Loading...
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 ____ ____