Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200100021 Staff Report 2002-07-10 TO THE CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA FOR IN OFFICE ONLY: FOR ZONING PETITIONS AND OTHER MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS ARE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND CORRELATED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: PETITION # -C - /7'2/ PETITION NAME &VM.11% DATE OF HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION RECO ENDATION LETTER PROFFER LETTER (IF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION IS CONDITIONED ON SUCH A LETTER.) STAFF REPORT (ALL PAGES SHOULD BE NUMBERED) LOCATION MAP, HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS &CITIZEN LETTERS (SHOULD BE ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT) ANY OTHER ATTACHMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CLERK: ON LAND USE APPLICATIONS, ATTACH COPY OF PREVIOUS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES FOR THE CLERK'S USE - MATERIALS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE MAILED INCLUDE: LETTERS TO THE APPLICANT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS STATING DATE PETITION WILL BE HEARD LETTERS GIVING CONTINUOUS DEFERRAL DATES LETTERS FROM THE CLERK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGING LETTERS FROM THE APPLICANT OR HIS AGENT 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 10, 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— Minutes of March 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Attachment B— March 19, 2002 Staff Report (relevant parts) Attachment C — Proffers including plan of development and elevations ZMA-01-21 Carriage Gate (Sign #69)— 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 '3 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 Woodburn 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 - .aarcn 1 i. 2('0:. DRAFT MINUTES-SUBMITTED .\P. JL 9, 200 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. A.ber'arie C.Junty Pluming Commission—March 19, 2002 DRAFT NJ' is TES—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. V 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 ATTACHMENT B 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 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 Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staff believes it 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 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 l/ 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 staffs 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 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 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 a Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment# ) PROFFER FORM Date: 7/10/02 ZMA#01-021 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 45-91 2.742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15 with Proffers 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) Charles W. Hurt June 20,2002 Simon. •-s All O Printed Names of All Owners Date l'aer v./ Shirley L. Fisher June 20,2002 OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) /' Attachment to Proffer Form Dated July 10, 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 are identified as essential features for the purpose of being in general accord. 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 May 28, 2002. "Architectural features"means building forms and elements, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors, textures and scale. 3. The owner shall install screening materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development for the entire length of the southern property line that adjoins school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development around the stormwater facility. Installation of the screening shall occur prior to the issue of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings or shall be bonded. Installation of the fence shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings. 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. The installation of the pathway shall be completed prior to the 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 right of way, as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension of Woodbrook drive to tax Map 45, Parcel 90. ATTACHMENT B LEGEND Bencnmark 500 Existing Elevation/Contour REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOREZ _ 2 =1 Apna.-Nan --AI/E-- Looting Waterline <[5001 Proposed Spot Elevation J - f Elementary::teee ^ /ice,-� --0/E-- Overhead Electric ?� Proposed Contour CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS r \p„,42. 'rW Power Pde U J' 8` ''� O yr"�� UH MProp anhdeht Pole TM-45, PARCEL 9I Q 4 RIVANNA DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA .�� ,,�. ram" p VICINITYMAP ra'1MOTHY Q IRO r'• SCALE' _ 2000 . . .. \:p /2 a•, 0 . _ \ R'rr,OH AL clY Re'nst0n,q: NO•I DESC FX.1 1 DATE s • sLS Sq i 9'IN Commoti02.3 G1 s �, o s SITE DATAii ��. is ,P ss o .5 i s O LEGAL REFERENCE. S TM 45 PARCEL 91 LOT C TM 45 Par 91 Lot B TM 45 Par 90 MAGESTERIAL DISTPICi Berkmark Land Trust Charlie & Geneve Anderson , RIVANNA ri — DB 2097-286 DB 368-548 SOURCE OF TITLE FOR PARCEL Zoned R-6 Zoned R-6 0',c�5s 2 DO 1680 PAGE 660 Y EASEMENT Use: Residential Use: Residential \ OWNER — s 27'3C' 9"',Y BERKMAR LAND TRUST - 0 5 0229'21`^!60C9�' - -1801' - _ PO BOX 8147 - CHARLOTiESVILLE.VA 22906 E BAoc • 1 �� 30 2Aditv 097-E..emen[ T 45 Par 91 B z_ _/ _ _ _.7. � -g`-"L Arthur .� Valente DEVELOPER: �, 7 SOUTHLAND HOMES,,NC ,r. t -2 a „� FFi I ';3 as 019 •5'1 CC I! i2 S'4a51091 X'6' j I / ' �' DB 1894-268 2119 BERKMAR DRIVE - m I+Y ta2,a; ' 6' I H eI k I . ea i•` 4J, ' I 5 Zoned C— • or a J 1 j �� ^ Use. Commercial CURRENT ZONING. R- _ 6 i A• µ'S o �:�L \` PROPOSED ZONING a-5 — • '1 1. I 4 1 : i IP m� 1 z a• 0 9 1I I 1 I .;. '''tit%itte' Z� , SWRCE OF BOUN0.4Rv SuRVE" s cGrS 2 4P cis 9 9 5 FIST_y7 `i cc+6 P J Ji [�Y , PLAT i 3v 3 AUBR'HUF�AAN =.CORCEO N 2,. 2097-?86 - t.' I 9� -_�• .i\a.`zart:cy1F.YAl1V� wY.+' .'� j' �• CA * '��7!' / Vi -I—i "� , s/ a O0�[� /,5' SOURCE ^,c 0P0ORAP'~" 6 AA-' _ I 3•cl'MATM!AAIN I GT A - z w }}L[ `r0 T NC ALBEMARLE COUNTY SEoV10E -U•-CR''' l o _ W T 5TP+3• 2yse��QR�� TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SGS Oa M R u o. 3P^. iQ4L+4.Y v0 3UILDING SETBACKS JI 3LtLu"L}c'a' `:y 4v` VBRI fry 1.,,.. FRONT 25. 4. I f I 24• I -5' :4 a .`,6• 3-SrORr 3-TORr 1 R� SIDE YARD IS.5 600_F.FLOOR 0 6.600 SF/FLOOR O ` 1 REAR YARD 2D' -- 0.600 SF row. 1 cD 19 RO0.'F TOTAL , 7 • .�1,-* n e- SS `•/ I4 i,5atr 'z !4.5wtr ,a L i / MAXIMUM 3UIL.ING AE G-i 5� =C 5 - FFFr569 m FFL=561 y / I ryf t!/ T, _ ! !! 'R U� �aCSJfRA/•CG1---' !F' t "I v _ -•. J6 1R-8 Ig•Rp� SR.fi' _ • ,`.C_-DING _-,C SPACES) < M - 1114_; ) .'S':.vC '-' I I 15'WE YARD SE ABACK' -2 g'sea-35-+ ` ,, / av :� LAND USE SCHEDULE. Z Q •ce, V _.3,39"VV 414 01' f/i; . aT 91'.o RE-DE/ R POST-DEV % ArE Z TM 45 Par 95A \ /l.' YortFys de 9�. is urch / BUILDINGS ce AC oD 21.600 SF ,8 d _ c PARKING 0.0 AC ^0 36.316 SF 30.4R "�" C my School Board' of Albemarle . IvVi FACIu / �' DB 1-5 OPEN. n9,aaz IDo 6,szs SF 5I Sa _ d s s• b ` :: 5.0 /zoned C-1 TOTAL 119,442 SF 100 19,442 SF t00R 6 DB 1128-650 ' ' _ " Zoned R-6 \' b /�Se: Day Care / GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY '5 UNITS PER ACRE C • i i v ..1,�3p' School '`� $0 / I r MAXIMUM DWELLING KNITS. Z .� J • .`• p -a 3 / tiG� O 41 APARTMENTS C Q 1( ,5 i �' ti J 6U• mac,: r = /' /- MAXIMUM MPERVIWS COVER 32.436 SF s: 57 5 OWLET I J P // / SiRI1CT'RE rN ,' ;AO -AN ARC DELTA CHORD CH BEat'NG .. ) \\, j .#,� o! / / C• 53 CJ''36 34 '1C 32 t3'46'42" 105 94' S a3'C6=""'N ��f' = ` I. �\ / \/ Sheet No:M /' J7 90 \ 9 .r3 ' , t 30 \.ir , ilW •%• 4 9 4 3 —� /� ATTACHMENT B i / ` •f�• Kl▪:l^`,,� • sOE ewe);., li' ?`♦ I -1 \ I C wlCr % ♦e>/e:‹7j,"C' (�EJ^ .fC a C•• .. f• S9..0 .,. • 30e•, ,- 53 • =' s e • � � .3. •a• �-• �\' '�:L\/� \ use •3s.js lit -c .4� s9�\�� .,�- 39.ISy �� , �•�►��ysy����/�/yy� \ 39 L' \SfE\-9 Ali; i xe�Sia \�\�,\\' .' / •: J's ' \\ �\ ` ssrn sus le 30. 44AZ , \`\\\\ it '\ .S27 �� \ SCCT10r •e• w! •• 59I /.. .. y0 v, „� z // r�\l�\\\ �\� :��\\ \`,\ .... .'/t' - 'gee /�7!0 / •/• �i ' O - . a \1, •. "...,,,,XT.I.N...., r:9/ �lye \\A\ r.".° \ o — \ o. :i• . . 'I ............ 2= 3 ,f �. t'it . 43. .)9 i. r �� t w:ice.=� `sta\ 5C2 �\_ �1 4~0 r.•r T ..r ?t=•0=..y\ ss, r- `SFc r Z eTd�l 39.� •'. /'.. .6.,e: ' `� • 3� ` •j a0C '.OD IapC•d l.ay.pmusa „{ �� y }1 tom_s••.. �' • .9st n• ,\ ^ /r' 70.1 i6 s.r" C "{-., y � '0 -_' d6 346 �/ NIn9� i.w�, .. ~ 37 Illth3•t 36o, 30C Ix 676 •,/ _� UI ty 9• ,. 1- 7L 36c lar��?/ 1 "^^'a^... 't9. 1 Sr 3A�.'... �9t^• �-� 32 366 SeO\/}`/'/76/a %Q{7'7 ,'1 s.e 4. Su 1 ').IX•, •J1r q) 'o ' Il 6!• 73 "�"' i +..•, ti �•.•0 i s[[ ..._,- . ,` - f� 1JJi ).a ' 33 lee I Sao Jtr !^ •c•nc A •.•. �•' 36—\L.'• 6 y �` 1� • .,� '�.�� a 7f1 v 41 l , Su d`.I /'6- I'\ ['4\ , v, a 31� /.�/e. „ NDJ \\ NI I I \ )u ,l �� V \os .�11, a`F llv Lt' 'SL �1`.:/r; ' Jr� 'o .oa" • / /" r,��\1' '\ ✓a ( ct •0 I I tip.- s.. ^-..� /F— / /�/ .� coo I / ' ro., ,e„ �% \ i�l'. / ..o. \ f ` �7 1R, zc., Zot/Ip,6,2e1 l,W ` 7. 7U 7� M" .00 S T . . n WO ▪ . .><w I J , yr s.•. Z1v `.nil V. /'�e •9u`;SIT, 80�,� C / t• 11 J rf1 Ns, c \ 9 .1 .1 69 •dam, ,r/ 70 H( # ��S � � \ " 9... � I / y` ( ` a`"' re s 3,, ZMA-01-21 Carrie•e Gate Si•n #69 -9.9 �� o ,..1. / , ,.... , 1.7,, f\s,,,,,, ipv. ; im • u ... . )0,., ,.., ;,..; ,. . „it , ''') .11.1Nr. 1. .9r 2..,Willi.7.C.:(..1.(‘‘..t...37;i7.? \1 ,OPir ".• < ••• ® f. r 4\\\\S%/ wit \ V:-..'''. ..„1 \St SECT iON me u. �Y}� '�r =G ��!Sy'yi 16 .9se v Ecnor s. , .. .. .i.:..... ..... ..4* uc qCJ 0 0 ,.9Hr%,j00 •~ ...... ' �RE:IA_ DIs7R1:_ ¢7. _ +.. ..,.,. 51 »L[ to ICR rM _ RI o , RIVANNA a �SECTION 45 •, '. �— MI = JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS 1 AUK `--- WO/210:f...a& .144. ,, r ,i,o.- }% • 44.0,11,, - Si ki 9 0 0 0 1''-- ' 0' I// ‘ 1,' it, # 0 A --_ lie . *iiii,,,, • .2-.':.------""'" /4.44:'--1 0 • • •1 I • •c'e. -s x. - :6.9��O � l• , 4s r�' • TM .l NI `�98 o P �r.�I � ,, �� , .c >, N ,, \ / L owe ' s 511.5 bit: O1/ N / ,g ,Ea�nmoe tur dIP0 �1 ii ..---27- i � & , v.s/7---1 , \� Shopping X 517r Oil ZMA—2001—21 1 •550 1' , � � O' CAR:c.Ih700GfeAe7tTE, � . / • . , . . APENTS • Lof �I Q 1 a r) x X Z z CO 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) • 948. — Charles W. Hurt June 4, 2002 Siena o All O Printed Names of All Owners Date �Lf Shirley L. Fisher June 4, 2002 OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) 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 LEGEND SO BAn•hrnork REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR m m A�. -H'n 500 Existing ElevOhr•n•t•�nt��r Z �- Elerc�oty.on..d --AVE-- E,Isbnq WOterlln= �500] Proposed Spot El-sghon W a . g wa s G y --WE-- Overhead Electric Ig0a Proposed ent m ��°010 P<.Wa Pole CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS - .-v Prop Light P,;le W F. i SIR B,` ` MH Monn�e TM 45 PARCEL 91 z N z ' RIVANNA DISTRICT o11 4 6 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ,,„„,TH OF`/ P • VICINITY M A l $TIMOTHY R HILLER CERTIFICATE No. i 30542 x AF'r00ONO.ENc 4. Sp0 \ •..! 1S �g v✓� -- Revisions: 0 - SITE DATA 1 5 2 R2N$I'Jfl. 06"-.'`is !`M-45 Par 91 Lot B , TM 45 Par 90 , . LEGAL REFERENCE Berb:mirk Land Trews "\. , Charlie & CI Jrt ye Anderson• TM 4s PARI:EL 91 LVT C r--- DB 2Q97-286 , .DB J�iB-5'18 RIVANNA FIAL DISTRICT Zoned R-6 g S a / NNEcr EYISTIN,WATER ' COlrf4EC,E EYISPNC AN`TWAr • Zoned R-6 :°•ACC�iS r3 Uses Residential ERAC5 co,WATER MAIN /'SEEIE ig LAYEPAL J EASEUENT-\ Sl Alkf E L�F TITLE FOR PAF�:EL 3 / Use '.RI .L entl.al DB 1630 PAGE 660 Z / r •• i U DEDICATED \. S „7'10:39"W - h_. '`•3 71 �t`E N.h,Q,; i T.3 Dl Et a- __ • _ g-:,pR_;5--- --�'� e IE I'�, X - BEP,KMAR LAND TRUST Y/..7L g,. { TM' Par 91 B P 0. BOX 3147 -- - -- - �_ .. '._,1rt�t U'r'M Valente CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 2L9(u, I D.B 1894-268 Z � , get"Milijialli - -�/ y, �� ' 2 DEVELOPER HOMES.INC1-1 I une C EH 2119 BERhMA.R DRIVE -. i 5� 1._ ., .r d. TE>CC U s r� Use- 0'�2.1 LETCl.al CHARLOTTESIILLE.VA 2_901 Qi f° t �3yr .a 1 �.WAl, i -".x;,.. 'w� i // :F' \ -� S �/ G'IJZ • 1> /^ ' L e' --- — ig,e,,�/fb/�s !� - I:I IRPENT ZONING R-6 sw ;1 FrR. E o' ,1 ✓ "' •`RC t�1l C -� _ :4 I,°z p 1 i / `�` - I I ' ZyJ - -- "1? PROPOSED ?JNING R 15 p--, I �i�//{ ./ O�JC�T 1)j,C' STILIRcE OF BO INDART S'T' r Q 5 r., I ,,, 8P7L0lNC"B i/, y" `1 x \\ �eDn -14 PLAT B1 E AUBR'i HUFFMAN RECORDED IN DB 2097-_5a s ?i BUILDING'A' 4-STORY ', C 1, • BUILDING C y\ y0 irCe\ -_ I ( 9-STORY I I 27.000 SF TOI:AL i ".' ti a; .4 STORY - - 1 <9. \ SOURCE E OF TOPOGRAPH1 < Fli ` s 6600 SF/FLOOR 11 Units ?i' Rjp �. T .:C-f8000 SF TOTAL CENTRAL AMENI ri _: Oft=T➢ �• •�,M` P7:OW Sf TOTAL v` __ - 4 a IREcEe(Annr,AL AREA s ,c urc E.+ T� F ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERvrE AUTHORITr j / 12 Onus Lft=sss n 3"� N \ ''a B� 00' •Y. Uft=SF8 1+ IQ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP LSGS DATUM <b' fFC=580 BUILDING XfIGXT-al r+ �� �a j+,i�' - •Z ;i� ♦ 3 i LFE=SSB ,`�', I 1�R BOILING �ETbACKS- K. .�'IDt SfTBACh /S'+18' 3, I c I 'I I :� I / Sys t SIDE ,rARD 15' c6 ,. i0/' •�' l o REAR YARD ?° -t . ! —\„r`_— r ,I /w '. F� " / p t_n C :^� ;:; c:::I:I0, Tf, 124 fP. UPMI, _ °v SPACES E" y .--� f l _ SIDE ARC SEiBA'h _ -�T .S w G' Tti._ )!�'+: ^�.. a �\ . n. ''.• o J 53 3Q`W 414 oi' PP.OVIDED 31 SPACES Om I_LUND 3 HC E.PA"c_•) " r s ,+aq t' \• \,r",, 'N,- l �"—�l • / TM 'a.r 91A 0.. E" U x,r ' ' DM 11.5 'Pal' 9s A`, ; �. , : `s.\ -•,vr ,-I I // .,C LAND USE SCHEDULE O • North •• e B` is. hurch z ':i r �' ' - County School Board of Albe marle - '. ,y \ t c1 B 1— PRE-DE V Z POST DEV 6 ocf BUILDINGS 00 A 00 2920 SF d - DB 1 128-650 \. ! /�ic 0 Z�ne'd C—1 J PARKING 0 0 A 0 0 35,°76 F U W " Zoned P, 6 /o � j.`c• /' Us¢ Day Care • OPEN I19 44' F 100 60 64F F L.` �_ \ v ` TOTAL 119,44- 4- 100 119,442 SF 100% - Use: School \ / w - �� \ s ;� �\\\ \ s / �'�so GROSS RESIDENTIAL DEN51Tr IS UNITS PER ACRE • / � ',� MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS'- _ • - `�'L+rLfr��_ ., / // / 40 APARTMENTS Z a cn S'E;LI,-rIRE O Q CtS __i/ `+-' / / MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER: 3 436 SF W U • ' Cc NO FAD TAIL API, DELTA CHORD CH BEAPINo I. 't i / jx J• 1 ,.n 136 84 14 2 82 1 48'46'42' 105 94' S 43 16 W- _ a i / i• / 30 0 30 60 90 . K I \\/ / / Sheet No. Tr Al of 1 = 30 ZZ ATTACHMENT C LEGEND m m ' ti Ber,hmork 500 Existing Elevoti,vr Contour REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR z g m q,}n:a-MOn - W E-- E,stn Waterline T Elerc.+n„�, un,ol - � � , �500} Proposed Spot El-.ah-,n � a � d W 5 H, --0;'E-- C+erheod Eleetn•._ Proposed Cenlnw Z a" a �. P<��Pole CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS z° .-0 Prop Light Pole G.T. Z MH IA"°hJ'e SITE TM 45 PARCEL 91 '' is''', za RIVANNA DISTRICT �' 0. e I INITY MAP ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA o4.4EkLTN OF`r VC • TIMOTHY R MILLER s SCALE I" _ _non' CUtOFlCAOE No. 9 30542 e e N f G+ J ,. �tS Revision 0« ' , , SITE DATA ReNs, ' °° -- TM A5 Par 91 Got : ,, ;'w/ LEGAL REFERENCE • TM �l5 Par 90 Berh:mekrk Land TrLts Charlie & Geneve Anderson TM 45 R IL DISTRICT 91 LOT C ,-- DB 'O97-286 - ., MAOESTEk14L UISTkI('T DB 368-548 ZD:;1Fd R-6 Zoned D c RIVANNA l ONNECT E>,IsrwG WATER COt114ECR EXI,TIN ANITARr Zoned R-6 • 20'ACCESS => ! LISe Residential nEP.NCE T' w-1ER MAIN ,—SERVICE Zr LAdERAI EASEMENT SOIIR(_E OF TIRE FLIP. PAR!EL Use R(' 2dentlal DB 1F, PAGE 6 E _ O �\ / a rD DEDICATED _'7-3' '33"I' 80 �E 60 Z �•` / kjw oil DEMAND }� 13 i —' OWNER 4 ` 5 Par 91 B B .MAR LAND TRUST a / 't-- — _ - - - - • ,.� \ e TM 4, I ,_. P O BOX 8147 -,` r` I , ..� — s -- _ ` ¢]rtItur M Valente CHARLliTTE VILLE.VA :'!C'E I B 189 -26 SOUTHLPEk B 4 8 p ^I _ N ,r ::..o ! �• E iE3n:ed C-2 • SOUTHLAND HOMES,INC I--+ c3 S Z 3: ' .,.., I ' yam.,, 2719 BEkI MAR DRIVE 1 ,!, Y n -,....u..i_,4 , 3 .:.i..:: ¢ ,, ,,a,aoe_ ,.f""'H -," .-� rss ^ r•L Use- ,t�'0'�L7;2erc a1 f,H APLOTTESVILLE. VA 2'301 — 4 r,TE - r i. -�- G'I L' % - 'D BPS "'b±;"`� f 1 I •f,C( CURRENT ZONING R-6 4 6✓ • p 'I 4 Vti .'g r �,S' PROPOSED ZONING R-15 P-I t4 u �f,/ F ,.G.-, D SOURCE OF BOUNDARY S JRVEY)I� nA I�+' " >" " 1 1 I I BUILDING"B` t;y y..,� - - '\ O�/ppp �j�'Tq - __ _ PLAT BY B AUBkY HUFFMAN RECORDED IN U6 2097-_8b -i - I ' 1 BUILDING"A" I-STOR}' r sr <Cn' '�, < BGILDINI: C YQ CLf' a r •'-I I 1 ;, 11 3-STORY I 27000 SF 70TAi r :r1PM 4-STORY \'. :� ' '`` n� \ _ _ SOCIkCE OF TOPOGRAPHY -, I I, --1 6 600 SF'FLOOR :'ErrtRa:aMEtUrr _ If Units,- fir.i4% .� ;a'R : 27 CW0 sF 7VTAD \ j ?a' L fL� 3 r_ 1 18.000 Sr TOTAL - UFE=S79 s2' - T - _ -_ t I 1. t<"Units (RECPEAn0NA1 AREA) �> i%i.,5''i` 14 Un,ls - �'\ n 8 ,S ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVITF. AUTHORITY - fFE=580 BUf /YGENEICRT=at 'r+?w 3 UFE=588 ,� �iQfr �. p TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IISSS DATUM _ - `o�`�r 6.•SIDE'Se BACA f5'�18 , io. ',',' „ #� 3-} LFE=568 ' t- �R vr.'f� Q u ' ,I r it/tiv ;,. `?S; 5, \� BUILDING SETBACKS - P I ' ` }5� �" I f:: f 4 4 / SE rARD 15 .06 ' ' ..y r f �: ' f REAR YARD =O I - ',s. ..":%,..,.. .; it s,..0,__ J MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT r5 e0 \ -• ' /— -�wt 4 � r• -`i , / r Wi/ ',Innimpc \��\ PARk1N1.SCHEDULE 9 — — — — —, — — — —I — — k REQUIRED 4O UNITS PEP, UNIT PACES [, E. \ , ' SIDE 3APO SETBACv 3.r--' ._-./ - - ' _ j:� �;:- �,\� ;.. • 1d 53'39"W 414 Oi PPOVIDED 81 SPACES ON(LUUING 3 HC SPATE_•) `Y \ TM ar 91 A F �, / TM fJ l'a! 9 A ''` >� \✓ '•� 4h.` II % North .e B • is 111LrCh • LAND USE SCHEDULE ZO a N C¢tinty School Board of Albemarle \ �� / B. ti 1— PRE-DEV % POST-DEV % P. : 0 f I tE. - T - BUILDINGS 00 Al 00 22 920 SF 19_` d DB 1128-650 `:\ \ \ x I l 0 Z ned C 1 PARKING D o AC D D 35,876 30 w -. - - - `"\---'\. Zoned R-6 ` Us Day Cara OPEN 11944 F loo 60646",F 50 a TOTAL 119,442 SF 100 119,442 SF ICO'. \' G W _ \ \ �,1 / 1 / `�4. CROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 15 UNITS PER ACRE d 1 '`,� ;i/ �. r. / ///j` MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS '� 0.'. .N STR et T�FE" r 'Frl sT �-' • �l / / 40 APARTMENTS O Q Q n• \ r` T MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER 32.436 SF W Cd PAD TANAF'I_. DELTA CHORD (.H BEAFIPJ ., I. ♦ 1 i / �� fZ J1 _ K Nor.T _ inn'1?r 84 14'32 14'"4i+'4_' 1i15?4 S 430�_ A ' r ` a , 1 / chF•e+ �10 30 0 30 60 90 � / . . . . . — i A1of1 t = 3D 2.3 C:\2680NG\0131\0131.bW0 05-28-02 • ,I • MLA n,..,0. _ ._11=,, .s : 1i1�ii��� 1s I,hlrk �1��. .. pi! .:„.pi, „Aiiii.i.1000.1.,... li 7 i-_- , -- 1�'111111111 1 111 1 1 1 1 _7 i = 1111111111111=11111111111H,-„iNMp, ,N. l ,.Ii.•,:,, .,..-.,.i k_-',iJ 1_t--- .-,Li_1_ ' __t4...,..__..._*_va7v_7_!_1 2r'.i."- --l._i, l 4'-&."---„4,,-I.0--:-a:. - �� , , o -- I:I !iI:!i:::b::j::::I Il r11111 Ir Ilr 111t04, ' I I 1 (� rt �l ''.4i _ -- � 1�111111 1 1 1 1 1 1'1 ! t =1 a . . . . 11111111 , ��! _ _ � �� III111r1111111 '' ; is ' =j -'1li11111111 1M1111 111.Lr. ,, - t1 -' ' 11 IPI�I�IIIIIIi .11 ' � f rl;lll;l;l;l`II,I 1Illilllllllllll , ' 11111111t . a, .1111111.1- _afali Erlmiikr • Ili...1,1 Ib .----.m..... .-.--.,,*,--!-....4 - iIiiL, -.-..-.._-----.-It7o•-!r7r 7-i , , 1 7—r , , , . ' iiii I illi _1 11 ilii ._.: _ "141 _ I' , ! - _ \4,.. - • .\ 4.11 : . dim _ . ., 4•1 t 1 C111 ( 11 �.I r::v 111i1111'1-1 i 1:1 e • -i - S�Islil hill. del I ji 1I1 i 1 1 1`1'19'1 .1 1 1 1 1.1'1'1 1'rl i t 1' p'i 1 1 11. ! '. , 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 f 1:iits!iii. IIIo i t hIUi!f!I:iflhl�lliIiti.lhh!i�iliii!Iilliiiiihti.liltiUlliililti!Itli3tIl!iIulgiltl!!!I!I':i!iH!i Iti i i l:l1 I11h � � 1 1 sill 1 ', 1 !! ''I' 1!.11"11 / 5 . . . ' i ill ''. : , , s 1 .. ii : • , • . • • . . 7.•-• _•__ ______ ._.,__ . , ,/4. ,,\;\;) ' .. 0 / 4 \I i' . �1�ii1111 1 11111 11 , i i 1111i 11i•i 11!1 1l0{l 11'i1i 111 011i 1l1.0 11_ 111 11111 il1=1 , . O 1 Mid ../s Nal 1 Irmo-i 1 i , --_ -. ._.- ,3- . =-_1, .-.=1 =1,-----] 1 =------1— ...... —=,_ _ ....A. _____,,,._....,J au , In • . • - .. ail , ;i4IJ `%� 1. ,_ _I, awl :0.1i ] `. .4 /.. :__ 11ri - Il1111111,,... .4ii w ii............... --. I' .'i1,11'1 111 bur11j111� . 11 (� I I �1;1�J.h1 1 1 11k:--.. IlI1I I .411 1,,rr111I1 ! �.� ;--- G P � 111111I1N t ��. i�ililili1i1i1�i1�i�. '' ` 1111111 s0 (� ; jIi1111 a11401.1111 l`'?!' I = 1 1 h 11 ; 4 i �ti111;r — -__ 1 i illip • ��„... !, . � 111I INDIEM I" _ ham , •/•. - 2 6' i .p CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS ARCHITECTS 9 WOOOBROOK DRVE Erroll)kt KB3EY,M M cDT,Ca n ~ ALBEMARLE CO,VA = Q o FaR CHB.1 VLLAC3E' ).mt oft tab Road Q 4 'StUTHLAND CONSTRUCTION q{a AOAE. °VA SURE 22901�� C3 8 2ri9 BERKMAR OWE VA 2291)1 � y n It C:\2880W0\0131\0131.DWD 05/28/02 0 I1 1-1 - --- , ,. .. L 1-1 i . 'ill 1 1 II III I111:11111;111: ,,-, `yy 1 4: ,, _ , lit f -'." aliSI Limmillil 11_ (- - , ri _ ,---:„..„....._ ,.,,?:117-1/ 1-11111.. tat _ 1 P bit - TY. , f '' i"Ili 1111 ii, k , Ili . 0i. ‘,\ Iv r m - Tr • ii �i 1/1111111 _ ---, iiiii -- - r-T_ 1'110NI0L ; --I 'la, _ 1, ali Ili- - cl Z . iitell ikl a* L... I ( I1 111 ' I aiL. ..Ire.;.1 1.i;�'I lim li, it .1 ' iii Larr�7■ ■tea rr� ������IIIIIIIIli1I������'1111111111� ll11110 1MM1- . . Ili 1 S 1 5 CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS K�ENE_Y 00, ARCHITECTS 9 6 - , a • WOODBRCOK DRIVE 00""D µ'me,RAt.C..418 COT Ca i . ® , >1 ALBEMARLE CO,VA `l .90F°FtU B-Y.AN C T1ON a vw`" ROAD,sue,UITE•, t�1 eft CFWRLOTTESVY LE VA 22901 rebpha.t(434)o78 200o F�c(434)078-7438 y 4. N n ,"1 1 C:\268DWG\0131\0131.DMt7 05-28-02 r TIT- . _, 6. 4 l 1 4.1 I , =— I- 1� Y ; 1 r 1` ki 4014 !iIiIi 111 111111 _—'1 E,► i11 P IIlII�II!II_II=I !I i 1 1 1 i 1 11 �I i_ _!I 1,1I 1If �;_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIL. 11111�111 _-_ � — �� NIL' _ �11101111W! si `� a •© �il.si E= o 1 $ :iiIj1IiS. - i_i :!r'I'!!.... I1Ol ! II1I0111iOIlIillll!!"H I I ,1111111,11111.1111111171 ilt ...:¢t — '111111�1 1111 I1/1111111 1111 \,iiiiiii111 1111 I _ _ — jj1 ! I rjJ wap iiI— P E f'•,, 1'-¢' ,.' . ...J.+.. .¢,,,, fr¢'1-1 f t i r .'¢ I I 1 i !!!IIIIIIIIII1 lii011��11 lIilll1. jllI�Ifiit1IIIItIIiIIIlI. ; r 1 E - -- -Till 1 I IIIIIII WHIM! I HH j // llIllllILL. — . ' /. 1 c _.). �11111111111111111111111111111 111s1111111111111111111111l1 I11111111111111111111111l il _ ' A 11 I - li. i ' .— — �i1llli. ....L A11 xi 1 - ir 1 ,, 0L CMiiii1F1i I Nommimiammim 1OWIIIIIIUII'IOIIIPIOhlIU . iidIiM*iiiI i. T ' � op.,,__.,, iiiii,ii,,,.. . 0 li ' ' ' 9 ©■ `' 11111111111JI , I1111111111lI Ilufir i1i11144111111111 - 1 1 111 1 1 1 ,�1 _ 'T • ._ 1 1 I. ..,1, 1 ; . r .1 . d t I I 11,1411114111%11 11 = . . my = laul 1_. ‘ Li ill- • Lh II 6 T CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS -i ® 1 W00DBROOK DRIVE RRorN+ED ItE, ("Y,PA NO WA COT.c~ > ALBEMARLE CO,VA T 6 g R:ft 'SACHEM V/¢A� Odd off HydraUb Pod 3 Q Zt A(`X)C�NSTF UCTIDN 90 WNTEWOOD ROAD,SUITE#1 9 BEOFQv4AR DERIVE GiYO-ITE ESHLLE,VA 22901 r CFIAALOTTES'vtLE VA 22901 T•IephoElx(434)978-2000 ril O .- Fax(434)978-7438 • C:\268DW0\013I\0t3LDWO 05/28/02 4. t 111,4.1' lanifircir — -411.4111r - 111111211C° ii.. - (If / _ 2:• IlI 11; 1 I I I I I I I 1 .i. I 1 I J iglu . .4!,1101 I — iiiiii1111111 - - -- --- - - 11 . lin ia, tiii_ii *- 1 141 1 iiii 1111 I I I , 111 I t , •IL AI I t, .,(j)7 -., ', I L 1 ,,. . N." _ . ,. ':' los II Illp , . 1 . i 1 .. • _ -, Iii. _ •• .1.- , ..i I valet OP'. 11111111 ka-1111.i 731n - .or• T. ., 1414 - , e • • ; # _# _ M - al lit ,....... _ . — _______ : -44lic . • .--- • 1,. .: 111, , 1 ...). .,„,11 ,..... bit if I I ilit i 1) 11:1 1 14 .11 . ‘i 1 1111 I I )1cfislit 1 9 ill • III lit: . • . _-11r-vi,. . 1117 '101 7In ' III _ TI, .ir- 1 1.1 , - L • , iii --, i i • 1.1 '-- -t '4 1111 °'. •—.1 .4, . ; • ' 0 ., '‘.:j .7 II,) ; Os Z 1.-.1K.i.: % :IV r ri t." .., . , I II 1it Ai • I :11106. , 041ii U • 111 giwdyli - • ,... . r.,.. ' In ipp. ... 4:.•• 4. • t • • • > • • 1-i 2 , CARRAGE GATE APARTMENTS KEENEY& CO, ARCHITECTS = co 6 0, 1 1 • WOOD8ROOK DE ' RONALD 1./port•EY.R.%MARK 051.CGI .., F ko ad AC ALBEMARLE CO,VA rrl 1 Z 9 i 4) FCR .13HEFA'1 I -OF Ju st 08 Hychmilo io .-3 t9 Iv 1 g SOUTH_ANO CONSTRUCTION 2tt9 BERKMAR ORfvE CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22901 90 Yv1-1(7EWOOD ROAD,MATE*1 CHARLOTTESVA-1-E,VA 22001 Teeephorm(434)978-2030 FIX(434 978-7438 n P 1 , .4 c, ei , 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. 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. 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 Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staff believes it 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 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: 31 -A 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 32, 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 33 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) 24 • ATTACHMENT A Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment# ) PROFFER FORM Date: 4/3/2002 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) SEE ATTACHED BERICMAR LAND TRUST • BY: Isms / CHARLES W. HURT 2/25/2002 Sizna y'(o• All Ow. W 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) 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. - 6 ATTACHMENT B • LEGEND 7' m $ 4 G� REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR z m s Benchmark NCO Proposedg Elevation/Contour ElevationContour . - M�-N'+! --w/E-- Existing Waterline . SOOJ Spot a Elemental,':chon � � - l --WE-- Overhead Electnc Proposed Contour ... Power PoleMalC1�RRI_AGE GATE APP.�RTMENTS zz cs '+'A SITE \P%° •'•• Prop. Light Pie TM-45, P:��CEL 91 Z = I MH ManholeZ _-.Z � �` "as d . RIVANNA DISTRICT _ a .. . ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA o:.„,r9 o � VICINITY MAP oMORVR+Na. • SCALE '' = 2000 1'a w542 ��,,0 Frs'ONAL E•�~ \ Revislonq No. of n01 T DATE LP �o s s sso ;,S SITE DATA I SPIN H s> s� S6S �o S S S O LEGAL REFERENCE: �S 1 TM 45 PARCEL 91 LOT C TM 45 Par 91 Lot B T,4f 45 Par 90 MAGESTERIAL DISTRICT: Berkmark Land Trust Charlie 1c Geneve Anderson RIVANNA v — DB 2097-286 DB 368-548 SOURCE OF TITLE FCR PARCEL. Zoned R-6 I Zoned R-6 DB 1680 PAGE 660 o ;ass,. t Use. Residential ASE�NT j Use: Residential \ S 27.30'39-74 BERKYAR LAND TRUST — S 62729.21 !o"OC 6 An _ _18.Ot• — _ P 0 80X 8147 EaAp( i "� m' 97-2EJ I \ 7 TM 45 Par 91B CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22906 G e 2o9T-ze, • DEVELOPDt: — — E• —'� SOUTHLAND HOMES..NC _ / _ 2 Arthur M Valente - ,4`OA�ESiO 5 t 6' ! :3`G CIS 19 /'S el I ; 11`?40:510 91 X'� DB 1894-268 2119 9ERKMAR DRIVE m I - CHARLOTTEESVILLE, VA 22901 J sc. irt a� I - I • qJ I I �� / ,/� Zoned C-2 r , m ' CURRENT ZONING. R-6 or s o Use: Co�nmerci¢l — h C rr Z b m Q-- �j { ss 3,i i y �� , PROPOSED ZONING. 2-5 i.z SPAC[S n9 t 6'I ' Q ml ' z TAC°5 tor XI!' : t Irillrill 2�_. , h` SOURCE OF 80L'NDARv SuR�,E• _ < . . -,Y iip ea 6 S -� , }6 I ! J J��ChrA PLAT 3Y B AU9Rv NUF1AAtr - CRCED \ O9i-_86 a lat • 4. 3 I � �-s •A_, Av i � 5'7v1AlERuuN t70 �/S+�•n � SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY ti _' B/Q�j�p^1NC�, \ ALBEMARLE CUN1Y SERVICE =CR' , ✓ m jn.--�,^n:, �S�s`s[' •ram11111111111 _�_ :7Rr1�� 2� �l O �� TOPOGRAPHIC'OAP ,,SGS DA TI:!A ~ .- n 2 2 ti v Sr PO Rfl/ F` J ?P0 z alir 7 1 '- ' cRF�,�b'0 BUILDING SETBACKS. a a 8 r S r 1 dcluulc A. 1,� �� �VBRIa /C�� FRONT 25' euzplxc's' r 24' -6' :4' __,TORT 3,S OR1 R� - SIDE YARD '5 MU O 6 600 SF/FLOOR O 6.600 SF/FLOOR \ Ail.. REAR YARD- 20' _ r9.n00.ir Toni LO 14800 SF TOTAL j G �' �.a� - ,a Crab c`�c' r4.:nW =,. ;o' t. J NAXINUM BUIL;ING HECnT :5' _C F' 561 / / I r FFE-369 m u i i PARKING SCHEDULE. p `I�—`CI n 9PACZS a9'A•r ] j \ ,tl / / G. l REQUIRED. 2 SPACES uR U�IT.c� c f T �� f I \� r w1 i - 41 UNITS x _ 0 2 ACE.. I � T rr+�� sat-6 '6'2CP-- ,$1R�&: _. Si 2. / / , :J1 ' Z Z — — —s11 — � — — — " — rA w-1 1 / PROVIDED 32 SPACES i`:C_.OING 2 HC SPACES) —• M O �N_1 •) .'S ',„,vC -'' / .! I t5'SUE YARD SEiHAO(vr.-2 7'SOR-35 .- .` .- £ 3' I l/ LAND USE Sc"HEDUL Z _ 1 knr: o-.' N 2'S3'39"'N 414 Ot' '- L��.o O G \ l_ , T51 ar 9fA � � sR-S 91n-t 1 �^ � �' r"."-- PRE-DEV x POST-DEV �„ ¢ I T.lf 45 Par 95A / BulLaNcs oo ,c Do 2, o sF ,e� =0366 SF 30.4x �. C my School Board' of Albemarle s OPEN: 119,442�� '00 61,526 SF 51 Sx 6 — TOTAL. 119,442 SF '00 119,442 SF 100% DB 1128-650 7, ' r ed C-1 c_. Zoned R-6 ` \ ' I20' 'se: Day Care / GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. '5'UNITS PER ACRE C -' �' „ P Z 4 .� .L'.>P'• .SC�i.001 �Q .��y ^r / / G MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS. -- J O. 4 /,, 3 / v al APARTMENTS Z C n 6u w�: / ^ MAXIMUM 'MPERNWS COVER. 32.a36 Sc N SIRIOUXIE: o a i / / al NC RAO -AN ARC CELTA CHORD CH 3EAR'MG rn / �: 55JC0''9634 '42.32' '48.46'42•' 10594' S 43•C6'C--•v f \� _ '-�' /• ( i \ \11 / /' Jr Sheet No: 30\5 o coo�_ so 90 ! \ -::::—�-- .� 1 of i - • \ ''i \ s +ga %% i' ]ocw ' \.y � . r aal.R I/ I �// ,5i Z 46C "Err' \80 , `%" \ , SOFT '3OEf�• I -"� • / 460 453 // ..tom"S`• 4e �i= •/.. 53. sOE. + / / •s. re� .�\/ — `sse '55 =��� \ 59M\\, ♦ / ss f—i .39.IS�'� 56 C 456. ..... ..... •�► 'y>ij,� ® 59L♦ ��\9f[\59 a16 •i 368`56• **/16 \\\N \\.\,•\ I 'A'''''-o'''.„,,,'''''' ''"----,..,-00,..a,._ ,y9 16, 1‘\‘ ‘N\ : .. _ _-,...\ ti /^ y\ \ fCCTIOw •fl• WI\ ..„ _, \39F /�• '\' \ *..\,\-.\, , / \ ` , u. of .. s9 c / •'\ . �\NN \\\\*.\\Att.,\ \v ------• (tea T 1.RV...),/, . ............••,... ita..\ • A\ r� .xf 1.x• r .32 CV 9 Iq�orrE�—isY , \�\ ,a. 03-i le z 4. 5F4 r Z 8Tp h 394•_ ...,.0. •sue II St _ • ��\ i \ +ot ow�0 �Z7: � / a • In.r .../ Sae '��\�R�i . ^-.•e. < t n.j i.w �� . J:I ;Y ,., / 46 s 3 sr i r®..... �.T S 32 348 is / ]sa�' * �� Gil r • +' 9 'SR 1]t\ 5A .T7T . ..a I ]e 41 t /45 y.n. i.,w00 SCC .2. w ; •,in , ,• ��1, Iti.S 3.. ' �^w]3,.._ ''4c'MO law /• r � �( /� 1 /48.18: w ].I 0` /,!' ~ , l�/ v ! 31 V 44.4? ref t {Y 01 cool Wt. \.M !J2 f.! `..I1� ,W` ]Ir •VT' �31.� �n\3. i,.' 4 --N t0 •00• , .0 \ 4t l,h ' '\" t ♦ . 315' 3.0 1 ` , 69 iC"•' /\7 / \. to ♦IIa ;. '. `0' '` ^ 118 k ✓.A. A/M _ /l�'. $ ?.� _ Aw 3V l ,dl i • rB' Kw."'- '�I 1. C\ h . I • .i•+K'S IR/ x°°ZOT/xoo/zoo rzw',___, ,,/ z� y� '` 744\7T1 j/ �- / / na ri.•I j/.+9JIi �\\ ��a. Tat I\\\. 68CciX s T . s t. /1 ! 3... \ !.^„ ln..\ // °t 17s 73 80\ / 8 .><�\ .� i / il�\ ro\''' ,'`w II„'y cam. 7.OY q Y:6o Se �if ' \ ZMA-01-21 Carria•e Gate Si•n #69 -.a. -� tv �\ ( �+% �,,,'' i °• I. j.5Øv [ 'W 10 for '.pa % �// r.►, / /\ `•! III / I 7« \ /`Or. �j1 /icy ..,•',..; • \ ..-. .w.. .. /! Y ' t ' +° fir 0' \ I .� 11 4 \�/ , Al . r u . w 100 S03 \ r \ u0 4i.1„„",,krilli 1°C..0.*-.... .7.k..,. ,,„"Nfj:1 ::\Z....„/....1....„,..\...... \‘ ik\A\11 Iv t V.„:7.:. MA,....213.. s....‘,./......‘ *'6" ...0 OE"1 cc ‘..\. il!.•-#.1.. :ij 46,III, ; 94 4 I;; I 0 ste Y ION •5‘.... ..."::- \ --..---- \S' i/41.1 V Y H 3. CRESTA_ DIS;I51.' 61 w x.�[ IN FER n1 C , RIVANNA aS SECTION ;�1- • r� — JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS - U u 343 Illi>:„.. ../'\::::; //'4 i E tit Sli' , 0%814% 0 x 4 7 "l'e <i' I/ V / 4%% 1 J 0 p- 4 c ►1 , Q \ �� Pe . 4. ` • 6' . i*, S X. - .5.9 ipP 04 Q 1 V TM , _ %% 598il P • ♦ IS/ \ 0 ''1%.* j -, ..._ /1.: Lowe s �� 511.5 0 / 4 .f-- \-- -----T:''.---r- -- �' 1 x 0 .g /A n n o u r '' \-1' � 00 i N � E * me t r �0 /' �,1 ` �,�- Schc.-, \ \ � /11/K 1 �► , / / - io Hi I I �O ir, 0 ;' t, 1 I,i i Shopping 1 '' ' x 517. ZMA—2001—21 5 0 CARRIAGE GATE 1 , ,`/ .\ APARTMENTS Q 1 inch = 400 feet 11 ' 41.11°. ` ` vYNPAND sr OMCE Of rAHnIn ORMIXS AND uaOvrAnON RISOU%s&N W 1,.]A 1 .— ,• .! , /�1 / MIS uAr Is me aver n/r.aus ONLY NnMunr it 200) Imi n x 4 rTi C.:.! y con ATTACHMENT D C' & ....... 3 n CI Ci 1. /T- +y. r ,y; -1. y :'> ,2 Kx; i C \,,z' •Mgt'*s' t a •v k 0 . # i _ cl9`- .1 4 - - a .'4, 4'c pY *"I i t 1 y a 2 � ;\\ t cr c t it , p (-.1..:2. .„4„),,i . ,..._,..37-4..„,..„...1.:...„... :__ . „.,._..„.t, _'Y• ` ce _ '+ � ,4_: 31 f C o gay -,7 ../ f-r fi. --.--..,."-,-_.:.,.--.-:.-.‘..4--'n,.---',.'''-,.4--:\-C..,--.•i'.,..:'-:,-4---''''''f---4"-,"--'7./' i' ' i ."1''1' -k_..---- ,. _ ; r --....: , . 7 . i I I,.r ` - f'•:' 7::' id. �dv m ...]- .5' r f ? i g�}fit ue?" 1 ' 4 4 - .€• '' �''i '"*,w.;.i1,..„c,:.-:.:0.,,.;-',‘'....;1*.,4:!-....::.:V',:•;-;-.2-,'-,,....^:-.1.'\...._'-,-,,t_.'.'3--.4....;i.,,---;.;-`;-.:'. : •'.-,A . ,t,.1',.-7.-''- '°."1.1.-.-''','.1!C`,--;1".::'i%;..,'1 1%..,t i:,.-4,-1-..:f'--.•'-':A.:':,...1'.'„..._.',"'-'---1" .'.r.,.,Z1-4.=1.-,'er!.A..4-.07:,14-r:----,---..--'---i,:..-..j'3't,,:,,,.'._!:•:,*A N--.' - ` - /'''-\ 3.g:. R.i, i, R ' Via- a'.y ,�, I J t a ,//-.y- t :4 f s t y` 'X ° `.� • r n Y\ .--. _ .., �- � s - NSF\'111:N-`- : - ----- -- - -:-.-"NI.7 1:.' '''-'-' ' :',1 • -WP.,„:140i****gik'':f- .6:.;.:, ' .: '1-..J.-*/ N f '1 t — _ a ors- _ "l cif k N.,„.. - _ • a. .X n-,- A` \\,, ,.. Le kI ATTACHMENT E 111oP//ca4T s ack ne7717 /ee0a4/ f�,o�L carp r► 7 APPLICATION DATE: December 17, 2001 PROJECT NAME: CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS OWNER: BERKMAR LAND TRUST LOCATION: Woodbrook Drive—West of Intersection with Berkmar Drive CURRENT ZONING: R-6 PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 PROPOSED USE: Apartments The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office service. The public need and benefit this rezoning would serve is to bring about the availability of housing in an area that is adjacent to an elementary school, buses and convenient shopping within walking distance. Public water, sewer, gas and road (Woodbrook Drive) is available and in place to serve this site. It is our opinion that the additional 42 apartments would not impact the road or utility services in the area. A traffic signal is located at the intersection of Woodbrook and Berkmar Drive. There will not be an impact to the natural, scenic and historical resources with the construction of this project. The site sits off from the commercial buildings and is not heavily wooded. There are plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved. A contract is in place and site plan preparation is underway (see attached) to start the project a soon as approval can be obtained. The plan calls for 42 apartments that will be owned, leased and maintained by Southland Homes, Inc. As shown on the attached site plan drawing, this property consisting of 2.742 acres is ideal for the residential buildings that are proposed. Surrounded on the South by Agnor Hurt Elementary School (Kindergarten—5th grade) the two sites are buffered by a wooded tract. It would be desirable to be able to provide a walkway thru the wooded area to access the playground facilities of the school. This would be a natural pathway of 41 mulch that would meander through the woods to minimize the need to cut trees. The construction and maintenance of the pathway would be borne by the developer. A meeting on site with the project manager of Albemarle County Building Services will take place December 20 to see if a pathway would be feasible. Some of the factors to be considered will be the topo, accessibility and visibility around the pathway for safety. Although the current land use designation for this property is office service (currently zoned R-6), due to the size (narrow width) and the distance from Berkmar Drive, this would be a difficult site to market commercial property because it is not visible from a main road (Berkmar Drive).Also, trying to design commercial buildings on the narrow lot with the setbacks/buffers that are required for commercial use adjacent to residential zoning (South and West boundary) would be difficult. Business and office buildings require large trucks for service and parcel delivery on a daily basis. The configuration of this site hampers design for these vehicles. There is ample land along Berkmar Drive that is better suited for commercial use, allowing easier access and visibility. The topo of this land and the location presents a quiet, safe and very convenient location for residential development along the fringes of commercial development that would allow a nice mixed use. The site is adjacent to Agnor Hurt Elementary school to the South, two homes to the West, vacant land zoned R-6 to the North, Legend Development Office building to the north entrance of the site and Northside Christian School to the South. A planting area around the perimeter of the site would allow for additional privacy and screening. The site will have a protected tot lot of approximately 4,500 sq. ft. with benches, trees and playground equipment. This area on site along with the recreational facilities provided at Agnor Hurt School, if approved, will allow ample play area for children. The development of this site is contingent on getting maximum density (42 units) to make it economically feasible to build and lease. This plan has been engineered with buildings positioned to allow for ample parking with tree islands and giving each tenant 2 parking spaces plus 8 for guests. In summary, this site is a natural for residential use. The interior sidewalks on the site will be connected to the existing walk on Woodbrook Drive, which ties to Berkmar Drive allowing for a good mixed use flow. The walks allow for safe pedestrian access to school or shopping in the Rio Hill Center, Woodbrook Center, Lowes and even Walmart. Public transit is available on the corner of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar(Bus Route #7). The buildings will be owned and leased by Southland Homes, Inc., and will be similar in building materials to Lakeside and Carriage Hill. 42 BERKMAR LAND TRUST THIS TRUST AGREEMENT made this 28th day of September, 1995, by and between Charles Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees, (whether one or more and which designation shall include all successor or substitute Trustees) , and all other parties who shall execute this Trust Agreement as evidenced by their signatures set forth below, who are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Beneficiaries" (which designation shall include all successors and assignees who have acquired a beneficial interest as contemplated by and in accordance with the terms of this Trust Agreement) , provides: I. RECITALS - OBJECTS AND PURPOSES The Beneficiaries are about to cause to be conveyed to the Trustees, as Trustees under this Trust Agreement, the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto, reserving to themselves as Beneficiaries only those rights in the nature of personalty as expressly set forth herein. When the Trustees have taken title to the trust property as Trustees under this Trust Agreement, and any other property subsequently conveyed to them, and added to Exhibit A, all collectively hereinafter the "Property" , the parties agree, for themselves and their successors and assigns and any other person or persons who may become entitled to any interest in the Property by operation of law or as provided herein, that the Trustees shall hold the Property for the following uses and purposes and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. l BERKMAR LAND TRUST CERTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST The undersigned Trustees under a certain Trust Agreement dated September 28, 1995, establishing the Berkmar Land Trust, hereby certify as of the date set forth below,that Charles Wm. Hurt is the beneficiary and beneficial owner of 100% of the Berkmar Land Trust. A copy of the original Trust Agreement,described below,is retained at the office of McCallum&Kudravetz,P.C., 250 East High Street,P.O. Box 224, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. This certificate does not embody any legal title and is non-transferrable. The beneficial interest owned by the aforenamed Beneficiary is transferrable only pursuant to the provisions of the Trust Agreement and any amendments thereto. DATED: December 24. 1996 / /4)/ Charles Wm. Hurt, rustee t J Shirley L. fisher, Trustee 6-C:\WPDATA\LRB\HUR1\0374.ber.wpd 4 BERKMAR LAND TRUST CERTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST The undersigned Trustees under a certain Trust Agreement dated September 28, 1995, establishing the Berkmar Land Trust, hereby certify as of the date set forth below, that Virginia Land,L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company,is the beneficiary and beneficial owner of 100% of the Berkmar Land Trust. A copy of the original Trust Agreement, described below, is retained at the office of McCallum& Kudravetz, P.C., 250 East High Street,P.O. Box 224, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. This certificate does not embody any legal title and is non-transferrable. The beneficial interest owned by the aforenamed Beneficiary is transferrable only pursuant to the provisions of the Trust Agreement and any amendments thereto. DATED: January 1. 1997 Q Charles Wm. Hurt, Trustee T166c/Z: Shirley L.7(sher, Trust e 6-C:\WPDATA\LRB\HUR110374.bn2.wpd 4 5 ATTACHMENT F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804)296-5823 Fax(804)972—4012 January 24, 2002 Mr. Steve Melton Virginia Land Company 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: ZMA 01-021 CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS Dear Steve: The staff has reviewed your recently submitted rezoning proposal referenced above. The following paragraphs and pages provide comments that are designed to provide information and suggestions for this rezoning. I am scheduled to meet with Kerman Blackwood with Rivanna Engineering tomorrow to review the specific design elements. Please be advised that this project is scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on March 19, 2001. The staff would like to provide a second set of comments to you on this project prior to your final submittal of plans for the rezoning. In order to provide a second set of comments, staff needs to have your second submittal of plans and a first draft of proffers no later than February 4, 2001. Comments from the Planning Department are below. Comments from Building Codes and Zoning Services, Fire and Rescue, Engineering, and the Service Authority are provided on the attached pages. VDOT will provide comments next week. Additional design comments may be provided after I meet with my Planning team on Monday. Design The parcel is small (2.74 acres) and its shape is "long and narrow" which limits the number of designs for residential units that could go on the site. The site has rolling topography and is adjacent to an elementary school. Both of these features are advantageous to the proposed use of the property. Planning staff believes that a less conventional design may be able to occur on this site which does not significantly affect the density you desire for the site. Please also be advised that you have proposed one more unit than is allowed for this zoning district (see Zoning's comments). If yr-- were to make your buildings st.;c uo the hill rather ti_an be parallel to the hill, you could Page 2 Steve Melton—Carriage Gate Apartments January 24, 2002 provide parking behind the first building and provide for a central green area that is outside of the parking lot. We have done a rough sketch that is attached to this letter that will be explained further to Mr. Blackwood at our meeting tomorrow. Most likely, this change would involve a different architectural style for the buildings. Because of required distances from the parking to the entrances to the units, you would want to have fewer units in the buildings closest to the cul-de-sac and more units to the rear of the site. One idea staff had was for "townhouse" appearing units in the front and an "apartment building" look in the rear. Connection of Woodbrook to the Adjoining Property Please consider extending a reservation for dedication of r.o.w. for a future extension of Woodbrook Drive to Tax Map 45 Parcel 90. A redesigned entrance would be necessary if this occurs; a redesigned entrance may be necessary with the change in layout proposed above. Connection to Tax Map 45 Parcel 91B A connection from this property to Tax Map 45 Parcel 91 B is strongly recommended to allow for access to Berkmar. If built, the western bypass will have limited access and it is unlikely that it would provide the best access to 91B. Elevations As indicated in early meetings on this project, the Planning Commission has an expectation that elevations will be provided with proposed developments accompanying a special use permit or rezoning. When you decide on the building types for the parcels, please provide elevations and consider proffering characteristics of those elevations. Screening Vegetative screening along property lines will help to create privacy for the development. I am asking the School Division right now if they believe screening is needed between the apartment complex and the school. Please consider the appropriateness of screening between this parcel and TM 45 Parcel 91B given your knowledge of the future use of that parcel. Central Amenity You provided some detail on the tot lot in the parking lot. We believe that the design you provided is innovative but a safer design (i.e., one that doesn't require all residents from all three units to cross over the parking lot) would be between units. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access is shown well throughout the site. With a redesign, you can also provide for similar pedestrian access. It appears that there is no sidewalk extending from the day care along the 47 Page 3 Steve Melton— Carriage Gate Apartments January 24, 2002 bulb of the cul-de-sac in front of your property. This sidewalk will need to be extended across the bulb and into your site. Staff notes your contacts with Lisa Glass in the Schools Division and appreciates your efforts towards making a pedestrian connection. We are also working on this item. R-15 Zoning District Request and Proffers My impression from your submittal is that you are requesting this rezoning with proffers. Because of the size of the parcel, a "planned district" designation is not possible. Planned districts have an "application plan" that is part of the rezoning. The plan provided with this submittal could be proffered with this rezoning. Please be advised that the level of variation from the plan would be entirely within the purview of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Director could not approve variations to the plan. For that reason, if you proffer the plan, it is important that you highlight the features that are essential to the design and development. Some standard language for proffers is provided below: 1. Development of the parcel shall be in general accord with the (application) plan entitled "xx" dated "xx" and last revised "xx" (where applicable) herein referred to as "The Plan" Specific features of The Plan which are proffered are: a. spell out the feature, such as, "a central amenity", relegated parking as shown on the plan. pedestrian access as shown, ect. b. Conformity with the following features of the elevations entitled "xx" dated "xx". c. Screening for the full-length of the southern boundary of the site where the parcel adjoins with TM 45 Parcel 95A (if considered necessary by the Schools Division). 2. Pedestrian paths consisting of(specs — asphalt, concrete, mulch whatever) shall be installed (where specifically) and completed before release of the performance bond. 3. Where site grading is performed, the owner shall minimize use of slopes steeper than 3:1, subject to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The Applicant shall install additional low maintenance vegetation to provide stabilization for proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 as approved by the County's Landscape Planner. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slope waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance. 4. The Owner shall limit the number of residential units on the parcel to "xx" residential units. 5. The Owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County sufficient r.o.w to extend Woodbrook Drive to the adjoining property Tax Map 45 Parcel 90, as shown on The Plan. 6. (If you want to make a cash proffer or off-site improvement) By not later than (some point in time or key event), the owner shall provide to the County (cash for a County improvement relating to the rezoning or and off-site improvement). Should (that improvement) not take place within the next (specific time period) from the approved proffer date, it shall be refunded to (whom?). Page 4 Steve Melton—Carriage Gate Apartments January 24, 2002 I hope this information is useful to you with your next submittal. Please feel free to call me if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, utfri Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner attach Skef c,1 sv 13 e5 et J Y✓4.-1 ve cb,---,.fr i /2,f /02 ..._ __----vial , e"14, __ 2 yrr 's. 1 ! .•. _ . .. ft = y .r. •• if.....'-71: ...,.. ..._.._ . , , ..,., .... 3 , , , i .......__. ,„ __ , _ .c ............_,,, . ., „..... • . . .._ _ h' M'•b1'll..s. •-.- i • l • I' i . I - hil - r. v , . . -,..,......... .___ ..,................,....... . • , 1"T Ark*. 1 • 1 . ' Ai li 1 .�y; : j' _ i1 i i; i : ,. i i i or , , t. i i li , , I �. . • ;• i 1 ; si • p.,-1 J::.may �y Albemarle County Development Departments ZMA-2001-021 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Building "Application Plan" revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision Jay Schlothauer 12/21/01 1/2/02 approved Based on information submitted December 17, 2001. No comments or conditions concerning this zoning map amendment. Comments will follow when a detailed site plan is developed. 1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 1 of 7 Albemarle County Development Departments ZMA-2001-021 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Engineering "Application Plan" revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision steven snell 12/21/01 1/22/02 approved with conditions FROM:Steve Snell, Engineer DATE:22 January 2002 RE:Carriage Gate, ZMA-2001-021 The ZMA for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. The Engineering Department can recommend approval when the following conditions: 1. The proposed internal sidewalk must connect to the existing sidewalk on Woodbrook Drive. Though not typically an Engineering concern, it should be noted that the location of the proposed sewer lines will prevent a tree buffer within this site. Any tree buffer between this site and the Agnor Hurt Elementary School will thus have to be located on school property. It is possible that an insufficient tree buffer exist on the school property. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. 1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 3 of 7 t)2 Albemarle County Development Departments ZMA-2001-021 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Fire/Rescue "Application Plan" revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision Jay Schlothauer 12/21/01 1/2/02 approved Based on information submitted December 17, 2001. No comments or conditions concerning this zoning map amendment. Comments will follow when a detailed site plan is developed. 1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 4 of 7 J 3 Albemarle County Development Departments ZMA-2001-021 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Service Authority "Application Plan" revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision Pete Gorham 12/21/01 1/23/02 approved with conditions We do not object to the zoning map amendment for this development. Existing water and sewer lines of sufficient diameter are immediately adjacent to the site, on the Northside Ministries School property. 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. Final approval will not be granted until the water and sewer construction drawings have been approved by our office. As we understand it apartment buildings are required to be sprinklered so there shouldn't be an issue with fire flow. In any case the flow at the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive is in the range of 2700 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks. 1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 6 of 7 Jr Albemarle County Development Departments ZMA-2001-021 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Zoning "Application Plan" revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision John Shepherd 12/21/01 1/16/02 Pending BOS approval This parcel contains 2.74 acres. If it is rezoned to R-15 the parcel can contain 41, not 42 dwelling units. (2.74 x 15 =41.1) If the applicant submits proffers with this proposal, this department would appreciate the opportunity to review them. The Application Plan is being reviewed as just that. If the rezoning is approved, this project will be subject to a separate review and approval of a site plan. 1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 7 of 7 J 4 f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT G ®=tea MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner /1 G. DATE: March 12, 2002 RE: ZMA 01-21 (Carriage Gate Apartments) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the properties in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the property. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Existing Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that 24 multifamily units (MF's)would be built during the course of the next year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes $14,000 Other Revenues 31,000 Total Revenues $45,000 School Expenditures ($53,000) County Govt. Expenditures (13,000) Total Expenditures ($66,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($21,000) 5 6 ZMA 01-21 March 12, 2002 Page Two In terms of the annual impact that the development of three SFD's would have on the County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result: CIP Impact -- Current Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($22,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($22,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) County CF Debt Service ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0) Net Annual CIP Impact ($22,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $22,000 in capital costs is part of the $66,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of 24 MF's). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 41 MF units on the property. I assumed the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning Property Taxes $23,000 Other Revenues 54,000 Total Revenues $77,000 School Expenditures ($95,000) County Govt. Expenditures ($24,000) Total Expenditures ($119,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($42,000) Note that, although the proposed development would have not quite twice as many MF's as would the maximum allowed under existing zoning, CRIM estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the J , ZMA 01-21 March 12, 2002 Page Three development associated with the proposed zoning would be twice as great as the net annual fiscal impact associated with the existing zoning. This seeming discrepancy results from rounding errors in the CRIM program. As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($33,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($33,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) County CF Debt Service ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0) Net Annual CIP Impact ($33,000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of$119,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 01-21, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $21,000 - $42,000 = -$21,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $21,000 worse off approving ZMA 01-21 than denying the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval of ZMA 01-21 would result in a net annual fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-21 should be denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 01-21, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development would likely take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well-being. SAA/saa :) ry Jo Aa 03 z y ,,_ 0-4 C ") V W> Cr I T xUCS lD D a C Z MOQ y 0 d N y Q - — 25 A t Z O N Z v a ,_17- 3 0) r Dr A WN�O(00)V 0,0A W N-.0W0)V 07NA W N-, C> g "00 W 0 0 0000 Z Q c M 00>M 0 0 1 0, A0 T D M C o O O O K T v v Z Z Z O C CCTTg'O CTTe C cmmZmSN0CS{ 5mO _,0OOOmmmC O m G 3c O � O m =>pZmDD 03o � " Hc m nN —3 CD 0m 000 - mMma Cm 1mmnm1m < Om = S. W ,_g f-wa Om Ov O M . p1mOay4* 1CCR.1X3c eNmum � Dy ° D0m 0va� � gg � a i gC, -.VVm - mOmm' m m )r- nmL rmmF x O 0 n m B` moa, yo 2ym y P m " om( H -I0 52 n 05.0 n m m m � m m O m E. 13 m • 0w ` pm X m " S. � N 7HmaxXm 0 c c C d3T m�v d 70Z 8 1 L, o r NCX m 0 0 O NN 0 d S. S, { co N d 81I N V N M N N N N N N j N N N N A A (O W N N CA NN A W NNNNNN 4A4Atl)4ANNNNNNNNNNN�N — 44 NNNN~ A A N A O V A A O o N t 1,- f 0 W A O N 0 0 0---O O—O O O—O O O W O O O N O A O O O O A W— I N « NIN N NN NN N N N N N N O O)N 0)i�NNN U)N N A W NNNNNN 4A4A4p4AN NNNNNNNNN N NNNN O 0,— V A O O A— W N O-+(0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0---0 0—0 0 0- O O 0 W O O O N O A O O O O A AN () M • N N N ' N N N N N N N IA 444A 4p4RN NN N N � a • O)jO) N UtNN VAOOA-, WNO D A W NNNNN NN NNN NNNN 8 NN OOOOO OO OOO OOOWOOONO A O O O O A 0.....) N C1 K N M N O N N N N N N N N N N O 0) NNN N N N A W 4p414p4q N4p�4AN4ANNNNNNNNNNNN«N N N N N« (p V A O O A W N O (D 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 B O O O O O- O O O W O 0 0(J 0 A O O O O A ma m 3 O W N N N WW j 0)NNNNA U)NN~~ A W NNNNNN«4A4A4ANNNNV)NNNNNNN~N ~ NNNN- 8 O O V A O 0 A 41 N 0 W (1 N 0 0 0 0 0---0 0 0 0 0-'O O O W O O O N 0 A O O O 0 A ,0 0 N N N M N N 4.44o N N N O O O O O OO j N O N N N A N N N N N N N N N N)N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V A OO A W N O (O V I - O O O O O O W O O O N O A O O O O A O O 1 N M N,IN _ N N N N N N N N �M � N N N N w— V AOOA—' W NO W 0N 00000-+��00-+000-000 W OOONO A 0000A (0 V N N N N N N N M N N N j O)a N N N0 (N N A W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N+N M N N N N — a A VAOOA— W NO-+(D N N 00000-+-+�0N-+000-�000 W OOONO A OOOOA 00 > T. m N m N_ 4N_ 4 NN NN N N N0N 0) N N N U)N N A W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 44 N N N N N 0 0 VAOOA-. (WNO-.(O U) N 00000 +»00-.000-.000 W OOONO A 0000A -.We a W0 69 N NN N NN NN N N N N N N_ O _ W N O N N N U)N N AA W N N N.......N N N N N N N N N N ,II — W NO-+(0 U) NJ 00000- 1-.00-+000—'000 W OOONO A 000OA NO N 8 N 0 (0 W m co m cm o 2 a cm of 0 N S N N ON M 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 U)0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N O O.-O N 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 U N M)B O N N N N O M 4- �O N N N N N Vf NN 6169 N N.- VN N m O) - M0000 M 00000U000N000NO0 ON00000 V W MWOM(I W WOO V O) N N 6969 N V► N H N 4 N V►4 N N V►(A N N VW N N N N N N N N 4 N N 0I. M N owe) N N N N-- V O N N N N N N NN NN N NN 6.6 0 N W m Q W O M0000 M OOOo0U)o00N00oN00 ON00000 71 W noon* mmoo '°) 'o N V►NV►N N NN NNNNNNNNNHNNNNN N NHNNNH I� M N V►M°ff N4040N, O N N N N N N NN VAN 4, N. M N 61 M 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 U)0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 g co M O)0 M U) W U)O O V O) O N N N N N N N NN 4,..............N N V►N N N N N N M N N M M N N N N NN- N N40 co WDM M0000 M 0000 O U)O O 0 N 000 N 00 0N00000 O OD M°)OMN UO CD OOR°) NN 8 NNHNNN NN NNNNNNNNHNHNHNHNNN N V►NNNN 0 I- MNNM O NNNN • W 106 N N N N N N NV N.- N IA N 06-- M0000 M 00000U1000N000NOO ON00000 V CO M°)OMO U(DO07°) 5CO 8N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H N N N...... 0 N. M N N M O N N N N V N 869 N N N N N N N N N N N,- NNN N N M 0 m Q MOOOO M OOOOOU)OOONOOONOO ON00000 co M OOM Y) 0070 N H NH N /A V 0 8 H N N NN NNN N IANHNNHNN NN NH 0 HNN U) I� N N .-4 M M O N N N N. w - N 0 N N N N N N NN NN N Np NN 0 N 41. MBA M0000 M 00000U000N000NOO ON00000 V MM°)OMO U(DOORO) NC%f ° 0 .....H N N N N N N N H N N 6969696.66469 N H N N N N H N N 0 r M N N M CO N N N N.- V ID N a O N N H N N N N N N N N 6 N 2 E 0 NV M0000 M 00000U000 N000NOO ON00000 V WMOOMU a00000O NI� 8 N N N N N N N N N N N N H N N H N N N N H N N N H N N H H N NN N MM NN V►MM 0 N N H N NN� N IAN VI N N N N N N N+ .-M M0000 M 000000000N000N00.-ON000 V O W MO)UOMM V(O WO W. 00 0 N N N N H N N N N N N N N N H N N N N N H N H N N N N N N N U) W M N N M° N N N N O W co 0 N N N N N N N H H N N N‘-- V4f w w N N A N II 8 mN m C C 0 N o m mm v m y) co u >Z_ o J o a m • w cr) G °= ma gyH e vm c m ▪ > w o 8 o Z N moaA m ° gac mo m m - aEm ° Hu ao Z > aZ O 2 7 o im Y mp � 0 mrea_ ° maXHgmz � movow(' = , in cuU) cu0F C o m gMI- Xx m _U n > ty w ° . Z 0 } Z 0 ._ aNcm aawv mc ya o c « > � pmO v) S «� <Uc- mom � a ~~ x .= 0200 xa.c-0 > M avea oj Jm omymJ ° mm cwa ..H c0 F- ¢ c _ m Q .e' 0ad0055o>A0mQ `2 « a ...c0 a ° .00 _ co e - o .2 umcJ 000v ,D0m m mUawl- RUmA -7 , cmcm a a . e. co_ 2 . m « « «- 2zO m m ceam me mZcE 29wu a«tLu c ° 0000 2 0mmomooa« ° m c.camom2mZu. L ° ° azazoammm2,00m72aowomoUQ 22 ¢ On0UnOu00 � <0 E .-NMVUWI-WOO4-NMVUWI.WO - NNNNN JQ V ¢ Q E o �, 0 0 x 3 O .. I- Jp } I_ to Ny 0 a o o f Z m d SWOw 4ZC= G y N CI 0WaI- 3 I-U) 0 v; Uici) i o ~ N Q CO ZC HW O 2 "Ni ATTACHMENT H CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS CROSS-SECTION BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR SITE LAYOUT 1" = 10' Vertical 1" = 50' Horizontal . nto PS Kr't 600 LI N E . so ' I I I I I I I I 510 __ _ ---...„. --_, ........4 „: , - I ,., I EX I S 7 I r'4 G-_------------sw--- r G.RADE 1 -- ,••%. . I I I I . , _.-..!.... _.r.., 580 .. _ ,.. 1.-- . .„.„... f .. i ,:: ..:' •,, .; 't"--,-• ___. 2"- . - - + ,'.. .. .....,..... s :..1• 1'.' ,1 .•, •> '"? -............. 4 I z % I -.'''. 1 ''; 14 or_ ...F., A .A II ::I, :.;•.'z, I ..,i I.' .t -; i! .!!'i, f. -.;-; -..,... .ot - : : U. :-. r\t, -1 : . i:ck:___:, ,-....i.,..!. --4,--: -i..1.1Th ...._ _ F.', ..z: -..,. '''' N. L T- .,.... ..,,....... :..,.6..., ..: , _ 1.1;7;,-;,-;2":0: .:: .. .. I I i I ,....,..,_,...4.5......,ch I I _ 61 O�AL@tl ATTACHMENT I tism ...awl• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804)296-5823 Fax(804)972-4035 March 5, 2002 Mr. Steve Melton Virginia Land Company 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SDP 01-016 CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS Dear Mr. Melton: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments from the following agencies, as applicable, are attached. Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works Albemarle County Department of Building Code Enforcement and Zoning Services Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development Albemarle County Division of Fire Safety Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Albemarle County E-911 Mapping Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues, which could affect approval of the proposed project. Please note that, in addition to the comments attached, approval of this site plan is contingent on the approval of the pending rezoning ZMA-01-21. These comments could change subject to the approved proffers, actions of the Planning Commission, or action of the Board of Supervisors. This site development plan will be heard with ZMA 01-016 at the Planning Commission meeting on March 19. At that meeting, the Commission will advise you of any additional changes necessary to the site plan for preliminary site plan approval if the rezoning is approved. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Karl Guiler nianni" Technician 6 2 • Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Building preliminary site plan revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision Jay Schlothauer 2/14/02 2/20/02 requested changes Based on plans dated February 8, 2002. Rearrange the barrier-free parking space at Building "C" so that it is van-accessible (similar to the one at Buildings "A"/"B".). [2000 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; 1996 BOCA National Building Code, Section 1105.4] Note: The buildings must include sprinkler systems. 3/5/02 11:26 AM Page 1 of 1 O J Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Fire/Rescue preliminary site plan revision 1 reviewer received reviewe decision Jay Schlothauer 2/14/02 2/20/02 approved Based on plans dated February 8, 2002. No comments or conditions. Note: The buildings must include sprinkler systems. 3/6/02 09:10 AM Page 1 of 1 64 Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Engineering preliminary site plan revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision steven snell 3/4/02 3/4/02 requested changes DATE:04 March 2002 RE:❑❑Carriage Gate, SDP-2002-0161 The Preliminary Site PLan for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. The Engineering Department can recommend approval when the following items are addressed: 1. The BMP appears to have no berm. The bottom of the BMP is at 555-feet and the next downhill elevation is shown to be 555-feet. Please show more detail for the BMP structure. [18-32.5.6d] 2. The parking grades vary from 5-1/2% to 8%. Parking grades cannot exceed 5%. Please show grading that does not exceed 5% for all parking areas. 3. The parking space just east of the dumpster will need a drop inlet at its lowest elevation or another means to alleviate stormwater at this location. 4. 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. 5. All VDOT comments must be addressed. The following items must reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before the final plat can be recommended for approval. A completed submittal form and application, available at the Engineering Department, must accompany all submittals. The required number of copies and the required fees are indicated on the form and application. a. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [17-203] b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] c. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routing for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] d. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17.323] e. Drainage computations. [Policy] Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. It is the applicant's responsibility to verify that all conditions and proffers are met by this plan. Any conditions not satisfied may, at the discretion of the County, delay or invalidate this site plan. 3/6/02 09:09 AM Page 1 of 1 65 Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Planning preliminary site plan revision 8 reviewer received reviewed decision Elaine Echols 2/14/02 3/11/02 requested changes The Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the preliminary site plan referenced above and will recommend preliminary approval once the following conditions are satisfied. The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. Each comment is preceded by the applicable zoning reference. Please note that approval of this site plan is contingent on the approval of the pending rezoning ZMA-01- 21. These comments could change subject to the approved proffers, actions of the Planning Commission, or action of the Board of Supervisors. 1. Please correct the spelling of'Apartments'on the title of the cover sheet. 2. The property being reviewed in this case is designated "TM 45 Parcel 91." Please remove any references to Lot C on the plan. See title and legal reference. 3. TM 45 Parcel 91 lot B has also been given a new lot designation. It is now TM 45 Parcel 91 D. Please make this change as well on the plan. This property is directly behind the Parcel 91. 4. Please correct the spelling of'Aubrey' in the source of'boundary survey'note. 5. For clarification purposes, please add "For R-15 districts"after the 'building setbacks' note. 6. [32.5.6a] One datum elevation reference was not found on the plan. Please add this feature. 7. [4.16] Please identify the Recreation Area on the plan. 8. [32.5.6b]A note stating the square footage of recreation area must appear on the plan. Please add this note to the plan. 9. [32.5.6d] The code requires that at least 50 feet of offsite topography and pertinent features must be on the plan. The rear portion (northern) of the property does not meet this requirement. Please extend the topography and show any relevant features (structures) a full 50 feet from the rear property line. 10. [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 with the school. Plan accordingly to accommodate vegetation in such areas and be aware of potential conflicts with utilities. 11. [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.) 3/13/02 10:54 AM Page 1 of 2 66 Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Planning preliminary site plan revision 8 reviewer received reviewed decision Elaine Echols 2/14/02 3/11/02 requested changes 12. [32.7.9.9] Also be advised that the landscaping on the site must meet a fifteen (15) percent tree canopy. This is required for any residential development that is between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre. Please demonstrate this on the conceptual landscape plan. 13. [18.3] Please add notes to each building stating as follows, "Building not to exceed 65 feet in height." 14. The note under'Woodbrook Drive' is incorrect. The distance is actually to the intersection with 'Berkmar Drive." Please replace 'Greenbriar'with 'Berkmar.' 15. There is a 20'access easement shown on the property. Please clarify whether it is an access easement or a R.O.W. Please label accordingly and specify whether it is existing or proposed. 16. [4.12.6.2] Please be advised that for the purposes of safety, internal signage for pedestrians may be required before final plan approval. 17. The buildings on the site do not accurately match the submitted elevations for the site. It should be noted that the buildings be drawn to show their exact footprint on the final site plan. 3/13/02 10:54 AM Page 2 of 2 Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Zoning [description and date] revision 1 reviewer received reviewe decision susan snead 3/4/02 3/4/02 requested changes FROM: Susan Carol Snead, Zoning Plans Reviewer DATE: March 4, 2002 RE: 0 SDP 02-016 Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Site Plan The Albemarle County Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will approve this preliminary site plan for zoning compliance when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. The Building Official may provide separate comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference,which is to the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise specified.] 1. [ZMA 01-021] Once the rezoning is approved it may be necessary to list some or all proffers on the site plan. Final approval of the site plan is subject to compliance with all proffers. 2. [32.5.6(a)] The zoning for adjacent parcel 91 B is C-1. Please revise. 3. [32.5.6(b)] It is necessary to provide the acreage of the parcel in order to verify density. 4. [32.5.6(b)] [4.12.6.6] The parking requirements are based on number of bedrooms per unit. Please note on the plan the number of bedrooms in each unit. If there are variations on the number of bedrooms in units, please note on the plan the number of units with each variation. 5. [4.16] A recreation area, which must include a tot lot, is required for a facility of 30 units or more. Substitutions for the tot lot may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. 6. [32.5.6(b)] Please note on the plan the acreage of Recreation Area and Open Space. 7. (32.5.6(n)] Please show and label the locations of Open Space and Recreation areas. Final tentative approval from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will be subject to the following conditions: (The following conditions are those that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) 1. (32.5.6(n)] Show the location of all outdoor lighting on the plan. 2. (32.6.6(j)] Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this plan. 3. (32.6.6(j)] [4.17.4(b)] Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area 3/6/02 09:18 AM Page 1 of 2 ri v 11 Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016 SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Zoning [description and date] revision 1 reviewer received reviewe decision susan snead 3/4/02 3/4/02 requested changes luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4(b). 3/6/02 09:18 AM Page 2 of 2 b ,.+ ta Albemarle County Service Auth èri Serving•Conserving TO: Elaine K. Echols, Principal Planner �Q FROM: Peter C. Gorham, Senior Civil Engineer &" -- DATE: March 7, 2002 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Carriage Gate (TM 45, Parcel 91) The below checked items apply to this site . ZMA-01-021 SDP-02-016 X 1 . This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2 . An 8 inch water line is located approximately 10' distant . X 3 . Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located 950' distant from this site plan, is 2700 gpm + at 20 psi residual . X 4 . An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 10' distant . 5 . An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6 . No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements . 7 . and plans are currently under review. 8 . and plans have been received and approved. 9 . No plans are required. X 10 . Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval . 11 . Final site plan may/may not be signed. 12 . RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. Comments : Offsite easement for the sewer extension will be required and possibly for the water extension as well . The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows : meter locations waterline size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • P.O. Box 2738 • Charlottesville, VA 22902 • Tel 1,434) 977-451 1 • Fax (434) 979-0698 www.acsanet.com f .... o.r. .. ..... ...,z. ... .., ... r.. .aiva v. aa.ai: na-.. VU Clla LEJULIL • COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA LI El:'A ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY RAY D.PETHTEL CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L.BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER INTERIM COMMISSIONER February 27, 2002 Site Review Meeting March 7, 2002 Mr. Glenn Brooks Dept. of Engineering 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Brooks: The following are our cons rents: SDP 2002-016 C arriai+r_!f;ate Apartments Preliminary Site Plan- Route 1417 > Minimum 30' entrance width required at right-of-way. ➢ Entrance design s:iould :'F. _'G-9D. ➢ CG-12 handicap camps c j i:fired in radii. > Label Woodbrooi:Driv; 1..::ute 1417. > Drainage compui:itions r hired for review. SDP 2002-015 Department o .. ') otor Vehicles (old site) Major Amendment-Route 852/1452 > Plan appears to have add:::sed comments from previous review and should be satisfactory. 1 ,NSPORTATION FO1 THE 213r CENTURY r^s I ,Y O.0\O3I\0II0 Mr/VW . I; 1 ',4: • I _ ' IIIII O 'Ng =1i�a;� _ i ii 1 ..-:.-- -_.-!r...-,-..-.,-, -.• =_-- :II' illl'Ir‘ • ' , -1:. Ism " . 7,, . ,,,.. 1, pm ,,, ,:. 0 i i , ,‘ A air , II it `,,. I. .. ! 1 • F +ewes• .3.. ....�� r 7 . V/I .• '\‘..1 N - . -.. ss,•\", • ( ,I i ;„... . ;.,.,_ __. ..,,__ .,''i E -.) - ii I1 • 1 - _ =b ,. I lir _19111111M m ]I011llIllhiIllllIllllhIDiT . it 0 . 1111- MI; • - OS' • ii1-1111i 4 z -- 1. 111161. [Its• .. Flo' Imo© !i_ Q r.a • I l 1 s 1 3 A Q CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS KEENE1Y8 Co,ARCH►TECTS �`M"`"" ` pWILOTTE61t E.VA 22901alwn4 IMF(w,P.M COT,011 l • _ Y , BOUIHNO CONSTRK.IIDN 01 MM1MVm nWD.nnE n t▪•,,,,A�m 9 6MllOf1VA1G VA 1A01 R•wO Ql antsvu[VA 22901 T.ti•'n`•0,0 a►•000 r 1MI HDV11V ..w....,.•. �..,...�,_ C\t6.01VCW1n\01a1DMV 02/21/02 Ir 11 - ; IL41 � rrl. =17-1.11 Z - f 4 , 1 d I. Mg v 771 _.) lit.f 1 • �. IN M— — f — s "'f 133 ][i , -G ' " _ . IIII�',t. .rill _ fl ., I Ztut Rai 'Mill � � :��IIIIIII IIIIIIIII � 0._01 © 1 Rio' 11 — , Milw 1. �_ I_ .._..,L..... �, �1_. �,, rill 0 111 Ilil a,- $/.11111110 !I -, "1-111i, M6 L11; 1.: 21 t " I CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS KEENEY ,�la Coif I dV,D101 Me RA—�"�%` a CO,ARCHITECTS II0 ° - - Po00 IA lv�Et IN Pow m[w CIVALOTTERLLE.VA 22901 .DPa 4 " Pa vaasM Y+ainr 1.1 MIP.•avae Pima o arm J eq(n1JVp Tbry OD V.HfENOOD 110m4 DIME.l M: nm7 0101,0111vN1t VA pD01 OO �rm 'J iiwta27109991.E,VA ?POOP 1+07avo WO moo ai aawan a a m../ NNW aR1�3011.D COMM"R11D1®F.m 47?y C-Vw0w\an\01.3In.o 02/21/02 H'E ® ®C rr . Ii . i _ 3,51. \ ..� . \ lilt , __I i, !, C� _ ,,,,,\ ..\\ n -�jj r 73 H 0 m = • m —a i j M o i z a I __ • `' �i • - I " j CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS � �E� ,b ,j a i I I�ENI�Y d CO,ARCHITECTS �"�'''m"°"a°`• oo0a e• i OWLOT1 SJE VA 22001 MOW r1 .w\rov�mGa w.1 v N• RN &VINLA D OO MUC110P! ws+Vuior Mg en l9 Rosa 11. �:w a.. go vwrrw000 noo,wire w i x N 0 OWLOTT tiE VA 22Y01 moo•;VA,� •WNW�..o ,... .: i.Ipv...WO IJF020 im..Aa win F.wu pia COMM w•Id P.O...