HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP201800004 Action Letter 2021-07-02COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Justin Shimp,
C/O Shimp Engineering
912 East High Street, Ste A
Charlottesville, VA 22902
FROM: Rachel Falkenstein, Principal Planner1y�
DATE: October 29, 2018 V
RE: CCP201800004 River's Edge
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on October 16, 2018 to discuss whether
proposal would be found in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission gave
feedback on staffs follow-up questions and conclusions (attached). The Planning Commission discussed
and provided the following responses to staffs questions. No formal action taken.
CC: Christopher Barry
C/O Rivers Edge Holdings
2027 Woodbrook Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
PROJECT: CCP-2018-00004 — River's Edge — Planning Commission Response
In a work session, the Planning Commission discussed and provided the following responses to
staffs questions.
01: Can density from TMP 32-22K1 (Urban Density Residential) be applied to TMP32-5A1
ei hborhood Density Residential), considering the separation caused by the river and other
environmental resources.
Ouestion 1: Staff believes transferring the density from TMP 32-22K1 to TMP 32-5A is not appropriate.
Question l: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation.
02: Would Neighborhood Model District (NMD) be an appropriate zoning district for the proposed
development or should the applicant seek separate zonine designations for the proposed
commercial and residential pieces?
Question 2: Staff does not believe that NMD is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed
development and recommends that the development of the property as proposed be considered with
separate rezoning applications.
Question 2: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation.
03: Would neighborhood scale commercial use (Le. veterinarian office, barber shop, yoga studio,
etc.) in an area designated as urban density residential (specifically TMP 32-22K1) be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan?
Question 3: Staff agrees that the listed commercial uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-22K1 as
secondary uses, with the appropriate design and scale.
Question 3: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs• recommendation.
04 (Additional question from staff): What land should be available for development and
calculating potential density? Is strict adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan as Open
Space required or should the area available for development be calculated using more recent
mapping technology that better depicts the environmental features (stream buffer, preserved
slopes)?
Ouestion 4: Staff recommends that more accurate GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of
the site.
Question d: The Planning Commission was in general agreement with staffs recommendation that more
accurate GI.S-data should be used to calculate the net densih, of the site. (Als. Pirehock disagreed and
suggested gross density be usecl_for the calculation.)