Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000011 Staff Report 2021-02-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA TITLE: ZMA202000011 Premier Circle SUBJECT/PRO POSAL/REQU EST: Rezone 3.748 acres from C-1 Commercial — retail sales and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District — residential (3 — 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. Between 80 and 140 dwelling units are proposed with a density between 22 units/acre and 38 units/acre. Non-residential uses are also proposed (no maximum square footage). SCHOOL DISTRICT: Albemarle High School, Jouett Middle, Woodbrook AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2021 STAFF CONTACT(S): Filardo, McCulley, Rapp, Nedostup PRESENTER (S): Megan Nedostup, Development Process Manager BACKGROUND: At its meeting on December 15, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 7:0 to recommend approval of both (a) ZMA202000011 with changes recommended by staff, and (b) a special exception to allow one unit type under the Neighborhood Model District zoning. The Commission's original staff report, action memo, and minutes are attached (Attachments A, B, and C). DISCUSSION: Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised application plan, code of development, and proposed proffers to address the changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission (Attachments D, E, F and H). VDOT has also provided additional comments on the pedestrian crossing across Route 29 (Attachment K). Additionally, the applicant has removed residential uses from the building proposed in Block 1, the block adjacent and fronting on Route 29. This building would now have only non-residential uses. Questions were raised by staff and the Planning Commission concerning the private road, Premier Circle, including: • the long-term maintenance of the road; • the current condition of the road; and • if the road could be brought up to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. Though the applicant has addressed all the changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, not all of the long-term maintenance and/or upgrades to the existing road have been addressed. The applicant has provided both an analysis of the current condition of Premier Circle (Attachment 1) and a memo in response to the concerns about the condition and long-term maintenance of the roadway (Attachment G). Two issues were identified within the road analysis: safety and maintenance. Safety concerns identified included the need to remove existing vegetation that is encroaching into the road, the lack of striping, and signage. The applicant has offered proffers (Proffer 1a, 1b, and 1c) to address the safety concerns. The County Engineer has reviewed the analysis and found that the safety concerns have been addressed with the inclusion of the proffers. The analysis further provides information on the feasibility of bringing the road up to VDOT standards and being accepted into the system. The County Engineer has reviewed this information and agrees with its conclusion that Premier Circle could not likely be brought up to VDOT standards and accepted by VDOT with the current layout/alignment. The last issue identified is the condition and maintenance of the road. The applicant provided extensive information within its memo regarding the history, ownership, condition, and existing road maintenance agreement for Premier Circle. Because the road has multiple owners, the applicant will need to work with those owners on this issue. The applicant has proffered to use its best efforts to update or replace the existing maintenance agreement to address the long-term maintenance and repaving of the road (Proffer le). The County Engineer has visually inspected the pavement condition of the road and has reviewed the boring analysis provided by the applicant. Though he believes that the pavement has reached the end of its useful life, he did not find any safety concerns with the pavement condition and the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS: Though the long term maintenance and condition of the road has not been resolved, staff finds that the applicant has addressed the changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Staff further finds that the condition of Premier Circle, with the offered proffers, does not raise a safety concern with the proposed development. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance to approve ZMA202000011 Premier Circle (Attachment L) and the attached Resolution to approve the Special Exception SE202000023 (Attachment M) to allow one unit type. ATTACHMENTS: A — Planning Commission Staff Report A1- Vicinity Maps A2- Project Narrative A3- Code of Development, dated November 20, 2020 A4- Application Plan, dated November 20, 2020 A5- Staff Analysis of Neighborhood Model Principles A6- Premier Circle deed and plat A7- Applicant Special Exception Request A8- Trip Generation Study B — Planning Commission Action Letter C — Planning Commission Minutes D — Revised Application Plan (dated September 21, 2020; Revised January 15, 2021) E — Revised Code of Development (dated September 21, 2020; Revised January 4, 2021) F —Signed Proffer Statement (dated January 25, 2021) G — Applicant Memo regarding Private Road Issues (dated January 15, 2021) H —Applicant Response to changes recommended (dated January 4, 2021) 1— Applicant Road Analysis (dated January 4, 2021) J —Applicant updated Narrative (dated January 4, 2021) K — Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (dated January 22, 2021) L — Ordinance to Approve ZMA202000011 M — Resolution to Approve SE202000023 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 January 8, 2021 Lori H. Schweller Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville VA 22902 Ischwel Ier(Dwi I I iamsm u I le n. com 1:7=�AdiEV4rY4rY4rI1DI111F. iT•-Tii1C�a7R M Dear Ms. Schweller The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 2020, recommended approval by a vote of 7:0 of ZMA202000011 Premier Circle with the changes recommended by staff outlined in the staff report to be addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. The Planning Commission recommend approval by a vote of 7:0 of the special exception, SE202000023, for the modification of the requirement for two housing types within a Neighborhood Model District for the reasons stated in the staff report. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832 ext 3004 or email mnedostupoalbemarle.org Sincerely, Megan Nedostup Development Process Manager Planning Division Cc. Piedmont Housing Alliance Development Virginia Supportive Housing 682 Berkmar Circle Charlottesville VA 22903 amilleropied monthousing.org Cc. Tiota Ltd 5513 Wyant Lane Charlottesville VA 22903 Albemarle County Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes December 15, 2020 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Randolph; Daniel Bailey; Corey Clayborne; representative. Members absent: none. Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Rick Jennie More; and Luis Carrazana, UVA Other officials present were Margaret Maliszewksi; Megan Nedostup; Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning; Charles Rapp, Director of Planning; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Bivins said that opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting will be posted at www.albemarle.org/community/county-calendar when available. Mr. Rapp called the roll. All Commissioners noted their presence. Consent Agenda Mr. Randolph moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Public Comment Mr. Bivins invited Mr. Neil Williamson to share a statement with the Planning Commission. Mr. Neil Williamson, President of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that, following tradition, he would present the 2020 Holiday Poem, named, "A Coronavirus Carol." He read the poem aloud to the Commission. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Williamson if he would be sending a copy of that piece to the Commission. Mr. Williamson replied that he would and that it would also be posted on the blog at www.freeenteri)riseforum.org. Public Hearing ZMA202000011 Premier Circle Ms. Megan Nedostup, Development Process Manager with the Community Development Department, said this was the first public hearing on a request to rezone 3.748 acres from C1 Commercial to Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Premier Circle. Ms. Nedostup said she would present the site context, current zoning, the master plan's future ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 land use designation, and overview of the proposed rezoning and application plan. She said she would then transition into providing more detail on the impacts and staff -recommended changes, the factors favorable and unfavorable to the rezoning, and a conclusion of staffs recommendation on the rezoning and modification request. Ms. Nedostup presented a map for orientation purposes. She indicated on the map to Route 29, noting that the site was represented by a gold star in the center of the screen. She said the Berkeley subdivision is located to the northwest; across the street from Route 29 is Food Lion; and in the corner is Fashion Square Mall. Ms. Nedostup presented an enlarged view looking closer into the site. She said there is currently a motel on the property, the Red Carpet Inn, which consists of four buildings and a parking area, with one entrance off of Premier Circle. She said Premier Circle is an existing private street. Ms. Nedostup said the zoning of the property is currently C1 Commercial, which allows for retail sales and service, with residential by special use permit. Ms. Nedostup presented the map of the Comprehensive Plan. She said Premier Circle is within the Places29 Master Plan area and is in between two center designations — Neighborhood Service Center to the south; and Community Center just to the east, across Route 29. She said the future land use plan primary designation on the site is "Office, Research and Development, Flex, Light Industrial," represented by the purple color on the map, with residential as a secondary use. Ms. Nedostup said the master plan does not specify a maximum recommended density for the residential as a secondary use. She said the proposed development would be between 22 and 38 units per acre. She said that while residential is intended to be secondary in this designation, the master plan states that the primary and secondary uses are expected to be made over an entire contiguous designation and not an individual parcel. She said that since this property is adjacent to other designated properties, staff found that the residential units proposed are secondary in relation to the entire area. She said multiple parcels could be seen in the purple area on the map. Ms. Nedostup presented the application plan, with Route 29 shown at the bottom of the screen. She indicated to the location of Premier Circle on the plan. She said this was Sheet 4 from the application plan. She said the applicant's proposal includes two residential buildings and indicated to those on the screen. She said the parking is to accommodate between 80 and 140 residential units, of which 60 are proposed to be affordable. Ms. Nedostup said that along with the residential, additional nonresidential uses are located closest to Route 29. She said the maximum height is proposed to be four stories, but there is a stepback requirement for the building closest to the single-family detached homes in the Berkeley subdivision. She indicated to the buildings on the screen that would have that stepback. Ms. Nedostup presented Sheet 6 of the application plan and noted that this sheet indicates where the proposed bus stop along Premier Circle would be located. She said it shows the 20-foot landscape buffer and a 50-foot setback of the building as well for structures between new development and the existing Berkeley subdivision. She said the sheet also shows the future potential pedestrian connections and indicated to those on the screen. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Nedostup said she would move into the impacts and changes. She said the applicant has provided for 60% or more affordable units onsite, for sale or rent, within the code of development. She said this would equate to 84 units, 140 units for build. She said the current housing policy recommends that 15% of units be affordable. Ms. Nedostup said the students within the proposed development would attend Woodbrook Elementary, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High School. She said there are no capacity concerns at Woodbrook or Jouett Middle; however, Albemarle is currently over capacity. She said the High School Center II project has been identified and will help with the capacity issues at Albemarle. Ms. Nedostup said the applicant has stated that 80 of the units will be for single adults and 60 of the units could have children. She said there is potential, however, for those 80 single units in the future to be converted into multifamily units, which could add more children. She said she provided the yield rates in the staff report for the schools. She said for the 140 units maximum number of units proposed, it would equate to 14 elementary, 4 middle, and 7 high. She said for the 60 units, as the applicant has stated, it would equate to 7 elementary, 2 middle, and 3 high school students. Ms. Nedostup said a detailed analysis of the Neighborhood Model Principles can be found in Attachment 5. She said staff found that a majority of the Neighborhood Model Principles are being met; however, they identified two that remain that need to be addressed. She said the first relates to amenities. She said the applicant is proposing amenities that would serve adults only and not providing an opportunity for a tot lot or playground for children. She said staff is recommending that the code of development be revised to allow for amenities and play space for children. Ms. Nedostup said the second principle also relates to the next section, which is transportation and pedestrian access concerns, or the principle of pedestrian orientation as well as transportation. She said concern from the community was raised at the community meeting and was also identified by staff regarding future residents' desire to cross Route 29 to the services across the highway. She said as she stated previously, there is a Food Lion grocery store and a Big Lots store that is across Route 29. She said currently, there is no safe way for pedestrians to cross Route 29, and staff requested that the applicant study the light at the intersection of Route 29 and Branchlands/Premier Circle to evaluate whether a pedestrian crossing can be installed at that location. Ms. Nedostup said that since the writing of the report, the applicant provided a traffic impact analysis (TIA), and the Transportation staff and VDOT are currently reviewing the data. She said the analysis provided information regarding a pedestrian crossing, and VDOT is still evaluating the feasibility of installation of a crossing at that intersection. She said they have not, however, completed their review at this time, and it is not known whether or not a pedestrian crossing is available at that location. Ms. Nedostup said the TIA also provided information on traffic into and out of Premier Circle and concluded that improvements such as a turn and taper are not warranted and that there is adequate storage for the movements from Route 29 moving into and out of Premier Circle. Ms. Nedostup said that as she had stated previously, the applicant is offering a bus stop for future service to the site. She said staff is recommending, however, that the language be revised for the timing of the stop to be installed to be upon demand of the County. She said this provides flexibility to request a stop if another transit service is serving the site, such as JAUNT. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Nedostup said additionally, concern was raised about the adequacy of the existing private street. She said the County Engineer requested information regarding condition and maintenance of the road; however, the information has not been provided to date, and staff is recommending that this information be provided, evaluated, and addressed prior to the public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Nedostup said the factors favorable that staff has identified is that the rezoning is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles; the rezoning provides affordable housing that exceeds the housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan; and the rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations within the Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Nedostup said the unfavorable factors identified are that Premier Circle is a private street, and the condition is unknown for the proposed rezoning and maintenance of that private street as well; there are not adequate pedestrian facilities to cross Route 29 to services for the residents of this development; it is unknown if additional transportation improvements for the development; and changes are needed to the application plan and code of development as identified by staff. Ms. Nedostup said she also provided a slide on the recommended changes. She said one change is that the transportation concerns, including the private street as well as pedestrian access, be addressed. She said the code of development should be revised to include an amenity playground for the children, as previously mentioned. She said the applicant should revise the notation on the application plan and code of development that the bench and shelter for the bus stop will be installed upon demand of the County. She said the code of development should be revised to include a maximum square footage of nonresidential uses. Ms. Nedostup said that in addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting to have one housing type within a Neighborhood Model District (NMD). She said NMD requires two housing types, but the Board can waive this requirement upon finding that it meets at least one of the criteria: at least two housing types are already present within a quarter mile, and/or the proposal is an infill project. She said staff found that Premier Circle development meets both of these criteria and recommends approval of the exception. Ms. Nedostup concluded her presentation and offered to answer questions. Ms. Firehock said she had a question. She asked Ms. Nedostup where she was envisioning the bus stop would be located, and if a bus would pull along Premier Circle and then go into the development. Ms. Nedostup replied no. She said the bus would stop along Premier Circle. Ms. Firehock said she worked on Premier Circle for three and a half years, and so every day during the week, she drove this road. She said because it is curved, when coming out of the other businesses, one does not see cars coming, and there are many near -collisions. She said she thinks this would actually be worse if a bus was coming around. She said she actually does not think that it is a very good idea to try to direct a bus around that road, as it is not built to County standards for width, there are sight line issues, and there are driveways where one cannot easily see people coming out. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Firehock said she would also make a quick comment on the playground idea for children. She said she thinks this is also very important. She said as the prior use was a motel, one would often find children playing in the street because they did not have anywhere else to play in Premier Circle. She said that besides the blind driveway problem, one also had to watch out for children. She said if they do not have a playground, this is where they will be again, and it is definitely a real safety concern. Mr. Carrazana said he believed he was in sync with Ms. Firehock, and that his question had to do with the maintenance agreement. He said maintenance of the road was unknown, as Ms. Nedostup stated, and his question was if they know if there is any kind of maintenance agreement. He said this was going to lead to his point that if they do not know exactly the condition of the road or the maintenance around it, if it is a good idea to be proposing bus traffic through the road. Mr. Carrazana said one question is that although they do not know the condition, he wants to know if there is a maintenance agreement for that road. He said his second question is if they do not understand the condition of the road or maintenance thereof, if it would make sense to be proposing bus traffic when they do not know what kind of mitigation might be needed. Ms. Nedostup said that to answer the question about the maintenance agreement, there is a document that is very old and was included as one of the attachments in the staff report, but the maintenance is not spelled out to the standard to which that road would be maintained, and so this is part of the information staff requested from the applicant. She said the applicant may be able to better answer about what they expect and what they are working on as far as the road section and how that future maintenance might occur. Ms. Nedostup said she would defer to Mr. Kevin McDermott, but she believes the bus stop can be evaluated as far as the adequacy of the road, and they can work with CAT or JAUNT on that. She said she was making note of this and that she was sure the applicant was making note as well. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. McDermott if he wanted to respond Mr. McDermott replied that staff looked at the site where the applicant is proposing the bus stop to be located. He said currently, it appears there is enough site distance going both ways. He said there are no driveways directly across from it or near it on that site. He said it would likely only be going one way, and people would only catch a bus if it were heading southbound, so it would be going in that direction on Premier Circle. He said it looks like it would fit well. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. McDermott if he wanted to say anything about crossing Route 29. Mr. McDermott replied that he could add to what Ms. Nedostup had already described. He said staff did receive the traffic study that evaluated the potential for a crossing, and they have reviewed it. He said there is a median in the middle of Route 29 on the south side of the Branchlands intersection that would allow for a pedestrian refuge, so it could be done as a two - stage crossing, making it more viable. Mr. McDermott said there would be some minor impacts to traffic on Route 29, perhaps up to a 10-second delay on northbound and southbound traffic, but it is fairly minor. He said if they can get a ped-activated signal there, that 10-second delay would only occur if a pedestrian actually pushed the button to cross, and they could cross in two stages. He said it would not have a major ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 impact on traffic all over Mr. McDermott said VDOT always has to review these, however, and especially because it is on Route 29. He said he is sure they will have a high bar for that. He said that as Ms. Nedostup mentioned, they will still need to continue to get evaluations from VDOT on this and see how this works. He said it is also a fairly expensive project to get that in because of the need for the pedestrian signals and the pedestrian refuge in the center. He said there is also no sidewalk on the Branchlands side of that that would take them down into the development, and so all of that would have to be put into one project. He said there would be quite a bit of an expense that staff has not identified funding for yet. Mr. Bailey said he wanted to better understand the bus stop. He asked if with the proposed bus stop, it was presumed that there would be no pull -off area for the bus and that it would be stopping on the main Premier Circle road, as proposed. Mr. McDermott replied that this is his understanding. He said he thinks the traffic volumes on Premier Circle would not warrant the need for a pull -off there. He said it is rare that is a bus comes once every half-hour, and he does not think it is going to be something that causes traffic issues. Mr. Clayborne said he had a question for Mr. McDermott, going back to the comment about the pedestrian crossing and project. He asked what would be defined as "expensive," and if Mr. McDermott could give a range of a low end and high end. Mr. McDermott replied that he could provide a very general idea but that obviously, they have not put any cost estimates to this. He said they are putting a pedestrian crossing across Avon Street right now with a refuge in the middle, and there is some additional sidewalk going on as well. He said that that project is around $400,000. He said there is the likelihood that they will need to add some extra pulls on the proposed project, and the sidewalk would be a little longer, so his guess was that they would not get it done for under $500,000, but it might be as much as $1.5 million for a project like that. Mr. Randolph asked if they were looking at this being a business going in, and there was a need for this crossing to be associated with it, if they would not be looking at a potential proffer. He said he understands that because the County is getting a wonderful number of affordable housing units provided at this site, they are waiving that, but he was asking procedurally if under normal circumstances with a for -profit enterprise going in, if they would be considering proffers here. Mr. McDermott said he would try to respond to this, and Mr. Herrick, Ms. Nedostup, and Mr. Rapp could let him know if he was on the right track. He said if the applicant identified that their development was causing additional pedestrian traffic that would need that crossing, then it could be something that a proffer could be offered by. Mr. Bart Svoboda said he believed Mr. McDermott was spot on, and he was sure Mr. Randolph would remember that they would accept what was offered to mitigate that impact as opposed to requesting something. He said he believed Mr. McDermott answered the question correctly. Ms. Firehock said she wanted to point out to the Commission that walking from the current motel, it is a one-third mile walk door to door from that motel to Food Lion. She said it is a one mile walk from the door of that motel to the front door of Trader Joe's. She said if VDOT is not amenable to adding another traffic light, it is not as if there are no other options to walk to a nearby grocery ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 store. She said there are, of course, many other businesses over at the mall. Ms. Firehock said she would also note that even if they are successful in getting VDOT to agree to a traffic light, and even if there were a safe haven in the middle, she used to run across that road every week, several times a week. She said she stopped doing this after six months because she decided she wanted to live. She said she was only saying that cars do not behave well and that even with the light, they may have some red-light runners there. She said she was not sure VDOT would let them have a light so close to existing traffic lights both up and downstream of that location. She said her point was that there are other options in case they cannot get this to work. She said she would almost rather walk a mile to Trader Joe's than go across that traffic. Mr. Bivins said there is a Lidl or an Aldi (which are owned by the same company) coming into what used to be called Shopper's World but is now called 291h Place, and so that may be helpful there. Mr. Randolph said he had a comment to reinforce what Ms. Firehock said. He said additionally, VDOT will be mindful of the CDB, which has representation from downstate urban interests in Lynchburg and Danville, who are very aware of even two -second changes in the traffic through the Charlottesville/Albemarle/29 Corridor. He said he thinks it is wise to already be projecting a safer route going south on the west side of Route 29 than trying to proceed across. Mr. Randolph said he feels the concern is that there is a need for signage to warn people of the danger of trying to sprint across, unless one happens to be Usain Bolt, who can make it across in three seconds per lane, which is six seconds for all of Route 29. He said the last time they talked about this on Route 29, an individual died a day or two afterward. He said mortality and morbidity on Route 29, at worst, is something for the Commission to be very much aware of. He said some kind of warning signs should be there if, in fact, VDOT determines that it is not viable to have a pedestrian crossway. Mr. Bivins said he would like further exploration of a private street. He said he is struck at how this is a coalition of not -for -profits, all with wonderful missions, trying to keep in good stead a private street where presently, for -profit entities surrounding that street have not been able to keep it in good repair. He said being able to take whatever might be possible to invest to turn it into a public street, then have it accepted by VDOT, might take that budget piece off of them, depending on how difficult that is, and may also get them out of the negotiation with the other users, although it is limited use, given that most of Premier Circle seems to front on this project's side. He asked about there being some conversation on the option or, as mentioned, the exploration of perhaps moving to a public street there. Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Nedostup if this is currently zoned Commercial, and if the Commission is being requested to move it to a different status that has residential and some other types of things. He asked her if she had a sense of what the loss of commercial would be on this particular project if it should be approved. Ms. Nedostup replied that as far as square footage, she did not have a number on how much possible square footage could be on the site commercial -wise. She said she knows there has been concern raised about the loss of the land use designation within the master plan of the Office/R&D/Flex and Light Industrial to a residential use, namely. She said she did do an analysis. She said as the Commission knows, the Rio29 Small Area Plan was adopted in 2018 and with that adoption, the Office/R&D/Flex uses were added as a by -right use. She said this is 400 acres. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 She said she calculated how many parcels were designated as this prior to that adoption, and there were approximately 40 acres. She said this was a net gain of 360 additional acres. She noted that the Light Industrial uses were by special exception within the Rio29 Small Area Plan. Mr. Bivins said given they have hard boundaries within the County, every time they make one of these moves, they are actually reducing the inventory that they have to encourage economic development there since, for the most part, all of the economic development is happening in the Development Area and not happening in other places in the County. He said he wants the Commission to stay aware of the fact that every time they do this, they are having an impact on their ability to attract business there. Mr. Bivins said the applicant mentioned that 60% of the units will be offered to be affordable. He asked if this is a situation where if they do not come within x number of days, that it can be released to the community. He asked if it is not going to be released to the community, if this particular project will work with Dr. Stacey Pethia. Ms. Nedostup replied that she believed this was a good question for the applicant to answer. She said she would ask Dr. Pethia if she knows if the language is the same, and if they have the same timeline wherein it would go back to market. Dr. Pethia replied that as far as she could remember, there would not be any for -sale units on the property. She said at the moment, they are all slated for rental, in which case they would need to be affordable for a minimum of 10 years. She said at least one phase will be utilizing low-income housing tax credits, which will put a 15-year to 30-year affordability period on those units. Ms. Nedostup said she was able to quickly pull up the code of development, and there is a for - sale option within the code of development. She said it is the 120-day period. She said she believed others were 90 days, and so this was a little bit longer. Mr. Bivins asked if the expectation was that the applicant would be working with Dr. Pethia. Dr. Pethia replied that this was correct. Mr. Bivins said he would ask the applicant to confirm this. He said he felt they were doing a lot of things, and that while this is about the joy of wanting the project to succeed, he also wants the project to be helpful to the residents of Albemarle County and the policies the County is working through, which was why he was asking some of his questions. He said he wanted to be clear to those listening that he was not trying to say that he was not supportive of the project. He said he was trying to figure out how the project aligns with some of the policies that the County is putting forward. Mr. Bivins said his last question was perhaps, again, for the applicant to discuss. He said if he looks at the draft plan, there is a lot of surface parking there and very little greenspace, even when speaking to having a tot lot or some space there for people to bring their children to. He said he noticed there is a need or desire for gardens. He said although he is a gardener, he is not a big supporter of community gardens because as people change, the community gardens often run fallow. Mr. Bivins said what he did notice is that there was not any greenspace or outdoor space for adults, and while he realizes there is a hope for exercise space inside, it would be nice if there is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 a space that is green outside for people to be able to have some time outside away from structures, particularly if people continue to live in the kind of environment they are living in now. He asked if they are wedded to that much asphalt. Ms. Nedostup replied that the applicant has outlined some numbers within the code of development, but the parking requirements would be at the site plan stage, and she would anticipate that the applicant would request a reduction because of the nature of the residences that would be there. She said there may be potential for some of that parking to be reduced to allow for future greenspace, depending on what the ultimate mix is. Mr. Bivins said for the Albemarle High School piece, he would share that he is being told that high school may not be like it is today. He said they may actually see high schoolers spend more of their time doing remote learning for some classes and taking off some of the census pressure that they have been experiencing. He said those who have high schoolers or emerging high schoolers should consider that there may be a shift in the way high school changes because they are being very productive during this time. Mr. Bivins opened the public hearing to hear from the applicant. Mr. Rapp asked if they could pause, as staff was experiencing some technical difficulties. [The hearing was paused for several minutes while the issues were being resolved.] Ms. Lori Schweller, attorney with Williams Mullen, said she was representing the applicant. She said she would share her screen for a presentation. Ms. Schweller said the applicant is requesting a rezoning from C1 to Neighborhood Model development for the redevelopment of the Red Carpet Inn property on Route 29 North to support supportive and affordable housing. Ms. Schweller said the project proponents are Virginia Supportive Housing, Piedmont Housing Alliance, and the Thomas Jefferson Coalition for the Homeless. She said that by bringing these organizations together on one parcel, this project offers the opportunity for the organizations to share efficiencies and take advantage of opportunities, as they arise, to share supportive services. Ms. Schweller said the project redevelopment team was attending on the call, including Ms. Whitney McDermott and Mr. Bruce Wardell from VRW Architects, and Mr. Craig Kotarski and Mr. Steve Schmitt (traffic engineer) from Timmons Group. Ms. Schweller presented a map of the project location, on the west side of Route 29, highlighting the development in the area. She said the Red Carpet Inn has four buildings, with 115 hotel rooms, and the property is about 3.75 acres. She presented an aerial view of the property in the context of commercial being to the east and west, and with single-family development to the north. Ms. Schweller said the project proposal is that VSH intends to develop 80 units of permanent supportive housing at 50% or lower AMI, and PHA intends to develop 60 primarily 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units of affordable housing at 30-80% AMI. She said that during the development of the property, TJACH will use existing rooms as emergency shelter for clients experiencing homeless who have a high risk of development serious illness from COVID-19. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Schweller said as Ms. Nedostup explained, the property is designated in the Places29 Master Plan for Office/R&D/Flex and Light Industrial as its primary use, with residential as its secondary use. She said for that reason, they are proposing a mixed -use development in two blocks. She said Block 1 along Route 29 would have mixed -use or nonresidential development, and Block 2 would have the two residential developments for VSH and PHA. She said potentially, some of the PHA units could be on the second floor of a building on Block 1. Ms. Schweller said the redevelopment concept is for VSH to develop an 80-unit, four-story building of supportive housing in the center as Phase 1. She said then, PHA would be developing a 40- to 60-unit, three- or four-story building in the rear of the parcel. She said the front would have the commercial or mixed -use building. She said during all of this development TJACH would be using existing hotel rooms as emergency shelter. Ms. Schweller said in response to the staff report, the applicant wanted to clarify and simplify their square footage table. She said to summarize the changes, the maximum building footprint square footage for mixed use is 20,000 square feet, which is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. She said if a building happened to be retail only, then the maximum building footprint would be limited to 10,000 square feet. She said these numbers are consistent with the traffic impact analysis. She said the maximum gross nonresidential square footage corresponds to the maximum office flex use in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schweller said the affordable housing plan is that VSH would develop 80 studio units, and those would be 100% affordable and 100% rental for those making 50% or less AMI. Ms. Schweller said PHA plans to develop up to 60 units, and it is possible that 40 of those could be in the building shown on the screen, and 20 units could be in the front building on Route 29. She said those are expected to be mostly one- and two -bedroom units, mostly for single adults and couples, with possibly up to 5% being three -bedroom. She said they are putting that at 30- 80% AMI to give some flexibility on the type of funding that comes in. Ms. Schweller said the Commission had seen the plan displayed on the screen for pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the project. She said sidewalks were shown, connecting all the buildings and amenity space, with a future potential bus stop in an indicated location. She said VSH will also provide lockers for bicycles and scooters, which are popular with the residents within the development, and the development will include bike racks. Ms. Schweller said one of the changes in response to staff will be that the bus stop will be provided at the demand of the County. Ms. Schweller said that to address Premier Circle, which is a private road, it was created when the lots were subdivided. She said there are seven lots, and Premier Circle serves those seven lots, which are currently five tax map parcels, with five owners using the road from the Waffle House down to the Red Carpet Inn. She said there is a recorded declaration that does provide for road maintenance by an association. She said there is one vote per lot, and by written agreement of 80% of the owners, that road could be upgraded. She said the applicant believes that insertion of new development along the road will make it more likely that the road would be improved. Ms. Schweller said she would defer to Timmons to discuss the traffic and road condition, but she would say that this supportive housing for very low-income residents does generate far less traffic than conventional multifamily housing. She said this development is expected to house residents ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 who largely do not have private vehicles and would depend on public transportation Ms. Schweller said the property is within the JAUNT paratransit service area, so residents with disabilities who are unable to take public transit would have the ability to call JAUNT for transport directly door to door. She said that in addition, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has applied for grants from the Department of Rail and Transit that could fund improvements to the Route 29 Corridor, so this site could be transit -ready when bus lines are expanded, if they are expanded, to include this site. She said they will learn more about the extent of the funding and whether it has been funded in January 2021. Ms. Schweller said the site has 20% greenspace and within it, 10% amenity space. She said this includes courtyards, gardens, and indoor community computer and fitness rooms. She said street trees and shrubs will be compliant with the Entrance Corridor Guidelines. She said the applicant has requested to substitute gardens in place of tot lots because they expected their residents to be primarily single adults and couples. She said at staffs recommendation, however, the applicant will build in a little more flexibility so that they can do tot lots and/or gardens. She said fortunately, those both require 2,000 square feet, so as development progresses, they can see what is more appropriate. Ms. Schweller presented a slide showing the proposed changes that the applicant will introduce into their code of development so that a community garden or a tot lot might be developed in those locations. She indicated on the screen to some similar changes. Ms. Schweller presented a picture showing how those buildings would fit together on the site. She said the Comprehensive Plan calls for a four-story maximum, and so the applicant is looking at four stories for the central VSH building. She said they are looking at four stories and three stories for the PHA building. She said currently, the front building they are proposing is two stories based on parking requirements, but since those could change, the code of development does permit this to be up to four stories. Ms. Schweller said the site would be developed in phases. She said Phase 1 would be the construction of the Virginia Supportive Housing building, which was shown on the map on the screen in red, as well as the associated amenity areas. She said Phase 2 would be the PHA building and at that point, the applicant would need to provide the planted buffer in the back. She said the 50-foot setback includes a 20-foot buffer between the site and the single-family residential to the north. She said Phase 3 would be development of Block 1, with the mixed -use or nonresidential portion along Route 29. Ms. Schweller presented a timeline of the phasing. She said the project is on a very pressing timeline based on LIHTC application deadlines. She said the applicant is actually seeking to rezone no later than February so that VSH can apply the March deadline for low-income housing tax credits, then go into construction beginning in 2023. She said PHA would file for its LIHTC application in March of 2023, for construction in 2024 to 2025. She said TJACH will be able to use existing hotel rooms immediately, throughout Phase 1, and possibly Phase 2 as the new buildings replace the old ones. Ms. Schweller said this was the core of the applicant's presentation and that they had more slides to help answer questions regarding the TIA that the Timmons Group did, as well as other transportation -related issues and other questions that the Commission may have. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. More said she had several questions, but she wanted to start with her first question, then let it go and let other people ask questions before coming back. She apologized for not understanding, and asked if people are currently living there on the site as a part of an emergency housing program. Ms. Schweller replied that currently, the property is operated as a hotel, and so the answer right now was no. Ms. More said she was confused about the wording as far as if there was some sort of access to hotel rooms on an emergency basis for people in jeopardy or who are experiencing homeless, particularly during this time, and so she was having trouble with this piece. She said she was trying to wrestle with the pedestrian safety questions they were asking themselves about some sort of permanency on this site, and so she was wondering about this for the people who may be there currently. Ms. More said she believed this was what she was wrestling with the most — that if people are living there now through some program or in cooperation with the hotel as a way to avoid being homeless, if they are at risk already to having the dangerous crossing across Route 29. She asked if there is signage that needs to be put up to prevent that, or anything that needed to be done right now. She said her biggest question had been about the current use. Ms. More said she did have a question about the services that would be delivered onsite and how they would connect people with services. She said there is a portion of staff's report that talks about connections with services, benefits, and employment opportunities. She said there is mention of someone that is onsite during the day, and onsite at night, and she wanted to know if this was in the capacity of a property management person or someone who is there to provide service delivery. Ms. Schweller replied that she was glad Ms. More asked those questions because she had failed to mention during the presentation that the applicant actually had representatives of each one of the organizations who would speak to the Commission as soon as the public comment period starts. She said they will be able to talk about what they are planning in a more fulsome way and talk about what is happening now, segueing into what the applicant is proposing. She said she would prefer to defer to them, as they will do a good job of describing services and how they interact. Mr. Bivins asked if those questions could be contained, and if they could open up what Ms. Schweller's presentation was before going to the public, if there were members of the public there. Ms. More said her biggest question was if there were people living there on the site now that might be making a dangerous crossing. She said they not only could be talking about this in the future, but they could be talking about it right now. Ms. More said she also agrees with Ms. Firehock that there are other alternatives, but they do need to be mindful that just like at other places on Route 29, people will try to cross. She said it was not limited to this spot, and even though they do not want to encourage that, there are many places where she sees people making a dangerous crossing because it is the most direct path. She said she thinks they need to be safe and keep that in mind, and they need to encourage other alternatives. She said to her, it is not a dealbreaker for all of this. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. More said as Mr. Bivins said, she did have some questions about the delivery of services, but they will let those be answered in the public comment part. Mr. Randolph said his question was about the community gardens that the Chair referenced earlier, and the courtyard meditative garden as well. He asked what the applicant's plan is for the maintenance of both of these, and how the maintenance will be paid for on an annual basis. Ms. Schweller replied that she was sure the applicant would have more to say to that question, but the plan is that this property will actually be subdivided and owned by the individual organizations. She said these are rental projects, so they would be responsible for maintaining all of those outdoor amenities on their own parcels. Ms. Schweller said that in terms of budget, she did not have any answers about that right now, but perhaps the organizations could offer some foresight when they get to that point. Ms. Firehock said she had had the same line of questioning as Mr. Randolph. She said she has seen a lot of developments propose community gardens, and they need someone to be a garden manager. She said they cannot just say, "Here is a lot, have at it." She said the other thing she wanted to note is that she does not think they switch back and forth quite as easily. She said she does not know how the properties are being divided up against different nonprofit providers, but they cannot just flip-flop from garden to child play area. She said it needs to be one or the other, and she still thinks that they need a place for children to play. Ms. Firehock said that to Ms. More's earlier comment, she did not know the personal stories of all the people living there, but she drove by them five days a week for three and a half years, and there were a lot of children there and people who seemed to be living there because they were in a situation where they could not find anywhere else to live. She said they were using the hotel as what she would call "last -resort housing." She said she thinks this needs to be considered and that they cannot just call it either/or. She said they need to have specific spaces for each, and if the applicant wanted to comment, that was fine, or they could wait to hear more from the individuals who are involved in the management of this complex undertaking. Ms. Schweller said the applicant certainly wants to provide the right amenity for the residents. She said that based on her conversations with the current property owner and her own observations of the site, it is currently operating more of a long-term transient housing or extended -stay housing, and so there is more of a homey feel. She said if there were children there now, she would not be surprised. Mr. Bivins opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Ebonie Bugg said she represents the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. She said she wanted to pause, as she knew that a number of her colleagues who are partners on the project may actually want to go before her so that they can speak to some of the Commission's questions. She asked if it was possible to call on her after Ms. Julie Anderson, Mr. Sunshine Mathon, or other partners there could speak. Ms. Schaffer replied that this was fine, and she would let Ms. Anderson go. Mr. Anthony Harrow asked if he could actually go first. He said he was not able to raise his hand, as he was in presenter mode, and asked if he could speak. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Schaffer asked him to proceed Mr. Anthony Harrow asked if he could be allowed to share his presentation. He introduced himself as the Executive Director for the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless. He said he was there to speak to this unique project in support of meeting many critical needs the community currently faces, and he was focusing on a few that address homelessness -related issues. Mr. Harrow said ending homelessness was always a public health response, but this fact has been highlighted during the pandemic. He said keeping people in safe, private rooms helps keep them safe from COVID-19. He said it also helps keep the community at large safe from COVID- 19 by eliminating spread. Mr. Harrow said the University of Washington recently released a report about using hotels as a shelter during COVID-19, which the applicant will plan to do on the site, as was discussed. Mr. Harrow said there were a number of key findings that the applicant felt locally as well. He said guests felt increased feelings of stability, improved health and wellbeing, reduced interpersonal conflict, decrease in 911 call volume, and more time in general to think about next steps and future goals. He said another key finding was higher exits to permanent housing, although they have not seen this quite yet because of the lack of affordable housing in the community, but all the other key findings in the report validate what has been seen locally as well — that using hotels as shelter during the pandemic has seen many positive outcomes. Mr. Harrow said the other thing this project addresses is chronic homelessness. He said people who are chronically homeless have been homeless for a long time, with health conditions. He said they have seen in the community that when The Crossings opened in Downtown Charlottesville, in the two years that followed, chronic homelessness dropped by half. He said there is clear, local evidence that this works — that the VSH's project, The Crossings, worked to decrease chronic homeless by half, which is amazing. He said that since then, as seen on the line graph he presented on the screen, that it has been flat, and so another project is needed to get them raked to the threshold of functionally ending chronic homelessness in Charlottesville. Mr. Harrow said it is also a good investment, locally. He said in addition to having a positive impact on people's lives who live in the project, over three years in their current model of renting from local hotels as opposed to this model of having it owned, they would save about $1.5 million (or 42%) moving to this type of model where it is owned as opposed to renting. He said it is a cost savings. Mr. Harrow said additionally, VSH has found that in other permanent supportive housing projects, they have seen a 71% decrease in [inaudible]. He concluded his presentation as his allotted time had expired. Ms. Julie Anderson (4115 [inaudible] Avenue, Richmond, VA 23221) said she was representing Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH). She said VSH is a nonprofit formed in 1988 with the mission to end homelessness. She said they work along the 1-64 Corridor, from Charlottesville to Virginia Beach. She said one of the ways they meet the mission of ending homelessness is by developing affordable housing like The Crossings at 4ch and Preston in Charlottesville. Ms. Anderson said Premier Circle will be VSH's second permanent supportive housing ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 development in the Charlottesville region. She said these apartments will include 80 studio apartment units with kitchens and bathrooms. She said the units will be fully furnished, and the building will also include a community room, patio space, a computer room, and exercise room. She said units will be available for individuals earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). Ms. Anderson said permanent supportive housing is like a regular apartment in that residents' sign leases and can have their own apartment, but supportive services are provided onsite to help residents access the services they need in order to maintain housing. Ms. Anderson said VSH's supportive services staff assist residents with accessing mainstream community services and resources, engage residents in activities that promote a consistent and safe housing environment, collaborate with property management to prevent lease violations and delinquency, help individuals resolve life issues and manage their mental health. She said supportive services staff work with residents to ensure a strong sense of social connectedness both within the building as well as in the community. She said services staff provide support for employment, education, and vocational endeavors as well as transition planning as residents are ready to move on to their next choice of housing. Ms. Anderson said the building will also have onsite property management including an assistant property manager, a desk clerk, and maintenance staff. She said the front desk is staffed 16 hours a day, and a night monitor is on call in the evenings. Ms. Anderson said VSH is excited to be a part of this development and effectively ending chronic homelessness in the region. She said permanent supportive housing works, and that over 96% of their residents do not return to homelessness. Ms. Anderson said that as far as the budget concern that Mr. Randolph brought up, for the maintenance and operating budget, these properties are self-supporting from the rental income. Mr. Chris Hawk, Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), said that for nearly 50 years, PEC has championed smart land use and conversation. He said PEC recognizes that the vitality of towns and cities and the health of the environment are closely linked. He said they bring rural, suburban, and urban interests together to plan for the region's future. Mr. Hawk said that by encouraging investment in attractive, livable, urban growth areas, they relieve pressures on the Rural Area. He said they abdicate for growth where it makes sense, reducing the number of miles that people drive in order to reduce fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and traffic. Mr. Hawk said PEC supports low-income housing in the urban areas that provide housing in areas located in close proximity to jobs and everyday services, resulting in lower transportation costs for residents and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Hawk said PEC agrees with the staff recommendations, and they highlight staffs concerns related to two subjects: private roads and adequate pedestrian facilities. He said private roads should be avoided, as they could cause significant fiscal impacts to future property owners and residents. He said especially with low-income housing being involved, this is a very important point. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Mr. Hawk said PEC recommends that the County require the interior roads be built to the appropriate standards for incorporation into the public network. He said if this is not possible, due to the 80% concurrence requirement in the road maintenance agreement, PEC recommends denial. Mr. Hawk said adequate pedestrian facilities are not available for future residents and property users to safely cross Route 29 in this application. He said given the proposed commercial and residential density of this project, PEC recommends that the County seek proposals that incorporate pedestrian facilities across and along Route 29. He said in order for this proposed Neighborhood Model District, as well as other future projects, to have the appropriate pedestrian connectivity to the County's urban area, it is paramount that pedestrian facilities be included in this proposal. Mr. Hawk said the Places29 Master Plan highlights 12 principles for both redevelopment and new development in the master plan area, and the first three principles are pedestrian orientation, neighborhood -friendly streets and paths, interconnected streets, and transportation network. Mr. Hawk said that in the recent presentation, "No One is Expendable," Angie Schmitt detailed the findings of her book, Right of Way, written to address pedestrian deaths in American related to race and class disparities. He said her book and associated research highlighted multiple case studies throughout the United States, detailing the impacts of limited pedestrian facilities on minority and low-income populations. He said many of the cases she describes bear an uncanny likeness to 29 North, and especially this area. Mr. Hawk said low-income housing is integral to creating the vibrant community envisioned in Places29. He asked the Commission to please take into consideration the need for the streets to be safe and built to an appropriate standard for all residents. He thanked the Commission for taking the time to listen to PEC's comments and for considering their recommendation regarding incorporation of public road standards and pedestrian facilities associated with this rezoning. Mr. Sunshine Mathon, Executive Director of Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) said he is also a resident of Albemarle County, living in the Rio District. He said he would keep his comments short. He said he wanted to thank both Mr. Harrow and Ms. Anderson for sharing some basic details around the overall redevelopment. He said what he would like to highlight in particular is that this is actually a moment in time. He said it is an extraordinary opportunity and a collaboration of multiple nonprofit partners all striving to make increased impacts overall. Mr. Mathon said in his experience, the last 8-9 months was one of the very few silver linings he has seen under the COVID-19 era, which is essentially that across the nation, organizations like TJACH (headed by Mr. Harrow) have pivoted rapidly to get people who are experiencing homelessness off the street in much safer conditions, in individual hotel rooms. Mr. Mathon said pre-COVID, the possibility of effectively ending homelessness, or at least people living on the street, was still a dream, in many ways. He said the silver lining of COVID is that it has actually galvanized work to make this possible. Mr. Mathon said a second piece of this is that the opportunity to develop a motel into permanent supportive housing is a best practice across the United States. He said that in his past work in Austin, Texas, he participated in similar endeavors multiple times, and it is commonly used across the nation as a way to rapidly develop and address homelessness issues by providing permanent, ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 supportive, safe, and vibrant housing. Mr. Mathon said he wanted to highlight that this truly is a moment in time. He said the fact that these organizations are coming together under a common vision and purpose is highly reflective of the desire of the community as a whole to increase the level of impact and collaboration so that they can effectively end homelessness in the region and provide additional affordable housing that is critically needed for people across the spectrum. Ms. Ebonie Bugg (1113 Cottonwood Road, 22901) said she was representing the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation and herself, as a resident of Albemarle County. She noted that their entire staff and board are in support of this project and are poised to make a $4.7 million investment in this development to support both short-term and long-term plans to address chronic homelessness in the community. Ms. Bugg said it is important to note that this development would mark an extraordinary improvement on the current status of the development in that particular area on Premier Circle while solving one of the most essential issues of this time. Ms. Bugg said she wanted to note that homelessness in particular during a global pandemic is a public health crisis in addition to a basic human right. She said they are at a unique moment and can provide safe and stable housing for people in the interim as well as long-term supportive housing and services to help them navigate the world. Ms. Bugg said that as a County resident, she does concur with the comments and some of the concerns made related to the pedestrian crossing and rights -of -way. She said at the Foundation, they are also supporters of PEC and recognize the work they are doing. She said they do not necessarily feel, however, that this development should bear the full brunt of the pedestrian needs and, as a resident, she believes the County can work with these nonprofit entities to ensure that municipal funding and support can be used to support the infrastructure that is needed to make this a success. Ms. Bugg said that as a social worker providing clinical services in the area, she cannot underestimate the intersection of housing stability and its impact on stress and wellbeing across the lifespan. Ms. Bugg said finally, as an individual who has experienced homelessness, she cannot understate the importance of this project and what this means to individuals who are most vulnerable in the community. Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing and asked the Commission if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. Bailey said he wanted to follow up on the additional information that was provided by Mr. Harrow and Ms. Anderson. He said Ms. Anderson mentioned that there was maintenance in the operating budget, and he wanted to understand whether this operating budget includes maintenance for their portion of the private road. Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Schweller if she wanted to handle this question on behalf of her clients. Ms. Schweller replied that she did not know the answer. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Mr. Bivins noted there were three partners in attendance and that he could only see one of them. Ms. Schweller said she would need to defer to Ms. Anderson on that question, but she did not see her. Mr. Bivins said he did not see Ms. Anderson, either Mr. Bailey said he could complete the second part of his question, which was related. He said Mr. Harrow mentioned that this was expected to save $1.75 million per year, and his question was if this savings factor was set aside for the operating budget, or if this was before the incorporation of the operating budget, road maintenance, and other associated items. Mr. Harrow replied that this number is about what they are paying right now to shelter vulnerable people in hotels because of this pandemic. He said those costs are projected over three years versus the operating costs, should this project move forward, to use the existing hotel rooms at Red Carpet Inn. He said those costs over three years would save about 42%, and those costs included maintenance of the property (but not maintenance of the road, which was not included as part of that figure). Ms. Schaffer said Ms. Anderson was available to answer the question. Ms. Anderson replied that they have not currently included costs for the maintenance of the private road, but it is definitely something they will look into and consider. Mr. Clayborne said his question was more for the program of the nonresidential spaces. He asked, in light of the conversations about crossing the road, if there has been any consideration of perhaps some of the nonresidential programmatic space being a market or someplace where residents can grab some needed staples without having to cross the street. Ms. Schweller replied that Mr. Andy Miller from PHA is looking into a number of different options with nonprofit organizations and others. She said he was on the call and could elaborate, and that those conversations are ongoing. She said she did not know if this was one that Mr. Miller had looked into. Mr. Miller said he would first ask a clarifying question. He asked Mr. Clayborne if he was referring to the amenities that are within the apartment buildings, or if he was referring to the commercial space on Block 1. Mr. Clayborne replied that he believed it was the commercial space facing Route 29 Mr. Miller said there has been some preliminary conversations. He said ideally, what they have looked at is talking to partner organizations or other nonprofits that might utilize that space for either office space or other uses that would essentially work well with the overall development. He said as far as the particular use that Mr. Clayborne mentioned, they have not had that discussion because it has not been brought up in the conversations they have had. He said those conversations have been very early in the process just because that parcel is not positioned to be developed for another 2-3 years, at this point. He said they have some time to look into that, and so this is one thing they could look into as well. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Mr. Keller said he had a question about the homelessness and, given the timeline they have seen, how many years the applicant anticipates there being some portion of Red Roof Inn available for homelessness and, after that removal (if this is a successful project, and they have the other components), if there will still be a homeless component on this site. Mr. Harrow replied that for clarification, he believed Mr. Keller meant Red Carpet Inn. He said there is also a Red Roof that is local. Mr. Keller said he meant Red Carpet Inn Mr. Harrow said they anticipate using it for as long as they can. He said in the phasing, immediately into Phase 1 and potentially into Phase 2, they talked about how the number of rooms they will have access to because of the development will decrease as they move through the different phases. He said they are looking at other potential for this site as well as for that other plot to potentially have some level of addressing homelessness. He said right now, the sheltering for Phase 1 and into Phase 2 is the use for emergency shelter. Mr. Harrow said obviously, the permanent supportive housing development by VSH addresses chronic homelessness directly, as does affordable housing across both developments (PHA and VSH). He said this is what they hope to do with all the people they are working with who are experiencing homelessness by providing them an opportunity to move into the housing. He said the biggest limiting factor right now is available units in the community for them to help people move out of homelessness. He said the whole project addresses homelessness because it is providing opportunities for affordable housing, but shelter will end after those phases. Mr. Keller said those who are aware of VSH and have had an opportunity to follow The Crossings in Charlottesville have been quite impressed with the continuum. He said he understands this, but he was trying to get a sense of the timeline. He asked if they were talking 3-5 years for some use of that. Mr. Harrow replied yes. Mr. Keller said then, if they have been successful in securing another facility like this, as they showed the data and they were all aware of the data of the positive use of retrofitting hotels and motels for this sort of thing, they would have to go back to their rental model at the end of this. He asked if this is what they could conclude. Mr. Harrow replied that there are a lot of things up in the air with COVID. He said there is a vaccine, but they also do not know what that is going to look like, moving into the future, in terms of spread still occurring in the community. He said they are preparing for needing to shelter in private rooms for the foreseeable future, and so at the end of the 3-5 years, homelessness will look drastically different. He said this project will drastically change how the system works for the better. Mr. Harrow said there will always be a need for emergency shelter for people who fall into homelessness in the community. He said their goal is to get people back into housing quickly so that they do not have to stay in an emergency shelter for more than 30 days. He said they will still need emergency shelter, and there still is the Salvation Army, which offers year-round emergency shelter. He said they also have other options for shelter through [inaudible] for seasonal shelter, and those needs will likely still continue, but they will definitely be drastically different as a result ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 of having these new units in the community Mr. Bivins said they heard that VSH is going to have permanent accessible units, but they were not told whether or not the 40-60 PHA units would be permanently accessible and if so, if PHA will be working with Dr. Pethia to screen or identify individuals to move into them. Mr. Andy Miller, Real Estate Development Director for Piedmont Housing Alliance, said if he understood the question correctly, Mr. Bivins was essentially asking what percentage of the PHA units would be affordable and for how long. He asked if this was the crux of the question or if Mr. Bivins was asking about accessibility. Mr. Bivins said this was it. He asked who PHA will be working with, as a developer, to fill those. Mr. Miller replied that in terms of the affordable, just like VSH, PHA will be looking to utilize low- income housing tax credits for all 60 of their units, which brings with it 15-year and 30-year requirements for affordability. He said they would be working with Dr. Pethia on those units. Mr. Miller said that in terms of accessibility, the project would have elevators, and so they would have a number of accessible units throughout the project. Mr. Bivins said there was a comment that there may be units on the second floor of the building in Block 1. Ms. Schweller replied that this was right. She said it is possible that up to 20 of the residential units could be in Block 1, which is the block facing Route 29. Mr. Bivins said that this then would not be a full commercial space. Ms. Schweller replied that the block could be mixed use, but it could be completely nonresidential. Mr. Bivins asked if this was to be determined. Ms. Schweller replied yes. Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for a recommendation Mr. Keller said he had a question for staff if Mr. McDermott was still present. Mr. McDermott noted his presence. Mr. Keller said this would be an unfair question, but he would ask Mr. McDermott to delve into his experience. He said often, projects start with private streets, and they are then gifted to the County. He asked Mr. McDermott if he could put a guesstimate range on what it would cost to bring the full length of the street, as well as the portion of the street that is adjacent to this parcel, up to VDOT standards. Mr. McDermott replied that he could not make an estimate on that. He said staff has requested a conditions assessment of the road from the applicant, and staff does not know what this is built like. He said he did not know if this would simply take a resurfacing or if it would take getting into subgrade to bring it up to VDOT standards. He said the costs for these types of things are wildly ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 different, as paving would be $10,000, but if they have to rip out the road and rebuilt it from the beginning, then it is a matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said staff hopes to have that information about the condition of the road from the applicant, but they do not have it at this time. Mr. Keller said he assumed the other component of this is that there are multiple property owners along that, and there has to be agreement amongst them for those changes as well. Mr. McDermott said this is correct. He said typically, if a private road were to be brought into the public system, the people who currently own that road would work together to fund that. He said this is how it has been done in the past. Mr. Keller asked Mr. McDermott if he could not give, out of the books, the cost per linear foot of that resurfacing versus a completely new road with base and curb -and -gutter sidewalks would be so that they could do a multiplication to have a very, very general ballpark. Mr. Randolph pointed out that it was still a compounding variable for Mr. McDermott. Mr. McDermott said there is an engineer on the call from the applicant, and he may be able to provide a closer estimate than he himself would be able to make. He asked if Mr. Craig Kotarski from Timmons Group could provide a guess. Mr. Keller said he would like to hear that. Mr. Bivins said this was a situation where they were making an exception because of staffs handoff of the question. Mr. Craig Kotarski with the civil engineering firm Timmons Group said the best answer to that question is that it would depend on what they would have to do. He said as far as what they have done and looked at at this point, they have seen that there is more of a thickness of asphalt. He said when thinking about a road, it is asphalt over stone, with a stone base and then asphalt over top of it. He said the thickness of the asphalt is where the primary strength comes from. Mr. Kotarski said there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 inches to 4 inches of asphalt over stone, from what they have seen. He said this is not really what they would see for a VDOT road, but he thinks that more troubling from a VDOT acceptance is actually much of the geometry that is a part of this road, and he believed Ms. Firehock described that from her previous experience. Mr. Kotarski said he would answer Mr. Keller's question on a cost estimate, but one thing that was important to note is that the use they are looking at is actually a significant reduction in what could be developed by right from a traffic and transportation perspective. He said a few years ago, his group actually filed a site plan for a Lidl on this site. He said the subject application is showing about 30% of the traffic being generated versus that by -right grocery store. Mr. Kotarski said another thing he would note is that there is not good data for an affordable housing development such as this. He said when he says it is 30% of the Lidl, this is actually assuming market -rate apartments because they do not have good data. He said more so, what they have had in conversations with PHA and the other applicants there is that they think this number is probably even lower — probably about 20%, if not lower. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Mr. Kotarski said if one were to go through, tear out all the asphalt, and repave and build to standards, they are easily looking at $500,000, and probably north of that when they start getting into curb and gutter, drainage impacts, stormwater quality and quantity improvements, and street trees. Mr. Keller said he appreciated the information Mr. Bivins said the Commissioners were now talking among themselves, hopefully walking towards a decision on this particular matter. Mr. Keller said he thinks the Commissioners, given where they have been on other things, are very positively inclined towards what this project is trying to achieve. He said they have outlined a number of significant issues in terms of the site plan and its lack of significant open space, the road, and the pedestrian access across Route 29. He said perhaps there were others, but those three issues stood out in his notes has he has been thinking about this. Mr. Keller said they have been given a figure for the crossing and for the road reworking, if these are possible. He said he thinks they have to look, in light of what they were just doing last week with the Supervisors, at the work that so many staff and community members as well as appointed and elected officials to think about affordable housing and decide whether this, as the Chair has said from the dais a number of times, is a point where the County or nonprofits other than the housing nonprofits involved in the project are willing to put some dollars in the bucket to make this be the kind of project that they would all like it to be. Mr. Keller said this is where he finds himself. He said it seems to him that the streets should be brought to standard and that there should be some significant thought about pedestrian access across Route 29. He said in terms of the applicant, there should be some more serious thought as to how open space is going to work on this site plan other than just building footprints. Mr. Clayborne said he agreed with the staff report. He said regarding the issue about crossing Route 29, he thinks this is a long-term issue as well. He said he recalled the Commission having the same conversation at a form -based code work session, and so this was not anything that would be going away anytime soon. He said where he is with this project is that he loves it and thinks it is a beautiful collaboration. He said to him, out of all the work sessions the Commission has sat through, these projects that have this kind of community impact are what he gets out of bed for as a Planning Commissioner. He mentioned affordable housing and ending homelessness as a development. He said he was in a position to enthusiastically support this to move forward. Ms. Firehock said she also supports this project. She reiterated that she does not think they should hang their hats on trying to get across Route 29. She said at the Chair's suggestion, she did look up how far it would be to get to the next mall up the road (Shopper's World), and it is one-half mile. She said this is walkable with a grocery cart or a backpack. She said she would be more interested in looking at options for a shuttle that would take people to different places before she would spend money on trying to get across Route 29. She said she did not want to even encourage that at that location. Ms. Firehock said she used to have her office overlook the road at that exact spot, and she saw multiple car crashes there every month. She said others could look up the accident data themselves, but there were many fender benders and many incidents that were probably never even recorded. She said people are driving very fast through there. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 22 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 Ms. Firehock said she wanted to go back to the open space question. She said she thinks the Commission should follow staffs recommendation for a park that is usable as a park. She said the applicant mentioned tot lots, but she was not necessarily suggesting a tot lot with many jungle gyms. She said that as the population changes on the site, if there happens to be more children at one point, more teenagers, or more adults, it should be a site that is flexible and can be used by different audiences. She said it is important to get outside. Ms. Firehock said in her experience, she was there every day, and she would see people trying to bring chairs out of their motel rooms to try to find a place to sit outside and enjoy the day. She said people need a space to congregate outside, and especially when living in a motel room where there are no balconies or other ways to be outside. She said she would like the Commission to follow staffs recommendation on the request for an actual park space or several park spaces. Ms. More said she agreed with what others had said, and that she believed Ms. Firehock wrapped up the point she wanted to make about not pushing the notion about having to cross Route 29. She said she thinks there are other alternatives that are safer. She said to the point that they have raised concerns; staff has addressed it in their report. She said she would guess that most of the Commissioners would support this project enthusiastically, and their line of questioning has been only to provide feedback and protection for those involved about what might be out there as far as financial responsibility. She said she does hope that other resources in the County can play a part in some of the financing and that other nonprofits could step up to bridge the financial gaps. Ms. More said she does support the project and definitely agrees that she would rather see money go into other types of things than a crossing across Route 29. She said she did agree with what Mr. Randolph and Ms. Firehock said that there should be cautionary tales, as there are for many places along Route 29 for those who choose to cross, and they encourage people not to do that. Mr. Randolph said he is overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the project both conceptually and organizationally. He said he is concerned, however, about the potential tragedy of the commons for the greenspace and for the gardens and meditation garden proposed. He said the tragedy of the commons is that through collective action of all three of these organizations committed to a public service mission of meeting the needs of their residents and the people they serve, over time, the resources that are there (which are green and to be shared in commons with one another) will be devalued or depleted with time. Mr. Randolph said that at the Board level, he would like to see some proposal here and how to address that, through a collective organization like a homeowners association where all the businesses that are here in this location pay in on an annual basis to maintain the greenspace that will be utilized by all. He said otherwise, he does worry that over time, the greenspace will become degraded and will not be the quality space that everyone is hoping for and that he thinks all the residents in this facility deserve to have. Mr. Bailey said he appreciates Mr. Keller's exhortation on, as they have just had the recent joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, thinking about where the County can step up and support what he thinks is a very innovative plan to address chronic homelessness that these three organizations have put together. He said he does appreciate this and is in favor of it. Mr. Bailey said he would not restate everything he heard, but he thinks it has been well covered, and in addition to what has been stated by fellow Commissioners, having a plan about how ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 23 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 maintenance for the road will be done and an operating budget, in addition to the greenspaces that Mr. Randolph just mentioned, should be something that the applicant should be able to speak to as it is brought in front of the Board until the County knows how they are going to do it, as it is a private road, specifically before the portion that directly abuts the properties. Mr. Bailey said another thing that he would caution that although they are not encouraging people to cross Route 29, in terms of putting up signage, directly across Route 29 is Food Lion, Big Lots, and other very attractive places to go both for young children as well as adults. He said he thinks that in not losing sight of that and figuring out how they are going to address this, and with part of it being an education component by the nonprofits or through a shuttle, that the community of these nonprofits can help with either facilitating the movement across Route 29 or helping to educate the relevant citizens of this area on how they can move safely through the area. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Bailey if he then also supports the project. Mr. Bailey replied yes. Mr. Bivins said he would be clear that he actually supports the elements of the project, but he has struggled with the location of the project. He said he wanted to be very clear about what he was saying. He said the collaboration, goal, and strategy is brilliant. He said he would be more excited about a different location, as he thinks there are many complications, and so he would prefer a different location. He said it has nothing to do with the collaboration or goal, but it does have to do with the whole idea of shifting a prime commercial space to a space that, as he has learned, will be predominantly engaged in residential. Mr. Bivins said that even with the absolute top-notch and most honorable of residential projects, it is something that he is struggling with. He said he struggles with it, given the County's hard lines on what they consider to be development and non -development space in the County, and so he needed to say that, and needed to say it in a way so that people hear him say that he is not against the project. He said he has struggled with the location of this project, however, and he wants to have his comment noted because perhaps the people who this will go to will have another idea about this. Mr. Bivins said he thinks everyone has raised some important issues that the Supervisors will hopefully embrace about whether or not this is a type of project they feel they want to engage with further, but this is not for the Commission to suggest to then allocate things the way the Board does. He said what the Commission is doing is suggesting that this is an idea which is worthy. Mr. Bivins said he supports the project, too, and given that this particular ZMA is what they have before them, this is what he has to work with. He said he cannot work with another piece of land, and he has to work with this one. He said he would be supporting this activity on this piece of land, but his preference would be that it was on a different piece of land that did not have as much infrastructure to invest in. He said his preference was that it would sit in an area that hit most of the Neighborhood Model a lot easier and would integrate with pedestrian facilities and different types of housing. Mr. Bivins said that as far as the Commissioners who typically have issues around having only one type of housing, this is an exception they will need to deal with in terms of if they are okay with just one housing type. He said staff has recommended that there are different housing types around, which is helpful. He said many Commissioners have been uneasy about letting projects ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 24 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 go that only have one housing type on it, and so they will speak to this when they get to the exception. Mr. Bivins said he would allow a Commissioner to make a motion, if they were so inclined. Ms. Nedostup said she had prepared motions to be used, or they could be modified in terms of the conditions. Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Nedostup to present those on the screen Ms. Nedostup said what she put together was with the four changes (which she could go back to), she outlined in the staff report that if the Commission wants to make changes to those changes, they are welcome to include those in the motion as well. Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Nedostup if she could back up to that page. Ms. Nedostup said what she had heard that evening from a couple of Commissioners is that the open space and greenspace needs to be addressed, recreation, and allowing more flexibility to change over time and the maintenance of those areas. She said the road, Premier Circle, was mentioned as far as the maintenance, adequacy, and standard of that road. She said there were two different things mentioned regarding the pedestrian access. She said a couple of Commissioners talked about not hanging their hats on the crossing and that it should be for the future. She said another couple want this to be considered, moving forward, and for this concern to be addressed. Ms. Nedostup said these were the items she listed in the conditions in addition to the minor changes she had mentioned in her presentation and report on the bus stop and the maximum square footage. Mr. Bivins asked if anyone was ready to move with these recommended changes. Ms. Nedostup asked if Mr. Bivins wanted her to put up the motion or the changes. Mr. Bivins asked for the motion. Mr. Bailey said he had one quick question to be sure he was understanding correctly Point #2, where they had talked about kids, but there were additional questions about being more flexible. He asked if they were stating that they are suggesting a requirement for a dedicated "tot lot." Ms. Nedostup replied no. She said currently, there are a number of amenities listed within the code of development, one of which is not a playground or play space for children. She said she recommended that this be added to the code of development to allow that flexibility so that they can provide those amenities they outlined in the code of development, or a play area. She said this was one thing she felt was missing from the list, but if the Commission thinks that another one should be added, then this was up to them to include that, but this is one that staff had identified. Mr. Bailey said with this clarification, he wanted to make a motion. Mr. Bailey moved to recommend approval of ZMA202000011 Premier Circle for the reasons ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 25 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 stated in the staff report and with the changes recommended by staff, outlined in the staff report, to be addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Bivins addressed Ms. Schweller, noting that she heard the Commission and that no one should take away from this that the Commission is not pleased and supportive, but there are a number of questions that they believe would be helpful for her and her clients to be able to be actively engaged in responding to when they go before the Supervisors. He thanked the applicant for bringing such an interesting project before the Commission. Ms. Schweller thanked the Commission, noting that the applicant appreciated all their well - thought -out comments, and the applicant would certainly work on those before the Board hearing. Mr. Herrick noted that before moving on, they needed to deal with the special exception request. Mr. Bailey asked if there was one special exception, or if there were two. Mr. Bivins said there was one. Mr. Bailey moved to recommend approval of the modification for the requirement for two housing types within a Neighborhood Model District for ZMA202000011 Premier Circle for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Bivins said again, the applicant had this to go with them when they go before the Supervisors. He wished the applicant a safe and prosperous year. Recess At 8:06 p.m., Mr. Bivins called a short recess. At 8:10 pm., the meeting resumed. Committee Reports Mr. Bailey said the feedback from his committee meeting was about continuing to look at and track progress on different local initiatives from the wildflowers and others in the Places29 CAC. He said they started to lay out some plans for review of the Comprehensive Plan by the CAC, starting in 2021. He said they will be taking a chapter -by -chapter approach. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Carrazana, as he had been in the news recently, about UVA affordable housing. Mr. Carrazana said there was some progress potential. He said there was not much for him to say except there was some movement in bringing in a consultant to help the university. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: December 2 Mr. Rapp said that last week, the Commission had their joint meeting with the Board. He said the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 26 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 prior week, the Board did approve an amendment to the Forest Lakes Planned Development Shopping Center that had come before the Commission a month or two ago about the additional buildings and parking areas off of Timberwood Boulevard. He said the applicant did respond to some of the Commission's suggestions by doubling the size of the greenspace amenity area between this and the adjacent property to the north. Old/New Business There was no old business or new business. Items for Follow -Up There were no items. Adjournment At 9:11 p.m., the Commission adjourned to January 12, 2021, Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting. Charles Rapp, Director of Planning (Recorded and transcribed by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Approved by Planning Commission Date: Initials: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 27 DRAFT MINUTES - December 15, 2020 SITE DATA: ENGINEER: TIMMONS GROUP 608 PRESTON AVENUE, SUITE 200 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 TELEPHONE: 434-327-1681 CONTACT: JONATHAN SHOWALTER, P.E. JONATHAN.SHOWALTER@TIMMONS.COM TAX MAP PARCEL: 061MO-00-00-00600 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO SOURCE TOPOGRAPHY: ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS DATUM: HORIZONTAL: NAD83 VIRGINIA STATE GRID SOUTH ZONE VERTICAL: NAVD88 ESTABLISHED THROUGH LEICA SMARTNET SITE AREA: 3.75 ACRES WATER SUPPLY: ACSA SANITARY SEWER: ACSA DRAINAGE DISTRICT: RIVANNA RIVER - MEADOW CREEK THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED IN A WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION DISTRICT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OFFICE / FLEX / R+D / LI PER THE PLACES29 MASTER PLAN ZONING OVERLAYS: ENTRANCE CORRIDOR AND AIRPORT IMPACT AREA CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT: C1 COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT PREMIER CIRCLE ZMA 2020-00011 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA RIO DISTRICT 01/15/2021 4TH SUBMISSION VICINITY MAP SCALE 111=500' ENGINEER OF RECORD: TIMMONS GROUP 608 PRESTON AVENUE, SUITE 200 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CONTACT: JONATHAN SHOWALTER, P.E. TELEPHONE: 434-327-1681 Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title SHEET COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 3 BLOCK NETWORK SHEET 4 BUILDABLE AREA AND CONCEPTUAL SWIM SHEET 5 CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED CIRCULATION SHEET 6 CONCEPTUAL AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM SHEET 7 CONCEPTUAL PHASING DIAGRAM SHEET 8 CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTIONS C H I T E C T S 1 1 2 fourth street ne Charlottesville Virginia 22902 434.971.7160 brw-orchitects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 FOR ZMA 2020-0001 1 TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS 11.20.2020 2ND SUBMISSION 01.04.2021 3RD SUBMISSION 01.15.2021 4TH SUBMISSION SHEET 1 COVER \ \ TMP 61W-01-OC-5 I `\ \\ \ \ \ \ \C\1COMMERCIAL I NN I / I I I I 1 _ \ \ TMP 611M-01-24 R2 RESIbENTIALI IN, CO TMR61M-U1-23 `\ ` \\ v 1 R2 RgSIDEN'FIAL ` TMP 61 W-01-OC-1 C1 COMMERCIAL I I I TMP 61M-01-22_— \ \ \ \ ^ I R2 RESIDENTIAL N' TMP61W-01-OC-2 / CI COMMERCIAL \ TMP 61M-01-21 3�92 RESIDENTIAL ,474. ISTING TMP 611U0120'� / ,,R2-REMENTIAL� TMP O MERC AL \/ ' / BUILDIN`- '' - - / C1 COMMERCIAL \ / 1 EXISTING ' / ' ' ` / / D / / EXCEPTION 7 _ BUILDING C E:XISTING ' / / EX. 20'ACSA y / / / SANITARYSEWER \ \ / f — _ — — — BpICDING B I I , EASEMENT \ \ / \— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — IMP 61M46 038 g0 / I \ 99,PG. 327 \ �� I ---------------- --_ --- i TIOTALI-D ,' I \ \---- - - - - -' �1 COMMERCIAL / , I r- (� \ , I TMP 61Mp:619 - - - - _ _ - _ -- 1 3.75 ORES ' / ��� ( R2 RESIDENTIAL REDCP2PETINN/ 50 TMP 61W-010C \C1 COMME CIA L4-------472' -476— EN1�ER G1R / \ \ \ ' R \ / / ' P \ APPROX. GAS / "I- - - - - _ ' LINE LOCATIONS S�q' 474' / / - - ' 41?- _ \ , \ Q \ ' / '� 7 �� C1 COMMERCIAL // CO //// / J /l / /r✓ //i i —w--- T—w /' TMP61V11-1LC4// / / G C1-COMM hbAL I I / / I 1_1' \ _ _ _ _ \ \ \ \ 1 \ I I I I I �\ I I I I I I / / / / I I I f \ APPROX. GAS 1 rn APPROX. WATERLINE LINE LOCATIONN / / "'� ro\ m EXCEPTIONS \I /� LOCATIONS I EXISTING BUILDING A EX.20'ACSA I WATER -LINE ESMT 1 1 I I \ — — \ I I 11 I DS. 925, PG. 433 I I I \ \ \ I 1 I TMP 61 F4-/2 1 I C1 COMMERCIAL / I I I I ( 1 I I I I I \ l l \ \ \ EXCEPTION 11 l 1 \ \ 15' VEPCO EASEMENT / DB. 920, PG. 609 / / —(APPROXIMATE) I / l ` l ' \ HP — — —4 480 _ -- — — ——--------------------_-- —_--_----- \ ------- / ——— — — — — ——— \ \ _--------- _-----------474------- - - - - - - -- — ---- -----------' \ -- ----- - - - - -- —---- - - -- ---- EXCEPTION 11 I APPROX. POWER 15'VEPCO EASEMENT ,' / o LOCATIONS OR 92o, PG. 609 (APPROXIMATE) SEMINOLE TRAIL (US ROUTE 29) / ' NN ` \ FA / / / / \ \ I I r \ I — — — __ —_ _— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — IN,I'=r�=-.-'eCz'eC-e.F�-�.r�-�c:—'±:—'ic—'it'��=�� / — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 \ \ / xv _SC9L€1"=40' l f - - \ \ ' R C H IT E C T S 112 fourth street ne Charlottesville Virginia4.7 .7160 2902 434.971.7160 brw-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 =I ZMA 2020-0001 1 •�����0 � f TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS TMP61W-01-OC-5 O\1 COMMERCIAL I TMP 611M-01-241 R2RESIbENTIAL1 CO M,I,/ TMR61M-U1-23 \\ \ \\ \. \ O \ 1 I R2 R&SIDENfiIAL TMP61W-01-OC-1 \ / C1 COMMERCIAL 1 1 1 1 I ✓ / // l / ` � \ \ \ \ \ — // /, \ — \ \ \ \ \ �C� _ . I i / 1 If \ / TMP 61M-01-22 I R2 RESIDENTIAL / 1 ' TMP 61W-01-OC-2 \ / C1 COMMERCIAL TMP61M-01-\21 A 2 RESIDENTIAL _474.\`. TMP 61141 01 20 u/ TMP 61W-01-OC-3\ /f22 RESiDENiIAL— r CICOMMERCIAL \) /�' 1 ' / /' / / /' / ,/' \\\\— / \\ — �� �— ------ _ -- — — % _ �r It TMP 61M- 1=19-- ---- _ i R2 RESIDENTIAL \ TMP61W-01 OC-4 \C1 COMME CIAL ,1--476- , - PREMIERC qwm2/ l 474 / — — ' / \ 2— _ \ III F2ESIC NTIAL�' - - - - - TMP61M13 \ \ \\ \ 7 ti C1 COMMERCIAL 2.6§/AC \ \ \ \ \ \ S1 I / TMP 616/1 C-4 e1-COMME/UTAL / / I I I I I \ I / COBL§CK 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL % \ I I 1 \ I 1 I \ 1 I I TMP 61 NI C1 COMMERCIAL 1 I I I I AC \ \ 482---- —480 — — — _/ / f _ 478 - - \/ \` - - - - - - _ \ `\ - - - - - - - ` - — ----------------474---- - ------- - ------ ------ _ --- --- --� _ �_—_—__ ------ / ( I ' I ' \ \ SEMINOLE TRAIL (US ROUTE 29) _ _ _- - - - - _�_---�_�- -sue - - _ ��� _ _ — _ _ , _ _ - -- � : — = — zx— —AL —ar c -E --�_ �3tzz--±�\� i — — — — - \ - - - F \ / / // — — _ 1 \ \ I// �IJv / / — SCALE 1"=40' 0 40'— \ I I — — — — — — — — — — \ I \ \ /ICI I/ll I I I �'' `-----------' I LL_V v ////P/ //// / / 1 v \ I R C H I T E C T S 112 fourth street Re Charlottesville v34.97 .7160 2902 434.971.7160 bm-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 FOR ZMA 2020-0001 1 • 4 see TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS 111.20.20201 2ND SUBMISSION SHEET 3 BLOCK NETWORK TMP61W-01-OC-5 O\1 COMMERCIAL I TMP611M-01-241 R2RESIbENTIAL1 \,/ �' \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\ v \ ` If If 00, M,I,/o TM 61 M-al-23 \ \ \� \ R2 R&SIDENTIAL TMP61W-01-OC-1 C1 COMMERCIAL If / / I TMP 61M-01-22_--- / / \ / / / / e/ \ \ \ \ . I R2 RESIDENTIAL If If 11 2 ' REPLANTED BUFFER 00'SETBAC INE(FROM - -- / :'71 / , BERKELEY UBDIVISION)- _ Qj \ \ ` \ \ . • / ' - / TMP 61W-01-OC-2 / / 4� / \ i C1 COMMERCIAL TMP61M-0121 \ i \ / \ �2 RESIDENTIAL \If IF / / %472,��\\\ TMP 61141--01,20 TMP 61W-01-OC-3\ / / / / / 4 RESIDENTIAL / \ ,R2-RESMEN-IAL- r C1 COMMERCIAL \ ' / 1 ' / 'Q / / BUILDING AREA he ' 5'SETA \ \ \\ �\ / ------- --- - - - -- - — — ---- - - - - -- -'i ------------- -- - -- - - - /------_ / � //� / ' / I I ��� I \\ /I TMP 61M- R2 RESIDENTIAL \ TMP61W-01 OC-4 i \C1 COMME CIAL / / , /// // / /' � — — \ `".' . / / / / ,: , j i / / � — — — — ; /' \ \ �1I ` I / i Ilk RESIDENTIAL / :::: / 7 ' \ \ . \ - ' BUILDINGAREA GENERAL AND POSSIBLE - - - - _ _ OCATION OF FUTURE TRANSIT \ TMP 61 M13 I \ \ \\ \ STOP TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND C1 COMMERCIAL ' PLACED IN SERVICE AT THE DEMAND OF THE COUNTY UND GROU us, \ I /// / / RMWATE \ \ TMP61VY111=C4 -COMME/Rf�IAL - / / / I / 0 00 \ �/ \ I I 1 \ I 1 I \ 1 I I TMP 61 C1 COMMERCIAL x NON-RESIDENTJAL \ / \ _ / AREA PENDING FURTHER '` I BUILDING AREA\ / / I PARKING REDU TION I \ \ I \ I 41 ' _-- - - - - -- 82484_ _ — - \ _ _ — / r / -_ __ 476478--- - - - - -- _---------- --------- 74 - ------T-------- \ — _ - - - - -- ----------472--_----- f}SETBAC�C- ------------- '------ --- =-' _ ----- ---- - /If ' I / SEMINOLE TRAIL (US ROUTE 29) \ \ 1 _ _ _� — _ _ _ — — — — — / Ire—� — r J _ _ _ — _ — 1 �_ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — / ------------ 1 11.\11 / / $0\ \ / / I I I I / / Cp CP 5' SET CKIV 1 CO POTENTIAL BUILDING R C H I T E C T S 112 fourth street Re Charlottesville v34.97 .7160 2902 434.971.7160 bm-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 FOR ZMA 2020-0001 1 • 4 see TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS 111.20.20201 2ND SUBMISSION SHEET BUILDABLE AREA + CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER & TWO-WAY VEHICULAR ACCESS POINT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK E N TWORK O BIKE RACK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION, ACTUAL LOCATION DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN) GENERAL LOCATION OF POSSIBLE FUTURE INTERPARCEL CONNECTION NOTE: ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE INTERPARCEL CONNECTIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL / / AND IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT ANY OR ALL CONNECTIONS ARE MADE. / CONNECTIONS WILL BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT LOTS / AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENTS. NOTE: IF ADDITIONAL PARKING REDUCTIONS ARE APPROVED DURING SITE PLANNING, OR LESS PARKING IS REQUIRED, BUILDINGS MAY ALSO BE LOCATED / PAR WITHIN PARKING AREAS OF BLOCK 1. / i O E i N U V E 3 i J z w U 0 U N w J U Ile Ine w_ w CL a a 0 0 0 V O J Q) 0 I- R M Ln O� M CV 0 Site Plan - Pro 1" = 40'-0' GENERAL LOCATION OF / POSSIBLE FUTURE / INTERPARCEL CONNECTION / / aG / / / / GENERAL LOCATION OF / POSSIBLE FUTURE E // -= INTERPARCEL CONNECTION GENERAL LOCATION OF POSSIBLE FUTURE INTERPARCEL CONNECTION - SEE SECTION C ON SHEET 8 FOR POSSIBLE CONNECTION Circulation / / //— / / PARKING AREA -POTENTIAL BU/LD/NGAREA PENDING FURTHER PARKING REDUCTION — ROUTE 29 PREWER CIRCLE GENERAL AND POSSIBLE LOCATION OF FUTURE TRANSIT STOP TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND PLACED IN SERVICE AT THE DEMAND OF THE COUNTY. C H I T E C T S 112 fourth street no charlottesville virginia 22902 434.971.7160 brw-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 LOIN ZMA 2020-0001 1 JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY Author APPROVED BY Approver 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 ®®®®®®®® J REVISIONS ® ® 11.20.20 2ND SUBMISSION 01.04.21 3RD SUBMISSION CONNECTION TO EXISTING 01.15.21 4THSUBMISSION SIDEWALK SYSTEM GRAPHIC SCALE - 1:40 0 40' - 80' - 0" 120' - 0" 0" SHEET 5 0 O S J CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED CIRCULATION i O E iu U V E 31 F- t- Z w U I 0 a U _a N w J U (Y U ce ce rY a 01 O O N 0 U O J ot: a re G A Ln _a M O CV SF % Description (approx.) A Central Greenspace Area and 3,678 Landscape Frontage B Courtyard and Meditative 2,218 Garden C Recreational Facility 2,000 D Courtyard and Landscape 4,920 'c Frontage d F Courtyard and Landscape or 2,259 Recreational Facility H Courtyard and Landscape 1,260 TOTAL AMENITY 16,335 10% (16,335 / 163,350) g Site Block 2 - Greenspace 23,348 and Landscape U I Site Block 1 - Greenspace 9,322 a and Landscape V1 C d d U~ TOTAL GREENSPACE 32,670 20% (32,670 / 163,350) Amenity & Green Space 46,465 28% (16,335 + (23,348 -2,540 (OVERLAP)) + 9,322 (46,465 / (amenity + greenspace only block 2 + greenspace block 1 163,350) NOTE: SF AND LOCATION OF AMENITY AND GREENSAPCE SHOWN ARE AN APPROXIMATION; EXACT AREA AND LOCATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN N IN w � N z r w J LL 0 U 0 0� '0 W V LL Q LL F �Z m0 W LL/ Q LL U zz a 1 � Site Plan - Landscape and Amenity Diagram HEET 6) 1^ = 40--0" / PAR / provide / screen i PARKING AREA provide landscape and screening as required PROVIDE STREET TREES AT PREMIER CIRCLE - FINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN PROVIDE STREET TREES AND ORNAMENTAL TREES TO COMPLY WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES PROVIDE STREET TREES AND SHRUBS TO COMPLY WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES FOR PARKING AREAS AND TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR SCREENING T_ GRAPHIC SCALE - 1:40 � fi fi 0 40'- 80'-0" 120'- 0.. o,. NOTES ABOUT AMENITIES AND GREENSPACE: 1. BUILDING LAYOUT, PARKING LAYOUT, AND SIDEWALKS ARE CONCEPTUAL. EXACT LOCATION AND AREAS WILL BE DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN. 2. THE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT SHALL REGULATE REQUIRED GREEN & AMENITY SPACES AND LANDSCAPE. THERE, PROVIDED SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, NON -SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE DEPICTED DESIGN ARE ALLOWED. THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 20% AMENITY AND GREEN SPACE. 3. IF ADDITIONAL PARKING REDUCTIONS ARE APPROVED DURING SITE PLANNING, OR LESS PARKING IS REQUIRED, BUILDINGS MAY ALSO BE LOCATED WITHIN PARKING AREAS OF BLOCK 1. R C H I T E C T S 112 Fourth street ne charloMesville v34.97 .7160 2902 434.971.7160 brw-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 FOR ZMA 2020-0001 1 JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY Approver 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS 11.20.20 2ND SUBMISSION 01.04.21 3RD SUBMISSION 01.15.21 4TH SUBMISSION SHEET 2 CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE r 7� ar Y/ r r ROUTE 29 � r / PREMIER CIRCLE NOTE: PROVIDE TEMPORARY FIRE HYDRANT, SEWER, AND WATER AS NECESSARY TO KEEP EXISTING TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS IN OPERATION AND TO BUILDING AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS. Phase 1 - AFFORDABLE UNITS CONSTRUCTED P=60'0" 0 E U V E 3 i J Q t- z w U 0 a U N w J U Ile Ine w_ ine 01 w a N 0 0 N 0 V O J 0 ce 0 0 0 N M N 0 N LO y ROUTE 29 C'! PREMIER CIRCLE O NEW ENTRANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ACCESS TO EXISTING PARKING (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION SHOWN) 0 VARIOUS EXISTING EASEMENTS TO REMAIN - SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS © EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN PHASE 1 EXISTING UNITS TO REMAIN FOR TJACH USE AS EMERGENCY SHELTER S) EXISTING UNITS POSSIBLY TO REMAIN FOR TJACH USE AS EMERGENCY SHELTER BLOCK 2 BUILD -OUT BEGINS O LANDSCAPE BUFFER - NEWLY PLANTED OR EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN TO MEET REQUIREMETNS PER COD ® 2,500 SF MIN. OF NEW AMENITY AND GREENSPACE COMPLETE (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION SHOWN) BY THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION EARLIEST POSSIBLY CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK PAD FOR FUTURE BUS STOP BY THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION SHOWN) NOTE: IF ADDITIONAL PARKING REDUCTIONS ARE APPROVED DURING SITE PLANNING, OR LESS PARKING IS REQUIRED, BUILDINGS MAY ALSO BE LOCATED WITHIN PARKING AREAS OF BLOCK 1. O BUILDING COMPLETE MIXED -USE OR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARCEL DEVELOPED © ALL AMENITY SPACES COMPLETE (CONCEPTUAL LOCATIONS SHOWN) ® NEW ENTRY COMPLETE ACCESS CONSTRUCTED - SCREENED PER 32.7.9.7 0 NEW PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS AND INTERNAL CONNECTIONS COMPLETE ® LANDSCAPE AT ENTRANCE CORRIDOR COMPLETE R A ROUTE 29 2 Phase 2 - RESIDIENTIAL BUILD -OUT CONTINUES HE ET 7% 11p = 601-011 PREM RE CIRCLE O BLOCK 2 BUILD -OUT PHASE 1 COMPLETE 0 BLOCK 2 BUILD -OUT CONTINUES © NEW PARKING FOR NEW BUILDING(S) CONSTRUCTED ® TEMPORARY PARKING ACCESS ROAD WHILE 2ND ENTRANCE IS RENOVATED - SCREENED PER 32.7.9.7 (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION SHOWN) © RENOVATION OF 2ND ENTRANCE ® PREPARE LAND FOR SALE O LANDSCAPE BUFFER MAINTAINED AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARY ® NEW AMENITY AND GREENSPACE COMPLETE BLOCK 2 (CONCEPTUAL LOCATIONS SHOWN) BY THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE 2 CONSTUCTION NEW ENTRANCE CORRIDOR STREET TREES NOTES ABOUT PHASING: 1. BUILDING LAYOUT, PARKING LAYOUT, AND SIDEWALKS ARE CONCEPTUAL. EXACT LOCATION AND AREAS WILL BE DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN 2. THE PHASES ILLUSTRATED ARE INTENDED TO BE DIAGRAMMATIC AND THE SEQUENCE OF PHASING COULD VARY R C H IT E C T S 112 fourth street ne charloMesville v34.97 .7902 434.971.7160 brw-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 LOIN ZMA 2020-0001 1 JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY Author APPROVED BY Approver 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS 11.20.20 2ND SUBMISSION 01.04.21 3RD SUBMISSION 01.15.21 4TH SUBMISSION SHEET 7 Phase 3 - NON-RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE CONSTRUCTION 0 O S J PHASING DIAGRAM TM 61 M-0.1-23 R2 RESIDENTIAL \ TMP 61W-01-OC-1 \ \ C1 COMMERCIAL \ \IF I TMP 61M-01-22_- I R2 RESIDENTIAL 2Q' REPLANTED BUFFER ` \ / 0' SETBAC 41NE (FROM - - � �X / ERKELEY UBDIVISION) ,r \ ` TMP 6J W-01-OC-2 \ / / / / / ' \ ' DB. 9, PG. 3 - �� ' C1 COMMERCIAL TMP 61M-01-2h� �.-- `\ ).�2 RESIDENTIAL - - \ \ - TMP 61 t TMP 61W-01-OC-3\ RESIDENTIAL ,R2-REMEW / C1 COMMERCIAL \ \ /�' / I ' / p� / / BUILDING AREA /' / / EXCEPTION)- 1 EX. 20'ACSA� / SA IWYSEWER \ / 5' SET /A EASEMENT OB. 899, Pb'. ?,27 \ TMP 61 W-01 OC-4 \C1 COMME CIAL PPROX. GAS ::, . / / - eats /,00'/ LINE LOCATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA g / / GENERAL AND POSSIBLE - - - - - - _ I OCATION OF FUTURE TRANSIT TMP 61MI3 STOP TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND / C1 COMMERCIAL PLACED IN SERVICE AT THE I DEMAND OF THE COUNTY \ / / // / / ✓ /j I .,I 71 W I IN G&Qg1NLL i / —G— I STORMWATER EXCEPTION 9 / / I I I I I I APPROX. GAS 1 EX 20 ACSA WATER-LINEESMT" ;r I ! 1 LINE LOCATIONij DB 925, PG 433 ' .WATERLINE I ICA ;T I 1 LOCATIONS 1 LOCATIONS 5$ CK 1 POTENTIAL BU LDING I I I I I II I REA PENDINGFURTHER I n' I NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA\ =cPARKING REDUCTIONOHP \ \ _ / OH OH _ ---- — __./ \ ��------- ---- - ----- ------ -4-72---76—----E}SETBAC--- - - - -- -- - --- ___--_—. -------- __ -_- EXCEPTION 11 15' VEPCO EASEMENT APPROX. POWER DB. 920, PG. 609 ' \ LINE LOCATIONS - (APPROXIMATE) 1 ' SEMIN LE TRAIL (US ROUTE 29) I , I1 J ------------ -------------------------------------------------- ,-__----_--_ --_--- --- — — — ---_-- _ _ _ _ - --- - - C" �L met ae z acaac ar ter; • . - - - - - i / 1� III11/I 1111 I -- - - - -- ---� , r , ----- - - - - -- S ALE 1"=?40' I �4080' ---------------- OI z 1 ❑ J CONCEPTUAL LOCATION r ' aTnrrr Tnrrn EXISTING SEMINOLE TRAIL SOUTH BOUND LANES (US ROUTE 29) PUBLIC ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH I— CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF 1 STREET TREES TO COMPLY WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES FOR INTERIOR ROADS EXISTING SLOPE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER II EXISTING PREMIER CIRCLE PRIVATE ROAD 5' VARIABLE WIDTH PROPOSED 5' SIDEWALK ROAD CROSS SECTION A -A Q I of I =1 YI �I QI LwI co �I LLI p1 01 00 M. WI ROAD CROSS SECTION B-B I.L. O Z1 0 W I QIJ QI 0w �1 w0 01 Q �I 0IM LLI CLQ-1 w 1 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1 (CDIL AND LOCATION OF w i ENTRANCE CORRIDOR STREET TREES I I I I I I I I 1 10' MIN .--1r I 1 I SIDEWALK CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF J LARGE STREET TREES TO COMPLY WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES ROAD CROSS SECTION C-C VARIABLE WIDTH SCALE 1"=10' 0 10, 20' SCALE 1"=10' 0 10, 20' al I U) I of I Z)I I of I MPARKING I LANDSCAPE I WITH BUFUATE ATER AIDPEDESTRIAN AN y 1 PARKING I CIRCULATION I I I I yl MIN. I I I I I I I CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF STREET TREES AND SHRUBS TO COMPLY WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES FOR PARKING AREAS AND TO COMPLY WITH SCREENING REQUIREMENTS 10' POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR FUTURE PEDESTRIAN PATH OR AMENITY LANDSCAPE SCALE 1"=10' 0 10, 20' R C H I T E C T S 112 fourth street no charlottesvilla v34.97 .7160 2902 434.971.7160 brw-architects.com Premier Circle 405 PREMIER CIRCLE TMP 61 M-6 FOR ZMA 2020-0001 1 aeet• TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. JOB NUMBER 20031 DATE 09.21.2020 DRAWN BY APPROVED BY 2017 © brwarchitects, p.c. ZMA 2020-0001 1 REVISIONS SHEET 0 CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTION Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 CODE OF DEVELOPMENT The following is a Code of Development ("COD") drafted in accordance with Section 20A.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, Virginia and specific to tax map parcel 061M0-00-00-00600. This Code of Development establishes the unifying design guidelines, specific regulations and block characteristics. The COD also provides certainty about permitted uses, locations and appearance of central features. I. Table of Uses by Block (Section 20A.5a) The table below establishes the permitted and prohibited uses by block. "BR" = By -Right, "SP" = Special Permit, "N" = Not Permitted TABLE A. USES: BY -RIGHT, by Special Permit, and Not Permitted BLOCK BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Non- residential Mixed -Use or Residential Residential Single Family Detached N N Single Family Attached N N Multifamily N 1 BR Assisted Living Facilities (20A.8a) N BR Skilled Nursing Facilities (20A.8a) N BR Group Homes (20A.8a) N BR Transient Lodging N 1 BR Home Occupation, Class A N BR Accessory Uses and Buildings Including Storage N BR Non -Residential Retail (Neighborhood, Community and Regional) BR BR General Commercial Service BR BR Office/R&D BR BR Flex BR BR Light Manufacturing / Storage / Distribution BR SP Stand Alone Parking N N Heavy Manufacturing / Storage / Distribution N N Warehousing/Distribution BR N Institutional BR SP Public Uses (5.1.12) BR BR Farmers' Markets (5.1.47) BR BR Family Day Homes (5.1.56) BR BR Childcare Center BR BR Auto Service Uses N N Electric, gas, oil, and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution / sewage collection lines, pumping stations / appurtenances owned and operated by the ACSA. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies / central sewage systems in conformance with all applicable law. BR BR Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 BLOCK BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Mixed -Use or Non- residential Mixed -Use or Residential Temporary construction uses BR BR SWM facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat BR BR Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities BR BR Accessory Uses and Buildings including home occupation, Class A and storage BR BR Notes to Table A: 1. Use of all units within the existing buildings identified on the application plan as Buildings A, B, C, and Building D is permitted as multifamily housing or transient lodging until the redevelopment of the site occurs per the phasing plan outlined on the application plan. 2. Reference to uses not otherwise defined or listed in this Code of Development shall be defined as listed first, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, or second in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015. If no definition of the use is provided (Code of Development, Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan) or if there is uncertainty as to whether such use is included in the uses listed in Table A, then such use must be officially determined by the Zoning Administrator to be permitted in a particular Block. 3. The Project must contain at least two uses at final build -out. 4. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal or greater than sixty percent (60%) of the total number of residential dwelling units constructed on the Property. See section VII of this Code of Development for Supplemental Regulations regarding Affordable Housing and Residential Uses. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 II. Development Square Footage Proposed and Residential Density (Section 20A.b and c) TABLE B. DENSITY, HOUSING TYPE, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USE BY BLOCK BLOCK APPROX. MIN. MAX. MAX PERMITTED MAX NOW MIN NOW MAX NON - BLOCK DWELLING DWELLING PROJECT HOUSING RESIDENT. SINGLE RESIDENT. RESIDENT. SIZE UNITS UNITS 1 GROSS TYPES BUILDING GROSS BUILDING GROSS BUILDING DENSITY FOOTPRINT (SF) AREA AREA BLOCK 1 46,609 0 O 1 0 DUA NA 1 20,0001 5,000 40,000 Non- SF(1.07 Residential acres) BLOCK 116,740 80 1401 37 DUA Multifamily, 5,000 0 35,000 Mixed -Use SF (2.68 Special or acres) Needs Residential Housing TOTAL 163,335 80 140 1 37 DUA MF, SNH 2O,000 5 5,000 40,000 SF (3.75 acres) Notes to Table B: 1. Use of all units within the existing buildings identified on the application plan as Buildings A, B, C, and Building D is permitted as multifamily housing or transient lodging until the redevelopment of the site occurs per the phasing plan outlined on the application plan. 2. Total maximum non-residential square footage per the Project may not exceed the total however the total square footage may be allowed in Block 1 only. 3. Total maximum gross density may not exceed 140 dwelling units for the entire Project; however, the total density may be allowed in Block 2 only. 4. The size of the blocks may vary by 10%. 5. The maximum non-residential single building footprint area is 10,000 sf for retail -only uses. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 III. Green Space, Amenities (Section 20A.5d) and Recreational Facilities TABLE C. MINIMUM GREEN SPACE AND AMENITIES BY BLOCK AMENITY AMENITY AMENITIES GREEN GREEN GREEN SPACE AMENITY AREA AREA SPACE SPACE ELEMENTS & GREEN MIN SF % MIN SF % SPACE Block 1 4,661 10% Courtyard/Plaza, 9,322 20% Entrance 20% Non- (4,661 of Landscaping, (9,322 of Corridor Residential 46,609 Seating, 46,609 Landscape total SF) Streetscape, total SF) and Playgrounds Streetscape Block 11,674 10% Outdoor 23,348 20% Landscaped 20% Mixed -Use (11,674of Courtyards/Plazas (23,348 Bufferand or 116,740 with Landscaping of Streetscape Residential total SF) and Seating; 116,740 at Premier Meditative Garden; total SF) Indoor Community Rooms; Indoor Computer Rooms, Playgrounds TOTAL 16,3355 10% 32,670 20% 20% (16,335 of (32,670 163,350 of total SF) 163,350 total SF) Notes to Table C: 1. Location of amenities and greenspace shall be assessed at the site plan stage of development. 2. The minimum amenity space and greenspace area per block may vary so long as the overall total is provided per the Project. 3. Amenity Space maybe provided within buildings. 4. Amenity Space maybe within Greenspace per the Zoning Ordinance Section 20A.9.d. 5. A minimum of 2,500 sf of Amenity Space must be provided by the end of Phase 1 redevelopment of the site per the phasing plan outlined on the Application Plan. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 TABLE D: RECREATIONAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BLOCK FACILITY MIN. FACILITY AREA SF Recreational requirements will meet 4.16 unless Recreational requirements will substitutions are approved by the Planning Director meet 4.16 unless substitutions are at the site plan stage. If Planning Director approves approved by the Planning Director the substitution, one (1) 2,000 sf contiguous at the site plan stage. If approved, community garden may be provided as substitution a 2,000 SF contiguous space must for the requirements of 4.16 per each residential be provided per community garden multifamily building constructed. If a community with proportions adequate to the garden is provided, the garden shall provide the associated activity. following: • raised garden beds • a continuous perimeter fence • accessibility Blocks 1 & 2 • adequate sun exposure 0 adequate size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land • a water source • a plan for long-term maintenance Recreational requirements will meet 4.16 unless Recreational requirements will substitutions are approved by the Planning Director meet 4.16 unless substitutions are at the site plan stage. If Planning Director approves approved by the Planning Director the substitution, one (1) 500 sf interior fitness room at the site plan stage. If approved, may be provided as substitution for the a 500 SF min space per fitness requirements of 4.16 per each residential room with proportions adequate to multifamily building constructed. This fitness room fitness and required clearances shall provide equipment appropriate for the around equipment. residents to whom it serves. Notes to Table D: 1. Location of recreational facilities shall be assessed at the site plan stage of development and substitutions other than those listed above may be approved by the planning director to provide recreational space(s) appropriate to the population and demographic of this project. 2. Recreational facilities must be accessible to the residents whom they serve and are not required to be accessible to the public. IV. Architectural Standards and Landscape Treatment (Sections 20A.5g and h) Landscaped Buffer Next to Street A Landscaped Buffer shall be provided adjacent to the Entrance Corridor as specified in the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1. Street trees shall be appropriate for the grade of the terrain. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 2. Street trees shall be placed to avoid utility easements and overhead powerlines. 3. A row of vegetative screening as specified in Section 18-32.7.9.7 shall be used adjacent to parking along the Entrance Corridor. 4. The landscaping shall allow for future potential pedestrian paths or sidewalks to comply with Urban Frontage or Landscape Development Frontage as described in the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015. Landscaping Along Premier Circle Landscaping along Premier Circle and any interior roads shall be provided as specified in Interior Roads section of the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines. Landscaping of Buildings and Other Structures at Entrance Corridor Landscaping along Buildings in Block 1 shall be provided as specified in the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines. Landscaping of Parking Areas Landscaping in parking areas in Block 1 adjacent to the Entrance Corridor shall be provided as specified in the Entrance Corridor Design guidelines. Landscaped Buffer Next to UDA Boundary A 20' minimum landscaped Buffer shall be provided adjacent to the UDA Boundary as described in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015 also described as the northwest property line between the Property and Berkley Subdivision. This buffer must contain a mixture of ever green or deciduous trees and shrubs and provide screening to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.7 where required. This buffer may be disturbed but must be replanted. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 V. Lot and Building Height Regulations (Section 20A.5 i) TABLE E. LOT AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Non -Residential Mixed -Use or Residential Building Height Stories 1 Min. 1 Min. Min. 4 Max. z 4 Max. Max. Max. Height 50' 50' Building Setbacks Front at Entrance Corridor 30' Min. — 50' Max. NA Front 10' Min.-50' Max. 5' Min. (No. Max.) Rear 10' Min. (No Max.) 5' Min. (No Max.) Side 5' Min. (No Max.) 0' Min. (No Max.) Along the UDA Boundary (also described as the northwest property line NA 50' Min. (No Max.) between the Property and Berkley Subdivision) Stepback along building face that directly faces UDA Boundary (also described as the northwest property line between the Property and Berkley Subdivision) Min. NA 15' At Building Height Of 3 Stories (OR 40') Other Lot Size (Min. or Max.) None None Residential Units Allowable See TABLE B Residential Unit Type Parking Min. Required 20-133, depending on mixture of 28-106, depending on unit count, etc. uses Total Required 1 48-239, depending on mixture of uses Notes to Table E: 1. Porches, eaves, and awnings shall be considered part of the structure and shall not extend closer to the street than the required setbacks. 2. The precise number of minimum required parking spaces shall be determined at the site plan phase of development depending on density and types of residential units pursuant to Section VI of this Code of Development and non-residential uses pursuant to 18-4.12.6 . Minimum parking requirements may restrict some uses that historically require large amounts of parking. Multiple parking alternatives per 18-4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance may be utilized during the site plan phase of development as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Minimum building separation shall be required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.11. Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 4. Any primary structure in Block 1 shall conform to provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. 5. Dumpsters and Dumpster Pads on the Property shall be screened pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.19. 6. At the UDA Boundary as described in the "Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network" Section of the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015 also described as the NW property line between the Property and Berkeley Subdivision, a 20' minimum landscaped buffer shall be maintained as measured from the property line. See Section IV. of this Code of Development for more regulations regarding the Landscaped Buffer Next to the UDA Boundary. 7. Total building height may only be 3 stories for retail uses per the Places29 Master Plan adopted February 2, 2011, revised June 10, 2015. Figure 1: LOT AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ILLUSTRATED (N4 STORIES MAX. BLOCK 2 ;D_; 50 MIN. BUILDING SETBACK AT UDA BOUNDARY WITH 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT BOUNDARY LINE ®15' BUILDING STEPBACK AT UDA BOUNDARY/BOUNDARY AT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AT 3RD STORY ;E) 4 STORIES MAX. BLOCK 1 :95MIN. FRONT AND REAR SETBACK BLOCK 2 F 30' MIN. - 50' MAX. FRONT SETBACKAT ROUTE 29 WITH EXCEPTION FOR SETBACK AT UDA BOUNDARY 0' MIN. SIDE SETBACK BLOCK 2 G 5' MIN. SIDE SETBACK BLOCK 1 Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 VI. Parking Regulations (Section 20A.5 i) TABLE F. RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES multifamily <500 sf 0.35 1 bedroom 1.3 2+ bedrooms 1.3 special needs housing <500 sf 0.35 1 bedroom 1.3 2+ bedrooms 1.3 Location of Parking The precise number of minimum required parking spaces shall be determined at the site plan phase of development depending on density, types of residential units, and commercial uses pursuant to the uses described in Table E in section VI of this Code of Development and pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.6. Multiple parking alternatives per Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance may be utilized during the site plan phase of development as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Screening Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.7, the parking areas along Premier Circle and Route 29 boundaries of the Property are required to be screened as specified in the Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.7(b). VII. Supplemental Regulations for Affordable Housing and Residential Uses The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal or greater than sixty percent (60%) of the total number of residential dwelling units constructed on the Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. These units may be created as for -sale or for -rent. The affordable housing objective may be met through any of the permitted housing types per Section I of this Code of Development. 2. "For -Sale Affordable Housing Units" shall be a residential unit offered for sale to Qualifying Families with evidence of incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from time to time) such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income. All purchasers of for -sale affordable units shall be approved by Albemarle County Community Development Department or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its designee a period of 120 days to identify and pre -qualify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 120-day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than 90 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If Albemarle County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser within this 120-day period for such For -Sale Affordable Housing Units, the Owner shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 September 21, 2020; Second Submission November 20, 2020; Third Submission January 4, 2021 3. "For -Rent Affordable Housing Units" shall be a residential unit offered for rent to Qualifying Families with evidence of incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined by HUD from time to time) at an initial rent that does not exceed the then - current and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rents minus an allowance for any tenant -provided utilities. The designated affordable rental units shall remain affordable for a minimum of 1S years after initial occupancy. 4. Affordable Units shall also be defined as a for -rent or for -sale dwelling unit for households with income less than 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development such that housing costs do not exceed HUD's affordability standard of thirty percent (30%) of household income. S. Each subdivision plat or site plan shall designate the number of affordable units provided and the minimum number of required affordable units per the Code of Development. VIII. Pedestrian Circulation and Access to Public Transit 1. On -site Bus Stop: Following commencement of construction of Phase I of the Project, upon demand by the County of Albemarle, the Owner shall construct a Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) stop (the "Transit Stop") on the Property. The Transit Stop shall be designed and constructed in coordination with, and shall be approved by, the appropriate County authority and CAT and shall incorporate pedestrian access and signage consistent with similar existing CAT transit stops. The Owner shall dedicate any such portion of the Transit stop located on the Property to public use or grant an easement as necessary to allow for the public access and usage of the Transit Stop. 2. Inter -parcel Pedestrian Connection: The Application Plan shows potential future pedestrian connections between the Property and the parcels along the northeast side of Westfield Road. Any such future pedestrian connection will be subject to future development and access easement agreements; therefore, it is not intended that any or all depicted connections will be made, rather that these are identified as potential points of connection to future development on the neighboring property(ies). The connections may provide a direct route for residents to access the future development of a Neighborhood Service Center and to the existing bus stop on Commonwealth Drive. The Applicant will grant such inter -parcel easement(s) across the Property at the request of the County. 10 Original Proffers X Amendment PROFFER STATEMENT f UVV i iwi'1@i111 Project Name: Premier Circle Parcel Number: 061MO-00-00-00600 Owner of Record: Tiota, Ltd. Date: January 25, 2021 Approximately 3.75 acres to be rezoned from C-1 Commercial to NMU — Neighborhood Model Development Tiota, Ltd. is the sole owner (the "Owner") of Parcel Number 061MO-00-00-00600 (the "Property"), which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA 2020-00011, a project known as "Premier Circle" (the "Project"). The Project's conceptual plan, dated September 21, 2020, last revised January 4, 2021, prepared by BRW Architects and Timmons Group, is entitled "Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011, County of Albemarle, Virginia, Rio District" (the "Concept Plan"). A Code of Development, drafted by BRW Architects in accordance with County Code § 18-20A.5, specific to Parcel Number 061M0- 00-00-0600, is entitled "Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011," dated September 21, 2020, last revised January 15, 2021. Pursuant to Albemarle County Code § 18-33.3, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below, which will apply to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning. The owner and applicant specifically deem the following proffers reasonable and appropriate, as conclusively evidenced by the signature(s) below. 1. Premier Circle Improvements: (a) To contribute to traffic safety, the Owner must restripe the centerline and stop bars at each end of Premier Circle and repaint faded directional arrows or other traffic control striping in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. The Owner must complete such restriping before the County issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the building(s) constructed in Phase I of the Project. (b) Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a land disturbance permit for the Project, the Owner must trim vegetation obstructing free vehicular passage over the Premier Circle right-of-way, and, throughout the existence of the Project, will ensure that Premier Circle is kept clear of limbs and other vegetation that may impede safe passage over the road. (c) No later than thirty (30) days following the issuance of a land disturbance permit for the Project, the Owner must install a stop sign at the southern terminus of Premier Circle, at its intersection with U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail). (d) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Owner must construct sidewalks in the Premier Circle right-of-way to connect the entrance of the Project to the existing sidewalk system along U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) and to the transit stop described in the proffer below. The general location of the sidewalks within the Premier Circle right-of-way is shown on Sheet 5 of the Concept Plan. If the transit stop is located in front of the Project, the Owner must connect the sidewalk along Premier Circle to that transit stop. (e) Commencing no later than thirty (30) days following site plan approval, the Owner must use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Declaration, dated November 1, 1983, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 797, page 242 (the "Declaration") to be amended and/or restated to upgrade the applicable road standard, specify members' obligations to contribute to road maintenance, and add association governance provisions. 2. Transit Stop. Following commencement of construction of Phase I of the Project, upon demand by the County of Albemarle, the Owner must construct a transit stop (the "Transit Stop") on the Property. The Transit Stop must be designed and constructed in coordination with, and is subject to the approval of, the appropriate County and transit authorities. The Transit Stop must incorporate pedestrian access and signage consistent with similar existing transit stops. The Owner must either (a) dedicate any portion(s) of the Transit Stop located on the Property to public use or (b) grant any easement necessary to allow public access and usage of the Transit Stop. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.] Signature Page for Proffer Statement for Premier Circle, ZMA 2020-00011 TMP 06 1 MO-00-00-00600 OWNER: TIOTA, LTD., a Virginia corporation Un 44296S87v1 WILLIAMS MULLEN MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Lori Schweller, Attorney for Virginia Supportive Housing DATE: January 15, 2021 RE: ZMA 2020-00011 PREMIER CIRCLE ("Application") Private Road Issues Applicant: Piedmont Housing Alliance Background During review of this rezoning Application, County staff and the Planning Commission have expressed concern regarding several issues pertaining to Premier Circle, which is a private road. The Applicant has responded with a report to VDOT's request for a turn lane warrant analysis and evaluation of the existing and future operations of the signalized intersection at Route 29 and Branchlands/Premier Circle for accommodation of a potential at -grade pedestrian crossing; and, the Applicant has performed corings to determine the current physical condition of the road. These matters were discussed at the Planning Commission. Several Commissioners indicated that they either did not support a pedestrian crosswalk across Route 29 in this area or considered it a project for future consideration, perhaps with some County funding involved. This memorandum will summarize the Applicant's response to the outstanding road questions from the Planning Commission and Staff, namely: (1) What is the Applicant's plan and funding mechanism for future maintenance, including striping, landscape maintenance, and signage? (2) Will Premier Circle be upgraded to VDOT standards and accepted into the secondary highway system? (3) Clarify the terms of the existing road maintenance declaration and describe plans to revise the agreement. The short answers to these questions are as follows: (1) Piedmont Housing Alliance and Virginia Supportive Housing will incorporate road maintenance into their operating budgets for the project, and the Applicant is submitting proffers to address striping, landscape maintenance, and signage; (2) the legal status of Premier Circle and the recorded road maintenance declaration do not allow the Applicant unilaterally to dedicate the road to public use or even to upgrade the road above its current standard; however, the Applicant will conduct road maintenance permitted under the declaration and meet with the association of owners that is empowered to maintain the road to propose upgrading the road standard; and (3) the existing road maintenance declaration entrusts maintenance of Premier Circle to a to - date ineffectual association: at its meeting with the association, the Applicant will propose amending and/or restating the road maintenance declaration to resolve these problems. Leoal Status of Premier Circle The subject property (the "Property") comprises Lots 6 and 7 of the seven lots created by recordation of a subdivision plat, dated January 9, 1980 (Exhibit A), which subdivided a 7.8-acre parcel formerly owned by Mary Patricia Marinos Brown. The Property is now owned by Tiota, Ltd., and Piedmont Housing Alliance has entered into a contract to purchase the Property under certain conditions. Premier Circle is a private road identified on the subdivision plat as "Parcel X." Ms. Brown granted an easement over the road for the benefit of all seven lots and conveyed fractional interests in the underlying fee title to the road to some of the lots. By deed dated September 15, 1986, Ms. Brown conveyed Lots 6 and 7 along with a 4/7 interest in the fee of Parcel X to The Charlottesville Motel. When The Charlottesville Motel conveyed Lots 6 and 7 to The Rochester Community Savings Bank in 1989 by deed in lieu of foreclosure, it did not include the 4/7 interest in Parcel X in the conveyance, leaving title to Parcel X clouded. Further, though the vesting deed for Lot 2 (site of Classic Furniture), owned by Kannon, LLC, includes a 1/7 interest in Parcel X, the deeds for Lot 1 (Waffle House), Lot 3 (site of Marks & Harrison), and Lots 4 and 5 (site of the Royal Inn) do not include any fee interest in Parcel X in their legal descriptions. Therefore, though we know that 5/7 of the fee interest in the road intended to vest in Lots 2, 6, and 7, we do not know the status of the other 2/7. Knowing the current ownership of the fee is essential for any grant of the road to the County or VDOT for public use because the granting deed must be signed by all owners. Further, if the easement rights need to be expanded to, for example, permit a public transit stop in the right-of-way, all owners (not just the easement holders) of Parcel X would need to join in a recorded instrument to grant the additional rights. Therefore, the Applicant cannot proffer to bring the road up to VDOT standards and request its acceptance into the secondary road system because it does not and will not own 100% fee title in the road. For the same reason, the Applicant also cannot unilaterally undertake work in the road that is beyond the scope of the easement granted to all lot owners in the subdivision. To avoid these problems, the Applicant has proposed to place the proffered transit stop on the Property rather than in the Parcel X right-of-way. Road Maintenance Declaration Ms. Brown recorded a Declaration, dated November 1, 1983 in the Albemarle County land records to establish a road maintenance agreement ("Declaration") for Premier Circle (Exhibit 0). This Declaration establishes an association of the lots owners to maintain the road. The Declaration shares the cost of maintaining the road among the seven lot owners and establishes a requirement for an 80% vote to upgrade the road to a "superior standard." However, the Declaration raises the following concerns: 1. Standard of Maintenance Unclear. The Declaration refers to maintaining the road in its condition on the date of completion in accordance with plans approved by the State Page 2 Highway Department. The Applicant believes that no road plans for Premier Circle were approved by the State Highway Department since it is not a public road and the road is not constructed to a standard that would be approved by VDOT. Further, the applicant has not been able to locate any submitted or County -approved road plans for Premier Circle in the County Community Development records. A site plan approved in 1985 for the Jerome Corporation (site of the Royal Inn) includes notes requiring 8" aggregate base stone and 2" bituminous concrete. The results of Timmons Group's corings indicate the existing road consists of 2'/z°-4'/i' of asphalt over Y-6" of stone. 2. Lot Owners' Obligations Unclear. Although all seven lots have an easement to use the road and an enforceable obligation to maintain it (to some standard), the Declaration does not provide each lot's share of such obligation. This omission potentially complicates enforcement of the lien for maintenance costs established in the Declaration. Each lot has an equal vote in the association established by the Declaration, so, presumably, the lot owners could agree that maintenance shares would follow voting rights when and if they pass an assessment for road maintenance. To our knowledge, the association has never adopted an assessment. 3. Mechanics for Calling Meetings Unclear. Based on information from some of the affected owners, the association has never held formal meetings. Owners have, however, informally shared in some road maintenance over the years, such as filling potholes. The absence of basic governance provisions in the Declaration (e.g., who is authorized to call meetings and file/enforce the lien for maintenance costs) may be a factor keeping the owners' association from carrying out its maintenance obligations. The Applicant agrees that an amendment and/or restatement of the declaration is necessary to correct these deficiencies and will work toward doing so with the assistance of the owner. Calling a meeting of the association to pass a maintenance assessment requires thirty (30) days' written notice (Declaration, Article IV, Section F). Any upgrade in the road standard requires agreement by 80% of the owners; 100% of the lot owners (and potentially all owners of fee title to Parcel X) must join in an agreement to amend and restate the Declaration. The Applicant cannot commit to revise the Declaration unilaterally; however, the Applicant will continue its efforts to bring the lot owners together to agree on a maintenance assessment, upgraded road standard and an amendment or restatement of the Declaration. Physical Condition of the Road The Applicant will proffer to clear brush impeding vehicular traffic over the road and maintain such clearing, to stripe the road, and to install a stop sign at the southern intersection of Premier Circle and Route 29. Premier Circle currently has about 2.5"-4.5" of asphalt over 3"-6" of stone. This surface, per visual inspection by Timmons Group, presents no concern from a safety perspective at this time. VDOT standards would require a road surface composed of 4.5" of asphalt over 8" of stone. Such surface replacement and upgrade would cost approximately $250k- $300k. However, the geometry, sight distances, and corner clearance requirements are such that the Applicant does not believe the road would be accepted by VDOT even with the surface replacement and upgrade. Pursuant to the terms of the Declaration, at least 80% of the owners must enter into a written agreement in order to upgrade the road to a "superior standard" (Article IV, Section D). The unclear baseline standard for maintenance set in the Page 3 Declaration makes it difficult to determine exactly what constitutes an upgrade to a "superior standard." The Applicant is confident that it can proffer to clear brush impeding vehicular traffic over the road, stripe the road and install a stop sign at the road's southern intersection with Route 29 without triggering a requirement for 80% approval under the Declaration. The Applicant cannot commit to upgrading the road to VDOT standards without a written agreement among at least 80% of the association members. The Applicant will proffer to improve the physical condition of the road to the extent reasonably consistent with the road standard stated in the Declaration, but it cannot proffer to upgrade the road given the constraints of the Declaration. Summary The Applicant is working with the current owner to call a meeting of lot owners to discuss deferred maintenance, amending and/or restating the Declaration, and upgrading the road. All lot owners must agree to an amendment or restatement (along with all owners of fee title to Parcel X, if the changes increases the scope of the easement), and 80% of lot owners must agree to resurfacing and upgrading the road to VDOT standards. These tasks are dependent on other parties with legal rights in the road and its upkeep and are not within the Applicant's control and, therefore, cannot be proffered by the Applicant. The Applicant can clear brush impeding vehicular traffic over the road and maintain such clearing, to stripe the road, and install a stop sign at the southern intersection of Premier Circle and Route 29. These tasks are included in the proffers submitted with the Application. #44247427v1 Page 4 EXHIBIT A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATED AGENT l: N,�INM nfJ .11 DATE OWNERS APPROVAL THIS SUBDIVISION IS MADE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE UNDER SIGNED OWNERS.PROPRIETOR$.AND,OR TRUSTEES ALLEGROS AND STREETS, IF NOT PREVIOUSIIY DEDICATED, ARE HEREBY TENDERED FOR DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE 3WNER L Iny PTlncm Marinas Brown SOUW]EI TITLE DB 252 P205 TM 61 Force 1119 No Further Division of This Properly Without Planning Commission Approval � Deputes Iran Pins All lots Shall Have Access Only On The Interior Rood - CURVE DATA 3000 25 Cs aly A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ME svae'AFORESAID, DO CERTIFY THAIIPIZg[� WHOSE NAMES AR E.SI`NED TO THE FOREGGING WRITING BEARING DATE OF =' 9ti_JIAVE ACKNOWL EDGED THE SAME BEFORE ME IN MY STATE AFORESAID. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THI.�U4Y UFr NL- a-0Bj` MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES N ­ 07"'r a SUBDIVISION PLAT LOTS 1-7 & PARCEL °X" A DIVISION OF PARCE- 119 TAX MAP61 NEAR CHARLOTTESVILLE CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 0 V January 9,19 80 SCale : l °=200r REVISED! February 13, 19BO x W. S. 1000111 11. 7 REV 'FEB 29, 19SO CERT. NO. RE'v MARCH -1, 1980 V 54-173 )a) 655 54-173 (0) 78 e'TVAfep LAND IJa+C WILLIAM S. ROUDABUSH, INC. • PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYORS Charfoftesvilfe, Virginia epv EXHIBIT — r7q 1 204 2 4 Z In 797 ma 242 THIS DECLARATION made and entered into this let day of November, 1983, by and between MARY PATRICIA MARINOS BROWN, hereafter referred to as the Declarant, WI TNESSETH: Factual Background, The Declarant is the owner of certain real estate situate in Albemarle County, Virginia, and desires to subject her property as described on the plat attached hereto prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc., to the covenants hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is for the benefit of said property and the owners thereof. NOW THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the real property shown on the plat attached hereto and known as Lots 1 thru 7, A Division of Parcel 119 Tax Map 61 is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenancs hereinafter set forth, and to any and all valid amendments hereto. These cu%;,zrarts shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any and all parties who have, or acquire, title to all or any part of the above described lots and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I Definitions A. Owners' Association. Owners' Association shall consist of all owners as defined herein. B. Declaration. The term Declaration as used herein shall mean the covenants and conditions end all other provisions herein set forth in this entire doctment, as it may from time to time be amended. C. Subdivision. The term subdivision as used herein shall mean and refer to only the real property comprising Lots 1 Thru 7, A Division of Parcel 119 Tax Map 61 as described on the plat attached to this Declaration. 4� IbNAMM &MAMOVA a A"Wo ATTOMMMS AWE OMUNRAMO AT LAW G"#~ TT"M AA V& I I D. eoa� '"&97 w 243 Lot. The term Lot as used herein shall mean and refer to any plot of land designated as a Lot upon the most recently recorded subdivision plat and upon which a business unit may be, is being, or has been, built. E. Owner. owner as used herein shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of the fee simple title to any Lot, including contract sellers, but excluding purchasers who have not yet taken title, and further excluding those holding such interests solely as securities for the performance of an obligation. In the case where a Lot is held by one or more persons for life with remainder to another or others, the term Owner shall mean and refer only to such life tenant or tenants until such time as the remainderman or remaindermen shall come into use, possession, or enjoyment of such lot. F. Member. Member as used herein shall mean or refer to a member of the Owners' Association. G. Declarant. Declarant as used herein shall mean or refer to Mary Patricia Marinos Brown, or her successors in title. ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO DECLARATION A. The Real Property which is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia and is shown and described on the attached plat of William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated January 9, 1980, and captioned "Subdivision Plat of Lots 1 thru 7 of Parcel 119 Tax Map 61 Near Charlottesville, Charlottesville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia." 00e »eaaA�. C11Li.MIW1 . ATAM 00uplemo 0 AT LAM 2 QW0.1011"MMAX VA. ea 797 ma 244 ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING A. Membership. Each Owner as hereinbefore defined, shall be a member of the Owners' Association. No qualification for membership other than Lot ownership, as defined above, shall be imposed. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from any Lot. B. Voting Rights. The Owners' Association shall have one class of voting membership; each member being entitled to cast one vote Zor each lot owned by such member. Any member otherwise entitled to vote may cast his vote either in person or by proxy provided such proxy is duly approved in writing by an instrument subscribed by such member or his authorized attorney and a copy thereof is delivered to the secretary of the meeting prior to the vote. C. Joint ownership. In a case where a Lot is jointly owned by two or more persons, the vote for that Lot may be cast either in person or by a proxy by any one of such Owners. If, however, such joint owners are unable to agree upon the casting of their vote at such a time as said vote is taken, such vote will be disregarded for all purposes except to establish a quorum. A vote, once cast, shall not be subject to impeachment by a co-owner once the voting has been closed. ARTICLE IV COVENANTS FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT A. The road shown on the attached plat is not a public road and will not be maintained by the County of Albemarle, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any other public agency. This road is hereby declared and reserved as a private, non-exclusive joint right of Way for the benefit and use for ingress and egress, of all owners of the lots on said plat, M aaa W% GNA AW"M • A"WO A*TOw AM eaw Oae w AT LAW 3 COMM a 9rw4 as -V& W r for the guests or invitees or such owner. The right to use this road is reserved exclusively to the aforesaid persons, and any additional users created by future approval by the Albemarle County governmental authorities, and general public use of the road is prohibited until such time, if ever, this road should be taken into the State Highway system. B. The Declarant hereby covenants that each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any deed or conveyance, shall be and is hereby deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Owners' Association: (a) Annual assessments or charges; and (B) Any special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be fixed, levied, established and collected from time to time as hereinafter provided. The annual and any special assessments together with interest thereon and costs of collection, if any, shall be a charge on each Lot and shall be a continuing lien on each Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest thereon and costs of collection, if any, shall also be the personal obligation of the person or legal entity who was the owner of the subject Lot at the time the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to such Owners or successors in title to the Lot against which such assessment was made unless it is expressly assumed by such successor. C. The assessments levied by the Owners' Association shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of the owners of the Lots shown on said plat and in particular for the improvements, management, maintenance and care of the said road and the storm drainage detention facilities. aYZ.YMYI 1 ATOM wVvorjq v. ANM 4 aeo..ds� ON LAW 0W#^0TV" %AAA w► . = 797 ht AS D. The Owners' Association shall maintain and keep up the road shown on the attached plat in the condition in which it exists as of the date of completion of the road in accordance with the standards set forth on the plant which have been approved by the State Highway Department. In addition to the maintenance of said road in the condition as it exists on said date, the Owners' Association may, by written agreement of at least eighty per cent (801) of all owners, obligate itself to improve and upgrade said road to a superior standard. In no event, however, shall this obligation to upgrade said road exceed an obligation to upgrade the road to Virginia Department of Highways recommended standards unless 100t of the Owners execute a written agreement to that effect. E. If by any means, any of the lots shown on the attached plat should be divided, the Owner of such new lot created thereby shall become a member of the Owners' Association and shall be liable for all obligations and entitled to all rights and benefits of this agreement. F. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of levying a special assessment or fixing the initial annual assessment shall be sent to all members not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of four members or of proxies entitled to cast four votes shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half of the required quorum of the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty days following the preceding meeting. 40, QMaAMOM & ATTMM 60900 ose AT LATT 5 W 797 da 247 G. The Owners' Association shall set the amount of assessment against each Lot at least thirty days prior to the date upon which said assessment becomes due and payable and shall provide written notice of the assessment to every Owner. If. If the assessments are not paid on the date when due, then such assessments shall become delinquent and shall, together with interest thereon and cost of collection become a continuing lien on the Lot which shall bind such Lot in the hands of the then owner, his heirs, devisees, personal representatives and assigns. Said lien on the Lot may be enforced and foreclosed by a suit in equity in the same manner as a mortgage. The personal obligation of the then Owner to pay such assessment, however, shall remain his personal obligation for the statutory period and shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. If the assessment is not paid within the thirty days after the delinquency date, the assessment shall bear interest from the date of delinquency at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month and the owners' Association or any Owner may bring an action at law against the owner personally obligated to pay same or to foreclose the lien against the Lot, and there shall be added to the amount of such assessment the cost of preparing and filing the complaint in such action. In the event a judgment is obtained such judgment shall include interest on the assessments as above provided and a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court, together with the costs of ' action. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape the liability of the assessment provided for herein by nonuse or abandonment of his Lot. • ATPUM a ATTO wsw AND 6 OOW'IsMUO-AT LAW/ CHAM "R "UAL I V& t wmw248 I. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first deed of trust, now or hereafter placed upon a Lot subject to assessment. However, such subordination shall apply only to the assessments which have become due and payable prior to a sale or transfer of a Lot pursuant to a decree of foreclosure or any other proceeding in lieu of foreclosure. Such sale or transfer shall not release a Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due, nor from the lien of any such subsequent assessments. WITNESS the following signature and seal: STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to -wit: The foregoing Declaration was acknowledged before me by NARY PATRICIA MARINOS BROWN this _ day of 19830 My commission expires: MOC AML CMLAM M D A?IONS AirO1 OKM AND 001AM eAwG Ar LAW 4241RATTMIAAA, V& .f i CUUN IV PI r.NNING CONIMiSIOUN BOARD pF SJI/ERVISORS _— 0AN( RS-APPRUVAI ST,Aj OF VIRGI I nt' ... .. �•. I.• 1•.. . 1'• .1 • I.r. • 1 •11 .J 'n •: .•... 1.. 1 • ..• • r= /Y,a..L Irr'•h r♦! i�la�y i�ii� �yfart0 1'%y' \ I . n..'• • J S u♦/ A l r = 1 1 .fir, . : I• � h �• M Iw.lw•\\.y ,i(t�r ali• 4. �•: .••l.! ••Y•• �i ea aS .n1.♦w iwr r•, r,.r.p. 4J•i.l ft I r\ i SUBDIVISION PLAT L.i TS ; - T es PA F CF "X r• A OIVISIOti OF PARCF� 119 TAX MAP SI NEAR C04ARLOTTESVILLE CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBENARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA January 9.19 80 Scals, l %200' r NEv19m r•e.u*ry •J. 1980 141.. ►ea :4 •ae\ RL • M: AC H ' • .98C) 1 : F CERT. NO. S4•17.3 4A) Gss �54•17.3 (W 78 ,J• LAMO O�+�/ WILLIAMS. ROUDABUSH, INC. + 0001rf{IOM.1 C001004.uON CERTIFIED 1AND SURVEYORS Chorlottesvilt*, vir0ini0 4928 ■ e. H co 00 40 W m 7.97 mi 250 VIRGINLA: IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEHARLE : THIS DM WAS PRESENTED, AND WITH CERTIFICATE ANMM- ADMITTED TO RECORD ON rind4 _� 15' $J at _9 O'CLO(.7C Lm. STATE TAX LOCAL TAX TRANSFER FES TPSTE: SEEM J. MRSHALL, CLERK CLERK'S FEE . PLAT J BY: _ GRA11TOR'S TAX DEPUTY CLERK It bm response acknowledgedl2/30/20 LETTER OF RESPONSE TO COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN 12.15.20 PC STAFF REPORT ORIGINAL SUBMISSION 9.21.20. RESUBMISSION 11.20.2020. THIRD SUBMISSION 01.04.2021 Zoning Map Amendment: Staff recommends apl with the following changes prior to the Board of concerns identified in the additional tmitted by the applicant be addressed. e Premier Circle Preliminary Pavement Investigation Led 01.04.2021 for analysis of current road conditions. ease see the Memorandum to the Board from L. iweller dated 01.15.2021 for information regarding (1) a history and legal status of the private road; (2) the 'Mrs of the road maintenance declaration and plans for :ure road maintenance; and (3) the physical condition the road and prospects for upgrading Premier Circle. e Applicant has easement rights to use the road and an ligation to contribute to its maintenance along with e other lots and does not have unilateral authority to dorm deferred maintenance or upgrade the road, rich will likely not meet VDOT standards even with women upgrade. The Applicant will proffer certain provements to the physical condition of the road and using best efforts to cause an amendment or aatement of the declaration of road maintenance for children. has been added to the list of possible amenity spaces in both blocks 1 and 2. See table D in the Code of Development, recreational facilities will comply with 4.16 unless the planning director approves a substitution at site plan. This will allow for playground, or, if appropriate for the development, a substitution such as a community se the notation on the application plan and in the e of Development that the bench and shelter for the stop will be installed upon demand of the County. square footage of non-residential uses. over loss of commercial / light industrial space in area. the Application Plan as suggested. table B in the Code of Development, a maximum ss square footage of non-residential uses has been fed. The separate and specifc identifcation of ximum building footprint by use has been eliminated :ause all uses except for retail had the same maximum care footage. We have simplified this by only including overall maximum building footprint with a note that ntifes the variation for retail spaces. not permitted in Block 1. Premier Circle Preliminary Pavement Investigation, achment to application submitted 01.04.2021; (2) .morandum from L Schweller re Private Road Issues emitted 01.15.2021; Project Narrative (traffic and mad dysis and concerns regarding Premier Circle); and (2) fifer Statement dated January 25, 2021. VIII 01.04.2021. •4P*••0� E 608 Preston Avenue p 434.295.5624 Suite 200 F 434.295.1800 T I M M O N S GROUP Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmons.com January 4, 2021 Frank Pohl, County Engineer County of Albemarle Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Rd Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2024340-011 Premier Circle Preliminary Pavement Investigation Dear Mr. Pohl, Timmons Group has performed a preliminary investigation of Premier Circle on the existing pavement, including visual inspections, as well as asphalt corings. Calculations, using the VDOT Pavement Design Guide have been prepared and attached to this letter with a recommended pavement section that is acceptable for the proposed use. In addition to pavement thickness and sizing, we also reviewed Premier Circle's geometry, noting variations from VDOT design standards that may preclude its future acceptance into the VDOT system. VISUAL INSPECTION During a visual inspection of Premier Circle it was noted that pavement was cracking, but in general was still safe, functional, and navigable. Striping and signage was faded or non-existent (there was no stop sign located at the southern connection), presenting some safety concerns at both the signalized and non -signalized intersections. Additionally, there was vegetation encroaching into the through lanes that is in need of trimming. PAVEMENT CORING To determine the existing pavement section Timmons Group has conducted a Pavement Exploration consisting of three asphalt cores along Premier Circle. The results of the pavement section cores are included in the table below. A Core Location Plan has been attached as well. ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY Measured Pavement Section Thicknesses Asphalt Base Stone Total Section core Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness inches (inches) (inches) C-01 4.5 3.0 7.5 C-02 3.0 6.0 9.0 C-03 1 2.5 1 5.5 1 8.0 The current schedule did not allow for a full geotechnical investigation to field determine the soil's CBR which would be required before construction of a new road. The Pavement Design Guide list CBR values for Albemarle County in Appendix 1. These values are typically very conservative and need to be verified during construction by on -site testing. Due to this, Timmons Group used CBR results from a nearby site for this preliminary analysis (CBR = 18.9). Any final evaluations or design of the pavements section will require a field run CBR test. For the existing condition, as shown in the attached pages from the Pavement Design Guide, the average thickness index provided (Dp) value of 10.3 is less than the thickness index required (Dr) value of 13.3. It is assumed that the average annual daily traffic under the existing conditions is around 960 trips per day, while the thickness of the average pavement supports slightly less then 500 trips per day. It should be noted that this does not mean the pavement will fail, but that resurfacing may be necessary sooner. For the proposed condition, including the housing and commercial space, as shown in the attached pages from the Pavement Design Guide the average thickness index provided (Dp) value would need to be at least 13.9 to equal the thickness index required (Dr) value. If this road was being developed under today's standards it would require 4.5" of asphalt over 8" of stone. Under the proposed condition the trips per day value goes up to 1,120 or just over 18%. Again, this does not result in immediate pavement failure, but the maintenance needs will most likely accelerate. VARIATION FROM CURRENT VDOT STANDARDS Given that Premier Circle was constructed as a private road over thirty years ago, there are inevitably design elements that do not comply with today's VDOT standards for a public road. This is largely due to VDOT's standards being based on a minimum design speed of 25 MPH. While Premier Circle is not currently signed with a speed limit it appears to operate similarly to a private access road in a shopping center which would assume much lower speeds. Should Premier Circle be evaluated for public acceptance at a future date at a higher speed, it is likely that VDOT would expect the following to brought up to current standards: • Sight Distance is not met for the southern entrance of the Royal Inn, as only 130-150' is available, while 280' is required for a 25 mph road. Site distance is not met for Royal Inn at its northern entrance either, as it only has around 210' looking south. In both cases the only solution would be to move the building. • Sight distance issues also existing for Marks & Harrison's office and the Classic Furniture building. Site distance could be achieved, however it would require approximately 20 parking spaces to be removed. • Clear Zone requirements may not be met for VDOT required minimum design speeds. • Entrance spacing to meet Corner Clearance on a Minor Side Street is not met in several instances, with the minimum requirement being 225'. The Waffle House is approximately 60' from the signalized intersection, while the Royal Inn's entrance is approximately 110' from the unsignalized entrance. • Entrance spacing on local roads (50') is not met at the Marks & Harrison entrance and the southern Classic Furniture entrance. • VDOT would require all asphalt, curb, storm infrastructure to be in "like new" condition. In this location, most of the infrastructure is 30-35 years old. • Some of the existing inlet configurations don't comply with current VDOT standards, which would require additional inlets to be added, flanking inlets in a sump. • Curb and gutter do not extend along the entire length of both sides of the road. Adding curb and gutter would also change the drainage patterns and require additional stormwater inlets. While a full evaluation of these items in coordination with VDOT would be required to determine if this road could be accepted by VDOT we believe it is unlikely that VDOT would accept this road. CONCLUSION While there is visible pavement cracking, it does not appear to be creating any safety concerns, however new striping, signage, and general landscape maintenance should be addressed as soon as possible. Furthermore, while a private road maintenance agreement is in place, it is suggested that it should be improved upon and managed with the input of current ownership of all parcels. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give us a call at 434.295.5624. Sincerely, ( t� zzaW2, Craig Kotarski, PE Jonathan Showalter, PE Principal Project Manager VDOT — Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2018) Appendix IV Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets This sheet is intended for use and submission in conjunction with VDOT's Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements County Albemarle County Date: 1/4/2021 Subdivision Street Name Premier Circle Existing Condition Design Engineer Timmons Group Phone: 434.295.5624 AADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements, CBRD Design CBR = Average of CBRT x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide. CBRT CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide DME VDOT District Materials Engineer EPT Equivalent projected traffic HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires). %HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles. RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading. SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV =CBRD x RF) Dr Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method DR Thickness index required, based on Design AADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II. Step 1: Determine Design AADT Step 2: Determine Design Values CBR, RF, and SSV AADT Sample No. CBRT Resiliency Factor RF %HCV = 100 ( HCV / AADT) or EPT = 20 x HCV Note: For %HCV <_ 5%, use AADT 1 Source Value 2 Table 1 Note: For %HCV>5%, EPT>AADT 3 Appendix I CBRT* 18.9 DME approved RF CBRD 18.9* 2/3 For preliminary designs, use the lowest CBRD 12.6 RF value in the equation CBRD x RF = SSV ( ) x 12.6 Design AADT Use greater of AADT or EPT :1 Step 3: Pavement Design (Check appropriate box and show proposed pavement design below.) ❑ (A) Limited to Design AADT 5 400 - Show pavement material notations and thickness from Appendix IV Tables A and B. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ❑ (B) Show pavement section as developed in the Pavement Design Guide. Dn = 13.3 (See Appendix m for material notations and thickness equivalency values (a)). from Appendix II Description of Proposed Pavement Section Material Notation Thickness, h a (a x h) surface Average of Cores From Existing 3.3" 2.25 Dp = 7.4 Base Subbase Average of Cores From Existing 4.8" 0.6 Dp = 2.9 DP must equal or exceed the value of DR. DP = s (a x h) = 10.3 CBRT* CBR date from a nearby site was used as an example instead of conservative Appendix 1 CBR values for these preliminary calculations. For any final designs or improvements CBR value needs to be field verified. 28 30 1 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 VDOT — Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2018) 30,000 Example 20,000 DR = 10.7 (interpolated) 10,000 or more for design parameters 6,000 SSV = 11 and Design AADT = 480 4, 00.0 (intemolated) 3,000 2,000 .......................... . 800 600 ........... 400 •.. 4� 3 Existing uses on Premier 2 Circle Generate 1 approximately 1,200 trips, we assumed 80% use the SSV signalized entrance, resulting in an AADT of Scale 960. 300 200 100 50 Design AADT Scale — 25.0 — 24.0 — 23.0 — 20.0 — 19.0 — 18.0 — 17.0 — 16.0 — 15.0 — 14.0 — 13.0 — 12.0 — 11.0 — 10.0 — 9.0 — 8.0 — 7.0 6.4 Minimum — 6.0 '0- Thickness Index Please refer to Appendices 11 and V for the application of this diagram in the design of pavement. 32 VDOT — Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2018) Appendix IV Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets This sheet is intended for use and submission in conjunction with VDOT's Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements County Albemarle County Date: 1/4/2021 Subdivision Street Name Premier Circle Proposed Conditions Design Engineer Timmons Group Phone: 434.295.5624 AADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements, CBRD Design CBR = Average of CBRT x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide. CBRT CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide DME VDOT District Materials Engineer EPT Equivalent projected traffic HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires). %HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles. RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading. SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV =CBRD x RF) Dr Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method DR Thickness index required, based on Design AADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II. Step 1: Determine Design AADT Step 2: Determine Design Values CBR, RF, and SSV AADT Sample No. CBRT Resiliency Factor RF %HCV = 100 ( HCV / AADT) or EPT = 20 x HCV Note: For %HCV <_ 5%, use AADT 1 Source Value 2 Table 1 Note: For %HCV>5%, EPT>AADT 3 Appendix I CBRT* 18.9 DME approved RF CBRD 18.9' 2/3 For preliminary designs, use the lowest CBRD 12.6 RF value in the equation CBRD x RF = SSV ( ) x 12.6 Design AADT Use greater of AADT or EPT :1 Step 3: Pavement Design (Check appropriate box and show proposed pavement design below.) ❑ (A) Limited to Design AADT 5 400 - Show pavement material notations and thickness from Appendix IV Tables A and B. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ❑ (B) Show pavement section as developed in the Pavement Design Guide. Da = 13.9 (See Appendix m for material notations and thickness equivalency values (a)). from Appendix II Description of Proposed Pavement Section Material Notation Thickness, h a (a x h) Surface Required Thickness for Proposed Condition 1.5" 2.25 Dp = 3.4 Base Required Thickness for Proposed Condition 3" 2.25 Dp = 6.7 Subbase Required Thickness for Proposed Condition 8" 0.6 Dp = 4.8 DP must equal or exceed the value of DR. DP = s (a x h) = 14.9 CBRT": CBR date from a nearby site was used as an example instead of conservative Appendix 1 CBR values for these preliminary calculations. For any final designs or improvements CBR value needs to be field verified. 28 30 1 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 m 1 VDOT — Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2018) Example DR = 10.7 (interpolated) or more for design parameters SSV = 11 and Design AADT = 480 (intemolated) SSV Scale Proposed uses on Premier Circle Generate approximately 1,400 trips per day, we assumed 80% use the signalized entrance, resulting in an AADT of 1,120. 25.0 24.0 30,000 23.0 20,000 t10,000 6, 000 — 4,00.0 •3, 000 2,000 800 600 ........... 400 '• 300 200 100 50 Design AADT Scale 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 — 8.0 — 7.0 6.4 Minimum — 6.0 '0- Thickness Index Please refer to Appendices 11 and V for the application of this diagram in the design of pavement. 32 ZMA2O2O0OO11 PREMIER CIRCLE 405 Premier Circle Application Narrative Original Submission: September 21, 2020 Resubmittal: November 20, 2020 Resubmittal: January 4, 2021 Proiect Proposal Premier Circle (the "Project"), would comprise up to 140 affordable residential units and non- residential uses fronting Route 29. The Project is a creative, phased redevelopment of the existing Red Carpet Inn site to serve the clients of three affordable housing providers: Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH), the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH), and Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). PHA, the Applicant, will be the contract purchaser of the subject property, identified as Tax Map parcel 061M0-00-00-00600, containing approximately 3.75 acres, with address 405 Premier Circle (the "Property"), owned by Tiota, Ltd. The Property is currently zoned C-1 Commercial. It is located in the Places 29 Master Planning area and is designated for a primary use of Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial with residential as a secondary use. In order to accomplish the described multi -faceted project, PHA, VSH, and TJACH are requesting to amend the zoning map from C-1 to Neighborhood Model Development (NMD), which will allow the Property to be developed as mixed use with a non-residential building fronting State Route 29 North within the approximately one acre Block One and two multi -family residential buildings in Block Two, removed from the Entrance Corridor. To facilitate the financing, purchase, and redevelopment by PHA and VSH, the Applicant proposes a phasing plan, described in more detail below. The Applicant's phasing plan incorporates funding, construction, and leasing benchmarks of the Project's developers, VSH and PHA. Meanwhile, TJACH will repurpose the existing hotel rooms to provide essential emergency supportive housing to individuals experiencing homelessness who are also at -risk of developing serious illness from COVID-19. VSH provides permanent supportive housing to its tenants. On -site support services include case management to assist tenants in obtaining needed community services; housing stabilization and support; counseling and independent living skills training; community engagement and social support; employment, education, and vocational support; and transition planning to other housing types. (Please see Exhibit A, "Virginia Supportive Housing Permanent Supportive Housing / Supportive Services Program Description.") VSH proposes a four-story 80-unit building composed of 100% studio apartments for single adults, which would be affordable to those making 50% or less AMI. The affordability period of the VSH units would be a minimum of fifteen (15) years, which is the required Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) compliance period. PHA proposes 60 mixed -income units. The PHA building in Block Two would be four stories in the front closest to the VSH building and three stories in the rear closest to the single-family neighborhood to the northeast. The PHA units would be primarily one -bedroom (approximately 20%) and two -bedroom units (approximately 80%) with possibly up to 5% three -bedroom. The affordability of the PHA units depends upon the final financing structure so is currently described 1 1 P a g e as a range of 30%-80% AMI for the purposes of rezoning and would be for a minimum of fifteen (15) years. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, TJACH has been following CDC recommendations to shelter individuals experiencing homelessness who are also at increased risk of developing serious illness from COVID-19 in private rooms as opposed to congregate shelter settings. TJACH plans to use the existing hotel units on the site for this purpose during the first phases of redevelopment. These hotel units will be considered "emergency shelter" units and will be made available to clients experiencing homelessness who are at increased risk from COVID-19 on a temporary basis. Supportive services, including options for moving into permanent housing, will be offered to these clients. The Comprehensive Plan recommends 34 DUA for this area. The Project proposes and requests approval of a slightly higher density -- 37 DUA -- to allow PHA to develop 60 units, which increases operating efficiency and competitiveness within the LIHTC application process. As supported by project data described in the Timmons Group parking waiver request letter, dated September 21, 2020, supportive housing for homeless and low-income families requires far less parking than commercial uses or traditional multi -family. The size of the commercial square footage -- 5,000 to 40,000 square feet -- is limited primarily by the amount of parking it would require. Surrounding parcels. The parcels to the southwest of the Property front Westfield Road and are used for various commercial purposes. Parcels to the northeast, sharing access over Premier Circle, include another hotel, a law firm, a furniture store, and the Waffle House. Behind the parcels on Premier Circle lies a single family subdivision with lots off Commonwealth Circle and Commonwealth Drive. Neighborhood Model District (NMD) District According to the County Zoning Ordinance Section 20A.1, "(t)he purpose of the Neighborhood Model district (the "NMD") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and is hereinafter referred to as the "Neighborhood Model." The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics: 1. Pedestrian orientation; 2. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; 3. Interconnected streets and transportation networks; 4. Parks and open space as amenities; 5. Neighborhood centers; 6. Buildings and spaces of human scale; 7. Relegated parking; 8. Mixture of uses and use types; 9. Mixture of housing types and affordability; 10. Redevelopment; 11. Site planning that respects terrain; and 12. Clear boundaries with the rural areas." 2 1 P a g e The project's consistency with these principles is addressed below in the Comprehensive Plan conformity section of this narrative. However, addressed here as part of the Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to NMD are phasing, residential density, and mixture of housing types. Phasing. The Project will develop in three phases as depicted on the Phasing Diagram (Sheet 7 of the Concept Plan), briefly outlined with approximate timelines as follows: Phase I from ZMA approval through 2024: (a) The VSH building on Block Two would be constructed and leased. (b) At least 2,500 square feet of the amenity space (connected with the VSH building) would be completed. (c) The landscape buffer along the rear of the Property between Block 2 and existing residential uses would be provided. (d) Rooms within the existing hotel buildings would be used as temporary TJACH emergency shelter units for clients at increased risk from COVID-19. Phase II 2024-2026: (a) The PHA building on Block Two would be constructed and leased. (b) The second entrance and the primary parking lot on Block Two would be constructed. (c) Rooms within existing hotel buildings would continue to be used as temporary TJACH emergency shelter units for clients at increased risk from COVID-19. (d) The front existing hotel building may be demolished or may remain onsite for continued use by TJACH. (e) All amenity spaces, landscaping, screening, and pedestrian connections for Block Two would be complete. Phase 111 2027 — (a) The front hotel building would be demolished (if not completed during Phase 11), and the non-residential building would be constructed on the Route 29 frontage. (b) Amenity space, landscaping, and all pedestrian connections for Block One would be complete. Phasing is desired for this project owing to the long timelines involved in critical funding. All of the existing buildings on the Property would continue to be used through the end of 2022. The VSH finance closing would take place in the first quarter of 2023, with construction to start in the second quarter of 2023. Virginia Supportive Housing. To help fund the VSH development, PHA plans to meet the March 2021 application deadline for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). If successful, VSH construction would begin in spring 2023, would be completed in 15 months, and would be leased by close of 2024 to meet the placement in service deadline of December 31, 2024. 3 1 P a g e Piedmont Housing Authority. For its development, PHA plans to file its LIHTC application by the March 2023 deadline. If successful, construction would take place 2024-2025 for final placement in service deadline of December 31, 2025. Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless. The Red Carpet Inn comprises four buildings containing 115 units. Some of these units will be used as emergency shelter units to house clients experiencing homeless who are at increased risk for COVID-19. As described and depicted in the Phasing Diagram, during Phase I and, possibly, Phase II of site planning and construction for the permanent buildings, TJACH will house clients in the existing hotel rooms. Following site planning and construction, some of these residents and other residents will move into an 80-unit multi -family building operated by VSH as deeply affordable independent rental housing. Residential density. The Office / R+D / Flex / Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation calls for residential as a secondary land use, specifically as multifamily units above non- residential, but it does not specify a density. The Comprehensive Plan guides the Applicant to refer to other designations in the Places29 Master Plan, specifically, Urban Density Residential (UDR) and Urban Mixed Use (UMU), both of which have maximum density of 34 dwelling units/acre. Further, UDR and UMU both recommend multifamily housing (as does the Property's designation), and UMU also recommends having residential units above non- residential uses. The Code of Development permits non-residential square footage of 5,000 to 40,000 square feet; it is anticipated that all non-residential square footage would be in Block One fronting Route 29. Adhering to 34 DUA would limit the Project to 127 units. In order to maximize the efficiency of the buildings and the provision of affordable housing on the Property, the Applicants proposes 140 units, or 37 DUA, allowing 80 units in the VSH building and 60 in the PHA building. Given the small size of the units and the Project's significant contribution to the County's affordable housing stock, the Applicant respectfully submits that the provision of these additional units afforded by increased density would pose no detriment to surrounding properties while providing a significant benefit to the community. The Property has been used as extended stay hotel with 115 rooms, and the 25-unit increase with minimal traffic and school impacts is not expected to change the character of the area in any way. Parcels to the east, west, and south are commercial, and the residential properties to the north are separated from the Property by a wooded buffer. Mixture of uses. The Project will include non-residential (likely office or retail) and residential uses based on the Land Use designations in the Places29 Master Plan. Office is a primary use, and residential is a secondary use for land designated as Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial Land Use Designation for Areas Around Centers. The Code of Development identifies Block 1 as non-residential and Block 2 as mixed -use to provide future flexibility to introduce commercial uses to Block 2 in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan designation. However, the Applicant does not intend to have non-residential uses within Block 2 other than the ground floor community centers and fitness rooms associated with the VSH and PHA residential buildings. Mixture of housing types. Zoning Ordinance Sec. 20A.8(a) provides that each NMD district "shall have at least two housing types; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if the district is an infill project or at least two housing types are already present within one -quarter mile of the proposed district. The following are considered to be different housing types: (1) single family detached dwellings; (2) single family attached dwellings; (3) two-family dwellings; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accessory apartments; (9) manufactured housing; and (10) special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and skilled nursing facilities. An "infill project" is 4 1 P a g e a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels." The Applicant submits that both the temporary, emergency TJACH units for the homeless and VSH's permanent supportive housing qualify as special needs housing. TJACH's units are provided to its homeless clients who need extra protection based on COVID-19 risk factors; supportive services will be provided to these clients. VSH's permanent dwelling units are properly classified as special needs housing based on the high level of services provided to the residents and the special needs that the VSH development fulfills. However, in the event the County determines that all permanent units proposed within the Project should be classified as multi -family dwellings, the Applicant has submitted an application for a Special Exception to permit a single housing type. If the VSH use is determined to be more accurately categorized as special needs housing, the Applicant will withdraw the Special Exception application. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model The Property is located within the Places29-Hydraulic area of the Places29 Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates the Property and the parcels to the north along Route 29 as Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial. As an area around a Center, Table LU2 sets out office as a primary land use designation and residential as a secondary land use designation. The property immediately to the west on either side of Westfield Road is designated as Urban Mixed Use (in Centers), and the Berkeley neighborhood to the northeast is designated as Neighborhood Density Residential. Below is an excerpt from the Future Land Use South Map, dated November 5, 2018: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) Light Industrial Urban Mixed Use (in areas around Centers) - Heavy Industrial - Commercial Mixed Use Institutional - Urban Density Residential Public Open Spa. Neighborhood Density Residential - Privately Owned Open Space. Eirl ®UDA Boundary (See page 8£) O Small Area Plan Boundary (2) O Developmei The Office/Research & Development (R & D) / Flex / Light Industrial designation allows a range of uses with the lowest level of impact on surrounding uses, such as residential. Office 5 1 P a g e buildings generate traffic primarily through employees and visitors during business hours. The Applicant plans to limit the size of the non-residential building on the Property to comply with parking demands in relation to developable area. The Places29 Plan uses the "Office" designation in areas around Centers. Office may include professional offices, such as medical or real estate offices. The "Research & Development (R&D)" designation refers to "an administrative, engineering, and/or scientific research, design, or experimentation facility that engages in research, or research and development, of innovative ideas in technology -intensive fields," and these uses may be housed in traditional office buildings rather than industrial facilities. Examples include research and development of computer software, information systems, communication systems, transportation, geographic information systems, and multi- media and video technology. The "Flex" designation "describes businesses that may include several uses, such as a manufacturing facility with warehouse space for components and completed products, a showroom for sale of the products, and office space where administrative duties for the business take place .... (and) may include: research & development, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, office, retail, customer service, and showrooms, among others." Residential is a secondary use in the Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial areas. While these secondary uses should represent a smaller proportion of the development or the building, they are very important to "place -making"; adding them to a Center or the area around a Center increases the mix of uses and makes the area a more complete Neighborhood. Rather than mixing uses vertically, the Applicant proposes mixing uses horizontally on the Property to reach its supportive and affordable housing goals more efficiently while providing for non-residential in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Given the financing and phasing plan, the supportive housing proposed by VSH is more effectively managed in a standalone building on this site. The residential buildings are proposed to be set back in the middle and rear of the parcel and will not have significant visibility on the commercial corridor while affording the residents immediate access to employment and shopping in nearby commercial areas and through public transportation via nearby bus lines. Block One may be subdivided and sold to help support the Applicant's low-income housing program. Guiding Principles of the Places29 Master Plan. 1. Pedestrian orientation / 2. Neighborhood -friendly streets and paths The relatively small Property connects with neighboring properties by existing sidewalks along Route 29. The Applicant proposes a new sidewalk along a portion of the Property frontage on Premier Circle and will include sidewalks within the development connecting buildings and outdoor amenities. The Concept Plan shows potential future pedestrian connections between the Property and the commercial parcels along the northeast side of Westfield Road. Any such future pedestrian connection will be subject to future development of those parcels and private access easement agreements; therefore, it is not intended that any or all depicted connections will be made, rather that these are identified as potential points of connection to future development on the neighboring property(ies). The connections may provide a direct route for residents to access the future development of a Neighborhood Service Center and to the existing bus stop on Commonwealth Drive. The Applicant will grant such inter -parcel easement(s) across the Property at the request of the County. Premier Circle is a private road over which five Tax Map parcels (seven original subdivided lots from the Waffle House to the Property), including the Property, have an easement. A road 6 1 P a g e maintenance agreement was established by the original subdivider of the lots', but the owners association appears to be dormant. The Applicant is exploring the status of the association established by the declaration and information regarding road maintenance and intends to provide the County with a summary of all information relating to deferred and future road maintenance. Since pedestrian activity along the U.S. Route 29 corridor is focused primarily on access to bus transportation, the application proposes a sidewalk along Premier Circle extending as far as a potential location for a future bus stop. The implementation of the bus stop will be subject to County agreement to extend current transportation routes to include this bus stop. The occupants of and visitors to the other properties along Premier Circle, which do not front Premier Circle, could access the new transit stop via existing Route 29 sidewalk. 3. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks Supportive housing for very low-income residents entails far fewer traffic counts than office or conventional multi -family developments. Based on other VSH and PHA projects, as outlined in the Timmons Group parking waiver request letter, the Applicant's traffic analysis concludes that the VSH building needs only 0.35 parking space per unit for a total of 28 spaces, and the PHA building needs approximately 1.3 parking spaces per unit for a total of 78 spaces for 60 units. Therefore, the Applicant's residential uses in Block Two will require a total of 106 parking spaces. For the commercial space, one space per 200 square feet of net office floor area is required by Section 4.12.6. The term "net office floor area" is calculated as 80% of the gross floor area. Therefore, for the 15,000 square foot of gross office or retail space currently envisioned, 12,000 net square feet will require 60 parking spaces, and the Applicant will provide at least 60 spaces within Block One. VSH will provide lockers for bicycles and scooters, which are popular with its residents. PHA's development will include outdoor bike racks. Two Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) routes run roughly parallel to Route 29. Route 5 runs from Barracks Road Shopping Center north along Georgetown Road and along Commonwealth Drive to Rio Hill Shopping Center, Albemarle Square Shopping Center and north along Berkmar Drive and includes a stop approximately % mile southwest of the site near the intersection of Route 29 and Westfield Road. Route 5 runs every thirty (30) minutes. The distance from the Project entrance to this existing transit stop by existing sidewalks is one third (1/3) mile or less. Route 7 runs from the Downtown Mall through the University of Virginia, north on Emmet Street to Barracks Road Shopping Center, Seminole Square Shopping Center, The Shops at Stonefield, up Hillsdale Drive to Fashion Square Mall. The closest stops on Route 7 are on Hillsdale Drive on the south side of Route 29 and near Costco to the southwest. Route 7 runs every 20 minutes. Upon demand by the County, the Applicant shall construct a Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) stop (the "Transit Stop") on the Property along the frontage of Premier Circle in the approximate location shown on the Concept Plan or as otherwise agreed among the County, CAT, and the Applicant. The Transit Stop shall be designed and constructed in coordination with, and shall be approved by, the appropriate County authority and CAT If any portion of the Transit Stop is located on the Property, the Owner shall dedicate it to public use or grant an easement as necessary to allow for the public access and usage of the Transit Stop. ' See the enclosed Declaration, dated November 1, 1983, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 797, page 242. 7 1 P a g e The Property is within the JAUNT ADA paratransit service area, which includes the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County's urban ring within a three quarter (1/4) mile radius of CAT's fixed route system. A resident who has disabilities preventing him or her from using CAT service may obtain a paratransit pass for door-to-door JAUNT service from the Property. 4. Parks and Open Space as Amenities Zoning Ordinance Section 20A.9 governs the amount of area to be devoted to green space and to amenities within Neighborhood Model Developments. Please see the Code of Development for detailed information about the Project's green space and recreational amenity proposals. Areas designated for Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial require 10% amenity space to be reserved. See Zoning Ordinance § 20A.9.b.2 ("For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned"). The Project will include 20% green space comprising outdoor recreational amenities and green elements. Green spaces will be associated with and developed along with each of the buildings, and each owner will budget to maintain such green spaces and amenities on its property. The project will meet all recreational facility requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16 unless substitutions are requested and approved by the Planning Commission at the site plan stage. The Applicant will plan amenity and recreational spaces that are appropriate to its residents. For example, it may consider amenity and recreational facilities appropriate to elderly and special needs demographics, such as outdoor spaces that at once encourage gathering and solitude, and recreation and rest. In such case, considering these demographics, amenity objectives, and limited space as an infill project within the Urban Development Area, the Applicant may propose to meet greenspace and amenity requirements of the NMD by requesting a substitution for recreational facilities and a reduction in total recreational area required per Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16. However, the Applicant will plan the amenity space as the Project develops, and playgrounds and tot lots will be retained in the plan if deemed more appropriate for the residents. 5. Neighborhood Centers The Future Land Use Map designates a Neighborhood Service Center to be located on parcels southwest of the Property where currently a variety of commercial enterprises are operating. Potential future pedestrian connections to these parcels are shown on the Concept Plan. The Project complies with Table LU2's "Land Use Designations in "Areas Around Centers." 6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale The maximum office -only single -building footprint recommended by Table LU2 is 40,000 square feet, and buildings should not be taller than four stories unless by special exception. The Code of Development permits a maximum of four (4) stories for uses in Block 1, consistent with the Places29 Master Plan recommendation, to allow for flexibility. However, to minimize parking requirements, the Applicant is proposing a 15,000 square foot two-story non-residential building. The (up to) 80-unit VSH building in the center of the parcel is proposed at four stories, and the (up to) 60 unit PHA building is proposed as four stories in the front portion near the VSH building and three stories in the rear. The three buildings are oriented perpendicular to Premier Circle and the commercial buildings to the southwest to avoid large walls looming over property 8 1 P a g e lines or facing access points. Green space and parking are interspersed among the buildings to avoid large parking areas and to give each building a more enclosed sense of neighborhood unto itself. 7. Relegated Parking The majority of the parking spaces, located on Block 2, will be located behind the buildings. The lower half of the existing one-story building is not visible from Route 29, indicating that parking along a portion of the front of the Property to serve the commercial building would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor. While the Concept Plan depicts a single building on Block 1 with size restricted by parking requirements, if additional parking reductions are approved during site planning, or less parking is required, buildings may also be located within depicted parking areas. 8. Mix of Uses within Land Use Designations Rezoning to the NMD district will allow the Applicant to provide both the primary use designated for the Property by constructing a non-residential building at the front of the site but the secondary use of residential in the middle and rear portions of the Property. Depending on future development in the area, the front of the parcel may be characterized as part of an Employment Neighborhood, which will surround a future Neighborhood Service Center to the southwest. In the immediate future, the Property will be a mixed use development integrated with existing retail, service, and office uses along the Route 29 corridor. 9. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability The Comprehensive Plan posits a strategy of ensuring that Development Areas provide a variety of housing types, stating that "a full range of housing types creates choices for residents." A primary impetus for housing type choice is housing affordability, and multi -family rentals typically provide the most affordable housing option. As the pie charts accompanying Strategy 2g in the Development Areas chapter and Strategy 4a in the Housing chapter illustrates, the County has a very low stock of multifamily housing overall and within the Development Areas specifically, being only four percent (4%) in both calculations: Figure 9: Dwelling Units in Development Areas Sou.. uMmorl�Colnh CommvNy 0..Jop„�,r ]D I3 Figure 3: Housing Types in Albemarle County .l SFD EZ 5FA/TH a3 MF/Condo 84 MH The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Assessment published by The Central Virginia Regional Housing Partnership of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission reports that only three percent (3%) of the land in Albemarle County is zoned for multifamily housing, while ninety-five percent (95%) is zoned for single-family housing (Table 14. Residential Zoning by Jurisdiction, 2018). The report goes on to explain that "(u)nder the goal 9 1 P a g e of protecting single-family neighborhoods, such zoning restricts the opportunities for multi -family housing and increases multi -family land prices" (Id., p. 61). A large development of single-family detached homes is located behind the Property. For this redevelopment project, as in a number of recent developments (e.g. Rio West and Greenfield Terrace Apartments), it is appropriate to consider the proposed housing type in the context of surrounding development. The Applicant proposes permanent supportive special needs housing and multi -family housing. The overarching purpose of the Project is to provide affordable housing for the homeless and low-income families. Supportive housing developments and multi -family rental housing are best able to achieve this objective. Affordable Housing: The Project is expected to be funded by LIHTC funds, and the intent of the Applicant is for all units to be deeply affordable. All 80 units of the VSH building will be affordable to residents making 50% or less AMI. The exact makeup of affordability for the PHA units will be determined after all sources of financing have been determined, and the financing structure has been set. The Applicant commits to 60% of the Project's residential units being affordable for those earning 30-80% of regional Area Median Income (AMI), based on family size. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal or greater than sixty percent (60%) of the total number of residential dwelling units constructed on the Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. These units may be created as for -sale or for -rent. The affordable housing objective may be met through any of the permitted housing types per the Code of Development. 2. "For -Sale Affordable Housing Units" shall be a residential unit offered for sale to Qualifying Families with evidence of incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from time to time) such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income. All purchasers of for -sale affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Community Development Department or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its designee a period of 120 days to identify and pre -qualify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 120-day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than 90 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser within this 120-day period for such For -Sale Affordable Housing Units, the Owner shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). 3. "For -Rent Affordable Housing Units" shall be a residential unit offered for rent to Qualifying Families with evidence of incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined by HUD from time to time) at an initial rent that does not exceed the then -current and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD Fair Market Rents minus an allowance for any tenant- 10 1 P a g e provided utilities. The designated affordable rental units shall remain affordable for a minimum of fifteen (15) years after initial occupancy. 4. Affordable Units shall also be defined as a for -rent or for -sale dwelling unit for households with income less than 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development such that housing costs do not exceed HUD's affordability standard of thirty percent (30%) of household income. Each subdivision plat or site plan shall designate the number of affordable units provided and the minimum number of required affordable units per the Code of Development. 10. Redevelopment. The County directs future development into Development Areas to lessen pressure on Rural Areas. As directed by the Places29 Master Plan, the proposed Project's redevelopment of the existing inn follows the Neighborhood Model, as described below. The Project will provide up to 140 mixed -income affordable housing units close to employment centers, shopping areas, and transportation. Proposed Impact on Public Facilities and Infrastructure Utilities: The project site is currently an inn/motel with approximately 115 units with water, sewer, electric, and gas connections. Therefore, it is likely that these facilities have adequate capacity for the proposed development either onsite or in the adjacent main lines. Transportation: The project will connect to Premier Circle, an existing private road, with two connections to Route 29. The southern connection near the Property is a right -in right -out only. The second connection between Classic Furniture and the Waffle House, further north on Route 29, is a full - signalized intersection. Pursuant to the October 30, 2020 request by Adam Moore of VDOT, the applicant performed a right turn lane warrant analysis off Route 29 onto Premier Circle. Please see the Premier Circle Redevelopment Traffic Analysis, dated December 3, 2020 (the "Traffic Report"), prepared by Timmons Group. The Traffic Report concludes that the Project would have minimal to no impact on the operations of the study intersections: "(t)he intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS (Level of Service) with minimal increase in delay and queuing. No improvements are required at the study intersections to accommodate the vehicular traffic generated by the development." For impact comparison purposes, the current commercial zoning, C-1 Commercial, allows for uses such as a grocery store. A site plan for a Lidl Grocery store was submitted to Albemarle County in 2017 (SDP201700007). Per the table below the proposed development under this requested rezoning would generate less than one third as many trips as that by right development would have generated. Thus, the added traffic will be much less than the uses allowed by right. 111Page LAND USE RE CODE AMOUNT UNITS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AOT INOUT TOTAL IN OUTI TOTAL FAAhM Zoning Su ermarket 850 35,962 SF (GFA) 3,840 82 55 137 186 178 364 TOTAL 3,840 82 55 137 186 178 364 11,11,81110011111011 ZOOM General Office 710 15000 SF GFA 168 35 6 41 3 16 19 Multi-Faml Housln Lm-FU 221 140 D,,ell,nq Units 1,018 15 51 66 50 29 80 TOTAL I'm 50 56 106 53 45 98 Net OWerenoe- Trips -2,654 -32 1 -31 -132 -133 -265 % Miamiie -69.1% -39.3% 2.4% -22.7% -71.3% -74.6% -72.9% SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generotion Monuo/ loth Edition (1017) Enclosed is a Preliminary Pavement Investigation, dated January 4, 2021, prepared by Timmons Group. This report to the County Engineer describes and analyzes the results of asphalt corings and visual inspection of the existing road. Though the thickness of the pavement and base stone do not meet current VDOT Pavement Design Guide standards, the road poses no safety or convenience issues other than the need for striping and vegetation removal. The letter lists a number of issues, such as the road's geometry, entrance spacing, and sight distance issues, however, that could preclude Premier Circle from being taken into the VDOT secondary highway system even if the asphalt were reconstructed. Given that Premier Circle was constructed as a limited -use private road over thirty years ago, it was not designed to comply with current VDOT standards. Its variations from current standards are largely because VDOT standards are based on a minimum design speed of 25 mph. Premier Circle operates like a private access road within a shopping center, which would assume much lower speeds. The Declaration, dated November 1, 1983, setting out the private road maintenance agreement and establishing an owners association for road maintenance sets out the standards for road maintenance in Section IV.D as follows: "(t)he Owners' Association shall maintain and keep up the road shown on the attached plat in the condition in which it exists as of the date of completion of the road in accordance with the standards set forth on the plant (sic) which have been approved by the State Highway Department. In addition to the maintenance of said road in the condition as it exists on said date, the Owners' Association may, by written agreement of at least eighty per cent (80%) of all owners, obligate itself to improve and upgrade said road to a superior standard." The Applicant has discovered no approved road plans for Premier Circle as of the date of this submission. The Applicant will construct a sidewalk along a portion of the Property's frontage on Premier Circle. The sidewalk will provide pedestrian access from the Project to the proposed location of a potential transit stop and to the existing sidewalk along Route 29. Sidewalks along Route 29 to the north and south provide pedestrian access to shopping and other services. In response to the County's request, the Traffic Report also includes an assessment of a potential signalized pedestrian crossing at the U.S. Route 29 / Premier Circle / Branchlands Boulevard intersection and provides recommendations if such crosswalk were installed. 121Page Schools: All eighty (80) of the VSH units will be available only to single adults, and the sixty (60) PHA units will be at least 95% one- and two -bedroom apartment units, currently projected at approximately 20% one -bedroom and 80% two -bedroom. Smaller units correspond to fewer school -age children residents. Any students living within the Project would be within the current school districts for Woodbrook Elementary School, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Based on the most recent (November 11, 2019) Albemarle County Schools Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections2, both Woodbrook and Jouett are under capacity and should remain so through the 2029/30 academic year, while Albemarle High School is over capacity. The County Schools provided the following matrix for estimating student counts: OFFICIAL CALCULATOR' Type of Dwelling Unit Elementary Middle High Total Multi -Family (60) 0.12 = 7 0.03 = 2 0.05 = 3 0.21 = 13 Impact on Environmental Features The project site is a previously developed parcel mostly made up of impervious surfaces and grass turf areas with what appears to be a small existing stormwater management facility in the northern corner. The proposed future development will seek to decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site increasing green and amenity spaces for the enjoyment of the residents. The reduction in impervious will have a positive environmental impact including decreasing the stormwater runoff volume and improving the runoff quality from the site. Per the following section, Stormwater Management measures will be implemented to maintain or improve the quality and quantity of stormwater flowing from the site. Strategies for Stormwater: The project's final design will meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for Stormwater Management quality and quantity. This will likely require improving water quality and a reduction of stormwater volume flowing off the site, from the pre -developed levels. Any stormwater quantity reduction required will likely be achieved through onsite underground detention systems. Any quantity and quality systems will be kept separate for Block 1 and Block 2 to allow for phasing of construction or subdivision of the blocks into two parcels. z Albemarle County Public Schools K-12 Enrollment Projections FY2020121 to FT 2029/30, dated November 2019; Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections, dated November 19, 2019. ' Provided by Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer, Albemarle County Public Schools. 131Page ZMA202000011 PREMIER CIRCLE 405 Premier Circle September 21, 2020 Resubmitted November 20, 2020 Resubmitted 1-4-2021 Special Exception Application Narrative On behalf of Piedmont Housing Authority ('PHA" or the "Applicant') and Virginia Supportive Housing ("VSH"), the developer, we respectfully request a Special Exception from the requirement that each Neighborhood Model Development (NMD) have at least two housing types. The provisions of this requirement, which is set out in Zoning Ordinance Section 20A.8(a), allow the Board of Supervisors to waive this requirement if the proposed NMD is an infill project or at least two housing types are already present within one -quarter mile of the proposed district. Among the different housing types listed in this Section 20A.8(a) are single family attached, multifamily dwellings, and special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and skilled nursing facilities. An "infill project' is defined as "a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels." The Property, described and defined below, is an infill redevelopment project. The single-family detached community, Berkeley, located on Commonwealth Drive and Commonwealth Circle, abuts the Property to the north, and these residences are within one - quarter mile of the Project. This Application is submitted in connection with a Zoning Map Amendment application that proposes to rezone County Tax Map parcel 061 MO-00-00-00600 (the 'Property"), from C-1 Commercial to NMD, to allow for the development of multi -family housing and non-residential uses (the 'Project'). As described in more detail in the Code of Development and as shown on the Concept Plan, dated September 21, 2020, last revised January 4, 2021, prepared by Timmons Group and BRW Architects, the Project will comprise three buildings on the 3.75 acre parcel. Block One, with frontage on U. S. Route 29N, will contain a non-residential. Block Two will include up to 140 multi -family dwelling units in separate VSH and PHA buildings. All units in Block Two will be affordable housing. The 80 studio apartments in the VSH building will house formerly homeless residents, who are single with no children, and will be rented at rates affordable to those earning 50% AMI or less. The PHA building may be designed to house families and is currently planned to include approximately 80% two -bedroom units, 20% one - bedroom and a maximum of five percent (5%) three -bedroom units. The exact rental level of the PHA building is dependent on the final financing structure but will be within the range of affordability to those earning 30% to 80% AMI. All residential units in the Project will be affordable for a minimum of fifteen (15) years and are intended to address special housing needs. 11Page The Applicant believes that VSH's permanent supportive housing may qualify as special needs housing based on the high level of services provided to the residents and the special needs that the VSH development fulfills. On -site support services include case management to assist tenants in obtaining needed community services; housing stabilization and support; counseling and independent living skills training; community engagement and social support; employment, education, and vocational support; and transition planning to other housing types. Further, during the early phases of the Project, the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH), will use the existing hotel rooms for its clients. Since the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic, TJACH has been following CDC recommendations to shelter individuals experiencing homelessness who are also at increased risk of developing serious illness from COVID-19 in private rooms as opposed to congregate shelter settings. These hotel units will be considered "emergency shelter' units and will be made available to clients experiencing homelessness who are at increased risk from COVID-19 on a temporary basis. Prior to rezoning, the TJACH will use these rooms as transient lodging. Upon rezoning approval, during construction of the permanent residential buildings, TJACH clients could live in existing hotel buildings as multifamily units. Supportive services, including options for moving into permanent housing, will be offered to these clients. In summary, though all residential units within the Project may be technically described as multifamily, their various purposes comply with the spirit of the Ordinance to provide housing for many different needs. All units, whether managed by TJACH, VSH, or PHA, would be affordable units. If the Community Development Department concludes that the Project does not meet the two -housing types requirements, the Applicant requests a Special Exception for such requirement and submits that providing the Special Exception to such requirement would not frustrate the purposes of Section 20A.8(a), the Places29 Master Plan, or the Neighborhood Model Principles. The Proposed Special Exception Supports the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Waiving the multiple housing types requirement is consistent with the recommended future land use of the Property under the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is located in the Development Area and, by reference to other zoning districts in the development area, is designated for a maximum of 34 dwelling units per acre (DUA). Multifamily is the most efficient means of providing the maximum number of affordable units, a goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In order to maximize the efficiency of the development and further the County's goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing, the Applicant is requesting 37 DUA. Because multifamily is suitable and appropriate for the Property location, single-family detached is well within one quarter mile from the Project, and the Project is an infill redevelopment that will provide up to 140 units of affordable housing to the County, the Applicant requests a Special Exception to Zoning Ordinance Section 20A.8(a). We submit that granting the requested Special Exception will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan without creating significant detriments to County residents. Thank you for your consideration of this request 44124811_1 (z) COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 January 22, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Megan Nedostup Re: Premier Circle Apartments — Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2020-00011 Review #2 Dear Ms. Nedostup: (804) 786-2701 Fax: (804) 786,2940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated 3 December 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable. Regarding the potential for the future installation of a pedestrian crossing of Route 29; further analysis of how the proposed interruption to Route 29 throughput would impact signal coordination. In particular an analysis examining how often throughout the day the pedestrian phase would be triggered would be necessary prior to permitting a crossing at this location. If further information is desired, please contact me at 434-422-9782. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING