HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-9-10Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
5:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Closed Meeting.
6:00 P.M.
3. Call to Order Night Meeting.
4. Certify Closed Meeting
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
8 Brief Announcements by Board Members.
9. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing September 13, 2014, as Scottsville Founders Day and the
270th Anniversary of the Founding of Albemarle County in Scottsville.
b. Proclamation recognizing September 13, 2014, as Pride Festival Day.
10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
11. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. PROJECT: SP-2014-00012. Westgate/Barclay Place (Signs #5&12).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-042D0. LOCATION: 2617 Hydraulic
Road (Westgate Apartments). PROPOSAL: Request to amend conditions of existing special use permit to allow relocation
and expansion of office space within apartment complex on 4.677 acres. No additional dwellings are proposed. ZONING:
Planned Residential Development, PRD – residential (up to 35 units/acre) with limited commercial uses, professional
offices by special use permit under Section 19.3.2 of zoning ordinance. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential (in areas around centers) residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre),
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 1 of Places
29 Development Area. Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
13. PROJECT: ZMA-2013-00004. Hollymead Town Center (Block VI).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: 032000000041L0. LOCATION: West of Route 29 North at
the intersection of Laurel Park Lane and Meeting Street. PROPOSAL: To amend proffers, code of development and
application plan to allow (Total acreage tax map/parcel 032000000041L0: 5.74 acres - Block VI - 2.858 acres and Block
IV - 2.882 acres)construction of 44 townhouse units for a density of 15.4 dwellings/acre in Block VI and to eliminate the
requirement to construct 32,000 square feet of non-residential use in Block IV. ZONING: PD-MC [Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial] which allow for large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to PD-
MC[Planned Development-Mixed Commercial] which allows for large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0910/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/6/2020 4:26:29 PM]
Tentative
permit (15 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Hollymead-Places 29-Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with
supporting residential, office, or institutional uses. Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
11. To receive comments on the request that the Board consider granting sewer line easements
to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and to the City of
Charlottesville (City) and an electric line easement to Dominion Virginia Power
(DVP) on the County Office Building property located at 401 McIntire Road in the
City of Charlottesville (City Parcel ID 350134000). The RWSA and City request is for a sewer
line easement for the Upper Schenks Branch sewer line project to be located along McIntire Road crossing the baseball
field and extending to Preston Avenue. The DVP request is for an underground electric line easement along a portion of
McIntire Road and Preston Avenue to enhance electric service to the City and the University of Virginia. Larry Davis,
County Attorney
14. Update on Regional Legislative Meeting, David Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
11.1 Approval of Minutes: November 23, 2013 and February 24, 2014.
11.2 ZMA-1976-00002. Ednam – Special Exception to Authorize a Variation from the Application Plan. (JT Newberry)
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0910/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/6/2020 4:26:29 PM]
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING SCOTTSVILLE FOUNDERS DAY AND THE 270TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
FOUNDING OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY IN SCOTTSVILLE
WHEREAS, in 1744 the House of Burgesses acted to create Albemarle County with Scott’s Landing
as its county seat in recognition of the site’s value as a river crossing and logistical hub
in the growing Virginia Piedmont; and
WHEREAS, from 1744 to 1762 Scott’s Landing served as the centrally located county seat and civic
center of a larger Albemarle County which included all or part of today’s counties of
Amherst, Appomattox, Buckingham, Campbell, Fluvanna, and Nelson; and
WHEREAS, through much of the 18th and 19th centuries, Scottsville served as the principal river port
above Richmond on the James River, through which passed busy land and river traffic in
commodities and manufactured goods, travelers, immigrants, and enslaved persons, all
important aspects of Albemarle County’s diverse history; and
WHEREAS, Scottsville and its residents have weathered destruction through natural disaster and
war, rebuilding the town and providing vital commercial and civic services for southern
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the town’s present charm and economic development is a significant part of Albemarle
County’s strong future;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby honor and congratulate the Town of Scottsville on the occasion of the 270th
Anniversary of Albemarle County’s founding with Scottsville as its seat, and urge all
citizens of the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle to join in Scottsville’s
celebration of Founders Day on September 13, 2014.
_________________________ ____________________________
Kenneth C. Boyd Diantha H. McKeel
_________________________ ____________________________
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair Liz A. Palmer
_________________________ ____________________________
Ann H. Mallek Brad L. Sheffield
Pride Festival Day
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is a community that values human rights, and respects
the dignity of each person; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle is committed to equal rights
for all Americans, and opposes discrimination in all forms; and
WHEREAS, the cultural diversity and heritage of the County of Albemarle has been enriched
by the contributions of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and
questioning (LGBTQ) community; and
WHEREAS, the County’s LGBTQ community members are integrally and actively involved
with the County’s health and safety, learning and innovation, economic energy,
and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the Pride Festival celebrates the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and
questioning (LGBTQ) community and its proud presence in the County of
Albemarle; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
recognizes with pride the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and
questioning community in Albemarle, and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors proclaims
September 13, 2014
as
Pride Festival Day in the County of Albemarle.
_______________________________________
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA197600002 Ednam – Special Exception to Authorize
a Variation from the Application Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize a variation from the setback
requirements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish,
Newberry and Wright
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 10, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Ednam property was rezoned from R-1 Residential (“R-1”) to Residential Planned Neighborhood (“RPN”) on June 2,
1976. Section D of the development contains 12 single-family attached dwelling units that lie on the western side of
Worthington Drive and are adjacent to a set of office buildings in the Ednam Business District (Attachment A). The
applicant purchased a dwelling on June 5, 2014 and is proposing to enclose an existing rear patio (Attachment B). The
footprint of the existing patio would not change, however enclosing the area would encroach on the 50 foot building
setback from the rear property line (Attachment C).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
This variation allows for an already existing patio to be enclosed without encroaching into the rear setback. See
Attachment D for staff analysis. Other property owners in Section D have also enclosed their rear porches in a
substantially similar manner, but were able to do so without encroaching into the setback . Additionally, this proposal
has the support of adjacent property owners (see Attachment E).
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact will result from authorizing this special exception.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Special Exception to vary the setback requirement in the approved
rezoning application plan by allowing a 40 foot rear setback for Lot 3, Section D of Ednam.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Photo of Existing Porch submitted with Building Permit (B201401372AR)
C. Physical Survey submitted with Building Permit (B201401372AR)
D. Staff Report
E. Statements of Support from Adjacent Property Owners
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Attachment A: Subject Property and Area Map
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 25, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
100 ft
Attachment B – Photo of Existing Porch
Attachment D – Staff Report
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 10, 2014
Staff Report for Variation on Lot 3, Section D of Ednam (ZMA197600002)
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations.
Variations are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a special exception under Chapter 18,
Sections 33.5 and 33.9. Staff analysis of the variation request under Section 18-8.5.5.3(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance is provided below.
VARIATION REQUEST: Reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 40 feet.
The proposed enclosure of an existing 28’ x 10’ rear patio would encroach into the 50-foot rear
setback line by a maximum of seven feet. The applicant is requesting a 10 -foot reduction to ensure
that any roof overhang would not encroach into the reduced setback.
If approved, the variation would not be a detriment to the character of the area, as other property
owners in Section D have also enclosed their rear porches in a substantially similar manner, but were
able to do so without encroaching into the setback. Additionally, this variation has the support of
adjacent property owners.
Following is staff’s analysis of the variation request under Section 18-8.5.5.3(c) of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
This request is not contrary to any goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
The approved development density is not increased.
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of any development in this district is unaffected.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
The variation does not require a special use permit.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
This variation simply allows for enclosure of an already existing patio established in general
accord with the approved rezoning application.
Attachment E - Statements of Support from Adjacent Property Owners
Statements by:
Betsy Goodwin, 542 Worthington Drive
Anne Lemley, 546 Worthington Drive
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 8, 2014
David Mitchell
2619 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, Va 22901
RE: SP201400012 Westgate/Barclay Place
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 2014, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan received by staff
on April 7, 2014, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the application plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the use, as shown on the
plan:
a. Office building mass and location
b. Office parking
Minor modifications to the plan may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. New construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board;
3. Use shall be limited to property management services.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Rachel Falkenstein
Planner
Planning Division
SP201400012 – Westgate/Barclay Office relocation
Planning Commission: July 15, 2014
Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2014-00012 Westgate-Barclay
SP Amendment
Staff: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: July 15,
2014
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owner(s): Westgate/Barclay Place I LLC Applicant(s): Great Eastern Management
Company, David Mitchell
Acreage: 4.677 acres Special Use Permit for: Professional offices
permitted under Section 19.3.2(9) of Planned
Residential Development by Special Use Permit
TMP: 06100-00-00-042D0
Location: 2617 Hydraulic Road
By-right use: PRD, Planned Residential
Development, residential (up to 35 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses.
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: No new
dwelling units, relocate four existing units.
DA: Neighborhood 1 - Places29
Proposal: Request to amend existing SP to
allow for relocation of office space within the
apartment complex.
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential (in areas around centers), residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre), supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office
and service uses
Character of Property: The property contains the
Westgate Apartment complex and supporting
infrastructure and offices of Great Eastern
Management Company.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
characterized by mix of residential units, mainly
multi-family units and townhouses with single family
detached units across Hydraulic Road.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is for redevelopment within an
existing apartment complex and does not
propose any new uses.
2. Issues identified by ARB staff can be remedied
during the ARB review process.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. No unfavorable factors
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00012 Westgate/Barclay SP Amendment for
relocation of professional offices with conditions.
SP201400012 – Westgate/Barclay Office relocation
Planning Commission: July 15, 2014
Page 2
STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 15, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400012 Westgate/Barclay Place
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-042D0
LOCATION: 2617 Hydraulic Road (Westgate Apartments)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend conditions of existing special use permit to allow relocation and
expansion of office space within apartment complex on 4.677 acres. No additional dwellings are
proposed.
ZONING: Planned Residential Development, PRD – residential (up to 35 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses, professional offices by special use permit under Section 19.3.2 of zoning ordinance.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential (in areas around centers), residential (6.01 – 34
units/ acre), supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses
in Neighborhood 1 of Places 29 Development Area.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The subject property contains Westgate Apartments, which includes multi-family units, townhouses and
related infrastructure and amenities. The property also contains the offices for Great Eastern
Management Company (GEMC). Most of the surrounding uses are residential (see Attachment B). To
the north across Georgetown Road and to the east of the property across Hydraulic Road are single
family detached units. To the south and west is the Barclay Place apartment complex which contains a
mix of multi-family and townhouse units.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property was rezoned from R-3, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development in the
comprehensive 1980 rezoning. This rezoning was to recognize the existing land development on site.
In 1994 a Special Use Permit (SP94-18) was granted to allow for the expansion of GEMC’s offices. Since
GEMC manages off site properties as well as onsite units, a special use permit for professional offices
was required. The expansion of the office space was never completed.
Hydraulic Road was added to the Entrance Corridor overlay district in 2000. Any new development on
site will be subject to ARB approval for consistency with the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to relocate the offices of GEMC within the same site from its current location at
2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road to one consolidated office space at 2617 Hydraulic Road. The building at
2617 Hydraulic Road currently contains four residential units which the applicant proposes to relocate to
the vacated office space. An amendment to the existing SP is needed for the office relocation because of
a condition requiring that the office space be located at 2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road.
The applicant also proposes a small addition to the new office space at 2617 Hydraulic Road as shown
on the conceptual plan (see attachment C). A small office expansion was permitted through the
previously granted SP94-18 but was never completed.
SP201400012 – Westgate/Barclay Office relocation
Planning Commission: July 15, 2014
Page 3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a
special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots.
The proposed use already exists on site and will be relocating to an existing building. The applicant
proposes a small addition to the existing building. Existing parking areas and ingress and egress to
the property will not be impacted by the proposed use.
In a preliminary review of the proposal ARB staff noted that the proposed expansion will be visible
from the Entrance Corridor (Hydraulic Road) and may impact a mature shade tree adjacent to the
road (see Attachment D for ARB comments). An ARB Certificate of Appropriateness will be required
for the addition and accommodations can be made with site plan and ARB review to mitigate any
negative impacts of the addition.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
No additional employees or services are being added with the proposed office relocation. The only
anticipated change is the addition to existing building at 2617 Hydraulic Road. ARB review will ensure
that that the addition is in accord with the character of the district.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter,
The PRD zoning district was established to permit high density residential uses and to allow flexibility
in design to accommodate natural characteristics of the site and surrounding area. The proposed
office relocation will not impact the overall characteristics of the site or surrounding area. Though one
mature tree may be lost with the building addition, there may opportunities on site for remediation, and
such opportunities can be addressed during ARB review of the building addition.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
Residential uses including multi-family, single family attached and single family detached dwellings
are the primary by right uses permitted in the PRD zoning district. Limited commercial uses are also
permitted in the district by special use permit. The proposed office space will be in a building that is of
similar size and has similar characteristics to the existing dwellings on site and will therefore be in
harmony with the surrounding residences.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 applicable to this use.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
No change to the public health, safety and welfare is expected as this amendment will not result in
any additional services, employees, or residential units on site.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential (in areas around
centers) within Neighborhood 1 of the Places29 Development Area. The Places29 Master Plan
recommends residential uses of 6.01-34 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses. The property management office supports the
SP201400012 – Westgate/Barclay Office relocation
Planning Commission: July 15, 2014
Page 4
residential uses within the area by providing management services to residences on and off site. This
use is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable to this proposal and has identified no unfavorable factors:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposed redevelopment is within an existing apartment complex and does not propose any
new uses.
2. Issues identified by ARB staff can be remedied during the ARB review process.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. No unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00012
Westgate/Barclay SP Amendment to allow for the relocation of professional office space with the
following conditions (The conditions for SP94-18 are shown for reference with strikethroughs):
1. Use shall be limited to 2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road plus addition shown on attachment C, dated
5/17/94 and initialed W.D. F. (copy attached) Development of the use shall be in general accord with
the conceptual plan received by staff on April 7, 2014, as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the application plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the use, as shown on
the plan:
a. Office building mass and location
b. Office parking
Minor modifications to the plan may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Addition shall be of similar façade to the existing building New construction shall not commence prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board;
3. Use shall be limited to property management services.
The following are the clean proposed conditions without strikethroughs:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan received by staff on April
7, 2014, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the application plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the use, as shown on the plan:
c. Office building mass and location
d. Office parking
Minor modifications to the plan may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. New construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board;
3. Use shall be limited to property management services.
SP201400012 – Westgate/Barclay Office relocation
Planning Commission: July 15, 2014
Page 5
Motions:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201400012 Westgate/Barclay SP Amendment to allow
for the relocation of professional offices with the amended conditions outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201400012 Westgate/Barclay SP Amendment for
relocation of professional offices with reasons for denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Aerial Map
Attachment C – Application Plan
Attachment D – ARB Staff Comments
Return to PC actions
Parcel InfoParcelsSP201400012 Westgate/Barclay LocationMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesJune 20, 2014GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)1000 ft
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP201400012 Westgate/Barclay Aerial
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 20, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
200 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 15, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-12 Westgate/Barclay - Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 15, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 2014
at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Karen Firehock,
Tim Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Bruce Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner;
Francis MacCall, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator;
David Benish, Chief of Zoning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2014-00012 Westgate/Barclay
PROJECT: SP-2014-00012 Westgate/Barclay Place
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-042D0
LOCATION: 2617 Hydraulic Road (Westgate Apartments)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend conditions of existing special use permit to allow relocation and
expansion of office space within apartment complex on 4.677 acres. No additional dwellings are
proposed.
ZONING: Planned Residential Development, PRD – residential (up to 35 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses, professional offices by special use permit under Section 19.3.2 of zoning
ordinance.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential (in areas around centers) residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre), supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses in Neighborhood 1 of Places 29 Development Area.
(Rachel Falkenstein)
Ms. Falkenstein presented a PowerPoint presentation on SP-2014-00012, Westgate/Barclay
Apartment Complex.
Proposal: The applicant requests to amend approved SP-94-18 to relocate existing office space
within the Westgate Apartments complex.
The previously approved special use permit was SP-94-18, which allowed for the location of
professional offices on the site. The offices are Great Eastern Management Company, which
manage off-site and on-site rental properties. The previously approved special permit had
conditions requiring these offices to be located at specific addresses of 2619 and 2621
Hydraulic Road. The applicant is requesting to amend the conditions to allow the offices to be
relocated to 2617 Hydraulic Road as shown on the conceptual plan. The previous permit also
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 15, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-12 Westgate/Barclay - Submit to BOS
2
allowed for expansion of the office spaces, but was never completed. The applicant is
requesting to do a small expansion to 2617 Hydraulic Road as shown on the plan.
Factors favorable:
The proposed redevelopment is within an existing apartment complex and does not propose
any new uses.
Issues identified by ARB staff can be remedied during the ARB review process.
Factors unfavorable:
No unfavorable factors.
Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2014-
00012 Westgate/Barclay with the three amended conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Keller asked staff to clarify if there was an acceptance of the PRD or the special use permit
originally. He asked why the PRD was not being amended instead of the special use permit if it
was an acceptance of the PRD.
Ms. Falkenstein replied the apartment complex actually predated the PRD. However, they
rezoned the PRD in a comprehensive rezoning to recognize what was already there and within
the PRD zoning district a special use permit is required for professional offices.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the p ublic hearing for the applicant
and public comment. He invited the applicant to address the Commission.
David Mitchell, construction manager with Great Eastern Management, said they were just
moving their offices. They were in the two townhomes and would like to move to one of the
apartments across from the drive isle. At the same time, independent of their special use permit,
they were going to move their leasing as well and provide a clubhouse for the tenants in the
apartment community. They have been through several years of internal renovations of the
apartments, which were built in the 60’s. As they rehab the apartments they also need to
increase the amenities and the clubhouse is one of those things. From our financial standpoint
the two townhomes they are in would rent tomorrow if they were available. The apartments,
especially right on Hydraulic, are not viewed as the most desirable ones, and nobody likes the
apartments next to the pool. They are trying to provide better amenities and maximize the
value.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, he closed the public
hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph said he thinks this is a marvelous idea. He asked Mr. Mitchell if he has adequate
office space for the growth he is anticipating within the new headquarters.
Mr. Mitchell replied they don’t actually plan to add any more people and are in the process of
increasing and updating their accounting management software. It is very labor intensive right
now. As most know, Great Eastern Management is hopefully bringing forward North Point
properties. They have properties they see being redeveloped in the future with more density and
apartments and that type of stuff. They really think they have enough people, but need better
processes to manage in a more efficient manner. The offices do lend to that. Right now they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 15, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-12 Westgate/Barclay - Submit to BOS
3
have people in two different buildings on two sides of the street, which is just not very good. He
did not see an increase in staff.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Morris asked for a motion.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Ms. Firehock seconded to recommend approval of SP-2014-
00012, Westgate/Barclay with the conditions outlined in the staff report to allow for the
relocation of professional offices.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan received by staff
on April 7, 2014, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the application plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the use, as shown on the
plan:
a. Office building mass and location
b. Office parking
Minor modifications to the plan may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. New construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board;
3. Use shall be limited to property management services.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-00012 Westgate/Barclay would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
Boards)
ZMA 201300004
BOS September 10, 2014
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300004, Hollymead Town Center – Blocks VI
and IV, Area C
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezoning request to amend the approved
ZMA200100020 application plan, code of
development and proffers. The request is to
construct 44 townhouse units in Block VI and to
eliminate the required minimum square footage of
non-residential uses and associated parking lot in
Blocks IV and VI.
STAFF:
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
September 10, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On July 29, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for The Hollymead Town Center, Blocks VI
and IV, Area C rezoning request. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA201 300004
provided technical revisions are made to the application plan, code of development and proffers, as
recommended by staff, and with the following additional recommended amendment to the application plan:
1. Eliminate five (5) lots (17 through 21) in order to accomplish a more effective open space system and to
unpack what would be an otherwise crowded and congested development. Working with the county
engineer further, it is possible to have the alternate circulation and regain two (2) of those lots.
DISCUSSION:
In response to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant has provided the following:
Application Plan
The applicant has eliminated three (3) of the five (5) lots recommended for elimination by the Planning
Commission. Lots 16 and 17 on the proposed plan were not eliminated as recommended by the Planning
Commission. As a result, the proposed open space system shown on the proposed application plan is not
consistent with the Commission’s recommendation. The application plan would need to be amended prior
to approval of this ZMA request, should the Board agree with the Commission’s recommendation regarding
the open area. All other outstanding issues with the application plan have been addressed. (See
Attachment A)
Code of Development (COD)
Table A in the COD has been revised and all other outstanding technical issues have been addressed.
(See Attachment B)
Proffers
The proffers have been revised to address all outstanding technical issues , and found to be acceptable by
ZMA 201300004
BOS September 10, 2014
Executive Summary Page 2
the County Attorney and planning staff (See Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to enlarge the open space area by eliminating five lots has not
been fully addressed on the proposed application plan; therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this
request. Please note that all other outstanding technical issues from the Planning Commission
recommendation have been addressed. Should the Board want to approve this re-zoning as proposed by the
applicant, the application plan, code of development and proffers are technically and legally acceptable.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Revised Application Plan, dated 03/18/13, revised 08/06/14
Attachment B: Code of Development
Attachment C: Proffers, dated 08/29/14
PC Actions letter
Return to agenda
1
REVISED
APPLICATION BOOKLET
FOR
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
REVISED ZMA 201300004
ZMA 01-20-2001 (AREA C)
“AT HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER”
2
REVISED
APPLICATION BOOKLET
FOR
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
REVISED ZMA 201300004
ZMA 01-20-2001 (AREA C)
“AT HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER”
I. Introduction
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D (now 41L) to be designated a Town Center will have a combination of Urban Density
Residential, Mixed Use/Community Service and Mixed Use/ Regional Service land use classification.
Timberwood West is intended primarily to provide an integrated mixed-use component to the Hollymead Town
Center and should be viewed as one part of a much larger mixed-use development. Timberwood West will
meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model both by design and by its relationship to the larger
neighborhood.
For Area C of the Hollymead Town Center, the following documents comprised the Code of Development
(Code):
Application Plan
The Application Plan is a graphic depiction of the information set forth in the Code and it is the Code’s tables,
appendices and narrative, which regulate whether a site plan is in conformity with the intent of the rezoning.
Therefore, roads, buildings, sidewalks, landscaping, grading, and utilities shown on the Application Plan may
shift as long as they remain in general accord with the Application Plan and meet requirements set forth in the
Code. In this regard, the Application Plan should be used as an interpretation tool.
Code of Development – Block Exhibit
The Block Exhibit delineates nine areas or blocks. These blocks are referenced in this Code’s narratives, tables
and appendices. It is expected that a block’s size and shape may be altered slightly as Area C is developed.
However, it is the developer’s intention to develop this area in general accord with the Block Exhibit.
Code of Development – Narrative
The narrative sets forth the rules within which Area C shall be developed. The narrative provides a general
description of important building and streetscape design features that are integral to the success of the
development. It also provides design schematics that further illustrate these general descriptions. The
Application Plan shall also be used to interpret the information contained in the tables and appendices of the
Code of Development.
Code of Development – Tables and Appendices
Tables A, B, C and the associated appendices that are attached to this document comprise the parameters within
which Area C shall be developed. These tables and appendices set forth specific uses, amount of uses and
description of amenities, typical street cross-sections, expected streetscape, proposed building’s relationship to
the street, and generally describe the architecture for the project.
3
II. Application Plan
4
III. Block Exhibit
5
IV. Code of Development – Narrative
Uses, Ratio of Uses, and Amenities– Table A
The Application Plan illustrates the likely distribution of uses and the probable amount of those uses within the
Area C portion of the Hollymead Town Center. Table A and Appendices A and B regulate the allowable uses
by block and set the minimum and maximum amounts of any particular use category within a given block.
Table A is divided into two major use categories, residential and non-residential, with minimum and maximum
square footages for non-residential uses and minimum and maximum numbers for residential dwelling units.
As an example, Table A defines the types of residential uses that are permitted by block – Attached Single
Family or Multifamily. Then, Table A defines the minimum and maximum number of residential dwelling uses
within a Block III – 5 to 10. Furthermore, Table A sets forth a minimum and maximum range of 50 to 120
residential dwelling units for the entire development. Therefore, if 5 townhouses are proposed within Block III,
then townhouses are permitted and they are within the acceptable range for Block III. Furthermore, these
fifteen dwelling units shall count toward the minimum threshold for the entire development of 50 dwelling
units. However, if upon site plan application of the final block, the developer has not met the minimum
residential range of 50, then the site plan for the final block will have to provide a sufficient number of
residential units to meet the minimum number of residential units, or the minimum number of residential units
will need to be built elsewhere within the development.
With respect to non-residential uses, Table A sets forth the minimum and maximum amount of non-residential
uses by block and for the entire development. This caps the amount of retail uses within a given block and
within the entire development. Appendix A, which is referenced by Table A, delineates if a particular non-
residential use is allowed within a specific block. Furthermore, the shaded uses within Appendix A define the
uses considered to be “retail uses.” Thus, the square footage of a shaded use in Appendix A would count
toward the maximum non-residential square footage and the maximum retail square footage. The unshaded use
would count only toward the maximum non-residential square footage. Finally, Appendix B defines the blocks
within which specific Special Use Permits can be applied for at some point in the future. The square footages
for these uses, if applicable, shall be counted towards the minimum and maximums set forth in Table A.
For example in Table A, Block III lists a minimum of 18,000 square feet of non-residential uses. If in a site
plan for this block, the developer has proposed 25,000 square feet of non-residential space, then the site plan
would sufficiently meet the minimum amount of non-residential square footage required for Block III.
Furthermore, at the time of Zoning Clearance, the square footage for a proposed retail user, for example a
proposed hardware store, would be compared against the total square footage of the other non-residential users
within the block and within the entire development. If the hardware store’s square footage would put the total
retail square footage over the 20,000 maximum retail square footage in Block III, then it would not be allowed
and a non-retail user would only be allowed. If the addition of a new non-retail user would exceed Block III’s
50,000 non-residential maximum or the entire development’s 300,000 square foot maximum, then this new user
would not be allowed.
The intent of these minimums and maximums is to ensure that the development will establish a mixture of uses.
Appendix A provides a list permitted uses by block and Appendix B provides a list the potential uses by Special
Permit.
6
Description of Amenities and other Important Features by Block
Block I
Block I will be divided into three parcels of approximately 1.5 acres each. Visual impacts to the Entrance
Corridor will be mitigated through a variety of measures including, the structures themselves, planted earthen
mounds, and/ or a variety of selected trees and shrubs. The structure on the front site (lot one) will
accommodate a casual dining restaurant with a deck overlooking the pond. Mid-sized retailers will utilize lots
two and three. This business mixture allows for better traffic flow into, and by their use, there will be staggered
peak business hours reducing parking and traffic congestion. The buildings have been situated to offer a
pleasing view from Rt. 29 as the site ascends in a tiered fashion up the hill, and many walkways to encourage
shoppers to limit vehicular traffic and enjoy the pond. By utilizing a two-story structure on lot three, the design
creatively addresses the grade differential of the topography eliminating the need for unsightly barrier walls as
well as providing a “downtown style” street entrance on the second floor. .
The stormwater retention pond in Block I has been designed to enhance and compliment the project as an
amenity. Design Schematic A provides a plan view of the potential landscaping and fountains that will be
provided with the retention pond. Design Schematic B shows a stepped, stone retaining wall, a waterfall and
recirculating fountains that will allow the stormwater facility to become a focal point that serves as a visually
pleasing addition to both the development and to passersby. This approach to design greatly enhances the
attractiveness of the project, creates an enjoyment feature for restaurant patrons and makes a statement about
the commitment to creating quality projects in the county’s entrance corridor. The retaining wall embodies
artful stonework and a traversing sidewalk for travelers, patrons, neighbors and employees use, with convenient
benches for relaxing conversation or enjoyment of the views. The vegetation surrounding the pond will be
complimentary to the site, offering “glimpses” into the overall project. Photos are also included to illustrate
how these concepts might appear.
7
Design Schematic A – Plan View of Block I Pond
8
Design Schematic B – Perspective View of Block I Pond
9
Photos Illustrating Conceptual Improvements Around Block I Pond
10
Photos Illustrating Conceptual Improvements Around Block I Pond
11
Block II
The buildings within Block II are designed to front on Timberwood Boulevard and turn the corner to front
Access Road C. The building along Timberwood Boulevard starts with two stories and steps to a three-story
building along Access Road C. This allows for the building to work with the grade while providing the
appropriate mass to these two important streets. There is additional frontage available for future development
of the block at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B. The parking lot is designed to allow
the possibility of a parking deck that would accommodate this future infill development. Finally, there will be
space for public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access
Road C for the purpose of framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block III
Block III proposes a multi-story building that frames the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C.
Contained in the building at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road D, there may be an
apartment building. Townhouses are proposed to front onto Access Road D. Finally, there will be space for
public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access Road C for
the purpose of framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block IV
This block is the centerpiece of the north end of the Town Center. Buildings front all of the streets and
surround a central plaza. The central plaza will be a pedestrian friendly area with benches, pavers, gardens,
trees, and grassed areas with a fountain or covered gazebo type structure. The form and function of the central
plaza is generally depicted in Design Schematics C and D. Finally, there will be space for public art, benches,
kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access Road C for the purpose of
framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block V
This block is designed to accommodate two rows of townhouses, which will front onto Timberwood Boulevard
and the street behind. The parking will be internalized between the townhouses in garages and with additional
parking to be provided on the street that form the boundary to this block. The townhouse block will provide at
least one semi-private green space internal to the block for the residents of this block.
Block VI
This block provides the parking for Block IV. The parking lot is designed in a manner to accommodate the
future infill of additional buildings by either the County or other public user. Please see the proffers below for a
further definition of the future infill possibilities. This lot could also act as a possible park and ride lot during
weekday hours.
This block is designed to accommodate four rows of townhouses, which will front on and have entrances on
Grand Forks Blvd, Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane or internal green space. The parking will be
internalized between the townhouses in garages and in driveways behind the townhouses. The townhouse block
will provide at least one semi-private green space internal to the block for the residents of this block including a
small recreation area (Tot Lot). The green space shall also act as the frontage for the townhouse lot parcels
when not located on a public or private street.
12
Design Schematic C – Conceptual Plan View #1 of the Central Plaza
13
Design Schematic D – Conceptual Plan View #2 of the Central Plaza
14
Block VII
This block proposes a multi-story building that fronts Access Road C.
Block VIII
In Block VII, a 3 to 4-story building will defined this corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C.
This corner will also have space for public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features mentioned above on the
other three corners. This block will also have a pocket park of approximately 6,500 square feet at the corner of
Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B. The principle intent of the pocket park is to add more greenery to
the development. The pocket park will also provide, at a minimum, benches and a small flat area.
Block IX
This is the first block on the right upon entering Timberwood Boulevard from Route 29. The proposed
buildings step up the grade with the ground floor facing towards Timberwood Boulevard and a second floor
facing towards the parking lot in the rear
Architectural Guidelines – Table B
Table B sets forth Area C’s design guidelines for its building’s relationship to the street by providing the
building height ranges, build-to line ranges, and limits on a single user’s footprint. Appendix C generally
defines features that should be included as part of the facades of the building within Area C. The photos and
descriptions are included in Appendix C generally illustrate these features, but it is not the developer’s intent to
replicate the buildings in the photos. Building footprints will not be greater than fifty-five thousand (55,000)
square feet and were generally will be much smaller. Buildings generally are between two and four floors.
Variations and offsets to the building footprint line, variations for building heights, uses of materials and
rooflines and materials should provide the quality, design and scale necessary to create an aesthetically pleasing
environment and provide human scale development. Primary entries to those buildings along public or private
streets should front the street to the extent possible.
Buildings will offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces and amenities. Entrances and
parking lots will be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical
destinations. Special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, colonnades, pedestrian light fixtures,
bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulations ways and outdoor spaces will
anchor pedestrians-ways.
The basic intent of these guidelines is to produce a consistent product reminiscent of mid-Atlantic historic areas
such as Alexandria, Georgetown and Charleston, as well as historic portions of the Charlottesville Downtown
Mall as related to non-residential uses. The Master Plan recognizes and promotes the twelve design principles
identified in the Neighborhood Model with the ultimate goal of providing an aesthetically pleasing Town Center
focusing on issues such as parking, building size and design, and street layout and design. The planned
development of the Hollymead Town Center will ultimately protect and preserve the county’s natural, scenic
and historic resources with harmony and integration.
Transportation and Mobility – Table C
Streets and Alleys
The location of streets, alleys or access to parking areas, sidewalks and pedestrian paths are generally shown on
the Application Plan. Table C provides proposed street cross-sections, sidewalks and streetscape design
guidelines, and indicates whether individual streets are proposed as public or private.
The road layout as shown on the Application Plan indicates the intent of the design. Timberwood West is a
major thoroughfare in the Town Center providing external connections to Airport Road and Route 29. The
other major thoroughfare is Access Road C (a.k.a., Ridge Rd.), which provides an eventual interconnection
between the Town Center and the North Fork Research Park via TMP 32-41. Access Road B provides access
from Timberwood Boulevard and Area B.
15
Streetscape
In general, streetscape should be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials, with a drought-resistant
turf grass such as turf-type tall fescue. Streetscape planting will be irrigated. When planting strip is wider than
5 feet, larger street trees will be used, when it is 5 feet, mid-sized trees will be used. Boulevard islands will use
a combination of mid-size shrubs and trees on each end of the islands and large street trees in the center of the
islands. Streetscapes should be appealing, but they should not compete for attention with the retail function of
downtown businesses and should focus on a high degree of pedestrian comfort.
The minimum standards for streets trees shall be the following:
On major streets or boulevards, large tree species should be used with a minimum spacing of 40 to
50 feet.
On minor streets and alleys, medium tree species should be used with a minimum spacing of 30 to
35 feet.
Where visible from the Entrance Corridor, ARB Guidelines will be met or exceeded.
Medians will be planted with smaller street trees and shrubs and flowers where width permits.
Typical cross-sections, and photos, as approved by Albemarle County for streetscapes are show on Design
Schematics E, F and G. Planting materials will be selected from the approved planting list by Albemarle
County.
Final design will be addressed in the Site Development Plan process.
16
Design Schematic E– Conceptual Plan View of Streetscape and Parking lot plantings
17
Design Schematic F – Conceptual cross-sections of Streetscape plantings
18
Conceptual Photos of Streetscape
19
Conceptual Photos of Streetscape
20
Sidewalks
All crosswalks will be distinguished in a brick pattern style and sidewalks in front of buildings and pedestrian
walks in the plaza will be constructed of various masonry materials, brick pavers, brick impressed concrete
stained, stone pavers or impressed concrete to simulate stone. Access ways or walks around water features
(water quality ponds) may be asphalt.
Sidewalks should be smooth poured-in-place concrete that will not distract pedestrians. Specific areas or
crosswalks should use enhanced paving utilizing various patterns.
Light poles with banner brackets should be used to announce special events and promotions, which help with
retail sales and the project will use full-cutoff fixtures.
The sidewalk design in the commercial areas shall include three distinct sidewalk zones;
The first zone closest to the curb, is the “utility zone” and contains most of the streetscape appurtenances:
streetlights, trees, tree grates, benches, and handicapped ramps. The area also may contain raised planter,
drinking fountains, parking meters, bicycle racks and parking signs.
The second zone is the “thru way zone.” This portion of the sidewalk is typically devoted to steady walking
and many vary in width.
The third zone is the “browsing zone.” This is the two-to-three foot area right next to the storefronts and is
generally outside of the right-of-way.
The sidewalk design for the residential area will be five feet wide.
Transit
Bus stops will be designated at various key intersections or at larger parking lots that may also serve as a park
and ride lot.
Park and Ride
Opportunities will exist within Area C for park and rides. At present, Block VI has the possibility for park and
ride areas.
Definition of Others Application Plan Issues
Grading
Topography at five (5) foot contour intervals and proposed grading are indicated on the Application Plan. The
proposed grading as illustrated on the Application Plan ties into the proposed overall grading for the Town
Center as illustrated on the Town Center Master Plan as well as the non-Town Center properties to the north.
While not insignificant, site grading is minimized by accommodating grade changes through building design
and placement.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain
Given the extensive rolling topography a great deal of emphasis has been put on the grade and alignment of the
roads. The stair stepping of the building footprints is to provide a walk-able environment and good assess to the
front and rear of the buildings. Inter-building relationships combined with required grades for roads and parking
lots determine the requirements necessary for the site design. Both stormwater management basins were
located in natural drainage courses to again make use of the existing topography.
The Storm Water Management
Stormwater management will be accomplished with the construction of Stormwater basins and water quality
swales. The basins are generally located on the Application Plan and have been sited in accordance with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Hollymead Town Center Master Plan. The design provided to the
County demonstrates that the facility will be designed to meet the county’s detention and water quality
requirements for this portion of the Hollymead Town Center.
21
The regional basin in Block I will serve the areas east of Access Road C (Blocks I, II, VII, VIII and IX) and a
northern portion of Area B. The regional stormwater basin proposed on the Abingdon Place property, TMP 32-
46, will serve Blocks III, IV, V and VI. The Abingdon Place basin will also accommodate stormwater
requirements for the Airport Road improvements by VDOT, Laurel Hill Baptist Church, the Regional Post
Office Distribution Center, the Wright property (TMP 32-41E) and a portion of Abingdon Place.
Water quality swales are proposed either within or along the lower edges of various parking lots in Blocks I, II,
III, VI, VII, VIII and IX. These water quality swales will reduce the amount of uncontrolled and untreated
runoff before it enters the water quality ponds. This will provide a higher degree of water quality treatment and
increase the infiltration of rainfall into the ground. Internal parking lot landscape treatments also help to cool
surface water during summer months creating a better environmental balance to the body of water in the pond.
Two locations of water quality swales are noted for their importance. These locations are the areas between
townhouses and large surface parking lots. Special importance should be given to locating water quality swales
at the edges of these parking lots to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lots on the residents of the
townhouses.
Water and Sanitary Sewer
Schematic layouts of the utilities are shown on the plan with the final location to be determined by ACSA
during their review process.
Service, Delivery and Storage Areas
For service, delivery, storage and disposal area, the following standards will be applied where feasible:
• Outdoor storage, trash collection and loading areas will be baffled with walls, screened, recessed or
enclosed so as not to be clearly visible from adjoining neighborhoods or pedestrian ways or customer
entrances. Screening materials will be complementary to primary structures.
• Locate loading docks and service areas a minimum of 20 feet from any public street and in areas of low
visibility.
• Combine loading and service areas between multiple sites when feasible and screen from public view
with fencing, walls and/or landscaping as appropriate.
• Clearly identify service entrances with signs to discourage the use of main entrances for deliveries.
Parking
In general, the required amount of parking will mostly be supplied within each block, however the overall
parking will be provided in line with the PD-SC parking standards of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross leaseable floor
area. Furthermore, the PD-SC standard shall be applied to all blocks within Area C of the Town Center, except
for Block V where the residential standard of 2.25 spaces per unit shall apply. Portions of Blocks III and VI
may incorporate some shared parking between the business uses and residential uses.
Within the parking areas the following landscaping standards shall apply:
• Large Deciduous Trees at the center and end of parking islands
• Larger internal islands will serve as supplemental bio-filters
• Inter-spaced with mid-sized and ornamental trees.
• Perimeter evergreen shrubs and mid-sized trees surround parking lots.
• Interior tree counts for parking lots shall meet or exceed the 1 tree for every 10 spaces requirement.
Relegation of Parking
In the Application Plan, a majority of the parking lots are screened from the major streets by buildings. Where
it is impossible to relegate the parking with building, the plan will use a combination of landscaping, street
22
walls, and other mutually agreeable devices to reduce the visibility of the parking lots from the major streets.
The major streets are defined as Timberwood Boulevard, Access Road C, and Access Road D. Where feasible,
these techniques should be applied to Access Road B and the drive aisles within the parking lots themselves.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment has been considered for Area C. There are parking areas that are suitable for future parking
structures or additional areas for building infill. Specifically, Block II, Block VI and Block IX are designed in a
manner to accommodate parking structures and permit additional redevelopment of the site. Currently the site
is designed to provide a FAR of .35.
Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas
There are no rural areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan adjoining the boundaries of this property.
Although some of the existing zoning of the adjoining properties is still shown as rural (RA) uses, they are
intended for future commercial uses.
We have requested a series of waivers to allow for the overall grading and clearing, road construction to
adjoining properties and adjust building and parking lot setbacks as shown on the application plan.
23
V. Code of Development – Tables and Appendices
Code of Development – Tables and Appendices
TABLE A – USES TABLE
Non-residential
Uses Permitted
Special Use
Permit
Non-residential Square Footage Ranges Residential
Uses Permitted
Dwelling Unit Ranges
Amenities Min. Non-Res. Max. Non-Res
Total Maximum Retail Min Max
Block I See Appendix A See Appendix B 35,000 55,000 55,000 Not Permitted -- --
Stormwater
Management
Structure Area
Block II See Appendix A See Appendix B 35,000 70,000 50,000 Not Permitted -- --
Block III See Appendix A See Appendix B 18,000 50,000 20,000
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
5 10
Block IV See Appendix A See Appendix B 32,000
0 80,000 40,000
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
15 30 Central Plaza
Block V Non-residential
not permitted See Appendix B 0 0 0
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
20 50
Block VI Residential
permitted See Appendix B N/A N/A N/A
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
40 50 Green Space
Pocket Park
Tot Lot
Block VII See Appendix A See Appendix B 12,000 25,000 25,000 Not Permitted -- -- Pocket Park
Block VIII See Appendix A See Appendix B 80 Hotel
Rooms 76,000 5,000 Not Permitted -- --
Block IX See Appendix A See Appendix B 20,000 40,000 40,000 Not Permitted -- --
Not to Exceed 275,000 200,000 80 120
24
Table B — Architectural Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TABLE B)
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TABLE
Min/ Max
Number of
Stories *
Build-to-line* Max floor plate for a
single user
References to Typical Building
Elevations and Important Features
(See Appn. C)
Block I
1-3 0-10 from edge of sidewalk No limit Regional Service District Style
Block II
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk No limit Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block III
2-5
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
20,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block IV
2-5
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
Not Applicable Urban Residential Style
Block V
2-4
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
Not Applicable Urban Residential Style
Block VI
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk\
Green Space shall serve as frontage for the
residential units
Not Applicable *Urban Residential Style
Block VII
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 35,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block
VIII 2-5 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 35,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block IX
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 40,000 Regional Service District Style
*Minimum stories and build-to lines do not apply to buildings on the Application Plan that are labeled/ shown below these standards
25
Table C – Intended Street Criteria
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TABLE C)
INTENDED ROAD CROSS-SECTION AND STREETSCAPE TABLE
Typical Street Section
For
Right-of-
way width
Curb-to-
curb width
Total
number of
lanes
Lane
Widths
Bike
Lanes
On-street
Parking
Median Sidewalk widths
Timberwood - between
Route 29 and 1st
intersection 80' 56 5 11-12 foot No No 7.5 5
Timberwood - between
1st intersection and
Ridge Road 80' 44 2-4 11-12 foot Yes No 10 10
Timberwood - between
Ridge Road and Airport
Road
70' 43 2 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 5
Access Road B 60' 40 2 11-12 foot No some No 5 to 10
Access Road C 80' 50 2-4 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 10
Access Road D -- 45 2 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 5 to 10
Drive aisles in
commercial areas -- 24 2 12 foot No -- No 5
26
Appendix A – Permitted Uses By Block
Appendix A -- Permitted Uses*
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV - Townhomes Plaza BLOCK V - Townhomes * BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Administrative, professional offices. X X X X X X X X
Automobile laundries. X X
Automobile, truck repair shop,
service station, excluding body shop.
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and
craft shops. X X X X X X X
Barber, beauty shops. X X X X X X X
Building materials sales.
Churches, cemeteries X X X X
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops. X X X X X X X
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal,
patriotic (reference 5.1.2). X X X
Convenience stores. X X X X X X
Department store. X X X X
Drug store, pharmacy. X X X X X
Eating establishment; fast food
restaurants. X X X X X X X
Educational, technical and trade
schools. X X X X X X X
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). X
Factory outlet sales - clothing and
fabric.
Feed and seed stores
Financial institutions. X X X X X X X
Fire extinguisher and security
products, sales and service.
Fire and rescue squad stations
(reference 5.1.09). X
27
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III * BLOCK IV - Plaza Townhomes BLOCK V - Townhomes *BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Florist. X X X X X X X
Food and grocery stores including
such specialty shops as bakery,
candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops.
X X X X X X X
Funeral homes.
Furniture and home appliances (sales
and service). X X X X X X
Hardware store. X X X X X X
Health spas. X X X X X X X
Home and business services such as
grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other
repair and maintenance services.
X X X X
Hotels, motels and inns. X X X X
Indoor Theaters X X X X X
Indoor athletic facilities. X X
Light warehousing. X X
Laundries, dry cleaners. X X X X X
Laundromat (provided that an
attendant shall be on duty at all hours
during operation).
X X X X X
Libraries, museums. X
Machinery and equipment sales,
service and rental.
Medical center. X X X X X X
Mobile home and trailer sales and
service.
Modular building sales.
Motor vehicle sales, service and
rental.
Musical instrument sales X X X X X X X
New automotive parts sales.
28
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV - Plaza BLOCK V - Townhomes * BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Newsstands, magazines, pipe and
tobacco shops. X X X X X X X
Newspaper publishing.
Nurseries, day care centers (reference
5.1.06). X X X
Public uses and buildings X
Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
Office and business machines sales
and service. X X X X X X
Optical goods sales X X X X X X X
Professional offices, including
medical, dental and optical. X X X X X X X
Photographic goods sales X X X X X X X
Sporting goods sales X X X X X X
Sale of major recreational equipment
and vehicles.
Tailor, seamstress. X X X X X X X
Temporary construction uses
(reference 5.1.18). X X X X X X X X X
Temporary nonresidential mobile
homes (reference 5.8). X X X X X X X X X
Visual and audio appliances sales X X X X X X X
Wayside stands - vegetables and
agricultural produce (reference
5.1.19).
X X X X
Wholesale Distribution
29
Appendix B– Potential Special Permit Use By Block
Appendix B -- Potential Special Use Permits
X = Specifies
blocks where a
Special Use
Permit may be
applied for BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV BLOCK V BLOCK VI BLOCK VII BLOCK VIII BLOCK IX
Stand alone
parking and
parking
structures
(reference
4.12, 5.1.41).
X X X X X X X X X Medical X Commercial
recreation
establishments
including but
not limited to
amusement
centers,
bowling
alleys, pool
halls and
dance halls.
X X X X X X X Drive-in
windows
serving or
associated
with permitted
uses.
X X X X X X X Nursing
homes and
convalescent
homes
X X X X X Auction
houses X X X X X Warehouse
facilities not
permitted
under section
24.2.1
(reference
9.0).
Outdoor
Amphitheatre X X Convention
Center X
30
Appendix C – General Architectural Guidelines
GENERAL CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT:
The Hollymead Town Center’s ultimate goal is to recognize and promote the twelve design
principles identified in the Neighborhood Model and apply them to the “Master Plan.” With this
in mind the basic intent is to create a development with historic charm reminiscent of portions of
Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall, and/or Georgetown, Charleston and Alexandria. Design
characteristics, pedestrian safety and comfort, aesthetic architectural detail, building size and
proportion, relegated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, street layout, water features and walking
paths contribute to the overall comprehensive approach used to make this an ultimate urban
development that utilizes classic and traditional architecture. Finally, the plan aims to be
appealing from the vantage point of the pedestrians. In general, masonry (brick and stone) will
be the primary material for Blocks 1, 2, 8, and 9. Stucco is generally not an acceptable primary
material for Blocks 1, 2, 8, and 9, but may be used as an accent material in those blocks. In the
remaining Blocks, it is recommended that stucco be limited to use as an accent material and to
create diversity.
REGIONAL SERVICE DISTRICT STYLE
Most buildings in this area will be one to two stories and will have mansard/parapet walls that
provide screening for mechanical systems on flat roofs. Buildings within this district will be
similar to or comparable with other lower story structures keeping contextual similarity within
the Hollymead Town Center by using complimentary materials and architectural design.
Variations will be expressed from building to building and at times from floor to floor by using
different sized windows, setbacks, arcades and variations in the rooflines and façade treatments;
however, an overall coordination of building designs will be achieved. Note: more than two
changes of façade materials would seldom be appropriate.
MIXED USE/COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT STYLE
Buildings within this area will respect the style throughout the development but will be two to
four stories. The use of mansard/parapet walls on a different scale will again screen mechanical
systems where necessary and will focus on aesthetic appeal of the overall development. The
buildings will look more urban and vary between the various store/office fronts. This may be
done through differing uses of materials, colors, window styles, rooflines and entrances. Note:
more than two changes of façade materials would seldom be appropriate. The sidewalks in these
areas will be pedestrian friendly by width and finish.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STYLE
This area will largely consist of single-family attached homes that will be two to three stories
with attached garages. Residential facades will be stepped two to four feet from unit to unit to
create an individual identity of the unit thro masked in a block. This will provide for distinctive
architectural features from unit to unit to allow a Georgetown style townhouse. Exteriors will
again use hard materials that may vary from brick to stone, stucco or siding (not vinyl) Front
stoops for each unit as well as on street parking in these locations will provide for ease of access
as well as a rear travel way which accesses the private garage. Rooflines for these units will be
more traditional and in keeping with a more typical residential hip or gable style roof.
31
The perspective view and photos following are intended to illustrate the form and massing of the
buildings in this part of the Town Center.
36
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ZMA 01-20 (AREA C) ............................................... 1
REVISED AUGUST 6, 2014 ZMA 201300004 ............................................................. 2
“TIMBERWOOD WEST AT HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER” ....................................... 2
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
Application Plan.......................................................................................................................... 2
Code of Development – Block Exhibit ....................................................................................... 2
Code of Development – Narrative .............................................................................................. 2
Code of Development – Tables and Appendices ........................................................................ 2
Existing Proffers ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
II. Application Plan ................................................................................................................ 3
III. Block Exhibit ..................................................................................................................... 3
IV. Code of Development – Narrative ................................................................................... 5
Uses, Ratio of Uses, and Amenities– Table A ............................................................................ 5
Description of Amenities and other Important Features by Block ............................................. 6
Block I ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Design Schematic A – Plan View of Block I Pond ............................................................ 7
Design Schematic B – Perspective View of Block I Pond ................................................. 8
Block II ................................................................................................................................. 11
Block III ................................................................................................................................ 11
Block IV ................................................................................................................................ 11
Block V ................................................................................................................................. 11
Block VI ................................................................................................................................ 11
Block VII .............................................................................................................................. 14
Design Schematic C – Conceptual Plan View #1 of the Central Plaza ............................ 12
Design Schematic D – Conceptual Plan View #2 of the Central Plaza ............................ 13
Block VIII ............................................................................................................................. 14
Block IX ................................................................................................................................ 14
Architectural Guidelines – Table B .......................................................................................... 14
Transportation and Mobility – Table C .................................................................................... 14
Streets and Alleys ................................................................................................................. 14
Streetscape ............................................................................................................................ 15
Design Schematic E– Conceptual Plan View of Streetscape and Parking lot plantings .. 16
Design Schematic F – Conceptual cross-sections of Streetscape plantings ..................... 17
Design Schematic H – Conceptual Photos of Streetscape ................................................ 19
Sidewalks .............................................................................................................................. 20
Transit ................................................................................................................................... 20
Park and Ride ........................................................................................................................ 20
Definition of Others Application Plan Issues ........................................................................... 20
Grading ................................................................................................................................. 20
Site Planning that Respects Terrain ...................................................................................... 20
The Storm Water Management ............................................................................................. 20
37
Water and Sanitary Sewer ..................................................................................................... 21
Service, Delivery and Storage Areas .................................................................................... 21
Parking .................................................................................................................................. 21
Relegation of Parking ........................................................................................................... 21
Redevelopment ..................................................................................................................... 22
Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas ...................................................................................... 22
V. Code of Development – Tables and Appendices ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table A – Uses ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table B — Architectural StandardsTable C – Intended Street Criteria .................................... 24
Table C – Intended Street Criteria ............................................................................................ 25
Appendix A – Permitted Uses By Block .................................................................................. 26
Appendix B– Potential Special Permit Use By Block .............................................................. 29
Appendix C – General Architectural Guidelines ...................................................................... 29
Existing Proffers……………………………………………………………………………31-34
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 8, 2014
Katurah Roell
2811 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
RE: ZMA201300004 Hollymead Town Center (Block VI)
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 29, 2014, by a vote
of 6:0, recommended approval of the above noted petition with the revised code of
development, and provided technical revisions are made to the proffers, and changes
are made to the application plan as recommended by staff, prior to the Board of
Supervisor meeting with the following amendment:
1. Eliminate five (5) lots (17 through 21) in order to accomplish a more effective
open space system and to unpack what would be an otherwise crowded and
congested development. Working with the county engineer further, it is possible
to have the alternate circulation and regain two (2) of those lots.
View staff report and attachments
PC minutes June 3 and July 29, 2014
Return exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding t he above noted action,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Post Office Land Trust; Charles Wm Hurt & Shirley L Fisher, Trustees
Po Box 8147
Charlottesville VA. 22906
1 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2013-00004 Hollymead
Town Center – Block VI
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 29, 2014
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Post Office Land Trust Applicant: Post Office Land Trust – Charles W.
Hurt with Katurah Roell as the contact
Acreage: Approximately 5.74 acres
Rezone from: No change of zoning designation
is sought. This application seeks to amend
ZMA200100020 Application Plan, Code of
Development and proffers. This proposal
requests to construct 44 townhouse units in
Block VI, instead of an approved parking area
and to eliminate the required minimum square
footage of non-residential uses in Block IV.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 032000000041L0
(See Attachment A)
Location: West of Route 29 North. At the
intersection of Laurel Park Lane and Meeting
Street.
By-right use: Mixed use development with
maximum total residential units of 120 in Area C
of Hollymead Town Center.
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezoning request to amend the
approved ZMA200100020 Application Plan,
Code of Development and proffers. This
proposal requests to construct 44 townhouse
units in Block VI, instead of an approved parking
area and to eliminate the required minimum
square footage of non-residential uses in Block
IV. The density for Block VI is 7.6 dwelling
units/acre. (Attachment B).
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 44 dwelling
units in Block VI. This is a reallocation of the
maximum 120 units approved as part of
ZMA200100020. No additional units are being
requested.
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Community Comp. Plan Designation: Hollymead-Places
29-Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail,
employment uses, with supporting residential,
office, or institutional uses.
Character of Property: Blocks IV and VI are
vacant and undeveloped.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The adjacent
property to the east and south are vacant and
undeveloped. There are townhouses located to
the west and additional townhouses/mixed use
buildings are located in the vicinity along with
Rosewood Village, an assisted living facility.
Micro Aire is located to the north.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and no
changes to uses are proposed.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Loss of non-residential space/mix use
form within these blocks
2. Technical revisions are needed to
2 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
2. Proposed townhouse development in
Blocks IV and VI are consistent with
existing residential development
adjacent to the site and will create a
larger and more cohesive residential
neighborhood that is close to a walkable
center
3. The original maximum number of
residential units is unchanged.
4. Sufficient non-residential land use
capacity/ development potential remain
within the Hollymead Town Center
proffers, code of development, and
application plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA2013000004, Hollymead Town Center
Block VI, provided technical revisions are made to the proffers and changes are made to the
application plan, and code of development as described in the staff report prior to the Board of
Supervisor meeting.
3 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 29, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201300004 Hollymead Town Center – Block VI
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201300004 Hollymead Town Center (Block VI)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000041L0
LOCATION: West of Route 29 North. At the intersection of Laurel Park Lane and Meeting Street.
PROPOSAL: To amend Proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan to allow construction of
44 townhouse units for a density of 7.6 dwellings/acre and to eliminate the requirement to construct
32,000 square feet of non-residential use. This proposal requests to construct in Block VI, instead of an
approved parking area, and to eliminate the required minimum non-residential uses in Block IV.
ZONING: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large-scale commercial uses
and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. No Zoning change is requested.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Hollymead-Places 29-Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail,
employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This proposal is located in the area known as Hollymead Town Center, which is subject to multiple
approved rezonings. Each rezoning covers a certain section of the town center and are referred to
as Area A1 (Kohl’s area), A2 (west of Kohl’s and along Meeting Street), B (Targ et and Harris-Teeter
area), C (North end of the town center, north and west of Target, and the area along and on the north
side of Timberwood Blvd), and D (Abington Place and the area south of Timberwood Blvd).
The subject property is located in Area C and is vacant and undeveloped. However, the surrounding
area is developed with townhouses to the west, a mixed use building and an assisted living facility to
the south, and a flex-industrial use (Micro Aire) to the north. The area immediately east of the site is
vacant but is approved for non-residential uses (commercial and office). Portions of the Hollymead
Town Center further south and east are developed in commercial and residential uses.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
This request is to amend the uses permitted in Blocks IV and VI of the Hollymead Town Center Area C
as defined in the Code of Development (COD).
Block IV – The current COD calls for a minimum of 32,000 square feet of non-residential uses
and between 15 and 30 residential units in Block IV (See page 22 of Attachment C). The
applicant is now requesting to eliminate the requirement to construct a minimum 32,000 square
feet of non-residential uses. The applicant is proposing to construct 30 townhouses which is
consistent with the current approved zoning. (This construction is not part of this rezoning
request)
Block VI – The current COD calls for this block to be used to provide parking for buildings in the
adjacent Block IV, if needed. No other permitted uses are identified in the current COD for this
block. The applicant is proposing to construct 44 townhouses in this block instead of parking.
4 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
Under this proposal, Block IV would contain all required parking on-site, so there is no longer a
need for separate parking to be provided in Block VI.
Area C of the Hollymead Town Center was approved for a maximum of 120 townhouses to be
located within various blocks of the Area. This maximum is not being changed or exceeded by
this proposal. This proposal reallocates some of the permitted residential units to Block VI.
The applicant has provided a revised COD. See pages 10, 19 and 22 of the revised COD for the
blackline changes to the COD. Some technical, non-substantive, corrections are needed to both the
COD and the application plan, including:
Table A in the COD needs to be revised, as it is not clear what the asterisk (“*”) in Block VI is
referring to.
The application plan provided is more detailed than desired for an application plan; however, a
note on the plan states that “the residential units are conceptual with regards to location, size,
and number of units. The details will be worked out during the site plan process.” Staff also
recommends that the note reference flexibility for landscaping that is shown on the plan, which
could also change during the site plan process.
The roads shown on the application plan are inadvertently referenced as alleys instead of
private roads and need to be corrected.
Revised proffers have also been provided and further discussed in the proffer section of this staff
report. Staff recommends that the above noted revisions be made to the plan and reviewed by staff
prior to Board of Supervisor’s public hearing. These changes are technical in nature. The overall
development concept for the block is acceptable to staff. (See Attachment B for the Application Plan
and Attachment C for the revised Code of Development).
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As previously mentioned earlier in this staff report, Block VI was originally proposed to provide parking
for the buildings in Block IV, if necessary. However, Block IV now provides its’ own parking and there is
no longer a need for Block VI to provide parking. The applicant believes the best use for block VI is
residential. There are no additional dwelling units proposed for Area C of the Hollymead Town Center
Development, just a relocation of the units. The original approved maximum of 120 townhouses for
Area C remains unchanged, but a portion of those units would be allocated to Block VI if this rezoning
is approved. In addition, the applicant has described a low market need for non-residential uses in this
portion of the development. Significant area remains available for non-residential uses within
Hollymead Town Center Area C, and the portions of the Town Center.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA82-02 was approved on September 9, 1986 to rezone the property to LI, Light Industry.
ZMA89-08 was approved on September 20, 1989 to rezone the property from LI to C-1 and SP 89-71
(Skating Rink), SP89-72 (Motel) and SP89-73 (Drive-through bank) were also approved concurrently.
ZMA94-21 was approved on March 15, 1995 to amend proffers of ZMA 89-08 to allow all uses
permitted by-right in the C-1 Commercial District.
ZMA01-20 was approved on August 6, 2003 to rezone the property from C-1, LI, and RA to PD-MC to
allow for a mixed –use development in Area C. Other rezoning and special use permits were approved
for different areas of Hollymead Town Center.
5 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The existing zoning approved for Hollymead Town Center is consistent with the Places 29 Master Plan
land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use, which allows commercial, retail, employment uses,
with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses. This rezoning request does not propose to
change the land uses previously approved for Hollymead Town Center in ZMA200100020.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposal meets the 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are proposed to be provided along Meeting Street,
Laurel Park Lane, and Grand Forks Boulevard. Sidewalks are
also shown internally on the site; Some of the sidewalks
appear to provide interconnection internally and externally on
the site. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
The entrance onto the site is a road leading to garages for
the townhouses on the property. Sidewalks and pathways are
provided on the site. Street trees are shown to be provided
on the exterior streets and landscaping is also shown
internally on the site. This principle is addressed.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
The application plan shows alleys that are actually intended
to be private streets providing access to the individual
townhouse garages. The application plan will need to be
revised to reflect the actual intent. The streets connect to
Meeting Street, and Laurel Park Lane. This principle is
addressed.
Relegated Parking The proposed townhouses have garages and parking is
shown to be internal on the site. This principle is addressed.
Parks and Open Space There are two open space areas within the Blocks IV and VI
that consist of greenspace/open space. Block VI is inclusive
of a tot lot and activity recreation area as shown on the plan.
The COD called for a “central plaza” consisting of some
features being provided for Block IV. The central amenity
illustrated in the approved COD is now being shown as a
more dispersed feature, with open space also shown
throughout various areas of the blocks. As a result, the
central amenity appears smaller in size. Although this feature
is different than originally depicted, the basic form and intent
is still being provided. This principle is met.
Neighborhood Centers The Hollymead Town Center is designated and planned as
both a Community and Destination Center, with the
Community Center area focused on Meeting Street just south
of this site. The subtraction of non-residential uses in Block IV
does not significantly affect the provision of center activities in
this area. Neighborhood/residential oriented open spaces are
provided in lieu the “central plaza” called for in the COD. This
principle is addressed.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
The townhouses are proposed to be two to four stories in
height. The elevations provided in the plans appear to be in
keeping with other townhouse developments in the vicinity.
This principle is addressed.
6 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
Mixture of Uses This proposal does not provide a mixture of uses. Although
non-residential uses were not proposed for Block VI, a
minimum of 32,000 square feet of non-residential uses was
proposed for Block IV and is now eliminated since Block IV is
proposed with townhouses. However, a maximum of 80,000
square feet of non-residential uses is still allowed in Block IV,
allowing non-residential to be developed in the block in the
future. Due to its location, in a town center that is inclusive of
retail and other commercial uses located within a one-quarter
mile of the proposal, the elimination of a minimum square
footage of non-residential uses in Block IV is not seen as
problematic. A mixture of uses is located within the
neighborhood. This principle is addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
There is a mixture of housing types in the immediate area
surrounding Hollymead Town Center. However, most of the
units approved to date in Hollymead Town Center are
townhouses. Other unit types are permitted within the
Hollymead Town Center. The number of maximum housing
units remains the same as originally approved in Area C.
With no change in the amount of housing provided from the
original approval, there is no expectation that additional
affordable housing be provided. Affordable housing was
addressed with the initial ZMA approval. This principle is
partially addressed.
Redevelopment Not Applicable.
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
There are designated Managed Slopes located on the site
that will be disturbed. Most appear to be man-made.
Clear Boundaries with the
Rural Areas
Not Applicable.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents.
This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and
existing local businesses.
The existing zoning approved for Hollymead Town Center supports the Plan by providing additional
employment possibilities with the proposed land uses. The proposed reduction of 32,000 square feet of
non-residential space in Block IV could reduce future opportunities to locate businesses; however,
there remains a large inventory of land and buildable square footage within both the Hollymead Town
Center and the greater Hollymead Development Area to support future business needs.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
PDMC districts allow for the development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of
commercial uses under a unified planned approach. The PDMC district is intended to be established on
major highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan.
7 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
Under the approved zoning, Blocks IV would be developed as a mixed use area consisting of a
minimum of 32,000 square feet of non-residential uses and between 15 to 30 residential units.
Block VI would be used to provide parking for the development in Block IV. A central plaza
would be provided in Block IV that would serve as a public space amenity. This concept created
a mixed use block which would provide a transition from the more intensely commercial portion
of the town center east of the this site to the residential block just to the west of, and adjacent
to, this site.
The applicant’s plan for this area would increase the number of permitted residential units
(townhouses) in these two blocks from the current maximum of 30, up to 74, and provide no
commercial or office space/building(s) within these blocks. More dispersed greenspace and
courtyard areas are proposed within the blocks providing some similar features, but in a form
more in keeping with the needs and expectations of a residential neighborhood.
The following is staff’s assessment of the proposed changes:
The proposal creates a larger, more cohesive residential area, essentially expanding the
small block of existing townhouses located at the western edge of the development. The
existing block of townhouses is somewhat isolated from other residential areas. This
residential area is within walking distance to commercial areas.
A “transitioning” mixed use block is not provided. While it is more desirable to have this
transition, it is not seen as critical in this location.
The elimination of the minimum non-residential square footage is not seen as a
significant issue. Significant area (and existing development) remains available for non-
residential uses within the Hollymead Town Center, much of it within a short walking
distance from this site. Non-residential uses would still be permitted within the blocks,
permitting the conversion of some units in the future to commercial or office uses.
The central amenity has changed in form, to some extent, from being located within a
more commercial “public” area to pockets of space within residential neighborhoods.
However, the features called for under the current zoning are being provided and all
residents of the town center will have access to the spaces. The open space area as
proposed is more in keeping with the needs and expectations for a residential area.
This amendment does not change the maximum number of residential units allowed in
Area C (120).
Staff can support the proposal. Approval of a townhouse development in these two blocks,
combined with the existing block of adjacent townhouses, will create a larger more cohesive
residential area that will not only meet the markets current demand for town houses, but will
generate users within walking distance to the existing commercial uses in the Hollymead Town
Center. As previously described in this staff report, there remains adequate space in the
Hollymead Town Center for additional non-residential uses in the future, and based on
approved plans for Areas A, B, C and D. The original form of the greenspace is somewhat
changed from a central plaza to greenspace that is more dispersed throughout different spaces
in the blocks. Although it is changed, the greenspace will remain an important feature for a
majority of the proposed residential units.
8 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
The following engineering concerns are provided relating to the proposed street design for the subject
development:
Engineering staff is concerned that the existing Timberwood Boulevard has not been accepted
into the state highway system by VDOT. The County Engineer does not recommend new
development that accesses Timberwood Boulevard be approved until the road is completed and
accepted by VDOT. The applicant has indicated that he is working with VDOT towards road
acceptance. The applicant believes the road will be accepted by VDOT in a timely manner and
is not necessarily interested in providing a possible solution such as proffering no building
permits until the road is accepted into the state system. Since this rezoning request does not
propose any intensification of use or additional impact to the road above what could be done by-
right under the current zoning, staff does not believe this issue needs to be addressed with this
rezoning.
The road centerline radius that has been provided shows the entire curve has been left open on
the right side. Entrances to lots should use standard VDOT driveway entrance details. Leaving
large sections of road frontage open does not meet standards. (See Attachment D for
Engineering comments). These issues will need to be addressed at the site plan/subdivision
plat approval stage.
VDOT has not identified any major issues with this proposal. They have noted that the proposed
entrance onto Meeting Street will need to be constructed in accordance with the standards of Appendix
F of the Road Design Manual for commercial entrances, which will be addressed at the site
plan/subdivision plat stage. (See Attachment E for comments from VDOT)
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Baker-Butler Elementary School, Sutherland Middle School,
and Albemarle High School.
Fire and Rescue:
This area is served by the Hollymead Fire Station.
Utilities:
The site is serviced by public water and sewer. This proposal has no affect on this service.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed amendment on environmental or cultural and
historic resources.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed amendment on nearby and surrounding properties.
Public need and justification for the change
According to the applicant, the proposed housing will meet market demands for residential units within
close walking distance to a mixed use community/town center. The subtraction of non-residential uses
in Block IV will reduce future opportunities to locate businesses in this block, but it does not preclude
businesses from locating to this block in the future; Hollymead Town Center and the greater Hollymead
9 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
Development Area have the potential, with available land and approved plans, to support future
business needs. The proposed amendment will also provide the applicant an opportunity to develop
Block VI with a residential use instead of reserving the site for un-needed parking for Block IV.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided revisions to the proffers from ZMA200100020. The proposed changes to
the proffers are intended to 1) update the references to the proposed COD and application plan, and 2)
update the status of those proffers which have now been satisfied (See Attachment C for revised
proffers). While there are no major substantive issues with the proposed proffers, technical revisions
are needed to the form and language of the proffers. The proffers should reflect the complete language
as referenced in the original proffers with revisions made to the dates for this amendment.
Area C of the Hollymead Town Center was approved for a maximum of 120 townhouses to be located
within various blocks of Area C. This maximum is not being changed or exceeded by this rezoning
request. Since there is no change to the number of residential units proposed, there are no additional
impacts to public facilities or services are anticipated by this rezoning request. Consequently, no
additional cash proffers are anticipated since there are no additional impacts to the public facilities.
Likewise, no further commitment to affordable housing is anticipated since no additional residential
units are proposed.
SUMMARY
In general, the primary changes to this rezoning request is the re-location of residential units from one
block to another, and the elimination of a minimum 32,000 square feet of non-residential uses in Block
IV as depicted in the COD. The proposal remains consistent with the original intent of the zoning
district, density and land use. In summary, staff can support the proposed rezoning amendment.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no
changes to uses are proposed.
2. Proposed townhouse development in Blocks IV and VI are consistent with existing
residential development adjacent to the site and will create a larger and more
cohesive residential neighborhood that is close to a walkable center.
3. The original maximum number of residential units is unchanged.
4. Sufficient non-residential land use capacity/ development potential remain within the
Hollymead Town Center
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Loss of non-residential space/mix use form within these blocks
2. Technical revisions are needed to proffers, code of development, and application
plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning ZMA2013000004, Hollymead Town Center -
Block VI, provided technical revisions are made to the proffers and changes are made to the
application plan and code of development as described in the staff report prior to the Board of
Supervisor meeting.
10 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI
PC Public Hearing 7/29/2014
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT B – Application Plan, dated March 18, 2013, revised June 04, 2014
ATTACHMENT C – Code of Development, inclusive of proffers, dated July 25, 2003, revised April 21,
2014
ATTACHMENT D – Memorandum from Glenn Brooks dated July 14, 2014
ATTACHMENT E – Electronic Mail from Troy Austin, dated May 14, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201300004 with
revised code of development, and provided technical revisions are made to the proffers, and changes
are made to the application plan as recommended by staff, prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201300004. Note
reasons for denial.
Return to actions letter
AIRPORT RD
MEETING STDEERWOODDRW O R T HXINGLOCKWOODDRCONNORDRINNOVATIONDRABINGTONDRTIMBERWOODBLVD
SEMINOLE TRL£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ResourcesMap created by Elise Hackett, May 2014.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Photos copyright 2013 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2013
0 300 600150Feet
ZMA 2013-004Hollymead Towncenter Block VI
Roads
Railroads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
±
32-41L
1
REVISED
APPLICATION BOOKLET
FOR
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
REVISED ZMA 201300004
ZMA 01-20-2001 (AREA C)
“AT HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER”
I. Introduction
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D (now 41L) to be designated a Town Center will have a combination of Urban Density
Residential, Mixed Use/Community Service and Mixed Use/ Regional Service land use classification.
Timberwood West is intended primarily to provide an integrated mixed-use component to the Hollymead Town
Center and should be viewed as one part of a much larger mixed-use development. Timberwood West will
meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model both by design and by its relationship to the larger
neighborhood.
For Area C of the Hollymead Town Center, the following documents comprised the Code of Development
(Code):
Application Plan
The Application Plan is a graphic depiction of the information set forth in the Code and it is the Code’s tables,
appendices and narrative, which regulate whether a site plan is in conformity with the intent of the rezoning.
Therefore, roads, buildings, sidewalks, landscaping, grading, and utilities shown on the Application Plan may
shift as long as they remain in general accord with the Application Plan and meet requirements set forth in the
Code. In this regard, the Application Plan should be used as an interpretation tool.
Code of Development – Block Exhibit
The Block Exhibit delineates nine areas or blocks. These blocks are referenced in this Code’s narratives, tables
and appendices. It is expected that a block’s size and shape may be altered slightly as Area C is developed.
However, it is the developer’s intention to develop this area in general accord with the Block Exhibit.
Code of Development – Narrative
The narrative sets forth the rules within which Area C shall be developed. The narrative provides a general
description of important building and streetscape design features that are integral to the success of the
development. It also provides design schematics that further illustrate these general descriptions. The
Application Plan shall also be used to interpret the information contained in the tables and appendices of the
Code of Development.
Code of Development – Tables and Appendices
Tables A, B, C and the associated appendices that are attached to this document comprise the parameters within
which Area C shall be developed. These tables and appendices set forth specific uses, amount of uses and
description of amenities, typical street cross-sections, expected streetscape, proposed building’s relationship to
the street, and generally describe the architecture for the project.
Proffers
The proffers for Area C are attached at the end of this document.
2
II. Application Plan
3
III. Block Exhibit
4
IV. Code of Development – Narrative
Uses, Ratio of Uses, and Amenities– Table A
The Application Plan illustrates the likely distribution of uses and the probable amount of those uses within the
Area C portion of the Hollymead Town Center. Table A and Appendices A and B regulate the allowable uses
by block and set the minimum and maximum amounts of any particular use category within a given block.
Table A is divided into two major use categories, residential and non-residential, with minimum and maximum
square footages for non-residential uses and minimum and maximum numbers for residential dwelling units.
As an example, Table A defines the types of residential uses that are permitted by block – Attached Single
Family or Multifamily. Then, Table A defines the minimum and maximum number of residential dwelling uses
within a Block III – 5 to 10. Furthermore, Table A sets forth a minimum and maximum range of 50 to 120
residential dwelling units for the entire development. Therefore, if 5 townhouses are proposed within Block III,
then townhouses are permitted and they are within the acceptable range for Block III. Furthermore, these
fifteen dwelling units shall count toward the minimum threshold for the entire development of 50 dwelling
units. However, if upon site plan application of the final block, the developer has not met the minimum
residential range of 50, then the site plan for the final block will have to provide a sufficient number of
residential units to meet the minimum number of residential units, or the minimum number of residential units
will need to be built elsewhere within the development.
With respect to non-residential uses, Table A sets forth the minimum and maximum amount of non-residential
uses by block and for the entire development. This caps the amount of retail uses within a given block and
within the entire development. Appendix A, which is referenced by Table A, delineates if a particular non-
residential use is allowed within a specific block. Furthermore, the shaded uses within Appendix A define the
uses considered to be “retail uses.” Thus, the square footage of a shaded use in Appendix A would count
toward the maximum non-residential square footage and the maximum retail square footage. The unshaded use
would count only toward the maximum non-residential square footage. Finally, Appendix B defines the blocks
within which specific Special Use Permits can be applied for at some point in the future. The square footages
for these uses, if applicable, shall be counted towards the minimum and maximums set forth in Table A.
For example in Table A, Block III lists a minimum of 18,000 square feet of non-residential uses. If in a site
plan for this block, the developer has proposed 25,000 square feet of non-residential space, then the site plan
would sufficiently meet the minimum amount of non-residential square footage required for Block III.
Furthermore, at the time of Zoning Clearance, the square footage for a proposed retail user, for example a
proposed hardware store, would be compared against the total square footage of the other non-residential users
within the block and within the entire development. If the hardware store’s square footage would put the total
retail square footage over the 20,000 maximum retail square footage in Block III, then it would not be allowed
and a non-retail user would only be allowed. If the addition of a new non-retail user would exceed Block III’s
50,000 non-residential maximum or the entire development’s 300,000 square foot maximum, then this new user
would not be allowed.
The intent of these minimums and maximums is to ensure that the development will establish a mixture of uses.
Appendix A provides a list permitted uses by block and Appendix B provides a list the potential uses by Special
Permit.
5
Description of Amenities and other Important Features by Block
Block I
Block I will be divided into three parcels of approximately 1.5 acres each. Visual impacts to the Entrance
Corridor will be mitigated through a variety of measures including, the structures themselves, planted earthen
mounds, and/ or a variety of selected trees and shrubs. The structure on the front site (lot one) will
accommodate a casual dining restaurant with a deck overlooking the pond. Mid-sized retailers will utilize lots
two and three. This business mixture allows for better traffic flow into, and by their use, there will be staggered
peak business hours reducing parking and traffic congestion. The buildings have been situated to offer a
pleasing view from Rt. 29 as the site ascends in a tiered fashion up the hill, and many walkways to encourage
shoppers to limit vehicular traffic and enjoy the pond. By utilizing a two-story structure on lot three, the design
creatively addresses the grade differential of the topography eliminating the need for unsightly barrier walls as
well as providing a “downtown style” street entrance on the second floor. .
The stormwater retention pond in Block I has been designed to enhance and compliment the project as an
amenity. Design Schematic A provides a plan view of the potential landscaping and fountains that will be
provided with the retention pond. Design Schematic B shows a stepped, stone retaining wall, a waterfall and
recirculating fountains that will allow the stormwater facility to become a focal point that serves as a visually
pleasing addition to both the development and to passersby. This approach to design greatly enhances the
attractiveness of the project, creates an enjoyment feature for restaurant patrons and makes a statement about
the commitment to creating quality projects in the county’s entrance corridor. The retaining wall embodies
artful stonework and a traversing sidewalk for travelers, patrons, neighbors and employees use, with convenient
benches for relaxing conversation or enjoyment of the views. The vegetation surrounding the pond will be
complimentary to the site, offering “glimpses” into the overall project. Photos are also included to illustrate
how these concepts might appear.
6
Design Schematic A – Plan View of Block I Pond
7
Design Schematic B – Perspective View of Block I Pond
8
Photos Illustrating Conceptual Improvements Around Block I Pond
9
Photos Illustrating Conceptual Improvements Around Block I Pond
10
Block II
The buildings within Block II are designed to front on Timberwood Boulevard and turn the corner to front
Access Road C. The building along Timberwood Boulevard starts with two stories and steps to a three-story
building along Access Road C. This allows for the building to work with the grade while providing the
appropriate mass to these two important streets. There is additional frontage available for future development
of the block at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B. The parking lot is designed to allow
the possibility of a parking deck that would accommodate this future infill development. Finally, there will be
space for public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access
Road C for the purpose of framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block III
Block III proposes a multi-story building that frames the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C.
Contained in the building at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road D, there may be an
apartment building. Townhouses are proposed to front onto Access Road D. Finally, there will be space for
public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access Road C for
the purpose of framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block IV
This block is the centerpiece of the north end of the Town Center. Buildings front all of the streets and
surround a central plaza. The central plaza will be a pedestrian friendly area with benches, pavers, gardens,
trees, and grassed areas with a fountain or covered gazebo type structure. The form and function of the central
plaza is generally depicted in Design Schematics C and D. Finally, there will be space for public art, benches,
kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access Road C for the purpose of
framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
Block V
This block is designed to accommodate two rows of townhouses, which will front onto Timberwood Boulevard
and the street behind. The parking will be internalized between the townhouses in garages and with additional
parking to be provided on the street that form the boundary to this block. The townhouse block will provide at
least one semi-private green space internal to the block for the residents of this block.
Block VI
This block provides the parking for Block IV. The parking lot is designed in a manner to accommodate the
future infill of additional buildings by either the County or other public user. Please see the proffers below for a
further definition of the future infill possibilities. This lot could also act as a possible park and ride lot during
weekday hours.
This block is designed to accommodate four rows of townhouses, which will front on and have entrances on
Grand Forks Blvd, Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane or internal green space. The parking will be
internalized between the townhouses in garages and in driveways behind the townhouses. The townhouse block
will provide at least one semi-private green space internal to the block for the residents of this block including a
small recreation area (Tot Lot). The green space shall also act as the frontage for the townhouse lot parcels
when not located on a public or private street.
11
Design Schematic C – Conceptual Plan View #1 of the Central Plaza
12
Design Schematic D – Conceptual Plan View #2 of the Central Plaza
13
Block VII
This block proposes a multi-story building that fronts Access Road C.
Block VIII
In Block VII, a 3 to 4-story building will defined this corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C.
This corner will also have space for public art, benches, kiosks, and/or other features mentioned above on the
other three corners. This block will also have a pocket park of approximately 6,500 square feet at the corner of
Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B. The principle intent of the pocket park is to add more greenery to
the development. The pocket park will also provide, at a minimum, benches and a small flat area.
Block IX
This is the first block on the right upon entering Timberwood Boulevard from Route 29. The proposed
buildings step up the grade with the ground floor facing towards Timberwood Boulevard and a second floor
facing towards the parking lot in the rear
Architectural Guidelines – Table B
Table B sets forth Area C’s design guidelines for its building’s relationship to the street by providing the
building height ranges, build-to line ranges, and limits on a single user’s footprint. Appendix C generally
defines features that should be included as part of the facades of the building within Area C. The photos and
descriptions are included in Appendix C generally illustrate these features, but it is not the developer’s intent to
replicate the buildings in the photos. Building footprints will not be greater than fifty-five thousand (55,000)
square feet and were generally will be much smaller. Buildings generally are between two and four floors.
Variations and offsets to the building footprint line, variations for building heights, uses of materials and
rooflines and materials should provide the quality, design and scale necessary to create an aesthetically pleasing
environment and provide human scale development. Primary entries to those buildings along public or private
streets should front the street to the extent possible.
Buildings will offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces and amenities. Entrances and
parking lots will be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical
destinations. Special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, colonnades, pedestrian light fixtures,
bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulations ways and outdoor spaces will
anchor pedestrians-ways.
The basic intent of these guidelines is to produce a consistent product reminiscent of mid-Atlantic historic areas
such as Alexandria, Georgetown and Charleston, as well as historic portions of the Charlottesville Downtown
Mall as related to non-residential uses. The Master Plan recognizes and promotes the twelve design principles
identified in the Neighborhood Model with the ultimate goal of providing an aesthetically pleasing Town Center
focusing on issues such as parking, building size and design, and street layout and design. The planned
development of the Hollymead Town Center will ultimately protect and preserve the county’s natural, scenic
and historic resources with harmony and integration.
Transportation and Mobility – Table C
Streets and Alleys
The location of streets, alleys or access to parking areas, sidewalks and pedestrian paths are generally shown on
the Application Plan. Table C provides proposed street cross-sections, sidewalks and streetscape design
guidelines, and indicates whether individual streets are proposed as public or private.
The road layout as shown on the Application Plan indicates the intent of the design. Timberwood West is a
major thoroughfare in the Town Center providing external connections to Airport Road and Route 29. The
other major thoroughfare is Access Road C (a.k.a., Ridge Rd.), which provides an eventual interconnection
between the Town Center and the North Fork Research Park via TMP 32-41. Access Road B provides access
from Timberwood Boulevard and Area B.
14
Streetscape
In general, streetscape should be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials, with a drought-resistant
turf grass such as turf-type tall fescue. Streetscape planting will be irrigated. When planting strip is wider than
5 feet, larger street trees will be used, when it is 5 feet, mid-sized trees will be used. Boulevard islands will use
a combination of mid-size shrubs and trees on each end of the islands and large street trees in the center of the
islands. Streetscapes should be appealing, but they should not compete for attention with the retail function of
downtown businesses and should focus on a high degree of pedestrian comfort.
The minimum standards for streets trees shall be the following:
On major streets or boulevards, large tree species should be used with a minimum spacing of 40 to
50 feet.
On minor streets and alleys, medium tree species should be used with a minimum spacing of 30 to
35 feet.
Where visible from the Entrance Corridor, ARB Guidelines will be met or exceeded.
Medians will be planted with smaller street trees and shrubs and flowers where width permits.
Typical cross-sections, and photos, as approved by Albemarle County for streetscapes are show on Design
Schematics E, F and G. Planting materials will be selected from the approved planting list by Albemarle
County.
Final design will be addressed in the Site Development Plan process.
15
Design Schematic E– Conceptual Plan View of Streetscape and Parking lot plantings
16
Design Schematic F – Conceptual cross-sections of Streetscape plantings
17
Conceptual Photos of Streetscape
18
Conceptual Photos of Streetscape
19
Sidewalks
All crosswalks will be distinguished in a brick pattern style and sidewalks in front of buildings and pedestrian
walks in the plaza will be constructed of various masonry materials, brick pavers, brick impressed concrete
stained, stone pavers or impressed concrete to simulate stone. Access ways or walks around water features
(water quality ponds) may be asphalt.
Sidewalks should be smooth poured-in-place concrete that will not distract pedestrians. Specific areas or
crosswalks should use enhanced paving utilizing various patterns.
Light poles with banner brackets should be used to announce special events and promotions, which help with
retail sales and the project will use full-cutoff fixtures.
The sidewalk design in the commercial areas shall include three distinct sidewalk zones;
The first zone closest to the curb, is the “utility zone” and contains most of the streetscape appurtenances:
streetlights, trees, tree grates, benches, and handicapped ramps. The area also may contain raised planter,
drinking fountains, parking meters, bicycle racks and parking signs.
The second zone is the “thru way zone.” This portion of the sidewalk is typically devoted to steady walking
and many vary in width.
The third zone is the “browsing zone.” This is the two-to-three foot area right next to the storefronts and is
generally outside of the right-of-way.
The sidewalk design for the residential area will be five feet wide.
Transit
Bus stops will be designated at various key intersections or at larger parking lots that may also serve as a park
and ride lot.
Park and Ride
Opportunities will exist within Area C for park and rides. At present, Block VI has the possibility for park and
ride areas.
Definition of Others Application Plan Issues
Grading
Topography at five (5) foot contour intervals and proposed grading are indicated on the Application Plan. The
proposed grading as illustrated on the Application Plan ties into the proposed overall grading for the Town
Center as illustrated on the Town Center Master Plan as well as the non-Town Center properties to the north.
While not insignificant, site grading is minimized by accommodating grade changes through building design
and placement.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain
Given the extensive rolling topography a great deal of emphasis has been put on the grade and alignment of the
roads. The stair stepping of the building footprints is to provide a walk-able environment and good assess to the
front and rear of the buildings. Inter-building relationships combined with required grades for roads and parking
lots determine the requirements necessary for the site design. Both stormwater management basins were
located in natural drainage courses to again make use of the existing topography.
The Storm Water Management
Stormwater management will be accomplished with the construction of Stormwater basins and water quality
swales. The basins are generally located on the Application Plan and have been sited in accordance with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Hollymead Town Center Master Plan. The design provided to the
County demonstrates that the facility will be designed to meet the county’s detention and water quality
requirements for this portion of the Hollymead Town Center.
20
The regional basin in Block I will serve the areas east of Access Road C (Blocks I, II, VII, VIII and IX) and a
northern portion of Area B. The regional stormwater basin proposed on the Abingdon Place property, TMP 32-
46, will serve Blocks III, IV, V and VI. The Abingdon Place basin will also accommodate stormwater
requirements for the Airport Road improvements by VDOT, Laurel Hill Baptist Church, the Regional Post
Office Distribution Center, the Wright property (TMP 32-41E) and a portion of Abingdon Place.
Water quality swales are proposed either within or along the lower edges of various parking lots in Blocks I, II,
III, VI, VII, VIII and IX. These water quality swales will reduce the amount of uncontrolled and untreated
runoff before it enters the water quality ponds. This will provide a higher degree of water quality treatment and
increase the infiltration of rainfall into the ground. Internal parking lot landscape treatments also help to cool
surface water during summer months creating a better environmental balance to the body of water in the pond.
Two locations of water quality swales are noted for their importance. These locations are the areas between
townhouses and large surface parking lots. Special importance should be given to locating water quality swales
at the edges of these parking lots to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lots on the residents of the
townhouses.
Water and Sanitary Sewer
Schematic layouts of the utilities are shown on the plan with the final location to be determined by ACSA
during their review process.
Service, Delivery and Storage Areas
For service, delivery, storage and disposal area, the following standards will be applied where feasible:
• Outdoor storage, trash collection and loading areas will be baffled with walls, screened, recessed or
enclosed so as not to be clearly visible from adjoining neighborhoods or pedestrian ways or customer
entrances. Screening materials will be complementary to primary structures.
• Locate loading docks and service areas a minimum of 20 feet from any public street and in areas of low
visibility.
• Combine loading and service areas between multiple sites when feasible and screen from public view
with fencing, walls and/or landscaping as appropriate.
• Clearly identify service entrances with signs to discourage the use of main entrances for deliveries.
Parking
In general, the required amount of parking will mostly be supplied within each block, however the overall
parking will be provided in line with the PD-SC parking standards of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross leaseable floor
area. Furthermore, the PD-SC standard shall be applied to all blocks within Area C of the Town Center, except
for Block V where the residential standard of 2.25 spaces per unit shall apply. Portions of Blocks III and VI
may incorporate some shared parking between the business uses and residential uses.
Within the parking areas the following landscaping standards shall apply:
• Large Deciduous Trees at the center and end of parking islands
• Larger internal islands will serve as supplemental bio-filters
• Inter-spaced with mid-sized and ornamental trees.
• Perimeter evergreen shrubs and mid-sized trees surround parking lots.
• Interior tree counts for parking lots shall meet or exceed the 1 tree for every 10 spaces requirement.
Relegation of Parking
In the Application Plan, a majority of the parking lots are screened from the major streets by buildings. Where
it is impossible to relegate the parking with building, the plan will use a combination of landscaping, street
21
walls, and other mutually agreeable devices to reduce the visibility of the parking lots from the major streets.
The major streets are defined as Timberwood Boulevard, Access Road C, and Access Road D. Where feasible,
these techniques should be applied to Access Road B and the drive aisles within the parking lots themselves.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment has been considered for Area C. There are parking areas that are suitable for future parking
structures or additional areas for building infill. Specifically, Block II, Block VI and Block IX are designed in a
manner to accommodate parking structures and permit additional redevelopment of the site. Currently the site
is designed to provide a FAR of .35.
Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas
There are no rural areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan adjoining the boundaries of this property.
Although some of the existing zoning of the adjoining properties is still shown as rural (RA) uses, they are
intended for future commercial uses.
We have requested a series of waivers to allow for the overall grading and clearing, road construction to
adjoining properties and adjust building and parking lot setbacks as shown on the application plan.
V. Code of Development – Tables and Appendices
Table A – Uses
22
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (TABLE A) -- USES TABLE
Non-residential
Uses Permitted
Special Use
Permit
Non-residential Square Footage Ranges Residential
Uses Permitted
Dwelling Unit Ranges Amenities
Min. Non-Res. Max. Non-Res
Total
Maximum Retail Min Max
Block I See Appendix A See Appendix B
35,000 55,000 55,000 Not Permitted -- --
Stormwater
Management
Structure Area
Block II See Appendix A See Appendix B 35,000 70,000 50,000 Not Permitted -- --
Block III See Appendix A See Appendix B
18,000 50,000 20,000
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
5 10
Block IV See Appendix A See Appendix B 32,000
0 80,000 40,000
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
15 30
Central Plaza
Block V Non-residential
not permitted
See Appendix B
0 0 0
Attached single-
family or
multifamily
20 50
Block VI * Residential
permitted *
See Appendix B
N/A N/A N/A
Attached single-
family or
multifamily *
30* 50*
Green Space
Pocket Park
Tot Lot *
Block VII See Appendix A See Appendix B 12,000 25,000 25,000 Not Permitted -- -- Pocket Park
Block VIII See Appendix A See Appendix B 80 Hotel
Rooms 76,000 5,000 Not Permitted -- --
Block IX See Appendix A See Appendix B 20,000 40,000 40,000 Not Permitted -- --
Not to Exceed 275,000 200,000 50 120
23
Table B — Architectural Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TABLE B)
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TABLE
Min/ Max
Number of
Stories *
Build-to-line* Max floor plate for a
single user
References to Typical Building
Elevations and Important Features
(See Appn. C)
Block I
1-3 0-10 from edge of sidewalk No limit Regional Service District Style
Block II
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk No limit Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block III
2-5
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
20,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block IV
2-5
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
Not Applicable Urban Residential Style
Block V
2-4
0-10 from edge of sidewalk in Mixed-Use
Areas, 0-20 from edge of sidewalk in
Residential areas
Not Applicable Urban Residential Style
Block VI
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk\
Green Space shall serve as frontage for the
residential units
Not Applicable *Urban Residential Style
Block VII
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 35,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block
VIII 2-5 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 35,000 Mixed Use/ Community Service District
Style
Block IX
2-4 0-10 from edge of sidewalk 40,000 Regional Service District Style
*Minimum stories and build-to lines do not apply to buildings on the Application Plan that are labeled/ shown below these standards
24
Table C – Intended Street Criteria
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TABLE C)
INTENDED ROAD CROSS-SECTION AND STREETSCAPE TABLE
Typical Street Section
For
Right-of-
way width
Curb-to-
curb width
Total
number of
lanes
Lane
Widths
Bike
Lanes
On-street
Parking
Median Sidewalk widths
Timberwood - between
Route 29 and 1st
intersection 80' 56 5 11-12 foot No No 7.5 5
Timberwood - between
1st intersection and
Ridge Road 80' 44 2-4 11-12 foot Yes No 10 10
Timberwood - between
Ridge Road and Airport
Road
70' 43 2 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 5
Access Road B 60' 40 2 11-12 foot No some No 5 to 10
Access Road C 80' 50 2-4 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 10
Access Road D -- 45 2 11-12 foot Yes Yes No 5 to 10
Drive aisles in
commercial areas -- 24 2 12 foot No -- No 5
25
Appendix A – Permitted Uses By Block
Appendix A -- Permitted Uses*
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV - Townhomes Plaza BLOCK V - Townhomes * BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Administrative, professional offices. X X X X X X X X
Automobile laundries. X X
Automobile, truck repair shop,
service station, excluding body shop.
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and
craft shops. X X X X X X X
Barber, beauty shops. X X X X X X X
Building materials sales.
Churches, cemeteries X X X X
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops. X X X X X X X
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal,
patriotic (reference 5.1.2). X X X
Convenience stores. X X X X X X
Department store. X X X X
Drug store, pharmacy. X X X X X
Eating establishment; fast food
restaurants. X X X X X X X
Educational, technical and trade
schools. X X X X X X X
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). X
Factory outlet sales - clothing and
fabric.
Feed and seed stores
Financial institutions. X X X X X X X
Fire extinguisher and security
products, sales and service.
Fire and rescue squad stations
(reference 5.1.09). X
26
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III * BLOCK IV - Plaza Townhomes BLOCK V - Townhomes *BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Florist. X X X X X X X
Food and grocery stores including
such specialty shops as bakery,
candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops.
X X X X X X X
Funeral homes.
Furniture and home appliances (sales
and service). X X X X X X
Hardware store. X X X X X X
Health spas. X X X X X X X
Home and business services such as
grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other
repair and maintenance services.
X X X X
Hotels, motels and inns. X X X X
Indoor Theaters X X X X X
Indoor athletic facilities. X X
Light warehousing. X X
Laundries, dry cleaners. X X X X X
Laundromat (provided that an
attendant shall be on duty at all hours
during operation).
X X X X X
Libraries, museums. X
Machinery and equipment sales,
service and rental.
Medical center. X X X X X X
Mobile home and trailer sales and
service.
Modular building sales.
Motor vehicle sales, service and
rental.
Musical instrument sales X X X X X X X
New automotive parts sales.
27
*The square footages for all uses shaded
in this table shall count towards the retail
non-residential maximum square footage
limits set forth in theCode of
Development's Table A -- "Uses Table". X
= Permitted uses by block BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV - Plaza BLOCK V - Townhomes * BLOCK VI- Townhomes BLOCK VII - Retail BLOCK VIII - Hotel BLOCK IX - adj to CVS Newsstands, magazines, pipe and
tobacco shops. X X X X X X X
Newspaper publishing.
Nurseries, day care centers (reference
5.1.06). X X X
Public uses and buildings X
Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
Office and business machines sales
and service. X X X X X X
Optical goods sales X X X X X X X
Professional offices, including
medical, dental and optical. X X X X X X X
Photographic goods sales X X X X X X X
Sporting goods sales X X X X X X
Sale of major recreational equipment
and vehicles.
Tailor, seamstress. X X X X X X X
Temporary construction uses
(reference 5.1.18). X X X X X X X X X
Temporary nonresidential mobile
homes (reference 5.8). X X X X X X X X X
Visual and audio appliances sales X X X X X X X
Wayside stands - vegetables and
agricultural produce (reference
5.1.19).
X X X X
Wholesale Distribution
28
Appendix B– Potential Special Permit Use By Block
Appendix B -- Potential Special Use Permits
X = Specifies
blocks where a
Special Use
Permit may be
applied for BLOCK I BLOCK II BLOCK III BLOCK IV BLOCK V BLOCK VI BLOCK VII BLOCK VIII BLOCK IX
Stand alone
parking and
parking
structures
(reference
4.12, 5.1.41).
X X X X X X X X X Medical X Commercial
recreation
establishments
including but
not limited to
amusement
centers,
bowling
alleys, pool
halls and
dance halls.
X X X X X X X Drive-in
windows
serving or
associated
with permitted
uses.
X X X X X X X Nursing
homes and
convalescent
homes
X X X X X Auction
houses X X X X X Warehouse
facilities not
permitted
under section
24.2.1
(reference
9.0).
Outdoor
Amphitheatre X X Convention
Center X
29
Appendix C – General Architectural Guidelines
GENERAL CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT:
The Hollymead Town Center’s ultimate goal is to recognize and promote the twelve design
principles identified in the Neighborhood Model and apply them to the “Master Plan.” With this
in mind the basic intent is to create a development with historic charm reminiscent of portions of
Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall, and/or Georgetown, Charleston and Alexandria. Design
characteristics, pedestrian safety and comfort, aesthetic architectural detail, building size and
proportion, relegated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, street layout, water features and walking
paths contribute to the overall comprehensive approach used to make this an ultimate urban
development that utilizes classic and traditional architecture. Finally, the plan aims to be
appealing from the vantage point of the pedestrians. In general, masonry (brick and stone) will
be the primary material for Blocks 1, 2, 8, and 9. Stucco is generally not an acceptable primary
material for Blocks 1, 2, 8, and 9, but may be used as an accent material in those blocks. In the
remaining Blocks, it is recommended that stucco be limited to use as an accent material and to
create diversity.
REGIONAL SERVICE DISTRICT STYLE
Most buildings in this area will be one to two stories and will have mansard/parapet walls that
provide screening for mechanical systems on flat roofs. Buildings within this district will be
similar to or comparable with other lower story structures keeping contextual similarity within
the Hollymead Town Center by using complimentary materials and architectural design.
Variations will be expressed from building to building and at times from floor to floor by using
different sized windows, setbacks, arcades and variations in the rooflines and façade treatments;
however, an overall coordination of building designs will be achieved. Note: more than two
changes of façade materials would seldom be appropriate.
MIXED USE/COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT STYLE
Buildings within this area will respect the style throughout the development but will be two to
four stories. The use of mansard/parapet walls on a different scale will again screen mechanical
systems where necessary and will focus on aesthetic appeal of the overall development. The
buildings will look more urban and vary between the various store/office fronts. This may be
done through differing uses of materials, colors, window styles, rooflines and entrances. Note:
more than two changes of façade materials would seldom be appropriate. The sidewalks in these
areas will be pedestrian friendly by width and finish.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STYLE
This area will largely consist of single-family attached homes that will be two to three stories
with attached garages. Residential facades will be stepped two to four feet from unit to unit to
create an individual identity of the unit thro masked in a block. This will provide for distinctive
architectural features from unit to unit to allow a Georgetown style townhouse. Exteriors will
again use hard materials that may vary from brick to stone, stucco or siding (not vinyl) Front
stoops for each unit as well as on street parking in these locations will provide for ease of access
as well as a rear travel way which accesses the private garage. Rooflines for these units will be
more traditional and in keeping with a more typical residential hip or gable style roof.
30
The perspective view and photos following are intended to illustrate the form and massing of the
buildings in this part of the Town Center.
31
32
33
34
35
VI. New Proffers
Original Proffer-ZMA #01-20 Area C 7/25/03
Amended Proffer ____
(Amendment # __1__)
Date: April 21, 2014
REVISED ZMA 201300004
Tax Map and Parcel Number 32-41L
2.858 Acres to be rezoned from PDMC w/PDSC parking to PDMC Residential
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied
to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning
and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1) In reference to item #1, the plan will continue to be in general accord with this
revised submittal.
(2) Item 2 A-F have been constructed per the proffers approved.
(3) Item 3 has been approved and constructed as required.
(4) The owner has paid its contribution to the county as requested.
(5) In regards to the residential proffer impact fee, the owners has paid portions of this
fee as residential units have been constructed and will pay any remaining balance due
the county per this agreement as additional units are built.
(6) The owner has consented to and participated in the CDA as requested by the county.
____________________________ _________________________ ___________
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
____________________________ _________________________ ___________
OR
____________________________ _________________________ ___________
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
36
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ................................................................................... 1
ZMA 01 -20 (AREA C) ..................................................................................................... 1
“TIMBERWOOD WEST AT HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER” ....................................... 1
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Application Plan.......................................................................................................................... 1
Code of Development – Block Exhibit ....................................................................................... 1
Code of Development – Narrative .............................................................................................. 1
Code of Development – Tables and Appendices ........................................................................ 1
Proffers ........................................................................................................................................ 1
II. Application Plan ................................................................................................................ 2
III. Block Exhibit ..................................................................................................................... 2
IV. Code of Development – Narrative ................................................................................... 4
Uses, Ratio of Uses, and Amenities– Table A ............................................................................ 4
Description of Amenities and other Important Features by Block ............................................. 5
Block I ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Design Schematic A – Plan View of Block I Pond ............................................................ 6
Design Schematic B – Perspective View of Block I Pond ................................................. 7
Block II ................................................................................................................................. 10
Block III ................................................................................................................................ 10
Block IV ................................................................................................................................ 10
Block V ................................................................................................................................. 10
Block VI ................................................................................................................................ 10
Block VII .............................................................................................................................. 13
Design Schematic C – Conceptual Plan View #1 of the Central Plaza ............................ 11
Design Schematic D – Conceptual Plan View #2 of the Central Plaza ............................ 12
Block VIII ............................................................................................................................. 13
Block IX ................................................................................................................................ 13
Architectural Guidelines – Table B .......................................................................................... 13
Transportation and Mobility – Table C .................................................................................... 13
Streets and Alleys ................................................................................................................. 13
Streetscape ............................................................................................................................ 14
Design Schematic E– Conceptual Plan View of Streetscape and Parking lot plantings .. 15
Design Schematic F – Conceptual cross-sections of Streetscape plantings ..................... 16
Design Schematic H – Conceptual Photos of Streetscape ................................................ 18
Sidewalks .............................................................................................................................. 19
Transit ................................................................................................................................... 19
Park and Ride ........................................................................................................................ 19
Definition of Others Application Plan Issues ........................................................................... 19
Grading ................................................................................................................................. 19
Site Planning that Respects Terrain ...................................................................................... 19
The Storm Water Management ............................................................................................. 19
Water and Sanitary Sewer ..................................................................................................... 20
Service, Delivery and Storage Areas .................................................................................... 20
37
Parking .................................................................................................................................. 20
Relegation of Parking ........................................................................................................... 20
Redevelopment ..................................................................................................................... 21
Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas ...................................................................................... 21
V. Code of Development – Tables and Appendices .............................................................. 21
Table A – Uses .......................................................................................................................... 21
Table B — Architectural StandardsTable C – Intended Street Criteria .................................... 23
Table C – Intended Street Criteria ............................................................................................ 24
Appendix A – Permitted Uses By Block .................................................................................. 25
Appendix B– Potential Special Permit Use By Block .............................................................. 28
Appendix C – General Architectural Guidelines ...................................................................... 29
Existing Proffers……………………………………………………………………………31-34
VI. New Proffers .................................................................................................................... 35
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Original comments from Michelle Roberge
Date: Rev.6: 14 July 2014
Subject: Earlysville Service Center Relocation (SP200800025)
The current comments are noted by “Rev. 6:”.
I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the
applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be
added or eliminated based on further review.
1. I recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that
road is completed and accepted by VDOT.
[Revision 5] Comment acknowledged by applicant. Applicant is working with VDOT towards road
acceptance.
Rev.6: This is still a strong recommendation. This road should be finished and accepted by
VDOT.
2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. I
recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better
manueverability:
a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul-de-sac. It is not clear why edge of
road is at an angle.
[Revision 5] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design.
Rev.6: A Turnaround has been provided.
b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110’ radius for ADT of less than 400.
[Revision 4] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design.
Rev.6: It appears the road centerline radius has been provided, but the entire curve has been left
open on the right side. Entrances to lots should use standard VDOT driveway entrance details.
Leaving large sections of road frontage open does not meet standards.
3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private
streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35’ per page F-85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards
for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F.
[Revision 4] Addressed.
4. The proposed entrance from Grand Forks Blvd will need to meet sight distance requirements.
Existing parking spaces will need to be removed and it is not certain at this time if those parking spaces
were required for the previous subdivision. I recommend removal of the entrance.
Rev.6: This entrance has been removed.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832
ext. 3458 for further information.
file: E1_zma_GEB_template.doc
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 Hollymead Town Center Block VI
Submit to BOS 8-25-14
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 3, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3,
2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Mac
Lafferty, Vice Chair; Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner; David
Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Glenn Brooks, County
Engineer; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Items Requesting Deferral
a. ZMA-2013-00004 Hollymead Town Center (Block VI)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000041L0
LOCATION: West of Route 29 North at the intersection of Laurel Park Lane and
Meeting Street.
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.74 acres from PD-MC [Planned Development- Mixed
Commercial] which allow for large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use
permit (15 units/acre) to PD-MC [Planned Development- Mixed Commercial] which
allows for large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15
units/acre) to construct 44 townhouse units for a density of 7.6 dwellings/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Hollymead-Places 29-Commercial Mixed Use –
commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or
institutional uses.
(Claudette Grant)
STAFF REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JULY 29, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner had any questions. He noted staff was
requesting deferral on ZMA-2013-00004 Hollymead Town Center. He asked if there are
any questions to staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 Hollymead Town Center Block VI
Submit to BOS 8-25-14
2
Mr. Kamptner suggested opening the public hearing.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no
public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Lafferty asked why staff asked for a deferral.
Mr. Benish replied that there was a late discovery that the applicant needs to address
changes to the code of development not in the proposal that the applicant agreed
should take place. He pointed out there was an error in the subdivision plat that also
requires a deferral. The request was deferred to address both issues.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for deferral of ZMA -2013-00004,
Hollymead Town Center, to July 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris said the consent agenda was approved.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 29, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July
29, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Tim
Keller, Bruce Dotson and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Karen Firehock. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; David
Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to
Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Deferred Item
a. ZMA-2013-00004 Hollymead Town Center – Block VI
PROJECT: ZMA201300004 Hollymead Town Center (Block VI)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000041L0
LOCATION: West of Route 29 North at the intersection of Laurel Park Lane and
Meeting Street.
PROPOSAL: To amend proffers, code of development and application plan to allow
construction of 44 townhouse units for a density of 7.6 dwe llings/acre and to
eliminate the requirement to construct 32,000 square feet of non-residential use.
ZONING: PD-MC [Planned Development-Mixed Commercial] which allow for large-
scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to P D-
MC[Planned Development-Mixed Commercial] which allows for large-scale
commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Hollymead-Places 29-Commercial Mixed Use –
commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or
institutional uses.
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant requests a rezoning to amend the approved ZMA-2001-00020 Application
Plan, Code of Development and proffers. This proposal requests to construct 44
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
2
townhouse units in Block VI, instead of an approved parking area . This is a reallocation
of the approved maximum 120 units. No additional dwel lings are proposed. There is a
disbursement of green space in Blocks IV and VI as shown in the presentation.
Although the central plaza in Block IV is slightly smaller than originally shown the green
space is disbursed throughout both blocks allowing more residential units to enjoy them.
The proposal also eliminates the required minimum square footage of non residential
uses in Block IV.
In the presentation she pointed out a general description of Area C and the surrounding
area noting this proposal will provide a more cohesive residential area to this portion of
Hollymead Town Center. There are several commercial uses that will be located in this
area. She pointed out the area now proposed for residential uses. Area C along with
other portions of Hollymead will provide plenty of potential for commercial uses.
Therefore, the elimination of a minimum square footage of nonresidential uses in Block
IV is not seen as problematic.
The applicant has been working with engineering staff over the last several months
regarding road issues. From a recent discussion with the county engineer it is her
understanding that in general enough information is provided with this rezoning
regarding the roads. Any concerns regarding road design and details should be
resolved during the site plan process. In general staff believes the rezoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and no major changes to the uses are
proposed. The main outstanding issues are technical in nature and can be addressed
prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no
changes to uses are proposed.
2. Proposed townhouse development in Blocks IV and VI are consistent with
existing residential development adjacent to the site and will create a larger and
more cohesive residential neighborhood that is close to a walkable center
3. The original maximum number of residential units is unchanged.
4. Sufficient non-residential land use capacity/ development po tential remain within
the Hollymead Town Center
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Loss of non-residential space/mix use form within these blocks
2. Technical revisions are needed to the proffers, code of development, and
application plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2013-000004, Hollymead
Town Center Block VI, provided technical revisions are made to the proffers and
changes are made to the application plan, and code of development as described in the
staff report prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
3
Mr. Loach noted on page 8 it says, “the county engineer does not recommend new
developments that access Timberwood Boulevard be approved until the road is
completed and accepted by VDOT.” He asked if a condi tion should be added even
though staff said it would be resolved in the site plan process.
Ms. Grant replied that staff did not think it was necessary at this time.
Mr. Loach noted on page 9 in the last paragraph it said consequently no additional
proffers are anticipated since there is no additional impacts on public facilities .
Likewise, no further commitments on affordable housing are anticipated. He asked if
they add 44 new townhouses is this not subject to the 15% affordable housing.
Ms. Grant replied that these are not new additional residential uses . It is the same
number of units that was approved in 2001, and the affordable housing was dealt with at
that time.
Mr. Dotson noted a minor technicality that the agenda refers only to Block VI, and they
are also dealing with Block IV. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Grant replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. Dotson noted the staff report indicates one thing that needs to be corrected in the
application is referring to the roadways not as alleys but as private streets. He asked
what is the difference and is there on-street parking.
Ms. Grant replied no.
Mr. Dotson asked do they have experience elsewhere that shows that no on -street
parking works in developments of this type.
Ms. Grant replied that the difference between the alley and the road has to do with the
standards the engineers look at. For example, it includes the dimensions of the road. In
this case they have a road that is meeting the private road standards . However, it is
just referred to as alley. It would be easier to call it a private road to make it not as
confusing, which basically is what it is.
Mr. Benish noted the width for this section would not change whether it was an alley or
a road. However, the base pavement and design might change somewhat.
Mr. Dotson asked if in neither case would there be on -street parking.
Mr. Benish replied that in neither case there is on-street parking. His understanding is
they provided the minimum parking requirement for both that is required by the
ordinance. Therefore, they have met that requirement. He noted in developments of
this size from time to time they have had some issues with parking. However, they are
meeting the minimum parking requirements. Those issues are not consistent amongst
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
4
townhouse developments because some of smaller sizes have fewer issues than larger
ones. He noted that was sort of a yes and no.
Mr. Dotson said it looked like two driveway spaces and two garage spaces per unit . He
suggested the applicant might be able to clarify that.
Mr. Benish replied that was correct. He pointed out they have recently determined that if
garage parking is meeting the minimum parking requirements they have to ensure that
those dimensions actually contain adequate space for the automobiles. Therefore, they
have to meet the same parking dimension requirement and be usable garages.
Mr. Randolph said he had a question on page 6 under mixture of housing types and
affordability. He was very appreciative how staff has broken up the e ight criteria for the
Neighborhood Model. However, at the end of that paragraph staff said this principle is
partially addressed, but he could not find any basis in the text.
Ms. Grant replied it was about the mixture of housing types , and in this particular block
there is one housing type, townhouses.
Mr. Randolph asked on attachment E, page 3, number 4 it says ,
Upon request of the county the owner shall contribute $10,000 to the county or VDOT
for the purposes of funding a regional transportation st udy for the Route 29 Corridor.
The contribution shall be made within 30 days after requested by the county.” He asked
has the county so requested.
Mr. Benish replied yes, that has been done. He pointed out they funded a
transportation study for Places29.
Mr. Keller suggested a clarification on page 7 in the third bullet. Since they had a
discussion on it about the Barnes Lumber in Crozet he liked the idea about flexibility
over time. He asked if staff is saying there is the possibility for an individ ual to elect to
have a nonresidential use for one of these townhouses.
Ms. Grant replied that she was trying to say with the elimination of the minimum there is
still a maximum square footage that is allowed in this block. At some point a
nonresidential use could go in this block, but she was not necessarily saying that it
could be in a townhouse. However, there is room for nonresidential use in this block.
Mr. Keller said that would be a new development and not within one of the townhouses
called for here.
Mr. Benish said actually it was not inconceivable that the units could be converted since
the underlying zoning allows a certain range of uses. There are some practical issues
about whether the building can meet commercial standards as a resident ial unit to be
convertible. However, the underlying zoning for the property would allow for those uses
in that district in that block. If they could fit under the building permit process in those
townhouses it is conceivable that they could be used for t hose purposes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
5
Mr. Keller said it seemed that was the kind of flexibility this zoning category was
originally developed to provide.
Mr. Benish pointed out practically speaking if they built those residences there are some
complications to it since there could be home owner covenants that could restrict it.
However, theoretically under the zoning that potential is still there
Mr. Cilimberg asked briefly to go back to Mr. Dotson’s question about the parking. If
they look at the plan there is on-street parking on Grand Fork’s Boulevard where some
of the units front. But, the whole design of the project actually is to rear load the units.
So although they are saying these streets need to be a private road they are going to
function like alleys. They are private roads for the purpose of obtaining frontage. So it
is a technicality. However, the internals will all function to rear load the units because
all the units face onto an existing street or the green space in the middle of Block VI.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Katurah Roell, representative for the applicant, said he would touch on some of the
things the Commission had been questioning. In talking about Grants Fork’s Boulevard
as the street between the existing townhouse project and the new one proposed on
Block VI there is on-street parking on both sides of that street. There is actually on-
street parking on Meeting Street all along that frontage as wel l. They are providing two-
car garages and two parking spaces in the driveway. It is a 16’ garage door like a typical
residence so two cars can be pulled in. The driveway is actually only 18’ wide because
of some islands. It does not preclude putting two cars in there. However, it only
qualifies technically as one space because they must be 10’ wide. If he actually had
two spaces and two spaces that is four spaces per unit, and exceeds the permissible
parking permitted. They ran into a little bit of an issue like that on Block IV and had to
make some amendments to fall within the requirements.
Mr. Roell pointed out the reason they are called alleys is because if they are private
streets he has double frontage lots, which is also not permitted in the county.
Therefore, technically they are called alleys so that the green space provides the
frontage for the unit and then the private and public street surrounds the property .
Grand Forks and Laurel Park Lane are private streets. Of course, Timberwood
Boulevard and Meeting Street are the two public streets. Since they can’t have double
frontage lots that is, again, the technical difference. However, it is the same design and
same pavement thickness and so forth. They did provide a tot lot and recreation area on
this one and then more of an adult center over in Block IV where there is a gazebo,
trellis and area for the people to gather. They have the two combinations of spaces for
youngsters and adults. It does interconnect entirely with sidewalks that c onnect green
spaces that link this whole entire group. After they got to working on this they actually
realized that is a pretty good layout for that section. It lays in pretty nice and does
create a concentration of residential very similar to what is o n the other side of
Rosewood, which was done by previous development where Ryan Homes is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
6
Mr. Roell pointed out that because they are alleys instead of having that sweeping curve
he would ask the Commission and Board to consider and review something that would
be more of a perpendicular right turn stop condition. For safety reasons the county
engineer made them put in a 110’ radius there to follow private street standards, which
is actually VDOT’s minimum radius for a narrow street. He had to design to t he right
purely because he wanted cars to go slow so when they came in they had to stop, turn
left, look and go. His son lives in a townhouse project very similar in San Francisco
where his kids were allowed on their bikes right on their driveway. Then someone
driving into the community in a sweeping turn might or might not see them. But, it
causes a faster movement of traffic. Truly his concern simple is to have a stop/turn
safer condition. Other than that he thinks they are very pleased with the proj ect and as
Ms. Grant pointed out there was still quite a bit of area in the rest of Block C and the
adjoining Area A for several 100,000 square feet of commercial and additional mixed
uses. He would be happy to answer any additional questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson said he had an area designation question. He asked if what they are
looking at on the screen was essentially all of Block C.
Mr. Roell replied it was Blocks IV and VI. When someone raised the question it referred
to Block VI, but actually the advertisement included Block IV in the overall gross
acreage because that does address the minor change for the minimum nonresidential
requirement for Block IV. So the red area is actually been known as Block IV and then
Block VI. They have in front of that Blocks I, II and III on the left hand side coming up
Timberwood Boulevard and then V is the current constructed Block V. Block IV has
started construction. Block VI is the current one under review. Blocks VII, VIII and IX
are completely commercial in front of that. He noted the whole area shown in black is
Area C.
Mr. Dotson asked if the areas shown in black and red are Area C.
Mr. Roell replied that was correct. He pointed out Rosewood Village was on the corner
of Block III, and there was still a commercial section in front of Rosewood Village for
some more additional 3-story office space and commercial use.
Mr. Randolph said he had two questions regarding the Neighborhood Model about
interconnected streets, transportation networks, parks and open space. Regarding
interconnected streets he asked how the conceptual plan demonstrates responsiveness
to a cycling centric transportation system in this area.
Mr. Roell asked if he meant cycling in terms of bicycles, and Mr. Randolph replied yes.
Mr. Roell replied that all of Timberwood Boulevard has bicycle lanes as part of VDOT.
Then anything that is private in there does not have bike lanes, again, because it is
reduced pavement area. However, it is not the main thoroughfare. The main
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
7
thoroughfare has bike lanes and the other side streets are just open for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Randolph said he had a question about parks and open space. The text indicates
on page 5 under Parks and Open Space, “As a result the central amenity appears
smaller in size” which is talking about the central plaza. He asked is the central amenity
community space actually now smaller in size as a result of adding the 44 additional
townhomes, and does it trump the central plaza.
Mr. Roell replied he did not think so because the only difference would be there is a
defined area that is hardscape, surrounded by green area and planted, which would
back up to the travelway that provides for the garages in Block IV. The original text in
the code of development shows two different examples for less than what is the entire
green space and then subsequent internal paved hardscape area with a gazebo.
However, he was not sure that is actually correct.
Mr. Benish said he thinks you were going to tend to get that plaza established more with
that commercial building and the total area would be in one larger area because the
other block could have been parking. He pointed out under the code of development
there is actually no minimum or maximum size for that plaza area. So there was no
specific measure even applied to it as it is approved right now.
Mr. Roell said they were happy with how that center turned out . It is hardscape with a
nice gazebo. Then there is a centered t ree and 30 plus trees in the perimeter of mixed
hardwoods, flowering trees and plantings. It will be a very inviting space. It does have
a sidewalk that connects it right out to the corner to the main circle. So it is very
accessible and creates a very complete walkable connected neighborhood.
Mr. Dotson said the proposal is eliminating the minimum commercial proposal, but they
want to retain up to 80,000 square feet. He requested Mr. Roell to spell out a scenario
where the additional commercial square footage might ever come into play. His
question was about if they are building on Block VI since that was to be the parking for
that 80,000 square feet,
Mr. Roell explained that Block IV when it was conceived was 3 or 4 multi-story buildings
with a ground floor of retail and then upper floors of office and/or residential. On that
block they have no parking. So in order to accommodate for up to 20 residential units,
30,000 square feet of commercial space and make it all strictly a pedestrian area, then it
has to have some place close by to park so folks could walk over to it.
Mr. Dotson said the commercial and residential is on IV and the parking for IV was on
VI.
Mr. Roell agreed that was correct.
Mr. Dotson said now that they were putting development on VI, where would the parking
go if commercial was to go into IV.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
8
Mr. Roell replied they would still park in those spaces because those buildings are only
going to be so large anyway unless they demolished it all , and then somebody would be
back here to sort that out at some point in time. The long and short of it is the parking
that is needed for Block IV is literally at the maximum allowed and then some. Block VI
also is in the same stroke. Once you go to the other blocks all of Block III parking will
be all on its block along with its commercial for VI, VII, VIII and IX. Those have all been
laid out for commercial uses. There just has not been the commercial demand, which is
why a foundation has set there for a while. A hotel site sat there f or ten years. There is
a demand for residential. The residential that is now on Block VI, which is moving from
Block III, is being shifted because Block III had Rosewood built on it and put in 60 to 80
senior living spaces. That was a different category entirely and is kind of a commercial
use so to speak.
Mr. Dotson said to get at Commissioner Keller’s question if townhouses were built and
then later on somebody wanted to have a small commercial activity there that the only
way that could happen is to meet the commercial parking requirements, which it might
or might not be able to do.
Mr. Benish replied yes, again, that is the practical issue of building residential
development and actually being able to utilize that use. However, what was done in the
use table with this amendment was to take the minimum requirement out and leave the
maximum as is. So that theoretically leaves that opportunity open. However, there are
some real practical limitations to how well it could be used. An example might be a
small attorney’s office, which would only require a few parking spaces. So some uses
might be able to fit theoretically. The notion of actually using up to 80,000 square feet
would probably require redevelopment of the block.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out since this is a planned community there is also the chance if
there was a need for additional parking to do shared parking in another block. For
example, it might be across from where new development of more parking is provided in
the future.
Mr. Keller said as a follow up to that he asked will there be a homeowner’s association
covenant that does not allow that sort of small scaled business in one of those
townhouses.
Mr. Roell said they reviewed and approved the homeowner covenant. However, he was
not sure whether it prohibits the use of a home type business. That might be something
they can consider if somebody wants to operate a home business so that it would be a
possibility. Again, they would not want to look at an intense use such as a doc tor or
dentist office or a hair dresser. However, somebody who wants to operate a business
out of their home he thinks they can certainly incorporate that into the documents. The
documents have been reviewed, but not yet signed and recorded.
Mr. Dotson noted that was a good suggestion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
9
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment Mr. Morris closed
the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said as a discussion point that as he looks at the site plan and the interior
units, those that back up to the private street or alley and front on the open space, the
tot lot and activity space which are intended to serve the whole development and
perhaps also some of Block III is about as far off at the edge and to access it is very
difficult. At this scale it looks like someone practically would have to walk across
somebody’s front steps. That strikes him as a less livable and usable arrangement than
something that maybe eliminated a few of the lots and had a larger open space being
visible and opening up more onto the alley way. His question would be does any other
commissioner have a concern that seems to be packing things in like sardines. He
asked if perhaps that could be opened up a bit to benefit both the marketability and the
Liveabililty for future residents. Again, he thinks of it in terms of this was to be parking .
So even if they eliminate 5 units they still have 39 units they are able to locate here that
they did not have that ability to do in the present term before this. He would just open
that issue because it seems that area is very jam packed and not necessarily of a
quality they would like to see.
Mr. Morris said at this particular point he thinks that issue would probably be addressed
in the site plan portion, which would be coming up in the next stage.
Mr. Benish noted that type of issue is actually better addressed at this stage because
what they approve as the application plan is going to guide us in the next stage . Radii
of roadways can be dealt with at the site plan stage, but the locations of the roads have
to be established. Likewise the open space area and the buildable area are best
determined at this stage. So if that is something that is guidance and a recommendation
the full board wants to make it is best to do that now.
Mr. Keller said that Mr. Dotson makes a good point and he concurred.
Mr. Randolph noted he was trying to get at the same point , but felt there was potential
shrinkage. They have an increase in the number of people with the addition of 44
townhomes, which is somewhere around 100 people, and yet they are not necessarily
accommodating the recreational needs within the space allocated.
Mr. Loach said he would like to hear the applicant’s response to that.
Mr. Morris noted the applicant has a five minute rebuttal and could respond at that time.
Mr. Lafferty asked Mr. Dotson if he was talking about eliminating some of the
townhouses for access.
Mr. Dotson replied what he was visualizing is in Block VI eliminating lot 17 through 21.
That would be eliminating 5 lots, which were the ones sort of right there at that choke
point leading into the open space. It would be the left most 2 at the bottom and the 3 on
the diagonal set of units. W hat it would do is effectively double the adjacent open space
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
10
and make it visible to people throughout this development . It would also make it a
feature for those folks in lot 3, parcel 3 in block 3 and block 4 as well. So it would
admittedly eliminate 5 lots and double the open space, which he feels would make the
area much more livable.
Mr. Morris said he was just reflecting on what he sees at the Pavilions, which was
similar to what he was seeing on this, and the residents seem extremely happy with that
type of thing. He invited the applicant for the five minute rebuttal.
Mr. Roell said that he concurred. He would begin by saying that again with his drawing
on the right hand side of the page showing a more perpendicular street there were 2
units that got squeezed out of that because of the radius. The county engineer
suggested they have radial townhouse lots, which is impractical. So they had to make
them vertical, and those would not fit. Therefore, they got shoved into that left side.
Secondly, though that is a tot lot area that is up against a chain - link fence on the far
side. So he has staggered trees as much as possible. The idea is to somewhat keep
that as a contained area. Again, referring back to his son’s townhouse project, they
have a nice courtyard space that is fronted in there. There are over 6,500 or 7,000
square feet just in the internal green space tot lot area and then it is surrounded by a 30’
wide green area. There are direct sidewalks that are 8’ wide which lead to it. Then
those do connect all the way through with neighborhood crosswalk safe zones. By
incorporating the road design to the right he would move 2 lots out of that angled row on
the face of the inside and put them back out on the Main Street and open that area up
again creating more green space in that central court.
Mr. Dotson asked him to repeat what he just said because he was not sure what that
was.
Mr. Roell said on the design where they see the 90 degree angle turn that allows 2
more of those residences that front on the main street it is more of a square turn side
yard. That would then move 2 of those units from that center area on the angle opening
up some more green space. However, they did intentionally try to neck it down because
that is the children play area and they want to keep them confined and not just have it
as a wide open space. Unlike block IV there are multiple ways in and out. There is
traffic that wraps around that center area. This has strictly pedestrian traffic around it,
again a substantial amount of trees, and walkable accessibility. He pointed out the right
hand turn was to alleviate some of that pressure and put those lots back out on the
main street and open that up..
Mr. Dotson asked if county engineering is saying that alternative is not acceptable.
Mr. Roell replied the county engineer did not like it because he wants to call it a private
street. However, it is not a private street because he can’t have a double frontage lot.
He said it is an alley, which is literally just for cars to park in their driveways for through
traffic. He does not want it to be conveyed as a throughway.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2013-4 HOLLYMEAD – Submit BOS
11
Mr. Benish pointed out double frontage can be waived by the Planning Commission,
which is something that can be addressed a little bit easier t han frontage requirements.
If the Commission’s directive is to reduce those lots , he thinks Mr. Roell is indicating
that along with that reduction that encouraging the alternative access allows him to pick
back up a couple of the lots that would be lost. That would be good direction to the
county engineer.
Mr. Roell said that addresses their concern. However, he does agree that it is a little
tight in there, and he thanks him.
Mr. Morris asked if Mr. Dotson wanted to add that to the Commission’s comments.
Mr. Dotson noted he generally was in favor of this proposal. It does not give him heart
burn with the amount of commercial they have vacant and undeveloped in the
community. In this immediate vicinity it does not give him heart burn in this particular
instance to eliminate the minimum for the commercial. He was relying on the
technicality of parking to control future commercial use once it is developed as
townhouses, which is what he believes will happen. They are almost s etting up a
strange situation, but he thinks the technicality will take care of it. He would be
prepared to move for approval as recommended to the staff with the following
amendment, which is to eliminate five (5) lots, 17 through 21, in order to accomplish a
more effective open space system and to unpack what would be an otherwise crowded
and congested development. If working with the county engineer further it is possible to
have the alternate circulation and regain two (2) of those lots, then that would be just
fine.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of
ZMA-2013-00004 Hollymead Town Center – Block VI with the revised code of
development, and provided technical revisions are made to the proffers, and changes
are made to the application plan as recommended by staff, prior to the Board of
Supervisor meeting with the following amendment.
1. Eliminate five (5) lots (17 through 21) in order to accomplish a more effective
open space system and to unpack what would be an otherwise crowded and
congested development. Working with the county engineer further, it is possible
to have the alternate circulation and regain two (2) of those lots.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2014-00004 Hollymead Town Center – Block VI would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to
be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Office Building Property Easements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider requests by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville,
and Dominion Virginia Power for easements on County
Office Building Property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Shadman
PRESENTER (S): Larry Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 10, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (“RWSA”), the City of Charlottesville (“City”), and Dominion Virginia Power
(“DVP”) have requested underground utility easements on the County Office Building property located on McIntire Road.
The RWSA and the City request is for a sewer line easement for the Upper Schenks Branch sewer line project to be
located along McIntire Road crossing the baseball field and extending to Preston Avenue. The sewer line project is
required by a Department of Environmental Quality consent order mandating that the RWSA and the City replace a 1950’s
era 21-inch clay pipeline with a 30-inch ductile iron pipeline with sufficient capacity for future and wet weather flows. It is
the last phase of a multi-phase project in the City. The DVP easement is for an underground electric line project along a
portion of McIntire Road and Preston Avenue to enhance electric service to the City and the University of Virginia. The
RWSA, the City, and DVP have determined that the County property is the preferred location for the easements to
minimize their cost and to avoid construction within the streets.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
The RWSA and City sewer line easements have been located as closely as possible to the McIntire Road right of way
to impact the County property as little as possible. (See Plats; Attachments A & B) However, the easements will cross
a portion of the outfield and batting cage of the baseball field and will impact some existing trees on the County
property along McIntire Road. The RWSA has agreed to special conditions that will require that the construction be
limited to the baseball off-season and will restore the field to its previous condition. Both RWSA and the City have
agreed to special conditions to mitigate the impact to County property, including replacement and protection of trees
and the boring under County entrances. In addition, the City has agreed to compensate the County $153,000 for the
value of the sewer easements and to modify certain deed restrictions previously placed on the property when it was
sold to the County by the City in 1978. The location and widths of the easements are shown on the attached plats. A
complete list of the agreed terms and conditions for the RWSA and City sewer line project is attached. (Attachment C)
The DVP power line easement is located within the same area as the City sewer line easement on McIntire Road and
is located as closely as possible to the Preston Avenue right of way to impact the County property as little as possible.
(See Plat; Attachment D) The City and DVP have agreed to coordinate their projects to minimize any installation
conflicts. DVP has agreed to be responsible for any relocation costs if the County requests the line be relocated in the
future. Accordingly, the County is not requesting DVP to compensate the County for the easement.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires the Board to hold a public hearing to receive public comments prior to the granting
of the requested easements.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County will receive $153,000 to compensate it for the value of the underground sewer easements. The County will
not incur any cost for the projects or for the restoration of the County property necessitated by the projects.
AGENDA TITLE: County Office Building Property Easements
September 10, 2014
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
At the conclusion of the public hearing staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution approving the
granting of a sewer line easement to the RWSA and the City and a electric line easement to DVP and authorizing the
County Executive to execute all documents necessary to complete these transactions subject to the recommended
terms and conditions after such documents have been approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
(Attachment E)
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Plat: RWSA Sewer Line Easements
B – Plat: City Sewer Line Easements
C – Agreed Easement Terms and Conditions
D – Plat: DVP Electric Line Easements
E – Resolution
Return to agenda
Attachment C
AGREED EASEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(1) Payment of $153,000 as compensation for the City and RWSA easements.
(2) The easements will not be conveyed until the pending rezoning process for the Albemarle
COB property is completed to the satisfaction of the County. On August 18 City Council had a first
reading of an ordinance rezoning the property to B-1 Commercial. The second, and final, reading will be
on September 2.
(3) The City will reaffirm the 1978 deed language which allows the County to relocate any of the
referenced utility easements on the COB property at its sole cost, provided the relocation plans are
approved by the City, with the additional provision that the City’s approval will not be unreasonably
withheld.
(4) The City agrees to release the County from the obligation in the 1978 deed to convey a 50-
foot strip of land to VDOT for the widening of McIntire Road.
(5) The City agrees to amend the 1978 deed language which makes the City’s gas line easement
exclusive, to the extent necessary to allow (a) the RWSA portion of the new Schenks Branch Interceptor
and (b) a relocated Schenks Branch box culvert to be placed within the same easement as the gas line
(subject to any design or regulatory requirements, such as minimum separation between the high pressure
gas line and other utilities).
(6) The RWSA portion of the Interceptor will be constructed in a manner that will allow the
relocation of the box culvert above the Interceptor.
(7) The City will coordinate the design and construction of its portion of the Interceptor with
Dominion Virginia Power, so that new or relocated electric facilities can be co-located with the City
Interceptor.
(8) If the County relocates the box culvert into a new or existing easement, the City will abandon
the easement for the box culvert through the ball field.
(9) City, RWSA and County staffs will work cooperatively on special terms and conditions for
the construction of the Interceptor, with emphasis on (1) a mutually agreeable landscaping plan that
incorporates best practices for the protection and preservation of any large, heritage or specimen trees on
COB property (the City acknowledges the importance of those measures to the Board of Supervisors), and
(2) minimizing any disruption to the existing accesses to and from the COB property.
(10) That the County Board of Supervisors will express support for the concept of extending the
existing Schenks Greenway Trail across County property to Preston Avenue. The approval of a particular
location, design, maintenance plan, etc., will be subject to County approval in the future.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF
UTILITY EASEMENTS ON
THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING PROPERTY
LOCATED ON MCINTIRE ROAD
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns certain property located at 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, VA (Charlottesville City Tax Map Parcel 350134000); and
WHEREAS, sewer line easements across this County-owned property are necessary
for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the City of Charlottesville to
complete the Upper Schenks Branch sewer line project; and
WHEREAS, electric line easements across this property are necessary for Dominion
Virginia Power (DVP) to enhance electric service to the City and the University of Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2014, the Board held a duly advertised public hearing
to receive public comments on the easement requests; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that granting the easements is in the public interest
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the executive summary dated September 10,
2014, documented as to content and form in such manner as approved by the County
Attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the granting of these certain easements to the RWSA, the City,
and DVP, and authorizes the County Executive to sign all documents, approved as to content
and form by the County Attorney, necessary to convey these easements across Charlottesville
City Tax Map Parcel 350134000 and to implement the terms and conditions thereof.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on September 10, 2014.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____