Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800023 Staff Report 2023-01-25COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY OF PLANNING AGENDA TITLE: ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 — River's Edge SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezone two properties from Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) for 100 dwelling units. Request for a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (entrance and accessway and stormwater management) for the proposed rezoning development. SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Baker Butler E.S., Sutherland M.S., Albemarle H.S. ACTION AGENDA DATE: August 5, 2020 STAFF CONTACTS: Filardo, Rapp, Nedostup, Kanellopoulos PRESENTER: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 7:0 to defer action on ZMA201800018 and SP201800023. The applications were deferred to May 19, 2020. A summary of the main concerns heard from the Planning Commission is included in Attachment E. At its meeting on May 19, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 5:1 to recommend approval of ZM201800018 with the finding that the use of a central system to provide connection to the nearby public sewer system is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission also voted 5:1 to recommend approval of SP201800023 with conditions as stated in the staff report. The Planning Commission's staff report, action letter, and minutes (from both meetings) are attached (Attachments A, B, C, and D). DISCUSSION: At its meeting on May 19, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 5:1 to recommend approval of ZMA201800018 and to recommend approval of SP201800023 with conditions as stated in the staff report. The Planning Commission did not request any changes. It should be noted that there was significant discussion during the public hearing regarding the proposed density and the request for additional units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. This discussion may not have been reflected in the Planning Commission's motion. Staffs analysis of the requested density is included in Attachments A (staff report) and A9 (accessory units and previous applications). Please note the additional discussion on density in the Planning Commission minutes (Attachment C). Since the May 19, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing, no changes have been made to the application. Several non -substantive changes were made to the SP201800023 conditions, and Condition #6 has been removed due to new guidance from the Department of Environmental Quality. The attached Resolution to approve SP201800023 (Attachment H) includes these revised conditions. Attachment F is the current application for ZMA201800018, and Attachment A5 is the current application for SP201800023. The Applicant has also requested approval of a central sewerage system, which is subject to the Board's approval, and is being presented to the Board as a separate agenda item on August 5 for the Board's consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance to approve ZMA201800018 (Attachment G) and the attached Resolution to approve SP201800023 (Attachment H). ATTACHMENTS: A — Planning Commission Staff Report — March 10, 2020 Al: Vicinity Maps A2: Environmental Features Map A3: Applicant Narrative A4: Rezoning Application Plan dated February 28, 2020 A5: Special Use Permit Application dated February 28, 2020 A6: Right Turn Warrant Analysis AT Central System Request A8: Neighborhood Model Analysis A9: Accessory Unit Analysis A10: Board Resolution on Anti -displacement At 1: Staff Report CCP201800004 Al2: Planning Commission Minutes CCP201800004 B — Planning Commission Action Letter from May 19, 2020 PC Public Hearing C — Planning Commission Minutes from May 19, 2020 D — Planning Commission Minutes from March 10, 2020 E — Cover Memo for May 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting F — Revised Application Plan dated April 14, 2020 G — Ordinance to Approve ZMA201800018 H — Resolution to Approve SP201800023 ALBEMARLE COUNTY STAFF REPORT Project Name: ZMA201800018 and Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner SP201800023, River's Edge Planning Commission Hearing: March 10, Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD 2020 Owner: Rivers Edge Associates and Rivers Applicant: Justin Shimp and Kelsey Schlein, Edge Holdings LLC Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Rivers Edge Holdings Acreage: TMP 32-5A1 is 27.71 acres and Rezone from: RA Rural Areas to PRD Planned TMP 32-5A0 is 4.81 acres, for a total of Residential Development 32.52 acres. Special Use Permit: Request disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (accessway and stormwater management) for the proposed rezoning development TMP: 03200-00-00-005A1 and 03200-00- Location: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane at 00-005AO Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29. School Districts: Baker Butler E.S., Current by -right use: Rural Area 0.5 units/acre Sutherland M.S., Albemarle H.S. Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: None Proposal: Rezone two properties from Requested # of Dwelling Units per ZMA: Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential Maximum of 100 dwelling units; size -restricted to a Development (PRD). Request for a special maximum gross floor area of 1,200 sq. ft. each use permit for the disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (accessway and stormwater management) for the proposed rezoning development. DA (Development Areas): Hollymead Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density neighborhood in the Places29 Master Plan Residential and Private Open Space per the Places29 Master Plan ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 Affordable Housing Provided: Affordable Housing AMI (%): ❑O Yes ❑No Minimum 15 percent affordable units at 80 percent AMI. Character of Property: Two parcels Use of Surrounding Properties: There are totaling 32.52 acres with approximately several commercial properties to the north, and fourteen single-family detached houses and U.S. Army facilities. Rural Area properties a paved accessway that creates a loop (currently forested) are to the east and south. The through the site and connects to the parcel directly south is currently undeveloped but is entrance at Route 29. Parcels are heavily in the Development Areas. forested and surrounded by the Rivanna River. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The rezoning request and special 1. The density proposed with the rezoning use permit request are consistent application is above the recommendations with the majority of the within the Places29 Master Plan. recommendations within the 2. The request to disturb preserved steep Places29 Master Plan and the slopes with the special use permit Comprehensive Plan. application could potentially create 2. The rezoning request is consistent negative environmental impacts: erosion with the majority of the applicable and sedimentation of the Rivanna River; Neighborhood Model Principles. and loss of wildlife habitat. 3. The rezoning provides affordable rental housing that meets the housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request ZMA201800018 with the following changes: 1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in the Places29 Master Plan. 2. Update the application plan to show a public multi -use path along the full frontage with Route29. Special Use Permit: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request SP201800023 with conditions. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos PLANNING COMMISSION: March 10, 2020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD PETITION: PROJECT: ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 032000000005AO and 032000000005A1 LOCATION: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane. Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29. PROPOSAL: Rezone two properties from Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential Development (PRD). Request for a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (entrance and accessway) for the proposed rezoning development. PETITION: Rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Areas (RA), which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A maximum of 100 units are proposed for a gross density of approximately 3 units/acre, and a net density of 12 units/acre. A special use permit for the disturbance of preserved slopes for "Private facilities on preserved slopes" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 30.7.4.b.2. Request for central sewerage and central water system per County Code Section 16-102. ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Flood Hazard Overlay; Airport Impact Area COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential use (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features- privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features; in the Hollymead Area of Places29 Master Plan. CHARACTER OF THE AREA The subject properties are located at 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane, to the east of Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29. The site has a narrow paved accessway that starts at the entrance to the site at Route 29 and creates a loop through the middle of the site. There are approximately fourteen single-family houses on the site. The site is mainly forested and is surrounded by the Rivanna River. (Attachment 1) Several commercial uses are located north of the site, including building and roofing materials sales, an electric company, and modular home sales. U.S. Army facilities are also located to the north. Rural Area parcels (currently forested) are to the east and south. The parcel directly south of the site is also in the Development Areas (and is adjacent to North ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 3 Pointe) but is currently undeveloped. The residential Camelot and Briarwood neighborhoods are across Route 29 and approximately 0.25 miles from the site. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow up to 100 dwelling units. Each dwelling unit is restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet. The units will all be rental units, as the property cannot be feasibly subdivided. Access to the site will be provided using the existing entrance off of Route 29. The existing accessway will be widened from 12 feet (of travelway, plus some shoulder area) to 28 feet (with 20 feet of travelway and 4 feet on each side for shoulders). Widening the accessway is the only option for future development of the site and necessitates disturbance of preserved slopes. Civic, recreation, and open spaces are proposed, consisting of: • A club house, within an existing 4,000 sq. ft. structure near the entrance to the site • A multipurpose court • A public pedestrian path that leads to the adjacent parcel TMP 32-22K1 (where future connections may be possible, eventually connecting to North Pointe) and to Route 29 • A network of private primitive trails, minimum 2,600 linear feet • A minimum of two (2) playgrounds or equivalent, which will likely be natural playscapes The applicant has requested review and approval of a central sewerage system per 16-102 (Attachment 7). This request requires Board of Supervisors review and approval. The applicant proposes a private pump station that would connect to a public manhole. The applicant is also requesting a special use permit for disturbance of preserved slopes to widen the accessway and for stormwater management (Attachment 5). APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has provided a narrative and concept plans (Attachments 3, 4, and 5). COMMUNITY MEETING The required community meeting was held on January 17th, 2019, at 6:00 PM at the Hollymead Fire Station, during the regularly scheduled Places29 North CAC meeting. Community members in attendance asked questions regarding the type of housing being provided, how the rental units would function, about the central system approval process, and if any transportation improvements were needed. The applicant responded that the dwelling units will be size -restricted and likely modular housing. The units will be long-term rentals (a year or more) and will not be used for short- term rentals. The applicant explained that a central system requires Board of Supervisors approval, that the applicant will need to coordinate with ACSA to go under Route 29 for water and sewer service, and that they will need a private pump station for their site. The applicant said that a right turn lane will likely be needed for the site entrance. The main concern heard was how a school bus would be able to stop at the site. The applicant responded that a loop may be feasible, or an area to safely pull over. Staff recommends the ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 applicant coordinate with Albemarle County Schools when developing a location for a bus stop. When this application was presented to the CAC, only 60 units were proposed, versus the current 100 units proposed. However, the revised application significantly clusters the proposed units, and the overall area impacted by the development remains the same. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY CCP201800004: A work session for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was held with the Planning Commission on October 16, 2018. Additional information is provided in the staff report for CCP2018-4 (Attachment 11) and in the Planning Commission minutes (Attachment 12) from the meeting. The Planning Commission found that net density should be used to calculate density for the site, and should use the more accurate GIS-data, not the area shown as Parks/Green systems in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission also found that transferring density with the adjacent property (TMP 32-22K1, not part of this rezoning request) was not appropriate. There is no other previous planning and zoning history for this site. ZMA201800018: ANAYLSIS OF THE REZONING REQUEST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable policies in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The request meets the Growth Management policy (CH 3), which directs new development and infrastructure to the Development Areas. The Development Areas Chapter (8) recommends that the urban neighborhoods (which include Places29) have a variety of housing types and have extensive infrastructure and services. The proposal meets the policy of having clear boundaries with adjacent Rural Areas. The development clusters units together and maintains the existing forested riverbank boundary with the Rural Area. The proposed development is in an Entrance Corridor and is providing the 50-foot forested buffer called for in the Places29 Master Plan. Analysis of the Places29 Master Plan These properties are designated Neighborhood Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan, which calls for a density range of 3 to 6 units per acre: Neighborhood Density Residential. This designation is used in areas around Centers where single-family detached and attached housing with a gross density range between 3 — 6 units per acre is desired. This designation is also applied to existing residential areas with densities within or below this range (see Land Use Table LU2). This designation is essentially the same as the Neighborhood Density Residential designation in the 1996 Land Use Plan. Primary uses: single-family residential, including two or more housing types. Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live/work units, open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents throughout the surrounding area, and so they benefit from co -location with other neighborhood -serving businesses. However, they may be located by exception in areas around Centers designated Neighborhood Density Residential provided they are compatible with surrounding uses. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 The Development Areas Chapter (8) calls for Master Plans to guide new development in the Development Areas. Strategy 8c states that density should be calculated using net density, by excluding areas not suitable for development, including steep slopes, stream buffers, floodplain, and areas identified as Parks/Green systems. The proposed development has a gross density of 3 units per acre and a net density of 12 units per acre. The Master Plan recommends a maximum of 51 units using the calculation of net density. 100 dwelling units are proposed with a range of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, which is double the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. All units are sized -restricted, with a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 1,200 square feet each. The applicant has included information regarding accessory units in their narrative as justification for the additional units. Specifically, the applicant has compared the additional density proposed with this development to be comparable to a more traditional single-family development with accessory units, which are permitted in the zoning ordinance and do not count towards overall density. The applicant compares the following scenarios: • The applicant could construct larger single-family homes, each of which could have an accessory dwelling unit, which would not count toward density. 0 3,000 square foot house could have an accessory unit that could be 1,050 square feet in size. 0 4,000 square foot house could have an accessory unit that could be 1,400 square feet in size. • Or, as the applicant proposes, the applicant could construct 100 units and size - restrict the units, so that the overall impact would be similar to 50 larger single- family units. Additional information regarding density and prior actions is provided in Attachment 9. Additional relevant language within the Comprehensive Plan that relates to housing and density includes: • Chapter 8 states that housing in the Development Areas should be provided at a variety of price points, including affordable housing. The proposed development ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 6 provides a unique housing type in the County. There appears to be an increasing demand for smaller units, especially as household sizes decrease nationally. Objective 4 of this Chapter is to "Use Development Areas land efficiently to prevent premature expansion of the Development Areas". The proposed Planned Residential Development clusters units together on the site, and includes duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Objective 4 of the Housing Chapter (9) is to `Provide for a variety of housing types for all income levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas." In addition to the proposed housing types, the applicant is providing affordable housing in accordance with the Housing Policy. There is not sufficient guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for staff to determine when it may be acceptable to exceed the Comprehensive Plan. Master Plans are drafted and adopted through a community -driven process, including review of the future land use categories and designations. Therefore, staff has included exceeding the recommended density in the Master Plan as a 'factor unfavorable' with this application and previous applications and recommends that the density be reduced to meet the recommendations in the Master Plan. Affordable Housing: The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing units, meeting the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan (Strategy 6b, CH 9). Since the units will be rental, they will be affordable for a period of 10 years. The Housing Planner has reviewed the request and found that it is consistent with County policy. The Housing Planner has also noted that on September 18, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to adopt a future policy on anti -displacement measures for new development that results in existing residents needing to relocate (Attachment 10). The Housing Planner has provided draft guidelines for the applicant to review. At this time formal guidelines have not been adopted; if guidelines are adopted by the Board while this application is under review, it is expected that the applicant coordinate with the Housing Planner to meet the guidelines. The properties are also designated Privately -Owned Open Space/Environmental Features (Parks/Green systems): Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features. This designation includes open space that is owned and managed by private or semi-public entities, such as homeowners associations, private homeowners, commercial or business park land owners, and others. These areas consist of recreational and passive open space amenities, and may include Floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other areas with environmental constraints where construction of buildings is discouraged (see Land Use Table LU2). The Future Land Use map shows Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features in a darker green (than the Public Open Space described above). Primary uses: semi-public open spaces, such as semi-public parks, greenways, trails, and other recreational and passive open spaces that are owned by homeowners associations or other similar entities and are open to property owners and their guests. Secondary uses: related institutional uses. The Parks/Green systems designated areas are preserved with this development, with some disturbance of preserved slopes required (however, the Comprehensive Plan shows the slopes that will be disturbed as Neighborhood Density Residential, as there is an ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 existing accessway on these slopes). The development contributes to trail connections that Parks and Recreation has identified as significant. Providing a future public access with the adjacent parcel to the south (TMP 32-22K1) allows for future connections to North Pointe and the greater greenway system. There were no major concerns heard at the CAC community meeting for this application. The following maps compare the applicant's proposed public trails to the recommendations in the Master Plan: Existir road u pedest Future I connect Flat Bra TMP 32 The above right image shows the map from the Parks/Green Systems in the Places29 Master Plan, which "shows the recommended network of existing and proposed trails, multi- use paths, and bicycling facilities that would provide convenient non -vehicular connections between different parts of the Development Areas" In consultation with Parks and Recreation, staff has determined that providing an internal private trail system is acceptable, and that a connection to the adjacent NGIC parcel is not necessary. Staff finds that a future public connection with the adjacent parcel to the south (TMP 32-22K1) would allow for the trail network to connect to North Pointe and therefore to the greater trail network. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the multiuse path along Route29, as there will be a future connection across Route29 that follows the river and completes an important section of the greenway. The Neighborhood Model: Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Neighborhood Model Principles and found that it is consistent with the majority of the principles. The detailed Neighborhood Model Analysis can be found in Attachment 8. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Relationship between the application and the intent and purposes of the requested zoning district: The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning district is to: • "encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development... promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. " ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 8 • `provide for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural activity." Staff reviewed the request and has found that this rezoning meets the purposes and intent of the PRD. The proposal includes a variety of housing types (single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes), 25% open space, a forested buffer along Route 29, and recreation. The development clusters dwelling units and preserves most of the site for open space. While PRD's are generally recommended for areas with Comprehensive Plan recommended densities of 15 units/acre or more, staff finds that PRD is an appropriate district for this site, as the significant environmental features require "careful planning with respect to impact", as the intent of the zoning district states. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: The applicant provided estimated traffic counts and right turn lane analysis within the narrative (Attachment 6). VDOT reviewed the application and traffic information and does not anticipate a significant traffic impact. A traffic study was not required. The existing AADT between Airport/Proffitt Roads and Camelot Drive is 39,000 vehicle trips. The proposed development would add 543 weekday trips, with 35 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour trips. Schools: Students living in this area would attend Baker Butler Elementary School, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. The applicant has provided the following estimates for new student counts, based on calculations provided by County Schools: Type of Dwelling Unit Elementary NUddle High Total Multifamilv 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.21 100 Units 12 3 21 Of these three schools, both Baker Butler Elementary School and Albemarle High School are projected to continue to exceed capacity. Albemarle County Public Schools' 'Long Range Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations' (July 11, 2019) identifies 'moderate capacity conflicts' for Baker Butler E.S. and 'high capacity conflicts' for Albemarle H.S. The report recommends the following for Baker Butler E.S.: "Student enrollment is projected to be just at capacity at the two schools combined. However, Baker -Butler is currently over- enrolled and capacity conflicts are projected to worsen over time. On the other hand, Broadus Wood, the district directly adjacent to Baker -Butler has ample capacity of approximately 100 seats. LRPAC again recommends a redistricting study if the capacity situation at Baker -Butler worsens. Long-term forecasts show this northern area growing substantially. If forecasts prove out, a new elementary school will be needed." ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 9 The report recommends the following for all three County high schools: "The Division has embarked upon a "center" based strategy to address capacity issues at its three comprehensive high schools, in particular at Albemarle High School. This agile approach addresses both instructional and capacity needs in an efficient manner. Long-term county population growth is forecast to grow by 44% over the next thirty years. That could yield another 1, 800 high school students, roughly the size of the current AHS. " As the Places29 Master Plan is fully realized, growth must be closely monitored since Albemarle High schools does not have the long-term capacity to support additional residential growth expected in this part of the County. However, dedication of land for two new elementary schools are proffered commitments of other large developments in the Places29 Development Area. This includes a 7-acre site within Brookhill and a 12.85-acre site within North Pointe. The Brookhill development also has a proffer requiring dedication of an approximately 60-acre site along Berkmar Drive that could be used for a comprehensive public high school. There are no proposed relevant projects in the current CIP. Fire and Rescue: Fire/Rescue had no objection to the proposal point of access is not required. Since the units will be sprinklered, a second Utilities: The proposed development is in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. The applicant is requesting a central sewerage system, with analysis provided below. The proposal shows a public waterline, per ACSA's review comments, as follows: "Parcel is located in the North Fork South Zone Special Rate District. Due to the demand for fire hydrants a public water main will be required. ACSA may request these units be individually metered." ACSA has no objection to the proposal. Request for Central Sewerage System: The applicant is also requesting approval of a central sewerage system for the proposed residential development (Attachment 7), which requires approval from the Board. This approval does not require action of the Planning Commission. The development would connect to public water and sewer. Section 16 of the County Code defines a central sewerage system as a system designed to serve three or more connections. The proposed central sewerage system would serve 100 dwelling units and would require a sewer lateral connection to each dwelling unit. The central system would use a private sanitary force main, which would tie into a new public sanitary manhole adjacent to Route 29. The manhole would connect to a public gravity main under Route 29 and then to the existing public manhole at the RWSA pump station. The applicant includes the following information on monitoring the system: "The pump station will consist of a remote monitoring system that will be managed by a contracted professional third party, a backup generator in case of loss of power, and an onsite alarm system in case of failure." There do not appear to be feasible alternatives for utilities for the site. The site is in the Development Areas and has environmental and topographically constraints; therefore, ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 10 drainfields would not be appropriate. Given the steep slopes, stream buffer, and floodplain constraints, connecting to adjacent parcels may be infeasible and would require significant impacts to environmental features. The proposed central system ultimately connects to public utilities. ACSA provided the following comments: "This site has restrictive access, which would make routine maintenance to the pump station a challenge. This pump station is also serving a single parcel, so there will be no other developments connecting to the proposed pump station." Staff reviews requests such as this for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and also for technical feasibility. County Engineer and Health Department approval of the final system specifications will be required prior to construction. The Comprehensive Plan discourages central systems in the Rural Area; however, it does not contain guidance on central systems in the Development Areas. Staff has no objection relevant to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted the required application materials per 16-102(1-3), however has not yet submitted 16-102(4). Review of the full materials by the County Engineer, Health Department, and ACSA will be required prior to approval. Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources: There are no known cultural or historic resources on the site. There are significant environmental resources on the site, including steep slopes and a portion of the Rivanna River (Attachment 2). The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit to disturb steep slopes to install a paved vehicular accessway for the development and to provide access to the river for stormwater management purposes. Additional analysis is included in the Special Use Permit section of this report. While there will be some impacts to environmental resources with this development, the County Engineer and Planning staff find the impacts to preserved slopes to be acceptable and find that there would not be substantial negative impacts. No buildings or parking are in steep slopes or the stream buffer. Disturbance of preserved slopes is necessary to allow for vehicular access to the site. Buildings and parking are not permitted in preserved slopes, stream buffers, or the flood plain. The proposed development provides trails throughout the development to give residents access to the scenic environmental resources on the site. Potential negative impacts to environmental features are considered against the beneficial aspects of the proposal, including providing affordable housing and directing development to the Development Areas. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: No significant impacts are anticipated on nearby and surrounding properties. The two parcels included in this development are surrounded by the Rivanna River. The development preserves the existing vegetated area surrounding the property. There is no connection to the NGIC properties to the north. In the future, there may be a pedestrian trail connection with the property to the south, which would be a beneficial connection to the greater trail system. Public need and justification for the change: The County's growth management policy states that new residential development should occur in the designated Development Areas where infrastructure and services are provided, ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 11 rather than in the Rural Area. This proposal provides several housing types and provides 15 percent affordable units. PROFFERS There are no proffers proposed with this application. SP201800023: ANAYLSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Special Use Permit request per 18-30.7.4(b)(2): "The only use permitted by special use permit on preserved slopes are private facilities such as accessways, utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater management facilities, not otherwise permitted by right under subsection (b)(1)(e), where the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the private facilities." ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 33.39(B) states that the Commission, in making its recommendation, shall consider the same factors found in Section 33.40(B): 1. No substantial detriment. Whether the proposed special use will be a substantial detriment to adjacent parcels. There is no anticipated detriment to adjacent parcels. The disturbance of the preserved slopes is entirely contained to the site. Both the site and the boundaries of surrounding parcels contain environmental features that permit very limited development or disturbance, including preserved slopes, stream buffers, and floodplain. There are no structures on adjacent parcels that are near the proposed disturbance area, nor would there be in the future. Disturbance of steep slopes for the accessway removes terrain prone to erosion, however, it also increases runoff. The applicant would need County Engineer review and approval of a VSMP application meeting the steep slopes standards of County Code 18-30.7.5 prior to any disturbance activities. The application states that: "The disturbed material is expected to be mostly rock, which does not require mass earthwork and movement of dirt... The areas of disturbance will be limited to cutting and excavating the slopes, with no mass grading of the steep slopes planned, protecting downstream areas below. Any land disturbance will comply with applicable Virginia DEQ and Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance Regulations." The County Engineer has no objection to the Special Use Permit request to disturb steep slopes for the accessway. The County Engineer also has no objection to disturbance of slopes for the purpose of stormwater management facilities. The County Engineer has reviewed the general locations of the proposed facilities and found them to be acceptable. It should be noted that while disturbance of steep slopes is needed for the accessway, disturbance of steep slopes for stormwater management facilities may not ultimately be needed during site planning. The applicant has chosen to include the disturbance request for the stormwater management facilities with this application so that the full request is contained in one special use permit, and the applicant does not need to submit an additional special use permit request in the future, should the disturbance be necessary. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 12 2. Character of the nearby area is unchanged. Whether the character of the adjacent parcels and the nearby area will be changed by the proposed special use. No change to the character of the nearby area is anticipated. Disturbance of preserved slopes is for widening the existing accessway to the development to meet County standards and for stormwater management facilities. The accessway will not be a private street. It will have the design and appearance of a rural road section, widening the existing accessway from 12 feet (of travelway, plus some shoulder area) to 28 feet (with 20 feet of travelway and 4 feet on each side for shoulders). This wider accessway is needed for safe and convenient vehicular travel, and for access for emergency vehicles. Further development of the site is not feasible without widening the accessway. The majority of the preserved slopes are left unchanged with this development, and the wooded character of the immediate area remains. 3. Harmony. Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter, The purpose and intent of the steep slopes overlay district per 18-30.7.1 is `to establish an overlay district on those lands within the development areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have steep slopes and for which additional development design care and consideration must be given, prior to permitted development occurring." Disturbance of preserved steep slopes: "should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in their design and construction in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the county. "The applicant's justification (Attachment 5) addresses how each of these provisions are met. The County Engineer concurs with this analysis. The applicant will need to meet all relevant County and State standards for slope disturbance and stormwater management, including the standards in 18-30.7.5 and an approved VSMP application. a. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By -right uses permitted in preserved steep slopes per 18-30.7.4(b)(1) include necessary public facilities, existing structures, and trails. The expanded accessway follows the existing accessway and will provide necessary access for the proposed dwelling units requested with the rezoning application. Although the requested density is above the Comprehensive Plan recommendation, any future development would require upgrading this accessway. There is also sufficient space for the proposed trails throughout the site. b. with the regulations provided in Section 5 as applicable, There are no applicable regulations in Section 5. c. and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. Based on the above analysis and the application, staff does not anticipate that the steep slopes disturbance would negatively affect public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, the disturbance of steep slopes allows for development of the site and is consistent with ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 13 major aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, including providing development in the Development Areas and providing affordable housing. While the proposed density is above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, any further development of this site would require disturbance of slopes for a safe accessway of sufficient width and potentially for stormwater management facilities. 4. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed special use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The favorable aspects of this proposal are weighed against the unfavorable aspects. While the proposed development may have some negative impacts on environmental features, staff finds the overall benefits outweigh these impacts. Additional analysis of the benefits of the proposed development are in the above rezoning analysis and include: providing affordable housing; providing a unique housing type; and directing development and density to the Development Areas. The Natural Resources Chapter (Chapter 4) highlights the importance of protecting water and topographical resources in the County, especially the water quality of the Rivanna River. Strategy 5c states that steep slopes in the Development Areas should be protected, especially those adjacent to streams. While this development request requires disturbance of preserved steep slopes, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors of the request. Land shown as Parks/Green systems in the Comprehensive Plan is preserved with this development. The proposal is located in the Development Areas, is providing affordable housing consistent with County policy, and is providing a unique type of housing that is not currently provided in the County. Development of the site would be infeasible without disturbance of preserved slopes, as the only means of access to the site is through preserved slopes. Engineering staff has commented that disturbing preserved slopes for stormwater management purposes is acceptable, especially as the disturbance will ultimately result in stabilization of the river bank. Engineering staff finds that accessing the river may be necessary for stormwater management, however the applicant may decide to pursue an alternative design at the site planning stage if desired. The County Natural Resources Manager commented on the importance of protecting biodiversity and on the existing stream quality issues in the Rivanna River: "Segments of the North Fork Rivanna River (NFRR) are designated as impaired by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for recreation (based on levels of coliform bacteria) and aquatic life (based on benthic macroinvertebrate data) ... this section of the NFRR has been identified as Threatened/Endangered waters by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries... due to observations of state or federally threatened or endangered freshwater mussels. The Rivanna River Corridor, which includes this project site, was identified as one of three Conservation Focus Areas in the County (Figure 8 in the amended Natural Resources Chapter). Conservation Focus Areas have significant biodiversity resources and high conservation value. In the case of the Rivanna River Corridor, there is habitat connectivity throughout much of the focus area. Impacts to natural ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 14 resources in the Conservation Focus Areas should be minimized and avoided when possible. " The proposed development contains new trails near the River but does not have any direct access to the River. There is existing development on the site, and the proposed development uses nearly the same location for its upgraded accessway as the current paved accessway. No subdivisions are proposed with the development request, and the site would remain as two parcels only (or be combined into one parcel). Therefore, staff does not find that the development would cause habitat fragmentation. Some of the existing houses on the site are within preserved slopes and stream buffers. The new development would not have any houses or parking areas within slopes or stream buffers. The proposed development is not in a water supply watershed. ZMA201800018 AND SP201800023: SUMMARY AND MOTIONS SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The rezoning request and special use permit request are consistent with the majority of the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles. The rezoning provides affordable rental housing that meets the housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The density proposed with the rezoning application is above the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan. 2. The request to disturb preserved steep slopes with the special use permit application could potentially create negative environmental impacts: erosion and sedimentation of the Rivanna River; and loss of wildlife habitat. RECOMMENDATION: ZMA201800018 Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff recommends approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the following changes: 1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in the Places29 Master Plan. 2. Update the application plan to show a public multi -use path along the full frontage with Route29. RECOMMENDATION: SP201800023 Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as favorable, staff ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 15 recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP201800023 River's Edge, with the following conditions: 1. The limits of disturbance within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District shall be limited to the sizes, locations, and extents of disturbance as proposed in the "River's Edge: Steep Slopes Disturbance" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February 28, 2020. 2. Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan and water protection ordinance plan for River's Edge shall be in general accord with the same improvements and grading shown on the exhibits "River's Edge: Road Grading + Profile" and "River's Edge: Conceptual Stormwater" in the "River's Edge: Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February 28, 2020. 3. If blasting of rock becomes necessary, the applicant will submit a blasting plan subject to review and approval by the County Engineer and other Authorities having jurisdiction prior to commencing such activity. 4. Two -layer erosion and sediment control measures will be installed around the perimeter of the site, where feasible, at the discretion of the County Engineer. 5. Erosion and sediment control measures will not be located within the floodplain limits. PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for ZMA201800018: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201800018, River's Edge (state reasons for denial). PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for SP201800023: C. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP201800023, River's Edge, with the conditions outlined in the staff report. D. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit Move to recommend denial of SP201800023, River's Edge (state reasons for denial). ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 16 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Vicinity Maps Attachment 2: Environmental Features Maps Attachment 3: Applicant Narrative, dated February 28, 2020 Attachment 4: Rezoning Application Plan, dated February 28, 2020 Attachment 5: Special Use Permit Application, dated February 28, 2020 Attachment 6: Right Turn Warrant Analysis Attachment 7: Central Sewerage System Request Attachment 8: Neighborhood Model Principles Staff Analysis Attachment 9: County Ordinance and Policy for Accessory Units Staff Analysis Attachment 10: Resolution on Anti -Displacement Policy approved by Board of Supervisors, September 18, 2019 Attachment 11: Staff Report for CCP201800004, dated October 16, 2018 Attachment 12: Planning Commission Minutes for CCP201800004 ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 10, 2020 17 ti 32F 3 32E, �yo 3. 7m CC (C t3 �,,}I ?G`� . 32G-1 R4 •OCF O �'�� o 32-5C pj Legend (Note. Some items an map may not appear in legend) ^i o C9 o• (�• rl°.e- l.yrp,/ ^3ry �28 Fi .O 33-14 Parcel Info , `D \�Q ,y ..Ob `JG-B2 32E 2 rw ]o 7Rd'`°`� m /308 'Q Oulders Rd p ❑ Parcels of orJ . 0 7� N NI . 32G� 23 3 Ca. M� n 3`G 0 N 32-5C2 M 32E-1A rNi N 32E-- ti 9 X M 32E'�.&W-,I c 32G-B P mY ��BfiA--r�-----{�I 32-5 C 1 32E--p' B-2- }�J C7 2p I_I M 32-5 32E--OB 26 32E--06-" 32G-t B 32E' 13- 25 32E^OB-Z t— 32-5 F �F o06 6 •9 ?� 32-5 E 32-5C4 32G-C 32-5D 'ZSo 1 32-GR 32-5B 32-5A1 37. 6q7 32-5A a / R age 1 Rjkers� 32-22 K1 Lesvls And C'/alk 33-16 o'er" D� 33-15 !v 32-2261 32-22K 32-22 B2 33-13 752 ft GISJNeb GeographicData Services32-22L1 Cal 33-176 33-17A1 33-17C2 vMay.alhemedearyls32-221 (83Q 2WM32 32-23 My JetemYnallon Mtap ]rephy or compete, or airy depiction of physical Improvements, property lines ar boundaries a far general lnbnna8on orgy and Mall act be used for Me design, modification, or mmWNon of Impravements to real property orfor fli plain determination. FeMuary 28, 2M Map elements may Is larger Nan GIS data aeasured in the map or as provided on Bre data Miami page due In Me protection used. Map Projection: K Sa0 Web Mensum Q1 Al Sphere) (EPSG 3857) Legend (Ni Some Items on map may nor appear In legend) 743 Chris Gregile J Lake � Park Q- asu c Dickerso t7 or �a w M V L) BoU1d1 �606 2Q Fv VNIe Forest L vi yew/S 0 od JI �00 Clark Or yea'' Charlottesville -Albemarle 01 Airport .Q Irporit `lip i Rd 7e5 4 Q N :J 'lyood% Proffit Rd 3 93s 3009ft ivarlrla NO �e`µ�T< � �Opa 83] 83� =Roe GIs -wee ``i3O L�C F l{& 3 Geographic Data Samnces aleemadeorcui A ` gmN,P (0M)2WM32 My determination atopography of contours, or any depiction of physical knpmerements, properly Imes or boundaries s, for general Information only and shall not be used for Me design, mcdiPcatlon, or construction of Improvements to real pmpeRy, or POW plain determination. February 28, 20M Map elements may scale larger Nan GIS data Measured in the map or as prmlded on the data dovmUad page due to Me protection use. Map PmfecGon: WGS80 Web Mercator (Nudliary Spiraled (EPSG 3857) My delemlMallm oftopography or, motours, or any depichm ofphysical MprovenrMs, properly Ilona or NurMarMa Is nor general animation only and shall ml be used nor Me design. mMlflmllm, or mrmiruNm MYnprovemenls to real pmpedy or for POM plain determination. Fabmary 28, 2020 Map elerreMs may stale larger Nan GIS data Measwed in Me map or as prov{ded on Me data dovmbad gage due In Me pmleclim used. Map Pro(eWon: VuGS80 VAM MNcelor (MAIM, 3pMre) (EPSG 305]) 32 E-1 A 32-22 L 32-221 B2 32GA B 79 32G 32-5 C2 32-5F CUy 32-5B / 32-SAt 32-SA d14e Rd RlverS� 32-22 Kt 32-51C ' 33-14 32-5 C 1 32-5C4 33-15 33-16 Legend rj (Note: Some Items on map may nod appear In lager) M Parcel Into ❑ Parcels Zoning Into .� Zoning Classifications Rural Areas Village Residential Y R1 Residential ■ R2 Residential R4 Residential ■ R6Residential ■ R10 Residential ■ R15 Residential Planned Unit Development ■ Planned Residential Development ■ Neighboncoad Model District ■ Monticello Historic District Cl Commercial ■ Commercial Office ■ Highway Commercial ■ Planned Development Shopping Ch. ■ Planned Development Mixed Comm. ■ Dovmtovm Crozet District Light Industry ■ Heavy Industry ■ Planned Development Industrial Par ■ Tovm of Scottsville 33-13 2' o GIS%Aab all. Geographic Data Services 33-17B . Ibemarleorg/ges 33-17C2 M hArr (434)2WM32 My detemlMahon Mtopg2phy or contours, or any depiction of physical knprovmreMs, properly Imes m boundaries Is for geremi Information orgy and Mall not be used for the design, modification, or mrmtruNm Mknprovemems, to real prolredy orfor Pond plain determination. Febmary 28, 2M Map elements may Is larger Nan GIs data Measured in the map or as provldeal on are data dowNa&I page due to Me projection used. Map Project KGS84 K4b Marptor (MMYary, apMre) (EPSG 3857) R4 79 -3 Rural Area 2 Comp Plan Area 32-5A1 33-15 33-16 MaIK] Legend (Note: Some Items on map may nor appear In legend) Parcel Into ❑ Parcels Comp Plan Land Use Info }t Urban Development Ala Boundary Comprehensive Plan Areas Crozet Master Plan Land Use ■ Greenspa.- Neighborbood Density Residential L Neighborhood Density Residential Urban Density Residential Mixed -Use ■ Downtown Institutional Light Industrial 0 See Crozet Masletplan Text Pantops Master Plan Centers and Di T Urban Center © Neighbohoo f Service Center 0 Ernployment District 0 Recreational District Paritops Master Plan Future Street N Principal Arterial Boulevad Avenue Avenue (Conceptual Alignment) Lowl Street - Local Street (Conceptual Alignment) — Rural Transition Pantaps Master Plan Urban Center Pari Master Plan Land Use Neighborhood Density Residential ■ Commercial Mixed Use ■ Urban Density Residential ■ Community Mixed Use ■ Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial ■ Institutional ■ Public Parks / Potential Pudic Park Parks and Green Systems GIS VAm GewuNg xibData Services 2ActN1� (434)2WSB32 My delemYnallm oftopg2pM or contours, or any depiction M plrysical improvements, properly lines or MUManas Ls for gereral information only and shall not Le used for Me design, mMlPcatlm, or construction MYnpromments to real properly or for POM plain clumau loation. Fel Mary 29, 2020 Map elements may scale larger Man GIS data Measured In the map or as prodded on the data download page due to Me protection used. Map Profeston: VuG380 Web Mercator (Auvllary Sphere) (EPSG 385]) My atopography or mntours, or any JeplNon aphysical knprovemeMs, properly Imes w Is for geremi information only and Mall not Le used nor Me design, mMMmllm, or mrmttuNon of Improvements to real property or for Pow plain determination. February 28, 2020 Map elements may stale larger Man GIS data neaswed in Me map or as provldea on Me data clowNaad page Jue to Me projeMm used. Map Pro(2Mon: KG380 W4b Mercator (M clear, Sphere) (EPSG 3857) 32c-c Legend -- - lit,�_ 2 (More. Sonre lens on maP may, not appear In legend) Ovarlays ■ Water Protection Ordinance Butters 6, 9ft O Parcel Info yo P� ❑ Parcels ft �'� ��• - '�88•pt 3 ft 306 fC �� Elevation 36 .2. ft aR' V2018 Elevation Contours ft �� — V2018 ElevaBon Contours (100 ft) — V2018 Elevation Contours(60 ft) — V2018 ElevaBon Contours (40 ft) OG v7 2-5 B — V2018 Elevation Contours (20 ft) -_ - — V2018 ElevaBan Contours (4 ft) - - Zoning Info 8 Flood Hazard Ovetlay (100 Year Flo Steep Slopes Overlay Critiral Slopes Steep Slopes - Managed p w Steep Slopes - Preserved m ,� 1 3g0 ft 32-SA �f 368 �y. t 00 f8g ft 3j6 ft 38 36gff 360 ft P O 32 6A1 v q00 �q Ft 39 3g 360 h 360 AT 32-SA7 Oft q12 ft 1 0 O oOFt�R iv,eVt Er,�n ff 392 ft p00i� A 2294 2256 w g04ft 6 39-ft 408 ft ft BO ft aft 2-260 2245 zzas nog �S Ed9 384 �, \ \ 400.1 ft / Qr� ,yb° 3r�6 ft 3$4ft---��� `222880 v/ � ��'� 368ftRlvers`Ed9eRa 'F' 3)1�' 36q h h ft Et 0 'S1b 380 �. ,660 v 388 ft 38 392 ft Water Protection \ ^y 32-34K1 _ ,6yb 400'ft 396- _ - Ord InanEe BUffer AOA ft t� 408'f ADO A�1 ft ��ir O� �ti 416 ft t �b 188 ft Poo 420 ft p2'' o � GIS-Web Ati0 424 ft " 356 = Geographic Data Sapose, O�F Blbemade.wygla 'jb AmNr� (AM)2WM32 My determination Mfible raphy or mMpurs, or any deplNon Mpllysical improvements, property lines or boundaries Is Tor general normal orgy and shall cot be used for Me design, mMIPcAIm, or construction of Improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. February 28, 2020 Map elements may male larger Man GIS data measured in the map or as prmlde l on The data smarted page due to the pmlectim used. Map Projection: VV3E80 Vr4b Mandator Murder, Sphere) (EPSG 3857) My determination oftaprgraft or centaurs, or any deplNon Mpbysical Improvements, property lines or bound sees Isfor general NbrmMdn orgy and Mall not be used for fee design, modification, or creel on of Improvements to real prprol or for flood plain determinalion. Febmary, 28, 2020 Map elements may ffiale legal Nan GIS data Measured in the map or as provided on the data downlood page due M Me pro(ecOce used. Map Projection: WGS06 Web Mercator (Nuuliary Sphere) (EPSG 3857) Any determination of topography or contoursor any depiction of physical Improvements, property lines or boundaries @ for ger coed information call and Mall not be used for me design, mMIPcAIm, or mrMmNm of tnprovenrerXs to real property or for flood plain tleterminalion. Febmary 28, 2M Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data tlownloatl page due to Me projection used. Map Projection: V sCri Web Mercator (AUMPary, Sphere) (Eivi 38M 404 ft - Water Protection 36p 32-S C;1 Legend 32-5E 5F Ordinance Buffer 36 '36pr, ofr r (Mole; Some Items on map may not appear In legal Overlays 400 ft -- 400 ff 9p p O o - Floodwain "'6 36B o�F ^1 ■ Water Protection Ordinal Built 325A1 G Parcel Info F m ❑Parcels � 396 fr 32-5 B ft 3�6 / P w x a. ^ Wp. m Elevation V2018 Elevation Conours — Y2018 Elevation Contours (100 ft) — Y2018 Elevation Contours (60 fl) — Y2018 Elevatpn Contours (40 it) — Y2018 Eleva6an Contours (20 ft) _ t �' O� /I ny 32-5D ry 388'ft nt1 80 .i89fff — V2018 Eevaton Contours (4 ft) zoning Info �4/ O� / 8 Flood Hasand Overlay(100 Year Flo O h Qf rw ^% Steep Slopes Overlay Critical Slopes O /% \ 0 32-$D1 O Steep Slopes - Managed Steep Slopes - Preserved / �b0 b0 Op�F 20 ff x O p a it, ,a yb P� ,56g ft 2321 2330 o e RU V ° — pd Ee' Pao 2340 � .. fv PP AA6 AAO.fii. _ ro [/P AO of 188 ft �A18 c 3 6 f[•'fr Y''r or GISJNeb 3�rn Geographic Data Services 0 2304 392^f 2•ff-rzact.' .p tegavalbmvle aorygls p347 2llo-se32 My determination Mtopgrapby or mMaurs, or any deplNon M physical Improvements, property lines or bourdaries Is for general Information only and shall not be used for the design, mMlPca on, or mratruNm of Improvements to real property rotor Pond plain determination. Febmary 28, 2020 Map elements may scale larger Man GIS data treasured In the map or as provided on the data download page due to the projection used. Map Protection: W3384 Web Memetor (Misery Sphere) FPSG 38M My cletereveri Mtap ]2phy or contours, or any depiction M physical knprwremeMs, properly Hoes w boundary se he general Nfotmagce only add shall ml he used for has design. mMlflcallm, or mrmtruNcn MYnprovemenla to real pmpMy gram POM plain determination. Febri 29, 2020 Map eleaenta may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data doves l page due to Me Moscow used. Map Plo(2ctlon: Vi`ML Mmcelw(MMIM, Spi(EPSG 3815]) SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering ZMA2018-018 River's Edge Application Narrative Submitted: December 17, 2018 Revised: September 16, 2019 Revised: December 16, 2019 Revised: February 28,2020 Property Overview: ACREAGE EXISTING COMP PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION Parcel SA 4.81 RA Neighborhood Density (3-6) Parcel5A-1 27.71 RA Neighborhood Density (3-6) TOTAL: 32.52 Project Proposal: Rivers Edge Holdings LLC and Rivers Edge Associates LLC (collectively, the "applicant") are the owners of property located in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County") designated on County Tax Maps as parcels 03200-00-00-005A and 03200-00-00-005A1 (collectively "the property"). The property is approximately 32.52 acres in the aggregate and is located approximately 1,000 linear feet north of the intersection of Lewis and Clark Dr. and U.S. Route 29 and just south of the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) within the Hollymead Community, a designated Growth Area within Albemarle County. The applicant requests to rezone the property from Rural Areas to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow for a maximum of 100 size restricted units limited to a maximum of 1,200 square feet, with a maximum total residential footprint area set at 50,000 square feet. The property is located at the North Fork of the Rivanna River, at a "horseshoe bend" in the River. The natural features of this property, notably the proximity to and views of the Rivanna River and the mature vegetation on the property, coupled with the direct adjacency of the property to Route 29 and close proximity to major employment centers at the National Ground Intelligence Center and the University of Virginia Research Park, create a unique opportunity for a residential community in the development areas with direct access to rich environmental assets, transportation networks, and employment opportunities. We propose a residential community that maximizes density on developable portions of the property by proposing small pre -fabricated residential units that will be constructed as single, duplex, triplex, and quadruplex structures. The units are intended to interact with the existing landscape by implementing construction techniques, like pier foundations, that minimize disturbance of existing terrain. Mass grading on the site will be limited to roadway construction and parking areas. The existing roadway is proposed to be reoriented and improved to allow for easier maneuverability for future residents and safe and efficient access to the site for emergency vehicles. The parking areas will require mass grading to ensure the parking areas comply 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com with applicable site design requirements and to ensure some units onsite are ADA accessible from the parking lot. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan identifies the developable area of the parcels as neighborhood density residential, recommending a density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per acre. The land area in the neighborhood density residential area, less the areas designated as environmentally sensitive, result in a maximum recommended density of 51 dwelling units on the property. These units could be constructed as 51 single family detached units with accessory apartments, equating a maximum of 102 dwelling units. We contend the impact from 100 size restricted units is not greater than the impact from 51 single family dwellings with 51 accessory apartments. The applicant proposes the conversion of the existing accessway to a pedestrian path near the property entrance from Route 29. The applicant intends to provide a public access easement on this accessway and additionally, in the future the applicant proposes to construct a pedestrian crossing across Flat Branch to provide pedestrian connections between the property and future neighborhoods to the south. Although, these pedestrian improvements do not directly align with the recommended multi -use path locations outlined in the comprehensive plan, they achieve ageneral multi -modal connectivity intent of the shared use path in this location. The proposed multi -use path location, as shown on the Places29 Parks and Green Systems Map North is shown adjacent to Route 29 in preserved slopes that, at present, have an approximate 50% grade from the outside edge of the Rt 29 shoulder to the banks of Flat Branch. Although this application does not propose the construction of the multi -use path as shown in the Places29 Master Plan, the pedestrian connections that are provided with this plan provide an initial framework for future connections from this site to future neighborhoods to the south. Further, the proposed pedestrian improvements with this application capitalize on existing infrastructure (i.e. the repurposing of the existing accessway as a pedestrian path) and therefore minimize the land disturbance specifically for the construction of pedestrian connections. Impacts on Public Facilities & Public Infrastructure Transportation ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10a' Edition estimates 35 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour trips from the development. A total of 543 weekday trips is estimated from this development using ITE code 221 (multifamily housing). Schools The property lies within the Baker -Butler Elementary School district, Sutherland Middle School district, and Albemarle High School district. The following numbers have been provided by Albemarle County Public School systems. Type of Dwelling Unit Elementary Middle High Total Multifamily 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.21 100 Units 12 3 5 21 Parks By focusing the buildable area efficiently, River's Edge is able to allocate 70% of total acreage to open space. Open space will include a system of primitive trails, with recreational fitness facilities along these walkways. The open space surrounds the buildable area, allowing for a sufficient buffer from the Rivanna River which is a major asset of the property. A public access easement is additionally proposed for future interparcel connectivity between TMP 32-22K1 and River's Edge (TMP 32-5A and TMP 32-5A1), achieving the trail connection within the Places29 North Parks and Green Systems Master Plan. There is ample on -site recreation and outdoor opportunities proposed for future residents. The County's parks may see more users with new residents on the property, but it is not anticipated for new County residents to have negative impacts on shared public space, especially in a development where convenient access to nature is proposed just outside residents' doors. Safety The property is within the response district of the Hollymead Fire Station and Hollymead Rescue Squad. The property is patrolled by the Jefferson Police District, Sector 3, Beat 9. According to American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 5-year estimates, there are approximately 2.62 per household in Albemarle County'. Using this estimate there could potentially be 262 residents on the property. As the proposed development is more similar to multifamily household characteristics in unit size than that of traditional single family detached, it is our position that the household size on this property would be 1.97 people per household, 25% smaller than the County average. With a maximum of 100 units proposed on this site, there could potentially be 197 new residents within the Hollymead Fire Station and Hollymead Rescue Squad District. Impacts to Public Water & Sewer The proposed development will connect to public water and sewer. There are minimal anticipated impacts on public facilities and infrastructure from the development. Effluent from the site will be collected in a private pump station that will ultimately connect to public sewer. Impacts on Environmental Features As a Planned Residential Development, the design of River's Edge aims to be mindful of the surrounding environmental features. Travel ways and parking will require the most disturbance and have been located strategically to minimize required mass grading into environmentally sensitive features. Currently, the entrance road into the property is insufficient and will require widening of the road to 20' with additional graded shoulders to ensure safety when moving through the site. This will result in approximately 16,000 square feet of steep slopes disturbance and approximately 21,800 square feet of stream buffer disturbance. An additional 23,100 square feet of steep slopes disturbance is proposed for private stormwater facilties. By locating the travel ways and parking as shown in the proposed concept plan and exhibit, we are able to conserve 70% of the development for open space. The small, prefabricated footprint of the residential buildings are intended to minimize the disturbance, as they are retrofitted into the landscape. Mass grading of the road and parking is needed to comply with applicable site design requirements, as well as to ensure safe access for both residents and emergency vehicles. Proposed Proffers to Address Impacts The applicant has included certain commitments within the proffered application plan such as • Commitment to 15% affordable housing • Maximum building footprint area • Maximum unit size Open Space & Recreation Narrative The application plan proposes alternatives to recreational facilities and equipment as proposed in Sec. 4.16.2. Please consider the following when evaluating the alternatives proposed in the application plan: ' Table "S2501" Occupancy Characteristics. U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 1. Why natural alternatives? The River's Edge property sits at a unique location as a property that is virtually surrounded by the North Fork Rivanna River. The presence of the river, mature trees, and sloping landscape from a high point near the center of the property down towards the river create a nature escape while being easily accessible to Route 29 and within close proximity to the University of Virginia Research Park and the National Ground Intelligence Center. The residential community proposed with this development will be comprised of small pre -fabricated units, all less than 1,200 square feet that will be pieced together as multifamily units. These small footprint units are able to be flexible in orientation, allowing for the structures to be set around preserved trees and stepped into the landscape. With this proposal, the intent of the overall development intends to support the enclosed, wooded feel of the property. The proposal seeks to align with the natural character of the site, such as exploring alternative materials other than concrete for pedestrian walkways. Likewise, a traditional playground may not be the most complementary recreational space for this property. Section 4.16 of the Albemarle County Ordinance would require two tot lots for this property, each consisting of 1) one swing, 2) one slide, 3) two climbers, 4) one buckabout or whirl, and 5) two benches. While these tot lot requirements may fulfill playspace and recreational needs in other areas of the county, River's Edge presents a distinct opportunity to encourage play and interaction with the natural environment. 2. Benefits of natural play vs. prescribed play Play is an integral component of childhood development2. Engaging in play encourages children to explore, experiment, learn social dynamics, and make decisions. Active play additionally contributes to healthy bodies, both physically and mentally. With the increases in screen time, sedentary recreational behavior has increased as well, with children often developing unhealthy relationships, or even addictions, to technology 3. Simultaneously, children have become more detached from the natural world, due to sedentary lifestyles as well as changes in urban development and perceived safety of outdoor play°. The movement towards natural playscapes is an effort to reconnect children with the natural world and nature play that was once prevalent everywhere. Nature play has been proven to "improve moods and reduce stress, anxiety, and levels of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children."5 Access to child -directed play in nature additionally becomes "the most common influence on the development of life-long conservation values."' Children need access to nature for healthy development and wellbeing, and while the County provides a robust park network in the area, River's Edge could provide access to nature right outside their doorsteps. Not all play is equal. A playground set is designed to allow for specific functions and uses, and although they do encourage outdoor recreation for children, the play possibilities are given to the children, rather than created by them. Traditional playground sets typically "encourage children to act out familiar scenarios filled with predictability... Premade props for dramatic play do not offer the challenges or opportunities that arise when children must find natural items they can use to represent what they envision. ,7 Unstructured, child -directed play additionally creates scenarios of risk and challenge, which are critical components of cognitive engagement in understanding and setting limits, while developing a sense of responsibility. s Nature play offers a more flexible design, creating an environment for unstructured, child - directed play that enhances use of creativity, engagement, and social interaction10. 3. Current Requirements and Nature Alternatives According to Section 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the River's Edge property would be required to provide two tot lots. Each must consist of 1) one swing (four seats), 2) one slide, 3) two climbers, 4) one buckabout or 2 Ginsburg, Kenneth R. "The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent -Child Bonds." Pediatrics, vol. 119, no. 1, 2007, pp. 182-191., doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2697. 3 whittle, Imogene. "Nature Play in Early Years Education." Nature Play QLD - Getting Our Kids Outdoors, Nature Play QLD, 16 July 2016, www.natureplaygld.org.au/nature-play-in-early-years-education. ° Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods., Saving Our Children from Nature -Deficit Disorder. Atlantic Books, 2013. s Cities Alive: Designingfor Urban Childhoods. ARUP, 2017, Cities Alive: Designingfor Urban Childhoods, www. arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/cities-alive-designing-for-urban-childhoods. e Finch, Ken. "A Parent's Guide to Nature Play." Green Hearts, Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood, 2009, www.greenheartsinc.orgluploads/A—Parents_Guide—tof. —Nature Play.pd Kiewra, Christine, and Ellen Veselack '?laying with Nature: Supporting Preschoolers' Creativity in Natural Outdoor Classrooms." The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, vol. 4, no. 1, 29 Aug. 2016, pp. 71-96., naturalstart.org/sites/default/files/joumal/10._final kiewra veselack.pdf. 'Nature Play in the Built Environment: Design Standards and Guidelines. Valerian LLC, 2017, Nature Play in the Built Environment: Design Standards and Guidelines, valerianllc.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Nature-Play-Design-Guidelines.pdf. whirl, and 5) two benches. The intent of this requirement is to encourage a range of physical activity in children within an adequate fenced -in space of 2000 square feet. The function of these playground pieces could be broken down into what these children obtain from these particular objects. When considering natural playscapes for River's Edge, this lens of functional meaning of traditional playgrounds could be significant in understanding how natural alternatives could sufficiently comply with current recreational requirements. The following table describes specific functions that children could perform with the required equipment. At this stage, these natural alternatives are suggestions for how current regulations could be satisfied through these substitutions and specific implementations will be explored at site plan and under the approval of the Zoning Administrator and Director of Planning. Required What is it used for? With whom? Proposed Natural Alternative Equipment Swing • Sit on/swing • Alone • Swings could still be used with more natural • Get higher views • With other children features incorporated (ex: tree swings) • Push other children on • With adult • Natural structures that are conducive for swing climbing/hanging/swinging by arms (ex: fallen • Encourage log with limbs at varying heights) teamwork/tum-taking, friendly competition of swing height Slide • Sit on/slide down • Alone • Slides could still be used with logs set • Moving from one • With other children into natural topography as `stairs,' or location to the other slide set on top of boulders (see climber (in a fun way) alternatives below) • Climb up the slide • Hobbit house • Hide under . Hollowed out tree trunk • Tun -taking Climbers • Climbable surface • Alone • Natural mound • Able to see from • With other children • Large boulders ("rock landscape") higher ground • Fallen log will limbs at varying heights • Hide under • Hanging from arms/legs Buckabout/whirl • Sit on • Alone • Log steppers or log balancing course Move around in • With other children • Movable objects (see loose objects place below) • Controlling movement of object Benches • Sit on, used as Provided typically for parents to directly surface supervise children within a fenced -in area. Depending on circumstances, benches may not be necessary, especially as the natural playscape may not be confined to a specific area. Benches may be periodically provided along the trail system on the property; exact locations will be explored at site plan. Yz Basketball 1 multipurpose court Court The described natural alternatives are just a few suggestions for incorporating nature play that sufficiently meets the intent of the current recreational regulations of the Albemarle County Code. Because nature play structures aim to create environments that are open-ended, the varieties in design and implementation are endless. Whereas playground equipment carries specific prescribed play enactments, these flexible nature playspaces encourage scenarios where the active creativity of the children can direct playtime. Whereas traditional playgrounds are fixed in place and confined within a specific area, nature play can also make use of loose material play. Feelings of ownership and autonomy could be better developed with play with loose parts, as "the joy of play in nature is largely derived from the opportunities it provides to imagine, manipulate, create, and re-create their environments."10 Loose material play can also be pulled directly from the surrounding environment, making this relatively low-cost and provide a learning opportunity for children of native flora and fauna. An example of loose material play could include kitchen structures, art stations, or block play areas. In addition to physical functionality, other nature play designs could include other sensory engagement, such as sound emitting or musical play, contributing to overall social and emotional growth.9 Play involving the river could also be considered as a development on the `River's Edge.' As much of the property is within the floodplain, children should be educated on the purposes of the floodplain, while fun and play could take place in designated areas of the community. Children could learn about the history of the Rivanna River and the dynamic qualities and ecology of waterways. As part of the active recreational area, River's Edge additionally proposes a trail network throughout the site. Pedestrian walkways will be provided along parking areas, with primitive trail networks providing foot access to dwelling units and surrounding open space. In addition to a minimum of 4,000 square feet of natural play areas, approximately 2,200 (0.4- mile) linear feet of trails is proposed, which will include fitness trail amenities. Fitness trails provide equipment that can build strength, flexibility, and cardio health. As River's Edge intends to limit disturbance where possible, linear recreational equipment adjacent to the trails is the most appropriate implementation, rather than one specific area dedicated to a tennis court. Typically, a '/4-mile to 1-mile trail network contains about 10 different stations10, however Pen Park in the City of Charlottesville includes a''/z-mile fitness trail with 20 stations. Further details will be negotiated at site plan for an appropriate number of stations. 9 "Play." Learning By Nature, Learning By Nature, 16 Jan. 2019, leamingbynature.orgi. 10 `90 Station Fit -Trail." Fit -Trail, 2011, www.fittraii.coni/lOstation.linnt. JECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP PROCIVLAND PLA NING ENGINEERINGa C� December 16, 2019 Mr. Adam Moore, P.E. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Regarding: River's Edge Right Turn Warrant Analysis Mr. Moore, Please find enclosed a warrant analysis for the proposed River's Edge off of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail between Airport Road and Camelot Drive. The purpose of construction at River's Edge is to build 100 multifamily units. The following items are included with this report: • VDOT Traffic Data • ITE Trip Generation Summary • Warrant Analysis Exhibit • OTISS Trip Generation Reports Our analysis shows that a taper is warranted for this project. If you have any questions you may contact me atjustin@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116. Best Regards, Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering, P.C. The table below summarizes the 2017 VDOT traffic data for the 1.80 mile segment of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail between Airport Road and Camelot Drive, which was used to calculate the peak hour volume (PHV) approaching for the warrant analysis. Table 1. VDOT traffic data summary — U.S. 29 Seminole Trail AADT 39000 Kfactor 0.098 Dfactor 0.5328 PHV(AADT*K*D) 2036 Design Speed (mph) 55 Below is the ITE trip generation summary table that was used in combination with the direction factor of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail to determine the PHV right and left turns into the establishment. The OTISS graphs showing the source of this information are included as Figures 2 and 3. Table 2. ITE trip generation summary table AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total Multifamily Housing 221 100 Units 9 26 35 26 17 43 Right Turn 4 14 Left Turn 5 12 The higher number of right turns into River's Edge was used in the right turn lane warrant analysis, shown in Figure 1 below. 2 PHV APPROACH TOTAL, VEHICLES PER HOUR Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV- - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adiustment for Right Turns If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11 % for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria. FIGURE 3-27 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (4-LANE HIGHWAY) Figure 1. Warrant for right turn treatment (4-lane highway) The figure above shows that a taper is required for the site. The right turns were taken from Table 2, and the PHV approach total includes additional traffic that is to be generated by the site. The following two figures display the source of the estimated trips generated by the River's Edge development. ]n-ry flier Tnp GerxxafiOn ManuM tom Etl zn xR.uxo® .. XU USE GrE40xh (3110.M9) Reeibnoa xoosE: 1P1. MUblamly Hanllq (WASS) U(E lrvx TSAESBUSUM l Dealfi:p UnN IWeeedaYAM PnkHw OlGSnerzlo: cenemlumxvwaxman VMxc� ENTSIR lro rvvuuErocufcu�EArErwP Data Mal and Equattun ED x 60 E s � zo x-.... ofoweiiin9 On. RNSLzoom Fmxree X SNtlY Site Fweed curve --- Pvenpe Pale Figure 2. OTISS trip generator A.M. peak hour ®%uw Tnp GsBereNn Menwl, IfAM1 H e1[HxvuxU ®coosLAND U ME CATEDDBO l (200-E99)RgMaply I.A. u.E: 321- MWMa:lily Noanp (M4Fue) SUBSEB. 9AmxelE(Nk D mmh:, VlMs IYE PEXAY: Wxktlay FM Peak 11— Of Genee., T.Vr E: I VeMb E'r,ERrvwwEroa w uA- lP Data Plot aSM Equatlon x - NumEe. of owell'm9 Units RM zmm ASS. X RE,Ey514 FIS. Curve --- Avxige Rate Figure 3. OTISS trip generator P.M. peak hour Tc= LeM VN: Hmss�re IMIORLeeI azn L-T, IN1xexWN: o=renm9 wus nm. wmx: AM Peakloul of Uenemfo, Sellin n: ceIe:auw:LLST snonman Tx9TYR.: S—AS, of swmee'. ea m. Vw.11my Unn= An. x N a lze% Ra. BASS. 0 Remo. 0oa 9n SMnav9 DAY.. 91T FIVeI Curve Fau.uon: m1)..1.11 UP pert .0 finnn MmIBUti VA enrenn9... ewrS ftaxma TXR Fna. w:aBe Rate 12 jae,). 9(Enty), 23 (EuU FAIM Cue. 35 (TOUR, 9(ETSB ] (Ew) (and Use: MefiLmlly H—W(MiO{ )(221)C cM o�mne In..nawlwmel.: ow.n:n9 u:::x nme ASBAB BMA.y PM Peak Hw: af(Rnemb: Se.n,ATe,e n: General TCSI5u. TaR TyO.: lenkk XumMF Se S.S.— 11 An Xum.olnwel! 9UnXe: 211 Ran. Ol Rel... u99- I ze Uan.ed DAY. on 02l Filree curve E.aaOn: r JT)=uAl 111.)-0�l a• xxecuoN( OIAM.x.: 5o%en., 10A etmn9 UImhW np EM: Ave:a. Rate e1(TMa11. 25 (E:myl, 1.(.t) Flee Cume 0(Tdal), M IETC,), 17(EAU 13 Ak. G reene Lake Ab. G,e e Lake a nt igc ,ville SITE T b_ he le Atuport iversity of Virginia inia f�, , .e / �j`� use arch Paik IN, 110 Z., NTS 4# q, A,iC Ground 0 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT OWNER/DEVELOPER Rivers Edge Holdings LLC & Rivers Edge Associates LLC C/O Access Properties 2027 Woodbrook Ct Charlottesville, VA 22901 PROPERTY ADDRESS 2260-2280 Rivers Edge Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 DISTRICT Rivanna STEEP SLOPES £r STREAM BUFFER There are existing steep slopes and stream buffers on site. SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY Compiled from the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services GIS Data. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018. FLOODZONE According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003CO286D), this property does lie within a Zone AE 100-year flood plain. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED Non -Watershed Supply Watershed WATER AND SANITARY SERVICES Provided by Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) FIRE CODE Units will be provided with an automatic sprinkler system USE EXISTING: Rl - Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential & Private Open Space PROPOSED: Residential & Private Open Space ZONING EXISTING: Rural Areas OVERLAY. Airport Impact Area, Entrance Corridor, 100- Year Floodplain, Steep Slopes - Managed & Preserved PROPOSED: Planned Residential Development (PRD) PROPOSED UNITS 100 size -restricted units: maximum unit size 1,200 SF Gross density of 3 units/acre (32.52 acres total), net density of 11.6 units/acre (8.62 developable). OPEN SPACE Open space area shall be provided in accordance with Sec. 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Recreational area shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Recreational facilities as provided for in Section 4.16.2 may be substituted with equipment and facilities as provided for in this Application Plan and as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. USE TABLE NOTES 1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to exceed 50,000 SF 2. Setbacks are not provided as the property is not to be subdivided. APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE & ZMA DETAILS Sheet 2 of 29 USE TABLE PROPOSED # OF 100 DWELLING UNITS' UNIT TYPE Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, triplex, quadruplex NON-RESIDENTIAL 4,000 SF SQUAREFOOTAGE (excluding recreational facilties required by Section 4.16) MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' MAXIMUM GFA PER UNIT 1,200 SF BUILDING SEPARATION 10' unless the building shares a common wall; 5' off of each building side for a total of 10' between buildings BUILD -TO LINES 50' from US Route 29 5' from parking areas, travelways, accessways, and pedestrian paths ALLOWABLE USES Residential units as provided for in this Application Plan. The following uses of Sec. 19.3.1 shall be permitted by -right: (1) Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilties such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries, and the like; (2) Electric, gas, oil and communication facilties, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; (3) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; (4) Temporary construction uses; (5) Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A and storage buildings; (6) Group home; (7) Stormwater management facilities shown on approved final site plan or subdivision plat; (8) Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities; (9) Family day homes; (10) Homestays The following uses of Sec. 19.3.2 shall be permitted by approval of a special use permit: (1) Child day center; (2) Fire and rescue squad stations; (3) Assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, childreris residential facility, or similar institution; (4) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances; (5) Home occupation, Class B; (6) Religious assembly use; (7) Stand alone parking and parking structures; (8) Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities; (9) Offices; (10) Tier III personal wireless service facilities; (11) Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals; (12) Farmers' market I 1 �♦ 1 1 1 1 [ I 1 ---------------------------------'------------'------------------------------------ --------- -- ---------- ---- - - - - -- --------------------------------- ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I TMP 32-22K1 Incheon Holdings LLC 1 Zone: Rural Areas I — — — — — —1 Use: Vacant Residential 1 TMP 32-22K � Neighborhood Investments - NP LLC Zone: Rural Areas 1 Use: Vacant Residential 1 ♦ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ------------------------------------- - ---- -----EXISTING CONDITIONS TMP32-5F Sheet 3 of 29 t Seraphic Holdings LLC [ 1 Zone: Light Industrial I Use: Distribution Warehouse I t TMP 32-5E 1 t TMP 32-5 TMP 32-5A TMP 32-5B 1 Chiro LLC t Next Generation LL( Additional Notes: :rs Edge Holdings LC Seminole North LLC I Zone: Heavy Industrial I I Zone: Rural Areas Zone: Rural Areas Zone: Light Industrial I Use: Vacant Industrial I IUse: Vacant Residenti Use: Single Famil Use: Storage Warehouse ; . - - 1. Source of property boundaries on I I sheet 3: Albemarle County GIS I 1 1 I I 1 I I t t I I I 1 ♦ 1 1 ' I I I ♦♦ TMP32-5D1� I 1 t �♦ Albemarle County Service Authority I I I I ♦' 1 I Zone: Light Industrial I I I I I I Use: Government Building 1 I I 1 t I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 t ♦1 I I t ♦ TMP 32-5C1 1 ♦ [♦ United States of America TMP 32-51) C/O US Arm ATTN: Real Albemarle County Service Authority Estate Division Zone: Light Industrial Zone: Light Industrial Use: Government Building Use: Government Building TMP 32-5A1 Rivers Edge Associates LLC Zone: Rural Areas Use: Multifamily TMP 33-15 Next Generation LLC Zone: Rural Areas Use: Vacant Residential TMP 32-5C4 United States of America C/O US Army Corp/Eng Office/Counsel 1 Zone: Rural Areas Use: Vacant Residential 1 1 225 0 225 450 675 Graphic Scale: V= 225' TMP(s) 32-5A Er 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT — -- -- J — ----- - - - z_ —------------- — _ _ - - - APPLICATION PLAN f WE38 S' 1 ' 1 % \ I, T ZMA201800018 weo RIVER'S EDGE FEMA F 92' �1 m, I III IIII I� - it EXISTING CONDITIONS o - ?°� , �' — — �1' iI Sheet 4 of 29 � r I\ I FEM FE 386' \ Additional Notes: %- - - - `� 1. Source of dashed parcel boundaries: Albemarle County GIS Ik 2. Source of parcel boundary for TMP 32-5A and 3 Al: plat of record and approximate survey /. Approximate � , \ �, �\�` - - - � I - - - _ _ _ _ � — � 4 �� /// data ,_ -- locatlonof tennis court - - 4420 - - - - _aooJ �36 -r-- - \ \ �?s2 MA BW388'111 v v�v v `� Pv v♦ ---- v. iii��ii fi i NIA13FE 38Y EE v v v 1 vv- vv Sao O / - - YNV 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. \I — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — Refer to sheet 28 for a �� \ I section of the 50 forested buffer I F€MA F 92' Existing structure to be preserved Iand repurposed as� amenity for TMP �v �� v, rE 386 v. I. 32-5A and 32-5A1 Approximate \location of 36,repurposed o — �� multipurpose \ _ ��A court _ a.o Accessway ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPT PLAN Sheet 5 of 29 LEGEND LAND USE PROHIBITED USES PERMITTED USES Travel ways, ingress/egress, Accessway Residential & non- grading, landscaping, utilities, Reservation* residential buildings along with other uses typically permitted within a ROW Residential and non-residential buildings, signage, grading, open space, ®landscaping, Buildable Area None utilities, sidewalks, parking, primitive trails, retaining walls, stormwater management facilities Improvements Stream restoration, primitive that require mass trails, landscaping, gardens, Open Space grading, open-air surface parking lots, utilities (which cannot be reasonably located outside of residential buildings open space area), and primitive buildings - see note 1 below) 50' Forest Buffer Residential & non- residential buildings, Travel ways, ingress/egress, for grading and disturbance parking Fire access turnaround - �. BFE 388' Fire access turnaround LEENTA`BFE38T \ 3e_: i 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' Key FEMA BFE Stream - - - - WPO Buffer ® Waterway Steep Slopes: Preserved 0 Steep Slopes: Managed TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. r^ — — —--------- _=- - ___ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ---- --_-_ -� — — _--- - ; �— __- _ _ _ - - - - _ = APPLICATION PLAN ' --' -- -- --- - - --- Z \ � MA 1 1 il -- FEMA BF ,- -- - RIVER'S EDGE OPEN SPACE x I FEMA F 92' I •� I i �' Existing structure vv �� i� i Oj Sheet 6 Of 29 to be preserved ° and repurposed as amenity for TMP Additional Notes: FE 386' �� 32-5A and 32-5A1 �I / J 1. This open space exhibit shows possible open space area \ — — - — ,-a outside of environmentally sensitive features (steep slopes, _ _ -_ - _ \ \� I // )r', floodplain, stream buffer). This does not depict total open _ _ l j space proposed for the property. For total open space, please ; \ see sheet 5 (Land Use Designations). _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ 2. Total possible open space area outside of (1) Approximate \ \\ ` - - - _ — \ -i \ %, environmentally sensitive features and (2) accessway and —location of V M ,� _� /i i, repurposed V \�°° - _ _ - I - parking area is 5.37 acres. multipurpose°°� V gyp°° _-_; `� �/ \ 8° 35 4 3. Total building footprint area (not shown) is approximated court \ _ - �� ; / 5 '20 38, _ 1 than 50,000 sq. ft., therefore, possible open space _ area outside of (1) environmentally sensitive features, (2) ..........� ® 42°� G� _ - \ / accessway and parking area, and (3) building footprints is ° 4 32 \ - acres. FEMA BFE 389' � � � \ \�° \ 2 } \ ; \ / \ , 4. Total area of the property is 32.52 acres; total required open space is 8.13 acres, with 1.62 acres required outside of - �' such environmental features. of , 420— J M 388 / Section space on4.7and a416eof the Albemarle creational areas wCounty Zoning KeyAga / _ '� Ordinance, unless substitutions for facilities and equipment QFE \ . Possible Open Space Area Outside of / - 4°° as provided for in this application are approved by the Environmentally Sensitive Features " ' >i, Director of Planing and Community Development. FEMA BFE Stream EErTn�FE 3EY \ - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway I / Accessway/Parking TMP(s) 32-5A £r 32-5A1 �— Steep Slopes: Preserved Submitted 17 December2018 0 Steep Slopes: Managed Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December2019 -- REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. _ -- _ _ Il r I, -1 - __ — — — — _ - - - - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT = _ — = — - - - - - - - - APPLICATION PLAN -------------- ---- -= — — — _ - -- _ -�— — — - Z MA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE r iy OPEN SPACE & ,I 1 1 ilSi w.'qExisting structure ��' CREATIONAL FACILITIES : to be preserved Sheet 7 Of 29 ��� ' ` t III I and repurposed as FEM 1•.E 386'.� -„Ar. - amenity for TMp j - \ 32-5A and 32-5A1 Additional Notes: _ _ - - - �� ., 1. Minimum 2,6001inear feet of — - \ - — �` - - - -� �� ✓� �% ; primitive trails to be provided. Please refer to sheet 11(Proposed ���� I ��� ; , , � � � �� � , � / . / i � _ � � - _ - - - _% 7 � r � Circulation) for proposed path "locations. Approxima location of to \.a,<�\\ 91, repurposed P multi urPn$e - - court a l Required Equipment Proposed Natural Alternative for One Tot Lot Swing (4 seats) - Swings could still be used with more natural features incorporated (ex: tree swings) - Natural structures that are conducive for climbing/ hanging/swinging by arms (ex: fallen log with limbs at varying heights) Slide (1) - Slides could still be used with logs set into natural topography as `stairs; or slide set on top of boulders (see climber alternatives below) - Hobbit house - Hollowed out tree trunk Climbers (2) - Natural mound - Large boulders ("rock landscape") - Fallen log will limbs at varying heights Buckabout/whirl (1) - Log steppers or log balancing course - Movable objects (see narrative for information about loose objects play) Benches (2) Provided typically for parents to directly supervise children within a fenced -in area. Depending on circumstances, benches may not be necessary, especially as the natural plyscape may not be confined to a specific area. Benches may be periodically provided along the trail system on the property; exact locations will be explored at site plan. Basketball court (1/2) 1 -1 multipurpose court to be provided Please refer to sheet 8 and 9 of precedent natural playscape images. i_ TM P(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 (j r r Revised 16 September 2019 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. c 9 e o 7o 76 IL -ell '44 - V7 . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 'ob P, J064ma *7 Welles Park Nature Play Space, Chicago, Illinois (Site Design Group) Overview of Nature Play Programming lW RINLM , L 1 sD F YCMf YOYYD V 4 jB r Marge and Charles Schott Nature P1ayScape Cincinnati Nature Center, Milford, Ohio (Ground Work Design Cincinnati) Hollowed natural mound ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 IVER'S EDGE EDENT NATURAL PLAY IMAGES Sheet 9 of 29 are included for precedent recreational facilities to be to plan and do not demonstrate nprovements. TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existi� -------------- ---- - - — --\--- — — — _ MK FE - - ng paved i / accessway FEMA F 92' ito become pedestrian path �---- — ��- fill -- FEM FE 386' Ll l ��aL-L c = _ - •� ��� �� aza_ J MA BFE38 r A , Additional Notes: 1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to \ \ \ v exceed 50,000 SF \ �� � A may_ A� � �, ♦ �' pia-- ,i� - i �'i, _ 3�Q 2 Setbacks e n provided as the property s not to be el are of r ei \ - - subdivided. Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 3Z 5A & 32 SA1 Steep Slopes: Managed 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE BUILDING ENVELOPE Sheet 10 of 29 PROPOSED # OF 100 DWELLING UNITS' UNIT TYPE Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, triplex, quadruplex NON-RESIDENTIAL 4,000 SF SQUAREFOOTAGE (excluding recreational facilties required by Section 4.16 ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' MAXIMUM GFA PER 1,200 SF UNIT BUILDING 10' unless the building shares a SEPARATION common wall; 5' off of each building side for a total of 10' between buildings BUILD -TO LINES2 50' from US Route 29 5' from parking areas, travelways, accessways, and pedestrian paths ALLOWABLE USES Residential units as provided for in this Application Plan. Please refer to sheet 2 for by -right and special uses permitted on the property. Submitted 17 December2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. < -- -- — —- - ----------- ---- - - - - - �� Existing paved _ ( �- t � -"�; - - ----- �----- �-,--------- r - - — road to become • e , �— pedestrian path ' - I Lil FEMA F 92' iFuture pedestrian I `connection across Existing structure b�- to reserved --li ;. Flat Branch to • P ' TMP 32-22K1 y \ and repurposed as \'� ® / /i41 FEM FE 3s6 amenity for TMP 7 £ - 32-5A and 32-5A1- A tz_ — — — Approximate I ` _ I location of M 1' repurposed I I _ multipurpose sae court ° /' i ffp _ 400 azo _ _ 580 _.400 FEMA BFE 390`__-. \ o Sep s4o 420_ - 1 \ I aao_Pedestrian walkwaysV��A`A� on both sides of ry " v Yp 3F��% v v vv v r retamm wall oO � Pedestrian walkways F A, • • , re access o turnaround im,- 1 \ Fire access \ turnaround - - - -_ -fFMA-FE — J. 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE PROPOSED CIRCULATION Sheet 11 of 29 Key • • • • Public Access Pedestrian Path Future Pedestrian Connection minion Vehicular Circulation Primitive Trail (Internal Network) Retaining Wall FEMA BFE Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway/Parking _ Pedestrian Walkways 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved 0 Steep Slopes: Managed TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ,7 ' -7 -' �y� ,� ZONING MAP AMENDMENT --Existing ACSA manhole . � �� _ \ \ _ ` - APPLICATION PLAN --_��K=_-=------ �-------= -------i-- �---Z--�--a--' � - - — ZMA201800018 _ __ _ _ Bore under Route 29 for public sewer _ _ _ _ -ir_ _ _ -- - , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RIVER'S EDGE — New _ —_ CONCEPTUAL — — , ACSA manhole �_---�--�--------------------- -- — ----- �--- — � r — — — �1L WATER aao —,1 N I I \ — —_ --FE3 � � �,; �,, Z ,,---�---- £s SEWER A ywm Public water line /��%%/� �i� / Sheet 12 of 29 Existing paved FEMA F 92' road to become 1 i �\ , l Additional Notes: �z0� �v `vv r pedestrian path 1. Structures to be metered according to ACSA i i v regulations. v r v FEM FE386' 360 ; _= _ -—I- 06 -- / J6 - - - 380- - �\ ao- Y force - — 420 - -. - —4000 - — — — d60 A L 440420 — ,. E399:, �o Blain. sa v r sa L i _ nd ry Fire hydrants r MA 388' A wwpq�%- A- < i v v v v v V y r I v —_ Leo-EENTA-@Ff 387` —i / i TMP(s) 32-5A Er 32-5A1 - - - - Submitted 17 December 2018 '� a oo Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 \ 200 . \ `\ i0 200 Wv0 - 60Q -- 6 40ic sale i � �Q0 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. \ I — \ ------ \ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT \ \\ \ APPLICATION PLAN \ W.,\ \ \ \ _ \ ZMA201800018 `4 \ 4 RIVER'S EDGE \ \ \ \ \ \ CONCEPTUAL GRADING \ \ \ W L Sheet 13 of 29 E IVIA gaFE RETAIN WALL W 3 RETAINI WALL / 43 se v / dW 4 X=1eF � \ X42? \ 8' RETAINIaS`WALL \ x,e° / \ o TW 418 boa Mi ^ Q TW 406 x,o" I�CO BW 398 XOGP \ x09P Oo WP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 TW 408 \ BW 400 / / Subtfitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Key REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 50 0 50 100 150 Steep Slopes: Preserved project: 15.064 Graphic Scale: 1"= 100' 0 Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C. FEM FE 3 001" I I ;1 i I I I \ 1 I II \ by I I I \ \ v 1 d i I ii I 1 I m I � w o i o 0 11 I 1 I 1 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' 1 111 C 11 111 �O 1 ^C I\\\I z 1 F I ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 14 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 Key FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. TM i FE 3 19- 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' I a ccPsc � ayto6 +fl2 ec off` e�ez ea fh�o �e�estrfa AN I ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 15 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 i Key FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. �4 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' � North Fork Rivanna River now now now Elm ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 16 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 Key 1 i FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZOIRG 7APA M E N T \ \ \ APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 1 •' �'. \ RETAIN WALL �•• o r ®ER'S EDGE Tw TW aso RETAINI wALL M WAT E R Sheet 19 of 29 (S' 4 2 �V X Storm drain inlet � \ X / / JI Storm drain inlet / 8' RETAI�ALL � Xie^ \ / MABFE o /E TW 418�° TW 406 / BW 98 X asP - _ - - ' - ' • . ' • • Underground detention Discharge into waterway Qin accordance with VSMP regulations / TW 408 '_ -BW 400 / / See steep slopes disturbance / exhibit for proposed slopes y/ disturbance �4~ \ — — 38 0 —F_E M A—B FE 38 7 � — � MP(s 32-5A 2-5A1 Sub itte 17 De ber 2018 Devised 16 S mber 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Key REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 50 0 50 100 150 Steep Slopes: Preserved project: 15.064 Graphic Scale: l "= 100' 0 Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C. 7 on Flat Branch #-MA-B F E 38 1 Discharge into waterway in accordance with II VSMP regulations See steep slopes disturbance exhibit for proposed slopes disturbance 0� FEM FE 38 I I) I c I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I 1,1 I 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' g Storm drain inlet II N v F 1 1 I ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER Sheet 20 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Discharge into waterway in accordance with VSMP regulations See steep slopes disturbance 2. exhibit for proposed slopes 5' disturbance ° J �.i 14 Storm drain inlet 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER r Sheet 21 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 0 ♦ ♦ Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER Sheet 22 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018. r- Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. htMHJfh//t/j'1L' I I/ Existing structure to be preserved and repurposed as FEM FE 3asr amenity for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 O �I I 4` M Existing paved road to become pedestrian path I FEMA —�� FEMA BFE 387' /�0' X + BFE389'--® _ 1 00* T i �� b 40, 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' F, t Yo� ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE Sheet 23 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the steep slopes is approximately 39,100 square feet Key FEMA BFE Stream - _ _ - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway 0 Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Steep Slopes Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. I =AMA- BFE 385,.5' IPil FEM FE 386' !1' a i J� m.� 1 Existing structure to be preserved and repurposed as amenity for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 J J Existing paved road to become pedestrian path 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' �1, North Fork Rivanna River ...����_ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE Sheet 24 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the stream buffer is approximately 23,000 square feet Key FEMA BFE Stream Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Stream Buffer Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existing grade Existing trees to be preserved where possible Planted trees fining wall Planted trees ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE SECTION A -A' Sheet 25 of 29 440 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4' retaining wall - - - - 420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m 400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I40 0 I__I I__I I__I Graphic Scale: 1' 40 80 120 8' retaining wall Top/bottom unit TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existing trees to be preserved where possible Existing grade ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE SECTION B-B' Sheet 26 of 29 Planted trees 440 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8' retaining wall 8' retaining wall 420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I25 0 I__I I__I I__I Graphic Scale: 1' 25 50 75 Top bottom unit TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. PRIMITIVE TRAIL SECTION CLASS B - TYPE 1 PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL - PRIVATE EASEMENT PRIMITIVE TRAIL 5 0 5 10 15 ACCESSWAY SECTION SHOULI VARIABLE WII 4' GRADE EXISTING RIVER'S EDGE ROAD 12' PAVED ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH PROPOSED TYPICAL STREET SECTION INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK )ULDER (ABLE WIDTH 20' PAVED TRAVEL LANE 28' ACCESSWAY RESERVATION HOULDER ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STREET SECTION Sheet 28 of 29 TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 Graphic Scale: 1"=5' project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15% of the total residential dwelling units within the project shall be For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (the "15% Affordable Housing Requirement"). For the purposes of these Supplementary Regulations, "affordable housing" shall mean units affordable for rent by households within incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined from time to time by the Virginia Housing Development Authority). All renters of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Community Development Department. The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement may be met through a variety of housing unit types, including but not limited to, two- family dwellings, triplexes, and quadruplexes. (1) Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each rental housing unit which shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit, ("For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit") shall not exceed the then -current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by the Albemarle County Community Development Department. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). The term "net rent' means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this Section shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit (the "Affordable Term"). (2) Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this Section. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any For - Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this Section. At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this Section have been satisfied. (3) Reporting Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, the Applicant or its successor shall provide to the Albemarle County Community Development Department a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the Applicant or its successor shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require. (4) Tracking. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property shall: i) designate the units, as applicable, that will constitute Affordable Dwelling Units within the Project and ii) contain a running tally of the Affordable Dwelling Units either constructed or contributed for under this Section. The designated units shown on each site plan shall designate 15% of the total units shown as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to more than sixty- five percent (65%) completion of the Project. APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Sheet 29 of 29 TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. STEEP SLOPES - PRESERVED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE E .. CONC PT EXHIBI PRIMITIVE TRAIL -SYSTEM Sheet 1 Of 1 12' RETAINING WALL \ " . LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED .PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS \;° `•-. o �o ;, PLANTED THE - - - LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED \ STEEP SLOPES -MANAGED v 2-BEDROOM UNIT y °a TPRES HROUGHOUT T SITE � I � 4' R@TAINING WALL TRROUGF�OUT SITE (SPECIFIC T�EESTO .BE DESIGNATED A� 81TE PLAN) \ - P PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS a c a L _ � ( TOPIBOTIhM UNIT STYLE I � \� \X•'� � Mom\ � �� � �� �� � � I \ UWDSCAPyESTR PRESERVED TREELINE LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED \ 8RETAINING WALLAdo TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 VA — Submitted 17 December 201,1 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 60 0 60 120 180 Additional Notes: 1. Concept Plan is for illustrative purposes only project: 15.064 Graphic Scale: l"=60' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. The following exhibits analyze the topographic features of the site and have helped to inform the conceptual development plan of the site. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZMA201800018 & SP201800023 J MI the digital elevation model (DEM) of the River's Edge property was created using Central Virginia LIDAR data. The topography represents the existing elevation and informs the following diagrams. The topography is lowest along the Rivanna River and highest in the middle of the parcel. IFeet 800 HILLSHADE The DEM hillshade model visualizes the changing topography on -site, showing the more extreme drop- offs, where steep slopes exists within the property. Value - High : 254 _- Low: 8 11 10 RIVER'S EDGE GIS ANALYSIS Sheet 1 of 2 WA 0 100 200 400 600 800 TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 REVISED 16 SEPTEMBER 2019 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZMA201800018 & SP201800023 SLOPE The slopes analysis represents how different elevations on -site meet one another. With preserved steep slopes in the property, it is essential to design development that is mindful of these sensitive environmental features. 25% or above slopes are considered critical slopes. �. A II -Jd Value 0-4% 4-10% - 10-16% F - 16-23% - 23-32% - °k Feet 32-58 0 100 200 400 600 800 ASPECT Solar aspect analysis reveals how the sun will illuminate the development. This analysis helps to inform where structures and open space should be located and how buildings and other features on -site should be oriented. f .y am RIVER'S EDGE GIS ANALYSIS Sheet 2 of 2 'i Feet TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 REVISED 16 SEPTEMBER 2019 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. JECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP PROCIVLAND PLA NING ENGINEERINGa C� December 16, 2019 Mr. Adam Moore, P.E. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Regarding: River's Edge Right Turn Warrant Analysis Mr. Moore, Please find enclosed a warrant analysis for the proposed River's Edge off of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail between Airport Road and Camelot Drive. The purpose of construction at River's Edge is to build 100 multifamily units. The following items are included with this report: • VDOT Traffic Data • ITE Trip Generation Summary • Warrant Analysis Exhibit • OTISS Trip Generation Reports Our analysis shows that a taper is warranted for this project. If you have any questions you may contact me atjustin@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116. Best Regards, Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering, P.C. The table below summarizes the 2017 VDOT traffic data for the 1.80 mile segment of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail between Airport Road and Camelot Drive, which was used to calculate the peak hour volume (PHV) approaching for the warrant analysis. Table 1. VDOT traffic data summary — U.S. 29 Seminole Trail AADT 39000 Kfactor 0.098 Dfactor 0.5328 PHV(AADT*K*D) 2036 Design Speed (mph) 55 Below is the ITE trip generation summary table that was used in combination with the direction factor of U.S. 29 Seminole Trail to determine the PHV right and left turns into the establishment. The OTISS graphs showing the source of this information are included as Figures 2 and 3. Table 2. ITE trip generation summary table AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total Multifamily Housing 221 100 Units 9 26 35 26 17 43 Right Turn 4 14 Left Turn 5 12 The higher number of right turns into River's Edge was used in the right turn lane warrant analysis, shown in Figure 1 below. 2 PHV APPROACH TOTAL, VEHICLES PER HOUR Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV- - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adiustment for Right Turns If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11 % for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria. FIGURE 3-27 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (4-LANE HIGHWAY) Figure 1. Warrant for right turn treatment (4-lane highway) The figure above shows that a taper is required for the site. The right turns were taken from Table 2, and the PHV approach total includes additional traffic that is to be generated by the site. The following two figures display the source of the estimated trips generated by the River's Edge development. ]n-ry flier Tnp GerxxafiOn ManuM tom Etl zn xR.uxo® .. XU USE GrE40xh (3110.M9) Reeibnoa xoosE: 1P1. MUblamly Hanllq (WASS) U(E lrvx TSAESBUSUM l Dealfi:p UnN IWeeedaYAM PnkHw OlGSnerzlo: cenemlumxvwaxman VMxc� ENTSIR lro rvvuuErocufcu�EArErwP Data Mal and Equattun ED x 60 E s � zo x-.... ofoweiiin9 On. RNSLzoom Fmxree X SNtlY Site Fweed curve --- Pvenpe Pale Figure 2. OTISS trip generator A.M. peak hour ®%uw Tnp GsBereNn Menwl, IfAM1 H e1[HxvuxU ®coosLAND U ME CATEDDBO l (200-E99)RgMaply I.A. u.E: 321- MWMa:lily Noanp (M4Fue) SUBSEB. 9AmxelE(Nk D mmh:, VlMs IYE PEXAY: Wxktlay FM Peak 11— Of Genee., T.Vr E: I VeMb E'r,ERrvwwEroa w uA- lP Data Plot aSM Equatlon x - NumEe. of owell'm9 Units RM zmm ASS. X RE,Ey514 FIS. Curve --- Avxige Rate Figure 3. OTISS trip generator P.M. peak hour Tc= LeM VN: Hmss�re IMIORLeeI azn L-T, IN1xexWN: o=renm9 wus nm. wmx: AM Peakloul of Uenemfo, Sellin n: ceIe:auw:LLST snonman Tx9TYR.: S—AS, of swmee'. ea m. Vw.11my Unn= An. x N a lze% Ra. BASS. 0 Remo. 0oa 9n SMnav9 DAY.. 91T FIVeI Curve Fau.uon: m1)..1.11 UP pert .0 finnn MmIBUti VA enrenn9... ewrS ftaxma TXR Fna. w:aBe Rate 12 jae,). 9(Enty), 23 (EuU FAIM Cue. 35 (TOUR, 9(ETSB ] (Ew) (and Use: MefiLmlly H—W(MiO{ )(221)C cM o�mne In..nawlwmel.: ow.n:n9 u:::x nme ASBAB BMA.y PM Peak Hw: af(Rnemb: Se.n,ATe,e n: General TCSI5u. TaR TyO.: lenkk XumMF Se S.S.— 11 An Xum.olnwel! 9UnXe: 211 Ran. Ol Rel... u99- I ze Uan.ed DAY. on 02l Filree curve E.aaOn: r JT)=uAl 111.)-0�l a• xxecuoN( OIAM.x.: 5o%en., 10A etmn9 UImhW np EM: Ave:a. Rate e1(TMa11. 25 (E:myl, 1.(.t) Flee Cume 0(Tdal), M IETC,), 17(EAU 13 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering Project Narrative For: SP201800023 River's Edge I SP Request for Preserved Slopes Disturbance Parcel Description: Tax Map 32, Parcels 5-A and 5-Al Initial Submittal: December 17, 2018 Revised: September 16, 2019 Revised: December 16, 2019 Current Revision Date: February 28, 2020 Pre-App Meeting Date: June 18, 2018 Area Steep Slopes — Preserved To Be Disturbed 39,100 sq. ft Section 30.7.4(b)(2) of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle County permits the Board of Supervisors to grant a special use permit for land disturbing activity within preserved slopes for "private facilities such as accessways, utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater management facilities, not otherwise permitted by right under subsection (b)(1)(e), where the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the private facilities." In accordance with Section 30.7.4(b)(2), we, on behalf of Rivers Edge Holdings LLC and Rivers Edge Associates LLC (collectively, the "applicant") request for the Board of Supervisors to grant approval of a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved slopes to allow for necessary access improvements to the existing driveway on the property and to allow for private facilities improvements for stormwater management. We request for this special use permit to be considered in conjunction with ZMA2018-00018, River's Edge North, a proposed planned residential development. The ZMA application associated with this special use permit application petitions to rezone TNT 32-5A and TNT 32-5A1 from Rural Areas to a Planned Residential Development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential and Privately -Owned Open Space. Redevelopment on the property will require the existing driveway to be widened and improved to ensure safe ingress and egress to the site for residents, guests, and emergency vehicles. The location of the proposed accessway takes into consideration the existing conditions of the site, specifically the existing location of the driveway, and other environmental conditions, such as stream buffers, which are discussed in further detail below. We also request slopes disturbance for private stormwater facilities so that stormwater from precipitation events can be directed efficiently back into the Rivanna River. It may be necessary to disturb slopes for the installation of adequate drainage ways via pipes or ditches through the bank area. Disturbance of the bank for private stormwater facilities would necessitate the stabilization of the bank in accordance with applicable Albemarle County and Army Corps of Engineers regulations. The bank would be stabilized with the installation of rip rap or other acceptable means. This stabilization would be considered disturbance and so this request accounts for the disturbance anticipated to ultimately stabilize the bank. This property is almost entirely surrounded by the Rivanna River and on this property, the banks of the River are entirely within preserved slopes and so, there is no clear path for any channelized flow to directly reenter into the River without the disturbance of preserved slopes. As aforementioned, this request covers the disturbance anticipated to be necessary to not only direct the runoff back into the river but also to stabilize the bank surrounding the constructed conveyance system. At present, the banks on the property within the preserved slopes do not have any stabilization measures and are susceptible to increased erosion when compared to a stabilized bank. The purpose and intent of the steep slopes overlay district is to, "protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the county." The proposed stabilization measures would help to protect the character of the slopes and achieve the intent of the steep slopes overlay district by preserving the character of the slope as a defined portion of the channel of the Rivanna River. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com We request 16,000 SF of preserved slopes disturbance to allow for the construction of an adequate accessway to the property for residents, visitors, service vehicles, and emergency vehicles and an additional 23,100 SF of disturbance for private facilities to allow for the construction of stormwater drainage measures and affiliated bank stabilization. In your review of this request, please consider the following: 1. Protection of downstream lands and waterways The disturbance of steep slopes for the accessway is purposefully designed as a no -fill, straight -cut process. The anticipated process will be an extraction of material, to be excavated and moved to an appropriate fill place on -site, using a rock hammer to cut away the slope. The disturbed material is expected to be mostly rock, which does not require mass earthwork and movement of dirt. The nature of this material is not prone to mudslides and not likely subject to uncontrolled movement or run-off, as there is expected to be minimal dirt within these disturbed areas when compared to mass graded areas. Due to the type of the material that is to be disturbed, it is not anticipated that downstream lands and waterways will be significantly impacted. The areas of disturbance will be limited to cutting and excavating the slopes, with no mass grading of the steep slopes planned, protecting the downstream areas below. Any land disturbance will comply with applicable Virginia DEQ and Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance Regulations. The disturbance for stormwater management would require stabilization of a portion of the bank where a pipe or channel was installed. The pipe or channel would efficiently direct stormwater runoff from the property back into the waterways and the affiliated stabilization of the bank would greatly reduce the impacts an eroded natural bank would have on downstream lands and waterways. 2. Rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock The proposed disturbance for the accessway will strictly be a localized process in certain areas of the site, to widen the existing road and ensure safe access to and from the site. The process aims to create a level pad at the top of the slopes and therefore we expect there will be about 1-5 feet of cut, with immediate removal of the excavated materials to another location on the site where fill is necessary, to prevent rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock. Any land disturbance necessary for installation of a stormwater pipe or channel will be immediately stabilized and the surrounding bank area will be stabilized with rip rap or other approved stabilization methods. The stabilized bank will limit erosion from the bank. 3. Excessive stormwater runoff The disturbance of the steep slopes for the accessway is necessary to ensure a safe point of ingress to and egress from the site, as well as providing adequate circulation throughout the site. These improvements are to be conducted on an existing access road. The proposed disturbance for widening the road will be cutting into the existing slope, rather than grading and filling in earth. The proposed construction calls for improvements to the existing driveway by lowering it into the slope by 1-5 feet. This construction method is not anticipated to increase the velocity of stormwater runoff since the slope is proposed to be cut down. The disturbance of the steep slopes for stormwater management will ensure that channelized flow will be utilized to manage stormwater runoff. This proposed disturbance will directly prevent excessive stormwater runoff since this proposed disturbance is to be incorporated into the broader stormwater management design measures for the entire property. 4. Protection of surface water Protection of downstream lands and waterways and careful management of construction methods and activities to prevent rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock and excessive stormwater runoff will ensure protection of surface water in the immediate area. The steep slopes disturbance for the accessway is a cut process that will be extracting rock from the slopes, rather than moving or filling of earth. Extracted material will be moved on -site in an appropriate timeframe to ensure that no rapid or large- scale movement of rock will take place. Additionally, as a cut process around an existing accessway, it is not expected for excessive stormwater runoff to be produced by this disturbance. Together, these factors will ensure that the disturbance will not impact surface water in the area. Land disturbance activities regulated by Virginia DEQ and the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance will be conducted in accordance with these regulations that exist to ensure responsible land disturbance and ultimately protect water quality. Disturbance affiliated with stormwater management is expected to be minimal and once in place, the stabilization measures will contribute to enhanced protection of surface water by minimizing erosion of the natural bank. SP2018-23 NARRATIVE 2 5. Character of steep slopes unchanged Due to the cutting process of the steep slopes disturbance for the accessway, the character of the steep slopes will remain relatively unchanged. Since there is already an existing paved driveway on the site in the location where the proposed accessway is to be constructed within the preserved slopes, the character of the slopes will remain largely the same. This existing travelway sits at the top of the ridge, and to provide adequate width, the accessway will further cut into the ridge and be widened. Overall, the proposed accessway improvements will not significantly change the character of the steep slopes as the existing driveway is currently present in the locations slated for slopes disturbance. The stabilization of the bank will maintain the integrity and general characteristics of the slopes, whereas a non -stabilized bank is more susceptible to erosion. 6. Section 33.40(b)(l)—No substantial detriment As previously stated, the disturbance of the steep slopes for the accessway is localized to the areas immediately around the existing road to provide adequate access to and from the site. Because it is anticipated that very little soil will be present in the localized areas of slopes disturbance and that process will cut and extract rock and little soil, it is not expected for there to be rapid or large-scale movement of rock and soil, and excessive stormwater runoff attributable to the proposed accessway improvements, and therefore negative impacts to downstream lands and waterways, and surface water are not expected. This plan was intentionally structured as a cut and extraction process, which we deem the most appropriate method in ensuring that the existing terrain and surrounding environment will be respected. Though we expect that rock will consist of the majority of the material, specifically identified enhanced erosion and sediment control measures can be implemented, such as a wire -supported silt fence. The proposed accessway improvements will adhere to applicable stormwater runoff regulations. The disturbance of slopes for stormwater management will feature localized disturbance for drainage way construction and will be stabilized not only in the drainage way but also on the bank immediately surrounding the drainage way. This stabilization will help to prevent further degradation of the bank and ensure no substantial detriment from this disturbance to the waterways or downstream properties will be incurred. 7. Section 33.40(b)(2) —Character of the nearby area unchanged The design of the disturbance intends to preserve the character of the steep slopes, as well as the character of the nearby area. As previously stated, proposed accessway improvements within the steep slopes overlay are slated for areas where there is an existing driveway that requires improvements for enhanced vehicular circulation on the site and increased safe access. Currently, the driveway is approximately 11 feet in pavement width, and in order to provide adequate improvements to facilitate safer ingress and egress to the site, we propose the road to be widened to 20 feet with an additional shoulder width of 4 feet on both sides. The land disturbance within the steep slopes overlay for the accessway is exclusive to a localized portion of the property and will not impact the character of adjacent parcels nor the nearby area. The slopes disturbance for stormwater management will ensure the character of the slopes is not compromised by increased erosion. The bank stabilization is exclusive to this property and will not impact the character of the nearby area. The stabilization of the bank will ensure the topographic characteristics of the bank are maintained. 8. Section 33.40(B)(3) — Harmony In order for redevelopment of this site to be possible, the special use permit to allow for safe access to and from the site is necessary. Overall, the aim of this ZMA and SUP application is to establish market -rate affordable housing in a unique "nature- fid" setting within a desirable and convenient location of the development areas. The location of the property provides a prime opportunity. The property sits beside the UVA Research Park and the National Ground Intelligence Center. Both are major regional employers. Currently, UVA Research Park seeks to implement an expansion of their business park, with no plans for housing, while NGIC has many traveling and temporary employees in need of temporary rental housing. Furthermore, the property is immediately adjacent to Route 29, a major commuter corridor, and is close to the City of Charlottesville and Ruckersville, two employment hubs in Central Virginia. Housing that is affordable in this area would provide a key benefit in this strategic location. Due to the nature of the property and the development vision of the applicant, River's Edge cannot be subdivided and will be wholly rentable units. The small footprints and pre -fabricated construction methods of the proposed units allow for the units to largely interact with the existing topography and lay lightly on the land by utilizing pillar foundations, ultimately contributing to a development on the property that is respectful of the natural beauty of River's Edge. The small square footage of individual structures allows for SP2018-23 NARRATIVE 3 flexibility in design and orientation of the structures in relation to the existing topography on the site, creating a more harmonious community within the existing conditions. Development is set far back from Route 29, which maintains the forested buffer of the Entrance Corridor. The overall design of River's Edge strives to take into consideration the existing conditions around and on the site, as well as the greater County context. In order for this development to be feasible, the accessway must disturb approximately 16,000 square feet of steep slopes, where disturbance is localized around the existing driveway and stormwater management facilities are anticipated to disturb 23,100 square feet of slopes for construction of adequate drainwage ways and affiliated stabilization of the surrounding banks. 9. Section 33.40(B-4) — Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Neighborhood Density Residential and Privately -Owned Open Space, with the current zoning of the site as Rural Areas. The land use designation of Neighborhood Density Residential allows for 3-6 units per acre. The developable area of River's Edge is approximately 8.62 acres, indicating a Comprehensive Plan recommendation of approximately 26-52 units. Due to the exceptionally small footprint of these units, 100 units are proposed and the applicant has proposed restrictions on a maximum unit size of 1,200 square feet and a maximum building footprint area of 50,000 square feet. This property will be entirely rentable units and will not subdivided. Regardless, due to the present conditions of the accessway, any redevelopment for Neighborhood Density Residential that would occur on the site would require accessway improvements and a stormater management plan in accordance with applicable Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance and DEQ regulations. Privately -owned open space is a substantial piece of the rezoning application, aimed to create opportunities for nature -based recreation within River's Edge. Please refer to the ZMA application for more details on open space and recreational space proposals. SP2018-23 NARRATIVE 4 I \� FEMA F 92 4f Existing structure-- to be preserved and repurposed as amenity for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 FE 386' Existing paved -- road to become � pedestrian path North 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' D D SPECIAL USE PERMIT SLOPES DISTURBANCE EXHIBIT SP201800023 RIVER'S EDGE STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE Sheet 1 of 3 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the steep slopes is approximately 39,100 square feet Key -- — Adjacent Parcels FEMA BFE Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Steep Slopes Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. i � I i 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' SPECIAL USE PERMIT SLOPES DISTURBANCE EXHIBIT SP201800023 RIVER'S EDGE STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE Sheet 2 of 3 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the steep slopes is approximately 39,100 square feet Key -- — Adjacent Parcels FEMA BFE Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Steep Slopes Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. FEMA E I i / FEMA F 92' ,Existing structure to be preserved and repurposed as amenity for TMP 1 32-5A and 32-5A1 E ♦ / M 11 .. Existing paved road to become pedestrian path I 1 1 t 1 I I North Fork Riv 1 anna River ' a —J FEMA BFE 387' 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' I I SPECIAL USE PERMIT SLOPES DISTURBANCE EXHIBIT SP201800023 RIVER'S EDGE STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE Sheet 3 of 3 s Key 1 I I FEMA BFE388' -- — Adjacent Parcels FEMA BFE Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Steep Slopes Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering February 25, 2020 Claudette Borgersen, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA2018-018 River's Edge Request for Central Sewerage System Chapter 16 Article I Dear Ms. Borgersen, Chapter 16 Article I of the Code of Albemarle outlines the procedures for the establishment of a central sewerage system. In conjunction with a request to rezone TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 (the "River's Edge PRD"), which would allow a maximum of 100 dwelling units on a 32.5-acre site off Seminole Trail; River's Edge Holdings LLC and Rivers Edge Associates LLC (collectively, the "applicant") requests permission to construct a central sewerage system for the River's Edge PRD. In accordance with Sec. 16-102, please consider this request the required notice for this proposal to establish a central sewerage system. Location: The central sewerage system would be located on TMP 03200-00-00-005A1 and 03200-00-00-005AO near coordinates 38.15280,-78.41699. Connection Numbers: The central sewerage system would serve 100 dwelling units. Statement of Proposal and Description: The central sewerage system would consist of a system of sewer laterals from each dwelling which would connect to a private gravity main that would drain into a private pump station. This pump station would push effluent through a private sanitary force main, where it would tie into a new public sanitary manhole just outside Rte. 29 North. From this manhole, waste will flow through a public gravity main under Rte. 29 to an existing public manhole at the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority pump station, directly across from the site. The intent of the River's Edge PRD is to create rental units under single ownership. The proposed development is on a single parcel with no proposed subdivision. Since the parcel is surrounded by steep slopes, floodplain, and the North Fork Rivanna River, it is impractical to extend the system to adjoining parcels. Any potential public offsite connection to a sewer system would be highly unlikely due to these conditions and the regulatory difficulty involving in crossing the North Fork Rivanna River. Since the system requires a pump station and force main line, and since it only serves a single parcel, and since future offsite public connection to any part of the sewer system on this property is unlikely, it would be impractical to burden the Albemarle County Service Authority and its constituents with the maintenance and operation of these facilities. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Granting permission of a central sewerage system will allow the Applicant to achieve one of the project's key goals: developing independent dwelling units that are environmentally and aesthetically sensitive, all without creating financial and managerial burdens for public utilities. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at: keane@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-299-9843. Regards, Keane Rucker keane@shimp-engineering 1 (434)227-5140 Copy: justin@shimp-engineering.com ATTACHMENTS: Three (3) copies of preliminary plans for the central sewerage system SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering December 16, 2019 Frank Pohl County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA2018-018 River's Edge Pump Station Preliminary Design Dear Mr. Pohl, As part of the plan requirements, we have completed a basic preliminary design for the sewer pump stations. Flow Calculations: A design population of 100 2-person units has an average design flow of 100 gpd/person = 200 gpd/unit. (SCAT regs - 9VAC25-790-460-F) The design peak capacity of the system shall be 2.5 times this avg. design flow. (SCAT regs - 9VAC25-790-310-D) Avg Design Flow = 100 units x 200 gpd/units = 20,000 gpd Peak Design Flow = 2.5 x Avg Design Flow = 50,000 gpd (34.7 gpm) Minimum design pump rate must exceed 35 gpm to allow for the Peak Design Flow. Basic Pump Station Design: The pump station shall be an inline underground wet well with submersible pumps that will pump effluent through a force main at select times when the sewage level reaches set elevations in the wet well. The pump station will consist of a remote monitoring system that will be managed by a contracted professional third party, a backup generator in case of loss of power, and an onsite alarm in case of failure. Preliminary Wet Well Sizing: The wet well will be a 60" precast lined watertight manhole. For a wet well with 10' depth well and a design lead pump switch "on" elevation at 4' above the invert, the well storage would reach 540 gal. of effluent before the lead pump engaged. In this scenario, the pump would operate roughly 37 times per day (using the avg. design flow estimate of 20,000 gpd for the 100 units from above). With this basic design, the lead pump would engage on average every 39 minutes. This cycle period minimizes potential nuisance from the pump station by ensuring the sewage does not sit long enough to go anaerobic and also ensures potential adverse noise impacts on future residents are mitigated through cycle frequency management. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Additional Design Considerations: The following considerations are based on previous design experience with pump stations, and the final design shall account for these considerations. 1. Since the pump station will be handling raw sewage, pumps and force main must be capable of passing 2" solids. Thus, the minimum force main size should be 3". A minimum scour velocity of 2 fps must be achieved within the force main. 2. To remove cumbersome maintenance requirements, submersible grinder pumps shall be used. 3. Two robust pumps shall be chosen to provide redundancy. Multiple switches shall be implemented which will trigger first one, then both pumps when sewer levels reach critical elevations within the wet well. 4. CCS Tracer wire shall be installed along the force main to allow for maintenance to immediately identify the location from above ground. 5. To prevent unpleasant odors, which are mainly caused by sewage going anaerobic, a small air pump and diffuser shall be installed for the wet well. 6. Fencing and vegetative screening shall be provided to make the pump less conspicuous for residents. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at: justin@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-227-5140. Regards, Keane Rucker keane@shimp-engineering 1 (434)299-9843 Copy: justin@shimp-engineering.com ,7 ' -7 -' �y� ,� ZONING MAP AMENDMENT --Existing ACSA manhole . � �� _ \ \ _ ` - APPLICATION PLAN --_��K=_-=------ �-------= -------i-- �---Z--�--a--' � - - — ZMA201800018 _ __ _ _ Bore under Route 29 for public sewer _ _ _ _ -ir_ _ _ -- - , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RIVER'S EDGE — New _ —_ CONCEPTUAL — — , ACSA manhole �_---�--�--------------------- -- — ----- �--- — � r — — — �1L WATER aao —,1 N I I \ — —_ --FE3 � � �,; �,, Z ,,---�---- £s SEWER A ywm Public water line /��%%/� �i� / Sheet 12 of 29 Existing paved FEMA F 92' road to become 1 i �\ , l Additional Notes: �z0� �v `vv r pedestrian path 1. Structures to be metered according to ACSA i i v regulations. v r v FEM FE386' 360 ; _= _ -—I- 06 -- / J6 - - - 380- - �\ ao- Y force - — 420 - -. - —4000 - — — — d60 A L 440420 — ,. E399:, �o Blain. sa v r sa L i _ nd ry Fire hydrants r MA 388' A wwpq�%- A- < i v v v v v V y r I v —_ Leo-EENTA-@Ff 387` —i / i TMP(s) 32-5A Er 32-5A1 - - - - Submitted 17 December 2018 '� a oo Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 \ 200 . \ `\ i0 200 Wv0 - 60Q -- 6 40ic sale i � �Q0 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023: River's Edge March 10, 2020 Planning Commission Neighborhood Model Principles Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met. The application shows some, but not all, of the trail connectivity shown in the Places29 Master Plan. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the Multi -Use Path (MUP) along Route 29, as shown in the Places29 Master Plan. The applicant should provide additional information on connectivity with the adjacent parcel to the south, and if a public access easement will be dedicated for a future public connection. Staff finds the rest of the proposed trail network meets the connectivity of trails planned by Parks and Recreation. Pedestrian connectivity is provided through the site with a primitive trail system, which is consistent with the character of the site. The location of this site provides limited opportunities to walking or biking to other locations, however there are connectivity options, potentially with North Pointe and its trails stem. Mixture of Uses This principle is met. The Comprehensive Plan lists non-residential uses as secondary uses in this future land use designation, and given the environmental constraints of the site, staff does not feel this would be an appropriate location for non-residential uses (unless they were meant only to serve this development and were very small scale). There are other non-residential uses in proximity to this area, including the UVA Research Park, the Airport, and various commercial uses. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable. The proposal is not located in a designated center. Mixture of Housing This principle is met. Single-family detached, duplexes, Types and Affordability triplexes, and fourplexes are all possible unit types. This development would add a new housing type to the County and to the Places29 area. A modular `small home' development with attached units has not, to staffs knowledge, been done in the County. This housing type has the potential to be more affordable and serve demand. The 15 percent affordable housing policy 6b in the Comprehensive Plan is met. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. Given the site constraints of this property, it may not be feasible to fully relegate parking. Parking is still fully screened from Route 29. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing parking requirements when possible, given the location of this site, staff would likely not support a significant parking reduction request. The applicant could consider using pervious options for the parking lot, given the environmental features and constraints of this site. Interconnected Streets This principle is met. Given the constraints of this site, a and Transportation street network is not feasible, and could negatively Network affect environmental features. Street connections to other parcels are not shown in the Comprehensive Plan, although trail connections are shown. Multimodal This principle is partially met. Currently, there is not bus Transportation service to this site or this area. There is some potential Opportunities for pedestrian and bike connectivity, including with North Pointe's development directly to the south. Residents of this development would be able to walk throughout the site using the trail network and would be able to walk to future developments to the south with the proposed pedestrian bridge. Connections to other trail segments should be public. The internal trail network may be private. There is not sufficient information provided to ensure that there is a future public connection to the parcel to the south. Parks, Recreational This principle is met. The open space requirement is Amenities, and Open met, and staff is supportive of the requested recreation Space substitution requests, including natural playscapes. The character of the site provides opportunities for trail connectivity and a more nature -based network than traditional sites. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is met. The proposed units will need to Human Scale meet the requirements of the PRD district. The proposed stacked units would be approximately two stories. These smaller units better fit the character of this site. Redevelopment This principle is met. There are existing rental units on this site. Only one building is being preserved, which will serve as a clubhouse. The buildings on this site will not be adjacent to other residential uses, as they are surrounded by the river. The proposed residential units for this site have a similar scale to the existing homes, however the density would be higher. Respecting Terrain and This principle is partially met. Staff is supportive of the Careful Grading and Special Use Permit request to disturb steep slopes. Regrading of Terrain Disturbance of these slopes is the only possibility for constructing a private street or accessway to the site. Natural topography should be respected as best as possible. Some retaining walls shown are greater than six feet. Retaining walls should be six -feet maximum where possible. Clear Boundaries This principle is met. This site is part of the between the Development Areas and is partially adjacent to the Development Areas and Rural Area. Clear boundaries are preferred, and in this the Rural Area case the boundary is the river. When the boundary is a river, wooded buffers are expected, and areas near the river can be used for trails and greenways. This boundary is considered a Riparian/Floodplain boundary in the Places29 Master Plan. RESOLUTION GENERAL ANTI -DISPLACEMENT AND TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICY WHEREAS the County of Albemarle is committed to (i) the promotion of housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and (ii) the preservation of existing communities; and WHEREAS the County of Albemarle is committed to limiting the negative impacts residential (re)development and rehabilitation projects may have on County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle (the "County") is committed to making all reasonable efforts to ensure that residential redevelopment and rehabilitation activities that receive County funding support or that require Board approval will minimize resident displacement or relocation to cases where no other alternative is available. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County will work with developers and property owners to avoid resident displacement, whenever possible; and when relocation is necessary, to enable displaced residents to move directly to safe, healthy, and affordable replacement housing convenient to their place of employment and/or school. I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on September 18, 2019. Clerk, Board S ervisors Ave Nav Mr. Dill Y Mr. Gallaway Y Ms. Mallek Y Ms. McKee) Y Ms. Palmer Y Mr. Randolph Y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge Staff: Rachel Falkenstein, Principal Planner Planning Commission Work Session: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: October 16, 2018 N/A Owners: Incheon Holdings LLC, Rivers Edge Applicant: Shimp Engineering Holding LLC, Rivers Edge Associates LLC TMP: 032000000005A0, 032000000005A1; Acreage: approximately 37.74 acres 0320000000221<1 Location: 2256 Rivers Edge Lane Zoning District: RA, Rural Areas Magisterial District: Rivanna Proposal: Work session to obtain direction and Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential — interpretation of the Places29 Master Plan for the residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre) with supporting uses proposed development of the parcels for such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office residential (145 units proposed) and and service uses; Neighborhood Density Residential — commercial/office uses. residential (3 — 6 units/acre) with supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non- residential uses; and Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features — privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slo es, wetlands, and other environmental features. DA (Development Area): Places29-North Use of Surrounding Properties: NGIC and other commercial uses to the north, future North Pointe development to the south, UVA Research Park property to the west (across Rt 29), Rural Areas to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Question 1: Staff is of the opinion that transferring the density from TMP 32-22K1 to TMP 32-5A is not appropriate. Question 2: Staff does not believe that NMD is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development and recommends that the development of the property as proposed be considered with separate rezoning applications. Question 3: Staff agrees that the listed commercial uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-22K1 as secondary uses, with the appropriate design and scale. Question 4: Staff recommends that more accurate GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of the site. CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge STAFF PERSON: Rachel Falkenstein PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: October 16, 2018 Background and Purpose of the Review The pre -application process is for proposed development projects, typically a Zoning Map Amendment or Special Use Permit. The purpose of the process is to gather input from the Planning Commission on the proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the appropriateness of the proposed use and/or to determine other major issues with the project that need to be addressed. The action of the Planning Commission is non -binding but is meant to help an applicant know whether a project is worth pursuing further. This pre -application work session is for a potential rezoning proposal. Specifics about the property and proposal are provided below. Characteristics of the Site & Area The property consists of three parcels located in the Places29-North Development area on the east side of Route 29 (Attachment A). Two of the parcels (TMP32-5A1 and 32-5A) are bounded on three sides by the North Fork Rivanna River and a tributary stream called Flat Branch. There are 13 existing dwelling units on these parcels; seven are single family detached units and six are duplexes. These parcels have an existing entrance off of Route 29 and a shared driveway to access the residences. The third parcel (TMP 32-221<1) is south of Flat Branch. This parcel is currently vacant and mostly wooded. Future access to this site will be provided through the development of North Pointe, directly south of the parcel. All three parcels are currently zoned RA Rural Areas. The property contains critical resources including areas of Flood Hazard Overlay, Preserved Steep Slopes, and Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) buffers (Attachment B). The Places29 Master Plan designates TMPs 32-5A and 32-5A1 as Neighborhood Density Residential and TMP 32-221<1 as Urban Density Residential. All three parcels also have land designated Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features (Attachment C). Specifics of the Proposal The applicant is considering an Neighborhood Model District (NMD) zoning to allow for commercial/office uses on TMP 32-221<1 and multi -family residential on TMPs 32-5A and 32-5A1. The CCP application materials show an approximately 30,000 square foot office building on TMP 32-221<1 and 5 multi -family residential units for a total of 145 studio and one -bedroom apartments on TMP 325A1 (Attachment D). Access for TMP 32-5A1 is proposed through TMP 32-5A. The applicant has included three questions with his application materials for the Planning Commission to consider for the proposal. Staff has added a fourth question for the Commission's consideration. The questions are listed below, followed by staff's interpretation of the Master Plan recommendations for each question. The Places29 Master Plan recommends a density of 6-34 units per acre for land designated as Urban Density Residential (orange color on map below) and 3-6 units per acre for land designated as Neighborhood Density Residential (yellow). The applicant is proposing to apply density from TMP 32- 22K1, which is designated as Urban Density Residential to TMP 32-5A1, which is designated as Neighborhood Density residential. CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge Staff is of the opinion that the proposed transfer of density is not appropriate. TMP 32-22K1 and TMP 32-5A are separated by a river and tributary stream, stream buffers, preserved slopes, and a wide area of floodplain. The constraints created by these environmental features would preclude development on these parcels from being able to establish shared amenities, infrastructure, and interconnectivity, beyond a possible pedestrian connection between the two pieces. In addition, TMP32-5A1 is mostly surrounded by the North Fork Rivanna River and a tributary stream. This limits opportunities to provide additional emergency access points. Allowing higher densities would increase the number of dwellings, which may be impact in a emergency situation. Due to the physical separation, the distance between the properties, the inability to establish a relationship through shared facilities, and the inability to establish a second connection for emergency access, transferring density does not seem appropriate. Q2If the property were to be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District, would pedestrian connections connecting the portion of development adjacent to Rt 29 (TMP32-22Kl) and the portion of the development further northeast (TMP 32-5A and 32-5Af) sufficiently satisfy connectivity and neighborhood model principles as identified in the Comprehensive Plan? Stafrs revised question: Would Neighborhood Model District (NMD) be an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development or should the applicant seek separate zoning designations for the proposed commercial and residential pieces? The applicant has suggested NMD zoning for the three parcels and asks if pedestrian connectivity between the two would suffice as an interconnection. Staff has rephrased the question to ask if NMD would be the appropriate zoning or if the two pieces should be considered separately. As mentioned above, the commercial and residential portions of the proposed development are physically separated by protected environmental features with nearly a quarter mile of constrained land between the two pieces. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 'The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other," (Section 20A.1). The commercial and residential pieces of the proposed development are neither integrated nor compact. Beyond a possible pedestrian trial, the commercial and residential components of this proposal do not appear to have any relationship to one another or shared features. For these reasons, staff recommends that these two properties be considered with separate rezoning applications. Likewise, any development on TMP 32-221<1 is more likely to relate to the property to the south, which is the proposed North Pointe development. Due to the location of the stream and floodplain, the future access for TMP 32-22K1 is through North Pointe. Because the two future developments would be in close proximity and have a shared road network, the design and development of TMP32-22K1 should be compatible with and relate to the adjacent North Pointe development. CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge 03 Would neighborhood scale commercial use (i.e. veterinarian office, barber shop, voga studio, etc.) in an area designated as urban density residential (specifically TMP 32-22K1) be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? The Places29 Master Plan recommends neighborhood retail/commercial service as secondary uses in Urban Density Residential. For reference, Places29 Master Plan defines secondary uses for Urban Density Residential as follows (P. 4-5): Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live/work units, open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents throughout the surrounding area, and so they benefit from co -location with other neighborhood -serving businesses. However, they may be located by exception in areas around Centers designated Urban Density Residential provided they are compatible with surrounding uses. This area is not recommended/designated as a Center location on the Land Use Plan. Staff agrees that the uses described by the applicant, with the proper scale, are consistent with the secondary uses recommended by the Master Plan. Uses for this site should not consist of highway/regional scale commercial uses. Staff also agrees that these secondary uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-221<1, especially given its proximity to the residential portions of North Pointe. The proposed development could supplement the adjacent residential uses by providing neighborhood serving commercial uses. With the design of the site, staff would recommend the applicant consider the Neighborhood Model principles of pedestrian orientation, relegated parking, and buildings and spaces of human scale. 04 (Additional question from staff) What land should be available for development and calculating potential density? Is strict adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan as Open Space required or should the area available for development be calculated using more recent mapping technology that better depicts the environmental features (stream buffer, preserved slopes)? When the Master Plan was adopted, the designation of Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features was intended to capture open space owned by HOAs or other private entities and environmental features such as floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands and other areas of environmental constraints where construction of buildings is discouraged. Since the Master Plan was adopted, the County has adopted the Steep Slopes Overlay district which designating preserved and managed slopes. Since that time staff has also completed more detailed and accurate mapping of the streams and their buffers. See graphics below for a comparison between the Master Plan and current GIS data. CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge Current GIS data: Water Protection Buffer (red), Floodplain (blue), and Preserved Slopes (green) Places29 Master Plan: Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features (green) As the side by side exhibits demonstrate, there are several environmental features including preserved slopes and stream buffers that were not designated as Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features at the time of the Places29 Master Plan adoption. With a previous rezoning proposal in Crozet, the Planning Commission determined that the current GIS data should be used in calculating the available density for a property (see Attachment E for PC Minutes). Staff would like to confirm that the same approach should be used to calculate density for these properties. While staff is in agreement that the GIS should be used to calculate the net density of the site, it is important to note that there is a significant difference between potential buildout of the properties when comparing the two methods. When calculating density for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 using the Places29 boundaries, the site could accommodate approximately 88 units (assuming no transferring of density from TMP 32-22K1). When calculating density using the GIS data, the maximum buildout of the two parcels is approximately 55 units, for a difference of 33 units between the two methods. While this may be an appropriate adjustment, considering the significant environmental constraints on the site, it should be balanced against other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including affordable housing and Rural Area protection. Limiting the density on the site could result in fewer but more expensive units. Similarly, limiting Development Area density could accelerate pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries and could drive some residential growth to the Rural Areas. Other Possible Issues: In addition to questions relating to density and zoning, it is likely that with a more complete review of this project, staff and other reviewers could identify additional issues or considerations that were not part of the review for the CCP request. A few early observations are noted below, that will need additional scrutiny v%fith future reviews on these properties: 1. Access to 32-5A1 appears to cross the WPO-buffer and areas of preserved slopes. The presence of these features could limit the ability of the site to be developed to a higher intensity, especially if upgrades to the existing driveway would be required. 2. As mentioned above, more scrutiny is needed to see how the development of TMP 32-22K1 would relate to the adjacent residential portion of North Pointe. 3. A full Neighborhood Model review should be completed with any future rezoning of the properties. CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge Summary: Question 1: Staff is of the opinion that transferring the density from TMP 32-22K1 to TMP 32-5A is not appropriate. Question 2: Staff does not believe that NMD is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development and recommends that the development of the property as proposed be considered with separate rezoning applications. Question 3: Staff agrees that the listed commercial uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-221<1 with the appropriate design and scale, serving as secondary uses to the adjacent North Pointe development. Question 4: Staff recommends that the GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of the site The Planning Commission is asked to affirm these conclusions or suggest alternative recommendations as guidance to help the applicant determine next steps and whether the project is worth pursuing further. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Critical Resources Attachment C: Places29 Land Use Map Attachment D: Application and materials Attachment E: Adelaide minutes (February 23, 2016) CCP2018-04 Rivers' Edge ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 Rivers Edge Density Calculations and Accessory Unit Regulations Calculating Density: Density is calculated differently for rezonings and special use permits, using the Comprehensive Plan, as compared with by -right applications, using the Zoning Ordinance: Comprehensive Plan: The policy of Strategy 8c (Development Areas, Chapter 8) of the Comprehensive Plan is that rezoning and special use permit applications should calculate density using net density by excluding land area that is designated as parks/greenspace and land area included in steep slopes, stream buffers, and floodplain. Zoning Ordinance: Density for by -right developments is calculated using gross density, which includes all land area in the development. The net density of this rezoning application is 12 units/acre, while the gross density is 3 units/acre. The recommended density in the Places29 Master Plan is 3-6 units/acre. Accessory Unit Regulations: Zoning Ordinance 18-5.1.34: This section of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for accessory apartments, including (but not limited to) the following: • Accessory units must be within the structure of the main dwelling, not freestanding. • Only one accessory unit per dwelling unit. • The gross floor area (GFA) dedicated to the accessory unit cannot exceed 35 percent of the total GFA for the overall structure. • "A single-family dwelling which adds an accessory apartment shall be deemed to remain a single-family dwelling and shall be considered one dwelling unit for purposes of area and bulk regulations of the district in which such dwelling is located. " • "A guest or rental cottage shall not be deemed to be an accessory apartment, but shall be deemed to be a single-family detached dwelling, whether or not used as such, subject to area and bulk regulations of the district in which such cottage is located. No accessory apartment shall be permitted within any guest or rental cottage." Several Neighborhood Model District (NMD) rezonings have incorporated accessory units or carriage units. Carriage units are permitted to be separate from the main dwelling. Below are examples of approved NMD and their regulations: Southwood: The Southwood Code of Development (ZMA201800003) allows for accessory apartment units and flex units. These units are size -restricted to a maximum of 1,000 square feet and do not count toward the overall density of the development. Brookhill: The Brookhill Code of Development (ZMA201500007) allows for carriage houses. They are restricted in size to not exceed 35% of the total gross floor area of the main dwelling, and they do count towards the overall density of the development. Belvedere: The Belvedere Code of Development (ZMA200400007) allows for carriage houses, which are restricted to a maximum of 800 square feet. Carriage houses "are separate, detached, independent living units" and do count toward the overall density of the development. Riverside Village: The Riverside Village Code of Development (ZMA2012000002; ZMA201500003; ZMA201600019) allows for accessory apartments and uses the existing Zoning Ordinance regulations per 18-5.1.34. These units do not count toward the overall density of the development as permitted under 18-5.1.34. Previous Application Decisions Regarding Density: Galaxie Farm rezoning request: October 15, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Summary: The Planning Commission found that one additional affordable unit was not sufficient justification for exceeding the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. Rivers Edge CCP: October 16, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Summary: The Planning Commission recommended using GIS-date to calculate the area for net density, instead of the area designated Parks/Green systems in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommended against transferring density with the Urban Density Residential designated parcel (TMP 32-22M) to the south. Riverside Village rezoning request: March 21, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Summary: The Planning Commission recommended approval (and the Board approved) of the request to increase the number of units in Riverside Village above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Board found that the request was acceptable for the following reasons: the CAC had no objection to the request; the location is a walkable area with residential and employment uses; there was existing development approved in the location, and the previously approved commercial use is being substituted with additional residential units. Albemarle County Planning Commission October 16, 2018 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Julian Bivins, Pam Riley, Vice -Chair; Jennie More, Daphne Spain, Karen Firehock, Bruce Dotson and Mr. Carrazana (UVA Rep). Other officials present were Rachael Falkenstein, Principal Planner; Andrew Gast -Bray, Assistant Director of Community Development/Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Hearing none, the meeting moved to the next agenda item. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes: January 30, 2018, February 6, 2018, February 13, 2018, June 26, 2018, and August 7, 2018 Mr. Keller asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item off the consent agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion. Ms. More moved, Mr. Dotson seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 7:0. The meeting moved to the next item. Work Session. PROJECT: CCP201800004 — River's Edge MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 03200-00-00-005A0, 03200-00-00-005A1, 03200-00-00-022K1 LOCATION: 2256 Rivers Edge Lane PROPOSAL: Potentially rezone property to increase the number of units allowed by -right and to add commercial space. PETITION: Potentially rezone 37.74 acres from RA Rural Areas, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses, and residential at a density of 0.5 unittacre in development lots, to a different district, which allows mixed use development. A maximum of 145 units is being considered for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre and approximately 31,000 square foot of commercial/office. Proposed density of the project, based on the Master Plan (net density), is 8.37 units per acre. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Property is in the Places29-North Development Area. Master Plan ALBEMART F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES shows uses as Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre) with supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units/acre) with supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; and Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features — privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features. (Rachel Falkenstein) Ms. Rachael Falkenstein presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report for CCP- 2018-00004 River's Edge for the Commission's consideration. Tonight's work session is a compliance with the Comprehensive Plan review. This is an application received from time to time to gather input from the Planning Commission on proposed projects consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and it typically proceeds an application for a rezoning or a special use permit. The project tonight would be a potential rezoning and it is really just meant to help the applicant to understand how the Comprehensive Plan would be interpreted about the project and then to just know if the project is worth pursuing further. No action is taken tonight and the feedback you give is nonbinding. Back round On Site: • The property is located on Route 29 North on TMP 32-22K1, 32-5A, 32-5A1 just south of the NGIC property. • Total acreage 37.7. • RA, Rural Area Zoning within the Designated Development Areas for Places29. • Comp Plan: Neighborhood Density Residential, the parcel south of the river is Urban Density, and it has some areas of privately owned open space • There are some significant natural features: North Fork Rivanna around most of the property, Flat Branch, Floodplain, WPO buffer and preserved slopes. • The current use of the property is residential. There are about 14 existing units on the property and the rest of it is mostly wooded. The property to the south is undeveloped. Ms. Falkenstein said the next slide shows the applicant's proposal for the property, again, it is conceptual at this point. The applicant is proposing 145 multi -family residential units on this piece and then approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial office to the south. Ms. Falkenstein said as you saw in your staff report there are four questions for consideration tonight and she planned to go through these one by one, talk a little bit about the question, what staffs interpretation of the plan is, and then pause after each question and allow the Commission to discuss and consider each question. Mr. Keller asked if everybody was comfortable with doing that taking it one piece of time, and the Commissioners agreed. Ms. Falkenstein noted the first question is: 1. Can density from TMP 32-22K1 (Urban Density Residential) be applied to TMP32-5A1 (Neighborhood Density Residential), considering the separation caused by the river and other environmental resources. Ms. Falkenstein noted the parcels north, 5A and 5A1 are designated for Neighborhood Density Residential (yellow): that call for 3-6 units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan and the parcel to the south, which is 22K1 is designated Urban Density Residential (orange) which recommends 6-34 units per acre. ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES She said the applicant is asking if they can apply some of the density from this piece to the other piece above as per the applicant's calculation based on their survey of the property and the developable land. So, the applicant is saying the two Neighborhood Density Residential pieces can accommodate 88 units (TMPs 5A & 5A1 (14.7 acres developable land) x (6 units/acre) = 88 units). Ms. Falkenstein said she would pause for a second to talk a little bit about net density versus gross density and this will come up in question 4 as well. She said when we calculate density on a site with a rezoning and we look at the Comprehensive Plan we use a net density calculation and that means we subtract out areas of green spaces that are not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for development. She noted in this site would be the areas shown in green and we will talk about whether the Comprehensive Plan or the GIS should be used to calculate net density — that is a future question, but she just wants to point out that the applicant for the sake of this question used the Comprehensive Plan net to calculate density. She said the applicant is saying that 88 units on the developable acres 14.7 of these two parcels; 89 units on the orange piece is asking if they can apply some of the units from this piece to increase the density here, sort of borrow density from down here and apply it up here. She pointed out they are asking for 145 units on this piece whereby the calculation would only allow 88 units if you only apply Neighborhood Density. (TMP 22K1 (2.62 acres developable land) x (34 units/acre) = 89 units Total =171 units for all 3 uarcels Staffs recommendation: Ms. Falkenstein said staffs recommendation is that would not be an appropriate transfer of density given the large physical separation between the two properties and the fact that it would not be an integrated development or have any really shared infrastructure or features. She invited discussion and questions. Mr. Keller pointed out we are going to see if the Commission has questions for each of these and then we will open to the applicant and go back to the next question. He asked if the Commission wants to hear from the applicant. Ms. Firehock suggested that the Commission hear the entire presentation and then we can have a more reasonable deliberation. Mr. Keller asked staff to go through all the points now, hear from the applicant and then we will go point by point for our response to you, and Ms. Falkenstein replied yes that would work. Ms. More asked when you are talking about the net density calculation you are saying the green space was taken out; however, you do calculate the stream buffer, floodplain and critical slopes. Ms. Falkenstein responded that she would talk about that a little bit more with question 4 — but for this number of 88 units it is based on the calculation of the Comprehensive Plan, which is shown in the Comprehensive Plan map, with the green space subtracted out. She said there is a discrepancy between what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and what is shown on the GIS. Ms. Falkenstein said the second question is: 2. Would Neighborhood Model District (NNM) be an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development or should the applicant seek separate zoning designations for the proposed commercial and residential pieces? Ms. Falkenstein said that for this one she took a snippet from our ordinance about the purpose of the Neighborhood Model Zoning District; it is intended to provide for compact, mixed -use developments with an urban scale massing density and an infrastructure configuration that integrates the versified uses ALBEMART A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 3 FINAL MINUTES within close proximity to each other. Therefore, she overlaid the applicant's proposal on the GIS and you can see there are two separate developments and she would not call these integrated or sharing density and infrastructure. Staff's recommendation: The commercial and residential pieces are not integrated and therefore an NMD zoning district would not be appropriate. Staff recommends the two pieces be considered with separate zoning applications and not Neighborhood Model District. Ms. Falkenstein said the third question is: 3. Would neighborhood scale commercial use (i.e. veterinarian office, barber shop, yoga studio, etc.) in an area designated as urban density residential (specifically TMP 32-22K1) be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Falkenstein said the language from the Comprehensive Plan had been listed in the presentation of some of the uses that would be appropriate within Urban Density Residential and you can see it allows for retail commercial office uses that would be supportive of the neighborhood. Although it recommends these in centers, they could be appropriate in areas around centers by section. Staffs recommendation: • Staff agrees that the uses described by the applicant, with the proper scale, are consistent with the secondary uses recommended by the Master Plan. • The proposed development could supplement the adjacent proposed residential uses (North Pointe). North Pointe is under site plan review right now, so it will be coming soon, and we think it would be a good mix of uses and supportive of that neighborhood to the south. • With the design of the site, staff would recommend the applicant consider the Neighborhood Model principles of pedestrian orientation, relegated parking, and buildings and spaces of human scale. Ms. Falkenstein said next is the fourth question. She pointed out the first three questions were submitted by the applicant and the fourth question is a staff question since we just wanted to get clarification on this in how we calculate density on a site. She said this comes back to Commissioner More's question - what land should be available for development in calculating potential density. 4. (Additional question from staff) What land should be available for development and calculating potential density? Is strict adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan as Open Space required or should the area available for development be calculated using more recent mapping technology, which better depicts the environmental features (stream buffer, preserved slopes)? Ms. Falkenstein said on the slide staff put side by side the Comprehensive Plan map showing the area designated for green space and then the map on the right is the GIS showing the stream buffer, preserved slopes and green stream buffer and then the area of floodplain on the property. As you can see there are several areas that are not shown as green space specifically the slopes and some areas of stream buffer that pinch on the property that are not shown as green space on the Comprehensive Plan. The question is which map should be used to calculate the net density of the property. Ms. Falkenstein said she did a side -by -side comparison of what the calculations would be for the density. Ms. Falkenstein noted when the Master Plan was adopted; the designation of Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features was intended to capture open space owned by HOAs or other private entities and environmental features such as floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands and other areas of environmental constraints where construction of buildings is discouraged. Since the Master Plan was ALBEMARi A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES adopted, the County has adopted the Steep Slopes Overlay district which designating preserved and managed slopes. Since that time staff has also completed more detailed and accurate mapping of the streams and their buffers. See graphics in presentation for a comparison between the Master Plan and current GIS data. Staffs Recommended Approach GIS Critical Resources Net Density Calculation Comp Plan Land Use Map Net Density Calculation (see PP 5A Developable Acreage: L9 5A1 Developable Acreage: 12.8 Total Developable Acreage: 14.7 (14.7 acres) x (6 DU/acre) = 88.7 DUs Staffs recommended approach: GIS Critical Resources Net Density Calculation (See PP) 5A Developable Acreage: —1 5A1 Developable Acreage: — 8.2 Total Developable Acreage: 9.2 (9.2 acres) x (6DU/acre) = 55.2 DUs GIS measurements are approximate The difference between the two methods is about 33 units. Stairs recommendation is consistent with PC's recommendation the proposed Adelaide development in Crozet Summary of Staff Recommendations Ouestion 1: Staff is of the opinion that transferring the density from TMP 32-22K1 to TMP 32-5A is not appropriate. Ouestion 2: Staff does not believe that NMD is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development and recommends that the development of the property as proposed be considered with separate rezoning qpplications. Ouestion 3: Staff agrees that the listed commercial uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-22K1 as secondary uses, with the appropriate design and scale. Ouestion 4: Staff recommends that more accurate GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of the site. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Hearing none, Mr. Keller opened for public comment and invited the applicant to speak. Ms. Kelsey Shriner, Planner with Shimp Engineering, said here with me is Justin Shimp, President of Shimp Engineering. Ms. Shriner said starting off with our questions for the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that Rachael has already gone over and additionally based on staffs final fourth question since you have already heard these there is no need to review, but there was one more question that we had. She said the County is committed to preservation of the Waal areas and critical environmental resources to accommodate future populations. The County has designated the development areas as land for future growth; land area is limited in the development areas and it would be prudent for the County to develop these areas efficiently and at an appropriate scale. Given that ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES regulations exist to preserve critical environmental resources and stated housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan what is the benefit to the County to subtract this land area from density calculations. Ms. Shriner said the purpose of this work session she is really hoping it is an opportunity for a conversation to move towards creative development of this area. Therefore, she hopes that it is okay if Justin and I talk through this together and you ask questions as they arise and asked to have a conversation about this. She said in comparison maps the future land use map offers 14.9 acres to be used towards the density calculation. With the County GIS, it is approximately 8.6 acres and then these maps overlaid with one another what the developable area is here. So, the breakdown to provide an understanding of how the numbers of units that could possibly be accommodated on this site given the difference between net and gross density calculations. So, to walk through this — the calculation area for 32-5A and 32-5A1, which are the two parcels that are designated as Neighborhood Density Residential from 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre that would allow approximately 97 to 195 units if the total land area could be calculated towards density on the site. Then using the future land use map at 14.9 acres the possible density is reduced to 44 to 89 units giving you effectively 1.4 to 2.7 dwelling units per acre. With the overlay of the GIS, you are looking at 8.6 acres and you were saying the dwelling units to 25 to 51 and reducing the dwelling units per acre .8 to 1.6, which is not consistent with density recommendations for the development areas in the residential. Mr. Justin Shimp asked to jump in and talk about this since it has been talked about before and this map is a good one to look at - the yellow there is effectively the areas we are allowed to build in and so regardless of how many units, whether it be 10 or 1,000 that is the area we could touch essentially. So, in looking at this net density, and as Kelsey said the question that comes to our mind is if taking those areas out isn't changing the area disturbed then is that contributing towards preservation of green areas or is it contributing towards a loss of housing stock. He said that is the concern that we have when you say oh well we are just going to take this and knock down the number of units, you are not actually preserving more stream buffer, you are not actually protecting any waterways differently, you are just building larger more expensive units in the same acreage and we don't necessarily see that as a good thing. She said so in the context of the rest of this he suggested you think about that and we are curious to hear your thoughts. Ms. Firehock why not ask for an increase in density more than the Comprehensive Plan — you don't intend to disturb steep slopes but want to build more densely. Mr. Shimp replied that before we finalize the plan we will have a very high-level debate first for more compact scale for more density on the site and how you are going to weigh that for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Firehock said that it becomes challenging in calculating density and why do it different from Adelaide. She suggested tabling this and continue. Ms. Falkenstein said that kind of is getting to question 1 that we want to know what density would be appropriate to transfer density to the NH density piece. Ms. Firehock said she was trying to think how we arrive at that without throwing the math out the window. She suggested that the minutes be pulled for previous discussions on this issue. Mr. Gast -Bray said what density you think is appropriate in asking for rezoning and in a sense at one point trying to redo when ask what makes sense. He said we have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in how we have done that and there are different arguments in how the Planning ALBEMART F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 6 FINAL MINUTES Commission rules and the precedent on Comprehensive Plan deliberation. Mr. Gast -Bray noted that he can't answer that for you. Mr. Shimp noted there have not been very many rezonings; however we are looking at it in the County's best interest. The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff and the applicant about the proposal. Mr. Keller invited public comment. Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said it was sort of a fundamental question with this if we bring the discussion back to this proposal that relates to some of the questions that are before you tonight. As he sees it this proposal is basically asking to stretch two different Comprehensive Plan designations. The first one is to allow Urban Residential Density on the parcel that is designated for Neighborhood Residential Density and the second one is to have secondary uses, so basically commercial uses not only be the primary use on that Urban Residential designated parcel but be the only use on that parcel. He said so basically you have this Urban Residential parcel on the south and the Neighborhood Density Residential and the applicant is seeking to pull the density up to the northern part, which is designated for less density, and do commercial instead on the parcel that is designated for high density residential. Mr. Butler said my question is why not simply the Urban Density Residential on the Urban Density Residential parcel do, drop the commercial on that parcel, and then do the Neighborhood Density Residential on the Neighborhood Density Residential portion. He said the benefits of this approach would be that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and you are not doing those two distortions that we just talked about and he thinks there are other potential benefits that would be worth thinking through one of which is if we put the high density on the northern part he thinks that poses a problem that if the high density is on the southern parcel you are channeling the traffic from that high density development through the North Pointe entrance onto 29, which is already a designated entrance. Mr. Butler said if we have the high density in this other area then that is presumably going to create a new intersection perhaps with a new traffic light on Route 29 and that is not the way we want to be treating that primary highway. He said if my memory serves me correctly he thinks that Neighborhood Residential density on the border of NGIC was intentional when Places29 was developed. He said there were reasons why they were thinking well I am not sure we want to have high density right there next to NGIC. Mr. Butler said he also wants to point out that the application itself talks about the point of the project is to put high density residential and the problem is the lack of ample housing types since we want to create housing opportunities with a mixture of housing types and there is actually a portion of the application that says if there is a desire by either the applicant or the County for more residential space within the development the proposed commercial space could be repurposed as multi -family residential units. He said so again, maybe there is a very simple question to this that he is not privy to, but to me the question is why not do the Urban Density Residential on the Urban Density Residential piece, do the Neighborhood Density Residential on the Neighborhood Density Residential piece, be consistent with you Comprehensive Plan and avoid some of these thorny proportions that we are being asked to do. Thank you. Mr. Keller invited further public comment. Hearing none, he invited the applicant to come back up for rebuttal. He pointed out that in response to the last speaker that my feeling was that we were going to be addressing that when we go back with staff to go over the four questions. ALBFMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Shimp said we certainly imagine that the density of the two together would not exceed the sum so if we went with some residential density on the Urban Density piece that would reduce the available density on the northern piece. He said what those numbers end up being are obviously in the point of discussion here. He said there are other things such as the access that he could clarify that they were only going to have a right in and right out on 29 from this other entrance and we have already talked to VDOT about that and that is understood that there is not going to be a new light or anything like that. Mr. Shimp said so there is not really going to be a transportation impact from the difference between 50 and 100 units on the northern parcel. Mr. Shimp said as far as the commercial uses it probably is not likely to do that as all commercial, we were just illustrating how much would fit there; but probably you would have a mixture on that particular site. He said it is attached to North Point which is all residential on that end so it seemed like maybe some commercial use in there to sort of cap off that high density neighborhood made sense, but he did not know that it would not be a mix of both in which case we would subtract that amount from what we took from the other side and that would be limiting our density there. He pointed out that is how we viewed it. Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he asked staff to lead us through the questions. Ms. Falkenstein said to recap this question is whether the Comprehensive Plan map or the more recent GIS data should be used to calculate net density on the site and staff's recommendation is for the GIS. Mr. Dotson said just a reaction to that and then he has a follow-on question. The applicant is saying that if you use the reduced acreage you are limiting the development potential of the growth area. The other way to view it is that development potential was never there because of the constraints on the land and so that is a different way of viewing it. He said my question is the Comprehensive Plan says Neighborhood density which 3 to 6 units to the acre is and so if the applicant came in for a standard rezoning they could request R3 or R6. Ms. Falkenstein replied that we don't have R-3, so they could request R-2, R-4 or R-6 or any residential rezoning but it is a question of how we calculate whether this is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and which map we use. Mr. Dotson said unless there was a traffic issue that he would assume it would be a straight forward conventional rezoning. Ms. Falkenstein replied the way we do that in the past is ask for a proffered plan that is no longer on the table with conventional rezoning and typically we ask applicant to max even with the rezoning. Mr. Herrick noted that it was ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors if their concerns are met for the rezoning application. Mr. Dotson asked if the Board decided that R-6 was okay or whatever and then the next steps would be the site plan and at that point the determination would be made of the number of dwelling units. Ms. Falkenstein replied with R-4 or R-6 no constraints and the gross density calculation was done at that point. ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson said he wondered why the applicant is not doing that and suggested bringing up under new business discussion about how calculating that is different from net density which is a zoning term. Mr. Keller said the Commission would start with the first question and go through each one. The Planning Commission discussed and provided the following responses to staffs questions. Ql: Can density from TMP 32-22K1 (Urban Density Residential) be applied to TMP32-5A1 (Neighborhood Density Residential), considering the separation caused by the river and other environmental resources. estion 1: Staff believes transferring the density from TMP 32-22K1 to TMP 32-5A is not appropriate. Question 1: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation. 02: Would Neighborhood Model District (NMD) be an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development or should the applicant seek separate zoning designations for the proposed commercial and residential pieces? Question 2: Staff does not believe that NMD is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed development and recommends that the development of the property as proposed be considered with separate rezoning applications. Question 2: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation. 03: Would neighborhood scale commercial use (i.e. veterinarian office, barber shop, yoga studio, etc.) in an area designated as urban density residential (specifically TMP 32-22K1) be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? Question 3: Staff agrees that the listed commercial uses could be appropriate on TMP 32-22K1 as secondary uses, with the appropriate design and scale. Question 3: The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation noting connectivity was important. Q4 (Additional question from staff): What land should be available for development and calculating potential density? Is strict adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan as Open Space required or should the area available for development be calculated using more recent mapping technologv that better depicts the environmental features (stream buffer, preserved Slopes)? Question 4: Staff recommends that more accurate GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of the site. Question 4: The Planning Commission was in general agreement with staffs recommendation that more accurate GIS-data should be used to calculate the net density of the site. (Ms. Fire hock disagreed and suggested gross density be used for the calculation.) ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Carrazana agreed with staff noting at UVA we consider gross, however, take the last GIS information looking at the buffers; however, we need to maximize buildable area and be good stewards. He said you need the lastest information for the master planning and site planning and can do that by being conscious of the environment and get to the question of what the density is. He suggested using the latest data and technology and for a complex challenging site he was concerned with what potentially could happen to a site with the river condition and the low point of access — dipping down in site and coming up bluff where building on. He said there would have to be disturbance at that point and raised the question of who is controlling the river, which needs a follow-on conversation. Mr. Dotson said he had a question of the applicant about the narrative that said studio/one-bedroom apartments. Mr. Shrimp said we concur with that, the issue would be if you only have 8 acres and we take it in the broader context of there is 168 townhomes being built in North Point directly and those are all going to be three -bedroom townhomes. He said we would take that in the context of the whole corridor there and not our individual acreage. Ms. Firehock said this is because it acts like an island and she thinks of it more as its own neighborhood because it really can't interact that well physically because of being built on a hill that is almost pinched off. Mr. Shimp said that we will think of that as we move forward. Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant. He said as a follow up on this that a lot of what we are seeing as a response to the lending market so we are seeing these as rentals as opposed to ownership and looking into the future do you see opportunities for the studio and one -bedroom units being converted after their time out or their 15-year or whatever to owner occupancy. As we are talking about a different kind of density in our country he just wonders about that and whether they will lend themselves to that and if they will continue to be rentals well into the future. Mr. Shimp replied in response to that what we are looking at is more of a small scaled attached housing and that becomes the easier way for home ownership. He pointed out they did a condo building at Riverside Village and they have every unit type in that development — there is 24-unit condo in the back so the operating costs to get that up means you really have to sell those units for $300,000 and up a piece to make that work. He said that it would be nice to build a $100,000 condo that could be owner occupied but he thinks that is going to be difficult in terms of cost of getting that started but maybe the answer would be in the less dense developments not the family style but going with much smaller houses for thoughtfully designed duplexes and triplexes that can be owner occupied with whatever lending perimeters there are. He said maybe 15 years from now that will be different but now my clients are saying we want to separate rental from owner occupied because of that sort of end use constraints. Ms. Firehock commented that she would like to see more diversity of unit types in building since otherwise it would be limited to a small set of demographics such as older community or students and there would be no opportunity for more stability and if get married would have to leave. She said that it would be a transient place and not a solid community and she did not like to see all of one type. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Shimp and noted the meeting would move to the committee reports and would have a conversation under new business. Committee Reports ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 10 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Keller invited committee reports. Ms. Riley reported: • The Village of Rivanna CAC met and received an update on the Rivanna Village. Currently about 85% of phase 1 infrastructure is complete and they plan to start phase 2 in four to six months. The second item is that three of the staff members David Hannah, Bill Fritz and Tory Canopalas presented the draft proposal to improve stream health in the development area and we had a good discussion around that. Mr. Bivins reported: • The Hydraulic CAC went on a tour of the Charlotte Humphries Park to appreciate what might make it more accessible and usable to the public. There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item. Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting- October 10, 2018. Mr. Gast -Bray reviewed the actions taken on above dates. Old Business Mr. Keller invited old business. Mr. Dotson said he wondered if there is a fee when we have a review and report like the one we just finished, and Ms. Falkenstein replied no, it is free. Mr. Dotson said it is obviously a significant amount of work, but they don't come to us very often and he thinks it has been useful tonight to have that discussion. Mr. Keller said the question is there a long-range savings in your time by having this happen up front. Ms. Falkenstein replied that she thinks it is useful on a unique situation like this to have your feedback ahead of time rather than staff going back and forth with the applicant and us disagreeing; it is just good to get ahead of it. Mr. Keller said that he would think when there is as much agreement with staff as there in a situation like this it is quite useful, and he would imagine when there are split views on it. Mr. Gast -Bray added that the guidance for how to improve as we move things forward it is rare that we get a chance to dialogue with you on the Comprehensive Plan itself and sort of the interpretation directly because there is usually an application in front of you that you are judging. He said so for us it is useful information and thinks we will see a little bit of that in the new business discussion that apparently is coming. Ms. Riley said she was assuming in this case the applicant requested the work session, but sometimes does the staff recommend a work session as opposed to moving forward in a pre -application discussion. Ms. Falkenstein replied yes, and she believed that was the case with this one, but she was not at the pre -application meeting. She said typically what happens is an applicant will come in and have a unique interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan that staff is either not in support of or is not sure and wants the Planning Commission's feedback, so we recommend sometimes applicants do it. She pointed how there ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 11 FINAL MINUTES is no application for it, so the applicant has to ask for it, fill out an application but there is no fee for it. New Business Mr. Keller invited new business. He said one item is to continue the Planning Commission's discussion of the density calculation and by right and whether there is a ramification of that which is counter -productive to zoning and it fits with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted this is something that came up on the old F1AC days in the development community as the proffers were going away we were projecting that this was going to become more and more a set of issues. He said Mr. Shimp has weighed in on that for us as well when we had a discussion with developers. He said the second one, if we have any time, is an interesting thing he saw and maybe Ms. Firebrick has more information on this, but it was the idea as developments have done work in what would be the public zone so that when we are thinking about 29 North in particular that the landscape zones then become part of a Park Authority. He said so you are really working for a continuous flow of green space under the same Authority. Mr. Keller suggested that they discuss this if they have time and if not may be another time. He asked if someone could take the lead on the density discussion. Mr. Carrazana said that one of the questions that he has and if he understands as staff describes it that by right they are using gross density and Ms. Falkenstein replied that is correct. Mr. Carrazana said if someone rezones you now switch to net density. Ms. Falkenstein replied that is correct in the zoning process so typically with the rezoning you have an application plan especially for planned developments, you have application plans that will show a proposed development's proposed density and we typically recommend the density be capped at that net density calculation. She said that becomes part of the approved rezoning as a cap on the number of dwelling units that can be allowed on the property in the future. Mr. Carrazana asked what the rationale is, and Ms. Falkenstein replied the Comprehensive Plan guides us to that and has strategies saying that net density should be used when calculating density on the property. Mr. Gast -Bray said they are moving towards, especially you will be seeing with Rio 29, we are trying to basically get more specific about performance. He said but you have to remember back when this was done we were doing most things not by form but by density. He said so density is a proxy for the kind of development you expect that to be, but he does not know that is specifically for the case of Albemarle because he was not here at that time, but generally that is the rule. Mr. Gast -Bray said they are thinking what that looks like 3 to 6 dwelling units, etc. He said so by having it be the net density you are kind of trying to say well with the net density that is the only place you can build and then 3 to 6 kinds of gives you an indication of what that building might look like. He said that usually derives from that, but he was assuming that is the case here, but he was not here at the time. He said as a result that is why staff recommends that sort of is the thought process that went through in developing that, but you would have to confirm that. Mr. Gast -Bray noted that being said, in the future if we start looking at that he thinks the applicant is somewhat right we have more tools at our disposal, we are talking more about what the explicit thing about the form is and we should be looking at doing an economy of scale with our resources because it is much more expensive to have a spread out kind of density that we have to serve with the same amount of infrastructure that we could serve with less infrastructure in a tighter pattern. He said that is a possibility, but he has learned over the two years here at Albemarle he does not like to interpret things based on ALBEMART A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 12 FINAL MINUTES anything other than the history of what Albemarle was thinking at that time. He said that is why he thinks there is a distinction between what they were thinking at that time and what we may be thinking in the future with where are we would like to go and be more explicit and make that calculation much clearer and thinks we get ourselves caught in the vagueness, etc. He said to someone's point, the Comprehensive Plan is a vision and you must have the right to express that vision without having calculated and planned everything. However, we have not really adjusted our zoning to reflect where that is, so we are using the Comprehensive Plan vision as sort of the tool to get to this future minus having done that rezoning. Mr. Gast -Bray said so at some point we must figure out how that mechanism really needs to work that we are getting as close to the vision that we hope to get as possible but planning in enough of the flexibility to adapt to circumstances that perform the same way or better than we had imagined in that context. He said that requires a lot of the things that you were saying, we just don't have all those tools handy or certainly not in place yet. Mr. Carrazana said as you move forward, and you begin to see developments like this to get to perhaps challenge what might be limitations of the Comprehensive Plan and flexibility in how you deal with that is going to be very important. He said the one thing he can tell you is he does not know what the appropriate density on this site is, it is a very challenging site and 55 dwelling units is what would be recommended and thinks you have 145. Ms. Falkenstein replied that is correct. Mr. Carrazana said the one thing that is missing for me is really an overlay of your development onto the critical slopes or the buffers so to really see that with all those limitations with your development. But as he looked through the pages, he can see where you could potentially get close to that development. He said so if he was developing this at UVA he would say that you are probably in a density that you could get close to it, but he did not know if he could get 145 and does thinks there are some limits particularly if you want to incorporate some walking trails and the way your parking is laid out. He said when you get to a master plan in a site plan he would guess you would get less in your number but certainly believes that 55 is too low of a number so perhaps it is somewhere in between but we don't have the answer. He said if we are going to be guided strictly by saying well this is what our new technology is telling us so that you can only build 55 then we certainly might be missing opportunities in the future. Mr. Bivins said part of what we are doing when we look at density when we are looking at that piece would be the Comprehensive Plan, which was done in 2011, and we are looking at it now in 2018 and then we are trying to predict the way people will live and function together once this project is complete. He said so we are doing a bit of sort of future casting at a time that we are also having to look back at things and would like the ability to be guided by that Comprehensive Plan and understand that the way people live and the way that they are going to want to exist in rented or owned structures is going to be different than it was in 2011. He asked how to do you do that in a way that respects the essence of the Comprehensive Plan but also allows a bit of nimbleness to be able to reflect and be able to flex to a new way of living. Mr. Bivins said he was somewhat disappointed that the industry today, and he has heard this through a number of builders, that you can't do condos and it is going to be rentals or it is going to be this and realizing that you never know if it is going to be a rental because you don't know what a person is going to do with his or her single-family home so it can all possibly be rental at some point in time. He said to go to Commissioner Firehock's idea that you create a development that has a community or a place to it, which is one of the things he thinks is so special about Albemarle County that we have ways in which we are true to ourselves and to the rural nature of this community. He said we also are emerging to what it is ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 13 FINAL MINUTES going to look like to have Route 29 like in the picture showing cows and horses. He said that is a good anchor point of where we were as opposed to where we are today. Mr. Bivins said he was very comfortable with GIS because he likes the new technology and topography piece, but he also recognized that while vision is a moment that people came to at a point in time and does not necessarily know that is fully accurate of where we are sitting today. He said it is a guide and would like present conditions to have some flexibility into it and on this piece of property that in fact it is an upgrade in the number of units that are there. He said presently there are 12 units there and whether it is 55 or 88 there is still an increase in bodies that live there using that piece of property and so that is a win for a whole group of people on a lovely piece of property. He said for me the Comprehensive Plan is a time and place; it is a suggestion how you should craft my thinking and how he should adhere to things but also recognize that there is an economic condition that is before us that was not there in 2011. He said it is also how people live and how people come here and NGIC was not there today in the way it is today in 2011 and that is a whole different sort of atmosphere and group of people needing housing in that part of our county. Ms. Spain said she hoped the applicant will find a way to increase the number of units over 55 and was glad Commissioner Firehock mentioned that we very often vote for and recommend lower density because of objections of neighbors. She said we don't have any neighbors here this time, so this is one of the few opportunities that we are not hearing from people complaining about the higher density and it could be whatever you do with an accommodation of the environmental concerns that she thinks this is an opportunity. Ms. Riley said she was interested in seeing how we can get more density in the development area but also believes to allow development on sensitive environmental areas is a goal that we need to continue to uphold. Ms. Riley said she appreciates Mr. Shimp's interest in pushing the envelope, believes you are pushing the right questions and thinks you are recognizing very well that there are conflicting goals in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly around affordability and density. However, she thinks it is important that the design in the community be high quality and that we don't compromise that as well as that we are not building on land that we should not be, but ultimately the cost of living in the community over time and this is leading into another topic whether it is public streets or private lanes. She said these kinds of issues ultimately speak to affordability as well. She said the issue of whether we allow more density is more complicated than just the questions we are discussing here and just wanted to lay out some of those additional issues. Ms. Firehock said she would just make her annual statement that part of the logic of how the county perceives redeveloping the urban area and urban ring is what we want in the Comprehensive Plan and then people come in and ask for the rezoning. In the past they would then proffer various things that we needed because the State of Virginia does not allow impact fees so our way to get at that was to hope for the proffers that would offset the cost of this increased development. Now proffers are severely limited in Virginia, so we don't have that tool any more for all intents and purposes so she again would make my annual plea that we actually bite the bullet and go ahead and rezone the urban area for what we actually want and at that point we can then introduce a lot of the creative ways of getting a density. Ms. Firehock said she sees a lot of these blobs of 3 to 6 units per acre and she does not know if she would look at all those sites and come to that same conclusion — we do have better GIS mapping apparently so now is as good a time as any. However, she knows it is painful and takes a lot of time — but we did it in Charlottesville and she was on the Commission there and it ended up with a much more realistic and dense city that we needed. Mr. Firehock suggested that we are at that point in Albemarle County. Ms. More said one comment is that some people chose to go by right because the process is dainty or because they can calculate the gross. Ms. More said she was not against density but thinks where we ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 14 FINAL MINUTES place it is important and noted concerns with by right development on R-6 in Crozet. Ms. More said she did not know how the zoning distinctions were made in Crozet since she thought they would want the density closer to the center radiating out and pointed out that our neighborhood in Crozet found out what by right really means and how it will impact our neighborhood and would like to know where else in the county there exists this by right R-6 because she thinks there is an assumption on the part of most people. Mr. Dotson said he was uncomfortable having two different standards one for by right and one for rezoning for calculating density and so he was trying to think about that in my comments. He said we need to look at the policy and the implications if we went one way versus the other. He said policy to me is a statement that does not have to do with any one site, it is if this then that, so it is general. He said what happens when you apply the policy to a particular site and take into account the uniqueness and configuration of the site, the question comes that well you want a policy that is flexible to accommodate different designs and how do you do that without being arbitrary and he thinks the way you do it is you make findings and make your rationale clear. He said we are interpreting the policy for this site in this way for these reasons which starts to get at what is an appropriate density for a site. He said maybe it is not one of those problems that can't be solved — how do you link policy and applications — he thinks you just must be very explicit about your rationale. Mr. Keller said that Mr. Dotson stated my concern and he was not sure how we would go forward and thinks there is a question for Andy Herrick because there is this precedent whether it would be viewed as a taking if the Supervisors in their wisdom were interested in changing how the by right calculations occur from gross to net. Mr. Herrick said he thinks there is probably a misunderstanding as to what the different standards apply to and he would highly recommend for recommended reading in Chapter 8, Strategy 8C of the Comprehensive Plan, which Mr. Shrimp eluded to in his comments. He said as sitting here this evening he flipped to Chapter 8, which the part of the Comprehensive plan, that deals with development areas — Strategy 8C in a single page pretty succinctly describes what the issue is — the fact that there is a disconnect between the Zoning Ordinance on the one hand which is calculated based on the gross and then the Comprehensive Plan that is based on the net and where exactly in time that disconnect took place. He said Strategy 8C is a recommendation to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with what is now the relatively new Comprehensive Plan standard, but again he would recommend that to you as a description. Mr. Herrick said he did not see it as being a legal problem because at the end of the day the Zoning Ordinance governs, and the Zoning Ordinance allows for a gross density. He said the Comprehensive Plan, again, has been stated many times, is just a tool or a vision and so when a planner is trying to interpret whether a property proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan they are going by the Comprehensive Plan standard which is net and would recommend for your reading of Strategy 8C in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Herrick and that he thinks we have done a wrap up on this. He said that this relates to this and other things staff is going to be doing and it would be whether it is when this project comes in or another one and thinks it would be interesting when a developer is contemplating whether to do by right or come for a zoning change that it would be interesting to hear your perspective on that. He said it was up to Andrew to decide whether this is important enough and we are seeing enough variations between the two sets of solutions that you are going to bring something to us to further consider. He agreed with Mr. Dotson that it seems that even if there is that clarity that Andrew has spoken to there still is a disconnect that seems to be significant in the way by right is determined and when there is a zoning change. He said then that gets into the density that Ms. Firehock was referring to and then that relates to the Comprehensive Plan in looking and thinking about what this range of numbers is, which gets back to ALBEMART A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 16, 2018 15 FINAL MINUTES the applicant and the views that many of us up here have that the higher density is not necessarily the issue with all the environmental concerns can be dealt with that it is as Ms. Spain has said then the neighboring communities come into play. He said by definition he did not think there had ever been a case where they wanted more higher density adjacent to them. Mr. Keller said he did not know what the proper forum is for you to be able to address the next step, this is great that we have an applicant and you have worked with him to have these questions to allow us to think about it. He said now that we have done this he thinks that we are all interested in seeing where this might go, and suggested staff think about it and come back to us with an item about that. Ms. Falkenstein said she would just add that in my mind the proper form to look at density and how a site should be developed holistically is the Master Plan Update. She said these master plan updates are to come back to you and that is the time to talk about whether we want to be specific about what density should be on a property or if we want to think about it in a different way in terms of performance or form perimeters and things like that. She said it is sort of a big picture way to think about so that we don't have to get into these site -specific questions as to how it should be interpreted so it is a little clearer as Andrew said how the site performs versus a prescriptive number for the site. Mr. Keller said that we don't want to encourage more controversy but Pantops is going to be coming to us soon and that could provide an opportunity for a mini case study within that right to bring that kind of idea as one portion or area of it so that we could see what if. Ms. Spain noted if that is the case we better hustle because the plan is coming before us soon and Monday night we are meeting to finalize it. Ms. Falkenstein said we are asking the CAC to endorse the land use piece of it, but the land use is using the traditional land use categories of the previous plan so there is a bigger discussion that needs to happen around that we should get started on it if it is going to be done in time for Pan tops. Ms. More said the important point is the hope with the master planning process and the community engagement. She said hopefully people are engaging that given those ranges does leave that room for how often we see people come in and say we really want the most that you can have. But, in other cases like with the Downtown Crozet District, which is not form base code but is very prescribed, the neighborhoods that are slightly older if they had done a little research and understand where their neighborhoods are in proximity to the Downtown they understand that is where super intense density is called for. She said there is an intention to create some buffering and things like this but property owners in those slightly newest older neighborhoods engaging in that process and becoming aware, so it should not be a surprise to a citizen that is engaged in that process and gone through and understood why these areas have been picked to create this. She said so we would not have as many angry neighbors coming out and saying how can it be this way because it was all part of the process that people could be involved in with staff there to explain why that is what the plan calls for. Mr. Bivins said he was struck that this feels very similar to the 400-gallons per acre per day piece when we were trying to look at the usage of a piece of property and whether it should be by right or by special use permit and if not mistaken the Supervisors have put that on pause. Mr. Bivins said he was not saying that was a minimal issue, but at the end it was maybe like 30 pieces of property that were impacted by that — but that brought some of the emotion among ourselves what should be by right and special use and the public came to speak to us and wondered how we would set up a series of conversations to do something much more emotion lifting with the density of a piece of property given that some of the local lore that he has heard that at one point there was a lot of smoke filled rooms that allowed property to be zoned special ways. He said in some communities, people have said at some point we are going to ALBEMART A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 16 FINAL MINUTES undertake a significant look at the zoning at large and see; however, he was not suggesting that. But at some point, he thinks we need will need to wrestle with if there a function that can get through the pain of looking at our land and saying even the most basic question is 5 percent enough for a developed area. He asked how to get past things to have a meaningful and forward -facing conversation about land use in this century moving forward. Ms. Firehock said that she did not know the site and did not know what the right density for this site that would be appropriate and did not know the context why that was picked. Mr. Keller said the second item on the Park pieces he would hold for when we have Pan tops or something where there is a comparable example of what he was talking about when he brings it up. The meeting moved to the next item. Item for follow-up. Mr. Keller invited items for follow-up. Mr. Dotson asked what the item is about on the 30' agenda on the schools. Mr. Gast -Bray replied that is the school of the future that you had originally requested come with the presentation already given to the School Board. Mr. Dotson said the other thing he sees long-range transportation and assumes Will Cockrell and Wood Hudson are going to come do that. In the last meeting he had seen something in their newsletter about an infrastructure pilot study and Will was the spokesperson on that and we asked that to be included at the same time. Mr. Gast -Bray replied that would be included at the same time. The meeting moved to the next item. Mr. Shrimp asked to speak, and Mr. Keller replied that it was unusual but would allow him to speak. Mr. Shimp said that in my office we literally spend 8 to 12 hours a day discussing this issue that we are discussing and our conclusion that a good fast step is to look at all the yellow, the blob, and relate those to scale and not density because that is what people are afraid of. He said what we find is someone says oh we are going to have a 60-foot tall apartment next to us and he gets that. However, if it is the same size as a 4,000 square foot house and it has 6 units in it — what is the difference. Mr. Shrimp said we are doing it already on Rio Road and are going to submit very soon a plan at Rio with the Form -Base Code and it is a simple way to look at it — that would be a drawing on the maps instead of 3 to 6 buildings at a certain square footage and characteristic and that maybe can be accomplished with densities without compromising the initial character or changing the map drastically. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Shimp for his comment and that when he comes in with that can remind us that it was a prototype that you previously discussed. There being no further items, the meeting moved to adjournment. Mr. Keller announced: • No Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, October 23, 2018. The next meeting will be on ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 17 FINAL MINUTES Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:09 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Andrew Gast -Bray, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Approved by Planning Initials: sct ALBEMARI F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 16, 2018 18 FINAL MINUTES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 16, 2020 Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering 912 E High Str, Charlottesville VA 22902 justin@shiinp-engineering.com RE: ZN A201800018 & SP201800023 River's Edge Revised Letter. Dear Mr. Shimp The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 10, 2020, deferred both the above noted applications with a vote of 7:0. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Tori Kanellopoulos Senior Planner Planning Division Cc. Rivers Edge Holdings LLC 2027 Woodbrook Ct Charlottesville VA 22901 edbaffyl234@gmail.com Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Charlottesville, Virginia. a public hearing on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Jennie More; Bruce Dotson; Rick Randolph; Corey Claybome; and Luis Carrazana, UVA Representative. Other officials present were Cameron Langille; Tori Kanellopoulos; Frank Pohl; Megan Nedostup; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Charles Rapp, Planning Director; Jodie Filardo, Director of Community Development; Amelia McCulley, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kevin McDermott; Megan Nedostup; Frank Pohl; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Bivins called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Consent Agenda Ms. Firehock moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Randolph seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0). (Mr. Claybore abstained.) Recess At 9:06 p.m., Mr. Bivins announced a recess. At 9:20 p.m., Mr. Bivins called the meeting back to order. Public Hearings (continued) ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge Ms. Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner, said she was also joined by County Engineer Mr. Frank Pohl. She said this is a request to rezone from RA Rural Area to PRD Planned Residential District on two parcels totaling 32.52 acres at 2260 Rivers Edge Lane. She said there is also a request for a Special Use Permit to disturb preserved slopes for an accessway and for stormwater management facilities. Ms. Kanellopoulos said she would start by talking about the context of the site, then discuss the proposed Application Plan for the rezoning, discuss the proposed Special Use Permit, staffs recommendation, and the motions. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development is located at River's Edge Lane off of Route 29. She said it is approximately one -quarter mile north of the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29, at the UVA Research Park. She said there are several commercial uses north of the site, and a federal government facility. She said there are forested parcels in the Rural Area located to the east and south. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 1 She said the adjacent parcel directly to the south is currently undeveloped; however, it is also in the development area. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the site currently consists of approximately 14 dwelling units, which are currently rental units. She said the properties are bordered by the Rivanna River. She said there are two accessways that run through the property called Rivers Edge Road and River's Edge Lane, and that these two accessways connect and create a loop through the site. She said there is an existing basketball court near the front of the site. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented additional photographs from the site that show conditions of the existed accessways and the forested character of the site. She presented photographs showing views of the Rivanna River from the site, and another view of the existing accessway. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the property is currently zoned Rural Area, which allows residential densities of 0.5 units per acre; however, subdividing the property would likely not be feasible. She said nearby zoning districts include Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Districts. Ms. Kanellopoulos said there are significant environmental features on the site. She said there are preserved slopes (shown on the map in green), stream buffers (shown in dark blue), and flood plains (shown in light blue). She said the existing accessway is in the stream buffer flood plain and preserved slopes. She said the proposed accessway is in the stream buffer and slopes, but not in the flood plain. She said there are approximately 8.62 acres out of the total, outside of those environmental features. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the properties are designated Neighborhood Density Residential and Private Open Space in the Places29 Master Plan. She said the Neighborhood Density Residential classification calls for residential uses between 3 and 6 units per acre. She said the proposal is above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the private open space and environmental features include the areas in the flood plain, steep slopes, and stream buffer. She said no residential units or parking are located within the environmental features. Ms. Kanellopoulos said this proposal is also consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies, including the Growth Management policy; efficient use of the Development Area; promoting density within the Development Areas to help create new, compact urban places; the housing policy of having at least 15% affordable units with rezoning; directing affordable housing activities to the Development Areas; and having hard edges with the Rural Area. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development is within the Entrance Corridor and is providing the 50-foot forested buffer called for in the Master Plan. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant proposes to rezone the 32.52 acres from Rural Area to Planned Residential Development. She said the proposal is for a maximum of 100 dwelling units, each of which is size restricted to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. She said all of the units are rentals, as the property cannot be feasibly subdivided. She said access to the site will be provided using the existing entrance off of Route 29. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 2 Ms. Kanellopoulos said as would be discussed later in the presentation, the applicant has also requested a Special Use Permit to disturb steep slopes to widen the accessway and to install stormwater management facilities. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the application meets the requirement for a minimum of 25% open space and proposes a variety of amenities, including trails and playgrounds. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has also requested a central sewage system per County Code 16-102. She said this request must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Kanellopoulos said as outlined in the staff report, staff has not found any inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan with this request. She said the Virginia Department of Health, Albemarle County Service Authority, and engineering review and approval are required prior to central system plan approval. Ms. Kanellopoulos said Strategy 8c in the Development Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that density should be calculated using net density by excluding areas not suitable for development, including steep slopes, stream buffers, flood plains, and areas identified as Parks and Green Systems. She said the proposed development has a gross density of 3 units per acre and a net density of 12 units per acre. She said the Master Plan recommends a maximum of 51 units, using the calculation of net density. Ms. Kanellopoulos said 100 units are proposed, with a range of detached, duplexes, triplexes, and four- plexes, which is double the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. She said all of the units are size restricted, with a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet each. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has included information regarding accessory units in their narrative as justification for the additional units. She said specifically, the applicant has compared the additional density proposed with this development to be comparable with a more traditional single-family development with accessory units, which are permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and do not count toward the overall density. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant compares the following scenarios: the applicant could construct larger single-family homes, each of which would have an accessory dwelling unit, which would not count toward density. She said that for example, a 3,000-square-foot house could have an accessory unit that could be 1,050 square feet in size. She said aftematively, as the applicant proposes, the applicant could construct 100 units and size restrict the units so that the overall impact would be similar to 50 larger single-family units. Ms. Kanellopoulos said there is not sufficient guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for staff to determine when it may be acceptable to exceed the Comprehensive Plan recommended density. She said Master Plans are drafted and adopted through a community -driven process, including review of future land use designations and categories. She said therefore, staff has included exceeding the recommended density as a factor unfavorable with this application and previous applications, and recommends that the density be reduced to meet recommendations in the Master Plan. She said staff welcomes further recommendation and guidance from the Planning Commission. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposal also extends the existing multiuse path, as shown in the Places29 Master Plan. She said in consultation with Parks and Recreation, staff finds that a future public connection with the adjacent parcel to the south (Tax Map Parcel 32-22, K1) would allow for the trail network to connect to North Point and therefore, to the greater trail network. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 3 Ms. Kanellopoulos said Parks and Recreation is planning to eventually connect the trails on each side of Route 29 with a future crossing near this area. She explained that the red arrows on the map showed the approximate location of the public connection that Parks and Rec has identified as an important section of the overall trail. She said staff recommends that the applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation and Planning staff prior to the Board meeting to determine how best to make this connection. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented a slide showing the topography and imagery of the area where the path is proposed. She noted that to the left in the image was where the area starts to slope downward and becomes more challenging to install the trail. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant has also requested a Special Use Permit to disturb preserved slopes to widen the accessway to meet County standards, and to install stormwater management facilities. She said the requested area of disturbance is 39,100 square feet (shown in orange in the Application Plan). She said the County Engineer and Planning staff have no objection to the request. She said the applicant would need County Engineer review and approval of a Virginia Stormwater Management Program application, meeting the steep slope standards of County Code 18-30.7.5, prior to any disturbance activities. Ms. Kanellopoulos said while there will be some impacts to environmental resources with this development, the County Engineer and Planning staff find the impacts to preserved slopes to be acceptable and find that there would not be substantial negative impacts. She said no buildings or parking are in steep slopes, nor the stream buffer, nor flood plain. She said disturbance of preserved slope is necessary to allowfor vehicular access to the site. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the proposed development provides trails throughout the development and gives residents access to the scenic environmental resources on the site. She said the Natural Resources chapter (Chapter 4) of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the importance of protecting water and topographical resources in the County, especially the water quality of the Rivanna River. She said Strategy 5c states that steep slopes in the Development Areas should be protected, especially those adjacent to streams. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the potential negative impacts to environmental features are considered against the beneficial aspects of the proposal, including providing affordable housing and directing development to the Development Areas. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the accessway will not be a private street, but it will have the design and appearance of a rural road section, widening the existing accessway from 12 feet of travelway (plus some shoulder area) to 28 feet, with 20 feet of travelway and 4 feet on each side for shoulders. She said the wider accessway is needed for safe and convenient vehicular travel, and for access for emergency vehicles. She said further development of the site is not feasible without widening the accessway. Ms. Kanellopoulos noted that while disturbance of steep slopes is needed for the accessway, disturbance of steep slopes for stomlwater management facilities may not be ultimately needed during site planning. She said the applicant has chosen to include the disturbance request for the stormwater management facilities with this application so that the full request is contained in one Special Use. Permit, and so the applicant does not need to submit an additional Special Use Permit in the future, should the disturbance be necessary. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant shows three locations for potential slope disturbance for stormwater management facilities. She said the County Engineer has reviewed the general location of the proposed facilities and found them to be acceptable. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 4 Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff has found the following favorable and unfavorable factors for this proposal. She said staff finds that the request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations in the Places29 Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Neighborhood Model principles; and is meeting the County's affordable housing policy. She said staff notes that the proposal is above the recommended density in the Master Plan, and that there are potential negative impacts with steep slope disturbance. Ms. Kanellopoulos said based on the favorable factors and analysis, as outlined in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the following changes. She said staff recommends that the application not exceed the recommended density in the Master Plan, and that the applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation and Planning staff prior to the Board meeting to determine how best to make a public trail connection, as proposed in the Places29 Master Plan. Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff also recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, with the following proposed conditions. She noted there was a slight change to Condition #5 to specify the types of erosion and sediment control measures not allowed in the flood plain. She said other than that change, the conditions on the screen were the same as those in the staff report. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented rezoning motions and Special Use Permit motions for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Randolph said in the community meeting on January 17, 2019, 60 units were proposed, and that they were now looking at a total of 100 units. He said it was unusual for the Commission to see a community meeting with a number of units proposed, then have the number increase after the community meeting. He asked for an explanation of how this came to pass. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that the overall area of disturbance and construction is the same, but that the units are now more clustered together. She said staff did not require the applicant to come back for another community meeting. Ms. Megan Nedostup (Community Development staft) said she attended the first community meeting and that there was one adjacent owner across Route 29 who was interested in what was going on. She said she didn't see the need to have an additional community meeting, since it wasn't highly attended. Mr. Randolph said he thought Ms. Nedostup was misunderstanding his question. He said he wasn't asking why there wasn't another meeting held, but that he was struck by the fact that the number in the application went from 60 up to 100 units. He said usually, the Commission sees the movement in the other direction. Ms. Nedostup replied that the applicant could speak more about the reasoning, but that she believes they were looking at a different type of development, which is the proposal that was in front of the Commission, versus what they originally anticipated when they came in with the application. Mr. Randolph asked if River's Edge holdings should financially fail, had there been any discussion by staff who would become responsible for paying for system monitoring and generation upkeep of the central sewage system proposed in the application. Ms. Firehock said she thought it was a pump station. Mr. Randolph agreed it was a pump station, pointing out that it was a facility, and that he wanted to know who would maintain it going forward. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 5 Ms. Nedostup replied that the applicant could answer, but she believed it was a private facility that would be maintained by the homeowner's association. Mr. Randolph said they would have a discussion about the liquidity of the homeowners association and fees associated. He asked if staff has thought in any way about the unaddressed impact of the trails going in here, and no money proposed to go towards trail construction on the site. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that some of the trails are private. She said the trails farther back on the site where the homes are would be private. She said in talking with Parks and Recreation staff, they felt that this would be appropriate. She said the main connection they want to make is getting from North Point up to Route 29, then crossing the bridge. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant is providing a trail connection up to Route 29, which would be along the frontage of Route 29. She said this would likely need to be constructed at a later date, given the topography. She said she didn't know if Parks and Recreation was ready to determine exactly what needs to be constructed, and that staff could discuss this further with them. Mr. Randolph asked if the bridge would be paid for by the residents. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that the bridge was not proposed with this development, since it would be on the adjacent property. She said the applicant is proposing a public connection up to that property so that, in the future, if there were a bridge, it could connect to that with development of the adjacent property. Mr. Keller asked if the buildings would have basements, or if they were on footers. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that she believed they were on footers, and she would let the applicant speak to this. Mr. Bivins opened the public portion of the session to hear from the applicants. Mr. Justin Shimp (project engineer) said he was joined by his planner, Ms. Kelsey Schlein. He said this was an interesting project and one he very much liked, where the client has given him leeway to go outside the norm. Mr. Shimp said in terms of the bridge, the same owner owns the adjacent piece, and that there is a rezoning application in for this. He said they therefore understand that the condition of that will be to connect the bridge on that property, and that this was coming. He said they have the public easement that they give through this property down a road that is already built, and so most of the trail infrastructure does actually exist on the plan. Mr. Shimp said he had been before the Commission various times to talk about the size of units and density, and that this project was a perfect example of the problem with counting density as a dwelling unit, regardless of the nature. He said for instance, in Albemarle County, if one disturbs over 1 acre and builds a house, they have to do an erosion control plan. He said he is sometimes hired by someone building an estate, and that for example, a landowner in Ivy cleared 6 acres of land and built a 1,000-foot driveway at the side of the mountain (noting it was all legal, with permits) to build a 6,000-square-foot house. He said the disturbance was equivalent to the one he proposed in the River's Edge project, but for one dwelling unit. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 6 Mr. Shimp said likewise, if someone wanted to build a 400-square-foot cabin, it would also be counted as one dwelling unit. Mr. Shimp said in this situation, they considered some options such as townhomes. He said the version they talked about at the community meeting were traditional townhomes and larger units, totaling 60. He said although this can be done, he thought that there was a better option for the property. Mr. Shimp said in the past, the Commission has approved accessory dwelling units to be considered as not a part of the density. He said for example, Belvedere has these ADUs, as well as Southwood, Riverside Village, and Old Trail. He said if an applicant brought a plan to the County for a 3,000- square-foot house with a 1,000-square-foot ADU, and there were 51 of these, that this would meet the Comprehensive Plan definition of density. He said that if the principal unit, however, was not three times of the size of the ADU. it doesn't count. Mr. Shimp said for example, if every two units is 2,400 square feet instead of 4,000 square feet, it is considered too high of a density. He said this did not make sense to him. Mr. Shimp said he was not asking the Commission to redefine how to look at density that evening, as this was a bigger conversation. He asked them to think about if a project like this could be thought of as a small unit and ADU that happens to be the same size, but that they both fall under a 1,200-square-foot maximum which is what the applicant thinks of as an ADU. He said he believed this was reasonable. Mr. Shimp said it was important to note that with the footprint of the design, the applicant has proffered in the Application Plan a maximum of 50,000 square feet of footprint. He said comparing this to additional development, they are approaching half of touching the land to build these same units. He said they are impacting less and getting more "kitchens," and that they would have one and two - bedroom units instead of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. He said the number of bedrooms is the same, but they essentially will have more kitchens. He said he believes the overall impacts would be the same, or less, than what would be conventionally built on the property if they did the typical plan. Mr. Shimp said he believed this was a reasonable justification for the increase in units, and that he was happy to discuss it more. Mr. Shimp presented the overall plan, noting the access road and explaining that all the units are on a flat, buildable portion of the property. He indicated to where the road would have to be widened, for emergency access purposes. He said the applicant has worked with County staff on this and that they feel the impacts are mitigated. Mr. Shimp said one thing that is unique about this property is that there are many nice trees on it, and that in looking at options, a townhome development requires them to be cleared. He said he came up with a scheme where they have some modular construction, and can build and set the units amongst the forest. He said the idea is that they can set the units up on columns without having to clear or grade the entire area. He said they will have to build the large parking lot, as there are standards that the County has to meet. He said they could build that, put the units off to the side, and minimize their impacts otherwise. Mr. Shimp said the site is near some employment centers who use a lot of contract employees. He said this project will fit those employees' temporary needs amongst their employment. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 7 Mr. Shimp presented examples of the houses. He indicated to the largest unit, which was 2 bedroom at 1,181 square feet. He said the typical shape of the unit is a long, skinny shape with one or two bedrooms, which can be built in a factory and brought to the site on a trailer. Mr. Shimp said though they didn't have the exact architecture selected yet, the examples gave an idea of the scale of the structures. Mr. Shimp presented an example that he noted was very close to what they would build. He said they would have a structure elevated on piers, and the parking lot would be adjacent to it. Mr. Shimp showed an example of a unit that was closest to the flood plain. He said the lower unit was built above the flood plain by a large margin, and another unit is stacked on top of that. He indicated to the location of the parking lot. He said the grade otherwise follows the natural terrain, and that they can step up the hill with the units. Mr. Shimp said he had a useful density comparison. He indicated to what represented eight units, noting there were two units over two. He said this was about the same footprint as the traditional three villa homes. He said if they built that, however, there was no room in between, and was straight structure. He said he hoped this illustrated what the applicant was getting at with the size of the structure, and that they were really building 50 or fewer houses. He said there are 36 structures on the plan containing various levels of units, but that in feel, look, and impacts, it falls into the Comprehensive Plan's number. Ms. Firehock asked if someone would be walking down the stairs to get to their door in some units, while other units were at grade. Mr. Shimp replied yes. Mr. Shimp presented the area of pedestrian circulation mentioned earlier. He explained one would come off Route 29 and down the existing 8-foot road that the applicant would convert to a pedestrian trail. He indicated to where the future bridge would be to get across. He noted that most of the infrastructure was already built for this. Mr. Shim p said because the project was embracing nature, they had a list of alternates to usual play structures (e.g. swing sets). He said though he didn't expect many children to live there, the ones who would can have a place to go and take advantage of the trails. Ms. Firehock added that "big kids" need nature, too. Mr. Shimp agreed. He said in summary, there is an increasing supply for smaller units, and that he didn't think any project had come forward with this mixture of units of this type. He said all he needed from the Commission was the acceptance of the idea that an ADU does not have to be one-third. He said they could look at these as smaller units without having to count them as full dwelling units, noting that the Commission has done this with other projects, such as Southwood. Mr. Bivins asked if anyone from the public cared to speak. Hearing none, he moved the meeting forward with questions for the applicant, as well as for Mr. Pohl, if necessary. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 8 Ms. Firehock said that because she is a proponent of saving trees, she was very much in support of the design the applicant put forward. She cautioned about the fact that there is only one way in and out of the site, which presents a fire risk. She suggested that the applicant would avail themselves of the free services of the Virginia Department of Forestry and their "Fire -Wise' program. She said there are ways to design to make a dwelling safer in case a fire should break out. Mr. Shimp said this was a good point. He said they have agreed with the fire marshal to provide sprinklers in all the buildings, which will also help mitigate that risk. He said Ms. Firehock was correct that when working the forest, they need to be cognizant of the risks. Ms. Firehock said the Fire -Wise program is on the Virginia Department of Forestry's website. She said they have people that can come out and help the applicant's site design so that it is safe. She said perhaps there are some trees that do need to come out because they could be at risk. She urged the applicant to consider these things. Mr. Randolph said on page 4, in the community meeting, there was some discussion about these units being long-term rentals of a year or more. He said a statement is provided on page 4 that says, "It will not be used for short-term rentals." He asked how they would prevent people from renting these facilities and not renting them out on a short-term basis. Mr. Shimp replied that these were the staffs comments from the community meeting. He said the owner of the property owns Access Properties, who offer affordable housing around town. He said as the owner of this, they prohibit anyone from subleasing without their permission. He said Mr. Randolph was right that it is hard to enforce this with owner -occupied units, but in the case of this project, the units will all be owned by one property owner. He said people would be kicked out if they try to rent short-term, and so there is a control in this particular circumstance. Ms. Firehock said she was curious how the County would know that this would be a requirement. Mr. Shimp said he didn't think the applicant ever said that they were going to proffer this, but that it was their intention that they conveyed to the community. He said he had never heard of a development requiring that, and that he didn't know if the applicant would be opposed to it, but that there was no intention of it. He said he couldn't say that the property wouldn't be sold in 20 years and that someone else may have different rules. He said the applicant could only speak to an intention on what they are doing, as owners may change, and rules may change. He said this was more of a zoning question of how they would enforce this, rather than a decision of if this should be approved or not. Ms. Firehock said a traditional subdivision would have a homeowner's association with the ability to create this rule, but that this was a matter of one individual owner, and that Mr. Shimp just said that this person could retire, go away, or sell the property, resulting in the property becoming an Airbnb or hotel type of community. Ms. Kelsey Schlein (Shimp Engineering) said it was her understanding that the homestay regulations may preclude short-term rentals occurring regularly on the property, especially if it is not rented to the uses allowed on the Application Plan. She said she was asking for staffs input on this, as it was the applicant's understanding in proposing the Application Plan was that short-term rentals are not proposed as a by -right use on the property and so therefore, they are not allowed. She said it was Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 9 her understanding that they would have to comply with the supplementary regulations for short- term rentals. Ms. Nedostup said staff would have to get back with an answer on that after doing some research on the homestay regulation. Mr. Keller said that since it was one parcel, he didn't think it would be an issue. He said the most that there could be on one parcel would be the one. He said in other words, they wouldn't be able to turn each one into short-term. He said perhaps they could get the 5 plus 5 if it stayed rural, and that the most they could get out of it would be 10. Mr. Dotson asked if all of the units would be rentals. Mr. Shimp said this was correct. He said the applicant would not meet the County subdivision ordinance requirements for division as it is built. Mr. Dotson noted these were modular units and that this suggests a situation where someone could not own the land, but the building only. Mr. Shimp said he did not know. He said he supposed one would be able to have a condominium situation there, but that he didn't know for sure about that. Mr. Dotson asked if this was the applicant's intent. Mr. Shimp replied it was not their intent. Mr. Keller asked if the road would be a County road or a private road. Mr. Shimp replied it would be a private road. Mr. Keller said if the Rivanna goes through, creates the ox bow, and there has to be a bridge across, they wouldn't have to worry about this being a County cost for the bridge at some point in the future. Mr. Shimp said no. Mr. Keller asked about modular versus manufactured. Mr. Shimp said manufactured relates to older style mobile homes. Mr. Keller asked if that would defeat the building standards. Mr. Shimp said this was correct. Ile said they could not be manufactured home q, considering the building code. He said it has to meet the full building code. Mr. Keller said this was the clarification that he wanted. He said in effect, they are building units to code. Mr. Shimp noted the units would not be built off site. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 10 Ms. Firehock said this was an important point Mr. Keller indicated that the applicant was asking the Commission about the land disturbance. He recalled the Commission had had an interesting work session on this previously, and that there has been a lot of response to ideas coming forward from that. He asked if the applicant is building on piers so that they don't have to have as much land disturbance, why not do pocket parking so that they can work with the grade more. Mr. Shimp said he tried that. He said what he really wanted to do was have 14-foot 1-way roads with parking scattered throughout. He said between the fire code and parking regulations, however, it was near impossible. He said he did try this, as it was in fitting with the character that is there now. He said it was not feasible, however. Mr. Keller said perhaps they could hear from the County Engineer (Mr. Pohl) about this, as these are things that have come up for other projects as well. Mr. Keller said the last time, they talked limnology (the study of fresh waterways), and that there were issues about this becoming an ox bow lake and the impacts that Mr. Randolph talked about in the last several meetings about the different flood levels and changes to the environment with climate change, which will have an eating -out aspect of the concave side of the rivers. He said this means there will be less and less space or distance between the two channels. He said they didn't know whether this was 10 years,100 years, or 1,000 years in this environment, in geologic time, but that it is something that is an issue of real concern. Mr. Keller said the road going in was more of his concern, more so that the buildings. He said the applicant has addressed this, and he applauded them for that. He said they had talked before about floating a road or quasi -bridge concept in the narrowest part so there would be less disturbance to the steep slopes there. He asked the applicant since they were doing other innovative engineering techniques, if there may be a more innovative solution for dealing that type of connection. Mr. Shimp replied that there are always more solutions, if enough time and money are spent. He said the problem was about the fire trucks. He said if they do an elevated road, it has to support the weight of a fire truck. He said it would kill the project if they had to construct something like this in that couple hundred -foot section of road coming in. He said there was not a scale that can justify or support that kind of cost. He said though the design idea was interesting, the other design components that stack against the applicant makes it unfeasible. Mr. Keller asked about logging such as in the Amazon, where there is very large gravel put into the road with geotextile put down. He asked if there are ways, they could support it without adding as much land disturbance. He said he was referring to creating a stronger base. Mr. Shimp said that the problem is that the narrowest point where the road crosses through is quite steep on either side. He said if they start building out on one side and put fill material there, they have to keep it from sliding off down the hill. He said he considered these things, but came to the conclusion that the best way, with minimal risk for rock and mud getting out of hand, is to follow the top of the hill and cut the grade straight down. He said although this was not innovative, this was the most practical solution and satisfies zoning, fire code, and can be done without the risk of a mud slide. Mr. Shimp said though creative solutions were considered, the project also has to be buildable for the client (for whom he had spent 1.5 years working on the project). He said it was a fair question, but that he hadn't figured out a way to do this that was feasible. or that doesn't create concerns Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 11 about how they operate in the slopes. He said he is minimizing the number of slopes they have to touch with this particular concept. He said as far as grading, this was the minimum they could do. Mr. Bivins asked to see the slope disturbance facts for managing runoff. He asked for explanation of the stormwater management facility and if this involved runoff from the parking lot that could find its way into the north fork of the Rivanna River. Mr. Frank Pohl (County Engineer) said they would have stormwater coming off this site. He said the first proposal was a level spreader in the flatter areas that Mr. Shimp had proposed, but that there could be implications with the level spreader about erosion along the stream bank, as that stream bank drops. He said they need to get to the river, if there is going to be a problem, but that he wasn't sure if there would be a problem until the design is done and until staff can look at things more closely. He said he suggested that Mr. Shimp show access to the river. He said he would rather have protected access with a built outfall than try to force a solution that might create a problem. Mr. Pohl said this solution gives them the flexibility and that they could still address it. He said either way, the applicant has to meet the VSMP requirements. Mr. Bivins asked with oil changes and antifreeze changes, and with 100 units and 100 cars (perhaps 200 cars), if this was a potential problem for that kind of runoff. Mr. Pohl replied yes. He said they cannot control oil changes that occur illegally and dump into the river. Mr. Bivins asked how the system controls the potential damage to one of the County's resources Mr. Pohl replied that all the projects have this, and that none of them are required to have an oil separator. He said the County does not have the authority to require an oil separator. He said the site is located on the river, and so the applicant can purchase credits and discharge directly to the river without having to provide any attenuation. He said his understanding was that this was not the applicant's intent, and that the applicant was going to provide attenuation, which is how they were going to use the level spreader, which is the one-year stormer vent for the energy balance. He indicated on a corner of the map to a wider line, noting this represents an underground detention facility. Mr. Pohl said he believed the applicant would utilize off -site return credits. Ms. Firehock said she wanted to ask the applicant about this. She said the County Engineer is well aware of all the progressive things that could happen, as was Mr. Shimp, but that she wanted to put the question to him instead. Mr. Bivins said one of the Commissioners was wondering about the 500-year flood and the 1,000- year flood, and whether or not any of this interferes or impacts this project. Mr. Randolph said there was a discussion during the break, and that he was aware of where the buildings are situated, and the proposal to have them on stilts or columns above the flood plain. He asked what the insulation would be underneath the buildings, because if it gets wet in flooding, then it all has to be torn out if it is fiberglass. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 12 Mr. Shimp said this was true. He said they were above the 500-year storm, and that the probability of that happening in the lifespan of these houses is very low. He said with access underneath, they could replace the insulation without too much hassle, and that it was a remote risk. Mr. Shimp said that normally in zoning, they don't get into stormwater treatment, but given the specifics of the site, if the Planning Commission were to recommend some percentage of on -site water quality treatment instead of credits, he would not object to that, if that is what they were getting at. Ms. Firehock said this was possible. Mr. Shimp said there is a Special Use Permit for the disturbance and that under that, in the past, the Commission has made similar conditions before. Ms. Firehock said she knew Mr. Shimp has a client and that he is not the purse strings of this project. She said in looking like places like River Bluff (and not suggesting they build $600,000 homes), they have some features such as permeable parking spaces. She said the applicant could reduce the volume of stormwater that they need to treat in the first place. She said since this development may attract a different sort of individual, as they are building a nontraditional product in the woods, they could have rain barrels or other ways to reduce the amount of underground storage they have to construct as a savings. She said she understands that permeable pavers need to be vacuumed at least once or twice a year, and that this was a paid service, but that they would have to do things to maintain the property anyway. Ms. Firehock said there are many techniques and technologies to reduce the amount of runoff generated. She said although this was not the applicant's fault, she wanted to say for the record that she was opposed to buying water quality credits and how the State law changed years ago. She said the committee that worked on this put a lot of "and's" in the clauses in the law, and by the time it was voted on in the legislature, they all became "ors." She said therefore, what they have is not what was intended by the best stormwater professionals. Ms. Firehock acknowledged the applicant is working within the law, but to the degree that they can push their client to do some of this water quality treatment on site would make this a much more attractive project because they are on a fragile landscape in the loop of the Rivanna River that is already severely impacted. She said to her, the greener and more sensible treatment they could put there, in addition to leaving large trees, was ideal. Ms. Firehock said the County's parking standards, for the records, were draconian and also need work, as the Commission has discussed with Mr. Benish many times. Mr. Shimp said these were all fair points. Ms. Nedostup said she had the opportunity to look at the homestay regulations, and that short-term rentals are only permitted in detached single-family dwellings. She said in this case, these are attached units, and so the current regulations would not allow for them to be homestays. Mr. Keller asked if the units would all be attached Ms. Firehock said they were all touching. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 13 Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing Mr. Dotson said he had a question for staff. He said looking at the plan, it brings to mind a mobile home subdivision, based on the shape of the footprints. He asked what the density regulations are for mobile home subdivisions, and if they are a straight one -for -one the way single-family detached are or if there is some allowance for more mobile homes than the density calls for. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that staff could try to check on this question, as she was not sure offhand. Mr. Keller said the model for this is a PUD of regular houses. He said this has no relationship to a trailer park in any way. He said it would be like a rural subdivision. Mr. Dotson said he was not convinced by Mr. Shimp's logic of how to address the Comprehensive Plan density question, and that he wondered if there was a precedent in mobile home subdivisions, senior housing, or any other category where the Comprehensive Plan density was not simply translated one for one. Ms. Nedostup replied that they have not had a lot of those applications. She said the only one she could think of that went above the Comprehensive Plan density was Riverside Village for the affordable units. She said as Ms. Kanellopoulos stated, staff does not have much guidance within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or any other policies to direct them. Mr. Dotson expressed that if the Commission approved this, Mr. Shimp would remember that, and they would see more of this type of request. He said Mr. Shimp was bringing them something new. Ms. Firehock said she understood what was said about the difference of the density, and that there was a lot of effort to explain carriage houses, which she didn't need. She said this was why the Planning Commission exists. She said instead of by -right uses, they look at special exceptions, strange situations, and requests to change the norm. She said in this case, it was not merely a request to increase density, but it is a completely different design where the applicant has shown the proposed density in a nontraditional format, which is actually less impactful to this particularly sensitive landscape in this location. She said this is what she found compelling. Ms. Firehock expressed her joy with the applicant protecting some trees on the site. She said she was tired of lot line to lot line clearing. Mr. Dotson said this raises the question of impact -based density. He said one could build a 2,400- square-foot home as a unit, or two 1,200-square-feet homes (a unit), or three 800's as a unit. He said in some of the Airbnb discussions, there was the question about regulating units, square feet, or bedrooms, and determining the best indicator of impacts. He asked if there were some things, however, that do not scale, as perhaps the same number of parking places is still needed. He said if there are two people in a unit, they could perhaps have two cars, or not, for instance. He said it was a very interesting question, and possibly the first project they could add to the work program for staff. Mr. Dotson said what this reminds him is of the habitat at the World's Fair in the late 1960s that was modular units that were stacked in a very attractive way to make a rather large structure. He said this notion was very appealing, and that the project makes him think of this (and not an Iroquois Indian village). Mr. Claybome said overall, he enjoyed the project, and thought there were many clever moments in the proposal. He said it is unique. He said he didn't have an issue with the density, and that the more he studied Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 14 it, he didn't have an issue with the uniqueness of the proposal. He said he did agree with his colleagues' stormwater management comments, and however this is tucked into the motion, he could get behind it. He said as of that moment, he saw the application as highly favorable and that it would have his support. Mr. Keller said although he wanted to support the project, he believed they needed to work through it further on a number of points. He said in dissecting the number of questions that had been made thus far, they would perhaps be digging into them further if it wasn't such a late hour. Mr. Keller said this project was exactly what he had been calling for, and that he was completely supportive conceptually. He said he was not sure, however, how he felt about the two units being together the way they are. He said they were trying for this not to be like a trailer park and yet, it feels like one, to him. He said he thinks that if they are asking an applicant to do something creative, they need to think and work with their County Engineer to see whether they might be able to do something more creative in terms of parking, the roadway in, and how this works with fire and police. Mr. Keller said he still had concerns and reservations about how narrow the channels at the 500-year flood plain are, between the two channels of the river. He said this warrants more thought. Mr. Keller said although he was close, he personally felt that the Commission should consider these points, as well as the stormwater management. Mr. Dotson said he knew that State agencies that issue permits related to water and health matters have the ability or process for issuing an experimental permit where they identify the things that the experiment is intended to test. He said they then track it over time. He said this doesn't open the door to having a new rule but rather, it gives a vehicle for going forward with some creative ideas. He said he wondered if some thinking along those lines might apply. He asked what they might want to test with this. He said they all agree it is innovative, and perhaps they could set up a program where this becomes a model, they look at every so often to see if it would be a good idea to make it the normal option. Mr. Bivins said he didn't know how the Commission would impose that or set it before an applicant. He said perhaps if the applicant, during the process, were to say that this was something they would like to do, it could work, but he didn't know how the Commission could ask the applicant to speak to the Commonwealth to see if it is something they can do and if so, the Commission would stand with them. He said what they might encourage, as they are looking at climate action and the policies that may come before them, is to see if there is a way there to suggest the option to people. Mr. Dotson said in suggesting they think about this as an experiment and try to specify what they would hope to learn from it, he thinks this could be stated as part of a purpose statement on the Application Plan. He said there could be a protocol for whatever it is they want to monitor. He said perhaps there was nothing to monitor. Mr. Bivins said he thought this was a good idea, but that he was hoping they were not suggesting pausing the application. Mr. Dotson said it would be a way to go forward with the application. Mr. Bivins asked how they would know what they were suggesting. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 15 Mr. Dotson said at that moment, he didn't have a list of things that he would like to know. He said he hoped there might be some things, however, and that this would be a rationale to go forward. Ms. More said the project is creative and that she liked the idea, but that she was not comfortable with the idea of doubling the density by using the accessory dwelling, and with them being the same size. She said going this for, the applicant was not asking for a little bit, but was asking to literally double with the accessory unit not being what they typically look for, where there is a certain size for the main dwelling and the accessory. She said this is what made her uncomfortable. She said they were going from 50 to 100, and although she could somewhat understand the applicant's argument for it, this was why she was a "no" on this. Mr. Shimp said one thing the applicant could do is say 1,200 for 50 and 1,000 for 50, dropping the number down. He said what they see is mostly around 650-700 square feet, and that 1,200 square feet is only his largest unit. He said if there was concern about that being the same, they could make half of the accessory units a smaller square footage. Mr. Bivins said there was something that he has been very clear about during his chairmanship. He said they are not going to get engaged in doing the work of staff from the dais. He said this would come down however it would, and that he would recommend Mr. Shimp have this conversation with staff. He said the Commission was not going to negotiate the square footage, although it was a valid point to bring forward. Mr. Shimp said that staff were not going to tell him what the square footage would be, either. Ms. More said she was only one "no" vote. Mr. Bivins said Mr. Shimp was advised to stop at this point. Mr. Randolph said Ms. More was not alone, and that he had the same feelings about it. He said the problem he has with the application is that although it contains some innovative things, he was worried in the long-term that the County would see a low-income community that they will be a party to creating. He said once again, they will have put a low-income community in a location with no public transit available. He said he didn't see any suggestion of a bus stop for a potential future bus. He said it would be left to the Board and CAT in the future to make an argument or, with autonomous buses coming out, to provide transit to this location. He said this was an unaddressed impact, in terms of buses. Mr. Randolph said there would be 21 students occurring there, at minimum, which was an unaddressed impact. Mr. Randolph said the bridge was cited as a pedestrian bridge, but that it needs to be thought of from a design standpoint of an emergency exit if the ox bow does come into fruition. He said in his estimation, it would have to be somewhere around 45 feet of water that would have to occur to cross over between the two portions where the ox bow would be eliminated. He asked the applicant to think about another means of exit there. Mr. Randolph said one thing that has not been put into the queue is that there are many trees on the site and if there was a forest fire, with only one way out, they don't want people having to swim and cross the Rivanna River to get out. He said he was uncomfortable from a safety point that there was only one way in, Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 16 but that fundamentally, he was concerned about the unaddressed impacts of education, public transit, and the trails. He said he was concerned long-term about what could happen on the site that they do not have control over. Ms. Firehock said she had a point that was related, but that she was not expecting the Commission to discuss that evening. She said that in Charlottesville, there were many requests for infill when she was on the Planning Commission there, and that they wrote an ordinance that provided a density bonus in exchange for implementing a certain minimum number of innovative best management practices, such as low -impact development design, so that they got infill with guaranteed green design. She said they can write those types of ordinances in the County, but that they didn't currently have that. Ms. Firehock said for her to support the project, she would need to see some kind of Clause. She said she didn't know how to quantify this, as they were not writing a stormwater plan for the dais, either. She said if they were to add some sort of clause such as, "implement innovative best management practices to reduce stormwater volume generated, and to treat water quality on site to the maximum extent practicable," they would not be setting a specific number on it. She said she wished the application already contained some of this, as it is a sensitive site. Ms. Firehock said the Wetsel property the Commission just reviewed is largely Geared, and so that site will have a lot more stormwater impact to treat this site because it is already treed, and the applicant is leaving some of the trees in place, which actually generates less stormwater from the start. She said one mature tree can take up to several thousand gallons of stormwater per tree, per year. She said by leaving the trees in place, the applicant already has a site that has much less impact than most of the Countys development projects. She said even so, since there is a private road and parking spaces, she would like to see some way to use permeable pavements, cisterns, rain barrels, etc. She said there was a whole host of approaches that were not too expensive. Mr. Bivins said the applicant was receiving some feedback that evening, and asked if it would be helpful for the applicant to defer before taking a vote. Mr. Shimp replied that this was reasonable. He said he has not heard specifics on some things, but that he had ideas on things he could revise. He said he wants to move the project forward with everyone feeling good about it. He said there are some things the applicant can address, but that the ox bow condition was out of his hands. He said the stormwater points and narrowing down the square footages could be accomplished. He asked if he could return in four weeks to defer and make some tweaks. Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) asked if the applicant was requesting a deferral. Mr. Shimp said yes, with the condition that it not be 3-4 months until he comes back. Mr. Herrick asked if Mr. Benish knew the upcoming schedule. Ms. Firehock suggested putting it at 4-6 weeks, noting that it was difficult for staff to juggle all the projects. Mr. Shimp acknowledged that staff was busy. He said he would be fine with a 4- to 6-week timeframe. He said the changes would be very minor. Mr. Herrick said he would like Mr. Benish's input on the upcoming schedule. Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 17 Ms. Nedostup said if they were looking at stormwater management, they would need to cycle through a review of that with the County Engineer, and that it would be about 4-6 weeks, though she hadn't looked at the schedule of the upcoming meetings in April and beginning of May. Mr. Bivins asked if the Commissioners would like to add any points, they wanted Mr. Shimp to address. Ms. Firehock said she had already mentioned fire -wise design, as there is a risky site with one entrance. Mr. Clayborne said stormwater management was his main concern. Mr. Keller said he would like the applicant to challenge County staff about the original parking scheme along the side of the road, instead of having defined parking areas. He said he would still like the applicant to think about his point about the narrowing where the two channels are, and whether they could have less environmental impact there. Mr. Dotson said to build on Ms. More's point, he would like to have the applicant think about a rationale that is different than the accessory unit rationale -- the rationale that even though PUD's don't qualify for bonuses, thinking about it as if it is a bonus because it does things the County says it wants to do. He said he would feel much more comfortable with that than with the accessory unit. Ms. Firehock and Mr. Randolph agreed. Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Herrick if this was sufficient Mr. Herrick replied yes. He asked if they have determined a specific date to which this should be deferred. Ms. Nedostup replied that the thought was May 19 in order to give a couple weeks for the applicant to revise and bring in plans for review. Mr. Herrick said if the applicant was then requesting a deferral to May 19, there would need to be a motion. Mr. Randolph moved to defer of ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge. Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Ms. Firehock noted that she would be out of town on May 19. She said she would convey her thoughts to Mr. Shimp and to the Commission before that meeting. Committee Reports There were no reports. Old Business None Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 18 New Business Mr. Benish said next week's Planning Commission meeting (for 3/17/20) had been canceled, as the applicant asked for a deferral. He said that hearing was tentatively scheduled for June. Mr. Herrick said his suggestion was that the Commission formally make a motion to defer that application, to make it official. Mr. Keller moved to defer SP201900013 to June 16. Ms. More seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Mr. Benish said April 29, there would be a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on affordable housing, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in Room 241. Ms. Firehock and Mr. Randolph said they would not be able to attend this meeting Mr. Benish said on April 1, at the Board of Supervisors meeting, there would be a presentation on R-cuts. He encouraged the Commission to listen in or attend. He said this meeting would be sometime after 1:00 p.m. and was actually couched in the VDOT quarterly report. He said this type of presentation would typically occur around 3:00 p.m. Ms. More asked if the next meeting would be March 24, and if the Yancey item was still tentative. Mr. Benish replied no, and said his understanding was that this would still be occurring on this date in order to meet some review deadlines. He added that Bamboo Grove had not been scheduled. Mr. Charles Rapp introduced himself as the new Planning Director. He said he looked forward to working with the Commission and serving in the community. Adjournment At 10:38 p.m., the Commission adjourned to (March 24, 2020 — CANCELLED) April 7, 2020 Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia l..I"l( ,&j J aVaElectronic Signature) Charles Rapp, Director of Planning (Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Boards and transcribed by Golden Transcription Services) Approved by Planning Commission Date: May 5, 2020 Initials: CSS Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes March 10, 2020 19 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA201800018 and Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner SP201800023, River's Edge Planning Commission Hearing: May 19, Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD 2020 Owner: Rivers Edge Associates and Rivers Applicant: Justin Shimp and Kelsey Schlein, Edge Holdings LLC Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Rivers Edge Holdings Acreage: TMP 32-5A1 is 27.71 acres and Rezone from: RA Rural Areas to PRD Planned TMP 32-5A0 is 4.81 acres, for a total of Residential Development 32.52 acres. Special Use Permit: Request disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (accessway and stormwater management) for the proposed rezoning development TMP: 03200-00-00-005A1 and 03200-00- Location: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane at 00-005AO Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29. School Districts: Baker Butler E.S., Current by -right use: Rural Area 0.5 units/acre Sutherland M.S., Albemarle H.S. Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: None Proposal: Rezone two properties from Requested # of Dwelling Units per ZMA: Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential Maximum of 100 dwelling units; 50 units are size - Development (PRD). Request for a special restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 use permit for the disturbance of preserved sq. ft. each and the other 50 units are size - steep slopes to accommodate the restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 900 sq. development of private facilities (accessway ft. each. and stormwater management) for the proposed rezoning development. DA (Development Areas): Hollymead Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density neighborhood in the Places29 Master Plan Residential and Private Open Space per the Places29 Master Plan ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 Affordable Housing Provided: Affordable Housing AMI (%): ❑O Yes ❑No Minimum 15 percent affordable units at 80 percent AMI. Character of Property: Two parcels Use of Surrounding Properties: There are totaling 32.52 acres with approximately several commercial properties to the north, and fourteen single-family detached houses and U.S. Army facilities. Rural Area properties a paved accessway that creates a loop (currently forested) are to the east and south. The through the site and connects to the parcel directly south is currently undeveloped but is entrance at Route 29. Parcels are heavily in the Development Areas. forested and surrounded by the Rivanna River. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The rezoning request and special 1. The density proposed with the rezoning use permit request are consistent application is above the recommendations with the majority of the within the Places29 Master Plan (however, recommendations within the staff defers to the Commission's evaluation Places29 Master Plan and the of the proposed density). Comprehensive Plan. 2. The request to disturb preserved steep 2. The rezoning request is consistent slopes with the special use permit with the majority of the applicable application could potentially create Neighborhood Model Principles. negative environmental impacts: erosion 3. The rezoning provides affordable and sedimentation of the Rivanna River; rental housing that meets the and loss of wildlife habitat. housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff finds that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request ZMA201800018 with the following change: 1. Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the Commission's evaluation of the proposed density). Special Use Permit: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request SP201800023 with conditions. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos PLANNING COMMISSION: May 19, 2020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD PETITION: PROJECT: ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 032000000005AO and 032000000005A1 LOCATION: 2260 and 2256 Rivers Edge Lane. Route 29 North, approximately 0.20 miles north from the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29. PROPOSAL: Rezone two properties from Rural Areas (RA) to Planned Residential Development (PRD). Request for a special use permit for the disturbance of preserved steep slopes to accommodate the development of private facilities (entrance and accessway) for the proposed rezoning development. PETITION: Rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Areas (RA), which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A maximum of 100 units are proposed for a gross density of approximately 3 units/acre, and a net density of 12 units/acre. A special use permit for the disturbance of preserved slopes for "Private facilities on preserved slopes" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 30.7.4.b.2. Request for central sewerage and central water system per County Code Section 16-102. ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Flood Hazard Overlay; Airport Impact Area COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential use (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features- privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features; in the Hollymead Area of Places29 Master Plan. BACKGROUND On March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission heard the applicant's request for approval of ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, provided comments on, and deferred action at the applicant's request. The deferral was to allow the applicant time to address the issues and requests for additional information identified below: 1. Density: Additional information needed to make a determination on the request for density above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan (Places29 Master Plan). 2. Stormwater Management: Additional information on stormwater management and treatment, especially more treatment onsite and incorporation of any low -impact design methods. 3. Entrance: Concerns with the 'oxbow' entrance to the site (road with river on both sides). Request for additional information if other designs for the road are feasible. 4. Parking: Consider if other parking options (including a reduction in parking spaces and permeable pavers) are feasible. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 5. Unit Design: Additional information on how units will be stacked, and how that design will look and function. Concern with what happens if insulation of units gets water damage. Consider fire -wise design standards from the Department of Forestry. 6. Utilities: Additional information on ownership and maintenance of the central sewerage system, and what happens if the system fails. 7. Schools: Concern with capacity of school system. SPECIFICS OF THE APRIL 14, 2020 ZMA UPDATED APPLICATION PLAN PLEASE REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR MARCH 10, 2020 (Attachment A) FOR INFORMATION ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY, CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE, AND GENERAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED OR UPDATED SINCE THE MARCH 10, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING. Since the Commission's meeting in March 2020, the applicant has updated their ZMA application plan (Attachment B). Specifically, the applicant has made the following changes: Revised the maximum gross floor area (GFA) from 1,200 for each of the 100 units to 1,200 SF for 50 units each and 900 SF for the other 50 units each; The total residential building footprint area has been revised to be 60,000 SF from 50,000 SF. The buildable area has not been revised, just the total building footprint area. Buildings are still outside of steep slopes, stream buffers, and the floodplain; Revised stormwater management notes to say that if level spreaders cannot be provided, channelized flow through slopes may be used. The applicant has also coordinated with Engineering staff and agreed to a condition with the Special Use Permit to provide 75 percent of stormwater treatment onsite, exclusive of forest and open space. The applicant has responded to some of the Commission's comments as shown on the revised application plan (Attachment B) and as follows. Additional responses may be provided by the applicant during the public hearing: Density: Additional information needed to make a determination on the request for density above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan (Places29 Master Plan). Density was discussed during the first Planning Commission public hearing on March 10, 2020. Commissioners and staff discussed the lack of precedence for this type of request. The only precedent staff is aware of is additional units (beyond the Comprehensive Plan designation) approved with Riverside Village due to the additional affordable units provided. During the March 10 meeting, Commissioners expressed that this application was unique due to other aspects beyond the density request, including unique unit types and preserving a significant number of existing trees. Commissioners also discussed the impact of dwelling units, considering associated impacts with the size of units (such as ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 required parking). Commissioners also mentioned that the proposal was for 100 units all size -restricted at 1,200 square feet, meaning that none were `accessory'. The applicant has since resubmitted the application with 50 units restricted at 1,200 square feet and 50 restricted at 900 square feet. Commissioners discussed the possibility of other density bonuses, such as low -impact development design for stormwater management and other design standards currently used by other localities. Currently, the County has density bonuses for affordable housing, clustering development, preserving wooded areas, non - required road improvements, and dedicating land to public use. However, these bonuses are only available to conventional zoning districts, not planned districts. Staff would welcome direction and guidance from the Commission on what factors could be considered when proposals are submitted above the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff defers to the Commission's analysis of this request for density above that recommended in the Master Plan. Additional information regarding density and prior actions is provided in Attachment 9 of the March 10, 2020 staff report and is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan and Affordable Housing sections of that report. 2. Stormwater Management: Additional information on stormwater management and treatment, especially more treatment onsite and incorporation of any low -impact design methods. In coordination with Engineering staff, the applicant has agreed to a condition to provide a minimum of 75 percent of stormwater treatment onsite, exclusive of forest and open space. This is now Condition #6 for the Special Use Permit. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. Entrance: Concerns with the 'oxbow' entrance to the site (road with river on both sides). Request for additional information if other designs for the road are feasible. As the applicant stated during the public hearing, it would not be feasible from a cost and design standpoint to elevate the roadway, as significant and intense construction and design would be needed to support the weight of a fire truck. An additional ingress/egress for this parcel would be challenging and expensive to implement. Fire/Rescue does not require a second point of access, as the units are sprinklered. Based on the rock -based geology of this site, erosion to the point of impacting the existing ingress/egress does not appear likely. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 4. Parking: Consider if other parking options (including a reduction in parking spaces and permeable pavers) are feasible. The Commission discussed the proposed parking layout of this development, if permeable pavers could be used, and if there was any way to coordinate with staff and reduce parking. The applicant has not provided additional parking information at this time. Staff usually considers parking reduction requests during site planning and considers factors such as walkability and access to transit. Given the location and lack of public transit at this site, it is unlikely staff would support a parking reduction request. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 However, the amount of parking and types of materials used for parking can be further evaluated at the site planning stage. Unit Design: Additional information on how units will be stacked, and how that design will look and function. Concern with what happens if insulation of units gets water damage. Consider fire -wise design standards from the Department of Forestry. The applicant has not provided updated information at this time. The applicant did respond to the concern with insulation becoming water damaged, stating that, since these units are outside of the floodplain, that scenario is unlikely, and that insulation could be replaced if needed. The applicant may address these questions and concerns during the public hearing. Staff defers to the Commission on whether this concern is addressed. 6. Utilities: Additional information on ownership and maintenance of the central sewerage system, and what happens if the system fails. The proposed central sewerage system will be privately owned and maintained. It will connect back to public utilities. It is the responsibility of the property owner to upkeep the maintenance of this system and respond if it fails. It is the responsibility of ACSA to maintain and repair the public utilities with this development, including public water and the public connection to the sewerage system. Attachment 7 in the March 10, 2020 staff report outlines the applicant's request. Additional analysis on the central system is provided in the following section. While central systems are uncommon in the Development Areas, one was approved with the Emmerson Commons/Blue Ridge Cohousing development in Crozet (ZMA200700012). The purpose of the private system in both of these requests is to allow connection to the RSWA public sewage system and is not intended for provide the primary sewage treatment for development. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. 7. Schools: Concern with capacity of school system. Additional analysis of schools and capacity is provided in the March 10, 2020 staff report, including the recommendations contained in the Albemarle County Public Schools' `Long Range Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations'. The proposed development would add approximately 21 students to County Schools. There are no proposed relevant projects in the current CIP. Staff believes this concern has been addressed. UPDATE ON CENTRAL SYSTEM REQUEST Staff is providing an updated analysis of the central system request since the March 10, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing. Staff did not include a full analysis per the recommendations in Objective 9 of Chapter 12 (Community Facilities) in the March staff report. The full analysis is now included as follows. The applicant is requesting approval of a central sewerage system for the proposed residential development (Attachment 7), which requires approval from the Board. This approval does not require action of the Planning Commission, although it may be part of the Commission's consideration and discussion, and is included in the motion for the rezoning. The development would connect to public water and sewer. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 Section 16 of the County Code defines a central sewerage system as a system designed to serve three or more connections. The proposed central sewerage system would serve 100 dwelling units and would require a sewer lateral connection to each dwelling unit. The central system would use a private sanitary force main, which would tie into a new public sanitary manhole adjacent to Route 29. The manhole would connect to a public gravity main under Route 29 and then to the existing public manhole at the RWSA pump station. The applicant includes the following information on monitoring the system: "The pump station will consist of a remote monitoring system that will be managed by a contracted professional third party, a backup generator in case of loss of power, and an onsite alarm system in case of failure." There do not appear to be feasible alternatives for utilities for the site. The site is in the Development Areas and has environmental and topographically constraints; therefore, drainfields would not be appropriate. Given the steep slopes, stream buffer, and floodplain constraints, connecting to adjacent parcels may be infeasible and would require significant impacts to environmental features. The proposed central system ultimately connects to public utilities. ACSA provided the following comments: "This site has restrictive access, which would make routine maintenance to the pump station a challenge. This pump station is also serving a single parcel, so there will be no other developments connecting to the proposed pump station." Staff reviews requests such as this for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and also for technical feasibility. County Engineer and Health Department approval of the final system specifications will be required prior to construction. The Comprehensive Plan discourages central systems in the Development Areas. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage both drainfields and extensive private systems serving as the primary treatment system for a development or multiple developments in the Development Areas. However, this proposed development is proposing public water and some private sewer facilities that ultimately connect to public sewer utilities. The private sewer utilities would only serve this site. Given that the private utilities are limited, connect to public utilities, and are limited to only this development, staff has no objection relevant to the Comprehensive Plan. A favorable recommendation of approval of this ZMA application by the Planning Commission will be a finding that the use of a central system to provide connection to the nearby public sewer system is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is in the process of submitting the required application materials per 16-102(1- 4) for the review and approval of the design of the facility by the County Engineer, Health Department, and ACSA. There are no proffers proposed with this application. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 ZMA201800018 AND SP201800023: SUMMARY AND MOTIONS SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The rezoning request and special use permit request are consistent with the majority of the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles. 3. The rezoning provides affordable rental housing that meets the housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan for a period of 10 years. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The density proposed with the rezoning application is above the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the Commission's evaluation of the proposed density). 2. The request to disturb preserved steep slopes with the special use permit application could potentially create negative environmental impacts: erosion and sedimentation of the Rivanna River; and loss of wildlife habitat. RECOMMENDATION: ZMA201800018 Based on the factors identified as favorable with this rezoning, staff recommends approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the following change: Revise the proposed number of units to be consistent with the recommended density in the Places29 Master Plan (however, staff defers to the Commission's evaluation of the proposed density). RECOMMENDATION: SP201800023 Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as favorable, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP201800023 River's Edge, with the following conditions: 1. The limits of disturbance within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District shall be limited to the sizes, locations, and extents of disturbance as proposed in the "River's Edge: Steep Slopes Disturbance" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February 28, 2020. 2. Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan and water protection ordinance plan for River's Edge shall be in general accord with the same improvements and grading shown on the exhibits "River's Edge: Road Grading + Profile" and "River's Edge: Conceptual Stormwater" in the 'River's Edge: Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February 28, 2020. ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 3. If blasting of rock becomes necessary, the applicant will submit a blasting plan subject to review and approval by the County Engineer and other Authorities having jurisdiction prior to commencing such activity. 4. Two -layer erosion and sediment control measures will be installed around the perimeter of the site, where feasible, at the discretion of the County Engineer. 5. Erosion and sediment control basins and traps will not be located within the floodplain limits. 6. A minimum of 75 percent of stormwater treatment must be provided onsite, exclusive of forest and open space. PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for ZMA201800018: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201800018, River's Edge, with the finding that the use of a central system to provide connection to the nearby public sewer system is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201800018, River's Edge (state reasons for denial). Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP201800023, River's Edge, with the conditions outlined in the staff report. D. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit Move to recommend denial of SP201800023, River's Edge (state reasons for denial). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: March 10, 2020 Staff Report and Attachments Attachment B: Updated Rezoning Application Plan, dated April 14, 2020 Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes for March 10, 2020 Meeting ZMA201800018 and SP201800023, Rivers Edge Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 19, 2020 Albemarle County Planning Commission FINAL Minutes May 19, 2020 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 6:00 P.M. Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Bruce Dotson; Rick Randolph; and Corey Clayborne. Members absent: Jennie More; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative. Other officials present were Tori Kanellopolous; Andy Reitelbach; Charles Rapp, Planning Director; Ned Gallaway, Board of Supervisors; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Bivins called the regular, electronic meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. He said this meeting was held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance No. 20-A(6), "An Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the COVID-19 Disaster." Mr. Bivins said that electronically present that evening were Mr. Dotson, Mr. Keller, Ms. Firehock, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Clayborne, and himself. Mr. Bivins said the public could access and participate in this electronic meeting by following the link available at www.albemarle.org/calendar, or by calling 877-853-5257. Consent Agenda Mr. Bivins asked if any Commissioner wished to pull the consent agenda item, which was the May 5, 2020 minutes. Hearing none, he asked if there was a motion. Mr. Clayborne moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0). (Ms. More was absent, and Mr. Randolph was disconnected from the video conference during the vote.) Public Hearing Items ZMA201800018 and SP201800023 River's Edge Ms. Tori Kanellopolous, Lead Planner for the project, said this is a public hearing for a request to rezone from RA Rural Area to PRD (Planned Residential District) on two parcels totaling 32.52 acres at 2260 River's Edge Lane. She said there is also a request for a Special Use Permit to disturb preserved slopes for an accessway and for stormwater management facilities. Ms. Kanellopolous said she would start with the context of the site, then discuss the proposed application plan for the rezoning and the proposed Special Use Permit. She said she would provide staffs recommendations and motions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous noted that this application was first discussed at the March 10 Planning Commission public hearing and that since that meeting, the applicant has made several changes to the rezoning application, with an additional condition for the Special Use Permit. Ms. Kanellopolous said the proposed development is located at River's Edge Lane, off of Route 29, and is approximately one -quarter mile from the intersection of Lewis & Clark Drive and Route 29 at the UVA Research Park. She said there are several commercial and institutional uses north of the site, and adjacent forested parcels in the rural area located to the east and south. She said the adjacent parcel directly to the south is currently undeveloped, but that it is also in the Development Area. Ms. Kanellopolous said the site currently consists of 14 dwelling units that are currently rental units. She said the properties are bordered by the Rivanna River. She said there are two accessways that run through the property called River's Edge Road and River's Edge Lane, which create a loop. She said there is an existing basketball court near the front of the site. Ms. Kanellopolous presented additional pictures from the site, which show the conditions of the existing accessways and the forested character of the site. Ms. Kanellopolous presented photographs showing views of the Rivanna River and another view of the existing accessway. Ms. Kanellopolous said the property is currently zoned Rural Area, which allows residential densities of 0.5 units per acre. She said subdividing the property, however, is not feasible. She said nearby zoning districts include Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Districts. Ms. Kanellopolous said there are significant environmental features on the site. She said there are preserved slopes, stream buffers, and a flood plain. She said the existing accessway is in the stream buffer, flood plain, and preserved slopes. She said the proposed accessway is in the stream buffer and slopes, but is not in the flood plain. She said there are approximately 8.628 acres of land outside of these environmental features. Ms. Kanellopolous said the property is designated Neighborhood Density Residential, and as Private Open Space in the Places29 Master Plan. She said a Neighborhood Density Residential classification calls for residential uses between 3-6 dwelling units per acre. She said the proposal is above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Kanellopolous said the private open space and environmental features include the areas in the flood plain, steep slopes, and stream buffer. She said no residential units or parking are located within these environmental features. Ms. Kanellopolous said this application is also consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, including the Growth Management Policy, efficient use of the Development Area, promoting density within the Development Area to create compact urban places, the Housing Policy of having at least 15% affordable units with rezonings, and having hard edges with the Rural Area. Ms. Kanellopolous said the proposed development is within the Entrance Corridor and is providing a 50-foot forested buffer called for in the Places29 Master Plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant proposes to rezone 32.52 acres from Rural Area to Planned Residential Development for a maximum of 100 dwelling units, with 50 units restricted to 1,200 square feet and the other 50 units restricted to 900 square feet. She said all of the units are rental, as the property cannot be feasibly subdivided. Ms. Kanellopolous said access to the site will be provided using the existing entrance off of Route 29. She said the applicant is also requesting a Special Use Permit to disturb steep slopes to widen the accessway and to install stormwater management facilities. Ms. Kanellopolous said the application meets the requirement for a minimum of 25% open space and proposes a variety of amenities, including trails and playgrounds. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has also requested a central sewage system, per County Code 16.102. She said the request must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. She said a central system is defined as a private system that is designed to serve three or more connections. She said this facility would be privately owned and maintained. She said the force main and pump station are the only private utility component of the water and sewer systems for this development and would connect back to public utilities. Ms. Kanellopolous said the Board of Supervisors votes to approve a central system, and therefore allows a development to use such a private system. She said the system cannot be constructed or permitted, however, until all relevant agencies and departments have reviewed submitted plans. She said this includes the Virginia Department of Health, Albemarle County Service Authority, and Engineering. She said this approval is the first step in the process. Ms. Kanellopolous said the Comprehensive Plan discourages private facilities in the Development Area. She said due to the unique features of the site and the private utilities connecting back to public utilities, however, staff has no objection to the request. She added that these private utilities would only serve this development, and ultimately connect back to public water and sewer, which is consistent with County land use and utility policies. Ms. Kanellopolous said this request is included in the motion for approval for the rezoning for the Commission to consider. Ms. Kanellopolous said a similar request for a private pump station was approved in the Emerson Commons rezoning in Crozet. Ms. Kanellopolous said Strategy 8-C in the Development Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that density should be calculated using net density by excluding areas not suitable for development including steep slopes, stream buffers, flood plain, and areas identified as Parks and Green Systems. She said the proposed development has a gross density of 3 units per acre, and a net density of 12 units per acre. Ms. Kanellopolous said the Master Plan recommends a maximum of 51 units, using the calculation of net density. She said there are 100 units proposed, with a range of detached, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, which is at double the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. She said all of the units are size -restricted, with a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet for 50 units and 900 square feet for the other 50 units. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has included information regarding accessory units in their narrative as justification for these additional units. She said specifically, the applicant has compared the additional density proposed to be comparable to a more traditional, single-family development with accessory units, which are permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and do not count toward overall density. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant compares the following scenarios, one of which is that the applicant can construct larger single-family homes, each of which can have an accessory dwelling unit (which would not count, per density). She said for example, a 3,000-square-foot house can have an accessory unit that would be 1,050 square feet in size. She said alternatively, as the applicant proposes, the applicant could construct 100 units and size -restrict the units so that the overall impact would be similar to 50 larger single-family houses. Ms. Kanellopolous said this discussion was discussed during the March 10 Planning Commission meeting. She said Commissioners considered the possibility of other density bonuses (such as low -impact development design for stormwater management), and considered the impact of units when discussing density. She said currently, the County has density bonuses for conventional districts (such as affordable housing and preserving wooded areas), but does not have these bonuses for Planned Districts. She said the density must still be within the Comprehensive Plan designation. Ms. Kanellopolous said there is not sufficient guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for staff to determine when it may be acceptable to exceed the Comprehensive Plan. She said therefore, staff has included exceeding the recommended density in the Master Plan as a factor unfavorable, and defers to the Planning Commission's recommendation on the requested density for the site. She said staff welcomes further guidance and discussion from the Commission. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has also requested a Special Use Permit to disturb steep slopes. She said the requested area of disturbance is 39,100 square feet. She said the County Engineer and Planning staff had no objection to the request. She said the applicant would need County Engineer review and approval of a Virginia Stormwater Management Program application that meets the steep slopes standards of County Code. Ms. Kanellopolous said while there would be some impacts to environmental resources with this development, the County Engineer and Planning staff find the impacts to be acceptable, and find that there would not be substantial negative impacts. She said there are no buildings or parking in the steep slopes, stream buffer, or flood plain. She said disturbance of preserved slopes is necessary to allow for vehicular access to the site. She said the proposed development provides trails throughout the development to give residents access to the scenic environmental resources on the site. Ms. Kanellopolous said the Natural Resources chapter highlights the importance of protecting water and topographical resources in the County, and especially the water quality of the Rivanna River. She said Strategy 5-C states that steep slopes in the Development Areas should be protected, and especially those adjacent to streams. Ms. Kanellopolous said the potential negative impacts are considered against the beneficial aspects of the proposal, including providing affordable housing and directing development to the Development Areas. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous said the accessway will not be a private street. She said it will have the design and appearance of a rural road section, widening the existing accessway from 12 feet to 28 feet. She said the wider accessway is needed for safe and convenient vehicular travel, and for access for emergency vehicles. She said further development of the site is not feasible without widening this accessway. Ms. Kanellopolous said there is one ingress and egress for this site. She said Fire Rescue reviewed this application and stated that one entrance and exit is acceptable, given that the units are sprinklers and that the proposed access does not require traveling through the flood plain. Ms. Kanellopolous noted that while disturbance of steep slopes is needed for the accessway, disturbance of steep slopes for stormwater management facilities may ultimately not be needed during site planning. She said the applicant chose to include this request in case it is needed during site planning, so they do not need to return for another Special Use Permit. She said the application shows three locations for potential disturbance of slopes for stormwater management facilities, and that the County Engineer has reviewed the general locations of the proposed facilities, finding them to be acceptable. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has revised the maximum gross floor area since the first application heard on March 10. She said previously, all units were limited to 1,200 square feet maximum. She said there are now 50 units at 1,200 square feet, and 50 units at 900 square feet. She said the applicant has requested an additional 10,000 square feet of building footprint area. She said there are no additional changes in the maximum number of units from the first application, and all units must still be outside of environmental features. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has added a note, per Engineering staffs recommendations, that channelized slopes with discharge of stormwater into the stream be permitted. She said these may not be needed at the site planning stage; however, an exact design would be determined at that stage. Ms. Kanellopolous said the applicant has also agreed to a new condition to provide 75% of stormwater treatment on site, exclusive of forest and open space easement. Ms. Kanellopolous said staff has found the following favorable and unfavorable factors for this application. She said staff finds that the request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations in the Places29 Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Neighborhood Model Principles, and is meeting the County's Affordable Housing Policy. Ms. Kanellopolous said staff also notes that the proposal is above the recommended density in the Master Plan, and that there are potential negative impacts with steep slopes disturbances. Ms. Kanellopolous said based on the favorable factors and analysis, as outlined in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request and defers to the Commission's evaluation of the proposed density. Ms. Kanellopolous said staff also recommends approval of the Special Use Permit request, and presented the conditions. She said these were the same conditions as those in the updated staff report, and as previously mentioned, Condition #6 has been added since the first Planning Commission meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous presented both the rezoning motions and the Special Use Permit motions for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Clayborne asked Ms. Kanellopolous if she knew what the vision of the Economic Development department is for this area of the County. Ms. Kanellopolous replied that she had a chance to talk to Economic Development staff, who mentioned that they expect continued growth in some of the commercial and industrial uses in this area, as there are parcels with Commercial and Industrial zoning that have not been developed yet. She said there is further development that will happen at the UVA Research Park, so additional employment uses are expected in this area. She said the Places29 Master Plan mentions the UVA Research Park as an employment center. Mr. Clayborne said there was mention that density bonuses are not spoken for, as this is a conventional type of plan. He asked if this would stop the Commission from having any conversation that evening regarding increasing the amount of affordable housing in exchange for a greater density. Ms. Kanellopolous replied that those conversations could still take place, since this is a rezoning request. Mr. Dotson said there was a slide with a side -by -side comparison of the original proposal and the current one. He said on that slide, there was mention of a total residential building footprint of 50,000. He said he was curious as to how this number was calculated. He said there was 1,200 square feet for 100 units, and asked if this wouldn't be 120,000. Ms. Kanellopolous replied she believed some of those units have multiple stories, since it was a maximum gross floor area. She said that number was provided by the applicant, and they could confirm that. Mr. Dotson said on his screen, he could not view the footprint on the current application. He asked what this number was. Ms. Kanellopolous replied that this number went from 50,000 to 60,000. Ms. Firehock said she had three questions. She said her first question was, in staffs opinion, if road widening to provide the access would be required for any type of residential development at this site. Ms. Kanellopolous replied that this was the case Ms. Firehock said to develop this, then, some impact to steep slopes would be required. She asked if the roads in the system were intended to become public roads, or if the interior roads would remain private. Ms. Kanellopolous said they would technically be designed as an accessway. She said since the units are not being subdivided, a private street is not required. Ms. Firehock said she had never heard of the term "channelized slopes," and asked if Ms. Kanellopolous or the applicant could explain this. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Ms. Kanellopolous said Mr. John Anderson from Engineering was also present and that he may do a better job of explaining this. Mr. John Anderson (County Engineering) said he also did not know what "channelized slopes" meant. He said what he has seen on the ZMA application are schematic representations for drop inlets for catch or storm pipes for conveyance. He said in the slopes themselves, there should not be any channelized flow, and certainly not on preserved slopes. Ms. Firehock agreed, noting that this was the reason for her confusion. Mr. Bivins opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Justin Shimp, project engineer, presented the concept plan. He reminded the Commission that what led the project to that point was that he has to grade the parking areas, but that he doesn't have to do any grading or disturbance where the buildings are, which was key in preserving existing trees and was why the road layout ended up the way it did. Mr. Shimp presented some images to give an idea of what the applicant wants to build. He noted some buildings in the images were in a pine forest and may not be great fire -wise design, but that he would go back to this later. Mr. Shimp presented some images of the typical one -bedroom and two -bedroom setups. He presented another set of images to give a sense of the construction, noting that one of the images was very similar to the feel they are trying to achieve with this particular project. Mr. Shimp reminded the Commission that the conventional development there would have about 92,000 square feet of footprint. He said unlike this proposal, where he has a very limited impact in the area where all the houses go, they would essentially clear all the trees and mass grade the area where the construction happens. He said although this would be outside of all the environmental features, there would still be a disturbance of all that area, where they have much less of that now. Mr. Shimp said last time, they had talked about the concept of this being built off the affordable dwelling units that had been approved previously. He said places like Riverside and Belvedere have a carriage house or accessory unit which does not count towards density. He said from that standpoint, the idea of the smaller -sized units was not new for properties in the Development Area. Mr. Shimp said in talking about the concept of accessory, the Commission had brought up that there could be a concept of bonus provisions as well. He said as staff pointed out, there isn't a calculation or guide in the ordinance for how to look at that. He said they did want to highlight some of the aspects about this project that were unique. He noted that 73% of the existing road is maintained. He said there is 80% open space, and that they are managing to save a 1930s brick house that has an interesting character. He said the building footprint is 4% of the area, and therefore has a very light impact. Mr. Shimp said there is also a 2,600-foot trail network and opportunities in that for natural playscapes. He said this is well above the minimum required. Mr. Shimp said they could look at these accessory units and bonus factors with net density higher than is what is typically given. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Shimp said there was an important nuance in the change to the stormwater condition. He said it says, "exclusive of forest and open space." He said in a normal scenario, one gets to count their open space as essentially an offset towards the treatment, even without buying nutrient credits. He said in this particular instance, what the County Engineer proposed (based on the comments made at the last hearing by the Planning Commission) was that they have a 75% treatment exclusive of forest and open space. He said this means that real treatment -- whether it be permeable pavers, biofilters, infiltration, or rainwater harvesting -- would be required as part of the project now. Mr. Shimp said going through the discussion in the staff report, one of the items was about the entrance road. He said he tried to describe at the last hearing why the applicant was cutting the road down and couldn't shift it from one side to the other, or even build a bridge or structurally support it. He said the grade is steep enough that once he starts to fill out on the edge, he doesn't catch back up easily. He said that fill creates much more of an environmental impact than if they take the approach of cutting down. He said while this means disturbing some of the slopes, it limits the overall impact and is the most effective way to do it. Mr. Shimp said the applicant was asked previously about layouts, and that they have probably done a dozen layouts or more on this property. He presented an example of a layout that has a more scattered feel and less concentration of parking. He said this is where he wanted to go in the beginning, but he found that this required essentially clearing the whole site. He said his concept of saving the trees was best achieved with the current plan, which is to cluster the parking lot in one location, then have the buildings in the forest. Mr. Shimp said with regard to parking, they have approximately one tree for every three or four parking spaces, where the normal ordinance is one tree per 10 parking spaces. He said this meant they were bringing trees back in this plan. Mr. Shimp presented an illustration about the unit design. He said they tie into grade at certain points, and that the parking lot as designed is to disturb that area, but not much else. He said the illustration shows that one unit will be in the upper level, one on the lower level, and stairs leading down. He said this area can essentially be undisturbed around the stave of trees. Mr. Shimp said there was a discussion about the fire -wise standard, and that he read through this. He said in many ways, the applicant meets this, as the area of development is primarily hardwood and presents less issues than pines. He said most of the criteria is about maintenance. He said if there is a way to put some of these things in a proffer or application plan, the applicant is not opposed to it, but he also felt like there were things that the Zoning Inspector wouldn't be able to go out and actually enforce. He said it is more like a good practice for property management than it is a zoning restriction. He said he best felt that this was left as maintenance and not a zoning restriction. Mr. Shimp said there was a question about a sewer system, and that he wanted to be clear that they were only building a pump station. He said this is a $30,000-40,000 construction that runs for sometimes decades with practically no replacement or upkeep other than changing pump impellers. He said these are very commonly used and have many levels of safety. Mr. Shimp provided an example of a small shed where the controls and backup generator would be. He said this was provide an idea of the scale of the maintenance obligation that the neighborhood would have. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Shimp said there was a discussion about how staff identified the school impact and had a concern. He provided an illustration to give a sense of the size and scale of the project, as a reminder. Mr. Shimp said in closing, staff had made a good point about how this was a unique type of housing. He said he is very excited about the idea of putting something on this property that is not normal. He said they could build a 51-unit luxury townhome and accessory units that would look different than this. He said they would be taking out all the trees and putting up more pavement than they have with the current plan. He said they would be housing the same number of people, but removing an income level by making more expensive units in the property that he doesn't think is necessary. Mr. Shimp said there had been a comment about not doing enough with the roads. He said it was suggested they could be more innovative, and that while he appreciated all the suggestions, he has to work in a world where he has a parking ordinance, a fire code, and other regulations that he has to meet. He said he can take steps in the direction he wants to go but if he goes too far, he won't build anything at all, which would not be of service to the community. He said he believes they struck a good balance, and he hoped that the Commission liked the plan. Ms. Firehock brought up her earlier question about the "channelized slope." She said she was confused as to whether Mr. Shimp was saying that the cut and fill slope was a channelized slope. Mr. Shimp replied that he was actually not sure about this term, either. He said this was in the staff report, and that what he believed it meant is that, depending on the nature of the soils and the stream banks, they may need to disturb along the edge of the river to put an engineered stable slope into the river. He said this is an engineering channel rather than a slope, and that it would be a way to get drainage safely into the river without risking damaging the banks of the river. Ms. Firehock asked if Mr. Shimp was talking about a drainage swale into the river, or if he was talking about channelizing the banks of the Rivanna. Mr. Shimp replied that it would be a swale running into the river, perpendicular to it. Mr. Clayborne said his question was about resiliency and knowing that the number of 100-year storms are increasing. He asked what kind of resiliency measures around flooding have been discussed for the project thus far. Mr. Shimp said he had discussed this with Mr. Randolph. He said they had about a 5- or 6-foot freeboard from the 100-year storm to the unit. He said this equates it to something more than a 500-year storm, and so there is a significant margin. He said although 5 or 6 feet may not sound like much, the magnitude of water that it takes to rise the water that far is significantly higher, and would relate to storms that have never been recorded in this area. He said there is a significant cushion compared to what would be the minimum standard. Ms. Firehock said she wanted to follow up on Mr. Clayborne's question, and asked about the road leading in and out. She said she understood the point about the dwelling units, but wondered if there was a possibility that people would become trapped in the development during high water. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Shimp replied that the road crossing is about 3 feet or so above the 100-year flood plain, and so it is conceivable that temporarily, people would be cut off. He said in that instance, he believes the Route 29 bridge would also get taken out. He said this is a catastrophic rainfall where many people have their access cut off. He said they did consult with a geologist about the rock formation, and that the bedrock in that area is highly resistant to erosion (noting these were his exact words). He said it would be a temporary situation that could happen, but he doesn't believe this would separate people from the road permanently. Mr. Bivins opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. Ms. Shaffer said there was no one signed up for public comment or indicating they would like to speak on this matter. Mr. Bivins asked if the applicant had anything else to say. Mr. Shimp stressed that while this is a higher number of units, he didn't really see it as a higher number of people. He said they have mostly 1- to 2-bedroom units and that this could be the same as 53-bedroom. He said he sees this as more of an opportunity to get more affordable housing and make a unique sort of development that is conscious and saves many trees. He said it may have a higher density, but the impacts were not an issue, and there is no traffic. Mr. Shimp said this is the sort of design that is hoped for in the Development Areas. He said there are things as far as reducing parking that the applicant would like to be able to do, but the zoning restrictions are what they are. He said they could push the envelope as far as they can, but they always want to get it built and want people to live there and enjoy the property. Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing. Mr. Randolph said he did not see significant improvements from what they had previously seen. He said he remains deeply concerned that there is no secondary connecting road there into a proposed Planned Residential Development. He said in fact, what was proposed and acknowledged there that evening was a single means of ingress and egress with only 3 feet separating that road and a 100-year flood from potential flooding, and that they have seen significant flooding events in the County in the last four years. He said that two years ago, along the stretch of the Rivanna that flows past Glenmore, there were two thousand -year flood events separated by little more than a month. Mr. Randolph said he was very concerned about the fact that they are proposing lower -income housing with no public transit, no bus stops, and putting housing in a location where it would be subject to flooding. He said this is a recipe for affordable housing failure, as well as significant costs, moving forward, for the County potentially in terms of DSS and addressing the people that would be displaced as a result of flooding. Mr. Randolph noted there were still no proffers for purposes of education, nor for any other contingencies. Mr. Randolph said he was also not comfortable with questions about steep slope disturbance issues being deferred to site review. He said those kinds of questions are consistent with the intent of the ordinance to be first addressed by the Commission, then by the Board, and not to be put off to staff discussion subsequent to the determination of the outcome of the application. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Randolph said he was not comfortable with the Commission making a decision about a hybrid central sewage system. He said in essence, they are setting a policy decision ahead of the Comprehensive Plan, and ahead of the Board. He said he thinks this is a decision for the Board, and the Board alone, to decide, and not for the Commission to decide as to the extent of central sewage systems and how they will work with the existing public infrastructure. Mr. Randolph said those were some of the issues he has with the application. He said his fundamental issue is that he thinks this project proposed a shoe -horned density into a location and space that is really not suited for that density. Ms. Firehock said she appreciated Mr. Randolph's comments. She said she also wanted to go back to the question of fire -wise, as this is a methodology for setting houses within a wooded setting but reducing the risk that catastrophic fire would harm people or property. She said it is not actually simply a maintenance matter, but has to do with how the houses are laid out and within the proximity of the trees. She said she has toured fire -wise communities across the West and has seen houses that did not burn down. Ms. Firehock said she understood that the applicant said they would have sprinkler systems in the houses. She pointed out that this would not actually prevent the risk of a wildfire or forest fire harming people there. She said in subdivisions she has worked on; it is very important that there are two entrances so that people do not become trapped. She said adding density into this scenario, there is a greater risk that people will not be able to get out successfully if, for instance, trees were to fall across the road. Ms. Firehock said that under the category of public safety, she is very concerned that they are developing in the woods. She said she was sure the applicant was thinking they were saving the trees, and that she agreed saving trees was a wonderful thing. She said she was not sure, however, about the density, expressing that it was too much to cram into a sensitive site. She said that while she applauded the applicant on tree conversation, she was afraid they may be putting people at risk. Ms. Firehock said that to Mr. Randolph's point about floods, she has actually seen one stand of the 29 bridge underwater since she has lived in the area. She said storms are predicted to become more severe and have more water in them, and so the Commission needs to be aware of the issues of becoming trapped in a storm, even though it is 3 feet above the 100-year flood plain, according to the applicant. She said she remained very concerned about the issue of the one entry/exit point. Mr. Keller agreed with Mr. Randolph and Ms. Firehock, but noted that they are finding themselves with a very interesting case and proposal. He said he believes that the best use of this parcel of land would be as a park, farm, or vineyard. Mr. Keller said the point that Mr. Randolph made about the access, on the one hand, is true. He said on the other hand, if there was a creative way to bring people from that community (e.g. community covered golf carts) that couldn't go onto the main road but could bring people from the residential area to Route 29 (which is determined to have mass, public transit) would put a larger group of people at a lower income level close to where there are currently more employment possibilities in a very close location, adding that there was even another project for review that evening that related to this area of the County. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Keller said the Commission has approved many projects that are not as sensitive to the slopes and existing elevations of the piedmont topography. He said to his knowledge, this was the first creative proposal from a private sector entity to think about lower -cost rental units that are still fitting the profile of interest of many people in the community. Mr. Keller said either with this, or through a special meeting, the Commission needs to think about the density issues that staff has asked them to address. He said in effect, they have done this with Belvedere, and he thinks the underlying question of establishing what that square footage could be that has been presented by the applicant is very interesting and worth further thought and investigation. Mr. Keller said in an earlier meeting, he had brought up some of the concerns that the first two Commissioners have called attention to, but that he thinks there are other mitigating factors and that, as staff has identified, there are many positives along with some of the negatives. Mr. Dotson said the safety points made by Mr. Randolph and Ms. Firehock are well -made. He said as he has looked at this project, it has been primarily from the Master Plan density perspective. He said staff has reported that, using net calculations, 51 dwelling units could fit on the site. He said he wants to be rigorous in defending and adhering to the Master Plan, but at the same time, he does not want to be rigid. Mr. Dotson said another way to think about this, and that perhaps Mr. Keller was getting at this, is if the Commission thought about the square footage of the units, it might be the equivalent of under 50 dwelling units because of their small size, as compared with average units in the County. He said perhaps this is another useful way to think about this. Mr. Dotson said the staff report pointed out that in Strategy 8-C, it indicates that the County should review the net and gross density as computed under the Comprehensive Plan versus the zoning. He said the term "review" is used, and that his guess was that when that review takes place, it will be somewhat in flux in that it is not that the Comprehensive Plan net density is necessarily right, nor that the zoning gross density is wrong. He said he thinks there will be some creative possibilities in between the two, and so he didn't want to be so rigid as to say that the plan requires, they use net density. Mr. Dotson said the site is quite unique and difficult, being that it is in a peninsula that is difficult to access, but that it is within the designated growth area. He said compared to other single-family units, because of their size, these will be more affordable and unique family homes available for rent. He said it is an interesting set of notions before the Commission, and that he also applauds saving the trees and disturbing a minimum portion of the site. Mr. Dotson reiterated he wants to be rigorous, but he does not want to be rigid. Mr. Clayborne said the Engineering team should be commended for a challenging site, and that there are a lot of strong ideas in the site design that he appreciated. He said he also shares some of the concerns his colleagues have mentioned. He said as he looks at the proposal, he sees more good elements than negative ones. He said there is certainly a need for housing, as Economic Development has a vision to continue to blossom in that area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Clayborne said with regard to the one way in and out, this does give him some concern, but that he saw in the staff report that Fire Services seems to be comfortable with that. He said he shared the same concerns as fellow Commissioners, but that he did see more good than negative with the proposed project. Mr. Bivins said he had a few things he was wrestling with on what he thinks is an excellent project. He said when he came to the area to go to law school, this was a place where many of his colleagues lived. He said it was accessible to those who went to graduate school and had automobiles. He said he was struggling with this being a lovely place with some houses, and that the applicant is asking for 100 units while staff calculated 51. He said he was struggling with the level of density asked for. Mr. Bivins said in this particular location, which has less of an open feel and less flexibility to it as places they looked at such as Galaxie Farm, which had more open space. He said for him, going above the 51 units was hard for him to imagine. Mr. Bivins said he appreciated the idea and the argument put forward that these were like accessory units, but that there is a key piece of accessory units that he is having a hard time with. He said in places with accessory units, those homeowners have bought homes with the types of mortgages that would go with the idea of having an accessory unit, as those units help with the cost of the mortgage. He said this was not the kind of thing that has been presented here. Mr. Bivins said it was an interesting and large community and an area of Route 29 that could be helped by this kind of inventory of units, but that these were not accessory structures or an accessory community. He said these are all separately -structured houses, with a variety of sizes from studio to 3-bedroom, and that there is very little common or yote structures between what he see proposed in the excellent plans and what he has come to understand is the common requirements for what an accessory unit is, which is a single-family house or single [inaudible]. Mr. Bivins said he was struggling with how to get to a place where over 51 units is something that he would be [inaudible]. Ms. Firehock said she was not as concerned with the question of density, as the designer has laid out the units in a creative way that fit them into the landscape in a much less destructive manner, even though there is grading required. Ms. Firehock said she was really torn about this development because she appreciated the landscape layout and how the engineer is saving trees, as this is unique. She added that the Commission will continue to see these types of tricky proposals because they are now trying to infill and fit more into the Urban Ring. She said the obvious, easy places have been taken, and so this will become a challenge more often. Ms. Firehock said she was concerned that the County does not necessarily have good enough standards for tree protection during and after construction, compared to other communities. She said they need to grow up their ordinances somewhat. She said she actually likes the way the site has been designed. She said while it was not overly creative, it goes much farther than what the Commission typically sees. She said despite her earlier comments, she was more inclined to be supportive of the project. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Randolph echoed Ms. Firehock's thoughts in that there was much to be applauded in the application. He said if it were not in a very tight, environmentally constrained location, there would probably be universal support for it. He said he needs to be consistent with the fact that while he did express some concerns about the concentration of development that went in below Stonehenge, in Dunlora Forest, it was an appropriate development for the location. Mr. Randolph said for him, it was not an issue of density, as it did not matter if there were 10 families there, or 50. He said the access and public safety issue of that narrow isthmus with the potential for flooding is not diminished. He said the flood waters don't care if there are 10 people downstream or 50 people there. He said that didn't change for him, and that he was still concerned that they do not see proffers on this. Mr. Randolph said the argument is that the number of public school students is not a high number, but that the approvals of project after project are each a drip in the bucket that, over time, add up to perhaps 100 new students that are enrolled after buildout. He said this was not appropriate here for the Commission to ask of that, but that it seems to be something appropriate for the Board to raise as a concern when they look at it. Mr. Randolph said he voted against Riverside Village, and that his primary concern with it was flooding. He said this remains a concern at Riverside Village. He said the Commission did talk about the potential for flooding across the stream, and opposed an application for a daycare center. He said the Board was not of the consistency of mindset of the majority of the Planning Commission, but that this still remains an issue for Riverside Village. He said so far, they have not had significant flooding in that reach of the river that could contribute to problems. Mr. Randolph said he cannot, in good conscience, approve a project that months or years from now, could turn out to be a flooded site, and especially for the people living there and what the implications would be for them. He said this is especially true when these are lower -income people. He asked if they were really moving the needle for affordable housing if they marginalize low-income people in a potentially environmentally compromised location. He said he didn't see this as environmental justice. He said he was sure Mr. Shimp is aware of this as an issue. Mr. Randolph that in good conscience, he simply cannot vote for this application in this location. Mr. Keller said the last part of the discussion has made it seem as if the residential units would be in a flood plain. He said the reality is the access road that could likely be flooded in extreme situations. He said the residential units are actually on a high point and would not be flooded in a 500-year flood. He said he was not diminishing the fact that access being covered by water for 1- 2 days, but that this was different from putting development in a place where the houses would be flooded, such as in Houston. Mr. Clayborne said that in response to Mr. Randolph's comments, they should keep in mind that affordable housing is not the same as low-income housing. He said he would not necessarily assume that people who live here do not have means to transportation. He said when he thinks of affordable housing, he is thinking about teachers, firefighters, and that kind of demographic. He said he wanted to make sure that they are not painting a picture that may not necessarily represent the candidates. Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend approval of ZMA201800018 River's Edge with the finding that the use of a central system that will provide connection nearby public sources is substantial per the Comprehensive Plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Randolph dissented. Ms More was absent.) Mr. Bivins asked if there was a motion or discussion about the Special Use Permit. Ms. Firehock said she would not suggest conditioning the motion with what she was about to say, but that she would sincerely like to request that the applicant meet with a representative from the Virginia Department of Forestry before getting into the site design so they can understand more about how they can design this development to be fire -safe. Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend approval of SP201800023 River's Edge with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Randolph dissented. Ms. More was absent.) New Business Mr. Dotson introduced Mr. Daniel Bailey, explaining that Mr. Bailey has been appointed by the Board of Supervisors as his successor on the Planning Commission for the Rio District, beginning June 1, 2020. Mr. Bailey thanked Mr. Gallaway for his trust and confidence in him, and for Mr. Dotson's guidance and counsel. He thanked the Commission for their warm welcome, and to Mr. Rapp and staff for reaching out. Mr. Bailey said he has been a resident of the County for the past 7 years and lives in Belvedere, where he has served on its HOA and as the chair of its architectural review board. He said he is also a local entrepreneur, and is the co-founder and CEO of Astraea, which is a software and data analytics company specializing in leveraging satellite data to provide earth intelligence, with a specialization in land use and land change, providing for renewable and clean energy and monitoring other economic activity. Mr. Bailey said he has a nontraditional background and does not have the experience in planning as Mr. Dotson has, but that he brings a small business perspective to the community that is deeply interested and concerned with sustainable development and future growth of the County. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation to Mr. Dotson, letting him know he would be missed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Adjournment At 8:04 p.m., the Commission adjourned to June 2, 2020, Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting. Charles Rapp, Director of Planning (Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards and transcribed by Golden Transcription) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 6/16/2020 Initials: CSS ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16 FINAL MINUTES- May 19, 2020 Lake Greene L G,e e L ake ,ville \� V SITE Ip-.iotteiPe, 7leort niversity of Virginia w .e / �j`� i�arc /* �- r h Paik I to! NTS w A, I/ - 'IN. 10 �atl�kal Ground I 'gigence Centi 0 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT OWNER/DEVELOPER Rivers Edge Holdings LLC & Rivers Edge Associates LLC C/O Access Properties 2027 Woodbrook Ct Charlottesville, VA 22901 PROPERTY ADDRESS 2260-2280 Rivers Edge Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 DISTRICT Rivanna STEEP SLOPES £r STREAM BUFFER There are existing steep slopes and stream buffers on site. SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY Compiled from the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services GIS Data. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018. FLOODZONE According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003CO286D), this property does lie within a Zone AE 100-year flood plain. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED Non -Watershed Supply Watershed WATER AND SANITARY SERVICES Provided by Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) FIRE CODE Units will be provided with an automatic sprinkler system USE EXISTING: Rl - Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential & Private Open Space PROPOSED: Residential & Private Open Space ZONING EXISTING: Rural Areas OVERLAY. Airport Impact Area, Entrance Corridor, 100- Year Floodplain, Steep Slopes - Managed & Preserved PROPOSED: Planned Residential Development (PRD) PROPOSED UNITS 100 size -restricted units: 50 units, maximum unit size 1,200 SF + 50 units, maximum unit size 900 SF Gross density of 3 units/acre (32.52 acres total), net density of 11.6 units/acre (8.62 developable). OPEN SPACE Open space area shall be provided in accordance with Sec. 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Recreational area shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Recreational facilities as provided for in Section 4.16.2 may be substituted during site plan with equipment and facilities as provided for in this Application Plan and as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations, stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river in an adequate channel with slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank disturbance occurs. USE TABLE NOTES 1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to exceed 60,000 SF 2. Setbacks are not provided as the property is not to be subdivided. APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE & ZMA DETAILS Sheet 2 of 29 USE TABLE PROPOSED # OF 100 DWELLING UNITS' UNIT TYPE Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, triplex, quadruplex NON-RESIDENTIAL 4,000 SF SQUAREFOOTAGE (excluding recreational facilities provided in accordance with Sec. 4.16) MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' MAXIMUM GFA PER UNIT 50 units: 1,200 SF (MAX) + 50 units: 900 SF (MAX) BUILDING SEPARATION 10' unless the building shares a common wall; 5' off of each building side for a total of 10' between buildings BUILD -TO LINES 50' from US Route 29 5' from parking areas, travelways, accessways, and pedestrian paths ALLOWABLE USES Residential units as provided for in this Application Plan. The following uses listed in Sec. 19.3.1 shall be permitted by -right: (1) Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries, and the like; (2) Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; (3) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; (4) Temporary construction uses; (5) Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A and storage buildings; (6) Group home; (7) Stormwater management facilities shown on approved final site plan or subdivision plat; (8) Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities; (9) Family day homes The following uses of Sec. 19.3.2 shall be permitted by approval of a special use permit: (1) Child day center; (2) Fire and rescue squad stations; (3) Assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, children's residential facility, or similar institution; (4) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances; (5) Home occupation, Class B; (6) Religious assembly use; (7) Stand alone parking and parking structures; (8) Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities; (9) Offices; (10) Tier III personal wireless service facilities; (11) Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals; (12) Farmers' market ----------------- ----=----------- i i i i s t TMP 32-22K1 Incheon Holdings LLC 1 Zone: Rural Areas t — - — — — —� Use: Vacant Residential TMP 32-22K t t Neighborhood hrvestments - NP LLC Zone: Rural Areas Use: Vacant Residential TMP 33-15 Next Generation LLC Zone: Rural Areas Use: Vacant Residential ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN Z MA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE --------------------------- I ------- ------- -----EXISTING CONDITIONS TMP 32-5F Sheet 3 of 29 Seraphic Holdings LLC t t Zone: Light Industrial Use: Distribution Warehouse TMP 32-5E I TMP 32-5 TMP 32-5A TMP 32-5B t Chim LLC t Pest Generation LL( Additional Notes: as Edge Holdings LC Seminole North LLC I Zone: Heavy Industrial I Zone: Rural Areas Zone: Rural Areas Zone: Light Industrial Use: Vacant Industrial t dlse: Vacant Residen[i Use: Single Famil Use: Storage Warehouse t . - - 1. Source of property boundaries on ( sheet 3: Albemarle County GIS � � t � s i TMP 32-5D1 Albemarle County Service Authority Zone: Light Industrial ( 1 0 Use: Government Building t t � � t t � t TMP 32-50 t United States of America TMP 32-51) C/O US Arm ATTN: Real Albemarle County Service Autharlry�� Estate Division Zone: Light Industrial Zone: Light Industrial Use: Government Building Use: Government Building A 225 0 225 450 675 Graphic Scale: 1"= 225' IL TMP 32-5A1 Rivers Edge Associates LLC Zone: Rural Areas Use: Multifamily TMP 32-5C4 United States of America C/O US Army Corp/Eng Office/Counsel Zone: Rural Areas Use: Vacant Residential TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT — -- -- J — ----- - - - z_ —------------- — _ _ - - - APPLICATION PLAN f 8FE38 S' 1 ' 1 % \ I, T ZMA201800018 weo RIVER'S EDGE FEMA F 92' �1 mI III IIII I\ it EXISTING CONDITIONS o , % - ?°��1' Sheet 4 of 29 r I\ I FEM FE 386' \ Additional Notes: %I� ■ v 1� - - - - `� 1. Source of dashed parcel boundaries: Albemarle County GIS IIk 2. Source of parcel boundary for TMP 32-5A and -� 32-5 ---__ '--- - Al: plat of record and approximate survey Approximate � , \ �, �\�` - - - I - - - _ _ _ _ � — � � data ,_ -- locatlonof tennis court - - 4420 - - - - _aooJ �36 -r-- - \ \ MA BW388'1 -FEMN -8FE 38Y 4F \ 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. \I - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - Refer to sheet 28 for a �� \ I section of the 50 forested buffer I F€MA F 92' Existing structure raj to be preserved and repurposed as� amenity for TMP I rE 386 I. 32-5A and 32-5A1 — Z V.— — Approximate \ \location of '61repurposed multipurpose court _ Accessway _ a.o _ ------ for 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPT PLAN Sheet 5 of 29 LEGEND LAND USE PROHIBITED USES PERMITTED USES Travel ways, ingress/egress, Accessway Residential & non- grading, landscaping, utilities, Reservation* residential buildings along with other uses typically permitted within a ROW Residential and non-residential buildings, signage, grading, open space, ®landscaping, Buildable Area None utilities, sidewalks, parking, primitive trails, retaining walls, stormwater management facilities Improvements Stream restoration, primitive that require mass trails, landscaping, gardens, Open Space grading, open-air surface parking lots, utilities (which cannot be reasonably located outside of residential buildings open space area), and primitive buildings - see note 1 below) 50' Forest Buffer Residential & non- residential buildings, Travel ways, ingress/egress, for grading and disturbance parking *Accessway reservation area is shown for circulation feasibility purposes; this location is approximate and may change during site plan. 1. Primitive buildings and structures accessory to the recreational areas of the development, such as picnic pavilions, may be constructed within the portion of the open space area that is outside of the regulatory floodway, stream buffers, and preserved slopes. The maximum number of sites for primitive buildings or primitive structures or similar outdoor amenities shall be five (5). The maximum disturbance area of any individual primitive building or primitive structure or similar outdoor amenity shall be 500 square feet. The maximum aggregate disturbance area for all sites for primitive buildings or primitive structures or outdoor amenities shall be 1,500 square feet. Primitive buildings, primitive structures, and similar outdoor amenities are intended to serve as an accessory use to the recreational areas of the development and are not intended for human habitation. Key FEMA BFE Stream - - - - WPO Buffer Waterway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved 0 Steep Slopes: Managed TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 I project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. r^ — — —--------- ____ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ---- --_-_ -� — — _--- - ; �— __- _ _ _ - - - - _ = APPLICATION PLAN ' --' -- -- --- - - --- Z \ � MA 1 1 il -- FEMA BF ,- -- - RIVER'S EDGE OPEN SPACE x I FEMA F 92' Existing structure vv �� i� i Oj Sheet 6 Of 29 to be preserved ° and repurposed as amenity for TMP Additional Notes: FE 386' �� 32-5A and 32-5A1 �I / J 1. This open space exhibit shows possible open space area \ — — - — ,-a outside of environmentally sensitive features (steep slopes, _ _ -_ - _ \ \� I // )r', floodplain, stream buffer). This does not depict total open _ _ l j space proposed for the property. For total open space, please ; \ see sheet 5 (Land Use Designations). _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ 2. Total possible open space area outside of (1) Approximate \ \\ ` - - - _ — \ -i \ %, environmentally sensitive features and (2) accessway and —location of V M ,� _� / /i i, repurposed�°° - _ _ I - parking area is 5.37 acres. multipurpose°°� gyp°° �/ \ 8° 35 4 a3. no al buildingfootprint area not shown) is approximated court \ _ - �� ° 38, _ t greater than 60,000 sq. ft., therefore, possible open \ ° _ - 35 - space area outside of 1 environmentally sensitive features, _ - -__--_ A (2) accessway and parking area, and (3) building footprints \....... ' _ is 4 acres. �'-..� FEMA BFE 389' 1 \ \0° 2 1 \ / \ , 4. Total area of the property is 32.52 acres; total required open space is 8.13 acres, with 1.62 acres required outside of such environmental features. \ \ ++a \\\ ; �, \ - 4. Open space and recreational areas will comply with \ 420` .. o- MA QFE gab' _ / Section 4.7 and 4.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Key \ \�a / — \ 3 Ordinance, unless substitutions for facilities and equipment . Possible Open Space Area Outside of go ,,, : Environmentally Sensitive Features "`\ °° - i� <'`' r =u jr as provided for in this application are approved by the P P >i, Director of Planning and Community Development. FEMA BFE \ - Stream EErTn�FE 3EY \ - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway a / TM P(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Accessway/Parking Submitted 17 December 2018 �— Steep Slopes: Preserved Revised 16 September 2019 0 Steep Slopes: Managed Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February2020 - -- REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. _ -- _ _ Il r I, -1 - __ — — — — _ - - - - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT = _ — = — - - - - - - - - APPLICATION PLAN -------------- ---- -= — — — _ - -- _ -�— — — - Z MA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE r iy OPEN SPACE & ,I 1 1 ilSi w.'qExisting structure ��' CREATIONAL FACILITIES zp �1` to be preserved Sheet 7 Of 29 ��� ' ` t III I and repurposed as FEM 1•.E 386'.� -„Ar. - amenity for TMp j - \ 32-5A and 32-5A1 Additional Notes: _ _ - - - �� ., 1. Minimum 2,6001inear feet of — - \ - — �` - - - -� �� ✓� / �% ; primitive trails to be provided. Please refer to sheet 11(Proposed /��� I ��� ; , , � � � �� � , � / . / / � _ � � - _ , - - _% 7 � r / Circulation) for proposed path "locations. Approxima location of to \.a,<�\\ 91, 1 p pe P multi urPn$e court a l - Required Equipment Proposed Natural Alternati ve for One Tot Lot Swing (4 seats) - Swings could still be used with more natural features incorporated (ex: tree swings) - Natural structures that are conducive for climbing/ hanging/swinging by arms (ex: fallen log with limbs at varying heights) Slide (1) - Slides could still be used with logs set into natural topography as `stairs; or slide set on top of boulders (see climber alternatives below) - Hobbit house - Hollowed out tree trunk Climbers (2) - Natural mound - Large boulders ("rock landscape") - Fallen log will limbs at varying heights Buckabout/whirl (1) - Log steppers or log balancing course - Movable objects (see narrative for information about loose objects play) Benches (2) Provided typically for parents to directly supervise children within a fenced -in area. Depending on circumstances, benches may not be necessary, especially as the natural plyscape may not be confined to a specific area. Benches may be periodically provided along the trail system on the property; exact locations will be explored at site plan. Basketball court (1/2) 1 -1 multipurpose court to be provided please refer to sheet 8 and 9 for precedent natural playscape images. TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 / Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. c 9 e o 7o 76 IL -ell '44 - V7 . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 'ob P, J064ma *7 Welles Park Nature Play Space, Chicago, Illinois (Site Design Group) Overview of Nature Play Programming lW RINLM , L 1 sD F YCMf YOYYD V 4 jB r Marge and Charles Schott Nature P1ayScape Cincinnati Nature Center, Milford, Ohio (Ground Work Design Cincinnati) Hollowed natural mound ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 IVER'S EDGE EDENT NATURAL PLAY IMAGES Sheet 9 of 29 are included for precedent recreational facilities to be to plan and do not demonstrate nprovements. TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existi� -------------- ---- - - — --\--- — — — _ MK FE - - ng paved i / accessway FEMA F 92' ito become pedestrian path �---- — ��- fill FEM FE 386' Ll l �aL-L c = _ - •� ��� �� aza_ J MA BFE38 r A Additional Notes: 1. Total footprint area of residential buildings not to v \ \ \ v exceed 60,000 SF \ 2 Setbacks e n provided as the property s not to be el are of r ei subdivided. TM P(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Steep Slopes: Preserved Steep Slopes: Managed 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE BUILDING ENVELOPE Sheet 10 of 29 PROPOSED # OF 100 DWELLING UNITS' UNIT TYPE Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, triplex, quadruplex NON-RESIDENTIAL 4,000 SF SQUAREFOOTAGE (excluding recreational facilties required by Section 4.16 ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' MAXIMUM GFA PER 50 units: 1,200 SF + 50 units: 900 SF UNIT BUILDING 10' unless the building shares a SEPARATION common wall; 5' off of each building side for a total of 10' between buildings BUILD -TO LINES2 50' from US Route 29 5' from parking areas, travelways, accessways, and pedestrian paths ALLOWABLE USES Residential units as provided for in this Application Plan. Please refer to sheet 2 for by -right and special uses permitted on the property. o s - i, Submitted 17 December 2018 i _ - i Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. < -- -- — —- - ----------- ---- - - - - - �� Existing paved _ ( �- t � -"�; - - ----- �----- �-,--------- r - - — road to become • e , �— pedestrian path ' - I Lil FEMA F 92' iFuture pedestrian I `connection across Existing structure b�- to reserved --li ;. Flat Branch to • P ' TMP 32-22K1 y \ and repurposed as \'� ® / /i41 FEM FE 3s6 amenity for TMP 7 £ - 32-5A and 32-5A1- A tz_ — — — Approximate I ` _ I location of M 1' repurposed I I _ multipurpose sae court ° /' i ffp _ 400 azo _ _ 580 _.400 FEMA BFE 390`__-. \ o Sep s4o 420_ - 1 \ I aao_Pedestrian walkwaysV��A`A� on both sides of ry " v Yp 3F��% v v vv v r retamm wall oO � Pedestrian walkways F A, • • , re access o turnaround im,- 1 \ Fire access \ turnaround - - - -_ -fFMA-FE — J. 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"= 200' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE PROPOSED CIRCULATION Sheet 11 of 29 Key • • • • Public Access Pedestrian Path Future Pedestrian Connection minion Vehicular Circulation Primitive Trail (Internal Network) Retaining Wall FEMA BFE Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway/Parking _ Pedestrian Walkways 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved 0 Steep Slopes: Mana ed Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ,'7" �yi,' �� �� ZONING MAP AMENDMENT \ — I �� _ _ - Existing ACSA manhole � --_��K=_-=------ �-------= -------i-- �---Z--�--a--' � - APPLICATION PLAN - — ZMA201800018 _ __ _ _ Bore under Route 29 for public sewer _ _ _ _ -ir_ _ _ -- - , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RIVER'S EDGE — New _ —_ CONCEPTUAL — — , ACSA manhole �_---�--�--------------------- -- — ----- �--- — � r — — — �1L WATER aao —,1 N I I \ — —_ --FE3 � � �,; �,, Z ,,---�---- £s SEWER ; �wm Public water line /��%%/� �i� / Sheet 12 of 29 Existing paved FEMA F 92' road to become 1 i , l Additional Notes: �z0� �v `vv r pedestrian path 1. Structures to be metered according to ACSA i i v regulations. v r v FEM FE386' 360 06 -- / J6 - - - 380- - v ao- Y force - — 420 - -. - —4000 d60 A r 440420 _ — ,. E399:, �o Blain. 1 - Sao sa v r sa L i _ T"H nd ry Fire hydrants r MA 388' —wwpq , �° =d — A- < �%- i Submitted 17 December 2018 ` 6 O / - Revised 16 September 2019 - \\\ - _ _ \`\� �� a oo Revised 16 December 2019 A - - \vv Revised 28 February 2020 - i REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 200, vv` i0 r----200 4p�V`- = 600:_ - - v v project: 15.064 'Si4oic sale:\i 2Qo SHIMP ENGINEERING P.C. _ Room ` I — `� \ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ON \\ \ \ \ APPLICATION PLAN \ \ _ \ ZMA201800018 `\ - 44 T \ \ \ RIVER'S EDGE \ \ \ \ \ \ CONCEPTUAL GRADING \ W 1 \ Sheet 13 of 29 FEIV16,LFL 'RETAIN WALL W 3 RETAINI WALL / 43 2e / VW 4 x2'e — Xo2P x42? TW x210 x Of 8' RETAININ�"WALL \ xie^ / O TW 406 TW 418 �\tea OO � a xis BW 398 \ i X. x� O \ S \ \ \ \ \ 00 � TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 \ \ BW 400 / Revised 16 September 2019 \ \ Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 Key REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 50 0 50 100 150 Steep Slopes: Preserved project: 15.064 Graphic Scale: V= 100' Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C. �J I.,�1t 11IIH FEM FE 3 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' v~ F ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 14 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 Key FEMA BEE per County GIS Elevations Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: WM svf 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. TM FE I t " caCe OP � to '9a 6eC 04 tope 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 15 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 --� •ns I� Key FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. �4 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"= 50' � c North Fork Rivanna River now now now Elm ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ROAD GRADING + PROFILE Sheet 16 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 Key FEMA BFE per County GIS Elevations Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway Steep Slopes: Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. \ I • \ 1 \ \ ZOIRG 7APA M E N T \ \ \ APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 1 •' �'. RETAIN WALL �•• o r ®ER'S EDGE TW \ TW aso RETAINI wALL M WAT E R Sheet 19 of 29 0 CS, 4 2 �V X Storm drain inlet � \ X / / JI X21° r X O-? Storm drain inlet / 8' RETAI�ALL � Xie^ \ / MA -E E. o TW 418 �o TW 406 BW 98 •f Discharge into waterway X ' - • • Underground detention in accordance with / / �� VSMP regulations (see note 1) T Tw.408 -Bw 400 Additional Notes: _ i / / / See steep s�pes disturbance 1. If permitted under applicable stormwater / / / exhibit for proposed slopes regulations, stormdisturbance water discharge may to � � � , / � level spreader or similar facility to open space. �° If conditions do not permit such discharge, � � / / T P(s}`°; 2-5A & Al stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or .F_E M A-B Ff8 river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with / Sub tted Dece er 2018 slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream ' / R ise 16 Sep ber 2019 bank disturbance occurs. ® / - / Revised 16 D mber 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 Key REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 50 0 50 100 150 Steep Slopes: Preserved Graphic Scale: l "= 100' 0 Steep Slopes: Managed S H I M P ENGINEERING, P.C. I Flat Branch -BF i Discharge into waterway in accordance with VSMP regulations (see I note 2) See steep slopes disturbance exhibit for proposed slopes disturbance 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"=50' I'll a ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER Sheet 20 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations, stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank disturbance occurs. Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway ® Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. r Discharge into Iwaterway in accordance with VSMP regulations (see Inote 2) See steep slopes disturbance exhibit for proposed slopes disturbance J \\ t. i 14 Storm drain inlet 50 0 50 100 150 Graphic Scale: 1"=50' -tM/a h l,2' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER Sheet 21 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations, stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank disturbance occurs. Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway 0 Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Storm drain inlet 300 0 300 400 00 Graphic Scale: 1"=20' OMM now _ IL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE ( CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER Sheet 22 of 29 ' Additional Notes: sae 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018. 2. If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations, stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river in an adequate channel (shown in gray) with slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank disturbance occurs. Key FEMA BFE Boundary Stream — — — — Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. htMHJfh//t/j'1L' I I/ Existing structure to be preserved and repurposed as FEM FE 3asr amenity for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 O ,1 I 4` M Existing paved road to become pedestrian path I FEMA —�� a e FEMA BFE 387' /�0' + BFE389'--® _ e 0 / i �� b 40, 200 0 200 400 600 Graphic Scale: 1"=200' F, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STEEP SLOPES DISTURBANCE Sheet 23 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the steep slopes is approximately 39,100 square feet 3. If permitted under applicable stormwater regulations, stormwater discharge may be to level spreader or similar facility to open space. If conditions do not permit such discharge, stormwater may be conveyed to the stream or river in an adequate channel with slope stabilization, as applicable, where stream bank disturbance occurs. Key FEMA BFE Stream - - - - Water Protection Ordinance Buffer 0 Waterway Accessway 0 Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Steep Slopes Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. I =AMA- BFE 385,.5' IPil FEM FE 386' !1' a i J� m.� 1 Existing structure to be preserved and repurposed as amenity for TMP 32-5A and 32-5A1 J J Existing paved road to become pedestrian path North Fork Riv�' anna River ...����_ 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE Sheet 24 of 29 Additional Notes: 1. Topographic road survey completed by Brian Ray, Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Surveying, September 2018 2. Total disturbance of the stream buffer is approximately 23,000 square feet Key FEMA BFE Stream Water Protection Ordinance Buffer _ Waterway _ Accessway Steep Slopes: Preserved _ Stream Buffer Disturance TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existing grade Existing trees to be preserved where possible Planted trees fining wall Planted trees ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE SECTION A -A' Sheet 25 of 29 440 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4' retaining wall - - - - 420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m 400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I40 0 I__I I__I I__I Graphic Scale: 1' 40 80 120 8' retaining wall Top/bottom unit TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Existing trees to be preserved where possible Existing grade ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SITE SECTION B-B' Sheet 26 of 29 Planted trees 440 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8' retaining wall 8' retaining wall 420- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 400- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I25 0 I__I I__I I__I Graphic Scale: 1' 25 50 75 Top bottom unit TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. PRIMITIVE TRAIL SECTION CLASS B - TYPE 1 PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL - PRIVATE EASEMENT PRIMITIVE TRAIL 5 0 5 10 15 ACCESSWAY SECTION SHOULI VARIABLE WII 4' GRADE EXISTING RIVER'S EDGE ROAD 12' PAVED ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH PROPOSED TYPICAL STREET SECTION INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK )ULDER (ABLE WIDTH 20' PAVED TRAVEL LANE 28' ACCESSWAY RESERVATION HOULDER ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE STREET SECTION Sheet 28 of 29 TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 Graphic Scale: 1"=5' project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15% of the total residential dwelling units within the project shall be For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (the "15% Affordable Housing Requirement"). For the purposes of these Supplementary Regulations, "affordable housing" shall mean units affordable for rent by households within incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined from time to time by the Virginia Housing Development Authority). All renters of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Community Development Department. The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement may be met through a variety of housing unit types, including but not limited to, two- family dwellings, triplexes, and quadruplexes. (1) Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each rental housing unit which shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit, ("For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit") shall not exceed the then -current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by the Albemarle County Community Development Department. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). The term "net rent' means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this Section shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit (the "Affordable Term"). (2) Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this Section. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any For - Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this Section. At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this Section have been satisfied. (3) Reporting Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, the Applicant or its successor shall provide to the Albemarle County Community Development Department a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the Applicant or its successor shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require. (4) Tracking. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property shall: i) designate the units, as applicable, that will constitute Affordable Dwelling Units within the Project and ii) contain a running tally of the Affordable Dwelling Units either constructed or contributed for under this Section. The designated units shown on each site plan shall designate 15% of the total units shown as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to more than sixty- five percent (65%) completion of the Project. APPLICATION PLAN ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Sheet 29 of 29 TMP(s) 32-5A & 32-5A1 Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 2019 Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 project: 15.064 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. STEEP SLOPES - PRESERVED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZMA201800018 RIVER'S EDGE - - _ CONCEPT EXHIBIT -- PRIMITIVE TRAIL -SYSTEM Sheet e \ heG O1 Lt LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS \ \;°°• �o PLANTED THE LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED \ STEEP SLOPES -MANAGED 2-BEDROOM UNIT y °a TPRES HROUGHOUT T SITE � I � 4' R@TAINING WALL TNROUGF�OUT SITE (SPECIFIC T�EESTO .BE DESIGNATED A� 81TE PLAN) \ - P PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS ° ° ° L _ � ( TOPIBOTIhM UNIT STYLE I � \� \X•'� � Mom\ � �� � �� �� � � I \ LANDSCAPyESTRIP TO. LANTE \. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PRESERVED REELINE LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE PLANTED 8' RETTtlNING WALL v � �_ - / �___ __ - _. •v _ _ _ _-vim / / \ -- / r \ — TMP(s) 32-5A £T 32-5A1 \ - Submitted 17 December 2018 Revised 16 September 201J Revised 16 December 2019 Revised 28 February 2020 REVISED 14 APRIL 2020 60 0 60 120 180 Additional Notes: 1. Concept Plan is for illustrative purposes only project: 15.064 Graphic Scale: l"=60' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.