HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300001 Review Comments 2013-03-21Claudette Grant
From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8.24 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: ZMA201300001: The Lofts at Meadowcreek
Claudette,
I have reviewed the above referenced project. I have the following comments:
• The downstream sewer capacity is available to support the development at this time.
• A connection to the RWSA water main will require RWSA approval. If this is not an option there are ACSA water
mains in the area that can be connected to.
• The final site plan will require construction review by the ACSA (submit 3 copies once the final site plan is
developed).
I am hereby approving ZMA201300001. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Service Authirity
.............
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended
recipient(s).
ATTACHMENT G
Claudette Grant
From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: RE: ZMA201300001 -The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Claudette,
RWSA has no additional comments at this time for the resubmittal of ZMA201300001. As discussed in our previous
comments, the water main connection location will need to be resolved at the site plan stage, so please let me know
when site plans are submitted.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks a lot,
Victoria
From: Claudette Grant [mailto:cgrant (&albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Ron Higgins; Victoria Fort; Joel DeNunzio, P.E.; Howard Lagomarsino
Cc: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT)
Subject: ZMA201300001 -The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Hello All,
Just sending a reminder that comments for the subject project are due today. Please e -mail me or respond to
County View. Let me know your comments or if everything is satisfactory for you. I will be glad to answer any
questions. Enjoy, this beautiful day. Thank you
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596
(434) 296 -5832, Ext. 3250
Fax: (434) 972 -4126
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY OF ALI EMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Win(
Charlottesville, Virhinia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
May 1, 2013
Mr. William Park, Pinnacle Construction & Development Corp.
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201300001
Dear: Mr. Park,
Fax (434) 972 -4126
Staff has reviewed your submittal dated April 8, 2013, requesting to rezone 2.80 acres from R -4,
residential zoning district to NMD, Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a proposed
residential development with a maximum of 65 dwelling units and a density of 23units /acre and
offers the following comments:
Planning
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:
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — Due to the sites location, interconnected
streets will be difficult to provide. This property is located on a major road that is proposed for
future transit. Providing a transit stop for this area is recommended. This principle is not fully
addressed. Rev. 2 The application plan now shows an area fronting on Rio Road, north of the
proposed site entrance that has been reserved for a transit stop. A proffer addressing the transit
reservation area is also provided. This principle is addressed.
Parks and Open Space — The amount of open space provided for this project is minimal. Does it
meet the 20 % required for green space? If yes, please show it. If the parks /open space provided
on the site is not adequate, perhaps providing funding for a sidewalk from this proposed
development to nearby Pen Park is an option. This principle is not met. Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the
plans now shows the breakdown of the open /green space at the required 20 %. As previously
described above, staff believes this could be an opportunity to provide funding for a sidewalk
Pale I of Revised 4-2? - I I eke
Attachment H
from this proposed development to nearby Pen Park. Since you have met the required 201%, this
is a suggestion and not a requirement. This could be a good opportunity to provide pedestrian
interconnection, an outdoor amenity, since what is being proposed is somewhat minimal. It is
possible that providing this funding for a future sidewalk could assist you in mitigating impacts
from this proposed development. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Centers —The minimal open space provided on the site does not appear to be a
rreq,,hhorhood center. The indoor fitness center is relatively ;mall. If there is equipment in the
fitness center, is there enough ;pace for a community gathering? This principle is not met. Rev. 2
While it is understood that there are site constraints relating to size and the inclusion of a
neighborhood center, staff wonders about the practicality of residents crossing the very busy
Rio Road to access amenities at the Treesdale community across the street. This principle is not
fully met.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale —The proposed building appear; to be three to four stories
of living space. The parking area is located below the building. Maximum building height is
proposed at 60 feet. The Treesdale project across the street has a height limitation of 35 feet. The
site plan for Treesdale also states that "maximum building heights shall not exceed 3 stories and a
basement level. Any building taller than 35 feet shall require additional setbacks from the
property lines." Depending on how the proposed building works with the terrain of the land, it
might not be a space of human scale. Demonstrate how the proposed 60 foot tall building will be a
space of human scale. Will the scale of this proposed building be in keeping with the scale of
buildings in the surrounding area? This principle is not met. Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the plans now
provides a grade calculation for the building and the Code of Development provides information
demonstrating the human scale of the building. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses —This proposal does not provide a mixture of uses. Do you wish to request a
waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes, please provide this waiver
request. Per Section 20A.8(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, please provide a different use present
within one - quarter mile of the proposed district that accomplishes the mixture of uses within the
neighborhood. This principle is not addressed. Rev. 2 A waiver request has now been submitted.
This principle is now addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing
types. Do you wish to request a waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes,
please provide this waiver request. Per Section 20A.8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, this is an infill
project . What are the two (2) housing types present within one - quarter mile of the proposed
district? How will we know if the VHDA financing has been accomplished? We need something
tangible that addresses affordable housing. Will proffers be provided to address the affordable
housing requirement? This principle is not addressed. Rev. 2 A waiver request has now been
submitted. Proffers addressing affordable housing have been provided. Applicant will provide a
Letter of Intent /Commitment Letter from VHDA prior to Board of Supervisor's meeting. This
principle is now addressed.
Site Planning That Respects Terrain — The existing building will be replaced by a new larger
building. It appears critical slopes will be disturbed. Will a waiver be requested or provide
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 2 of 6
information that shows that a waiver is not necessary. Minimal disturbance to the terrain is
suggested. Rev. 2 A critical slopes waiver request is now submitted. This principle is now
addressed.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
APPLICATION PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS
1. The note on Sheet 4 of 5 states new building structure 1 story garage 2 story loft units
building height 60' from garage floor to roof peak see height of building calculations sheet
4 of 5. Should say sheet 5 of 5.
2. Provide more details for area reserved for Jaunt /CAT. For example, the language shown on
the plan should be similar to the language in the proffer, so there is no misinterpretation of
what is being referred to or requested. Also the plan should reference the related proffer
so that someone reviewing the plan knows there is a specific proffer related to this area on
the plan.
3. This is not a requirement, primarily a suggestion: While the proposal is consistent with the
Master Plan, the proposed building is larger and denser than the existing single family
residence, and it will be a change for the existing adjacent residence. Consider providing
and making a commitment on the plan to a landscaped buffer and /or fence to the area on
the subject site that is adjacent to the existing residence. Staff suggests working this out
with the adjacent resident.
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Exhibit A should be labeled. I think this refers to the plan?
2. Page 2 —The last sentence in the first paragraph — "Specific lot boundaries and building
locations shown on exhibits are for purposes of illustration only and should not be construed
as final." is confusing, as the plan is typically proffered. How much change in the location of lot
boundaries and buildings, do you anticipate? It is possible that minor changes might be
acceptable and /or could potentially be varied if needed. Stating illustrative only could leave a
wide range of possibilities. Please provide some clarification.
3. Page 3 — 5. Neighborhood Centers states that Residents at the Lofts of Meadowcreek will have
access to amenities across the street at Treesdale through a Shared amenities Agreement to
be recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The amenities provided on the site
are minimal and could benefit from being upgraded. While we understand what you are
proposing, this seems like an awkward agreement to enforce in the code of development.
Should it be a proffer?
4. Page 5 The blocks should be delineated on the plan to avoid any confusion.
5. Page 5 The paragraph referring to Block A describes Parking for 70 cars and 4 surface parking
spaces will be provided. These numbers are not consistent with what is described on the cover
sheet of the plan. Please clarify.
6. Page 8 — IX. Architecture form, massing, and proportions of structures. It is somewhat
confusing to have illustrations in the code of development, which is meant to be the code for
how a project is developed. Illustratives that are examples and not standards begin to be
unclear for reviewers regarding what you count and do not count. Please clarify. One
suggestion might be to attach this information as an example that is not part of the code of
development.
Pcvised 4- 2? -11 eke
Page 3 of G
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. Need more justification for parking modification (parking data ?).
2. Parking modification request has errors in as of garage vs. surface spaces.
3. Height calculation method is acceptable. However, top of roof is 512.1. on cross - section,
not 520.5, resulting in height of 45.2'. Note that this height is more than that of
surrounding properties,
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by
Michael Koslow:
1. Critical slope waiver request was reviewed and engineering recommends approval of the
critical slope impacts waiver request.
VDOT
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
Fire /Rescue
See the attachment for comments related to Fire /Rescue that have been provided by Howard
Lagomarisno.
As we have discussed, it is important that you understand the concerns raised by Fire /Rescue. Mr.
Lagomarsino has explained that the current plan would not be approved by Fire /Rescue. And
Fire /Rescue has overriding authority on site plans over planning. In other words, a non - approval
from Fire /Rescue could hold up the approval of this site plan and development until the
outstanding issue is resolved. Mr. Lagomarsino did explain that one way to resolve this issue
would be to sprinkler the building. You have verbally explained that this is something you plan to
do. Providing this information to us in writing will assist us in resolving this issue.
Proffers
1. Proffer 1 needs more detail. For example, does this refer to both travel lanes or one side of
traffic? When is this going to happen? What is the trigger?
2. Proffer 2 language needs to be consistent. For example, if you are referring to bus pull -off
then refer to bus pull -off in the entire paragraph instead of lane located within the
Property. Also see previous comment in this letter regarding application plan and note on
the plan referring to the location of CAT and JAUNT service. Have you checked to make
sure that this location is adequate for JAUNT? They typically prefer to drop off and pick up
at the building door.
3. Proffer 3 the sentence at the top of page 2 seems to be referring to for sale units and I do
not think there are any for sale units in this development. Please clarify.
4. Cash proffers have not been provided. You have submitted a letter describing a request for
credit from the Treesdale Park project. As you are aware, the County has a cash proffer
policy in which applicant's with proposed residential development offer cash proffers for
the issues covered by the policy, as there are impacts to the County's capital
improvements pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be
Revised 4- 2.5-11 eke
Page 4 of 6
impacted by the rezoning but are not being addressed. By not providing cash proffers this
level of impacts to the County from this proposed development is not being addressed. Let
us know if there are other improvements related to your proposed development that you
plan on providing that we are not aware of. Perhaps they could help mitigate the impacts
that may occur from this proposed development. As you have proposed with the Treesdale
development, I am not aware of previously developed projects serving as mitigation to
impacts for a future development, unless it is part of a phased development. Ultimately,
the decision regarding cash proffers and whether they are acceptable or not comes from
the Board of Supervisors.
5. As previously mentioned in this letter, will amenities be proffered?
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Ron White:
1. 1 question why the affordable units in this development would be specifically designated.
Generally for rental property, the requirement would be to maintain the minimum number
of units as affordable but those units could float within the development. If other funding
sources require that the units be specifically designated, we can work with that but I don't
see a need for our part.
2. The last sentence of 3. describes affordability for for -sale units. Since earlier in that section
it states that the units will be for lease, this could be deleted from the proffers.
3. Under 3.A. the first sentence would read better as ...maximum net rent provided by the
County Office of Housing based on fair market rents published by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
4. Under 3.C., we probably do not need a copy of the rent or lease agreement. Rather as
each affordable unit is leased, we should be provided a unit number, last name of tenant,
lease date, and lease amount. The last sentence provides the option to request leases if
we feel like we need them.
5. Section 4. should be deleted from the proffers since there is nothing in our policy defining
"workforce housing ". As proposed, the requirement for units serving households up to
120% of the area median income is a commitment to one of the funding sources. That
source would be better equipped to monitor this condition.
Action after Receipt of Comments
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/imagesZforms 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.
Revised 4 -25-11 eke
Pagc ? Of G
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:
$167.60 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 238.34 Cost for notification of adjoining owners
$405.94 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.
$167.60 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$573.54 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 same time.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email
address is cgrant(@albemarle.ora
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
Mary J. Dickens
605 Rio Road East
Charlottesville, VA 22901
enc: Fire- Rescue Comments
Resubmittal Form
Page 6 of 6
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
May 17, 2013
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA 201300001 The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the subject rezoning request and offer the following comments:
1. The right turn lane measurement needs to begin radius return for the entrance.
2. The storage and taper lengths determination needs to be provided for review.
3. The preference is that the access road to the detention facility would be located
completely internal to the site. It appears that on -site grades may make this impossible.
If this is the case, we can look at the access road as a private entrance meeting VDOT
standard PE -1 requirements, including a CG -913 entrance.
4. We have no objections to the rezoning of this property subject to the above comments.
Please note, that these comments are not intended as approval of the pending site plan for
this project.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
1
ILA
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
AL��•v
GRN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June 14, 2013
Mr. William Park
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: ZMA201300001 —The Lofts at Meadowcreek
TAX MAP PARCEL: 061A0000001500 & 061A0000001700
Dear Mr. Park:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 2013, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
• Recommend approval of ZMA- 2013 -00001 with revised proffers as recommended by staff and
amended to reflect a reduction in the cash proffer to reflect the eleven (11) by right, units and the
three (3) additional affordable units that are being proffered.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Fire /Rescue's concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and
substantively revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the following special
exceptions:
For waiver of Section 20A.8(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, Neighborhood Model District
that requires a mixture of dwelling unit types and a mixture of uses.
For waiver to allow disturbance of critical slopes based on the information provided in the staff
report.
For a parking waiver, if staff concludes they can recommend approval that can be taken up with
the Board of Supervisors. - - -
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on a date TBD.
If you should have'any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832.
Sincerely,
ME y
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Dickens, Mary J
605 Rio Road - East
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
��oF ALA
�'IRGIN1P
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 15, 2014
Mr. William Park
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: ZMA201300001 — The Lofts at Meadowcreek
TAX MAP PARCEL: 061A0000001500 & 061A0000001700
Dear Mr. Park:
On December 11, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved the above noted rezoning from Residential — R -4
to Neighborhood Model District — NMD in accordance with the Code of Development dated June 17, 2013 and
the attached proffers dated November 11, 2013. An application plan dated January 22, 2013 and revised May
13, 2013, with Sheet 4 of 5 subsequently revised June 10, 2013, was approved as part of the rezoning.
Please refer to these documents for any future applications and requests on this property.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors approved waivers of the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 20A.8 (a) and (b), Mixture of Uses and Housing Types; Section 4.12.2 c.1, Number of parking spaces;
and Section 4.2 Critical Slopes.
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on the project
noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully begin until all applicable
approvals have been received and conditions have been met. This includes:
• compliance with applicable PROFFERS;
• compliance with requirements of the CODE OF DEVELOPMENT;
• approval of and compliance with a SITE PLAN; and
• approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
(I
If you have questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
Rebecca Ragsdale at 296 -5832.
Sincerely, ` ,
V. Wayne limberg,
Director of Planning
Cc Dickens, Mary J
605 Rio Road - East
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning
Elise Hackett,. GDS
Tex Weaver. GDS
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at,Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
Code of Development for
The Lofts at Meadowcreek
ZMA It 201300001
Tax Map Parcels; 061AO -00 -00 -01500 and 061AO-00 -00- 01700
Prepared by;
Bluestone Land, L.L.C,
1821 Avon St.. Suite 200
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 979 -2900
ATTACHNIFENT T
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
I, Genera'I Description of Project:
The land associated with this rezoning request comprises two contiguous parcels
located at 605 East Rio Road in the County of Albemarle and currently designated as
Albemarle County Tax Parcel Nos.: 061AO -00 -00 -01500 (2.44 +/- acres) and 061A0 -00-
00 -01700 (0.36 +/- acres), for a total of 2.8 +/- acres in the Rio Magisterial District (the
"Property ").
This application proposes to change the zoning classification of the subject
parcel from R4 to Neighborhood Model District (NMD) as permitted in Albemarle Code
Chapter 18, Section 20A. In keeping with the precepts of the Neighborhood Model
framevdork,.The Lofts at Meadowcreek will be an in -fill redevelopment featuring a
residenial community consisting of multi - family urban loft style residential units as
shown on the Application Plan. Due to the property size, and the availability of other
uses within one- quarter mile of the proposed development, no other uses are
envisioned at this time.
';The site is currently developed with a single- family detached home on Parcel
061A0- 00 -00- 01500. The topography is primarily gently sloping close to East Rio Road,
but includes some steep grade changes in the northeast portion of the Property.
Cast Rio Road (State Route 631) is the western boundary of the Property. Across
East Rio Road is the Treesdale site featuring eighty -eight affordable multi - family
apartments. Treesdale was constructed by Bluestone Land's affiliate Pinnacle
Construction and Development Corporation, and is currently being managed by its
affiliate, Park Properties Management Company LLC. Also across Rio Road is the
Stonewater subdivision, currently under construction, which includes townhomes, and
single- family detached homes. The northern and eastern portions of the Property are
adjacent to the Charlottesville Catholic School property. The southern portions of the
Property are adjacent to a single family residence with home occupation for an
acupuncturist.
The Property is currently zoned R4. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
Property as Urban Density land use allowing a density of up to 34 dwelling units per acre
under a; planned development approach. The Lofts at Meadowcreek is planned for sixty -
five apartments for a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre.
When developing the plan for The Lofts at Meadowcreek, the intent was to
respond; to the Comprehensive Plan vision for Urban Density and market demands,
while respecting the existing terrain and minimizing impacts to slope areas on the
Property. Further, this plan is envisioned as a second phase of the Treesdale
1
i
ZMA# 201300001 The lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
deveio�)ment, in that it extends the range of affordable housing options, and provides
an opportunity for shared amenities and shared management between the properties.
The Property will be developed in general accord with the Application Plan, Road
alignments, building and sidewalk locations, landscaping, grading and utilities depicted
on the Application Plan are conceptual and may be adjusted at the site plan stage as
provided in Albemarle County Code 18- 8.5.5.3 as long as they meet minimum
requirements established in this Code.
Compliance with Planning and zoning Principles
Complies with Zoning Ordinance
The Lofts at Meadowcreek complies with the Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
zoning ordinance (Chapter 18, Section 20A). Although due to the size of the
,proposed district, some of the characteristics of the NMD are not applicable and
Pre not included in the Application Plan and Code of Development.
Comprehensive Plan
L and Use Plan
'The Land Use Plan encourages infill development. As an infill development, The
:Lofts at Meadowcreek aims to develop the land in the most efficient manner
"i ossible to allow the density anticipated for Urban Area. innovative development
,bind design concepts are provided for this small land tract.
Master Plan for Development Area
As part of the Places 29 Master Plan, Urban Area, Neighborhood 2, The Lofts at
,Meadowcreek complies with the intent of the Places 29 Master Plan to be more
urban in character. Places 29 Master Plan designates the Property as "Urban
Density Residential" which designates multifamily residential as a primary use. By
providing loft -style apartment units, the development responds to market
demands of urban professionals and active retirees.
Neighborhood Model Principles
Due to the size of the Property, several of the Neighborhood Model Principles
cannot be met (see Items 3, 8 and 9 below), As noted in the Land Use Plan, "it is
recognized that as individual proposals are considered, all of the principles of the
1.
Neighborhood Model ... may not be equally applicable to any specific proposal.... it
is recognized that there are multiple applications of the principles of the
Neighborhood Model, and balance, rational and reasonable application of those
orinciples is expected."
z
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
1. Pedestrian Orientation
'T'he Lofts at Meadowcreek encourages a convenient, safe and friendly,
"walkable" community. Sidewalks are provided. Street views are attractive.
2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
The Lofts at Meadowcreek promotes a safe and friendly neighborhood to
Pedestrians. Sidewalks and street trees help give the street a more human scale.
Walking paths are provided.
.3. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
Due to the site conditions and constraints, The Lofts at Meadowcreek does not
provide street interconnections to adjacent properties.
4. Parks and Open Space
Me Lofts at Meadowcreek features open space within the community and is
;proximate to Pen Park and Meadowcreek Golf Course. s;
.a. Neighborhood Centers
The Lofts at Meadowcreek provides open space with a linear community center
park, and an indoor fitness center for residents. Residents at the Lofts of
Meadowcreek will have access to amenities across the street at Treesdale
through a Shared Amenities Agreement to be recorded prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy, Amenities at Treesdale include a community center
with meeting space, tot lot, and walking trails.
6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
The Lofts at Meadowcreek creates a 'livable" community that is proportionate,
both horizontally and vertically, to the human scale.
7. Relegated Parking
The Lofts at Meadowcreek includes relegated podium parking beneath the
Building,
'81 Mixture of Uses
The Lofts at Meadowcreek contains only multi family residential uses due to the
Property size, and availability of other uses within one - quarter mile. A waiver
I equest is being submitted concurrently with this Code of Development.
3
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
J. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
The Lofts at Meadowcreek contains only multi family residential uses due to the
Property size, and availability of other uses within one - quarter mile. A waiver
request is being submitted concurrently with this Code of Development.
,?t is anticipated that the project will be financed with Virginia Housing
t ?evelopment Authority (VHDA) Mixed - Income Program, and will provide
;.affordable housing consistent with the Albemarle County Affordable Housing
Policy, VHDA Income requirements stipulated are 20% at 80°6 median area
income; 20% at 120% median area income, and 60% at no income limit. The Lofts
at Meadowcreek is envisioned as a second phase to Treesdale, and extends the
range of affordable housing options in the neighborhood,
10. Redevelopment
The Lofts at Meadowcreek Is an Infill project redeveloping a single-family home
site as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Urban Density Land Use.
11, Site Planning That Respects Terrain
The Lofts at Meadowcreek are designed to respect the existing topography of the
site. The general orientation of the building fronting Rio Road minimizes impacts
v n the existing topography. Steep slopes and wooded areas are within a
�conservation area. A waiver request is being submitted concurrently with this
bode of Development.
2,2. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
7"he Lofts at Meadowcreek is located within Urban Area Neighborhood Two/
Places 29 and respects the Development Area's goals and objectives. There are
no Impacts to a Rural Area.
II. Reduced Copy of Plan of Development
See Exhibit A: The Lofts at Meadowcreek Application Plan by W. W. Associates dated
January, 22, 2013, last revised June 10, 2013 (sheet 4).
Ill. Features to be Preserved (Section 20A.g.8,, 20A.1.7.)
A. Existing Historic Structures: None. The existing single-family detached home was
built in 1958. It is in average condition with no historical significance.
B. Historic /Archeological Sites; None.
C. Preservation Areas— None.
1.
ZMA4# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
D. Conservation Areas —None
E. Method of preservation —Not applicable
IV. Block Characteristics
Due to the minimal acreage of the Property, only two Blocks are designated.
Block A iontains the formal entrance to the development, and includes a tree -lined
street leading to urban style loft apartments (2 levels, l6' height each level) over podium
parking. The building is oriented to the existing property contours. Parking for 68 cars
will be r�legoted below the apartment units, and 12 surface parking spaces will be
provided. A request for a waiver for off - street parking requirements has been submitted.
Block B contains the Open Space and will include the stormwater management facilities
and passive recreational space.
V. Lot and'Building Height Regulations (Section 20A.S.i.2., 3, and 4)
Block
Minimum
Lot Width
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Max
Bldg
Height
NA
10,
10'
10'
60'
B
Open Space
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Restrictions /Requirements associated with Standards Above
None
5
2MA## 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
Vi. Table of Uses by Block (Section 20A.S,a., 20A,S.e,, 20A.S.f., 20A.5.1.1., and 20A.5,1.2.)
The tablo, 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.
Permitted /Prohibited Uses by Block
Residential Uses
Block
Max.
A
8
Multi family
P
Unit
Accessory uses and buildings including storage
buildings
P
P
Temporary construction uses
P
P
Non- Residential Uses
Types
Affordable
Units
[Administrative, professional offices
P
Non-
Res. Sq.
Restrictions /Requirements Associated with Uses Above
(1) Accessory structures are not allowed between the building and the street.
VII. Developed Square Footage (Section 20A5.b. and c.)
Density, Housing Type, Affordable Units, and Non - residential Use by Block
MF = multifam /ly
(Condominium is a form of ownership which is allowed in MFsection)
Block
Size
Min.
Max.
Max.
Unit
Minimum
Maximum
Unit
Min.
Max.
(acres)
Unlits
Units
Density
in units
Types
Affordable
Units
Affordable
Units
Type
s
Non-
Res. Sq.
Non -
Res. Sq.
per
Ft.
Ft.
acre
A
2.24
60
65
1 23
1 M F
1 10
13
M F
N/A
N/A
B
0.56
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
i
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
VIII, Green Space and Amenities (Section 20A.S.d., Section 20A.S.i,6. and 7., and 20A.5.1.9.)
The Green Space includes landscaping for passive recreational uses. Park benches shall
be provided.
A fitness center will be available on the ground level of the apartment building.
Applicant will work with its affiliate company to allow residents of Lofts at Meadowcreek
to have use of amenities at Treesdale..
Minimum Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenity Areas by Block
Amenity Area
— Min. Sq, Ft,
Amenities
Green
Space
Green Space Elements
Block B
Green 'Space
24,400
2 benches
paths
24,400
I
Minimum of 5 flowering
trees
And 5 shade trees
Fitness Center
900
Fitness center,
meeting space
NA
NA
Total 25,300 24,400
I
R�
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
IX. Architecture (Section 20A5.g.1 -4)
Form, massing, and proportions of structures
The human response is perhaps the most significant component of the creation of any
architectural environment. As with the residential project across Rio Road (Treesdale),
the Lofts at Meadowcreek is a three story residential structure; with the addition of a
partial loft above. The building sits atop a basement parking garage, buried along the
Rio Road facade, with the exception of a portion of the basement exposed for vehicular
access.,As the entry portion of the basement is revealed, the building recedes away
from Rio Road, with the garage entry more than 120 feet from the property line. In
addition, Rio Road rises from north to south with the elevation of the first floor less than
5 feet higher than Rio Road at the northern end to more than ten feet below the road at
the southern end. A viewer from the road will thus experience a constantly changing
visual relationship. In fact, the highest point of the loft roof is 35' above the average
street elevation along Rio Road.
The top.loft level recedes significantly from the main building facade, resulting in a
building with the dominant portion of the main facade only 33 feet from the main floor,,
and only 28 feet from the average Rio Road elevation. ;<
In addition, to minimize the building height, the ceiling height of each loft level has been
reduced from nine feet to eight feet.
Other architectural elements and features have been employed to divide the building
and create a varied elevation, The facade is broken with horizontal divisions and the use
of two color masonry that create a strong ground story image. Along the elevation,
second;and third floor materials alternate between masonry and two color siding to
divide the building into smaller visual elements, and the exaggerated stepped cornice
emphasizes this division. Varied window arrangements along the elevation again
emphasize both the vertical and horizontal division. Again, the upper loft recedes
significantly from the main facade and steps to again break up the massing.
Illustrations included are examples only to illustrate how scale, massing, and pedestrian
orientation may be achieved within the Property, but are not intended to represent the
specific form of the final product nor describe final design requirements. Final zoning
interpretation of the project should not use these illustrations as the standard for
review,of the project's architecture.
ZMA# 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek 6/17/2013
X. Landscape Treatments (Section 20A.5.h.)
Area
;Specific
Plant Type
Spacing
Quantity
Special Conditions
Location
Street
Entrance
Street
1 every
Shade trees and small
Frontage
Road
shade tree
50 feet
flowering trees alternating
Small
flowering
tree
Yard
Grass /lawn
Slope (no greater than
33%)
:,Building
Shrubs
6
Planted symmetrically in
entrance
beds on either side of door
Restrictdions /Requirements Associated with Standards Above
(1) Species must conform to the Albemarle County Recommended Plants list.
(2) Planting standards shall conform to the Virginia Nurserymen's Association
Gclidelines for Planting.
Xl. Descriptions of Methods to be used for Stormwater Management
See Application Plan, Exhibit A
Stormwa� ter management quantity and quality controls for the area rezoned will be
provided to meet the requirements of the Albemarle County Water Protection
Ordinance,
Xli. Street Cross- Sections (Section 20A.1.5.i.5.)
See Application Plan, Exhibit A, sheet C -5.
9
--III
M1111 III
HOHIII
If
ere)x, 0@> 0 8010-
e I �k DIP"
Tp
!Nlli 11,1111115 1111 ill 1.
oil
ASHIHM M
Igale, 19 W
tQ
pipp
ai i
I
gii
H ;- 11,
I'll 11 -- I —I
nU
g
n g
m C)
IB
I
x 0
p
Eiji,
H i il i z--
N
Ila
g
>
9 Igo
0
al
zj
N
LTI? I-,
N
------------
MLIT
"IJ
7-1
; W)X�,
i I'D ------
OP,4-
M
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Z
, It
Nii;
an
I
H'a
II
IG
j4 I
II
1"5
`vl
1Y I
Ll
65
Atli
41 /1
u:\vwxi osYwu ws. roro \xrxoi.ao ox.w rmce ion zu+ \z,wxrcavve.a
t
:Y I �aakk 11
Ip - I
a Kf I IT�� ,
\
\ \ \ \
�I II I r \ ` \ �•� ?\, \\ � \ \ \ �,� \ \ �;'j ,\ ilk' \'l ,
NN
�•..'t•.: : � °\ \ \\ \t \\ \ \\ \ \' \\ \ \III\ "X
wlR
\ ' I
hx Rr i`
Ito' L
I I
r
$$
#� � " 11 "a , I� g;I,l \ \wx a n. }V � �` I • sr�&3 j
'off � I I ' �� I��...........�.1•,... - i1 �? .� ` i I � ��• 2
r' a
N'n M z
R�
M \21JPP1 M14'w Ploce lolb\SIJOP1.00 Orient PAxe fort LWIPIJWILDkT.WS.Oq
d
�J v
�� aqy EIf6TNC R/YI 3 °• f W- '
�n�
s�. 1
2
Um
O[.xY9 PUCE IDRS
I
CCU
I �
� i
i
p 4
4 SSX�
i
a
'� 5' lLEWAIK
.I b
b�
_' a
a 4 . y � k t
tpSSd1E PAPot T
TEEFS¢4E PMK
. _
u
q �
�� II - • s c
c �
�n
I I
I I
II
I� I
II v�
If
ls
,✓ i �
� I I �
� I I o
o, su
I
N
0
R
LL
0
a
O
.v�se
ao
� m
NiI �
' O
� O
LL
U)
U.
0
0
LL
U)
_a
U.
0
J
0
0
0
v.
OOI 0
o
o
LLI W
A,
7i
1
0
z
Z
a �
a
Y
WN L0_
Fein r
U 0
OCO
D C7
0
/Q D
V!
L
0
r
F-
c
0
c
0
L
N
L
U
O
(S5
N
O
J