authorities having jurisdiction
prior to commencing such activity.
4. Two -layer erosion and sediment control measures will be installed around the perimeter
of the site, where feasible, at the discretion of the County Engineer.
5. Erosion and sediment control measures will not be located within the floodplain limits.
PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for ZMA201800018:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201800018, River's Edge (state reasons for
denial).
PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for SP201800023:
C. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP201800023, River's Edge, with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
D. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit
Move to recommend denial of SP201800023, River's Edge (state reasons for denial).
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
16
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Maps
Attachment 2: Environmental Features Maps
Attachment 3: Applicant Narrative, dated February 28, 2020
Attachment 4: Rezoning Application Plan, dated February 28, 2020
Attachment 5: Special Use Permit Application, dated February 28, 2020
Attachment 6: Right Turn Warrant Analysis
Attachment 7: Central Sewerage System Request
Attachment 8: Neighborhood Model Principles Staff Analysis
Attachment 9: County Ordinance and Policy for Accessory Units Staff Analysis
Attachment 10: Resolution on Anti -Displacement Policy approved by Board of Supervisors,
September 18, 2019
Attachment 11: Staff Report for CCP201800004, dated October 16, 2018
Attachment 12: Planning Commission Minutes for CCP201800004
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge
Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020
17
r , ✓ _ .. fir," i
Ilk
y \\\t,,'.y'..r'
'Chris Greene Lake o
40
r 4
al Ground
igence Center.
sville
SITE i
C ott
e 1 rt'•.
rL Lniversity of Virginia
use --h P-
arik
!/'
All l
,.den / /-
NTS : A
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
OWNER/DEVELOPER
Rivers Edge Holdings LLC & Rivers Edge Associates LLC
C/O Access Properties
2027 Woodbrook Ct
Charlottesville, VA 22901
PROPERTY ADDRESS
2260-2280 Rivers Edge Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
DISTRICT
Rivanna
STEEP SLOPES £r STREAM BUFFER
There are existing steep slopes and stream buffers on site.
SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND
TOPOGRAPHY
Compiled from the Albemarle County Office of Geographic
Data Services GIS Data. Topographic road survey completed
by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying,
September 2018.
FLOODZONE
According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective
date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003CO286D),
this property does lie within a Zone AE 100-year flood plain.
WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED
Non -Watershed Supply Watershed
WATER AND SANITARY SERVICES
Provided by Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
FIRE CODE
Units will be provided with an automatic sprinkler system
USE
EXISTING: R1 - Residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density
Residential & Private Open Space
PROPOSED: Residential & Private Open Space
ZONING
EXISTING: Rural Areas
OVERLAY: Airport Impact Area, Entrance Corridor, 100-
Year Floodplain, Steep Slopes - Managed & Preserved
PROPOSED: Planned Residential Development (PRD)
PROPOSED UNITS
100 size -restricted units: 50 units, maximum unit size 1,200
SF + 50 units, maximum unit size 900 SF
Gross density of 3 units/acre (32.52 acres total), net density of
11.6 units/acre (8.62 developable).
OPEN SPACE
Open space area shall be provided in accordance with Sec.
4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Recreational area shall be provided in accordance with
Section 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Recreational facilities as provided for in Section 4.16.2 may
be substituted during site plan with equipment and facilities
as provided for in this Application Plan and as approved by
the Director of Planning and Community Development.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations,
stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar
facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such
discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river
in an adequate channel with slope stabilization, as applicable,
where stream bank disturbance occurs.
USE TABLE NOTES
1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to exceed
60,000 SF
2. Setbacks are not provided as the property is not to be
subdivided.
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
SITE & ZMA DETAILS
Sheet 2 of 29
USE TABLE
PROPOSED # OF
100
DWELLING UNITS'
UNIT TYPE
Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, triplex, quadruplex
NON-RESIDENTIAL
4,000 SF
SQUAREFOOTAGE
(excluding recreational
facilities provided in
accordance with Sec. 4.16)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
35'
MAXIMUM GFA PER UNIT
50 units: 1,200 SF (MAX) + 50 units: 900 SF (MAX)
BUILDING SEPARATION
10' unless the building shares a common wall; 5' off of each building side for a total of 10'
between buildings
BUILD -TO LINES
50' from US Route 29
5' from parking areas, travelways, accessways, and pedestrian paths
ALLOWABLE USES
Residential units as provided for in this Application Plan.
The following uses listed in Sec. 19.3.1 shall be permitted by -right: (1) Parks, playgrounds,
community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilities such as tennis courts,
swimming pools, game rooms, libraries, and the like; (2) 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 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; (3) 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; public 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; (4) Temporary construction uses; (5) Accessory uses and structures including home
occupation, Class A and storage buildings; (6) Group home; (7) Stormwater management facilities
shown on approved final site plan or subdivision plat; (8) Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service
facilities; (9) Family day homes
The following uses of Sec. 19.3.2 shall be permitted by approval of a special use permit: (1) Child
day center; (2) Fire and rescue squad stations; (3) Assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility,
children's residential facility, or similar institution; (4) Electrical power substations, transmission
lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances;
unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances; (5) Home occupation, Class B; (6) Religious assembly use; (7)
Stand alone parking and parking structures; (8) Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities; (9)
Offices; (10) Tier III personal wireless service facilities; (11) Historical centers, historical center
special events, historical center festivals; (12) Farmers' market
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 d y
--------------------- ; ------------
IMP 32-22K1
1 Incheon Holdings LLC
1 Zone: Rural Areas
1
- - - - - -t Use: Vacant Residential
1
TMP 32-22K 1
Neighborhood Investments - NP LLC 1
Zone: Rural Areas 1
Use: Vacant Residential 1
1
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
----------------t_---__-----_--- _ ------ ___------- EXISTING CONDITIONS
TMP32-5F '
I
Sheet 3 of 29
1
1
Seraphic Holdings LLC
1
1
Zone: Light Industrial I
1
1 Use:
Distribution Warehouse
TMP 32-5E
/ IMP 32-5
TMP 32-5A
TMP 32-5B 1 Chim LLC
1
� e1n Generation LL(
Additional Notes:
:rs Edge Holdings LC
Seminole North LLC 1 Zone: Heavy Industrial
I
/ Zone: Rural Areas
Zone: Rural Areas
Zone: Light Industrial 1 Use: Vacant Industrial
1
IUse: Vacant Residenti
Use: Single Famil
Use: Storage Warehouse
; . - •
1. Source of property boundaries on
1
1
sheet 3: Albemarle County GIS
1
1
I
1
1 1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1 1
1 1
1
I
1
TMP 32-5D1
1
,♦
Albemarle County Service Authority
Zone: Light Industrial 1 1 1
1
1
Use: Government Building 1 1 1
1
1
I 1
1 1 1
1 1
1
TMP 32-5CI
"U
1
le United States of America
TMP 32-51)
C/O US Arm ATTN: Real
Albemarle County Service Authority
Estate Division
Zone: Light Industrial
Zone: Light Industrial
Use: Government Building
Use: Government Building
TMP 32-5A1
Rivers Edge Associates LLC
Zone: Rural Areas
Use: Multifamily
TMP 33-15
Neat Generation LLC
Zone: Rural Areas
Use: Vacant Residential
225 0 225 450 675
Graphic Scale: 1"= 225'
TMP 32-5C4
United States of America C/O US Army
Corp/Eng Office/Counsel
Zone: Rural Areas
Use: Vacant Residential
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
_ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
----------- ------ ---- \ ' _
\ APPLICATION PLAN
---- -
------ ZMA201800018
_ E3
I /
RIVER'S EDGE
?�N 'FEMA IF
92'
J/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sheet 4 of 29
FEM FE 38�
Additional Notes:
v /;
1. Source of dashed parcel boundaries: Albemarle
_ County GLS
2. Source of parcel boundary for TMP 32-5A and
Approximate - -�� - ' - - - - - - ' I - - - - - v - 32-5A1: plat of record and approximate survey
Appe A M --' - _ _ — _ �
/ � data
location of \ o
tennis court
`c
0
80 �
am —aoo FFMABFE 396'
\ V
FEMA BFE 389'-
\
MA BFE388' I vim,
aep-FEMA-BFE 38Y�'i
lot
D.�V2X�
\
\ r i
200 0 200 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"= 200'
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
CONCEPT PLAN
Sheet 5 of 29
LEGEND
LAND USE
PROHIBITED USES
PERMITTED USES
Travel ways, ingress/egress,
Residential & non-
grading, landscaping, utilities,
-Accessway
Reservation*
residential buildings
along with other uses typically
permitted within a ROW
Residential and non-residential
buildings, signage, grading,
landscaping, open space,
Buildable Area
None
utilities, sidewalks, parking,
primitive trails, retaining
walls, stormwater management
facilities
Improvements
Stream restoration, primitive
that require mass
trails, landscaping, gardens,
Open Space
grading, open-air
surface parking lots,
utilities (which cannot be
reasonably located outside of
residential buildings
open space area,
belio i) ve
buildings - see n)otee 1
50' Forest Buffer
Residential & non-
residential buildings,
Travel ways, ingress/egress, for
grading and disturbance
parking
*Accessway reservation area is shown for circulation feasibility purposes; this location is
approximate and may change during site plan.
1. Primitive buildings and structures accessory to the recreational areas of the
development, such as picnic pavilions, may be constructed within the portion of the open
space area that is outside of the regulatory floodway, stream buffers, and preserved slopes.
The maximum number of sites for primitive buildings or primitive structures or similar
outdoor amenities shall be five (5). The maximum disturbance area of any individual
primitive building or primitive structure or similar outdoor amenity shall be 500 square
feet. The maximum aggregate disturbance area for all sites for primitive buildings or
primitive structures or outdoor amenities shall be 1,500 square feet. Primitive buildings,
primitive structures, and similar outdoor amenities are intended to serve as an accessory
use to the recreational areas of the development and are not intended for human
habitation.
Key
FEMA BFE TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Stream Submitted 17 December 2018
---- WPO Buffer Revised 16 September 2019
Waterway Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
Steep Slopes: Preserved REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
0 Steep Slopes: Managed
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
— —
201800018
�\A -- FEMA BFE ; \ —_ — \ I �;-T------- RIVER"S EDGE
1 i
FEMA F 92' I •' OPEN SPACE
PT Existing structure Sheet 6 of 29
,
to be preserved �I
and r purposed ash
I
amenity for TMP Additional Notes:
FEM F-E 386' 32-5A and 32-5A1 I /
1. This open space exhibit shows possible open space area
outside of environmentally sensitive features (steep slopes,
floodplain, stream buffer). This does not depict total open
space proposed for the property. For total open space, please
see sheet 5 (Land Use Designations).
_ _ _ - - - -- - - - - - - - I _ — / 2. Total possible open space area outside of (1)
Approximate M r I- __ __ - I — /
\ r.., - _ —� \ environmentally sensitive features and (2) accessway and
--locationof \ a "„�. i
parking area is 5.37 acres.
repurposed oo
multipurpose
3. Total building footprint area (not shown) is approximated
court_38 \ at no greater than 60,000 sq. ft., therefore, possible open
-qzo _ FEMn BF --
°so - p ce area outside f 1 environmentally sensitive features,
o
—ago_ _ � �
/ s2�
..... � � � � _ -- � accessway and parking area, and (3) building footprints
- caa \
V �— ... _ is 4 acres.
FEMA BFE.389% ry —
/ 4. Total area of the property is 32.52 acres; total required
.,..
7.. a �� �� ' �' open space is 8.13 acres, with 1.62 acres required outside of
L`.such environmental features
" \ \ _ - . Open space and recreational areas will comply with
Key 4za — Qo- MA BFE ass / ' Section 4.7 and 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning
\ Ordinance, unless substitutions for facilities and equipment
........ Possible Open Space Area Outside of \ \ P
as provided for in this application are approved by the
Environmentally Sensitive Features Director of Planning and Community Development.
FEMA BFE
`
Stream \ \ \\�,. _ \ 380-EEMABFE 387'
%
Accessway/Parking
Steep Slopes: Preserved arna��
0 Steep Slopes: Managed o
200 0 200 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"=200'
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
- - --- ----- — — — — —--------- --- ZONING
—_ � is �-�
G MAP AMENDMENT
—_---- =-__- --�_ ------ - ---' -- l ,, _-__-� — — --------- - APPLICATION PLAN
-_ - — - ---------------------
lilt- � /------------- ---- ---- ZMA201800018
— — EfNfA BFE i83�.5 - � — / �
- _ - RIVER'S EDGE
`FEMA F 92'f I _
OPEN SPACE &
CREATIONAL FACILITIES
Existing structure
to be preserved —i-- Sheet 7 Of 29
and repurposed as
FEM fE 386' amenity for TMP \
\�- - - _J 32-5A and 32-5A1 Additional Notes:
7_-°__1 � � � : � 1. Minimum 2,600 linear feet of
primitive trails to be provided.
IX F Please refer to sheet 11 (Proposed
Circulation) for proposed path
`� locations.
Approximate ^
'— FFM
a1' _. �` --Y -'117�t��r,
location of +j
repurposed ���`` -+Zi�������il�l�l
i
multipurpose
court
Required Equipment
Proposed Natural Alternative
for One Tot Lot
Swing (4 seats)
- Swings could still be used with more natural features
incorporated (es: tree swings)
- Natural structures that are conducive for climbing/
hanging/swinging by arms (ea: fallen log with limbs at
varying heights)
Slide (1)
- Slides could still be used with logs set into natural
topography as `stairs; or slide set on top of boulders (see
climber alternatives below)
- Hobbit house
- Hollowed out tree trunk
Climbers (2)
- Natural mound
- Large boulders ("rock landscape")
- Fallen log will limbs at varying heights
Buckabout/whirl (1)
- Log steppers or log balancing course
- Movable objects (see narrative for information about
loose objects play)
Benches (2)
Provided typically for parents to directly supervise
children within a fenced -in area. Depending on
circumstances, benches may not be necessary, especially
as the natural playscape may not be confined to a specific
area. Benches maybe periodically provided along the trail
system on the property; enact locations will be explored at
site plan.
Basketball court (1/2)
1 -1 multipurpose court to be provided
Please refer to sheet 8 and 9 for precedent natural playscape images.
200 0 200 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"=200'
sza ---- --� � EM,A BF-E 390'. V
- / s TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
_ :` � �, ort o ,� _ i y-� �! '� Revised 16 September 2019
\� Revised16December2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
s • ..' . i - ",, ' � , , , • . . r . , . r � 1 a^� fir-. ..- ,,. _
w '
IL
Aas,
•F-IrQb-
'
r
-
+'
] (d
.r r , ,
,.
•!
lip,
- -^N
. _
w,
'
OPP
4-
tt
Y� t
�
_.
r •i
-
.,ya,_'a f.�..
fj
r
ZONILL4
RIVI PRECE
,
a
_ t
.;*wi
Welles Park Nature Play Space, Chicago, Illinois (Site Design Group)
Overview of Nature Play Programming
r
Marge and Charles Schott Nature P1ayScape
Cincinnati Nature Center, Milford, Ohio
(Ground Work Design Cincinnati)
Hollowed natural mound
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
PRECEDENT NATURAL
PLAY IMAGES
Sheet 9 of 29
are included for precedent
recreational facilities to be
to plan and do not demonstrate
nprovements.
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Sae = \ — - __—__—__—__--_
— — "— — -- — — ---_—__—_ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
MtiBFE i APPLICATION PLAN
Existing paved / I .'' i. ZMA201800018
' accesswa to become FEMA F 92' I .' ' RIVER'S EDGE
pedestrian path BUILDING ENVELOPE
i
Sheet 10 of 29
FEM FE 386' \
\ i J
Wa d ,
I
- J
I
350. I
1
� f
FM
I
_F A BFE 390'
—- .�
azn- - - --
.00
__
17
FEMA BFE 389' r
alp_ J �; MA BF7°388'1
\t o
Key
PROPOSED # OF
100
DWELLING UNITS'
UNIT TYPE
Single-family dwelling, two-family
dwelling, triplex, quadruplex
NON-RESIDENTIAL
4,000 SF
SQUAREFOOTAGE
(excluding recreational
facilties required by
Section 4.16 )
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
35'
MAXIMUM GFA PER
50 units: 1,200 SF + 50 units: 900 SF
UNIT
BUILDING
10' unless the building shares a
SEPARATION
common wall; 5' off of each building
side for a total of 10' between
buildings
BUILD -TO LINES2
50' from US Route 29
5' from parking areas, travelways,
accessways, and pedestrian paths
ALLOWABLE USES
Residential units as provided for in
this Application Plan.
Please refer to sheet 2 for by -right and
special uses permitted on the property.
�` I / / Additional Notes:
Building Footprint _moo _FEMA BFE 387' = / �r
FEMA BFE - a \ ' �' 1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to
Stream - - ��� �� �' exceed 60,000 SF
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
2. Setbacks are not provided as the property is not to be
® Waterway\ aEt i
�� �a� - i / subdivided.
Accessway/Parking \ - - -� V i Fotk� TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Steep Slopes: Preserved - - _ _ _ A� oY
/ Submitted 17 December 2018
0Steep Slopes: Managed _ � � Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
200 0 200 400 600
project: 15.064
Graphic Scale:l"=zoo' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
T�
Existingsued o' — - _ - - - - - - - _ - - -
P — — --- -
- road to become -
� � -- it � -�--; ----- —T
pedestrian path /
UI it y FEMA F 92'
Future pedestrian
o
structure Existing st
connection across
• s to be preserved
Flat Branch to --- ----- � ' -'-
TMP 32-22K1 aP - and repurposed as
�FEM FE 38e' m A amenity for TMP \ -
, • �� 32-5A and 32-5A1 V °
% /
m
o
I
rtAPProximate
location of--_----��''--__
9
repurposed . M r , _ _ { <'
multipurpose
court
o
38o a1• -- 380 _ i �� i
�
ago <00 FEMA 8420
FE
•
• •. 44, Pedestrian walkways
\ °
on both sides of ;FE 369'= '; 1
'ao -♦ 4az • • \ retaining wall �' I
f
Pedestrian walkways
Fire access
turnaround -
round 388
\
-
k _
Fir access
turnaround
\ \
--FEMA BFE 38T
iA °
200 0 200 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"= 200'
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
PROPOSED CIRCULATION
Sheet 11 of 29
Key
• • • • Public Access Pedestrian Path
Future Pedestrian Connection
Vehicular Circulation
Primitive Trail (Internal Network)
Retaining Wall
FEMA BFE
Stream
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
_ Waterway
_ Accessway/Parking
_ Pedestrian Walkways
0 Steep Slopes: Preserved
0 Steep Slopes: Mans ed
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
---t- ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
_
PLICATION PLAN
Existing ACSA manhole ==
— — — - — — -- — — — — --- = ---1 _ —Z— — �- — — — AP
- - - - — -- - - - — — ZMA201800018
_ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ = Bore under Route 29 for public sewer -- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - = RIVER'S EDGE
117
e — --
-New ACSA manhole7T�--=_ — --__�-__----------____-- _ CONCEPTUAL WATER
I
P I j - -- =---- —
—FE3 ; , T---- & SEWER
r
I
Public ;" / Sheet 12 0f 29
EXIStlrig Paved FEMA F 92' I /
i
road to become � o i �' � � i Additional Notes:
�? pedestrian path
1. Structures to be metered according to ACSA
l I FEM Fe ass \ regulations.
v —
-
i
\ \ 310 s r.
i
•100
�0
00
—aza =� - -FEMA
39
_---aoao
-44 0- 420—
V
\
e0.
ump station mth4
untl�rground wet
_ \
Fire hydrants - -
MA BFE 388'
—380
-EEMABFE 387"
�
�
%a. e li
A \ V A A i •A -- _ � —
\ o � � Submitted 17 December 2018
''� �� Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14APRIL2020
200 0 200 400 ---600
project: 15.064
— ' \ , SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Graphic Scale. 1 = 200' / r
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
\ 440 - ` \ RIVER'S EDGE
�� \ C NCEPTUAL GRADING
\ \ \ W 1 \ Sheet 13 of 29
1 \OF
RETAIN \ WALL
\ ` \ TW 3 RETAINIPSWALL
390
43 26 \
4 Xss°
-
1 ' I
/ / •� xOf
4i 1
TW
x210 xof
` ETAINI LL \ x1s^ \ /
\ 0 TW 418 s \oo O TW 406 /
xid' VCO BW�B / Y
\ \ \ x°GP
x°6P
00
SO 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"= 100'
/ TM P ! # 2-5A & 32-5A1
TW 408 / / / / Suie"Pised
t ed 17 December 2018
-Bw 400 sed 16 Se tember 2019
P 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
Key REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
Steep Slopes: Preserved
project: 15.064
0 Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C.
L
i
i
1
1
FEM
FE 3
50 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"= 50'
KWA APTU. JV'J"Wr It, A
V /
I
I
1 �
1
I li fi
1 1 'ti i
1 �
(11 �
1 111 �O 1
1
1
1 O
�1
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
ROAD GRADING + PROFILE
Sheet 14 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray,
Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September
2018
Key
FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations
Stream
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
0 Waterway
Accessway
Steep Slopes:
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
:EMt FE 3
-tulgoo
wult
50 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"= 50'
■
aoc
Pss
tvayto �
be Co
ff`
e�.te��ro
AeQestrla
ate
O
I
a
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
ROAD GRADING + PROFILE
Sheet 15 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray,
Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September
2018
Key
FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations
Stream
— — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
Waterway
Accessway
Steep Slopes: %0ve 2 5A & 32 5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
.`oath
50 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"= 50'
North Fork Rivanna laver
now own now 1W
'se\
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
ROAD GRADING + PROFILE
Sheet 16 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray,
Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September
2018
Key
FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations
Stream
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
0 Waterway
Accessway
.Steep Slopes: TMP s)e 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
C�
:�
:�
]oi
17 now —
MAP AMENDMENT
4�2 1 I �DLICATION PLAN
' < MA201800018
xsd �. �'.�'. A RETAIN WALL
�•. ' PIR'S EDGE
\ \ \ TW 3 8 BW 390 RETAINI WALL
)RMWATER
\� 1 Sheet 19 of 29
443 2e° \ \
,-HW 4
� x2P
IV -
Storm drain inlet
xTW
� ` I
8' RETAININ�WALL - Storm drain inlet
—--- MA
o
\ O TW 418 / \�o TIN406100 /
BW 398 /
xOSP
Discharge into waterway
o� in accordance with
Underground detention / /
x
�� VSMP regulations (see
00 / / / / note 1)
/
\ \ ! BW 400
Additional Notes: � � /
See steep slopes disturbance is
1. If permitted under applicable stormwater / / / exhibit for proposed slopes
_ /
regulations, stormwater discharge maybe to disturbance
1 � _ — / / �
level spreader or similar facility to open space. _ /
stormwater
conditions do not permit such discharge, M A—B F-E 38 i� `' T P(s ° 2 5A & 5A 1
stormwater maybe conveyed to the stream or /
river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with
a stabilization, as applicable, R ised 16 Sep ber 2019
ble, where stream Sub tied,=Y7 Dece er 2018
slope PF � �
bank disturbance occurs.
® / , evised 16 D tuber 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
Key REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
50 0 50 100 150
Steep Slopes: Preserved
Graphic Scale: l"=100' 0 Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C.
I'll a
FE M
1 0 1
Discharge into waterway
in accordance with
VSMP regulations (see
I note 2)
See steep slopes disturbance
exhibit for proposed slopes
disturbance
SO 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"=50'
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER
Sheet 20 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian
Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying,
September 2018
2. If permitted under applicable stormwater
regulations, stormwater discharge may be to
level spreader or similar facility to open space.
If conditions do not permit such discharge,
stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or
river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with
slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream
bank disturbance occurs.
Key
FEMA BFE Boundary
Stream
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
0 Waterway
Accessway
0 Steep Slopes: Preserved
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Discharge into I waterway
y in accordance with
VSMP regulations (see
Inote 2)
\ See steep slopes disturbance
exhibit for proposed slopes
disturbance
F E 3 6`
w
1
Storm drain inlet
s
`\ x3
\
SO 0 50 100 150
Graphic Scale: 1"=50'
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
it I j APPLICATION PLAN
I
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER
_ Sheet 21 of 29
Additional Notes:
k
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian
'
Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying,
September 2018
'
2. If permitted under applicable stormwater
regulations, stormwater discharge may be to
1
level spreader or similar facility to open space.
If conditions do not permit such discharge,
stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or
river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with
slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream
bank disturbance occurs.
Key
FEMA BFE Boundary
Stream
— — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
_ Waterway
Accessway
0 Steep Slopes: Preserved
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
` Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Storm drain inlet
\1
300 0 300 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"=20'
North Fork Rivanna River
saw
l
I°
�e
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER
' Sheet 22 of 29
C
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian
Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying,
September 2018.
2. If permitted under applicable stormwater
regulations, stormwater discharge may be to
level spreader or similar facility to open space.
If conditions do not permit such discharge,
stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or
river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with
slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream
bank disturbance occurs.
Key
FEMA BFE Boundary
Stream
— — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
_ Waterway
Accessway
0 Steep Slopes: Preserved
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
--_—_--__--_--
d----------- ------
FEMABFE3'- 5
6 �
— s
FEMA F 92' I7
1 d
1 u Existing structure --�
to be preserved
t and repurposed as
FEM FE 386'
� amenity for TMP i
1 32-5A and 32-5A1
I �
EM 1' — — —
Existing paved
road to become
pedestrian path
r
I
-*.
i
i -
r FEMA BFE 389'
r
FEMA BFE 388'
0 j
r
FEMA BFE 387' l
� r
a / -
200 0 200 400 600
Graphic Scale: 1"=200'
1
1
i
1
1
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE
Sheet 23 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian
Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying,
September 2018
2. Total disturbance of the steep slopes is
approximately 39,100 square feet
3. If permitted under applicable stormwater
regulations, stormwater discharge may be to
level spreader or similar facility to open space.
If conditions do not permit such discharge,
stormwater may be conveyed to the stream
or river in an adequate channel with slope
stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank
disturbance occurs.
Key
FEMA BFE
Stream
- - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
0 Waterway
® Accessway
Steep Slopes: Preserved
Steep Slopes Disturance
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
=AMA BFE 3
FEM
FE 386;
s$ ,FEMA1F1
Existing structure
to be preserved
11111k�
amenity for TMP
32-5A and 32-5A1
J
'FE
Existing paved a ,
b
road to become
pedestrian path
0 100 0 100 200 300
Graphic Scale: 1"=100'
v
1'
� no �
North For
k Rivanna Rivera
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE
Sheet 24 of 29
Additional Notes:
1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray,
Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September
2018
2. Total disturbance of the stream buffer is approximately
23,000 square feet
Key
FEMA BFE
Stream
— — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer
_ Waterway
_ Accessway
0 Steep Slopes: Preserved
_ Stream Buffer Disturance
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
X
�.p
Existing grade
Existing trees to be
preserved where possible
440- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IL
420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Planted trees
4' retaining wall
400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
SITE SECTION A -A'
Sheet 25 of 29
8' retaining wall
Top/bottom
unit
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
40 0 40 80 120
project: 15.064
Graphic Scale:l"=40' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
9
Existing trees to be
preserved where possible
440- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing grade
420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Planted trees
- - / 8' retaining wall- - - - - -
400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
SITE SECTION B-B'
Sheet 26 of 29
8' retaining wall
Top/bottom
unit
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
25 0 25 50 75
project: 15.064
Graphic Scale: l"=25' S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C.
406
404
402
400
398
Please refer to sheet 5 for land use
designations; open space is immediately
adjacent to the 50' forested buffer and
extends beyond the area shown in the
section.
Property Boundary
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
SITE SECTION C-C'
Sheet 27 of 29
5A & 32-5A1
ember 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
10 0 10 20 30
project: 15.064
Graphic Scale:l"=10' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
PRIMITIVE TRAIL SECTION
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL - PRIVATE
EASEMENT
PRIMITIVE TRAIL
5 0 5 10 15
Graphic Scale: 1"=5'
ACCESSWAY SECTION
SHOULI
VARIABLE WII
4' GRADE
EXISTING
RIVER'S EDGE ROAD
12'
PAVED ROAD
VARIABLE WIDTH
PROPOSED TYPICAL STREET SECTION
INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK
IULDER
IABLE WIDTH
20'
PAVED TRAVEL LANE
28'
ACCESSWAY RESERVATION
HOULDER
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
STREET SECTION
Sheet 28 of 29
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING
15% of the total residential dwelling units within the project shall
be For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (the "15% Affordable
Housing Requirement"). For the purposes of these Supplementary
Regulations, "affordable housing" shall mean units affordable for
rent by households within incomes at or below eighty percent
(80%) of the area median income (as determined from time
to time by the Virginia Housing Development Authority). All
renters of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Community Development Department.
The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement may be met through
a variety of housing unit types, including but not limited to, two-
family dwellings, triplexes, and quadruplexes.
(1) Rental Rates.
The initial net rent for each rental housing unit which shall qualify
as an Affordable Dwelling Unit, ("For -Rent Affordable Dwelling
Unit") shall not exceed the then -current and applicable maximum
net rent rate approved by the Albemarle County Community
Development Department. In each subsequent calendar year,
the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit
may be increased up to three percent (3%). The term "net rent"
means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The
requirement that the rents for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling
Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this
Section shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the
date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each
For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit (the Affordable Term").
(2) Conveyance of Interest.
All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language
reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this Section. In
addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any For -
Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, or any part thereof, during the
Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of
the restrictions and controls established by this Section. At least
thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any
For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during the Affordable Term,
the then -current Owner shall notify the County in writing of the
conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number
of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this
Section have been satisfied.
(3) Reporting Rental Rates.
During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental
or lease term for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, the
Applicant or its successor shall provide to the Albemarle County
Community Development Department a copy of the rental or
lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental
rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement.
In addition, during the Affordable Term, the Applicant or its
successor shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports,
copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to
rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
(4) Tracking.
Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property
shall: i) designate the units, as applicable, that will constitute
Affordable Dwelling Units within the Project and ii) contain a
running tally of the Affordable Dwelling Units either constructed
or contributed for under this Section. The designated units
shown on each site plan shall designate 15% of the total units
shown as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable
Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to more than sixty-
five percent (65%) completion of the Project.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
Sheet 29 of 29
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
\
\ PLANTED THE \
\
PRES D TREES
THRODUT SITE
(SPECIRCTREESTO
BE DESIGNATED AT
SITE PLAN)
v
=c
8' RETAINING WALL,,,,
` LANDSCAPE STRIP TO 8E PLANTE
PRESERVED TREELINE
LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED \
8' RETAINNNG WALL
\
\ T
60 0 60 120 180
Graphic Scale: 1"= 60'
Additional Notes:
1. Concept Plan is for illustrative purposes only
0
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
ZMA201800018
RIVER'S EDGE
CONCEPT EXHIBIT
Sheet 1 of 1
D � \
)ESTR AVS
VDSC TO BE PLANTED
-STEEP SLOPES -MANAGED
2-BEDROOM UNIT
4' RETAINING WALL
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
/ n A
i
TOPIBOT�)M UNIT STYLE
i
r
TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1
Submitted 17 December 2018
Revised 16 September 2019
Revised 16 December 7 19
Revised 28 February 2020
REVISED 14 APRIL 2020
project: 15.064
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia.
a public hearing on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at
Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Jennie More; Bruce
Dotson; Rick Randolph; Corey Claybome; and Luis Carrazana, UVA Representative.
Other officials present were Cameron Langille; Tod Kanellopoulos; Frank Pohl; Megan Nedostup; David
Benish, Chief of Planning; Charles Rapp, Planning Director; Jodie Filardo, Director of Community
Development; Amelia McCulley, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kevin McDermott;
Megan Nedostup; Frank Pohl; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the
Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Bivins called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda
Ms. Firehock moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Randolph seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously (6:0). (Mr. Claybore abstained.)
Recess
At 9:06 p.m., Mr. Bivins announced a recess.
At 9:20 p.m., Mr. Bivins called the meeting back to order.
Public Hearings (continued)
ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge
Ms. Tod Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner, said she was also joined by County Engineer Mr. Frank Pohl.
She said this is a request to rezone from RA Rural Area to PRD Planned Residential District on two
parcels totaling 32.52 acres at 2260 Rivers Edge Lane. She said there is also a request for a Special
Use Permit to disturb preserved slopes for an accessway and for stormwater management facilities.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said she would start by talking about the context of the site, then discuss the
proposed Application Plan for the rezoning, discuss the proposed Special Use Permit, staffs
recommendation, and the motions.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development is located at River's Edge Lane off of Route 29. She
said it is approximately one -quarter mile north of the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29,
at the UVA Research Park. She said there are several commercial uses north of the site, and a federal
government facility. She said there are forested parcels in the Rural Area located to the east and south.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
1
She said the adjacent parcel directly to the south is currently undeveloped; however, it is also in the
development area.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the site currently consists of approximately 14 dwelling units, which are
currently rental units. She said the properties are bordered by the Rivanna River. She said there are
two accessways that run through the property called Rivers Edge Road and River's Edge Lane, and
that these two accessways connect and create a loop through the site. She said there is an existing
basketball court near the front of the site.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented additional photographs from the site that show conditions of the existed
accessways and the forested character of the site. She presented photographs shoving views of the
Rivanna River from the site, and another view of the existing accessway.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the property is currently zoned Rural Area, which allows residential densities of
0.5 units per acre; however, subdividing the property would likely not be feasible. She said nearby zoning
districts include Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Districts.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said there are significant environmental features on the site. She said there are
preserved slopes (shown on the map in green), stream buffers (shown in dark blue), and flood plains
(shown in light blue). She said the existing accessway is in the stream buffer flood plain and
preserved slopes. She said the proposed accessway is in the stream buffer and slopes, but not in
the flood plain. She said there are approximately 8.62 acres out of the total, outside of those
environmental features.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the properties are designated Neighborhood Density Residential and
Private Open Space in the Places29 Master Plan. She said the Neighborhood Density Residential
classification calls for residential uses between 3 and 6 units per acre. She said the proposal is
above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the private open space and environmental features include the areas in the
flood plain, steep slopes, and stream buffer. She said no residential units or parking are located
within the environmental features.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said this proposal is also consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies,
including the Growth Management policy; efficient use of the Development Area; promoting density
within the Development Areas to help create new, compact urban places; the housing policy of having
at least 15% affordable units with rezoning; directing affordable housing activities to the Development
Areas; and having hard edges with the Rural Area.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development is within the Entrance Corridor and is providing
the 50-foot forested buffer called for in the Master Plan.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant proposes to rezone the 32.52 acres from Rural Area to
Planned Residential Development. She said the proposal is for a maximum of 100 dwelling units,
each of which is size restricted to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. She said all of the units are
rentals, as the property cannot be feasibly subdivided. She said access to the site will be provided
using the existing entrance off of Route 29.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
2
Ms. Kanellopoulos said as would be discussed later in the presentation, the applicant has also
requested a Special Use Permit to disturb steep slopes to widen the accessway and to install
stormwater management facilities.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the application meets the requirement for a minimum of 25% open space
and proposes a variety of amenities, including trails and playgrounds.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has also requested a central sewage system per County
Code 16-102. She said this request must be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said as outlined in the staff report, staff has not found any inconsistencies in the
Comprehensive Plan with this request. She said the Virginia Department of Health, Albemarle
County Service Authority, and engineering review and approval are required prior to central system
plan approval.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said Strategy 8c in the Development Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
states that density should be calculated using net density by excluding areas not suitable for
development, including steep slopes, stream buffers, flood plains, and areas identified as Parks and
Green Systems. She said the proposed development has a gross density of 3 units per acre and a net
density of 12 units per acre. She said the Master Plan recommends a maximum of 51 units, using the
calculation of net density.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said 100 units are proposed, with a range of detached, duplexes, triplexes, and four-
plexes, which is double the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. She said all of the units are
size restricted, with a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet each.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has included information regarding accessory units in their narrative as
justification for the additional units. She said specifically, the applicant has compared the additional density
proposed with this development to be comparable with a more traditional single-family development with
accessory units, which are permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and do not count toward the overall density.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant compares the following scenarios: the applicant could construct larger
single-family homes, each of which would have an accessory dwelling unit, which would not count toward
density. She said that for example, a 3,000-square-foot house could have an accessory unit that could be
1,050 square feet in size. She said alternatively, as the applicant proposes, the applicant could construct 100
units and size restrict the units so that the overall impact would be similar to 50 larger single-family units.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said there is not sufficient guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for staff to determine when
it may be acceptable to exceed the Comprehensive Plan recommended density. She said Master Plans are
drafted and adopted through a community -driven process, including review of future land use designations
and categories. She said therefore, staff has included exceeding the recommended density as a factor
unfavorable with this application and previous applications, and recommends that the density be reduced to
meet recommendations in the Master Plan. She said staff welcomes further recommendation and guidance
from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposal also extends the existing multiuse path, as shown in the Places29
Master Plan. She said in consultation with Parks and Recreation, staff finds that a future public connection
with the adjacent parcel to the south (Tax Map Parcel 32-22, K1) would allow for the trail network to connect
to North Point and therefore, to the greater trail network.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
3
Ms. Kanellopoulos said Parks and Recreation is planning to eventually connect the trails on each side of
Route 29 with a future crossing near this area. She explained that the red arrows on the map showed the
approximate location of the public connection that Parks and Rec has identified as an important section of
the overall trail. She said staff recommends that the applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation and
Planning staff prior to the Board meeting to determine how best to make this connection.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented a slide showing the topography and imagery of the area where the path is
proposed. She noted that to the left in the image was where the area starts to slope downward and becomes
more challenging to install the trail.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has also requested a Special Use Permit to disturb preserved slopes
to widen the accessway to meet County standards, and to install stormwater management facilities. She said
the requested area of disturbance is 39,100 square feet (shown in orange in the Application Plan). She said
the County Engineer and Planning staff have no objection to the request. She said the applicant would need
County Engineer review and approval of a Virginia Stormwater Management Program application, meeting
the steep slope standards of County Code 18-30.7.5, prior to any disturbance activities.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said while there will be some impacts to environmental resources with this development,
the County Engineer and Planning staff find the impacts to preserved slopes to be acceptable and find that
there would not be substantial negative impacts. She said no buildings or parking are in steep slopes, nor
the stream buffer, nor flood plain. She said disturbance of preserved slope is necessary to allowfor vehicular
access to the site.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development provides trails throughout the development and gives
residents access to the scenic environmental resources on the site. She said the Natural Resources
chapter (Chapter 4) of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the importance of protecting water and
topographical resources in the County, especially the water quality of the Rivanna River. She said Strategy
5c states that steep slopes in the Development Areas should be protected, especially those adjacent to
streams.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the potential negative impacts to environmental features are considered against the
beneficial aspects of the proposal, including providing affordable housing and directing development to the
Development Areas.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the accessway will not be a private street, but it will have the design and appearance
of a rural road section, widening the existing accessway from 12 feet of travelway (plus some shoulder area)
to 28 feet, with 20 feet of travelway and 4 feet on each side for shoulders. She said the wider accessway is
needed for safe and convenient vehicular travel, and for access for emergency vehicles. She said further
development of the site is not feasible without widening the accessway.
Ms. Kanellopoulos noted that while disturbance of steep slopes is needed for the accessway, disturbance
of steep slopes for stormwater management facilities may not be ultimately needed during site planning.
She said the applicant has chosen to include the disturbance request for the stormwater management
facilities with this application so that the full request is contained in one Special Use. Permit, and so the
applicant does not need to submit an additional Special Use Permit in the future, should the disturbance be
necessary.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant shows three locations for potential slope disturbance for stormwater
management facilities. She said the County Engineer has reviewed the general location of the proposed
facilities and found them to be acceptable.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
4
Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff has found the following favorable and unfavorable factors for this proposal.
She said staff finds that the request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations in the
Places29 Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Neighborhood Model principles; and is meeting the
County's affordable housing policy. She said staff notes that the proposal is above the recommended
density in the Master Plan, and that there are potential negative impacts with steep slope disturbance.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said based on the favorable factors and analysis, as outlined in the staff report, staff
recommends approval of the rezoning request with the following changes. She said staff recommends that
the application not exceed the recommended density in the Master Plan, and that the applicant coordinate
with Parks and Recreation and Planning staff prior to the Board meeting to determine how best to make a
public trail connection, as proposed in the Places29 Master Plan.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff also recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, with the following
proposed conditions. She noted there was a slight change to Condition #5 to specify the types of erosion and
sediment control measures not allowed in the flood plain. She said other than that change, the conditions on
the screen were the same as those in the staff report.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented rezoning motions and Special Use Permit motions for the
Commission's consideration.
Mr. Randolph said in the community meeting on January 17, 2019, 60 units were proposed, and that they
were now looking at a total of 100 units. He said it was unusual for the Commission to see a community
meeting with a number of units proposed, then have the number increase after the community meeting. He
asked for an explanation of how this came to pass.
Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that the overall area of disturbance and construction is the same, but that the units
are now more clustered together. She said staff did not require the applicant to come back for another
community meeting.
Ms. Megan Nedostup (Community Development staff) said she attended the first community meeting and
that there was one adjacent owner across Route 29 who was interested in what was going on. She said she
didn't see the need to have an additional community meeting, since it wasn't highly attended.
Mr. Randolph said he thought Ms. Nedostup was misunderstanding his question. He said he wasn't asking
why there wasn't another meeting held, but that he was struck by the fact that the number in the application
went from 60 up to 100 units. He said usually, the Commission sees the movement in the other direction.
Ms. Nedostup replied that the applicant could speak more about the reasoning, but that she believes they
were looking at a different type of development, which is the proposal that was in front of the Commission,
versus what they originally anticipated when they came in with the application.
Mr. Randolph asked if River's Edge holdings should financially fail, had there been any discussion by staff
who would become responsible for paying for system monitoring and generation upkeep of the central
sewage system proposed in the application.
Ms. Firehock said she thought it was a pump station.
Mr. Randolph agreed it was a pump station, pointing out that it was a facility, and that he wanted
to know who would maintain it going forward.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
5
Ms. Nedostup replied that the applicant could answer, but she believed it was a private facility that
would be maintained by the homeowner's association.
Mr. Randolph said they would have a discussion about the liquidity of the homeowner's association and
fees associated. He asked if staff has thought in any way about the unaddressed impact of the trails going
in here, and no money proposed to go towards trail construction on the site.
Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that some of the trails are private. She said the trails farther back on the
site where the homes are would be private. She said in talking with Parks and Recreation staff,
they felt that this would be appropriate. She said the main connection they want to make is getting
from North Point up to Route 29, then crossing the bridge.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant is providing a trail connection up to Route 29, which would
be along the frontage of Route 29. She said this would likely need to be constructed at a later date,
given the topography. She said she didn't know if Parks and Recreation was ready to determine
exactly what needs to be constructed, and that staff could discuss this further with them.
Mr. Randolph asked if the bridge would be paid for by the residents.
Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that the bridge was not proposed with this development, since it would
be on the adjacent property. She said the applicant is proposing a public connection up to that
property so that, in the future, if there were a bridge, it could connect to that with development of
the adjacent property.
Mr. Keller asked if the buildings would have basements, or if they were on footers.
Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that she believed they were on footers, and she would let the applicant
speak to this.
Mr. Bivins opened the public portion of the session to hear from the applicants
Mr. Justin Shimp (project engineer) said he was joined by his planner, Ms. Kelsey Schlein. He said
this was an interesting project and one he very much liked, where the client has given him leeway
to go outside the norm.
Mr. Shimp said in terms of the bridge, the same owner owns the adjacent piece, and that there is
a rezoning application in for this. He said they therefore understand that the condition of that will
be to connect the bridge on that property, and that this was coming. He said they have the public
easement that they give through this property down a road that is already built, and so most of the
trail infrastructure does actually exist on the plan.
Mr. Shimp said he had been before the Commission various times to talk about the size of units and
density, and that this project was a perfect example of the problem with counting density as a dwelling
unit, regardless of the nature. He said for instance, in Albemarle County, if one disturbs over 1 acre
and builds a house, they have to do an erosion control plan. He said he is sometimes hired by
someone building an estate, and that for example, a landowner in Ivy cleared 6 acres of land and
built a 1,000-foot driveway at the side of the mountain (noting it was all legal, with permits) to build a
6,000-square-foot house. He said the disturbance was equivalent to the one he proposed in the
River's Edge project, but for one dwelling unit.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
6
Mr. Shimp said likewise, if someone wanted to build a 400-square-foot cabin, it would also be
counted as one dwelling unit.
Mr. Shimp said in this situation, they considered some options such as townhomes. He said the
version they talked about at the community meeting were traditional townhomes and larger units,
totaling 60. He said although this can be done, he thought that there was a better option for the
property.
Mr. Shimp said in the past, the Commission has approved accessory dwelling units to be considered
as not a part of the density. He said for example, Belvedere has these ADUs, as well as Southwood,
Riverside Village, and Old Trail. He said if an applicant brought a plan to the County for a 3,000-
square-foot house with a 1,000-square-foot ADU, and there were 51 of these, that this would meet
the Comprehensive Plan definition of density. He said that if the principal unit, however, was not
three times of the size of the ADU. it doesn't count.
Mr. Shimp said for example, if every two units is 2,400 square feet instead of 4,000 square feet, it
is considered too high of a density. He said this did not make sense to him.
Mr. Shimp said he was not asking the Commission to redefine how to look at density that evening, as this
was a bigger conversation. He asked them to think about if a project like this could be thought of as a
small unit and ADU that happens to be the same size, but that they both fall under a 1,200-square-foot
maximum which is what the applicant thinks of as an ADU. He said he believed this was reasonable.
Mr. Shimp said it was important to note that with the footprint of the design, the applicant has proffered
in the Application Plan a maximum of 50,000 square feet of footprint. He said comparing this to
additional development, they are approaching half of touching the land to build these same units. He
said they are impacting less and getting more "kitchens," and that they would have one and two -
bedroom units instead of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. He said the number of bedrooms is the same, but
they essentially will have more kitchens. He said he believes the overall impacts would be the same,
or less, than what would be conventionally built on the property if they did the typical plan.
Mr. Shimp said he believed this was a reasonable justification for the increase in units, and that he
was happy to discuss it more.
Mr. Shimp presented the overall plan, noting the access road and explaining that all the units are
on a flat, buildable portion of the property. He indicated to where the road would have to be
widened, for emergency access purposes. He said the applicant has worked with County staff on
this and that they feel the impacts are mitigated.
Mr. Shimp said one thing that is unique about this property is that there are many nice trees on it, and
that in looking at options, a townhome development requires them to be cleared. He said he came up
with a scheme where they have some modular construction, and can build and set the units amongst
the forest. He said the idea is that they can set the units up on columns without having to clear or grade
the entire area. He said they will have to build the large parking lot, as there are standards that the
County has to meet. He said they could build that, put the units off to the side, and minimize their
impacts otherwise.
Mr. Shimp said the site is near some employment centers who use a lot of contract employees. He
said this project will fit those employees' temporary needs amongst their employment.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
7
Mr. Shimp presented examples of the houses. He indicated to the largest unit, which was 2
bedroom at 1,181 square feet. He said the typical shape of the unit is a long, skinny shape with
one or two bedrooms, which can be built in a factory and brought to the site on a trailer.
Mr. Shimp said though they didn't have the exact architecture selected yet, the examples gave an
idea of the scale of the structures.
Mr. Shimp presented an example that he noted was very close to what they would build. He said
they would have a structure elevated on piers, and the parking lot would be adjacent to it.
Mr. Shimp showed an example of a unit that was closest to the flood plain. He said the lower unit
was built above the flood plain by a large margin, and another unit is stacked on top of that. He
indicated to the location of the parking lot. He said the grade otherwise follows the natural terrain,
and that they can step up the hill with the units.
Mr. Shimp said he had a useful density comparison. He indicated to what represented eight units,
noting there were two units over two. He said this was about the same footprint as the traditional
three villa homes. He said if they built that, however, there was no room in between, and was
straight structure. He said he hoped this illustrated what the applicant was getting at with the size
of the structure, and that they were really building 50 or fewer houses. He said there are 36
structures on the plan containing various levels of units, but that in feel, look, and impacts, it falls
into the Comprehensive Plan's number.
Ms. Firehock asked if someone would be walking down the stairs to get to their door in some units,
while other units were at grade.
Mr. Shimp replied yes.
Mr. Shimp presented the area of pedestrian circulation mentioned earlier. He explained one would
come off Route 29 and down the existing 8-foot road that the applicant would convert to a
pedestrian trail. He indicated to where the future bridge would be to get across. He noted that most
of the infrastructure was already built for this.
Mr. Shim p said because the project was embracing nature, they had a list of alternates to usual
play structures (e.g. swing sets). He said though he didn't expect many children to live there, the
ones who would can have a place to go and take advantage of the trails.
Ms. Firehock added that "big kids" need nature, too.
Mr. Shimp agreed. He said in summary, there is an increasing supply for smaller units, and that he
didn't think any project had come forward with this mixture of units of this type. He said all he needed
from the Commission was the acceptance of the idea that an ADU does not have to be one-third.
He said they could look at these as smaller units without having to count them as full dwelling units,
noting that the Commission has done this with other projects, such as Southwood.
Mr. Bivins asked if anyone from the public cared to speak. Hearing none, he moved the meeting
forward with questions for the applicant, as well as for Mr. Pohl, if necessary.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
8
Ms. Firehock said that because she is a proponent of saving trees, she was very much in support
of the design the applicant put forward. She cautioned about the fact that there is only one way in
and out of the site, which presents a fire risk. She suggested that the applicant would avail
themselves of the free services of the Virginia Department of Forestry and their "Fire -Wise' program.
She said there are ways to design to make a dwelling safer in case a fire should break out.
Mr. Shimp said this was a good point. He said they have agreed with the fire marshal to provide
sprinklers in all the buildings, which will also help mitigate that risk. He said Ms. Firehock was correct
that when working the forest, they need to be cognizant of the risks.
Ms. Firehock said the Fire -Wise program is on the Virginia Department of Forestry's website. She
said they have people that can come out and help the applicant's site design so that it is safe. She
said perhaps there are some trees that do need to come out because they could be at risk. She
urged the applicant to consider these things.
Mr. Randolph said on page 4, in the community meeting, there was some discussion about these
units being long-term rentals of a year or more. He said a statement is provided on page 4 that
says, "it will not be used for short-term rentals." He asked how they would prevent people from
renting these facilities and not renting them out on a short-term basis.
Mr. Shimp replied that these were the staffs comments from the community meeting. He said the
owner of the property owns Access Properties, who offer affordable housing around town. He said as
the owner of this, they prohibit anyone from subleasing without their permission. He said Mr. Randolph
was right that it is hard to enforce this with owner -occupied units, but in the case of this project, the
units will all be owned by one property owner. He said people would be kicked out if they try to rent
short-term, and so there is a control in this particular circumstance.
Ms. Firehock said she was curious how the County would know that this would be a requirement.
Mr. Shimp said he didn't think the applicant ever said that they were going to proffer this, but that it was
their intention that they conveyed to the community. He said he had never heard of a development
requiring that, and that he didn't know if the applicant would be opposed to it, but that there was no
intention of it. He said he couldn't say that the property wouldn't be sold in 20 years and that
someone else may have different rules. He said the applicant could only speak to an intention on
what they are doing, as owners may change, and rules may change. He said this was more of a
zoning question of how they would enforce this, rather than a decision of if this should be approved
or not.
Ms. Firehock said a traditional subdivision would have a homeowner's association with the ability to
create this rule, but that this was a matter of one individual owner, and that Mr. Shimp just said that
this person could retire, go away, or sell the property, resulting in the property becoming an Airbnb or
hotel type of community.
Ms. Kelsey Schlein (Shimp Engineering) said it was her understanding that the homestay regulations
may preclude short-term rentals occurring regularly on the property, especially if it is not rented to the
uses allowed on the Application Plan. She said she was asking for staffs input on this, as it was the
applicant's understanding in proposing the Application Plan was that short-term rentals are not
proposed as a by -right use on the property and so therefore, they are not allowed. She said it was
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
9
her understanding that they would have to comply with the supplementary regulations for short-
term rentals.
Ms. Nedostup said staff would have to get back with an answer on that after doing some research
on the homestay regulation.
Mr. Keller said that since it was one parcel, he didn't think it would be an issue. He said the most
that there could be on one parcel would be the one. He said in other words, they wouldn't be able
to turn each one into short-term. He said perhaps they could get the 5 plus 5 if it stayed rural, and
that the most they could get out of it would be 10.
Mr. Dotson asked if all of the units would be rentals
Mr. Shimp said this was correct. He said the applicant would not meet the County subdivision
ordinance requirements for division as it is built.
Mr. Dotson noted these were modular units and that this suggests a situation where someone could
not own the land, but the building only.
Mr. Shimp said he did not know. He said he supposed one would be able to have a condominium
situation there, but that he didn't know for sure about that.
Mr. Dotson asked if this was the applicant's intent.
Mr. Shimp replied it was not their intent.
Mr. Keller asked if the road would be a County road or a private road.
Mr. Shimp replied it would be a private road.
Mr. Keller said if the Rivanna goes through, creates the ox bow, and there has to be a bridge
across, they wouldn't have to worry about this being a County cost for the bridge at some point in
the future.
Mr. Shimp said no.
Mr. Keller asked about modular versus manufactured.
Mr. Shimp said manufactured relates to older style mobile homes.
Mr. Keller asked if that would defeat the building standards.
Mr. Shimp said this was correct. Ile said they could not be manufactured home q, considering the
building code. He said it has to meet the full building code.
Mr. Keller said this was the clarification that he wanted. He said in effect, they are building units to
code.
Mr. Shimp noted the units would not be built off site.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
10
Ms. Firehock said this was an important point
Mr. Keller indicated that the applicant was asking the Commission about the land disturbance. He recalled
the Commission had had an interesting work session on this previously, and that there has been a lot of
response to ideas coming forward from that. He asked if the applicant is building on piers so that they don't
have to have as much land disturbance, why not do pocket parking so that they can work with the grade more.
Mr. Shimp said he tried that. He said what he really wanted to do was have 14-foot 1-way roads with parking
scattered throughout. He said between the fire code and parking regulations, however, it was near
impossible. He said he did try this, as it was in fitting with the character that is there now. He said it was not
feasible, however.
Mr. Keller said perhaps they could hear from the County Engineer (Mr. Pohl) about this, as these
are things that have come up for other projects as well.
Mr. Keller said the last time, they talked limnology (the study of fresh waterways), and that there were issues
about this becoming an ox bow lake and the impacts that Mr. Randolph talked about in the last several
meetings about the different flood levels and changes to the environment with climate change, which will
have an eating -out aspect of the concave side of the rivers. He said this means there will be less and less
space or distance between the two channels. He said they didn't know whether this was 10 years, 100 years,
or 1,000 years in this environment, in geologic time, but that it is something that is an issue of real concern.
Mr. Keller said the road going in was more of his concern, more so that the buildings. He said the applicant
has addressed this, and he applauded them for that. He said they had talked before about floating a road or
quasi -bridge concept in the narrowest part so there would be less disturbance to the steep slopes there. He
asked the applicant since they were doing other innovative engineering techniques, if there may be a more
innovative solution for dealing that type of connection.
Mr. Shimp replied that there are always more solutions, if enough time and money are spent. He said the
problem was about the fire trucks. He said if they do an elevated road, it has to support the weight of a fire
truck. He said it would kill the project if they had to construct something like this in that couple hundred -foot
section of road coming in. He said there was not a scale that can justify or support that kind of cost. He said
though the design idea was interesting, the other design components that stack against the applicant makes
it unfeasible.
Mr. Keller asked about logging such as in the Amazon, where there is very large gravel put into the road
with geotextile put down. He asked if there are ways, they could support it without adding as much land
disturbance. He said he was referring to creating a stronger base.
Mr. Shimp said that the problem is that the narrowest point where the road crosses through is quite steep
on either side. He said if they start building out on one side and put fill material there, they have to keep it
from sliding off down the hill. He said he considered these things, but came to the conclusion that the best
way, with minimal risk for rock and mud getting out of hand, is to follow the top of the hill and cut the grade
straight down. He said although this was not innovative, this was the most practical solution and satisfies
zoning, fire code, and can be done without the risk of a mud slide.
Mr. Shimp said though creative solutions were considered, the project also has to be buildable for
the client (for whom he had spent 1.5 years working on the project). He said it was a fair question,
but that he hadn't figured out a way to do this that was feasible. or that doesn't create concerns
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
11
about how they operate in the slopes. He said he is minimizing the number of slopes they have to
touch with this particular concept. He said as far as grading, this was the minimum they could do.
Mr. Bivins asked to see the slope disturbance facts for managing runoff. He asked for explanation
of the stormwater management facility and if this involved runoff from the parking lot that could find
its way into the north fork of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Frank Pohl (County Engineer) said they would have stormwater coming off this site. He said
the first proposal was a level spreader in the flatter areas that Mr. Shimp had proposed, but that
there could be implications with the level spreader about erosion along the stream bank, as that
stream bank drops. He said they need to get to the river, if there is going to be a problem, but that
he wasn't sure if there would be a problem until the design is done and until staff can look at things
more closely. He said he suggested that Mr. Shimp show access to the river. He said he would
rather have protected access with a built outfall than try to force a solution that might create a
problem.
Mr. Pohl said this solution gives them the flexibility and that they could still address it. He said either
way, the applicant has to meet the VSMP requirements.
Mr. Bivins asked with oil changes and antifreeze changes, and with 100 units and 100 cars
(perhaps 200 cars), if this was a potential problem for that kind of runoff.
Mr. Pohl replied yes. He said they cannot control oil changes that occur illegally and dump into the
river.
Mr. Bivins asked how the system controls the potential damage to one of the County's resources
Mr. Pohl replied that all the projects have this, and that none of them are required to have an oil
separator. He said the County does not have the authority to require an oil separator. He said the
site is located on the river, and so the applicant can purchase credits and discharge directly to the
river without having to provide any attenuation. He said his understanding was that this was not
the applicant's intent, and that the applicant was going to provide attenuation, which is how they
were going to use the level spreader, which is the one-year stormer vent for the energy balance.
He indicated on a corner of the map to a wider line, noting this represents an underground detention
facility.
Mr. Pohl said he believed the applicant would utilize off -site return credits.
Ms. Firehock said she wanted to ask the applicant about this. She said the County Engineer is well
aware of all the progressive things that could happen, as was Mr. Shimp, but that she wanted to
put the question to him instead.
Mr. Bivins said one of the Commissioners was wondering about the 500-year flood and the 1,000-
year flood, and whether or not any of this interferes or impacts this project.
Mr. Randolph said there was a discussion during the break, and that he was aware of where the
buildings are situated, and the proposal to have them on stilts or columns above the flood plain. He
asked what the insulation would be underneath the buildings, because if it gets wet in flooding, then
it all has to be torn out if it is fiberglass.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
12
Mr. Shimp said this was true. He said they were above the 500-year storm, and that the probability of
that happening in the lifespan of these houses is very low. He said with access underneath, they could
replace the insulation without too much hassle, and that it was a remote risk.
Mr. Shimp said that normally in zoning, they don't get into stormwater treatment, but given the
specifics of the site, if the Planning Commission were to recommend some percentage of on -site
water quality treatment instead of credits, he would not object to that, if that is what they were getting
at.
Ms. Firehock said this was possible
Mr. Shimp said there is a Special Use Permit for the disturbance and that under that, in the past,
the Commission has made similar conditions before.
Ms. Firehock said she knew Mr. Shimp has a client and that he is not the purse strings of this project.
She said in looking like places like River Bluff (and not suggesting they build $600,000 homes), they
have some features such as permeable parking spaces. She said the applicant could reduce the
volume of stormwater that they need to treat in the first place. She said since this development may
attract a different sort of individual, as they are building a nontraditional product in the woods, they
could have rain barrels or other ways to reduce the amount of underground storage they have to
construct as a savings. She said she understands that permeable pavers need to be vacuumed at
least once or twice a year, and that this was a paid service, but that they would have to do things to
maintain the property anyway.
Ms. Firehock said there are many techniques and technologies to reduce the amount of runoff
generated. She said although this was not the applicant's fault, she wanted to say for the record that
she was opposed to buying water quality credits and how the State law changed years ago. She said
the committee that worked on this put a lot of "and's" in the clauses in the law, and by the time it was
voted on in the legislature, they all became "or's." She said therefore, what they have is not what was
intended by the best stormwater professionals.
Ms. Firehock acknowledged the applicant is working within the law, but to the degree that they can
push their client to do some of this water quality treatment on site would make this a much more
attractive project because they are on a fragile landscape in the loop of the Rivanna River that is already
severely impacted. She said to her, the greener and more sensible treatment they could put there, in
addition to leaving large trees, was ideal.
Ms. Firehock said the County's parking standards, for the records, were draconian and also need
work, as the Commission has discussed with Mr. Benish many times.
Mr. Shimp said these were all fair points.
Ms. Nedostup said she had the opportunity to look at the homestay regulations, and that short-term
rentals are only permitted in detached single-family dwellings. She said in this case, these are
attached units, and so the current regulations would not allow for them to be homestays.
Mr. Keller asked if the units would all be attached
Ms. Firehock said they were all touching.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
13
Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing
Mr. Dotson said he had a question for staff. He said looking at the plan, it brings to mind a mobile
home subdivision, based on the shape of the footprints. He asked what the density regulations are
for mobile home subdivisions, and if they are a straight one -for -one the way single-family detached
are or if there is some allowance for more mobile homes than the density calls for.
Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that staff could try to check on this question, as she was not sure offhand.
Mr. Keller said the model for this is a PUD of regular houses. He said this has no relationship to a
trailer park in any way. He said it would be like a rural subdivision.
Mr. Dotson said he was not convinced by Mr. Shimp's logic of how to address the Comprehensive
Plan density question, and that he wondered if there was a precedent in mobile home subdivisions,
senior housing, or any other category where the Comprehensive Plan density was not simply
translated one for one.
Ms. Nedostup replied that they have not had a lot of those applications. She said the only one she
could think of that went above the Comprehensive Plan density was Riverside Village for the
affordable units. She said as Ms. Kanellopoulos stated, staff does not have much guidance within
the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or any other policies to direct them.
Mr. Dotson expressed that if the Commission approved this, Mr. Shimp would remember that, and
they would see more of this type of request. He said Mr. Shimp was bringing them something new.
Ms. Firehock said she understood what was said about the difference of the density, and that there
was a lot of effort to explain carriage houses, which she didn't need. She said this was why the
Planning Commission exists. She said instead of by -right uses, they look at special exceptions,
strange situations, and requests to change the norm. She said in this case, it was not merely a
request to increase density, but it is a completely different design where the applicant has shown the
proposed density in a nontraditional format, which is actually less impactful to this particularly
sensitive landscape in this location. She said this is what she found compelling.
Ms. Firehock expressed her joy with the applicant protecting some trees on the site. She said she
was tired of lot line to lot line clearing.
Mr. Dotson said this raises the question of impact -based density. He said one could build a 2,400-
square-foot home as a unit, or two 1,200-square-feet homes (a unit), or three 800's as a unit. He
said in some of the Airbnb discussions, there was the question about regulating units, square feet,
or bedrooms, and determining the best indicator of impacts. He asked if there were some things,
however, that do not scale, as perhaps the same number of parking places is still needed. He said
if there are two people in a unit, they could perhaps have two cars, or not, for instance. He said it
was a very interesting question, and possibly the first project they could add to the work program
for staff.
Mr. Dotson said what this reminds him is of the habitat at the World's Fair in the late 1960s that was modular
units that were stacked in a very attractive way to make a rather large structure. He said this notion was very
appealing, and that the project makes him think of this (and not an Iroquois Indian village).
Mr. Claybome said overall, he enjoyed the project, and thought there were many clever moments in the
proposal. He said it is unique. He said he didn't have an issue with the density, and that the more he studied
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
14
it, he didn't have an issue with the uniqueness of the proposal. He said he did agree with his colleagues'
stormwater management comments, and however this is tucked into the motion, he could get behind it. He
said as of that moment, he saw the application as highly favorable and that it would have his support.
Mr. Keller said although he wanted to support the project, he believed they needed to work through it further
on a number of points. He said in dissecting the number of questions that had been made thus far, they
would perhaps be digging into them further if it wasn't such a late hour.
Mr. Keller said this project was exactly what he had been calling for, and that he was completely supportive
conceptually. He said he was not sure, however, how he felt about the two units being together the way
they are. He said they were trying for this not to be like a trailer park and yet, it feels like one, to him. He
said he thinks that if they are asking an applicant to do something creative, they need to think and work with
their County Engineer to see whether they might be able to do something more creative in terms of parking,
the roadway in, and how this works with fire and police.
Mr. Keller said he still had concerns and reservations about how narrow the channels at the 500-year flood
plain are, between the two channels of the river. He said this warrants more thought.
Mr. Keller said although he was close, he personally felt that the Commission should consider
these points, as well as the stormwater management.
Mr. Dotson said he knew that State agencies that issue permits related to water and health matters have
the ability or process for issuing an experimental permit where they identify the things that the experiment
is intended to test. He said they then track it over time. He said this doesn't open the door to having a new
rule but rather, it gives a vehicle for going forward with some creative ideas. He said he wondered if some
thinking along those lines might apply. He asked what they might want to test with this. He said they all
agree it is innovative, and perhaps they could set up a program where this becomes a model, they look at
every so often to see if it would be a good idea to make it the normal option.
Mr. Bivins said he didn't know how the Commission would impose that or set it before an applicant. He said
perhaps if the applicant, during the process, were to say that this was something they would like to do, it
could work, but he didn't know how the Commission could ask the applicant to speak to the Commonwealth
to see if it is something they can do and if so, the Commission would stand with them. He said what they
might encourage, as they are looking at climate action and the policies that may come before them, is to
see if there is a way there to suggest the option to people.
Mr. Dotson said in suggesting they think about this as an experiment and try to specify what they would hope
to learn from it, he thinks this could be stated as part of a purpose statement on the
Application Plan. He said there could be a protocol for whatever it is they want to monitor. He said
perhaps there was nothing to monitor.
Mr. Bivins said he thought this was a good idea, but that he was hoping they were not suggesting
pausing the application.
Mr. Dotson said it would be a way to go forward with the application.
Mr. Bivins asked how they would know what they were suggesting.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
15
Mr. Dotson said at that moment, he didn't have a list of things that he would like to know. He said he
hoped there might be some things, however, and that this would be a rationale to go forward.
Ms. More said the project is creative and that she liked the idea, but that she was not comfortable with
the idea of doubling the density by using the accessory dwelling, and with them being the same size.
She said going this for, the applicant was not asking for a little bit, but was asking to literally double with
the accessory unit not being what they typically look for, where there is a certain size for the main
dwelling and the accessory. She said this is what made her uncomfortable. She said they were going
from 50 to 100, and although she could somewhat understand the applicant's argument for it, this was
why she was a "no" on this.
Mr. Shimp said one thing the applicant could do is say 1,200 for 50 and 1,000 for 50, dropping the
number down. He said what they see is mostly around 650-700 square feet, and that 1,200 square
feet is only his largest unit. He said if there was concern about that being the same, they could
make half of the accessory units a smaller square footage.
Mr. Bivins said there was something that he has been very clear about during his chairmanship. He
said they are not going to get engaged in doing the work of staff from the dais. He said this would
come down however it would, and that he would recommend Mr. Shimp have this conversation with
staff. He said the Commission was not going to negotiate the square footage, although it was a valid
point to bring forward.
Mr. Shimp said that staff were not going to tell him what the square footage would be, either.
Ms. More said she was only one "no" vote.
Mr. Bivins said Mr. Shimp was advised to stop at this point.
Mr. Randolph said Ms. More was not alone, and that he had the same feelings about it. He said
the problem he has with the application is that although it contains some innovative things, he was
worried in the long-term that the County would see a low-income community that they will be a
party to creating. He said once again, they will have put a low-income community in a location with
no public transit available. He said he didn't see any suggestion of a bus stop for a potential future
bus. He said it would be left to the Board and CAT in the future to make an argument or, with
autonomous buses coming out, to provide transit to this location. He said this was an unaddressed
impact, in terms of buses.
Mr. Randolph said there would be 21 students occurring there, at minimum, which was an
unaddressed impact.
Mr. Randolph said the bridge was cited as a pedestrian bridge, but that it needs to be thought of from a
design standpoint of an emergency exit if the ox bow does come into fruition. He said in his estimation, it
would have to be somewhere around 45 feet of water that would have to occur to cross over between the
two portions where the ox bow would be eliminated. He asked the applicant to think about another means
of exit there.
Mr. Randolph said one thing that has not been put into the queue is that there are many trees on the site
and if there was a forest fire, with only one way out, they don't want people having to swim and cross the
Rivanna River to get out. He said he was uncomfortable from a safety point that there was only one way in,
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
16
but that fundamentally, he was concerned about the unaddressed impacts of education, public transit, and
the trails. He said he was concerned long-term about what could happen on the site that they do not have
control over.
Ms. Firehock said she had a point that was related, but that she was not expecting the Commission to
discuss that evening. She said that in Charlottesville, there were many requests for infill when she was on
the Planning Commission there, and that they wrote an ordinance that provided a density bonus in exchange
for implementing a certain minimum number of innovative best management practices, such as low -impact
development design, so that they got infill with guaranteed green design. She said they can write those types
of ordinances in the County, but that they didn't currently have that.
Ms. Firehock said for her to support the project, she would need to see some kind of clause. She said she
didn't know how to quantify this, as they were not writing a stormwater plan for the dais, either. She said if
they were to add some sort of clause such as, "implement innovative best management practices to reduce
stonnwater volume generated, and to treat water quality on site to the maximum extent practicable," they
would not be setting a specific number on it. She said she wished the application already contained some
of this, as it is a sensitive site.
Ms. Firehock said the Wetsel property the Commission just reviewed is largely cleared, and so that site will
have a lot more stormwater impact to treat this site because it is already treed, and the applicant is leaving
some of the trees in place, which actually generates less stormwater from the start. She said one mature
tree can take up to several thousand gallons of stormwater per tree, per year. She said by leaving the trees
in place, the applicant already has a site that has much less impact than most of the County's development
projects. She said even so, since there is a private road and parking spaces, she would like to see some
way to use permeable pavements, cisterns, rain barrels, etc. She said there was a whole host of
approaches that were not too expensive.
Mr. Bivins said the applicant was receiving some feedback that evening, and asked if it would be
helpful for the applicant to defer before taking a vote.
Mr. Shimp replied that this was reasonable. He said he has not heard specifics on some things, but that he
had ideas on things he could revise. He said he wants to move the project forward with everyone feeling
good about ft. He said there are some things the applicant can address, but that the ox bow condition was
out of his hands. He said the stormwater points and narrowing down the square footages could be
accomplished. He asked if he could return in four weeks to defer and make some tweaks.
Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) asked if the applicant was requesting a deferral.
Mr. Shimp said yes, with the condition that it not be 3-4 months until he comes back.
Mr. Herrick asked if Mr. Benish knew the upcoming schedule.
Ms. Firehock suggested putting it at 4-6 weeks, noting that it was difficult for staff to juggle all the
projects.
Mr. Shimp acknowledged that staff was busy. He said he would be fine with a 4- to 6-week
timeframe. He said the changes would be very minor.
Mr. Herrick said he would like Mr. Benish's input on the upcoming schedule.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
17
Ms. Nedostup said if they were looking at stonmwater management, they would need to cycle through
a review of that with the County Engineer, and that it would be about 4-6 weeks, though she hadn't
looked at the schedule of the upcoming meetings in April and beginning of May.
Mr. Bivins asked if the Commissioners would like to add any points, they wanted Mr. Shimp to
address.
Ms. Firehock said she had already mentioned fire -wise design, as there is a risky site with one
entrance.
Mr. Clayborne said stormwater management was his main concern.
Mr. Keller said he would like the applicant to challenge County staff about the original parking
scheme along the side of the road, instead of having defined parking areas. He said he would still
like the applicant to think about his point about the narrowing where the two channels are, and
whether they could have less environmental impact there.
Mr. Dotson said to build on Ms. More's point, he would like to have the applicant think about a
rationale that is different than the accessory unit rationale -- the rationale that even though PUD's
don't qualify for bonuses, thinking about it as if it is a bonus because it does things the County says
it wants to do. He said he would feel much more comfortable with that than with the accessory unit.
Ms. Firehock and Mr. Randolph agreed.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Herrick if this was sufficient
Mr. Herrick replied yes. He asked if they have determined a specific date to which this should be
deferred.
Ms. Nedostup replied that the thought was May 19 in order to give a couple weeks for the applicant
to revise and bring in plans for review.
Mr. Herrick said if the applicant was then requesting a deferral to May 19, there would need to be
a motion.
Mr. Randolph moved to defer of ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Ms. Firehock noted that she would be out of town on May 19. She said she would convey her
thoughts to Mr. Shimp and to the Commission before that meeting.
Committee Reports
There were no reports.
Old Business
None
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
18
New Business
Mr. Benish said next week's Planning Commission meeting (for 3/17/20) had been canceled, as the
applicant asked for a deferral. He said that hearing was tentatively scheduled for June.
Mr. Herrick said his suggestion was that the Commission formally make a motion to defer that
application, to make it official.
Mr. Keller moved to defer SP201900013 to June 16.
Ms. More seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Benish said April 29, there would be a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on affordable
housing, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in Room 241.
Ms. Firehock and Mr. Randolph said they would not be able to attend this meeting
Mr. Benish said on April 1, at the Board of Supervisors meeting, there would be a presentation on R-cuts.
He encouraged the Commission to listen in or attend. He said this meeting would be sometime after 1:00
p.m. and was actually couched in the VDOT quarterly report. He said this type of presentation would typically
occur around 3:00 p.m.
Ms. More asked if the next meeting would be March 24, and if the Yancey item was still tentative.
Mr. Benish replied no, and said his understanding was that this would still be occurring on this date
in order to meet some review deadlines. He added that Bamboo Grove had not been scheduled.
Mr. Charles Rapp introduced himself as the new Planning Director. He said he looked forward to
working with the Commission and serving in the community.
Adjournment
At 10:38 p.m., the Commission adjourned to (March 24, 2020 — CANCELLED) April 7, 2020
Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
l..f[ m&,6 J 401?(Electronic Signature)
Charles Rapp, Director of Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Boards and transcribed by
Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning Commission
Date: May 5, 2020
Initials: CSS
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020
19