HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300001 Action Letter 09-09-2008Phone (434) 296 -5832
ALA tr
�RGINN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: Justin Shimp
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
DATE: September 9, 2008
RE: ZMA2007 -00024 Riverside Village
Fax (434) 972 -4012
On August 26, 2008, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above -noted item in a work
session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the
discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832.
RR /SM
ATTACHMENT D �r _
�)
ATTACHMENT 1
ZMA- 2007 -00024 Riverside Village — (Concurrent SP- 2007 -057) Work Session
The Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA- 2007 -00024 Riverside Village (Concurrent
SP- 2007 -057). The Commission reviewed and provided comments on the following four questions
posed by staff.
1. Is the maximum square footage of non - residential land uses appropriate for this site,
including 30,000 square feet of commercialloffice space proposed in Block 1, or should
the maximum allowed be reduced?
The Commission had no concerns and felt the square footage per building was appropriate for the site.
2. Should additional land dedicated for the public park and amenities be required, in addition
to park proffer?
The Commission did not recommend that additional park land or amenities be dedicated. The
Commission recommended that the applicant provide for urban amenities internal to the development,
such as small pocket parks that may have seating.
3. Are the scale and massing of the mixed use buildings in Block 3 appropriate?
Generally the Planning Commission liked the relationship of the buildings to the Rivanna River and did
not have concerns about the proposed height of four stories. However, they recommended breaking up
the massing of the buildings in Block 3.
4. Are the roof rain gardens approximately located adjacent to Route 20 or should they be
relocated?
The Commission believed that the rain gardens were a beneficial feature that should remain, but
recommended they be relocated and not be placed adjacent to Route 20 and that pedestrian orientation
of the buildings to the street should be improved. The Commission also felt that providing for green roofs
and Low Impact Development (LID) in the development was positive.
Other Commission comments:
• Some Commissioners were concerned that the applicant's proposed plans would still impact the
flood plain and recommended that the plans be revised to eliminate impacts in to the flood plain.
• The Commission noted that future submittals and review of this proposal should address the
proffer policy and provide adequate proffers to address all impacts of the proposed development,
including schools, libraries, and fire rescue and police.
• Some concern was expressed about making sure that the parking was adequate for
residential /commercial, no matter what entities went into the commercial spaces.
ATTACHMENT D