HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200100021 Staff Report 2002-07-03 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE:
ZMA 01-021 Carriage Gate Apartments June 18, 2002
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA DATE:
Request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15 July 3, 2002
Residential with proffers to allow apartments with a density of
14 dwellings per acre. The property, described as Tax Map RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval with Proffers
45 Parcel 91, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on
Woodbrook Drive approximately 1/4 miles from the ATTACHMENTS: Yes
intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional,
recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Denisty uses
and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood
Service and Office Service.
And
Request to increase distance of parking spaces from dwelling
unit in accordance with Section 4.12.3.4.c.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms. Echols
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal and asked the applicant to redesign
the site to better meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model with specific regard to relegated parking, more
accurate grading information, and a central amenity. Attachments A & B contain the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting as well as the original staff report with relevant attachments.
DISCUSSION:
A revised plan and proffers was provided by the applicant (Attachment C). Also included in Attachment C are proffered
elevations for the buildings. Staff has reviewed the modified plan and relationship of grading to the elevations provided.
The new plan relegates almost all of the parking and provides a central amenity. These changes are in keeping with the
changes requested by the Commission. The proffers have been reviewed by the appropriate staff and, with minor
changes, are ready for approval.
As shown on the plan, there are three buildings; two are anticipated to be four stories tall and one is proposed to be two
stories tall. These buildings have architectural elements to break up the massing and also work better with the terrain.
Since the property is not in the Entrance Corridor, no review by the Architectural Review Board is required.
With this plan, the Commission is asked to increase the distance from the parking spaces to the units in accordance with
Section 4.12.3.4.c. of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirement is for spaces to be located within 100 feet of each unit and
the Commission can increase this distance to 200 feet. Staff recommends the distance be increased to 200 feet in order
to more easily relegate parking on the site.
(Staff has recommended with the proposed parking ordinance amendment that the distance requirement be dropped
altogether since it supports a more land intensive suburban development style than promoted in the Neighborhood Model.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the proffers which include a plan of development and elevations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A— Proffers including plan of development and elevations
ZMA-01-21 Carriaae Gate (Sian #691— Request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The property described as Tax
Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive approximately 1/4 miles
from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential
land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses are 6 -34 units
per acre (if this applies) in Neighborhood 1. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report as attached. She asked that the Planning Commission address the
following questions taken from the staff report:
1. Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's recommendations
for the Neighborhood Model?
2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining property
boundary with the school, be provided?
3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown adequately
given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant.
4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better assess the
differences between the redesign suggested by staff?
5. If no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is viewed as
appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading information is no longer
important?"
Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 2
Z
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Rieley invited the applicant to speak.
Steve Melton stated that he represented the Berkmar Land Trust for the rezoning portion of the
application. Other persons present to speak for the request were Tim Miller, Design Engineer of Rivanna
Engineering and Surveying; and Rick Carter and his son, the contract purchasers and developers of the
site. They were in agreement with the signed proffers, which were provided to staff earlier today.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any public comment on this request.
Jack Schmidt, a resident of Woodburn Road, stated that he was happy to see a residential development
in this area. He voiced concerns about the site plan, pointing out that the proposed entrance and exit to
the development would be from Berkmar Drive and not Woodbum Road. He asked what the back of the
development would look like and what impact it would have on Woodburn Road. He questioned what
type of screening and setbacks would be required.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the Commission begin with the list of questions on page 8 of the staff report.
Mr. Edgerton asked to hear the applicant's response to these questions. Being sympathetic to staff's
concerns, he felt that these questions address the pertinent issues. He pointed out that he saw nothing in
the proposed project that resembled the neighborhood model principles, noting the following concerns:
the tot lot in the middle of the parking lot does not seem to be in the appropriate location; the grading
issue are unresolved, and parking seems contrary to what had been requested. He questioned why the
applicant has not been able to provide the information that staff has asked for.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Melton if they wanted to address that.
Rich Carter stated that in most respects he felt that they did meet the neighborhood model principles.
They wanted to get a waiver for the tot lot because of the school and Public Park Next Door. Then people
within the complex would have full access to the property of the school. There is kind of a struggle
between circulation versus central amenity. This is an opportunity to provide easy access for emergency
vehicles and the people moving in and out. They wanted to do something special with the interior by
creating a meeting place. For example, a place to go read. If you look in the back of the submission,
there is an actual layout of the park. The park would be heavily landscaped and at a raised elevation to
provide buffer from the street noise.
Ms. Hooper asked what were the dimensions of the park.
Mr. Miller stated that it was approximately 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Rieley ascertained that Mr. Miller was referring to Attachment D of the staff report.
Mr. Carter stated that to be more central, it certainly could be pulled to the side and work the parking
around it so that it was against the school side of the project, which would tone down the circulation.
That is something that could be done without too much of a problem. The only other criteria that he saw
from the neighborhood model that they really had trouble with was the relegated parking. They want to
provide landscaping up front with some intricate features to buffer the Woodbrook cul-de-sac from the
parking. They had investigated staff's proposal of turning the building and trying to get the parking inside
the project. There is a grading issue and a cost issue associated with the new layout. It became
apparent that they would need a retaining wall all the way down the right-hand side. In struggling with
that, they felt that this was a worse scenario--looking at the parking lot was one thing, but looking at the
retaining wall was something quite different.
•
Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 3
3
ATTACHMENT A
Ms. Hopper suggested that they lower the density, which would reduce the parking requirements and give
room to shift things.
Mr. Carter stated that it probably would, however lowering the density lowers the ability to provide income
to the owners of the land. By lowering that, the cost of the development does not go down. The building
cost may go down a little bit, but the ability to create income off the project also goes down. That was
what drives the project. Therefore, if you cannot achieve a breaking point in density, then the project
does not happen.
Ms. Hopper pointed out that was not a compelling reason for the rezoning.
Mr. Carter stated that'in the real world that is what drives the product.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions.
Mr. Thomas asked what the elevation was at the retaining wall and how tall would the retaining wall have
to be.
Mr. Carter stated that at the start of the wall, close to the first parking space on the right as it was laid out
today, the wall was 4 feet tall, give or take, and runs the length of the site. All you would have to do is
transfer the elevation on the current site plan to within 3 feet of the property line and then tie the grades
together. That would give you the height of the wall today. They have met five different times with
Planning and Engineering in trying to come up with a way to make this work. Engineering has conceded
the fact that their plan may include more grading and that we might have to drop the site further. If all of
the grades stay the same, the back of the retaining wall would be about 7 foot.
Mr. Thomas agreed that the elevations are much different in the back of the lot than in the front.
Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Carter did not feel it was necessary to develop the entire site plan showing
staffs recommendation and grading when everything indicated that it was not a feasible option for this
site. That is in response to why we did not submit a plan showing the grading of staffs layout. After
review of the site, it became apparent for many reasons that the relegated parking would not work.
Ms. Hopper pointed that it would not work at this density.
Mr. Edgerton voiced concern that the information provided was not to scale.
Mr. Miller pointed out that although the plan is not to scale, it does show a 10-foot cut. The Commission
can interpret from this that there would be an additional ten-foot cut over the site. It is a copying reduction
issue, but the graph on that chart does show the grade and would be a map of that layout with a 10 foot
cut.
Mr. Craddock asked what the difference in elevation is from Woodburn Road to the back of the apartment
building.
Mr. Miller stated that there are actually two residential lots behind this parcel before you get to Woodburn
Road. There are approximately 300 to 400 feet between the back of this property and Woodburn Road.
Mr. Edgerton stated that there was a 25 to 30 foot grade change from Woodburn Road to the back of this
property.
Ms. Hopper suggested that they explore the maximum height of the building. She questioned if they
could reconfigure the project in a different way in order to be able to have the necessary density and at
the same time be able to move the parking. She asked if they could make the buildings higher.
Albemarle County Planning Cornmss.on- .vlarch 1), 2P02
DRAFT MINUTES-SUBMITTED APRIL 9. 2002 4
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Miller pointed out that he would have to research this, pointing out that the setback limits affect the
height limitation.
Ms. Echols stated that the maximum height was 65 feet. Any building higher than 35 feet has to have an
additional setback. They could go as high as 65 feet if they could meet the setback. There is a 2-foot
setback for every 1-foot of height above 35 feet. Presently, a 35-foot building is proposed.
Mr. Rieley invited additional public comment.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Rieley stated that the requests made by staff are reasonable. He personally wanted to see this
explored further. A request for a more detailed grading plan and how the building fits the land is not an
unusual request. Particularly, when there is a rezoning and a proposal for a development concurrent with
that. Saying that the plan has been looked at and the only feasible way is the way it is in the application
does not meet with favor. He asked that the applicants take a step back and look at each of these issues
more seriously.
Ms. Hopper concurred.
Mr. Rieley asked the applicants if they would like to request a deferral to look more carefully at these
issues or if they would prefer the Commission act tonight.
Mr. Carter asked if the Commission could define what they needed for the resubmttal.
Mr. Rieley requested that they explore and address the items outlined in the staff report. The applicant
needs to provide enough information so that the Commission can make an informed judgement about
whether it will work. He asked for other comments.
Mr. Thomas stated that additional grading information/cross-section information needs to be provided to
better assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff?
Mr. Carter asked if they could demonstrate f the staffs recommendation for relegated parking would•
result in additional grading and retaining walls, would this information put the Commission in a better
position.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that was quite what they meant.
Mr. Edgerton felt strongly that the design needs to be reconfigured and at least an attempt is made to
provide relegated parking. He stated that the design needs to be reconfigured to try to make that central
amenity a little bit more appropriately sited. He stated that he was not in love with staffs alternative
scenario, but they should be able to come up with another solution that works better than the one that
they were looking at. This is a major rezoning request, and he could not support it with this plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that the benchmark was that this property has an existing zoning on it that can be
implemented by right. By asking for a higher density, they were asking that the design be to the greatest
extent possible and consistent to the neighborhood model. He stated that all of those five items relate
directly to that.
Mr. Carter stated that the applicant requests a deferral to the next Planning Commission meeting to give
them a chance to reevaluate the plans.
Mr. Rielly asked if there was room available on next week's docket for this case.
Albemarle Ciunty Planning Commission-March 19, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 5
5
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Benish stated that it would depend on what the applicant wants out of the next meeting. If it was just
to determine whether the Commission can act or not, then they could hear it next week. However, if they
were waiting for information to be submitted, it would depend on when that information was provided. He
wanted to make sure that they allowed enough time to discuss the items.
Mr. Rieley stated that if the applicants were trying to decide amongst themselves whether to defer this,
then the Planning Commission could table this item until later this evening and bring it back for action.
Mr. Carter asked if they could have a few minutes.
Mr. Benish stated that Ms. Echols has another meeting. Since this was only a question of whether they_
were going to defer it or not, he asked if the Commission minded if she left.
Mr. Rieley stated that that they had already asked all of the technical questions and felt that they had
been provided with enough information. They were aiming for the applicant to decide whether they
wanted to request a deferral.
The Board tabled the request for a few minutes until the applicants had a chance to discuss the issues
and decide if they wanted to request a deferral.
MOTION:
Mr. Edgerton moved to table the request until later in the meeting.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
2
ATTACHMENT B
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: MARCH 19, 2002
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 3, 2002
ZMA 01-021: Carriage Gate Apartments
SDP 02-016: Carriage Gate Apartments
Applicant's Proposal: Virginia Land Company has requested a rezoning of a property
located at the end of Woodbrook Drive adjacent to Agnor Hurt School from R-6 residential
to R-15 residential. At present, the property is wooded and undeveloped. With this rezoning,
the applicant is requesting approval of a 41-unit apartment complex with a density of 14 units
per acre. The applicant is proffering development in accordance with the "Rezoning
Application Plan dated 2/8/02". (See Attachment A for Plan and Proffers.) The applicant is
also proffering conformity with the building features and colors shown on the renderings
entitled "Carriage Gate Apartments." (See last attachment -- Attachment J.) It should be
noted that, due to their recent receipt, these proffers have not yet been reviewed or approved
by the County Attorney's office for form.
A site development plan has been submitted to accompany this rezoning. The site plan
mirrors the "Rezoning Application Plan". The contract purchaser for the property, Rick
Carter with Southland Homes, has developed the site development plan.
Petition: The petition is a request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The petition also
includes a request for approval of a site development plan. The property described as Tax
Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive
approximately 1/4 miles from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use
areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood
Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses include 6 - 34 units per acre in
Neighborhood 1. (See Attachments B & C.)
Character of the Area: The properties adjoining the parcel vary in their level and type of
development. Agnor Hurt Elementary School is located to the south of the property. To the
east are offices and small retail shops. Further to the east are two fairly large shopping areas
(Lowe's and Rio Hills Shopping Center). To the north is a fairly large wooded undeveloped
property which is also shown as Transitional on the Land Use Plan. To the west are two
parcels, which were recently subdivided from the property proposed for this rezoning. Two
houses are located on the parcel closest to the parcel proposed for this rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend
approval at this time.
Planning and Zoning History: The parcel was zoned from R-2 to R-6 in 1980 with the
County's entire new zoning ordinance and map revisions. The old R-2 district allowed up to
5.3 units per acre with public water and sewer. Prior to 1996, the parcel contained 5.5 acres.
Approximately 0.5 acres was subdivided off to make the cul-de-sac of Woodburn Road.
1
7
ATTACHMENT 8
Two new parcels were created at that time that are now TMP's 45-91A and 91-B. (SUB 96-
056) The parcels contain an office building and the Northside Daycare. The original parcel
was further subdivided in September of last year(SUB 01- 175) to create two new parcels
whose access would be from Woodburn Road. The Planning Commission approved a private
road for these two parcels on September 18, 2001.
Specifics on the Proposal: The layout of the development is shown in Attachment A as the
"Rezoning Application Plan". The apartment complex requested would allow for the
development of 41 units in this mixed use area in Neighborhood 1. The design and form of
the complex is fairly conventional. A recreational feature is provided at the rear of the site
surrounded by the parking lot for the Building C. The recreational feature has been described
verbally by the applicant as an area depressed and screened from the surrounding parking
area in which vegetation and benches will be provided (see Attachment D). The applicant
has said that the recreational feature and the configuration of the parking lot is important to
provide for circular movement for moving trucks and other emergency vehicles.
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has provided a narrative in
support of his rezoning which is shown as Attachment E. Key points are that the applicant
believes this project will provide housing in an area that is adjacent to an elementary school,
transit is nearby, and convenient shopping is within a short walking distance. The applicant
thinks that commercial development of this property (which could be requested since
"Transitional" uses include commercial uses) would be difficult because of the lot size and
configuration. He has said "the development of this site is contingent on getting maximum
density to make it economically feasible to build and lease".
By-right Use of the Property: If developed under the current R-6 zoning, the property could
provide 16 dwellings. With bonus densities or a cluster development, 24 units could be
provided.
Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for rezonings 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 Transitional, which should:
• Be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in
areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing
circumstances or areas where redevelopment/reuse is encouraged.
• Provide an opportunity to develop mixed-use areas with Urban Density Residential uses
and non-residential land uses on a scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service
• Include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses, and
apartment buildings
• Be developed under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure coordination of
uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally
sensitive areas.
2 S
ATTACHMENT B
The density of the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Density classification. The
addition of a residential use in this area provides for a mixed-use area of the county. Many
services for the residents are within walking distance of the proposed apartment complex.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to be in a significant wooded area shown between
Woodburn Road and Route 29 in Neighborhood 1. The Open Space Plan says, "Preserve or
establish trees or vegetative buffers in the following specific areas as development occurs:
The wooded ridge along Berkmar which is highly visible from Route 29 North and provides
a buffer between adjacent residential and commercial land uses. Staff notes that keeping this
wooded area wooded with a Transitional Use or even the existing R-6 zoning could be
difficult. Much of the tree cover would be removed regardless of the development.
The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in
accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below.
Pedestrian Sidewalks extend from the cul-de-sac around all buildings and
Orientation parking. Sufficient pedestrian access is provided. Pedestrian access
would also be important with a modified design of the development.
Neighborhood No new streets are proposed; if the driveway were relocated to a
Friendly Streets location parallel with the northern property line, trees could be added
and Paths alongside the drive. A mulch pedestrian path has been proffered to
connect to the school. The Schools division of the County believes
the mulch path is adequate to provide for pedestrian access.
Interconnected A proffer has been made for a 20 wide reservation of r.o.w. for
Streets and dedication on demand of the County to serve the adjoining parcel
Transportation TMP 45-90. An existing access easement of 30 feet on the adjacent
Networks property could be added to provide for sufficient r.o.w. for a public
road, if necessary. Access to the property to the east is not provided
because the properties have access to Woodburn Road via a private
road. This access was approved with a recent subdivision.
Parks and Open The recreational amenity area is shown in the parking lot, which is
Space viewed as a less than ideal location. A more central location within
the complex and adjacent to the school would be safer and provide
for better amenity opportunities. It should be noted here that the
applicant will be requesting that the Planning Director substitute tot
lot equipment for landscaping and benches through the site plan
process. The reason for the substitution is that playground equipment
on the school property can provide for the needs of the younger
children in the development.
Neighborhood The property is located is in an area near several centers, including
Centers the elementary school and nearby shopping centers. The location of a
multi-unit complex near the school and shopping centers is a very
positive aspect of this proposal.
Buildings and Perspective drawings indicate shape, massing, and number of stories;
Spaces of Human however the grades on the site plan don't match with the
Scale perspectives. At this juncture it is difficult to tell whether or not
buildings and spaces of human scale are provided adequately.
Relegated Parking 1 Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staff believes it
3 9
•
ATTACHMENT B
does not meet this principle of the Neighborhood Model.
Mixture of Uses As indicated previously for"centers", the property is located in an
area near shopping centers, offices, and a school. In conjunction with
these other uses, a"mixture of uses" is achieved with the surrounding
properties. This proposal provides for residential use currently not
present in the area.
Mixture of Housing The proposed development does not provide a mixture of unit types
Types and (i.e., detached, attached, duplexes, etc.). Such a mixture could take
Affordability place on this small parcel, but it might be difficult to achieve because
of the size and shape of the parcel. The applicant intends this
complex to be a rental complex only. Affordability is unknown.
There are two single-unit dwellings to the rear that belong to the
property owner requesting this rezoning; however, the future use of
those units on R-6 property is unknown.
Redevelopment Not applicable.
Site Planning that How the proposed project respects terrain is still unknown. Minimal
Respects Terrain grading is shown; however, it doesn't match the perspective drawings
or indications by applicant that the unit type requires flat pads.
Clear Boundaries Not applicable—the property doesn't border Rural Areas
with the Rural
Areas
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district According to the Zoning Ordinance, the R-15 zoning district is intended to
provide for compact, high-density residential development. The district permits a variety of
housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of
locational, environmental, and developmental amenities. The existing R-6 zoning district is
intended to provide for compact, medium-density residential development. It also permits a
variety of housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision
of locational, environmental, and developmental amenities.
The application is for a higher density residential use than the R-6 allows. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that urban density residential uses are appropriate in
Transitional areas. R-6, R-10 or R-15 could fit into this category of Urban Density. Staff
believes that the R-15 zoning district, with proffers, could provide appropriate density if the
character and form of the development is supportive of the density requested.
Public need and justification for the change -- The County's policy for encouraging
development at higher densities within the Development Areas provides a public need and
justification for the request. Form and design are as important to a successful project,
though, as the density.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
4 1
A
ATTACHMENT B
Transportation —An additional 287 vehicle trips per day are expected from this
development. The surrounding road network of Woodbrook, Berkmar, and Route 29 are
capable of absorbing this additional traffic with minimal impact.
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site. Off-site easements
from the school will be necessary at least for the sewer extension and possibly the water
extension, as currently proposed on the plan. There should be no issue with fire flow
because apartment buildings are required to be sprinkled.
Schools - Children from this development would attend Agnor Hurt Elementary School,
Middle School, and High School. Using the County's multipliers for multi-unit
development, a total of 8 children are anticipated with the 41 units.
Stormwater Management—A stormwater facility is shown on the site. The site plan
comments note the needed changes in order for it to be approved.
Fiscal impact to public facilities—A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment F.
As with all residential rezonings, the fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated
to pay for services.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources—The site is a gently
rolling, with trees. There are no recognized cultural or historic resources located on the
property, which would be affected by either a by-right development or this rezoning. There
is existing forest cover; however, the more intense and dense the development, the fewer
trees that can remain. It is likely that a by-right development of between 16 and 24 units,
designed to retain some of the trees, could successfully integrate wooded areas into the
development. Existing regulations for by-right development could not be used to ensure
preservation of the trees on the site.
Other Issues — Staff reviewed the "Application Plan" with the rezoning request during the
first month of review. Staff was concerned that two important principles of the
Neighborhood Model were not included as part of the design. These principles were
"relegated parking" and a "central amenity". Staff suggested to the applicant that the
buildings be rotated 90 degrees and parking be relocated so as to be less visible from the
public road. Staff also suggested that recreational amenity be located between the buildings
adjacent to the school property. (See Attachment G.)
The applicant countered that to make these changes would require an exorbitant amount of
grading and provided a cross-section elevation with the second submittal of the plan. (See
Attachment H.) The County Engineering Department found that the cross-section did not
scale and that the grades shown did not correspond to any plan of comparison. Engineering's
comments are as follows:
The ZMA for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. Engineering staff reviewed the
cross-section to assess the difference in grading between the plan provided and the
design suggested by staff. A comparison of the two plans was not practical for the
following reasons:
5
I I
ATTACHMENT B
1. There was a cross-section of the "design suggested by staff" but no cross section
of the applicant's plan to compare it to.
2. The cross-section was not to scale.
3. The cross-section of the "design suggested by staff'did not include the same
grading concepts as the originally submitted plan. These include 5%parking lot
grades, 10% travel way grades, and buildings constructed on slopes within the
original plan but shown on flat pads with alternative plan. The original plan
shows an average grade around 6% while the cross-section plan shows an
average grade around 2%.
4. It is impractical to compare grading plans without an equivalent site plan with
grade lines for the "design suggested by staff. "
Of difficulty to the staff is the fact that on the proposed site plan, the buildings are to be
constructed on the slopes; but with the cross-section (relating to staff's suggested
reorientation of buildings), the applicant has shown totally flat pads. Staff thinks that the
ability exists for the reorientation of buildings to occur without providing totally flat pads.
When asked about the need for totally flat pads with a change in building orientation, the
applicant said that the building design he wanted to use required flat pads. In the site plan
comments, Planning staff noted the discrepancy between the architectural elevations shown
with flat building pads and the site plan showing buildings to be constructed on slopes. (See
Attachment I.) Because of the lack of consistent information relative to grading and the
architectural designs, staff cannot determine how well the principle of"buildings and spaces
of human scale" is being met.
Although staff asked the applicant to provide additional information on grading or request
direction from the Planning Commission through the worksession process, the applicant
declined. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission's public hearing and
decision on the plan submitted as the Rezoning Application Plan.
Preliminary Site Plan
A preliminary site plan was received for this development following the submittal of the
rezoning request. The site plan has several deficiencies, which are noted in Attachment H.
At this time, staff cannot recommend approval of the site plan if the rezoning is approved.
The most important issues include:
1. Stormwater infrastructure and grading needs more definition
Engineering Comment: The easternmost drop inlet and drainpipe system (adjacent to
TMP 45-91A) appears to drain uphill or flat. Please give details of the drainage
system from "Str-4" to the "SWM facility" that demonstrate proper drainage.
2. Tightness of the utilities and planting area widths may make planting installation very
difficult:
Engineering Comment: Though not typically an Engineering concern, it should be
noted that the location of the proposed sewer lines would prevent a tree buffer
between the site and Agnor Hurt Elementary School.
Planning Dept. Comment: [32.7.9.8] Please be advised that screening at a depth of
20 feet may be required along the Stormwater Management Facility and the boundary
6
/7
ATTACHMENT B
with the school. Plan accordingly to accommodate vegetation in such areas and be
aware of potential conflicts with utilities.
Planning Dept. Comment: [32.5.6s] It appears that there is insufficient space for
landscaping with the aforementioned utilities. A conceptual landscape plan shall be
submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval to assess this issue. The plan must
meet the minimum requirements for screening along the stormwater facility and the
parking lots, as well as screening from the rear property and the school. The
conceptual plan need not specify the distinct species, but rather would describe the
vegetation by its type (i.e., medium shade tree, screening shrub etc.)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal is for a use, which is supported by the Land Use Plan at this location.
2. The proposed use provides for a"mixed-use" community in this part of Neighborhood
One.
3. Residential uses are supported by a pedestrian network, public services (schools, fire, and
rescue services, transit) and close proximity to shopping and employment.
4. The residential use next to the elementary school is viewed as extremely compatible.
5. Perspective drawings are proffered to depict the appearance of the structures.
6. Pedestrian access to the elementary school is provided by the applicant and the proximity
of the complex to the school allows for recreational use of the school's playground
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The design does not conform to the Neighborhood Model principles for relegated parking
and a central amenity.
2. While density is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, it is unclear why the R-15
designation is superior to the R-6 designation given the conventional design of the
development. Each of the factors above is also true for the existing R-6 district.
3. Insufficient information has been provided relative to grading to know what difference in
grading a redesign might have. For that reason, it is also not known whether or not there
is conformity with the principle of"buildings and spaces of human scale".
4. As shown, it appears that insufficient screening and landscaping area exists in some
places, especially in relation to utility lines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff believes that a residential use is appropriate for the property and that greater density
could be supported with a modified design. Without an alternative design or information
substantiating that grading with an alternative design is so massive as to make the alternative
infeasible, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time. Because there is no
recommendation for approval of the rezoning, and because the preliminary site plan
requirements have not been met, staff cannot recommend approval of the preliminary site
plan.
Because staff believes that density greater than that allowed by-right could be appropriate at
7
�3
ATTACHMENT B
this location with a different design, we request that the Planning Commission provide
direction to both the staff and the applicant on these questions:
1. Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's
recommendations for the Neighborhood Model?
2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining
property boundary with the school, be provided?
3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown
adequately given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant.
4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better
assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff?
5. If no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is
viewed as appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading
information is no longer important?
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A—Proffers dated 2/25/02 with Application Plan dated 2/8/02
Attachment B—Tax Map
Attachment C —Vicinity Map
Attachment D —Drawing of Common Meeting Space/Tot Lot dated Dec. 2001
Attachment E—Applicant's Attachment to Rezoning Application dated 12/17/01
Attachment F— Fiscal Impact Analysis dated 3/12/02
Attachment G— Staff Comments dated 1/24/02
Attachment H— Cross-Section Based on Staff Recommendations for Site Layout dated.2/19/02
Attachment I— Staff Comments dated March 5, 2002
Attachment J—Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations dated 2/21/02 (3 pages)
8 /�
ATTACHMENT B
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment T )
PROFFER FORM
Date: 4/3/2002
ZMA R 01-021
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 45-91
2,742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(I)
SEE ATTACHED
BERKMAR LAND TRUST
1 /
BY: / CHARLES W. HURT 2/25/2002
Signa ffo• All Ow.- Printed Names of All Owners Date
BY: � - SHIRLEY L. FISHER 2/25/2002
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
a
ATTACHMENT B
Attachment To Proffer
Dated May 3, 2002
ZMA 01-021
Tax Map 45 — Parcel 91
1. The development shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled
"Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Gate Apartments," dated December 17,
2001 and last revised February 8, 2002.
a) Conformity with the building features and colors shown on the renderings
entitled"Carriage Gate Apartments".
b) Additional vegetative screening of a portion of the Southern property line
with Tax map 45-Parcel 95A(Agnor Hurt School) if required by the
schooL
c) Appropriate fencing and vegetative screening around the storm water
management facility.
d) A central amenity consisting of approximately 4000 sq. ft. that would
provide a private landscaped area with benches for residents and guests.
e) Tenant and guest parking along with pedestrian access via concrete walks
accessing Woodbrook Drive and buildings "A", `B" and "C".
2. A pedestrian path located on the southern property line that would create access to
the Agnor Hurt School grounds. The pathway would be a 5' wide mulched
surface with 10' cleared on either side for safety and visibility. This pathway
would be complete before the release of the performance bond.
3. The owner shall reserve the number of residential units on the above-mentioned
parcel to 41.
4. The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand by the County of Albemarle
a 20' r.o.w. as shown on the Plan, for the future extension of Woodbrook drive to
Tax map 45-Parcel 90.
I I .1I `. l}u1
moo 1i _ C) \ I1 ../'S I';•1'I 1J/lI S. ' (.z--) la
/ i
," 14 ��
F " 1 _
,, 1 \ 0 U Kt Al IAIm J IhM! 1,M111
0.
w! I 1 ` I In O -(_ A. I
1 buuAlA. -L' .0 i COP J, C
'11 . 1. ] Sh Ni .,, I I .'Z7 4 tJ '�
1•Y _ 11IOU SA.'AI UUN
Ib i' i I Y5 YOU St 1u7AL t, CO a O R .�-y-�--7
�� 1) I 17 UI.1. •-, �2 V ,Ar
li! Ill -I I v
I •__ 11 I I.Q v
04 nl I � L'�U ay �+.
L-r- l- �t � CO L� it '`x
I i i.
li I - s -. . I b9
C0� /1 1' s 14
r„.., ,)\ .
\ , .. 'I II11
\k.)Ca()
i fl'�1 I - _
.mil LE 2 r' ~ Aa Un," > A_'<3ci cO z � r4- O 5va n.' o ,nlm lit .- V 'Tj
t, (/�. z m ✓, CiLO c] Y c-. me G -CZ-, m%M r� •m N “n �--y O o r C
•
V, - _t �-- A A N,l IA , , I. L a, U N b Y ' 2 f",
erl N Y C')rrl (: II As
',1 Y J, O CJ rA
C, j.,y
j. U11 j )v.i i -: r,
O, = O O aJ ,( 'll l it (i
lA VI • Il' n _U n
^ -t 1, n
.0 ,O�'Oa N l)
UiLwO.-
IA NNv,01 f-: in
,. i ft t m i-
7n
Ln L+OV_.N ij
— ..
a ii A
CA Prapct r,lls Drawl iUc i....ti
Y , RI;'l,ONINC AI'Pl ICA'I'ION PLAN FOR , , �° �Y"°' ItIVANNA ENGINEERING & >
�I'I'IJ(•� IION PLAN o' SURVEYING, I'I.0 H
O CARRIAGE GATE AI'Alt'I'MEN'I:�
o R y
o
r F� ti 7E 1•IIUNL 1w11 tY11 1561
Iflvanna District, Albemarle Comity, Virginia tra.Yq S.:dc As`An,.n Dla.a By INN ,i.Namc ANNIAGE At f, t� Z
,---- , 'lee, N`,�� PO B0A 76OO IAA MO YBI 6063
DUI. Ii 1/01 (Dad./Bs INN Plofct Nn: YID'- Churl„tt.arUle VA 241017 !NAIL HLU!sCUVUNAN,T MI
z
.-
CO
1...., v
.e�� • ATTACHMENT B • J
_ -_,V / /
JOe / `
!pl, r \!0
( ...\
� /." -' \ \, -;. •K1=1^Vt••, 3";Wel'.T Imo` �;�
/ / v �atC +9E,' : S •�•xr SOEZ`4/ •\;7.. fa. I.
: ' •Sp _a3C• 40‘. + •Ie�.'�• 39 p10`� aON•. '� 33
�\ \- : •
� .3•� 9 ��fr • \ \ SO[• \ mod•• �.
+Sl.121 ` 55C "ae
s.
(\\` '' i' aymo..- 44�j 09L v `\�\»[A:!a16 /. I ON 59.
\\,/.:,: -.:,,..
.' • ',:.\\\:: •.
-- .,........... .. ,\.1T,v l'• " ----.• ,,' " . 3,.,- , ,
AS' ,‘N,0:\\ 14%*
54
.e..,,,„:„,,\\,,. ..,..., ,k \I"
• (1/10 - 124; /7/ ./ ./ ' "s's\C
--.'.\..., ,
ytV.\‘
�+(RV' ‘CIa 1 c2�1tlp \ •\\ \1r7;W
C ,„ i?/ ). W
,, OTC \\�\ 'IH/ O}a
<:, •
•4.475 -ern,SY, rV. » • L! a =
,(,\
44
\ 'q ��.� .I.wI17r\ Q
\ •
S ,
••.` 2� •
.o. i3 h e: Scc
. `_ Sh :f •* .."r.Oe/pal ,,•�{.
iii,
Se
j ,' - IOai�. ,..� ; Spa•
)•a 1 ,•--':.�.a.a
<SI ,•tr.ai r we /�\ p � a•. 7ep' apt Ii 67a •Y -�
1.
I Sr /S� ift/• ., I f ` }2 34e a+[ ate / 7se j * /rw �,a3,M • • 4 .a. a't„
• 'Sa rat• t1 rlr ,a\� i7 ) 1k 4 / r /35
�:eo . :c c
•fin • T 11 i II 3.. - as :.e s+o ' aer i f 7( /\ j c-1.:
a. )a1 a ,- t�,�� v e 31° \ .r y/ . - 07 _
�1 �,r ..1 `� fie' ••I�I1, I• ` )u, llv )IT i3111 Vi :I b rr .0°, • N \\\
•1 pr, f0 ',•' 'l ' ♦.. a17 31 e 1 e 69 a3 •: /�
i{� ell • •e• .p( a A ,.�. - /• /.-_
e,\tea• ~.le•" , \ ' / '° .e7 j
318 Yl•� / / ,, / /
raC ya )Ir 31w 315 - `�! �r .a1,��'
.\ we. , .y to.. .� \t:27 V' i•o• •`` //
.Lfo•as \ 1 iv! rae. Aror/toe, °� \ TT ul„/!•� i
•
sea:K-7--"‘
r el
eff
F. \J il,. , Y Z✓Mb01A+-001-21 Carria•eGate Si•n #69 -.a.' /
.,
, „.46, .... p
/ • ' G• _ 30[ , gyp.,. ,0.., ii f, + ��•',� ` , y rra, y ���
u •.ire \ )oo >�. • �� 11
\3.
�" it n' ,. / \VVV.-4
196 a, „pi f, fee .•r .r `�`�1 19e= 2p�'� 1•\ /.o. a ITIZifi ye�_•6r y'\u.z ° O�t:y� �� �` �``` 3[erlor
•Ili" -ITeyp�.fr-1� =y �= A
... .so j as` �. *. `r\ :c �% �4 ` 94e `� \ Lena..a.
_ e� ti° /- i w� �Y /
61
wt IN r« *RI C , RIVANNA a SECTION 45
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
i2 I/
•
\ NI‘ i
____ .,,* 2 Pi:" .- _1) iv0b-S--- Nolio x 47•
O b
I 0 ‘. ,., fil_lrz_ - , .•••,
-• , 4 ,8 . .0• %% ti `"
•
I Q• 0%0 .. - \
vi0%..-
dc 4. P . sikm ,i , /
�, j 598 11
P 11% - //I -
``
1► '�-
00 ,
Lowe ' s
(-1-:
o 511.5
x
/111 \0 ,' rJ
,� ,Ar • f
`I tj _ E �=nmoe tu qqr -%��
! I • i0 Hill �� �,a: y—
i -_ i \' Shopping Q '
-� ' Center 1, ' '� 1
x 517. ►, 'T- ZMA-2001-21
/ 550
I' / CARRIAGE GATE
40
Q / :, .� / APARTMENTS
# ,(-- . 1 inch = 400 feet y
-� ` MURL,RY.OA1C<OIWP•MD.GRAPHICS AIID ROORHAD[N IIL1WM25 RY
J A� MS HAP U POI EMMY R1LOIQJ 0•11(NMNRY II.]W11
n
X
X
COtn
Z Z
• ATTACHMENT C
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment# )
PROFFER FORM
Date: July 3, 2002
ZMA#01-021
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 45-91
2.742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent,hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1)the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
QQ Charles W. Hurt
C
�//� June 4 2002
Siena o %All 0 Printed Names of All Owners Date
in cai Shirley L. Fisher June 4, 2002
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
7 ��
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment to Proffer Form
Dated July 3, 2002
ZMA 01-021Tax Map 45- Parcel 91
1. Development of the property shall be in general accord with the application plan
entitled, "Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Gate Apartments" (herein
referred to as the "Application Plan"), dated December 17, 2001 and last revised,
June 3, 2002. Residential buildings, parking areas, and the recreational area shall
be in specific accord with the locations shown on the plan.
2. Architectural features of the building shall be consistent with the elevations
entitled, "Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations", "Right Elevation (Left Elevation
Mirror Image)", "Front Elevation", and "rear Elevation", prepared by Keeney&
Co. Architects, dated 5-28-02. Architectural features shall include building forms
and elements, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors, textures and
scale.
3. The owner shall install screening materials satisfactory to the Albemarle County
School Superintendent for the entire length of the southern property line that
adjoins the school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Albemarle
County School Superintendent around the storm water facility. Installation shall
occur prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings or
shall be bonded.
4. The pedestrian path shown on the Application Plan on the southern boundary of
the property creating access to the school grounds shall have a 5-foot wide
mulched surface and a 10-foot wide clear zone on either side of the mulch path
for safety and visibility. This pathway shall be complete before issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings.
5. The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County of Albemarle,
a 20-foot r.o.w., as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension of
Woodbrook drive to tax Map 45, Parcel 90.
Z
ATTACHMENT C
Z i i i
. ,
LEGEND
dr, •-n ,-,-,-,I,I
Z Z
REZONING , L APPARrI'MEN'IlS
APPLICATION_, PLANS FOR
= CARRIAGE GATE .. ,..,
. ›- ,..
11 . ...._ _-
.' , _ . . ...,_:,Ei-t•
P) P.It..i i I'l '
. TM 45 PARCEL 91
co 9,
:.'.. a
,44,1,1•1 H
st.
a
N DISTRICTTY viR G
1,40111Y R MUER S.
CERTIFICATE NA
... 30542 4.
•
ALBEMRAIVR ALENNCAOU !NIA
--q.„,
,
VICINITY MAP
Revision : _
,,,• DE;CF.Pripti r-".
- rent
LE - -
] 574 LIITni.4.4
SITE DATA ., E44 Rev.sitsn4
. .
_ -
__---,
--- 2
LE641. FEFEFENCE
r• •
PA -1`, DAP..E1.31 LoT •
ti
.. ...
I ..•-
- _ .,
•
i
••
I \ ,
Tlf 4.5 Por 90
kiA•:',E,TEPki_E,',TH-I
•
1 .....--7---. ." •-,
PI,4,11311.,
, 4.
1 1, „ . _1?),./C 2. ")1
A 9
'IV 4.5 Pin 91 Lot D
Cita i-,i.r , ',Hu t,-.. _ _
•
JIB if d- 5-18
._
. .
Br rlin4,1 Land 7'711 t..
-
n , ,-
..
1)8 _ (;97 -_'86
,
7071/;( B 6
„
. .
.Ittlf."..T.E._Tr, ',...;.44f-t •
Uc( RI thirnt/(1! ,
.
. . 'PT,
; .-.. • • .. ...' 4 A..,Rt tErt... .., 0
BE.Pi hi AR LAIC
(cipwittj'Er,FEr,(itF...,....TEITL,Ehn.F.,P
• ' •-''' - '
7•‘ R, .utr. nhol -•- -- • •
: .-._.2_,LI'E.t•• '--I-
!..41•-r. 1 i , TM -15 Pai 91B ..'. P 0 Etex ,3147
• CHAPLoTTE_VILE IA 2.-"''''
Z
C)
... i
-
_
• __
-- --.-----`"-.-.7.7—,
DEvELOPEP
E-74
..._... , ....=.,:_.„,_,,,,,:,:,,,,,:r.. .„:::., itmr,-, ,,m5ry ...,2,•,,,,3,, --- , .-
., ---.-,....--,,,,,,,--Zr,m...:,]:=*:,,,,.:];: ::%-t..,..:Nbi:077Zolt3„;::::t.tieMiimmiwr*r:mr,":",,,: :•:?:,:r:.:g•::=;;;;=;,:z1v.,..i,Aiwilik. m›....., ., —
20./1;cd C'-2 ,, soon-IL...Nu HOMES IMI:
2119 BERI thtft DRIVE
.1.610' -- ,
..1-1APLOTTES,tiLLE. ‘i 4 2.:901
, " ---;t,. oft*,::',ria5::,,.9:AV54.e••••,?.xir,rw::,],,]:*i*ir,,,]:!::1:r±:-:•]:]••:']•::::':::::::--• - -.........:.:.:.....,:. „,::::::::::.:.:.:::::,::::::::: :m.:r•rr: rnimMr,.::::"•::;<.]:ftW]: ::::1.,•Okrik:e4rt,•••.:1,ri,.. •ii:-,• ,',:•'-:-:-•:•••••••••••••••••••4"•.'••••klitg.::4•8:•,i,Ve. ,:::01 •,,,.....
\ Use r';,.)-itmercia/ ,
ttiptirifseki,d4=a21:;te _:,../ - •
,-
:.,M2-'A42'...,i,...1....:.''.::::'.'.....;.kg. .::::::ig :.I.:;•ti`ti;.• .,,,,..t,Nt''''•:::7:..0- t•,- ,•.,--,Ala ItE ACE 4 --4F..z,.. . •........... ...„ .,..- , _'. !
la.
,
- t00101:Alt:?•'5');.•::'...W.. - lit.ti t.10%.]:,. g]:t;'T'?'.V,::a W.. .• •,t41M4*:;:":•1L,',.gtE:r.-:::1 Ail:" rr•-i*,•w • . ..„.„„„--,41 1---7- , ' , . 4::•.,oi ,, - •-
_.m.fA4%.0::,aetm*.f,mr,,,,v,„,,mg.......„..7.:. -1„...•.-.-4..2,,.•-x,4. ,... ii:04,-0,:•:;::, • - :.:.:...,:„:„..:*„.7.:i•,.,::.::,...,i4.-- •-,.-.:„.ii.....,;.,:,-:••...w:.•'' - \ r : .vir,..e. . ,
• c-
0-4
1 - •iftteRnmii.ir.,,,immoow•mgq,, ,,r: t.....:10,0,4s‘ou,s;:02::(..„,...•ii,...; . •,,,,,,,:-•••• ••••,•,••••-• ., nii:y.ftvwc....-...
. - •••1
,
i ..
1 i,,._ ,,,:,,„A„..;.::!:xxa:;K.,,!::kii:::nr:;s:1]..;,4ar,]irrQs:":]•& -7-- - 4. .._. ..n_E 4
1.1 i
• ••.. . .•: ,.,.....,.......,,,.....,....,,,,....„,„,...,,,„......•
...•••' '." , .--•..•...•••... •-..,...„...........,....• , . -.. ...,
P•t .........,,,,,....,,,.,„,.........,-;.::"..,............:.:.,....:,........:.:.:.. . . '' '.." ,,,(-.
, 94 tRrE tF F2.01 RAPP. .. .. . , ..,-._ „.
. i..1
, • I:X.__Nt.--•:V.4:4,.:N•gtUtME.ttittt•Wigi%,A:;::::,•Att -. ' I- 1...„
_...- . ... ........................................
. . .................... ._ . ../.4,7• :, , , //00. D.,
. .. . FLAT B, E• ,,Bp. . • .
NIIFFm.t1 Ffi DEIJ IN DB-O./
< —
i • /r.s/ . -
;
::: •:,-WW:NME]:,;g:R
-494/ • E ' —
..x
r4
, . • , _
-. •
•
,
vt,F AuTHOPIT
•:.•
, :7 -..'..''IVA:•‘41PAt,'Mrig41.0:i„::.'4•M!
I Rt./LOPVC-e?
7 a Z- "---„: ALEIEMARLE COUNTY SEP
- ‘...... , PPHPOSED 721•14111') P- r, E,
,
_ ,, mi.-PATIN t .‘•
rcipot PARH,- HAP .
I -
• 1' ', ' t$0461116jAirOPKOPTAg &WPM ' •
, ' $1,.0..''..4niir•34',9VV40:?§',Irg.g. 3 'TUFO I
IFE4529
- --- KliLEINK, ..ETEt•ItY.:
2Ff 4469 ff.;41031111.1,14 f•FE-446 ..,_. '
--.....------...... -..._,
4-4..
..-1
' r.- et.A.,,,,.„-RW''" ,,,,,:e.:!,:;,,,,,,':;‘,..4.-Pt.PW': '• i,,,,its
Pt.'21./..32 HE 7aHr_.:: ,,,,,,:::::::::,„:•:::<:„,.... , .. _;.,.
ti. • • 1
..- ----. --
-../ ') 'SIDE tAPE iS.
rFC-590
1 .41I/E'',...TTP.40A '''....4‘')4:.,...;
• . .._ ,...
,....
FINE ,API, 2e.
721)
•;1:.:..4:*•0IfUrif#,'.W.,,'ROM
••• •••••••••-•,""::::::,•": 1:•#-•,i,[••••.n..7••,.1.:..,i3. .,i..-.•.4......„•g,.,.,:'•
c 7" ---- :"---,
, I ,
1 i '-i fi reit;•fggle.4;:tilMSATON
2 Velt1W:404:':.!eia.6],*•,m,Wg,:: • > ...•i
"•• ••••••••••-•----••—
iiiiiiiiignilligif. ' , •
,• / ... .....,
-_ -_____
.....
a ›..
c.
...... . - ' "--. - -,.. -------_,..---
›..
.. .,...',7...,.„...,. .....,
,
HoolPEr• '2 SPACE;PEP IINIT
i 't,-=• AiiM.WWW•Aeti.%:ti::.i•gt:Wpip,,,V
- J
1 .
t,
, .
..-_,
rml 0
.` 1V1'1*:''''"g&W.,,,:•• .2."4'23°''''..'"''" ...A..'''' _ ,
. ..41iA.,: •4.,,,,,,,,_
,
0
1 • I .-- .:&....,.,.:..k .f.e.t .... ..... . :: ..- 1 1
•
— -, 'PA'"E` NI'i'INIT. 3 H, .
.• -P.. E )
1 1 -,,,,,••• "- ......
_ ' \ ,,,:::,..i.,,,,,:,..EiHilLED:i3E HEIGH i r
C4
...•--—- •• - - - .
, •„
/ ' ---z-....._•-•., , • , ,.E sctiEooLE Z <4 a)
[ /
El
_-r
, sicE ,4, 16-1 _
,:-_, TM /Par 91A
/
.,
.
/ ,
Rapttq--Church
/
-------------___-----_ _______ _- .__ •
;_ Worthsje - .: -. .
,
(-)
----------
',"'ILDIFIL,
, v's,T _.F ..'"Er
14
1 I I
/ DB--1. -• - :--_ ' .._ , /
0 Et ,-' '-, ' '- r
,--,.1 pi 1311._
rt3..Te 7 44'
,
Dm :45 Pro' )-5/1
.•
.
/ Zdur d C- 1 -,
,
, :,,En . '"
II-44_ 5r 11% 13...
libi. ',,(1/1
h //.I bond of . r
• .f 0
L. •
,-- ,
-,-.T.tt. It)..14, .r I.44
F.F14,E,. '7, DiEcVr
County , c c A
• Use /.)ety Ca7 c -
o --e,
_ ..,,
DB 1128-6 5 0
.
' .
,
, ..
, .
,,,,-,,,,,.,,,i p,,, _6*
7 ,
,
,
•
'. \
.1.p: ltit_11'.
List,. School
_ _
I -
..,i ,
. ,,,•,,i, ,- ,t, -:41'' r r..1
c4 as
o
• • ,, ::-::::i‘p::-.,:,7.1,EL1.1::::_i_,::,E4:Trr, r•1.11113 PVC - R(
0
,
'
03
'
;
II I
>
_ , .E. 1:4
•
.11eet l'fc
•
- .
---_,
•
_ _
•
A 1 of 1
.._.
,
0
9,,
.
..
wwy
,
,, 6)
.3l, , - — _ ..._
t .
7
__ : , .
LEGEND
REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR
500 E .5111 4 Et,.,, • ..,,,
<10_ ., ,
-,---il E, ll
- P 4-
• - '-"'
•-• - ,::
^IR 1., ,,le r... ,0:, Fr,i.,_€,) 'F,,,1 Ei-
15001 p,„„,,ed i,nt 0,
CARRIAGE 1 GATE APPARTMEN'l
TM 45 PARCEL 91 IS
Z Z s
ATTACH::ENTCi
4.1 ,•_...
•=4 C33
Z ›-
-4C g I
RI VANNA DISTRICT i 5
. M
4111114',r,.„
..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1:.:',TIMOTHY R MILLER 1
CERTECAlt No.
VICINITY MAP
:.-_E I - ••' '
Revision
, .
,. FIFT!,41 (...TE
,. ,
;.
___,
_.
.
SITE DATA
. ..
'S---,
LE,.,1•1 ,,EFEEEI4•E
il, r• ',==1,' .1 ,I 1_,1
TM.45 Pro 91 Lot ,B.,
TM -1-5 Pu? 90
...
\ /
Berkinr Land Tin :
C'harli€ & Co??. ??". And.'r:on
kk '.:t•
- DB 1'097-286 . .
, , DB
ZOtir 0/ R-6 -
.
Zorn:, R-6 - , .--
f....SEklfrIT ',
Z i :
.,•.4111'4.
„,,NNE,l'E LTINC.,10,7EF,
EF 1,E 1:'L4F-1
LiSC RI •-blenttal
1101(-II
n : ,
&se'. Rcsalcnlial GEP'ICE!•• It.TER Will
...
4ElfI,C. ..,' "' - 1- DI - • l',}-
. , ,
, ,!•14F _-•,.. II'
ri C1_,
- 0 _.--- ---
..--- "--.: ________
_. .-, ,
TM -1d Par 91B EIJ -614-
' ' 1 -
t-I,L,'TIE VtIF -.A ,,.,
Z
---,---- - ,...---,77---7_------ - ,--
• , . .
"- - ,47/10/) 4/ t ale n te
-,,,,,,, ,,,,k,,,,..ttrloty.,t,mw/07,,w4m,,i,,,,,i,,,,,,:,i,:ii:,,ii,,,,,,-,,-„,,,,,,,,,,..,„„... .L. • • , - -
CD
--
9B 189-1-268 ;I PEF
1—i m
E-1 K
r '7'7,-* .::,"./r•.......e...,.,..'.,''',"„,',"1-..;--[:iiir''''•;'''I''''?*/,,,H,'[.;>--i;;;;:ii.;•,1:• : ii'r•iiiii:Sigi:,,'&;•-•11,t1,3:12,,,bite4111,513-11,Wat ili°,1[: 112111,11112:161,15,,RECA 44141.1.1.44,1•1"4-s'-,,•,L.,.., .- '--------'''''.------
L-•1,A.P DPI'E
fr . ' ' 1 I wil....latAliKe;..,,, V.W.-Arel-,. ."••'<i'w-',',rT4:.,V,:.gi::',WW:,,!.•.': iiR'w;:;-'-.4.--:-:':-:mn.W:;::,:.;:q:WfA-%Iii*,wri„i-N.•. • -,.....i:iir-Ian• ______ ._ ___,::*...0m.-imd:;p:,.::: -:?0,/- .
.,,,,1 if.:-VILLE ,4 --'•'•I
.1..1
,,-
'•r i. \\. L,'•-q- ‘Coinnicruta?
ea • .. : e: 4. g .1.:.!..,,,o...,:',K-iggi,i, ,],,. ,,„0,.:::::Agi .g.:4 ,
::•...'.'4''S-:44:46-1/tg?'-'.'.445117.- ' _, ,. E.H. kg2L-[ .. . 4'- ,,i
-1 \
-, , .--CHI.. ',II. R-I, --1
' IV_ , .
,- . 11,,FE -'LIRE.- P-i•
P--1
W4g.4:.&:::!Teataae43°teF-{-— — Atz,,,..... , ,T, . „,.,,,,,., , ,_ ,
•.:„. ,... :::-..,4„..-...„t„.„. ,
dargEsto:41-klif:f.f ,
-: 44....0,..,-,Apti F ,
F., F.: E.),„,:„.p,
,:.
, .,.. ...,,4,,F.,„,:„,,..,„..„.....„,„„:„,
.._-•
EL, E 41,F, II''FII-.:, E E,,,hbrr,ii, IF
- • , , ,,.. :WW?. Q . Lji:liag: ..iii]..: ..'..::;A•
PW.45;:x4A,....Z;AZ; ' . _
. ' .. t. r- 1 . - KAM:OR.:=7.......z?„;ie..<:-..:A5MOO: ' '
I . BUIL3ING.8 Mik44 40.00g,].:.:.:iVi,
3 L,LDINc. C' j [ ,.i- I c
‘,..-....?P".F: 1
BUILDING 4 .1-STOR•
k4iNge MVO.tg.' 4-.sropl • ,';?:, ..., ).ii)ji f., ' ' .
'...E rut II I, ,,,E,'-' ,,,' .111 THPI T, •-•
6 i ,!.,tZ ainigal '!!-.:VMM::::;,:Ww M. 1,- 3'.FTURY I 2.7 000 SC TOTAL
1 4 L.ruts - ..- • .4%, '' '',' ''MO'.f-or4i,
P'arA 'o' - . , ' \ - (2\ \ il .?-,C,67'6.)00,L.,,,,,,4 1 t_..., ... .
/-.
'7-0
! I,4F,,- 1,4,4- o r, II II
4--$0, ipti4,r,,tk,•![iqt140,-,,...,,,••ii,,...,- ' `kr, 18 000-Sk TOTAL i ,c Et,:rt:i1:4;',.' '0.:1!,i-)
If C ig:Z•.,.8.1.6:4W,,,„]>:::::1 Ill-,C8 . i 4 147 44 /' :i?
, I I :'&.-:'.,,,:.:1';',;.i,":,,,,•::':'!,:':':'.•:-",::..-:'.1•:,: ...4..;,.,.;V:--:T, *-::: ,. - 1 z 4.?,„,s
,:....:At g....*: . ree-aan , 81.1 ILP I NG H E IC 11 T-4 4 '4U] ,i.MEME;g4::.:4 IFE-5,8 ,
,
, 1 ,II F I;= 1
,
I !4-•-• ,'.,,.%r*Mi':iiiIi'§!',W:i..':i,'1:,'0!,•Ce:c.,i,:•,:.;::::,. ::
",ts'•-:.:,-i:,:-4-"„::,-;....::.•••:::::::,n1.&,,.' ....iigIaP,I',71 r...''-kor...':'',2•:•;.'A,,'..",..:,.e..‘if.f:14.? i'.,,...;... •
• ,4ei,i''' '' ' v. ,?
A.E. ,pr ,-.,
...
PE F
a
I I .r.i.SX..,...•••':••••'-'[ ..'[... ..2.,..t4:•,:OL,L„.••-:;.•-• j . iii.111PENNAP:s*.
.. . ,
14,,,• ,111 r1,11,1,I, FI:-..1.11 i
I I . 1 A 1 NV/i V4"'").A.11.,:e'''iT.'5.Mr.....• ...':. 11
'L. ' i VintellatiNg.........................,,........................,, .....,.............„:„,„,..--:„.„:„.„:„.„, .,
, .
F.•,', [I •i4...,,,,k f=4
0 .-..
›-
1 - . ,.,•,,,R,•;1.-4,'..-•••,•:::-1.,,,,[:::,,,,,'ois..:,-,.-.-;. •• 1[0i',F,_[,,,iiii:
[' '''''''S.; i:::•*T:ain:".--:•,-. 4.,'.-,P-.--'--'''''4F- . ---•'-'-— i
, I
'
,
\ --
,_
1.• ‘1,-,.. _ ,E- i FL' IP'
- - _
i I
•• •111'1, _ ' , .1
(3
I i •• i .. __
._•
_,_••• . , .
, 2 -• •,..'' ,, 0
,_____ -_ r , _ ... • - , • „ •
ft'
. ,
'
- - --- -_ i 3 • _53 39 4 I
'! ..‘ l'ill -Id ear 9/4 1- RI , FE_
-------------- __. _
. ...,,.. „ ... ;
,. l':o rt h FOe Bapti2zt Church
,
Ill ...I 5 PM' 95.4 •. : ' .... ... ,. ,-- .
/ DB-`17-2 1-527-. ----
¢ w
, , ,,
:
- i.„;....,,Ii ,j,, 1- r,I[,,:r_ ,I. ,., ,, , ,t
c_)
,. . F
.< -0
, .,..• .
. .
?=, . - County .:;ciptoL)11L--;(,.2.,(81r_do.gfo 1/10 ),;.(tilc
-
II,,1_
.
.. .....
,' Lisp Day ear?. -
ILl..
....... •.
Z011(d R-6
.. .,,
,
.
Ti gi-.1:,E.,7 I It -I • i,11•-• FL
,/
__, ,r'_
.- 1.1 -
•, '
-, . ,
115,er School
- - ,.-,
_,5 "
1 LI-• .,,[I L 4.,..,.1,
,
- •
i, - . _€7, /,
' .
4 ---- F IrtilTr•
. .
-.
L.. u
Ex_l
14 ...,.at. =Ff. 1,,i- ,- _• 4', r c6
,
-'- ,
•
•
•• .
• , c-a.
- 1 •
• .
•
.
. . ,
,_
l- ,r_.'.. ''.`;,-, . T,: r'4 1.4 2-P.5:_ -I-L-:.17174 S ...::-'"':.-LL' ---T-,E-_,E..'-_F-'
,
_..,..
,
A 1 of 1
.... .. ..
....3,., 0 30 60 . 90
,
•••'•'s •• •••• minommilm.
•
- 0
23
ATTACHMENT C
* *
W 8
•
1i . . " ., .-. - t ... 'ettisY.7wrn`.,{,s[r+M:::a•ew++++c•.• K) i
•, .,." -,,'.C"';'*' (M::D7.—.--. .
1 i 14
i a F , . , .. .. .„ .. ,.., ,...,„ ,....._,
. ..N- . ,:21.1:::.-R.3,...:i - -- ' Till
5 10 t , Ti....... : ': .1!,,, .. 1.1,.
ili _ I
I ,
: , .41 ., 4! 4! ..:..1.-----:—..
„ will , �I ,
4 :L. ::1�II 71 I
.. ,Iii___4-' ,
T inul MUM!. II Ill H UUuuiUlilll[i111II11111;I1II1I[lllflll �t!uti III 1
1�, ----" �� .� I II: . �l. 1 _- I
`
r. - c n
1 i N °----- I IIIII I % I=I ill • W
._.— — _--._ _.. I - LP+✓. -..lad' _ -TM ___ -
"�. -..�_ -.- •�.�
cc
li
,rinnev
_ F#:
IIIf�111�11 �111 �� n_ -\� \\\ �A \
: N , Iiiiii l • =R=%/ =___ III!IIIIIIIII %__ H>
_
4 i Pf
Y"; l
•j . .Il . _ � J 4 + s' — 4�" "�1 lL--- '
i , ." 111.1111=11 I --- 1
— , , i -- — 1 'I:II
ill II ___
r .. yr a i _ -a_a ,
L. P _ -, ,:•,,,a.. . . 1.GA i _ T:_ .-• ,t.•a,•`N` - 1 'ELEVATIONS
.?t, ••AK., 1a'1,.� 1 • .i__[� ]r $ J �. .► •'L`j. /• J' �►.� t y►■►-I.. %`�\• •
-
. — __" - Rtwsan
ON
N
iTi- REAR ELEVATION
a J @
SCALE: 1/8•s1'—O' '
O /
GATE a:Sum DATE PRE.T
- NOT ISSUED s-2 'I '
r.
DRAM a,: aEocm S+
E VBR
b WIpEE-T M¢
N
<J 0131
C:\2880NCi\013I\0131.DW0 05/25/02
r
— — — —i ! - , . I 7...
III
L __ ll
_ _ _ _ . ..... .
..
_ ......_ .
er,
0. _ ..
,J1?'
'f
' it ka` •-.• F..
ram. - �._ .'
4,..,.. 's -0 ." ' "•
_ rt ‘• ,
J :.11
i
Alttitiy�A i
A,44' .,., , \ i r .
' i\l" 11
in i _
. T (
Ili
A
c z 1 ! I1 _ -1{
r� ��
�. _yL ,
3 . �;.:; 1_- 1
III 11111 111111 IC1111 11�111 -
II ' I I I ii i i I it
Li
2 CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS -i
3 KEEN Y a CO, ARCHITECTS -.1
b x a
wOOOBROOK DRNE r wn µ �T n
® r ALBEK4ARLE CO,VA =
V g v`I p RJR 'SACHEM u.I at on r so Ro.0
1SOUTHLMJD CONSIAUOTKNJ 'S CHTEW000 ROAD,SUTE•1 �rj
CSIARLOTTESVAIF VA 22901
21�BEAIO�APA DRNE Z
OCHAFLOTTES L VA 22901 Tekphan { 978 2000 ,�
N Fvc c,s�9-raaa3e
n
•
C:\26,3DWG\01.31\0131.DWO 05-28-02 .
•
•
V .
P
0,
- 1R3
.•....I-
I Pitt i
- .
- —
-----H 5 ‘ i
1
. .
.. •
• .. v ,... , .1 ,
-1- •.
!IIIIIII,1111 ,-_ ,
. -
1• , - •••-1:.'.., ..,,J41;";,iii:,,.!ttoll'i 1, Oath.'' ,lith„
ir,,T,!iiiIfiliiiiiri
!.•1
•1; -
;rill ‘
15. ill! 'Ili,L
• - yllilr."l'
I t, .; .,:11 TT,
.110il°1.111 Iii11074-1'
Jilt '1.0
-;iglimiol:2 _____, ', ,iilqiii111• ,.
i i.,i0iillaidif::: ': -"!ii •Ziii
‘ :1%1.4111141N ' ' ' ill= =:,
'zi !,7''1101,111114 „, .i., ,- ,I,,, ,!=,.,:.
.....',' ,ii '01.15,11 , . . .
!Tlii.iiIIIIIII I 11111111,111fml!!!!!IIIIIi1;!!!:Aii ITRIFiTITITflili1;: i,..
F-1 "fiii.:••4.. 1.1.1!a'101 11'i 111fri/f1-1 s I 1'.1 III L-,-,1, 1-Illf911111.11/11j111141111;-- ,re .
• ‘..iille!ille" 111111 I 11 !I '11""id111134'.844:':!.!:,7%.!1.,:,.., '34 33114i1. ic •*- %-i- • - — _
rr . , ., . . .
1 ,
, .., ,.. • ••„ , • : .
1 _ .
• . ‘. .. 1 •:.. 1
1 _
r
. ..
Mt .. .- . V 1.
=..----.1-----,--...t.!..t .=...—
4 -.:3: ,'.,.^-,! . - ! milmr,L.;.
1 1 4 : ,
A i I I* .A....; _r...,__ 4 ..ii
...... .::..,... •-i:,,..,, _=.....r____ . •
._ ,,
.1 i_i .„ ==—II ,. li 1,,'•:,,1 =-1111 .. ;,1
I I , ' =_-
. 'Fi ,
' A i t - ;
..
,—---=_
71 -7. soomma.. ,
11) I v . .
-i i i 41.1i..il ' •=...
4 I.
M.1111110.1111M111111111111111_ 1. - . .‘
at- .
1 1 • .. . . .. ,
1...11:ililllilillii11191111111101PilltillittlEppiniiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiipilliiioitioiiii, ,. , 5,.,, • 5. . .
! i
, ...,
_ :.:.1,41111:3311111.13 11.th.,..;11iii3 1 '1 I s L 0.141,s 31!P.ill .110.33i.11331111,:.;.•,1
:4
.4
1 I 1 , . ...-.-14, : 7:_i• .•.,..,,• • • ,
i I , ,
4 • ' -• I-i.: -1 ' • -•
• • ): t •• . • . ..1
. :- '.: f a:,
•
IIIM 1 , —, . _.-, t k- .t..
, 7-.-!ii 0:- '..4 • - •': '
1 1 1111111 .
—,
MIMS-----"4 "." I , • • r•
, . !
, .-i-
II 1 LI 1 1 ,,. --
-1-- •; -!, •-",11-",.zar,,,-;--_, -
1T1 TT IT1 TT) i filliilfil
111111111111 1111111111 4 * . 11 li 1 • '-
N 4'., 14
i/N '
4 I .t di '•:, N ''..., ,,:I.()4
ii LLI_L1 L1.11._ i___
,1,;, 0,1- 1 i ,:::- 9 .4 ti!
LI :i .,‘!.'0 ! ls,:,i11011.1.1,,iii;iiit,iiiiilovi',1,1,1111E-I'lliiiiiiiii,oviloii, .1
•!--1111111111111011111111:310,III111111111,11111311301013,11,414311,111!11.31310131:B 1131311131111,1131111111 : . , • ql
: ii:. ' •
11-- i'_A111I1/131!!!!11111!!!11111111I01',11111:1'1II111;a:i1I113I!!!!ii;,,iii:;I: ::.1:1 1!I'.111I11111I1Ii'lii; '' ii. \,. A' • ' •
• .•-•
711111111.1111111111111,4, ;.:, , t ' LINI:_—_,,,,,., P Y4 i. 1 .' lu'r.,,.'•,:'; .
E '...)
.... , .i. -
' • C i!! .
i !
III, • -
,, •,
I ,
„.i--1 ...== it
I 1 I ' II 1, =--•N. iii - 4, ,
7,,,, 1 • ,
, ,
. ,...,,, _
• . .
I:
,,_.; _...-.... ..,, _ :
D3 I • -
. ' II s' v II Ili.7;.' .P/ v I
>:.1
,i ,. j h 11111111111/ • : ..ii. .
I Le,•
.111.C. . . ".
• . ,
.A '4 111 .. III . .
•
• ::' . .-1 -' i
M 1 1 I I 1 I I , ill il II
II
il_
. .
••
-1 , .
i •, -
...a . . .. .
.. . . . . .
,i t !, ' •v.i-I .
Ii , • —1 ,iiiii,/, . in :,i'110101, . !! ,
. , ,. :,: •
_t 0 :,,i1.1,. 1:,
4 .,,,:i11111., _ :-...;.,11,1',$:.41.4;111:.,.....:i •. .., , .
. .,.. •,.
, 2 f fil Et •
SI Z .-.1i
• .----. '1111111411/r i_i_eA111:: . :_ . .
,, 1
. . 0:11,,,," ,
I JO'. - N •
---0:.:, . ,. ., .. .,,,..................... !IL- lit:1: . I i
. •••I I•ei
. ,.,..,• ,i..,1..1,-, . ... .. . . .
ilmi•I.1=i0
. i' i !ilii;!4 'i!irdjiMiriliiiVOiliiiiiiill'i'lki16111114411110(=:'N'Oi°111:'' • ' 1 1.. •-.. ..1'.2.1'-'1111:1:1./:..J.,:/,1 i ! -1J.A..1.d111:111111ille.3.:1.11 ili,.,.
-Jr -
111 ' T- •i,/,1-14121-, ' - • ' -- ,
• •;1‘141 ii •
TT ,
. ,
•k .- ‘ .iit.i •--- -
i
d4 'It I 1 I 1 1
— . = ! •
1
I_
_ ._.r
Ii II
._ . .
1
, - ....
.., •,.. P P P
' I
>
›i 2
A •
CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS ' —i t 6 ,i KEENEY& CO, ARCHITECTS —3-
3 6 '
)
n
--, 0 , ALBEMARLE CO,VA T • WOODBROOK DRVE 1° !Iowa)La.KEEFEY,R.!, KW COT ca
X
R g 1/451 V FCR
IQ t. g
'''
=EFT D<MAFIC°014S-MUCHVE Ti°N
90 W1
,
CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22901 •SACI-EL.4 VELADE• X.at od Itedia..0 Road
--IITEWOOO ROAD,SURE*1
cHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22901 Z
Taisphada F43.9 979-2-000
Fox(4-34)979-7438
rri
1 1
cs
10 n
C:\268DN0\0131\0131AW0 05/28/02 .
l
,
et
•
.I }• '
•
r � Ili
,k,' I
i . , ar/wx IL L
`o1III IIII III 1
I‘
— , 1 I I III ( .I, t <4r `: ;•
i •
1 ".. A,. 1
11
F„
."vim.: ,RJ.✓Y--�
iI • i l ,,..0 ,.,..,• •.....I ,,, a
b, ) , 3. 'i S4 •1
..4— =.0'.
�
•
1lir. 7•-1
.a i�■r/•
11),.')P )1 o)11/4
a
a
isill;1• A
//I ):'
' , f ,-Air
11
•,.x ..-..vim' _i.w.•a``+ .:-•
p Z `. ,.
1 '
I . .
.,.
1 1 ,
0 _ _ _ :.•1, .
. ...„
I _
1 ,
I I II 1 1 ,
1 ) -
t
,• 4„..... ,
,!-. ,
, t
. .
.-3
4 > •
GARBAGE GATE APARTMENTS KEENEY a CO, ARCHITECTS 3
G3 6 331
-� WOODBROOK DRIVE RONo D u ter,R,N W:1,COT,Ca
r i ALBEMARLE CO,VA z
Q g as1
FOR BaC.Ha r N r L,r*. Joe aft I- Jo Road ^�
`^ 9v S011T}iMID CONSIAUCTION wrt 000 ROAD, +t
21tA BERI IES DRIVE
_ 3 d 1 2tt9 S O I I tAR DRI,VA 22901 ( 978