HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200002 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2012-07-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE'
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
9 July 2013
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main St. Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Fax (434) 972-4176
Staff has reviewed your resubmittal for fill in the floodplain at the proposed Riverside
development. We have a few comments which are listed below:
Engineering and Water Resources
1. Thank you for the updated FEMA HEC -RAS model of the Rivanna River floodplain, with and
without the proposed fill. Unfortunately, I cannot find that 18-30.3.03.2 has been satisfied. It
will be important therefore to define forthe Board what the potential impacts are. I cannot
do that based on the current model. It is not clear why adding a few cross-sections would
make the water profile flood depths increase upstream, which is what is shown by the
duplicate effective model (just cross-sections, no fill). Please correct this discrepancy before
analyzing fill areas. I think you will find that by comparing the profiles, the assumptions made
for the new cross-sections (I did not find that these were recently surveyed) changed the slope
of the channel bottom significantly. The original model transitions up to the bridge, rather
than continuing on a constant slope. Neither appears accurate, but to be a duplicate effective
model, it should follow the original, or use new data.
2. Asa policy, filling in the floodplain to increase development is typically not recommended,
regardless of localized impacts. This would not apply to the fill for necessary road
improvements.
3. Please correct the drawings to be more legible. The key has four shades and hatching for off-
site areas. I cannot match them to the plan, which shows more shades, and hatching on-site.
Planning (These have not changed for the resubmittal)
The following comments related to the comprehensive plan and the planned development are
provided by Claudette Grant:
Page I ?f2
P,Cv1'3e6 <-8-11 cke
ATTACHMENT V
1. As previously mentioned in the staff comment letter for the rezoning, The Pantops Master
Plan focuses on preserving the stream corridors and flood plain in this neighborhood and
allowing for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. Furthermore, the
Master Plan designates several corridors along the Rivanna River and describes any future
development in this area should be especially sensitive to river ecology.
2. Staff remains concerned, as stated in the rezoning staff comment letter, that disturbance,
such as stormwater facilities and a picnic pavilion, are shown in the floodplain boundary.
Minimal to no disturbance should be shown in these sensitive areas that call for preservation.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the pages attached to
this letter.
Fees — MAKE CHECKS OUT TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE• PAY AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FRONT DESK
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay
for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning
Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$349.20 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$205.17 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$354.37 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
5554.57 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$1108.74 Tatal amount for all notifications
Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes
place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Fees main be paidin advance and a
payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid
at the same time.
PeSUbmiitaI
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. T here is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your, convenience.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
gbrool<s@albemarle.org.
r .
Sincerely,
Glenn E. Brooks, P.E.
County Engineer
Gordonsville Realty Investments Inc, Garrett St. Suite 0, Charlottesville, VA 22902
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 12 June 2012
Rev.8: 10 Jan 2013
Rev.9: 11 Mar 2013
Rev. 10: 17 May 2013
Subject: Riverside Village (ZMA201200002)
The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for
your use;
1. A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the rezoning.
Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill for necessary
improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with appropriate map changes.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
Rev.9: A special use permit was received and comments sent separately. Encroachments to increase
development are not recommended.
Rev. 10: no change.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain.
Rev.8: Stormwater facilities are still in the floodplain, along with parking and buildings.
Rev.9: no change.
Rev. 10: no change.
3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much as a 10%
impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. 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.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
Rev.9: This has been received and is under review by VDOT. As expected, the intersection of Rt. 20
and Rt. 250 is failing. The applicant has posited that this intersection has such a high volume of traffic
that the impacts from this site are approximately 3% taken in total. However, for the crucial left
turning movement onto Rt. 250, it is 12% (34/287), or 17% (60/343) for the right turn movement.
This is significant, and improvements to this intersection and signal are recommended.
Rev. 10: no change
4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the widening to the
eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical. 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.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 3
Rev.8: The improvements to the North on Rt. 20 have been shown, but it is not clear whether they line
up with lanes across the intersection at Darden Towe and Fontana Drive. The improvements toward
the Rt. 250 intersection appear to be terminated earlier on the plan sheets.
Rev.9: Detail 8/CS9 appears to be short sidewalk as shown in 7/CS9. There will be an odd
constriction in lanes on either side of this site if approved as proposed, but I defer to VDOT on the
road design. The details added for roads and alleys 1/CS9 through 5/CS9 cannot be guaranteed for
dimensions. Widths and other dimensions will be depended on final designs.
Rev. 10: no change.
5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is to install
a median on Rt. 20.
Rev. 8: Please refer to item 3. Left turns should probably be prohibited. Unprotected lefts at both
entrances are a potential cause of serious accidents.
Rev. 9: The unprotected left turns from Rt.20 and from the site are not recommended.
Rev. 10: no change.
6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance.
Rev. 8: This has been addressed.
Rev. 10: no change.
7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all lots should
be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the loop road in front of
lots 13-18.
Rev. 8: Units 19-26 and 28-33 do not have road frontage. Alleys cannot be the sole means of access to
units. These must be served by roads.
Rev. 9: Blocks 2C, 2B, and 2A do not appear to have road frontage, and are not recommended for
approval.
Rev. 10: These blocks do not have adequate access or parking. Approval is not recommended.
8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely require off-
site improvements.
Rev.8: Not addressed on plans or proffers.
Rev.9: Not addressed.
Rev. 10: no change.
9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for
erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain should keep these
disturbances temporary.
Rev.8: Not addressed.
Rev.9: Not addressed.
Rev. 10: no change.
Many of these comments are a continuation from previous reviews for SP200700057 and
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 3
ZMA200700024, which should be referenced. Here is a small visual comparison of plans for recent years
of review, using the floodplain line as a constant, which is shown in blue. With regard to this line, the
2008 plan is the most compliant. The 2013 plan is similar to early 2011.
201 2011
2012 .. �i a
` 1
file: E10_zma,sp_GE13_Riverside.doc
2011 x _ 2008
pF AL
�J�ctr�tA
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: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA-2012-02: Riverside Village
DATE: May 15, 2013
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 5/6/2013 and I have the following comments:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side of the
buildings and building entrances provided at the sides (north or south). The applicant should be aware
that the EC elevations and the north and south elevations will be required to have the appearance of
fully designed building facades.
2. Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that trees and
shrubs will be required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and the
facilities will be required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an "engineered"
appearance.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
May 21, 2013
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA 201200002 Riverside Village
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the subject Rezoning Application Plan dated 5121112 with revisions dated 12-5-12,
02-19-13 and 05-06-13 as submitted by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and off the following comments:
1. A potential 4 lane road section for Route 20 and associated turn lanes for the parcel
should be shown on this rezoning request right-of-way to be dedicated to VDOT reserved
accordingly. The intention of this comment is not to imply that Route 20 will be widened
as part of the development of this project. We simply want to ensure that adequate right-
of-way is available for the widening of Route 20 at the time it becomes necessary.
2. Please note that this response to the rezoning request is not an approval for any pending
site plans. We reserve the right for additional comments dependent on the final design of
the proposed development.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Claudette Grant
From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) [Megan.Oleynik@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:17 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: ZMA 2012-00002 Riverside Village
Claudette,
There are no VDOT comments needed on this zoning application.
Thanks,
Megan Oleynik
Engineering Intern
VDOT - Culpeper District
Attachment F
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 12 June 2012
Rev.8: 10 Jan 2013
Rev.9: 11 Mar 2013
Subject: Riverside Village (ZMA201200002)
The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for
your use;
1. A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the rezoning.
Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill for necessary
improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with appropriate map changes.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
Rev.9: A special use permit was received and comments sent separately. Encroachments to increase
development are not recommended.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain.
Rev.8: Stormwater facilities are still in the floodplain, along with parking and buildings.
Rev.9: no change.
3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much as a 10%
impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. 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.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
Rev.9: This has been received and is under review by VDOT. As expected, the intersection of Rt. 20
and Rt. 250 is failing. The applicant has posited that this intersection has such a high volume of traffic
that the impacts from this site are approximately 3% taken in total. However, for the crucial left
turning movement onto Rt. 250, it is 12% (34/287), or 17% (60/343) for the right turn movement.
This is significant, and improvements to this intersection and signal are recommended.
4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the widening to the
eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical. 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.
Rev.8: The improvements to the North on Rt. 20 have been shown, but it is not clear whether they line
up with lanes across the intersection at Darden Towe and Fontana Drive. The improvements toward
the Rt. 250 intersection appear to be terminated earlier on the plan sheets.
Rev.9: Detail 8/CS9 appears to be short sidewalk as shown in 7/CS9. There will be an odd
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 3
constriction in lanes on either side of this site if approved as proposed, but I defer to VDOT on the
road design. The details added for roads and alleys 1/CS9 through 5/CS9 cannot be guaranteed for
dimensions. Widths and other dimensions will be depended on final designs.
5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is to install
a median on Rt. 20.
Rev. 8: Please refer to item 3. Left turns should probably be prohibited. Unprotected lefts at both
entrances are a potential cause of serious accidents.
Rev. 9: The unprotected left turns from Rt.20 and from the site are not recommended.
6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance.
Rev. 8: This has been addressed.
7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all lots should
be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the loop road in front of
lots 13-18.
Rev. 8: Units 19-26 and 28-33 do not have road frontage. Alleys cannot be the sole means of access to
units. These must be served by roads.
Rev. 9: Blocks 2C, 2B, and 2A do not appear to have road frontage, and are not recommended for
approval.
8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely require off-
site improvements.
Rev.8: Not addressed on plans or proffers.
Rev.9: Not addressed.
9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for
erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain should keep these
disturbances temporary.
Rev.8: Not addressed.
Rev.9: Not addressed.
Many of these comments are a continuation from previous reviews for SP200700057 and
ZMA200700024, which should be referenced. Here is a small visual comparison of plans for recent years
of review, using the floodplain line as a constant, which is shown in blue. With regard to this line, the
2008 plan is the most compliant. The 2013 plan is similar to early 2011.
file: E9_zma,sp_GEB_Riverside.doc
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 3
s� a ears
Mat
WK
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: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA-2012-02: Riverside Village
DATE: March 6, 2013
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 2/19/2013 and I have the following comments:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side of the
buildings and building entrances provided at the sides (north or south). The applicant should be aware
that the EC elevations and the north and south elevations will be required to have the appearance of
fully designed building facades.
2. Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that trees and
shrubs will be required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and the
facilities will be required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an "engineered"
appearance. Likewise, the squared grading contours shown on Sheet 8 should be revised to achieve a
natural appearance.
3. Regarding the second bullet under VIII. D. in the Code of Development, County review of colors will
be limited to the ARB's review of the portions of the development that fall within the EC overlay
district. Consequently, submittal of the color palette will occur with ARB review of the site
development plan, which will precede the building permit application. There will be no County color
review outside ARB purview, so no separate color palette submittal at the building permit stage
would be required. The words "the first request for a building permit or" should be deleted.
�'IRGINIP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 16, 2013
Mr. Justin Shimp
201 E. Main St., Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201200002 — Riverside Village
Dear Mr. Shimp:
Staff has reviewed your submittal requesting to rezone 18.66 acres from R-1 Residential to NMD
Neighborhood Model for a maximum of 112 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of
proposed commercial uses for five (5) buildings. Approximately 8.8 acres of this property is
located in the floodplain, and some floodplain disturbance is expected for the residential areas.
We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your
proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our
comments are provided below:
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 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.
• Rev. 2: Not addressed.
2. Non-residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be
secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. A 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
41,000 square feet for non-residential (single building not to exceed 25,000 s.f.) uses is well
above the standards set forth in the PMP, which recommends small office buildings less
than 20,000 square feet.
• Staff recommends limiting the size of commercial buildings proposed along Route 20 to
be more in keeping with the recommendations in the PMP.
• Rev. 2 The proposed square footage for commercial uses, along with the restriction
(noted on Sheet 5) which limits the gross square footage of commercial buildings to
20,000 is more in keeping with the PMP. However, a mix of office and retail uses are still
proposed for the buildings along Route 20. It is still recommended that the non-
residential uses along Route 20 be limited to primarily office use, since nearby
developments will provide for neighborhood service uses in the area. Retail uses are also
proposed on this site near the river. This is partially met. It is not completely consistent
with the PMP.
3. 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, backyard areas and sidewalks in Blocks 3 and 4,
and buildings in Block 3 are proposed in the floodplain. Also stormwater facilities are
located in the floodplain. The 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. Fill work for any necessary improvements in the
floodplain will require a special use permit and should be processed with the rezoning.
(See item #1 in the Engineering and Water Resources section of this letter)
• Rev. 2 Although you have made some revisions related to this issue, in general, the
issues remain outstanding. Sidewalks, and in particular buildings #10 and 11 are shown
to be located in the floodplain or right on the floodplain boundary. Proposed stormwater
facilities also remain located in the floodplain. The revised plan shows a new building #6,
the picnic pavilion, in the floodplain. Please clarify the details of building #6. For
example, is it a building, or a picnic area with or without a roof? As previously stated,
staff suggests the previous recommendations be followed.
4. Amenities such as open space/future park have been provided in the proposed
development. This 8.1 acre park has been included on the plan. It is not clear what the
intention will be for this area. Will it be dedicated to public use for a park, as shown in
previous plans? Is parking available for the future park?
• Commitment to the future park area should be addressed through proffers.
• Rev. 2 The park area is now 8.46 acres, and you have stated that a future public park
dedication shall be proffered with this application, however, proffers have not been
submitted. Will this proposed park use existing parking areas located at the adjacent
Darden Towe Park?
5. It is important that the Zoning Ordinance be followed as it relates to the Neighborhood
Model District regulations.
• Section A.3 (a, b, and d) need to be included in any re -submittal.
1)
• Rev. 2 Revisions satisfying Sections A.3 (a, and d) are fine. Section A.3 (b), the traffic and
parking needs study needs to be clarified. (Please Zoning comments)
6. Proposed frontage improvements to accommodate the widening of Route 20 as
recommended in the PMP (See page 39 in PMP) need to be included. (See item #2 of the
attached VDOT letter)
• Rev. 2 As noted in your response letter (December 17, 2012), all of the proposed frontage
improvements to accommodate the widening of Route 20 as recommended in the PMP
have not been addressed. This issue still needs to be addressed.
7. In general, there remain many inconsistencies between the plan and code of development
that need to be revised, so that they match up with each other.
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report.
Neighborhood Model: The following describes the previous outstanding Neighborhood Model
Principles and how they have been addressed with the proposed project:
Pedestrian
Orientation
A system of sidewalks and pedestrian access to adjacent Rivanna River Walk
is proposed within the development. Connecting the sidewalk system to
Route 20 would be an added bonus for the development.
Rev. 2 This principle is met and there is now a pedestrian connection to
Route 20.
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
Affordability
addressing affordable housing should be addressed.
Rev. 2 Although there is a section in the code of development focusing on
affordable housing, staff believes the affordable housing requirement
should be in a proffer. See Zoning comments.
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
maintained. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the
need for protection of the floodplain.
Rev. 2 This principle needs to be addressed.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)
1. As previously requested, please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the
designated blocks with Section II of the COD.
The block characteristics on sheet 6 need to be consistent with the lot/parking/building
regulations table shown on sheet 5. For example, on sheet 5, block 1 min/max stories are
shown as 2 -3, however, block characteristics on sheet 6 shows block 1 shall consist of 2
story buildings. Also block characteristics shown on sheet 6, describes block 1 with
commercial buildings. However, residential uses are also described to be located in this
block throughout the code of development and application plan, but this use is not
described as a use within this section of the documents submitted. Please clarify this.
3. Sheet 6, Section II A. Preliminary Lot Layout: Clarify this section. Is this what you want for
the development? Not sure of the relationship between what is described in this section
and the range of possibilities noted in other sections of the code, which could yield a
totally different plan layout.
4. Sheet 6, Section IV Table of Uses by Block. This table is confusing because Block I allows
some residential, but it is not depicted within the table. There is a note below the table
that speaks to mixed uses being allowed in blocks 1 and 5. It seems you should describe
what residential uses you will permit in block 1 also. Perhaps the use of asterisks that refer
to the notes below this table would be helpful.
5. Sheet 7, section X Lot and building height regulations (refer to Plan sheets 4 and 5) is not
consistent with the lot/parking/building regulation section shown on sheet 5. This needs to
be revised to be consistent.
6. Sheet 7, Restrictions/Requirements associated with Standards above section (1) has typos
that should be corrected.
7. Sheet 7, the area that you are describing as conservation area on the application plan
should be labeled.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -DETAILED COMMENTS
Planning
1. As previously mentioned in this letter, sheets 4 and 5, describe what the actual plan is for
blocks 2 and 5. There are many possibilities for unit types and stories of buildings. With
different unit types the layout of the plan could be significantly different. How do you plan
to deal with this issue?
2. It appears there will be disturbance to areas of critical slopes. It is recommended a special
exceptance be requested for the disturbance. This remains an outstanding issue.
3. Parking, stormwater facilities, and a picnic shelter are shown in the floodplain. Staff does
not recommend this.
4. Several of the units in block 2 do not have street frontage. How will this be resolved?
5. Sheet 5; clarify the last sentence under Development Block Summary. What is the intent of
this sentence?
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin:
1. Adequate parking is provided for proposed residential in Blocks 2, 3 & 4. However, it is
impossible to ascertain parking needs in the mixed use blocks that contain residential and
commercial. This problem is compounded given the Development Summary on sheet 5
which allows for minimum/maximum square footage/residential types.
2. Additionally, the applicant is suggesting that the parking standard for office (1 space per
250s.f.) be utilized for the mixed use blocks yet the plan calls out retail, which will require a
higher parking standard. It appears that other commercial uses are also allowed which
may also demand more parking.
4
3. The parking, square footage and residential unit types are further confusing when
reviewing the COD as the Applicant calls out specific square footage and residential unit
numbers per block.
4. There appear to be many inconsistencies on different sheets. For instance Sheet 6 states
that Block 1 is only commercial, yet other sections list it as mixed. Please clarify what is in
each Block and provide consistency among the blocks/pages.
5. Zoning will not support a general parking standard of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. without
supporting documentation. The Applicant must request a modification and provide ITE
data or other research for Zoning to review.
6. There are no proffers to review with this plan. Items that are in the COD (such as the
affordable housing) must be proffered to meet zoning requirements.
7. If the Applicant wants to use the office parking standard and Zoning is able to support it,
higher impact commercial uses should be proffered out.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the
rezoning. Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill
for necessary improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with
appropriate map changes.
Rev.B: Not yet received.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain.
Rev.B: Stormwater facilities are still in the floodplain, along with parking and buildings.
3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much
as a 10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. 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.
Rev.B: Not yet received.
4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the
widening to the eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical.
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.
Rev.B: The improvements to the North on Rt. 20 have been shown, but it is not clear
whether they line up with lanes across the intersection at Darden Towe and Fontana
Drive. The improvements toward the Rt. 250 intersection appear to be terminated earlier
on the plan sheets.
5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is
to install a median on Rt. 20.
Rev. 8: Please refer to item 3. Left turns should probably be prohibited. Unprotected lefts
at both entrances are a potential cause of serious accidents.
6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the
entrance.
Rev. 8: This has been addressed.
5
7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all
lots should be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the
loop road in front of lots 13-18.
Rev. 8: Units 19-26 and 28-33 do not have road frontage. Alleys cannot be the sole means
of access to units. These must be served by roads.
8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely
require offsite improvements.
Rev.8: Not addressed on plans or proffers.
9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and
buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain
should keep these disturbances temporary.
Rev.8: Not addressed.
Many of these comments are a continuation from previous reviews for SP200700057 and
ZMA200700024, which should be referenced. Here is a small visual comparison of plans for recent
years of review, using the floodplain line as a constant, which is shown in blue. With regard to this
line, the 2008 plan is the most compliant. The 2013 plan is similar to early 2011.
2013 2012 2011 2011 2008
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side
of the buildings and building entrances provided at the sides (north or south). The
applicant should be aware that the EC elevations and the north and south elevations will
be required to have the appearance of fully designed building facades.
2. Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that
trees will be required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and
the facilities will be required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an
"engineered" appearance.
3. Regarding the Code of Development:
a. Generally, there remains confusing language throughout the Code and in the
Architectural Standards section in particular. Detailed review comments addressing
each of these issues are not being provided here because it is the Riverside
Architectural Review Committee that will review for the architectural standards
outlined in the Code. The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board will review
Riverside Village architectural and site plans for conformance with the Albemarle
County Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines.
b. Restrictions/Requirements note #3 under Landscape Treatments is incomplete. The
phrase "non-residential and multi -family dwellings" under Architectural Standards
F. is not accurate. It may be simpler to include a general note indicating that in
addition to any architectural, landscape and site requirements illustrated or
otherwise included in the Application Plan and Code of Development, Section 30.6
of the Zoning Ordinance applies, the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines apply to
portions of the development as outlined in that section, and the Guidelines may
require features and/or treatments over and above those listed in the Code.
Regarding the second bullet under VIII. D., County review of colors will be limited to
the ARB's review of the portions of the development that fall within the EC overlay
district. Consequently, submittal of the color palette will occur with ARB review of
the site development plan, which will precede the building permit application.
There will be no color review of buildings outside ARB purview, so no separate color
palette submittal at the building permit stage would be required.
VDOT
Comments from VDOT have not been received. We will send you comments upon receipt.
Fire/Rescue
The following comments related to Fire/Rescue have been provided by Howard Lagomarisno:
The recent submittal has addressed previous concerns with regards to the rezoning request.
The following suggestions are things to keep in mind, as they relate to some fire rescue issues
when you get to the site plan process:
• Emergency access must be provided with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 ft.
• Fire department connections are normally required to be on address side and there will be
a requirement for a hydrant within 50 ft of connection situated on same side of road as
connection so as to not block the road when hose is utilized.
• Hydrants will need to meet fire code minimum spacing requirements.
• For proposed setbacks, there will be minimum fire flows based on construction type that
will have to be met.
• Any Fire Rescue questions as the site plan process proceeds contact Howard Lagomarsino
or Robbie Gilmer at 434-296-5833
Parks and Recreation
The following comments related to Parks and Recreation have been provided by Dan Mahon:
1. Ideally, staff recommends an 8.12 acre dedication to public park use with a cash proffer for
the cost of 2,400 s.f. picnic pavilion, associated parking facilities, perimeter fencing and
2,600 If of class B trail. If not then the following issues need to be addressed.
a. First determine if a structure of this kind can be built, given its location in the flood
plain.
b. The size and location and appearance of the proposed picnic pavilion needs further
study.
The pavilion needs to be further developed with a commitment made to include
the following additional features necessary for its use:
i. Parking sized for the seating capacity of the pavilion.
ii. An accessible route from parking to pavilion.
iii. Water
iv. Bathroom facilities
d. Parks staff needs to be included in the final layout of the proposed Class B trails.
Additional discussion with staff should be done to also consider the impact this development will
have on the existing facilities at Darden Towe Park and determine if an offsite proffer with a
similar cash value can be more effectively applied to expanding services in the existing park.
Proffers
• Proffers have not been submitted.
• Proffers addressing affordable housing should be provided.
• Proffers addressing the future park should be provided.
• The County expected proffer amounts for each residential unit should be provided.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be
found at this address:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Devel
opment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $1,250.00 is required with your resubmittal.
Please use the form provided with this letter.
If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a minimum
of twenty-one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing:
$272.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$205.17 Cost for notification of adjoining owners
$477.17 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
$272.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$749.17 Total amount for all notifications
Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes
place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. 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 some time.
N.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email
address is cgrant albemarle.or
Sincerely,
'CG
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development
C: Gordonsville Realty Investments, Inc.
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
V
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
f -
AA
Cr=J
r �CL,, - �R ti
�-t �%RGIN�P
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
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.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 5 2012
Dec 5 2012
Dec 17 2012
Jan 8
Nov 19 2012
Dec 19 2012
Jan 7
Jan 29
Dec 3 2012
Jan 2
Jan 7
Jan 29
Dec 17 2012
Jan 16
Feb 4
Feb 26
Mon Jan 7
Feb 5
Feb 11
Mar 5
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 25
Mar 19
Feb 4
Mar 6
Mar 18
Apr 9
Tue Feb 19
Mar 20
Apr 1
Apr 23
Mar 4
Apr 3
Apr 15
May 7
Mar 18
Apr 17
Apr 29
May 21
Apr 1
May 1
May 13
Jun 4
Apr 15
May 15
May 27
Jun 18
May 6
Jun 5
Jun 24
Jul 16
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 24
Jul 16
Jun 3
Jul-13
Jul 8
Jul 30
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 29
Aug 20
Jul 1
Jul 31
Aug 19
Sep 10
Jul 15
Aug 14
Aug 19
Sep 10
Aug 5
Sep 4
Sep 16
Oct 8
Aug 19
Sep 18
Sep 30
Oct 22
Tue Sep 3
Oct 2
Oct 21
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 28
Nov 19
Oct 7
Nov 6
Nov 18
Dec 10
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 25
Dec 17
Nov 4
Dec 4
Dec 23
Jan 14 2014
Nov 18
Dec 18
Jan 6 2014
Jan 28 2014
Dec 2
Jan 1 2014
Jan 6 2014
Jan 28 2011LI
Dec 16
Jan 15 2014
Feb 3 2014
Feb 25 2014
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go
to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing
planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one
opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public
hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt # Ck# By:
it
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit orZoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: 7 A,20I aQ 00 D, PROJECT NAME:
[resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator
Name of Applicant Phone Number
_� �I t �— /(0 _ z
Signature Date Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ Firstxesubmission
FREE
teach additional resubmission I $1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add'1 notice fees will be required $180
To be Daid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
M AWF CUFCICc TO CO11NTv OF A1.RFMAR1X11PAl1MENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTF,R
i Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
i Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.0U for each additional notice +actual
cost of first-class postage
i� Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
6/7/2011 Page I of I
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: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA-2012-02: Riverside Village
DATE: January 3, 2013
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 12/5/2012 and I have the following comments:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side of the
buildings and building entrances provided at the sides (north or south). The applicant should be aware
that the EC elevations and the north and south elevations will be required to have the appearance of
fully designed building facades.
2. Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that trees will be
required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and the facilities will be
required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an "engineered" appearance.
3. Regarding the Code of Development:
a. Generally, there remains confusing language throughout the Code and in the
Architectural Standards section in particular. Detailed review comments addressing each
of these issues are not being provided here because it is the Riverside Architectural
Review Committee that will review for the architectural standards outlined in the Code.
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board will review Riverside Village
architectural and site plans for conformance with the Albemarle County Entrance
Corridor Design Guidelines.
b. Restrictions/Requirements note #3 under Landscape Treatments is incomplete. The
phrase "non-residential and multi -family dwellings" under Architectural Standards F. is
not accurate. It may be simpler to include a general note indicating that in addition to any
architectural, landscape and site requirements illustrated or otherwise included in the
Application Plan and Code of Development, Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
applies, the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines apply to portions of the development as
outlined in that section, and the Guidelines may require features and/or treatments over
and above those listed in the Code.
c. Regarding the second bullet under VIII. D., County review of colors will be limited to the
ARB's review of the portions of the development that fall within the EC overlay district.
Consequently, submittal of the color palette will occur with ARB review of the site
development plan, which will precede the building permit application. There will be no
color review of buildings outside ARB purview, so no separate color palette submittal at
the building permit stage would be required.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fox(434)972-4126
July 6, 2012
Mr. Justin Shimp
201 E. Main St., Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201200002— Riverside Village
Dear Mr. Shimp:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal requesting to rezone 18.66 acres from R-1 Residential to
NMD Neighborhood Model for a maximum of 106 residential units and up to 41,000 square feet of
proposed commercial uses for four (4) two story buildings. Approximately 8.8 acres of this
property is located in the floodplain, and some floodplain disturbance is expected for the
residential areas.
We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your
proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our
comments are provided below:
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 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.
a 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. A 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
41,000 square feet for non-residential (single building not to exceed 25,000 s.f.) uses is well
above the standards set forth in the PMP, which recommends small office buildings less
than 20,000 square feet.
Staff recommends limiting the size of commercial buildings proposed along Route 20 to
be more in keeping with the recommendations in the PMP.
3. 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, backyard areas and sidewalks in Blocks 3 and 4,
and buildings in Block 3 are proposed in the floodplain. Also stormwater facilities are
located in the floodplain. The 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. Fill work for any necessary improvements in the floodplain will require a
special use permit and should be processed with the rezoning. (See item #1 in the Engineering
and Water Resources section of this letter)
4. Amenities such as open space/future park have been provided in the proposed
development. This 8.12 acre park has been included on the plan. It is not clear what the
intention will be for this area. Will it be dedicated to public use for a park, as shown in
previous plans? Is parking available for the future park?
Commitment to the future park area should be addressed through proffers.
5. It is important that the Zoning Ordinance be followed as it relates to the Neighborhood
Model District regulations. Section A.3 (a, b, and d) need to be included in any re -submittal.
6. Proposed frontage improvements to accommodate the widening of Route 20 as
recommended in the PMP (See page 39 in PMP) need to be included. (See item #2 of the
attached VDOT letter)
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report.
PANTOPS MASTER PLAN
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 in blue are included for your
information. Please note the page numbers of the Pantops Master Plan (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)
Ia UxMap
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.
• The County's Open Space Plan does not describe any significant features on this site.
Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is to rezone a parcel from R-1 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 principles of the Neighborhood
Model:
Pedestrian
A system of sidewalks and pedestrian access to adjacent Rivanna River Walk
Orientation
is proposed within the development. Connecting the sidewalk system to
Route 20 would be an added bonus for the development. This principle is
met.
Neighborhood
Sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking serving single family lots are
Friendly Streets
proposed. This principle is met.
and Paths
Interconnected
The development plan shows an interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of
Streets and
the subject parcel, which support this NMD principle. This principle is met.
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
The Application Plan shows an area for open space/future park and a tree
Space
conservation area. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
This property is located in the vicinity ofAvemore/Cascadia and Pantops
Centers
Shopping center. This principle is met.
Buildings and
With maximum heights up to 60 feet, it appears the proposed buildings
Spaces of Human
would be between 1-3 stories also with green spaces, and trees located
Scale
throughout the development this would be compatible with the human
scale; therefore, this principle is met.
Relegated Parking
A majority of the parking is relegated; therefore, this principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed development provides an appropriate mix of uses. However,
the proposed total square footage of commercial uses with a maximum of
up to 41,000 square feet exceeds the expectations of the PMP, which
recommends small office buildings with less than 20,000 square feet.
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
Affordability
addressing affordable housing should be addressed.
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 maintained. 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.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
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 with examples of 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 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 number.
Block 1, the first sentence has a typo.
Unit count is inconsistent with the unit count on sheet 5.
BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE:
1. As accessory apartments are only permitted in single-family dwellings, they would not
be allowed in Block 5 as shown in the table.
PARKING:
1. Parking tabulations should be shown in a single table. Coordinate the COD with the
plan.
2. 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.
The following comments refer to the Architectural style standards proposed on Sheet 6 of 8.
1. Regarding the earth -tone color standard, the color palette will be required at the time the
ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site, which predates the building permit
application. The text should be revised to address this.
2. The roof pitch and design standard states that Block 1 building mass and roofs should be
broken up to achieve an appropriate look for the river corridor. The text should be
amended to indicate that building mass and roofs shall also be treated to have an
appropriate scale and appearance from the EC.
3. Clarify whether the minimum of 2 distinct roof elevations required in the Roof Pitch and
Design standards applies to each building in Block 1 individually, or to Block 1 overall.
4. In the 4th and 5th bullets of Roof Pitch and Design, clarify how a garage door can be
screened with trim.
5. Clarify what "minimum 3 per building" means in the last bullet under Roof Pitch and
Design.
6. The Architectural Review Committee standards require 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 is recommended that it remain with Riverside
Village.
7. Final landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note
that Entrance Corridor tree spacing is 35' on center and interior street tree spacing is 40'
on center. The landscape Treatment standard should reference the Entrance Corridor
Design Guidelines for additional landscaping requirements.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -DETAILED COMMENTS
Given the density of the proposed development, the location of dumpsters should be shown on
the plan.
The following are needed to comply with Section 8.5.1 (d):
1. The plan should be based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be
used on plans.
2. Trip generation figures need to be included.
Plannine
It appears there will be disturbance to areas of critical slopes. It is recommended a special
exceptance be requested for the disturbance.
Zonine
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin:
1. There are several building sites that appear to be in the Floodplain (lots labeled 1-5, 10-12)
which is prohibited under the ordinance (sheet 4).
2. The development Block Summary, Block Summary and Code of Development contain different
densities. Change the Proposed Commercial Density in the Development Block Summary to
"Maximum Proposed Density." This column also references a proposed square footage of
41,000sq. ft., yet the notes reference that there is no maximum.
3. The parking notes are not to Ordinance standards. The parking requirements are also
implying that only office uses will be used, yet the Uses table contemplates other limited uses
that will require higher parking requirements.
4. The applicant should consider adding wireless to the permitted use list.
Enaineerins and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
1. A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the
rezoning. Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill
for necessary improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with appropriate
map changes.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain.
3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much as a
10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. 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.
4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the
widening to the eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical.
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.
5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is to
install a median on Rt. 20.
6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the
entrance.
7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all lots
should be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the loop
road in front of lots 13-18.
8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely
require off-site improvements.
9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and
buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the Floodplain
should keep these disturbances temporary.
SP200700057 and ZMA200700024 should be referenced, as many of these comments are a
continuation from these previous reviews.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite
side of the buildings. The applicant should be aware that the EC elevations will be
required to have the appearance of fully designed building fronts, with transparent
windows that allow visibility into the building.
VDOT
Comments from VDOT are highlighted and attached.
Fire/Rescue
The following comments related to Fire/Rescue have been provided by Howard Lagomarisno:
Several public safety issues are not appropriately addressed. This includes emergency vehicle
access to all buildings, including all sides of the condo building, width and turn radius of roads not
adequate for emergency vehicle access.
Due to the scope of the project, I would also anticipate fire department connections and
firefighting water supply as issues . I have included several codes as example of what we will
require on a site plan to facilitate planning:
Access:
503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1
through 503.1.3.
Exceptions:
1. Fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be
provided and maintained in accordance with written
policy that establish fire apparatus access road
requirements and such requirements shall be
identified to the owner or his agent prior to the building
official's approval of the building permit.
2. On construction and demolition sites, fire apparatus
access roads shall be permitted to be provided and
maintained in accordance with Section 1410.1.
503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus
access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or
within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall
comply with the requirements of this section and shall
extend to within 150 feet 145 720 mm) of all portions of the
facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story
of the building as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the building or facility.
Exception: The fire code official is authorized to
increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm)where:
1. The building is equipped throughout with an
approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or
903.3.1.3.
2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed
because of location on property, topography,
waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar
conditions, and an approved alternative means of
fire protection is provided.
3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group
U occupancies.
503.1.2 Additional access. The fire code official is authorized
to require more than one fire apparatus access road
based on the potential for impairment of a single road by
vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions
or other factors that could limit access.
503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have
an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm),
exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in
accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm).
Exception: Fire apparatus access roads exclusively serving
single family dwelling or townhouse developments
which are fully sprinklered as provided for in Sections
R313.1 or R313.2 of the International Residential Code
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 18 feet
(5486 mm), exclusive of shoulders.
503.2.2 Authority. The fire code official shall have the
authority to require an increase in the minimum access
widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations.
503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather
driving capabilities.
503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a
fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire
code official.
503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in
excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
503.2.7 Grade. The grade of the fire apparatus access road
shall be within the limits established by the fire code official
based on the fire department's apparatus.
503.2.8 Angles of approach and departure. The angles of
approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall
be within the limits established by the fire code official
based on the fire department's apparatus.
Proffers
• Proffers have not been submitted.
• Proffers addressing affordable housing should be provided.
• Proffers addressing the future park should be provided.
• The County expected proffer amounts for each residential unit should be provided.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay
for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning
Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$272.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$205.17 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200+actual postage/$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$477.17 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
$272.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$749.17 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
carantCoDalbemarle.ora .
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Community Development
C: Gordonsville Realty Investments, Inc.
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Albemarle County NMD-COD format and content
Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated July 2, 2012
10
CG1MM0NWEA1'ZH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July grid 2012
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the June, 2012 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP -2012-00011 Four Seasons Learning Center (Christopher Perez)
1. The increase in students from 54 to 60 will increase the expected trips to the site from 45 in the
peak hour to 49.
SP -2012-00012 Regents School of Charlottesville (Christopher Perez)
1. The proposal for 55 students to this site will generate 53 AM peak hour trips.
2. The site has existing left and right turn lanes at the entrance which is adequate for the projected
traffic.
3. The site entrance has adequate sight distance.
SP -2012-00014 First Union Baptist Church Extension (Scott Clark)
1. This increase in size will generate an additional 24 weekday trips and 24 weekend peak hour
trips.
2. The site is off a privately maintained road that connects to a public road, Route 784. The private
road entrance will have adequate sight distance if the existing sign for the church is relocated
farther back from the road.
3. The volume on existing Route 784 is low and neither a right nor left turn lane is warranted for the
public road.
SP -2012-00015 Verizon Wireless —Colthurst Ingleridge LLC (Sarah Baldwin)
1. No comments
SP -2012-00016 NTELOS Wireless —UVA Tier III (Scott Clark)
1. No comments
SP -2012-00017 NTELOS Wireless — Llandaft Property Tier III (Scott Clark)
1. No comments
Attachment E
ZMA-2012-00002 Riverside Village (Claudette Grant)
1. The layout of roads appears to meet the VDOT connectivity requirements for state maintained
roads.
2. The frontage improvements on Route 20 need to be the same as the county's master plan for this
road. The typical section should be the same as the four lane divided section towards the
intersection at Route 250. The road needs to set the road horizontal alignment parallel to the
existing curb face on the opposite side of Route 20.
3. The proposed left turn lane dimensions need to be designed in accordance with the VDOT Road
Design Manual Appendix F-48 and include a capacity analysis.
4. ITE trip generation numbers need to be added to the plan.
5. Sidewalks need to be placed within the right of way.
6. The partial access entrance to the office area needs to meet the geometric requirements as shown
in The VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F-84 and 90. The island needs to be widened and
the parking setback needs to be a minimum of 50 feet.
7. The first entrance to the office area form Route 20 needs to meet the setback requirements of the
VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F-91. The minimum distance is 225 feet.
8. The minimum width of commercial entrance to public roads is 24 feet in low volume local road
conditions.
9. No manholes will be permitted within the proposed public road pavement for the sanitary sewer
line.
10. The typical sections need to meet the minimum requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendix B (1). It appears that the residential part of the development will need to be designed
for the criteria of 0 to 2000 VPD. Widths need to include parking on both sides of the road and
roads with one access point need to meet the width criteria for roads with 2000 to 4000 VPD.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT Culpeper
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
4
ya
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia U701-3819
Gregory A. W hirlay
Corranneoner of lrighxaya
July 2'", 2012
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the June, 2012 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP -2012-00011 Four Seasons Learning Center (Christopher Perez)
1. The increase in students from 5410 60 will increase the expected trips to the site from 45 in the
peak hour to 49.
SP -2012.00012 Regents School of Charlottesville (Christopher Perez)
1. The proposal for 55 students to this site will generate 53 AM peak hour trips.
2. The site has existing left and right tum lanes at the entrance which is adequate for the projected
traffic.
3. The site entrance has adequate sight distance.
SP -2012.00014 First Union Baptist Church Extension (Scott Clark)
1. This increase in sire will generate an additional 24 weekday trips and 24 weekend peak hour
trips.
2. The site is off a privately maintained road that connects to a public road, Route 784. The private
road entrance will have adequate sight distance if the existing sign for the church is relocated
farther back from the road.
3. The volume on existing Route 784 is low and neither a right nor left turn lane is warranted for the
public road.
SP -2012-00015 Verizon Wireless—Colthurst Ingleridge LLC (Sarah Baldwin)
1. No comments
SP -2012-00016 NTELOS Wireless —UVA Tier III (Scott Clark)
1. No comments
SP -2012-00017 NTELOS Wireless—Llandaft Property Tier III (Scott Clark)
1. No comments
ZMA-2012-001102 Riverside Village (Claudette Grant)
1. The layout of roads appears to meet the VDOT connectivity requirements for state maintained
roads.
2. The frontage improvements on Route 20 need m be the same as the county's master plan for this
road. The typical section should be the same as the four lane divided section towards the
intersection at Route 250. The road needs to set the mad horizontal alignment parallel to the
existing curb face on the opposite side of Route 20.
3. The proposed left turn lane dimensions need to be designed in accordance with the VDOT Road
Design Manual Appendix F-48 and include a capacity analysis.
4. ITE trip generation numbers need to be added to the plan.
5. Sidewalks need to be placed within the right of way.
6. The partial access entrance to the office area needs to meet the geometric requirements as shown
in The VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F-84 and 90. The island needs to be widened and
the parking setback needs to be a minimum of 50 feet.
7. The fust entrance to the office area form Route 20 needs to meet the setback requirements of the
VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F-91. The minimum distance is 225 feet.
S. The minimum width of commercial entrance to public roads is 24 feet in low volume local mad
conditions.
9. No manholes will be permitted within the proposed public mad pavement for the sanitary sewer
line.
10. The typical sections need to meet the minimum requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendix B (1). It appears that the residential part of the development will need to be designed
for the criteria of 0 to 2000 VPD. Widths need to include parking on both sides of the road and
roads with one access point need to meet the width criteria for roads with 2000 to 4000 VPD.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT Culpeper
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
pF AL
�J�ctr�tA
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: Claudette Grant
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA-2012-02: Riverside Village
DATE: June 14, 2012
I have reviewed the plan dated 5/21/2012 and I have the following comments:
1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side of the
buildings. The applicant should be aware that the EC elevations will be required to have the
appearance of fully designed building fronts, with transparent windows that allow visibility into the
building.
The following comments refer to the standards proposed on Sheet 6 of 8.
2. Regarding the earth -tone color standard, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB
reviews the site plan and architecture for the site, which predates the building permit application. The
text should be revised to address this.
3. The roof pitch and design standard states that Block 1 building mass and roofs should be broken up to
achieve an appropriate look for the river corridor. The text should be amended to indicate that
building mass and roofs shall also be treated to have an appropriate scale and appearance from the
EC.
4. Clarify whether the minimum of 2 distinct roof elevations required in the Roof Pitch and Design
standards applies to each building in Block 1 individually, or to Block 1 overall.
5. In the 4th and 5th bullets of Roof Pitch and Design, clarify how a garage door can be screened with
trim.
6. Clarify what "minimum 3 per building" means in the last bullet under Roof Pitch and Design.
7. The Architectural Review Committee standards require 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 is recommended that it remain with Riverside Village.
8. Final landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that Entrance
Corridor tree spacing is 35' on center and interior street tree spacing is 40' on center. The Landscape
Treatment standard should reference the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines for additional
landscaping requirements.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 12 June 2012
Rev.8: 10 Jan 2013
Subject: Riverside Village (ZMA201200002)
The application plans and documentation have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for
your use;
1. A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the rezoning.
Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill for necessary
improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with appropriate map changes.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain.
Rev.8: Stormwater facilities are still in the floodplain, along with parking and buildings.
3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much as a 10%
impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. 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.
Rev.8: Not yet received.
4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the widening to the
eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical. 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.
Rev.8: The improvements to the North on Rt. 20 have been shown, but it is not clear whether they line
up with lanes across the intersection at Darden Towe and Fontana Drive. The improvements toward
the Rt. 250 intersection appear to be terminated earlier on the plan sheets.
5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is to install
a median on Rt. 20.
Rev. 8: Please refer to item 3. Left turns should probably be prohibited. Unprotected lefts at both
entrances are a potential cause of serious accidents.
6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance.
Rev. 8: This has been addressed.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all lots should
be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the loop road in front of
lots 13-18.
Rev. 8: Units 19-26 and 28-33 do not have road frontage. Alleys cannot be the sole means of access to
units. These must be served by roads.
8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely require off-
site improvements.
Rev.8: Not addressed on plans or proffers.
9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for
erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain should keep these
disturbances temporary.
Rev.8: Not addressed.
Many of these comments are a continuation from previous reviews for SP200700057 and
ZMA200700024, which should be referenced. Here is a small visual comparison of plans for recent years
of review, using the floodplain line as a constant, which is shown in blue. With regard to this line, the
2008 plan is the most compliant. The 2013 plan is similar to early 2011.
201 2012 - � 201
�* 1
r
file: E8_zma,sp_GEB_Riverside.doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Rye
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.ore in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last Page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date forthe Planning Commission in accordance with
Pnge I af6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
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.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
•esMa
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 30 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Page 2 of6 Revised 4 -25 -II eke
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A.
For a special use permit:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
3. Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee–.— .......................... ............................................................. ...........................
$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
5. 5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................ --...................... ..........................................................................
$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500A0
6. Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00
7. All other special use permits; application and fust resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal............................................................................................
$1,000.00
S. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
B.
For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee.........................................................................................................................................$1000.00
C.
Amendment to the zoning map:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$3,500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00
D.
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee....................................................................................................................................$500.00
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) –
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N.
Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee....................................................................................................................................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee.........................................................................................................................................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3. Published notice:
Fee......................................................................................................................................Actual
cost
Page 3 of6 Rekwd 4-15-11 eke
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing"
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing"
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than'
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Dec 19 2011
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Tue Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
Feb 27
Mar 20
Feb 6
Mar 7
Mar 12
Apr -3
Tue Feb 21
Mai -21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
A r 18
Apr 30
May 22
A r2
May 2
May 14
Jun5
Apr 16
Ma 16
Ma 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 25
Jul 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug7
Jun 18
Jul 16
Jul 30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug20
Sep l l
Jul 16
Aug15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17 I
Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 12
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 18
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
Jan 82013
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7 2013
Jan 29 2013
Dec 3
Jan 2 2013
Jan 14 2013
Feb 5 2013
Dec 17
Jan 16 2013
Feb 4 2013
Feb 26 2013
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
`The reviewing plannerwill contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can, decide whether to resubmit Or do
MA
I
I
MA
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP Aor ZMA k
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
Fee AmountS Dam Paid By aho?
Reactor
Cls
Bv:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: RZ Vtfs'aIP /Villose_
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Requesst(; -,,I � Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Clauli� G 1 ra IE � 4skn S�INrt�.
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
f�J �111z
Signature F7re f— Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit — original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ Fhstresubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$ i.000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
$200 , actual cost offirst-class postage
first resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ Firstresubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request- Add'I notice fees will be required
$I80
To be naid after staff review for oublic notice
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper aad by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore. at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
D Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 , actual cost offirst-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$IAO for each additional notice+actual
cog of firsUclass postage
• Legal advenisemeat (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
minimum of$280 for total of4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
bl 011 Page 1 of 1
Draft Code ofDevelopment January 4, 2007
#1 EKE
Albemarle County Neighborhood Model District
Code of Development Format and Content
Information in italics is instructional. Information in regular font should be
provided verbatim.
General Project Information
A. Name of Project
B. TMP(s)
C. Description of Project — describe the type of project that is
proposed by highlighting its unique features. Avoid using phrases
such as, "it is hoped that", `possible features include" etc. Be
direct about the vision for the development.
D. Maximum number of residential units to be developed and
maximum square footage of non-residential uses proposed. This
information is used only to assess the proportion of residential to
non-residential use.
Section 20A.3, requirements may be met through the description in this
section.
Plan of Development This section should contain a reduced copy of
the General Plan of Development, which should also include the following:
A. Preliminary Lot Layout (Section 20A.5.h.)
B. Pedestrian Path locations (Section 20A.5.L6.)
C. Conservation areas and Preservation areas (if the development
includes these features) (Section 20A.53.8.)
D. Parking Aress(Section 20A.U.9.)
E. Civic spaces, which are public areas for community or civic
activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and
places of worship); (if the development includes these features)
(Section 20A.5.i.10.) This section should also include the Section
8.5.d requirements for a planned district: The location of central
features or major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, such as major employment areas,
parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green
spaces, amenities and recreation area. Building footprints or
Draft Code of Development January 4, 2007
#1 EKE
graphic representations of these features should be shown at the
block level.
III. Block Characteristics This section is designed to express the vision
for each block. It is used to describe the uses and unique characteristics
of each block and to provide future guidance for site plans and subdivision
plats, especially, where variations to a general plan of development are
requested.
Describe each block and its unique characteristics, if any. For example
Block A contains the formal entrance to the development, tree -lined
streets with townhouses or apartments on both sides of the street. It
contains the entry park and a sales office that will be converted to small
office space once the sales office is no longer needed.
Block B is the focal point of the development. It will have a community
center with statuary and decorative fountain in the front. Buildings
surrounding the community center will contain office and retail uses, etc.
A village green is provided south of the community center which will be
surrounded by ....
Block C is the -main street' part of the development. Buildings will be two
to three stories in height and have retail or office uses on the first Noor.
Upper floors will contain office or residential uses.
Draft Code ol"Development January 4, 2007
#1 EKE
V. Table of Uses by Block (Section 20A.5.a., 20A.S.e., 20A.S.f.,
20A.511., and 20A.5.i.2.
Use the table format below with uses from the Zoning Districts. Do not list
uses which are not specifically identified in the Zoning Ordinance. The
uses listed in the table are examples. As examples, the uses are written
in italics. It is not necessary to use italics in your Code.
The table below establishes the permitted uses, the special uses, and
prohibited uses by block. The letter "P" symbolizes uses permitted by -
right. The letters "SP" symbolize uses allowed by special use permit only.
The lack of either symbol means that the use is prohibited in the block.
Immediately following the table is a list of any requirements or restrictions
associated with each use. (in accordance with Section 20A.6.i.2
Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block
Residential Uses
Block Numbers
8
C
D
E F
G
etached-sin le family
P
p p
Seml-detached and attached single family (duplexes,
triblexes, townhouses
Multi -family
Boarding house
Tounst lod in
Accessory uses and buildings including storage
buildings
etc.
Non -Residential Uses
Administrative, pmfessional offices 1
P
SP
P
P
SP P
P
Automobile laundries 2
btomobile truck repair shop
etc.
Restrictions/Requirements associated with Uses Above
(1) Professional office buildings shall not exceed 5000 net square feet, as defined in the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, per floor.
(2) Automobile laundries/car washes shall only be allowed in conjunction with
convenience stores.
(3) No individual retail use shall exceed 10, 000 gross square feet, as defined in the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Draft Code of Development
#1
January 4, 2007
EKE
V. Developed Square Footage Proposed (Section 20A.S.b and
20A.5.c)
Densily, Housing Type and Non -Residential Use by Block
Max. Block
Block
prox. Block
Size acres
Min. Dwelling Max. Dwelling
Units Units
Gross Density
DU/Acre
1HOusino Types
Min Non-
res. S . Ft.
Max Non -
res. . Ft.
Block A
1
1
4
4
SF
may be a!
attached, al
Black
14
7
1
10.
m( or mixture
of both
500
700
may be al
attached, a!
Block
1
7
14
m), or mixture
of both
Block D
1
SF
1
280
Block E
2
1
mf above non.
residential u
Block F
2
2
3.2
SF
maybe a!
attached, al
Block
2
6
8.1
mf, or mixtu
of 'h
2
400
Total
61
250
33
4.9
8.50
13,80
Restrictions/Requirements Associated with Standards above
(1) No fewer than 250 units nor more than 330 units will be provided. These units
will be distributed among blocks using the minimum and maximum numbers
allowed. For example, if 150 units are provided in Block B, the number of units
Provided in other blocks will be lower.
Draft Code of Developmew
#1
VI. Affordable Units by Type and Block
Block
Minimum and Minimum
maximum Affordable
umber of Dwelling
units Units
Maximum
Affordable
Units
Housing Types
__Dwelling
Block A
10-40 4
f2
townhouse
Block
75-150 1
4
apartments
Block
10-70
21apartmentsl
Townhouses,
Block D
0-309
SF
Block E
5-20
SPD
Block
25-65
21
subordinate
Block G
25-65
14
du exes
Total
250-330 34
12
January 4, 2007
EKE
Draft Code of Development
#1
January 4, 200'
EKE
VI. Green Space and Amenities (Section 20A.5.d., Section
20A.5.U., and 20A.5.i.10.)
A description of the Green Space and Amenity Areas should be provided with
information on the components of those areas. For example:
Four parks are provided in the development. They are the Entry Park (Block
A), the Village Green (Block C), the Knoll Park (Block D), and the Hill Park
(Block F).
The Entry Park will be a minimum of 1 acre in size and will have a formal
landscape treatment. The sign to the development shall be located in the
Entry Park. A brick sidewalk on both sides of the entry street shall welcome
residents and visitors into the development and lead to the concrete
sidewalks in Block B. Park benches shall be provided along the brick
sidewalk. Public art or sculpture may be displayed in the Entry Park.
The Village Green ...
Minimum Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenity Areas by stock
Amenity Area -
Min. S . Ft. Amenities Green S ce Green S ace Elements
lock A
Entry Park
43,5
8 benches, brick
sidewalk
43,56
Minimum of 5 flowering tree
nd 5 shade trees
SWM facility
81
Block B
V91ageGreen
5,00
landscaped
enmeter
5100
Turf lawn surrounded
b shrubs
Community Can
5,00
meeting
mom/kltchen
20,0
Turf lawn around building
Block C
Park
43,58
tot lot
43,56
1 swingset, 1 merry-go-
round, 1 jungle -gym, 3
ban as
Greenway along
(ream
79 2
15' wide afh
237,6
undisturbed stream buffer
exce t for ath
Total 176,320 357,720
Draft Code of Development
#1
VII. Architecture (Section 20A.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
January 4, 2007
EKE
Draft Code of Development
#1
VIII. Landscape Treatments (Section 20A.g.7.)
January 4, 2007
EXE
Area
Specific
Plaut
Spacing
Quantity
Special Conditions
Location
Tvve
Street
Main
Street
1 every
Shade trees and
Frontage
roads/interior
shade tree
40feet
small flowering
roads
alternate every 40
eer
Small
1 every
Shade trees and
flowering
40feet
smallflowering
tree
alternate every 40
Leet
Yard
Grass/lawn
Slope (no greater
than 33%
Shade tree
2 per from
and
Building
Shrubs
6
Planted
entrance
symmetrically on
either side of door
Mitigation
Parking
areas
areas
Equipment
Trash
Retaining
walls
Buildings/
Structures
Other
Restrictions/Requirements Associated with Standards Above
(1) Species must conform to the Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes list.
(2) Planting standards shall conform to the Virginia Nurserymen's Association
Guidelines for Planting.
(3) Pedestrian paths, provided in addition to sidewalks, shall be made of brick,
concrete, asphalt, or other permanent material.
Draft Code of Development
#f
January 4, 2007
EKE
IX. Lot and Building Height Regulations (Section 20A.5.i.3, 4,
5)
Block
Lot
Width
Front
Build -to-
Lines
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Minimax
stories
I
Max
Bldg
Hei ht
Block A
60'+
81-15,
5
10
1-3
35'
Block B
40'— 60'
8'— 15'
3
10
1-3
40'
Block
16'-35'
5'-12'
3
10
2-4
40'
Block D
n/a
3'— 15'
4
15
2-4
55'
Accessory
structures
n/a
(1)
3
3 (2)
1-2
25'
Restrictions/Requirements associated with Standards Above
(1) Accessory structures are not allowed between the building and the
street.
(2) Additional setback may be required by County Engineer if accessory
structure is accessed from an alley
(3) Porches, eaves, and awnings are considered to be part of the structure
and shall not extend closer to the street than the build -to lines.
(4) Church spires may extend above the maximum height of building.
(5) Churches shall not be regulated by stories, but by height only.
Draft Code of Development January 4, 2007
41 EKE
X. Features to be Preserved (Section 20A.g.8., 20A.i.8.)
A. Existing Historic Structures — description of historic elements and mason
for preservation
B. Historic/Archeological Sites — description of historic elements
C. Preservation Areas — described here, such as, "Preservation areas
contain stream buffers, critical slopes adjacent to streams, wetlands, and
floodplain all shown on the General Plan of Development. These
elements will not be disturbed. Dead or diseased vegetation maybe
removed."
D. Conservation Areas — described here, such as, `Conservation areas
contain steep slopes and wooded areas shown on the General Plan of
Development. Minimal disturbance of these features is allowed for
construction of pedestrian paths and bmp's."
E. Method of preservation — described here, such as, "Prior to construction, a
conservation plan shall be filed and, after approved, protection measures
shall be put in place before construction begins."
A. Descriptions of Methods to be used for Stormwater
Management
XII. Street Cross -Sections
1. Provide a diagram identifying which streets are proposed as public and
which are proposed as private, if private streets are proposed.
2. Indicate the cross-sections of the different streets showing location of
sidewalks, street, trees, and construction materials of sidewalks.
Draft Cade of Development January 4, 2007
#1 EKE
General Plan of Development (Section 20.A.4. and
Section 8.5.1.) Checklist
a. regional context map
scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet
topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals,
_surrounding properties
improvements to existing and surrounding properties
_surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares,
labeled
b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the
location and type of boundary evidence
_c. A map showing:
_1. The following existing physical conditions
streams
wooded areas
potential non -tidal wetlands
slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent
historic structures and sites included in the records of the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
floodplain
_any identified features in the open space element of the
comprehensive plan
_2. Existing topography
_accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour
intervals
Draft Code of Development
W
January 4, 2007
EKE
at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred
(100) feet (other interval and/or scale may be required or
permitted by the director of planning and community
development where topographic considerations warrant)
_3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities
_4. The existing owners and zoning district
5. The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures
on adjoining parcels, if any
_ 6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the
site
d. General Plan of Development — based on a minimum of two (2)
data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles
showing
1. streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, nontidal wetlands, and
other significant environmental features
2. The proposed gradingttopography with a maximum of five (5)
foot contour intervals
3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and
pedestrian paths
_5. Connections to existing and proposed streets
_6. Proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan
_7. Trip generation figures
_8. The general lay -out for the water and sewer systems
9. conceptual stormwater management
10. conceptual mitigation plan (if stream buffers are impacted)