Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700024 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2011-06-15 (2)Attachment B AUNT March 10, 2011 Eryn Brennan Albemarle County Department of Community Development Dear Ms. Brennan, Thank you for the opportunity to review materials for ZMA200700024 and SP200700057, Riverside Village. JAUNT has the following advisory comments. 1. This area is in the urban fare zone for JAUNT, where we provide trips primarily for people with disabilities. Charlottesville Area Transit would be the main transit option for the general public. CAT's Route 10 operates adjacent to the site on Stony Point Rd. 2. A bus pull -off exists on northbound Stony Point Rd. across from this site but is not currently used. The proposed density of Riverside Village would suggest that a matching pull -off with an accessible wheelchair landing pad should be constructed on the southbound side of Stony Point Rd. as part of Riverside Village. At that point, both stops could be used. Consult with CAT. 3. Because fixed -route transit operates along Stony Point Rd., the goals of the Neighborhood Model might be better achieved by relocating the multifamily housing buildings closer to the road. This would allow more residents to be within close walking distance of transit stops. 4. As the project progresses, JAUNT would be interested in seeing more detailed site plans that include locations of accessible parking spaces and accessible building entrances for the commercial and multifamily buildings. 5. The internally connected street network is helpful and traffic circulation patterns appear generally adequate for JAUNT vehicles. a. Additional external connectivity would be helpful, although it is understandable to avoid road connections through the floodplain. b. On Road A where a median exists, a JAUNT vehicle stopped to load or unload would block one direction of travel if on- street parking spaces are full. c. The end of Road B has a turnaround that should be sufficient for JAUNT vehicles, but we would prefer to see a connection to the commercial parking lot to avoid the need for backing. 104 Keystone Place, Charlottesville VA 22902 www.rideiaunt.org info @rideoaunt.org (434) 296 -3184 6. Pedestrian connections to transit a. Assuming CAT stops are added on Stony Point Rd., pedestrian crossing improvements should be considered and coordinated with VDOT. b. The sidewalk at the end of Road B (in front of unit 92) should be connected to the new sidewalk on Stony Point Rd. Assuming CAT stops are added on Stony Point Rd., this would provide more direct transit access for many units. c. Sidewalks should be built through planting strips at each T- intersection to allow legal crossings of cross - streets. This may affect tree placement and /or on- street parking. Applies at the following intersections: Road A at Road A (crossing from unit 12 to unit 39 and from unit 8 to unit 26), Road A at Road B (crossing from unit 38 to unit 71), and Road A at Stony Point Rd. (crossing Stony Point Rd.) d. Along Stony Point Rd., it appears that there will be a small gap in the sidewalk between the new sidewalk adjacent to this property and existing sidewalk to the southwest. Any efforts to complete this gap as part of the project will avoid mobilization costs to fill this gap in the future. Please contact me with any questions. Peter Ohlms, JAUNT Mobility Manager - petero @ridelaunt.org - 296 -3184, ext. 120 pF AL U L L Ci7 �'IRGIT�Z�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 June 15, 2011 Michael Myers Dominion Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village SP 2007 -057 Fill in the Floodplain Review Comments - Resubmittal 5 /16/2011 Dear Mr. Myers: Fax (434) 972 -4126 Thank you for your recent resubmittal received on May 16, 2011 and the detailed response letter to the comments provided to you on April 8, 2011 regarding the request to rezone 18.6 acres, approximately 8.8 acres of which is located in the floodplain, from R1 Residential to Neighborhood Model District, and to construct 109 residential units and 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space. The application has been reviewed and comments are consolidated below. Analysis of the extent to which the resubmittal responded to the April 8, 2011 comments, and additional comments based on new information provided with this application, have been provided in bold red for your convenience. Information from the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to this parcel is included in Attachment A. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. However, the residential net density proposed in the application is two to three times higher than the density recommended in the PMP. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately 8.8 acres of which is in the floodplain. The PMP recommends 3 -6 units per acre, which would allow for 30 -59 units on the portion of the site outside of the floodplain. In 2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the density calculation and use the 3 -6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008, the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely impact the floodplain. • Staff recommends no more than 59 units for the site as designated in the PMP. The most recent submittal proposes 109 units (12 MF and 97 SF). While this constitutes a significant reduction from the 162 units proposed in the February 21, 2011 submittal, the net density of 11.2 acres per unit is still nearly twice as high as the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the initial application submitted in 2007 proposed 108 units for the site, and the PC requested then that the applicant reduce the net density. Staff recommends reducing the number of units for the development to comply with the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel. 2. Non - residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. The prior proposal showed offices along Route 20 and retail /commercial uses along the river corridor, which was more in keeping with the recommendations outlined in the PMP. Staff believes that non - residential uses along Route 20 should be limited to primarily office use since nearby Avemore and Cascadia will provide for neighborhood service uses in this area. The proposed maximum 20,000 square feet for non - residential uses also meets the standards set forth in the PMP. • Staff recommends limiting the type of commercial uses proposed along Route 20 (see also comments under "Parking" regarding type of use and parking requirements). This comment has been addressed. The use of street trees along Route 20 assists in the transition from rural to a more urban character in the area. Given the proffered frontage improvements, VDOT has indicated that street trees should be possible within the right -of -way and out of the clear zone. • Street trees have been provided along Route 20. Although the issues outlined below can be addressed at the site plan stage, VDOT has provided these comments with the review of the rezoning for the benefit of the applicant. • Street trees need a flat area for planting; do not show them on 2:1 highway embankments. • Street trees in the public right of way need to be placed in accordance with appendix B -1 of the Road Design Manual, specifically the mature tree size and proximity to proposed intersections needs to be considered during design. • Deflection areas behind the guardrail on Route 20 need to be clear of all objects, including street trees. GR2 guardrails would be required at this location, which have a minimum 3' deflection area. Given the site and location of the proposed development, a minimum 5' deflection area would be preferred. A pedestrian path connecting the development to the river is proposed in the development, which enhances the site's natural features and meets the River Corridor guidelines outlined in the PMP. However, parking areas in Blocks 2 and 4, backyard areas in Block 2, buildings in Block 2, and amenities such as the tot lot and volleyball court in Blocks 2 and 4 are proposed in the floodplain. The substantial disturbance proposed to the floodplain for this development does not meet this PMP guideline. Please review recommendations by the Planning Commission at the two previous work sessions held in 2007 and 2008. • Staff strongly recommends that you revise the plan to reduce the impact of the development plan on the floodplain. Although the residences (parts thereof), parking, tot lot, and basketball court shown in the floodplain in the February 21 have been removed, development in the form of stormwater facilities, parking for the park, and road improvements are still shown in the floodplain. The County Engineer has provided the following comments regarding the most recent submittal: i. This latest revision (5) encroaches into the floodplain of the Rivanna River substantially for Rt. 20 improvements, parking and stormwater management, slope grades, and erosion control. Encroachments into the floodplain to increase development are not recommended for approval. Encroachments for stormwater management are not recommended for approval. The encroachment for the Rt. 20 improvements appears necessary, and could be recommended for approval with the special use permit and FEMA map changes. ii. A revision to the FEMA model and detailed study will be needed to ascertain the impacts to the flood levels and floodplain, and to allow FEMA to review and update the study area. This should be displayed in a way that can be presented to the Commission and Board. iii. It is recommended that no approvals be given for facilities, stormwater or otherwise, which would need substantial repair or replacement after flood events. If the Commission and Board are inclined to approve this residential development which adjusts the edge of the floodplain, it is recommended that a distance (margin of safety) be provided between residential units yards, and the expected floodwaters. Citizens will be concerned when water approaches residences, even if the engineering studies predict no direct impacts. It is also usually the case that flood levels increase as the overall community in the watershed grows, and residences built just outside of the floodplain can end up inside it. Amenities such as tot lots, pocket parks, and recreation space have been provided in the proposed development. A 5.95 acre public park has also been included on the plan and proffered (Proffer 1); however, the portion of the property that will be dedicated to public use for the park is not clearly shown in the general development plan or in the code of development. In previous reviews, the Parks and 2 Recreation department has requested that some portion of the land dedicated for the park be located in an area outside the floodplain for facilities that may be needed for the park, such as public restrooms, a parking area, or playground (see applicant comment letter dated July 30, 2008). Since there will be a separate design process for the portion of the property dedicated to public use, any improvements in the park should not be shown with the plans for Riverside Village. Revise the plan to show the exact location of the 5.95 acre park addressed in Proffer 1. The proffers and plan have been revised to provide for a 7.26 acre public park, and the exact location of the park has been shown on the plan. i. However, parking facilities and a watering station for the park (which would require a water connection, most likely from the bathroom facility) are proposed in the floodplain, which is contrary to what the Parks and Recreation department requested in earlier comments shown above. Please note that fill in the floodplain to accommodate parking for the park is not recommended for approval. ii. In addition, please note that any gravel parking proposed in the development would require waivers from sections of Chapter 18 of the County Code including Sections 4.12.15(a) [to allow gravel parking], 4.12.15(g) [to not provide curbing], and 4.12.16(e) [to not provide bumper blocks]. The last wavier may not be necessary as the applicant may intend to provide bumper blocks; however, this detail is not clear on the current plan. Although these issues can be addressed at the site plan stage, the applicant is encouraged to address them with the rezoning in order to avoid delays at the site plan stage. Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is to rezone a parcel from R1 to NMD in order to allow a mixture of residential, office, and commercial uses on the site. The following chart addresses only those categories of the Neighborhood Model that were previously identified as issues in the February 21, 2011 submittal. Neighborhood Sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking serving single family lots are proposed. Friendly Streets and However, a pedestrian connection to the property adjacent to Road B should be Paths established to encourage pedestrian accessibility to the proposed farmers market on that site. This comment has been addressed. Interconnected The development plan shows an interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of the Streets and subject parcel, which supports this NMD principle. However, the stub -out needs to Transportation extend to the property line. This comment has been addressed. Networks Parks and Open The tot lot should not be located in the floodplain. This comment has been Space addressed. Site Planning that There are important environmental features on the site, such as the floodplain, Respects Terrain stream buffers, and critical slopes, that should be protected and maintain. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the need for protection of the floodplain. See comments from County Engineer on page 3. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD) Generally, it must be made clear what are non - enforceable objectives and what are specific requirements in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards are subjective, a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. Also, please note that ARB review will be required for any site design, landscaping, and building design that is visible from the Entrance Corridor. I have provided a copy of the County's format for CODs, which includes examples of how information should be organized in tables. This format was not used for all sections of the Code in your resubmittal and is provided again with requested changes noted. This comment has been addressed. 1. Please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the designated blocks with Section H of the COD. • This comment has been addressed. 2. Density, setbacks, and building heights listed on page 14 should be shown in a single table. Include the standard notes regarding restrictions and requirements on this page as provided in the copy of the County's COD included with this letter. • This comment has been addressed. Include on the cover sheet the ZMA and SP number and the tax map and parcel number. • This comment has been addressed. 4. The applicant should remove the last sentence of the paragraph under "Architectural Review Committee" on page 14 because compliance with the architectural standards set forth in the COD will be reviewed by an internal committee and not by Albemarle County. The second sentence in this paragraph may also be removed. Staff will look further into the matter. 5. The Table of Contents in the COD states there are 23 pages, but only 19 have been provided. Coordinate the Table of Contents with the contents of the COD. Please note that the proffer form should not be included in the COD. BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE: 1. Block 5 on page 3 states that the design services and public visioning process for the park have been proffered and they have not. • The description of Block 5 on page 6 states that the design services of the park have been included in proffer 1A and they have not. The proffer should simply state that the design shall be subject to approval by the director of the Parks and Recreation department. 2. As accessory apartments are only permitted in single - family dwellings, they would not be allowed in Block 4 as shown in the table. • This comment has been addressed. PARKING: 1. Parking tabulations should be shown in a single table. This comment has been addressed. 2. For Block 1, the tabulations state that 89 spaces are provided, but only 83 spaces are shown on the plan. Coordinate the COD with the plan. This comment has been addressed. 3. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c, which can be dealt with during the site plan process. Comment maintained for benefit of the applicant. 4. Page 7 of the COD should clarify that 184 spaces are provided for the townhouses in Blocks 2 and 3. This comment is no longer applicable because the applicant has stated on Page 9 that adequate parking and loading facilities will be in accordance with an approved site plan. Please note that an approved site plan must comply with the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance outlined in Chapter 18, Section 4.12. 5. The commercial area only provides parking sufficient for an office use; yet the COD allows several commercial uses that would require additional parking. The applicant should review Section 4.12.6 and provide additional parking or remove the commercial uses to provide for office only. This comment has been addressed. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS Given the density of the proposed development, the location of dumpsters should be shown on the plan. This comment has not been addressed. RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY It appears the development will produce over 40,000 gallons of average daily sewage flow. As such, a capacity certification from RWSA will be required. At this time, it does not appear that the site will have any additional impacts on RWSA facilities. Comment maintained for benefit of the applicant. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING COMMENTS 1. The area designated as the public park does not show any improvements or parking. • Submit a parking study or provide confirmation from the Parks and Recreation department that the number of parking spaces provided for the park is sufficient. 2. The applicant is proposing 162 residential units. This scale of development requires the following recreational amenities: 0 • 32,400 square feet (0.74 acres) of recreational area • 4 tot lots • 1 half basketball court The agent may modify the standards. The applicant should contact me directly to discuss recreational amenities to show on the application plan in accordance with Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2, or they should be put on notice that approval of the rezoning does not constitute waiver or variation of the required recreational amenities and that recreational areas above those shown on the application plan may be required. • With the number of residential units reduced to 109, the amount of recreational amenities proposed for this application meets County standards. 3. Near Route 20 at the east of the project Road B is a dead end. I recommend that it be connected to the travelway serving the commercial area, which would provide for improved on site circulation. This comment has been addressed. 4. Decks are shown extending to the alley. Depending on the design of the decks the posts may restrict the area available for parking. Minimum parking dimensions are 9 feet wide. This comment has been addressed. 5. The design of the boardwalk and bridge should be specified. This comment has been addressed. More specific information regarding construction would be required at the site plan stage. 6. Units 14 thru 24 do not have frontage on a public or private street and cannot be subdivided. A modification can be processed during the rezoning only. The applicant has requested this waiver. 7. The applicant has previously discussed providing traffic alternatives, such as bus service, for this development, but no accommodation for bus service has been included on the proposed plan. Previous comments provided by JAUNT also recommended providing bus service for this development (Attachment B). 8. It is not clear whether enough ROW exists for the parallel guest spaces shown along Private Roads A &B, as space widths appear to vary in depth throughout the plan. Please confirm all spaces are 20' long x 9' wide, as required under Section 4.12.16 of the County Code. This will be especially important during the site plan process. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS Regarding the rezoning; (ZMA200700024) 1. The traffic study projects as much as a 10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection, and no improvements have been proposed. Give the level of service failures with even just background growth, this is quickly becoming one of the worst congestion problems in the county, and this application should contribute in some proportion to the solution. The intersection's efficiency could be improved by lane widening on both sides at Rt. 20 and Riverbend, and a right - turn lane from Rt. 250. Note that lane improvements on this signal would serve to eliminate the split -phase function, thereby making a significant improvement to through- movements on Rt. 250. The applicant may wish to consider proffering 10% of the improvement costs necessary for these road improvements. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans showed the widening to the eastern boundary. Also, the gap to the existing lane widening to the west leaves an odd constriction in lanes at this point, and it is not clear that lanes line up in either direction. All improvements should be to the project side of the street, holding the opposite curb line the same, such that no portion of the recent county project curb and sidewalk needs to be rebuilt. It is also noted that internal road layouts have changed; the travelway entrance to the right going into the site, just off the main entrance to Rt. 20, is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance. In addition, it is unclear where surplus parking would take place if the roads will not allow it as proposed. Since surplus parking is inevitable on some occasions, it will likely block the street. 2. It should be noted that road improvements for this development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent W1 facilities from the floodplain, as has been recommended with the special use permit, should keep these disturbances temporary. Therefore, encroachment in the floodplain to allow for road improvements could be acceptable for this development. The applicant appears to be anticipating a waiver of detention requirements. However, downstream channels and culverts under Free Bridge Lane will need to be adequate, or improved. This comment has not been addressed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR COMMENTS A separate ARB application and full review will be required by the ARB at a later time. Only those comments provided to the applicant on April 18, 2011 that were not addressed have been included below. 1. Regarding the earth -tone color standard on page 12 of the Code, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site. The text should be revised to address this. Also, "earth- tone" is a very broad category. It is recommended that the applicant further refine the standard by naming a range of colors, for example, "medium to dark shades of brown, gray, and green ". • The "earth- tone" color requirement (page 13, Code) has been revised to state more specifically the color range that the applicant requires for exterior finishes in the development. As revised, however, no white or light colors could be approved for building trim or detailing. The applicant may wish to further consider the overall desired appearance for buildings in the development, while still limiting the color range for major building surfaces. 2. It is anticipated that the buildings in Block 4 will have some visibility from the EC. Recommendations were previously made to address this visibility in regards to the standards for roof pitch and design (page 12 of the Code). The previous recommendation stands. Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 4, as well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." • The third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" in the Code (page 13) was revised to address Block 1 instead of Block 4. The recommendations made previously were intended for the larger buildings originally proposed in Block 4. If the applicant wants the identified design features to be applied to Block 1 buildings, architectural elevations should be submitted to illustrate how the roof design can be made appropriate for the EC. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (VDOT) COMMENTS 1. The Route 20 plan included in the rezoning application needs to be correct prior to determining the extension of the culvert and fill in the floodplain. This comment has not been adequately addressed. See comments below. 2. The public roads in the development will be added to the state maintenance system under the SSAR's. The applicant will need to submit the items listed in 24VAC30 -92 -70 with the conceptual sketch to ensure that the proposed public roads can be added. Items not included in this application include: • Proposed Functional Classification of each street. These streets appear to be local. • The connectivity index. • Reductions in the connectivity index. • The connectivity index requirements cannot be reduced for the river when there is a state maintained road (Route 1421) between the development and the river; therefore, the connectivity index calculation needs to be recalculated. The full frontage improvements to Route 20 do not appear to be in accordance with the Pantops Master Plan. Please see previous VDOT and Albemarle County comments sent to the applicant in November 2008 in addition to follow up comments sent by VDOT in December 2008. The proposed Route 20 improvements for this site do not appear to have adequate lane shifts to accommodate the left turn lane. The median also cannot decrease in width between rel the cross section to the west and the proposed left turn lane; therefore, the plan needs to be revised. 4. The proffers state that a left turn lane and an additional southbound lane will be constructed, but the attached plan only shows a left turn lane and does not reflect the proffers. Please coordinate the plan with the proffers. The plan has been revised to coordinate with the proffers, but further design revisions are required as addressed in other comments. 5. VDOT previously asked for an ultimate plan of Route 20 in accordance with the four lane section to accurately locate drainage structures and sidewalk in addition to ensuring that the extension of the box culvert is correct. This is not included in the plan and may have additional impacts to the floodplain for the fill section. • The ultimate improvements to the Route 20 corridor are shown as previously requested, but, according to this plan, would require an entire reconstruction of the roadway, including the county constructed eastbound lanes and curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage structures, etc. At the meeting with the applicant, we discussed holding the curb line of the eastbound lanes and constructing over to the westbound lanes. In addition to the above reconstruction required for this application, the proposed plan would require an extension of the box culvert under Route 20 on the south side of the road, elimination of the bus turnout and additional right of way and easements on the south side of the road. • A permanent slope and drainage easement will be required around the culvert extension and the highway embankment and needs to be shown on the plan. 6. There is not enough distance shown along Route 20 to evaluate that the road widening has adequate tie -ins and transitions. See comments provided above. 7. Add a right turn lane to enter the site. This comment has been addressed. 8. Manholes from sanitary and storm sewers need to be removed from state maintained pavement. 9. The corner clearance from the intersection at route 20 needs to be 225 feet as shown in figure F -103 in the VDOT Road Design Manual. 10. Parking setbacks from the intersection on Road "A" need to be in accordance with the setbacks shown on page B -1(49) of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 11. The undivided section of Road "A" needs to have parking on both sides. PROFFERS PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROFFER FORM SHOULD NOT BE INLUCDED IN THE COD. The comments provided below address only the proffers submitted on May 16, 2011. 1. Staff has reviewed the proffers for consistency with the Board's Cash Proffer Policy as it applies to addressing impacts of the proposed development. Cash proffers address impacts to the following facilities: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The policy establishes a maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants, and these numbers have been provided below. • This proffer policy has not been addressed in the proposed proffers. Please provide a proffer addressing the cash proffer policy based on the number of proposed single- family and multi - family units for the development. Sample language for this proffer has been provided in Attachment C. Please note the starting year in proffer example 2B would need to be changed to 2012 if the rezoning is approved this year. • The County's CY 2011 proffer values per dwelling unit, based on recently available Marshall & Swift construction cost index data are hereby provided: SFD -- $19,089.09, SFA/TH -- $12,976.29, and MF -- $13,512.50. Rounded to the nearest $100, the figures are: SFD -- $19,100.00, SFA/TH -- $13,000.00, and MF -- $13,500.00. 2. In regards to proffer 1A, the current practice is to specify the date by which the proffer must be satisfied, e.g, if the rezoning was approved November 10, 2011, the proffer would begin: `By not later than November 10, 2016 ". "General development plans" no longer exist — all planned developments, including those in the NMD, now have "application plans." The Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself. If the applicant would like to submit a separate document stating its estimated value of each of the proffers, they may do so. 3. In regards to proffer 1B, the proffer should state that the design should be subject to approval by VA the director of the department of parks and recreation. Again, the Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself, and the proffer needs to state when the improvements will be done. Please note the location and number of parking spaces proposed in the proffer is subject to the approval of the County Engineer and the Parks and Recreation department and/or Zoning. 4. In regards to proffer 2A, the Owner may want to clarify that the proffer applies only to the first sale; sample language: "This proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the for -sale affordable units." This statement could be added as a final sentence in the proffer. 5. In regards to proffer 3, the proffer should indicate when these improvements will be done (i.e., in conjunction with the first site plan for the project). The proffer should also indicate that if the Owner dedicates the additional right -of -way at a time other than the subdivision of the property, it will be for the costs of the survey, the plat and the deed (a standard deed form would be provided); sample language: "If the public right -of -way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the public right -of -way to the County." Note, however, that if this part of Route 20 is a primary highway, the dedication of right - of -way will be to the State, not the County. Again, the Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions outlined below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule) (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the legal ad fees for the newspaper advertisements and notification of adjoining owners is required a minimum of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing. Payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board of Supervisors public hearing will also be required prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing. Fees may be paid in advance and a payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3029, or ebrennan @albemarle.org, and would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner cc: Bill Fritz (via email) Glenn Brooks (via email) Sarah Baldwin (via email) Amelia McCulley (via email) Bob Crickenberger (via email) Dan Mahon (via email) Joel DeNunzio (via email) o A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 8, 2011 Michael Myers Dominion Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village SP 2007 -057 Fill in the Floodplain Review Comments - Resubmittal 2 /22/2011 Dear Mr. Myers: The resubmittal received for the February 22, 2011 deadline requesting to rezone 18.6 acres, approximately 8.8 acres of which is located in the floodplain, from R1 Residential to Neighborhood Model District for 110 to 162 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial/office space has been reviewed and comments are consolidated below. PANTOPS MASTER PLAN The Pantops Master Plan (PMP) was officially adopted on March 17, 2008. The land use designations for this property are Neighborhood Density, River Corridor Overlay, and Greenspace. The descriptions of these land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and Parks and Green Systems maps with the subject parcel highlighted blue are included for your information. Please note the page numbers of the PMP are referenced after each section. Neighborhood Density Residential — 3 — 6 residential units per acre with residential support uses and limited non - residential uses. Neighborhood Density Residential areas will primarily accommodate single family dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Neighborhood Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non - residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores of less than 4,000 square feet; live /work units above office and /or retail; small office buildings with less than 20,000 square feet; and studios /cottage occupations. (18) Greenspace — Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, floodplain, and adjacent slopes. Typically only passive recreation will occur in these areas or greenway trails. Also includes open space areas that may be managed and owned by homeowners associations. (18) Free Bridge Lane -Focal Point of River Corridor This area offers the best river walk possibilities along Free Bridge Lane adjacent to the Rivanna River and includes the properties between Free Bridge Lane and Route 20 North, south of a stream and Darden Towe Park. A redeveloped area would relate to the centers at Pantops Shopping Center, Darden Towe Park, and the City of Charlottesville; however, the Rivanna River is the intended focal point. This area deserves a special designation because the property along the river is publicly owned and provides opportunities for an enhanced river park. Any future development in this area should be especially sensitive to river ecology. Free Bridge Lane as a river walk may mean future limitations to vehicular access. The proposed Framework Plan calls for two land uses adjacent to the floodplain: Urban Mixed Use and Urban Density. This area could include a recreational focus associated with the River Corridor, with possible canoe rental and other recreational opportunities. (26) Land Use Map t � Future Park , IL e i Parks and Green Systems Map The PMP identifies neighborhoods and centers in Pantops, and recommendations for the residential neighborhood where Riverside Village is located include (20 -21): Darden Towe Park/Stony Point Road (Cascadia/Fontana /Avemore Neighborhood) 1. Maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. 2. Allow for Neighborhood Density and Urban Density residential uses with a Neighborhood Service (NS) center. 3. Protect the rural scenic qualities of Route 20 from the northern edge of the development area south to Elks Drive/Fontana Drive where development along Route 20 should transition to an urban character to the City of Charlottesville. 4. Preserve stream corridors and floodplain in this neighborhood and allow for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. 5. Retain existing amenities and open space within residential developments. PREVIOUS PC WORK SESSIONS For your information, I have included the Planning Commission's recommendations from the two 2 previous work sessions. December 18, 2007 A work session on SP- 2007 -00057 Hartman Property — Floodplain and ZMA- 2007 -00024 Hartman Property was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission made the following comments regarding the questions posed by staff. • Does the Commission support staff's recommendation that the proposed extensive fill in the floodplain should not be permitted? In consensus, the Planning Commission agreed that fill in the floodplain should not be permitted. The Commission emphasized the recommendations of the Draft Pantops Master Plan for protection of the Rivanna River in making this recommendation. • Is the mix of land uses proposed appropriate for this site, including density and amount of office space proposed? In consensus, the Planning Commission believed that the proposed density was too high and that the applicant should not include the undevelopable floodplain acreage of approximately 8 acres towards density calculations. The Commission recommended that the lower range of Neighborhood Density, or 3 -6 units on the developable portion of the property, would be an appropriate density. The Neighborhood Model principles and design/layout of the proposed development should also be considered when evaluating density of the project. The Commission recommended that non - residential square footage for the project should not exceed 20,000 gross square feet of building area. The Commission acknowledged that the master plan has not been adopted and that by right the applicant could do 26 units with the bonus density. However, the Commission recommended that the percentage mix of land uses would be a more appropriate way of evaluating the amount of non - residential to residential square footage proposed in the development. Since the Commission recommended decreasing the residential density, they also recommended that the non- residential/office square footage should also be proportionally reduced. August 26, 2008 The Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA- 2007 -00024 Riverside Village (Concurrent SP- 2007 -057). The Commission reviewed and provided comments on the following four questions posed by staff. 1. Is the maximum square footage of non - residential land uses appropriate for this site, including 30,000 square feet of commercial/office space proposed in Block 1, or should the maximum allowed be reduced? The Commission had no concerns and felt the square footage per building was appropriate for the site. 2. Should additional land dedicated for the public park and amenities be required, in addition to park proffer? The Commission did not recommend that additional park land or amenities be dedicated. The Commission recommended that the applicant provide for urban amenities internal to the development, 3 such as small pocket parks that may have seating. 3. Are the scale and massing of the mixed use buildings in Block 3 appropriate? Generally the Planning Commission liked the relationship of the buildings to the Rivanna River and did not have concerns about the proposed height of four stories. However, they recommended breaking up the massing of the buildings in Block 3. 4. Are the roof rain gardens approximately located adjacent to Route 20 or should they be relocated? The Commission believed that the rain gardens were a beneficial feature that should remain, but recommended they be relocated and not be placed adjacent to Route 20 and that pedestrian orientation of the buildings to the street should be improved. The Commission also felt that providing for green roofs and Low Impact Development (LID) in the development was positive. Other Commission comments: • Some Commissioners were concerned that the applicant's proposed plans would still impact the floodplain and recommended that the plans be revised to eliminate impacts in to the floodplain. • The Commission noted that future submittals and review of this proposal should address the proffer policy and provide adequate proffers to address all impacts of the proposed development, including schools, libraries, and fire rescue and police. • Some concern was expressed about making sure that the parking was adequate for residential /commercial, no matter what entities went into the commercial spaces. STAFF COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT APPLICATION: 1. The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. However, the residential net density proposed in the application is two to three times higher than the density recommended in the PMP. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately 8.8 acres of which is in the floodplain. The PMP recommends 3 -6 units per acre, which would allow for 30 -59 units on the portion of the site outside of the floodplain. In 2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the density calculation and use the 3 -6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008, the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely impact the floodplain. • Staff recommends no more than 59 units for the site as designated in the PMP. 2. Non - residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. The prior proposal showed offices along Route 20 and retail /commercial uses along the river corridor, which was more in keeping with the recommendations outlined in the PMP. Staff believes that non - residential uses along Route 20 should be limited to primarily office use since nearby Avemore and Cascadia will provide for neighborhood service uses in this area. The proposed maximum 20,000 square feet for non- residential uses also meets the standards set forth in the PMP. • Staff recommends limiting the type of commercial uses proposed along Route 20 (see also comments under "Parking" regarding type of use and parking requirements). 3. The use of street trees along Route 20 assists in the transition from rural to a more urban character in the area. Given the proffered frontage improvements, VDOT has indicated that street trees should be possible within the right -of -way and out of the clear zone. 4. A pedestrian path connecting the development to the river is proposed in the development, which 10 enhances the site's natural features and meets the River Corridor guidelines outlined in the PMP. However, parking areas in Blocks 2 and 4, backyard areas in Block 2, buildings in Block 2, and amenities such as the tot lot and volleyball court in Blocks 2 and 4 are proposed in the floodplain. The substantial disturbance proposed to the floodplain for this development does not meet this PMP guideline. Please review recommendations by the Planning Commission at the two previous work sessions held in 2007 and 2008. • Staff strongly recommends that you revise the plan to reduce the impact of the development plan on the floodplain. 5. Amenities such as tot lots, pocket parks, and recreation space have been provided in the proposed development. A 5.95 acre public park has also been included on the plan and proffered (Proffer 1); however, the portion of the property that will be dedicated to public use for the park is not clearly shown in the general development plan or in the code of development. In previous reviews, the Parks and Recreation department has requested that some portion of the land dedicated for the park be located in an area outside the floodplain for facilities that may be needed for the park, such as public restrooms, a parking area, or playground (see applicant comment letter dated July 30, 2008). Since there will be a separate design process for the portion of the property dedicated to public use, any improvements in the park should not be shown with the plans for Riverside Village. • Revise the plan to show the exact location of the 5.95 acre park addressed in Proffer 1. Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is to rezone a parcel from R1 to NMD in order to allow a mixture of residential, service, and commercial uses on the site. The following comments indicate how the proposed project complies with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian A system of sidewalks and trails is proposed within the development; Orientation therefore, this principle is met. Neighborhood Sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking serving single family lots are Friendly Streets proposed. However, a pedestrian connection to the property adjacent to and Paths Road B should be established to encourage pedestrian accessibility to the proposed farmers market on that site. Interconnected The development plan shows an interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of the Streets and subject parcel, which supports this NMD principle. However, the stub -out Transportation needs to extend to the property line. Networks Parks and Open The tot lot should not be located in the floodplain. Space Neighborhood This property is located in the vicinity of Avemore /Cascadia and Pantops Centers Shopping center. This principle is met. Buildings and The 1 -2 story buildings and pocket green spaces located throughout the Spaces of Human development are compatible with the human scale; therefore, this principle is Scale met. Relegated Parking A majority of the parking is relegated; therefore, this principle is met. Mixture of Uses The proposed development provides for an appropriate mix of uses; however, the amount of non - residential proposed is less than the scale expected for Neighborhood Density Land Use designation. Mixture of Housing A mixture of housing types is included with the proposed development. Types and However, comments provided in this letter regarding the proffers addressing Affordability affordable housing should be addressed. 5 Redevelopment This principle does not apply. Site Planning that There are important environmental features on the site, such as the Respects Terrain floodplain, stream buffers, and critical slopes, that should be protected and maintain. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the need for protection of the floodplain. Clear Boundaries This property is located entirely within the Development Area boundaries; with the Rural therefore, this principle does not apply. Areas CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD) Generally, it must be made clear what are non - enforceable objectives and what are specific requirements in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards are subjective, a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. Also, please note that ARB review will be required for any site design, landscaping, and building design that is visible from the Entrance Corridor. I have provided a copy of the County's format for CODs, which includes examples of how information should be organized in tables. This format was not used for all sections of the Code in your resubmittal and is provided again with requested changes noted. 1. Please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the designated blocks with Section 11 of the COD. 2. Density, setbacks, and building heights listed on page 14 should be shown in a single table. Include the standard notes regarding restrictions and requirements on this page as provided in the copy of the County's COD included with this letter. 3. Include on the cover sheet the ZMA and SP number and the tax map and parcel number. BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE: 1. Block 5 on page 3 states that the design services and public visioning process for the park have been proffered and they have not. 2. As accessory apartments are only permitted in single- family dwellings, they would not be allowed in Block 4 as shown in the table. PARKING: 1. Parking tabulations should be shown in a single table. 2. For Block 1, the tabulations state that 89 spaces are provided, but only 83 spaces are shown on the plan. Coordinate the COD with the plan. 3. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c, which can be dealt with during the site plan process. 4. Page 7 of the COD should clarify that 184 spaces are provided for the townhouses in Blocks 2 and 3. 5. The commercial area only provides parking sufficient for an office use; yet the COD allows several commercial uses that would require additional parking. The applicant should review Section 4.12.6 and provide additional parking or remove the commercial uses to provide for office only. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS Given the density of the proposed development, the location of dumpsters should be shown on the plan. 0 RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY It appears the development will produce over 40,000 gallons of average daily sewage flow. As such, a capacity certification from RWSA will be required. At this time, it does not appear that the site will have any additional impacts on RWSA facilities. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING COMMENTS 1. The area designated as the public park does not show any improvements or parking. 2. The applicant is proposing 162 residential units. This scale of development requires the following recreational amenities: • 32,400 square feet (0.74 acres) of recreational area • 4 tot lots • 1 half basketball court The agent may modify the standards. The applicant should contact me directly to discuss recreational amenities to show on the application plan in accordance with Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2, or they should be put on notice that approval of the rezoning does not constitute waiver or variation of the required recreational amenities and that recreational areas above those shown on the application plan may be required. 3. Near Route 20 at the east of the project Road B is a dead end. I recommend that it be connected to the travelway serving the commercial area, which would provide for improved on site circulation. 4. Decks are shown extending to the alley. Depending on the design of the decks the posts may restrict the area available for parking. Minimum parking dimensions are 9 feet wide. 5. The design of the boardwalk and bridge should be specified. 6. Units 14 thru 24 do not have frontage on a public or private street and cannot be subdivided. A modification can be processed during the rezoning only. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS Engineering comments are provided in Attachment A. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR COMMENTS A separate ARB application and full review will be required by the ARB at a later time. The Design Planner provides review comments on rezonings, which are included below. 1. Trees are not spaced correctly on interior roads. A minimum spacing of 40' on center will be required. (Reference Sheet C4.) 2. The Green Space and Amenities Table on page 10 of the Code of Development indicates that there is to be a mix of trees and shrubs behind units 1 -12 in Block 2 in an open space buffer. This landscaping isn't shown on the plan. The table and plan should be coordinated. 3. The Green Space and Amenities Table on Page 10 calls for a mix of evergreens and shrubs for the landscape buffer behind units 65 -92 in Block 3. The word "trees" should be added after "evergreen ". 4. The 5th bullet under "Permitted Building Materials" should read as follows: "False, simulated and other similar building materials, including but not limited to EIFS, spandrel glass, vinyl siding, and simulated tile, shall not be permitted for buildings visible from the Entrance Corridor." The entire site is included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. If the applicant's intent is for this standard to apply to the entire project, then the sentence should end at "... shall not be permitted." 5. Regarding the earth -tone color standard on page 12 of the Code, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site. The text should be revised to address this. Also, "earth- tone" is a very broad category. It is recommended that the applicant further refine the standard by naming a range of colors, for example, "medium to dark shades of brown, gray, and green ". 6. It is anticipated that the buildings in Block 4 will have some visibility from the EC. Recommendations were previously made to address this visibility in regards to the standards for 7 roof pitch and design (page 12 of the Code). The previous recommendation stands. Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 4, as well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." 7. Under "Roof Pitch and Design" on page 12 of the Code, please clarify the meaning of "minimum 2 per building" in the 4th bullet. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION WDOT) COMMENTS 1. The Route 20 plan included in the rezoning application needs to be correct prior to determining the extension of the culvert and fill in the floodplain. 2. The public roads in the development will be added to the state maintenance system under the SSAR's. The applicant will need to submit the items listed in 24VAC30 -92 -70 with the conceptual sketch to ensure that the proposed public roads can be added. Items not included in this application include: a. Proposed Functional Classification of each street. These streets appear to be local. b. The connectivity index. c. Reductions in the connectivity index. 3. The full frontage improvements to Route 20 do not appear to be in accordance with the Pantops Master Plan. Please see previous VDOT and Albemarle County comments sent to the applicant in November 2008 in addition to follow up comments sent by VDOT in December 2008. 4. The proffers state that a left turn lane and an additional southbound lane will be constructed, but the attached plan only shows a left turn lane and does not reflect the proffers. Please coordinate the plan with the proffers. 5. VDOT previously asked for an ultimate plan of Route 20 in accordance with the four lane section to accurately locate drainage structures and sidewalk in addition to ensuring that the extension of the box culvert is correct. This is not included in the plan and may have additional impacts to the floodplain for the fill section. 6. There is not enough distance shown along Route 20 to evaluate that the road widening has adequate tie -ins and transitions. 7. Add a right turn lane to enter the site. PROFFERS 1. Staff has reviewed the proffers for consistency with the Board's Cash Proffer Policy as it applies to addressing impacts of the proposed development. Cash proffers address impacts to the following facilities: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The policy establishes a maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants is $17,794.57 per SFD; $12,085.08 per SFA /TH; and $12,560.87 per MF unit, for market rate units (please note these figures are based on 2010 calculations). 2. The park dedication does not address any improvements (see Section C5c of the Cash Proffer Policy). Additionally, the applicant should state the park dedication to occur at a specific time, such as during the site plan process, and remove "at the request of the County" (see Section D 1 of the Cash Proffer Policy. 3. Proffer 2A: Please revise the following statement to read as such: "The Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee shall work with the owner/builder on identi improving purchasers for affordable units." 4. Proffer 2B: Please note that the language "at their discretion," as proposed in Proffer 213, has generally not been approved by the Board of Supervisors in the past. Staff recommends removing this language from the proffer. In addition, up to 162 market rate units are proposed. Additional information regarding the type of unit proposed to meet the affordable housing requirement is needed. If you proffer cash in lieu of units, the cash equivalent for an affordable unit is currently $21,125. Please note that the County, at its option, may request a cash proffer in the amount of $21,125 in lieu of affordable units. I have included suggested language for your resubmittal if your intention is to make only cash proffers for affordable housing. CountyOption for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units: If at any time prio to the County's approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which includes one or more for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the County's Housing Office informs the then - current owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the time that the then - current owner/builder expects the units to be completed, and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the County to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Twenty -One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty -Five Dollars ($21,125) in lieu of Affordable Unit(s), the the then - current owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the Unit(s) that were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then - current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Unit(s) will be available for sale. When you are ready to resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff, that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3029 or ebrennangalbemarle.org and would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner 0 ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner RE: ZMA- 2007 -24 and SP- 2007 -57: Riverside Village DATE: June 1, 2011 I have reviewed the submittal (application plan revised May 16, 2011, SP plan revised May 6, 2011, and Code revised May 16, 2011) provided for the above referenced application and I have the following comments. • In the last paragraph of the "General Description of the Project" (page 2, Code) the applicant states that shade trees spaced at 40' on center will be planted along the EC, and Sheet C4 shows this spacing. Final landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but please note that Entrance Corridor tree spacing is 35' on center. Interior street tree spacing is 40' on center. The "General Description" should be revised accordingly. • The "earth- tone" color requirement (page 13, Code) has been revised to state more specifically the color range that the applicant requires for exterior finishes in the development. As revised, however, no white or light colors could be approved for building trim or detailing. The applicant may wish to further consider the overall desired appearance for buildings in the development, while still limiting the color range for major building surfaces. • The third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" in the Code (page 13) was revised to address Block 1 instead of Block 4. The recommendations made previously were intended for the larger buildings originally proposed in Block 4. If the applicant wants the identified design features to be applied to Block 1 buildings, architectural elevations should be submitted to illustrate how the roof design can be made appropriate for the EC. • The Code (page 14) requires that a certificate of approval from the Riverside Village ARC be submitted at the time of building permit application. This is not typically a County requirement. It should remain with Riverside. *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Eryn Brennan From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 June 2011 Subject: Riverside Village (Hartman Property) The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; Regarding the special use permit for fill in floodplain; (SP200700057) This latest revision (5) encroaches into the floodplain of the Rivanna River substantially for Rt. 20 improvements, parking and stormwater management, slope grades, and erosion control. Encroachments into the floodplain to increase development are not recommended for approval. Encroachments for stormwater management are not recommended for approval. The encroachment for the Rt. 20 improvements appears necessary, and could be recommended for approval with the special use permit and FEMA map changes. A revision to the FEMA model and detailed study will be needed to ascertain the impacts to the flood levels and floodplain, and to allow FEMA to review and update the study area. This should be displayed in a way that can be presented to the Commission and Board. It is recommended that no approvals be given for facilities, stormwater or otherwise, which would need substantial repair or replacement after flood events. If the Commission and Board are inclined to approve this residential development which adjusts the edge of the floodplain, it is recommended that a distance (margin of safety) be provided between residential units yards, and the expected floodwaters. Citizens will be concerned when water approaches residences, even if the engineering studies predict no direct impacts. It is also usually the case that flood levels increase as the overall community in the watershed grows, and residents built just outside of the floodplain can end up inside it. Regarding the rezoning; (ZMA200700024) The traffic study projects as much as a 10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. No improvements are proposed, considering LOS failures with background growth only. This is getting to be one of the worst congestion problems in the county. This applicant should contribute in some proportion to the solution. This intersection's efficiency could be improved by lane widening on both sides at Rt. 20 and Riverbend, and a right -turn lane from Rt. 250. Note that lane improvements on this signal would serve to eliminate the split -phase function, thereby making a significant improvement to through- movements on Rt. 250. It is also noted that the frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the widening to the eastern boundary. Also, the gap to the existing lane widening to the west leaves an odd constriction in lanes at this point, and it is not clear that lanes line up in either direction. All improvements should be to the project side of the street, holding the opposite curb line the same, such that no portion of the recent county project curb and sidewalk needs to be rebuilt. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 It is also noted that internal road layouts have changed; the travelway entrance to the right going into the site, just off the main entrance to Rt. 20, is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance. In addition, it is unclear where surplus parking would take place if the roads will not allow it as proposed. Since surplus parking is inevitable on some occasions, it will likely block the street. 2. It should be noted to the Planning Commission and Board that this development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain, as has been recommended with the special use permit, should keep these disturbances temporary. The applicant appears to be anticipating a waiver of detention requirements. However, downstream channels and culverts under Free Bridge Lane will need to be adequate, or improved. This has not been addressed. I ile: E6_rma,sp_GEB_Hartman Property - Riverside � vIRGIN�' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner From: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner Division: Zoning Date: April 4, 2011 Subject: ZMA2007 -24 Riverside Village The following comments are in response to the Applicant's February 21, 2011 rezoning submittal. 1. The Application must comply with all recreation amenities as contained in Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2. 2. The commercial area only provides parking sufficient for an office use; yet the Code of Development allows several commercial uses that would require additional parking. The Applicant should review Section 4.12.6 and provide additional parking or remove the commercial uses to provide for office only. 3. The area designated as the public park does not show any improvements or parking. [Does the Park Department want this park? Are they even aware of it ?] 4. The Code should clarify that 184 spaces are provided for the townhouses in Block 2 and 3 (see page 7). 5. Proffers: a. There is no reference to the per dwelling unit proffer contribution as stated in the Cash Proffer Policy. b. The park dedication does not address any improvements. Additionally, the Applicant should designate the park dedication to occur at a specific trigger, i.e., site plan or when a development occurs, and remove "at the request of the County." r� Ot'AL p�r � IRGS?at� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Eryn Brennan From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: April 4, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2007 -24 Riverside Village (aka Hartman Property) I have reviewed the submitted information and can offer the following comments: 1. The applicant is proposing 162 residential units. This scale of development requires the following recreational amenities: - 32,400 square feet (0.74 acres) of recreational area - 4 tot lots - 1 half basketball court The agent may modify the standards. The applicant should contact me directly to discuss recreational amenities to show on the application plan or should be put on notice that approval of the rezoning does not constitute waiver or variation of the required recreational requirements and that recreational areas above those shown on the application plan may be required. 2. Near Route 20 at the east of the project Road B is a dead end. I recommend that it be connected to the travelway serving the commercial area. This will provide for improved on site circulation. 3. Decks are shown extending to the alley. Depending on the design of the decks the posts may restrict the area available for parking. Minimum parking dimensions are 9 feet wide. 4. The design of the boardwalk and bridge should be specified. 5. Units 14 thru 24 do not have frontage on a public or private street and cannot be subdivided. A modification can be processed during the rezoning only. ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner RE: SP- 2007 -57: Riverside Village DATE: March 22, 2011 I have reviewed the submittal (plans and code dated 2 -21 -2011) provided for the above referenced application and I have the following comments. • Trees are not spaced correctly on interior roads. A minimum spacing of 40' on center will be required. (Reference Sheet C4.) • The Green Space and Amenities Table on page 10 of the Code of Development indicates that there is to be a mix of trees and shrubs behind units 1 -12 in Block 2 in an open space buffer. This landscaping isn't shown on the plan. The table and plan should be coordinated. • The Green Space and Amenities Table on Page 10 calls for a mix of evergreens and shrubs for the landscape buffer behind units 65 -92 in Block 3. The word "trees" should be added after "evergreen ". • The 5`" bullet under "Permitted Building Materials" should read as follows: "False, simulated and other similar building materials, including but not limited to EIFS, spandrel glass, vinyl siding, and simulated tile, shall not be permitted for buildings visible from the Entrance Corridor." The entire site is included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. If the applicant's intent is for this standard to apply to the entire project, then the sentence should end at "... shall not be permitted." • Regarding the earth -tone color standard on page 12 of the Code, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site. The text should be revised to address this. Also, "earth- tone" is a very broad category. It is recommended that the applicant further refine the standard by naming a range of colors, for example, "medium to dark shades of brown, gray, and green ". • It is anticipated that the buildings in Block 4 will have some visibility from the EC. Recommendations were previously made to address this visibility in regards to the standards for roof pitch and design (page 12 of the Code). The previous recommendation stands. Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 4, as well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." • Under "Roof Pitch and Design" on page 12 of the Code, please clarify the meaning of "minimum 2 per building" in the 4`" bullet. �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rev. 1-3: Rebecca Ragsdale Rev. 1-3: Tamara Ambler Rev.4: Eryn Brennan From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 29 Nov 2007 Rev. 1: 16 July 2008 Rev.2: 16 Sep 2008 Rev.3: 11 Dec 2008 Rev.4: 28 Mar 2011 (current revision) Subject: Riverside Village (Hartman Property) The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; Regarding the special use permit for fill in floodplain; (SP200700057) Rev.4: The revision of 2011 has substantially changed the floodplain encroachments again, just as it was substantially changed from 2007 (original submittal) to 2008 (revision 1 -3). As with the 2007 proposal, the current plan encroaches into the floodplain of the Rivanna River substantially for parking and housing, as well as stormwater management, slope grades, and erosion control. Encroachments into the floodplain to increase development are not recommended for approval. If the applicant wants to pursue approval from the Planning Commission and Board anyway, a revision to the FEMA model and detailed study will be needed to ascertain the impacts to the flood levels and floodplain. This should be displayed in a way that can be presented to the Commission and Board. I F 4 2011 ._�- _ter' -�;. `:� } —•,si: i If the Commission and Board are inclined to approve this residential development which adjusts the edge of the floodplain, it is recommended that a distance (margin of safety) be provided between residential units yards, and the expected floodwaters. Citizens will be concerned when water approaches residences, even if the engineering studies predict no direct impacts. It is also usually the case that flood levels increase as the overall community in the watershed grows, and residents built just outside of the floodplain can end up inside it. Regarding the rezoning; (ZMA200700024) Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 1. Rev.4: The traffic study is being updated, and a scoping meeting has been held. Of concern are the adequacy of left and right turn lanes into the site, and possible impacts to the intersection at Rt. 250 and Rt. 20, the intersection of Fontana and Rt. 20, and the merge movement on Rt. 20 North. 2. This site should be revised such that erosion control facilities can be placed out of the buffers and floodplain. It is also noted that recent rezoning have proffered erosion control above and beyond current regulations. Rev.4: This revision has made the encroachments into the floodplain more extensive. 3. The applicant appears to be anticipating a waiver of detention requirements. However, downstream channels and culverts under Free Bridge Lane will need to be adequate, or improved file: E5_zma,sp_GEB_Hartman Property - Riverside pF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale FROM: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: January 5, 2009 RE: ARB- 2008 -106; SP- 2007 -57; ZMA- 2007 -24: Riverside Village I have reviewed the revised submittal for the above - referenced projects (including: Code of Development dated December 1, 2008 and Application Plan Sheets Al and A4 -A9 revised 12/1/08, A2 revised 6/3/08, A3 revised 9/2/08). I have the following comments. Issue: Architecture and Orientation Comments: A comment from my last review was: "The Code of Development should allow for the possibility of ARB requirements related to the orientation of Block 1 buildings, and to the breaking up of the mass of the buildings and the use of alternate roof forms for all buildings in Blocks 1 and 3 to address mass and scale issues." It does not appear that this was addressed in the resubmittal. Recommendation: Revise the Code of Development as follows: • Page 10: Add a bullet under "Form, Massing, and Proportion of Structures" to read: "the massing and orientation of buildings in Block 1 are subject to ARB review and approval." • Page 11: Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 3, as well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." Issue: Street Trees on Route 20 Comments: Street trees along Route 20 are important for the appearance of the Entrance Corridor. Road improvements should be planned in a way that maintains the street trees. Recommendation: Revise the plan and/or code to ensure that street trees will remain along Route 20 following any /all road improvements. pF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale FROM: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: October 8, 2008 RE: ARB- 2008 -106; SP- 2007 -57; ZMA- 2007 -24: Riverside Village I have reviewed the revised submittal for the above - referenced projects (including: Code of Development dated September 2, 2008 and Application Plan Sheets Al through A9 revised 9/2/08). I have the following comments. Issue: Stormwater Facilities Comments: It was recommended that the stormwater management facilities be moved away from the Entrance Corridor. They were not moved, but information was added to the Code of Development to indicate how the facilities would be integrated into the site and landscape. The Planning Commission also recommended that the facilities be moved, so that a streetscape with a more urban character could be established. Moving the facilities away from the EC would better meet the EC Guidelines. Recommendation: Move the stormwater facilities away from the EC, but continue to integrate them into the site and landscape. Issue: Architecture and Orientation Comments: • The main blocks of the buildings in Block 1 measure 65' x 100' and 65' x 120'. They are shown with flat roofs. The mass and scale of these buildings may need to be broken up to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. The flat roofs may help reduce the overall height (by not adding the height of a pitched roof), but they may serve to further enhance the blocky appearance. Consequently, a pitched roof form might be more appropriate. • The entrance towers of the Block 1 buildings have been shifted so that they are oriented to parallel the EC. This change brings the orientation a step closer to a strict interpretation of the EC Guidelines. As an area transitioning from an urban, commercial character to a more suburban /rural character, this less strict application of the guidelines may be acceptable to the ARB. • Page 11 of the Code addresses roof forms of Block 3 buildings in two places: "Form, Massing, and Proportions" and "Roof Pitch and Design ". The former section addresses both Block 3 buildings; the latter only addresses the multi -use building. The first bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" should be eliminated for clarity. • For several of the blocks, color treatment is indicated as: "all buildings shall have a minimum of one wall color and one trim color." If the intent is for a minimum of two colors total, this statement should be clarified. A minimum of one color doesn't really need to be specified. • The Illustrative Plan Sheet A9 does not show the revised tower positions and, therefore, does not match the other plans. • The applicant has indicated that a retaining wall joins the buildings in Block 1. This wall does not seem to appear on the plan. • The applicant should note the following: • The buildings in Block 3, though located at a distance from the EC, may still be visible from the EC (especially south of the site) due to their height and the removal of existing trees. If visible, these buildings will be subject to ARB review. A balloon test may be warranted, at the site plan review stage, to determine visibility. Also, site sections and a 3 -d digital model will facilitate discussion. • The ARB will require that the visibility of service, loading, refuse, mechanical and other similar areas be eliminated from the EC through the proper placement of these features, not just by treatment (screening). Recommendation: • The Code of Development should allow for the possibility of ARB requirements related to the orientation of Block 1 buildings, and to the breaking up of the mass of the buildings and the use of alternate roof forms for all buildings in Blocks 1 and 3 to address mass and scale issues. • Clarify in the Code the intent of the "all buildings shall have a minimum of one wall color and one trim color" statement. • Show on the plan the retaining wall that joins the Block 1 buildings. • Revise the plan set to show consistent coordinated information throughout. Issue: EC Landscaping Comments: • Pages 15 and 16 of the Code of Development state that the planting of the buffer areas along Route 20 are subject to ARB review. It should be made clear that all landscaping visible from the EC is subject to ARB review, not just these buffer areas. • The plan and page 16 of the Code of Development indicate that conifers will be planted along the northeast property line. The Code indicates that the conifers would be either trees or shrubs, planted in a double staggered row. Shrubs are not recommended, but a staggered row of mixed evergreen trees and shrubs is. Also, the plan shows a staggered row, not the double staggered row the Code specifies. Recommendation: Revise page 16 of the Code to indicate that the planting along the northeast property line will consist of a staggered row of mixed evergreen trees and shrubs. Revise the plan and /or Code to describe the same planting condition along the northeast property line. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 30, 2008 Kelly Strickland Dominion Development Resources 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) SP 2007 -057 Fill in the Flood Plain Review Comments - Resubmittal 6/30/08 Dear Kelly: Thank you for the recent resubmittal of a rezoning and special use permit for the Hartman Property on Stony Point Road (Route 20). This rezoning involves 18.6 acres total, with a portion of about 8 acres in the Flood Plain, to be rezoned from R1 Residential to the Neighborhood Model District for up to 108 residential units and 35,000 square feet of commercial office /retail space. This letter consolidates the detailed reviewer comments we have received to date. You should expect to receive additional review comments, since there is additional information requested to review the special use permit and requirements of some ordinance sections have not been met. PANTOPS MASTER PLAN Since this rezoning and special use permit were submitted, the Pantops Master Plan was officially adopted on March 17, 2008. The land use designations on this property, as you indicated in your resubmittal are now Neighborhood Density, River Corridor Overlay, and Greenspace. The descriptions of these land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and Parks and Green Systems maps are below. Neighborhood Density Residential — 3 — 6 residential units per acre with residential support uses and limited non - residential uses. Neighborhood Density Residential areas will primarily accommodate single family dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Neighborhood Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non - residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores of less than 4,000 square feet; live /work units above office and /or retail; small office buildings with less than 20,000 square feet; and studios /cottage occupations. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 2 July 30, 2008 Greenspace — Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plain, and adjacent slopes. Typically only passive recreation will occur in these areas or greenway trails. Also includes open space areas that may be managed and owned by homeowners associations. Free Bridge Lane -Focal Point of River Corridor The Rivanna River Corridor includes the portions of the Riverside Village property adjacent to the river. The corridor designations is shown on the Framework Plan as an overlay to underlying land use recommendations to stress river - orientation and uses. Where there is no underlying land use designation for development and for the remainder of the corridor of the river through Pantops, a linear park and trails are in development. The Parks and Green Systems Plan calls for several access points along the River and a trailhead (major access point) as a feature of the linear park in and around the Free Bridge and Riverbend portions of the park. This area offers the best river walk possibilities along Free Bridge Lane adjacent to the Rivanna River and includes the properties between Free Bridge Lane and Route 20 North, south of a stream and Darden Towe Park. Free Bridge Lane as a river walk may mean future limitations to vehicular access. This area could include a recreational focus associated with the River Corridor, with possible canoe rental and other recreational opportunities. II / Future' Park y ' till Land Use Plan Parks & Green Systems Darden Towe Park /Stony Point Road (Cascadia /Fontana /Avemore) Neighborhood The Master Plan identifies neighborhoods and centers in Pantops. Recommendations for the residential neighborhood where Riverside Village is located include: • Maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. • Allow for Neighborhood Density and Urban Density residential uses with a Neighborhood Service (NS) center. • Protect the rural scenic qualities of Route 20 from the northern edge of the development area south to Elks Drive /Fontana Drive where development along Route 20 should transition to an urban character to the City of Charlottesville. • Preserve stream corridors and flood plain in this neighborhood and allow for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. • In conjunction with proposed transportation improvements, provide for pedestrian /bike /transit improvements as a high priority. • Preserve natural systems adjacent to the river while enhancing this area of Pantops with mixed use development including shops, cafes, and residential uses above. • Frame and enhance views to the river. • Provide access to the greenway through use of stairs and walkways where topography will allow. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) July 30, 2008 Staff Comments: The project is predominantly residential, which meets the PMP goals of keeping this neighborhood's residential character. The residential density of 5 units per acre (gross) and 10 units per acre net (not including the park) is within the guidelines of the plan. Non - residential uses, in areas designated Neighborhood Density, are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. While staff supports the general mix of uses, and the location of the non - residential uses, you have proposed with Riverside Village, staff believes there is too much commercial office and retail. The square footage of 35,000 square feet for these uses exceeds the guidelines of the Master Plan of 20,000 square feet for Neighborhood Density. You will recall this was a topic of discussion at the Planning Commission work session and concern with the first submittal of this project. Parks and Green Systems recommendations have been incorporated into the plan with the provision of the park and access from the site to Free Bridge Lane and proffers 1, 2, and 3 on page 23. However, the portion of the property that will be dedicated to public use for the park is not clearly shown on the general development plan and in the code of development. The Parks and Recreation department has requested that some portion of the land dedicated for the park be located in an area outside the floodplain for facilities that may be needed in the park, such as public restrooms, parking area, or playground. An area of 2 acres outside the floodplain was suggested by Parks and Recreation. Proffers that were approved with the Old Trail rezoning are attached, for your information, in submitting proffer language to provide the park dedication, and cash proffer for park design and improvements. Since there will be a separate design process for the portion of the property dedicated to public use, any improvements in the park should not be shown with the plans for Riverside Village. It appears the recommendations of the River Corridor designation have been met by orienting uses and features of the development towards the river. However, there is a concern about the scale and massing of the mixed use buildings adjacent to the river. It is not clear how the proposed development is meeting the goals of a river walk and linear park along Free Bridge Lane. Also, complete information should be shown for Free Bridge Lane (Route 1421) including ROW location and widths. Staff recommends, if the ROW is prescriptive to the center line of the road, dedicating Free Bridge Lane to public use as well. Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be adhered to in new development proposals. 1. Pedestrian Orientation -It appears that the application plan submitted provides a positive response to this NMD model principle since you have proposed a system of sidewalks and trails within the proposed development. However, staff is concerned that the proposed pedestrian mews will function as alleys and do not provide for a comfortable walking environment for pedestrians. 2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Staff notes that you have provided street trees and sidewalks, along with parallel parking along the street serving the single family lots. 3. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 4 July 30, 2008 4. Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- The interconnection to the Elks Lodge to the north appears to be shown in an appropriate location and staff believes, with the restricting vehicular travel on Free Bridge Lane in the future, that an additional 5. interconnection should be provided to the north, adjacent to the mixed use buildings in Block 3. 6. Parks and Open Space- Regarding amenities, analysis will be needed as to whether the provision of land for a greenway is sufficient to substitute for the amenities needed in this development. The site plan regulations establish a threshold for recreational amenities for multi - family housing. It would appear on the surface that a built amenity is needed for this development, rather than just the donation of land. The pedestrian mews are described in proposed amenities on page 4 but appear to function as alleys as shown on the general development plan and do not serve as an amenity. 7. Mixed Uses- The proposal provides for an appropriate mix of uses, however the amount of non - residential proposed is not in keeping with the scale expected for the Neighborhood Density Land Use Designation. 8. Neighborhood Centers- This principle is met with nearby centers, including the emerging neighborhood service center at Avemore /Cascadia and nearby Pantops Shopping Center. Along with the focal point of Darden Towe Park. 9. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Stormwater management facilities are located between buildings and Stony Point Road, this principle is not met along the Stony Point Road frontage and is also an issue for the ARB, see comments below. There is confusing information on the plan sets as to what building height and setbacks are proposed. See ARB comments below. 10. Relegated Parking- More information is needed to evaluate this principle as it is not clear from the plans how parking will be provided for the single family lots. 11. Affordability with Dignity- Please provide information on how your proposal meets the County's Affordable Housing policy. Staff notes on page 23 that you intend to provide for affordable housing, commitments to affordable housing should be provided for in proffers and sample language is attached for your use. 12. Redevelopment- Not applicable. 13. Site Planning that respects terrain- There are important environmental features on the site such as the flood plain and stream buffers, along with areas of critical slopes. Comments below address the need for protection of the stream buffers and flood plain. More information is needed to process the special use permit request for fill in the flood plain and a critical slopes waiver should be submitted and reviewed with this rezoning. 14. Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas -This property is located entirely within the Development Area Boundaries. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszweski) A separate ARB application and full review by the ARB is not required. The Design Planner provides review comments on rezoning submittals, unless they are specifically requested for review before the ARB. The Design Planner has reviewed your submittals and provides the following comments, which should be addressed with revisions to the general development plan or code, where applicable: Issue: Stormwater Facilities Comments: Stormwater management facilities are located adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. Experience has shown that it is difficult to achieve an appropriate appearance for such facilities located close to the EC. Moving them to locations that are less visible from the EC may allow for ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 5 July 30, 2008 faster review /approval. If they remain close to the EC, gentle grading and very careful planting of the stormwater facilities will be required to fully integrate them into the surrounding landscape, to eliminate all "engineered" appearances, and to obtain ARB approval. The applicant should be aware that the treatment of these facilities will be scrutinized by the ARB at the site plan review stage. Recommendation: Consider moving the stormwater facilities away from the EC to reduce visibility. Addresss the appearance and treatment of the stormwater management facilities located along the EC in the Code of Development. Indicate how they will be made to have an appropriate, fully integrated appearance for the EC. Issue: Architecture Comments: • The main blocks of the buildings in Block 1 measure 65'x 100' and 65'x 120'. They are shown with flat roofs (that appear to be green roofs) and the Code of Development indicates a maximum height of 45'. The size and height of these buildings may appear out of character for this portion of the EC. As an area of transition to a more rural character, a lower height might be more appropriate. The mass and scale of these buildings may need to be broken up to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. The flat roofs may help reduce the overall height (by not adding the height of a pitched roof), but they may serve to further enhance the blocky appearance. Consequently, a pitched roof form might be more appropriate. • Page 11 of the Code of Development indicates that the roof of the mixed -use building in Block 3 "shall have steps to break up the elevation ". This wording should be revised to more clearly describe the intent of the roof form illustrated in the rendering. • The buildings in Block 3, though located at a distance from the EC, may still be visible from the EC (especially south of the site) due to their height and the removal of existing trees. A balloon test may be warranted, at the site plan review stage, to determine visibility. Also, site sections and a 3 -d digital model will facilitate discussion. The 4 -story multifamily building in Block 3 measures 65'x 120'. This building, and its roof, should be broken up to reduce the mass. Recommendation: Building height may be an appropriate discussion topic for the Planning Commission. The Code of Development should address the breaking up of the building and roof forms for all buildings in Blocks 1 and 3. The Code of Development should address the possibility of pitched roofs on the main portions of the buildings in Block 1. Revise the Code to include architectural, materials and treatment information for Blocks 4 and 5. Clarify whether if green roofs are intended for the buildings in Block 1. Issue: Orientation Comments: The Code of Development states that the proposed development is oriented towards the river. The location of the development on the Entrance Corridor requires that it also address Route 20. The EC guidelines state that buildings fronting the EC should be parallel to the street. The current plan includes frontage buildings that are not oriented parallel to Route 20. As an area transitioning from an urban, commercial character to a more suburban /rural character, a less strict application of the guideline may be acceptable to the ARB. For example, shifting just the tower elements of the buildings in Block 1 to parallel the EC may be appropriate. However, the applicant should be aware that orientation is an issue and that shifting of the entire buildings could be required to meet the guidelines. Also, the ARB will require that the visibility of service, loading, refuse, mechanical and other similar areas be eliminated from the EC through the proper placement of these features, not just by treatment (screening). Recommendation: The orientation of frontage buildings may be an appropriate issue for Planning Commission discussion, given the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The Code should address the EC orientation issue. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 6 July 30, 2008 Issue: EC Landscaping Comments: • The inclusion of landscaping on the application plan is informative and appreciated, but it should be clarified that the landscaping is still subject to ARB review. • Page 13 of the Code of Development states that "interior green spaces" will be landscaped according to the Entrance Corridor guidelines. Because the guidelines do not specifically address "interior green spaces" an alternate guideline should be used. Recommendation: Add a note to the application plan indicating that landscaping shown on the application plan is subject to review /approval of the ARB. Revise the Code to eliminate the EC Guidelines reference for interior green spaces (page 13) and replace it with an alternate guideline. Code of Development Generally, it must be made clear what is a non - enforceable objective and what is a specific requirement in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards of are subjective a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. Also, please make sure that there are no inconsistencies between the Code of Development and General Development plan set. I have provided a copy (attached) of the County's preferred format for Codes of Development, which includes examples of how information should be organized in tables. We urge you to use the County's format when resubmitting, which allows for ease of review and corresponding ease of application if this rezoning is approved. Also, be sure to include the ARB recommendations above in revising the code. Development narrative: • The conditions for the development for the future park and the owner's responsibility for its development must be clarified. • The narrative on page 4 states that screening will be provided along the northeastern property line against the adjacent property. The willingness of the owner of this adjacent parcel must be established prior to public hearing, if the planting will be on the adjacent property. Standards for the screening should also be provided. • The narrative states that no clearing of the hardwoods along the northeastern property line is proposed. This must be clarified and the conditions for any clearing must be specified. Page 4 — o Several people have commented on the "muse" vs. "mews ". Pedestrian and vehicular traffic shouldn't be mixed in these places. If pedestrian access is needed, it should be separate from the "alley" or "driveway ". Landscaping Tree canopy requirements will apply to this development. (Reference Section 32.7.9.9) The landscaping paragraph at the bottom of page 4 is too general. Please establish what landscaping standards will be used. If the site plan requirements of Section 32 are not used for landscaping, then provide clear and quantifiable information on any additional landscaping to be provided. The standards to be used should be clearly stated. Oftentimes, the Albemarle County Approved plant list is referenced in the Code of Development. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 7 July 30, 2008 Architecture Architectural standards should be enforced with covenants by establishing a review committee for the development, which would review and approve the architectural plans before submitting a building permit with the County. Sample language for this is provided below, and was approved with the Haden Place Code of Development. Architectural Review Committee; The Haden Place Architectural Review Committee shall approve detailed architectural standards based on the Code of Development prior to building permit application to Albemarle County, Prior to the recordation Of the covenants and restrictions for Haden Place, they shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review to ensure compliance with the Cade of Development. The developer shall establish the Haden Place architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of the first building permit in order to enforce the Code ofDeveloprnent's architectural and landscape standards set forth herein. A certificate of approval from the Haden Place Architectural Review Committee must be submitted at the time of building permit application. Style - -it appears that Federal, Georgian, and Colonial styles are allowed on Blocks 1 — 4. No styles are provided on Block 5. This should be corrected. Permitted Building Materials are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They are not included for Blocks 4 and 5. Information needs to be provided for all blocks. The statement, "Masonry, wood, and composites of wood are permitted on facades" makes me wonder what is permitted on the other parts of the buildings besides exposed foundations. Colors and Fagade Treatments are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They are not included for Blocks 4 and 5. Information needs to be provided for all blocks. The word, "recommended" should be removed or reworded so that earthtone colors are a requirement. If the use of earthtone colors is a standard in the Code, in order for the County to enforce that standard, you will need to submit the palette with the first request for a building permit for County approval by the Planning Director or his designee. This will establish an approved color palette for the Zoning Permit Planners to use in review of building permits for the development.. Please incorporate the following into the Code relative to windows: visibly discernible stories shall be achieved through the use of windows and building entries on each story, using varied building materials, special ground -floor design treatments, and other faQade elements or other architectural details. Roof Pitch and Design are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They should also be provided for Blocks 4 and 5. For Block 1, the words, "where practical" should be removed. For Block 3, the minimum roof pitch and the "flat roof allowed" cancel each other out. These statements need to be clarified. The Code shows some drawings that indicate scale, massing, and proportion. The buildings shown in the drawings do not appear to be appropriate to the setting. The use, scale, and ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 8 July 30, 2008 massing of these buildings ought to be discussed in a worksession by the Planning Commission. Ultimately, there needs to be some kind of commitment to scale, massing, and proportion provided in the Code. Please be aware that there is a proposed text amendment in process. If approved, only the scale, massing, and proportion elements will be required and all other architectural requirements could be removed from the code, except for the "visibly discernible stories" section. By -Right Use Table: o [20A.6(a)] The following uses must be added to at least one block or they will be considered to be permitted by right in all blocks: • Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings (Use the verbatim language from the ordinance.) • Home Occupation A • Tourist lodging- Note that this use is only permitted in single family dwellings. • Tier I and Tier II Personal wireless facilities o [20A.6(b)] The following uses must be added to at least one block or they will be considered to be permitted by special permit in all blocks: • Drive in windows • Outdoor storage, display and sale...... (Identify this use as it is identified in the zoning ordinance.) • Add the area in the floodplain as Block VI and add the permitted uses. • Note in the code that accessory apartments are permitted in single family dwellings only. Accessory apartments are not permitted in Blocks 2 and 3. • The terms "commercial office," "retail" and "fitness," are not defined uses in the zoning ordinance. Only uses from the zoning ordinance shall be included in the table. They must be included in the table exactly as they appear in the ordinance. The table must be revised accordingly. • The term "commercial retail" as it describes the building in Block III is not in the ordinance. It must be revised to use current zoning ordinance language for uses. o Density, setbacks and building heights should be shown on a single table. (See examples in attached Code format.) Section 20A Requirements: • [20A.5.i.3] Build -to lines must be added to the applicable table. These should be expressed as a range. The Code of Development proposes setbacks from block boundaries. This is not recommended unless the boundary lines are surveyed and established with the rezoning action. • [20A.9] Ordinance terms and language regarding green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas should be used to define these areas in the Code and /or on the General Development Plan. General Development Plan- detailed comments This development is fairly dense. Consideration should be given to the location of waste disposal, both dumpsters and domestic facilities on the plan. Sheets A3 -A6- Provide accurate information on adjoining property lines, especially to the properties to the north. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) July 30, 2008 Sheet A1- W • Label the plan "General Development Plan." • Note on the plan that this is ZMA- 2007 -24 • Under Zoning note this is in the FH and EC overlay districts. • Under proposed uses approximate square footages are recommended • It is recommended that the parking schedule be deleted from the plan and addressed in the code. This will eliminate potential discrepancies. Sheet A4 • Note the square footage of the northern commercial building • If parking is proposed in the vehicle courtyards, show it. • If the property is to be divided the travel ways must be approved as private streets as provided by section 14- 232.A.1 in order to provide frontage. • The maintenance of the side walk in the VDOT right of way must be established. Label the area in the floodplain as Block VI. Much of the parking that serves Block 5 is located in Block 1. Be aware that any phasing plan in the future will require that these features be in the same phase. Zoning and Current Development Parking: Substantial parking issues are outstanding. Until these issues are resolved, it cannot be there can be no findings about the location and distribution of parking. It is recommended that the parking be shown on a single table. The required parking with the basis for the requirement and the provided parking shall be shown for each block. The approval of the parking will be subject to the following considerations: 1. [4.12.10] Block 3 proposes a reduction in required parking of 25% - 50% based on sharing between retail and residential uses. Please be aware that a waiver for that reduction will likely not be approved because it is our opinion that these uses do not share significantly different peak demand hours in the late afternoon and early evening. The applicant must request a waiver and include a justification in accord with section 4.12.10 in order for the reduction to be considered. 2. Section 4.12.9 (a) requires that on- street parking that is provided for the purpose of meeting minimum parking requirements must abut the lot that the space serves. Section 4.12.2 (c) does not grant the Zoning Administrator the authority to waive or modify the on- street parking regulations of Section 4.12.9. However, Section 8.2 allows the applicant to request a waiver or modification of any requirement of section 4. Therefore, the approval of the on- street parking plan for Blocks 2, 4 and 5 is subject to a legislative approval of a modification of Section 4.12.9. This must be requested by the applicant. 3. Single family detached dwellings require 2 parking spaces. In addition, if parking is provided on individual lots, such as for duplexes and single family attached townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the development, then one (1) guest space per four (4) units shall be provided. 4. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c. 5. The plan shows 12 on- street spaces serving Block II and 14 dwellings. The code says there are 14. This discrepancy must be reconciled. 6. The plan shows 18 on- street spaces serving Block IV and 14 dwellings. The code says there are 20. This discrepancy must be reconciled. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 10 July 30, 2008 Uses in the floodplain: 1. [30.3.05.1.2] Be aware that recreational uses including athletic fields are permitted by right in the floodway fringe. Accessory structures to these fields, including bathrooms and parking, but excluding structures for human habitation are also permitted by right. 2. [30.3.05.2.2] Fill in the floodplain requires a special permit. 3. [30.3.04] The storage of gasoline, including that in cars, is prohibited. Critical Slopes: Several small areas of critical slopes are being disturbed. A waiver should be pursued with the rezoning. A small area of critical slopes exists adjacent to the Elks Lodge but it is not labeled as such. This area should be included in any waiver request. Private Street Approval: Private street approval will be required if subdivision of the lots are proposed. It is not clear if any of the roads are proposed to be public although it appears that Roads A and B are intended to be public. Private Street approval will be required for the units near the river and the internal buildings in block 5. WATER RESOURCES • This property is located in the Development Area, so the stream buffer for the Rivanna is different from the floodplain. The stream buffer is measured 100 feet from the top of the stream bank, and does not include the extent of the floodplain. The plan needs to show the separate stream buffer and the floodplain limits. If the stream along the southern boundary of the property is determined to be perennial (using Fairfax Protocol) then the 100' buffer will apply to it as well. • The potential parking for the community park should not be located within the stream buffer; this is not compatible with the intent of the buffer, which is to protect water quality. Engineering Comments are provided in the attached memo from Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, dated July 16, 2008. You have also received an e -mail dated July 30, 2008 from Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner, requesting additional traffic analysis. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) The Service Authority doesn't have any comment on the SP or ZMA. This project is in the water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are available. This memo will also notify RWSA that this project will contribute an estimated 30,420 gpd of waste water. PROFFERS Staff has provided sample proffer language (attached) for your use in resubmitting proffers that meet the intent of the four bullets provided on page 23 of the Code of Development. Impacts of the residential units should also be addressed in the form of cash proffers. Some credits for dedication of the park may off -set these impacts. ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village (Hartman Property) 11 July 30, 2008 1 would recommend a worksession with the Planning Commission as the next step with this proposal and this could be scheduled with the Commission on August 26, 2008, using the information we have in hand. If you wish to resubmit before a work session, a later date will be needed and we would follow the resubmittal schedule. Following the work session with the Commission, staff will provide additional comments and direction to you and I think it would be beneficial for us to meet to go over all comments and outstanding issues. Following additional review, staff will also suggest how transportation impacts of the development would be appropriate to provide proffers to mitigate. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 or rragsdale@albemarle.org and would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of these comments. Sincerely, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner From: Juandiego Wade Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:24 AM To: Rebecca Ragsdale; Glenn Brooks; Joel Denunzio (joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov); 'Kelly Strickland' Cc: Juandiego Wade Subject: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village Hello To All: Thank you Kelly for the TIA scoping information. The County and VDOT has reviewed the information and determined that it does not meet the requirements under Section 527. The information you provided in the scoping data is useful and a full TIA will not be necessary. The County and VDOT will require additional information as to the impact this development will have on the Rt. 250/20 and Rt. 250 /High Street intersections. These intersections are at capacity or near capacity. Please provide detailed LOS and delay information with and without the ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village development. Also, please include left and right turn lane warrants for your entrances on Route 20. Please contact me if you have any questions. Juan Wade aL ti �IRGI:�Z� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner FROM: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner for Development Areas RE: ZMA 07 -24 Riverside Village (T. P. F. K. A. the Hartman Property) DATE: July 24, 2008 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Code of Development for the above referenced project. My comments are as follows: 1. Page 4 — Several people have commented on the "muse" vs. "mews ". Pedestrian and vehicular traffic shouldn't be mixed in these places. If pedestrian access is needed, it should be separate from the "alley" or "driveway ". 2. Page 4 — The landscaping paragraph at the bottom of the page is too general. The applicant needs to identify that he is (or is not) using the site plan requirements of Section 32 for landscaping and then provide clear and quantifiable information on any additional landscaping to be provided. The standards to be used should be clearly stated. 3. Page 7 — Zoning should comment on the "use" table. If they don't, you will need to. 4. Regarding architecture, a. Style - -it appears that Federal, Georgian, and Colonial styles are allowed on Blocks 1 — 4. No styles are provided on Block 5. This should be corrected. b. Permitted Building Materials are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They are not included for Blocks 4 and 5. Information needs to be provided for all blocks. The statement, "Masonry, wood, and composites of wood are permitted on facades" makes me wonder what is permitted on the other parts of the buildings besides exposed foundations. c. Colors and Fagade Treatments are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They are not included for Blocks 4 and 5. Information needs to be provided for all blocks. Regarding the individual bullets, I'm not sure we care whether exterior wood finishes are painted. If they want to want to use earthtone colors, they will need to bring the palette with the first request for a building permit and let someone at the County (Margaret? Wayne ?) approve the palette that then the Zoning Permit Planners would review against. The word, "recommended" should be removed — either they are or aren't going to use earthtone colors. I would recommend they use the following statement (from the DCD zoning) relative to windows: Visibly discernible stories shall be achieved through the use of windows and building entries on each story, using varied building materials, special ground -floor design treatments, and other facade elements or other architectural details. d. Roof Pitch and Design are provided for Blocks 1 — 3. They should also be provided for Blocks 4 and 5. For Block 1, the words, "where practical" should be removed. For Block 3, the minimum roof pitch and the "flat roof allowed" cancel each other out. These statements need to be clarified. e. The Code shows some drawings that indicate scale, massing, and proportion. The buildings shown in the drawings do not appear to be appropriate to the setting. The use, scale, and massing of these buildings ought to be discussed in a worksession by the Planning Commission. Ultimately, there needs to be some kind of commitment to scale, massing, and proportion provided in the Code of Development. f. Finally, they should commit to file their architectural standards with the covenants, establish their own review committee, and have their own committee approve the architectural plans before submitting a building permit with the County. g. They should be advised that, if the current proposed text amendment proceeds quickly, only the scale, massing, and proportion elements will be required and they can remove the rest of the items (except for the "visibly discernible stories" section.). 5. The following language may be used (as a start) for the affordable housing proffers. It is always subject to change by the County Attorney. It was taken from Oakleigh NMD, but modified to reflect 15% affordable housing units instead of a combination of housing and cash. Affordable Housing. A. 15% Affordable Requirement. The Owner shall provide affordable housing dwelling units equal to at least fifteen percent (15 %) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for -sale or for -lease affordable dwelling units as described in this paragraph 1 (the "Affordable Dwelling Units" or "Affordable Units "). The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single - family attached housing (townhouses or duplexes), condominiums or single family detached units. The Owner or its successor in interest reserves the right to provide the Affordable Dwelling Units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or any combination. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Project shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this Paragraph 1, be built as Affordable Dwelling Units, and the aggregate number of such lots or units so designated within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute a minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of the lots or units in such subdivision plat or site plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Owner may "carry- over" or "bank" credits for Affordable Units in the event previously built buildings within the Project provided more than 15% Affordable Units, or in the event the Owner has paid the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer for an equivalent number of units ( "Affordable Credits "). Any such additional Affordable Credits shall be allocated toward the fifteen percent (15 %) minimum for the buildings that remain to be built within the Project. B. For -Sale Affordable Units. The for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units shall be affordable to households with incomes up to eighty percent (80 %) of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income "), such that the housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income, provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such affordable units be required to be less than the greater of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($190,400) or sixty -five percent (65 %) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) maximum mortgage for first -time home buyers at the beginning of the 90 -day identification and qualification period referenced below. The Owner or his successor in interest may at its option facilitate the provision of down payment assistance loans to reduce the out -of- pocket cash requirement costs to the homebuyer, such as, but not limited to a second lien Deed of Trust, so that the resultant first mortgage and housing costs remain at or below the parameters described herein. All financial programs or instruments described herein must be acceptable to the primary mortgage lender. Any second lien Deed of Trust executed as part of this paragraph shall be donated to the County of Albemarle or its designee to be used to address affordable housing. For purposes of calculating the price of the Affordable Dwelling Units, the value of Seller - paid closing costs shall be excluded from the selling price of such Affordable Dwelling Units. C. For -Lease Affordable Dwelling Units. (i) The initial net rent for each for -lease Affordable Unit shall not exceed the then - current and applicable maximum net rent as published by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each for -rent Affordable Unit may be increased up to three percent (3 %). For purposes of this proffer statement, the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such for -lease Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph 1C shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -lease Affordable Unit, or until the units are sold as affordable units as defined by the County's Affordable Housing Policy, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term "). (ii). Conveyance of Interest - All instruments conveying any interest in the for -lease Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this Paragraph 1(C). In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for -lease 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 Paragraph 1(C). Prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for -lease 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 Paragraph 1(C)(ii) have been satisfied. (iii). Reporting Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each for -rent Affordable Unit, the then - current owner shall provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office 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 then - current owner 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. D. Notification Period; County Cash Option. (i). Notification Period. All purchasers of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The then - current owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre - qualify an eligible purchaser for the Affordable Unit(s). The ninety (90) day period shall commence upon written notice from the then - current owner/builder that the Unit(s) is within one hundred twenty (120) days of completion and, that on or before the end of such one hundred twenty (120) day period shall be ready for occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this ninety (90) day period, the then - current owner/builder shall have the right to sell or lease the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales or lease price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any Unit(s) sold or leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of Affordable Units required to be provided pursuant to the terms of this proffer. The requirements of this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the Affordable Dwelling Units that are purchased. Nothing herein shall preclude the then - current owner/builder from working with the County Housing Department prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to identify qualifying purchasers for the Affordable Units. (ii). County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to the County's approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the Property which includes one or more for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the Housing Office informs the then - current owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the time that the then - current owner/builder expects the units to be completed and that the Housing Office will instead accept a cash contribution to the Housing Office to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of each affordable unit(s), then the then - current owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the unit(s) that were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then - current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Unit(s) will be available for sale. E. Inspections. The County shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and subject to all applicable privacy laws, to periodically inspect the records of the Owner or any successors in interest for the purposes of assuring compliance with this Paragraph 1. 6. Regarding cash contributions for impacts, the following language was recently approved for Berkmar Business Park: 2. Cash to Address Impacts to Public Facilities (CIP) The Owner shall contribute cash to the County in the following amounts for each dwelling unit constructed within the Property that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit. The cash contributions shall be used to address the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure (i.e., schools, public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identified in the County's Capital Improvements Program or for construction of Berkmar Drive Extended, if it is adopted into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The cash contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for each unit in the following amounts: A. $12,100 for each attached townhouse other than affordable dwelling units (Market Rate Unit ") and B. $12,600 for each multifamily apartment or condominium unit other than a Market Rate Unit. 3.Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1, 2009, the amount of each cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Service (a/k/a Marshall & Swift) (the "Index ") or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. Of course, it is possible that the applicant may be able to gain some credit for donating land to the county for the greenway; however, the value of that land would have to be established by the Assessor's office to see the amount of credit available. The amount of credit would need to also be balanced against whatever the development would have required as amenity area. 7. Regarding amenities, analysis will be needed as to whether the provision of land for a greenway is sufficient to substitute for the amenities needed in this development. The site plan regulations establish a threshold for recreational amenities for multi - family housing. It would appear on the surface that a built amenity is needed for this development, rather than just the donation of land. I would recommend that the applicant schedule a worksession with the Planning Commission rather than expect that the project will be fully ready for a public hearing with the next submittal. If it would be helpful for me to participate in a discussion with the applicant, I am glad to do so. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information. vIRGIN� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: July 24, 2008 Subject: ZMA 2007 -024 Hartman Property I have reviewed the above application and offer the following comments: 1. John Shepherd is providing you with comments regarding parking. Substantial parking issues are outstanding. Until these issues are resolved I cannot make any conclusive findings about the location and distribution of parking. As the applicant works with John and you please include me in the discussions regarding parking. 2. Several small areas of critical slopes are being disturbed. A waiver should be pursued with the rezoning. A small area of critical slopes exists adjacent to the Elks Lodge but it is not labeled as such. This area should be included in any waiver request. 3. Private street approval will be required if subdivision of the lots are proposed. It is not clear if any of the roads are proposed to be public although it appears that Roads A and B are intended to be public. Private Street approval will be required for the units near the river and the internal buildings in block 5. 4. The Code of Development proposes setbacks from block boundaries. I do not recommend that this be done unless the boundary lines are surveyed and established with the rezoning action. If they are not surveyed the boundary lines are approximate and arbitrary. 5. The applicant should be put on notice that they will have to meet the tree canopy requirements for the development. (Reference Section 32.7.9.9) 6. This development is fairly dense. Consideration should be given to the location of waste disposal, both dumpsters and domestic facilities. C OF ALg� .1 �IRGI'11P�.. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale From: John Shepherd Division: Zoning Date: July 23, 2008 Subject: ZMA 2007 -24 The Hartman Property, AKA Riverside Village I have reviewed the information submitted in support of this application dated October 29, 2007, and revised on June 30, 2008 and offer the following comments on behalf of the Zoning Division. Generally: 1. This application is subject to approval of the special permit to allow fill in the flood plain. 2. Any disturbance of critical slopes requires a waiver. General Development Plan: 1. Sheet A1- • Label the plan "General Development Plan." • Note on the plan that this is ZMA- 2007 -24 • Under Zoning note this is in the FH and EC overlay districts. • Under proposed uses approximate square footages are recommended • It is recommended that the parking schedule be deleted from the plan and addressed in the code. This will eliminate potential discrepancies. 2. Sheet A4 • Note the square footage of the northern commercial building • If parking is proposed in the vehicle courtyards, show it. • If the property is to be divided the travel ways must be approved as private streets as provided by section 14- 232.A.1 in order to provide frontage. • The maintenance of the side walk in the VDOT right of way must be established. • Label the area in the floodplain as Block VI. • Much of the parking that serves Block 5 is located in Block 1. Be aware that any phasing plan in the future will require that these features be in the same phase. Code of Development: Generally, it must be made clear what is a non - enforceable objective and what is a specific requirement in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards of are subjective a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. 2. It is recommended that the architectural features specified in the blocks be reduced and simplified. It is further recommended that the owner consider creating an ARB for the development to enforce the architectural standards. 3. It is recommended that the density, setbacks and building heights be shown on a single table. Development narrative: 1. The conditions for the development for the future park and the owner's responsibility for its development must be clarified. 2. The narrative states that screening will be provided on along the northeastern property line on adjacent property. The willingness of the owner of this adjacent parcel must be established prior to public hearing. 3. The narrative states that no clearing of the hardwoods along the northeastern property line is proposed. This must be clarified and the conditions for any clearing must be specified. BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE: 4. [20A.6(a)] The following uses must be added to at least one block or they will be considered to be permitted by right in all blocks: • Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings (Use the verbatim language from the ordinance.) • Home Occupation A • Tourist lodging- Note that this use is only permitted in single family dwellings. • Tier I and Tier II Personal wireless facilities 5. [20A.6(b)] The following uses must be added to at least one block or they will be considered to be permitted by special permit in all blocks: • Drive in windows • Outdoor storage, display and sale...... (Identify this use as it is identified in the zoning ordinance.) 6. Add the area in the floodplain as Block VI and add the permitted uses. 7. Note in the code that accessory apartments are permitted in single family dwellings only. Accessory apartments are not permitted in Blocks 2 and 3. 8. The terms "commercial office," "retail" and "fitness," are not defined uses in the zoning ordinance. Only uses from the zoning ordinance shall be included in the table. They must be included in the table exactly as they appear in the ordinance. The table must be revised accordingly. 9. The term "commercial retail" as it describes the building in Block III is not in the ordinance. It must be revised. Section 20A Requirements: 1. [20A.5.i.3] Build -to lines must be added to the applicable table. These should be expressed as a range. 2. [20A.9] I defer to the Planning Division to review and comment on the green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas. Parking: It is recommended that the parking be shown on a single table. The required parking with the basis for the requirement and the provided parking shall be shown for each block. The approval of the parking will be subject to the following considerations. [4.12.10] Block 3 proposes a reduction in required parking of 25% - 50% based on sharing between retail and residential uses. Please be aware that a waiver for that reduction will likely not be approved because it is our opinion that these uses do not share significantly different peak demand hours in the late afternoon and early evening. The applicant must request a waiver and include a justification in accord with section 4.12.10 in order for the reduction to be considered. 2. Section 4.12.9 (a) requires that on- street parking that is provided for the purpose of meeting minimum parking requirements must abut the lot that the space serves. Section 4.12.2 (c) does not grant the Zoning Administrator the authority to waive or modify the on- street parking regulations of Section 4.12.9. However, Section 8.2 allows the applicant to request a waiver or modification of any requirement of section 4. Therefore, the approval of the on- street parking plan for Blocks 2, 4 and 5 is subject to a legislative approval of a modification of Section 4.12.9. This must be requested by the applicant. 3. Single family detached dwellings require 2 parking spaces. In addition, if parking is provided on individual lots, such as for duplexes and single family attached townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the development, then one (1) guest space per four (4) units shall be provided. 4. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c. 5. The plan shows 12 on- street spaces serving Block II and 14 dwellings. The code says there are 14. This discrepancy must be reconciled. 6. The plan shows 18 on- street spaces serving Block IV and 14 dwellings. The code says there are 20. This discrepancy must be reconciled. Uses in the floodplain: 1. [30.3.05.1.2] Be aware that recreational uses including athletic fields are permitted by right in the floodway fringe. Accessory structures to these fields, including bathrooms and parking, but excluding structures for human habitation are also permitted by right. 2. [30.3.05.2.2] Fill in the floodplain requires a special permit. 3. [30.3.04] The storage of gasoline, including that in cars, is prohibited. Therefore, the parking lot must be controlled. ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale FROM: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: July 16, 2008 RE: ARB- 2008 -106; SP- 2007 -57; ZMA- 2007 -24: Riverside Village I have reviewed the plans submitted for the above - referenced projects (including: Code of Development dated June 30, 2008; Application Plan Sheets Al through A6 revised 6/3/08; and assorted undated color renderings). I have the following comments. Issue: Clarifications Comments: The general development plan in the code of development shows a screening buffer around the public park. The 24 x 36 drawing set does not show this. Recommendation: Revise the plans so that the plan in the Code and the plans in the Application Plan match. Issue: Stormwater Facilities Comments: Stormwater management facilities are located adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. Experience has shown that it is difficult to achieve an appropriate appearance for such facilities located close to the EC. Moving them to locations that are less visible from the EC may allow for faster review /approval. If they remain close to the EC, gentle grading and very careful planting of the stormwater facilities will be required to fully integrate them into the surrounding landscape, to eliminate all "engineered" appearances, and to obtain ARB approval. The applicant should be aware that the treatment of these facilities will be scrutinized by the ARB at the site plan review stage. Recommendation: Consider moving the stormwater facilities away from the EC to reduce visibility. Addresss the appearance and treatment of the stormwater management facilities located along the EC in the Code of Development. Indicate how they will be made to have an appropriate, fully integrated appearance for the EC. Issue: Architecture Comments- The main blocks of the buildings in Block 1 measure 65' x 100' and 65' x 120'. They are shown with flat roofs (that appear to be green roofs) and the Code of Development indicates a maximum height of 45'. The size and height of these buildings may appear out of character for this portion of the EC. As an area of transition to a more rural character, a lower height might be more appropriate. The mass and scale of these buildings may need to be broken up to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. The flat roofs may help reduce the overall height (by not adding the height of a pitched roof), but they may serve to further enhance the blocky appearance. Consequently, a pitched roof form might be more appropriate. • Page 11 of the Code of Development indicates that the roof of the mixed -use building in Block 3 "shall have steps to break up the elevation ". This wording should be revised to more clearly describe the intent of the roof form illustrated in the rendering. • The buildings in Block 3, though located at a distance from the EC, may still be visible from the EC (especially south of the site) due to their height and the removal of existing trees. A balloon test may be warranted, at the site plan review stage, to determine visibility. Also, site sections and a 3 -d digital model will facilitate discussion. The 4 -story multifamily building in Block 3 measures 65' x 120'. This building, and its roof, should be broken up to reduce the mass. • No building materials or treatments have been listed for the buildings in Blocks 4 and 5. Was this intentional or an oversight? Recommendation: Building height may be an appropriate discussion topic for the Planning Commission. The Code of Development should address the breaking up of the building and roof forms for all buildings in Blocks 1 and 3. The Code of Development should address the possibility of pitched roofs on the main portions of the buildings in Block 1. Revise the Code to include architectural, materials and treatment information for Blocks 4 and 5. Clarify whether if green roofs are intended for the buildings in Block 1. Issue: Orientation Comments: The Code of Development states that the proposed development is oriented towards the river. The location of the development on the Entrance Corridor requires that it also address Route 20. The EC guidelines state that buildings fronting the EC should be parallel to the street. The current plan includes frontage buildings that are not oriented parallel to Route 20. As an area transitioning from an urban, commercial character to a more suburban /rural character, a less strict application of the guideline may be acceptable to the ARB. For example, shifting just the tower elements of the buildings in Block 1 to parallel the EC may be appropriate. However, the applicant should be aware that orientation is an issue and that shifting of the entire buildings could be required to meet the guidelines. Also, the ARB will require that the visibility of service, loading, refuse, mechanical and other similar areas be eliminated from the EC through the proper placement of these features, not just by treatment (screening). Recommendation: The orientation of frontage buildings may be an appropriate issue for Planning Commission discussion, given the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The Code should address the EC orientation issue. Issue: EC Landscaping Comments: • The inclusion of landscaping on the application plan is informative and appreciated, but it should be clarified that the landscaping is still subject to ARB review. • Page 13 of the Code of Development states that "interior green spaces" will be landscaped according to the Entrance Corridor guidelines. Because the guidelines do not specifically address "interior green spaces" an alternate guideline should be used. Recommendation: Add a note to the application plan indicating that landscaping shown on the application plan is subject to review /approval of the ARB. Revise the Code to eliminate the EC Guidelines reference for interior green spaces (page 13) and replace it with an alternate guideline. *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale Tamara Ambler From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 29 Nov 2007 Rev. 1: 16 July 2008 Subject: Hartman Property The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; Regarding the special use permit for fill in floodplain; (SP200700057) This special use permit is recommended for denial. It would not be good practice or policy to allow extensive fill in the floodplain for purposes of adding development capacity. Fill to this extent will have foreseen and unforeseen impacts. In addition to those considerations given in immediate engineering studies, there are other considerations. Future occupants will be alarmed at the proximity of floodwaters, and flood levels historically increase. Fill slopes and walls will be structurally affected in the long term. Most significantly, it sets a precedent to fill in floodplains where it is not strictly needed for access, utilities, or the reasonable use of a parcel. (Should work sessions with the planning commission or board reveal support for this fill in the floodplain, this issue can be further examined. Since this is an area of detailed study, the FEMA model should be used. The percentages approach taken from the design manual is intended for approximated areas only. After further examination, typical conditions, such as state and FEMA approvals could then be determined, and design considerations investigated for fill levels and extents, but this is not recommended at this time.) Rev. 1: The plan has been substantially revised to stay out of the buffer with the exception of one stormwater management basin, temporary erosion and sediment control measures, and road improvements on Rt.20. No data regarding this fill in the floodplain was provided with the application. This application needs to have all the standard items; existing floodplain, proposed floodplain, impacts and elevations, amount of fill, justification, etc. Regarding the rezoning to NMD; (ZMA200700024) 1. This rezoning cannot be recommended for approval unless the plan is revised to stay out of the floodplain to the maximum extent practical. (Should work sessions with the planning commission or board reveal support for this fill in the floodplain, this issue can be further examined.) Rev. 1: This has been addressed with the exceptions noted above. 2. A traffic study should be provided. At a minimum left and right turn lanes on Route 20 appear to be prudent safety and capacity improvements. This is a dangerous section of road just out of the area for vehicles merging from the Rt. 250 direction. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Rev. 1: A traffic study has not been provided. As indicated by Juan Wade, the VDOT 527 scoping and methodology should be used. 3. Only one entrance should be allowed for this development on Rt. 20. Reducing the conflicts on Route 20, and thereby preserving the capacity and safety of the roadway should take precedence on this major arterial. Rev. 1: This has not been addressed. Only one entrance should be provided. The entrance should ideally be perpendicular to Rt.20. 4. The directional islands in entrances are not effective at preventing left turns, and sometimes have the detrimental affect of allowing faster ingress and egress because of their directional flow. Rev. 1: This has been addressed by removal of the island. 5. The engineering review division does not typically allow stormwater management facilities in the floodplain, or stream buffer. It is bad practice, as facilities are more prone to maintenance issues from flood debris and siltation, and provide no benefit during larger storms. They have been allowed under some circumstances as exceptions, but this plan is abusing that practice. In the case of the stream buffer, where they may take the place of a healthy vegetated riparian buffer, the facilities may cause more harm than good. It is also noted that recent rezonings have proffered stormwater management above and beyond current regulations. Rev. 1: There is still one facility in the floodplain. It appears to be placed to allow more area for development. 6. This site should be revised such that erosion control facilities can be placed out of the buffers and floodplain. It is also noted that recent rezoning have proffered erosion control above and beyond current regulations. Rev. 1: This has not been addressed. 7. Rev. 1: I note with this revision that the applicant appears to be anticipating a waiver of detention requirements. However, downstream channels and culverts under Free Bridge Lane will need to be adequate, or improved 8. Rev. 1: The parking and community park on the plan does not match the general development plan in the code of development. Buffers may impact these concepts, and they do not appear to be accurately represented on the plan. If development is to be near the stream, it will need an assessment of whether it is perennial and requires a buffer. The parking area will need further justification to be permitted in the buffer, as the Parks Department has asked for area outside the floodplain in the development. If there is no reasonable alternative, and this can be permitted in the buffer, mitigation and stormwater management will be needed. file: E2_Ma,sp_GEB_1-lartman Property.doc From: Gary Whelan [gwhelan @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:07 AM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Justin Weiler Subject: ZMA200700024, SP200700057 Riverside Village Rebecca, The Service Authority doesn't have any comment on the SP or ZMA. This project is in the water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are available. This memo will also notify RWSA that this project will contribute an estimated 30,420 gpd of waste water. Gary G. M. Whelan, LS Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 (434) 977 -4511 Fax: (434) 979 -0698