HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000006 Staff Report 2020-09-16 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: September 16, 2020
ZMA202000006— Spring Hill Village Proffer
Amendment STAFF CONTACTS:
Filardo, Rapp, Nedostup, Kanellopoulos
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend previously approved proffers per PRESENTER:
ZMA201300017 to revise the proposed Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
improvements to Route 20 (Scottsville Road).
Specifically, remove the proposed left turn lane
on Route 20, and instead construct a right turn
in, right turn out, left turn out at the intersection
of Dauphin Drive (main road through Spring Hill
Village) and Route 20. The applicant is also
proposing to construct a pedestrian trail or path
along Route 20 instead of the previously
approved 8-foot sidewalk. The application plan
has been updated to show these changes.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS:
Mountain View E.S., Walton M.S., Monticello
H.S.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on July 21, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 7:0 to recommend approval of
ZMA202000006 with the changes outlined in the staff report and with a recommendation that
sufficient methods are employed to prevent U-turns on the adjacent property to the north.
The Planning Commission's staff report, action letter, and minutes are attached (Attachments A,
B, and C).
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has updated the application plan to make the recommended revisions as stated in
the staff report and as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The attached
Proffers (Attachment D) have been revised to make minor wording changes for clarification.
Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has met with the adjacent property
owner of Tax Parcel 90-35V and proposed placing a median within the entrance to the parcel,
which would make U-Turns less feasible. This layout would have been acceptable to VDOT,
however, the adjacent owner did not agree to this layout. VDOT does not find there are any
changes that can be done completely within the right-of-way that would also prevent U-Turns on
this property. The applicant has explored several other options, however, none were acceptable
to both the adjacent owner and VDOT. Staff finds that the applicant has sufficiently addressed
this concern.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment F)to approve
ZMA202000006.
ATTACHMENTS:
A— Planning Commission Staff Report—July 21, 2020
Al: Vicinity Maps
A2: Proffer Statement dated 06-25-20
A3: Application plan dated 06-25-20
A4: Applicant Narrative
A5: Neighborhood Model Principles
A6: Public Comment
A7: Proffers per ZMA201300017 dated 09-29-14
A8: Application Plan per ZMA201300017 dated 08-29-14
A9: Code of Development Dated 04-09-20
B — Planning Commission Action Letter
C — Planning Commission Minutes, July 21, 2020
D — Signed Proffers
E — Revised Application Plan dated 08-21-20
F —Ordinance to Approve ZMA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
STAFF REPORT
Project Name: ZMA202000006 Spring Hill
Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Hearing: July 21,
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
2020
Owner: Stanley Martin Companies LLC
Applicant: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering, on
behalf of Stanley Martin Companies LLC
Acreage: 12.63 acres
Rezone from: Amend proffers per
ZMA201300017; zoning district remains NMD
TMP: 09000-00-00-02800
Location: Parcel is approx. 12.63 acres and has
frontage on both State Route 742 (Avon Street
Extended) and State Route 20 (Scottsville Road).
Parcel is located approx. 1,600 feet to the north of
the intersection of SR 742 and SR 20. Parcel is
located approx. 330 feet south of the intersection
of SR 742 and Stoney Creek Drive.
School Districts: Mountain View
Current by -right use: Maximum of 100 dwelling
(Elementary); Walton (Middle School);
units and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of non -
Monticello (High School)
residential uses
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers: Yes per ZMA201300017
Proposal: Amend previously approved
Requested # of Dwelling Units: A maximum of
proffers per ZMA201300017 to revise the
100 dwelling units were approved with
proposed improvements to Route 20
ZMA201300017. No additional dwelling units are
(Scottsville Road). Specifically, remove the
requested.
proposed left turn lane on Route 20, and
instead construct a right turn in, right turn
out, left turn out at the intersection of
Dauphin Drive (main road through Spring
Hill Village) and Route 20. The applicant is
also proposing to construct a pedestrian
path along Route 20 instead of the
previously approved 8-foot sidewalk. The
application plan has been updated to show
these changes.
DA (Development Area): Southern and
Comp. Plan Designation: Community Mixed Use
Western Urban Neighborhoods
— residential (up to 34 units/acre), community scale
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
retail, service and office uses, places of worship,
schools, public and institutional uses in the
Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods.
Affordable Housing Provided:
Affordable Housing AMI (%):
N Yes ❑ No
15% affordable units approved with
ZMA201300017.
Character of Property: The property is in
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent
the process of being graded and developed.
properties directly to the south of this property are
A final site plan (SDP201900068) for 100
zoned R-1 residential and each have one single -
dwelling units is currently under review.
family dwelling unit. The Avon Park development
(zoned R-6) is directly across Avon Street
Extended to the west. Properties across Route 20
to the east are zoned RA Rural Area and are within
the Rural Area. Adjacent properties directly to the
north are zoned LI Light Industrial and are
developed with industrial and commercial uses.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The rezoning request is consistent
1. The application plan needs technical
with the majority of the
changes.
recommendations within the
Southern and Western Master Plan
and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The request is consistent with the
majority of the applicable
Neighborhood Model Principles.
3. VDOT does not anticipate a
significant traffic impact on the
nearby street network.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Map Amendment: Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff
recommends approval of ZMA202000006 provided that changes are made as recommended in
the staff report.
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 21,2020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA202000006 — Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000002800
LOCATION: Parcel is approx. 12.63 acres and has frontage on both State Route 742 (Avon
Street Extended) and State Route 20 (Scottsville Road). Parcel is located approx. 1,600 feet
to the north of the intersection of State Route 742 and State Route 20. Parcel is located
approx. 330 feet south of the intersection of State Route 742 and Stoney Creek Drive.
PROPOSAL: Amend previously approved proffers per ZMA201300017 to revise the
proposed improvements to Route 20 (Scottsville Road). Specifically, remove the proposed
left turn lane on Route 20, and instead construct a right turn in, right turn out, left turn out at
the intersection of Dauphin Drive (main road through Spring Hill Village) and Route 20. The
applicant is also proposing to construct a pedestrian trail or path along Route 20 instead of
the previously approved 8-foot sidewalk. The application plan has been updated to show
these changes.
PETITION: Proffer amendment of ZMA201300017.
ZONING: NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 — 34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes (ZMA2013-17)
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Steep Slopes (managed)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Community Mixed Use — residential (up to 34 units/acre),
community scale retail, service and office uses, places of worship, schools, public and
institutional uses in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject property has frontage on both Avon Street Extended (State Route 742) and
Scottsville Road (State Route 20) (Attachment 1). Route 20 is an Entrance Corridor and a
Scenic Byway. The property is currently 12.63 acres and will be subdivided and developed
for a maximum of 100 dwelling units and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of non-
residential uses, per the Code of Development approved with ZMA201300017. A final site
plan (SDP201900068) is under review for 100 dwelling units. The property is in the process
of being graded and developed.
Adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned residential and developed with single-
family attached and detached units. Properties across Route 20 to the east are in the Rural
Area and include residential and agricultural uses. Adjacent properties to the north are
zoned Light Industrial and are developed with industrial and commercial uses.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) to revise proffers
and an application plan approved with ZMA201300017. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting to revise Proffer #4 to modify the required improvements on Route 20 and to
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
3
modify the timing of those improvements. The applicant is also proposing an 8-foot
pedestrian path along Route 20 instead of an 8-foot sidewalk. The applicant is requesting
modification of the application plan to reflect these proposed changes.
The application plan approved with ZMA201300017 showed both right and left turn lanes
into Spring Hill Village on Route 20. The revised proffers and application plan would modify
the intersection of Dauphin Drive (proposed main road through Spring Hill Village) and
Route 20 to allow for right turn in and right and left turn out. Drivers would not be able to turn
left from Route 20 into Spring Hill Village. Instead drivers traveling northbound on Route 20
would turn left onto Avon Street Extended, and then turn right into Spring Hill Village at the
intersection of Dauphin Drive and Avon Street Extended. The application plan approved with
ZMA201300017 also showed an 8-foot sidewalk along the frontage with Route 20. The
revised application plan provides an 8-foot asphalt pedestrian path instead of a sidewalk
and sets the path further back from Route 20.
It should be noted that the revised application plan with this proposal (dated June 25, 2020)
would replace the previous application plan (dated August 29, 2014). Therefore, staff is
recommending that all other required improvements, as shown on the August 29, 2014
application plan, be included on the revised application plan. These are considered technical
changes which can be addressed prior to the Board's review of this proposal.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has provided a proffer statement (Attachment 2), an application plan
(Attachment 3), and narrative (Attachment 4).
COMMUNITY MEETING
The community meeting requirement per 18-33.24 was met in the form of mailed letters with
information about the proposal, with response options including contacting staff via email or
phone call or using an online input form. The applicant mailed letters to property owners
within a 500-foot radius of the proposal. The letters were mailed on June 5, and recipients
were given until June 19 to provide feedback. Staff received a total of four (4) individual
responses via email and Microsoft Forms.
The following are the main concerns staff has heard:
• Access to the site: There are concerns that drivers traveling northbound on Route 20 will
choose to use the adjacent property to the north to make a U-turn to access Spring Hill
Village, instead of using Avon Street Extended instead.
• Traffic: There are concerns that Avon Street Extended is already a busy street, and that
some amount of traffic will be diverted from Route 20 to Avon Street Extended. There
are concerns that the 55 MPH speed limit on Route 20 is high and creates potential for
conflict.
These concerns are further discussed in the following sections of this staff report. Written
responses from members of the public are included as Attachment 6.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
ZMA201300017 TMP 90-28 was rezoned from R-1 Residential to NMD Neighborhood
Model District. The rezoning was approved with proffers (dated 09-24-14), an application
plan (latest revision date 08-29-14), and Code of Development (latest revision date 08-28-
14). These documents are included as Attachments 7-9.
ZMA201500018 A proffer amendment was submitted to reduce cash proffers per
ZMA201300017. The proffer amendment was denied.
Special Exception #1 The first special exception for this ZMA was approved on December 6,
2017. The special exception approval allowed for minor changes to internal street design
and location, block acreages, and open space.
Special Exception #2 The second special exception for this ZMA was approved on May 20,
2020. This special exception approval allowed for minor changes to the road alignment,
block sizes, setbacks, phasing, open space, and minor wording updates to the Code of
Development.
SUB202000064 A final plat for this property is under review. The preliminary plat was
approved per SUB202000013.
SDP201900068 A final site plan for this property is under review. The initial site plan was
approved per SDP201800073.
SUB201900158 A road plan for this property is under review.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposal is consistent with the relevant chapters and objectives and strategies in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Chapter (10) recommends that transportation
improvements in the Development Areas be consistent with the recommendations in the
relevant Master Plan. It also recommends multimodal and accessible transportation options.
Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the recommendations in the Southern and
Western Master Plan and provides at least the same level of multimodal connectivity as the
development approved per ZMA201300017. The Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
Chapter (8) Objective 8 states: "Maintain the visual integrity ofAlbemarle's Entrance
Corridors". The proposal shows landscaping and an amenity park with landscaping along
Route 20. A Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board will be
required prior to final site plan approval.
The property is designated Community Mixed Use in the Southern and Western Master
Plan. This designation calls for a mixture of residential and retail uses and services that
serve the community, with a residential density of up to 34 dwelling units per acre and non-
residential uses including community scale retail, service and office uses, places of worship,
schools, and public and institutional uses.
The Master Plan has the following guidance on Route 20:
• Route 20 and Route 53 are rural section roads which are narrow.
• Provide a vegetative buffer along Rt. 20 South of 1-64.
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
• Route 20 South Improvements: Improve Rt. 20 South with curb, gutter, sidewalks or
pedestrian paths and bikeways on the western side within the Development Area
boundary.
• Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Route 20 to provide access to
schools and accommodate increased development in that area.
The proposal is consistent with the Master Plan and provides the equivalent amount of
connectivity and landscaping as was approved with ZMA201300017. Additionally, a
pedestrian path instead of a sidewalk is more consistent with the character of Route 20,
which divides the Development Area and Rural Area. A pedestrian path, instead of a
sidewalk, was recently approved with the Galaxie Farm rezoning (ZMA201800012).
The Neighborhood Model: Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Neighborhood
Model Principles and found that it is consistent with the applicable principles. See
Attachment 5 for staff's full analysis.
Relationship between the application and the intent and purposes of the requested
zoning district:
The purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) zoning district is:
• To "establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood
development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. "
• To `provide for compact, mixed -use developments with an urban scale, massing,
density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within
close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the
comprehensive plan."
• To use the following standards for development: "The particular uses permitted
within a particular district, as well as the character, form and density of the
development, shall be derived from the comprehensive plan, including the land
use plan for the applicable development area, the master plan for the applicable
development area, and the Neighborhood Model."
The NMD is intended to be a flexible zoning district to allow development consistent with the
goals of the Future Land Use Plans in the Master Plans and the Neighborhood Model
Principles. The property is already zoned NMD and was previously reviewed for consistency
with this zoning district and the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles. Staff finds that
the form and content of the revised application plan and improvements are consistent with
the intent of the NMD.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
The applicant provided estimated trip counts in the narrative for drivers traveling northbound
on Route 20 that would be traveling to Spring Hill Village. VDOT and County Transportation
staff reviewed the application and traffic information and do not anticipate a significant traffic
impact on the nearby street network. The applicant estimates that five (5) cars per day
would be traveling northbound on Route 20 to Spring Hill Village, and that they would turn
left onto Avon Street Extended and then turn right into Spring Hill Village. The applicant is
providing pedestrian connectivity along Route 20 as recommended in the Master Plan. The
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
6
final road and site plans will need to meet all VDOT standards, including the required length
for turn lanes and taper. VDOT requires the right turn lane and taper transition area to be
400 feet in total length. The application plan appears to show a shorter turn lane and taper
area and should be updated to reflect VDOT standards.
Schools:
The proposed proffer amendment would not result in any additional dwelling units, and
therefore would not result in any additional students.
Fire and Rescue:
The proposal is not expected to create new demands on Fire and Rescue services, as no
additional dwelling units are proposed with this request. The applicant has revised the timing
of Proffer #4, to state that all improvements for Avon Street Extended must be completed
prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO), while all improvements for Route 20 must be
completed prior to the 30th CO. Fire/Rescue requires two points of access after the 30th CO
for residential developments. Therefore, all Route 20 improvements must be completed prior
to the 31st unit.
Utilities:
This project is in the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) water and sewer service
jurisdictional area. ACSA and RWSA review was completed with the approval of
ZMA201300017, and continues with review of the final plat, final site plan, and road plans.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources:
There are no known environmental, cultural or historic resources on this site.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Staff received feedback from members of the community regarding potential impacts from
this proposal, specifically the potential for increased traffic on Avon Street Extended and the
potential for drivers to use the adjacent property to the north to make U-Turns.
Staff finds that the proposal is not anticipated to have significant impacts on adjacent and
surrounding properties. VDOT and Transportation Planning staff find the applicant's
estimate of five (5) northbound trips per day to be a reasonable estimate, which would add
five (5) trips per day to Avon Street Extended. VDOT and Transportation Planning staff
acknowledge that it is not possible to definitively determine whether drivers would use the
adjacent property to the north to make U-Turns. However, staff finds that it is more likely
drivers would use Avon Street Extended to access Spring Hill Village. Drivers must either 1)
make a left onto Avon Street Extended and then a right into Spring Hill Village, or 2) would
have to make a left into the adjacent property, and then turn around, turn right back onto
Route 20, and then turn right into Spring Hill Village.
The previously approved Route 20 improvements per ZMA201300017 would have required
grading along the frontage of the adjacent property to the south (TMP 90-27), which is no
longer required with this proposal. The proposed proffer amendment requires significantly
less grading and is a less intensive proposal.
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
7
Public need and justification for the change:
The County's growth management policy states that new residential development should
occur in the designated Development Areas where infrastructure and services are provided,
rather than in the Rural Area. The development of Spring Hill Village was previously
approved with ZMA201300017. The proposed changes with this proffer amendment are
consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan and
provide for public pedestrian connectivity along Route 20.
PROFFERS
Proposed proffers are included as Attachment 2. The approved proffers per ZMA201300017
are included as Attachment 7. Only Proffer #4 has been revised.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations within
the Southern and Western Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The request is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model
Principles.
3. VDOT does not anticipate a significant traffic impact on the nearby street network.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The application plan needs technical changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff recommends approval
of ZMA202000006 with the changes outlined below:
Revise the application plan to include the following requirements, previously approved
with ZMA201300017 and application plan dated August 29, 2014:
a. Convert overhead utilities to underground on both Avon Street Extended and
Route 20;
b. Show and label the 6-foot tall screen fence along southern edge of property;
c. Label the additional Entrance Corridor landscaping along Route 20; and
d. Label proposed Route 20 right turn lane.
2. Revise the right turn lane and taper area to meet VDOT length requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Maps
Attachment 2: Applicant Proposed Proffers, dated June 25, 2020
Attachment 3: Application Plan, dated June 25, 2020
Attachment 4: Applicant Narrative, dated April 20, 2020
Attachment 5: Staff Analysis of Neighborhood Model Principles
Attachment 6: Public Comment
Attachment 7: Proffers per ZMA201300017, dated September 29, 2014
Attachment 8: Application Plan per ZMA201300017, dated August 29, 2014
Attachment 9: Code of Development per ZMA201300017, last revised April 9, 2020
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 21, 2020
90131-01--31
o' 0C9707�,p
90C1-01--A1 020 07-
10-35X
90-35M
Legend
items on map may not appear in
PaceInfo
❑ Parcels
2 19+y9��O2 C
90-35Y 90-35N
m or: h SC,- 9oC.�0 g0C1.02..16 OC1`02?, 97
0 o dy. `oi b n
/0
rd/
O
742SfP O�GN
90-35P .'
vC
st
42 90/o
90C1-0-.
'35
9007.0 90c1 01=-8 10 I / Q`
IS
90-33A 90-35A1+
90-35V
y 90-33B
O1
90f33C
91-18
b
V tiM 90-33
90-6D
190
F'0���1�4),R
`90,c
Opp 'O 403. h�ok 90-28
Op t
i 9p_7
9
poF� `�4 90E-A1 pF`p .. _U0' y
9 73
9p\�OF�, gok,
0.1,�`p .�
'Fop yoF-
0 31 00
sp'I
90-21H 90-21 H1
�4
��fD. q OA.2 90-27B
Q°i by ,o. O
8 o F'l �p o �
Z• �rIllp< 90
_
/
` p
o°`oho m
90-27J 90-27 91-1982
\
9 1-19B3
e+
376 ft 90-32A 90 26AGIS 9 7A
O'
so-z1B
-
91-19B1
ceograpncoa Data
90-26 _
90-30A 90-25
f
90-21D. 90-21A
,covalternm0 gis
V
90-21'E
NM)2g6�58r2
My determination oflopo3rapby or contours, or any depiction of physical Improvementsproperly lines or boundaries is for general Information only and shall not be used am Me design, modification, or construction of Improvements to real property or for fil plain determination. July 13. 2020
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data download page due 0 the projection used. Map Projection: WGS84 Web Mercator (Ausidery Sphere) (EPSG 3857)
90D-G ;9 1^ ^ 9 9 91,
90C.1-0.1:- ° 90p_4p MJn 90 g0, 0--t
.36 9p, Q3 91A1-E A6
Q O 0 7 0 �• 3 C 3 S 9=
O •ZO '� 0 o g ? g SS� ij• �, 91-15
p0' > y✓y o m 0� 0.3 90-35B g g. lq •:7
f or I I I I C 9 ��19 s O pO Csg0 3 90_ SR T9.' C. 6? 91-16D
prfoi n'g'Oak 00 '� �.q 3 S
a a �• ��. s 6.
9035F
Legend
(Note Some items on map may nappear In legend)
Parcel Info
El
WhisP , I l � v -
j 6
90��D-CLLII�O/ 90D-, 90-35T
9oD-B
Oa o S /a o
�Y �.gA
\ S 90
A oddy•_Grove.;4°
to `�� 9-1
Q 9 ��. gT9 b'S
91-16A1+
Parcels
106510 90-35W
p1io" 90C1-01--A1art - 3to
U Q 1
.Q� iPr.• aJ 1.G ...---
G1
�0���9
o ��.p0 10 U m m- n \ C \v a j
o, .- O o G �9p _�,�, 90-35X
gpC7� 0° 9& �t }=_ 2
07d 9
91-16B
m < U 90C1-OI1--56 0/0 p9pC-1102 3
90C
90-35M
1.01�3$ S0 g vOil H c 90-35Y 90-35N
g0'�DO: 01
sy '66/ �,h° �; C,,/ °AirCvi
SQ 90-35P
S ll 1
gpC
\ f e J I v y q /
yC00-3
C s
CP �1 J?o 19 m!!
g0 7420,3s
,L 33q q lx
01
90 33g \ 90-35V
90-33C
91-18
\•Gry
-Toth
o. 90-28
9 �J `90F�g7S
°A 90-21H
p o �.'C7 t�• 90-21 H1
9pFq�,��04° 90-27B
90'27
90-27
a, 9p C g •g 91-19B3
O_?�q
91-19B2
90-30 90-32A ?S'9 %190 _
90-31
90-6D 90-26 990",?7e
7
90-25 �2,7 - 90-21A
90-30A
90-24
90-29 90-30B
91-19B1
�
9p,?3 R
/
PS
N N^' d,.6C6,90-21G
91-19A
\
a tea'
�dl Ot
752 ft Ihc1ne'1yc
Q
m1•
o GIG -Web
Ge�raapbic Data Services
90-20
90-19
91-19Q2
lbemaae orglgis
N`w.. NMh 2%:83z
My determination oftopo3rapby or contours, or any depiction of physical Improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general Information only and shall not be used for Me design, modification, or construction of Improvements to real proper, or for fil plain determination. July 13. 2020
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data aovmload page due 0 the projection used Map Projection: WGS84 Web Mercator (Au ifl ary Sphere) (EPSG 3857)
N 9 9061=02--17 9°C j 90-35M
IN 90-35N
rS) , 7p
Q❑Parcels
Legend
(Nal Soon seas on map may not appear In legend)
Parcel Into
ce9�zoning
1'OZoning
I ^' 1 742 90-35P
sfea�;
>4C*
Into
Classifications
Rural Areas
R 01� V
L `■
Wllageidential al
R1 Residential�°
R2 Resitlential
O.g0C1^-0-•2■
� nR4
Resitlential
■ R10 Resiential
■ R15 Resitleotial
90 34
o
■ R15ne al
Ai O
01; �j 'r C
S
Unit
Planned Res dDevelopmentResidential
■ Development
Development
' °G1� O O
'
Neighborhood Model
■ icellois oric Di trice
■ MonticelloHistoric District
U 9� Cj O� v A 90-35A1+
90-33
rn
O 90-35V
C1
■ Commercial Office
dal
■ Plannedghavary Development
■ Planned Development shopping m.
■ PlanneDoemoss Development Comm.
90C1-01--A7 90-33B
District
■ DohtIndu CrozetDismct
stry
y
Iy"
90-33C
Heavy Industry
■ Heaved Development
■ Planned Development IntlusUial Par
- iovm oisceMsville
91-18
ryb
titi
oV c;
90-6Do�o��, Uw �6 90-33
9 '9po,
9
OtJ �9
F`90 9 1
p�� 90E-A1 Op 9
c p
0'9;6�'` 90-21H 90-21H1
9
T� 90-27B
grA.n v °T
A
a ati c a •r• v, � 90-27C 90-27 91-19B2
'
91-19B3
,90-21F
90-26A 90-27A
90-32A
0
0 90-31 90-21B
Co 90-26
'
90-21D
V 91-19B1
376 ft 90-25 90-21E ^^, 90 21A
90-29 90-30B 90-24 90-21G
ti2�os
3
emGIS-Wb
Geographicenr gs
. s, vui
hacm`" (4x) 2ln5s32
My determination oftopography or motmax, or any depiction a physical Improvements, property lines or Wundaries Is for general Informants on" ma shall rot be says! for MMl e design, mficulon, or nominationMMprovemeMa to real property moor flood plaln detetmina mn. .tiny 13, 2M
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on Ibe data download page due M Me projection used. Map Projection: vgGSBC vi Mercator (Mather, SpMre) (EPSG 3857)
90C1-02--1. 9OC'
o ypC�Z - IO2, / 90-35Y
OJ J 6
N pO pill
90-35M
90-35N
Legend
(Nal Some Xenia on map may not appear In legend)
Parcel Ink
O
'
O •
O
���J'J
❑ Parcels
_
C? ��
U p�j t:
Comp k Plan Land Use In
n " p / p1' O _�N
1V �� 742
f G
90-35P
10 Urban Development AlABoundary
Comprehensive Plan Areas
dart 90 �
L ` 9 V
`
Crozet Master Plan Land Use
Ij pG4
90C1-01--42 9 y on C
9U-35
9UC 1-01--8 Oj OJ Q
■ GreensNeighboace•
Neighborhootl Density Residential L
■UrbaNeign Density Residential
y O� 1 90-34 3
3 0 .✓ O
A CaJ J` C
e
■ Mixed -use
■ Dovmtonsn
■ Institutional
p1:
rflO `O y
Light Industrial9p
G1'
J
■ See Crozet Maslelplan Text
y C
9p o ° 90-33A 90-35A1+
Pantops Master Plan Centers and Di
Q)1 UrbanNeighborhood enr
m 1
GO Service Center
O Employment DistrictOJ
90-35HQ
O Recreational District
90-336 •.
/S 90C1-01--A1M�.
Pamops Master Plan Future Street N
Principal Arterial
(nlAzt
as Boulevard!
— Avenue
90-33C 'Ykpeflf4.il-.w!IQ
J1-18
Avenue (Conceptual Alignmenp
�u.}-�u-r�L-,-,1���+��u�f�LM1f1-..�
O u,w.Ci Pr[:Il1l..11.-tJ \
I
— Local Street
- Local Street (Conceptual Alignment)
G'y ryry
— Rural Transition
90-6D 90-33
PaMOPs Master Plan Urban Center
Participle Master Plan Land Use
o� p�t,
9 O pV
Neighborhootl Density Residential
/O o, G^
9 F
OF
■
CommercialtMixed Use ■ Urban Density Residential
a 6 p 90-28
Use
■ Community D / Flex
■ Ctfice/R&D/Fkz/Light Industrial
s
■
80 OQrV 0,�.
�S,
■ Public Parks
Public Park
■Potential Pudic Pack
Public
gOF
OOF OOF 74
90�4 90E-A1
i
■ Parks and Green Systems
\O bG1��F� O'9,8 73
F
G VO
90-21H1
.Q ro /3'•0.�9
90-
tr,. �ti 9.fD,�A; 90-27B
Os
en,
O�ClOyGbr`r� Ard 0 90
�c"F o�
Y
�a c a T 90-2r7C
91-19B2
91-1963
90-26A 90-2r7A 90,21 F.
90-32A
-90-21 B
---
/
Cm 90-31
.
90-26 90r-21 D
a, G
91-19B1
376ft 90-25 90-21E ^/
90-21A
t
or
GIS-yen
a
90-29 90-30B 90-24
- 90-21G
Ger9nm Dam Sauce
� .. .ltematen slis
.
hamNva (4M)2WM32
My determination or mpryrapny or mm°urs, or any depiction m Mysical Improvemesi property lines a IwuMares Is for general mtmmallen only aM snail nit Ire used Mr the design, mocificalion, or mmtmNon of Improvernal to real pmpeq or for XOM plain determination. My 13, 2M
Map elements may scale larger than GIS Bala measured In the map or as provided on he data do'.mbad page due M Me proleNon used Map Projection ygil Wen Marl (Wtlllary Sphere) (EPSG 385/)
901 01= Al -- ' t V �gtft�. t ,p o 0 90-35Y
r /
\5'3 fit/ i �. \• / P bi1 �
90-35 `- {yyyft �,i
Mom: Soo�dem on map
ma, not appear MMgme)
Overlays
■ Water Protection Oncinance Bu%ers
o�/��Et/ / O �•fJt/ (�� ��� 7
QE
St� jE�iS/ At<t ` R 5b �� / ��
�: ft � w v ✓� P7
c LP�Lgb b b•.ti p 631 h
1�t1
Parcel Info
❑ Parcels
Elevation
Y2018 Eletation Contours
/1r1`o
j,���h L� •/ /J�o� 6 II o y S6 h°�
��N`"/
c/ , � 1 YY
E�yl /JIA3._o of f o�9.0-34 640 f,ya U
1-Q1 �b1" .fib �� / O 6gq,f
�r .flo�ff.. /��90 tt�t 1r „ yQ0 /l
= V2018 Ekva%on Contours (600 )
V2018 Ekva%on Contours (60 %)
V2018 Ekva%m Contours (40 %)
— V2018 Elevation Contours(4 fit
— V2018 Ekva%m Conours N%)
Zoning Info
0 Flood Overay (100 Year Flo
\ —� �/ b / Q
ft '��'� 6'70¢t e/ h h d
i\j \��` b•�b %�\ / , � 90-35V / /^ �Q
pesHa,sand
Overlay
Sleep Slopes Overlay
Slopes
■ StepCritical Slopes
Steep Slopes - Maserve
■ SteepSlopes-Preserves
ACV
\,`
616v� ,pb /^90-33B\) of C/ � 5g4aft _ OSft t a��`
f33C Q% �r � v � a Sqp ft A bl`t'fti90
�ry N
c.
1b1v/90/b ~q °G•/•G^s\" , e �n el ll'
,n U -w
90-28/
/C,OF-A1
OF / +•, 49 F\�-,:Cl s!// m :` N
/ bb0j 90. � �799" I � l � N o N
• " ` e (^�, ��2 0 �q al /� � \% � oF� I � "vp �.536 (t 90-21,FiJ��
/9,�•D,/''/.,2/
�19B2
" °''. e S• pen D<� � Pt�
�
e °�I �` oa ��'R ,ov.'T �'?�i�•[:o'//'��Ils;l' / �� ��p= 5b$ /
�.. a.� m. LL/ `m�(Ce•• �f �i-27Chb __ �'ct' b�pft
y 'L�
560/`�_ 'ic,- _. tf0
bb4�2i' bbby // 0` / 1 / .,,56 ft 0'f�, 5g0 Sgbopgt.
F.��
I
90-216 o
a' IV"
r1\-\\2-
n (/r a b
�/
' I l i i ��
376 ft � 25 /,V 90 21 E �, 90-21A
/+
Cl
by � 0 1 O�r1• / �
y
90 29' J 90 24 +Pb y, e �
r � cis -wan
ce�mpnlc Data senlcea
�.. . Inemane.orygla
-'ham,na
90-30B" ., 580 ft h `• 90-2.1G
(ax7 zes5s3z
Myd mlnetlonmtop yapnyormmoum,orameepiMonmphysical Improve Ms, property lines or runda es La Mr general Informallm only and snail mt ne used Mr Me design, mMlfiranon, or mmwNon of ImpravemeMa to real property or for fled plan eererminallon. .Jury 13,2020
Map elements may stale larger Man GIS Bala Measured In tre map or as provided on Me does download page due M Me proleNon used. Map ProjaMon: V SS,l wen Mercator (• me llar, SpMre) (EPSG 3857)
Original Proffers ZMA2013-00017
Amendment YES
Spring Hill Village
PROFFER STATEMENT
Date: June 25, 2020
ZMA No. 2020-000, Spring Hill Village
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TMP 09000-00-00-02800
Owner(s) of Record: Stanley Martin Companies, LLC
Project Address: 1776 Scottsville Road
Magisterial District: Scottsville
12.63 Acres to be rezoned from Neighborhood Model District (NMD)to Neighborhood
Model District (NMD)
The term "Owner" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record and
successors in interest. The "Application Plan," refers to the Application plan last revised June 25,
2020, prepared by Collins Engineering.
Pursuant to Section 33.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the
zoning district identified above. These proffers are part of the requested rezoning and the Owner
acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
1. Affordable Housing.
(The Affordable Housing Units will be provided in the form of for sale or rental units.) The
community could have as few as 80 units and as many as 100 dwelling units. The Owner
shall provide 15 % of the dwelling units constructed as "Affordable Housing Units" within
the Project in the form of 2 or 3 story townhomes.
The Albemarle County affordable housing policy defines affordable housing as the following:
Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do
not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include
principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for
tenants shall be tenant -paid rent and tenant -paid utilities with maximum allowances for
utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to
the forty percent of the County population that have household income at or below 80% of
the area median income. For 2003, the maximum affordable home purchase (80% median
income) would be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants
would be $787 (50% median income.)
Each Affordable Housing Unit shall be located on a single lot. The Owner shall have offered
for rent or sale as provided herein each Affordable Housing Unit within the project. The
Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the Affordable Housing unites to the
subsequent owners of lots designated affordable on the site plans or plats.
A. Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for -rent Affordable Housing Unit shall
not exceed the then -current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by
the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net
rent for each for -rent Affordable Housing Unit may be increased up to three
percent (3%). For purpose of this proffer statement, the term "net -rent" means
that the rent does no include tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents
for such for -rent Affordable Housing Units may not exceed the maximum rents
established in this paragraph shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following
the date he certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -rent
Affordable Housing Unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units
qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority,
Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8,
whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term".) The Owner of each Affordable
Housing Unit shall, at the request of the Albemarle County Office of Housing,
provide written reports documenting rental rates and occupancies of the
affordable units.
B. For Sale. All purchasers of for -sale Affordable Housing Units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide
the County or its designee 180 days to identify and pre -qualify an eligible
purchaser for the Affordable Housing Units. The 180- 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 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the
certification of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a
qualified purchaser during this period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the
units without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser. If these units
are sold, this proffer shall apply to the first sale of each unit. The maximum sales
price for Affordable Housing Units (65% of VHDXs Maximum Sales Price for
First-time Homebuyers.) The calculation currently put the maximum sale price
for Affordable Housing units at $211,250.
C. Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the for -rent Affordable
Housing Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language
reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph 1. In addition, all
contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for -rent Affordable Housing Unit, or
any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full
disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by paragraph IA. At least
thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for -rent affordable
unit during the Affordable Term, the then current owner shall notify the County in
writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address, and telephone number
of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 1C have
been satisfied.
2. Cash Proffers for Residential Units. Beginning with the thirteenth residential unit for
which a building permit is obtained, the Owner shall contribute cash for each new
residential unit that is not classified as an Affordable Housing Unit. The cash contribution
shall be for the purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of development on the County's
public facilities and infrastructure, i.e. schools, public safety, libraries, parks, and
transportation. The cash contribution shall be Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and
57/100 dollars ($20,460.57) cash for each new single-family detached dwelling unit. The
cash contribution shall be Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and 18/100 dollars
($13,913.18) cash for each single family attached or townhouse dwelling unit. The cash
contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each
new unit in order to be consistent with current state law.
Beginning January 1, 2015, the amount of the cash contribution required by this proffer
shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the proceeding
calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index ("MSI".) In no event shall any
cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by
this proffer. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash
contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be
the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which
shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently
ended.
3. Over Lot Grading. The owner shall submit an over -lot grading plan (hereinafter the
"Plan") meeting the requirements of this paragraph 3 with the application for each
subdivision phase of this paragraph 3 with the application for each subdivision phase of the
Property. The plan shall show existing and proposed topographic features. The Plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer prior to approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control
plan. No building permit shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer
has determined the lot grading in not consistent with the approved Plan. The plan shall
satisfy the following:
a. The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, setbacks, surface drainage,
driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify
that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
b. The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
c. All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet.
All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed
grading. All proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface drainage can
provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
d. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall
(3: 1.) Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined
to be appropriate by the County's program authority in its approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not
exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical
rise or fall unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for
steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
e. Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm
sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
f. No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half (1/2) acre of
land drainage to it.
g. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond
the rear of the building site.
h. The plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if
it is less than ten (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades
no steeper that ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not
be served by a stairway. This area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways
or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street.
i. Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by submitting a request for special
exception with the over -lot grading plan. If such a request is made, it shall include a
justification for the request containing a valid professional seal from a Professional
Engineer, Landscape Architect or Land Surveyor. In reviewing a waiver request, the
County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies
the purpose of the requirement to be waived to a at least an equivalent degree.
j. In the event that the County adopts over -lot grading regulations after the date this
proffer is approved, any requirement of those regulation that is less restrictive than any
requirement of this proffer shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this
proffer, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.
4. Improvements to Scottsville Rd and Avon Extended
At its sole expense, the Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct the improvements
shown on the County approved engineering drawings titled Spring Hill Village — Application
Plan, sheet 1 dated 6.25.20 as prepared by Collins Engineering, for both Scottsville Road
and Avon Extended. The improvements shall be designed and constructed to the County
and VDOT standards, including the design and construction of the related drainage, slope
and utility easements as appliable. The improvements along Avon Extended shall be
completed and approved by VDOT and the County prior to the first certificate of occupancy
for any structure on the Property, and the improvements along Route 20 shall be approved
and bonded prior to the first certificate of occupancy, and shall be completed and approved
by VDOT and the County prior to the 30th certificate of occupancy. As part of this process,
the dedication to public use shall be completed at the same time. The improvements shall
be deemed to be complete when they are accepted into the secondary system of highways or
the County Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for travel.
This document shall supersede all other agreements, proffers, or conditions that may be found
to be in conflict. These proffers shall be binding to the property, which means the proffers shall
be transferred to al future property successors of the land.
WITNESS the following signature:
OWNER(S) of Tax Map Parcel 09000-00-00-02800
La
Stanley Martin Companies, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (Contract Purchaser)
Manager
Date:
I I I 1 1 I I f06/25/2
DENSITY TABLE AMENITY& GREEN SPACE CALCULATIONS NOTE: THE PEDESTRIANPATHWAYSHALLBE !LlcLOCATED WITHIN A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTI TOTAL SITE AREA AFTER R.O.W. DEDICATION ON ROUTE2oANDAVONSTREETEXTENDED=12.94AC AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. j �'�/ —/ NAME SIZE PHASE MIN. MAX. MIN. MAXI
BLOCK A o.6 AC 23 0 12 02 6oK SF hI
I / AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENT ACRE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT ACRE BLOCK B1. AC 1 0 8 026oK SF
4 4 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE i2.94 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 1z.94 oar /
BLOCK C 3.3 AC 1 01 30 02 60K SF AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENT X20% GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT X20% — hA g� y\ j I j j q
BLOCK D 4.6 AC 1 14 40 0 0 AMENITY SPACE REQUIRED 2.59 GREEN SPACE REQUIRED 2.59 SEE TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS SHEET FOR THE al
\ BLOCK E 1.2 AC 1 8 16 0 0 0 �o , / h° RQAD CROSS DESIGN FOR EACH STREET, AS i I
BLOCKF o.6AC 1 6 16 0 0 \ 6�/ rl' w'
be _ \\ \\ \ \ I AMENITY SPACE PROVIDED 2.84 GREEN SPACE PROVIDED SIOWN ON THE APPLICATION PLAN
BLOCKG 1.3AC 1 4 12 0 0 vvvvvvvvvvvvIvvvvli I // AMENITY SPACE 2.84
PLUS ADD'L NON -AMENITY OPEN GREEN SPACE 0.78 // / i ,/ i vI I z ,
z
1 I
2PRESUMES DEVELOPMENT AS NON-RESIDENTIAL USE j j I j j TOTAL GREEN SPACE 3.62* / �� / o A MIN.1o,o0o SF OF NON RESIDENTIAL IS BEING PROFFERED FOR SPRING HILL VILLAGE 11111111111111111 / /F7 AMENITY ADDITIONAL APPROVED OFFSITE I z
3A PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 2 BLOCKS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE !j� Ijj I�j�j I I I I SPACE r OPEN SPACE / w
*DOES NOT INCLUDE QUALIFYING GREEN SPACE ON LOTS OR IN R/W / SANITARY SEWER m
/ I/ f / ) (CURRENTLY UNDER ' a z
I \ I I A v 1 SITE CONSTRUCTION /// �� / l l �/ 11 � / (GREEN) / � I I rt w
CONSTRUCTION) w g
�-630— / /' // 0 i
\ I A V I /,/ // // // // /lly60 //A\ \\ \V l // / /l l l\\ Z O
ADDITIONAL OPEN / PLANTiN(5,&- ILT�Pf{CC�I�EE€�`s€}VT�N��� B�SS�I(/i / / / / / / / / / / / o u
_ / / / / / / / / / v v v / N
v GREEN SPACE (0.57 ACRES) / PTO-6VaIIE 65EAP / v v v sea v
SR ET/CROSS / / / / ALLEY CRO \ \ \ in
IE / / / / / / I \ \ \ FOR F\i1fURE CONNECTION o x z
Lu
/SEgTION
/ / \ \ \ .r: Lu
ul
CL
s z
----- H
2z+ o -' / - O g
12+00 �/ � - s �� — � 12+ o / // 5 / i + o %S+So / � s6+oo +so oro ,— .. �/ z
�/ �� 3 5 -��� -�--� `^�/�-t- �i A l� > U Z
12+ o
PRIVA E ALL _ �" EXI$TTNZp OVERHEAD w o
; PRI A 1 r-/ I K T Lu \ 53$ r POWER/ONES AND POWER UJ °C a
_ A ( APE ': I / / / a u
\ \ \ \ \ \ / / / \ i POLES TO REMAIN w J
----- \ \ \ \ `\ \ \ ` Q ��o \ \\ \ N \ o OCL
AREA v v v v v v ROAD CROSS h v z
A v CNSPACER ' / v v v v �� �� w� V A V 47 /� v v s� O Q
�v v v 1 57 CRES) j v v vv vv H v A V Av \ v SECTION H y v v \ PROPOSED $ ASPHALT m w
v v BL��� C `v v `� Q v v v -I+ _v v PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
\ V A A v� v v v v �� �� V v \ — m A A V
v v v v v I v vROADvCI�O�S 1 '�'' I I y r v v v` � v� pp � � � � v I ,- - - v v I � m�
° v v s v� 3.G /1c`v o vv vv vv )4LLEYCR SS V V ---' -i �v \V A A v v CO EqTIONLu
1 SB v A uC
vAREA f�� R.O.W. A l �,j v v v v v v v v v ` v v v v v v v v v v A m ROAD CkDSS -- - �/i vV B�� A� v 3. j 'AREA
r SCTION G v v v o v 1�, 1 1
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a
\DEDICATION \\ \ \ \ 1 \ \\ \ \ ` , \ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \`\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ SE AC \
\ u`
I
CTION A
AMENITY AREA ` ... \ o .Si \ o4+st o \40
_ /
\
\ \ \ \ _ —�— \ \ o T— DAUPk4jN DRIVE — , / R�P6�ED RI%3HT\IN/1t CONCRETE & GRASS
v PQCKTPARK#3 v v v os+[� �a+oo
\ \ \ \ PROPOSE I T AN`ZI L#T N MEDIAN & SPLITTER
I I I 1 \ \ \ \ wo \ DQG PARK \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ET --�_ \o5+gi / F'\ o o
'y ISLAND w
ROAD CIS S A t� - - . \\ \ AR. WIDTH PUBLIC STRE \ oo+61 I \ ¢ n�i ni
p p ✓ (0.19 ACRES) x
SE�TIO\N D \ , o
00
-
\ o50
P a u+oo 1+ 2 � 0
N v A\\A 'I.:1•''•� �I' .
, I �U00 co
BLOCK E
11.1 AC
\
PROPOSED 10\ SRkfT \ // / // / \\\\ I ®,
v vv SPED STRI N PA HV1) v / / / // ,vvv' w
pp pp \ l
V A V A' '1�\V A / / , / v vvvv V I �iO�r v --
V
vvvvv k� Fvv ��°
V A A V ,I \ v
v vv v v v v v v v vvvv ` °v 'I: ' II l i i I � v I//
\ v A \ V A V v A V A VA N V• •1:: • I I I I I , � �� 1 .{ 1 \ � I I t� / l I v `s�
v v G v v SE-L-TIO_N�B, ` ° G v vv v w v v y v y vROAvD-CROSS ---
V A A A A \ rn I I I V A\ •� � V��.V v v -_ i i i t A V A A A o i
` D Rd55 Na_ Y AREA E; 4
5°\ N QTIONEI KETP 14 V\I es
•. ' I I I I EAR PAR i
/\ <Of
�LOc�c�i IIII Q
l� l Q
m l �'1.4Qf /� i i "� j Tvv > Z
I' N LLI J J
54� am
PROSdD 8'IASPI j v
PED INAL
TRIAN PATH
\
U)
v Phone W V
PoleH Q 0
- UrT
vv v v vv PROPOSED UNDERGROUND Q Z
v v v AMENITY AREA. �.' v v v / `vDETENTION FACILITY I ((�11"'1�
v v v v POCKETPARK#4 .r i , v v `v v ROSE U V
o 0 o A AV A \\ h N C
ENTRANCE PA1IK y I 1 1 I \ sr V 1 / I `� � �
A AV A A A\ V (0.14 ACRES) BLOCK D `\ \ �I /�
\ V � I V A I A \ V v v A V v v � w v I II•P � I I 1 1 1 V V.-_, A V A V 1 I /
v ::: �. /
\ V A 0 1 V A 1 A� A \ \ V A V A \ "a I 1 I '�\• _ I 1 1 \ 4"� AC \ \ V A V I �' I _� EXISTING OVERHEAD LL.I
POWER LINES AND POWER � U
\ \ \ \ A VA I \ v ! �� \. v ---
POLES REMAIN J
�LgCK G I t o ., W I--q
v v I I v v 1 v v v v v v vv � vp , ,::'.I �I: I ��I I v �,� v vv v ROA� CROSS I I (�
V •, o A 1.4 ACG P SEC I ION B �I - h
.+�
_ 0 LJ
\ \ \ No \ \ \ \ { I I I I I I I Q
Lu
�j
o5+t+tk oo+ii
II 1 � 1\ \ 1 1 I � \I \I \I l \\I\\\ I/ \ \ 1 1 I I ..o 'I•.• I ,, I ,.L..'I:: \ I I / / / / Lij
\ / I I /III\ � \\' 1 I 1-.':...,.,I':: •r'' I / \
1, �\ \V A j ( I 1 1 w \ A I --1:.:;I',: I-. ! I:: i I l �::.I:, \ I I I � I / , �" / / ,:::.•' • ----- - \ - I AiMENITYhhREA; o
/
GI,EENNVAY PARK / i 0� o
(0.85 ACRES) I :::. / ° %
LANDSCAPED''
o BUFFERAREAI "L:": G: I:,1::-:: / v // r.. CV ��/)
OPEN SPACE B
0 Lu
\ \ \\\\\ \\\ I \ \ \ 1 I \ III II I I li li Il \\ I i / 7 .":I:; : . ".'i, l '" �li1 ':. t ��: 1 ,�` \::;�•'.—i---`\1---\ I I / / / \ `\° // /'/ � � � � II I
AREA OFR. R.O.W.
v DEDICATION o "'
v\ I PLANTINCo& MAINTENANCE ffASEMENT IN��OCK v v v v v v/ JOB NO.
/// r DTO' BE PRROVIDED FOf�PERIN)ETER L�NDSCAPi(uVG vv vv vv v RIAP,HICL KALE vv vv v /;1 182157
VA V AAVAAv /iA v/ 1VADJACENTIVO PRYPERTyBOUNDARY v \ f" V A v v --�_\ \\ V vv / —
40 0\ 2a ab eQ vv �� vv 160 v V v/ �� SCALE
A � A // �u 40 '
v v v v � ,� v ,' =
v v ` A / h6 I !v SHEET NO.
\\ ( �N F�\ET ) v vv v � v v \\ vv / / III u�
,� \
I l I I 1 V V A A 1 inch = d0 ft. A A � A � / 11 / A 1
SPRING HILL VILLAGE
REZONING AMENDMENT
ZMA 2020-000
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
NARRATIVE
COLLINS
April 20, 2020
I. Proieet Narrative
Spring Hill Village in a mixed -use development with a total of 12.63 acres located between Route
20 and Avon Street Extended. The project was rezoned in 2013 to a Neighborhood Model District,
with proffers. The applicant is submitting a zoning map amendment to amend the proffers, as outlined
below.
The original Spring Hill Village Application Plan contemplated a full access intersection at both
Avon Street Extended (State Route 742) and Scottsville Road (State Route 20). The full access
intersection at Avon Street Extended functions well with the overall traffic on this section of the
roadway with the existing conditions of the road and the current speed limit. However, the full access
intersection proposed at Route 20 requires significant road improvements for the intersection. Due to
the volume of traffic and posted speed limit on the Route 20 roadway, a left turn lane is warranted for
any volume of cars turning left into the development. The proposed turn lane improvements extend
approximately 1,100 linear feet south along Route 20 from the full access intersection and
approximately 800 linear feet north. While the turn lane improvements can be accommodated within
the existing right-of-way, the improvements will have a substantial impact on the adjacent properties,
especially the properties located to the south of the project.
During the design phase and build -out of the property, the applicant has reassessed the need for a
full access intersection at Route 20. The expected left turns into the development along Route 20 from
vehicles heading north is minimal, less than 5 cars a day. In addition, these vehicles have the option
to turn left at Avon Street Extended and then turn right into the Spring Hill Village neighborhood.
Eliminating the left turn on Route 20 would not prohibit these vehicles from safely entering the site
from Avon Street Extended. However, removing the ability to turn left into the Spring Hill Village
would eliminate a significant amount of roadwork along Route 20, and would drastically reduce the
impacts of this development on the adjacent properties.
The attached updated application plan illustrates a proposed right turn in, right turn out, and left
turn out at the intersection of Route 20, but eliminates the left turn into the development. Concrete and
landscaped islands are proposed at the intersection to channelize the traffic movements and prevent a
left turn in movement from Route 20.
Due to the complexity and impacts of a full intersection along Route 20, the original rezoning
application and proffers had specific language in regards to the improvements. The applicant is
processing a rezoning amendment to remove these improvements from the requirements of the
rezoning and proffers, and proceed with the modified intersection design.
In addition to the turn lane improvements along Route 20, an eight feet wide concrete sidewalk
was required along the frontage of the property. With the modifications to the intersection and
reduction of the turn lane improvements along Route 20, the applicant is proposing an alternative
design to the pedestrian connection, similar to other projects recently approved along the Route 20
corridor. In lieu of the concrete sidewalk along the roadway, the applicant it proposing to construct a
pedestrian pathway through the linear park along the frontage of the property. This pathway would
move pedestrians further away from Route 20, creating a benefit to the safety of the pedestrian and
creating an overall better walking experience.
U. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The property is located within the community mixed -use designation on the Comprehensive Plan
and the existing zoning is Neighborhood Model District, which is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed changes will not have any effect on the consistency of the project with the
Comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive land use map is shown in Figure #1 and the Rezoning Map
is shown in Figure 2 of the narrative.
III. Conformance with the Neiehborhood Model District Principles
Section 10 of the approved Spring Hill Village Code of Development summarizes the conformance
of the project with the Neighborhood Model District Principles. The proposed changes with this
rezoning amendment will not affect the consistency of the project with the Neighborhood Model
Principles as listed within the approved Code of Development. These principles are also attached to
this narrative.
IV. Impacts to Public Infrastructure and Environmental Features.
The proposed amendment to the Spring Hill Village Rezoning plan and proffers will reduce the
impacts to the public infrastructure and public facilities. The modification to the full access
intersection at Route 20 will reduce the impacts and requirements along Route 20. In addition, the
amendment will reduce the environmental impacts by eliminating some significant disturbances to the
existing buffers along the Route 20 corridor for many of the adjacent properties.
Figure 1: Comprehensive Plan
ure 1: Zoning Map
V
R.-
ul
q I-
Figure 3: Resource Map
Figure 4: Context Map
Route 20 It can be used for a variety of sports and ar area to walk pets. Pocket Park 112
is opsvgnad to host a communal vegetable gardening and even a dwarf fruit tree
orchard. A garden shed to house tools and a small covered shelter to provide shade are
also proposed. Pocket Park 43 is an area adjacent to the main connector road and is a
small eddy off of the road where one can sit and relax on a bench amongst trees, shrubs
and flowers. Pocket Park 44 is across the street from 43 and is proposed to be set up as
a shady retreat within a bosque of trees. Pocket Park N5 is located at the intersection of
the connector road and Avon Street Extended. It is envisioned as a possible location for
a school bus stop. As such it will provide an alcove with landscaping and seating where
children can await the bus and parents can congregate as they wait for kids to be
dropped off.
As the community develops and its demographics evolve the uses within these amenity
areas may also evolve. It is the Applicant's intent that the central park be developed as
described, but that the residents of Spring Hill 'viiidge hdVe d ]dy ill lluw the puLKel polkS
are used or further improved.
9.1 Water & Sewer
Water shall be provided through a connection to the public water system located in or
along Avon Street Extended. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the subject site
along Route 20 from its current terminus near the Kappa Sigma property. A conceptual
layout of the water and sewer systems is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.2 Stormwater
A preliminary layout of the storm sewerage system and stormwater management
concept is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.3 Dedications
Areas dedicated to the County for public use, other than streets dedicated by recorded
subdivision plat, shall be conveyed to the County only in such manner and form
approved by the County Attorney.
10. CONFORMANCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT PRINCIPLES
10.1 Pedestrian Orientation
The subject site lies on the outskirts of the growth area designated as Neighborhood 4. This side
of town has seen a great deal of new development and a number of projects are underway. The
southernmost section of Neighborhood 4 has yet to mature to the point where it is a true
"neighborhood." For that reason, and partially due to the challenging terrain, the community at
large is not currently considered walkable. Noticeable gaps in infrastructure such as sidewalks
are now being filled in by new development, and soon the entire neighborhood will be linked in
such a way that the needs for pedestrian and bicycles will be fully met.
Spring Hill Village is proposing to do its part to fill in the gaps with regard to the pedestrian
issue. Area along the frontage of Avon Street Extended will be set aside for the installation of
such a connection already present in the corridor. The extension of this system will help
integrate Spring Hill Village into the fabric of the evolving neighborhood.
Within Spring Hill Village itself, a simple, intuitive system of sidewalks connects the residential
buildings to one another and directs residents toward the central community space, which
includes a number of recreational and social opportunities. Furthermore, connections between
the residential and possible commercial sections of Spring Hill Village are provided.
10.2 Neighborhood -Friendly Streets and Paths
Spring Hill Village is served by a formal system of public streets which connect all internal
portions of the community together as well as connect Route 20 with Avon Street Extended.
Roadside sidewalks flow throughout the community. On and off-street parking are provided.
An intensive street tree program will compliment the project by providing additional ambiance,
welcome shade and serve as a visual foil between the roadways, pedestrians on the sidewalks,
and the buildings.
10.3 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
It was difficult due to the native topography of the site, but the plan calls for providing a
vehicular connection through the property between Avon Street Extended and Route 20.
Opportunities do exist to provide interconnectivity to adjacent parcels. Some of these
properties have been developed and others remain in single-family use. An opportunity to
connect to the property(s) north of Spring Hill Village has been accommodated. The residents
south of the proposed development have expressed a desire not to have such a connection.
10.4 Parks and Open Space as Amenities
17
2.83 acres have been set aside for internal community use. It will include improvements
directed toward active as well as passive recreational use, social gatherings and communal
gardening.
10.5 Neighborhood Centers
The "neighborhood center" for Spring Hill Village will be the park. Businesses that may choose
to locate in Blocks A or B could be of a nature that they too would serve as gathering places
within the community. In a broader context, this precinct is anchored by South Side Shopping
Center located at the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Mill Creek Drive. A large grocery
store and number of convenience -related businesses are located there. A bank, a convenience
store with fuel service, and other commercial ventures compliment the food store and retail
enterprises. A variety public services and facilities have been --onstructed. Included are a new
high school, a fire/rescue station and a planned branch library. Additional business activity
nrn ire in the AAlll rrpeb rnmmnngy nn tho wpet 6rtp of Avnn itrppt Fxtpndpd Thp rp Cidpnt¢ of
Spring Hill Village will find the existing neighborhood center convenient and a place where they
will regularly patronize.
10.6 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
Spring Hill Village is intended to be a quality, mixed -use community. Architecture, streetscape,
and amenity spaces have been coordinated to create a comfortable and safe environment for
residents and their guests
Buildings fronting on Avon Street Extended will have three or more stories to provide an
architectural facade to the community and to ensure that those traveling on the roadway do
not consistently look down onto rooftops. The middle of the community may have structures of
one or two -stories. Along the Route 20 frontage buildings may again increase in height in
response to their intended use. From within the development buildings will appear to diminish
in size due to the fact that they are terracing down the hillside. Due to the terrain falling
steadily away views of Carter's Mountain will be afforded from almost every vantage point.
10.7 Relegated Parking
Most of the required parking for Spring Hill Village will occur on individual lots or in parking lots
adjacent thereto. The remaining required parking will be provided on the public roadways.
Blocks A, B and C are where most of the relegated parking is currently proposed.
10.$ Mixture of Uses and Use Types
Spring Hill Village is proposed as a NMD with an opportunity for complementary non-residential
uses to develop along the eastern and northern boundaries (Blocks A, B and Q. The property
enjoys ready access to the neighborhood shopping center, schools, public services, and
Interstate 64. It is also an easy commute to oowntown Charlottesville. Rather than compete
iE]
with this robust development, Spring Hill Village attempts to provide desirable housing in a
convenient location while also filling a need for a business location on the south side of the City.
10.9 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
Spring Hill Village will offer single-family detached and attached home sites. Apartments may be
included in Block B. Fifteen (15) percent of the residences will be designated as "affordable"
according to Albemarle County's definition of affordable rental housing.
10.10 Redevelopment
The property is not being redeveloped.
10.11 Site Planning that Respects Terrain
The terrain of the subject property is challenging. The layout of building blocks, travelways, and
improvements in Spring Hill Village responds to the topography of the site, which will result in a
pleasing and well -organized community. Although considerable grading will take place, the lay
of the land within the project will still reflect the original topography of the site.
10.12 Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
To the west and north Spring Hill Village is bordered by commercial and industrial
development. To the east lies Route 20 which represents a clear boundary between the eastern
limits of Neighborhood 4 and the farmland designated as Rural Areas. Immediately south lie
several other single-family homes beyond which the character of the corridor changes over to a
rural setting and this also represents the southern limits of Neighborhood 4.
19
ZMA202000006—Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Staff Analysis of Neighborhood Model Principles
Planning Commission July 21, 2020
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle is met. This area of the Southern and
Western Development Area is gradually becoming more
walkable and connected. The proposed pedestrian path
provides at least the same level of connectivity and
access. Sidewalks are provided throughout Spring Hill
Village which connect to the proposed multi -use path
along Avon Street Extended.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is not applicable. A mixture of uses is
provided with the NMD development. This principle was
addressed with the approval of ZMA2013-17.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is not applicable. The development is not
located in a Center.
Mixture of Housing
This principle is not applicable. This principle was
Types and Affordability
addressed with the approval of ZMA2013-17.
Relegated Parking
This principle is not applicable. This principle was
addressed with the approval of ZMA2013-17.
Interconnected Streets
This principle is met. The proposed 8' pedestrian
and Transportation
pathway provides at least the same level of connectivity
Network
as the previously approved sidewalk.
Multimodal
This principle is met. There is pedestrian and vehicular
Transportation
connectivity between Avon Street Extended and Route
Opportunities
20 through Spring Hill Village. There may be a future
bus stop at the entrance to Spring Hill Village at Avon
Street Extended.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is not applicable. This principle was
Amenities, and Open
addressed with the approval of ZMA2013-17. The
Space
proposed multi -use path (instead of sidewalk) is more
consistent with the nearby character and with other
recently approved developments along Route 20.
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is not applicable. This principle was
Human Scale
addressed with the approval of ZMA2013-17.
Redevelopment
This principle is not applicable.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is met. Grading of this area does not
Careful Grading and
involve any steep slopes. The proposed changes to the
Regrading of Terrain
Route 20 improvements require less grading and no
longer require offsite grading. The amount of grading
and disturbance is reduced with this request.
Clear Boundaries
This principle is met. A pedestrian pathway is more in
between the
character with the area and recently approved
Development Areas and
developments along Route 20, as opposed to a
the Rural Area
sidewalk.
ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Responses Received from Microsoft Forms Online Feedback
Note that staff responded separately to questions via email
1. Name: Thomas Ronayne
Comments: Has the County considered that since there is no left turn for Northbound traffic that
they will simply make a "U" turn in the next drive? this is already an issue for the neighbor and
will only get worse. Strongly opposed.
Since construction began, there are already major issues and close calls. Has there been
consideration to lower the speed limit to 45 mph given the increased volume projections?
2. Name: Roger Schickedantz
Comments: Is it the intent that the changes to the Proffer (eliminating the proposed northbound
left turn lane from Route 20 and changing the sidewalk to an 8' asphalt path) will replace the
other stipulations of the original Proffer #4? Will the other "improvements" - related to drainage,
slope and utilities therefore not be required by the County?
I am in favor of the proposed changes, and do not have concerns about the transportation
impacts of those changes. Because the topic of possible regrading along the frontage of my
property (TMP 90-27) is not specifically addressed in the Proffer amendment, the concerns
raised in my letter of February 23, 2020 remain relevant. I would like to see language stating
something to the effect of: "improvements along Route 20 in front of parcel TMP 90-27 are no
longer required."
3. Name: Will Retzer
Comments: Will there be a sidewalk installed on the Avon St. side of the project?
I object to the rezoning proposal as written. I believe that there should remain a left hand
turning lane on Route 20 for all northbound traffic into Spring Village. By eliminating the left-
hand turn lane you are forcing all north bound traffic onto Avon St. Ext. This will make it more
difficult for members of the Avon Park community to take a left-hand turn out of our
neighborhood onto Avon St Ext.
Unless you're willing to install a traffic light for Avon Park residents to take a left-hand turn onto
Avon St. Ext I do not believe that you should be directly additional traffic onto Avon Ext. by
eliminating the left-hand turn lane on Route 20 north.
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. 2013-00017, Spring Hill Village
Tax Map: TMP 09000-00-00-02800
Owner Of Record: Spring Hill Village Holdings, LLC
Date Of Proffer: September 29, 2014
12.99 Acres to be rezoned from Residential R 1 to NEIGHORHOOD
MODEL DISTRICT (NMD)
Project Address 1776 Scottsville Road
Contact Person Vito Cetta
1730 Owensfield Drive
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
434-531-2192
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Vito Cetta is the manager of Spring Hill Village Holdings, LLC and will serve
as the owner's representative of Spring Hill Village Holdings, LLC which is
the owner of Tax Map and Parcel number TMP 09000-00-00-02800. TMP
09000-00-00-02800 is the subject of rezoning application ZMA No. 2013-
00017, a project known as Spring Hill Village. The term "Owner" as
referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record and
successors in interest. The "Application Plan", refers to Exhibit A to the
Code of Development last revised August 28, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 33.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the
Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above.
11
These proffers are part of the requested rezoning and the Owner
acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
1.Affordable Housing. (The Affordable Housing Units will be provided in
the form of for sale or rental units). The community could have as few as 80
units and as many as 100 dwelling units. The Owner shall provide 15% of
the dwelling units constructed as "Affordable Housing Units" within the
Project in the form of 2 or 3 story townhouses.
The Albemarle County affordable housing policy defines affordable housing
as the following: Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent
housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household
income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include principal, interest, real
estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants
shall be tenant -paid rent and tenant -paid utilities with maximum allowances
for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing
Choice Voucher Program.
Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those
houses affordable to the forty percent of the County population that have
household incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. For 2003,
the maximum affordable home for purchase (80% median income) would
be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants
would be $787 (50% median income).
Each Affordable Housing Unit shall be located on a single lot. The Owner
shall have offered for rent or sale as provided herein each Affordable
Housing Unit within the project. The Owner shall convey the responsibility
of constructing the Affordable Housing Units to the subsequent owners of
lots designated affordable on the site plans or plats.
(A). Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for -rent
Affordable Housing Unit shall not exceed the then -current and
applicable maximum net rent rate approved by the County Housing
Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for
each for -rent Affordable Housing Unit may be increased up to three
percent (3%). For purpose of this proffer statement, the term "net
rent" means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The
requirement that the rents for such for -rent Affordable Housing Units
12
may not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph
shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the
certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -rent
Affordable Housing Unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate
cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing
and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever comes first (the
"Affordable Term"). The Owner of each Affordable Housing Unit
shall, at the request of the Albemarle County Office of Housing,
provide written reports documenting rental rates and occupancies of
the affordable units.
(B.) For Sale. All purchasers of for -sale Affordable
Housing Units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Office of
Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its
designee 180 days to identify and pre -qualify an eligible purchaser for
the Affordable Housing Units. The 180 — 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 120 days prior to the
anticipated receipt of the certification of occupancy. if the County or
its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period,
the Owner shall have the right to sell the units without any restriction
on sales price or income of purchaser. If these units are sold, this
proffer shall apply to the first sale of each unit. The maximum sales
price for Affordable Housing Units (65% of VHDA's Maximum Sales
Price for First-time Homebuyers). The calculation currently put the
maximum sale price for Affordable Housing Units at $211,250.
(C). Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any
interest in the for -rent Affordable Housing Units during the Affordable
Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the
terms of this paragraph 1. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a
conveyance of any for -rent Affordable Housing Unit, or any part
thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full
disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by paragraph
IA. At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in
any for -rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-
13
current owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and
provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential
grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 1 C have
been satisfied.
Cash Proffers for Residential Units. Beginning with the thirteenth
residential unit for which a building permit is obtained, the Owner
shall contribute cash for each new residential unit that is not classified
as an Affordable Housing Unit. This cash contribution shall be for the
purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of development on the
County's public facilities and infrastructure, i.e. schools, public safety,
libraries, parks and transportation. The cash contribution shall be
Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 57/100 dollars
($20,460.57) cash for each new single-family detached dwelling unit.
The cash contribution shall be Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred
Thirteen and 18/100 dollars ($13,913.18) cash for each single family
attached or townhouse dwelling unit. The cash contribution shall be
paid at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for
each new unit in order to be consistent with current state law.
Beginning January 1, 2015, the amount of the cash contribution
required by this proffer shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect
any increase or decrease for the proceeding calendar year in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index ("MSI"). In no event shall any
cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount
initially established by this proffer. The annual adjustment shall be
made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the
preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the MSI
as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the
denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year
preceding the calendar year most recently ended.
3. Over Lot Grading: The owner shall submit an over -lot grading
plan (hereinafter the "Plan") meeting the requirements of this
paragraph 3 with the application for each subdivision phase of the
Property. The plan shall show existing and proposed topographic
features. The Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior
14
to approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan. No building
permit shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County
Engineer has determined the lot grading in not consistent with the
approved Plan. The plan shall satisfy the following:
a) The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites,
setbacks, surface drainage, driveways, trails and other features
the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the
Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
b) The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than (1) inch
equals fifty (50) feet.
c) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not
greater than two (2) feet. All concentrated surface drainage
over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All
proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface
drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of
dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
d) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses
(lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal
distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1).
Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance
vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County's
program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper
slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal
distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall, unless the
County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for
steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
e) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before
being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way
outside of the lots.
f) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more
than one-half (1 /2) acre of land drainage to it.
g) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm
sewer to a point beyond the rear of the building site.
h) The plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in
width, or to the lot line if it is less than ten (10) feet, from the
portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper
that ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings
15
that will not be served by a stairway. This area also shall extend
from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting
the dwelling to the street.
i) Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by submitting a
request for special exception with the over -lot grading plan. If
such a request is made, it shall include a justification for the
request containing a valid professional seal from a Professional
Engineer, Landscape Architect or Land Surveyor. In reviewing a
waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the
alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies the purpose of the
requirement to be waved to at least an equivalent degree.
j) In the event that the County adopts overlot grading regulations
after the date this proffer is approved, any requirement of those
regulations that is less restrictive than any requirement of this
proffer shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this
proffer, subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development.
4. Improvements to Scottsville Rd and Avon Extended
At its sole expense, the Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct
the improvements shown on the County approved engineering
drawings titled Development Concept Plan, sheet 4 dated 10.21.13
and revised on 8.29.14 as prepared by Alan Franklin PE, for both
Scottsville Road and Avon Extended. The improvements shall be
designed and constructed to the County and VDOT standards,
including the design and construction of related drainage, slope and
utility easements as applicable. These improvements shall be
completed and approved by VDOT and the County prior to the first
certificate of occupancy for any structure on the Property. As part of
this process, the dedication to public use shall be completed at the
same time. The Owner shall obtain approval of all road plans and
bond prior to the issuance of the first building permit or first approved
subdivision plat, whichever comes first, to ensure that these
improvements can be completed in a timely manner. The
improvements shall be deemed to be complete when they are
16
accepted into the secondary system of highways or the County
Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for
travel, At its sole expense, the Owner shall make the needed
improvements, if any are required, to the portion of the lot
immediately adjacent to the site south on Route 20 that may be
needed as a result of widening Route 20. Should these improvements
require a retaining wall and / or a reworking of stairs, these
improvements shall be reviewed by the County Architectural Review
Board, since Route 20 in an Entrance Corridor road.
This document shall supersede all other agreements, proffers or conditions
that may be found to be in conflict. These proffers shall be binding to the
property, which means the proffers shall be transferred to all future property
successors of the land.
WITNESS the following signature:
SPRING HILL VILLAGE HOLDING, LLC
0
Vito Cetta, Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/Geld� OFC--h0,t10+k-Z� 11C to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this2q day of
f?4D}e4-viiee 2014 by Vito Cetta, Manager of Barracks Heights, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company.
My Commission expire : t0-31-15
ry-
1 t Notary Public
MNOTARY PUBLIC
S
REGISTRATION Y 100901
[COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
MYCOd4Q71 1� PIRES
17
SPJJLJ'DLXING
OCTOBER 21, 2013
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" - 3W
_ CHARLO=SVILLL' 'Y
-y j( �
A�( i R
"'J #, F_SLYn. Less i�-3Jt.C- ..` • 1e i .- r+' f,.-- 1
R — f♦
J f r 0
IN
jr'k
- r
y,
OTTSV7 E
I i
i,. �>^ Ate) t' i.,�� t'`�e�y ��• I
I P
File# �In/ljt
Approved by the Board of Supervisors
Date 6c-49x11-- 8�.b1
Sicnatur-� - Flan ier
PROJECT DATA:
DEUELDFf0. IM ucmjirzrn� M®fl�� vE, GM1RLOT]ESwua, vn swl
PR p R. 8'PXGNLLWWGE MYAXps.LLC
b G W EM19F Ew DRIVE CX W LOT]ESVLLE, V/. A
T.VIMV CELF BD39
Mwlsice DmwR. swmvLLE
MiCnER1YaDDT38. meswnswuE qoW
MWPERWS@ 1].WI PCAEel1]3WKAE6/.FlER0.0.W WCNATCXMRg11EAaeVpI R.1
CWREXi]AN wk R1 REs&FA•FML
PROP08EO]g XMD
MVE CV EN . YES
w vE VIPN: WGMCEMSrtV gESWFMVL
Oq WRTEWXED: Xg1E
WR ED. NWgESCNFYK
WAf E: NHENWI£wUN]YSEMpEeVnGW1Y
SwrttaysEKEAeWRCE. e18FMWtECpIM11'9ERNCE.W]NCgRY O1ELIXREsoFFa11EES]EXRIgI)
PROFFE pTL HMWOEg83➢ WECprER
wuvEWrvWwxcE upuEns: Np�
EUINFYad.RCEk Pxra ru TOPoGeNwlce aOLWWAY wxERrwM. W.rmvwv.pprtMw
eW� VggNPRDVICFDeYIxONL88.NHLpN1µ08URYF'glb ¢L1FD eOL9]a
D7 usLs aPRncPL wnwruwW
aEHCMW.gN eWVEYCCMRIXPoNii<WL WO FLVMER EIEVR1KH v61p10
�TIG PF20.4WGREg1E3i WOPpSEa IOCRWG� MEZg1W60F1NP Wb MpV Ril11HMD.
]. PVNBIIEE]51 3M TOSERVE IXEe LW MPVNTOeCCCNPM1 EU OFLFVLI➢PMEM.FL
�Ers i s�DENDxsTRR]EinE pErFLwMExrwxcEW mumEoxnERvnsxparoEaEcp]Epvor]
Pauvu
a ACFEgronRCCOEOFDEVE]OPMEWMDMOFFEMSVM1T1Fn/9 TMTWW GTYV.
4. MKCWMweT Ea PrCR%eN➢WMO ESIRULMCPo9EDRMfM'1vsw IWx E
D� �RINMM W.YE6EEHDE3 GNEDUs XGME WBXIDGY DENXEe Foq C£p4ElgICpMNx CFVERY
OCYgOaW IPoTR4W) MPHMSM CENn11MENpRe DTOEl 4 W&8yR1pFTI.
RSu�s 6qi 91REEi DE8gNG11 W ROYPX CESNW ePEWLPOWaV. 0.VD a AGEPgCPMEp0.s WlC
6. WSBWED
PUX..e..TS.DEVELMAEM. WY VMY dIWNCETU.LLMVEVWMENT
SHEET INDEX
SN 2
E.].GCORDmoNS
siR1'r2
gPmmnoN/ALUmpP
6kff.GT1
DEV9,OPME 6PT PL.
SN
EMTRE
RUUIYM]\@RUl'EAC3.Y16/SAY. BEN2R EX'I8N810N
K
6
BrffFIS
TYPICALAOM BECITON6
PRELm9. YROAEPROF
SE g
9EIEErB
pRIILRdLYgRYROAUPROPMMIlE6
VITO CETTA, AIA
Planner wd Developer
434531-21W
AMWe@=M
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
CIN WSYefnEVMWNLs
NnaaroamL.W wFY.aa]an
Nbebaae4
wYIE.IYnNRLMM..mm
188DED: ID-21-13
"VIMON5:
Y�n_u-�ePFLwmwnR
MlsuevEcomLun-m
.avLFF n,
�.Wmaf x�urmLkm-re:
S.AMIf 1@EI'1.
SkkEET
OP 8
PRE-DEV. STORMWATER
NOTES-
Commumly De�etopme.-Ii'Depan-iment
UTIONAL METHOD �KMHEEET
GGGGG� a �GG, � B. UNDDLD� M.,
1. P.. .11�11.
Fief
0."..: , '.=
0..
'
Approved by the Board of Supervisors
DE
L
N�E
DFUNKWGWATERWM GONE
Date -2c CS&eh
2a
�1 3
aDIA�S
..EDDALBE.LE.WNT�.
MM.
eye
c rtj t.
, ,
1-1- vTMP sow ,51
-7
wp, II N,
G.T.xa , WIT
P� D'Dvw".
111 x,
.-.mE
7"
00.."
scmLs "HE
D.717 P.
CA EmE4
NGWO.O. T11\
c
arn EOe918'1 N,
w""
v
NX t
OTEN
ti
77,
Li
V
WE
5PD
jORMU,,1AT!p
myt n
RSVILLE%SIL:T LOAM
N, Of:
RABON'CLAYk
7i1 k MAE WL SL46M
Typ
v
U. PN44P \
d
R—D
LEGEND.
T
�p
=
UGUTY�.ANDFRELDVERJFJ�g THE
�MDNL GETGGM51N'�'—�
I;j
...'�.G.NT.EGGGNHOHEGE�...
No
GNGENO.CG.��LNGI.,
�203
N\Cr
EN PAJTUMIE
A\ V,
�v %
'Y ,'� ILLE S�Lt L�AtA
A
7
&
17 -i-T
-'7
�`D�IGGGMH`.
GNHp.'/
=T
E.P �T
M
114
�o
el"X 1,
11
N
VITO CETTA, AIA
Planner and Developer
434-531-ZIK
V,..M.@..
TERRA
CONCEPTS, P.C.
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
c
z ;>
z
H4 0 u
z
0
z
ISSUED: 10.21-13
EEVISJONS:
S=
2
OFS
NOTES
1, THNORISIVNING FIESOMIST NKXPOMH TOOMMINE ME WNW MTMPNSO8 FROM M TO PLO
... 1-1NFETB..THG.N PONNI.CC.TNE C.Ol OFOEVFIOPMEM.PIPH GNOETS. 4.7ETHE
DEVELOPMENT CONOEPTMNT THE ONSER INTENDS TO MOTTO UPON REFOHING APPSOV
3, MINES 70 ME COVE OF MIKEMPMENTNIN) MOFFINKS MUNI AN PAT OF MIS N411G1 ,
4, TO.1C ME STEEP T0. OF THE THE. FIR.P.D. N.S MITINNONS OEVFYWM0. NAVE .. VICUSINION WING THE
MHHOD GOGELMS PON MIGN OF MERY WN-MUME OOSOT ROOM QkDT � NSQ IN �QE WIM ME NOTES �U I
MNOPMHO OF THE VNSOT MONNETNIC SHHNEGT� DESIGN GUIDE 42D MPH MIGNON SPEWT MM➢XT �N AOO F MPF PROPOSPO AS POKICIN FTNI
5 MNGMW SFME AND ENRON SPAJEGLCNATKKiS EXIM ON CCNCEFHUM. DEMEMPMENT POSH NOSH ON SHEET SACTUPL
G WOFNEO TO PENNIT MSTREET
MEN
7-GREEN $PAC
PLANTING & MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
(OA5 AC) OVER LOTS IN BLOCK C TO BE PROVIDED
FOR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ADJACENT
BLOCK 1.2 AC)
PHASE I
7
LP
Se"
BLOCK G
(1.3 AC)
PHASE 1
hA
%
AVON PARK
PHASE I
pament
Curin' t De
'A
Fle#
Approved by thL card of SuPervisors'% "N
Date IV �'Niw
)-4 A
AMENITY & GREEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
T�S�MFA RO.W.DMI��WMWMD�M��D •QOHAE
PMEMtt HEW
TMMLNNE�
IS.
RCIffAGE
ANSINISFACE.S.I.MUMENT
ANEN'..'FEENN.
SNENHTY I. PNONN.
IwSPLE.
MOFPwvIOEO
ANE.1..1
S.
NILS... MOOFLHES
SON
TELI
==LMNMIG.
IT. L,
BLOCK
(0.6 AC)
PHASE 1
DENSITY TABLE
NAME
ILOCKA
SIZE
L. A,
FMSE
2
ml�
0
MAI.
12
MIN.
Y
MAN.
SOK SF
BLOCK B
, .4 AC.
2
O�
"
0'
OWN SF
BLOCK C
13 AC.
2
0
SO
0'
WK SF
BLOCK D
4.6AC.
1
14
0
0
0
BLOCK E
12 NO.
�6.
0
0
UOCKF
0.6AC
I
0
0
BLOCK G
1.3AC,
1
4
12
0
0
:PRESUMES DEVELOPMENT AS NON-RESIDENTIPL ME
A MIN. IBM SF OF NONAESMENi IS BEING PROFFERED
FM SIFFUNG HILL WWGE
BLOCK C
(3.3 AC) BLOCK A
PHASE (0.6 AC)
PHASE
-o -NIX
V.
A BLOCK B
N
(1.4 AC) Ijj
PHASE 2
�A'
1 O'N
uj
il" -j 0
BLOCK D >
(4.6 AC) co 5
IN
PHASE I . . . . . . . . . ...
PLANTING & MAINTENANCE EASEMENT OVER
ROUTE 20 IMPROVEMENTS
LOTS IN BLOCK D TO BE PROVIDED FOR
PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
VITO CETrA, AIA
Phan., and Developer
TERRA
CONCE�MNHPPNNPTS, P.C.
I.M.—
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
ONNI d KO, GET, PIS, E'NNMi'
Zt
P,
iri z
>
E
j;q
zCCC
C/O
ISSU71111.
REVISIONS-.
SHEET
OFS
L WebnNEID Poe Minl ....6c .-Yb.pWN
.Z' ._
IxbE n la®r:m+IVYI
r
�',py�......
a65 IrMR I...m'mR+nmp
0v�X6
gM
B]1 eM1 +6 n
.Ham: 49.w eM1 YMmq m
Y6S pwup"mm.
y 6.eCe� p.iilwyiw'"s'
D.aDE..
emr.
In.w.i.wYA(
__ 5 _p-�ainimubiil_
....-Ic; xN IRx, SrAaamma
_
"IEwm-
_ain®a
1 I
1 1
1
TMP 9O3541
\
AV L" TFiAn
} I.Ra.D DN /
DWCn WLhm
\ — RI Axv xTA.
I
D
/
SeJ
I UMIMETE /�
M ;
iionloxYr4aD /
IAwaePRElTwnnF ,' �,
TM5E81N ,
Y�WrNO \ si y `
'\ y
5 1} y �., 1 p6TryryN NIE
�t \
IYaspaiI—
TORANair i Y \tea \\ 1. of
\ 1
TMF BJJ9 '�.\ IN RYV M \..
Dr.�€'I rl trE FFTTAN�i N6ua , \;
Cmm. Pon R'JfMy DmEY% \, RoTtETWE
:Pn , vY.T6mN .
I
\ IIrcaIUIRW
AmIfdYL
AVON PARK I.watwe TREA.,✓
PHASEI WIdRrVR'
I.
€ r1/
`' . ✓ !AllAl1YV l AULL
PDDS ID,,HRSFC YPRY
WHTHIN TOTE xR9D OFVmxP�eEEx DEE ED 44NG THE FVMED4D DYNEe Eta y r
Ic H EP E PD"nR'DTEEET-a AH m RaaoN.E.m:IwlRa.x. m rwv'om
GNLGI
VATHH THE .PEE., %vP1oETxE R ATBDsdneror Sl lu.T swx - a
upE.IAYr18ioFsxw BrEFo. nowsnµpe nPEMCwsEo aSvuBlSPwos. n up Mm.levmYu.tln'rWMD"In'
Ya1..........
.... ..uPcmNbn
nn w
ce R..E` nER A" m'0
RER+uus AnEw.-
>b.or TN 6n �w�nmmvbxara.l Rwln Yxv. r.x.au
rt
--. f0_A_A LLY 16Y .i n eunaYfr YYq.l.�mY¢191M.MM%."Ilob10
IRryd IDPINGRERIAbpb1 Ann RD II Ilwatlem.l b.. w'IUInnYglwwiueMuanx Pi.IR
�,hpaSEE SHEETw�•a.mc
EDg EA.n.DEE=-. r II
MAR. . ErvpYrx8118�
IX 1 tEFlltmlYlED, ! U N nr.
D. 5/ PM5.]
IR✓il� M / . EAS 1
/ d'rtnr, '%•'. I \ \ swuiDa IIX YIE E••=al"EE—RA'
Rust / .� \ 'BVMLE51NFM1 , ,
UNDERIH.DD.R DpeIMCNA ,+ V i �I 6 ' D,P.gl — `I CWKBi DVEIpED
I / I'BF. xmErs aiwurtacn Ju�wlw r j —. _..... i I ll un�RPOR�aIawP
R/ / / P I e 6 8� I II n 81 .Inna.T.D a
,
1
rn ikk
x
BR�I
\
6
Y
kt�4 4 PN.. AaH£P ` NUxrtwNCIE D D F R
\ \ \ ! • DscPNM
TMP W S]B
sSEThM `� .row � a
�r 1 v� \i t \ tenawR Dwr 11
uxowREiauiuExr
ll
I � I
r „TADD—
rE, ye
_
-Tr Yxwxuw.nne
w].TERouunrsounlDx
�'O�
G�w
4 ]
1
i
I JCFeIpWEEdI
QE-M.mADDDE
a
x
I I IXaro
e•�i-1
-
L
I
{n TAP 91g0
IJN�TI�.A
„I ,
9 ��
''•.•
1
W]naw. AREARER. 6•
mExKKa tRr
.V... EEWER
I � c sz'1
j{-
addag q.
('�n
VITO CETTA, AIA
Plvinerand Developer
434-531-2M
vitoc g..MER
TERRA
Rand LD—p .
rih%�
Alan Franklin PE LLC
CINI and She Plan Engreenng
A]TY.n 4.D ]]938
ISSUED: 10-21-13I
REVISIONS:
i
6
E I
\1 3 IX. E(Y /
191
4—
�k
'7
E�P'itaf'�LCD
...... T H
J'�'L
.10
J,
A--- - - - -
.1 It 20 1
4—
RNNI
Mea Rea lx?.. fi I, l
R.nt a,
cR,, 0, M 11�1 _a [HP B"98P )MMMtdeR.1.1-1.
daLN ...... de.a 111—� 90.3SM
I . I : naP
MR. =CWaditeleN
NNI. �wm
Na
"a IM1111111
Me
tal'at".11
anal NP�gMZwv eletl'
ko� I IN ad III
RININ
an
RIM
J
TMPQ1A6A
L.
.danan.
DP $1' ed"I'l
Ra.dea�add 1.
ON fAEOLn91, ed-�'::
IJ
licz --------
RIM I.
PUr
Renee'
19 - I I I t- WWM
!W 2;T=AME; EXAMMI I 11k,
nR.INANRNNW
Nead".
Rea amiJ LA7 WINNed PNOPNell
_j I'T4 I 21.1de dati ae CMM—MI
waant�l
NA .11
�=. NPa+P13]64bBMT Iafidt . 'Reld"NeRG
.I NNI ..
...Nevem
ro
VITO CETTA, AIA
Pi.2vd Developer
434-531-2192
vNMM@.Md
TERRA
CONCEPTS, PC.
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
cmil and site Plan Enoneemin,
az'.tetnyLeee..2.
Me
E5 u
> �
4
0 fj
u
iNN4
ww
z
P64
^00
laelle"I
(14
0
P4
ISSUED: M21-13
Wn'151ONS:
SHEET
5
OP
aICAL PUBLIC STREET SECTION W/ PARKING ON ONE SIDE ONLY
PING
HILL VILLAGE(ROAO B OPTION) + +W.;
ATYPICAL PUBLIC STREETSECTION W/ NO PAReKINGW
SVPIN(. HIII OIIIM.F fPnAn d RnAn R1 .�...n..
Ir 1-1-rntvn... I n CC tI rnnr,1"u LV I oiavi IVIY
SPRING HILL VILLAGE (RIDAD C, PARKING COURTS) +�++: Y.••+'
TYPICAL PRIVATE STREET SECTION W/ NO PARKING
/ SPRING HILL VILLAGE (ROAD F) n— Y, - r
SPRING HILL VILLAGE (ROAD 0) +�++-A'• �'
N'iMVELLW>Y
W. m. a e—Av. m.
l
PRIVATE ROAD E
SPRING HILL VILLAGE +cu+:A••+'
mm
fAAmm eY m
aa-
i
�1 TYPICAL PRIVATE ALLEY _
SPRING HILL VILLAGE +d+t+:k'.r
VITO CETTA, AIA
Plamler avd Developer
939-53181Y1
vilocelh(ryme.rgm
TERRA
CONCEPTS, P.C.
\Ian Franklin PE, LLC
CWII and site Pion Englneem9
te-
w
H�OWO
(n
szH
zu
z A
�aWd
S
zy�,�O�
a
N7
'.9l
'6jy1
vvpletil�
ldL
IssmE . 10.21-13
REVISIONS:
SHEET
OFF
L-- ----- ---- --------`----------- --- --'--- '-- ---'-- -''-- --- --- --- ----- ---- ------ 9
- i -- - _ �- -- -----.......... �_- - _ -t -
580 —�— _._ ._____________ __—_ _ _—._. __ _.-_ �__,._.. 80
570 .__ ___ _ . j .. .. .�jlj, ...... 70
mqn 1M� • q _��'^
560 _.__ ....... _— __ __.— _ —.._ _— ____ _..____ —_ __-_ 0
t I
550
N � rnooaaw �'
RW
f
530 � -j— 30
520 _. __—.____.. ^ — ___._____ _—_ ____. __ _____. _.. __—_ ___. _ ___ ——..____— ._ __ _—._ _ __ _— 0
510 ._—_.— __ —_— ._— __._ _ _ __ __ __ _ _—�___ _._._ __.._— _ _—_ _ _-- __ _ — ___ .__.__ ._ _ -- 10
g ^k IS g a el gS s 1R a$ o n 8—�_—_
p k„ 9 1E ---s $ JI �--1--
1i+0 200 1+40180--S0+o0 10+4010+80 192013+80 14+00 15+20 15�+1� 60 I�-- 16+e00 - 1-6+
40
ROAD 'A' PROFILE (PUBLIC); STA. 10+00-16+40
scut r-za x: i•-�av
65(
64(
63C
62C
61C
60C
590
580
570
B
I
meaovw
R
I
5
C
8
a
/
I
lip ga
650
540
530
520
510
500
590
i80
i70
16+80 17+20 17+60 18+00 18+40 18+80 19+20 19+60 20+00 20+40 20+80 21+20 21+60
ROAD'A' PROFILE (PUBLIC); STA. 16+40 - END
srucv-m n: r-Env
VITO CETTA, AIA
Plavner and DeeeluPer
434.531-2192
viMaena�e.cOm
TERRA
CONCEPTS, PC.
Alan Franklin PE, LLC
pnl and Site Plan Englneenng
ekrbebn noel.
�
fL
wk�UUQ
a
szoil
U W g
z�
�a
F,
(� W
A4
cn
issU : 30.21.13
REMONs:
sNEer
7
0"
610
4.
............ ... ...... ..........
610
------
590 -- ----------
....
. .. ......
— ------ . .....
---------
----------- ---
590
--, ............ . .... ...
------ --- --
-------
----A ------------ --- ----
560'
f
------- — --------
--------
----------- -- -- --
-------------
- - -----------
- - ----------
560
1 550... . . .......
- ----- ----
-- ----
---- ------- --
7 -- - --------
- - --------- - -----550
-F
It Q.
10�0
------ --0----- ---
10+40 io80-Li+20 --- -- 51+--6
- - --------1-
-2-+- -
00
12+40
12+80
13+20 13+60
.
14+00 14;..
-4
--
ROAD'B'PROFILE (PUBLIC): STA. 10+00 - 15+40
.p.—
64111
63(
62(
U
60(
59C
58C
ROAD'S' PROFILE (PUBLIC): STA. 15+40 - EN
ROAD'C'PROFILE (PRIVATE)
--m—,
K
621
6V
60(
58(
.VIvv 1VT u ll*ou 1Iuv 1z*4u 1L Uv
ROffl PROFILE (PRIVATE)
ECY
VrTO CETTA, AIA
pl.
111=1zlop-
T E 'RA
1 T P.C. ONC '
C
Alan PE , LLc
El..
27
0�0
z
P4
ISSUED: 10-21-13
REVISIONS:
4.WN44-@fAFY f4NmS18:
SPRING HILL VILLAGE
Code of Development
ZMA # 2013-00017
Dated October 16, 2013
Revised January 21, 2014
Revised March 4, 2014
Revised March 31, 2014
Revised May 16, 2014
Revised July 7, 2014
Revised August 28, 2014
i
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Intent
Pursuant to the requirements of the Neighborhood Model District ("NMD"), Section
20.A.S., of the Zoning Odinance of Albemarle County (the "Zoning Ordinance") this
"Code of Development", together with the "Application Plan" referenced herein, sets
the parameters within which Spring Hill Village is to be developed.
As envisioned by the NMD ordinance, this Code of Development for Spring Hill Village is
intended to accomplish the following: (a) to promote flexibility and creativity in
establishing the building locations, mixture of uses, bulk requirements, and densities
within the subject property, and (b) to establish the regulatory framework and
guidelines for each block within Spring Hill Village, as well as the uses, location, building
types, and street systems contained therein.
Spring Hill Village is comprised of 12.991 acres, which is owned by Vito Cetta, who, for
the purposes of this Code of Development, shall herein be referred to as the
"Applicant." The term "Owner" shall refer to XYZ Company, its heirs, successors and
assigns.
1.2 Existing Conditions
Spring Hill Village is formally known as Tax Map 90 Parcel 28 (1776 Scottsville Road) and
has frontage on two of Albemarle County's Entrance Corridors, Route 20 South
(Scottsville Road) and Avon Street Extended (Route 742). The current zoning of the
parcel is R-1 and the comprehensive plan designation for this site is Urban Density
Residential (6.01- 34 DU/AC). It resides within the Neighborhood 4 Growth Area.
It is bounded on the north by Parham Constructions headquarters and commercial
development fronting Avon Street. To the south are older single-family detached
homes. The majority of the property is comprised of rolling, open areas of moderate
topography with some wooded areas and an old home site. No creeks, ponds, wetlands
or historic structures occupy the parcel. There are a small amount of critical slopes on
the property, all of which appear to be manmade.
Public water mains extend to the property along Avon Street Extended. Public sanitary
sewer service currently terminates near the new Kappa Sigma property on Route 20. A
preliminary engineering study indicates that extending this line to the site would be a
rather simple process. Stormwater management will have to be provided on site and
enough land exists to permit the creation of an above -grade facility.
On this and the following pages are contextual images to help you visualize the
surrounding area and the site's location.
E
AV Stre*etl U Creek'
FA (Rt a Montice kA.m"; �. ,
i /�vih'�' ity " ..
'.Lake
fKynoVld ibit 1.'
ts4he Po.
s ...t^ (Rt.�io) P ,
Snows"
�,; 1, "
i Somerset
-'¢ OA, Farm
A
-ems.
LAND USE
OfM01'Fu�ep 7NF.NuWa
Carter's Mt.
The Application Plan is the governing plan that serves as the roadmap for the
development and depicts the general location of key features of the development,
which are referenced in this Code of Development.
2.2 Development Concept Plan
The Development Concept Plan is a conceptual rendition of how the property might
develop pursuant to the standards set forth in this Code of Development. It shows
roads, sidewalks, lots, structures, landscaping, recreation and amenity features and
other aspects of the development. It is provided to demonstrate how the application of
the Code of Development could result in a built environment and how key aspects of
any development, such as grading, parking, landscaping and building type and density
could look. The Development Concept Plan is not a formal part of this submission and is
not considered binding in any way.
2.3 Establishment of Blocks
In order to regulate land uses within Spring Hill Village, the project has been divided into
seven (7) blocks referred to as Blocks A through G. The blocks are defined graphically by
the Application/Block Plan. The acreages and specifics regarding the development
restrictions being adopted for each block are presented in several tables that follow.
To promote flexibility as recited in the NMD ordinance, it is recognized that a certain
degree of modification is permissible with regard to the final, platted dimensions and
land area of individual blocks. Should modifications be subsequently proposed, such
changes will be limited such that the size of any Block shall not change more than fifteen
percent (15%). For example, a Block that is approved as 1.00 acre may be subsequently
altered to be as small as 0.85 acre or as large as 1.15 acre.
Site plans and subdivision plats may be submitted and approved for any portion of an
individual block, provided that all requirements of this Code of Development and the
County Zoning Ordinance are otherwise met.
Blocks A, B and C are the only blocks where non-residential development may occur.
These blocks are adjacent to Route 20 or border the non-residential development
immediately north of the site. Like all other blocks within the community, they may also
develop residentially. Parking lots, alleys and roadways may serve development of these
blocks. Block D is adjacent to the residential neighbors to the south. This block is limited
to residential use. Block D also encompasses the area proposed to be set aside for a
park. Block E, and to a lesser degree Block G, represent the frontage development along
Avon Street Extended. Here again, no non-residential uses are envisioned. Block F is
internal to the project and is scheduled for residential development. All blocks have
frontage on proposed public roads.
4
2.4 Permitted/Prohibited Uses By Block
TABLE 2.4 — Permitted/Prohibited Uses By Block
P = Permitted Use By Block; SP = Uses that may be applied for via Special Use Permit; Blank = Uses prohibited within
Block.
Uses
Block
--A-F-B7
C
D
E
F I
G
Detached single-family dwellings
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings (e.g. duplexes,
triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses)
is
p
P
P
P
P
P
Multiple -family dwellings
p
Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cottages
P
P
P
P
P
p
P
Group homes and homes for developmentally -disabled persons
P
P
P
Tourist lodging
P
p
Home Occupation (Class A)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Home Occupation (Class B) (1)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Accessory uses and buildings, including storage buildings
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Assisted living residential facilities
Is
p
Administrative professional offices
p
P
P
Animal Shelter
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops (4)
Is
p
Auction houses
P
p
Automobile laundries
Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop
Anxanobile service stations (reference 5.1.20)
Barber, beauty shops
P
P
Body shop
Building materiah sales
Cemeteries
Churches (4)
P
p
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops (4)
P
p
Clubs, lodges, cwK,fraternal, patiatic(reference 5.1.02)(4)
P
P
Commercial kennels- indoor only IreL 5.1.11)
Crmmerml recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement
centers, boWmg alleys, pool halls and dance hails
Community center
P
P
concessions for the seMrg of fond refreshments or entertainment of dub members
and guests in conjunction with swkn, golf, ortennis club.
' Cmuactors'afice and equipment storage yard
p
Canenience stores
Day care, child care, or nursery fac&w(ref. 5.1.06)
P
P
p
Department store
Cr mtheaters
on through windows semng arassociated with permitted uses
sP
sP
Drug store. pharmacy
p
p
Eating establishment (not including fast food restaurant)
P
P
P
Educational, technical andtrade schools
r
p
Electric. gas, at and canmunxatm facilities, excluding tower structures andindudxg
poles, lines. tmnslomners, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of kcal
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection Ine,, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Excep! ds otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformancewih Chapter 16 of the
Cade of Afbemade and all other applicable law.
P
P
_
P
p
p
P
P
Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric
p
P
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36) (4)
P
P
P
Fast food restaurant
Feed and seed stores(reference 5.1.22)
P
p
Financial institutions
p
P
Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09)
Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service
p
p
Florist.
P
P
Food and grocery stores including such specially shops as bakery, candy,
milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops
P
P
P
Funeral homes,
P
P
Furniture and home appliances (sales and service)
P
P
Hardware store
P
P
Health club or spa
P
P
Heating ail sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20)
Forma and business services such as grounds are, cleaning, exterminum%. miter
repair and maintenance Services
P
P
Hospitals
Hotels, motels and inns (2)
P
P
indoor athletic facilities
P
P
Indoor theaters
Laboratories, medial or pharmaceutical
P
P
P
Laundries, dry cleaners
P
P
Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours
during operation)
Libraries, museums
P
P
Llghtwarehousing
SP
SP
SP
Livestock sales
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling
Medical center 13)
P
P
P
P
P
P
Mobile home and trailer sales and service
Modular building sales
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
Musical instrument sales
New automotive parts sales
Newspaper publishing
Newsstands, magaames, pipe and tobacco shops
Office and business machines sales and service
Uptical goods sales
Outdoor Amphitheatre
Outdoor eating establishment or cafe
P
P
P
Outdoor storage, display and/ or sales serving or associated with a by -right
permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a County designated
Entrance Comidor
SP
SP
5P
Outdoor storage, display and/ or sales serving or associated with a by -right
permitted use not visible from a Ccumy-designated Entracte (�idnr
SP
Sp
SP
Parks, playgrounds and civic spaces
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Photographic goods sales
P
P
Private schools
P
P
Professional offices. including medical, dental and optical
P
P
P
Public and private utilities and infrastructure
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Public uses and buildings, including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned a operated
by local, state, or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission,
main or trunk Imes, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Research and development activities including experimental testing
P
P
Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar
institution
P
P
Retail salesand service establshrrllntsalowed uderC. L pemnmedastempaary
events (4) (51
P
p
P
P
P
P
P
Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
School of special instruction
P
P
Septic tank sales and related services
Sporting goods sales
P
P
Standalone parking and parking structures(reference 4.12, 5.1.4.1)I6)
SP
SP
SP
C
Stommater management(acihhes shavnmanapprovedfiral site plans
subdivision pat
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Swim, golf, tennis or athletic facility
P I
P
Tailor, seamstress
P
P
Temporaryrmsirmoon uses)referance 5.1.38)
P
P
P
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes )reference 5.8)
Ter I & I II personal wireless service facilities )reference 5.1.40)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Vetennary Office and Hospital (7)
P
P
Visual and audio appliances sales
P
P
Warehouse facilities net permitted under section 24.2.1 )reference 9.0)
SP
SP
FarmSalesor Fann Stared (4)
P
P
Wholesale Distribution
I SP
I SP
1. Where permitted, home occupation uses shall be regulated per Section 5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Where permitted, "Inn" shall not exceed 45 guest rooms.
3. Where permitted, this use category shall allow an emergency care (i.e., First Med)
facility and/or health clinics and small medical offices.
4. Where permitted, outdoor retail sales within this category shall be limited to
temporary, seasonal and periodic events supporting the community (no more than ten
a year), including, without limitation, holiday festivals, community fairs, artisan and
public open markets, weddings, and other pedestrian -related events. During specially
permitted events streets may be blocked to vehicular traffic.
5. Where permitted, temporary retail sales events are allowed no more than 15 times
per year. In the case of weekend sales, a "sales event' may include Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday. An example of a temporary retail sales event would be a craft fair, jewelry
show or any similar event that may be sponsored by a resident, group of residents or
an organization like the girl scouts where some retail exchange may take place.
6. Stand-alone parking shall be subject to administrative review and approval by the
Director of Planning and the ARB to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
uses appropriateness given the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts.
7. Where permitted, this use is restricted solely to small animal care with no outdoor
kennels and for offices for off -site veterinary services, such as for vets tending to
horses off the premises.
2.5 Historic Structures and Sites
There are no historic structures or sites located on the Spring Hill Village property.
7
3. BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
3.1 Purpose
The regulations contained in this section are promulgated (i) with the intent that the
form of buildings in Spring Hill Village will foster a vibrant pedestrian -scale
neighborhood community, with architectural and landscape elements that complement
and enhance building design and (ii) to create a flexible range of density over the
designated blocks described herein.
3.2 Density Regulations
Table 3.2 establishes the parameters within which residential and non-residential shall
be developed.
For the purposes of interpreting Table 3.2, no site plan or subdivision plat shall be
approved unless it conforms to the following standards:
A. For residential uses, there shall be a minimum and maximum of residential
dwelling units for Spring Hill Village at full build -out. Within this range, the Owner may
adjust the residential unit type and density by block to meet market and design
considerations.
B. For non-residential uses, there shall be a minimum and a maximum amount of
gross floor area required/permitted. Within this range, the Owner may adjust the non-
residential use and density by block to meet market and design considerations.
Density by Block
Residential Non -Residential
Block
Size
Phase
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
A
0.6 AC.
2
01
122
02
60,000
B
1.4 AC.
2
02
483
02
60,000
C
3.3 AC.
2
02
301
02
60,000
D
4.6 AC.
1
14
402
0
0
E
1.2 AC.
1
8
162
0
0
F
0.6 AC.
1
6
162
0
0
G
1.3 AC.
1
4
122
0
0
1 Presumes development as non-residential use.
2 A minimum of 10,000 SF of non-residential use is being proffered for Spring Hill Village.
TABLE 3.2.2 — Density Regulations
M
Min. Residential Dwelling Units
SO Units
Max. Residential Dwelling Units
100 Units
Min. Non -Residential Gross Floor Area
10,000 SF
Max. Non -Residential Gross Floor Area
60,000 SF
3.3 Lot Regulations
TABLE 3.3 — Lot Regulations
Area and Bulk
Setback Regulations
Regulations
(no "Build To" lines proposed)
Min./Max. Lot Size
Min. Front
Min. Side
Min. Rear
(sq. ft.)
Setback (ft.)
Setback (ft.)*
Setback
Single -Family
3,500 / 7,000
15
5'
15
Detached
Single -Family Semi-
3,000 / 7,000
15
5112
15
Detached
(two units sharing a
common wall)
Single -Family Attached
1,000 / 5,000
5
51,'
153
(townhouses)
Multi -Family, Non-
NA
5
51,4
151
Residential and
Mixed -Use Buildings
'Corner lots abutting two public roads shall have a 10' setback adjacent to both streets.
'There shall be no minimum setback (i.e. zero ft.) along the side property line at the point of
attachment of two or more single-family semi-detached or attached dwelling units of any type.
31n the case of townhouses served by a rear alley, the setback shall be a minimum of 32'.
°Except where uses are adjacent to Route 20, where the setback shall be 25'.
5Accessory structures shall be setback from rear lot lines by a minimum of 5'. There shall be no
minimum setback requirement for the side yard.
lill Village shall be as shown in Table 3.4.
egulations
Non -Residential &
Mixed -Use Buildings
Vlin./Max. #
Stories
Maximum
Height (ft.)
1/4
65
1/4
65
1/4
65
10
4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
4.1 Architectural Standards
The following regulations and development guidelines shall be applied to the buildings
and lots in Spring Hill Village. This will be accomplished vis-a-vis the establishment of a
detailed set of covenants and restrictions that will apply to the property. All
development proposals within Spring Hill Village will be processed by an architectural
review committee; their goal being to guide development in such a manner that an
overall degree of consistency and quality is achieved.
Aside from the review board set up to oversee Spring Hill Village, the development of
this property shall also fall under the purview of the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board. Should conflicts arise between architectural standards established by the
Spring Hill Village review board and recommendations made by the Albemarle County
ARB within its defined purview, the County ARB recommendations shall prevail.
Buildings within Spring Hill Village that are subject to ARB review per the existing
regulations shall be reviewed by the ARB under the typical Certificate of
Appropriateness process.
Prior to the approval of any site plan or subdivision concerning any portion of Spring Hill
Village, the Owner shall cause to be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the County a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Spring Hill Village
(the "Declaration") that includes provisions for the following:
• Procedure for creation of an "Architectural Review Committee", which shall include
the minimum and maximum number of members and manner of appointment.
• Procedure for review of proposed buildings by the Architectural Review Committee
for consistency with requirements of this Code of Development.
• Procedure for amending or supplementing the Architectural Design Standards,
which shall include the number of property owners required to approve any such
change; provided, however, that any such amendment may not eliminate or lessen
the minimum standards of Section 4.1 of this Code of Development absent the
written consent of the Director of Community Development.
• Rights of Declarant to enforce the Architectural Design Standards.
4.2 Variance
The Architectural Review Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any
of the provisions of the Architectural Design Guidelines when circumstances such as
topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic, or environmental considerations
11
require, but only in accordance with duly adopted rules and regulations and only when
the variance is not in conflict with any Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the
Albemarle County ARB.
5. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
The following standards shall be applied to the buildings and structures in Spring Hill
Village. For the purposes of this Code of Development, this Section shall be defined as
the "Landscape Standards."
5.1 General Standards
The landscape standards contained in Section 32.7.9.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance
shall apply to the Development, except as where the provisions of this Code of
Development are more stringent.
Required landscape materials planted within public areas, such as the park system,
other common areas, where buffers are required and along public right of ways, shall be
chosen from the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. If it is desired to use
plants not included above, then information demonstrating the suitability of the plant
materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee,
who may authorize alternative plant materials.
5.2 Planting Strip and Street Tree Standards
Streetscape plantings are shown on the plans of this submittal. The general regulations
pertaining to these plantings are found on the street sections found of this submittal,
which shall be supplemented with the following:
• Notwithstanding anything shown on the Application Plan to the contrary, Owner
may elect to plant the street trees in wells or grates within Blocks A and B. If tree
wells or grates are used in place of a planting strip, they shall be a minimum of
thirty-six (36) square feet.
• Planting strips are not required on private travel ways and residential alleys.
• Street trees shall be provided along all streets in accordance with ARB guidelines and
planted within the 6-foot wide planting strip located between the curb and sidewalk.
Trees shall be installed at an average of forty (40) feet on center. Street tree spacing
may vary due to site distance requirements, utility easements, driveway location,
important landscape architectural or architectural features, or to permit an
important vista. In residential areas, if conflicts arise between street trees and
utilities, utility easements or site distance requirements, and if it can be
demonstrated that no other economically or physically viable alternative exists, the
12
Director of Community Development or designee may allow street trees to be
placed on the residential lots as close to the street as possible as a replacement for
the street tree within the planting strip. Along private travel ways, street trees shall
either be provided behind the sidewalk in the parking setback where a parking lot
fronts the street or shall not be required where a building is attached to the
sidewalk.
5.3 Exterior Screening Standards
Within Spring Hill Village, Mixed -use and non-residential uses shall not be required to be
screened from internal residential uses.
5.4 Landscaping/Screening Areas
The perimeter areas of Spring Hill Village require landscape treatments to ensure a
reasonable transition between the proposed community and the surrounding land uses
and adjacent roadways. For example, the ARB requires extra landscape or fencing
measures be taken along entrance corridors to ensure views from the roadways are
pleasing. Route 20 and Avon Street Extended are Entrance Corridors and plantings
beyond the normal street tree requirement will apply. In addition, screening in the form
of both fencing and landscaping will be installed along the southern property boundary
to partially mitigate the visual impact of new homes being placed adjacent to the
existing residences there. County staff and the ARB approval of a landscape plan will be
required.
6. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6.1 Streetscape Standards
All streets shall be constructed to VDOT standards as well as any additional,
complementary standards included in Section 20A.10 of the NMD section of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Beyond construction of roadways, sidewalks and
utilities, the Owner reserves the right to install within or adjacent to the right of way
such items that may be deemed acceptable to VDOT such as MUTCD signing, lighting,
landscape treatments, mailboxes, low walls or other features. Streetscapes will be more
formal in nature near the central core of the community and less so in other areas. All
exterior lighting associated with streets, parking lots and common areas shall be
classified as full cut-off, and qualify as Dark Sky. They shall also comply with Albemarle
County ordinances and, where applicable, VDOT regulations. Grading of areas between
the curb and sidewalk have been proposed as flat to permit unrestricted pedestrian
access between on -street parking accommodations and the sidewalk system.
13
6.2 Street Signage
Non-standard signage may be installed throughout Spring Hill Village at no cost to the
County upon approval of a signage plan by the Director of Community Development, or
designee.
6.3 Street Materials
Street improvements may be constructed using alternative type roadway paving
materials upon approval by the Director of Community Development, or designee, or
the Virginia Department of Transportation, as applicable.
7. PARKING REGULATIONS
7.1 Regulations
The minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall govern the provision
of parking and related improvements within Spring Hill Village.
Parking in General — Required parking may be provided either on -lot, on adjacent lots as
stand-alone or shared parking, as on -street parking or a combination thereof. Structured
parking up to three stories is also permitted if granted a Special Use Permit. All Single -
Family Detached lots shall provide two garage -based parking accommodations as well as
two driveway -based parking spots.
On -Street Parking — Spring Hill Village is likely to be a mix of public and private roads.
The main road connecting Avon Street Extended with Route 20 (Road A) and Road B,
which terminates in a cul-de-sac are currently envisioned to be public with no on -street
parking. On -street parking is intended to be permitted and provided for in areas of
Spring Hill Village along sections of public or private streets whenever the road width is
designed to accommodate it. These spaces will be arranged parallel to the travelway
when associated with a public road. When occurring adjacent to private roads they may
also be arranged as angled or perpendicular to a travelway. All required guest parking
spaces for townhomes are provided in this manner. Ten (10) spaces are proposed
adjacent to Road D next to Pocket Park #4. Additional guest parking for townhomes is
provided in a congregate parking lot currently shown in Block B. Road B is currently
shown with a width that does not accommodate on -street parking. However, this road
may be widened to provide for additional on -street parking.
7.2 Shared Parking
A shared parking plan may be submitted by the Owner at the time of submission of a
Site Plan and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Section 4.12 of
the Zoning Ordinance (a "Shared Parking Plan").
14
7.3 Stand -Alone Parking
Non-residential uses are permitted in Blocks A, B and C. It is unlikely that this type of
development will take place in all three Blocks. Depending upon the nature of the non-
residential uses that develop in Spring Hill Village, additional area currently set aside for
residential development may have to be allocated to parking accommodations. An
example of how this might occur is reflected on the Parking Exhibit, which can be found
on the last page of the Code. Should the development of non-residential uses approach
the maximum 60,000 SF, structured parking may be required. It should be anticipated
that the parking requirement for any non-residential use will require a combination of
on -lot, stand -along and shared parking arrangements.
7.4 Alternative parking surfaces may be approved, subject to prior review and approval by
Alternative parking surfaces may be approved, subject to prior review and approval by
the Director of Community Development, or designee.
8.1 Parks
The Owner has set aside 2.83 acres of the property as Amenity Space, which is 22% of
the total site area after a small area (0.04 acre) of the current site is dedicated to road
right-of-way. As the plan for the proposed community evolves certain elements may
change size or location in a minor way. Shifts of this nature and magnitude may result in
very minor changes in the acreages associated with Green Space and Amenity Space. In
all cases, the minimum requirements for Green and Amenity Space shall be met.
Comprising the Amenity Area is a central park of just over 1 acre and five pocket parks
located throughout the proposed community. A conceptual design for the park is
reflected within the plan submission. The main park will provide opportunities for both
active and passive recreational activities. A tot lot complex with separate areas for
dynamic and static play equipment are proposed. The play equipment to be installed
shall meet or exceeding the County requirements and will provide safe and age -
appropriate activity areas for children. A pavilion surrounded by paved surface will be a
place for gatherings, events and shaded observation of the tot lot areas. Along the
southern axis of the pavilion a large lawn panel is being set aside for organized sports.
This area will also serve as a spectator area should the pavilion host movie nights or live
performances. It is large enough to accommodate one or more tents that may be used
for special events.
The system of pocket parks is intended to offer a variety of recreational opportunities.
Pocket Park ill is a large, rectangular area taking up most of the property frontage along
15
Route 20. It can be used for a variety of sports and an area to walk pets. Pocket Park H2
is designed to host a communal vegetable gardening and even a dwarf fruit tree
orchard. A garden shed to house tools and a small covered shelter to provide shade are
also proposed. Pocket Park q3 is an area adjacent to the main connector road and is a
small eddy off of the road where one can sit and relax on a bench amongst trees, shrubs
and flowers. Pocket Park #4 is across the street from q3 and is proposed to be set up as
a shady retreat within a bosque of trees. Pocket Park #5 is located at the intersection of
the connector road and Avon Street Extended. It is envisioned as a possible location for
a school bus stop. As such it will provide an alcove with landscaping and seating where
children can await the bus and parents can congregate as they wait for kids to be
dropped off.
As the community develops and its demographics evolve the uses within these amenity
areas may also evolve. It is the Applicant's intent that the central park be developed as
described, but that the residents of Spring Hill Village hdve d say iri fWw the pucker pdiks
are used or further improved.
9. PUBLIC FACILITIES
9.1 Water & Sewer
Water shall be provided through a connection to the public water system located in or
along Avon Street Extended. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the subject site
along Route 20 from its current terminus near the Kappa Sigma property. A conceptual
layout of the water and sewer systems is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.2 Stormwater
A preliminary layout of the storm sewerage system and stormwater management
concept is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.3 Dedications
Areas dedicated to the County for public use, other than streets dedicated by recorded
subdivision plat, shall be conveyed to the County only in such manner and form
approved by the County Attorney.
10. CONFORMANCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT PRINCIPLES
10.1 Pedestrian Orientation
16
The subject site lies on the outskirts of the growth area designated as Neighborhood 4. This side
of town has seen a great deal of new development and a number of projects are underway. The
southernmost section of Neighborhood 4 has yet to mature to the point where it is a true
"neighborhood." For that reason, and partially due to the challenging terrain, the community at
large is not currently considered walkable. Noticeable gaps in infrastructure such as sidewalks
are now being filled in by new development, and soon the entire neighborhood will be linked in
such a way that the needs for pedestrian and bicycles will be fully met.
Spring Hill Village is proposing to do its part to fill in the gaps with regard to the pedestrian
issue. Area along the frontage of Avon Street Extended will be set aside for the installation of
such a connection already present in the corridor. The extension of this system will help
integrate Spring Hill Village into the fabric of the evolving neighborhood.
Within Spring Hill Village itself, a simple, intuitive system of sidewalks connects the residential
buildings to one another and directs residents toward the central community space, which
includes a number of recreational and social opportunities. Furthermore, connections between
the residential and possible commercial sections of Spring Hill Village are provided.
10.2 Neighborhood -Friendly Streets and Paths
Spring Hill Village is served by a formal system of public streets which connect all internal
portions of the community together as well as connect Route 20 with Avon Street Extended
Roadside sidewalks flow throughout the community. On and off-street parking are provided
An intensive street tree program will compliment the project by providing additional ambiance,
welcome shade and serve as a visual foil between the roadways, pedestrians on the sidewalks,
and the buildings.
10.3 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
It was difficult due to the native topography of the site, but the plan calls for providing a
vehicular connection through the property between Avon Street Extended and Route 20.
Opportunities do exist to provide interconnectivity to adjacent parcels. Some of these
properties have been developed and others remain in single-family use. An opportunity to
connect to the property(s) north of Spring Hill Village has been accommodated. The residents
south of the proposed development have expressed a desire not to have such a connection.
10.4 Parks and Open Space as Amenities
17
2.83 acres have been set aside for internal community use. It will include improvements
directed toward active, as well as passive recreational use, social gatherings and communal
gardening.
10.5 Neighborhood Centers
The "neighborhood center' for Spring Hill Village will be the park. Businesses that may choose
to locate in Blocks A or B could be of a nature that they too would serve as gathering places
within the community. In a broader context, this precinct is anchored by South Side Shopping
Center located at the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Mill Creek Drive. A large grocery
store and number of convenience -related businesses are located there. A bank, a convenience
store with fuel service, and other commercial ventures compliment the food store and retail
enterprises. A variety public services and facilities have been constructed. Included are a new
high school, a fire/rescue station and a planned branch library. Additional business activity
nrri irs in the KAM [rop4 rnmmi mity on the west cirlp of Avnn 5trppt Fxtpnrlpd. The residents of
Spring Hill Village will find the existing neighborhood center convenient and a place where they
will regularly patronize.
10.6 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
Spring Hill Village is intended to be a quality, mixed -use community. Architecture, streetscape,
and amenity spaces have been coordinated to create a comfortable and safe environment for
residents and their guests.
Buildings fronting on Avon Street Extended will have three or more stories to provide an
architectural facade to the community and to ensure that those traveling on the roadway do
not consistently look down onto rooftops. The middle of the community may have structures of
one or two -stories. Along the Route 20 frontage buildings may again increase in height in
response to their intended use. From within the development buildings will appear to diminish
in size due to the fact that they are terracing down the hillside. Due to the terrain falling
steadily away views of Carter's Mountain will be afforded from almost every vantage point.
10.7 Relegated Parking
Most of the required parking for Spring Hill Village will occur on individual lots or in parking lots
adjacent thereto. The remaining required parking will be provided on the public roadways.
Blocks A, B and C are where most of the relegated parking is currently proposed.
10.8 Mixture of Uses and Use Types
Spring Hill Village is proposed as a NMD with an opportunity for complementary non-residential
uses to develop along the eastern and northern boundaries (Blocks A, B and C). The property
enjoys ready access to the neighborhood shopping center, schools, public services, and
Interstate 64. It is also an easy commute to downtown Charlottesville. Rather than compete
18
with this robust development, Spring Hill Village attempts to provide desirable housing in a
convenient location while also filling a need for a business location on the south side of the City.
10.9 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
Spring Hill Village will offer single-family detached and attached home sites. Apartments may be
included in Block B. Fifteen (15) percent of the residences will be designated as "affordable"
according to Albemarle County's definition of affordable rental housing.
10.10 Redevelopment
The property is not being redeveloped.
10.11 Site Planning that Respects Terrain
The terrain of the subject property is challenging. The layout of building blocks, travelways, and
improvements in Spring Hill Village responds to the topography of the site, which will result in a
pleasing and well -organized community. Although considerable grading will take place, the lay
of the land within the project will still reflect the original topography of the site.
10.12 Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
To the west and north Spring Hill Village is bordered by commercial and industrial
development. To the east lies Route 20 which represents a clear boundary between the eastern
limits of Neighborhood 4 and the farmland designated as Rural Areas. Immediately south lie
several other single-family homes beyond which the character of the corridor changes over to a
rural setting and this also represents the southern limits of Neighborhood 4.
19
((OF AI
Into
nif.
t�IR G1I�I P'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax (434)972-4126
August 7, 2020
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Str, Suite K
Charlottesville VA 22902
scottAcollins-enqineerinq.com
RE: ZMA202000006 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Dear Mr. Collins,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 2020, recommended approval to the
Board of Supervisors by a vote of 7:0 of the above-noted petition, with the changes outlined in the staff report,
and with a recommendation that sufficient methods are employed to prevent U-Turns on the adjacent property
to the north
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 3270 or email vkanellopoulos(a albemarle.orq
Sincerely,
Tori Kanellopoulos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc. Stanley Martin Companies LLC
11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 1100
Reston VA 20190
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes July 21, 2020
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at
6:00 p.m.
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Rick
Randolph; Corey Clayborne; Daniel Bailey; and Jennie More.
Members absent: Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Other officials present were Tod Kanellopoulos; Kevin McCollum; David Benish; Daniel Butch;
Kevin McDermott; Francis MacCall; Jodie Filardo; Amelia McCulley; Bart Svoboda; Charles Rapp,
Planning Director; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the
Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Bivins called the regular electronic meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
He said this meeting was held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance No. 20-A(6), "An
Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the COVID-19 Disaster."
Mr. Bivins said there were no Commissioners attending from the County Office Building, and that
the Commissioners electronically present that evening were: Mr. Bivins, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Keller,
Mr. Bailey, Ms. Firehock, Ms. More, and Mr. Clayborne.
Mr. Bivins said the public could access and participate in this electronic meeting by following the
links available at www.albemarle.oro/calendar, or by calling 877-853-5257.
Consent Agenda
There was no consent agenda.
Public Hearing
ZTA-2020-02: Landscape Contractors in Rural Areas
Mr. Kevin McCollum (Planner with the Zoning Department) said the purpose of the amendment
is to define a landscape contractor and add it as a use permitted by Special Use Permit in the
Rural Areas Zoning District.
Mr. McCollum said he would begin with some background information. He said the goal for the
Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan is to have thriving farms and forests, traditional crossroads
communities, protected scenic areas, historic sites, and preserved natural resources. He said the
Comprehensive Plan then goes on to describe several objectives that are intended to help the
County achieve that goal.
Mr. McCollum said this amendment is described under Objective 1, which is, "To support a strong
agricultural and forestal economy." He said specifically, Strategy 1-J states that the County should
consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow landscape services and the storage of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
landscape materials in the Rural Areas. He said this strategy mentions that these types of services
are currently only in Development Areas' use, but they may be more appropriate in the Rural
Areas because of the need to grow trees and shrubs, and the storage of landscaping materials
and equipment.
Mr. McCollum said this amendment then became part of the Community Development Work
Program for 2020, which was endorsed by the Board. He said a ROI for this project was adopted
on April 15, which authorized an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow landscape services
and storage of landscaping materials in the Rural Areas Zoning District.
Mr. McCollum said after the ROI was approved, the first thing staff had to do was come up with a
definition. He said the definition they are proposing reads, "Landscape Contractor. Landscape
contractor means, 'an establishment providing landscaping services.' For the purposes of this
definition, landscaping means, 'the modification of the landscape for an aesthetic or functional
purpose."'
Mr. McCollum said staff developed this definition after researching many other Virginia codes and
contemplating what was the best fit for the purposes of this ZTA. He said since "landscape
contractors" is being proposed as a Special Use Permit use, each application will have to go
through the entire SP review process. He said the proposed language allows for a broad
interpretation of what qualifies as a "landscape contractor" and thus, will allow a wide variety of
businesses to potentially apply for the Special Use Permit and get vetted through that process.
Mr. McCollum said after staff developed their definition of "landscape contractors," they reached
out to some stakeholders for any input. He said they received comment from two individuals. He
said the first had questions about the definition and whether arborists would be included. He said
staff ensured this stakeholder that their arborist business would indeed meet this definition
because they are an establishment, and they work on modifying the landscape.
Mr. McCollum said the second comment they received (which came after the completion of the
staff report) expressed strong support for the ZTA. He said this stakeholder expressed how it is
extremely difficult to stay in business in the Development Areas because of high lease prices, and
there are many landscapers looking for cheaper options. He said one quote from the stakeholder's
email that stood out to him was, "We are landscapers. Making things beautiful is what we do. Vote
yes on this and help me stay in business."
Mr. McCollum said Attachment F includes the information staff is recommending be submitted
alongside an application for a landscape contractor SP. He said Section 33.33K enables staff to
require this information and will ensure a comprehensive review of the impacts of each proposal.
He said this list could grow or shrink over time, or even become the basis for supplemental
regulations.
Mr. McCollum said in conclusion, staff is proposing two changes to the Zoning Ordinance. He
said they propose to amend Section 3.1 to define a landscape contractor, and amend Section
10.22 to add landscape contractors as a use permitted by Special Use Permit in the Rural Areas.
He said they also recommend that each applicant submit the information listed in Attachment F
alongside their application.
Mr. McCollum presented proposed motions for the Commission and offered to answer questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Bivins asked if the Commission was also voting on the criteria, or if they were assuming this
was procedural.
Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) explained that all the Commission will be voting on is
a motion to either recommend or not recommend the amendments.
Mr. Bivins said the other piece (Attachment F), then, was for information only and not included in
what the Commission was doing.
Mr. Herrick said this was correct.
Mr. Keller said he was asking his question to get it on the record for the public. He asked how this
works with a home occupation.
Mr. McCollum said that in terms of a home occupation that someone applies for, there are multiple
ones for landscape contractors. He said currently, for a home occupation for a landscape
contractor, all they can do is have a vehicle or trailer (one truck, one trailer) in many of the areas.
He said there is some limited storage of materials for a Class A, but that it is more the equipment
they are addressing here as far as the yard, where there will be larger amounts of storage
materials and larger pieces of equipment (e.g. a boom truck for arborists to cut trees). He said
the difference is the intensity, which will likely pick up with the size and amount of equipment that
a particular contractor might accumulate and want to put together. He said this is the idea and
what is envisioned here.
Mr. McCollum said they would still permit a home office, as that is really what the home
occupations do. He said they have a truck and a trailer, but they go to different places, and they
are not actually large operations with large amounts of equipment.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. McCollum if he thought there was a need to clarify that scale because of
these two different approaches. He said historically, in the Rural Areas, they would have a small
contractor who was doing it as a home occupation and then, they tend to grow to the scale that
Mr. McCollum is talking about. He said he was wondering about people qualifying through the
home occupation and then, over time, adding personnel and equipment. He asked where the
transition point is and if it needs to be addressed so that they do not have frustrated small business
owners who are out of compliance, but who began in compliance.
Mr. McCollum replied that this involves communicating at the beginning of an application or when
an applicant makes a request to do a home occupation. He said staff discusses with them, usually
face to face, and emphasize the scale. He said there was currently not an option for them to do
that in the Rural Area, so this would be part of the conversation now, if someone did want to start
small. He said if it gets out of control, the County has to deal with that on a complaint basis. He
said the impacts would be addressed during the larger review of a Special Use Permit, but that
staff did not expect to see this.
Mr. McCollum said he was not aware of many complaints they receive about the landscape
contractors. He said when they do, it is usually about there being too many trucks and then, those
have to be addressed. He said it is a matter of having the conversation with those individuals
making the request to operate these businesses.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Keller said they all know that this is an important issue, and have heard from people in the
Development Area about this kind of equipment being parked in residential areas, with the
contractors' point being that they cannot afford or cannot find the property in the Development
Areas for it. He said he thinks it is a very positive step forward.
Mr. Keller said he was a little concerned about this issue of the transition of scale and size, and
that in other arenas, there seems to be a frustration on the part of the small business that grows
in feeling that they have been tamped back in what they can do. He said he wondered if there
was some way to put a clarification in either the public materials on the County's website, at a
minimum, or define in this and in the home occupation where the breakpoint is where one needs
to go from a home occupation to a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Herrick said he would address the question. He said one of the benefits of this particular
ordinance is that it clearly moves out of the home occupation classification into a Special Use
Permit classification for the landscape contractor. He said as they were having this discussion,
he was looking through the home occupation regulations, and anything that requires a Special
Use Permit under this code section is actually exempted or excluded from the home occupation
criteria. He said it is mutually exclusive -- either one would come in under a home occupation
application, or one would come in for a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Herrick said one of the benefits of this ordinance would be that it would move it from the realm
of home occupation into a Special Use Permit where the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors could consider what would be the reasonable conditions that would be placed on this
particular use.
Mr. Keller said he totally understood, supported, and agreed with what Mr. Herrick was saying,
but he was thinking about the transition that they encountered, and the history of land use change
at Yancey Mill. He said while it is an entirely different topic, it is about the issue of people coming
in through one area, and then things changing, with the question of if there is a mechanism to
catch or trigger that change other than a public complaint.
Mr. Charles Rapp (Director of Planning) said he believed he heard what Mr. Keller was saying,
and while he didn't know if they had a specific mechanism, he knows that they have quite a good
bit of materials that staff provide people when they submit an application for various permits. He
said it sounded like they could provide some additional clarification on some of those guidance
documents when someone does apply for a home occupation permit, any type of landscaping
business, or something in that category that would at least alert them to be aware of these
changes that would need to happen if they bring their business to the point of storing large
equipment that is more than the specified amount of one truck/one trailer that Mr. McCollum
mentioned earlier, so that it is clear up front as soon as they start the process.
Mr. Keller said he supports the ZTA if this is part of the agreement between the Commission and
staff, if not part of the motion, that this information will be passed onto the Supervisors and will,
indeed, be part of the upgraded website that the County is all looking forward to the rollout of.
Mr. Rapp said staff could do that, adding that they have a Forms Team in house where they are
currently reviewing all forms, applications, and guidance documents as they have been more
virtual anyway. He said it is a great opportunity to loop this into that and make sure they address
this in coordination with the ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Clayborne said his question might be for Mr. Herrick, and that it circled back to Mr. Bivins'
comment about Attachment F. He asked if there was something the Commission wanted their
colleagues to consider perhaps adding in their future discussions that night, if it was off limits, in
light of what Mr. Herrick was saying.
Mr. Herrick replied no. He said they would certainly welcome any discussion that the Commission
has. He said it is that the anticipated motion would be whether or not the Commission
recommends the ordinance. He said if the Commission has specific recommendations about
Attachment F, staff would love to hear them.
Ms. Firehock said her comments were along the same lines as those of Mr. Clayborne. She said
she was looking at Attachment F, and it struck her that the need for screening is something that
should also be considered. She said she works with a lot of landscapers, and they can have some
very large pieces of equipment. She said she understood that tonight, they were only really
concerned with whether there should be an ordinance. She said she agreed that they should, and
that it is appropriate to have such uses in the Rural Area. She said she supposed they could work
on the checklist at another time.
Mr. Randolph said he would propose a hypothetical question, alluding to Trojan horses. He said
to suppose he is the president of Leopard Landscaping, and he is a wholly owned subsidiary of a
local fuel company. He asked if, as the president of Leopard Landscaping in applying for a Special
Use Permit, he would be able to build onsite a fueling capability for his trucks.
Mr. Herrick said this would be a question for the Zoning Administrator to determine what uses
were occurring on the property. He said it would be within the province of the Zoning Administrator
to make a determination as to what uses were occurring, and to the extent that the use that was
actually occurring on the property was exceeding landscape contractor, the Zoning Administrator
could fine them in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said it would be a fact -specific
determination for the Zoning Administrator whether this was just fueling of that company's
vehicles for their landscaping business, whether it was customarily incidental to the landscaping
business, or whether it was an entirely different use that was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Randolph said that once he, as Leopard Landscaping, has established that he has fuel stored
on the site, one can see over a number of 4-5 years that it makes it much easier to make an
argument that that operation could potentially be enlarged and expanded. He said he was just
raising a hypothetical.
Mr. Herrick said again, it would be a fact -specific determination for the Zoning Administrator
whether it was in support of the landscaping business. He said he would imagine that the Zoning
Administrator would find that fuel sales to the public were not part of the landscaping business,
but that it would depend on the facts.
Mr. Randolph said he understands that in all likelihood, it would require another Special Use
Permit. He said he had another related question, and to suppose that on this particular property
that he owns as president of Leopard Landscaping, part of the property is Highway Commercial
and the other part is Rural Area. He said he would really be putting the bulk of the nursery in the
Rural Area. He said in the Highway Commercial area, he is just proposing that he might be able
to have (consistent with the zoning) somewhat of a retail -oriented business on the front portion.
He asked if this would be acceptable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Herrick said in this hypothetical, because there would be split zoning, they would have to take
each part of the property separately and evaluate the permitted use on the commercial parts, and
the permitted uses on the Rural Areas part. He said this particular ordinance would allow a
landscape contractor to be established by Special Use Permit only in the Rural Areas. He said it
would not allow that landscape contractor to be a permitted use in the commercial areas. He said
they would take each part of the property in this split zoning hypothetical and analyze it separately.
Mr. Randolph thanked Mr. Herrick for the answers.
Mr. Bailey echoed Ms. Firehock's statement, and said he wasn't sure if this was in Attachment F.
He said driving down Hillsdale and by the chiropractor office, before getting to Whole Foods, there
is a lot of laydown brick stacked that the landscapers used over time. He said this was the type
of thing he wasn't sure that he saw directly in Attachment F, which is where the screening is for
the laydown yard of where a contractor typically puts excess material and other things. He said
those can just accumulate, and can be seen in other places driving up Route 29 that get left there
for many years, and then weeds can grow there and become unsightly.
Mr. Bailey said while the attachment does address setbacks, he didn't know if this matter were
covered in the Special Use Permit process, but spelling it out in Attachment F clearly would be
helpful. He said understanding the laydown yard and screening locations would probably be of
help to the landscape contractor.
Mr. McCollum said there seemed to be comments about the attachment. He said the attachment
is administrative and can grow or shrink. He said he was happy to hear comments of things to
add or subtract. He said for the purposes of this ZTA and motion, he wondered if the Commission
could possibly email him comments so he could adjust the attachment appropriately before the
Board meeting.
Mr. Bivins suggested seeing if there were any public comments, since they were going to public
hearing. He said when they come back from that, if some of the Commissioners have an item or
two to offer, this may be appropriate.
Mr. Bivins opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, he closed the public hearing and
brought the matter back to the Commission.
Mr. Bivins said for Commissioners who have a comment or two about Attachment F, this was an
appropriate time to make those comments.
Mr. Clayborne said Attachment F was very inclusive, so he would not recommend subtracting
anything. He said he would like to perhaps consider from a planning standpoint, in the Rural
Areas, that he would suspect that most properties are run off a well, and with the definition being
so wide and sweeping, that perhaps for things that have storage areas, consider requesting
whether or not they know it is going to be a combustible or noncombustible type of construction;
and whether or not, based off of what they are storing, if they anticipate fire sprinkler or fire
suppression systems, which all have a heightened awareness in the Rural Areas running off of
wells.
Mr. Clayborne said based on the definitions presented, he thought it was great that staff had such
a collection and did their research. He said it seems like it would probably include hardscapes,
such as walking paths and like. He asked staff if they think there is any value or clarity in perhaps
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
adding the words "natural" or "manmade" landscapes. He said reading the definition as written, if
he were just a regular layman, he would not think of manmade landscapes when he reads it.
Ms. Firehock reiterated her earlier comment about the potential need for screening, based on the
size and amount of equipment stored onsite. She said she would echo Mr. Clayborne's comments
about the storage of hazardous materials, as there are potentially some noxious materials used.
She said she is also concerned about the size of the storage yard itself. She said she didn't know
how to write that as something to look at, and that staff noted falling with materials but that at
some point, they have to get at the square footage of the area that this would take up.
Ms. Firehock said she thinks the majority of the landscaping contractor businesses would
probably be relatively small in scale, but that they have the potential to get quite large. She said
she wanted to find a way to somehow capture that, as she was not exactly sure how to do that.
Mr. Randolph said that Mr. Bailey's and Mr. Clayborne's comments were good catches.
Mr. Bivins said at some point, they will be looking at performance metrics. He asked if this is
something that would be done internally, or if it would come before the Commission at some point,
with his assumption being that it would be done internally, and that this will be how the analysis
is done when staff does bring a Special Use Permit forward.
Mr. Herrick said he thinks that if this follows the process that they were anticipating, this would
simply go to the Board as a Zoning Text Amendment, and that staff would work internally on the
forms and the information that was required to be submitted by the applicant. He said the nature
of Attachment F is the information that staff would request or require of applicants. He said if the
Commission is prepared to move recommendation of the ordinance, it would be staffs anticipation
that this would not formally come back to the Commission, although staff was open to any
suggestions the Commission has that they would like to have put on the form.
Mr. Bivins asked if the Commission would see an SP that would come forward under this particular
ordinance.
Mr. Herrick said this was correct
Mr. Keller said Mr. Randolph's hypothetical, and Mr. Bailey's issue about storage of vegetative
materials, made him wonder if there is a clear line definition between the difference of that storage
on a large scale with a nursery.
Mr. Herrick said the ordinance, as written, does not specify the size or scale. He said it would be
up to the Commission and the Board to put reasonable conditions on the use to keep the size and
scale appropriate. He said in terms of there being a hard and fast bright line in the ordinance, the
ordinance does not include such a standard.
Mr. Keller said his concern, again, was the small operation growing into the large operation. He
said it is not that he thinks they need to put a scale on the SP, but again, he wonders about that
transition point of a small operation and if there is a way to get around there having to be a
complaint from the citizens about what is happening.
Mr. Herrick said ideally, for a business that started out small and incrementally grew, the
conditions would be placed on them in such a size that they would have to come back if they were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
expanding beyond the scope of what was permitted under the initial Special Use Permit. He said
they would be in a position where they would have to come back and request an amendment,
and they could grow incrementally to where, periodically as they grew and came up to the cap of
what was allowed under their existing permit, they would have to come back to the Commission
and the Board for approval to go to the next level.
Mr. Keller said he understood, and was sorry to be going on about this. He said he was concerned
with the person who is the home occupation who grows in scale. He said he thinks there are many
examples of that in businesses in the County and throughout the nation. He said there is a feeling
that the individual that starts small has a number of rights that they accrue from having done that,
and that he still has this concern in the transition from the by right of a home occupation to the
point at which they would normally be asking for an SP if someone was coming in fresh.
Mr. Keller said he thinks this is really where it is going to cause conflicts in Rural Areas -- not on
the large parcels, but in the more densely -populated collections of 5-6 houses where someone
has a 2-acre or 5-acre lot in amongst those other houses, and their business continues to grow
in scale.
Mr. Herrick asked Mr. Keller if his concern was of expectation setting, where someone might come
and get an SP that is at a certain size and then may think to themselves that because they have
the SP, they do not need to come back again, and that they may feel entitled to go beyond the
scope of the SP.
Mr. Keller said it was not about the SP at all. He said it was about the person who is coming in as
a home occupation, the scale is growing and growing, and the County does not have a mechanism
because the owner came in as a home occupation. He said he was sorry to go on about this, but
that he thinks they have seen this happen in other categories.
Mr. McCollum said staff does their best to work with an applicant to have them understand that
the home occupation is an accessory use to their dwelling. He said beyond that, if they decide to
do something with the County's permission (e.g. expanding or getting more vehicles), the only
option he knows of is the complaint option that they have to work with to be able to address this.
He said communication is big with staff as far as making those conversations and information as
clear as they can to an applicant when they are proposing something.
Mr. Keller said it might be something that is worth sending out to all home occupations that are,
indeed, landscapers once this ordinance goes into place -- that they be aware, on the positive
side, that there is an opportunity for them to grow through an SP on that site. He said by sending
that, they would also possibly be sending the message that if the businesses will be growing to a
certain scale, the County expects them to come back for an SP.
Mr. McCollum said this is certainly something staff can look into.
Ms. More said she shared Mr. Keller's concern. She said although she would very much like to
move forward on this, these situations could be happening now under existing conditions. She
said it would be complaint -driven for it to come to the County's attention that someone is keeping
equipment out in the Rural Area where they cannot currently do that. She said they would now
have this mechanism if they move forward with the Special Use Permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Ms. More said this wasn't to minimize the issue, as she thinks Mr. Keller's concern is valid, but
currently this is essentially what could be happening -- that a small business or home occupation
could have grown outside of a scale that people had anticipated. She said if they didn't have a
neighbor complain, the County would not know. She said it is frustrating that so many things are
complaint -driven, but this is often the reality with many things they consider.
Mr. Bivins said ideally, if they had integrated systems during the personal property tax bills, if they
saw large deltas in those taxes over a certain amount of time, they would be flagged for someone
to take a look at the business to see whether or not the business had grown to a certain level. He
said this is the kind of exception reporting that staff might be able to build into a system. He said
they would look for key factors such as significant changes that would trigger an action. He said
they do not have those kinds of integrated systems at the moment, however.
Mr. Keller moved to recommend approval of ZTA2020-02 as shown in the draft zoning ordinance
in Attachment D of the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins informed Mr. McCollum that he may be receiving comments from the Commissioners
about Attachment F, and asked him to please be responsive to those.
Mr. McCollum said he would do so.
ZMA-2020-06 Spring Hill Village Proffer Amendment
Ms. Tori Kanellopoulos, Lead Planner for the project, said the application is to amend previously
approved proffers to remove the left turn lane on Route 20 and to convert a sidewalk into a
pedestrian path. She said Mr. Daniel Butch (Transportation Planner) and Mr. Adam Moore
VDOT) were also available that evening to answer question.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the 12.5-acre site is located between Avon Street Extended and Route
20. She said it is located across Avon Street from the Avon Park development, and the Rural Area
is located across Route 20 to the east. She said adjacent parcels to the north are zoned Light
Industrial and include a variety of commercial and industrial uses. She said adjacent parcels to
the south and west are zoned R1 and R6 Residential. She presented an aerial photo, noting that
Spring Hill Village is in the process of being developed.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented pictures from staff's site visit. She presented an image showing a
view from Spring Hill Village at Avon Street Extended, looking toward Route 20. She presented
another image showing the current construction entrance off of Route 20 into Spring Hill Village,
looking south.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the community meeting requirement was met in the form of mailed letter
with information about the proposal, with response options including contacting staff via email or
phone call, or using an online input form. She said the applicant mailed letters to property owners
within a 500-foot radius of the proposal on June 5. She said staff received a total of four individual
responses via email and Microsoft Forms. She said the major concerns heard were access to the
site (especially a concern with drivers potentially using the adjacent property to the north to make
U-turns), and also traffic, with the potential for more traffic to be diverted to Avon Street Extended.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the property is zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) per approved
application plan and proffers with ZMA2013-17. She said this rezoning approved up to 100
dwelling units, and up to 60,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. She said staff is currently
reviewing a final site plan and final plat for this development for 100 units for Phase 1, and the
nonresidential development will be submitted as Phase 2. She said if this proffer amendment is
approved, the applicant will need to amend their site plan and road plan to match the updated
application plan and proffer requirements.
Ms. Kanellopoulos noted that the code of development (included as Attachment 9) is the current
code of development and is not changing with this application. She said the code was last updated
with a Special Exception approved by the Board on May 20. She said the only changes to the
rezoning with this application are to Proffer #4 and to the application plan (specifically, the Route
20 improvements).
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the property is designated Community Mixed Use in the Comprehensive
Plan. She said as noted in the staff report, analysis of this development's consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan was completed with the original rezoning. She said therefore, staff analyzed
the proffer amendment for consistency with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan and
Southern Western Master Plan, and staff found that this application would provide the same level
of multi -modal connectivity as the original rezoning. She said staff also found that a path is more
fitting with the character of Route 20 instead of a sidewalk. She said a path was also approved
with the Galaxie Farm rezoning in 2019.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposal is to amend Proffer #4, as approved with ZMA2013-17, as
well as the relevant requirements of the application plan. She said specifically, the revised proffer
and application plan would eliminate the left turn lane requirement on Route 20. She said they
would also change the timing of the required Route 20 improvements -- that they must be
completed before the thirtieth Certificate of Occupancy. She said Fire Rescue requires two
entrances after the thirtieth dwelling unit.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the revisions would also require a path along the frontage of Route 20
instead of a sidewalk. She noted that the landscaping on this application plan is conceptual only,
and Architectural Review Board review and approval will be required with the final site plan. She
also noted that the revised application plan would replace the existing application plan dated
August 29, 2014.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented a comparison between the approved rezoning for ZMA2013-17 and
the proposed changes, per this application. She presented an image showing ZMA2013-17 and
the left turn lane on Route 20 into Spring Hill, with a sidewalk along the frontage. She presented
another image showing the new proposed design of the Spring Hill entrance with the removal of
the left turn lane and no option to turn left into Spring Hill. She said it also shows the proposed
path along the frontage, which is a conceptual location and will have public access.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented an image showing how cars traveling northbound on Route 20
would access Spring Hill Village. She said drivers would turn left onto Avon Street Extended from
Route 20, would then drive up Avon Street Extended and turn right into Spring Hill Village. She
said there is concern from the adjacent property owner to the north of Spring Hill Village that
drivers will use their property to make U-turns instead of using Avon Street. She said the applicant
estimates approximately 5 drivers per day would be traveling northbound on Route 20 to Spring
Hill Village. She said VDOT, Transportation staff, and Planning staff find this estimate to be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
reasonable and find it unlikely that drivers would make a U-turn instead of turning left onto Avon
Street. She said this is not possible to guarantee, however.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff is recommending approval of the rezoning application, provided the
following technical changes are made to the application plan prior to the Board of Supervisors'
public hearing. She said since these changes were included in the staff report, she could return
to them if there were any specific questions. She presented the motions for consideration and
offered to answer questions.
Mr. Randolph said when the Shadwell Store was redone at the intersection of Routes 22 and 250
in Shadwell, they were told there would be no left-hand turns for moving east on Route 250 into
the store. He said there was a concrete Y unit that was put in that indicated one could turn to the
right, or enter by coming in on the left side, but one could not go out and make a left-hand turn
and thereby, proceed east on Route 250.
Mr. Randolph said the reality was that the way that site was used, people did attempt to make a
left-hand turn. He said despite the fact that there was the construction architecture there of
concrete and the road surface that indicated that one should not turn left, they proceeded to turn
left. He said it required VDOT finally establishing a series of yellow markers that establish a line
that people cannot get through them to make a left-hand turn. He said only then did they see
people actually following the design that they were assured from the outset was going to be
followed.
Mr. Randolph said while he understands that Mr. Butch and his department have good sense that
they do not find it likely that people would make those turns, they already have the property owner
to the north stating clearly that people currently use his driveway to turn around.
Mr. Randolph said one of the things that he hopes the Commission will talk about that night is to
try to provide some measure of satisfaction by the developer that can prevent people from making
a left-hand turn into that business (Gropen), thereby turning around and then proceeding south
on Route 20, then going into Spring Hill Village.
Mr. Randolph said he would like to come up with a solution that night that will address that concern
because he knows from experience that expectations do not always work out the way they think
they will when it comes to human behavior, and with people having an urgency to get somewhere.
He said architecture be darned (especially road architecture), people will drive right over it and do
not care what they will be doing to their suspension as they are getting into the most convenient
way of getting somewhere.
Mr. Randolph said the other issue he believed the Commission also needed to address that night
was assurance -- given Mr. Roger Schickedantz numerous communications with Mr. Scott Collins
through the site review process several months ago, prior to the pandemic happening -- of what
degree of encroachment, if any, will occur both from tapering on Route 20 on his property, and
also in terms of what impact the trail will have on his property. He said he would be looking for
answers to those that evening as they go forward.
Mr. Randolph said he was not directing his comments at Ms. Kanellopoulos, but was using this
as an opportunity to let people know that he thinks the Commission needed that kind of
information that evening.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Ms. More said she was going to give an example of people making a left-hand turn where there
is something there that is telling them they should not be doing that. She said Mr. Randolph's
example was much more appropriate to the scale of this. She said her example was going to be
at Old Trail, where there is a "pork chop," which tells the driver who wants to turn left into a
commercial area that one should not do that. She said everyone does, however. She said what it
wants them to do is go past where they want to go, go through a roundabout, then come back
and turn right, but no one does that. She said some people actually drive out of the exit because
they think they should, although this is dangerous, even in a small neighborhood setting.
Ms. More said Rick's example was of faster moving traffic, and more traffic. She said her concern
is about what will be there that is safe for the driver and directs them that they should not be
turning this way when she knows that people will do all kinds of crazy things in their cars.
Ms. More said her second point was that she was having trouble following the logic of this putting
more traffic onto Avon Street, which is with the assumption that they do not have the driver who
is going to do the U-turn and use the property to the north. She said she thinks it is a valid concern
that a driver could choose to go up and do a U-turn. She said if that doesn't happen (which she
is concerned that it would), the choice of what they were saying should happen is that they use
Avon Street.
Ms. More said she wondered, from a transportation perspective, if this were putting more burden
on an already busy street, and why they would not want a plan that disperses traffic. She said she
was having trouble getting to a place where she feels like this makes sense -- that they would
limit the choices rather than offering a driver more choices that would disperse traffic, and not put
more burden onto Avon Street. She asked if this were a Transportation staff question or a VDOT
question, adding that she was not in a place where she could support this but was willing to listen.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Firehock to ask her question, as there could be related questions that Mr.
Butch could respond to collectively.
Ms. Firehock said she had a similar question to Ms. More's, and wanted to hear from staff as to
whether they think that this new design proposed by the applicant is better for traffic and safety,
or simply an attempt to save funds by not having to disturb as much of the area to build the original
design.
Ms. Firehock said her second question has to do with the materials use and the trail. She said the
report said it was similar to other pathways along the road, and she would like more detail on that.
Mr. Bivins asked if Mr. Butch could answer the transportation questions. He said given some of
the observations that were made by Mr. Randolph and Ms. More, VDOT should offer some input
on this as well.
Mr. Butch said from a transportation planning perspective, looking at the applicant suggesting that
there would be five vehicles per day going northbound on Route 20, this would not have a
significant impact on Avon if they had to choose to go that route. He said as Mr. Randolph
mentioned earlier, staff also looked into the possibility of U-turns on the adjacent property, or the
possibility of them continuing to Mill Creek, going left, and then making a left on Avon. He said
these are all assumptions, but the impact of five vehicles was significant to not have to have that
left turn lane, which was the transportation perspective.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Moore if he had anything to add
Mr. Moore said from a planning standpoint, it is for the County to determine if more traffic on Avon
Street is advisable in this context. He said to the points about the complaints of the neighbor, he
thinks it is definitely possible that some people (especially before patterns set in) may use this
neighboring entrance. He said he does not think that it is likely people will consistently use it. He
said it is a largely residential community, so people will form their community habits quickly. He
said in the long term, most people will find it easier, more comfortable, and therefore safer to turn
left onto Avon, and for the handful of traffic that is expected during busy times to turn left on Avon
and right to the development.
Mr. Moore said regarding the design of the entrance itself that was a concern, the dimensions of
what they call the "pork chop" are very important, and the Commissioners brought two examples
that have substandard dimensions. He said he imagines this is a change in the design standards
over time. He said the current standards are a 50-foot dimension on the side adjacent to the
through street (in this case, Route 20). He said at the Shadwell Store, that same dimension is
only 15 feet, and on Old Trail, it's maybe 17 feet. He said both are not nearly wide enough to
physically redirect traffic to a right turn only when it comes out.
Ms. More asked if the five vehicles per day estimate was for full buildout, including Phases 1 and
2.
Mr. Moore replied yes.
Mr. Bivins said he assumed they would wait to hear from the applicant to address the trail material
Mr. Bivins opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Scott Collins, the project engineer, said he was joined by Mr. Jeremy Swink from Stanley
Martin, who represents the owners on the property.
Mr. Collins said the whole idea about the entrance came about from the staff -developer meeting
that was held back in March, as Mr. Randolph indicated. He said the original design of this
intersection at Route 20 leaving the site with the full intersection design does have a significant
impact along Route 20 in that corridor.
Mr. Collins said the design that was approved with the original rezoning is a very urban design,
with curb and gutter and sidewalks along the section of the property and along the properties to
the south and to the north, in order to get the improvements for this turn lane. He said the turn
lane improvements actually stretch almost 1,000 feet north and south of this entrance, so one
could imagine the effects it has across the properties to the north and south of them -- especially
to the south, which had substantial grading impacts all within the right of way, but was removing
90% of their buffer between their residential home and Route 20, taking away the rural
characteristic that one can see along most of Route 20.
Mr. Collins said when those concerns were brought forth during the staff -developer meeting, the
applicant stepped back and took their comments to heart to ask themselves why they were putting
in this full -access turn lane. He said he looked back at the 2013 rezoning and realized what the
intent was, and why it was so important for the developers back in 2013 to have this full -access
turn lane. He said it was driven by the commercial. He said they saw the need for more of a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
commercial frontage along Route 20 that was going to pick up commuters coming into town and
leaving town as they left. He said the rezoning allowed for up to 60,000 square feet of commercial.
Mr. Collins said in 2020, everyone knows this is no longer a model that works. He said in
Belvedere, for example, the commercial center still has not taken off, and there is a total buildout
that is 10 times the amount of residential in that neighborhood.
Mr. Collins said he lived in Old Trail for 10 years and was the third house there, and that he has
seen a definite turnover of the commercial there. He said restaurants there turned over every six
months. He said the commercial that worked and started to thrive were specific businesses and
the small one or two office spaces for people who wanted to work and live in the same community,
but not have clients come to their house.
Mr. Collins said that model really started to take off, and he sees that this exact model will work
in Spring Hill Village, which is why they have gone forward with the development with a minimal
amount of commercial proposed (10,000 square feet). He said they have one area left on this
property that will handle a 10,000-square-foot area, and they see it being the perfect spot for a
home office type of building that allows people to work and live in the same neighborhood, walk
to work, and have clients come to their office.
Mr. Collins said this (the commercial aspect) is what drove much of this need for a full access
onto Route 20. He said when they eliminated this, they eliminated a lot of the in and out traffic
from Route 20, which is why the developer revisited it.
Mr. Collins said the other reason they looked at this as well was that having a left out/right in/right
out of the property on Route 20 did not preclude people from using Route 20 to go into town,
which is the majority of the movements. He said there are schools, work, and commercial in and
toward town. He said there is not a lot of traffic that is going south out of this development, as it
is a residential development, and this design does not preclude it.
Mr. Collins said another thing that was touched on that night is that the new design protects the
rural characteristics of Route 20, as well as the entranceway because the entrance to this
development is very important for Stanley Martin, and they really wanted to preserve the rural
characteristics. He said this design does that, versus the more urban design that was previously
approved with the rezoning.
Mr. Collins said as far as safety goes, Avon Street is much safer to make a left onto and then turn
right into the development. He said with regard to those five extra cars on Avon Street, he agrees
wholeheartedly with the Transportation Planners that it is not an increase in traffic on that road to
have five cars going up and making a safer turn into the neighborhood development.
Mr. Collins said as far as some of the questions that came up that night from the Commissioners,
they were excellent questions and concerns. He said the biggest difference in those questions,
concerns, and examples is that those were all examples of people turning into heavily commercial
development areas. He said with regard to Mr. Randolph's question about people turning left into
the Shadwell Store, this is a commercial use, and this is why people are not abiding to the turn
lanes. He said he feels Mr. Moore was correct when he said that people do settle into a pattern,
and knowing that they cannot make the left turn into the residential neighborhood, they will not be
doing that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Collins said the same goes for Ms. More's example. He said he actually design the right
in/right out at Old Trail, and has seen people turn into that commercial development area through
the exit. He said this is why they extended the median of their design all the way up to the first
intersection so that no one can turn in through the exit lane without traveling 200-300 feet up that
road. He said it will then preclude that movement from happening.
Mr. Collins said there were many things that the applicant has taken into account with this
proposed intersection design in order to prohibit, as much as possible, anyone doing something
that is not what they should be doing. He said this is someone's residential neighborhood, and if
they are making these weird left turns, their neighbors are seeing that, and it is not just a
commercial stop in and out getting something. He said this was really the biggest difference he
could see.
Mr. Collins said as far as the comments about safety and traffic, he thinks the safer movement is
to turn left onto Avon Street and have a nice right turn into the development. He said it is a much
safer, easier turning movement. He said this was the heart of his presentation, and that Mr. Swink
may want to make comments.
Mr. Swink said he would like to piggyback on a couple things. He said Mr. Collins mentioned that
one of the drivers for the applicant taking a look at this were some of the concerns heard during
the staff -developer meeting. He said they take those meetings seriously and take public comment
to heart, and try to implement them into their designs. He said some of the best ideas he has
gotten have come from the outside.
Mr. Swink said one of the things that seemed to echo was the perception between what
someone's actual yard and property is, and what the right of way line is. He said it is a perception
about where the road and edge of pavement stop, and where someone's yard stops. He said
looking at the existing conditions today in terms of where that road is and the edge of pavement
is, versus where the right of way ends and where the neighbor's property starts, there is a big
difference there along Scottsville Road. He said Scottsville Road has the right of way to be
widened to be in the four -lane position that was proffered here.
Mr. Swink said when the applicant looked at the ultimate widening, grading, curb and gutter
section, and concrete aprons that would replace driveway entrances that exist today, this resulted
in a major impact to what people perceived as their yard, buffer, and trees. He said while it is not
their property, he knows those people have lived there for a long time, and it probably feels like
their backyard at this point. He said the applicant wants to be sensitive to their neighbors.
Mr. Swink said one of the first things they had to look at was how people are traveling to the
development. He said they are a residential developer and not a commercial one, so one of the
first things he did with the plan was to make it as residential as possible, taking the commercial
down to the lowest common denominator, which was 10,000 square feet (from 60,000). He said
he was familiar enough with commercial development and traffic movements to know that 50,000
square feet of commercial development is a tremendous amount of traffic or vehicles per day
between people going to work there, and people stopping in to use goods and services (especially
with its convenience and location).
Mr. Swink said the first thing they did when they got the property was, they scaled back the
commercial, and made it more residential heavy. He said by doing that, and thinking about the
way people are traveling, there are not a lot of people that are going from their neighborhood out
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
to Scottsville and then back to work. He said people are going from their neighborhood to town,
so they needed to preserve their ability to go right or left out of the community, so people that live
in the neighborhood can leave safely and in either direction. He said if one is coming from town
heading towards Scottsville on Route 20, they needed to preserve the ability to take a right into
the neighborhood, as this is another important, heavily traveled, and safe entrance into the
community.
Mr. Swink said what they probably will not see a lot of (aside from visitors that are coming to visit
people they know in the community) are people traveling from Scottsville on Route 20, then taking
a left into the community. He said he thinks this is what they are sacrificing with the design, but
what they are preserving is the rural feel of the road and what people perceive to see their
backyard, property, and buffer. He said he thinks the impacts to people making U-turns on the
neighboring property and the impact on Avon Street may be a bit overstated, at least from what
he has seen in the traffic data and what he understands to know about residential development
versus commercial. He said they were open to any ideas, and that he and Mr. Collins would talk
after the meeting to try to clear as many hurdles as they can.
Mr. Swink asked Mr. Collins if he could address the question about trail materials, and how to
keep people from going off the trail and onto the neighbor's property. He said his suggestion
would be a concrete barricade at the end of each, but that he was open to ideas and suggestions.
Mr. Collins said the trailway would be an asphalt pathway, very similar to what was approved with
Galaxie Farm, in keeping with the rural characteristic and weaving it through the applicant's
proposed layered park along Route 20. He said it would tie into the north and south properties in
the right of way, so not impacting or requiring their property owners to make changes to their
properties in order to extend the trails if they ever developed. He said they want to make sure it
would tie in at grade without impacts to their properties, and they were able to do that much more
successfully with this proffer amendment, as opposed to the urban design from the original
rezoning.
Mr. Bivins asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak.
Mr. Roger Schickedantz (1858 Scottsville Road) said he is the neighbor immediately to the south
that had been mentioned several times that night. He said he agrees with everything that has
been said about his concern, and about the loss of considerable vegetation between his house
and Route 20, which serves as a buffer, and also the potential for a lot of regrading that would
remove a steep bank that is there now. He said he is fully behind this, and is happy that the
applicant has taken his comments and has tried to work with them.
Mr. Schickedantz said one thing he wanted to address that had not been talked about at all is
that his driveway is at the top of a hill of which Spring Hill Village's entrance is above. He said
when he leaves his driveway to turn left to go into Charlottesville, he has a blind turn into oncoming
traffic that is southbound. He said the VDOT plan that was in the original plan does not solve that.
He said it actually moves the southbound lane more acutely to his driveway without removing the
hill. He said it actually makes his entrance onto Route 20 more dangerous. He said two people
use that driveway, and they need to balance the two of them with the five additional cars on Avon.
Mr. Schickedantz said he was in favor of the amendment. He said he did have a couple of
reservations. He said he noticed there still seems to be some encouragement with the latest site
plan onto the right of way, and that he thinks this is being done because the pedestrian path (in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
order to stay at grade as it comes out to meet Route 20) requires quite a bit of cut on the
applicant's side. He said in order to bring it to the street, it looks like they are extending that cut
beyond the property line. He asked if this be avoided if possible, and if it cannot be avoided, that
there be some provision for either a retaining wall or a well -vegetated replacement that doesn't
have to be maintained in its place.
Mr. Schickedantz said he had another concern that came up in the staff report that talked about
there needing to be a 400-foot-long right turn lane to the property. He said it wasn't clear whether
that was a right turn off of Route 20 into the property, or from the property onto Route 20. He said
if it is the latter, he would have concerns that this may extend into the right of way in front of his
property, exacerbating the problem they are trying to alleviate.
Mr. T.J. Ronayne (1766 Scottsville Road) said he represents the property just to the north. He
said he was very excited to see the original approved development plan. He said he thought that
the increased number of lanes, allowing vehicles at 55 mph to properly decelerate and make their
turns, was a great benefit to the increased traffic. He said the reality is that he is not a traffic
engineer, so he cannot understand why the anticipated car usage is a quantity of five. He said he
does know that building 100 or more homes will have several hundred people migrating on Route
20 and Avon Street, so the increased traffic was obvious to him.
Mr. Ronayne said his biggest concerns relate to the Entrance Corridor (Route 20) being as safe
as possible. He said he thinks the original plan, having four lanes to the north and three lanes to
the south, give them more room for vehicular traffic, which will be increasing, and more room for
safe deceleration, using turn signals, and overall egress. He said he thinks going down to two
lanes with the increased traffic in the proposed amendment is not as safe, simply put.
Mr. Ronayne said he also feels as though everyone assumes that people will use Avon Street
when heading northbound towards Charlottesville and Spring Hill. He said there has been no
accommodation, however, for any sort of signage. He asked if people are supposed to inherently
know that they are not allowed to take a left off of Route 20. He asked if GPS will be able to handle
that. He said he tends to believe people will intuitively, by instinct, take the shortest, most direct,
and fastest egress possible. He said for all the houses that are lower grade, closer to Route 20,
he did not see how or why they will ever want to go up Avon Street uphill, then traverse back
down.
Mr. Ronayne said the reality of the situation is that no matter what anyone can say, people coming
on Route 20 who don't know they can't take a left will turn around on the next property, and this
is his property adjacent to the north. He said they have three tenants there currently, and vendors
coming and going. He said it is a Light Industrial property, and to have traffic be impeded by
people attempting to take a U-turn right in front, he feels this is a major safety liability and issue.
Mr. Ronayne said this was his primary concern. He said he had no comment on the path, and
that he thinks it looks great. He said to assume that people will inherently know they have to take
a left on Avon Street without any viewshed of Spring Hill whatsoever is very nearsighted and not
applicable in the real world. He said there are only two entrances to it: Avon and Route 20. He
said to limit a single direction of traffic at one of two entrances seems very unsafe, and that he
did not see the benefit to it.
Mr. Bivins invited the applicant to respond.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Swink said to address the first concern he heard, it sounded as if there was a concern about
the grading and how this will be handled where their property starts and where the neighbor's
property starts within the right of way. He said to the extent that they are permitted by VDOT to
put a retaining wall on the property, he was certainly open to it, and would have to defer to Mr.
Collins and VDOT on what is permitted within that right of way and what they could do to soften
the grade. He said according to the plan, 4-6 feet of a slope from where their grade ties in and
then the neighbor's goes up hill quickly. He said his response is that they are willing to do it, but
he needs to understand the ability to engineer and permit it.
Mr. Swink said the second concern he heard was around people coming from Scottsville towards
their development (either visitors, or people who live in the community who went to Scottsville for
the day) using the neighboring property as a turnaround. He said his gut instinct is that there will
not be too many people (outside of visitors to the residential property) that are coming from
Scottsville, especially at full buildout when people will become familiar with the traffic pattern in
the area.
Mr. Swink said in a residential neighborhood, at full buildout, there are people who live there and
people who visit people they know who live within that community, which is 99% of the traffic. He
said of that cross-section, a very small percentage of it is people coming from Scottsville to Spring
Hill, versus people coming from Charlottesville. He said he thinks the traffic pattern is heavily
weighted in the opposite direction. He said he also thinks that over time, residential visitors or
owners will become familiar with their traffic pattern in an area.
Mr. Swink said the largest impact will be felt during the times they are developing, and also as
they are getting to full buildout. He said he has taken some steps with Mr. Ronayne offline to limit
their contractors using his property as a turnaround. He said they had some problems in the initial
month or so of development with some truck drivers that were pulling in and blocking the entrance.
He said they put some things into place, including a cash escrow and a per -occurrence fine, that
stopped all the infractions, to his knowledge. He said they will continue that throughout the
buildout phase. He said his thoughts will prove true as they have people living there and as people
become familiar with it.
Mr. Collins said with regard to the grading, the grading for the trailway along the southern property
line at Mr. Schickedantz's property ties in. He said they graded the trail up about 2 feet there so
that they do not need retaining walls or any other major impacts to this property. He said it ties in
well, and one can see the grading on the application plan. He said there is no need for impacts in
front of this property with the trail, as currently designed. He said it is much better than the original
trail design.
Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for
discussion.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Moore what the status of Route 20 is from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., based
on VDOT's traffic study of the road. He asked what Mr. Moore would label its condition as being
e.g. an " " or a "D— ").
Mr. Moore replied that the issues they see on Route 20 are closer to Route 53. He said he does
not believe that there are many through traffic delays at this location. He said they would run into
delays at the Route 53 intersection where the proposed Smart Scale project is. He said he has
not heard a lot of complaints about the condition or length of the left turn lane onto Avon Street.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Randolph said he agreed with that, and that he was talking about the area further north, at
the intersection with Mill Creek. He said there are occasions where traffic is backed up from that
traffic light all the way back down on Route 20, in the morning, as traffic moves towards
Charlottesville. He said he was trying to establish the actual classification of Route 20 at the
intersection of Mill Creek and that of Route 53. He said they know that at Route 53, it is an "F,"
which is part of the reason why the Smart Scale project is proposed. He said at the intersection
with Mill Creek, it has to be a "D" (if not an "F" ).
Mr. Moore said it very well may be, and that he did not have a recent classification. He said his
most current information comes from following the associated traffic studies, and that he did not
have a recent one for that intersection. He said perhaps there is something about this as part of
the Route 53 study, but that he did not have this in front of him.
Mr. Randolph said most of that study has been southern [inaudible] than getting on Route 53, and
then Route 53 traffic coming down in the morning, making a right-hand turn, then getting on Route
20 and moving to Charlottesville. He said what he was talking about was the dynamic of traffic
moving from the south, coming to the north, and going through this intersection.
Mr. Randolph said his observation, as having driven through there repeatedly as Supervisor,
going down to the Town of Scottsville is that between those hours of 7:30 a.m. to about 8:45 a.m.,
it is oftentimes gridlock. He said there is an issue he needs to bring up to Mr. Swink and Mr.
Collins. He said the reality is that drivers, knowing they will be facing a traffic delay, will do
irrational things. He said this is what Ms. More was getting at earlier in terms of irrational driving
behavior. He said people are concerned about being stuck in traffic, and they want to be able to
get to work on time, or they have a meeting, for instance.
Mr. Randolph said the reality is that this proposal now has a "Y" intersection with the nameless
road coming out of Spring Hill Village onto Route 20, which makes it difficult for someone to make
a left-hand turn in moving north on Route 20, then going through Spring Hill Village and accessing
Avon Street to go down to the City that way. He said the applicant has precluded that capability.
Mr. Randolph said all he was saying was why not provide for the same preclusion of that capability
at the neighboring property to the north so there is no way that anyone can just pull into Gropen,
then turn around. He said if it is not a "Y" intersection, they could put some kind of barrier there to
make it difficult for a vehicle to turn around at the entrance, in terms of being a good neighbor. He
said the reality is that in a rational world, he agrees that perhaps there will only be five cars that
go north and will thereby need to access Spring Hill Village from the south. He said the reality is
that, especially when people are choked with traffic, they will do irrational things and will turn
around in people's driveways. He said they just need to be prepared from the outset.
Mr. Randolph said it seemed to him, given how much money the developers are saving by not
having to put in a vast road improvement that they would be doing otherwise, that it would be
cost-effective to make sure that a neighbor is happy and that they have good traffic management
on this corridor.
Mr. Randolph said he was concerned, however, that the default road of choice is now to put more
traffic onto Avon Street Extended because the effort there, with the Avon Street Corridor, is to try
to look at managing traffic and reducing traffic speed. He said the more traffic there is there, the
greater incentive there is for people to speed, despite the fact that they will be having a crosswalk
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
at Cale, and that they have looked at a roundabout at the intersection of Mill Creek and Avon
Street Extended.
Mr. Randolph said to him, it seems reasonable to look after this neighbor and try to ensure there
will not be a way in which people could do U-turns. He said they have to expect irrational behavior,
and they need signage that says, "No U-turns." He said they will need something to be physically
put in at the Gropen entrance that will preclude the ability of people to quickly turn around and
then go south because traffic is backed up.
Mr. Keller said he was curious about what the cost savings between the two proposals (less the
improved trail) would be, in terms of round figures.
Mr. Swink said he was not 100% sure. He said he has contracted it with the approved road plan,
so his intention is to spend whatever they contracted it for. He said he did not count on these
things being approved until they are approved and until they have site plan amendments in place.
He said his instinct was that it was probably $80,000-100,000 for not building the left turn lane.
He said once the contractor has their hands in their pockets, it's hard to [inaudible].
Mr. Swink said to address Mr. Randolph, he was happy to work with Mr. Ronayne on signage. He
said it was not the cost of things that would preclude him from working to find a solution. He said
what he wanted to make sure he didn't prohibit was people who are trying to access his property
from making a left-hand turn. He said his only concern (which he was sure was Mr. Ronayne's as
well) was that he didn't want to do anything that will interrupt his business efforts more than the
development already has.
Mr. Bailey said he wanted to try to understand from staff first, and then some of the rationale. He
said he recognized that when looking at the existing area, it is reasonable to expect perhaps five
cars turning in there. He said even though it is a smaller commercial center, it is located
predominantly on the Scottsville Road side and not on the Avon Street side, so there is potential
for GPS. He said when he looks at the Comprehensive Plan, then forecasting out the constant
requests they get about where the next developments are coming, that this area is marked as a
Development Area. He said it seems like it would be under pressure.
Mr. Bailey said right now, there is a lot of empty land south of here that could be ripe for growing
that is somewhat in the Development Area or adjacent to it. He asked staff if it is reasonable to
expect that, as this grows, it will still be five cars to this commercial center that is predominantly
located on Avon Street. He asked if they should assume that the development, as it is zoned as
now, will keep the density likely the same. He asked staff if they could walk him through what the
Development Area plan is there now, and what that might mean for the commercial center that is
proposed being on the Avon Street and now, eliminating a left-hand turn as more people start to
live south of this development.
Mr. Randolph asked Ms. Kanellopolous if she had a map showing the Development Area.
Ms. Kanellopolous said she could pull this up. She presented the map, noting that Spring Hill
Village is the parcel selected in brown. She said the Rural Area was all outside of a gray line, and
indicated to the Southern and Western Urban Development Area. She said she thinks the
applicant covered part of this as well. She said they were allowed up to 60,000 square feet of
nonresidential uses with this development, but the minimum is 10,000 square feet. She said she
was not sure exactly how much they were planning to build, given that the site plan staff has right
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
now is only for the 100 units. She said they cannot go above 100 dwelling units, so they are
building the maximum there.
Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant reserved an area in the bottom right corner of the site plan
for the commercial use. She said based on the area shown on the site plan, it would be
significantly less than 60,000 square feet.
Ms. Kanellopolous said offhand, she was not exactly sure what other types of developments could
happen in that area. She indicated on the map to an area designated as greenspace and Biscuit
Run Park, and to another area that was rural. She said Avon Park has a Phase 2 that is working
on developing, but coming from the south, she did not see significant future development anytime
soon.
Mr. Bailey said this was helpful. He said it is good to know what the future development could be
on the southern side, given there is money being spent on infrastructure. He said it seems to be
a desirable place to live and has very much expanded in the last five years with the amount of
housing going in there. He said Ms. Kanellopolous had answered his question, that it was not
projected to be anytime soon to increase neighborhood load.
Mr. Bailey said to him, this would be a much easier slam dunk if the commercial was located on
Avon, but if the GPS routes someone around and they get there, they are going to take a left-
hand turn into commercial as opposed to driving all the way through the neighborhood to get to a
commercial area.
Mr. Keller said just as the Commission has talked about recently with a number of projects, VDOT,
the Transportation Planners, and Planners find themselves in a heck of a situation. He said while
they do not know when the project will begin and will start having an impact, they all know that
Belmont Bridge rework is going to be coming online. He said they know that the Route 250 East
work between Shadwell and Pantops at the 1-64 interchange will be coming online.
Mr. Keller said in terms of short-term, he hypothesizes there will be significantly increased traffic
coming onto Route 20, both south of Route 53 and from Route 53 coming in, because of the
number of people who work in the Charlottesville community who are coming from the east and
the south that will change their short-term movement into town with those two construction
projects.
Mr. Keller said they know there is a significant project (which perhaps Mr. Randolph could speak
to) which is proposed for the outer edge of Scottsville that, as he understands, would significantly
increase the number of residents over time in that Scottsville area.
Mr. Keller said when looking at the Development Area and in talking about the buildout, PVCC is
able to move their land for development that they have talked about when they get the changes
at the State level (or perhaps they will not), and that this is north of this project.
Mr. Keller said he still thinks there will be a significant increase in population and therefore, a
significant increase in movement unless, out of COVID, they find a very different workplace
environment. He said historically, a number of the people coming from the south and from the
east are in the employment categories that they will still need to come into work.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Keller said just as they have talked with the Rio Road Corridor, and with Route 250 East and
West, there could be significant increases in the number of people who are coming from the south.
He said the same question applies as to if a number of them will be looking for alternative ways
to circulate into town. He said it is a statement and not a question, but he thinks that just as the
public has asked the County to think about future increases in those other corridors, they need to
think about those changes also, and what are the by right developments along Route 20. He said
the map showed the parcels in the Rural Areas, and that there is a lot of by right development
potential there that are close to town and the Development Area that could, over time, increase
the population relatively soon.
Mr. Bivins said there had been a number of comments on traffic, about what life will be like on
that road coming from south of town, and about whether or not to anticipate that people will take
Avon Street (even after putting in roads at Biscuit Run). He said as Mr. Keller implied, that whole
area could have some significant attractions to it within the next decade, and the question is to
what they are looking at on this piece of property.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Kanellopolous to present the motions while the Commission continues to
talk.
Mr. Randolph said he would be inclined to recommend approval, but that he would really like
some conditions and commitments to address the Gropen entrance that would allow for business
to access Gropen where they need to legitimately, as well as other businesses located there, but
that can effectively deter individuals from driving north on Route 20 and with congested traffic,
doing a U-turn in the Gropen driveway and then proceeding to go south and making a turn into
Spring Hill Village, then cutting across to Avon Street Extended and proceeding into town.
Mr. Randolph said he would only give approval on the condition that there is a commitment to
working out a modus operandi with Gropen that is mutually satisfactory to both Stanley Martin
and to Gropen. He said he didn't see any reason why that couldn't be accomplished. He said this
is something that, by the time it gets to the Board level, the Board will be looking to have that
detail addressed. He said he thinks the Commission is actually helping this application along by
conditioning this as a requirement that this be worked out.
Mr. Randolph said he believes that they sufficiently addressed Mr. — Schickedantz's concern
about the grading on his property with the trail. He said he hopes that Mr. Schickedantz feels, as
Mr. Collins has proven in the past, that the applicant will be accommodating and willing to listen.
He said the proof is in the pudding here, that the applicant has dramatically changed this
application to accommodate Mr. Schickedantz's concerns and, at the same time, address the
reality that they have one -sixth of the overall nonresidential development that was originally
approved for the site.
Mr. Randolph said on that basis, he would be prepared to recommend approval. He said he could
not see denying approval on this application just because, in the future, they will probably see
traffic -related problems here. He said they will have traffic -related problems there, whether or not
Spring Hill Village goes in with 100 properties. He said this is just a reality.
Mr. Randolph said this is a property that the County has known was coming online for an extended
period of time. He said he believed he, Mr. Keller, and Ms. Firehock voted on this as members of
the Planning Commission back to 2014 or 2015. He said he would be prepared to recommend
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 22
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
approval, but with the condition that the entrance for Gropen is worked out so they have a means
for preventing people to do U-turns in their driveway.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Herrick if he could suggest a line to add to the motion.
Mr. Herrick said what he was understanding Mr. Randolph to say is that he would be prepared to
move to recommend approval of the ZMA with the changes outlined in the staff report, and upon
the condition that sufficient means are made to prevent U-turns at the neighboring property to the
north. He said he was trying to think of a way to put that in a condition, and was not sure what
else they could say.
Mr. Bivins said between Mr. Herrick's words and what Ms. Kanellopolous had just typed, the
motion might be in a place in which Mr. Randolph would feel comfortable moving forward with.
Ms. Kanellopolous asked Mr. Herrick if, since this was a ZMA, it was okay to use the word
condition" in the motion.
Mr. Herrick suggested saying, "With a recommendation."
Mr. Randolph moved to recommend approval of ZMA2020-00006 Spring Hill Village Proffer
Amendment with the changes outlined in the staff report, and with a recommendation that
sufficient means are made to prevent U-turns on the adjacent property to the north.
Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion.
Ms. Firehock asked if they could change the words, "means are made" to, "methods are
employed."
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Randolph if he would accept this amendment.
Mr. Randolph said he accepted.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Clayborne if he was fine with seconding this.
Mr. Clayborne replied yes.
Mr. Keller said he would support the motion. He said Mr. Randolph has made him move the way
he was inclined to go. He said he wondered, however, if the Transportation staff could stay until
New Business because at that point, he would like to talk about the transportation studies and
plans that are being talked about, and whether they need to have an entry corridor study that talks
about future land use changes and the impacts. He said they now see that Route 20 needs to go
in, along with Route 29 North, and Route 250 East and West, and he would like to have a brief
conversation about this.
Mr. Bivins asked if Mr. Moore and Mr. Butch could stay for a while longer.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins addressed the applicant and said they have heard from the Commission that they were
recommending moving forward, with the condition about having some dedicated interaction with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 23
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
their neighbors to the north. He said there also may have been some mention, given the change
in traffic conditions, of whether or not the location for their 10,000-square-foot commercial space
will work for them, which is something they may want to consider.
Committee Reports
Mr. Bivins said in spite of some of the comments about Lynchburg and Danville, it looks like
they will get a way to move people up and down Route 29 via bus ahead of the train, and that
there are some things coming along regarding trains in the future.
Mr. Keller said there was a CTAC meeting, and that it would be easier to send everyone the
minutes from that when they are available. He said they did have conversations about these
same issues that they may talk about under New Business.
Mr. Randolph said that (Albemarle Broadband Authority) is a dynamic environment right now,
and a lot is going on because a significant amount of money is coming in with the recognition of
the equity and economic development realities associated with broadband. He said they will
meet tomorrow and will probably go into closed session to discuss potential funding
opportunities to expand broadband, with a lot of focus on Southern Albemarle.
Mr. Clayborne said the Places29 joint CAC meeting will be Thursday. He said he plans to attend
that and will circle back with the Commission at the next meeting.
Mr. Bailey said he would be attending this as well, as it was a joint meeting with the Rio District.
Board of Supervisors Meeting Update
Mr. Rapp said there had been an eventful Board meeting on July 15. He said there was second
public hearing for the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) application for funds that
were required for submitting that application, which is for a variety of different housing
programs.
Mr. Rapp said the Board approved the Zoning Text Amendments for erosion protection design
standards, as recommended by the Commission about a month or so ago, including the
changes that the Commission had recommended.
Mr. Rapp said there were several hours of discussion on Yancey Lumber for the Special
Exceptions and other items associated with that property. He said the Board approved all of the
Planning Commission's recommendations, and they will be returning to discuss items
associated with the sorter and stacker as soon as some additional information and conditions
are worked out with the applicant. He said this will be revisited soon and that it was not officially
over yet.
Old/New Business
Mr. Rapp said they got the funding approved for the Rio Road Corridor Study, and will be
moving forward with that. He said the 29 North area is certainly worthy of a study sometime
soon as well, as they continue to see redevelopment and rezonings there of significant density.
He said they want to ensure that those improvements that were recently made with the 29
widening project stay intact and continue to operate successfully.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 24
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Rapp said as they start working on additional Master Plans and Small Area Plans, one thing
they would like to do is incorporate a component of that to do some of these corridor studies
within those areas and make sure that they are vetting the transportation components of each of
these plans, as they work them through, so that they are done in coordination with land use
decisions, as Mr. Keller mentioned. He said the two go hand in hand, and that even the Rio
Road Corridor Study will have a land use component to ensure they look at how future
development impacts that corridor and the system as a whole.
Mr. Rapp said this is something they are obviously seeing growing and needs to be addressed.
He said the studies do have a significant cost associated with them, so they will work through
them as best they can as areas are further planned and as Master Plans are updated.
Mr. Keller said he had three things, referencing back to CTAC and discussions with the
Culpeper office representative for VDOT. He said he thinks it is atrocious that they do not have
modern origin -destination studies of traffic in their corridors. He said he understands VDOT has
a contract with a group that is doing this work and is able to use this on certain projects.
Mr. Keller said he thinks that needs to be turned into a study that those in the community and
region, through the Planning District Commission, have an opportunity to see and understand
those things so they can look at real-time impacts of things such as Martha Jefferson Hospital
moving its location, and where the last data they saw was before it moved. He said they should
see the impacts of things such as the Belmont Bridge and various construction projects on each
of the corridors. He said he knows the data is there and that it is referenced on the throughway
of Charlottesville because of the improvements done with 29 North.
Mr. Keller said that from Mr. Mark Graham, in the past, they have had projections of the Rural
Area development. He said it seems that it was maintaining a standard number of units that
were happening annually. He said it would be interesting to see that and now with Mr. Bailey
and his GIS expertise, he might be interested in delving into this even more with Mr. Rapp, who
is new and has interest and experience in this as well. He said they can start looking by corridor.
Mr. Keller said if they see a significant development in Scottsville, for instance, they can use
those Rural figure projections just the way they have been using the Development Area
projections for change they have as part of the annual report that Mr. Rapp's predecessor was
involved in. He said he would be interesting to see those updated on an annual basis through
that report, just as they are seeing in the Development Areas.
Mr. Keller said they have had projections on what the by right developments are all over the
County. He said now, with GIS queries, they can begin to home this down to the corridors and
use the real data from what is happening on an annual basis to see what they can project over
5-10 years. He acknowledged that the economy and the significant societal changes could
impact it, but that he thinks some kind of data, in those ways, is important.
Mr. Keller said on Route 250 West, to not have the origin -destination studies when they were
looking at Breezy Hill, there were people from the community who were projecting the number
of people who were coming from Louisa and Fluvanna on Route 250. He said as he
understands it, with this new data collection that uses cellphone towers, this is not new
technology, but technology that has been used in certain sectors for a number of years and is
actually being used through a consultant with VDOT.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 25
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Keller said he would like the County to have much more relevant data of where people are
moving from and to, both within the County and from outside the County. He said in terms of
some of the issues about the five -car projection, they should take it from this to realistic figures
about what those numbers might be. He said they could have a much more realistic figure than
someone shooting a dart at a wall and coming up with five, for instance, in those U-turns. He
said it might not be accurate, but it would at least be based on more science than the County
has been using for a while.
Mr. Keller said he hoped that staff, at a level where they can have an impact, can think about
this. He encouraged them to speak with Mr. Bailey so he can later share some of his thoughts
about what they could be using in terms of more modern approaches to thinking about
movement within communities.
Mr. Bailey said he was happy to do this. He said in his day job, he deals with mobility and
cellphone data, which is much more widely available than it was two years ago. He said it is
changing fast, and he is happy to point staff to different people to talk to, if that is of interest.
Mr. Rapp said staff embraces technology and utilizing it to better inform their decisions. He said
he would be glad to look into whatever they can.
Mr. Moore said he was in the Railroad Transportation Advisory Committee that morning, and the
Planning District Commission mentioned in their work program that they are going to be looking
into a corridor study of 29 North coming from Greene into the Rural Area of Albemarle County.
He said they are starting that discussion in November. He said this was the only information he
had, and felt it was relevant to mention it now.
Mr. Bivins said he would like the Commission and staff to give some thought about how they
can engage with the schools about the property that they have proffered so that they have a
better idea about some of the development that is coming onto some of the major corridors, and
whether or not there are short-term or long-term solutions.
Mr. Bivins said they know, for instance, that Brookhill has proffered 60 or so acres on Berkmar
Drive, and that North Pointe has proffered an elementary or middle school within the
development there. He said with the new development that everyone likely saw in The Daily
Progress that day, there is the question about the impact of that.
Mr. Bivins said as the Commission has had to respond to new development, he wonders what
the impacts on the schools are. He said some of their conversation would have perhaps been
better informed if they knew the inventory of land that the School Board is sitting on. He said
that might be able to help advance some of those conversations because the about 60 or so
acres on Berkmar Drive could help to relocate some noneducational functions that are presently
on the Albemarle High School/Jack Jouett/Greer/Ivy campuses to someplace else, and then
create a new kind of campus.
Mr. Bivins said they are particularly seeing this pressure from his, Mr. Clayborne's, and Mr.
Bailey's jurisdictions about what they are doing with young people, and that it would be helpful
to have that conversation about land at some point, and what might the possibility be for schools
systems.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 26
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Mr. Bivins explained that transportation is something the Commission focuses on, but that they
also look at schools and where they will put people once they move there.
Mr. Rapp said staff could do that. He said in August, they will start getting back into work
sessions each month. He said as Mr. Clayborne mentioned, there was a 29 North CAC meeting
recently, and there was a discussion about a large rezoning in that immediate area that will
have an impact on the school system adjacent to Brookhill, Forest Lakes, and North Pointe.
Mr. Rapp said in addition to traffic, there is a significant impact on schools that is taking place
with these projects, and staff wants to get ahead of that as well.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was any other Old or New Business.
Mr. Randolph said he appreciated what Mr. Bailey sent out that day. He said he would like to
have a discussion about whether their flood standards are realistic, based on what they are
seeing environmentally. He said it was wonderful having the mapping function, and he wanted
to take it out to some constituents for them to see what the realities are that they don't want to
recognize -- not in an economic sense, but in an environmental sense.
Mr. Baileys said it is important because although FEMA and the Planning Commission might be
using those, insurers and underwriters are using those maps, which has an economic impact on
the County when things become uninsurable or unbuildable.
Adjournment
At 8:12 p.m., the Commission adjourned to August 4, 2020, Albemarle County Planning
Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting.
tf =W
Charles Rapp, Director of Planning
Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards, and
transcribed by Golden Transcription)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 08/04/2020
Initials: CSS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 27
FINAL MINUTES -July 21, 2020
Original Proffers ZMA2013-00017
Amendment YES
Spring Hill Village
PROFFER STATEMENT
Date: August 24, 2020
ZMA No. 2020-00006, Spring Hill Village
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TMP 09000-00-00-02800
Owner(s) of Record: Stanley Martin Companies, LLC
Project Address: 1776 Scottsville Road
Magisterial District: Scottsville
12.63 Acres to be rezoned from Neighborhood Model District(NMD)to Neighborhood
Model District (NMD)
The term "Owner" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record and
successors in interest. The"Application Plan," refers to the Application plan last revised August
21, 2020, prepared by Collins Engineering.
Pursuant to Section 33.22 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,the Owner hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is
rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These proffers are part of the requested rezoning
and the Owner and applicant specifically deem the following proffers reasonable and appropriate,
as conclusively evidenced by the signature(s) below.
1. Affordable Housing.
(The Affordable Housing Units will be provided in the form of for sale or rental units.) The
community could have as few as 80 units and as many as 100 dwelling units. The Owner
shall provide 15%of the dwelling units constructed as "Affordable Housing Units"within
the Project in the form of 2 or 3 story townhomes.
The Albemarle County affordable housing policy defines affordable housing as the following:
Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do
not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include
principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for
tenants shall be tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances for
utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to
the forty percent of the County population that have household income at or below 80% of
the area median income. For 2003, the maximum affordable home purchase (80% median
income) would be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities)for tenants
would be $787(50% median income.)
Each Affordable Housing Unit shall be located on a single lot.The Owner shall have offered
for rent or sale as provided herein each Affordable Housing Unit within the project.The
Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the Affordable Housing unites to the
subsequent owners of lots designated affordable on the site plans or plats.
A. Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for-rent Affordable Housing Unit shall
not exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by
the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net
rent for each for-rent Affordable Housing Unit may be increased up to three
percent (3%). For purpose of this proffer statement,the term"net-rent"means
that the rent does no include tenant-paid utilities. The requirement that the rents
for such for-rent Affordable Housing Units may not exceed the maximum rents
established in this paragraph shall apply for a period often (10)years following
the date he certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent
Affordable Housing Unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units
qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority,
Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8,
whichever comes first (the"Affordable Term".) The Owner of each Affordable
Housing Unit shall, at the request of the Albemarle County Office of Housing,
provide written reports documenting rental rates and occupancies of the
affordable units.
B. For Sale.All purchasers of for-sale Affordable Housing Units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide
the County or its designee 180 days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible
purchaser for the Affordable Housing Units. The 180-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 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the
certification of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a
qualified purchaser during this period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the
units without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser. If these units
are sold, this proffer shall apply to the first sale of each unit. The maximum sales
price for Affordable Housing Units (65% of VHDA's Maximum Sales Price for
First-time Homebuyers.) The calculation currently put the maximum sale price
for Affordable Housing units at$211,250.
C. Conveyance of Interest.All deeds conveying any interest in the for-rent Affordable
Housing Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language
reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph 1. In addition, all
contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent Affordable Housing Unit, or
any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full
disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by paragraph 1A. At least
thirty(30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable
unit during the Affordable Term,the then current owner shall notify the County in
writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address, and telephone number
of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 1C have
been satisfied.
2. Cash Proffers for Residential Units. Beginning with the thirteenth residential unit for
which a building permit is obtained,the Owner shall contribute cash for each new
residential unit that is not classified as an Affordable Housing Unit. The cash contribution
shall be for the purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of development on the County's
public facilities and infrastructure, i.e. schools, public safety,libraries, parks, and
transportation. The cash contribution shall be Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and
57/100 dollars ($20,460.57) cash for each new single-family detached dwelling unit. The
cash contribution shall be Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and 18/100 dollars
($13,913.18) cash for each single family attached or townhouse dwelling unit. The cash
contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each
new unit in order to be consistent with current state law.
Beginning January 1, 2015,the amount of the cash contribution required by this proffer
shall be adjusted annually until paid,to reflect any increase or decrease for the proceeding
calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index("MSI".) In no event shall any
cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by
this proffer. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash
contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be
the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which
shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently
ended.
3. Over Lot Grading. The owner shall submit an over-lot grading plan (hereinafter the
"Plan") meeting the requirements of this paragraph 3 with the application for each
subdivision phase of this paragraph 3 with the application for each subdivision phase of the
Property. The plan shall show existing and proposed topographic features. The Plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer prior to approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control
plan. No building permit shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer
has determined the lot grading in not consistent with the approved Plan. The plan shall
satisfy the following:
a. The Plan shall show all proposed streets,building sites, setbacks, surface drainage,
driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify
that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
b. The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than (1)inch equals fifty(50) feet.
c. All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2)feet.
All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed
grading. All proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface drainage can
provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
d. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one(1) foot of vertical rise or fall
(3:1.) Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined
to be appropriate by the County's program authority in its approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not
exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1)foot of vertical
rise or fall unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for
steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
e. Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm
sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
f. No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half(1/2) acre of
land drainage to it.
g. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond
the rear of the building site.
h. The plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if
it is less than ten (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street,has grades
no steeper that ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not
be served by a stairway. This area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways
or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street.
i. Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by submitting a request for special
exception with the over-lot grading plan. If such a request is made, it shall include a
justification for the request containing a valid professional seal from a Professional
Engineer, Landscape Architect or Land Surveyor. In reviewing a waiver request, the
County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies
the purpose of the requirement to be waived to a at least an equivalent degree.
j. In the event that the County adopts over-lot grading regulations after the date this
proffer is approved, any requirement of those regulation that is less restrictive than any
requirement of this proffer shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this
proffer, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.
4. Improvements to Scottsville Rd and Avon Extended
At its sole expense, the Owner must plan, design,bond and construct the improvements
shown on the County approved engineering drawings titled Spring Hill Village—Application
Plan, sheet 1 dated 8.21.20 as prepared by Collins Engineering, for both Scottsville Road
and Avon Extended. The improvements must be designed and constructed to the County
and VDOT standards, including the design and construction of the related drainage, slope
and utility easements as appliable. The improvements along Avon Extended must have been
completed and approved by VDOT and the County prior to the first certificate of occupancy
for any structure on the Property, and the improvements along Route 20 must have been (i)
approved and bonded prior to the first certificate of occupancy, and (ii) completed and
approved by VDOT and the County prior to the 30th certificate of occupancy. As part of this
process,the dedication to public use must have been completed before the 30th certificate of
occupancy may be issued. The improvements will be deemed complete when they are
accepted into the secondary system of highways or when the County Engineer determines
that the roadway is safe and convenient for travel.
This document shall supersede all other agreements,proffers, or conditions that may be found
to be in conflict. These proffers shall be binding to the property,which means the proffers shall
be transferred to all future property successors of the land.
OWNERS) of Tax Map Parcel 09000-00-00-02800
By:
By:
Stanley Martin Companies, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (Contract Purchaser)
By: /7?
_..._
Jeremy W. Swink,Vice
rPresident, Land — Charlottesville and Richmond Divisions
Date: �.1 0 `T.. a d Z P _._
TH 0
DENSITY TABLE AMENITY& GREEN SPACE CALCULATIONS NOTE: THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY SHALL BE `1 0� �
LOCATED WITHIN A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT I / \ G11
TOTAL SITE AREA AFTER R.O.W. DEDICATION ON ROUTE 2oAND AVONSTREET EXTENDED =1z.94AC AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BYTHE HOA. / j �) / 1_/ \ SCOTT R. LINS�Z
/ NAME SIZE PHASE MIN. MAX. MIN. MAX -
BLOCK A o.6 AC 23 01 12 02 6oK SF AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENT ACRE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT ACRE DI 1 I �Lic. No. 035791�
BLOCK B 1. AC 1 0 8 02 6oK SF ,`✓ i /! Ca 08/21/20 w
4 4 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE iz.94 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 1z.94 ° d /
BLOCK C 3.3 AC 1 01 30 02 60K SF AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENT x20% GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT x20% — hA g� y` j I j j q SIONAL E��l
BLOCK D 4.6 AC 1 14 40 0 0 AMENITY SPACE REQUIRED z.59 GREEN SPACE REQUIRED z.59 SEE TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS SHEET FOR THE al
BLOCK E 1.2 AC 1 8 16 0 0 ° �o , / h° RQAD CROSS DESIGN FOR EACH STREET, AS i I
/ BLOCK F o.6 AC 1 6 16 0 0 AMENITY SPACE PROVIDED 2.8 GREEN SPACE PROVIDED SI OWN ON THE APPLICATION PLAN w
4 II
BLOCK 1.3AC 1 4 12 0 0 vvvvvvvvvvvvIvvvvli I // AMENITY SPACE 2.84
I
/ PRESUMES DEVELOPMENT AS NON-RESIDENTIAL USE � \ \\` \III I Ili 11 11 PLUS L GREEN
NON AMENITY, OPEN GREEN SPACE 0.78 // / / ,/ L z
2 1v I 1 11j111 111 11 1 / TOTAL GREEN SPACE 3.62*
A MIN.1o,o0o SF OF NON RESIDENTIAL IS BEING PROFFERED FOR SPRING HILL VILLAGE j I I I I I I I I / /AMENITY ADDITIONAL APPROVO OFFSITE
3A PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 2 BLOCKS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE IIII I I I I I I II 1111 F7SPACE i OPEN SPACE / �,,
*DOES NOT INCLUDE QUALIFYING GREEN SPACE ON LOTS OR IN R/W / SANITARY SEWER m w
//Il/I /l//IIII / / (GREEN) z "'
I � 1 SITE CONSTRUCTION / // / / ) (CURRENTLY UNDER I I I I ¢ z cl�
K
CONSTRUCTION) w U
LL a
/ o 0
7�r4
l � / / /ii%/ // / / j/ / / / / / / / / / / // 1 � � A V l I •� � I � V �
v -64 \ �- // // i i // / / // / / / / / / / / / /' /^ v v---XISTIN� OVER�fEARs O in
POWER LINES TOBE z o w
ADDITIONAL OPENRELOCATEDo u g/ / / / / / / / / / \ \ /INNER-CONNECTIVITYTO/ADJACENT RROPERTY U DERGROUND z"'GREEN SPACE (0.57 ACRES) / % i /// / // // / / / / / / / / \ \ ` sza \ o
$/(R !ET CROSS/ / / \ \ < 'TO I6V+IIE 65EAP/ // // / // / / / / / / / / A BEY CRO \ x z
�3, +9tEAw Z o
// — 630 / o / / / / / / FOR F\L1fURE CONNEETiON / a c2
EXISTINGIOVERHE{kD _ / P � N � / / / / // / / / �✓ / / / SECTIOOJV'r ` \
\ POWEI2LIYlESTOREMAIN 1 /' /' - ;,- / / // / / / / /SE ION / // / // / / ,-- \ \ \ \___ - r O u z I
X \ Pk POSEDLOCATONO `n g I w
-
\V.. d ¢
/ / / / ' UNDERGROUND POWER z zo z o
/ I 1 n+ o 1z+00 s 3 ,., 3 s 14 s s s s 16+oo s �, --
1z+o 1+00 1+0 +o i+oo 1+0 16+0 000 in Q a z
.10+ o s H V l—, U z
--f--1--�- °o 5 - --2a- -� -�— ----�- --� �- 1 / w O g
+-- ---- --I - +--- PRIVATEALLE
LLJ
PRIVATE�STREET = 53$ r ! W � Q Q z
EiP u o
I I I I I A
\ ARE
-----� I � h .i i _ a
EN SPACE A '. - A: ' / v v v v z c�
` AAA r"\: I / v v `v v W A V A\ \ V 7 / A \ sw I O¢ J
v� 1 �} ` v v H \ V A v _ o PROPOSED 8 ASPHALT p a
v v ACRES)'�s:"1 � � v v v SECTION > � v` w a
V v v �I v v BL��11 Oi Q v -+ _v v v PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY Ln¢
\ \ \ ROAD\CI�O S 1 .1 \ a \ \ \ \ \ ` \ — U, \ ` \ m w w
\ 1 :1 Ig \ \ s ` 3.� AC` sB \ \ \ ALLEY \ ---' `\ \ v v s o v V -i v V v v REA OF R.O.W. cc m
\ \ I \ \ \ U(TICVN 1 - r a:: \ \ ` ` \ o. �� \ `� \ \ \ \ \ uo, \ \ I A Z ` \ [n
\ �,j `V A �� �� \ $ CTIOisI G \\ o 'kD - - m y ii/ BOOK \ ' �� I DEDICATION >
\AREA d R.O.W. I \• \ ` ROAD C SS r /, \ a
awC
yDEDICATION �� \ \ \ \ D \
\\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ SECTIONA / �Q \
\ o , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '•\ ` \ � \ � � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --/ m \ Q �' \ � PROP �Ep RIGHT TURN LANE-
\ o \ \ a \ \ 1 ` ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ FINALDIE IGN OF TURN LANE/
\ r
TAPER. ISRLITTER ISLAND, AND
_-- - INTERSECTION TO BE DETERMINED
+ \ \ \ \ \ \ DURI G TIRE SITE PLAN APPROVAL
x• AMENITY AREA: oo+Si os+sc o uo+a= / H N
_---i ---- +9� DAUPbbIRdD ` R�P � T\IN� PROCESS
— _ — _oS I+Li i8+oo \ \ POCKET PARK #3 ,5° / —PROPOSED VAR. WIDTHIPUBLIC STREET —i- os+ z 14 /' T ANY ��#T Ih�E�T� N o 0 0
PROPOSE LOCATIONOF DOG , -A ---�a� v CONCRETE&GRASS w
ROAD CI�p$ A 0.19 ACRES \ \ - °. ,, \ MEDIAN & SPUTTER a N N N UNDERGRUI� POWER \O ( ) ` ° 6r
SETI N .� \ - - - �- IDI ISLAND o 0 0
.9 I
Iv
•.\ \ \ �'"•'o..."`•�:'\ \. �"•.;;;.;:::':.'f �♦♦ oS+oz zz+oo zi+gz
\ \ \ o
`\ \ \ \\ / / j I \ \ \ 11 \ \ \ � \ \ � \� \ 1" 1 1 \ \ \ 1 II I I I I I '-1.,"••�::.1:. ;I •:7: F"�:\ : /:: )� '--(� �
\ E1XISTICIG%VER EAQ o,0
\ POW€RLINF<S TO BE\\\�
\ 12ELOCATED \ M / / / /:'; •/:::'/ ,,.. r /;.. so �.. 1-� a N L.L
\ UNDERGROUND \ /.:. Q r`. D ROS$ \ F,
\\\ �LOC4 EI / ::."I;'::I:.'-f" / I / f::: ./ .. :/; „ YARk woes
\ 1.1 AC - - ° P 1 �\ M
z
I 1 I I : ?,. :.I: ! i' '. / / / / / / I �" �i::: I t� ,z : ; ! � _ Su ° CTION El
'., _ � f::' • I I R PAR � h." \ i
\ \ \\ \ 1 \ \ \ \\\\\ r _/ I / / / / / // / / ,.. / / , � / / / / / / °i„I :::1'•:. s" '� �?'•/::"��"'.: I I I ) I I I 1 N
\ \ \ \ 1 \ \\ � / / / / / �,/ � - / / / / / ..'1•:.•: I ., \ is y".":'•✓. \. i,; I I I I-• I � � O
\ \ \ PROPOSED 10 AS1R
\ \ PEDSTRI\f1N PA HV1%AT\\ Y / // / // \` olr I�LOC� I µ
O\\ o
:40
K� F \\ � � V .: A " w� � � 'AMENITY AREA _ � n, I �f I � ,
\ \ \ \ \ \ WI hil> S \ I \ , \ - COMMUNITYPAAk (. A \ D W 1- 4 Q
o / I I ..
V A V A VA A \ l •L': '
\ v A \ V A \ v V A VA Nj� A\+\'"• I I I I A � /// � r-�� I I s I v
��L
fu(1.ODACRES) K UZ) 8'IASPH;vv .vv _SEC_ K)N-B,,.� j v� v �;>,. _ -- - �_ PEDESTRIAN VAIHWA(� - c uP Phone U
v vLU
G v v.:'�•...v v v „�:r .. Pole
+� PROPOSED LOCATION OF Q m
UNDERGROUND POWER
A A J
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
AMENITY AREA: v.�.' �� '� \ V A � •�':v v \ I / � � I `vDETENTION FACILITY I
y v v 1 CKETPARK#4iROSS U
\ f o ° �..
\ y E RANCE PARK • � o s \ BLOCK U \ N C \
0. 4ACRE5 \ i -1.:'. q: I I \ _ v A
/
�; ��\ .� \\ '
I 4.5 AC Q
•'L: �� � U
\ \ \ 8 LO G
v v v vv� v v vv ROA CROSS ° - i � I —I
SECTION B \
\ ' 1 I ♦ I I 1 / I I \ 1 1 / I / EXISTING OVERHEAD > 0-
POWER LINES TO BE � Q i
RELOCATED W
:.
r- A I
1" " • f: ' "- "'' I � UNDERGROUND \ I W
V A 1 1 A V A\ I v V A A A A : .:•" 4 I �
V A \ \ 1 AAe A V 1 '.. "• 1 �" I 1 I \ ogf I 1 1•
A� 'zr� t •: =r � I
\ \ \ I \ \ \ \\\ / y \ \ 1 \ \ \ ,.1..':'"•. 1., l ' F ..1 I I I z_-- - % .. �•- i I I � �1
j A A \\\AAV A VA �:'•" i I:l'. j o+ o s
\� \�A\ �\ r: •.':I� j :: G 1I;,:II::;: o os+tx oo+ii os+oi - 00 �s
1 I I 1 I I ,. i OO�OL 1 �
1 � W
�I/ vv :::f'•":;:C::.'1- ,I AiMENITY�REAI.,;,. % %� j
/ Y r.. 1,.,; I POCKEIPP\RK#Z.::,•I.::. / /' // _ '`CD
V v / P y POS D LOCATJON�OF • :." E F / PROPOSED ENTRANCE
�� ..:�::::I;:.1:: GREENpNAYPARk;�,;;.1:.;":;I' --ass LL
1 \ N ROUND POWER : ; ; • . 0.85 ACRES • : F :. I / / b 50 -I CORRIDOR LANDSCAPING O
LANDSCAPED 1;:/•:::1 I I•:::. I / ALONG ROUTE
o �BUFFER AREAI "I:;"•:�; f G:::b:;•. 1:' / //0 CD
OPEN SPACEB I 'i?1 1.""•.1:'"��';-::p:�: F:::.. � V / / / / / / / � I I � / t � V �
ffXlSf)NCpO�/ERHEAD //
POWEPjLI N ES TO BE :L':':.f:' :I:.-F::--b':: _�� A ..,�..,. V
.:'•l.'::i"�.' :�:'� •• - "G.':�..,�_�-:--,--�- a__� \ II / PROPOSED LOCATIONOF
RELOCATED :�: ' ::,' \ . ; .: ; --i--- \-------1----- UNDERGROUND POWER
m f-------------- -----I / n
l \ \ UND iiROyJND o ' "----- L------ ------ F
° v A AREA CF R. W. I ------- v . , x
V V A 1 I I � f 1 I ?'
/ dEDICATI�N o
PLAfWTINCa & M INTENANCE ffASEMENT IN OCK \ I I I v VV I 1 0 �` � I - � JOB NO.
i E LA v A Q I \ v v v --- - -
D TO BE PROVIDED FO PERIMETER NDSCAPi G f
\ \ \ \R PHIC ALF \ \ 182157
ADJACENT tO PROPERTY BOUNDARY v V v v v
V A v A A 40 0\ 2a A\ ab eQ v �� v eo �� /� _--- SCALE
EXISTING OVERHEAD I V v v 11
PROPOSED V HIGHO�:1 - 40' POWER LINES TO REMAIN COLOR: NATURAL COLOR/ sr+eEr o.
v \ V ( �N E\ET ) v ` v �� v v �'�
I I I I l I I 1 � V A A 1 inch = 410 ft.