Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600022 Staff Report 2019-05-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA TITLE: ZMA201600022 Moss (2511 Avinity Drive) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for 0.9 acres to be rezoned from R1 Residential zoning district to PRD Planned Residential District (PRD). A maximum of 24 multifamily units is proposed for a density of 26 units/acre. Associated with this request is a request for a special exception to modify the minimum acreage requirement of three acres for a PRD. SCHOOL DISTRICT: Monticello High School, Walton Middle School, Cale AGENDA DATE: May 15, 2019 STAFF CONTACT(S): Walker, Graham, Benish, Nedostup PRESENTER (S): Megan Nedostup BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 19, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of ZMA201600022 with a recommendation that a revision be made for the fence height and material. The Commission also recommended approval of the Special Exception request to allow the minimum area required for a Planned Residential Development to be modified with a condition. The Commission's staff report, action letter, and minutes are attached (Attachments A, B, and C). DISCUSSION: At the Planning Commission meeting there were a few residents of the adjacent Avinity subdivision that spoke. One of the residents expressed concerns about the existing fence on Avinity property and the proposed fence being in close proximity to one another, and not the same height. The Planning Commission discussed the need for two fences within the same area, and while not included in their motion, expressed a desire if the adjacent owners were amenable, to have flexibility for the applicant to provide landscaping in lieu of the proposed fence so as not to create a double fence that would be difficult to maintain (See Attachment C for minutes). Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with a recommendation that the fence be increased in height from six feet to eight feet on the eastern side of the parking lot and make the most southern portion of the fence a solid material. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant worked with Staff to develop a note to address the Commission's recommendation, and also their expressed concerns with allowing flexibility, but still providing the screening necessary. The application plan has been revised to include the following note (#9 on Application Plan Sheet 4 in Attachment D): "The proposed fence on the eastern side of the parking lot shall be 8 feet in height, and the most southern 80 feet shall be a solid material. If the owners of tax map parcels 91A-57 and 91A-A would prefer landscape screening in lieu of the 8 foot proposed fence, then TMP 90-35L shall provide landscape screening in accordance with 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. If only landscaping is provided, and the existing fence on tax map parcel 91A-A is removed, the owner or ownership entity (the "owner") of TMP90-35L shall construct a fence on TMP 90-35L to provide screening in addition to the landscaping. The owner shall construct the new fence within 90 days of removal of the fence on 91A-A." Staff believes this note satisfies the Planning Commission's desire for flexibility while also assuring that privacy and required screening along the property line is maintained for the residents of Avinity. The Commission also recommended approval of the request for a Special Exception to allow the minimum area required for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development to be reduced from three (3) acres to 0.9 acres with a condition. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance to approve ZMA201600022 (Attachment E), and the Resolution to approve the Special Exception (Attachment F). ATTACHMENTS: A — Planning Commission staff report- March 19, 2019 A1: September 26, 2017 Staff Report and Attachments A2: Application Plan with revised date of January 8, 2019 A3: Applicant Justification for Special Exception A4: Staff analysis for Special Exception A& Deed for access to Avinity Drive A6: Deed for Emergency Access B — Planning Commission action letter C — Planning Commission minutes D — Revised Application Plan dated April 18, 2019 E — Ordinance to approve ZMA201600022 F — Resolution to approve Special Exception SUMMARY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Project Name: ZMA201600019 2511 Avinity Staff: Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner, AICP Drive Planning Commission Public Hearing: March Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD 19, 2019 Owner: James Moss Applicant: Justin Shimp Acreage: 0.91 acres Rezoning: R1 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District TMP:090000000035LO Proffers: No School Districts: Cale Elementary, Walton By -right use: Residential with existing house on Middle, Monticello High nonconforming lot Magisterial District: Scottsville Requested # of Dwelling Units: 24 DA (Development Area): N4 of Southern Urban Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Neighborhoods Residential Character of Property: developed with a single Use of Surrounding Properties: townhouses family house and single family residential Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: None identified 1. Proposed density is in keeping with the recommended density for Urban Density Residential as shown on the Master Plan. 2. A majority of the Neighborhood Model principles are being met. 3. Affordable housing is provided with the development. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. 2. Staff recommends approval of the special exception to modify the minimum area required for the establishment of a district for a Planned Unit Development, with conditions. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Page 1 STAFF PERSON: Megan Nedostup, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: March 19, 2019 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT: ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035L0 LOCATION: 2511 Avinity Dr., approx. 70 feet south of the intersection with Avon St. Ext. PROPOSAL: Rezone property to allow for apartments PETITION: Request for 0.9 acres to be rezoned from R1 Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PRD Planned Residential District which allows residential use (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A maximum of 24 multifamily units is proposed for a density of 26 units/acre. Associated with this request, is a request for a special exception to allow an exception to the minimum acreage requirement of 3 acres for a PRD. OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): ENTRANCE CORRIDOR PROFFERS:No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses, neighborhood scale commercial, office, and service uses in Neighborhood 4 of the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods. POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes BACKGROUND On September 26, 2017, the Planning Commission heard the applicant's request for approval of ZMA2016-22, provided comments on, and deferred action at the applicant's request. The deferral was to allow the applicant time to address the issues identified below: 1. Permission to use Avinity Drive for access to the development has not been demonstrated. 2. Offsite easements will be required in order to accomplish the development. The ability to obtain these easements has not been demonstrated. 3. Buildings, parking, and a courtyard are shown to cover almost the entire site; however, there is little flexibility to modify the plan and retain the courtyard should site changes be necessary during final design. This is especially important because it appears that ARB requirements cannot be met. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to justify why a PRD of less than 3 acres should be approved, given the fact that it does not share any features, other than potential access, with the adjoining PRD. 5. No information other than setbacks and building height has been provided to ensure architectural compatibility with the adjoining development. 6. Affordable housing information is not sufficiently detailed to ensure that the project will truly provide 20% affordable units. 7. No provision is made for connecting to the property to the south of this parcel. 8. Need for additional amenity area. 9. Need for additional information on stormwater management and area for drainage from underground facility ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Page 2 SPECIFICS OF THE (DATE) APPLICATION PLAN PLEASE REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR SEPT. 26, 2017 [Attachment A] FOR INFORMATION ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY, CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE, AND GENERAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. Since the Commission's meeting in September 2017, the applicant worked with the owner of Avinity to provide a deed of easement to the owner of the Moss property. The required document has been signed and recorded [Attachment E]. The easement is not specific to the number of units that can be served off of Avinity Lane, which is a private street. With provision of the easement from the Avinity owner, the County is satisfied that legal access has been provided. Staff has also met several times with the applicant on the design of the development and ways in which the applicant could satisfactorily address the Commission's concerns. The applicant has addressed the Commission's comments as shown on the revised application plan [Attachment C] and as follows: 1. Permission to use Avinity Drive for access to the development has not been demonstrated. The applicant has obtained the necessary easement for access to use Avinity Drive [Attachment]. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 2. Offsite easements will be required in order to accomplish the development. The ability to obtain these easements has not been demonstrated. The applicant has obtained the necessary easement for secondary emergency access (Attachment F]. In addition, easements were granted with this deed for landscaping, fencing, and temporary grading. If additional easements for landscaping, fencing, or grading are needed from other properties, they can and will be required at site plan. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 3. Buildings, parking, and a courtyard are shown to cover almost the entire site; however, there is little flexibility to modify the plan and retain the courtyard should site changes be necessary during final design. This is especially important because it appears that ARB requirements cannot be met.(no longer in the EC) The property is no longer within the Entrance Corridor and, therefore, ARB review and approval is not required. The applicant has demonstrated, through the special exception process [see Attachment D], that sufficient area will be provided for open space. With the conditions recommended for the special exception, staff believes this concern has been addressed. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to justify why a PRD of less than 3 acres should be approved, given the fact that it does not share any features, other than potential access, with the adjoining PRD. The applicant has requested that the required minimum acreage for the establishment of a Planned District be modified [Attachment C]. The ordinance specifies a minimum of three (3) acres for a Planned Residential Development (PRD), and the parcel requested for the rezoning to this district is 0.9 acres. A special exception has been submitted for this request and the analysis is provided as an attachment [Attachment D]. Staff believes this concern has been addressed with the conditions for the special exception. 5. No information other than setbacks and building height has been provided to ensure architectural compatibility with the adjoining development. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Page 3 The applicant has provided architectural details for the proposed buildings. Since the property is no longer located within the Entrance Corridor, staff found the design to be reasonably compatible for the surrounding area. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 6. Affordable housing information is not sufficiently detailed to ensure that the project will truly provide 20% affordable units. The applicant has provided language on the application plan regarding the proposed affordable housing. Staff finds that this language meets the requirements of the Affordable Housing Policy within the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, believes this concern has been addressed. 7. No provision is made for connecting to the property to the south of this parcel. A sidewalk has been provided along the whole frontage of the parcel, and along the access way connection to Avinity Drive. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 8. Need for additional amenity area. Planning and Zoning staff have evaluated the amenity area provided under the special exception and believe that the courtyard provide is adequate for this development. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 9. Need for additional information on stormwater management and area for drainage from underground facility. Stormwater management has been shown on the application plan and will conform to all state and County requirements. The County Engineer has evaluated the proposed location of the facility and found it to be adequate and feasible. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. PROFFERS No proffers are made by the applicant. SUMMARY FOR REZONING REQUEST Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. Proposed density is in keeping with the recommended density for Urban Density Residential as shown on the Master Plan. 2. A majority of the Neighborhood Model principles are being met. 3. Affordable housing is provided with the development. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: None identified RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive (Moss), and the Special Exception. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT — A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive for the reasons stated in the staff report. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive (state reasons). PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION — A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of the requested special exception: ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Page 4 Move to recommend approval of the requested special exception to allow the minimum area required for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development from three (3) acres to 0.9 acres for the reasons stated in the staff report. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of the requested special exception: Move to recommend denial of the requested special exception to allow the minimum area required for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development from three (3) acres to 0.9 acres (state reasons). Attachments A: September 26, 2017 Staff Report and Attachments B: Application Plan with revised date of January 8, 2019 C: Applicant Justification for Special Exception D: Staff analysis for Special Exception E: Deed for access to Avinity Drive F: Deed for Emergency Access ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Page 5 SUMMARY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Project Name: ZMA201600019 2511 Avinity Drive Staff: Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Planning Commission Public Hearing: Sept. 26, Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD 2017 Owner: James Moss Applicant: Justin Shimp Acreage: 0.91 acres Rezoning: R1 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District TMP:090000000035LO Proffers: No School Districts: Cale Elementary, Walton Middle, By -right use: Residential with existing house on Monticello High nonconforming lot Magisterial District: Scottsville Requested # of Dwelling Units: 24 DA (Development Area): N4 of Southern Urban Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential Neighborhoods Character of Property: developed with a single Use of Surrounding Properties: townhouses and single family house family residential Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is in keeping with the 1. Feasibility to accomplish the rezoning has not been recommended density for Urban Density established: the applicant has not demonstrated Residential as shown on the Master Plan. permission to use Avinity Drive for access to the 2. Relegated parking is provided, in keeping with development. the Neighborhood Model. 2. Offsite easements will be required in order to 3. Affordable housing may be provided with the accomplish the development as proposed. The development. ability to obtain these easements has not been demonstrated. 3. It appears that ARB requirements for landscaping and street trees cannot be met with the proposed development. Buildings, parking, and a courtyard are shown to cover almost the entire site and there is little flexibility to modify the plan and retain the courtyard should site changes be needed. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to justify why a PRD of less than 3 acres should be approved, given the fact that it does not share any features, other than potential access, with the adjoining PRD. 5. No information other than setbacks and building height has been provided to ensure architectural compatibility with the adjoining development. 6. Affordable housing information is not sufficiently detailed to ensure that the project will truly provide 20% affordable units. 7. No provision is made for connecting to the property to the south of this parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the outstanding issues listed under unfavorable factors, staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA201600022. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 1 ATTACHMENT A STAFF PERSON: Elaine K. Echols, FAICP PLANNING COMMISSION: September 26, 2017 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive PROJECT: ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035LO LOCATION: 2511 Avinity Dr., approx. 70 feet south of the intersection with Avon St. Ext. PROPOSAL: Rezone property to allow for apartments PETITION: Request for 0.9 acres to be rezoned from R1 Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PRO Planned Residential District which allows residential use (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A maximum of 24 multifamily units is proposed for a density of 26 units/acre. OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): ENTRANCE CORRIDOR PROFFERS: No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses, neighborhood scale commercial, office, and service uses in Neighborhood 4 of the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods. POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes CHARACTER OF THE AREA The property is located on Avon Street Extended, south of Cale Elementary School. It is directly south of the Avinity townhouse development, which is currently under construction. The Lake Reynovia residential development is across Avon Street; low -density residential development is to the east and south. Attachment A shows the location of the development. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to replace a single family house on a parcel of a little less than one acre with two apartment buildings, a plaza -amenity, and parking area to be accessed from Avinity Drive. Twenty-four units are proposed for a density of 26 units per acre. The plan is included as Attachment B. There are no proffers; however, the applicant has placed a note on the plan which says, "20%affordable housing" APPLICANrsJUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant cites the Comprehensive Plan as the justification for the request. COMMUNITY MEETING A community meeting for this project was held on March 22, 2017. There were approximately 19 attendees including three persons who represented the applicant. The following concerns were raised: • Limited numbers of parking spaces may cause spill over into the Avinity development • Right of access to Avinity Drive and responsibilities for maintenance • Potential damage to the Avinity Drive median with construction trucks • Limited amenity area causing new residents to believe they can use amenities in the Avinity development • Architectural compatibility of the two developments. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 2 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY The property was zoned R1 Residential in 1980. No subdivision activity has taken place since that time. However, a proffer for access to this property from Avinity Drive (to replace the driveway to the single family house) was accepted with ZMA200600005 Avinity. An easement for access to 2511 Avinity was platted with a subdivision for Avinity; however, no deed of easement with conditions was filed. This issue is discussed later in the report. Land Use: The property is designated for Urban Density Residential development in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan. Density is recommended at 6.01— 34 units per acre. The development proposes a density of 26 dwellings per acre, which is within the density range. No other specific recommendations are made in the Master Plan for this area. Density and Infill: The Comprehensive Plan promotes different levels of density for new development in the development areas based in large part on context. Sensitivity to existing neighborhoods is important with infill development and redevelopment. Strategy 20 in the Development Areas Chapter speaks to redevelopment in this way: Redevelopment can bring about a positive change to an area; however, care should be taken in designing new buildings and structures. Creating a more urban area with greater densities can affect existing neighborhoods as well as historic buildings and sites. Care is needed so that redevelopment complements rather than detracts from nearby neighborhoods or historic properties. Massing, scale, building style, materials, and other architectural elements should tie together new and old buildings. Guidelines for redevelopment may be needed to help ensure compatibility. Strategy 6b addresses this issue, as well. The Economic Development Chapter provides recommendations on ways the County could promote redevelopment of areas to transform them into attractive and accessible centers for employment. While low density development generally is not anticipated in the Development Areas, the location and proposed design weigh heavily in rezoning decisions. To help determine compatibility with Avinity, staff asked if elevations could be provided showing architectural characteristics. The applicant has indicated that it is premature to provide such drawings and said that compatibility will be assured by the Architectural Review Board. This issue is discussed later in the report. Neighborhood Model: The following text describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are shown on the rezoning plan across the frontage of Avon Street, along Avinity Drive, and within the development. Staff notes that a sidewalk along Avinity Drive will require an agreement with the owner of this property in Avinity. Additionally a sidewalk shown on the northern property line will require offsite easements. This principle will be met when it is demonstrated that permission exists or can be given for improvements and construction on the adjoining property. This principle is met in theory. It is discussed later in the report. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A Mixture of Uses This proposal is for residential use and, due to the small size of the parcel and proximity to both a school and employment area, no mixed use element is viewed as necessary. This principle is not applicable. Neighborhood Centers The development is not part of an identified center; however, it is near Cale Elementary School which acts as a center for the neighborhood. The closest designated center on the Master Plan is near Monticello High School. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing A single housing type is shown on the plan which, given the size of the site and Types and Affordability its location adjacent to a mixed housing type development, is acceptable. Regarding affordability, a note on the plan says, "20%affordable housing". Additional language will be needed to provide the parameters for providing this housing. This principle is met in theory. It is discussed later in the report. Interconnected Streets The application plan shows a vehicular connection to Avinity Drive but no and Transportation pedestrian or vehicular connection to the property to the south. Provision for Networks an interconnection to the south will help set up opportunities for redevelopment of those properties in the future. This principle is partially met. Multi -modal The closest transit stops are at Piedmont Virginia Community College and at Transportation the Albemarle County Office Building on 51h Street, making access to transit Opportunities difficult. Bike racks have been shown on the plan to encourage bicycling. Given the limited ways in which multi -modal opportunities could be provided, this principle is met. Parks, Recreational The amenity area for this development is approximately 1/6 of an acre (48' x Amenities, and Open 56'). It represents 6% of the site. However, the development is approximately Space 400 feet from Cale Elementary School, which serves as a park after school hours. Provided the on -site amenity area is not reduced further in size, staff believes additional amenity area is not necessary. This principle is met. To justify the request for a smaller minimum PRD size, staff believes it would be advantageous to share amenities with Avinity Buildings and Space of The application plan contains a note that buildings will not be taller than 3 Human Scale stories in height. With setbacks of 15 feet, it appears that an appropriate height and distance from the street could be achieved if there is also room to meet Entrance Corridor requirements. However, residents who attended the community meeting held in March were very concerned about the need for compatibility in appearance of units along Avon Street extended. Staff shares their concerns for appropriate form, massing, and general character of the buildings. If elevations cannot be provided now, the applicant could describe features of the proposed development on the application plan describing how compatibility will be achieved. This principle is not met. Relegated Parking A very positive feature of the application plan is the relegated parking provided with the design. However, it is not clear that permission to use Avinity Drive is feasible. Without the ability to use Avinity Drive, relegated parking cannot be achieved on this small parcel. This principle is met in theory. Redevelopment Redevelopment of an existing single family structure is proposed. This principle is met. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 4 ATTACHMENT A Respecting Terrain and A proposed grading plan was not provided as part of the concept plan; Careful Grading and Re- however, there are no identified managed or preserved slopes on the grading of Terrain property. Due to the relative flatness of the parcel, no grading information appears to be necessary. This principle is not applicable. Clear Boundaries with The property is not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary. the Rural Area This principle is not applicable. Although many of the Neighborhood Model principles are met or can be met with the design, the amount of development proposed creates a very tight site with little to no room for rearrangement of buildings and parking. At present, the plan shows improvements right at the property line in some places, meaning that offsite easements will be required. The Design Planner notes that overhead lines exist along Avon Street, which is an Entrance Corridor (EC). The overhead lines are not shown on the plan, but it appears they are located 15' from the proposed trees, which will not allow sufficient space for required trees in the EC. In addition, planting area on the south side of the parking lots is extremely limited. When final engineering and landscape design is done for the plan, staff worries that the amenity area will be diminished such that it is not really usable. Regarding affordable housing, a note on the plan says, "20%Affordable Housing," which would indicate that five affordable units will be provided in the development. Staff has asked for clarification on the meaning of the note as well as ways in which meeting the Countys goals for 15% affordable units can actually be accomplished. Outside of proffers, which the July 2016 State legislation disallowed for affordable units, the County's Housing Director wonders if the County could consider a rental rate agreement be developed prior to approval, setting forth the terms of rental for these five units. He has noted that the County uses rental rate agreements for (by -right) density bonuses. Normally, staff would work with the applicant to establish parameters for providing affordable housing prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. In this situation, the applicant has requested a public hearing without working out the details. The County would want to understand the conditions under which affordable units will be provided, in order to know whether the Comprehensive Plan goals have been met. Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The requested zoning district is Planned Residential Development (PRD). According to the zoning ordinance, this district is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. The PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. A minimum area of 3 acres is required for PRDs. The applicant has requested a special exception to allow a minimum of 0.91 acres for a PRD, citing the location of the Avinity PRD adjacent to this project. Attachment C contains the special exception request, which cites affordability and density as the rationale for the request. In the past, the County has approved acreage of less than the minimum requirement when new property was ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 5 ATTACHMENT A being added to an existing PRD and amenities and road systems would be shared. In this case, no sharing of amenities is proposed. It is unknown whether sharing the private street, Avinity Drive, for access is possible. Staff believes that the proposed development provides for an economical and efficient land use, but is not yet convinced that harmonious development has been demonstrated. The PRO also requires 25%open space, which the applicant believes has appropriately been illustrated and calculated on the Application Plan. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. Open space is supposed to remain in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements, except for (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells; (vi) in a cluster development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices. In the Development Areas, staff has acknowledged that the role of open space is different from open space in the Rural Area. However, staff has difficulty agreeing with the applicant that the area shown as open space, which includes the area for emergency access, the courtyard, front planting area between Avon Street Extended, all foundation plantings, and almost all on -site sidewalks meets the open space requirements. Staff noted earlier in the report that the courtyard amenity area along with the Cale Elementary playing fields can serve the recreational needs of the development. For perspective, the image to the right taken from Google Maps illustrates an urban amenity area for a new hotel in Charlottesville. This area is similar in size to the courtyard on the application plan. The minimum open space that has been approved in several Neighborhood Model developments has been 10%. If the applicant does not wish to provide more 315 W Main Street undeveloped space on the site, he will need to request a special exception to the 25% open space requirement. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Streets: As mentioned earlier in this report, proposed access from Avinity Drive, which is a private street within the Avinity development. Over the course of this review, staff has requested that permission to use Avinity Drive be demonstrated. The adjoining property owner, Avon Properties, LLC, has also contacted the County several times with concerns for rights for passage and future maintenance. The applicant provided copies of deeds and plats, which he says establish rights to use the roads in Avinity. However, after review, the County Attorneys office does not agree that rights to use Avinity Drive for this development exist. Without a deed of easement or knowledge that such an easement will be granted by the owner of Avinity Drive and TMP 091AO-00-00-000AO, there is no way to guarantee that future residents of this development will be able to use Avinity Drive for access. Staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reviewed the proposal and did not see any impacts to Avon Street Extended. Their only comment was that a right -turn lane may be needed, which can be dealt with at the site plan stage. ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 6 ATTACHMENT A Stormwater Management: Stormwater detention is proposed underneath the eastern parking lot. Underground storage is the only way the proposed development could accommodate stormwater management since the rest of the site would be developed with buildings, parking, a courtyard, and an emergency access area. The County Engineer has said that the applicant has provided no information on where the facility will drain. He has said that an outlet may require an easement from adjacent owner. Although staff has requested a demonstration that offsite easements can be obtained, the applicant has yet to provide the necessary information. Fire and Rescue: Fire and Rescue staff have reviewed the request and have no concerns. An emergency access easement is shown across the southwestern corner of the property. This same area is also shown for open space. Staff notes that it would be difficult for the emergency accessway to serve the dual purpose of amenity area and emergency access. Utilities: ACSA and RWSA have indicated that water and sewer service are available for this project. Schools: Albemarle County Schools estimates that the proposed development will generate five students. It is estimated that three of those students would go to Cale Elementary and two students would go to Burley Middle School and Monticello High School. According to the Schools Division, Cale is currently at capacity. One of the challenges with Virginia Code §15.2-2303.4 is knowing how to advise applicants on ways to mitigate impacts. School enrollment figures change from year to year and district boundaries can changeover time. Rather than proffer mitigation of school impacts, the applicant has indicated he will provide 20% affordable housing. Parks: No additional impacts to parks are expected from this development because playgrounds at all of the County schools act as public parks during non -school hours. The proposed development is approximately 400 feet from Cale Elementary School, which can provide for recreational amenities after school hours. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural and historic resources There are no known natural, historic, or cultural resources on the property. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The proposed plan shows improvements on adjoining properties which are not owned by the applicant. Landscaping, construction/grading, and drainage easements will be needed if the plan is to be accomplished. To date, no evidence that these easements will be granted has been provided. As noted above, neighboring property owners raised concerns for sufficient parking area, architectural compatibility, and amenity area at the community meeting for this request. Staff continues to share concerns about architectural compatibility. Staff also worries that final design of the site will result in a reduction in amenity area on the site. Public need and justification for the change Provision of residential units in the Development Areas is in keeping with the County's growth management goals for residential development at higher densities in the County's designated Development Areas. PROFFERS No proffers are made by the applicant. SUMMARY FOR REZONING REQUEST Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 7 ATTACHMENT A 1. Proposed density is in keeping with the recommended density for Urban Density Residential as shown on the Master Plan. 2. Relegated parking is provided, in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. 3. Affordable housing maybe provided with the development. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. Feasibility to accomplish the rezoning has not been established: the applicant has not demonstrated permission to use Avinity Drive for access to the development. 2. Offsite easements will be required in order to accomplish the development. The ability to obtain these easements has not been demonstrated. 3. It appears that ARB requirements for landscaping and street trees cannot be met with the proposed development. Buildings, parking, and a courtyard are shown to cover almost the entire site and there is little flexibility to modify the plan and retain the courtyard should site changes be needed. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to justify why a PRD of less than 3 acres should be approved, given the fact that it does not share any features, other than potential access, with the adjoining PRD. 5. No information other than setbacks and building height has been provided to ensure architectural compatibility with the adjoining development. 6. Affordable housing information is not sufficiently detailed to ensure that the project will truly provide 20% affordable units. 7. No provision is made for connecting to the property to the south of this parcel. Due to the number of outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval of this rezoning or the requested special exception to reduce the minimum acreage for a PRD. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive for the reasons identified as factors unfavorable to this request in the staff report. Attachments A: Location Map B: Rezoning Plan dated August 4, 2017 C: Special Exception Request dated August 7, 2017 ZMA 201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Planning Commission Sept. 26, 2017 Page 8 ATTACHMENT A managed slopes Avinity Drive l I 60private right-of-way _--_---� ja` i Avinity PRD 7-- -- 41 o,a �. b „�a.m. „o Site -- _ - �I 96 Area / Proposed Density Summary: Square Ft. Acreage Percentage Total Site Area: 39,G40 0.910 100.0 % Proposed Open Space Area*: 1 1,985 0.275 30 % A minimum of 25% Open Space 15 required per Section 19.G. I of the County Zommg Ordinance. See Sheet 5 Exhibit for location of Open Space. Current Residential Density: I dwelling unit / 0.9 10 acres = 1 . 1 DUA Proposed Residential Density: 24 dwelling units / 0.9 10 acres = 2G.4 DUA ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Avinity Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Residential District Current Revision: January 8. 201 9 Initial: December 12, 20 1 G Revised: May 15, 2017 �--- Revised: August 7, 2017 T Revised: September 17, 2018 (`J slopes i i _i........ N Sheet I of G: Overview Exhibit ZMA201000022 AIMMMENUNEERIN6P.C. 100 0 100 200 300 E,GINF.F.RING-IANDPIANMNG-PROJELTMANAGF.MENT oia c wicw si suix a FHONM (934) 227-5140 Graphic Scale: 1 "=100' ON.a�,.ESwLLE. 0. 22202 ATTACHMENT B MIS CEWWS RWr ON 7/1 ti 1 I AlIM1L14D 1Y $F Cry VA ttFl i14 w YPR CERTI rS AW WAS 711 OY M1 NA1 l SUWEC °flpV[AIY UES WITHIN HV0 R" x / (NOT A fL000 NAI/RD AREA) i.u. 91 PAR. 14 ova, S I y E��)OW EE oa Ll a 9 LOT 4 ° B i.Y. 90 PAR. 35L D.B. 382 P. 102 0.9101 AC. GS PSI, 11 = 1 IS 1 I _.—_— N T'00'CO' C N rWI:O I � PASS ST. RT. 742:i AVON STREET EXTENDED PUT SNOWING PHYSICAL SURVEY PARCEL 35L ON h. IN3 TAX MAP 90 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA .` SCALE: 1' = 40' JULY 12. 2000 r ° 'uotla 0 2R eo+ u Caryl /. fte[an CAanlinft v U,, /5'ryinio L4em 0-a Book: 19Q Pape: 339 FNNumber: 200040010053 Seq:3 Recorded Plat for Parcel 09000-00-00-0351-0 80 0 80 160 Graphic Scale: 1 "= ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Av i n i ty Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI-Re5ldential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Re5ldentlal Dl5trict Current Revl5lon: January 8. 20 19 Initial: December 12, 201 G Revised: May 15, 2017 t 7, 20 1 7 g 5e. 3eptembed 17, 2018 This map is a portion of"Figure 8: Southern Urban Area Neighborhood Future Land Use Plan" found in Chapter 4: Future Land Use ofthe Albemarle County Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan. Graphic SW le: 1 inch =1,000 feet of G : Regional Context Exhibit ZMA201000022 SIWENRNEERIM PACe I�'iY!//d/a'�';7/dll�i/Id//7JJ/'Id/dViYID1,'7U/�'NYl/Id/f%II�/r/ 912 E HIGH ST SUIM A CMARLOTIESVILLE: VA 22902 JV STN05 oMP-ENGINEERINGCOM ATTACHMENT B 40 0 rile ZMA Application Plan for ,.ha —; 25 1 1 Avinity Drive ;a,� •%: i.%::: •:` •.� L—"MlvElvlrw�li"-•'.'a•:8 W.•v`°:� i'.1:1:�/ •:.il------ TMP 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres ice` v'•`':. �.,_: --_ ---- ---- :-- ;-- L_r- :*,, CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential ` '� .sa..-r'�i r. Y�lirrL�.. sSi�r �.'xi!+•:''�".9 :. ...-.�..�... Entrance Corridor ..� :`'�_;=`i;=�r: �`.��>'`' �� _.� y'�= s': � ::fir: �:;; �:;�: �fi: ��::r,:J::;: � : �..: � •::''"``;"`r PROPOSED ZONING: Pla ed eslde teal District nn n R R r. R Current o Islo uar • January 8 20 19 n v n n t Y Initial: December 12 2016 n b -- '- - e Ised: May 15 2017 Rv _ y •'wn�•: _ _ :� _ ► •. Y -- e Ised A u ust 7 20 17 - R v PPS-= Revised: September 17, 2018 EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED •'':"• Notes: •�•`•�'':••'''• f FROM ADJOINING OPEN SPACE PARCEL JL(e-•''":. 1) There are no preserved slopes on this site. 2) There are no managed slopes on this site. / \ AVON PROPER TIEL C V.i°';:'`::+ 3) This property lies within the ACSA jurisdictional area '77• �— 120' ACCESS\EASEMEN TMP 091AO-00-00-0 0 for water and sewer. E•,••''r.� ZONED':.:r� •••r'r S 60°36'S9" E 67. 8' 4) An existing waterline and easement is available on 1' OPEN SPACE�,� •%•rani. Avinity Drive. • 10' SETBACK Y.n F 5) An existing sanitary line and easement is available on parcel 35A. F. v� I „)� F:°•r:';i��'' 6) A 120' access easement (shown) is available on Avinity •,'t;:� EXISTING E ° ° \•, Drive. mil" I (r0 BE RE ED) EXIST TREE I "IW \+• tl tL :fit::::: •• 7) A second easement is available on parcel 35A for �• 4 0 4 _ emergency access. ..N..` ..::f I (TO EMOVED) \ N 17• •'•••''•"'•, 8) This property does not lie within a drinking water ` ly " C: •��;....�r, reservoir watershed. (\ yr EXISTING . HOUSE 9) Topography and boundary information is digitized from A £ 1c i u ; Fr`,.i'•`'.: Albemarle County GIS data and from recorded plats. (TO BE v) r, al It'i REMOVED) ,LAMES ROGERS MOSS \ -1.-,I �"• r. 10) Surveying, field survey provided by Commonwealth w 1v Surveying, LLC TMP 09000-00-00-035LO / 1 Additional geographic digitized from yrl, 1 w r-I IF KAITLIN E ) 9 9 Phic information is ZONED R1-EC TMP O AO 00-7p 05700 approved site plans for Avinity Subdivision SINGLE FAMILY RESISENTIAL SING F LyATT 'rPD jn EXISTING (/�f�/) p , (, (TO BER ( VED) �.F3ISTINGTREE I I 1 I (TO BE REMOVED) L I f ! • � � I �:':::ii;�liEl;ii;E: 1 �� . � C•~=irri:.::xa�=�•i'•r'.il'iiE�EIi: 50°28' SIDE SETBACK — _ I I 1M. k:i"m.:::.:x�.::: m:'•': ; I'•' IF J I �'V•4.+'V . 1 '+, I WIN BARBOUR b : TMP 0-035G1f!riti!.> :. ..:.,( N RY W SR OIR S ' ??; ia15 2 I I TMP 09000-00-035A0 _ 1 I?Ig':Ili W I I ZONED Ri fC+,I4Y;'iF ISEIN AL ,:,::;«; 1 I DB 541 PG 642 I Sheet 3 of C �•:' ,ril I I I SINGLE FAMILY RESISENTIAL 110 Existing Conditions ZMA201 000022 80 120 : r:...Ef SMIMMEMMERIM P.C. i•,- Tom-, .mad :I I..•::::1;. ') ENGAFF.RING'IANDPIANMNG-PROJELTMANAGF.MF.NT PHONE, (934) 227-5140 Graphic Scale: 1 "= ATTACHMENT B 25 /lA Application Plan for I Avinity Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Residential District Current Revision: January 8. 201 9 Initial: December 12, 20 1 G Revised: May 15, 201 7 Revised: August 7, 2017 Revised: September 17, 2018 Notes: 1) Landscaping shown on this sheet is conceptual. Landscaping and screening on site shall meet all requirements of Section 32.7.9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 2) Parking shall meet the requirements of Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 3) Stormwater management facilities shall be located under the parking area. Stormwater facilities shall not be located in land contributing to the required open space per Sec. 19.6.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Exact location and design of stormwater management facilities shall be determined during site plan review. 4) Building setbacks for this application shall be as shown on this sheet. Setbacks in Note 6) may be modified to accommodate landscaping. 5) Building heights shall be limited to 3 stories. 6) Setbacks: Front: 15' Side adjacent to PRD zone: 5' Side adjacent to low density residential: 10' Rear: 20' 7) 20% of the units built will be designated as affordable for a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy. The units will rent at a rate set by HUD -published Fair Market Rents, making the units affordable to those earning up to 80% of the area median income. The property owner shall maintain records documenting the household income of the occupants of the affordable units; and upon request by the County, the property owner shall provide the County with these records. 8) Large shade trees required to meet landscaping requirements per Section 32.7.9.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance shall be planted outside of the electrical utility easement located at the front of the property. ITE Trip Generation AM PM Use Description I ITE Qty in I out ITotal I in I out Total Apartment 1220124units 1 4 1 10 1 14 1 10 1 7 17 Sheet 4 of G: General Development Plan ZMA201000022 WMPEMMERIM P.C. ENGINF.F.RING-IANDPIANMNG- PROJECT MINA 0—AFM Graphic Scale: 1 "I c "I'" IT. —IT' s FHONF (934) 227-51+0 ATTACHMENT B 25 30 0 30 60 90 ZMA Application Plan for I I Av i n i ty Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI-Re5ldentlal Entrance Corridor D ZONING: Planned Re5ldentlal Di5trlct Current Revl5lon: January 8. 201 9 Initial: December 12, 201 G rr Revi5ed: May 15, 2017 rt Revi5ed: August 7, 20 17 Revised: September 17, 2018 A minimum of 25% Open Space 15 required per Section 19.G. I of the County Zoning Ordinance. Site Area: Open Space Required: Open Space Provided: 39,G40 SF 9,910 5F 1 1,985 5F 2511 Avin ity Dr. Open SpeceAllocedon SF Provided Area Type %of Total Active Recreation Area 3,248 Courtyard 27% Passive Recreation Area 8,737 Lawn/Ped Paths 73% Total Open Space Provided 11,985 Sheet 5 of G: Open Space Exhibit ZMA201G00022 SIWEYUMERIM P.C. I�iYH/t�/d�'7GYiSf,YN]JIIIN/rldW1,10)JUYIf, h1G110%, dYI Graphic Scale: 1 "= oia c wicw si. suiic s FHONM (934) 227-5140 ATTACHMENT B APARTMENT FRONT ELEVATION APARTMENT CONCEPT 2511 AVINITY DRIVE ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA APARTMENT CONCEPT ]S]I hNIM LPIE NflM4&6CftlNIo. HBilIM1 ►', GAINES GROUP Lr.,.e,_- T_1_T. APARTMENT CONCEPT Sil �'AIIIYGN�E wJFniLL1F C- W �-'nF(5 NN (NITS CONCEALED IF WELL ECTURAL SHINGLE PLANK SIDING 'ONE COLOR PALETTE ZAILING )R STONE „, ".,.IR BREEZEWAY "GAINES GROUP 0 iARCHITECTS 7AESGROUP GIN r,kr_H. Tp(=T3 APARTMENT RENDERING LanGscaping sho is conceptual APARTMENT CONCEPT 2511 AVINIIY DRIVE ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Avinity Drive TMP 09000-00-00-035LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Residential District Current Revision: February 22, 20 19 Initial: December 12, 201IS Revised: May 15, 201 7 Revl5ed: August 7, 2017 Revised: September 17, 2018 Revised: Janauary 8, 2019 ►',GAIN€S GROUP 0C,IIARCHITECTS Sheet G of G: Architectural Elevation ZMA201000022 SHIM IFNRMEj?1NG, P.C. ENGF F.RING-JANDPJAN"G-PROJELTMANAGF.MF.NT 912 E HIGH SM SJiTE A PNONE'(�3IJ S1T-StIO =..a.oTTESVILLE. VA—M A CHUnT B SHIMPROJECTP MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING' Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning & Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 August 14, 2018 Revised Exhibits: February 28, 2019 Regarding: ZMA201600022 — 2511 Avinity Drive PRD Open Space Requirements Dear Ms. McCulley & Ms. Echols, In the pursuit of our rezoning request ZMA2016-00022, a request to rezone .91 acre located at TMP 90-35L with a physical address of 2511 Avinity Drive from R-1 Residential to PRD, we want to clarify how the design of our development achieves the character of a PRD, specifically in regards to the intent of the open space requirements, despite not meeting the minimum three (3) acre area requirement per §19.5.1. To remain consistent with open space requirements outlined for PRD zoning districts in §19.6 of the Albemarle County Code, our design proposal dedicates at minimum 25% of the land area of the site to common open space. TMP 90-35L is approximately 39,639 SF; to meet the 25% open space requirements 9,910 SF of common open space would need to be dedicated. Our design proposal provides 11,985 SF of open space, exceeding the 25% minimum requirement. §4.7(c)3 of Albemarle County Code states that not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i) land located within the one -hundred year floodplain, (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) critical or preserved slopes, and (iv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices. Given the PRD land area requirements of three (3) acres, 80 percent of the required open space for a PRD could be dedicated to land that may not be entirely usable or accessible by residents. For the purposes of this letter, usable open space means open space where residents can engage in recreational activities on land that is not considered prone to flooding and is not designated as fragile terrain. For a 3 acre PRD site, .75 acre is required to be designated as open space to meet the open space requirements. Of this .75 acre, .6 acre could be within the one -hundred year floodplain, subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding, designated as critical or preserved slopes, or devoted to stormwater management facilities, leaving .15 acre, or 6,534 SF, for usable, accessible recreation space. The open space provided at 2511 Avinity Drive is nearly double the square footage of the minimum usable square footage of a conforming three (3) acre PRD, despite the land area of 2511 Avinity Drive (.91 acre) being less than a third of the land area of a conforming PRD. The proposed open space at 2511 Avinity Drive is not located within the one -hundred year floodplain, subject to ATTACHMENT C occasional, common or frequent flooding, designated as critical or preserved slopes, or devoted to stormwater management facilities. The open space design proposal at 2511 Avinity Drive exceeds the 25%open space requirement and provides usable open space for residents of the 24 unit development. A more formal courtyard area situated between the two residential buildings will provide residents with the opportunity to sit in the shade of a sitting garden, enjoy lawn games in a designated area that is sufficient in size for corn hole or a small bocce ball court, and stroll along the pedestrian paths around the perimeter of the courtyard. The lawn game area of the courtyard will provide residents the opportunity to engage in active recreation. The remainder of the land area contributing to the open space calculation is largely dedicated to passive recreation and features pedestrian paths and landscaping features to contribute to an enjoyable experience for residents utilizing the interconnected pedestrian paths throughout the development. Included with this letter are two open space exhibits of the site, one showing the open space area calculation for the requested PRD and one showing the proposed courtyard design for the requested PRD. Thank you for your time in reviewing our open space justification for a PRD district at 2511 Avinity Drive. If you have any questions or would like to speak further about this matter please reach out at a time that is convenient for you. Respectfully, Kelsey Schlein ATTACHMENT C Attachments: Open Space Exhibits dated August 14, 2018 ATTACHMENT C 25 1 1 AVINITY DRIVE: Courtyard Exhibit 0.91 ACRE SITE 10 0 10 3,248 5F Courtyard August 14, 2018 SCALE: 1"=10' 20 30 ATTACHMENT C 0.91 ACRE SITE 'u " 'u b1 &U 1 1,985 5F Open Space Provided August 14, 2018 SCALE: 1 ATTACHMENT C STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Megan Nedostup March 19, 2019 TBD Staff Report for Special Exception to modify the minimum area required for establishment of a district for Planned Residential Development. The applicant is requesting to modify the acreage requirement for Planned Residential Development zoning district. The minimum acreage required for the establishment of the district is three (3) acres and the proposed rezoning parcel is 0.9 acres. County Code § 18-8.2(b) permits any planned district regulation to be modified or waived by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.43 through 18-33.51. Staff analysis for County Code § 18-8.2(b)(3) is provided below: 3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26, or 32, a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found: No modifications or waivers are requested under sections 4, 5, 21, 26, or 32. to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8; Staff has reviewed the intent and purposes of the Planned Residential Development District and found the proposal to be consistent with the purposes including the density, economical and efficient land use, and flexibility for a variety of development for residential types in this area. to be consistent with planned development design principles; The application has been reviewed under the Neighborhood Model Principles and has been found to meet those principles. iii. that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare; Staff has found that the public health, safety, and general welfare will be maintained. iv. in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. The parcel is adjacent to an existing PRD, Avinity, and staff finds that the acreage requirement in this location is less important than the design of the site/development and the provision of a different housing type for this area of the County. The development will contain a courtyard, sidewalks for its residents to walk, is located within 500 feet of Cale Elementary School, and is approximately a mile from the future Biscuit Run Park. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The special exception shall include elements depicted on the exhibits entitled "Open Space Exhibit' and "Courtyard Exhibit' prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated August 14, 2018. ATTACHMENT D This document prepared by and when recorded return to: Williams Mullen, P.C. 321 E. Main Street, 0 floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Mary Katherine McGetrick, Esq. #47084 Tax Parcel Nos. 091AO-00-00-000AO and 09000-00-00-035LO DEED OF EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT (this "Agreement') dated as of May 3 Isr 2018 (the `Effective Date"), by and between AVON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Grantor") to be indexed as grantor, and JAMES R. MOSS (the "Grantee") to be indexed as grantee, recites and provides as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Albemarle County, Virginia, having approximately 1.7 acres, and being more specifically identified as County tax parcel number 091 AO-00-00-000AO (the "Grantor Property"). WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property located in Albemarle County, Virginia, having approximately 0.91 acre, with an address of 2511 Avinity Drive, and being more specifically identified as County tax parcel number 09000-00-00-035LO (the "Grantee Property"). WHEREAS, Grantee desires to obtain an easement for access over and through a portion of the Grantor Property as described herein for ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property for the purposes and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, Grantor desires to grant said easement for access over and through the Grantor Property as hereinafter provided and subject to the terms and conditions hereof. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which shall constitute a part of this Agreement, and the following mutual promises, agreements and undertakings, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: Access Easement. 1.1 Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, Grantor does hereby grant and convey to Grantee, a perpetual, non-public, non-exclusive easement on the Grantor Property for the benefit of and appurtenant to the Grantee Property (together with Grantee and its successors in title) across, along, on, over and through the Grantor Property from the northern ATTACHMENT E boundary of the Grantee Property to the connection point on Avinity Drive, for purposes of ingress and egress from Grantee Property over and across Avinity Drive to Avon Street Extended, a public right of way (the "Easement Area"), for vehicular and pedestrian travel, and ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property ("Access Easement"). This Access Easement shall be non-public and shall not be dedicated to public use. The Access Easement is shown as "120' Access Easement to Benefit TMP 90-35L" on that certain Plat titled "Subdivision Plat, Avinity, Phase I, Lots 27 thru 93," dated February 9, 2011, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and recorded in Deed Book 4018, page 497. 1.2 The easements, rights of use and access and covenants created herein are (i) expressly made subject to such recorded conditions, restrictions, easements and reservations and such other matters of record as may lawfully apply to the Grantor Property, and (ii) not for the benefit of the general public, but only for the benefit of Grantee, its successors in title, and only that property shown as TM 90 P 35L on the approved application plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Grantor's Reservation of Ri ts. Grantor for itself and its successors, assigns, employees, agents, contractors, servants, licensees, customers, affiliates, parent, invitees or guests hereby reserves all rights to the Grantor Property not inconsistent with the rights of use and access and covenants created herein. 3. Captions and Headings. The captions and headings contained in this Agreement are included herein for the convenience of reference only and shall not be construed to limit or enlarge the terms hereof or otherwise affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 4. Invalidation. The invalidation of any provision of this Agreement by judgment, court order, legislative mandate or a finding that such provision is illegal, invalid or unenforceable shall in no way affect any other provision hereof, and all other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Waiver. Waiver by any party of a breach of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or provision hereof. 6. Modifications. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified unless in writing by the parties hereto. 7. Governing Law. The parties hereto agree that all matters of construction and interpretation with regard to this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signature Pages Follow] 2 ATTACHMENT E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has placed its signature and seal on this Agreement as of the date and year first written above pursuant to all necessary authority. GRANTOR: AVON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited Liability coi}tany n _ By: �J Name: Title: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) ) TO -WIT CITY/COUNTY OF Q)no "cb6j jea The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, Moh5m'(Y .MCD04c+R.Ci Notary Public, this 33 �s� day of %LLA.4 , 2018, by jArAy_4Aj j .7ond vp as V�V_- wp ,dm'P- of Avon Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, who is personally known to me, on behalf of the �company. ��% t t-- Notary Public 36263530_2 Registration Number: My commission expires: < Notary Seal 3 1�1o1­.pAarlowe Vic.,, NOTARY o g ? PUBLIC '•_ y' REG. #7633624 n c7 My COMMISSION: Q g •.• EXPIRES �yFq CTH OF ,,O ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A APPROVED APPLICATION PLAN FOR AVINITY 0 ATTACHMENT AIINIAV of gee$ ATTACHMENT Prepared by: Frederick W. Payne (VSB #14185) Payne & Hodous, LLP 414 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 C (10) - Tax Map Parcel ID No.: 09000-00-00-035A0, 09000-00-00-035LO DEED OF EASEMENT (for Construction, Landscaping & Grading and for emergency vehicle access) THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made as ofthis _!� day of w1ftRLj, 2019, by and between JERRY W. MOSS, SR., AND LAURA J. MOSS, husband and wife, hereinafter collectively Grantor, and JAMES R. MOSS, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Albemarle County, Virginia, identified by Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 09000-00-00-035A0, and described as all that certain tract or parcel of land, situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, on the east side of State Route 742, containing 0.895 acres, more or less, as shown and more particularly described on a plat dated September 22, 1978, of record in the Clerk's Office of Albemarle County in Deed Book 780, page 85; and being the same property conveyed to the Grantor by deed of Laura J. Moss, dated March 28, 2003, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2431, page 496; and WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of that certain real property (hereinafter the "Grantee Property"), identified by Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 09000-00-00-035L0, and described as all that certain lot or parcel of land, with improvements thereon, lying and being situate in Albemarle County, Virginia, shown as Lot 4, Tax Map 90, Parcel 35L, containing 0.9101 acres, as shown on a plat by Gary M. Whelan, Land Surveyor, dated July 12, 2000, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1942, page 341; being the same property conveyed to Grantee by deed of Laura Jean Moss, dated January 15, 2014, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 4454, page 577; and 1 ATTACHMENT F WHEREAS, for the purposes of redeveloping the Grantee Property, Grantee desires an easement for temporary construction, landscaping, and grading and for emergency vehicle access across portions of the Grantor Property; and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to convey to Grantee such easement on such portions of the Grantor Property that are within the hatched area (hereinafter the "Easement Area") shown on that certain plat prepared by Shimp Engineering PC, dated January 3, 2019, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Easement Plat"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement over the Easement Area (the "Easement"), on the following terms and conditions. Reference is made to the Easement Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the Easement Area as it crosses the Grantor Property. 1. The Easement is for Grantee's use in connection with its construction and development activities on the Grantee Property. Specifically, the Easement is for the construction activities related to the development of the Grantee Property, including minor grading, regrading, sloping, resloping, contouring or recontouring and landscaping of those portions of the Easement Area as necessary for the aforesaid construction and development activities, as well as for access for fire and other emergency vehicles to the Grantee Property. 2. Grantee and its employees, agents, contractors, successors and assigns shall have full and free use of the Easement Area for the purposes named herein and shall have all rights and privileges reasonably necessary for the exercise of this Easement. 3. Grantee shall, at its sole cost and expense, be responsible for any maintenance or repair required to the Easement Area as a result of the work performed by or at the direction of Grantee and shall otherwise maintain the Easement Area in a good state of repair and in a safe and orderly condition. 4. Upon completion of the work within the Easement Area, Grantee, at its sole expense, shall (a) remove all of its construction and associated debris generated by or at the 2 ATTACHMENT F direction of Grantee during the construction period, (b) restore the Easement Area to as close to its original condition as is reasonably possible under the terms of this Deed of Easement, as applicable, and (c) continue to maintain the easement so that it is safe and convenient for emergency vehicles at all times except in severe temporary weather conditions. 5. This Easement and any rights hereunder shall be appurtenant to and shall run with the Grantee Property. 6. Grantee shall indemnify, and hold Grantor harmless from any and all liability, loss or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from or in any way connected with the use of the Easement by Grantee, its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Grantee shall not indemnify or hold Grantor harmless from any liability, loss or damages arising out of or resulting from or in any way connected with the negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor or its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) Y MOSS, SR. a— , 1„04� (SEAL) �1URA J. MOSS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF -j2i1 1j.e Ma. (a ,_, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -5— day of nj N 20L by JERRY W. MOSS, SR., and LAURA J. MOSS. aac My commission expires: (D ( 3 0 1 2t, L N KIN Notbr4j-Registration No.: =Notary BALLAD lict Virginia 3 s 08/30/2022 ATTACHMENT EMmTA ----- -- -- -- -- -- -- �a er----g | R��/ , /§!� p' c; \ ( §§ ) / ))2 §\ $ %;|S 4 — — — — /$ Ml,m , •E� in -§69 ®/ i %! ■ | , 2 k°; E mom} ' _j 0mk--------= aaoz \--- 2/£ _ 'S g\ . RR( cn z \ § _® A ff§o�\j }� , — #:• gf� /\� }) i yi )\; )§f c ATTACHMENT COUNTY OF 0 Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434)296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 9, 2018 Justin Shimp C/O Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA201600022 Moss (2511 Avinity Drive) Dear Mr. Shimp, The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 2018, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors with the reasons and conditions as stated in the staff report and recommend that the applicant increase the fence height from six feet to eight feet on the eastern side of the parking lot and make the most southern portion of the fence a solid material. In addition, the Planning Commission recommend approval, by a vote of 6:0 of Special Exception request special exception to allow the minimum area required for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development from three (3) acres to 0.9 acres for the reasons stated in the staff report and the following condition: 1. The special exception shall include elements depicted on the exhibits entitled "Open Space Exhibit' and "Courtyard Exhibit' prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated August 14, 2018. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. S ,incere'r Megan Principal Planner Planning Division Ms. Banton called the roll. The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Spain absent). Mr. Keller thanked the applicant and said the item would be moving on to the Board of Supervisors. ZMA201600022 Moss (2511 Avinity Drivel Ms. Megan Nedostup introduced herself and said she would be going through the staff report. She said that with the exception of Mr. Bivins, all other Commissioners had been present at the last Planning Commission meeting where this proposal had been discussed. She said her presentation would be short and if Commissioners had any additional questions to cover, she would have extra slides at the end of the presentation to go through. Ms. Nedostup said the proposal was one to rezone from R-1 to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and that a public hearing was held on September 26, 2017 and was deferred by the applicant at that time to address nine issues that were identified in the staff report. Ms. Nedostup showed an image to orient the Commission on the location, which was located along Avon Street Extended next to Avinity and by Cale Elementary School. She then displayed the plan that had been submitted and reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting in September 2017. She said that not a lot had changed in terms of design. Ms. Nedostup said the two buildings and the parking area were roughly in the same location. She said there had been added additional pedestrian facilities and the parking had been modified and the courtyard had been extended. Ms. Nedostup said the applicant had addressed several of the issues that were identified at the last planning Commission meeting to staffs satisfaction, as was outlined in the staff report. She said that one of the significant issues identified and addressed included access to the site from Avinity Drive. Ms. Nedostup said at the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer had not demonstrated that they had adequate access but since then they had worked with the adjacent property owner and obtained access. She said there had been a lack of information and justification provided at the last meeting for the reduction request for the Planned Resident Development. She stated there was a minimum of three acres and the developer wanted to reduce that to 0.9 acres. Ms. Nedostup said the developer had submitted additional information that demonstrated 25 percent open space onsite, including the courtyard and pedestrian circulations throughout the site. She said staff was satisfied and could support that request. _33_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 Ms. Nedostup said another issue had been the lack of detail regarding affordable housing. She said the applicant did provide language on the application plan to address the concern of 20 percent, and staff had found that the language met the policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Nedostup said that due to the applicant's response and ability to address the issues, staff was recommending approval of the rezoning and in addition to the rezoning request, there was a request for a special exception for the reduction in the required PRD acreage from 3 acres to 0.9 acres. She said a detailed analysis of this request was provided in Attachment D. Ms. Nedostup offered to answer questions. Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Justin Shimp introduced himself as the engineer for the project. He noted that some time had passed since the application was last before the Planning Commission, when all Commissioners except one had been present. He said he would give a quick run-through of the application to highlight changes and would report on the interactions with the neighbors. Mr. Shimp displayed an image of the subject house and noted that the built Avinity neighborhood was in the background. He then displayed an aerial photo that showed the scale of the development relative what had been built, pointing out that a lot of the development that had been built was phase 2. Mr. Shimp said the adjacent lot was owned by Mr. Jason Moss, who was present at the meeting. Mr. Shimp said Mr. Moss had lived for about 30 years in a house that was displayed on the screen. Mr. Shimp said it was an interesting situation where the development had happened all around them and the Mosses had come back with their own piece to redevelop. Mr. Shimp said this was one of the rare times this had happened in his career. Mr. Shimp showed another image, which he said depicted an attempt to show the buildings were being made at scale that was similar to what had been built around it. He said the difference was that the newer buildings were multifamily buildings so there would be more people in smaller spaces, but the size of the buildings was equivalent to a three -unit townhouse and a seven -unit townhouse if it were built to what was normally within Avinity. Mr. Shimp said the property was about one acre and had an existing house in the middle. He said there was a driveway that was built as part of the Avinity neighborhood. He said this driveway was the main reason why it had taken the application 18 months to get back to the Planning Commission. He noted that the driveway was due to foresight from a prior Planning Commission in 2006 that had put a condition on the application plan for Avinity that inter - parcel connections be provided, and it ultimately ended up happening with the easement. Mr. Shimp said someone had been thinking ahead because the Avinity driveway used to be in one location and there was an easement. However, he said when a new entrance was built to _3y_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 the approved PRD, there was a lack of coordination on the site plan but it had been caught by the Planning Commission and had been attached to the zoning, and that had made it a legally binding requirement so that was how access to the subject property had been granted. Mr. Shimp displayed the site plan and said there had been a lot of details in the plan. Mr. Shimp said that PRD and Planned Unit Development applications normally spoke to a suburban construct, so the 25 percent open space requirement, some people might think that would mean preserved trees. However, Mr. Shimp asked what would be done with a 1-acre infill site. He said there was really not a good zoning ordinance for that in Albemarle, so the request was for a PRD with a request for a special exception to go from 3 acres to 1 acre. He said they had demonstrated via detail in the plan that there was sufficient amenity area for the residents. Mr. Shimp said that in this case, pretty much all of the 25 percent was usable space, whereas many times there would be trees that were nice but not an actual amenity area. Mr. Shimp said all of the space at Avinity was usable for different functions, with a courtyard with a landscaped lawn game area and another grass area to walk dogs. Mr. Shimp showed an image of the street to give an idea of the missing piece in what was otherwise developed as an urban form. He showed a photo of the Sam Craig units being built along Avon Street. Mr. Shimp said his firm modeled the architectural requirements after those units. He said another of the confusing aspects of this had been that Avon Street used to be an entrance corridor. He said the developer had said they did not need to do an architectural proffer because the ARB would require a comparable design. However, Mr. Shimp said that had ceased to be the case, so his client had hired an architect to produce a rendering for the proffer which picked up the detail of the Craig units so that in construction they would look similar. He said that had been one of the questions from the staff and the neighbors. Mr. Shimp said this would be a different product from what was around, but he said he thought that they have demonstrated that the scale and design was compatible. Mr. Shimp presented an illustration showing that the Craig units were three stories with a roof top, and he noted that the Avinity Moss units would be three stories with a low hip roof and a very similar look. Mr. Shimp said he did not have traffic numbers but there was only a very minimal increase and that was determined to be adequate. Mr. Shimp said that because the application had been deferred for so long, there had been a neighborhood meeting two and a half years ago. He said the neighborhood had changed and people had moved in and out. Mr. Shimp said they held another neighborhood meeting a few nights ago and he said he thought some people were relieved to see some of the architectural renderings and that there was compatibility. He said those were some of the questions that they answered. Mr. Shimp said one small item was brought up at the neighborhood meeting that he was willing to address and keep working on between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting. He stated _35_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 that the plan had a required screening fence on the back of the property, which was required by the ordinance to be six feet. Mr. Shimp said the adjacent neighbors had noted that at one point the PRD had been intended for higher intensity than the single house. He said that development would have required an eight -foot screening fence, and he had agreed to match that height -- which would be clarified in the final application plan. Mr. Shimp pointed to an image of a house that he said would have the potential of light shining in from the parking lot. He said they would agree to provide a solid fence at that portion of the land to provide a little extra screening. Mr. Shimp said another item that came up at the neighborhood meeting was the potential for people from this development to stroll over to Avinity and use their clubhouse, patio and dog park. He said because this development would be a rental community, the owner had offered to put in a condition that if residents were to go over and use those, that would be grounds to be removed. However, he said the preference was that this new development would join the Avinity Home Owners Association. Mr. Shimp said they would send them a letter. Mr. Shimp said that had nothing to do with the zoning question, but he wanted the Planning Commission to know they would submit a letter offering a contribution to the maintenance of the road, which was currently free to the owner in exchange for an opportunity to buy into the HOA so that people who lived in the new development could use those amenities and it could be one community. He said that in the context of Avinity, a product that was really missing was small apartment buildings with 20 percent affordable units, and that would be five affordable units. He noted that this would fill in the piece. Mr. Shimp said he felt remaining items could be resolved from a zoning and application plan standpoint, and a few minor tweaks with the fencing detail would move this forward. Mr. Keller asked Commissioners if there were any questions for Mr. Shimp. Ms. Riley stated that Mr. Shimp would match the eight feet and asked if there was any vegetation or any other screening beyond the fence. Mr. Shimp responded that it would just be a fence on that side. Ms. Riley asked how close the Avinity fence was to the fence. She asked if it were correct that they were not close. Mr. Shimp responded that they were pretty close and that it would need coordination. He said that the site plan for the adjacent property required them to put a fence up, and now he was required to put up a fence, so there would be competing fences. _36_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 Ms. Riley asked how much space would be between the fences. Mr. Shimp said it could be as little as a foot. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Shimp if that was something he was hoping to work out with the HOA. Mr. Shimp responded that he would work with staff on the fencing issue and tweak the application plan to clarify that. He said it was a neighbor to neighbor issue where the ordinance required one person to build a fence and the ordinance required another person to build a fence, and they just needed to do that in a reasonable way. He said it was a maintenance issue but that they didn't want there to be an odd space that got overgrown with weeds or wildlife. Mr. Keller asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Bivins asked if there were any members of the audience who wanted to speak to the issue. Mr. Paul McArter of 2012 Avinity Loop introduced himself and said he had spoken to the Commission several times before. He said he had three things he wanted to state that were concerns on his behalf. He said one of them had already been alluded to working on, which was the spillover in to Avinity. He said some of Avinity's amenities like the clubhouse were behind lock and key and were not necessarily a concern -- but sidewalks, lawns, the dog park, doggie bags, a future playground and several things like that were concerns from both a wear -and -tear and liability perspective. Mr. McArter said that one thing Mr. Dotson had mentioned last time was that you drive past the Avinity sign to get to this place, and obviously anything on the other side of that sign would be part of Avinity. Mr. McArter said they he was happy to hear they were discussing the possibility of joining the HOA. He said Avinity was developer run and that would mean some stuff was outside of the homeowner's control. He wanted to make sure those issues were brought up and that it was nice to hear there was something to work with. Mr. McArter said the second item was the change to the entrance corridor rules. He said one of the concerns he had was that the developer for Avinity II made promises up front about what it would look like when done, but now the county had lost the oversight control as an Entrance Corridor. He said if there was a mechanism to make sure that this development was actually built like what they recommended, that would relieve some concerns for residents. Mr. McArter said the third item was not specific to the project but was about Avon Street Extended as a whole. He said that Cale Elementary School was getting very overwhelmed by all of the new developments that were going in. He said that adding this with the two bedrooms, which would lend themselves to an additional child, added to concerns about Cale getting more people given to them in a very short period of time. _37_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 Ms. Cara Cavanaugh at 2144 Avinity Loop said that she appreciated the neighborhood meeting and that a lot of her questions and concerns had been answered. She said she just wanted to touch on a few things to make them public record. She said that Mr. McArter had mentioned the need for assurance that the design piece was what they would see when it was built. She said that based on the new changes, she appreciated the design cues that were taken from the Craig buildings. She said she hoped that along with the landscaping would actually be done. Ms. Cavanaugh said she could not say that on other developments within that property. She said she had been told that because one was residential, and one was site plan, but she was now being told that was not necessarily true and the oversight might not be there. Ms. Cavanaugh said her second piece was the maintenance and the property management and the tenant management. She said she was all for affordable housing and apartments. She said she lived in apartments for 18 years. However, she said that in the residence that was currently on the property, there was a violent sex offender living right next to Cale Elementary School, and she was very concerned that there was no vetting process for tenants at this location. She said as someone who had to apply for apartments for 18 years, that was always part of it -- and she was hoping that there could be some sort of assurance with the owner that there could be something built in. She said the bus stop was right on the corner there, and the victim of the sex offender was 11 years old. Ms. Cavanaugh thanked Mr. Shimp for the work he had done to educate the neighbors. Ms. Marty Power of 2084 Avinity Loop said she was the owner of the town home right next to the development. She said she appreciated what Shimp Engineering had done to come over and talk to the neighborhood. She said her biggest concern was the fence and she wanted to go on record to support what Mr. Shimp was proposing with an eight- or nine -foot fence that was closed so that headlights do not come into her house. Ms. Power said the other concern she had was that the first time that they saw the proposal, a dumpster had been located next to her backyard. She said she wanted some assurances that the dumpster would stay where it was and would not be pulled over to the right next to her backyard. She said she was concerned about the odor and other things. Ms. Power said she welcomed the development and looked forward to the opportunities the new residents would have if they could be part of the HOA. She said having that kind of development in the neighborhood could definitely make a difference. Mr. Keller asked the applicant back to answer questions. Mr. Shimp said he had two clarification to make based on the comments. He said sheet 6 in the application plan was the rendering of the buildings. He said the way the staff had the application up; those renderings were proffered. He said even though the application was not within the ARB's jurisdiction, the developer had to build in accordance with the design that was in the record. He said the folks who had spoken to that issue could know that what had been presented to them was what the county will be required to enforce. He said zoning staff would make sure that the building was built that way. _3g_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 Mr. Shimp said the other clarification related to the dumpster and said it was the same sort of issue. He said because there was connectivity with the road and the emergency access as a main function, the dumpster being where it was located would not be a lot of change. He said there was a lockdown with the application plan, which was a very specific application plan but a small site. He said for those two items, people could be assured they were locked down. Ms. Riley asked about the offer made to build an eight -foot fence in the back portion adjacent to a homeowner's parcel and if it would be solid. Mr. Shimp said that would be something that could be added to the recommendations, and he would tweak the application before it went to the Board of Supervisors to explicitly state that. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Shimp to state the number of affordable units that would be considered at the development. Mr. Shimp responded that it would be 5 units or 20 percent. Mr. Bivins asked what that would be five units if there were 42 units. Mr. Shimp said there were 24 units in the whole development. Mr. Bivins said that given the desire for affordability, he wondered if there was flexibility to designate handicapped spaces or if that was locked in. Mr. Shimp responded that there was a requirement for a number of accessible parking spaces based on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) codes, and there were two such spaces for this project. He said that the plans might not show them, but they were intended to be there. He said the requirement was one per 25 units, and regardless of what was shown on the plan, there would have to be two spaces. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Shimp if he would fix it. Mr. Shimp responded he would. Mr. Shimp said the county's system did not require all units on the first floor to be accessible units that were also affordable. He said it would be good practice to do so because people who received housing voucher assistance could get into those units, but it was not something that was required and was instead left up to the developer and the builder. Ms. Riley asked for further clarification about the mix of units within the development and how long the term would be for a commitment to keeping the affordable units affordable. Mr. Shimp said the mix would be 18 two -bedroom and six one -bedroom units, and the affordable units would likely follow that same ratio. He said there was a different price point set _39_ Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 for the affordable units so there would probably be a diversity of units as well, and the term of affordability would be 10 years. Ms. Riley said she was assuming that was within the county's policy. Ms. Nedostup confirmed this. Mr. Dotson said that regarding the woman who lived in the unit directly opposite and closest to the parking lot who had talked about the wall, it seemed that Mr. Shimp was willing to build an eight -foot or nine -foot fence. He suggested that Mr. Shimp do a mock-up of the fence to show what eight feet would look like and what nine feet would like. He said that more was not necessarily better, and it could become something that instead of protecting would become an intrusion in its own right. Mr. Shimp said the fence would be eight feet and would match the fence that was there. He said there was actually an eight -foot fence along there now and he wanted to make sure it matched. He said there was some coordination that had to happen but he would stay on top of it, and neighbors were happy with what that height. Mr. Shimp said he agreed that it could be intimidating if a neighbor did not know how it would be sitting next to the house. Mr. Keller asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Commission for discussion and action. Ms. Firehock commented that she was fine with a little less open space, but she did not want to set a precedent that sidewalks would count toward the open space calculation. She said she expected to see sidewalks in a quality development. She said she would like to have open space be something that actually had a different purpose than simply walking through the development, and the sidewalk was not a trail. Ms. Riley said she had heard the applicant say he was amenable to doing an eight -foot fence with solid material and that Mr. Shimp had said they could make that a recommendation. She said sometimes the Commission made conditions and sometimes just made recommendations, and she asked Mr. Herrick if a recommendation would be binding. Mr. Herrick said it would not be binding and that anything that would be binding would need to be made a condition of the recommendation. Ms. Riley said she was struggling because there needed to be further discussion between the neighbors, and she did not want to bind them into an outcome that the neighbor and the applicant might want to change later because there was an improved design. She said the Commission had made recommendations in the past and generally felt that applicants would follow through on them and do the negotiations with those neighbors before an item went to -ao- Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 the Board of Supervisors. She said she was open to that process and wondered what other Commissioners thought. Mr. Bivins said there were several things he thought the Commission was leaning toward. He said the applicant had said they would like to join the HOA, and HOAs typically had owners who would say yes or no at some point as to whether or not they could join. Mr. Bivins said it was in the applicant's interest to do what they said they would do -- otherwise the other half of the desire probably wouldn't get fulfilled. He said he did not think the applicant wanted to create an environment where there were harsh feelings, and he would help support the applicant's desire to join the HOA. Mr. Keller said the Commission was interested in connectivity and asked if there was a mechanism whereby the redundant fence could still be required in case the other fence came down. He said it seemed like these should be resources that could be spent on something else rather than on a redundant fence. Ms. Nedostup said if the fence was shown on the site plan and there was a desire to remove the fence because of the parking along the residential neighbor, the ordinance required screening of the parking. Mr. Keller asked if that meant there could be a vegetative fence that could go next to the physical fence. Ms. Nedostup responded that she did not know from the application plan where the existing fence was to determine if there was enough room to put in vegetation on one side or the other, and that might require an easement. Mr. Keller pointed out that Ms. McCulley had kept a list of zoning items to fix and suggested it would be appropriate for Ms. Nedostup to add the fence to a similar list of items to fix if they started seeing more of these fences. He said there should be ways to come up with not doing something that was not necessary, but at the same time there could be a protection that if the other fence went away, this one would remain. He said if the HOA agreement were to fall apart in 10 years, there would still be a responsibility. Ms. Nedostup said if the fence were a requirement of the site plan, it would be a site plan violation and they would need to replace the screening. Mr. Keller said he was trying to find a way to take the redundancy out because the Commission was trying to align circulation. He said it seemed to him that they really didn't want to create a redundancy of dueling fences. Mr. Herrick said he thought Mr. Keller's point was well taken, but it was an administrative site plan issue rather than a rezoning issue. He said there was a ZMA before the Commission, and -41- Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes - 3-19-19 the fence issue was really something that would be addressed with a site plan regulation rather than a rezoning. Mr. Keller said he was just asking if it could be something to put on the list for items to think about. Mr. Herrick said he understood. Mr. Keller said he had not heard of a double fence in the years he had been on the Commission and was wondering if it would come up again with more infill development. He said he was not suggesting the fence be addressed in the rezoning. Ms. Nedostup said staff would take a closer look at the site plan if the neighbors were amenable to having vegetation instead of a fence because the regulations did allow that distinction. Mr. Keller said that might be more effective in terms of the car lights. Ms. Riley said she was prepared to make a motion. Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2016-22, 2511 Avinity Drive, for the reasons stated in the staff report, and she recommended that the applicant increase the fence height from six to eight feet on the eastern side of the parking lot and make the southernmost portion of the force a solid material. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Herrick if he was comfortable with the modification. Mr. Herrick responded that he was if it was the will of the Planning Commission, adding that the Planning Commission spoke through approved motions. Mr. Dotson noted that there was no reference to any of the attached exhibits and asked if they were needed. Ms. Nedostup said the approval for the ZMA was with the application plan, so there was no need to make a reference. Mr. Herrick said that was correct and it was a rezoning and not a special use permit. Ms. More asked for clarification that the recommendation as it was presented in the motion would still allow for the possibility of a double wall to be reconsidered in the site plan process. -42- Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes - 3-19-19 Mr. Herrick said if the motion were adopted, that would be the recommendation of the Planning Commission. However, he said that staff's review of the site plan would be governed by the site plan ordinance. Mr. Keller said they had heard that the vegetative fence could be an alternative. Mr. Keller said they had heard a second. He asked for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for the roll. The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Ms. Spain was absent from the meeting and the vote). Mr. Keller thanked staff. Ms. Nedostup said there was also a motion for the special exception. Ms. Riley made a motion to recommend approval of the requested special exception to allow the minimum area required for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development from 3 acres to 0.9 acres for the reasons listed in the staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Ms. Spain was absent from the meeting and the vote). Mr. Keller thanked staff and the applicant and said the project would move on to the Board of Supervisors. Regular Item - 2018 Planning Commission Annual Report Mr. Keller said they still had to hear the Planning Commission's annual report and an update on proffers from Mr. Herrick and asked the Commission if they were willing to proceed on both. Ms. Firehock said she had a sick relative who was waiting to be picked up and taken home and thus would not be present for the proffer presentation, but she had previously done a lot of work on proffers. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Herrick how long the proffer presentation would be. Mr. Herrick responded that he would plan for no more than 10 minutes but was also happy to take questions. Ms. Firehock withdrew her concern as long as the presentation didn't take an hour and a half. 43 Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Meeting Minutes — 3-19-19 managed slopes III. Avinity Drive 60' private right-of-way ------------ 96 Area / Proposed Density Summary: Square Ft. Acreage Percentage Total Site Area: 39,G40 0.910 100.0 % Proposed Open Space Area': 1 1,955 0.275 30 % A minimum of 25% Open Space is required per Section 19.G. I of the County Zoning Ordinance See Sheet 5 Exhibit for location of Open Space. Current Residential Density: I dwelling unit / 0.9 10 acres = I. I DUA Proposed Residential Density: 24 dwelling units / 0.9 10 acres = 2G.4 DUA ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Avinity Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Residential District Current Revision: April 18. 201 9 Initial: December 12, 20 1 G Revised: May 15, 2017 Revised: August 7, 2017 Revised: September 17, 2018 Revised: January 8,20 19 nity PRD u� — I --p��served [� slopes - 1 --------- N Sheet I of G: Overview Exhibit ZMA201000022 AWMPENGINEERING, P.C. 100 0 100 200 300 EyGINF.F.RING-IANDPIANMNG-PROJELTMANAGF.MENT oia c wicw si suix a FHONM (934) 227-5140 Graphic Scale: 1 "=100' ON.a�,.EeVwLLE. 0. 22202 RNr 7/1 Zi "' I SUNH.1ID r 69(OM' 1 C(RnMS WAS 711 l ) �� VA 14 w Y'S NP IIEWWS S OY M1 NA1 VA RF SUBIEC Vflp�[AIY UIS WITHIN HV0 R" x / (NOT A fL000 NAI/RD AREA) i.u. 91 PAR. 14 1790 er SS i 9 LOT 4 6 T.Y. 90 PAR. 35L D.B. 382 P. 102 0.9101 AC. a .A i 11 • = I UIT S '- 1y i I 1 I _.—_— M T'00'CO' C ea `aNRm � WNr 1 ST. RT. 742:i AVON STREET EXTENDED PUT SNOWING PHYSICAL SURVEY PARCEL 35L ON h. I413 TAX MAP 90 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA .` SCALE: 1' = 40' JULY 12. 2000 ' 'uoqa o mra+ u Caryl /. fte[an CA nlsift v U,, /5'ryinio 14111111 G-a Book: IM Pape: 339 FOaNumber: 200040010053 Seq:3 Recorded Plat for Parcel 09000-00-00-035LO 80 0 80 160 Graphic Scale: 1 "= ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Av i n i ty Drive TM P 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Re5ldential District Current Revi5lon: April 18. 20 19 Initial: December 12, 201 S Revised: May 15, 2017 7, 2017 7, 2018 8, 2019 This map is a portion of"Figure 8: Southern Urban Area Neighborhood Future Land Use Plan" found in Chapter 4: Future Land Use ofthe Albemarle County Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan . Graphic SW le: 1 inch =1,000 feet )f G : Regional Context Exhibit ZMA201000022 SIIIMPENGINEEWV6 PACe FAY0/d/00111A K,11//7JJ/INrool/r/ 912 E HIGH ST SUIM A : (.].) Y — a CNARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 JUSTINOSNIMP—ENGINEERING.=M ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Avinity Drive TMP 09000-00-00-03 5 LO k ...:::.::.:..:..:..:..:.. ..t•. 0.9 10 Acres •., I CU ENT ZONING• I eside teal RR R R n �.�. tl . •. Entrance Corridor. rI . PROPOSED ZONING: Pla ed elide teal District nn n ( R R a I �. I I - - Current Re ision• April ril l8 2019 Initial: December 12, 2016 — — — I Rev Ised: May 15 2017 : 1 - _, '.I ledu ust 7 2017 _ Ren : A f i'. I1::: II FF..=z:;;7�::7ii�i':{ci• e `F` _ i� W� -- ''•4 r a` Ren sed: Se em er 17 , 2018 PP : Revised: January 8 2019 ••"'•'' ::•'• EXISTING DRNEWAV TO BE REMOVED Notes: 7 f FROM ADJOINING OPEN SPACE PARCEL 1) There are no preserved slopes on this site. . I Fray_::^::r ri.'':r:i'r:: .;e: / f�f!" • is .� 2) There are no managed slopes on this site. ;I • • o AVON PROPERTIE 'L C Vi:;�; 3) This property lies within the ACSAjurisdictional area [F. 7 v+ �— 120' ACCES3\EASEMEN TMP 091A0-00-00.00 for water and sewer. r' ZONED PRID -- I:;:( I I r S 60°3B'59' E iSTd8' 4) An existing waterline and easement is available on OPEN SPACE •I'•�r:�rri. Avinity Drive. —10, SETBACK 5) An existing sanitary line and easement is available on i l - - - t: I I ( t'' :�:::i::f;Jr: °: parcel 35A. 1 I ^`.'', j.•`' 6) A 120' access easement (shown) is available on Avinity .::_ ... " " " � .: •: 1 EXISTING E \ t:;:?;,:�"• Drive. ':I:I I :ri:c _ • JJ �•• F•r •• ?:' ,• '•.j'••" I (TO BE RE ED) EXIST TREE I N W t+: •. tjt::: ' f' �':, 7) A second easement is available on parcel 35A for I I: I�: •:: -. c::•1 I: I (TO EMOVED) \ °• o emergency access. N ::?.::> I ru 4F �ii;?:^rear fir• r :, y2 I \ A o •.'' :•-:•.' 8) This property does not lie within a drinking water I d' '"';•i' r^ m 1e' C:Y ��iy r reservoir watershed. F (\ I EXISTING IA �'� 1 9) Topography and boundary information is digitized from HOUSE £ <r CrG BE I v) �:, r Albemarle County GIS data and from recorded plats. al REMOVED) �r'i 10) Additional field survey provided by Commonwealth JAMES ROGERS MOSS I'�I ;i:::::.':. wi•1 r-I IDS• Surveying.LLC I:' ?; ::.r;•. , 1 TMP 09000-00-00-035LO F a •11) Additional geographic information is digitized from KAITLIN E HOyi' \ V approved site plans for Avinity Subdivision 7. Z ZONED R1-EC TMPO99R1A0.DO- 05�o01 to �I / I /ZONED D �' SINGLE FAMILY RESISENTIAL I SING FAMILY ATT Ull EXISTING ' :;; ?•r; I I r BE R ":SJ(ISTING TREE I � I ! `�' ::4:; y` •• :I I (TO BE REMOVED) N 50°28' SIDE SETBACK I IOi':,,•.•"^"'"•-.y,.•ijrE:m„,•"mri WIN BARBOUR TMP 0.035Gq RY W SR OR S ' I I ;e:f ::"•1?e::•r.<?Z' 1 , ci..i.....ilii?tl i:, __ �r:F?• •: I I I TMP 09000-00-035A0 2 1 I I ZONED R1 •a?: ;::a. •.:• •i ?• 1:. ',e rEci,�^.'.: 1..,.nMII+.. ISEI)1 AL 1 : I DB 1 P 2 I ::::::....::...... I 54 G64 Sheet 3 of 6: �!I:::::ila I I I I I SINGLE FAMILY RESISENTIAL Existing Conditions _ I ZMA201000022 40 0 40 80 120`.:: SHIMPENGINEERING, P.C. ?€) ENOJNE.E.RJNO-IANDPJ.ANMNO-PROJECTMANAOF.MM o,a c wicw si suix a pNONFi (934) 227-5140 Graphic Scale: 1 "=40' ON.a�TTES�LLE. 0. 22202 251 /IA Application clan for I Avinity Drive TMP 09000-00-00-03 5 LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Re5idential Dl5trict Current Revi5ion: April 18. 2019 Initial: December 12, 20 1 G Revised: May 15, 2017 Revised: August 7, 2017 Revised: September 17, 2018 Notes: Revised: January 8, 2019 1) Landscaping shown on this sheet is conceptual. Landscaping and screening on site shall meet all requirements of Section 32.7.9 of the Albemade County Zoning Ordinance. 2) Parking shall meet the requirements of Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 3) Storrrwater management facilities shall be located under the parking area. Stomrwater facilities shall not be located in land contributing to the required open space per Sec. 19.6.1 of the Albemade County Zoning Ordinance. Exact location and design of storrnvater management facilities shall be determined during site plan review. 4) Building setbacks for this application shall be as shown on this sheet. Setbacks in Note 6) may be modified to accommodate landscaping. 5) Building heights shall be limited to 3 stories. 6) Setbacks: Front: 15' Side adjacent to PRD zone: 5' Side adjacent to low density residential: 10' Rear: 20' 7) 20%of the units built will be designated as affordable for a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of cerfificate of occupancy. The units will rent at a rate set by HUD -published Fair Market Rents, making the units affordable to those earring up to 80% of the area median income. The property owner shall maintain records documenting the household income of the occupants of the affordable units: and upon request by the County, the property owner shall provide the County with these records. 8) Large shade trees required to meet landscaping requirements per Section 32.7.9.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance shall be planted outside of the electrical utility easement located at the front of the property. 9) The proposed fence on the eastern side of the parking lot shall be 8 feet in height, and the most southern 80 feet shall be a solid material. If the owners of tax map parcels 91A-57 and 91A-A would prefer landscape screening in lieu of the 8 foot proposed lence, then TMP 90-35L shall provide landscape screening in accordance with 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. If only landscaping is provided and the existing fence on tax map parcel 91A-A is removed, the owner or ownership entity (the "owner') of TMP90-35L shall construct a fence on TMP 90-35L to provide screening in addition to the landscaping. The owner shall construct the new fence within 90 days of removal of the fence on 91A-A. ITE Trip Generation AM PM Use Description I ITE Qty in I out ITotal I in I out Total Apartment 1220124units 1 4 1 10 1 14 1 10 1 7 17 Sheet 4 of G: General Development Plan ZMA201000022 .WMPENUNEERING, P.C. ENGINT.F.RING-IANDPIANMNG- PROJECT MANr1GF.MFM "I c "I'" IT. —IT' s FHONF (934) 227-51+0 Graphic Scale: 1 FH -r� -- FP --� open p ZMA Application Plan for 251 1 Av i n i ty Drive TMP 09000-00-00-035LO ki 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI -Residential Entrance Corridor ZONING: Planned Residential District Current Revision: April 18. 20 19 Initial: December 12, 201 S Revised: May 15, 2017 Revised: August 7, 2017 Revised: September 17, 2018 Revised: January 8, 20 19 -v� 1 ,� � oru.�) a ,•fir I �_ � -� r 1 � sm� � �♦��_ � •'��/�'`��y,�ATy��a�p�e�/'��11� ,BVO'� IFFrr�ppy 1♦ y.h > a i J /:°5'y j ��1 Z / �><' '°h ha V I I�ry VOL�uA����'�.�. � � b ��. • . <' ' tories units IN A minimum of 25% Open Space 15 recluirecl per Section 19.G.1 of the County Zoninci Orclinance. VON WIFl Will SF Provided Area Type % of Tota I Courtyardential Active Recreation Area 3,248 Passive Recreation Area 8,737 Lawn/Ped Paths 73% Total Open Space Provided 1L985 30 0 30 60 90 Sheet 5 of G: Open Space Exhibit ZMA201000022 SIWENUMERIM P.C. I�iYH/��/�'�9GYiSIGG�//]JIIG�GYG�(iDJ,'7/a/�"NYLGh�G�d�l/�'dYI Graphic Scale: 1 "= oia c wicw si. suiic s FHONM (934) 227-51+0 APARTMENT FRONT ELEVATION APARTMENT CONCEPT 2511 AVINITY DRIVE ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA APARTMENT CONCEPT v rtYIXI £ n4.nnwt GA+ Ir.n u rvn ►', GAINES GROUP rAI.F1 - T_t_T. APARTMENT CONCEPT AI (, AIIR'GM E 9Ft�n4'.F�-�aR. nFfaNN (NITS CONCEALED IF WELL ECTURAL SHINGLE PLANK SIDING 'ONE COLOR PALETTE ZAILING )R STONE „, ".,.IR BREEZEWAY "GAINES GROUP 0 iARCHITECTS 7AESGROUP GIN Fr_� TF::=T3 APARTMENT RENDERING LanGscaping sho is conceptual APARTMENT CONCEPT 2511 AVINITY DRIVE ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ZMA Application Plan for 25 1 1 Avinity Drive TMP 09000-00-00-035LO 0.9 10 Acres CURRENT ZONING: RI-Re5idential Entrance Corridor PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Re5idential District Current Revision: April 18. 201 9 Initial: December 12, 20 1 G Revised: May 15, 2017 Revised: August 7, 2017 Revised: 5eptember 17, 2018 R�sed: January 5,2019 Revised: February 22, 201 9 (elevations only) ►',GAIN€S GROUP 04C'lIARCHiTECTS Sheet G of G: Architectural Elevation ZMA201000022 SMIM IENNNEERIN6 P.C. ENGJIIU"G-JANDPJAN"G-PROJELTMANA6BOT 912 E HIGH SM SJ:TE A PwONE: "a, S1T—S1lG 01ARioTTESV:LLE. VA woos JuSMNOSH:MP—ENGINEERING. C CM