Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200900006 Staff Report 2009-09-09 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: SP2009—06 Kenridge September 9, 2009 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION: X INFORMATION: Amendment to SP2004-52 to change the plan approved with the special use permit. Modification CONSENT AGENDA: consists of revised location of access road and ACTION: INFORMATION: parking for the office building and the elimination of one of the single family attached units. Approved residential use remains unchanged ATTACHMENTS: YES STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: NO BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2009,the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Kenridge special use permit amendment request.The Commission, by a vote of 4.0, recommended approval of conditions with revisions to the conceptual plan referenced in the conditions. (See Action Letter) DISCUSSION: In the attached Planning Commission staff report, staff noted that the applicant should make minor revisions to the plan to include. labeling of the setback lines, location of the railroad and, the housing types. These features were shown on the original plan, approved as part of SP2004-52. As recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, the applicant has satisfactorily made the revisions to the plan and staff has modified condition number one to accurately reference the plan. (Attachments II and III) RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of Special Use Permit 2009-06 with the revised conceptual plan and conditions ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated July 21, 2009 Attachment II. Revised plan, dated August 24, 2009 Attachment III. Recommended Kenridge Conditions SP 2009-006 BOS September 9, 2009 Executive Summary Page 1 Recommended Kenridqe Conditions (Board of Supervisors Public Hearing-September 9,2009) 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering McKee Carson, revision date June 16, 2005 August 25, 2009("Conceptual Plan"). (See Attachment) Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required; 2 There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy five (275) feet between the southern-most structure (the "Main House") and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan; 3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG; 4 The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28; 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows. (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community Development; and (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand. 6 Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight(8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development; 7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner; 8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development; 9. Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See Attachment C); 10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate, 11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect. (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone; 12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subdivision plats; 13 The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state. "The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site."Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250; 14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner; 15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust Fund] The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution, 16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and 17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. ���pFAALg�, 8 I `jRGo-t- ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Proposal: SP 2009-006 Kenridge Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be July 21, 2009 determined. Owners' Kenridge, LLC Applicant: Kenridge, LLC Acreage. Approximately 2.06 acres Special Use Permit for: Residential R-15 by special use permit in CO, Commercial Office districts. TMP.TM: 60K P: 61 &A2 By-right use: CO, Commercial Office-offices, supporting commercial and service uses, and Location: Route 250 West across from residential use by special use permit - 15 Birdwood Golf Course (Attachments A& B) units/acre; Section 23 2 2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre of the Zoning Ordinance,which allow for residential uses. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions:Yes EC:Yes Proposal:Amendment to SP2004-52 to Approved#of Dwellings: 67 change the plan approved with the special use permit. Modification consists of revised location of access road and parking for the office building and the elimination of one of the single family attached units Approved residential use remains unchanged. (Attachment C) DA(Development Area) Neighborhood 7 Comp. Plan Designation: Office Service- office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6 01-34 units/acre)and Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density(5 unit/acre in development lots). Character of Property: This development is Use of Surrounding Properties: Single and currently under construction. Kenridge is made multi-family residences, office uses, Birdwood up primarily of newly constructed single family Golf course is located across the street. residences.The original manor house remains as a single family residence along with the original carriage house which provides an office use on the site Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1 The factors supporting approval of the None original special use permit have not changed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-006, Kenridge provided the applicant makes minor revisions to the plan. ] Kenridge PC Public Hearing 7/21/09 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: July 21, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SP2009-006: KENRIDGE Petition: PROJECT: SP200900006 Kenridge PROPOSED: Amendment to SP2004-52 to change the plan approved with the special use permit. Modification consists of revised location for access road and parking for the commercial building and the elimination of one of the single family attached units. Approved uses remain unchanged. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) SECTION: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course) Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K-61 & 60K-A2 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller Character of the Area and Adjoining properties: Kenridge is currently under construction. This development is primarily made up of newly constructed residential units with the exception of the existing manor house, which is a single family residence, and a carriage house used for office purposes. Adjacent to the site on the east is the White Gables residential development which is also currently under construction and on the west side of Kenridge is a single family residence and business. The Birdwood Golf Course is located to the south and across Route 250. A rail line for the CSX railway is at the rear of the site. Specifics of Proposal: The applicant would like approval for a change in the location of the access road and parking for the office building and elimination of a single family attached dwelling unit. The applicant has graded out an entrance and parking area for the office building that is in a different location than what is shown on the currently approved plan. The location of these elements was conditioned with SP2004-052. The applicant states that this new road was installed during construction in order to provide access to the office building from Marsh Lane while it was being used as the sales center for the project. The applicant also states that this new road was improved to county standards and drainage improvements were installed to collect any run-off from the roadway. This new road provided access to the building while the remaining portion of the site was under construction. The applicant is now requesting approval of the newly relocated entrance and parking for the office building. A portion of the road that curves around the office building and leads to a dead end is narrow and steep and would not be adequate for commercial use. The applicant has noted on the plan that this portion of the road will be eliminated, which will allow the site plan to be approved. One of the proposed single family attached homes will also be eliminated with this revised plan. (See Attachment C) Kenndge PC Public Hearing 7/21/09 Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has stated that the new road will provide a better access to the existing office building that works with the topography of the site. The applicant has also stated that this change will lessen the extent of retaining walls that will be necessary. Since this access road has already been graded in, the developer would like to keep this connection as the new access and parking for the office building. Planning and Zoning History: The history of the parcel is as follows: In 1980 this property was zoned CO, Commercial Office. This site was the former national headquarters for Kappa Sigma Fraternity and a non-profit foundation. The Planning Commission reviewed Kenridge in a December 14, 2004 work session. The Planning Commission then held a public hearing on March 29, 2005, where the applicant requested an indefinite deferral. On July 26, 2005, the Planning Commission held another public hearing and recommended denial of Kenridge for the following reasons: 1) internal parking, 2) storm water management 3) affordability issues, and 4) screening. Prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing the applicant addressed outstanding issues and concerns from the Planning Commission public hearing and on October 5, 2005, the Board approved SP200400052 - Kenridge with seventeen (17) conditions Following the special use permit approval several related site plans, subdivisions, and water protection ordinance items were processed and approved. (See Attachment D for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors minutes) Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven (7). The Comprehensive Plan supports both residential and office uses in Office Service designated areas. A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with the approved SP2004-052 and is still applicable for this amendment request. (See Attachment E for Neighborhood Model Analysis) Staff Comment: Section 31.2 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? Relocation of the road accessing the office building and parking for the office building will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed change is all internal to the site. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district will not change with the relocation of the road and parking area to the office building. The residential use has already been approved in the zoning district. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The relocated road and parking area to the office building will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The relocated road and parking support a by-right use in the district. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The relocated road and parking to the office building will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district because these uses are by-right in the district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? As previously discussed in this report, a portion of the new road that curves around the office building and leads to a dead end is narrow and steep and would not be adequate for commercial use. As requested by staff, the applicant has noted on the plan that this portion of the road will be eliminated upon site plan approval, which will allow the site plan to be approved. Otherwise, changing the location Kenridge PC Public Hearing 7/21/09 of the access road to the office building from that shown on the originally conditioned plan seems to be less obtrusive to the site. The location of the parking area for the office building is also changing; however, as shown on the revised plan, the number of spaces remains the same as the original plan (six (6) spaces) and the impact of the new location is no different than as originally shown. A condition of the special use permit addresses the need for an amendment if additional parking is required for the office use. (See Attachment C) Summary: The purpose of this request is to amend Special Use Permit — SP2004-052. The applicant graded in a road and parking to the office building during construction of a portion of Kenridge. At the time the office building was being used as a sales center for the development. The location of the graded in road and parking area was not shown on the approved plan. The applicant is now requesting approval of this location for the access road and parking to the office building instead of the approved access road and parking to the office building that is shown on the approved plan. Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request: 1. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed. Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request. Recommended Action: Before this request goes to the Board of Supervisors, staff has requested that the applicant make minor revisions to the plan that include things like labeling the setback lines, railroad, the housing types with locations, etc. These were shown on the original approved plan, which the applicant submitted as part of the revised plans. Staff has recently made this request of the applicant in order to avoid confusion. Staff recommends conditional approval of SP 2009-006, Kenridge provided the applicant makes minor revisions to the conceptual plan prior to submitting the plan for the Board of Supervisors public hearing. The conditions are the same as the ones previously approved, except for the plan. 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering McKee Carson, dated June 16, 2005 March 16, 2009 revision To be determined 2009{"Conceptual Plan"). (See Attachment) Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required; 2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy five (275) feet between the southern-most structure (the "Main House") and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan; 3 All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG, 4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28; 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall pay 4 Kenndge PC Public Heanng 7/21/09 its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest- bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community Development; and (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand. 6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight(8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development; 7 Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner; 8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development; 9 Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See Attachment C); 10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate; 11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect. (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone, 12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275)foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subdivision plats; 13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: "The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure 5 Kenndge PC Public Heanng 7/21/09 of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site."Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250, 14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner; 15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution, 16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and 17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A—Tax Map Attachment B —Vicinity Map Attachment C — Kenridge Special Use Permit Amendment Plan, dated March 16, 2009, revised 6-24- 09 Attachment D — Planning Commission Minutes dated July 26, 2005 and Board of Supervisors minutes dated October 5, 2005 Attachment E — Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 29, 2005 Attachment F — Board of Supervisors' Action letter to Steven Blaine, dated October 13, 2005 6 Kenridge PC Public Heanng 7/21/09 '----- PS 2009-006 X K riritlga LIIIIIIIMPPINimill si4IIN 1111011 M4111‘ illidEat .404 4 , MilloommprOpPIP w iLvi I I Wl" • Vilit r roimb...u._ II* „owl" /v1 :111111111.:111 80 1/MILft 1/1 VW A.*/ i (Lit*, *° 0,..artri li NRIDG pA' K R . _Al ir ill*t..._, 4,11101, A--- „Contour Streams E (m. P-17 W SPC09 006 -,„ ---- _ Alle --- 444 \44 Kenridge '?® 4 : kleWoglawalm*/ A ' 1 ► Viqbas NIP Pap dr imA i 1 ,ter 4",, 4 1 .607.1-iriat ,,b, .,. "ea. , • ; ett- • ...*r Dv . 'Tow k _ ,w,. Oa\,M'0ei1,iI i8N,o_, 1.40 •**- • T/7‘ _.,.-41%lI 60K-A2I/' -. .- U .�� a li `. 1 \I(6 4 111.16:1kee ' gir,61 ill /k *'ii *'' by%'1. / 1/ a 641 trav: , - 4 \\, 4 / / sis•A ' 'I, *"/: i ►�1 t /t w-Ai , --z ' , / ,A.— fkJf/4 rut,/ iii *io al$4,4" \ / ilft 0 frit: WV ----- ( 4 ' '' * Viip , 4, * / :41 . ,iari . Ap —or ,, V , ) A Oa , z �• � �I r. 302 % m A logs ‘ Roads r/�/ Pa cels s 1.2011111mai Streams Parcel of Interest i _T���� tart S Water Body SP 2004- 052 KENRIDGE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPROVED BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 0- 5- 05 1. THE APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL BE IN GENERAL ACCORD WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN PREPARED BY MCKEE CARSON, DATED JUNE 16, 2005 REVISION ("CONCEPTUAL PLAN"). (SEE ATTACHMENT A). PARKING FOR THE OFFICE USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA AND NUA46ER OF SPACES SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, IF ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ' THE OFFICE USE, AN AMENDMENT OF THIS SP SHALL BE REQUIRED. 2. THERE SHALL_ BE A MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (275) FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN -MOST STRUCTURE (THE "MAIN HOUSE') AND THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO ROUTE 250 AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, SIDE AND REAR YARDS SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. J. ALL STREETS ON THE PROPERTY CONNECTING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPLICANT TO AN URBAN SECTION WITH THE INTENT THAT SUCH STREETS ON THE PROPERTY CONNECTING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES WI''.L BE BUILT TO A STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH THE CONNECTING STREET ON THE WHITE GABLES PROPERTY. ALL STREETS AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A STANDARD ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS OF ATTACHMENT A, REVISED AND DATED AUGUST 301 2005 AND INITIALED AS CTG. 4. THE CONNECTING ROAD EXTENDING FROM THE FORMER ITT PROPERTY (TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 28) AND ACROSS THE KENRIDGE PROPERTY TO ITS ENTRANCE AT IVY ROAD, AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS A PRIVATE STREET IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FINAL S1,0DI VISION PLAT OR SITE PLAN. AS A CONDITION OF F.WAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OR SITE PLAN APPROV4L, THE APPLICANT SHALL GRANT ALL EASEMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO USE THE CONNECTING ROAD FOR PURPOSES OF INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 28. 5. THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE VDOT RELATED TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY, AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AND SHALL PAY ITS PRO RATA SHARE OF THE COST FOR SIGNALIZA TION OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTED BY' TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS.• (A) PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PLACE FUNDS IN ESCROW OR PROVIDE OTHER SECURITY ("SECURITY') ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNTY IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ITS PRO RATA SHARE OF THE COST OF THE SIGNAL WHICH AMOUNT SHALL BE CALCULATED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SECURITY IS PROVIDED. THE SECURITY SHALL CONTINUE SO THAT IT IS AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THE COST OF THE SIGNAL UNTIL TEN (10) YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT; SECURITY PROVIDED THAT IS NOT IN AN INTEREST -BEARING ACCOUNT SHALL BE ANNUALLY RENEWED, AND THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY SHALL BE ADJUSTED EACH YEAR ACCORDING TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,• (B) IF, A T ANY TIME UNTIL TEN (10) YEARS AFTER THE DA TE OF APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VDOT AUTHORIZES IN WRITING THE INSTALLATION OF THE SIGNAL, AND VDOT AND THE COUNTY's ENGINEER APPROVE THE SIGNAL'S INSTALLATION BEFORE THE APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED A 'BUILDING PERMIT, THE COUNTY MAY DEMAND PAYMENT OF THE APPLICANT'S PRO RATA SHARE OF THE COST OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY ITS PRO RATA SHARE OF THE COST TO THE COUNTY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THAT DEMAND. 6. SCREENING ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALONG THE WEST AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AS DEPICTED ON THE CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF PERIMETER SCREEN AND PRIVACY PLANTING, DATED MAY 12, 2005, BY CHARLES J. STICK, ATTACHED AS ATTACHMENT B. THE CONTINUOUS EVERGREEN TREES NOTED AS LEYLAND CYPRESS HEDGE ALONG THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 10' TO 12' IN HEIGHT AFTER LOT GRADING BUT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTION. THE LEYLAND CYPRESS HEDGE ALSO SHALL BE PLANTED ON EIGHT (8) FOOT CENTERS. UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE PLANTING AREAS SCREENING DEEMED ACCEPTABLE ; TO THE -DIRECTOR -OF COMMUNITY- pL/ELOPMENT SHALL BE PROL'IJED ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT -PROPERTY AND THE IMPACT OF THE RAILROAD ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. 7. PRIOR TO ANY AL TERA TION OR DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING, A RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL DOCUMENTATION. TO INCLUDE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND A BRIEF ARCHI TECTUR,I L DESCRIPTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COUNTY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER. 8. REGARDLESS OF. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES, THEY SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL RESIDEN77AL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS IN THE, DEVELOPMENT. 9. EXCEPT FOR THOSE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS LOCATED IN ZONE A., THE EXTERIORS OF - ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS SHALL BE EITHER RED BRICK, OR WHITE PAINTED BRICK, WITH GABLE ROOFS. THE EXTERIORS OF BLOCKS OF ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS IN ZONE A. SHALL BE EITHER RED BRICK WITH GABLE ROOFS. THE FEATURES IN ZONE A. SHALL BE REVIEWED AND T APPROVED BY THE ARB DURING ITS REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THESE BUILDINGS. THE EXTERIORS OF DETACHED RESIDENCES SHALL BE EITHER RED BRICK OR PAINTED WHITE BRICK. THESE MATERIALS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN PLANNER BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BUILDINGS. (SEE A TTACHMENT C). 10. EXTERIOR ROOF SURFACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF EITHER COPPER OR SYNTHETIC SLATE. 11. THE NEW VILLA AND TOWN HOME UNITS SHALL INCLUDE GARDEN IMPROVEMENTS, GENERALLY AS DEPICTED ON THE FRONT GARDEN DIAGRAM, DATED AUGUST 24, 2005, BY CHARLES J. STICK, LANDSCAPE ARCHI rECT. (SEE ATTACHMENT D). MAINTENANCE OF THESE AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR AND REQUIRED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WHICH SHALL BE SET FORTH IN TrlE COVENANTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE DECORATIVE WALLS, STEPS AND WALKS SHALL BE CONS7RUCTED OF EITHER BRICK OR STONE. ' 12. TO ENSURE THE RETENTION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING TREES IN THE 275 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK DESCRIBED IN CONDITION 2 (LOCATED BETWEEN THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE ROUTE 250 WEST ENTRANCE CORRIDOR), THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY'S DESIGN PLANNER A TREE CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED BY A STATE CERTIFIED ARBORIST THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 32. Z 9. 4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS PLAN SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS, SITE PLANS, AND SUBDIVISION PLATS 13. THE SITE WALL IMMEDIA TEL Y ADJACENT TO ROUTE 250 WEST SHALL BE INCLUDED ON ALL DRAWINGS THAT INCLUDE ITS CONTEXT. ALL GRADING, ROAD ALIGNMENTS, TURNING LANES, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO INSURE THAT IMPACTS TO THE WALL ONLY INCLUDE- CLOSING THE EXISTING ENTRANCE AND ADDING A SINGLE ENTRANCE. NOTES SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE GRADING, SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS THAT STATE: "THE EXISTING SITE WALL SMALL REMAIN. DISTURBANCE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CLOSURE OF THE EXISTING ENTRANCE AND THE OPENING OF THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE INTO THE SITE." ANY CHANGES TO THE WALL SHALL BE MINIMAL AND ARTICULATED TO BLEND WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING WALL TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS IN TkE FINAL BLOCK, THE STONE PILLARS SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE NEW ENTRANCE FROM ROUTE 250. 14. THE DESIGN OF ALL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COLORS, ROOFING, SIDING AND FOUNDA 77ON MATERIAL SELEC RONS, SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD -APPROVED DESIGNS OF THE ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AS DETERMINED BY THE DESIGN PLANNER. 15. THE OWNER AGREES TO VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTE A SUM OF $J,000 CASH PER NEW DWELLING UNIT TO THE COUNTY FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS [INCLUDING THE HOUSING TRUST FUND] THE CASH CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE PAID AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR SUCH NEW UNIT. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE OWNER SHALL OBLIGATE THE OWNER TO MAKE THIS CONTRIBUTION. 16. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE MANOR HOME AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE. 17. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ENTRANCE ROAD, ALL STREETS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL MATRIX DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 51C 521, 53A - !n^EIEfESD) ,,4A 15111-0-A Era AMP 'AlTalrulm SAMUEL MILLER DISTRIC ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINI, I I TMP 6oE2-1 FARMINGTON COUNTRY CLUB ZONE: RA \ x (n. 23P. W) ` , \\ `\ `x t 36D 35C 34B 33A \ 19B 18A t \ \ F 24C ` %\ 21D F t I F r \ TMP60 .,- `\1. 44A TMP 6OK-44 I , 1 i I i I t-- T i6A I 15A TMP 60K I - TMP 60K TMP'(50K-61 4_B \\ \\ TMP60K-05%1' nENRIDGE �. TMP60K 3 t\ ti aNElel ZONIN NCO \ Rif c6 2 DI3 i 9' PG 38,7 TMP 60K / \ l z �S TMP-46 \ 47D 1 gP. 6 , I \ TMP 60K-47 TMP 60-28 \ o IVY ROAD �' ERSED) /� (, `-------- TMP 6 PROPERTIES ZONING: CO - �\ / /" /' IKENRI GEL C j DB 2554, PG 400 SPA ZONIN �i �:� ' TMP 60K- DR 3109 P 8 � 60D \ 1 MP6pK60 \/ /\ ---_ 275' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE - r =,� - — — — TMP ------- -- — '�✓ TMP 60K-A1 *T� k� 60K-A PAYNE, LF OR SUSAN ZONING: CO ; TMP 60K-Ali , * DB 3109, PG 387 , -Y-^`- TMP 60K-Al PARCELS INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION I BIRD WOOD GOLF COURSE I I c`g0 R41ZR0,40 i!A )C TMP 6o-26A -' WHITE GABLES CONDOMINIUMS ZONE: CO BOUNDARY OF KENRIDGE DEVELOPMENT AP 60K- 1A (RE:E4s:'c) ARB REVIEW ZONE A I �I I ntf*_.`iYi751a1� SCALE: 1" = 100' MARCH 16, 2009 THIS AMENDMENT TO THE SP-2004-52 IS FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION PLAN: 1. ONE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNIT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG THE MARSH LANE. 2. THE ACCESS ROAD ENTRANCE FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING HAS BEEN RELOCATED FROM COLRIDGE DRIVE TO MARSH LANE, WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT WAS ELIMINATED. 3. THE PARKING CONFIGURATION FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING HAS CHANGED. 4. THE AREA RESERVED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES HAS INCREASED WITH THE CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR THE ACCESS ROAD, 5. ELIMINATED SEVERAL RETAINING WALLS NECESSARY FOR THE ORIGINAL ACCESS ROAD ENTRANCE AND PARKING FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. LEGEND S 1 :s �1 H 0 ROADS C, SC T R. LLINS�, ------------------------------- --- -= EXISTING CULVERT F-- U Lic. No. 035791 CUL VER T Ci Q DROP INLET & STRUCTURE NO.IONAL CURB CURB & GUTTER """-"""••""•""""""""""""""" PROPOSED PAVEMENT 6yn e-, ryx,6 - EC-3A DITCH 6" DEPTH OF EC-3A DITCH EC-2 DITCH z 6" DEPTH OF EC-2 DITCH c? , � o 0 ••• ••°---- EARTH DITCH U ca z z o Ln 0 0 DRIVEWAY CULVERT ® a w w z a a BENCH MARK � `?' U w w w aCie •°°- ••°° •••° •'°• •°•• CLEARING LIMITS Uu VDOT STANDARD STOP SIGN ---------zoo----- EXISTING CONTOUR 200 PROPOSED CONTOUR 240.55 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION TBC DENOTES TOP/BACK OF CURB T/B DENO TES TOP OF BOX M n %D GENERAL NOTES APPLICANT- KENRIDGE LLC PO BOX 5509 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 ENGINEER: COLLINS ENGINEERING 800 E. JEFFERSON STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TELEPHONE. • (434) 293-3719 FAX:434 245- 0300 COiJTACT MR. SCOTT COLLINS, P.E. Ek4,tL: scott@w1lins-engineering.com PARCELS INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION: TMl7 60K-61 KENRIDGE LLiC PO,BOX 5509 CH'iRLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 ACREAGE: 1. 34 ACRES TMP 60K-A2 KENRIDGE LLC PO BOX 5509 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 ACREAGE: 0. 72 ACRES ZONE: CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SP-2004-052) APPROVED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 10-5-05 TO ,ALLOW MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCES USE: SIN( LE FAMILY ATTACHED VILLAS & COMMERCIAL OFFICE TOPO & SURVEY- UPDATED TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR COMMONWEAL-TH LAND SURVEYING IN FEBRUARY, 2009. ADJACENT OWNERS: KENRIDGE, LLC: 60K-A 1, 60K-27 TO 32, 60K-43 TO 47 CANNON PROPERTIES LTD: 60K-12 TO 15, 60K37-42 RIC'HARD OR MARY C HEWITT: 60K-59&60 SETBACKS (PROPERTY): FR)N T°• 275' SIDES: 30' REAR: 50' UTILI TIES. • SEWER: COUNTY SEWER - AVAILABLE ON THE SITE WA E'ER: COUNTY WATER - AVAILABLE ON THE SITE SUBDIVISION STREETS: CURB & GUTTER (PUBLIC ROADS) WA TERSHED: S. RI VANNA RESERVOIR - WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION AREA NOTE: 1. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN TO SCREEN THE FUTURE PARKING AREA AND COMMERCIAL USE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPING ON ALL SIDES OF THE PARKING AND BUILDING. 2. SIDEWALKS TO THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE FINAL SITE PLAN. 3. THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF FIRE RESCUE. THIS SHALL It!rLUDE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, AS NECESSARY, AND ACCESS TO FIRE HYDRANTS WITHIN 400' OF THE STRUCTURE. Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER 2 APPROVED SP APPLICATION PLAN 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN LAYOUT 4 PROPOSED LAYOUT PLAN AMENDMENT 0.1 L9 N z m LJ I hl z L ® LILJ W 06 `z N �� �w �w N �z �z w �z � J H No U p N W �0 +� o U L O a Uj LLB J O �^ L U ) Q U U O� a' Q Lo U CL a� W p p C pUl V w z� W� L, o z " { � L ) W G O � W -p p J � J � J0/) H L !Z U L L Q � w LLB N 0 w a •� U ►� 2 U x -0 �0 IV i O p � 00 E w E O �> w o� JOB NO. 22816 O SCALE AS NOTED O V SHEET NO. a a> a. I- p Attachment C yv) B / -R), V RITE GA13Lr5 CONDOMINIUM5 / _ V'ERTICA �HORIZOt TAL ALIGNMENT / /, / / � / , � " d � ` _� `_� �\\�\�� `�✓y,�: \�\\ \ \ \TO (,ONFQRM O{TH VDOT 5Y5DIV1510N AD\5T4pARD5 FOk LANEE, PR0 ?� 05�D 3� 51PEYATP 5dT5ACK /'ll V LA5 (N�W) Moll V4 //,�=zZall el KEVIN r 01 24 04 MAN Raw wi Q , r A I. I � 1 fill r A '' • } O" VA PROP. r OTORM WA7gR,/ t/p'�✓', I♦/•,.'/// . r MANAGEMENT AREA/ ► /., .� #g 0__ c�r it a • l gg • \, � //'�q��i r . , ram►,.�I' •► ew FR +y� •' • i Ir FA frw-i WEBB' p 01 TYPICAL BOTH D 5 OF OT / 11` //I II I l 1 \ )I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 / / / / / / / \ / I I \ v I I \ _ i / PeOP05ED QEN5ITY — RE51 R / �� 1 / / �/ / 11 l III \ ,, � � ! I ) 1 \ x 51DEI/+lR�LK /` � / ! � / ! f f � // IM NEW DETACHED HOUSE '� / ` / / / !`° �� I �o► , / °�o I I� \ q I I I 4 J ! I ` / I / / / /! // 1 NEW 24' WIDE TOWNHOME5 w \ ! NEW 42 WIDE ',il LLAS / IS z ' /'r / t I �� , \ \ ► �� \ , \\) `° ;/ TOTAL � X4TI R - LLINSZ Lic, No. 035791,2� ".�`�1�ONAL Elm z V o O � D S Q r� M1 ? a z W ;NTiAL DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY 5 UNIT5 ATTACHED 12 UNIT5 ATTACHED, 45 UNITS 66 UNIT I / f / \ / �_��/ / // /1 I /i/// \ Ii /I / �'� NJT 1 I�OPOaED DENSITY OTHER _ — \ I - \I EXISTING MAN510N (5000 5F CARRIAGE HOU5E I f � x / ' I I / " a•—.a�.�...w.. �_ r._ ._- \/ /' / / / / / l l l �/ / ' / � .� '' / �/ / ••`. / 1 f f x •... ,_- ..... -+. .. ' � l '•_...� � ly ��PrI /' �_i �' / •.....�^^�_. - � II / / /'' / ' -� —. -� I ^( � �// Pi -G&ED-" 3& _at)tLfI1VGo5 .. �-'.�1 _ _� �.--- L---- -_ �----- -� _ _ _,/ 1f1Pf�'OV,E'ExlaT`fNG/'DRIVA/(/'T /'20�" 1N(DTH �.,. ! IN IC5 �Ifc[. �� - �-�.� , _ — 1 � I � — _ , I -- - / _ \ , �.---- � J f�.----_-�-' / � l � �-- / ,, �� / � �'' �'� �•�-�'_ ^,-'� W 'S1DE'V/�ALK ON ON � 4E,/i�l CONNECTORl'',. \VILLAS (NiV) (�2) VIL�Av� (NEW) , ONE, �r r \\ \ ! I I 1 I \ 1 1 II I / / ,_ •--__ __- _____-) j ! I I /' �'' ��' �,' /:' FRONTAL ROAD5/tO/�(A�/�, HORIZ TAB. \ I I i t f ; \ I I 1 / / / /' /' �' ��� - - - _ _ _ / , i I I ► ! % / / ALIGNMENT T4-'CO 0PAM/,V � / VDOn- 5 / 1 11 \ I,' �'�, / 1 � I l / / / � ,/ .� � r. U� UBl�IVI ION In 1 ti ROAP _STA. DARD5 FOR A TRAFFIC �__.__.� N.__FI C Or 1501— 2000 ; FORMER ITT H EP\DQUARTF,5 —FUTURE CONNECTOR ROAD TO 3E DE5I6NED TO VDOT PU3LIC 5TANDARD5, FINAL LOCATION T5D, N RIDGF STALE: 1" 50'-0" JUKE 160 2005 el ARCHITECTS PC c� `� uj "1 z W ° _Z aLq ,W z Z W CD Z w ► cz �> ar o -' �> W Q = U c� CLL9 U L c o � [-4 W c 't --� V) CL ✓J\ < a a U� � G ,j ° 0 1---! U > T .Y W 0 IL �o a U Gil Na Ld Fii ! Z U rCF L 1_{ Z 1Z1� uj w -v V_ F7 i� z v ( J O� o jh�.i� /■�.Tw � o QCL U N (� > O •� U 7 M� 0 41 41 4� (� a U c cyo � •� w �� w E w = �' ce Z $ •N ta. (n v JOB NO. c 22816 2 U > 0 U SCALE ° v 1 "=50' � 3 cN c ° a SHEET NO. a � a 2 N T � v GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 r 1 IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. • Cd Z r, fl 19e9 200 1 I / , //// /I / , , / , / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ' 1. /.• ./,�.. � / / /AQ / / __ .__ _ V l ..-. Zg 'a .�•� \ 4 , I ,1 \ \ , 1 ! r� .— .— -- - ,,I/ / , I / / / / / / / ! ' ( ( f i l ! l / / .�, •� / I 'i a `. `� \ •\ \ .V:•. - i C l ( I j / / •�/%:. .� -.// `\ 594 I_ / /' / /// // / / / / / ,, \ 1 \ �' \ I � I ! 1 I i ( I : (°• ;�` ' / ; / � l / i \ '- � — -,- - / 9�s \ \ \ i j ) I i ( I i l l // /.:-...-,.: ;'--r / •'' / ( , ' � \ / _ / / / / / // / / / / / I 1 } I , I ! ' , I: :d`• •/ � i I ,I 1 �' - / .Ob , \ 't I ( I I / I 'r:%.:'•i /�' j / / \, I / I / l +I. i 4 / -- i / / I / / / / / / i �-\ j ( I 1 t I i � Of I I 1 / - - _ / o _/ \ I I I j , •:,: ; r•• i %/ / /. \ ( / / re � � / o � ! / / // / /,' / / / / / // I } i 1 + 1 i I 1 1 1 ! P, �9: r .° I ti I , \ 1 %� _ --- \ \ i \ 1 1 I i t I _ •; . j , " I ,\' I ; r 1 `' / �� , /"� / o� �? I t 1 / \ / / t / / / ., / I / / / t' 1, I I i � ,I ''. .•.:•''\ , I `'-7 \// I .�. 1 ..wsr.v..ur.. .. \.®.m\ su mwi.. \ 1 \ " t , 1 _ /Q '/C / (V_ �t _ � ./ / / / / i 1 I, •i. .;1. � r V / 1 ( ��., � -- _ -_ ,\ �- � � ®°i. \; \ \ \ t . 1 \ J \ \ /1 j \ / / /� ��; -\ 1/ ` / // /j / r / / / / / 1 1 i }. i ( 1 4. } 1 { , I t i - =,' -✓ "s \ \ \ i \ \ \ \ ;';?' ' t ✓ \ \ �� \ / / / %i I ✓ / / / / / / ( ! 1 j ( I j I I , O I ! / I I j 1 ; ! _._.,-=-�-� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 � � i �o \ \ / !� � � I 1 I r / I 1 t r, i 1 1 1 / —J / / ( l r / / / / ' I i ! I I � I I I i 11•'•''1 . ••. � : I ! .da '�. • n ! i � � 1 1, \ \ \ \ /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ '1 :.,� / \ \ \ \ \ ( \ \ \ / / j \ \' . -- -' / / / , ! I 1 1 ;\� � �-• �� I 1 '. t - - - / h -��- I r I 1 1 '� t \ ', �a, - t\- - /o \ �l I I I1 I 4 I !I \ �j,� 301 �r� mil_ l J � � ' 1 i -11 ` \ ( 1 I /l , 1 1 , l ► 4 ` ��..: I t i .•.:.C..�,1;°,°� -; \.9.'\:a',��•'.,. � \ \ � ( \ \ 1 (' / i1 1 / 1 rr• \ I tl / - / / / I l / :: I::�:� 3 \ v I !•:... \ •.� ,\ .. •. \ . \ \ � \ \ I \ \ 1 I I i I 1 } i ' 9 I i / Qom.... I / ! / :;:::.(y/.. :::.;/:::::::::::/; 1 ! I � \ •..\ '.• .. ...• \ � \ CV' _ , I , I t -~ • i 1 1 I I 1 1 1 4 1� i 11 \ / "'�11 L v / / / / / / / / ''''' '. � I r I I I , \ t � \ a , � . •\ . j \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ' t: 1..--� ' t / ( \ I I 1 , �• 1 I •. i i ( I I I _, 1 / / / / ', \T � r �I / / / / 1 / , / t / / t 9 .. .� . \ : \ \ \ \ \ •\ \ 1� � \ \ \ \ • _ _`__ � / I I j \ .t t, \ 1, 1 I ; -- - _- , _ '--; - /� l / , f /� / �` /Iw" \ `��\`n; \ � \\O�' � \ \ ` \ \ \ `- \: \ ,, \�'\ \ • t \ \ \ \ / / � I I j �'��� i j / / � 1 \ 1 �'/ I I 1 ' , /�°�'!� �, / / `oo� 1 \ / I i l i I I •� \ 1 t �.n \ 1 1 I r \ 5 } ( r I t 1 / r t.: r r / ! I I r \ I , \ \ \ \ \ - I t r \ / j /f /i ` / // JI /j/ (Ililr \\ , v ' / w � cv 1 - , J t i / r 0 1 I / 1 / � l l f pI •� i l f 1 •"_'tom jnnj``II �lu j. f' - I 1 / b / / � t / Via•. y. / P P✓ I I / I• I /V / r I / I ( { 1 , ° / I i / /�wo. - v �' IV ko// // / /� / / -- - _ -� // CD�/ g / 1A /(n 1 (IT � Ri if L'�\T 9 I SC T R. COLLINS`Z Lic. No. 035791 rl o��`S'SJONAL E�r'� z z O ¢ w � V CL V v) O 0 Z O JV L cc H W � H a Ld V) > w W c ko 00 M � J 61 Arm C) w Q C, w � H U o Ulwillill ' �., W CL � V / W e V �d w P�9 0 ` r V uj '-' a LU JOB NO. 22816 SCALE 1 "=50' SHEET NO. 3 GRAPHIC SCALE H 0�� 50 0 25 50 100 200 Q �� J SC TT R. OLLINS (1N FEET) U Lic. No. 035791,2� 1 inch = 50 ft. 1 LIMITS OF ZONE (A) PER ORIGINAL SP APPLICATION C) All CQO O O 0 0 `vuj im ZONE A REVIEW /ce --,----,,-ZONE I AREA FOR ARB \ i Al) i � � LIMITS OF ZONE (A) APPLICATION PER ORIGINAL / 1 / /l5 // i — • Cp --1 9 4 rn rn rn / ! / _ o00 / J \ � - / \ / \ tD o0 d' NOTE: IS THE .,- / THIS PORTION DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR THE i' ROAD SHALL BE BROUGHT UP TO STANDARDS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. V1 j / O / — - I ARB ZONING LINE I / j - 1 J REMOVE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED �6 AD ACCESS ROAD & ADJUST WIDTHS�- //// OF LOTS 62-65 o \ COS I I � / 4 1.. \ / �y 1 / 1 / LIMITS OF ZONE A PER ORIGINAL SP APPLICATION FUTURE :•::�:' COMMERCIAL LOCATION OF FUTURE 6 PARKING SPACESd— / :. I \ \ i .®I i I 1 Q I w II III < I Ik{ --/ i--THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL RCIAL BUILDING. G.ql BUILDING. AND A TURN AROUND AREA FOR \ 1 \ 1 , A 4 RETAINING WALL SHALL BE INSTALLED \ \ \ \ — cal ,— // m i I , t I 1 TO CREATE THE PERPENDICULAR SPACES. O , �; i NOTE: UPON CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING I/ , ; / CCESS THE A PRACCESS 0 AL USE PROVIDE ROAD BUILDING TO A COMMERCIAL 1 y� , ROAD SHALL END AT THIS POINT. ! I I I ) ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ) { I I ('' uml uj i \ I o � DRIVEWAY ALONG i j 1 i r .. \ 1 i i i / IEU 0 II I I II , 1 , 1 11 EXISTING GRADE /D E OF T1H TOPOG A H Y o E \ I i iI Ii 1 fI I I r: r � r , \ ., , ,r \ / /o r , - 1 zw w I / :I o / / I r , / 1 , / o I , 1 � 1 I ^_ I W EXITING I \ \ o __ - I / I I , / t I Q \ I i L% 1 a�VI \ T� f I O I J 1 1 OU E I - 111, H � I I I I � ,I I at , / 1 f I \ w 1 � [ I � � I 1 is Li I / / v 1 r_ 1 \ I I A I 1 O I I / Q 1 • 1 �- / I 1 w rrl V SI ::::::::r.::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::: Uf�ON APPRO �L OF A T� .� r / /. , \ � NO � \ J. I , I \ 4 V I r I / / J I _ � � H / � >`.::: \ 1 PLAN THE EXISTING BUILDING SHALL ---is/.:-.-�:-�:::..>•--::' C� I E USED FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND { / / _ s _ I 5 i— / r'7 o �c 1 I \ G ACCESS ROAD SHALL PROVIDE / ui /EXISTING AC THIS � / / / �F N _ I B \ / � O / �i I COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO 11-IE FACILITY. ROAD , _ _ -, /) / -�' c� � i � i ' / — -` 1 J' / (J SHALL END AS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING AND ' \ I ,� __ '� \ r / j ,/ / -- o n-� THE E EXISTING PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY PAST / r � � / � /^ / ___-� / / � � [ � � % �� � � � \ •\ `- ,` E END POINT SHALL BE REMOVE IMINATERI OG�NAL�. �L /APPF OVED LOT , 8 TO '�D � � � ! 1 i � / 1 � l !'' ` �- //Q``�eP/ U U 0 C) �° ��9 C� o \ _ �, / AN Al GRADE ENTRANCE �-/ V_ (0 �rj� Cp '� \ \ \ \ \ �� TO E EX SI T1N CO�uIM RCIAL I 5 �. _ + f I 1 'r; / �� `� ,� i W W l n/ �, / I 1 1 Q n/w Al ,� \ (0\ \ I , BUILDING �, O� _ I l 1 , ul W a. - 1 i. I z / I l/ , J 1 / 1 1 / I 1 f / I I (D 7\ 11 / � 1 i a, ,l i J - , I a. . r r / J I' i _ I w . 1 (a / _ w v 4• / Y I r I r^ °f I Y. a a" s • r / i 1 00 LLI r� I � / \ \ / -`"•_ ---_ 1 / � / / / / / P /�/ //// / ' O � JOB NO.� l' I - ——.------—— / --- % _ i /j// / /// oo`/ / f: t✓7 22816 —�-- (0\ 18/6� 01 11=rJo' - _ --- --- l--- - — —� _—loam m c ' - — - - /- _ / / i j SHEET NO. �T0� `44 4 60 .?� -- --- --- — f--- N O'L'38'29 4�! Jt),5.. 5 / , -- / / Albemarle County Planning Commission July 26, 2005 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Calvin Morris, Jo Higgins; Bill Edgerton, Chairman and Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair. Absent was Pete Craddock and David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Mr. Rieley arrived at 6'15 p.m. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Development Review Manager and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved on to the review of the consent agenda. Consent Agenda: CPA-2005-002 Growth Management Update—(Joan McDowell) Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner would like to pull this item off of the consent agenda for discussion or if there was a motion. Motion: Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that the consent agenda be approved. The motion that the consent agenda be approved passed by a vote of 5:0. Commissioner Craddock and Rieley were absent. Items Being Deferred. ZMA 2004-024 Old Trail Village (Signs #56,65,82,90) - Request to rezone approximately 257.4+ acres from Rural Area, and Residential - RA, R1, and R6 zoning districts, to Neighborhood Model District - NMD for a combination of residential and commercial uses. This development includes approximately 500 single family units, 350 townhouse/rowhouse units, 800 apartment units, and approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial/office/recreational space in the village center. The property, described as Tax Map 55E-1-A1 (previously identified in legal ads as Tax Map 55 Parcel(s) 55E Part 1 and 55E Part 2 and Tax Map 56 Parcel(s) 55E Part 1 and 55E Part 2) is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 West, approximately 2,000+feet east of the intersection of Miller School Rd. and Route 250. The Crozet Master Plan of the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as District, CT5, CT4, CT3 (Edge and General) and Development Area Reserve (CT2) and Preserve (CT1) in the Crozet area. General usage for District is warehouses and light manufacturing in center zones. Airports, research/office parks, regional parks and preserves at outer edge zones, and is recommended as employment center which may be single use or mixed use area. If single use, typically no more than 20% of the neighborhood or downtown area. General usage for CT5 is mixed residential and commercial uses Residential density is 12 dwelling units per acre; 18 dwelling units per acre in a mixed use setting. General usage for CT4 is mixed residential and commercial uses. Residential density is 4.5 dwelling units per acre; 12 dwelling units per acre for townhouses and apartments; 18 dwelling units per acre in mixed use setting General usage for CT3 (edge) is primarily single family detached houses at 3.5-4.5 units per acre. (6 5 units per acre if accessory apartments are added for 50% of the residential stock.) General usage for CT3 (general) is it supports the center with predominately residential uses, especially single- family detached and is recommended for 3.5-4.5 units per acre. General usage for CT1 and CT2 is development area open space preserve or reserve with very low residential density, and is recommended ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 Attachment 1) Mr. Edgerton stated that they had 16 additional spaces that would reduce almost an entire row of parking spaces in the front and allow for more of a planting area. Ms. Higgins stated that it already said that the required amount was already a reduced number. Mr Edgerton stated that was correct and that he was suggesting that they hold them to what the reduced number is as opposed to allowing them to go above it. Mr. Rieley stated that he was not comfortable with that because that is a minimum number and he did not recall a case in which they had required somebody to meet the minimum. If they figured in the reduction and used that as the basis and then the 20 percent allowable was added on top of that, then he felt that reasonable. He stated that he just did not understand that. Ms. Higgins suggested so that they don't get precedent issues in the future that maybe it be noted on the site plan what is different about this calculation as opposed to the actual amount required without the reduction for the drive through Mr. Fritz stated that staff could include that reference on the final plat. Mr. Thomas pointed out that when he walked the property he was very surprised how much the property dropped off in the rear. Action on SP-04-055. Motion: Mr Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, that SP-04-055 for Walgreens be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 1. The site shall be constructed in general accordance with the preliminary site plan entitled "Walgreens", issue date of 7/13/05 and initialed Y Q.A dated 7/15/05. 2. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and exit points of the drive-through lane, subject to Current Development Division engineering approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns. 3. Landscaping beyond that outlined in the ARB Design Guidelines is required to mitigate the impacts of the site layout. Landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the ARB The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Commission Edgerton voted nay.) (Commissioner Craddock was absent.) Action on Critical Slopes Waiver: Motion: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Morris seconded to grant the critical slopes waiver to Section 4.2.5.b (2) as requested by Walgreens. Ms. Joseph supported the critical slopes waiver because the slopes were man-made and it was not going into any watershed immediately She felt that it and would not cause any erosion problems. Also, they were using the site in the urban area as they like them to. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Craddock was absent.) Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-04-055 for Walgreens would go to the Board of Supervisors on September 7 with a recommendation for approval. SP-2004-052 Kenridge (Sign #40) - Request for special use permit to allow development of a multifamily complex in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 27 and 27B, contains 16.5 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Ivy Road [Route #250 West] approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—JULY 26, 2005 474 The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Office Service, in Neighborhood Seven. General usage for Office Service is office parks and mixed-use planned development emphasizing office uses, residential uses, and regional-scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region, and is recommended for 6.01 to 20 dwelling units per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. General usage of the proposed amendment (SUP request) is residential The existing carriage and manor houses have the option of being used for residential and/or office use The density of the proposed amendment is 4 dwelling units per acre. This property is also located in EC, Entrance Corridor. (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant summarized the staff report. • The applicant, Kenridge, LLC, is seeking approval for a special use permit to allow development of a 66 unit residential complex on 16.5 acres. The property located on Route 250 West across from the Birdwood Golf Course. The residential units would include 5 detached units, 48 (42 foot wide) villas, and 12 (24 foot wide) townhouses. The existing 8,000 square foot manor house and 3,000 square foot carriage house have the option of being used for residential and/or office use. The special use permit would allow for R-15, Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. • The Planning Commission saw this application on December 14, 2004 for a work session. The Planning Commission also saw this application for a public hearing on March 29, 2005. The applicant at that time requested an indefinite deferral during this meeting. • The applicant has made significant changes to the plan and the Architectural Review Board has recommended favorably regarding the design with conditions. • However, staff still feels that there are some issues that still need to be resolved These issues are internal parking that could be better relegated; storm water and management need to be consistent with each other, and affordability still needs to be addressed. Staff is still working with Zoning and the County Attorney on the conditions. The applicant is requesting private streets. The critical slopes waiver was requested and reviewed. There are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical slope. Action on private streets and critical slopes should also be considered. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Ms. Grant. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission Steve Blaine, attorney for the applicant, stated that with him tonight was Jim Gregg, the architect, who has been involved with them on the plan. He felt that as the staff report indicates there has been a significant progress made since their work sessions. Hopefully, the Commission can appreciate the elements that make up the application before them that should be considered from a big picture standpoint. They have been able to implement the 250 Task Force recommendations for linking this project to the White Gables project, which is now under construction for the first phases. They have been able to link that to reduce the number of entrances to this project and combine that to a combined entrance across from the Birdwood Golf Course. They have been able to work with ARB staff and the Planning staff to preserve the historic resources in the Manor Home and the Carriage House. In addition, they have been able to work with a plan that is sensitive to those historic resources and also incorporate a significant open space an amenity in what they are referring to as an edge park of approximately 4 acres. They are trying to keep it in its natural condition as they see today That explains the request for a private road and what they envision in the front part of the project as a rural section They intend to connect that area with the White Gables connection Therefore, they would seek a road design consistent with theirs. Currently they understand that their design would be a 22 foot section with cobblestone gutter as opposed to a standard curb and gutter. That gives you kind of a flavor as to the elements to the plan. They also found a way to preserve within that area the stone wall, which is important to the ARB. With the redesign the 66 units include 6 single-family units. The ARB was particularly concerned because it is not typically part of their jurisdiction, but they proffered a condition that would allow this to come back with the single-family homes and any changes to the Manor Home in fact would require the ARB's approval. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 475 You may recall from the prior work session that they are working with a tight building envelope and some existing challenging slopes. When you take into account all that they have tried to incorporate with these various interests, they have done really the best that they can with the conditions. He felt that ties into the comment from staff about the nature of the parking. What they have done is relegated the parking internal to the site. So there will not be parking to the external part of the site. There are those who may have a personal preference to rear loaded garages as opposed to front loaded garages. But what that design imposes is additional infrastructure. With a tight site like this they felt that with a single loop road that was the minimum disturbance that would be needed to provide the access. The internal loop road would convert to a Neighborhood Model matrix, and would comply with the main matrix that would include sidewalks and street trees. There is a cut away section in your staff report that gives an example of that. In an ideal perfect world with a larger site they could have perhaps achieved all of these other objectives and maybe addressed the parking differently. But, they believe that this would be an attractive design and that the home owners will appreciate that design. As for the affordable housing issue, it is correct that affordable housing as they would define it that Albemarle County is coming to grips with is not incorporated into this site. There are constraints with the building envelope that he has mentioned that reduced the available density. They have reduced this density from 88 units down to 66 units. With the land and grading costs of the improvements it makes the prohibited level of a price range of$175,000 economically enviable. But what he would like to point out is that since they started and made this application they have had this dialogue with the staff and the County, he knows that the Commission has been struggling with this policy as well in implementing the affordable housing objective, the applicant has recognized that the market opportunity for affordable housing and has since the application developed 184 affordable units in a condominium conversion known as the Hessian Hills Condominiums. Those units have all been marketed below the affordable housing target. The initial prices on the two-bedroom units were $129,500. The prices on the three- bedroom were $139.500. He stated that he was happy to report that at the 18 month to 2 year projection of sales has already been met. In about 6 months they have sold 150 units. It is important to point out that these units are intended for owner/occupants. They sought and just recently obtained Fanny Mae approval, which in a condominium conversion for certain approvals for that Fannie Mae financing require that you have a minimum number of owner occupied residents. They have a minimum threshold of 60 percent, which translate to at least one affordable housing unit will be owner/occupied for each one of these luxury townhouse units that the applicant is pursuing. So there are some policy considerations here. They understand that the County's policy and implementation is evolving. They would point out that in a special use permit the conditions usually relate to the impacts proposed by the use that is already contemplated in the district and they were not displacing housing units with this proposed use. They were converting a commercial office designation or use to a residential use. There is always the upstream argument too with providing upstream housing if there are local residents who seek this option. That makes available, hopefully, lower priced housing for affordable units. So they are sensitive to the issue. They discussed this with the Housing Director, Ron White and he agreed that what they discussed was reasonable. They would offer that as addressing affordable housing recognizing what they have not incorporated for affordable housing. Regarding the issue on grading, they know they have to make the storm water management plan work. McKee Carson is the same engineering firm that designed the White Gables storm water system has done some preliminary calculations. They have told us that they can make it work. If there is a concern that when they get in and address the actual grades of the storm water facilities if there is a material change if it is not ultimately in general accord with what you approve, then they would have to come back to the Commission. Therefore, they have to make it work from an engineering standpoint and they have to honor the County's grade and specifications. There are some good conditions proposed in Ms. Grant's staff report. There are some clarifications that they would recommend and it is really the Commission's pleasure as to how they want to do that. If there is time during the deliberation, they could come back and address those. If there are particular questions and concerns. he and the architect would be available for questions. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had several questions for Mr. Blaine. The staff report refers to transportation issues on page 2 where staff is recommending Neighborhood Model road standards be followed. They are not shown on the plan. The applicant has noted that the interior roads will be designed to urban road standards; however the applicant wishes the entrance road to be designed to rural standards. In the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 476 drawing that he has it looks like the entrance road has a sidewalk, which certainly does not fit with the rural standards. He asked for some clarification on that. Mr. Blaine stated that issue was not clear in the report. The rural standard would allow a more sensitive grade to the road within the area that they were trying to preserve. They would like to have, if it was not a sidewalk, a pedestrian link consistent with the 250 Task Force and other staff recommendations. So that does not need to be a sidewalk if adjacent to a curb and a gutter like an urban section They actually are envisioning something more like a trail. There is a plan located on the board that identifies how that might be. The idea is to give access to the adjoining neighbors and also to make an amenity walking trail. It could be asphalt or a more upgrade aggregate in keeping with the other designs. They don't want to get hung up on urban versus rural. What they want to have is the least impact in that area. Clearly they can implement the Neighborhood Model matrix when you get up to the loop road where it connects next to where the housing units actually begin There they can control the grade and use that model, which they think is appropriate. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had one other question. There were some real concerns expressed on page 3 on the traffic study and the validity of it and whether it fit with the site. He asked if he had a response to that. Mr. Blaine stated that in the end this was a traffic signal warrant in the specifications where you site down with Chuck Procter of VDOT and when it would be done and how it would be done. What really matters is whether VDOT will approve a signal. They did not do a signal warrant study to show that they did not have to do a signal. They think that a signal will enhance the project The signal has already been proffered by White Gables. Therefore, it is not an issue of tagging the development with the cost of the signal. It has already been covered He felt that they could take issue with the criticism with the counts at the Birdwood Golf Club. The signal warrant was not even close in the number of trips generated from that use. So whether you did it on a day that was 102 degrees and it would be crazy to play golf or a rainy day in October our traffic engineer does not think it would make a difference. It is a criticism, but it is in the end VDOT has to be convinced that a signal is warranted and there are just not the trips generated to warrant the signal But your staff has ably covered the point in that if it is ever warranted the White Gables developer has agreed to install that signal. He guessed that their quid pro quo is that they have agreed to give them access and they have agreed to build the link over to allow the use of that signal. They also identified some resurfacing and frontage improvements. They have offered to put those in a condition, but it does not appear in here. But he would suggest that if you missed any thing at the White Gables that you might have missed the widening and the striping for the left turn signal, which they are prepared to put in. They might be able to do that in advance of the signal, but that would be a site plan consideration. Mr. Thomas asked the size of the space buffer along the CSX tracks. Mr. Blaine stated that they had agreed to do a 50 foot setback to put some landscaping in, but he was not sure if there was a required buffer. Ms. Higgins suggested that before the application was passed on that they define the front, side and rear yard setbacks. She pointed out that there might be two different rear yard setbacks with the lots along the railroad tracks being different than the lots along the sides. Mr. Blaine stated that the setbacks were 30' side, 50' rear setback and 275' side. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the other members of the public. Lynn Mailleux stated that he was a neighbor in the rear and marketing agent for the White Gables, which was located on the east side of the proposed project. He stated that he reviewed the new plan and did not see a whole lot of changes from the previous plan that was submitted, other than going from 80 units down to 66 units. His concerns dealt with the straight lines and straight roads with the large amount of town homes just lined up. He felt that it looked like northern Virginia. He suggested that some work needed to be done on the design of the project because it was too linear. With 16.5 acres he felt that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 477 they could work something out that would look better, particularly in this prestige area. The streetscape was nothing but garages on the front with two parking places out in front The last time he was here he had asked for the details of the buildings, but he did not see any details of the buildings whatsoever. He asked if the buildings were brick, still the hearty plank or what other material. He asked what materials would be used for the roof. He pointed out that was very important because a lot of the people that would be living in White Gables were going to be looking at roofs. In the winter time he would be looking at all roofs from his property in the rear, which was shown in the elevations on page 18 under site elevations C. He felt that there should be a lot more details on the plans before a decision was made. In addition, he would like to see the landscape plan. As far as the drainage, he knew what they went through with the White Gables drainage project and it was still being developed so to speak. When he looks at what they have here, it was his understanding that 40 percent of this property was in the Ivy Creek Watershed. If that is so he would think that the water runoff engineering of that would be a major situation that would have to be studied. The applicant is showing two bio-retention ponds and one open detention pond. Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he was not going to offer a specific comment on this project, but he was here fulfilling a promise that he made to a gentleman in the Blue Ridge Homeowner's Association to completely and repeated challenge them on the affordable housing issues. First, he applauded the Hessian Hill issue and one could only hope that the affordable housing units that are there were acquired by people that truly deserve that have affordability problems. The fact is that really all they did was displace renters who are now looking for housing. But, he missed last week's meeting and he understands that once again the County was cascaded by a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and the development community for its failure to accommodate affordability housing in the County. The key argument as usual was that the County's policies and regulations would a primary impediment to constructing more housing, and therefore by inference cheaper housing. That is if only the County would let them build more, and then the builders and developers could charge less for houses. A few weeks ago, the Commission reviewed a revised Rivanna Village project that now has a range of housing units significantly less than the original proposal. The proposal coming to you tonight has 66 units and previously had 80 units. He realized that was an insignificant reduction, but the fact is overall that build out of this project is significantly than the zoning would allow, which is pretty consistent for development throughout Albemarle County. He stated that he does not offer any specific comment on this proposal. But, he simply believed that the time is past due to when necessary to remind the Commission and the public that while there is an enormous challenge on the affordability problem one would only need to review what has been built and what is being proposed to see that it is not County regulations but developer choice to construct housing projects at far less than the densities and therefore the quantities that are allowed He asked that the next time the affordable housing blame is placed on the County for limiting maximum developer that the County should start asking the developer why so they continue to build less. There being no further public comments, Mr. Edgerton closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he was absent at the last meeting and asked if the new plan addressed all of the items listed on page 9. Ms. Joseph stated that the sentence below that says that Mr. Craddock agreed that the request should be deferred, particularly so that the view shed from the back of the property could be addressed. She pointed out that there were many things that needed to be addressed. Therefore, she agreed with Mr. Mailleux that nothing really has changed except the units have been reduced. She stated that the layout was pretty much the same, which was something that they had talked about needed to respond to the Neighborhood Model. They had talked about the garages in the front and the parking, which really has not changed. One of the comments in the minutes was that Mr. Blaine said that the manor house would be used as a residence, and what is going to become of that has not been addressed. If they look at this in terms of the Neighborhood Model, it would be nice to have the commercial work somehow with the residential. She felt that this plan really does not do that If you look at the office building there is really not sidewalk or anything that connects that to anything. It is really sitting out there with a couple of parking spaces. There really has not been any attempt, except from lowering the density on this property, to make any changes. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 478 Ms. Higgins stated that her memory of it was that there was a parking area in the center and the use was greater. She pointed out that her problem with the office use was that they had to have the parking to support it. Therefore, she felt that was a positive thing since she did not look at it that way. One of the issues they had was the significant amount of parking in relationship to the historic structure Ms. Joseph stated that it was still not identified other than a verbal statement in their minutes of what they building was going to be used for. It is zoned commercially. This could change significantly if they are required to have more parking if they decide to use it for a commercial use. If it is a commercial use then maybe there should be some sort of connection between those two parking areas for the manor house and that other little building. There are things going on here that could make that connection, but they don't know what is going to happen. She noted that she was very concerned that there was no screening shown in the back because they were specifically talking about the fact that they wanted some sort of protection to the back. That has not been addressed. Ms. Higgins pointed out that the ARB would still have to review this plan. She suggested that they compare what would be allowed by right versus the special use permit issue which is before the Commission. She felt that the proposed use was displacing office use of a possibly significant volume, but then they don't have the associated parking and other issues. Again, she felt that this was decreased use. She felt that the decrease from 88 units to 60 units was significant. She felt that this plan fits with what is already in the area. Mr. Edgerton stated that the use of the manor house would affect what infrastructure would have to be shown. If there was going to be a lot more parking it would really affect the plan. The proposal says the existing 8,000 square foot manor house and 3,000 square foot carriage house have the option of being used for residential and/or office use. Those two items are for two different things. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff proposed conditions if in the event the Commission was to recommend approval. The first of those conditions was intended to address that issue in terms of the parking aspect. Ms. Higgins stated that would be item 1 that says parking is limited to what is shown on the plan, and if it is required for office spaces, they will need to do an amendment to the plan. Therefore, there would be a controlling factor. Any amendment to the special use permit would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Rieley felt that issue could be handled in that way. But, his concerns were broader and go back to their original two reviews of this proposal. Last time he had said that this project had made great strides from the previous time that they had seen it and he looked forward to seeing it again to see it continue to get better. He stated that there were some changes that had been made such as the four units encroaching on the setback area are no longer there. He felt that was a positive change. He did not necessarily applaud the overall reduction in units. In fact, with a different approach than this, they could probably get a higher total density with less impact by working with the slopes in a different way. He agreed with staff in that there were some good things about this project, but he did not think that it warrants approval at this stage of the game. He agreed with Mr. Mailleux about the fact that this is a very ordinary approach on a really extraordinary piece of property. So that the notion of having these drive in garages completely aside from the fact that it is utterly at odds with the Neighborhood Model creates a long flat zone that one would expect to see in another area. It is tough to put that on this type of sloping site. The impact can be seen in all of the grading that spreads out for about 100 feet on each side of it. He reiterated from their last review that that there needs to be another round of thought and redesign to deal with these kinds of fundamental issues. He stated that he did not feel that they have that. Currently, they have a very minor adjustment. The other issue was that he felt that they have to deal with affordable housing on every project. This plan has not changed much from last time and he still has the same concerns. He stated that he would look forward to supporting an adjusted project on this, but he could not support this one the way it is. Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Rieley's comments. Mr. Thomas stated that this project was located in a very affluent area and would be scrutinized very closely. He stated that he would like to see the buffers increased in the rear next to the railroad tracks. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 479 He asked to see more information from Engineering on the water runoff and how it would be contained on the site and leave the property. He asked that the Commission invite Mr. Blaine back up to address the unfavorable remarks. Mr. Edgerton invited Mr. Blaine to come forward to answer Mr. Thomas' question. Mr. Thomas stated that in the minutes he had asked the question if he had addressed all of the unfavorable comments from the staff, which was on page 30. Mr. Blaine stated that he could refer him back to the staff report tonight that identifies three issues that they have discussed Mr. Edgerton stated that the Commission did not have a copy of that staff report. Mr. Blaine stated that they can rely on staff to identify the remaining issues. This application was submitted in September of last year. It has been significant iterations. It has been in response to the various issues that they have heard tonight. The concern about the rear is why they reduced the density to put a larger buffer in. There is a condition that they are willing to make that will require landscaping for screening to adequately screen the units. They may not be able to satisfy someone's desire that this is too linear, but they can screen what is visible from the adjoining property through the buffer. Staff has indicated that 50 feet should be adequate. Therefore, he did not know what else they can do. They have tried to balance the Neighborhood Model. They have a blend of Neighborhood Model matrix for the road loop internal, and then yet a rural to preserve the edge park. They have hired an architectural historian to look at the significance of the buildings and the interrelation of the new buildings to the old. He felt that there can be as many views as there are persons viewing the type and style of the plan. They can address the engineering issues. They can address Ms. Joseph's questions and issues with the use of the manor house. It is intended to be residential. If that use changes, then it will have to come back because the parking requirements will make a material change to the plan. It says and/or because the carriage house is intended for an office use. That would provide 2,500 square feet plus or minus of a mix of use. They have indicated to the ARB that the townhouses will be all brick. The ARB must approve any changes to the manor house. All of the aesthetic visual concerns that the Commission have addressed has been vetted at the ARB. They have been before the ARB repeatedly, and they have unanimously supported the approach He stated that he was sorry that there was perception that it has not gone as far as some would like, but they have taken a great deal of care in trying to balance the various issues. Surely if affordable housing were the only issue, they would do multi-family to the maximum of the R-15. Mr. Thomas thanked Mr Blaine for answering his question. Motion: Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, that SP-2004-052 for Kenridge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff plus additional conditions to (1) address the rear buffering, (2) to clarify the use of the mansion and carriage house and (3) incorporate into the plan some sort of pedestrian interconnection to the 2,500 square foot of office space that is the carriage house. The motion was defeated by a vote of 4:2. (Commissioners Higgins, Thomas voted aye.) (Commissioners Joseph, Morris, Edgerton, Rieley voted nay.) (Commissioner Craddock was absent.) Mr. Edgerton stated that the motion failed. Mr. Kamptner stated that it would be helpful to have another motion citing the reasons for denial. Motion: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that SP-2004-052 for Kenridge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based upon the staff's recommendation, specifically. (1) internal parking, (2) storm water management and (3) affordability issues, as well as the issues Mr. Thomas raised about the specificity of the screening that should be addressed at the special use permit level, which should not be done afterwards because this is the point that the public gets the opportunity to see and comment on it. He stated that Mr. Blaine's assurances notwithstanding, that this is such a difficult site and they are ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 480 adding so much impervious area that staff should have a reasonable comfort level with the storm water management before it comes to the Planning Commission. The motion was approved by a vote of 4.2. (Commissioners Joseph, Morris, Edgerton, Rieley voted aye ) (Commissioners Higgins, Thomas voted nay.) (Commissioner Craddock was absent.) Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-04-052 for Kenndge would go to the Board of Supervisors on September 14 with a recommendation for denial. Old Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any new business. Mr. Morris pointed out that he felt that they would see the area where Ashcroft is going to connect when they review Lake Ridge. He noted that is where the road will be coming in, and then it will be further recommended to tie into Fontana. Mr. Rieley complimented Ms Grant on her staff report on such a tough project Mr. Edgerton stated that he would be absent for the next two weeks. Mr Cilimberg stated that he would also be absent next week. Mr Morris stated that he would be absent the week after next There being no further new business, the meeting proceeded Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. to the August 2, 2005 meeting. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JULY 26, 2005 481 October 5,2005(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,Virginia,was held on October 5,2005,at 9.00 a.m.,in Room 241,County Office Building on McIntire Road,Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr.David P.Bowerman,Mr.Ken C Boyd,Mr.Lindsay G.Dorner,Jr.,Mr Dennis S Rooker,Ms.Sally H Thomas and Mr.David C.Wyant. ABSENT• None. OFFICERS PRESENT. County Executive,Robert W.Tucker,Jr.,County Attorney,Larry W Davis,Deputy Clerk,Debi Moyers,and Director of Planning,V.Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m.,by the Chairman,Mr.Rooker. Agenda Item No.2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No.3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No.4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr.Christopher Mislow addressed the Board,stating that he wanted to address the overlot grading requirement for subdivisions,describing it as critical and long overdue. He noted that the Still Meadows home in which he and his wife reside,as well as the homes of many of his neighbors,have been impacted by grading and drainage problems. Mr.Mislow said developers have offered agreements to give people their money back for their homes to avoid lawsuits There needs to be some level of supervision at a broad level He offered to provide the Board with any needed information. Ms Liz Palmer,representing the League of Women Voters,congratulated Ms Sally Thomas on her appointment to the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee,a body appointed by the governors of bay area states. She noted that the committee enhances the participation of local government in the bay restoration effort by improving communication between stakeholders,by supplying technical assistance to local governments,and by providing a local government perspective on policy development within the Chesapeake Bay program. Ms. Palmer said that Ms.Thomas is one of just six elected officials in Virginia to be appointed to the committee. Mr.John Martin of Free Union reported that there was a rally organized in June in Scottsville drawing about 150 people opposed to a pipeline being run from the James River to Charlottesville. He also said that there was an arrest made at Shopper's World for a person campaigning for office,adding that there needs to be a place for citizens to exercise their right to free speech. Agenda Item No.5a. Recognition. Landon Gregory Hatfield for efforts related to Raintree fire. Mr.Rooker recognized 14 year old Landon Hatfield,a freshman at Albemarle High School,for his quick-thinking and heroic efforts in helping a woman escape a burning home on August 8,2005 He said Mr.Hatfield helped the victim escape through a garage window from the four-alarm fire Mr Rooker also commended firefighters from the many stations who responded to the blaze. He asked Mr.Dan Eggleston,Director of Fire/Rescue to come forward and recognize Landon. Mr Eggleston thanked Landon for his selfless act of heroism that helped save a life and then presented him with a plaque. Agenda Item No.5b. Recognition: Students Make A Difference Day Proclamation. Mr.Rooker recognized"Students Make a Difference Day"in Albemarle County to be honored on October 22,2005. He urged fellow citizens to encourage and assist students for the benefit of the community Mr Rooker congratulated June Smith(of Community Engagement)and Kelly Cramer(a student at Albemarle High School)and presented them with the following proclamation. STUDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY Whereas,the youth of our nation are its future;and Whereas,working together to help others bridges the differences that separate Americans and strengthen the bonds that tie us together;and Whereas,we,the American people have a tradition of philanthropy and volunteerism; and Attachment D October 5,2005(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Mr.Bowerman agreed that the item needs to be considered at next week's meeting Mr.Cilimberg said he understands the Board would like to see clarification of the following for next week. the additional evergreen planting,preservation area maintenance,and lower scale crossing for pedestrians between Blocks 1 and 2. He agreed that staff would deal with separate pages instead of an entire new Plan. Mr.Dougherty asked if the intent is to protect the entire drip line of the trees. Mr.Bowerman replied,"Yes." Mr.Davis suggested that the public hearing be continued to next week so that it is still a legal public hearing if needed. Motion was offered by Mr.Bowerman to continue this public hearing on ZMA-2004-007 to October 12,2005. The motion was seconded by Mr.Wyant. Roll was called,and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES• Mr.Rooker,Ms.Thomas,Mr.Wyant,Mr.Bowerman,Mr.Boyd and Mr.Dorner. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No.26. SP-2004-052. Kenndge(Sign#40). Request to allow development of multifamily complex in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord which allows for R-15 use in CO district. TM 60,Ps 27&27B,contains 16.5 acs. Loc on N side of(Rt 250 W)Ivy Rd approx 1/2 mile W of intersec of Ivy Rd&Rt 29/250 By-pass. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as Office Service in Neighborhood 7. General usage for Office Service is mixed office&residential uses&is recommended for 6.01-20 du/ac,w/possible densities of up to 34 du/ac under planned development approach. General usage of the proposed amendment(SUP public hearing on request)is residential The existing carriage &manor houses have the option of being used for residential and/or office use. The density of the proposed amendment is 4 du/ac.) This property is also located in EC Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was deferred from September 14,2005.) Mr.Cilimberg reported that the Board deferred this request at its last hearing in order for conditions to be provided addressing concerns discussed at the public hearing. He said staff has provided 17 conditions reflecting the discussion from that meeting;they have been agreed to by the applicant. Mr.Rooker asked about Condition No. 15 which says the owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of$3,000 cash for each new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs but the money would be returned to the owner if it were not spent within 10 years He wondered how it could be determined whose money was spent from a housing trust fund. Mr.Davis stated that language is taken from proffer language,and there is no reason for the sentence if the Board and applicant agree it should not be included. Ms.Thomas said the parking limit was intended for the office use,not residential,and the applicant has agreed to that. She added that concern has been expressed about the way Condition No 9 is worded,suggesting that the language say"exteriors of blocks"instead of just"exteriors"so there's no chance of a"checkered"affect. At this time,the Chairman asked for public comments. Ms.Diana Strickler said she is Chairman of the Route 250 West Task Force appointed by the Board to advise on traffic issues related to the Route 250 West corridor. One of the positive aspects of the Kenridge proposal is the provision of a new entrance opposite Birdwood,which would enable an internal access road involving four parcels of land—the old Textile Institute,Kenridge,White Gables,and the National Legal Research property. She stressed the importance of having the internal traffic funneled to a single traffic point. She noted that when White Gables was approved,the county engineer or VDOT, were given the power to require White Gables to close its entrance to Route 250 or convert it to right-in, right-out access,or some other modification as determined by the County. She added that the Task Force believes there should not be a separate entrance here. Mr.Davis stated that when the entrance is constructed,the County can provide notice to adjacent property owners that they need to convert the entrance. He added that they do have the option of maintaining it as a right-in,right-out access Mr.Cilimberg said either VDOT or the County's Director of Engineering may require the applicant to close the existing entrance shown on the conceptual plan,convert it to a right-in,right-out only entrance/exit,or require that other modifications be made to the entrance. Mr.Jeff Werner addressed the Board. He finds the offering of$3,000 per unit for affordable housing to be repulsive. He said that a few weeks ago,Mr.Cetta had offered$20,000 per unit for a October 5,2005(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) development. He emphasized that developers are paying a token fee to buy them back into the market. This is not what should be done. Mr.Rooker pointed out that this property is zoned commercial. This is a request for a special use permit,not a rezoning. He understands the requirement could not be imposed on the applicant if he had not voluntarily offered to do it. With 66 units at$3,000 each,there would be$200,000 put into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund,matching what the County has put in the fund this year. A sizable housing trust fund is needed to help people with down payments;sometimes price points for homes make it impossible to offer a larger per unit offering He had never heard of a per unit contribution of$20,000. Ms.Thomas pointed out that$20,000 per unit was discussed for the Fontaine apartments,but that did not happen. She expressed her desire to see more contributed both in per unit allocations and in the provision of affordable homes. But,this is a different situation because it is a special use permit rather than a rezoning. Mr.Rooker said the proposed Fontaine contribution of$20,000 was intended to be a replacement for affordable units,and the number worked out to be almost identical to the number here. There being no further public comments,the matter was placed before the Board. Ms.Thomas said the applicant has worked to meet the conditions arising out of the concerns expressed in the application process. She has concerns about the lack of affordable units,and the design of these proposed units which conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. She hopes the rest of the development community is not watching and that the Board does not feel it is setting a precedent and that it is always going to be happy with this kind of design. She appreciates the preservation of the front yard and the tree conservation plan.She said there are many good aspects to this plan. She then offered motion to approve SP-2004-052 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but making the following changes. In Condition No 1,the second sentence,language addition:"Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan." For Condition No.9,first sentence,language addition. "...the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick,or white painted brick,with gable roofs." For Condition No.15, eliminate the language:"If this cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten(10)years from the date of the last contribution,all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the owner" Mr Bowerman seconded the motion Roll was called,and the motion passed by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mr.Rooker,Ms.Thomas,Mr.Wyant,Mr.Bowerman,Mr.Boyd and Mr.Dorrier NAYS. None. (Note. The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan prepared by McKee Carson,dated June 16,2005,revision("Conceptual Plan").(See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan.If additional parking is required for the office use,an amendment of this special permit shall be required; 2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five(275)feet between the southernmost structure(the"Main House")and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan;side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan; 3 All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property.All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A,revised and dated August 30,2005,and initialed as CTG; 4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property(Tax Map 60,Parcel 28)and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road,as shown on the Conceptual Plan,shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval,the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60,Parcel 28; 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property,as shown on the Conceptual Plan,and shall pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows. (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security("security")acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be October 5,2005(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided.The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten(10)years after the date of approval of this special use permit;security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed,and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index,as determined by the Director of Community Development;and (b) If,at any time until ten(10)years after the date of approval of this special use permit,VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal,and VDOT and the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit,the County may demand payment of the applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal,and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty(30)days of that demand. 6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting,dated May 12,2005,by Charles J.Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north,east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten(10) feet to twelve(12)feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight(8)foot centers.Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development; 7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building,a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner; 8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities,they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development; 9 Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone(A)the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick,or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone(A)shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone(A)shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings.The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick.These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings(See Attachment C); 10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate; 11 The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements,generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram,dated August 24,2005,by Charles J.Stick, Landscape Architect(See Attachment D) Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls,steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone, 12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy- five(275)foot front yard setback described in Condition 2(located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor),the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arbonst that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans,site plans,and subdivision plats; 13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context. All grading,road alignments,turning lanes,and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading,site plans and subdivision plats that state. "The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site."Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block,the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250; 14. The design of all single family detached residences,including but not limited to colors, roofing,siding and foundation material selections,shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units,as determined by the Design Planner; 15 The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars($3,000)cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs[including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit.The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution; 16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House;and October 5,2005(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 17. With the exception of the entrance road,all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Agenda Item No.27. From the Board. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms.Thomas referenced the letter from Peacock Hill residents noting that they are in a leash law area,and the fine for violation is still$25,and has been since 1973. She said she would be happy to go to the maximum allowed of$250,and asked staff to come back with an amendment Mr. Davis pointed out that a judge can impose any amount of fine up to$250. Ms.Thomas then offered motion to authorize staff to draft an amendment to County Code Section 4-213B to raise the maximum allowed fine to$250. Mr.Bowerman seconded the motion,which passed by the following recorded vote- AYES: Mr.Rooker,Ms.Thomas,Mr.Wyant,Mr.Bowerman,Mr.Boyd and Mr.Dorrier. NAYS. None. Ms.Thomas said in light of increasing fuel costs,she would suggest that the County share on its web page or through press releases,tips for reducing energy usage She said Ms.Lee Catlin has already put together five pages on energy efficiency. She also encouraged County staff to look at its operations for both conservation and efficient use of energy. Mr.Tucker said he has spoken to the new Director of General Services about this matter. Mr.Tucker said a voting delegate and alternate need to the appointed to represent the County at VACo's Annual Conference in November. The VACO business meeting is scheduled for November 15, and he asked the Board to choose a member to serve in this role. Mr.Rooker volunteered to serve as the voting delegate,and Mr Dorner agreed to serve as alternate. Mr Tucker said the City is moving toward eliminating the requirement for an automobile decal effective next calendar year He said County staff is suggesting that a decal be furnished that does not have an expiration date,or has a longer effective period,noting that cars can be ticketed in some areas when they display no decal Mr.Dorner stated that he is in favor of decals with no expiration date. It was the consensus of the Board that the County has a permanent or long term decal rather than eliminating the decal all together The Board asked that staff bring back an amendment to the County Code with a public hearing in December. Agenda Item No 28 Adjourn. At 6:03 p.m,there being no further business to come before the Board,the meeting was adjourned Chairman Approved by the Board of County Bupervisoto Cafe.03/15,2006 IrYdals:EWC STAFF PERSON: CLAUDETTE GRANT PLANNING COMMISSION: MARCH 29, 2005 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: APRIL 20, 2005 SP 2004-0052 KENRIDGE Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Kenridge, LLC, is seeking approval for a special use permit to allow development of an 80 unit residential complex on a 16.5 acre property located on Route 250 West across from the Birdwood Golf Course. The residential units would include 4 detached units, fourteen (14) 34 foot villas, twenty four(24)42 foot villas, and thirty eight(38) 24 foot townhouses. The special use permit would allow for R-15,Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The site is located in an Entrance Corridor. The site is currently developed with a main house and 3 dependent buildings. The buildings on the site are currently vacant. This site was the former national headquarters for Kappa Sigma Fraternity and a non-profit foundation. The building is designed for office use and includes an auditorium. The property slopes down towards Route 250 and down towards the railroad track in the rear of the site. The proposed density is 4.8 dwelling units/acre. (See Attachment A). An enclosed revised concept plan with a memo explains that the applicant submitted this new plan to the County on Friday,March 18th, 2005. Staff has not had adequate time to review this plan prior to Planning Commission review. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for R-15, Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office zoning district. This petition is requested for parcels described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 27 and 27B. The property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Ivy Road [Route#250 West] approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office, and EC, Entrance Corridor and is designated Office Service in the Comprehensive Plan, in Neighborhood Seven. (See Attachments B &C). Character of the Area: The property is located on Ivy Road(Route 250) and faces the Birdwood development. The property is bounded to the north by the CSX rail road and to the south by Route 250. The site is adjacent to the former Institute for Textile Technology, which is located on the west and the White Gables residential development, which is currently being built on the east. The area in the vicinity of the proposed development is largely institutional in nature. Many office and commercial buildings are located here. However, there are also several residential developments in the area, such as Farmington and Ednam. 1 Attachment E RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal (as submitted prior to March 18, 2005) for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and does not recommend approval of the special use permit. Planning and Zoning History: The history of the parcel is as follows: In 1980 this property was zoned CO Commercial Office. There is no other planning or zoning history on the property. Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven. Land use in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan would mean that Office Service uses generally include: "office parks and mixed- use planned development emphasizing office uses,residential uses, and regional—scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. Limited production activities and marketing of products may be included." Considering the nature of the area and allowed uses under the office service designation, this proposal for the residential use in this location would be generally consistent with the uses envisioned under this designation. This portion of Neighborhood Seven is best known for a series of historic estates and homes, some of which have been adapted for re-use as offices and sites for special events. A substantial amount of infill residential and office use has occurred around these older structures, generally maintaining the original character of the area. Several relatively undeveloped University of Virginia properties are located on the south side of Route 250 West, and could influence the character of the area significantly if they were developed more intensively. The University has not identified any specific plans for these properties at the present time. One of the recommendations stated in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Seven that relates specifically to this development is"Development plans along Route 250 West are to be sensitive to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway". The Open Space Plan shows a surveyed historic site on this property. The plan also shows this property is located in an Entrance Corridor. There are some slopes that are greater than 25% on this property. The neighborhood boundary for Neighborhood 7 traverses this site which is also the boundary for a water supply watershed. The proposed project's accordance with the twelve principles for development in the Neighborhood Model are provided below: 2 Pedestrian Pedestrian orientation and connections are not shown on the plan. Orientation This principle is not being met. Neighborhood Without seeing any pedestrian connections or a landscape plan, it is Friendly Streets difficult to know if this principle is being met. and Paths Interconnected The applicant shows a proposed road connection to the adjacent Streets and White Gables development. The applicant has also created a new Transportation entrance that lines up with the Birdwood development across Route Networks 250. This principle is being met. Parks and Open The concept plan does not label/show any parks or open space. This Space principle does not appear to be met. Neighborhood Nearby neighborhood centers that are not located directly in Centers the proposed development are the Bellair Market and Boar's Head Inn area. Building and The main house located on this site is a historic resource of important Spaces of Human significance to this corridor. The Architectural Review Board Scale suggested that this building as well as others on the property should be protected. The proposed buildings should be in keeping with the existing buildings on the site or, if they differ, some buffers should be created to differentiate the existing buildings and architecture from the proposed new buildings on the site. Currently, the plan does not address these issues. The Architectural Review Board staff report and Action Memo (Attachment F) address the need for these items to be incorporated into the plan. Relegated Parking Parking is not clearly delineated on the plan. It is difficult to know if all the required parking is relegated or not. It also appears as if several of the residences would be backing out into the road. Mixture of Uses There are three existing buildings on the site for which the proposed use is unclear. It is difficult to know if this principle is being met. 3 Mixture of Housing The plan shows a mixture of townhouses, detached single Types and family units, and villas, which addresses the mixture of Affordability housing adequately.No affordable units have been identified and affordability goals do not appear to be met. Redevelopment The potential historic significance of this site should have some influence on the redevelopment of the site. This site is being proposed for redevelopment through more intensive development of the property. Treatment of the existing historic structures is important to redevelopment of this site. Site Planning that There are some concerns regarding critical slope which need Respects Terrain to be addressed. A waiver to develop on critical slopes appears necessary. Staff has asked the applicant to provide a critical slopes waiver request; however, the applicant has not provided one. Clear Boundaries The northern boundary of the site is the CSX railroad tract. The Rural with the Rural Area boundary traverses this site and is also the Neighborhood 7 and Areas _ water supply watershed boundary. Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The reviewing engineer has said the following: 1. The stormwater management concept does not appear adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. Preliminary removal rate computations should be performed for each site drainage area, and facilities chosen to meet the target removal rates from the selections in the County Design Standards Manual or the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook. Preliminary sizing computations are available for most selections. As much site area as possible should be captured. Currently much of the site does not appear to be captured. 2. Frontage improvements on Rt. 250 should be provided, or a study provided to demonstrate that right and left turn lanes and signal improvements on Rt. 250 will not be necessary. The plan should indicate that existing entrances on Rt. 250 are to be removed. 3. A waiver to develop on critical slopes appears necessary. A waiver request, with a plan detailing areas of critical slopes and disturbances is requested with the special use permit. 4. There are additional issues related to access or the use of private streets in this development which need to be addressed. 4 5. Proposed grading of the site has not been adequately addressed. Zoning Considerations: Zoning has commented as follows: 1. There is a"275' White Gables Building Setback"noted on the proposed development plan. Is the applicant suggesting that we condition this SP to maintain that building setback? That would be the only way to insure future enforcement. [Zoning recommends conditioning other setbacks as described below.] 2. This revision makes clear the 4 single family detached homes but does not identify the uses that are proposed for the existing structures. These uses are critically important to the development. Please have the applicant identify them. On the previous plan I was able to comment on parking since office use was identified. With no use, I cannot evaluate parking for these structures. 3. Regarding the parking for the residences, all dwellings with more than one bedroom are required to provide two off-street parking spaces. [Housing for the elderly is an exception.] In addition, if parking is provided on individual home lots, rather than in parking lots or bays that are shared by all units in the development,then one guest space per four units must be provided. As drawn,I cannot tell if these requirements are met. 4. If this development is to be subdivided later, we need to know that now so that we can address issues such as "frontage" and parking. Please have the applicant comment on the intention. 5. On both the"existing conditions"and the"proposed development" sheets, there is an unidentified area of variable width from 25' to 40' immediately adjacent to the CSX tracks at the rear of this project. On the adjacent parcel to the east, it appears that there is a 20' sewer easement, but it does not appear to extend onto this parcel. Please have the applicant explain both items. Several comments from the zoning staffs previous memo were either not addressed with submitted revisions or are simply information that staff or the applicant need to keep in mind. Zoning staff will repeat those here: 1. This concept plan needs to denote the following: tax map and parcel number, zoning district, existing and proposed building height limit, and the acreage and density of the residential area. In addition, the SP file number should appear in the notes and a north arrow should be added. 2. Building heights: buildings in the CO district can be up to 35-feet without incurring any additional setbacks—measured per the definition of"building,height of' in section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. If a building is taller than 35-feet, it must be setback an additional two feet for every foot above the 35-foot limit and in addition to the basic setback. Therefore, if any of the proposed buildings exceed 35 feet, additional setbacks may have to be imposed. 3. Setbacks: Although there are no required setbacks between the CO zoning districts on either side of this parcel,you may want to consider conditioning some setbacks so that the basic planning 5 principles of light, air, convenience of access and safety can be enforced. We would recommend at least setting primary structure, accessory structure and parking setbacks from the perimeter property lines of the existing parcel. For example, you could use the 10-foot parking and 15-foot primary structure and the 6-foot accessory structure setbacks of most of our residential zoning districts. If the internal roads are to be public, you may want at a minimum, some required setback from the roads. 4. Parking: Accessory parking under any structure with a primary use such as office or residence does not require any additional approval. However,parking as the primary use in a structure does require a separate special use permit. [Parking under a structure does not appear on this revision, but keep this in mind.] 5. Knowing that there is a community desire to save the large trees on the parcels adjacent to Rt. 250 in this area, we hope that the applicant has considered this. If trees are to be saved, we would like to have that noted on this plan as well as the later site plans. A tree conservation plan will be required with the site plan review. Any Other Agencies that have important comments: Please see Attachment D for Historic Resources comments. Please see Attachment E for Current Development comments. Please see Attachment F for Architectural Review Board Staff Report and Action Memo, dated March 7, 2005. STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? Currently the buildings on the site are vacant. It is zoned for Commercial Office; however,the proposed use is an 80 unit residential development. With a residential complex of this size, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in traffic on Ivy Road. Kenridge will be consistent with other developments along this portion of the Ivy Road corridor in its residential use and targeted upscale market. The applicant for the White Gables project has submitted via electronic mail a letter(Attachment G) in support of this development. The Chair of the County-appointed Route 250 West Task Force submitted the Task Force's concerns (Attachment H)regarding traffic. There does not appear to be a future connection to the former Institute for Textile Technology building which would allow further interconnection of properties fronting 250 West and thus enable a consolidated entrance for those properties. A potential purchaser of one of the condominium units in the White Gables development has sent the following concern by electronic mail: the purchaser hopes the Planning Commission will take into consideration the potential impact of 6 Kenridge on the west-facing view of the White Gables development. The purchaser suggests that a much wider buffer area would benefit both Kenridge and White Gables. However,residential uses, such as the one described in this project and the White Gables development, do not require buffering. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district will change in that the area will be more densely developed with residential development. Although this parcel is zoned Commercial Office (CO),residential uses are allowed in this district with a special use permit and are consistent with existing uses in the district. Density created on this site appears to be similar to the Ednam development. Therefore, staff feels the residential concept would be in keeping with the emerging character of this district. However, intensity and character impacts have not been fully resolved at this time. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The Commercial Office District allows the development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts. The Commercial Office District allows residential R-15 by special use permit. The general concept of the proposal is acceptable,but concerns are present relating to the scale and character of the proposed development. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? By-right uses in the Commercial Office (CO) district are offices, financial institutions, churches, cemeteries, libraries,museums, accessory uses and structures such as eating establishments, newsstands, establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment, data processing services, central reproduction and mailing services,medical/dental services and related businesses, sale/service of goods, utilities such as electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility,public uses and buildings, temporary construction uses, dwellings, temporary nonresidential mobile homes, day care, child care or nursery facility, stormwater management facilities, and Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities. The residential use of this proposal will be in harmony with the uses permitted in the Commercial Office District. Residential uses are considered to be in harmony with these uses provided there are no adverse impacts among the uses. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? 7 Without adequate information it is very difficult to determine if the public health, safety and general welfare of the community is being protected should this use be approved. Critical slopes appear to be disturbed on this site, but the applicant has not shown or stated to what extent this will occur. Stormwater management has not been adequately addressed. There are some traffic concerns relating to public safety because this section of the Route 250 West corridor carries a high volume of traffic,has many access points, exhibits horizontal and vertical curvature problems, and has three traffic signals. In spite of these difficulties, the applicant has agreed to provide access connection to the adjacent White Gables development and nearby National Legal Research. The applicant has also agreed to align the Kenridge access with the existing golf course entrance at the Birdwood development across the street. It is anticipated that VDOT will allow a traffic signal at this new entrance when warranted. Currently VDOT has found that a traffic signal is not warranted at this location. When a traffic signal is warranted VDOT anticipates that the developer(s) of the affected properties will share in the cost for installation. Approval of the White Gables special use permit application was conditioned on several items, including the applicant being responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation at the intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering. The applicant for Kenridge has not formally agreed to participate in the cost of the signal,but through discussions has agreed that this would be of interest as the project develops and when the traffic signal is warranted. Fiscal impact to public facilities—A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment I. As noted in the analysis,there are many other factors to take into account when using the fiscal impact information. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors,which are favorable to this request: 1. A shared interconnected road is being shown on the plan between two high density developments. 2. The entrance to the property will be in alignment with the Birdwood development,making it easier for a future traffic signal to be installed at this location. 3. Several of the historic resources/buildings will be retained. 4. The front setback is equal to that of the adjacent White Gables development. Staff has identified the following factors,which are unfavorable to this request: 1. Adequate information has not been provided relative to critical slopes, pedestrian connections, amenities and open space, stormwater management, grading and zoning. 2. Site design and building locations need to relate to the land form and the existing historic resources 8 on the property. 3. The existing trees on the site are significant. There is a need for a tree inventory and landscape plan. 4. Affordable housing has not been addressed. 5. There is a lack of description for the use of the existing buildings on the site. 6. Lack of interconnection for the former Institute for Textile Technology property. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff is not able to recommend approval at this time because the following issues have not been addressed and are not resolved: 1. The engineering and zoning comments previously noted in the staff report. 2. The attached Historic Resources, Current Development, and Architectural Review Board comments. 3. The attached Route 250 West Task Force interconnection comment regarding the adjacent former Institute for Textile Technology property. 4. Pedestrian connections have not been adequately shown on the plan. 5. Amenities and open space have not been adequately shown on the plan. 6. Affordable housing has not been adequately addressed. At this time, staff is not able to offer any conditions of approval should the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors decide to approve this special use permit. There are several unanswered issues and concerns regarding this application that, depending on how they are addressed,would dictate the substance of any conditions. Staff recommends deferral of action regarding this request until the issues as noted in this report are adequately resolved. ATTACHMENTS: A— Concept Plan B— Tax Map C— Vicinity Map D - Memo from Julie Mahon dated February 24, 2005 E - Memo from Bill Fritz dated February 24, 2005 F - Architectural Review Board Staff Report and Action Memo dated March 7, 2005 G- Electronic Memo from Vitto Cetta dated December 9, 2004 H - Electronic Letter from Diana Strickler dated December 13, 2004 I- Memo from Steven Allshouse dated March 16, 2005 9 ®� ATTACHMENT A IS /,', 6.',..;/,',•1, / / 1_ 1 1,1 Community Development Department %'' ' 'li '/1 ''' ' / - /�-- - J ^ /' ' 'i',' " i ' '' ' o' : '/`, l'`' WHITE GABLES CONDOMINIUMS File# [/C - S� Q ;/,': .�`, < ' -� • •'�_^- --,./----, - --- ® , ' //, i;/ , ��„ %' -.1104, . -•. a_ - J""--2 - fir.-= _c__\\_ / Approved by the Board of Supervisor& / /�' ;� to ," / , -� ra��` J ,,, +;.�' ;; y � ��)� _ _ i i i<;//:J / <IF; < l ' J/ arDate ' / /ccc 111��I i i/i'4''i' r '' 6' �� a /'�, •'j / _ _ t\� (\.Yl`J t �•t\\ 'To CONFORM WITH V00T 54BDIVtStON /{'�qr0 1 ,/I/%�� < / �2i3 . 411, �/ / 1 �,\\ \\\`�. \\\`' RQAbD`\STAIVQARD FOK•IhNrrr/ �"' /4���/�/i /�i�� [!,ij'Y ��� ' ,. •• i •''r , ' `, tom -^ I-l/-- j'R0105[J 34" 51DEYAl�D S�TBACK r / //i/ / / 1 / / . / /, / / .l . ✓, / `✓ ��.r®��1 (E) VtT<1, (N W)\ ' 1 1 i 1!i / l//fJ r r/• / J� " i /r ' J < rylr/ , a09" a \� w 6 / ,1 , 1 / / / / / _; Ay /Jii4'• i%� ♦./ A „�>> ,/'r !�' '/',�// ,p_-___ .t$:- d _ -\'''T�. .,r„ /I i % Jr '11 / //i''''/"/ N'/"/ i.y>� . ''- 'i 1 I' ,>! �•, / : i"�'� �\ `1 Y/ 'Yf f y[V»� _f .� < J lj� `` 1, i //'i i/,i ' /i r' ',p., . >, �• , r' / -1,- ,,I CIR -'L_ , rl 'Y / -,+ /., t' • / / i , r_____ �S, 1 I /. ; /',//ii/'i : r//t',, •�D• - •,--..,--' ' �> $, i-- st •A l ffa 11. :\ 8 \ J ' I/' / //[. < < <✓. I� ,�q6p� -hex► < - J'//,i,,j /,,, < { ,•F/ i ,�i / ' . i `•71� -. ®� -wit, \ \, I „kz ,.- 1 • y ;. ""'e n c..`I n D -4 : _ ' ____ 1 ,/,!/i/''1% /' / 14 %3 TIQI/ Ij/ / / -s-z ,• -1.— } -� is { l l (FARMINGTON COUNTRY CLUB , /,,y ,// ,r / a 1 y, l a r��r "/r.�': >'�- �/�; � � � Io°' . I �_•�' j /- N IIr1NEt ' /I/�// I /'/ ! dl 1 1 1 , I / / �r1 ��aa /i,7 ` �� � - ` \ `+` � • �Y ,/ TF /.. . �.�ar ` �! -//� ' / 1 i,1 1'1. ,.1.:' 1 ' I / ,it' /,1 // s-.�. • -- s \ J 7 ict -.,i ,;�.�rr r-. -. -, 'Y<f / i//'/// // v \ 1 �� i rr ; / il /� • ;, = �vi1a� ��1•, 1 'fir I r-.`3 i + r "yi ' lil 0 I/////%/ i \ 1 C•: 1, t __``+1,, r 16I 1 .a ' I "H ' f /I - _� ilk\ 1 1 7 f 1 , ':5 a3 J F '. 1 11 //�//, / / ;t' 1 1:. 1 1 I , 61[y ' !'1 , r r' 1 I.1 f ,-'!.[ ka' yt'i t1- <///,// / / ' `: "\ q 1' I 1 , , / I� 'eV h; / �� I { y , T �` ' 'yr••r k . xp�•, .' I1 //, // // • 1. J 1 1 1 I 1 I�. - 1`j \ �`I► r/a rht r �. F•4.1 / . — DI I it%/i'/i f /// 't 1. �\\,I � 1,1 \ I1 \ I I °t8 ��� �.. / SEW A'CCE55 -. rt ti -t \y at I,4�H� I� S: r '.� 3 {+. .y __/ , �. I�: ''' ///J/J'/ / // t k "y iii I t;,'111 �. \ X \: 1 '/'Y \ M I I' ' ' 1 r i 6 1f$t. , A I , u//// /,,' 1• \ t 1 i ' t I 1' t { , 1 i ' L` / >' 111 - ' --� 6 PARKING ARBA \ \. \ 1('�Y 1 l F I , 4 li y� �l * �1 /i/i// ///, L_1 }-� 1 r a,. 1 1 t IA C 1 icy ' / \: • ' t t \ F \: • i�Jl i \1 \ ` ' : t1'tf' \ `i .t t 1 y F � {• ,,y1 • • 1 1..iiQIL� F{ 1 d 1 \ - -1 4) 3MlFi6E- JY L HOU9Ft5 ,, \\ \ ♦ \ t.:4- \1, 1j.l \q_1 `id 1 I 1 '. ' ' ' \ '• 1 I 1 .. T I I .1 � ,I ,i/iar� J: �� 1 I 1 1 1 { I 1 1 Iv , \ \ \ \ . \,"/ e 1 i I j Ill It l 1 ](//t' . -/ i„ • i• "' ' i 1 t ,: \ V �- //.' /1 1„ /r 'i \\ 1 I J. {_ ,/TO REn1el_F& ESW IAk,, *"..t\` n \ i .:\ t .,•e, / / / 7.50 REAR YARD 5ET6Cj ///, br ,1 j. 1 Ii ' I : ;. JCING 1 '/," ANDI'Z)R OFFICE USE j '1 {) + \ r3.); �. F f � 1\ \ ltal� la ! !- \ •t V TK<� ' ?':` `\ ` ` 11 ' ./ J ' ,i„, _, "f ,, ,,j'i i1 , :' ! ir / i REARN' 1 , L� / /r .. ..\ • -1 1 ht .s } `iv ' r ./,� 1`f E '�\.';:'1 i --- FJ./ //,/ //, s '..'I .'., . �\ \` @\ •\\- \I\\ vo•s• 11 IRLI / :MANpII TO .' V...". t.11 s t II: - "tl•' i '_ 41 'ti I .-•s - -A///,,, Ill, / y yyt rt :, `. .'S 1 IA\ \\1` \\ '\bi li r0.o I ,.• PO ift REENDENrlti�' tt. 1 , L a._w� "�[�g �'i � 'FJI '\.+ I` o JJ / //lI t 7,�� S/�s I•gt 1 1 \\ \ W' a 1 1. s N1 :1 p a 1 j` k }' • 4# w.d6 1 a- t 11 / , , //, d s e t\ 1 t� 1 t \ t. phlox. \ \ _A' ( 61#1tE.11UP 7,1...-:- �,,,,. i,0• Y R' dA v,V i 9*+" r - 41/`1 ,y � -M,.a\,.�'', '' ,/,/ i/// . Y{I., •.1 1 � I 1 \• .\ `\\'.\` lox. \\\\`\ \ \t 0.„ :i i j j..i I/ft 1-•, : 1 a wy. ,)4-, 1�1.. a i�.iY`x'; 1 r� Ilia IM-MP'�-^ , i $. -- / !/ / 1 / ll ' � .. I 1•-1 ' F \ 1 ;:it.......' SI A 11 I ,.I 1 - V., �•K ;f 1.4. I tl, r s x... 1 a• i' * - / - ralt' IV 1 §� //// / // ` �� \ \\\\ v :5.)_,,\-::::11"1 _ 1 1 _ I � �T"`t {' c� 11/r' / -'.�i"'"� .,.I I! '// / / / // /, ,/ / / ! \ \ ` \\\\♦ y�,+� u Y .l :::y �, I Al1 - 1 11 I I ''— F 11� • / ' '/ / / / /l , ' .iY 1I:II , \ \ ; ` \ 1 1b `I'•\ 4 it 11 Y:IJ 1 ;'"}.. I ' Ib . 1 I '/`< /<, � � i \`\ \ 1\ nai>y \ , ' N I�1- . I i I� iI �, 1 I// I / / I/ �•,. • ,: I,, \ \\ •' . i \\.\' r t' rt`rk t II - / / ' , / , 5i' / , 1 , ,1 \ \\\\ _ \ .4 i1 .,. $ �' yt 1fIX r .,1i,11 \ , � I1,I , ,-_/ I it \ \\ ��' �1. ,w uj m ah. ,/„ ROAD CHARACTERISTIC • i' / i i / :: 1 �\ Fp t .: '+\ \.\.ti Y r. t I \ \ , 1 t- a H[ i r111 ,// \�, -�• ' L ,�,. AA r / / l i/11, 4JEe■■L■■ le,' ��1 o \'\ 1\ Ncti:,i1"'4 F kY,YL`•v,.. s +: ''.s / " 7,/ I �1'<.Y 11\ 1.. '/ Jl i /' URBAN SECTION / ' ` / / 'Ft � .:. � 1� 1 �� 3 \ \ { r( \�\�,\� \ \ \ \ (- '1 �{ \ },1,.1 tab 1.: \ ,J I , , \ / "l�'— ' �t ` v 'IL. l:ti�� El\ \;1 \:: 1 \1 , \ J/ l .d$,5AORE EIS / I I ....,L.);,/ I t ' r `__ _, ril 1 ✓ i '/ i 1 1 t1 \ \ `t •%aht \�� 1 \ ' \�\ - ��.i ° �;`Car i � i ' i i}• , ii\ /' K. l• 1 RURAL SECTION / I , P i I , I1 1\ \ �� \ H \\ \', \ 1 \ \. 1\ 1 \`\ \ t`\ \ `\`! } SI / i ;I 1\`III l } 1 \ 1 '/ \ , EXISTING UTILIT ! , .1 1. 1 1 \\ t \ a \ \ 1 \ \ \ 1 \1 \ 1 `t l\\ t. �`* �e ix, t I r I } Jk ,-s u /, s // yy r 1 \ % \ F 1 1 \ \ \yp�t ` t \ t t 1\ -\ / „._::•,-.,,...„, l t+',I a,•"' t "..,•a7J.. , ,1 ,i J !{P I d l 1 1e \t O \'� �I� 1, \ Q\`\ 1 \ \t pl 1�I t • .� • .1 ._,� ., ! J 1 .- S'J s'�••F \ ; ;.• " ....:1/l ' .- � 1 ' / 7 6 .11r. 1 1 t ` 1 \. K 1 1 t 1 \ \dt\ \b\ ,\ • ` '` ./ /' / J / 1 r"1 Y.1 I • j 5� t > I/ SIDEWALK 4 5' / !T / ',j t OI l \ \ 1 \ t r a ..\. �. t-•�' '1^:. , 1 :l,:, / 1, \_i // STRIP FOR SIR • \ \ I I ` 1 I \ • .S e-15 / r/ JI ,'°r'"l d { ' :1I \ 1 '1f' ' 't _ //- _ , e 1 � I I ' ' I \ '�+ 1 \ r` ` :\ +`, 1 / / , 'l +l1 q,� a \ l..t`' u\ // PROPOSED DENSITY - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPICALBOTH /� 1 I ' , I 1 \ '+ , •v' ::/ / 1 I .,,, f +1 1';q ,I \ �' /te rI , -•�I ;, f`�I I��r I \ i t 11 .� \\ .\ \'.1 , e/ ,` 1 I r-hf ' \ ,...\ 111 \ `t / '' '!it `I ,''$ 'l „ i blsr / i,)""1 a�� x - ' SIDEWALK .. 1 t r , r ! 1, r � NEW DETACHED Hon SINGLE FAMILY 5 UNITS �— I f ,Oa A I + ♦ J I��' L aMi �aG: q��s\ - - l: d L .� 1 \ 1•• ,: _ l,. b bl bib / VIC{✓:N�Ir ► / i.7 1 ! 1 1/ a, t ` J 1 1 \ A `�♦ fIS; -` t i, il,l '/ rs =L �... :�,•� r r r 1 .7 I\^a/ �e I Ie \ /h, f 1/.1 .'/ 'b � iY ;fi /J/1 _ J NEW 24' WIDE TOWNHOMES ATTACHED 12 UNITS '�� Y —,rii �@' r2/ i::C J �� / z`v':i �I j- .ai y,Q ..• {1 .. 40 74:'• T;)"9n- r ;• i - 1 / NEW 42 WIDE VILLAS ATTACHED 48 UNITS /'!/ / ` 1 E • ARV, t, NI I', /'' .' al - 1 - ,:',/-;., 1A / ' /' ' :,' .. \ i •'. ♦q a�\1 .11,'§'t ; 1 ..• i TOTAL 66 UNITS it \ / d ', %.' , I' - ,fi J / ,'@ f it , / 4 rtI 1 .,,1 r 5 IJ, 1/ I /. PROPOSED DENSITY - OTHER I I 1 1 ii Fy S• _- _ - / '/s' ,',./'. - '/ / i 1:111 s ', ..9 1 / - i /. 1„ \ .;1 1/ ,, /, // EXISTING MANSION8000 5F .(+1-) I e f ,v fat s /,,ter, < < i ' _, :'';j / 1•://i,/ •o�' CARRIAGE HOUSE 3000 SF (+/-) • :::: '�\li i 9.. 7 1 ^/ ?Ri3P65E©^�0 11C9fNG� BAEK ii/rr • . J - �_ i .r, ;/ // - /` ,,, \ 111 I I \\ \t 1 1 -� - • -�,�i- i 1 ' ':.' -�„-+�'`�_ _:� Y _ J1 --�-- / - MWYOVF EXI6YING;'DRIV f ,'T.f1 J'20'IN WIDTH / I! -\\\111 I 1 i '\ 1 1 1 % (5)HILLA6�NE1N} _ = '+;' i 1, tl-"11 i ' '( ' ,�j'� .° I 1 1 (�) yILLAS (�IEf/).�� (2) :�ILthS (NEW) -� �!- 4J(G'51D.E\�ALK ON ONE SlD,�/iALI/'CONNECTOR,t' j 1 ` • ' . -_ ' ; 1 I i i , f / , // Nr,z ROAD.TO H,i.„,,,'k/y Apoere,AL a HORIZONTAL ' `t Ini. : 0 1 I I 1 / / ' ,J..-, > >>: - / / 1 r , 1 , / , 'i'/ /' ,- ROAD• , > -- - y'`\U \AENi TO'GgNF,f3fVlyt;AMIT(v'VDOT 5U�R�V,l5i0N! - - ROAD STANDARDS FORA TRAFFIC VOLUME OF 1501-2000 N 6 > FORMER ITT HEADQUARTER) FUTURE CONVECTOR ROAD TO BE DE54NED TO VDOT PUBLIC STANDARDS FINAL LOCATION TBD -_ •4 PROPOSKD DKVELOPMKNT PLAN KR\RIDGN. & GRI G ARCHITECTS PC SCALE: 1"=50.-0" JUNE 16, 2005 A-1 ATTACHMENT B Community Development Department_ / / File# 5p�?OC�—A'>5vI / I L _/ � Approved by the Board of Supervisors ,• �••�`j p F�/ WHITE GABLES CONDOMINIUMS Date &C-47-4),,f - j / r:'�.41'0%0 :•- ,:'� �t>c» / •� .,� 4;6,--. '-----,--,_-_.____/ •;-, ----- , , - \ t1 - ...__ ... ..._ .. ( 'y-� it I +ii♦ \\ ' VFRTICRI♦3'HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT prl01tur0 _ PlOnn,Of 1 1 'fp • 411'. ' N i/•� +•. TO GONF�M Valli VDOT SUBDIVISION , 40 / / I u. ',I • �' r ij Y, �•��:� , \ \ ROAD':STA?1DARDS FOR'LANF. •�A ', �, . �: // • //Iiiiiiri /� /�CI �r` `�• v PROPOSED\, SIDEYAr SOW:1C �j�f�/ /% ,, `= '-��' — ,j„ i/� :;00 :__ .v..... . ..`� i cs)vluas c I ; okrAt p f� , li i i if,�� �" tea! )11 , I �� l �/!Alk�' , �/ l� ccvil�// ��l��- 1 �/ 1 , (s /2 ,z.. To bESICNEo°TD •i i /%/•• �� X/jd �• ////►--, • `� 11 / 1 • c!sT�►DARDS. D /'� . i� / a"'°". 40, ' �hr'r."'i..�,V /fir h / ! FlN Moc�noN TAD. /r FARMINGTON COUNTRY CLUB �' • 00 i��/�j�r •4.f � ~ ��/���.� ,•��� ��� %New / +4""� / /, • ,. / ,".'�/��/ fir / - `t\ ..: 4,, zot T •,'h / 1 IINfri �/ 4 .,� /� .•,lj // ,� �/ram_.---.. 4 INN.,NQ r •' y ' a "�. \fir vXI). ) I�h �G d a ' 1 t �! ';Ij�i►�, A�Ess"• ,\ „�' ' f',,( CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM G' ' l s� ,, •# it,441�/r,,T M I4 aPARKR+G '�1� \ v 1 \� OF • O ell; 11 4V *Al4.11 �L,;� 1, .�' �// � � _ � '� � PERIMETER SCREEN AND / "� n •t� M1��� f1�1 // ybj, �p �� w/eASEyojT , , V�\ ��N Mai, / RAR"ROAD // ) .., r'W � I .1I� .. `` ��� \ 1 PRIVACY PLANTING _ �p�ry�j, > STBJG CARRIAGE HOU \ \\ \ I / '� / �� i ��tlf�IN .�'9,'r/y�,� / 1�, Mika M� ��P�� O t\ 4114 50'REAR YARD$ETBA �� ���j �1 ` '4. r'y ,R�.11�+r�.. OFFICE U� 1�ti 1.� �f / `, � 1 �, ,If MiG i, :1 d , , 1 ' \ I�•/ \ I DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES(WILLOW OAKS. ��� -,, ; `1�11p1 II1, 4 ,1 � "i'�� r r—�1 � 11 - I I f �' NE1�`ERTRAr�E\ t� 7 ::,.............s.::::........3, axs.scAtu�-roAKs) PROPosm sroRM WAM' .. /i 1 1, G.1 �/y, �' 1� �TDJ':•�� 0 ♦ , BE ALIGN �MANAGQ.B:N'r / i• /� • 1 1 .a..�.r7 •`a� i / IAT EN QII, G �eI, ` / , REEN TREESTID CYPRESS. r r ,��9 1 T: OR RES.EN7 IS FLOWERING TREES(YOSHIND i F , ` +1 . ��? V . , asi,: i/ f ` 1 I, •;� / O ERIR RONTA• / • DARA CEDAR) , • r11 ��1 5s. y�� 1♦ liw �1////// :if•1•' _ �1` i� .',' �/ \ 1 I I ��' / I�APROVEMENTS - O / hIN g���b ... i �• '6)1'•' •ny: \ 11. CHERRYxKOUSA DOOA'O�,FRRiCErItEE) /,•,, �' /� iJ1lll►, �/(^S ,1 .,.�y,; �I '� 1 ; 275r 1 i -.., , , ..:.�CONTINUOUS �HEDE�RGREEN TREES p.EY1.ATQ7 i✓i.�•.....�®/-,�•' ' ,b, I ,'►�7/�y 'S-A 1 gym,.,o� . , :.i� 1 ;❑ ''�'/ ' / 1 •�� ! Jl II I)I � � ' . -s ��.>F r )lit \- -------Th o / CHARLES J.STTCK �`•re l0-k�../Iigij�rl� iii A I \ 4.5ACREEDGE , LANDSCAPE ARCFIITECT r -- -- 5' 1:'I ��1 II / l CHARLOTTESVIL E.VIRGINIA ' l�A•� j/n�1 9��I �1► L ►� �,1�'t' '/���yy�;/`.� PARK PASSIVE I� 7 • I . 4 "' RECREA7)„ , r 131-296t62e EXISTING UTILITY �v �a ��• ,$_� � �/� t,//,� SA \I � � .�i, /��� 1� lIi r/!• ,;,;tom //" 1 r %�//�� Ilk 1 .j1,,,,,.t Lei' 'i ' ////111� SIDEWALKRS ii:� i, • �_ .,G:Wi II 1' AIL,. �i �. '4//.% ' ". SIDEWAL STREET'TT.a. i 1 f*4 4,17c BGTH ,,K : x q i ) lip �� � � J I V St �� ���� �I PROPOSED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT � �' �_ , ALK I(� ji 1 1 NEW DETACHED HOUSES SINGLE FAMILY 5 UNITS .�h�' - __ _ — = . _ t I NEW 24' WIDE TOVMN0I±ES ATTACHED 12 UNITS J••�lk----3110'.-, -,; ���•�A '_ ' / y == _ �� , I NEW 42' WIDE VILLAS ATTACHED 48 UNITS • +1 ! I I / 7� i I�I �,�I /'� Pir , /� is'', TOTAL 66 UNITS • • • 1 /y ���i l � �r .✓4.'�'"sr�''004 %� / � / \ 1 PROPOSED DENSITY - OTHER (/ • ieldE �O• /i K gy Y ? ��� / �� ® EXISTINGMANSION8000 SF +/-){ ` ••�'��w���=�,► �3�� I� ���i/ � �6- mil`--� CARRIAGE HOUSE 3000 SF �+/- • • ��z 2T/ ��!! 1> Imo_ I'll • / / • \\7111.11.111111111C\ . ;ie.. __sit• r► �I .__ i - N �DPoN .•"1L WIDTH 5) LAy(N1;Sq.�_ J. 1 .' <) LAS(N8� ON."DEWALK DN rONE%SI• ;ALL •. HECTOR 11 I 4 Y2)�I ) FRONTAL ROADS TOW hERI AL Ac HORIZ'" T �� J 1 � / /// /� = l II I / ,--ALIGNMENT ro toNF.:. aMTy woT sum. :oN. NMEW ROAD STANDARDS •- A TRAFFIC VOLUME •. 1�0{-2000 �;i„I FUTURE CONNECTOR ROAD TO BE DESIGNED TO VDOT M. '`•AZ; FORMER ITT HEADQUARTERS PUBLIC STANDARDS FINAL LOCATION TBD. a•r•••.••• pI1+". ETT PROPOS N.D D 1 I'.WELOPMF,NT PLAN KENRIDG Hi &�R ARCHITECTS PC SCALE: SCALE: 1"=50'-0" MAY 12, 200 A-1 ATTACHMENT C A '1, rllil Oi ` q ''. or III 'fit\ax •" •I"a... lly la 4!� " Z. 7 ,' Community Development Department ! i a�'i --d::�- ,, �N File# S E✓'�?r_ �4 0O52 0 _I_ _ " '2* ^) Approved by the Board of Supervisors C:. == ^far. �, �r-� .� L. = /,!! , ' Date lam('lii i2e4'" 6 7 cx_)s 1. f J ,:e 4k,,,.(1.- ,:1" i1hh 0,p,�,,, ' CieUt/4rTh__ ��a'^/Y,l�,v► i _;� " • ;`l .: Signature - Planner 1. -�. f, - jam. �� >EJ t ) .114 . . 1- YYYPerkTANri" OCIT- -__________ the.. e exkd pan_ , ---nie_.. Coaco_bio 1 -i 6 aROL Pf-10190e-CL _ 'A :81 OLLA-- p\-an a62-- One. ify)H s � , 0,ka va_e-*- 61(a/Mk e,hti.1 R] nn€ �1 Ili I I'illLi�i '11; _.:ai_II_.:Rs:r_I�il '" t 41 111 11 11 1 I 1 1';;i I ;, i'1l ,II I I Ii 1 ,,,, �4 V'l` _-. --.-t" ;. zl:11 I t1 1 , IIIII II1 I, ., 1!111; • ,�-11=i .I0, tt it III IIIIIII ki_. , i ��1 •I,l I'11' I ',I11 l{j{ I I1 itl'4EE' 1 M 1� 1t_rtR..6�..=IwR..R,��_. I"y, . , I 1 : I:I ,,,„ t-J w. ,,,, ,...::,..„;..,:;.. . ,,:.2.2. L. , „.,,...,. Ili:'I11, I ) p�`�lih -6.• -'�i,=l, t -} ,''�3 II I1; r} d• 1' 1,111t 1 i __ r �T�' 4 x '1.__Ll'..-_,2."..._:'7.:2......',e1h„ I., ,_,--' ' -. -( 11 haail hl !•"�'1 ii • 1 ! � • _�t/i6'u"`i I. _ I l /i.._1k1..1...._Iw6.. `- - 11,11 I II,I11!111. I 1 !;III I ' ii11';illll I 111 lI 1i; I IIIIlIIIII 111 i'II l CL.! vr_.�L.1_I_h 1:, 1 111•I•I;I III . u trl Il i'I 11 I Illl,ill o•�• "'s flit �{ I I II I i 111 l I } 1� ,.1 1-4 ! IIIIIj1 !II '-i. h ji 1 � �, ipp "f-1 / NA_ 1 +, a .�w_�' I 11 1 I 1 r"I••di 1 h' ' // II, �, r ° Ili I'lil 'I j✓ #_[ I ,i Iii I��i•Inr�'•'l'•-,'-� � `-`4,.� _ , �i�:MilineNNIS I III 1I I l // 1 i I lIA1'1{ # 4 aL�-_ e - I, I I,1 I y� �=�I ''j, p I ,i1'1I y - a a�z i vlzs_ 5 I 1 I I' I I6 L 1 1I ;11 . , }i� 1 II , !MHIO 4 ,1 .�11 t \• f d r • ` , 1 I 1111E1=11 11 ;:, 4h !•!�z._I_L.r..._tel../c.._I¢L. I l 1 I 1,11110 11i!I !WTI' Mill 1'111!1 it ! 1111;;';II I , I ;,�Iii,.:; 1 .ISI- 1 /51.1' 'I I !WWII - 6 Il1 l F Mrl 1111' t ' 1,1 III• III !IIII I ` wr �,:II 1,I, , I trij1,i1 I II 11 Iij' �4��P �� y' !� 'il i 11II illljl I1 riii, , I H 11 ili � Ilflit II1ji ,,,r •/401111 p I / fill 1 /�=_1=T.:I�Sai_ :Ic! �_IC I I 11 11 I Flimilil lq . . C7 }:)1j[j"��114 \ l 4 .Ili t l p'7 0 y yq 1s �'t'Z ; 111 Aiii 1 11 1 111 Pjj II I il \\\llllll f 11�6 - ����y� • 11 11 11 11 jj[[ I�i1��� 1 � � 1 �.11111�'1 HJ'_lYll : �L�Y �3L`y�t��1� ��tl �"�, 3• 111116,Il ','I ',11411' h .-A. "Y.4'''Y;� "'.",-' -^.=1 j1,1.•i1 �. "..I "14 t1� � ,/"fir`', gy ?' /1 .I_t!_!1..R_lL_P is....... 4f ,I1.IlIyi'6�,1�1��PI'1�11' ',Z.1 , ?:,•,`.' � ..r n.i I 1 jl �1 r I l l` i 1 R 1114 pll 11 gla III I I {I cn !° 1 I —I1 �i1i'i'i-1' m 1 ' I :I j 1j1•11 IIIP I G. 1 S�_i_TtisS=z ia1.S%}!m�i3l: !I 1' y I ti f S Illt � �I, • I - ,' 11 �iit i� - o j I lII I r `i II 1 ......,,:„..,E.a1-r 1 ,zap` y NI I�1 I�� terrl �s � _s i�r _s �'r_ c Ky l I 1 I I l j 111 r,t Imo111�' .Q "•0, i- '`1hi = ff,?s,11='` CA I iI • ,'Ira11 1 I . .11_.�1 /avi=S:i ILQtut!�'i /`� i' 1.f ' 2 ,'^r.�-, .S1 .:' 0. l(/ , i611 ,y, # p A, y t1 1 �1 �/ 11 -.r..1_I. I .._1_aI 1_I.. l 1H I Il !yli lj h ' IjIilll ! Illllll 111 II!I 1 I ll Il I I IIII!I _ _ i iI ii::R1�M ea:a'1_T�f r ,�. t 1 11 1 l ' Iii� I l l l l 1 -j °_ _z� EEItit `� v� I. I IIiII' �1..{. iS JS 'E1'1 I--I j I I 1i1 I1 -*.eWaSiJa 4 11 ' I III i1.. , Ij,, /I a ~' Stil111, 1 II.1�01, 4li 1 C• i' :�.'1 t1� d:icS _i_.., i- t, 11' t )•i111 ti i _ _ _ �__ z I I I I a 1 1 .; .ii-iT� "i{y{3' ice. I I ▪ � - 1 1 ,1, . S'�!'1 C - �P' r�-= t SiLLL ='��5�,_, I� 5 n „iiii6.11i' 11 x f _ tz y CHARLES J. STICK C7 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 220 COURT SQUARE CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE.(434)296 1601 FAX(434)396 3364 1147 NORFOLK STREET HOUSTON TEXAS 1/091 PHONE(713)107 WI FAX(7I3)107 1167 DRAWING TOLE. FRONT GARDEN DIAGRAM SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" DRAWING NO. LA-I PRo3ECF KENRIDGE,ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA DATE: 24 AUGUST,2005 DRAWN BY PCG ■ ..,.. e . , r_...... SP 2009-0 . VRKenridg 06 1111, , voil IiLo -----.-1 / i"--•.....,,,,,_„?.. . .44, si li A iiii/ 6 iii - I 1 -- ____--_,- i-__ i 11117; 4, i 41.,. . I --------1/;1 -- ,:---1110, —__ i — i • ug wp7g4 f. 44F., / Migili.,,00004t . . ~ . .4, . i IWAV 8._____ gt; ,.... si• • 114 f' lir • • -'. --- -- : . V. , 9 •.1 Ilk* 4 \� `\ ---,..,, N., ,7.-4 ' ‘4)1111#.1: 4I1 ti' • ``�.., ' , l •� , • D I i, 0 . .o Allisi * .! -'-'''--- ' r. 4 ' -f i 1104: - - 10'Contour — - Streams A_ .. ►4F.,r /N/ Roads alp Water Body t __ �r Feet Driveways I I Parcels 0, 6 — 1 Buildings Ell Parcel of Interest 1 OF( At4 Q® 74.41$1)01, l'iRGne* COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5823 Fax (434)972-4126 Communit Development Department October 13,2005 File* c'i;;7(3o) i —O. 9, Approved by the Board of Supervisors Steven W. Blaine, Esquire Date ()az j' jDY.)c 23 East Main Street Charlottesville,VA 22902 Signature - Planner RE: SP 2004-052 Kenridge (Sign #40) - Tax Map 60 Parcels 27 and 27B Dear Mr. Blaine: On October 5,2005,the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on SP 2004-052 to allow development of a multifamily complex in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, on Tax Map 60 Parcels 27 and 27B in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This special use permit was approved based on the following conditions: 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan prepared by McKee Carson,dated June 16,2005 revision ("Conceptual Plan"). (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required; 2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy five(275)feet between the southern-most structure(the"Main House") and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan; 3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG; 4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property(Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval,the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60,Parcel 28; 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan,and shall pay its Attachment F SP 2004-052 Kenridge Page 2 of 4 • October 13,2005 pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each Ji_„to consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community ycai a�w,u ,� the w„�u,,,.,, �,,,.... determined .,.. ..,. .,. .................� Development; and (b) If, at any time until ten (10)years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand. 6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12)feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight(8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development; 7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner; 8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development; 9. Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A)the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone(A) shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See Attachment C); 10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate; 11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect. (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone; 12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275)foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor),the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets • SP 2004-052 Kenridge Page 3 of 4 . October 13,2005 the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subdivision plats, 13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: "The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block,the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250; 14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections,shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner; 15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution; 16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and 17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met. This includes: • compliance with conditions of the SPECIAL USE PERMIT; • approval of and compliance with SITE PLAN and/or SUBDIVISION(S); and • approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE. In the event that the use,structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced within twenty-four(24) months from the date of Board approval, it shall be deemed abandoned and the permit terminated. The term "commenced"means "construction of any structure necessary to the use of the permit." If you have questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact Keith Lancaster at 296-5832. Sincerely, vv ) Cei---' \ ("<----". . Wayne Ci mberg Director of Planning SP 2004-052 Kenridge Page 4 of 4 • October 13,2005 VWC/aer Cc: Kappa Sigma Memorial Foundation C/O T F Lang Executor Director Pmb 106 3000 S Hulen Suite 124 Ft Worth,TX 76109-1918 Amelia McCulley Tex Weaver Chuck Proctor Keith Lancaster