The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-08-08 I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL AUGUST 8, 2007 LANE AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 2:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. 2:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. - Work Session: ZMA-2005-015 and SP-2005-027. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 and ZMA-2007-001. Hollymead Town Center Area A-2. Recess - 3:15 p.m. 3. 3:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. - Work Session: ZMA-2005-17. Biscuit Run. 4. 5:15 p.m. - Recess. 6:00 P.M. 5. Call to Order. 6. Pledge of Allegiance. 7. Moment of Silence. 8. Recognition: a. Proclamation recognizing August 26, 2007 as Women's Equality Day. 9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 11. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 12. PUBLIC HEARING to consider granting to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) a permanent drainage easement in Walnut Creek Park. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT: ZMA 2004-018. Fontana Phase 4C (Sians #37,45). PROPOSAL: Rezone 17.146 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at 4 units per acre for 34 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.98 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: At the intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt. 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78E-A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna 14. From the Board: Committee Reports. 15. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 11.1 Approval of Minutes: September 6 and December 6,2006; January 3, January 10, March 14 and May 9,2007. 11.2 Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Contract between Region Ten and the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS). FOR INFORMATION: 11.3 Copy of letter dated July 16, 2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Lori H. Schweller, Esq., c/o LeClair Ryan, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINA TION OF PARCELS -- Tax Map 43, Parcel 40A (Property of Jeffrey F. & Corinne S. Buckalew) Section 10.3.1. - Jack Jouett Magisterial District. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATIVE AUGUST 8, 2007 LANE AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 2:00 P.M. 1 . Call to Order. 2. 2:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. - Work Session: ZMA-2005-015 and SP-2005-027. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 and ZMA-207-001. Hollymead Town Center Area A-2. Recess - 3:15 p.m. 3. 3:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. - Work Session: ZMA-2005-17. Biscuit Run. 4. 5:15 p.m. - Recess. 6:00 P.M. 5. Call to Order. 6. Pledge of Allegiance. 7. Moment of Silence. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 10. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 11. PUBLIC HEARING to consider granting to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) a permanent drainage easement in Walnut Creek Park. 12. PUBLIC HEARING. PROJECT: ZMA 2004-018. Fontana Phase 4C (Sians #37.45). PROPOSAL: Rezone 17.146 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at 4 units per acre for 34 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.98 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: At the intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt. 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78E-A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna 13. From the Board: Committee Reports. 14. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 10.1 Approval of Minutes: 10.2 Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Contract between Region Ten and the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS) FOR INFORMATION: 10.3 Copy of letter dated July 20,2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Lori H. Schweller, c/o LeClair Ryan, fe: OFFICIAL DETERMINA TION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS __ Tax Map 43, Parcel40A (Property of Jeffrey F. & Corinne S. Buckalew) Section 10.3.1. - Jack Jouett Magisterial District. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meetina of Auaust 8, 2007 Auoust9,2007 AGENDA ITEMIACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to Order. . Meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members were present. Also present were Larry Davis, Bob Tucker, Mark Graham, David Benish, Ella Jordan and Meaoan Hov. 2. Work Session: ZMA-2005-015 and SP-2005-027. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 and ZMA-2007- 001. Hollymead Town Center Area A-2. . HELD. Applicant and Staff to finalize proffers. 3. Work Session: ZMA-2005-17. Biscuit Run. . HELD. Applicant and Staff to finalize proffers. 4. At 5:45 p.m., the Board recessed. 5. Call to Order. . The meeting was called back to order at 6:04 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Bovd. 8a. Proclamation recognizing August 26, 2007 as (Attachment 1) Women's Equality Day. . Chairman read and presented proclamation to Ann Eddins, of NOW. 9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. David Wyant: . Asked if the proposed water plan has gone to the regulatory agencies? Mr. Tucker said RWSA is working on scheduling a meeting of this Board, City Council and Rivanna Board to receive a presentation. Mark Graham: . Mentioned that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Rural Areas changes on Tuesday, August tho Commission deferred action and scheduled a work session for August 21st. Commission members expressed concern about meeting Board public hearing date of September 19th, if they do not finish their review on August 21 st. Board members indicated that they were open to changing that date if the Commission needs additional time for their review. Sallv Thomas: . Mentioned concerns about the condition of Free Allan Sumpter: See comments. Bridge. Suggested Allan Sumpter provide Board members with a report on all bridges in the County. Mr. Tucker commented that Butch Davies had previously sent out a report on all bridges statewide. There was only one bridge in our area where there was some concern. He will forward that information to the Board. Dennis Rooker: . Work is being done on the bridge that crosses Route 250 into Florodan, over the railroad tracks. The work should be finished August 9th. Some concerns were expressed by Florodan residents about the weight limits on the bridge in its current condition. He has forwarded those concerns to VDOT and asked for a report. Ken Bovd: . Received telephone call from Jamie Spence Clerk: Schedule Jamie Spence on agenda. indicating that they had closed the first affordable housing house done under the County's new proffer policy. Mr. Spence would like to come before the Board and inform them about the process. Board members agreed to schedule a time for Mr. Spence to appear before the Board. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. . There were none. 11.2 Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Contract between County Executive: Forward to Caruso Region Ten and the Virginia Department of Mental Brown, Region Ten, after signing Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse appropriate document. Services (VDMHMRSAS). . APPROVED. 12. PUBLIC HEARING to consider granting to the Clerk: Forward copy of resolution to County Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) a Attorney's office. (Attachment 2) permanent drainage easement in Walnut Creek Park. . ADOPTED the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County. 13. PROJECT: ZMA-2004-018. Fontana Phase 4C Clerk: Advertise and reschedule when ready to (Sians #37.45). come back to Board. . DEFERRED ZMA-2004-018 indefinitely at the applicant's request, bv a vote of 6:0. 12. From the Board: From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Sallv Thomas: . Updated Board on her recent attendance at a meeting of the High Growth Coalition. . Discussed new regulations relative to impact fees. . Attended the groundbreaking of a new pavilion at Boars Head. David Slutzkv: . Updated Board on his attendance at a meeting of the Safer Chemical Committee. David Wyant: . Asked for tracking information on how long a rezoning takes to go through the process. . Briefly updated Board on a recent meeting he attended regarding EMS recoverv. 13. Adjourn. . The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 D.m. /ewc Attachment 1 - Proclamation recognizing Women's Equality Day Attachment 2 - Resolution - Walnut Creek drainage easement 2 Hall YMEAD TOWN CENTER AREAS A-1 AND A-2 Hollymeld Town Center o.mln~n o.__p",.nl fII..ounl.. 1 Area A-2 Public Hearing by PC on 7-24-07 0........0" 0.___, A__..tel.. Specifics of A-2 Proposal · Rezone approx. 45 acres from RA, .5 acres from C-1, .4 acres from NMO and approx. 3,000 square feet from PO-MC to NMO · Residential Component: 1 ,222 dwelling units (townhouse, condo, and multifamily) at gross density of 26 du/ac · Commercial/Office - up to 368,700 sq. ft. -104,000 sq. ft mixed use / retail, -179,000 sq. ft. office, and 80,000. sq. ft. hotel l 3 Key Features of A-2 · True mixed-use development with residential, retail, office, hotel, and light industrial · Proffer of open space and greenway to County · Proffer of $500 per unit to County for public recreational needs · Proffer of 3 acres to County for a recycling center (in County CIP) · Proffer to construct 200k affordable housing · Proffer of 2 public transit stops · Proffer to phase commercial with residential · Cash proffers for residential units Planning Commission Expectations - in addition to all proffers the PC reviewed · Increase cash proffers to meet Board expectations · Provide phasing in keeping with Board expectations · Provide an erosion and sediment control proffer similar to, Area A 1 · Commit that all mixed use buildings be LEED certified · Take out the cash buyout in the affordable housing proffer · Proffer to complete Meeting Street and Town Center within a year of approval of the rezoning; · Make all other proffer changes and general development plan changes identified by staff as having been verbally agreed to by the applicant; 5 Worksession Topics Phasing between Areas A-1 and A-2 Cash Proffers in A-2 Phasing · Applicant believes that there are major distinctions between A-1 and A-2 and they should not be tied together in phasing of A-1 and A-2 · Phasing for A-2: - 100 residential building permits issued before any non-residential permits issued - 600 residential building permits issued before of 200,000 sq. ft of non-residential permits issued 6 - COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 05-15 Hollymead Town Center (HTC) Area A-1 SP 2005-027, Drive-up Window for a Bank ZMA 07-01 Hollymead Town Center Area A-2 Worksession AGENDA DATE: August8,2007 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone 31 acres from RA to allow for 278,000 square feet of office retail. Request for a special use permit for a drive-up window for a bank. Request to rezone approximately 45 acres from RA, 0.5 acres from C-1, 0.07 acres from PD-MC, and 0.4 acres from NMD to NMD to construct 1,222 dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft. hotel (363,700 sq. ft of non-residential total). ATTACHMENTS: YES STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols LEGAL REVIEW: NO . ~ BACKGROUND: On June 13, 2007, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the HTC A-1 requests for rezoning and a special use permit, held a public hearing, and deferred action so that the project could be considered in conjunction with the review of HTC A-2. They scheduled a worksession for August 8 to discuss phasing of HTC A-1 (all commercial) with HTC A-2 (mixed residential and commercial). They discussed with the applicant bringing in a phasing plan for A-1 and A-2 together to ensure that residential units as well as commercial square footage is constructed in the overall Area A. On July 24,2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for HTC A-2. At that meeting, staff said the applicant had worked with staff more on some of the issues raised in the staff report. Regarding VDOT's comments on the need to widen Meeting Street, after looking more at the Places 29 recommendations, staff agrees and believes it should be widened to four lanes through a design that provides two lanes divided with a median and bike lanes. The applicant agreed to make this change. Staff told the commission that the applicant said he will commit to complete roads within a year of ZMA approval, rather than only bond their completion. The applicant clarified that they intend to provide 20% affordable housing and do not want the option to "cash out" of this proffer. They said that an agreement with ACSA will be in place before the BOS hearing. The applicant said he would change the general plan of development to provide an area to accommodate the landscaping that will be required by the ARB. They also agreed to make other necessary changes to the Code of Development and proffers. The Commission discussed the proposal and several members were not comfortable voting on the proposal because of a lack of information available before the hearing. However, on a vote of 4:3, the Commission recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Provide cash proffers in an acceptable form as outlined by staff. The cost of the impact is expected to be $11,853,;If' 2. Provide credits of $1,575,000, bringing the total cash proffer for impacts to $10, 278,200; 3. Make all other proffer changes identified by staff as having been verbally agreed to by the applicant; 4. Provide phasing in the proffers, to be approved by staff; 5. Include all other proffers that exist in Exhibit F to the staff report; 6. Provide an erosion and sediment control proffer similar to, but not less than the one approved for Area A-1 indicating the amount of area that can be disturbed at any given time; 7. Commit that all mixed use buildings will be LEED certified. The Commission does not support the LEED certification as a credit. 8. Make the following changes: . Take out the cash buyout in the affordable housing proffer; . Change the proffer for completing Meeting Street and Town Center so that they are not bonded for completion but will be completed within a year of approval of the rezoning; . Clarify the proffers regarding the community park; . Clarify the amount of land proffered for the recycling center; . Amend the Code to reflect changes identified by staff; . Change the application plan to show the required cross sections or design for Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive. Thirteen waiver requests for HTC A-2 were also approved or recommended for approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, by a vote of 4:3. DISCUSSION: Because of the short period of time between the Commission meeting and the Board worksession, the applicant has : not had time to resolve the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff for Area A-2. The applicant has, however, agreed to make all of the changes requested by the Commission and staff, with the exception of providing phasing between Phase 1 and Phase 2. There also remain questions on the proffer values which will impact the expected amount of cash proffers. These two subjects are the focus of the Board of Supervisors' worksession. Phasing The proffers for Area A-2 provide for phasing within A-2. In the proffers, the applicant commits to apply for building permits for at least 100 dwellings prior to receiving a building permit for any commercial, office, or hotel area in the development. He has also committed to construct at least 600 dwelling units before applying for a building permit for more than 200,000 square feet of commercial, office and hotel area. While the phasing within Area A-2 was acceptable to staff, the staff offered the following phasing concept to the applicant as a starting point for discussing phasing between A-1 and A-2. . Phases Residential Area A-1 Area A-2* units Phase 1 410 139,000 sq. ft. 96,000 sq. ft. Phase 2 409 139,000 SQ. ft. 96,000 SQ. ft. Phase 3 409 96,000 SQ. ft. *The 80,000 sq. ft. hotel is not included in the A-2 acreage The applicant has explained to staff that areas A-1 and A-2 are such different types of projects that he is reluctant to tie them together. The applicant has not, as of yet, made any offer to phase Area A-1 with Area A-2 and prefers to speak directly with the Board on this issue. Proffer Value The applicant's proffers (see Attachment C of the staff report dated July 24, 2007, revised July 31, 2007) indicate that he would like credit for open space and a greenway, a community park, a recycling center site, Rt. 29 improvements, a sanitary sewer line extension, expansion of Meeting Street, and expansion of Town Center Drive. He said he would like credit for doing a Neighborhood Model, mixed-use development as well as credit for each residential unit that achieves Energy Star or LEED designation. Staffs analysis of the proffer values from the staff report has changed since having discussions with the applicant. Current values are estimated as follows: 1. Open space and greenway - The open space and greenway are shown in the County's Land Use Plan and the Assessor's office has given the land a value of $125,000 per acre, even though it is in stream buffer and steep slopes. The 7.6 acres at this value equals $950,000. 2. Linear park (called "community park" in the proffers) - The County's Land Use Plan contains this element in the Hollymead Town Center section. Although the applicant believes that the 1 acre park should be credited at $125,000, staff does not recommend that it be given credit because it helps to provide for amenity area in the development, which otherwise would have had to be provided. . 3. Recycling center site - Although not clearly articulated in the proffers, the applicant plans to provide up to 3 acres for a recycling center which would sit on a 35,000 sq. ft. pad. The applicant would like to be given credit of $125,000 per acre for a value of $375,000. 4. Rt. 29 infrastructure improvements - The applicant believes he should be given credit for his pro-rata Sh:3fij of the improvements which have already been constructed. Staff believes that each rezoning stands on its own and that the proffers were already credited to HTC Area B in a previous rezoning. 5. Sanitary Sewer line extension - The applicant believes he should be credited for his pro-rata share of an extension of a 10' sewer line for Area A and the Airport which occurred in 1992. The ACSA indicates that this sewer project was funded, in large part, through an FAA grant. The owner of the HTC land at that time was the contractor who installed the 10' sewer line. The ACSA says that it was very likely that the cost to extend the line was in excess of the FAA grant; however, ASCA does not have any records of the non-airport cost. The applicant has said that $2,000,000 was spent in this sewer extension project and that his pro-rata share of this expense should be credited as $650,000. Because the extension was made 15 years ago and because staff has not seen any documentation indicating the full cost to extend the line, staff cannot support credit being given for this item 6. Expansion of Meeting Street and Town Center Drive - Staff has re-reviewed these proffers and now believes they can be credited $250,000, especially with the offer to make Meeting Street 4-lanes 7. Mixed use and Neighborhood Model development - Staff notes that the Board of Supervisors have said that these two things are expectations, so no additional credit would be given for meeting these criteria. 8. Green building credit - The applicant requested a reduction of 5% of the per unit value for each unit if he achieved LEED or Energy Star Designation. There was no distinct proffer to achieve LEED or Energy Star on any or all buildings. The applicant told the Commission that each mixed-use building would be LEED certified; however, the Commission did not believe credit should be given for LEED since it was a goal of the County's. Since the Commission meeting, the applicant has clarified that he plans to proffer that the shell of all mixed- use buildings will achieve LEED certification. . Using this information, the following credits would be given: $950,000 for 7.6 acres of greenway dedication (at $125,OOO/acre) $375,000 for 3 acres for a recycling center $250.000 for oversizing a portion of Meeting St. and Town Center Dr. $1,575,000 - total The cash proffer expectation (revised from PC Meeting of 7/24/07) Unit Breakdown Minus 20% Per Unit Total affordable Rate for cash proffer MF 1076 832 (aff. all in MF) x 12,400 $10,316,800 TH 146 146 x 11,900 1,737,400 Total: 1222 Total: 978 $12,054,200 Cash proffer expectation (revised to account for 20% affordability proffer clarification): $12,054,200 Value of proffers: 1.575.000 Remaining proffer expected: $10,479,200 Although the applicant has indicated that he will pay the per unit cash amount, which equates roughly to $1 O,715/unit, staff believes the Board of Supervisors should discuss the credits to see if it agrees with staff's analysis. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors discuss the credits provided by staff to arrive at a per-unit amount for the applicant to proffer. Staff also recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant its expectations for phasing, in anticipation of the September 12, 2007 Board Hearing. . . . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 August 3,2007 JP Williamson Octagon Partners 126 Garrett Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-2007-001, Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 Dear Mr. Williamson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 24,2007, recommended approval by a vote of 4:3 of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: ZMA2007-00001 Hollymead Towncenter Area A2 1. Provide cash proffers in an acceptable form as outlined by staff. The cost of the impact is expected to be $11,853,200; 2. Provide credits of$1,575,000, bringing the total proffer for impacts to $10, 278,200; 3. Make all other proffer changes identified by staff as having been verbally agreed to by the applicant; 4. Provide phasing in the proffers, to be approved by staff; 5. Include all other proffers that exist in Exhibit F to the staff report; 6. Provide an erosion and sediment control proffer similar to, but not less than the one approved for Area Al indicating the amount of area that can be disturbed at any given time; 7. Commit that all mixed use buildings will be LEED certified. The Commission does not support the LEED certification as a credit. 8. Make the following changes: Take out the cash buyout in the affordable housing proffer; Change the proffer for completing Meeting Street and Town Center so that they are not bonded for completion but will be completed within a year of approval of the rezoning; Clarify the proffers regarding the community park; Clarify the amount of land proffered for the recycling center; Amend the Code to reflect changes identified by staff; Change the application plan to show the required cross sections or design for Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on September 12, 2007. 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, Elaine Echols, ACIP Principle Planner Planning Division EE/SM Cc: Ella Carey Glenn Brooks Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Revised 7-31-01 . Project Name: ZMA 07-0001 Hollymead Town Staff: Elaine Echols, AICP Center Area A - 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: July 24, 2007 September 12,2007 (work session scheduled for 8/8) Owners: H M Acquisition Group, LLC Applicant: H M Acquisition Group, LLC represented by J.P. Williamson Acreage: 44.5 acres Rezone from: RA (Rural Areas) 0.5 acres from C-l Commercial, 0.07 acres from PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, and I j 0.4 acres from NMD (Neighborhood Model , I District)to NMD to NMD to construct 1,222 dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft. hotel (363,700 sq. ft of non-residential total). TMP: TMP 32-42A, 42C, 44(portion), 45 By-right use: 7 residential lots or agricultural uses. (portion) and TMP 46, Parcel 5 Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes Proposal: To rezone 47 acres from RA to NMD to Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1222 construct 1,222 dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft. hotel (363,700 sq. ft of non-residential total). DA (Development Area): Hollymead Community Compo Plan Designation: Town Center Character of Property: The subject property lies Use of Surrounding Properties: Area B, to the east, west of Route 29, south and west of Area B of the contains Target and Harris Teeter. Area D, to the Hollymead Town Center (Harris Teeter and Target) north and west, has been subdivided into 94 town and north and east of a tributary of Powell Creek house lots with another 60 subdivisions anticipated in which flows from the location of the Oeerwood the near future. Area C, to the north, is bounded by subdivision toward Route 29. The terrain rises up Route 29 and takes primary access off of Timberwooc from behind Target and Harris Teeter to a ridge and Boulevard. In Area C to the north, a number of site slopes downward to a tributary of Powell Creek. A plans are under review or projects have begun half section of Meeting Street has been constructed construction to bring 55,000 square feet of office and on the property. The majority of the area has been retail, 7,800 square feet of restaurant space, a 67,000 cleared, graded, and prepared for development. square foot assisted living facility, and 42 townhouses, with a number of other Area C projects in the planning stage. Deerwood subdivision lies to the West. RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of a number of outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of outstanding issues before the Board acts on this rezonin!!. . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: Revised 7-31-07 ELAINE ECHOLS JULY 24, 2007 ZMA 07-01 Hollvrnead Town Center - Area A-2 PROPOSAL H.M. Acquisition Group is proposing that a total of 78 acres (the Rural-Area zoned land remaining in the area designated as the Hollymead Town Center (HTC)) be rezoned to two different zoning classifications. These areas have been separated into Area A-I (31 acres south of Town Center Drive) and Area A-2 (the remaining area in the town center generally laying to the west of Area A-I and Area B (Target and Harris Teeter). On April 3, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended approval of Area A-I to be rezoned for RA to PDMC (Planned Development Mixed Commercial). With Area A-2, the applicant would like to rezone 44.5 acres from RA, C-I, PD-MC, and NMD to NMD to allow for 1,222 dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft. hotel (363,700 sq. ft of non-residential total). Attachment A is an overall map of the Town Center, Attachment B is the Code of Development including renderings and block identification plan, Attachment C is proffers. BACKGROUND The applicant brought this proposal to Planning Commission work sessions on December 5, 2006 and March 6, 2007. At that time, the staff report outlined a number of outstanding issues and oversights that the applicant agreed to address. (See Attachment D for the December 2006 and Attachment E for the March 2007 action memos). With a commitment to resolve those issues, the applicant requested guidance from the Commission as to the appropriateness of uses proposed on Meeting Street, at the core of the Town Center. The Commission provided guidance and requested that the applicant reduce the number of townhouses fronting on Meeting Street and to achieve traditional Main Street form on Meeting Street with a majority of the lower floors fronting Meeting Street to contain non-residential uses. The applicant has responded to this direction and other direction detailed in the action memos. The applicant's current proposal is reviewed specifically later in the report. When the Area A-I request was heard by the Board on June 13,2007, the Board requested that both the A-I and A-2 proposals come to the Board together in a work session and public hearing. Area A-I and Area A-2 are scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors in a work session on August 8. Both requests are tentatively scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors for public hearings on September 12, 2007. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY In 1998, a comprehensive plan amendment for the HTC was submitted. In 2001, this Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved with the "Conceptual Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center" (hereafter referred to as "the Guidelines".) Four rezonings for separate sections of the HTC were submitted in 2001 and 2002 and three of the four were approved in 2003. The applicant for the portion not rezoned (Area A) requested indefinite deferral of action on Area A in 2003. Due to the high residential density and mixture of uses directed by the Guidelines, the applicant for Area A requested to break this 78 acre rezoning request into two different proposals: Area A-I with 31 acres to be rezoned to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (to be developed similarly to Area B along Route 29 as prescribed by the Guidelines) and Area A-2 with 47 Acres to be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District to allow for higher 2 . . . residential density and to better accommodate the form of development envisioned with the Guidelines. In addition to the construction of 300,000 square feet of commercial space already developed in Area B (Harris Teeter and Target), site plans for the other rezoned portions of the town center are under review or have been approved. Area D, which lies across the western boundary of Area A (Lockwood Drive), has been subdivided into 94 townhouse lots with a number of townhouses under construction and additional building permits issued. Another subdivision of 60 townhouses lots is anticipated in the near future. Several site plans are in the process of being reviewed or are awaiting ARB approval or have been approved in Area C and D to bring 55,000 square feet of office and retail, a 7,800 square feet of restaurant uses, a 67,000 square foot assisted living facility, and another 42 townhouses. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in the Hollymead Community and is designated as Town Center, defined as a compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds at a density of 6.0 1-34 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the Town Center designation is accompanied by the "Conceptual Masterplan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center" a document that was approved with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that allowed the Town Center. The Guidelines provide limits to the development potential the Town Center can support based on the extensive traffic study performed with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The number of dwelling units approved with rezonings in Area B, C, and D total 332. The total permitted in the Town Center is 1,680. That leaves 1,348 units that could be absorbed by Area A. The applicant proposes 1,222 dwelling units in Area A-2, 126 fewer than the Guidelines allow. The total amount of non-residential square footage permitted in the Town Center is 1,297,944. Previous rezonings in Areas B, C, and D requested the development of 625,000 square feet of non residential. 278,000 square feet of non-residential uses are proposed in Area A-I. That leaves 394,944 square feet of non-residential space to be developed. The applicant is proposing that Area A-2 contain up to 363,700 square feet of non-residential uses, which is 26,244 square feet under the maximum allowed. South of Powell Creek, in an area not included in the Town Center Comprehensive Plan designation, the applicant is showing development in Blocks AI, B3, and B4. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as industrial service. The area can be included in the A-2 rezoning request, however, the applicant was asked to remove any provision of residential uses in these blocks and only request uses of an industrial service nature for those blocks, given the industrial service designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested changes were made in part. This is the type of oversight which will need to be corrected. At the end of this report, staff has compiled a list of such oversights and outstanding issues that should be made by the applicant prior to the Board work session in August if the Commission should recommend approval with this understanding. 3 Conformity with the Neighborhood Model The following section outlines staffs updated analysis of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks In keeping with the Guidelines for the Town Center, the application plan shows a Linear Park that begins in Area B (Target) and extends across Area A and Area D. This park creates a walkable connection from primarily residential areas to Meeting Street and the larger commercial areas along Route 29. The applicant has widened this park through Area A-2, providing a 100X 300' park bordered with sidewalks, adding to the character and variety of quality spaces proposed along the Linear Park throughout the Town Center. The largest parking area in Block A is bisected by a landscaped pedestrian connection that leads from the greenway trailhead around a proposed pool and clubhouse at the greenway's edge, across the parking area toward an intense mix of uses. (The trailhead in Area A-2 is complimented by a separate trailhead the applicant proposes at the southeast corner of Area A-I). This same area of parking includes a curved pedestrian connection that is bounded on either end by a pocket park. These connections provide convenient and intuitive pedestrian facilities that will support pedestrian orientation Across Block B. To complete this connection across Meeting Street into Area A-I, the applicant has extended the median far enough south of the traffic circle on Meeting Street to provide a sheltered crossing. Where pedestrian movements are funneled toward streets, the applicant is providing sheltered crossings by extending the park and pedestrian network into the streets and providing mid-crossing pedestrian zones within the 10-foot wide planted median at the center of Meeting Street. This rinci Ie is met. Streets on the application plan include sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, and on-street parking. Along Meeting Street, the application plan shows coordinated crossings with hardscape amenities. The applicant is illustrating the Linear Park with a sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet wide through the park (separating into two 5-foot wide sidewalks to surround the Linear Park's lar est 0 en s ace). This rinci Ie is met. The applicant has responded with a mix of streets and the linear park that responds to this principle of the Neighborhood Model and generally reflects the Masterplan Guidelines. Traffic will be funneled to Meeting Street (the widest thoroughfare proposed in the Town Center) as it connects into Timberwood Boulevard and leads to Airport Road. Meeting Street includes on-street parking, a bike lane, and a travel lane in each direction. As a last resort, the on-street parking on Meeting Street could be removed in the future, if necessary, to facilitate traffic movement on Meeting Street. Parking on-street could also potentially be prohibited during rush hours. The applicant is proffering to complete a road connection between Route 29 and Dickerson Road by extending Town Center Drive. The applicant is also showing a future connection to Willow Glen, a proposed rezoning along Dickerson Road and adjacent to Town Center Drive. Re ional trans ortation findin s resulting from the Places 29 Master Ian that 4 . Parks and Open Space . Neighborhood Centers Building and Spaces of Human Scale . impact Area A-2 are discussed immediately after the Neighborhood Model I anal sis. This rinci Ie is met. _I The applicant proposes that 10.7 acres or 20 % of Area A-2 be left i undisturbed or developed as open space and amenity areas. The application i plan includes the inclusion of a large usable open space in the Linear Park . (l00'X300') and a 105'X105 level area along the greenway to include a basketball court and small dog park. The application plan also includes smaller tot lot areas, pocket parks, and three formal plazas areas around the traffic circle that connect through or between buildings and other portions of Area A-2. The applicant proposes to dedicate to the County a 7.6 acre area with a minimum of 50 feet of buffer along the edge of a tributary of Powell Creek in Area A-2. This area is delineated on the application plan and includes 5 acres. The Zoning Ordinance requires certain fixtures such as tot lots when applying for the residential density the applicant proposes. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the Open Space and Recreation Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in substitution for amenities detailed in the Code of Development. To serve 1,222 units, the zoning ordinance would require that approximately eight tot lots and four full court basketball courts be built to supply the development with recreation amenities. These are guidelines that the Commission is allowed to vary. The current proposal includes greenway area, 2 tot lots, pocket parks, pool and clubhouse, basketball court and dog park which will provide a variety of recreational uses. The form of development allowed through the Town Center Guidelines prescribes a more dense and urban form. Therefore, full recreation requirements prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance for more conventional districts cannot be achieved. Prior to the Board of Supervisors moving forward with a proffer policy, staff had estimated that an additional $600,000 would be needed to address recreational impacts not provided on the site for facilities such as baseball fields and other open space uses. The applicant has proffered an additional $600,000 ($500/ unit), in keeping with staffs estimate. Given this additional commitment, it appears the applicant has successfully amended his proposal to provide a variety of outdoor amenities and cash to support off-site recreational demands this development creates. Parks and Recreation have one minor concern: the applicant has located a dog park adjacent to a basketball court. These uses need to be separated. With the applicant adjusting the Code of Development and plan prior to Board review, this rinci Ie will be met. The Guidelines identify Meeting Street as the Neighborhood Center and as where the greatest mix of uses is expected. With its vehicular traffic, intensive mix of uses, on-street parking, sidewalks and street trees, and connection with the Linear Park, Meeting Street offers a mix of amenities, retail, and residential uses unified across the street. These elements will allow Meeting Street to serves as the center of the Hollymead Town Center, as intended by the Guidelines. The smaller parks, along with the pool and clubhouse rovide additional nei hborhood centers. This rinci Ie is met. The applicant met with the Architectural Review Board on June 4, 2006 I where the applicant agreed to make recommended revisions. The prima~rY i issue was the height and variation of the taller building proposed. The applicant has reduced the maximum height from 100' to 65'. The applicant has also made recommended revisions with res ect to how the ultimate 5 height of buildings adjacent to or across the street from each other would be coordinated. All other human scale issues have been previously addressed. This principle is met. Mixture of Uses The applicant proposes 1,222 dwelling units, an 80,000 sq. foot hotel, 179,700 of office space, and 104,000 of mixed-use commercial uses. This approach allows the Town Center to function much like a town, in close proximity to the regional service uses provided in Area A-I and Area B. This is in keeping with the Guidelines. This principle is met. Relegated Parking The applicant has worked to relegate parking from streets by proposing buildings that line the street and provide surface and structured parking behind. Also, the applicant is working with the topography to provide one level of parking below the ground / street level of larger buildings along the eastern side of Meeting Street and residential buildings in Block B-2. In conjunction with the applicant's plan to provide structured parking, the Code of development provides guidelines for where such structures will be situated, the maximum number of spaces they will contain, and design detail. This is approach is appropriate for the zoning district requested. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing The applicant is providing a variety of housing types including townhouses, Types and condos, and apartments. The applicant is proffering to provide 20% Affordability affordable housing with at least 40% of that for sale. This would equate to 244 affordable units total with 98 of those being offered for-sale. This is amount of affordable housing in an increase since the Commission reviewed this proposal and in excess of the Board's goal. However, the applicant has also proffered a buyout provision. Through the proffer, the applicant is only guaranteeing that 5% of the units will be built as affordable. The buyout provision would allow for the remaining 15% to be covered with they "buyout" provision at the applicant's discretion. The Housing Director has said that this is not an acceptable rezoning for such an extensive use of the buyout provision. This principle is not met. Redevelopment This principle does not apply. Site Planning that The area proposed for development was mass graded with land sloping Respects Terrain toward the rear of the property along a tributary of Powell Creek through a provision of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to land zoned Rural Areas. The applicant is proposing to work with the terrain created through previous earth moving by building terraced townhouses and other building forms into the grade. This principle is met. Clear Boundaries This principle is not applicable on the site under review for rezoning. with the Rural Areas 6 . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS On June 4, 2007, The Architectural Review Board voted to forward the recommendation of no objection to the Planning Commission, noting strategies to help limit the visual impact of the proposal. Some of those strategies, such as limiting the building height to 65 feet are reflected in the Code of Development. However, the applicant has failed to address the following ARB directives: 1. Articulate buildingfacades with bays, projections, and recesses; use building forms that include stepped heights within individual buildings; step building heights between buildings to reduce scale and transition better to shorter buildings below Meeting Street; use upper story setbacks. 2. Provide large trees along both sides and in the median of Meeting Street. Provide large trees, and sufficient planting area for the large trees, between Area A2 and Area B. Through review of the site plan and certificate of appropriateness, the ARB will review the applicant's proposal for addressing item #1 above. However, the application plan does not show landscaping between Area A-2 and Area B (where the greatest difference in height between buildings will be visible from the Entrance Corridor). Further, the area remaining between A-2 and Area B for such plantings is only a 20-feet wide slope. The applicant has not made a revision to the plan to show the plantings requested by the ARB and it appears sufficient room will not exist to provide the plantings requested. The plantings are intended to soften the difference between Area B buildings (all one story) and area A-2 buildings (up to 65' tall on the ridge). STAFF COMMENT . Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model District. Public need and justification for the change: The County's Comprehensive Plan supports rezoning proposals which are in conformity with recommendations for use, density, and form. The proposal is in conformity with use, density, and form recommended in the Land Use Plan. The land proposed for development has been mass graded through a provision of Rural Area land zoning. It has sat in a denuded state for over two years, allowing for erosion and generation of sediment. Impact on Environmental, Cultural. and Historic Resources: The proposal does not impact cultural and historic resources. With respect to impacts to the natural environment, the plan delineates required buffer setbacks along Powell Creek (100 feet for perennial section and 50 feet for the intermittent tributary thereof). Public need and iustification for the change: Given the amount of undeveloped retail square footage already approved in the County by rezoning, staff does not readily identifY a public need or justification for the rezoning. Development of the property and associate biofilters and stormwater management facilities will provide run off with less sediment. . 7 Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation The initial traffic study for the Town Center anticipated a two-lane cross section for Meeting Street. The Places 29 Master Plan traffic modeling is indicating that future traffic volumes in the Town Center would increase significantly if Berkmar Drive crosses the Rivanna River and Meeting Street and Berkmar Drive connect. Therefore, the County's Traffic Engineer and VDOT have expressed a desire for the full cross section of streets projected as needed by the traffic modeling to be accommodated with this plan. The Berkmar - Meeting Street parallel road has been modeled as part of Places 29 as a two-lane and four-lane facility. That is, traffic modeling has been performed to illustrate the effects on the overall transportation network if the road is built as a two-lane road or a four-lane road. The modeling suggests that a four lane facility works to capture more traffic from U.S. 29. VDOT is recommending that the road be a four-lane facility. However, staff believes the road can function as a three-lane facility: a travel way in each direction with a turn lane in the middle. The applicant has accommodated a four-lane section for Meeting Street from Timberwood Boulevard to Abington Drive (southernmost intersection of Meeting Street within the Town Center). This tapers down to three lanes as it crosses Powell Creek (one lane in each direction and a middle turn lane). The applicant has proffered to build or bond the remaining transportation improvements identified with the initial Town Center traffic study. It is critical, given the significant number of uses provided in the Town Center, that the infrastructure improvements remaining at the Town Center are built prior to additional commercial square footage being approved. As discussed in more detail under proffers below and given the poor performance of proffered road construction at the Town Center to date, staff is recommending that the improvements outlined in Proffer 2 be completed within one year of zoning approval for Area A-2. Staff also recommends that the applicant commit to request no building permit until both streets have been constructed and completed. It should be noted that the applicant is providing a form of development specifically directed by the Comprehensive Plan that will provide a significant number of County residents with the ability to live close to mixed-use and regional commercial and office services and generate less traffic on roads and alternative facilities outside ofthe Town Center. Schools: Pupils from the new development would attend Baker Butler or Hollymead Elementary Schools, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Fire, Rescue, Police:Fire and Rescue service will be provided through the Hollymead Fire Station which is temporarily located near the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport until the station (under construction) is completed later this year. Police officers use this facility as a satellite office when they are on-patrol. Water and Sewer The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has determined that sufficient capacity for the A-2 development does not exist. The applicant has met with the Authority to determine the extent of the deficiencies in service. The two parties are working on an agreement similar to that prepared for Biscuit Run. The director of the ACSA will be attending the July 24,2007 Planning Commission public hearing. The ACSA comments are as follows: (1) "The lack of capacity issue remains unchanged as there was very little change in the overall number of residential units and non-residential square footages. We did note a shift in the total non- residential square footage from office to retail space." 8 . . . (2) "Paragraph 4e under Cash Proffer shall be deleted. The original 10" diameter sewer was constructed using funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide wastewater service to the Charlottesville - Albemarle Airport." (3) "A detailed phasing plan is required showing the number of residential units and non-residential square footages in each section and the schedule for constructing each section." (4) "The ACSA is in the process of arranging a meeting with Octagon Partners for the purpose of negotiating an agreement for the increase of capacity in the existing sewer system." An agreement between the applicant and the ACSA is needed before this rezoning can be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors. Stonnwater Management A stormwater management plan was established for the entire Town Center for the construction period. This consists of large ponds that are able to accommodate large volumes of runoff. These ponds will remain and the applicant proposes additional facilities including nearly an acre devoted to biofilters and additional stormwater management ponds to mitigate stormwater runoff from this development. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The developed adjacent properties include the Town Center, Forest Springs Mobile Home Park, and Deerwood Subdivision. Impacts, other than traffic, light, and noise associated with mixed us development, are not anticipated. Linear Park and Interconnections At the last work session, the Commission directed staff to pursue a better transition from very narrow and steep stairs in Area B (Target and Harris Teeter) with those proposed in Area A and the Linear Park and other amenities beyond. Staff discussed the stairs with the County Engineer who concluded that the stairs in Area B are constructed as the site plan indicated they should be. That is, they are constructed to the satisfaction of the County's site plan regulations. Also, the Building Inspector has determined that because they are not part of any ingress or emergency egress for any structure, they are not governed by the Building Code. Staff worked to set up several meetings with each representative. Unfortunately neither representative was able to meet simultaneously. However, staff has met with each representative individually. The Area A - 2 applicant indicated that he would work to provide a better set of stairs and walkways on his property, but that he did not think it was his responsibility to amend the stairs on his neighbor's property. The Area B owner agreed to allow the Area A-2 applicant onto his property to complete improvements to the steps, but has said he would not commit to improving the stairs since the County approved the design. While staff believes improved stairs in Area B are desirable and would better facilitate pedestrian traffic between Area A-2 and Area B, the steps in Area B are acceptable according to County regulations and the obligation ofthe Area A-2 applicant should be to provide the desired stairs and walkways on their property. 9 Urban Heat Island and Sustainability At the last work session, the Commission agreed the applicant's Code of Development should provide sustainable design strategies. The applicant has added a number of strategies to the Code of Development (Page 37) to address solar orientation and impact, stormwater management, and sustainability generally. The applicant has said he would like to receive a 5% reduction in his per unit proffer for each dwelling unit meeting an EnergyStar or LEED certification. This may be an acceptable incentive for the private development of energy efficient buildings. The Board of Supervisors will have to determine if the applicant's strategy is acceptable. Waivers and Modifications The applicant is requesting 13 waivers and modifications of the County Code. These requests are covered in Attachment F. Staff has no objection to the requested waivers and modifications; they are necessary to implement the Neighborhood Model. In many cases, the applicant has provided an acceptable alternative to the County Code. However, minor issues remain with the waivers and modifications. However, these issues are not so great that they cannot be addressed before the Board of Supervisors reviews this request in a work session. PROFFERS (Attachment C) 1. Affordable Housing: The applicant is proposing to provide 20% of the units proposed as affordable units. This includes a commitment to offer 40% for-sale and the remainder for-rent. However, this proposal is in conjunction with a buyout provision that would allow the applicant to actually construct 5% affordable housing and pay for the rest (through cash contributions to the County toward affordable housing programs). The Housing Director has said that the Hollymead Town Center is a place where affordable housing should be constructed and that the applicant needs to commit to actually providing more than 5% of the units as affordable housing. This proffer is not yet acceptable. 2, Road Improvements: The applicant has proposed a loose proffer that falls short of committing to build the remaining roads included in the HTC Comprehensive Plan Amendment traffic study. The applicant proffers to build or bond the remaining road improvements anticipated at the Town Center. Staff does not support the option to bond rather than build the roads. The option of bonding rather than building the roads is unattractive because, should the County call the bond, it would require extra County engineering staff resources to manage the project, along with all other ongoing legislative reviews. A firmer commitment to build the roads prior to additional square footage being approved appears suitable given the track record of previous proffered improvements at the Town Center. Staff recommends that this request should not move forward unless the applicant is committed to constructing the remainder of the roads (identified in the proffer) within one year of this request being approved by the Board. This proffer is not yet acceptable. 3. Public Transit Stops: The applicant proffers to complete "at least two public transportation stops" to include 200 square feet of paved area and two benches on the subject property. The location of these stops will be determined at the site plan stage. Though the applicant is not proffering any cash for transit service in Area A-2, the applicant's proffers for Area A-I include a $50,000 per year for 10 years for transit service. (The applicant has responded to the Commission's request that the area be designed trmlsit-ready.) This proffer is acceptable. 10 . 4. Cash Proffer: The applicant is proffering to meet the Board's target figures for cash proffers to address the impacts of new development. This project contains only townhouse/condo and apartment dwelling units and the applicant is proffering the appropriate figures, $11,900 and $12,400 respectively. The applicant's proffer includes an itemized list of credits he feels he has earned through other improvements and commitments. The proffers are an unacceptable vehicle for a proffer credit analysis and cannot work as proposed. With two exceptions, none of the credits the applicant is requesting are eligible for a credit under the Board's policy. See cash proffer credit summary at the end of this analysis. The proffer amount is acceptable; the inclusion of various credits proposed by the applicant is not acceptable. 5. Greenway: The applicant proposes to contribute 7.6 acres along a tributary along Powell Creek. This land, though adjacent to the creek, is developable. The applicant proffers a minimum of 50 feet on either side of the Powell Creek tributary. This proffer is acceptable. 6. Community Park: The applicant proffers a 10,000 square foot (approx. 1;4 acre) park in Blocks A- 1, B-3, B-4, or C-6. As these blocks are located at the edge of the development, this proffer is not that valuable. Further the amount proffered would provide enough room for a pocket park, not a community park. Further, should the applicant want to provide a pocket park in the locations identified, the detail and commitment for such a park should be contained in the Code of Development, not a proffer. This proffer should be removed. Staff asked the applicant to provide for the small pocket park at the end of Lockwood Drive to be reserved for dedicated to the County upon demand by the County for the future use for civic displays such as a memorial or statue. However, the proffer states that the dedication is on the periphery and not the pivotal location staff identified. This proffer is not acceptable. . 7. Recycling Center: The Capital Improvements Program identifies a need for a recycling center to be constructed in the northern Development Area. The applicant has proffered to provide 35,000 square feet (nearly an acre) for the facility to be located at the Town Center. This is the amount of space identified by the Chief of Planning as needed accommodated the center. However, the applicant is asking for a credit for three acres in conjunction with the proffer. He is proffering over two acres less than that. Staff believes the applicant needs to commit to either 35,000 sq. feet or three acres and so the appropriate credit can be determined. The proffer needs to clarify that the applicant owner shall pay for the survey of the land to be dedicated and that the land may be used for County purposes other than a recycling center should the land not be needed for that use in the future. This proffer is acceptable so long as the applicant understands that he will only be credited for 35,000 sq. ft. of land (and not 3 acres as he proposes to be credited for). 8. Recreational Facilities: The applicant is proffering $500.00 per unit for recreational impacts, in addition to the Board's per unit contribution to address the impacts of new development. This would amount to $614,000 if every dwelling unit proposed at the Town Center is constructed. This contribution would be in addition to the variety of recreational facilities that applicant is providing within the Town Center and the per unit proffer expected by the Board. This contribution would help to fund the expansion and maintenance of off-site recreational facilities, such as Chris Green Lake Park. This proffer is acceptable. . 9. Phasing Plan: The applicant proffers a phasing plan that addresses the A-2 project by proffering to obtain 100 building permits for A-2 prior to authorizing construction of any non-residential space. The applicant proffers to obtain 600 building permits prior to the authorization by the County to complete 200,000 square feet of non-residential space. This phasing plan makes an attempt to guarantee that non-residential development will not grossly outpace residential construction. 11 However, when Area A-I request was heard by Board of Supervisors on June 13,2007, the Board directed the applicant to tie the non-residential development in A-I to the residential development in A-2. The applicant has not responded to this request with the most recently submitted proffers. Staff will work with the applicant to provide the appropriate solution. This proffer is not yet acceptable. The following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current Board proffer policy intent: BOS PROFFER EXPECT A nON LESS VALUE OF CURRENT PROFFERS $14,078,400 - $107,392 = $13,971,000 Cash Proffer Policy Expectation = $14,078,400 (1222 units (townhouse, condo, multi family) less 61 (5% affordable units the applicant is committing to provide) = 1161 X cash proffer by unit type: TH MF CNDO 136 525 500 1161 X $11,900 = $1,618,400 X $12,400 = $6,510,000 X $11.900 = $5,950,000 $14,078,400 Value of Current Proffers = $107,392 Greenway Land = 7.6 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) = $97,280 Recycling Center Land = .79 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) = $10,1 12 $107,392 The followin!! issues are still outstandin!!: . VDOT comments conflict with Places 29 proposal for Meeting Street cross section and Powell Creek . A commitment is needed to complete roads in a timely fashion rather than bonding their completion. . A commitment to construct more than 5% affordable housing, or at least give the Housing Director discretion to accept cash in lieu of units. . Water and Sewer service to the area are inadequate and assurances from ACSA need to be provided that appropriate agreement has been reached regarding this development as it relates to water and sewer. . A commitment in the Code and plan or additional landscaping area between Area B and Area A-2 is needed to soften disparity in building heights. (ARB request) . A phasing commitment that ties A-I and A-2 together was requested by the Board, but is not contained in the proffers. . Additional detail requested to appear in the Code in order to support requested waiver remains unaddressed. 12 . . . · Cash proffers need to be put in an acceptable form that assures the equivalent of the per unit proffer amounts are being provided and any allowable credits to the per unit commitment can be properly administered. Conclusions and Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of these outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of these outstanding issues before the Board acts on this rezoning. A TT ACHMENTS A TT ACHMENT A - Overall Plan of Town Center A TT ACHMENT B - Code of Development A TT ACHMENT C - Proffers A TT ACHMENT D - December 5, 2006 Work Session Action Memo A TT ACHMENT E - March 6, 2007 Work Session Action Memo ATTACHMENT F - Waiver Analysis 13 . Attachment A .a eft ~ - - =- 0 DC: tJ .,; . [j :::; . L- eu ..... c=: eu (..J c=: ~ .0 -c:J C'CS eu E >- - - o ::I:: II:: - ... .. - .- u Ci ~ - ~ u - - - - - - ~-= - - ... a:: . . . Attachment C Original Proffer: X PROFFER FORM Date: July 24, 2007 ZMA #: ZMA 2007-001 Hollymead Town Center Area A Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-50, 32-51, 32-46, 32-44 (portion), and 32-45 (portion) 44.5 Acres to be rezoned from RA to NMD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (I) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-50, 32-51, 32-46, 32-44 (portion), and 32-45 (portion) comprising 44.5 acres are subject to rezoning application ZMA 2007-0001 and to this Proffer Statement (the "Property"). The Property is described with more particularity on a plan entitled "Hollymead Town Center, Conceptual Development Plan" prepared by Dominion Development Resources Inc., dated March 13,2006 (revised June 12,2007), and attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "General Development Plan"). The Owner of the Property is HM Acquisition Group, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Owner"). The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Neighborhood Model District (NMD) as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2- 2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (I) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 2007-001 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect. 1. Affordable Housine:. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total residential units constructed on the Property, in the form of for-sale condominiums and townhouses, and for-rent condominiums, townhouses, apartments and accessory units. At least 40% of the affordable units will be in the form of for sale condominiums and townhouses. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer, incorporate affordable units as described herein, and the aggregate number of such lots or units designated for affordable units within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the lots in such subdivision plat or site plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Owner may elect, in the alternative to meet any atTordable housing requirement imposed by this proffer as satisfaction for a site plan or Attachment C subdivision plat approval by voluntarily contributing to the County a sum of $19,100 cash for each new dwelling unit that results in a mix of affordable units below the fifteen percent (15%) threshold. Such cash contribution shall be intended for funding affordable housing programs. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The Owner may "carry-over" or "bank" credits for affordable units in the event an individual subdivision plat or site plan designates affordable units that in the aggregate exceed the twenty percent (20%) minimum for such subdivision plat or site plan, and such additional affordable units may be allocated toward the twenty percent (20%) minimum on any future subdivision plat or site plan, provided however, that the maximum number of affordable units that may be carried over or banked shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total units on any subdivision plat or site plan. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of initially constructing the affordable units to the subsequent owners of lots within the Property. Therefore this proffer concerning affordable units will not apply to a plat of subdivision for a sale in bulk to the builder(s) and or developers of the housing units contemplated hereby, so long as this proffer is disclosed to such buyers at the time of sale. The actual owner at the proposed time of construction shall offer units affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income. A. For-Sale Affordable Units. All purchasers of the for-sale affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The actual owner at the proposed time of construction shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The ninety (90)- day period shall commence upon written notice from the then-current owner/builder that the unites) will be available for sale. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the unites) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). This proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the for-sale affordable units. B. For-Rent Affordable Units. (1). Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for-rent affordable unit shall not exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net rent rate as published by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). For purposes of this proffer statement, the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such for-rent affordable units may not exceed the maximum rents established in his paragraph 1 B shall apply for a period of five (5) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent affordable unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term"). 2 . . . Attachment C (2). Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the for-rent affordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph 2. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent affordable unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 1 B. At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest (other than for the securing of a mortgage or deed of trust) in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then- current owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 1 B(2) have been satisfied. (3). Reportinl!; Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the then-current Owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require. 2. Road Improvements. The Owner shall cause design, construct and dedicate to public use the following: Notwithstanding the following, the road proffers described in this paragraph 1 shall be satisfied if plans for all such road improvements have been submitted for review by VDOT and, although such improvements are not accepted by VDOT for public use within one (1) year from the date of approval of ZMA-07 -000 I sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed in accordance with the NMD Code of Development as approved as part of ZMA-07-0001, and with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). All of the foregoing improvements shall be i) constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Owner and VDOT, and ii) accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance as a condition for issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the NMD portion of Area A improvements. A. Meeting Street from the boundary of the PDMC zoning district across Powell Creek to the southern boundary of the property line. B. Town Center Drive (Previously Access Road A) from the Eastern edge of the NMD zoning boundary at the intersection of Meeting Street to its intersection with State Route 606, also known as Dickerson Road. Construction of this section of Town Center Drive shall be completed for acceptance of VDOT for public use and dedication " .:l Attachment C of a minimum of 60-foot-wide right-of way. This section of Town Center Drive shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction). 3. Public Transit Stop Construction. Owner shall cause completion of two (2) public transportation stop within the Project in a location mutually accepted to the Owner and the County. This transit stop will include no less than 200 sq. ft. of paved surface and two benches. 4. Cash Proffer. Owner proffers to contribute cash on a per dwelling unit basis for the purposes of funding other County infrastructure, transportation, school, parks and library improvements. The cash contributions shall be: $11,900 for each attached/townhouse/condominium dwelling unit, other than an affordable dwelling unit ("Market Rate Unit"), and $12,400 for each multifamily/apartment dwelling unit other than an affordable dwelling unit ("Market Rate Unit"). Such cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for each new unit. The following credits will be applied to the cash proffer contribution: a. Dedicated open space and Greenway: $950,000 based on 7.6 acres at the assessed value of$125,000 per acre b. Community Park: $125,000 based on 1 acre at the assessed value of $125,000 per acre c. Recycling Center Site: $375,000 based on 3 acres to accommodate a 35,000 square foot facility d. Route 29 Infrastructure Improvements: $2,600,000 based on the prorate share of Area A land area (78 of 180 acres) served by the $6,000,000 in improvements spent to date. e. Sanitary Sewer Line Extension: $650,000 based on the prorate share of Area A land area (78 of 180 acres) served by the $2,000,000 in improvements spent to install privately install 10' sewer line serving area developments, including the Charlottesville Airport f. Expansion of Meeting Street: $1,000,000 based on the increased land right away of3 acres (3 X $125,000 = $375,000) and increased construction cost (installation of additional through lane in each direction, $625,000) to increase the carrying capacity in conjunction with Places 29 Master Plan. g. Expansion of Town Center Drive: $500,000 based on the increased land right away of 2 acres (2 X $125,000 = $250,000) and increased construction cost to build to an urban standard offsite. 4 . . . Attachment C h. Mixed Use Development Credit: The per unit cash proffer will be reduced by 10% based on the phased development that includes 640,000 square feet of non- residential uses which will generate an estimated $1,000,000 per year in tax revenue. 1. Neighborhood Model Credit: The per unit cash proffer will be reduced by 5% based on the integrated uses and pedestrian elements of the project which will alleviate vehicle traffic. J. Green Building Credit: The per unit cash proffer will be reduced by 5% for each residential unit that achieves LEED or Energy Star designation based on reduced utility consumption and reduced waste Beginning January 1, 2009, the amount of each cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index ("MSl"). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. 5. Greenwav. The Owner shall dedicate a fee simple 7.6 acre "greenway" to Albemarle County for public use. The dedication is identified on the Application Plan as "Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle County ", and shall include a strip of land parallel to Powell Creek with a minimum width of 50 feet on the each side of Powell Creek, subject to the limitations of the property boundary. The dedicated area will also include all flood plain area along Powell Creek within the Property boundary. The owner shall complete the improvements shown on the Application Plan and shall dedicate the Powell Creek Greenway to the County upon the first site plan approval. After it is dedicated to public use, the Greenway Area shall continue to be included in the total area of open space and amenities within the Property. 6. Community Park. The Owner shall offer for future dedication to the County approximately 1 0,000 square feet of community park to be located in any of the following blocks as shown on the Development Plan: A-I, B-3, B-4, or C-6. After its dedication to public use, the Community Park shall continue to be included in the total area of open space and amenities within the Property. 7. Recvcline Center. The Owner shall dedicate an approximately 35,000 square area for use by the County as a Recycling Center to be located in an area most appropriate for such use as reasonably agreed by the County and Owner. After its dedication to public use, the Greenway Area, Recycling Center, and community park shall continue to be included in the total area of open space and amenities within the Property. 5 Attachment C 8. Recreational Facilities. Owner proffers to contribute $500.00 per residential unit, paid at the time of building permit, for the purpose of funding the expansion or new development of regional outdoor recreational facilities as determined by the County Parks and Recreation Departments. 9. Phasing Plan. Prior to the issuance by the County of a building permit that would authorize the construction of any square feet of gross floor area (aggregate) of commercial, office and hotel gross floor area within the Project, building permits shall be issued by the County to at least 100 dwelling units. Prior to issuance by the County of a building permit that would authorize the construction of more than 200,000 square feet of gross floor area (aggregate) of commercial, office and hotel gross floor area within the Project, building permits shall be issued by the County to at least 600 dwelling units. WITNESS the following signature: OM ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC By: HM Capital Group, LLC, Manager By: Octagon Partners, LLC, Authorized Agent By: Manager COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006 by , Manager of Octagon Partners, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company as manager of HM Capital Group, LLC a Virginia limited liability company as manager of Owner, HM Acquisition Group, LLC. My Commission expires: Notary Public 6 Attachment D . Albemarle County Planning Commission December 5,2006 ZMA-2005-15 Hollvmead Town Center - Areas A 1 and A2 (Signs #15. 51. 53. 73) PROPOSAL: Rezone 31 acres from RA - Rural Areas (agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)) to PDMC - Planned District Mixed Commercial (large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)) to allow for 296,000 square feet of office and retail. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: Tax Map 32, parcels 42A, 42C, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 44, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 45, and Tax Map 46, parcel 5, located to the south of the southern entrance to the Hollymead Town Center along Route 29 North. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio The Comprehensive Plan's Town Center designation is accompanied with the "Conceptual Master Plan & Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center". STAFF: Sean Dougherty . In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA 2005 -015, Hollymead Town Center - Areas A1 and A2 to review and provide comment on the resubmittal. (Area A1 was only discussed on how it relates to Area A2.) The applicant addressed the Commission and clarified that the details identified by staff as needing to be addressed were all improvements to the plan that he was willing to make. He said that these were things they planned to do but thought that it could wait until the site plan. With his willingness to respond to staff's comments, the applicant suggested that the only issue remaining for discussion is Meeting Street. The Commission took public comment, answered staff's questions outlined in the staff report and scheduled a follow up work session. No formal action was taken by the Planning Commission. 1. Question for the Commission: Are staff's comments noted in bold in the Neighborhood Model Analysis relevant and appropriate direction to the applicant? The applicant clarified that he was willing to make the changes recommended by staff and would do so before resubmitting. . 2. Does the application plan reflect the form of development anticipated for this area so that the goals of the Guidelines will be achieved? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 5, 2006 FINAL ACTION MEMO Attachment D The Planning Commission said that Meeting Street should be redesigned to allow for a more continuous extension of non-residential uses on the first floor level of buildings along Meeting Street. The Commission felt that some residential-only uses may be appropriate along Meeting Street, but that they should be anchored near the linear park and that rest of the first floors along Meeting Street should contain non-residential uses. The applicant's idea of clustering non-residential uses at either ends of the three blocks of Meeting Street between Town Center Drive and Timberwood Boulevard was not supported by the Commission. They felt that continuous commercial frontage should line the first floor level of Meeting Street, with residences above and that buildings and townhouses devoted solely to residential uses should occur on other streets to create a hierarchy. 3. Does the application plan reflect the form of development anticipated for this area so that the goals of the Guidelines will be achieved? There needs to be some balance on each side of the street. The Planning Commission was not sure what the appropriate number of stories would be. Staff suggested that the Commission's direction would provide enough guidance for staff and the applicant to work on a better approach to height and massing. 4. Is the proposed intensity of uses appropriate? The proposed intensity of uses is appropriate. The PC did not have any trouble in the increase of nonresidential space, but not to the exclusion of residential. They want the uses to work together in a mixture. 5. Is the system of streets and paths sufficient to support the uses proposed? The system of streets and paths is sufficient to support the uses proposed. . 6. Should the applicant amend an area shown for a transit stop to a safer and more intuitive location and prepare the application plan so the entire proposal is transit-ready in general? The applicant needs to show an area for transit and use information from the Place 29 study 7. The applicant's approach to interconnections was suitable for the intensity of uses proposed. The applicant's approach to interconnections was suitable for the intensity of uses proposed. ary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 5, 2006 FINAL ACTION MEMO 2 Attachment E . Albemarle County Planning Commission March 6, 2007 ZMA 2007-00001, Hollvmead Town Center - Area A2 (SiQns #93.94) PROPOSAL: Rezone 47 acres from RA zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. The application proposes up to 1,228 dwelling units. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: West and adjacent to the Hollymead Town Center Area B, which contains Target and Harris Teeter, east of the Deerwood Subdivision. TAX MAP/PARCEL Tax Map 32, Parcels 44 (portion), 45 (portion), and 50 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio STAFF: Sean Dougherty In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2007-00001, Hollymead Town Center - Area A2 to review and provide comment on the applicant's changes to the plan, which seem to focus on transportation. The Commission received the applicant's presentation, took public comment and answered staff's questions outlined in the staff report. No formal action was taken by the Planning Commission. . Staff feels that the proffers can be resolved at staff level The realignment of roads is more troublesome and staff asks for the Commission's guidance and input. Staff also needs guidance on what level of infrastructure is desired by the Planning Commission for the applicant to provide the ARB in an effort to make them comfortable with the plan. I. Are staff's comments noted in bold in the NeiQhborhood Model Analvsis relevant and appropriate direction to the applicant? The Planning Commission agreed that staff's comments noted in bold in the Neighborhood Model Analysis were relevant and appropriate direction to the applicant. Parks and Recreation suggest that the applicant provide a contribution towards Chris Green Lake to accommodate additional residents. Mr. Strucko noted that he would prefer that this need be met on site. The applicant was willing to work with staff to look at other ways to meet this need on site. 2. Should the applicant redesiQn the plan proposed to include the Lockwood Connector aliQnment? The majority of the Commissioners would like to stay with the plan as it is. Staff needs to work with the applicant on what the road design needs to be going south based on the assumption that will be part of Berkmar Drive Extended. Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Strucko disagreed. Mr. Strucko noted that the traffic circle would be a choke point. 3. If the Commission feels that Blocks 81 and B2 should be redesiQned, should the applicant be usinQ the cross sections the Places 29 study is recommendinQ for roads impacted bv reQional traffic? . The Planning Commission did not favor a redesign. 4. Given the intensity of residential development anticipated in the Town Center, how should the County's affordable housinQ Qoal be accommodated? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 6,2007 FINAL ACTION MEMO Attachment E The Planning Commission favorably received the applicant's proposal to provide more than 15 percent of affordable housing, but that a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing needs to be provided according to the adopted policy. The Commission sees the applicant's proposal for additional affordable and moderate priced housing above the 15 percent as a favorable aspect. 5. Should the applicant work the with the Area B owner to improve the sub-standard and unsafe stairs that were constructed as part of the Linear Park in Area B? The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to work with the Area B owner to improve the sub- standard and unsafe stairs that were constructed as part of the Linear Park in Area B. Staff will check with zoning staff on whether there is a potential violation with the current stairs and will also try to arrange a meeting between the two developers to try to remedy the situation. 6. Does the Commission recommend that the applicant add lanQuaae to the Code of Development to add lanQuaQe to the Code of Development to address the urban heat island effect and sustainabilitv aenerallv? The Planning Commission supported staffs recommendation that the applicant add language to the Code of Development to address the urban heat island effect and sustainability generally. 7. Considerina the scale of the applicant's proposal, should the applicant provide this additional information to facilitate ARB recommendation? Ms. Joseph disagreed with what the ARB is asking for since it was excessive given the applicant's willingness to keep down the massing of the buildings on the eastern side of Meeting Street to limit visibility. The Commission felt that it was a lot of information given the distance it was located from Route 29. The applicant committed to address what a 100' building would like, but not to actually build it that high. If the applicant could not reach an agreement with the ARB they would come back to the Planning Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 6, 2007 FINAL ACTION MEMO 2 . . . ATTACHMENT F Waiver and Modifications Requests HM Acquisition Group LLC, ("Applicant"), owners of Hollymead Town Center - Area A (ZMA-05-0015) is requesting 13 waivers or modifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Sections of the ordinance have been copied into the report for the Commissioner's reference. The language from the Zoning Ordinance will be found in italics. Staff's recommendation is underlined. 1. SECTION 4.11.1 COVERED PORCHES, BALCONIES, CHIMNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES 4.11.1 Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features may project not more than four (4) feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line. (Amended 9-9-92) The applicant has requested that the encroachments listed above be able to extend up to 6 feet into the area between the build-to line and the LOW. line. At present, though, the maximum build-to line would be 5 feet. If approved as requested by the applicant, encroachments could be in the r.o.w. Staff can recommend that encroachments be allowed to be within 1 foot of a LOW. line. provided the Code of Development is modified so that the build-to line and the encroachment setback are in sync. 2. SECTION 4.12.6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR SCHEDULED USES The applicant has requested that this development be able to use the parking schedule for shopping centers (200,000 to 600,000 square feet), 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, to be the standard schedule for all non-residential square footage in the NMD as per Table C in the Code of Development with the following exceptions: Theaters, hotels, rest homes, schools, churches, other such uses with areas of assembly. At present, though, the Code of Development does not include these exceptions. Staff can recommend approval of this waiver provided the Code of Development includes the exceptions listed above. 3. SECTION 4.12.9 STREET AND ALLEY PARKING 4. 12.9 Street and alley parking may be provided as follows: a. Street parking consists of parking spaces located in a public or private right-of way. Each parking space that is in a public or private right-of-way abutting the lot A TT ACHMENT F shall count as a parking space for the purpose of meeting the minimum parking space requirements in sections 4. 12.6 and 4. 12.7. Each parking space shall be on a paved area abutting the travelway, and if the parking space is in a public right-of-way it shall not be prohibited by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The applicant has requested that on-street parking be allowed that does not abut the street where the use is located. Pages 32-33 of the Code of Development indicate the desired parking arrangements, which are supported by staff. Staff recommends that this waiver be qranted bv substitutinq this requirement for the standards set forth on Paqes 32-33 of the Code of Development, entitled, Parkinq Standards. 4. SECTION 4.12.13 LOADING AREAS (a, c, & e) a, Loading spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant and shall be adjacent to the structure it serves. c. Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on the basis of (1) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area, plus one (1) space for each additional twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area; (2) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of office space plus one (1) space for each additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of office space; or (3) one (1) space for the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of industrial floor area plus one (1) space for each additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of industrial floor area. e. Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building of four thousand (4,000) gross square feet or more shall provide a dumpster pad that does not impede any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles. The applicant has requested that the loading standards and dumpster requirements be applied to the entire area of the development rather than on a site-by-site basis. The proposal is indicated in the Code of Development on Pages 34 and 35. Staff recommends that this waiver be qranted bv substitutinq the requirements with the standards set forth on Paqes 34 and 35 of the Code of Development. 5. SECTION 4.15.5.A.1: OFF-SITE SIGNS A. 1 Off-site signs may be authorized by special use permit within any zoning district . . . A TT ACHMENT F The applicant has requested that directory signs containing two or more businesses be allowed off-site from the lot where the business is located but within Hollymead Town Center. Staff has no objection to this waiver to the extent that it will allow off-site sign by right rather than by special permit; however, the description of the waiver on page 35 must be revised to state that all other regulations for off site signs shall apply to the district. Staff recommends that off-site directory siqns be allowed by-riqht rather than special use permit provided that all other requlations for off-site siqns are not waived and that the Code of Development be modified to reflect this condition. 6. SECTION 4.15.5.A.3: SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. A.3 Signs in public rights-of-way; provided: (1) the subdivision or planned development to which the sign pertains abuts the public right-of-way; (2) the sign is either a subdivision sign or a sign identifying a planned development authorized by sections 19.0, 20.0, 25.0, 25A, and 29.0; (3) the freestanding sign regulations, other than setback regulations, applicable to the lot with the use to which the sign pertains shall apply; and (4) if the sign is located within an entrance corridor overlay district, a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the architectural review board. The applicant has requested that freestanding, portable, canopy, awning and projecting signs be allowed to encroach into the r.o.w. on Town Center Road and Meeting Street provided VDOT restrictions apply and the County Engineer has determined that an adequate clear zone for pedestrian traffic exists and can be maintained. Staff recommends that this waiver be qranted by substitutinq the requirements with the standards set forth on Paqe 36 of the Code of Development. 7. SECTION 4.15.11 - SIGNAGE SETBACKS The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning districts: Sign Area Sign Sign Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Height Setback (Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum) Directory 1 or more per establishment, as 24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet authorized by zoning administrator aggregated A TT ACHMENT F Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot with 100 or more feet of continuous street frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance on its frontage 24 square feet, aggregated: if more than 1 sign, no single sign shall exceed 12 square feet 12 feet 5 feet 30 feet, but not Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet to exceed the top Not applicable of the fascia or mansard 12 feet, if freestanding sign; 20 feet, if wall Temporary 1 per street frontage per establishment 24 square feet sign, but not to 5 feet exceed the top of the fascia or mansard 1 sf per 1 linear foot of establishment structure 20 feet, but not Same as that Wall as calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 frontage, not to to exceed the top applicable to exceed 32 sf if of the fascia or residential wall mansard structure sign, or 100 sf if non residential wall sign The applicant has requested that the minimum sign setbacks in these sections above be waived, provided that VDOT and the County Engineer approve. Staff recommends that this waiver be Qranted by substitutinQ the requirements with the standards set forth on PaQe 36 of the Code of Development. RECREATION REGULATIONS (SECTION 4.16.2 AND 4.16.3.3) 8. SECTION 4.16.2 & 4.16.3.3 This section applies standard regulations for recreational amenities for various development forms and density. Due to its length, this section has not copied it into the body of this report. The applicant has asked that the individual requirements for multi-family development be substituted with the amenities and open space described in the Code of Development which include a central plaza, a linear park, a greenway, series of pocket parks, trails, and a clubhouse with a pool. The only outstanding issue has to do with the proposed area for both a basketball court and a dog park. Staff recommends that this waiver be Qranted by substitutinQ the requirements with the recreational amenities proposed in the Code of Development so 10nQ as the basketball court and dOQ park are separated from each other and this . . . A TT ACHMENT F separation is shown on the qeneral development plan (can be done prior to Board review). 9. SECTION 4.17.4.b.1 Lighting Standards b. Each parcel, except those containing only one or more single-family detached dwellings, shall comply with the following: (Added 10-17-01) 1. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (Y2) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. (Amended 10-17-01) The applicant has asked that street lighting be allowed to spillover into the r.o.w. in the area between parked cars and the travelway. Staff recommends that spillover be measured at the edqe of the travelway, identified as the area between the parked cars and the travelway, as clarified on paqe 35 of the Code of Development. 10. SECTION 5.1.16 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CLUBS 5. 1. 16 Each swimming, golf or tennis club shall be subject to the following: a. The swimming pool, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment, and any buildings, shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the nearest property line and at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any existing dwelling on an adjoining property, except that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land in a commercial or industrial district, the pool may be constructed no less than twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest property line of such land in a commercial or industrial district; b. When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or is across the street from, any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence, or shrubbery shall be erected or planted, so as to screen effectively said pool from view from the nearest property in such residential district; c. (Repealed 6-14-00) d. The board of supervisors may, for the protection of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional fencing and/or planting or other landscaping, additional setback from property lines, additional parking space, location and arrangement of lighting, and other reasonable requirements; e. Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments or entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures. A TT ACHMENT F The applicant has asked that this section in its entirety be waived, except that there would be no pool within 125 feet of an existing property line not associated with Area A2. Page 17 of the Code of Development generally describes this req uest. Staff recommends approval of this waiver provided that the swimminq pool, includinq the apron, filterinq and pumpinq equipment, and any buildinqs, shall be at least one hundred twenty-five feet (125) feet from the closest property line that abuts the boundary of HTC Area A2. This waiver would also allow that concessions for the servinq of food, refreshments or entertainment for club members and quests not require a special use permit. 11. SECTION 8.5.1.D.6 APPLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED (TRIP GENERATION FIGURES) The applicant has not provided trip generation figures because of the extensive traffic study used for the HTC Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning of Area B. Staff can recommend this waiver because the original traffic study for the Hollymead Town Center and subsequent Places 29 traffic modeling have provided sufficient traffic generation data and analysis to further this request. Staff recommends approval of this waiver. 12. SECTION 27.7.2 & 3 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS 21.7. 1 Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure, except signs, shall be erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way. No off- street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of- way. (Amended 7-10-85; 7-8-92) 21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92) This request refers to a portion of Block D adjacent to Tax Map 32 Parcel 43 as well as a portion of Blocks A-1, B-3, and B-4 adjacent to Tax Map 32, Parcels 51 & 56. The Code of Development shows setbacks and build-to lines that are closer than 30 feet to a public street right-of-way. Also, a buffer zone is not shown on the general plan of development. Staff has no issue with the modifications for setbacks/build-to lines or with the waiving of the 20 foot buffer where property is shown as Industrial Service on the Land Use Plan. Staff cannot support the waiver for the building closest to . . . A TT ACHMENT F Deerwood on the western side of the development unless the use is specifically shown either in the Code of Development or on the Application Plan as residential. This is because the adjoining property is shown as urban density residential and the building shown is practically on the property line. Staff recommends that the waiver for setbacks and a buffer be qranted for only the portion of Block D adjacent to Tax Map 32 Parcel 43 as well as a portion of Blocks A-1 and B-3 adiacent to Tax Map 32 Parcels 51 unless the plan or Code is chanqed to make the buildinq in B-4 residential only. If the buildinq in B-4 is made residential only, then staff can recommend that the setback be modified to be as it is shown on the qeneral plan of development and the buffer requirement be waived. Nothinq in this recommendation, however, requires that the buildinq be constructed at the property line. 13. SECTION 32.7.9.8 SCREENING 32.7.9.8 The following requirements shall apply to screening: a. When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence, or combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent. Where only vegetative screening is provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. Vegetative screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center. Alternate methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the agent. Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and plantings may be required at intervals along such fence or wall. (32.8.6.1, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) b. Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement. When screening is required along the frontage of public streets, the agent shall determine if the street tree requirement has been met. (32.8.6.2, 7- 10-85) c. Screening shall be required in the following instances: 1. Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. (32.8.6.3.a, 7-10-85) 2. Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. (32.8.6.3. b, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1- 87) 3. Objectionable features including, but not limited to, the following uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts and public streets: - loading areas, refuse areas, storage yards, detention ponds, recreational facilities determined to be of objectionable character by the agent other than children's play areas where visibility is necessary or passive recreation areas where visibility is desirable. (32.8.6.3.c.5, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) 4. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way when deemed appropriate by the agent. (32.8.6.3.d, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) ATTACHMENT F 5. The agent may require screening of any use, or portion thereof, upon determination that the use would otherwise have a negative visual impact on a property listed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register. (32.8.6.3.f, 7-10- 85; Amended 5-1-87) The applicant has requested that the screening requirements be replaced with a set of standards used in Cascadia and Rivanna Village at Glenmore. These standards would require that no screening of uses occur; rather, screening of objectionable uses would be provided. The Code of Development provides for screening standards. Staff recommends that this waiver be qranted bv substitutinq the requirements with the standards on paqes 36 and 37 of the Code of Development. F . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 April 18, 2007 ] .P. Williamson 126 Garrett St. Charlottesville, VA 2290] RE: ZMA 2005-015 Hollymead Town Center Area A-I (Signs #15, 51, 53, 73) Tax Map 32, parcels 42A, 42C, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 44, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 45, and Tax Map 46, parcel 5 AND . SP 2005-027 Hollymead Town Center Area A - Drive up Window for a Bank A portion of Tax Map 32, Parcel 42A and a portion of Tax Map 32, Parcel 42C Dear Mr. Williamson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2007, recommended approval of ZMA-2005-0]5, Hollymead Town Center Area A-] to the Board of Supervisors by a vote of6:0, with all of the recommendations in the staff report dated April 3, 2007 and all of the issues discussed at the meeting, to be resolved prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. 1. The applicant will accommodate a widening of Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive. 2. The applicant will amend the proffer language related to a maximum area to be disturbed at any time as part of Proffer 4; erosion and sediment control and other necessary minor proffer revisions prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. 3. The applicant will correct street sections. Ref!ardim: the setback modification request, the Planning Commission by a vote of 6:0 approved the modification to reduce the setbacks along Meeting Street from 30' to ] 0'. ReQ.ardim'. SP-200S-000n. the Commission by a vote of6:0 approved SP-200S-0n, Hollymeacl To\\n Center . Area A - Drive Up Windo\\ for Bank, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3): including any to be used for an A TM Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA-2005-0 15, Hollymead Town Center Area A-I and SP-2005-027, Hollymead Town Center Area A - Drive up Window for a Bank, and receive public comment at their meeting on June 13,2007. It is the Board of Supervisor's preference that a public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, please submit final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to our office no later than Monday, May 21. Please review the attached submission of materials policy established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2005. 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, Sean Dougherty Senior Planner Planning Division SD/aer Cc: HM Acquisition Group LLC POBOX 5548, Charlottesville, V A 22905 Ella Carey Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ZMA 2005-015 Hollymead Town Center, Area A-1 June 13, 2007 SP2005 - 027 Drive up Window for a Bank ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone 31 acres from RA (Rural CONSENT AGENDA: Areas) to PDMC (Planned Development Mixed ACTION: INFORMATION: Commercial) with proffers for an area in the southern portion of the Hollymead Town Center area along Route 29 north. ATTACHMENTS: YES STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Dougherty LEGAL REVIEW: YES BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning and special use permit request. Staff recommended approval provided that the following items were addressed before the Board's public hearing: . 1. Accommodate a widening of Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive. 2. Amend the proffer language related to a maximum area to be disturbed at any time as part of Proffer 4, erosion and sediment control and other necessary minor proffer revisions. 3. Correct street sections. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the expectation that these items would be addressed. The Commission recommended approval of SP-2005-027, a Drive Up Window for Bank, with the following conditions: 1. Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including any to be used for an ATM. 2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. On June 4, 2007, the ARB reviewed the applicant's revisions to the vegetative buffer proposed along Route 29 between the roadway and the proposed development. The location of a stormwater line affects the ability to implement the planting plan originally approved for the entire Town Center frontage when Area B (Target and Harris Teeter) was approved. The expectation at that time was that the buffer along Route 29 would be consistent across the different properties contained in the Town Center. The ARB reviewed the applicant's proposed solution to providing what was anticipated for the landscape buffer, but could not support the proposal because the overhead utility line that affects the buffer was not shown on the plan provided for the ARB to review. DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the items that remained after the Planning Commission's public hearing (noted above): 1. The applicant has widened Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive and is showing the correct . dimension of street edge amenities such as sidewalks and tree planning strips. The wider street will accommodate on-street parking that could be removed in the future, as a last resort, to provide additional vehicular capacity along the road. 2. The applicant has proffered to disturb no more than 70% of the site at any time during development of the property. This reduces the amount of denuded soil that may be unstable and subject to being washed out during rainstorms. 3. The applicant has made requested revisions to street sections. These street sections will guide the development of streets within this area of the Town Center. Architectural Review Board Although the ARB did not have sufficient information needed to support the rezoning, they provided a list of revisions necessary for the project to meet ARB guidelines should the Board decide to approve this re-zoning. (Exhibit C, ARB Action Memo - revisions 1-9 on page 2) These revisions include those recommended by staff (number 1-5 in Exhibit C) and additional revisions noted by the ARB (numbers 6-9 in Exhibit C). Timing does not allow an opportunity for these revisions to be submitted and reviewed by the ARB prior to the applicant's advertised Board hearing date. However, the items raised by the ARB and included in the Action Memo can be addressed at the site plan stage and the applicant has expressed a willingness to do so. All other ARB recommendations are sufficiently addressed or will be reviewed and subject to ARB certificate of appropriateness at the site plan stage. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the applicant's response to the issues that remained at the Planning Commissions public hearing and with recommended revisions detailed in the ARB action memo to be addressed by the ARB at the site plan stage, staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005-015 with the proffers in Exhibit A and the amended application plan (Exhibit B), and SP 2005 - 027 with the following conditions: 1. Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including any to be used for an ATM. 2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: Signed Proffers dated June 13, 2007 EXHIBIT B: Application Plan dated March 16, 2006 EXHIBIT C: June 4, 2007 ARB Action Memo . . . Exhibit A Original Proffer: X PROFFER FORM Date: June 13,2007 ZMA #: ZMA 2005-015 Hollymead Town Center Area A Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-42A, 32-42C, 32-44 (portion), 46-5, and 32-45 (portion) 31 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PD-MC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-42A, 32-42C, 32-44 (portion), 46-5, and 32-45 (portion), comprising approximately 31 acres are subject to rezoning application ZMA 2005-015 and to this Proffer Statement (the "Property"). The Property is described with more particularity on a plan entitled "Hollymead Town Center, Conceptual Development Plan", hereafter referred to as "the Project", prepared by Dominion Development Resources LLC, dated March 13, 2007 and attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Application Plan"). The Owner of the Property is HM Acquisition Group, LLC; a Virginia limited liability company (the "Owner"). The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 2005-015 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect. 1. Road Improvements - To the extent not currently completed, the Owner shall design, construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following: The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). All of the foregoing improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Owner the County and VDOT. The road plans will be Exhibit A submitted to VDOT and the County with the first site plan, and will be constructed and accepted by VDOT within two years from the date of approval of the first site plan; A. A continuous right turn lane on Route 29 southbound from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of Area A. B. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary the PDMC zoning boundary at Powell Creek. C. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the northern boundary of Area A, such that Meeting Street will have two northbound and two south bound travel lanes, one northbound and one southbound bicycle lane. Initially, one lane in each direction will be utilized as on street parking. D. An entrance to Route 29 southbound (right in! right out only) in the area to the south of building B, as shown on the Development Plan. E. Town Center Drive from the Western Boundary of Area B to Route 606. Construction of this section of Town Center Drive shall be completed for acceptance of VDOT for public use and dedication of a minimum of 60-foot-wide right-of way. This section of Town Center Drive shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes, with a cross section approved by the County and VDOT. Other Transportation Improvements: 2. Rel!ional Transportation Study - Owner shall contribute $59,000.00 cash to the County or VDOT for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $59,000.00 cash contribution shall be made prior the first site plan approval for Area A and, if not expended for the purposes identified in this proffer by January 1, 2010, be contributed to other transportation projects for the Hollymead area identified in the Capital Improvements Program. 3. Public Transit Stop Construction - Owner shall cause completion of a public transportation stop within the Project in a location mutually accepted to the Owner and the County. This transit stop will include no less than 200 sq. ft. of paved surface and two benches. 4. Public Transit Operatinl! Expenses - Upon the introduction of public transportation to the Project, Owner shall contribute annually $50,000 cash to be used for operating expenses relating to such service for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the funds contributed to the County pursuant to this Section 2(b) shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). 2 . . . Exhibit A 5. Intersection Analvsis - The Owner shall submit an analysis of the Conner Drive and Town Center Drive intersection with the first site plan for the Project. The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer for the purpose of determining when the intersection would need to be signalized. The analysis should take a five (5) year projection to determine, based on the submitted site plan, when the intersection would require a signal. If that analysis concludes the need for the intersection to be signalized, the applicant shall cause the signalization of that intersection when VDOT determines the signal is needed. 6. Community Development Authority - Upon the request of the County, Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending, or maintaining (except to the extent VDOT maintains any public improvements) Route 29, and roads and other improvements associated therewith. 7. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - The Owner shall, to the "maximum extent practicable", provide erosion and sediment control measures that exceed State and Local minimum standards. To that effect the following standards will be applied in addition to the minimum standards provided in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. (a) Permanent soil stabilization shall be applied within seven days to any denuded areas within the limits of disturbance where the grades and elevations conform to the approved grading plan. (b) Temporary soil stabilization shall be applied within seven days to any denuded areas within the limits of disturbance where the grades and elevations shown on the approved grading plan are not actively being constructed and will remain dormant for longer than 30 days. Permanent stabilization shall be applied to areas that are to be left dormant for more than 60 days. (c) No more than 70% of the site shall disturbed at any time. (d) Embankment Adiacent to US-29: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of any contiguous portion of the embankment exceeding 200 feet in length where the grade and elevation conforms to the approved grading plan. (e) Embankment Adiacent to the Southern Accessway: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of any contiguous portion of the embankment where the grade and elevation conforms to the approved grading plan. 3 Exhibit A (t) Meeting Street - Powell Creek Crossing: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of road embankments to the grade and elevation conforming to the approved grading plan. Greenway Improvements: 8. Greenwav Dedication - The Owner shall dedicate a fee simple 4.5 acre "greenway" to Albemarle County. The dedication is identified on the Application Plan as "Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle County", and shall include all flood plain area along Powell Creek. The Owner shall complete the improvements shown on the Application Plan and shall dedicate the Powell Creek Greenway to the County upon the first site plan approval. The Owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the Greenway to the County. 9. Greenwav Connection - The Owner shall also contribute $50,000 cash toward the construction of a connection to the trails through Forrest Lakes that terminate at the Eastern edge of Route 29 10. LEED Standards for Core and Shell Development. The Owner shall cause the commercial buildings in the Project to be designed and constructed to meet minimum standards for certification (twenty-three (23) credit points) under LEED Green Building Rating System for Core and Shell Development as set forth in the U.S. Green Building Rating System, Version 2.0, July 2006. The Owner will post a performance bond at the issuance of the first building permit in the amount of $50,000 acceptable to the County Engineer and in a form acceptable to the County Attorney which shall be released upon certification by the U.S. Green Building Council of the above minimum standards. If the owner fails to achieve the minimum standard, the bond will be released to the County for projects identified in the County's Capital Improvement Program for the Hollymead Area. The Owner shall complete LEED certification requirements within one year of the fmal certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. 11. Additional Public Space. The Owner shall construct a plaza area, as identified as "Plaza Amenity" on the Application Plan, within the Project of no less than 5,000 square feet for the purpose of public gathering and passive outdoor recreation. The design and construction elements ofthe plaza will be subject to fmal site plan review and subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4 . Exhibit A WITNESS the following signature: HM ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC By: HM Capital Group, LLC, Manager By: Octagon Partners, LLC, Authorized Agent BY:~P' ,I.,;{L....._ anager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2007 by , Manager of Octagon Partners, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company as manager ofHM Capital Group, LLC a Virginia limited liability company as manager of Owner, HM Acquisition Group, LLC. . My Commission expires: Notary Public . 5 Ldl :: i: l'~~i tJL )1 /i ;i: i ~ ~ ,,[I II g-=o~____ " [J'J II _ _ 1 '! u (\\ - M J li/ L:=;~J~=t~it::~~~~:~I~~!. ~ i, ~ . !~-~ --- '.s -,- · ~. ---- " ]~ ~. q d eo: , , , )( XX X ~ -g _x XX x x x 'x ~_-g ~__-_ ,x )( x x )( ~~~~ x-x ... v ~~d.:;'x a::~.)( x0x<r-'~ J -~- ~ .z I; ': I [_~J . .. j' e I ~ ~ < :m ~ ' , l5 ~ .~ 00 > 0.- <.> . ~~j '" . J .... 00 <3 If.j . . ~ ~ II ~ ~ a n ~ ~ ~ H e ~ ~ i=: .~ ~ g ~ r-- !l;! '" 0 ~ ...... i<! 0 ! ;l <"I iN .d -< , ~ 5 .~ T t::1 ~:, , l . . . Exhibit C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 ARB ACTION MEMO Date: 6-4-07 Time: 1 :00 PM Meeting Room: Auditorium Members: Candace M.P. Smith, AlA, Vice-Chairman: Present Duane Snow: Present Charles T. Lebo: Present Fred Missel: Present Paul Wright, Chairman: Present Staff: Margaret Maliszewski: Present Brent Nelson: Present CALL TO ORDER , , Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. and established a quorum. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Wright invited public comment on any items not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS: ARB-2007-40: Hollymead Town Center (Area At) Frontage Landscaping - Advisory Review for a Rezoning (Tax Map 32, Parcels 42A, 44, and 45; Tax Map 46, Parcel 5) Proposal: To revise the landscaping along Rt. 29 to accommodate a 20' sewer easement. Motion: Mr. Missel made a motion to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed rezoning request for ARB-2007-40, Hollymead Town Center (Area AI) Frontage Landscaping. The ARB cannot support the request for the rezoning as submitted because the materials supported are insufficient to determine if the proposed landscaping is feasible given the drainage easement and ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE I DRAFT ACTION MEMO 6-04-07 Exhibit C overhead utilities that are not shown on the plans. If the Board of Supervisors does decide to approve this rezoning the ARB feels that the following revisions are necessary to meet ARB Guidelines. I. Revise Sheet A4 of 6, Landscape Plan, by changing the 20' -wide curved sidewalk located between Buildings C and D and Buildings E and J, to a 10' constant width. Provide a continuous 35' maximum spacing of street trees across the frontage of Area A 1. Proposed spacing of large shade trees, between Buildings C and D and Buildings E and J, shall be reduced to the 35' maximum. 2. Revise Sheet A4 of 6, Landscape Plan by showing the proposed Stellar Pink Flowering Dogwood tree inside of the drip line provided by the "Rotundiloba" Sweetgum trees in front (south) of Building C. 3. Revise Sheet A4 of 6, Landscape Plan, to show the location of existing overhead power lines along the frontage of Area A 1. Revise the drawing as needed so that all tree plantings are located 20 feet on center minimum from the closest overhead power line. Dimension this distance on the planting plan and add a note to the drawings stating the following: "All large tree species shall be located 20 feet on center minimum from the closest overhead power line. All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health ofthe plant." 4. Revise Sheet A4 of 6, Landscape Plan, to show Pragense Viburnum shrubs directly in front (south) of the proposed bio-filter between Buildings D and E. 5. Revise Sheet A4 of 6, Landscape Plan; to show a 6' wide minimum planting area adjacent to the south elevation of Buildings D and E. Additional plantings may be required in this area once building elevations are provided. 6. The landscape buffer between Route 29 and the development is of critical importance. 7. The applicant has not presented clear information in support of the adequacy of this buffer. 8. The ARB feels that every effort must be made to maximize the vegetative buffer area including the possible necessity of relocating existing or proposed utilities within the planting corridor. 9. All landscape comments are being provided as advisory only and are subject to final ARB approval. The ARB also forwards the following recommendations to the Planning Commission on the rezoning based on the October 3, 2005 ARB review. 1. The plan shall provide formal pedestrian connections throughout the shopping center including connections to the storm water pond trail. 2. The pond plantings shall contain continuous plantings throughout the entire surface area ofthe feature and they shall be integrated with th~ proposed landscaping elsewhere on the site within the confines of currently proffered DEQ and COl.\Qty, req~irernents. 3. The pond plantings shall be based on local planted typology (woodland, meadow, grove, hedgerow etc.) and relate directly to the pedestrian trail. Regarding the Site and Building design, the ARB recommends that the Planning Commission offer the following comments and suggestions for the benefit ofthe applicant's next submittal. 1. The shopping center buildings: Reduce the tower elements to 30 feet tall, maximum. Provide variations/hierarchy in the roof forms. Alternate the barrel roof forms. Provide full scaleable drawings ofthe shopping center. 2. The Kohl's Department Store: PrQv,ide drawings that are to scale and fully legible for review. Provide a list of proposed materials and colors with actual samples of each. Eliminate the darker red planes of brick between the entry elements and the corner towers and along the back of the building. Relocate the Kohl's logo above the building entrance. To relieve the blankness of the back elevation; alternate/additional treatment is required. Provide more details on the trellis elements. Align the stepped up area of the primary roof line between the tower elements on the northwest corner of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2 DRAFT ACTION MEMO 6-04-07 . . Exhibit C building with the remainder of the building cornice. 3. If the back of the Kohl's building is not appropriately treated, integrate the building into the fabric of the shopping center by one of two approaches: · Reconfigure the site layout by moving the Kohl's store to the north, reorienting the longest side to the north/south axis and centering it in the internal U shape of the shopping center. · Break the Kohl's single footprint into multiple buildings (more to scale with the remainder of the shopping center) and provide internal connecting devices. Strengthen the U shaped form of the shopping center by aligning the southernmost faces of the two (after the reorientation of Kohl's) remaining buildings along the southern edge of the shopping center. 4. All loading spaces between the shopping center buildings and the EC shall be placed internally and eliminated from the EC or show how'the area will be beautifully integrated and landscaped. 5. The two walled dumpster areas located adjacent to the EC shall be fully enclosed on all four sides. The remainder of the dumpster areas located throughout the site shall also be enclosed on all four sides. 6. All tree plantings shall be located 20 feet on center minimum from the closest overhead power line. This distance shall be dimensioned on the planting plan and a note added to the drawings indicating the following: "All large tree species shall be located 20 feet on center minimum from the closest overhead power line". 7. Show how all views of rooftop equipment will be eliminated from the Route 29 North EC. 8. The storm water pond shall be reconfigured as follows: · The plan shall provide formal pedestrian connections throughout the shopping center including connections to the storm water pond: trail. · The pond plantings shall contain 'continuous:plantings throughout the entire surface area of the feature and they shall be integrated with the proposed landscaping elsewhere on the site within the confines of currently proffered DEQ and County requirements. · The pond plantings shall be based on local planted typology (woodland, meadow, grove, hedgerow etc.) and relate directly to the pedestrian trail. 9. Remove the loading areas from the space between the shopping center buildings and the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Internal loading areas are recommended. 10. Include a plant schedule on the planting plan listing plant species and proposed size at planting. 11. Limit the use of small planters, is possible, in the parking lot. Increase the planter sizes. One hundred (100) square feet of surface area and a three foot depth of planting medium, minimum, for each tree proposed is recommended. 12. Include the following note on the planting plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant'. 13. The planting along the south edge of Kohl's should be increased by: · Specifying that the shrubs proposed along the tops of the retaining walls be evergreen and reach 6- 8 feet mature height, minimum. · Including evergreen tree plantings along the south edge of the 'Truck Route' from the west edge of Kohl's to meet the street tree planting. White Pines or Leyland Cypress shall not be used. 14. Provide complete information on any site lighting proposed, including manufacturer's cut sheets with all options identified (fixtures, lamps proposed, fixture finish. etc.) and a photometric plan ofthe site. All site fixtures shall be full cut off. 15. Provide color, size, type, and character of each sign and all details on signage. Second: Ms. Smith. . Vote: The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Mr. Lebo abstained.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3 DRAFT ACTION MEMO 6-04-07 . . . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 05-15 Hollymead Town Staff: Sean Dougherty Center Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: April 3, 2007 June 13, 2007 Owners: H.M. Acquisition Group Applicant: H.M. Acquisition Group, represented by J.P. Williamson Acreage: 31 Rezone from: RA - Rural Areas to PDMC - Planned Development Mixed Commercial) TMP: Tax Map 32, parcels 42A, 42C, a Proffers: Yes portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 44, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 45, and Tax Map 46, parcel 5 By-right use: Agricultural uses or six Magisterial District: Rio dwelling units . Requested # of Dwelling Units: none DA X RA Proposal: 278,000 square feet of office Compo Plan Designation: Town Center -- and commercial uses on 31 acres, Compact, higher density area containing a including 4.5 acre greenway dedication. mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwellinQ units per acre). Character of Property: The subject property Use of Surrounding Properties: lies west of Route 29, south of Area B of the Hollymead Town Center Area B, including Hollymead Town Center (Harris Teeter and Target and Harris Teeter, lies adjacent to Chevy Chase Bank) and north and east of and north of Area A-1. Holly Memorial Powell Creek and its tributary which flows Gardens lies across Route 29 to the West. from the location of the Deerwood Though undeveloped and currently zoned subdivision. The area has been cleared, Rural Areas, Area A-2 of the Town Center graded, and prepared for development. lies adjacent to this proposal to the west. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: - The plan reflects feedback from the - The plan does not reflect the ability to Commission. account for potential future transportation - The application plan reflects the intent of issues (Meeting Street) identified in the PDMC zoning and the Comprehensive Plan Places 29 Master Plan. amendment Guidelines for the Town Center. - Recommendations from the County - The applicant is providing a large plaza and Engineer for enhanced erosion and sediment gateway that will provide the development control are not completely adopted in the with a neighborhood center and open space applicant's proffers. amenities. - The applicant is providing dedication of 4.5 acres of greenway and a trailhead at the edge of the development. - The revised layout provides two areas that illustrate spatial enclosure in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. - The applicant is proffering to certify that the buildings in the project will be build to LEED Core and Shell standards and will certified by the U.S. Green Building Council. - The proposal will allow for completion of a site that otherwise would remain in a state of a negative visual impact with negative implications for storm water management. - The layout including a hierarchy of streets and travel ways with larger areas of parking will facilitate further intensification of development. - The amount of undeveloped commercial square footage in the area (including Albemarle Place) exceeds 1.5 millions square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval if the applicant accommodates a widening of Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive and with recommended changes to Proffer 4 and other necessary minor proffer revisions prior to the June 13, 2007 Board of Supervisors public hearing. Staff also recommends that the Commission approve a modification to reduce setbacks alono Meetino Street from 30' to 10'. 2 . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Sean Dougherty April 3, 2007 June 13, 2007 ZMA 2005-00015 Hollvmead Area A-1 Petition: ZMA 2005-00015 Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 (Signs #15, 51, 53, 73): PROPOSAL: Rezone 31 acres from RA - Rural Areas (agricultural, forestall, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)) to PDMC - Planned District Mixed Commercial (large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)) to allow for 278,000 square feet of office retail. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). AENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Tax Map 32, parcels 42A, 42C, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel .44, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 45, and Tax Map 46, parcel 5, located to the south of the southern entrance to the Hollymead Town Center (Town Center Drive) and north of Powell Creek along Route 29 North. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. The Comprehensive Plan's Town Center designation is accompanied with the "Conceptual Master Plan & Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center". Character of the Area: The subject property lies west of Route 29, south of Area B of the Hollymead Town Center (including Harris Teeter and Chevy Chase Bank) and north and east of Powell Creek which flows from the location of the Deerwood subdivision. The area has been previously cleared, graded, and prepared for development in association with the Area B development. Bv-right Use of the Property The property is zoned RA. Other than agricultural uses, it is estimated the land could be developed with six dwelling units by right. Specifics of the Proposal: The proposal is for a shopping area containing a large retail store (88,500 sq. ft. reduced from 97,000 sq. ft. in the last submission) and a variety of relatively smaller retail stores totaling 278,000 square feet (reduced from 296,000 in the last submission). The request is accompanied by a special use permit application for a drive up window for a bank. This request, SP 2005-00027, is covered at the end of the rezoning report. Generally, the retail buildings line the edges of the regional and Town Center road network in keeping with the a'Jeighborhood Model and Entrance Corridor guidelines. The main entrance to this portion of the Town Center, ~onner Drive, is lined with on-street parking and retail buildings on either side of the street, providing a traditional retail typology. A public space at the northwest corner facilitates pedestrian and visual connectivity 3 with the other areas, particularly the range of uses proposed along Meeting Street in the core of the Town Center. A pocket park at the southwest corner is proposed as a greenway trail head that connects into the Hollymead greenway. The proposal also includes a proffer to fund a connection into the larger County greenway system. A system of landscaped pedestrian paths compliments an orderly system of travel ways th~' include sidewalks and on-street parking. Finally, the applicant is proffering to build the proposed 278,000 square feet of commercial space to a LEED Core and Shell standard and achieve certification by the U.S. Green Building Council. Attachment A is the Application Plan, Attachment B is a plan of the entire Hollymead Town Center Area, and Attachment C is Proffers. A proffer summary with staff comment is provided later in this report. Applicant's Justification for the Reauest: The applicant has stated that the development is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's Town Center designation and the specific designation of regional service that the Town Center Guidelines provide for this area. Plannina and ZoninaHistorv: In 1980, the parcels under consideration were given an RA (Rural Areas) zoning classification. In 2001, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved for this area giving it a Town Center designation. Four rezonings for separate sections of the HTC were submitted in 2001 and 2002 and three of the four were approved in 2003. The applicant for the portion not rezoned (Area A) requested indefinite deferral of action on Area A in 2003. Due to the high residential density and mixture of uses directed by the Guidelines, the applicant for Area A requested to break this 78 acre rezoning request into two different proposals: This request, Area A-1 with 31 acres to be rezoned to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (to be developed similarly to Area B along Route 29 as prescribed by the Guidelines) and Area A-2 (47 acres reviewed by the Commission most recently on March 6 in a work session) with 47 Acres to be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District to allow for higher residential density and to better accommodate the form of development envisioned with the Guidelines. Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Town Center. The Town Center designation at Hollymead is accompanied by "Conceptual Master plan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center" (referred to hereafter as "Guidelines"), a guide for the development of the Town Center. The applicant has responded to this designation for this area from the Guidelines by designing areas of the development with plazas and spatial enclosure, working to facilitate pedestrian movement from more residential areas, and by providing a trailhead from this commercial development to the greenway. The Guidelines reflect the principles of the Neighborhood Model because when the Hollymead Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved in 2001, the Neighborhood Model had not yet been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Neighborhood Model further confirms the applicant's conformity with the Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan in general. C f .ty 'th th N . hb h d M d I on orml WI e elgl or 00 o e: Pedestrian The plan provides pedestrian walkways across the parking area to connect Orientation commercial spaces. At the northwest corner, a plaza facilitates pedestrian connections to other portions of the Town Center. The application plan shows a greenway alignment that connects into the shopping center and other areas. Neighborhood Conner Drive (the travel way in front of Harris Teeter that crosses over of Friendly Streets Town Center Drive inside the entrance from Route 29) includes sidewalks and Paths on both sides of the roadway and extends to an area with on-street parking and retail fronting both sides of the street. The applicant has included on- street parking along travel ways where feasible. The use of on-street parking will increase the functionality of sidewalks, slow travel speed, and provide convenient parking, while also providing contrast to the vast areas of surface parking. 4 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks Parks and Open Space Neighborhood Centers Building and Spaces of Human Scale Relegated Parking Mixture of Uses Site Planning that Respects Terrain The proposal illustrates vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. The applicant is proffering to complete the roads envisioned with the traffic study performed during the initial Comprehensive Plan amendment that allowed the Town Center with one exception: a crossing of Powell Creek, south of the Town Center, is proffered with the Area A-2 rezoning (reviewed twice by the Commission in December and March work sessions). A 5,000 sq. ft. plaza at the northwest corner will serve as a "transitional zone" providing a pedestrian connection with the dense residential uses proposed in Area A-2. The applicant is proposing a trailhead to the greenway along Powell Creek that borders the southern and western ed es of the Town Center. The 5,000 sq. ft. public plaza serving as a gateway to the other blocks proposes a condition that will allow for an active space and a transition from Area A-1 to Area A-2. The plan includes several formal pedestrian connections across the site, including a large biofilter that is integrated into the site. The applicant is proffering to dedicate 4.5 acres of land to the County for the extension of the Town Center greenway, At the Southeast corner of Area A, a naturalized pocket park contains a trailhead that provides direct access to the commercial center from the greenway. The applicant is proffering $50,000 toward the connection of the Town Center greenway with the Forest Lakes and Still Meadow portions of the County reenwa . The 5,000 sq. ft. plaza at the northwest corner of Area A-1 will serve as a neighborhood center. The applicant is proffering that the final design of this plaza shall be subject to review to the satisfaction of the Director or Planning. The application plan shows that this area will contain a water feature and stairs that will help to mitigate the grade difference between Area A-2 to Area A-1 at the plaza location. As a gateway, this area establishes a more unique condition which will support outdoor seating and other activities while accommodating foot traffic between the Area A-1 and other ortions of the Town Center. At a large scale, the dispersed nature of the proposal does not lend well to a human scale. During the October 5, 2005 work session, the Commission indicated that this condition is not problematic from their perspective, given the nature of the Regional Service designation. The applicant has worked to balance the parking standard required by the Zoning Ordinance with the designation for this area from the Guidelines. The pedestrian connections across the central parking area work to break up the vast parking areas. The application plan indicates that one building adjacent to the public space in this area will be two stories. All other buildin s are one-stor . Relegated parking is that which is located behind and to the side of buildings. With that definition, the plan relegates parking with regard to the site's exterior (Route 29, Town Center Drive, and Meeting Street). The plan also provides on-street parking spaces along travel ways to break up the lar er, more s stematicall desi ned arkin areas. The plan proposes 278,000 square feet of retail/office. There is no residential use proposed with this section of the Town Center, however approximately 1,200 units are proposed within 500 feet of the center of Area A-1. The site has been mass graded to accommodate development. While not representative of the original natural terrain, the resulting finished grade has created building pads ideal for the development form proposed. 5 Staff Comment: Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zonina district PD-MC zoning was established to permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD-MC districts be established on majt,. highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan provides large scale commercial uses, which is an appropriate use for PDMC zoning. The application also contains a commitment to dedicate 4.5 of acres to the County as open space. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that PD-MC proposals provide at least 10% of the area as Open Space. Though some of the 4.5 acres is too steep to be considered the acreage represents 14% of the total acreage. This is in addition to the public plaza proposed at the northwest corner of the proposal. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Roads Improvements to Route 29 that were concluded prior to the opening of Area B of the Town Center were identified in the initial traffic study as needed to address the Town Center's impacts to Route 29. These improvements, along with the internal roads and roads proffered to be built with this portion of Area A of the Town Center work to mitigate the impacts of this rezoning. The initial traffic study completed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment established a number of road facilities required to support the maximum uses allowed by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Places 29 Master plan has been providing traffic modeling for this area based on those maximum uses. Staff feels information regarding impacts to roads is current and sufficient. The initial traffic study indicated that a traffic signal maybe needed at the intersection of Town Center Drive arv' Conner Drive (the travel way in front of Harris Teeter). To determine whether a signal is warranted at the intersection of Conner Drive, the applicant has proffered to conduct an analysis and provide the signal when warranted by VDOT. One major recommendation that has arisen from the Places 29 work to date regarding this area is for a Lockwood Connector to route projected traffic volumes around the core of the Town Center in the future. At the Area A-2 work session on March 6,2007, the Commission indicated that the applicant need not accommodate this Places 29 recommendation. Therefore, the only alternative that exists to accommodate potential future traffic needs is for Meeting Street to ultimately be four lanes instead of two south of Town Center Drive to Powell Creek at the edge of the area proposed for rezoning. The need for four lanes is not generated until certain recommended improvements occur. The most significant improvement would be the construction of a bridge over the Rivanna River and the extension of Berkmar Drive from its current terminus north to the Town Center. To adequately accommodate this future improvement, staff believes Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive should be built identically to Meeting Street north of Town Center Drive. This includes a travel lane, bike lane, and on-street parking that can be converted to an additional travel lane in each direction permanently or during rush hours to facilitate vehicular movement. The applicant has indicated he could accommodate this change and staff believes it provides reasonable solution to account for future needs that would result from the Places 29 recommendations to date. However, the application plan as submitted shows a travel way and bike lane in each direction (no on-street parking for future conversion to travel lane if necessary). Given that the applicant is not scheduled for a public hearing with the Board until June 13, 2007, should the Commission feel the applicant should accommodate the wider Meeting Street, the applicant will have sufficient time to make that change based on Commission direction on this matter. 6 Modification Request To make the widening of Meeting Street possible without significant portions of land being devoted to setbacks, staff recommends that the Commission approve a modification of the PDMC setback requirements for Meeting . Street be reduced from 30' to 10' (measured from beyond the edge of the right of way which will include the sidewalk, planting strip, bike and travel lanes). This will allow the applicant to widen Meeting Street without significant impacts to the established layout and for buildings in Area A-1 to relate better to Meeting Street. VDOT VDOT's previous comments have been incorporated by the applicant. For the last round of revisions, VDOT commented that they had no comment on the proposal. For reference, staff has including (in Attachment D) the most recent set of comments provided for the adjacent Area A-2 (reviewed by the Commission in December and March in a work session). Water and Sewer Water and sewer service is adequate to serve the development. Attachment E is the Service Authority memo regarding the area. A request to confirm the validity of the memo was not received by the Service Authority by the time this report was finalized. Staff will bring an update to the Commission at the public hearing. The Service Authority is in the process of confirming that adequate service exists for the development proposed in Area A-2 (the western side of the Town Center proposed for a rezoning to Neighborhood Model District and 1,228 dwelling units) by reviewing the wastewater flow by connection point in that proposal. Storm Water Management The application plan contains a conceptual plan for storm water management, including three biofiolters, that is acceptable to the County Engineer. Further, the applicant is proffering to perform erosion and sediment control .in excess of state and local requirements. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural. and historic resources The applicant's proposal works to mitigate impact on natural resources through enhanced erosion and sediment control. Because the area has been mass graded, natural resources on the site have been eliminated. The application plan illustrates a 1 OO'-buffer on Powell Creek and 50' buffer on its intermittent tributaries. No cultural or historic resources exist on the site. Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundinq properties The developed adjacent properties include the Town Center and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. Holly Memorial Gardens lies across Route 29. Impacts, other than light and sounds associated with delivery trucks and shopping center traffic, are not anticipated. Public need and iustification for the chanqe Given the amount of undeveloped commercial square footage already approved in this area of the County by prior rezoning, (over 1.5 million sq. ft in Albemarle Place, Hollymead Town Center (Areas B and C) and North Pointe), staff does not readily identify a public need or justification for the additional commercial square footage this rezoning proposes. However, this needs to be balanced with the existing graded conditions of this site that anticipated additional commercial development and has a negative visual appearance. Further, efforts on behalf of the developer and County to reseed this area has been limited in success due to the quality of the soil on the surface. The lack of vegetation and decent soil on the parcel works to compromise storm water management. . 7 Proffers The proffers are in final form and work to mitigate a variety of impacts from this development. Minor revisions to form will be required before acceptance by the Board of Supervisors. In substance, staff believes the proffers are acceptable. Proffer 1 commits to providing the roads expected for this portion of the Town Center. The applicant has made changes recommended by the County Engineer. The applicant is proffering to submit road plans for the remaining road improvements for Area A-1 with the first site plan and to have these roads constructed and accepted by VDOT within two years of the approval of the first site plan. Proffer 2 contributes $59,000 toward the Places 29 Master planning Study. Each applicant at the Town Center has contributed toward the master plan in an amount relative to the land area proposed for development. Proffer 3 commits to building a public transportation stop in Area A-1 that shall be no less than 200 sq. ft and include two benches. Proffer 4 commits to funding public transportation (once introduced to the area by Charlottesville Transit Service) at a rate of $50,000 per year for ten years. This is complimented by a similar proffer ($25,000 per year for ten years) from the North Pointe rezoning which will provide significant resources needed to expand transit service to the area. Proffer 5 commits toJunding an analysis of the Conner Drive (main entrance to Area A-1) and Town Center Drive intersection to determine if the applicant's development will generate a need for a traffic signal. Should the signal be needed, the applicant is proffering to install the signal when VDOT determines it is warranted. Proffer 6 commits to participation in a Community Development Authority (CDA) and is recommended to remain until a CDA or similar entity is established. Other rezonings in the Town Center included the same proffer. It is recommended that this proffer remain until a CDA or similar entity is established. Proffer 7 commits to exceed state and local minimum storm water management standards. The applicant's proffer commits to soil stabilization through a number of measures and recommendations provided by the County Engineer. However, one recommendation not included by the applicant is a limit of disturbance. This has been left as an issue to discuss at the public hearing. The County Engineer recommended that the applicant disturb - or perform work in - no more than 15 acres at a time. The applicant is unsure of the implications of this commitment and is uncertain he can commit to the recommendation. Proffer 8 proposes to dedicate 4.5 acres of greenway area (to connect into additional greenway acreage in Area A-2) and construct a 10-wide paved path through the area. The Guidelines call for the greenway and Parks and Recreation staff supports the dedication. Proffer 9 commits to contributing 50,000 toward the construction of a greenway connection between the Hollymead and Forest Lakes greenways. Proffer 10 commits to attain LEED Core and Shell (23 credits) under the U.S. Green Building Rating System. The applicant is proffering to post a $50,000 a performance bond until third party certification has concluded that the applicant has met the LEED Core and Shell standards. The proffer further states that if the owner fails to achieve the minimum standard, the bond shall be released to the County. Staff believes this proffer is significant, particularly as it contains a commitment to achieve certification. Proffer 11 commits to building a public gathering area in the form of a plaza at the northwest corner of Area A- 1. The application plan indicates the area will contain a water feature and the proffer clarifies that this area will be no less than 5,000 square feet and that the final design of this area shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, which will allow some oversight and flexibility for the exact program and design for the public space at the site plan stage. 8 Architectural Review Board The Architectural Review Board provided preliminary approval to the applicant's proposal during a hearing in .November of 2005. Since that time, the ARB has been given an update regarding a change in the alignment to a storm water easement along Route 29. This was a change made by the developer in the field and will impact the ability of Area A to mimic the landscape treatment along Route 29 in front of Area B (Target and Harris Teeter) as initially accepted by the ARB. The ARB has indicated that if the storm water easement creates conflicts with the planting plan accepted for Route 29, the applicant will have to move the buildings back away from the Entrance Corridor to accommodate the plantings. Given the applicant's June 13 Board Date, time will permit a review of this aspect by the ARB should the Commission recommend the project move forward. Staff anticipates review of the landscaping and storm water easement conflict will occur during the month of April. SUMMARY The applicant proposes a plan that is significantly improved since the plan reviewed at the initial October 2005 work session. The application plan incorporates all major recommendations from the previously adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Guidelines. The proposal contains a hierarchy of streets and travel ways with large areas of parking that could support an intensification of development in the future. The application incorporates a plaza and greenway trailhead that will both serve as open space and connections to other areas. The proffer committing to LEED construction and certification will create an energy efficient shopping center with sustainability concepts built in. Other proffers and commitments to build roads, fund transit, among others, work to address this development's impact. The plan contains the detail required for the Commission to take action Factors Favorable to this request · The plan reflects feedback from the Commission. . · The application plan reflects the intent of PDMC zoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendment Guidelines for the Town Center. · The applicant is providing a large plaza and gateway that will provide the development with a neighborhood center and open space amenities. · The applicant is providing dedication of 4.5 acres of greenway and a trailhead at the edge of the development. · The revised layout provides two areas that illustrate spatial enclosure in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. · The applicant is proffering to certify that the buildings in the project will be build to LEED Core and Shell standards and will certified by the U.S. Green Building Council. · The proposal will allow for completion of a site that otherwise would remain in a state of a negative visual impact with negative implications for storm water management. · The layout including a hierarchy of streets and travel ways with larger areas of parking will facilitate further intensification of development. Factors Unfavorable to this request · The plan does not reflect the ability to account for potential future transportation issues (Meeting Street) identified in the Places 29 Master Plan. · Recommendations from the County Engineer for enhanced erosion and sediment control are not completely adopted in the applicant's proffers, · The amount of undeveloped commercial square footage in the area (including Albemarle Place) exceeds 1.5 million square feet. . 9 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval if the applicant accommodates a widening of Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive and with recommended changes to Proffer 4 and other necessary minor proffer revisions prior to tr- June 13, 2007 Board of Supervisors public hearing. Staff also recommends that the Commission approve modification to reduce setbacks along Meeting Street from 30' to 10'. Should the Commission feel comfortable with this project proposal, staff asks that the Commission affirm staff's recommendation that the applicant provide for a widening of Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive and amend proffer language related to a maximum area to be disturbed at any time as part of Proffer 4: erosion and sediment control. Staff also asks that the Commission affirms staff's recommendation that the setback for this proposal along Meeting Street be reduced from 30 feet to 10 feet. SP 2005-27 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DRIVE-THROUGH The proposal is for a 2,800 square foot bank with walk-in and drive-in facilities to be located in Area A-1, adjacent to Town Center Drive. The bank will include the three drive-in teller windows. The bank will be served by internal travel ways leading from Conner Drive off of Town Center Drive. Secondary access to the bank is provided by the extension of Abington Place at Meeting Street. The application plan illustrates the required stacking spaces and the applicant has moved the location of the drive up facility (since the initial submission) to address staff's concerns between the bank's drive-up stacking area and pedestrian access from the rest of Area A-1. Finally, the bank is served by ample pedestrian facilities that tie into the developments larger pedestrian network. Petition: SP 2005-00027, Hollymead Town Center Area A - Drive up Window for Bank (Signs #15,51,53,73): PROPOSED: Drive-up banking facility with three lanes. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: A rezoning application has been submitted to rezone these parcels from RA - Rural Areas - agricultural, forestall, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial (large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit 15 units/ acre). SECTION: Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Inside the Hollymead Town Center, along Town Center Drive (Southern entrance to Hollymead Town Center) approximately 300 feet from Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCEL: A portion of Tax Map 32, Parcel42A (exact location on file in the Department of Community Development) and a portion of Tax Map 32, Parcel 42C (exact location on file in the Department of Community Development) equaling .5 acres. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio STAFF COMMENT Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the riqht to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a findinq by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property, Uses that implement drive-through windows are often characterized by the high volumes of customers that are served during the peak hours of operation. Because the access to the bank is provided by roads designed to serve town center uses and the drive-through lanes are placed away from the Entrance Corridor in an area 10 adjacent to PDMC zoning, planning staff does not believe that the proposed drive-through window would impose any detriment upon adjacent properties. .that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Banks, financial institutions, and restaurants are allowed as by-right uses in the PD-MC zoning districts and Section 22.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with the by-right uses allowed in the district. The proposed district is PDMC which anticipates a mixture of uses. The applicant has located he drive up facility on the opposite side of the bank from the Entrance Corridor, in response to ARB Guidelines. The application plan respects a 15- foot wide landscape easement and 3D-foot building setback associated with Town Center Drive. Because the drive-up window would support a by right use, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not result in changing the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Section 25A of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Planned Development - Mixed Commercial, allows the same by- right uses as well as those that are permitted by special use permits in the C-1 (Commercial), CO (Commercial Office), and HC (Highway Commercial) zoning districts to also be established in the PD-MC district. This request to allow a drive-through window is consistent with most of the banks that have been established as a stand-alone use within their own structures in similarly zoned districts throughout the County. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the drive up windows are in harmony with the by-right uses located within this PD-MC district. with additional re ulations rovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance here are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 that specifically address drive-in windows. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes the proposal for the drive up window for the bank will not pose a detriment to public health, safety, and general welfare. SP 2005-27 BANK DRIVE IN WINDOW SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to the request: 1. The drive up facility is located away from the Entrance Corridor 2. The request is in keeping with the intent of PD-MC zoning Staff has identified the following factors which are not favorable to the request: 1. Drive-up windows, in general, do not promote pedestrian activity. Recommendation: Staff finds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of SP 04-38 with the following conditions: 1. 2. .. Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including any to be used for an ATM. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. 11 ATTACHMENTS A. Application Plan B. Key Plan (Entire Town Center) C. Proffers D. VDOT Comments E. Service Authority Memo 12 ; -< ~ ~i r J It i L --.-I--'~ I I \,. I ,b / J -------- --~ S! .- ----.---.---------- - = '"" e -= ~ ~ - - -< - ---~ - .'---- -- ------------ --- .,::~--,:::-:=- .::;.::~C.:;:.::'.:.;c:_=~> ' 7l~~J 0 l_~J~ - - .. ~ -~7~ - ~ ~- ", t~ - ; ;' " ,"0 ,:c:~."\-\~~~.... ,I.L;:,.~:.., __-.__-~----,~~~~~-~.?-:-~~.~::::-:::,~::.-;"'-~"~"'o-., T '" ' =. ~ .;:-::=-=-__=_--: _<' ." . '\ \~ I "2, It:' "r -~#..f _: .:, l'iJ t '(\1 ~ \ "~rl 'I~) i~' i: ~- I 1.;,., r.. ~ s \\; AlSI~;!!J'~ : d~!ri :: ~ ~_....... - ' ...."'1 I: l c3 E=:: '! : (. ~ i~ : 1--' ~J ~;: ~I 'j rr.II~Il~ ll' '---=." S"k 'l~: ~ = .; I L I f ~1 ~ ~ j I .. · '~'I ~ .:r , I r--~"- :: IE-~ . ~', .::: . I L _ _ J: 1 I ~"""",~.,_,,'-.11" il..._-,"~.--",-", ~ :;;; r-~::~-=-=r-:~~ / nTl I I I I '. ' t ~I : "\ ... I I I I . .':\t ~ ~ '",::)~} ::- "/'; a " (, \ Q:; 1 ,j. ~ I I ~ I f : t \. J I " I :I ( t 1 I , , I i , , l , , i. I' Ii f I l ;; r I ,":-. ~, 0 } ~ ,; I rl [o. :~ ~ I l' C , ii ~ Ii L I. -------~ f~i.!1 I'lJ .IK .,....,...., l'r"I-'m.. PO.IIC ;: i " .. i r !1 I ri J ,I I ~' J ,iJ L-:-_~_ . ilil t _...J -. ~ 5 . lJ q"f - 1 ~~> .1 Iii l :;llh i! t :~ j .. ~ r ~!): c, . r J,-- c...", -- 'I I ,r ,----,."ji..,,' .'J' .,juur:'.' ,. i r' c. r. -- I . J; :-( i 'I. I! 'I -I I I !tl I I !ti It ~"''''_..'~jJ I tEL. .- .,,,~.J t' '/I/""'!~' I 'I .~ . I ~ (ftI .'lIlj <>1\ L ~~. II"" ~ "_, I C.=:::J I r 1 I ~. h ~. ...J :: jt ~Ly,., . I. L.~ ~.~...'J,.... .II\i 1 I. -' I ~..r.".A-i:~:~,~--'-'.I'.'..~~.ti~..:.,. -i~,':..,-,~__L~~ "'1- ..111 --~.. ,:'] , ,'l C::::-.:::J ell) 1:1 lJ.I -, .,'" 1 "':~{ ,,?>j..'''''''' ")'1/ i [I In ~J; '.. ~ Ii '1' C:=~ 1 j~L.:? u_T~l)~U,_..._ /2 ~,,-i,\ ,.' :5;:..:",":-n ,,''-'-' ",.{, "'~I'\'~-:-"'7-"~",}' '. ,'\ ._~-'~":r' :::,..;,~,~.p.~:~~t"" ,~.\." ,~"'.~ :;!', : :; ! l,QoJ '" (."..',] \1J,'i~1l -' b " I,; I' " " I? " , I " I' fi' t; " I, I !r " I " 'i If \I " I " > ,t"- ---',-,~::.ar.;::~~.;, Lf--- :--; ......1. ""~.'.';)o.'" 1..;""'," "~\"I' ; : ':'.;A~ H H I }, .(c',)>"x ,'. )(~i~,fh ~ 11' _." "_...~,_...---G&.-. _ i ,~t,'" ' ' :',:' ,~.<C.~ It ~ Is. ,~ ,_~__n-=..~~~~:L~~~~:.~j ~J ~- .~t-' I : I CZ -;, '\ / I: t;, \ _(... ,.",:;,Y " I _.( ,1 _~_ ~, 11:-~~..:. : 1,('< ~': -... ,~L,l~ ':..t I',.... i', ~~ "(,p I,"~ . .: "'/-. :0i.e.. ,....JCL J"..- _." ..' "1 lJ1'"T' H,t~, "llJ I :: ~I: .. ! Jl . if .. .:<~.'.{.cl~I'd.: t . ,c""\J" " ~n ,,[] fir: 1'1 t,). \ ~.::.:'.;;;,:,:.'.::..7jQ;'..,;i;).;:,'~~~;:;,:~.,~.,.'~~...."':'.l::n~i:.nl:.~J:~""~;.:~.;;.';:...j1.~~"' I~ .LL),l)" illl , - j ~- [] ~ --~Q'- 11w'" '.l~,"'l\I'l~ ~ __-~~~m~--..-------------- \) ) ~"7 '...<..... , '" ", . f!7~.! I ) \ " I') ':lb .~~ ) ~ , ~, ) /~'" //~ o)~ ) \'''~.. Ol~ ..... I ) ~)E >'.....) / ) )f~ ) ) ',~ p ai>o '" ,I Q)...... .... ii ,uc) -I' '/ 0 i ;g u '-6 Ol o ) " >- ^ " , , , x:o<X'"'''''''-X^ , ' > " '" ,. " :.. '" ^ ^ JIl lid ~.,,~<l""'1 -) --'r-:.-~.~.~ "-; U'....IP'.....w'J > I,. " , ~( > , ~ , , I I I:'" ... o ~ < "8 ~ .~ c.. i:i;;;: ~ ;i- I " "" " ~8 :z. " ~ "5 ~ = g,s Q -< i:i <i ~ '1: gjl :c 0 <i< u :>I , Q c.. "" ~ z ~ c.. :z. o ~ u :; c.. ~ ; ;j J N . a I ,~i II ! ~ . " .. z ; :.:s 0.... I".:i , j E-o Ci1 J -" ~ . c.o 0 4- '/.. 0 u C".l l-' <: iJ~ -< - = ~ e -= ~ ~ - - -< ~ " . . . Attachment B CXIIC""'>>;:' ~ 0._. ~..~ --..~ 3~... -:::.,. - -~o C3<>_ ~.;~ -< :3 n> s:u ClL. ---i o :E ~ ...... :::c o C"') n> ~ ........ n> -, ;:-~ .. 0:: --... .. - <<>> :3 :3 - :::. 0" :3 ... o IC3 ft. -- = - <<>> - ~ .......~ ,/' ,.,. ~-)~ , , c:D !ntJ ::a o ~ - CD ....:t co .J /4 . . . Attachment C Original Proffer: 4/03/07 PROFFER FORM Date: March 20, 2007 ZMA #: ZMA 2005-015 Hollymead Town Center Area A Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-42A, 32-42C, 32-44 (portion), 46-5, and 32-45 (portion) 31 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PD-MC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 32-42A, 32-42C, 32-44 (portion), 46-5, and 32-45 (portion), comprising approximately 31 acres are subject to rezoning application ZMA 2005-015 and to this Proffer Statement (the "Property"). The Property is described with more particularity on a plan entitled "Hollymead Town Center, Conceptual Development Plan", hereafter referred to as "the Project", prepared by Dominion Development Resources LLC, dated March 13, 2006 and attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Application Plan"). The Owner of the Property is HM Acquisition Group, LLC; a Virginia limited liability company (the "Owner"). The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 2005-015 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect. 1. Road Improvements - To the extent not currently completed, the Owner shall design, construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following: The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed, in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). All of the foregoing improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Owner the County and VDOT. The road plans will be IS- Attachment C submitted to VDOT and the County with the first site plan, and will be constructed and accepted by VDOT within two years from the date of approval of the first site plan; A. A continuous right turn lane on Route 29 southbound from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of Area A. B. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary the PDMC zoning boundary at Powell Creek. C. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the northern boundary of Area A, such that Meeting Street will have two northbound and two south bound travel lanes, one northbound and one southbound bicycle lane. Initially, one lane in each direction will be utilized as on street parking. D. An entrance to Route 29 southbound (right in! right out only) in the area to the south of building B, as shown on the Development Plan. E. Town Center Drive from the Western Boundary of Area B to Route 606. Construction of this section of Town Center Drive shall be completed for acceptance of VDOT for public use and dedication of a minimum of 60-foot-wide right-of way. This section of Town Center Drive shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes, with a cross section approved by the County and VDOT. Other Transportation Improvements: 2. Rel!:ional Transportation Study - Owner proffers to contribute $59,000.00 cash to the County or VDOT for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $59,000.00 cash contribution shall be made prior the first site plan approval for Area A and, if not expended for the purposes identified in this proffer by January 1, 2010, be contributed to other transportation projects for the Hollymead area identified in the Capital Improvements Program. 3. Public Transit Stop Construction - Owner shall cause completion of a public transportation stop within the Project in a location mutually accepted to the Owner and the County. This transit stop will include no less than 200 sq. ft. of paved surface and two benches. 4. Public Transit Operatinl!: Expenses - Upon the introduction of public transportation to the Project, Owner shall contribute annually $50,000 to be used for operating expenses relating to such service for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the funds contributed to the County pursuant to this Section 2(b) shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). 2 /& . . . Attachment C 5. Intersection Analvsis - The Owner shall submit a third-party analysis of the Conner Drive and Town Center Drive intersection with the first site plan for the Project. If that analysis determines the need for the intersection to be signalized, the applicant shall cause the signalization of that intersection when VDOT determines the signal is needed. 6. Community Development Authority - Upon the request of the County, Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending, or maintaining (except to the extent VDOT maintains any public improvements) Route 29, and roads and other improvements associated therewith. 7. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - The owner shall, to the "maximum extent practicable", provide erosion and sediment control measures that exceed State and Local minimum standards. To that effect the following standards will be applied in addition to the minimum standards provided in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. (a) Pemlanent soil stabilization shall be applied within seven days to any denuded areas within the limits of disturbance where the grades and elevations conform to the approved grading plan. (b) Temporary soil stabilization shall be applied within seven days to any denuded areas within the limits of disturbance where the grades and elevations shown on the approved grading plan are not actively being constructed and will remain dormant for longer than 30 days. Permanent stabilization shall be applied to areas that are to be left dormant for more than 60 days. (c) Embankment Adiacent to US-29: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of any contiguous portion of the embankment exceeding 200 feet in length where the grade and elevation conforms to the approved grading plan. (d) Embankment Adiacent to the Southern Accessway: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of any contiguous portion of the embankment where the grade and elevation conforms to the approved grading plan. (e) Meeting Street - Powell Creek Crossing: Topsoil, permanent seed & mulch (or other permanent stabilization) shall be applied within seven days after the construction of road embankments to the grade and elevation conforming to the approved grading plan. 3 it Attachment C Greenway Improvements: 8. Greenwav Dedication - The Owners will dedicate a fee simple 4.5 acre "greenway" to Albemarle County. The dedication is identified on the Application Plan as "Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle County", and shall include all flood plain area along Powell Creek. The owners shall complete the improvements shown on the Application Plan and shall dedicate the Powell Creek Greenway to the County upon the first site plan approval. The owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed. 9. Greenwav Connection - The Owner shall also contribute $50,000 toward the construction of a connection to the trails through Forrest Lakes that terminate at the Eastern edge of Route 29 10. LEED Standards for Core and Shell Development. The Owner shall cause the commercial buildings in the Project to be designed and constructed to meet minimum standards for certification (twenty-three (23) credit points) under LEED Green Building Rating System for Core and Shell Development as set forth in the U.S. Green Building Rating System, Version 2.0, July 2006. The Owner will post a performance bond of $50,000 which shall be released upon certification by the U.S. Green Building Council of the above minimum standards. If the owner fails to achieve the minimum standard, the bond will be released to the County for projects identified in the County's Capital Improvement Program for the Hollymead Area. The Owner shall complete LEED certification requirements within one year of the final certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. 11. Additional Public Space. The Owner shall construct a plaza area, as identified as "Plaza Amenity" on the Application Plan, within the Project of no less than 5,000 square feet for the purpose of public gathering and passive outdoor recreation. The design and construction elements of the plaza will be subject to final Site Plan review and subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. WITNESS the following signature: HM ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC By: HM Capital Group, LLC, Manager By: Octagon Partners, LLC, Authorized Agent By: Manager COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA 4 {f . . . Attachment c CITY/COUNTY OF , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006 by , Manager of Octagon Partners, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company as manager of HM Capital Group, LLC a Virginia limited liability company as manager of Owner, HM Acquisition Group, LLC. My Commission expires: Notary Public 5 /4 Attachment D David S. Ekern, P.E. COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTPIOFVIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 VirginiaDOT.org February 26th, 2007 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Below are VDOT's comments for the February 2007 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications: SP-2007-00001 Four Seasons Learnine Center - Amendment (Elaine Echols) . This proposal assumes on street parking is available. . If the parking on Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive creates problems from lack of room or inadequate sight distances, VDOT will post no parking signs in those locations. SP-2007-00002 Farm Worker Housine (Scott Clark) . No comments SP-2007-00003 North Point - Stream Crossine- Middle Entrance (Tamara Ambler) . The plan view does not reflect what is shown in the typical section for the road. Ifthe typical section is applied in the plan view the footprint in the flood plain will be larger. . The profile is lacking data and appears to be inaccurate. Changes to the profile will affect the impacts to the flood plain. . The designer needs to verify that the soils are adequate for the installation of a con-span. The geotechnical report and structural data will need to be submitted and approved by VDOT for the structure. . The con-span design needs to be in accordance with VDOT's Hydraulic Design Advisory HAD-0602. The design also needs to consider scouring of the soils around the proposed footers. . It appears that travel lanes are to be dropped before the crossing. Lane drops need to be designed in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual and AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets latest editions. If the lane drops are not 20 Attachment D . considered with the crossing future road plans could increase the impact to the flood plain. SP-2007-00004 5th Street - Avon Center - Parkin2 Structure (Claudette Grant) · I received a plan for this but no application. · I have no comments on the parking structure. · Cannot comment on adequacy of the proposed typical sections and roads at this time due to lack of detailed design information. · All proposed roads and connections that are to be for public use must be approved by VDOT. SP-2007-00005 Small D02S Day Out (Amy Arnold) · I did not receive an application for this but did receive a package of photographs. · I have no comments on this plan. ZMA-2007-00001 Hollymead Town Center. Area A2 (Sean Dou2hertv) · The road and Right of Way widths are not adequate to accommodate the roadway section necessary for Meeting Street. The typical section of Meeting Street should be a 4-lane divided road. · There also may be a roundabout at the intersection of Abington Place and Meeting Street. · These street alignments do not comply with the streets identified in the Places 29 Study. . If you have any questions, please let me know Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency . '2 ( Attachment E TO: Sean Dougherty, Planner FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: September 20, 2005 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Hollymead Area A (TM 32, Parcels 42A,42C,44, 45,50 & TM 46, ParcelS) The below checked items apply to this site. ZMA-2005-00015 X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 75' distant. X 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located 150' distant from this site plan, is gpm i at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 125' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may/may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. Comments: The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline locations sewer line locations easements waterline size sewer line size expected wastewater flows expected water demands ~l- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I II Attachment B HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER AREA A2 ZMA-2007-001 REZONING APPLICATION Neighborhood Model District & CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 7/24/07 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................. 1 Purpose and Intent Existing Conditions Area A's Context within Hollymead Town Center Summary of Area A Master Development Plan Structure of the Document Land Uses ..... ....... . .. ..... .. .. ... ............ ... ......... .. .......0. . .. "0' . ....... .. 9 Description of Land Use Designations Land Uses Permitted / Prohibited by Block Block Areas and Use Density Required Green Space, Civic and Amenity Areas by Block Storm Water Management Built Form Standards .... o. 0.. ........ .... ...... ......... ....... .... ..... "'0. .0.. ... 20 Lot and Building Height Regulations Architectural Standards Landscape Standards Streetscape Standards ................................................................. 24 Street Design Standards Sidewalk and Trail Standards Parking Standards Loading Standards Other Design Standards ... . .. ... . ........ .. . ... . .. . ..... ... ... . ..... .. .. .. .. . . .. .... 35 Street Lighting Signage Buffers and Screening Areas Fences and Walls Sustainable Design I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I List of Exhibits 1. Existing Conditions / Boundary Survey ........................................ 2 2. General Development Plan ...................................................... 5 3. Block Plan ....................................................................... .... 6 4. Town District Perspective ........0.....................0...................... .... 7 5. Green Space, Civic, and Amenity Plan with Conservation Area ... ....... 18 6. Meeting Street Mid-Block Street Sections ..................................... 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Introduction Purpose and Intent HM Acquisition Group LLC, ("Applicant"), O"Mler of property located in Albemarle County, in the Hollymead TO"Ml Center generally north of Powell Creek, south of U.S. Route 606, Dickerson Road and west of US Route 29, seeks a rezoning of a portion of its property knO"Ml as Area A of the Hollymead TO"Ml Center. (Per g20A.3) pursuant to the Neighborhood Model District's (NMD) requirements under Sections 20.A.4 and 20.A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, this document constitutes Area A's General Development Plan and Code of Development. All other requirements of the Section 20.A.3 are addressed in accompanying documents. Existine: Conditions The Area A rezoning comprises an area of approximately 78.5 acres, which includes all of Tax Map 32 Parcels 42A, 42C, 44, 45, 50 and Tax Map 46 Parcel 5. Area A will be divided into two separate zoning designations. The property which is the subject of this rezoning application consists of approximately 44.5 acres, and is generally referred to as Area A-2. The property is generally to the west of Meeting Street and south of Timberwood Boulevard. The remaining approximate 34 acres west and fronting on US Route 29, bounded to the west by Meeting Street and bounded to the south by Powell Creek is subject to a separate rezoning submission requesting a zoning designation of PDMC, and is generally referred to as Area A-I. Although the PDMC zoning (A-I) within Area A is subject of a separate rezoning application, the Applicant believes that the commercial area should be integrated into the surrounding area through the use of pedestrian access, public spaces, architectural design and landscaping. Accordingly, the PDMC portion (A-I) of Area A has been incorporated in the description of the Area A Master Plan. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I \' ;l~. " ~:~Jr ';, .~ )~/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Area A 's context within Hollvmead Town Center Master Plan As part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CP A-98-03), four separate property O"Mlers presented a master plan for the establishment of a TO"Ml Center in the Hollymead Development Area. The proposed TO"Ml Center, approximately I80 acres in size, was designed as a mixed use, high-intensity area containing a mixture of offices, retail, public facilities and residential areas that attract activities of all kinds. The TO"Ml Center concept was established in an effort to create a more unified planning and development process utilizing the twelve design standards of the Neighborhood Model for the separately o"Mled parcels. The TO"Ml Center is comprised of four parts, which are designated as Area A, Area B, Area C, and Area D. Note that a portion of the Area A-2 rezoning application includes approximately five (5) acres of land located south of Powell Creek that is not part of the designated Hollymead Master Plan Development _ these areas are identified as Blocks AI, B3, B4 & C6. A summary of the land area and density (based on Area B, Area C and Area D rezoning approvals) are as follows: Table A - Hollymead Town Center Designated Areas Land Area Zoning Classification Retail I Office Residential 34 acres PDMC 258,000 n/a 44.5 acres NMD 368,000 1222 24.7 acres PDMC 320,000 n/a 37.1 acres PDMC 250,000 80 units 24 acres NMD 50,000 sf 240 units 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Summary of Area A 's Master Development Plan The Master Development Plan shows land use for designated areas of the TO"Ml Center, street layout and classification, open space and parks, potential storm detention locations, five minute walk radiuses (1,500 feet) from focal points in the TO\vn Center, and pedestrian and bike systems. The TO"Ml Center is organized around the intersection of TO"Ml Center Drive and Meeting Street running north/south. A linear park runs east/west intersecting Meeting Street at the center of the TO"Ml Center, and connects the greenway along Powell Creek that borders the TO"Ml Center to the center of Meeting Street. Subject always to the requirements, terms and provisions of the Code of Development; the Master Development Plan shows the potential development of individual blocks, buildings and parking. Minor variations to the General Development Plan shall be permitted under Albemarle Code Section 8-8.5.5.3, provided the aspect of development necessitating the deviation conforms to the regulations contained within this Code of Development. Almost all areas of the TO"Ml Center, and some of the surrounding area, are within a five-minute walk of the intersection of Meeting Street and TO"Ml Center Drive. An extensive pedestrian and bike network will provide for and encourage pedestrian and bike activity. Approximately ten (10) acres of open space and parks are sho"Ml on the Master Plan, including a one (1) acre "linear park" at the heart of the to"Ml center area connecting to Meeting Street. Two regional storm detention locations are sho"Ml, and are envisioned as an important part of the open space. The device at the northwest comer of the TO"Ml Center is envisioned as the entry to the greenway along Powell Creek that ultimately could connect through Forest Lakes and Hollymead to the Rivanna greenbelt. Additionally, the Master Plan for Area A envisions an open plaza around the Meeting Street and TO"Ml Center Drive intersection which will further incorporate the Area A commercial center into the overall design and fabric of the community. A greenway along Powell Creek (approximately eight acres and 4,000 linear feet) will bound the south side of the TO"Ml Center. A bike/walking path within this greenway will provide connections to areas outside the TO"Ml Center as well as provide connection between the northwestern and southeastern portions of the TO"Ml Center. The linear park along with a bike/walking path, connects the greenway to the Meeting Street area of the TO"Ml Center. Additionally, two Pocket Parks are located in Block B1 along Town Center Drive and Meeting Street. These parks are envisioned as public spaces framed by buildings with commercial or residential uses on the ground floor. A landscaped edge is planned along the east side of the Town Center consistent with the design of Route 29. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT "---- r- I I <0 <(z w. a:Ll.: <(/) o "0 o to: .... (\I 5 ... I: 41 (I) I: E 41 .2 0. e I: 0 ::J .- Q) 0 E > Ul 04141 OC3OC z..... <(0 ...JO "'-N I- . z\J) UJN ::;:UJ "'-z 0::> ...J~ I'~l ...J <( c.: UJ z UJ u Z LU Uo Z::;E ~z o 1-<( 0<( <(LU we::: ::;E<( >- ....J ....J o J: \ III Il: W Z I- 0: 4... ~ : 3t ...; " 0( I- () o I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I " " " \ \ \ \ I I I I I I .;/ ..-:;.<';:/"-- '. >:. .-;:/ ~.-'-'-'-'------ ,-.-.- , \ \ "' a: w w C ~ Q) III Z c E Q) W o 0. U "' 'E.2~b E ~ g ~ o Q) Q) ~ ooa:~ -- / / 6 z..... <(0 ...JO o.N ;,!" U'" ON ...JW llOZ ::> ~ et: LU I- Z LU U '.0 Z::;E ~Z o 1-<( 0<( <(LU LUe:: :2;<( >- ..J ..J o J: III a: hJ Z ~ f- . a:~ 0(= o..~ >- z.... 03 0" <l:~ >-u U o I D TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I / \ ( i. \' , I \ I \ j , I '> ) \ I II 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I \ " \.. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT i. i i: , ,~ ~ ; ;. I r 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Structure of the Document This document is comprised of both narrative and graphic information pursuant to the information required under Section 20.A.4 and 20.A.5. The narrative elements are divided into four major categories; Land Use (location, designations and density), Built Form Standards (building regulations, architectural and landscape standards), Streetscape Standards (street type and design standards, sidewalk and parking standards) and Grading and Other Design Standards. In support of the above narrative categories the Code of Development contains numerous graphical exhibits outlined in the Table of Contents. Per section 20.A.4, only the following exhibits constitute Area A-2's General Development Plan: I. . Exhibit #2 - General Development Plan 2. Exhibit #5 - Green Space, Civic and Amenities Plan This Code of Development package also includes a TO"Ml District Perspective (Exhibit #4), and Mid-Block Street Sections (Exhibit #6). LAND USE Description of Land Use Desie:nations: Area A-2 of the Town Center will generally be developed based on two land use classifications; Mixed Use Community Center and Urban Density Residential Mixed Use Community Center Area - Blocks A-I, B-1, 3, 4, C-l, 2, D-l,2 These blocks will comprise the Meeting Street Center of Hollymead Town Center. Here shops, a hotel, restaurants, professional offices, and residential units will provide a range of services and employment opportunities for residents. Multi-family residential development will intermix with non-residential uses. Minimal setbacks and attractive streetscapes will provide an inviting atmosphere for pedestrians. The highest intensity of uses within the Town Center will occur among these blocks. Blocks B-I, C-I and D-I which are adjacent to the Town Center Drive and Meeting Street traffic circle will provide for open, landscaped pedestrian plazas. These areas will be developed with approximately 368,000 square feet of non-residential uses, including office, commercial and hotel uses. These 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT areas will also be developed with between 250 and 400 residential multifamily including both sale and rental units. · Uses allowed include community-scale commercial; professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, general offices and public service to the greater Hollymead TO"Ml Center area. · No single commercial use to exceed a building footprint of 65,000 square feet, but no limitation on gross building square feet in total. · Urban density residential would be permitted within this land use designation both as stand alone buildings and as a mixed use within a single building. Multi level residential buildings, either rental apartments or for sale condominiums, are envisioned as stand alone buildings. Also envisioned are mixed use, mufti-level buildings with residential units above retail service and/or office. · Live/work units would be permitted in this land use designation. · Building heights between 44 feet and 65 feet will be permitted, with greater heights within the specified range permitted where the design provides for the appropriate spatial enclosure. (see page 21, Table G- Maximum Building Heights) Urban Density Area - Blocks B-2, C-3, 4 These blocks may consist of a mix of residential and non-residential development as businesses will be allowed to intermix with multi-family uses throughout the TO"Ml Center, however these blocks are primarily residential in character. These blocks will consist primarily of multi family residences both rental and condominium o"Mlership with traditional townhouses used only sparingly. · Used as an exclusive designation in areas adjacent to streams and single- family development. · Developed as densities of 6 - 34 units per acre with a target average density of 20 units per acre. Product types envisioned are attached townhouses, multi-storey rental apartments and multi-story for sale condominiums. · Building heights between 36 feet and 65 feet will be permitted, with greater heights within the specified range permitted where the design provides for the appropriate spatial enclosure. (see page 21, Table G- Maximum Building Heights) 10 I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I Table B - Area A land Designation %of %of %of Master Areas Master Area A-1 Master Area A.2 Master Land Use Desi nation Plan B,C&D Plan PDMC Plan NMD Plan Parks/Open Space 18 10 56% 3 17% 5 28% Roads 30 20 67% 5 17% 4 13% Urban Density Residential 16 6 38% 0 0% 12 75% Mixed Use Community Service 58 27 47% 0 0% 25 43% Mixed Use Re ional Service 58 37 64% 22 38% 0 0% TOTAL 180 100 56% 30 17% 46 26% I I I l~Y~,",;t\;-,t~ '" ~iL;' - _' ," , , .- ~., "l':r';:it:ti\t,,~;fi\;vt:~'1iiIl l)~;t.",:~1';;~t.~t ;.f"", ,,:>'"liir.'~, ..~- 'I".':. -(t" ~ ' .~, ~""* ~L "''' ~,... ...."" '4tJ\~~7Ailt\~~t9~",~lf\d;it I Land Use Desi nation Urban Density Residential Mixed Use Communi Service TOTAL Master Plan 400 1280 1680 Areas B,C&D 150 170 320 % of Master Plan 38% 13% 19% Area A .1 PDMC o o o %of Master Plan 0% 0% 0% Area A.2 NMD 289 933 1222 %of Master Plan 72% 73% 73% I I %of %of Master Areas Master Area A.1 Master Area A-2 Land Use Desi nation Plan B,C&D Plan PDMC Plan NMD Urban Density Residential 560,000 300,000 54% 0 0% 391,000 Mixed Use Communi Service 1,792,000 255,000 14% 0 0% 949,000 TOTAL 2,352,000 555,000 24% 0 0% 1,340,000 ~~-c..ltl '--~-' "%~'''''''~11''' ,-..,...,~ ",~"., '~'1i'f",,'(----~~ ,i~;f~~fk~' '""''''-tt.M_;.!~''{''''' ~V~~\ll "tltll, \'[It f.'~'t!f..t~,~",~\...} I n~~,l';~~"w~.~~ % of Master Plan 70% 53% 57% I I % of %of %of Master Areas Master Area A-1 Master Area A-2 Master Land Use Desi nation Plan B,C&D Plan PDMC Plan NMD Plan Mixed Use Community Service 540,000 100,000 13% 0 0% 368,000 49% Mixed Use Re ional Service 757,944 525,000 69% 258,000 34% 0 0% TOTAL 1.297.944 625,000 48% 258,000 20% 368,000 28% ~~'''~1:K~1-~~'~ ~~~.~i':r~ ~i':~[:I'~17i~tlrl :')~1h~~~~ '~~;~~~T;~,~ ~""""""4.lt"-""'j~'""':ot~...,~"',L.t'..')", ,....,. .... ~"'~. '~'''''W~Io'~'''~ *'"':...'" ~r.~::",~ I I I I I I I I 11 I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Land Uses Permitted/ Prohibited bv Block Table C establishes the uses that are permitted or prohibited by block. If the column under a Block has a "P" filled in, then the use in that row is permitted (e.g., it is by-right) within that block. If the column under a Block has a "SP" filled in, then the use in that row is permitted within that block only through a Special Use Permit and a separate special use permit would need to be filed and a separate legislative action would need to be taken by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to permit that use. Finally, if a column is left blank, then the use is prohibited within that block. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p hana e 12 I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I Administration l"lI"ofessional offices P P P P P P P P P P Automobile laundnes Automobile truck reoair shon - excludinn body shop Automobile service stations (reference 5.1,20 Antinlle nift 'ewelrv. notion and craft shons P P P P P P P P P Barber beautv shoos P P P P P P P P P Bulldlnn matenals sales Churches P P P P P P Cemetenes Clothlnn aonerel and shoe shoos P P P P P P P P P Clubs lorlnes civic fraternal, natriotic reference 5.1.2 P P P P P P P P P P Convenience stores P P P P P P P P P De""rtment store p p P P P P P P P Drive-throunh windows servinn or associated with nermitted uses SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP Druo store. pharmacv P P P P P P P P P Eatina establishment P P P P P P P P P Educational technical and trade schools P P P P P P P P P Farmers market (reference 5.1.36 P P P P P P P P P P P P Factorv outlet sales - clothinn and fabric P P P P P P P P P Feed and seed stores reference 5.1.22) Financial institutions P P P P P P P P P Fire extineuisher and security eroducts sales and services P P P P P P P P P Fire and rescue snuad stations reference 5.1.09\ Flonst P P P P P P P P P Food and nrocerv stores includinn such sneeialtv shops as P P P P P P P P P beckerv. candY, milk dispensarv- wine and cheese shoos Funeral homes Furniture and home annliances sales and services P p P P P P P P P Hardware store p p P P P P P P P Health snas P p P P P P P P P Heatinn oU sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20 Home and business services such as nrounds care cleaninn exterminators landscaninn and other renair and maintenance sves. Home occuoation Class A P P P P P P P P P Hotels motels. inns p p P P P P P P P Indoor Theaters P P P P P P P P P Linht Warehousinn P p P Laundries drY cleaners P P P P P P P P P Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all P p P P P P P P P hours of oneration\ Libraries museums P P P P P P P P P Machlnerv and enuioment sales, service and rental P p P Medical center p P P P P P P P P Mobile home and trailer sales and services Modular buildinn sales Motor vehicle sales. service and rental Musical instrument sales p p P P P P P P P New automotive narts sales P p P P P P P P P Newsstands maeazines. oioe and tobacco shoos P P P P P P P P P Newsnaner nublishina p p p p p p p P P Nurseries day care centers reference 5.1.06) p P P P P P P P P Retail nurseries and nreenhouses P P P P P P P P P Office and business machines sales and services P p P P P P P P P Ootical ooods sales P P P P P P P P P Outdoor storane displav and/or sales SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP Profesional offices includina medical dental and aatical P p P P P P P P P Photanranhic noods sales P P P P P P P P P Electric. aas and communications facilities, excludina tower P P P P P P P P P structures and includina pales, lines transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and ooerated by oublic utility. Water distribution and sewerane collection lines. oumoine stations apourtenances awned and ooerated bY Albemane County Service Authoritv. Except as otherwise expresslv provided, central water suoolies and central seweraae systems in conformance with Chaater 16 of the Code of Albemane and other aoolicable law. Public uses and buildinns includinn temoorarv or mobile facilities P P P P P P P P P such as schools, offices, oarks. nlavnrounds and roads funded, owned or aoerated by local, state or federal anencies (reference 31.2.5 : oublic water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment racilities, oumoine statins and the like, owned and/Or ooerated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority reference 31.2.5' 5.1.12) Sale of maior recreational enulnment and yehicles School of soecial instruction P P P P P P P P P Soortinn noods sales P p p p P P P P P Stand alone oarkino and oarkina structures P P P P P P P P P P Stormwater manaaement facilities shown on an approved final P p P P P P P P P P P P site plan or subdivision olat Tailor seamstress P p p P P P P P P Temnorarv construction useslreference 5,1.18 P P P P P P P P P Temporarv nnn-residential mobile homes reference 5.8 P P P P P P P P P Tier I and II nersonal wireless facilities reference 5.1.40 P P P P P P P P P P P P Visual and audio aooliances sales P P P P P P P P P WaYside stands - veoetable and aoricultural oroduce reference 5.1.19\ P P P P P P P P P Wholesale distribution p p p I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I3 I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I Block Areas and Density Table D define~~able D also identifies the amount of green/open space per block (in acres). I The Comprehensive Plan allows for the HoIIymead Town Center Neighborhood Model District (NMD) a maximum residential density of34 dwelling units per acre (OVA), with a minimum DVA of 6. Individual blocks within Area A-2 may exceed the 34 DVA max. provided that the Area A-2 NMD gross density does not exceed 1222 units. I Density may increase in individual blocks by a maximum of25% above the maximum units shown on Table D provided that the Area A-2 gross density does not exceed 1222 units. "A-l 6 3.30 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 - 80000 _ 80 000 80000 B-1 6 0.50 0 0 136 27 10 20 288.000 35.000 . - - 35,000 323.000 B-2 5.5 2.10 0 0 74 148 10 20 11>4.000 - - - 0 164.000 "B-3 2 0.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 30 000 30,000 30.000 "B-4 2 0.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 13,500 13 500 13500 C-l 4 0.20 14 28 52 104 10 20 176000 24 000 - - 24 000 200,000 C-2 3 1.00 6 12 35 70 10 20 110.000 5.000 6.200 - 11.200 121.200 C-3 1.5 0,00 J5 30 0 0 0 0 60.000 - - - 0 60.000 C-4 2.3 O.lX 3 76 8 15 0 0 167.000 5.000 - - 5.000 172.000 C-5 3 0.60 0 0 15 30 0 0 30.000 - - - 0 30.000 uC--6 3 1.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 D-l 4 0.00 0 0 54 107 10 20 123 000 20 000 - 80 000 100 000 223.000 D-2 5 0.20 0 0 110 220 20 40 252 000 20 000 50,000 - 70,000 322,000 TOTAL 47 11.30 73 146 483 966 70 140 1 370000 368 700 1,738700 S.mma" By TyIX Urbon D....ity 12 53 106 82 163 10 20 391.0001 104~ 5.000 3.96.000 Mixed Use 35 20 40 387 773 60 120 949 OlIO. 179 700 80,0001 363 700 1.312,700 Total 47 73 146 468 936 70 14 1,340,0001 I 368,700 1,708,700 I I I I I I · Residential development may occur in these blocks provided that units are available from other blocks ** Block C-6 is to be used for a stormwater management facility. It is shown in this analysis because its acreage is part of the overall Area A-2 density calculation. I I I I I I I I I I I4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Green Space. Civic Area and Amenities A conceptual plan for open spaces is depicted within the Master Development Plan. These areas will include a central plaza, pocket parks, linear park, pedestrian trails and passive and active recreational areas. An estimated 20% of the area within the site shall be devoted to open space. All amenities illustrated in the General Development Plan and Green Space, Civic and Amenities Area Plan (Ex. #2 & #5), and described in this Code of Development will be built or bonded with the corresponding site plan. Table E lists the various categories of open space provided within Area A2 of the Hollymead TO"Ml Center. Approximately eight acres of land, including stream buffers, greenways and upland areas, southern and western development area shall be dedicated to the County for the Powell Creek Greenway as designated by the Hollymead Master Plan. The boundaries of the Powell Creek Greenway along with the other green space, civic and amenities areas of Area A-2 are illustrated in Exhibit #5. Pedestrian and bike systems will provide access from all areas within the TO"Ml Center to Meeting Street, and public transportation stops at the parks will be particularly convenient to Meeting Street and Lockwood Drive. Table E Minimum Green Space, Civic and Amenity Area 143,750 148,100 14,500 38,000 41,600 39,200 I5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Powell Creek Greenway The Powell Creek Greenway is an open space corridor that is stretches along Powel Creek from Timberwood Blvd. through Blocks C5, C6, B2, B3, B4 & AI, eventually terminating at US Route 29. The boundaries extend 50 feet to IOO feet from the center line of Powell Creek. Although the greenway is less formal and rural in nature, a groomed walking/hiking/biking path will lead through the area, providing a pedestrian link along the western parameter of Area A. Pocket Parks Pocket parks are located on both the north and south side of Block B I, and will provide a communal gathering green space for both residents and the Town Center workforce. The park on the south side of Block BI will open up to a sheltered crossing providing pedestrian access across Meeting Street to Area A I. Linear Park The Linear Park connects the Powell Creek Greenway to the north with Area B, providing a pedestrian link through Blocks C and D. In Block C2 the Linear park opens up to an approximately one acre multipurpose "village green" walking/jogging path around its parameter. The park will be designed as a flat open lawn allowing for active recreation. The park will also include a children's recreational area in accordance with the specifications set forth in Section 4.I6.2.I of the Albemarle County Code. Following the Linear Park southeast through Block C2 will lead to a sheltered crossing providing pedestrian access across Meeting Street to Block D2. Central Plaza The neighborhood center for residents, employees, shoppers and other visitors is Meeting Street and the plazas surrounding the traffic roundabout. These areas are within a five-minute walk to all areas within the Town Center, and are the area where the greatest mix of uses is expected. Meeting Street will be the most important street from a design perspective, with parking relegated, buildings pulled close to and framing the street, wide sidewalks with street trees in planters and street furniture provide an attractive and comfortable area for people to congregate. The Central Plaza area will extend for at least 50 feet in each direction from the intersection of Meeting Street and TO"Ml Center Drive. The plaza will be framed by buildings on three sides and be open into the Area A I commercial center. I6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT The Neighborhood Center A Neighborhood Center featuring a pool, clubhouse, basketball court and other amenities will be located in Block B2, and will be easily accessible for residents throughout Area A2. The pool will be approximately 2,000 square feet with an adjoining clubhouse structure approximately IOOO square feet. The Neighborhood Center has an additional I4,000 square foot open area that will be dedicated as a dog park. The pool facility is located close to neighboring residential units as an integral neighborhood feature, however it is not located within I25 ft. of any existing property line not associated with Area A2. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o () n-l X)> j:Q 50 ::jz m "'11 :$)> :=;0 !" -l ~~ ;0 (II :J: o r r -< l>5: ;;:tl1'T1 1'T1l> >0 >-1 o Z::E 5:;;:: o .. n ~ 4 1'T1' ;:pi C'l '" fTl fTl Z VI ." :Po n fTl - n ~ n :Po '-l:: efTl Zz fTl- N=l cnfTl _ VI N "Q or- o:Po ....,z :DOC CD CD 0 · ~ 3 o _ I: 0" ::J ~ 0"'00" ~ CD 3 ::J ~ · CD ~ ::J "' .. ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT .; / / ;- --.-- - - - - ; \ \ --.-.J ..d...r~' ..."".'".,,.,,' . -.. . "".1 r,., dt."I'" .; ::'!::' i!. !',;:!<U "r:,:,~,~ ~ ; .~.;':;~~~~ :HH~~H!-ht.;i+ i I I8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Storm Water Manae:ement (Per g 20A.3.c) Stormwater management to include both quantity and quality control (BMP's) will be provided onsite in various locations throughout Area A and the Hollymead TO"Ml Center development. Existing ponds and drainage facilities will be utilized. Watershed areas and preliminary grading information are provided within the Master Development Plan. Existing storm sewers have been designed and constructed along TO"Ml Center Drive and will be constructed along Meeting Street to collect a significant amount of the runoff as shown in the Master Development Plan. Drainage areas corresponding to each storm water detention basin have been identified within the Master Development Plan as well as potential locations for bio-filtration facilities. Additional stormwater management facilities will be implemented as each site is developed and shall be subject to the approval of Albemarle County Engineering Department. Residential lots shall not be permitted within stream buffers. I9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT BUILT FORM STANDARDS Lot and Buildine: Heie:ht Ree:ulations Build-to-lines, setbacks, building separation (side yards) and height restrictions are set forth in this section. The build-to-lines, setbacks and building separation standards are illustrated on page A-9 of the General Development Application Plan. Build-to-lines along Meeting Street and TO"Ml Center Drive (modified boulevards and main street) will vary between 0-5 feet from the right-of-way. Build-to-lines for neighborhood streets such as Lockwood Drive and Abington Drive will vary from 0-5 feet from the right-of-way. Setbacks as sho"Ml on page A-9 of the General Development Application Plan vary between building types and blocks. Building separation (side yards) will be a minimum of IO feet for buildings within the NMD as well as for structures outside of the NMD. In accordance with the Neighborhood Model and the Master Plan for HOllymead TO"Ml Center, the primary device for the regulation of building height, stories and massing is the spatial enclosure ratio. Spatial enclosure is defined as the ratio between the primary building face, eave or parapet height to the distance across a thoroughfare. This ratio is also a function of paving width, sidewalk, planting strip and front set back. Spatial Enclosure & Building Height Regulations: The following Table F illustrates how the ratios apply to each street type under various scenarios. ~i" Public Street Type Street Name Location Avg. Paving Sidewalk Path, T alai Width Ratio 1:1 Ratio 1:2 Width Planting and Face-ta-Face (capped@ (wi median) Setbacks max. height) Modified Blvd. Town Center Dr. Town Ctr. Circle west 32' 33' 65' 65' 33' to end of property Meetin Street Town Ctr. Circle south 62' 33' 95' 65' 48' to Abin ton Dr. Meetin Street Abington Dr. south to 46' 33' 79' 65' 40' end of roperty Main Street Meeting Street Town Ctr. Circle north 62' 33' 95' 65' 48' to Timberwood Neighborhood St. Lockwood Drive 44" 33' 77' 48' 36' Way Internal Roads 30' 20' 50' 48' 36' 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT General Notes: · When using the maximum spatial enclosure ratio of I : I, for every I' increase in either paving width, front setback or sidewalk + planting width, eave height increases I'. · When using the spatial enclosure ratio of I :2, for every I' increase in either paving width, front setback or sidewalk + planting width, eave height increases 6". .. Eave heights represent the average or typical allowable height per block and between buildings across from each other. For example, a spatial enclosure ratio of 1:2 can be achieved with a width from face to face of primary building of 66' if either or both buildings across from each other have a 33' eave height or if one building has a 43' eave height and the other building has a 23' eave height. Their average is still 33'. Building height differential shall not exceed more than 24 feet between buildings that are situated next to each other along the same side of the street, nor shall it exceed more than 24 feet between buildings directly facing each other on opposing sides of a street. Table G illustrates maximum building heights per block far:"::1 # ~1\( ~~M 1~~4! ..~"~ -, "-':Cj "'? ~ ~ .~~..' r#\rI .!\l' ,J,.~ <~ ~ it.,J,_ t~~ ~"">>.""",,,, "Iii'.. ^ -'_ c. ~"l \' 810ck Height (feet) A1 65 81 65 82 65 83 65 84 65 C1 65 C2 65 C3 48 C4 48 C5 65 D1 65 02 65 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Architectural Standards (Per g 20A.5.f) This section establishes a set of architectural standards that shall be applied to all structures built in Area A. In general, the architectural standards of Hollymead TO"Ml Center will provide a sense of place supported and enhanced by street and architectural design that is unified, pedestrian in scale. General design standards outlined below shall apply throughout Area A: I. Spatial enclosure ratios between structures typically range between I: I and 1:3 in the Mixed Use / Community Service districts and between 1:2 and 1:3 in the urban density districts. Enclosures measured from the face of primary structures. Refer to subsequent "Spatial enclosure" section and Figure I5 for further explanation. 2. Entrances which transition from private building to public street are prevalent (i.e. colonnades, arcades, porches, stoops and courtyards.) 3. Exterior wall and roofing materials preferences at this time include wood, masonry board such as hardiplank or panel, brick, stucco or stone for walls, architectural asphalt-shingles or painted tern metal for pitched roofs. 4. The range of architectural styles includes: Classical (Georgian, Jeffersonian and Greek Revival), Colonial Revival, Vernacular (Virginia and English), Victorian (Italianate, Queen Anne and Carpenter Gothic), Arts & Crafts (bungalow and four-square) and Modem. The ultimate goal is to orient and scale buildings for the pedestrian at street level in order to create an inviting, enlivened streetscape. 22 I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT I I Urban Density Mixed-Use Residential Community Service Form, Massing & Proportion Rectangular Rectangular Architectural Styles Classical (Georgian, Jeffersonian, Classical (Georgian, Jeffersonian and Greek Revival), Colonial Revival and Greek Revival, Colonial Revival Vernacular (Virginia & English, Vernacular (Virginia & English), and Victorian (Italianate, Queen Anne & Modern Carpenter Gothic), and Arts & Craft (bungalow and 4-square) Materials, Color and Texture Wood, masonary board, brick, Wood, masonary board, brick, stucco, synthetic stucco or stone stucco, synthetic stucco, glass, for walls. Membrane roofing at flat concrete, steel or stone for walls. roofs. Asphalt, standing seam or Asphalt shingles, standing seam or painted tern metal at pitched roofs. painted tern metal at pitched roofs. wood, brick or stone trim. Roof Form and Pitch Flat roofs wi parapet walls for mixed Flat roofs wi parapet walls for mixed use, office and hotel buildings. use, office and hotel buildings. Gables from 5:12 to 12" 12 on Gables from 5:12 to 12" 12 on multifamily residential and mixed multifamily residential and mixed use buildings. Dormers are allowed use buildings. Dormers are allowed Architectural Ornamentation Railings of metal or wood, columns, Railings of metal or wood, columns, wrapped and front porches cornices, corner ornamentations Fa~ade Treatments & Frontages Storefronts, arcades and uphill & Storefronts, arcades, colonnades, downhill stoops stoops and awnings Sidewalks As per the street and pedestrian As per the street and pedestrian circulation plan circulation plan Trees Uniform spacing of street trees in Uniform spacing of street trees in planting strips or in planters along planting strips or in planters along all roads all roads Furniture/ Lighting Street furniture and lighting Street furniture (i.e, trash bins, bike compatible with architecture racks, benches & lighting compatible with architecture Historic Preservation No existing structures No existing structures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Landscape Standards Landscaping is a fundamental component of overall structure of the plan and the establishment of a sense of place. The Hollymead TO"Ml Center Area A-2 Code of Development establishes specific landscaping standards for specific aspects of the plan where necessary (i.e. along the modified boulevards and in formal green spaces). This section provides various typological standards that will be implemented depending upon specific site conditions as opposed to specific areas of the General Development Plan. Screening Areas All Service areas and objectionable features that are visible from adjacent properties shall meet the screening standards established in the Albemarle County Code. STREETS CAPE STANDARDS Purpose and Intent Area A-2's streetscape and transportation network will be guided by the following Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles: · The creation of a relatively dense, interconnected urban section street network with associated sidewalks and paths that is designed to disperse and reduce vehicular traffic and enhance the utilization of other forms of mobility. · Street designs shall be implemented where the overall function, comfort, and safety of a multi-purpose or "shared" street is more important than the streets vehicular efficiency alone. Thus, the overall design shall balance the needs ofvehic1es (moving or parked), bicycles, and pedestrians. · Street designs shall be implemented where the street cross-section is only as wide as needed to accommodate the usual vehicular mix for that street while providing adequate access for moving vans, garbage trucks, fire engines and school buses. · Street designs shall be implemented where reduced curb radii are fundamental to the design. With the adoption of this Code, the Developer and the County commit to work toward the implementation of these principles. Street Desie:ll Standards Table F (pg. 20) establishes the maximum street widths for Area A's streets and alleys. These standards were crafted using the VDOT "Road Design Manual" guidelines issued January I, 2005 and the County's Design Standards Manual. Meeting Street design standards are illustrated in the Mid-Block Street Section (Exhibit #6). 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ = 1= = ~ = ~ = f= = '-- - - - ~-- :: ~ ~ = - '-J I1III1111 11111111111f ~ -=~, SJ ~ ~ I I ' IIIIID ~ '1 !r----J - J \ l I I' - I,---:J ~ ~ f \x' ! l\ ] l.. . I ,\ I I \ ,...... ~:~:/ \~ l \ f -~m ~. S~ L~ r-' · - ~~ ffi " j ~ -t5 B(CJ ) : ~~..--- rr- = h ~ J - j.J ~ 1 r'=-- : :=h~ ~ ' ~ ( ~~ ~ ~ ('-Th-:= ] Jt~ C ~=:JV ) - ~ r--'~ h h h f<1 = ~ ~j.J - ( ~'] r-- L=----, ~ .------' I I '-- = ~ = ~ = - ~ ( ~ ~ "--/-- -- -- J~'----.5' == -- - -- == -- "1.,11-- == r-1iL =r= = = == =1= =r= -I-- -I-- II:: rr "1 _ h ~ h '-- ['] I < Co.- /--- = ~ j r---' r--'f-") 4 = l'IITTTiT- III 'j-" L- 1111111111111111 l ~ c::=J A) l~ r I '\ I ~ "', JQ~ =C] 0 D~ ~?~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ - ~ "J/~ ,,~7, \~ ~ ~~~/, I ~D 1-1- t= - := ~ - == ( - - - = = ~ e 10 ;~--lliJJ1r ;:"'; L~ - o ( = ,- ~ - ~~~ -==== -.c: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD T WN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 0 0 co co . <( CD 0 0 I ~ ~ <( '0 CD '0 :: I ~ I '"0 '"0 ~ ~ Z 0 Z 0 0 0 I- -.... I- -.... 0 ~ 0 ~ w w (/) 0 t.l (/) 0 t..l ~ [I] ~ [I] 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 27 ~ 0::: o 0::: ~ Z W U i o l- LL o F!: 0::: o Z I- W W ~ U'} '-' z i= W W ::E -@ O:::z ~<( ::EO ~w 0 VI::E .. CD:J: II- e~ 0 (II <(w ,0... "0 <(~ ib zen 0 N 01- _W I-W UO:: ~ WI- 0 tJ U') U'} (II OJ . ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 28 ~ w w ~ en C) z i= w w ~ ..... o I- en ~ ~ Q:: c 0:: ~ Z W U ~ o ~ @ z <( c w ~ I- 0 ::::> " o I I ~ u 3: 0 Iw OJ ul:l. b - <( I - u 1=l z~ 0 Ow ~w uo::: ~ w~ 0 U en en OJ rn . - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 29 ~ e::: Cl e::: ~ z W u i f2 1L. 0 ::I: I- ::> 0 en I- W W ~ en " z i= W W ::E @ Z < 15 W 0 ::E .. F ~ 0 <II ClW In.. . Cl< 0 I U b zen <II 0 01- . _W I-W ~ ~~ ~ en en 0 tJ <II OJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 30 o o ow 3=> ~O::: 00 o -l z <{ CS w ::E I- ~ :::> 0 ~ ;: 0 '" w a.. b <{ I U b ~ '" 0 w ';.. w ~ ~ U) 0 tJ '" '" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Sidewalk and Trail Standards General Streetscape Standards All sidewalks shall meet the construction standards of Albemarle County Design Manual. Pedestrian access is paramount at Hollymead TO"Ml Center. All streets will include sidewalks. Additional pedestrian trails will connect the Powell Creek Greenway, the central plaza and the linear park. Particular emphasis will be placed on providing adequate pedestrian access, within the plan area, to the central commercial and employment centers of the TO"Ml Center. Tree species will be selected from the County's Landscape Manual. To avoid disruption by construction, tree planting shall be performed by the individual builders or their assigns and at the end of the building construction process. Streetscape Standards in Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Multifamily Areas The Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Multifamily Area Streetscape Standards characterizes how the modified boulevard Meeting Street shall be developed. The entire area between buildings and the back of curb will be developed and shall be regulated into three zones. I. The first zone, the Landscape Zone, shall be a minimum of 6 feet wide and shall be used for street trees, a grass planting strip or an extension of the sidewalk to the back of the curb (i.e. tree wells). Within this zone, minimum street tree planting requirements shall be: 35-45 foot center and will be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of installation, if tree grate/ well are used they shall be in a minimum sixty (60) square foot grate/ tree well. Street tree spacing may vary due to site distance requirements and/or utility easements or because there is the need to highlight a special feature, such as a plaza, important architectural feature, or to permit an important vista. (Tree wells are permitted per a modification to Section I4-422). 2. The second zone, the Pedestrian Zone, shall be a five (5) feet wide (minimum) concrete sidewalk. Its purpose shall be to accommodate pedestrian traffic. 3. The third zone, the Building and/or Outdoor Seating and Plaza Zone shall be between three (3) and (10) feet, which will not be provided along the entire length of the street, shall contain additional items, such as, outdoor cafe space, outdoor display and sales areas, courtyards, landscape areas, trash receptacles, and other streetscape furnishings as permitted by code. 3I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Streetscape Standards in Residential Areas All streets in front of residential attached structures shall have a 6- foot landscaped planting strip behind the curb, with a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk to the property line. Street trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of installation and typically planted within the 6-foot wide continuous planting zone between the curb and sidewalk. Trees will be installed at an average of forty (40) foot on center subject to final utility routing, easements, buildings and sight distance requirements. Where street trees cannot be accommodated due to utilities, easement, or site distance requirements, the street trees will be provided on the residential lots as close to the street as possible. Streetscape Standards in Green Space/ Amenity Area Streetscapes along green space/ amenity areas shall be designed by a landscape architect in order create an appropriate sense of place and may vary from the typical curb, street tree lawn, and sidewalk arrangement and location in order to achieve a design that is appropriate. Sidewalks shall be provided to accommodate reasonable pedestrian access from all sidewalks leading up to the green space. The minimum sidewalk standards for these areas shall be a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. Stairs in the green spaces/ parks shall be a minimum of 5-foot wide and made of concrete or other similar material. Class B trails shall be built to the standards established and defined in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Parkine: Standards Required parking in Area A-2 shall be provided in accordance with all the regulations of Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, except as modified below per Waiver Request #2 & #3: · Garage parking shall count towards the minimum parking requirements · Section 4.12.9.a is modified to permit on-street parking spaces that are located on a public or private right of way and are within five hundred (500) feet of a use to count towards the parking requirements generated by that use · The shopping center parking schedule (4.5 spaces per IOOO square feet of gross leasable area) shall be the standard schedule for all non-residential square feet in Area A2 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Parking garages and decks may be located through out Area A-2. A number of residential and mixed-use buildings will have multi-level parking garages in the base of their structures. Larger scale parking facilities (garage or deck) are located in Blocks B, C & D. Page A-3 of the General Development Plan labels he parking requirements and type per block. For the benefit of the General Development Plan all parking contained within residential, non-residential or mixed use buildings is categorized as "garage" parking, with all surface or multi- level deck (dedicated parking structures) categorized as "open lot / deck". These structures will adhere to the following standards: Block B - A two level deck with a maximum of 633 spaces. The facility will have two entrances/exits; one from TO"Ml Center Drive and Abington Place, and the other from Meeting Street and Abington Place. The structure will be designed with proper screening along the top level perimeter to prevent auto headlights from shining into upper story residential units. Block C - A three deck with a maximum of 286 spaces with one entrance/exit off of Lockwood Drive and a second off of an internal way that feeds into both Lockwood Drive and Meeting Street. The structure will be designed with proper screening measures to mitigate headlight glare into surrounding buildings. Block D - A three level deck will be located in both Block D I and D2. The D I deck has a maximum of 2I8 spaces, and D2 deck has a maximum of 560 spaces. The entrances/exists of both structures will be located at an internal drive off of Meeting Street. The structures will be designed with proper screening measures to mitigate headlight glare into surrounding buildings. All Parking structures will provide clearly identifiable pedestrian entrances. 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT residential 1 bdrm =1.5 parking spaces 2+ bdrm = 2.0 parking spaces mixed use non-res. 4.5 spaces per 1000 sf gla (as per Request for Waiver) office 1 space per 200 sf (net 80% gfa) * hotel 1 space per room I excluded from Table H calculations residential non-res. required per shared parking avalableoarkiriD - maximum 610ck 1bdnn 2+ bdnn retail office hotel code reduction 130% \ street ooenJdecl aarane total A1 - - - 80 000 - 320 0 - 230 90 320 61-2 40 420 25,000 10000 - 1026 718 - 633 400 1,033 63 - - - 30,000 - 120 0 - 120 - 120 64 - - - 13,000 - 54 0 - 54 - 54 C1-4 20 332 34.000 6,000 - 770 539 62 238 470 770 C5 10 20 - - - 55 0 - 30 25 55 01 20 106 10,000 10,000 *80,000 294 205 - 218 80 298 02 40 220 30,000 40,000 - 707 495 17 560 135 712 total 130 1,098 99,000 189,000 *80,000 3,346 1,957 _ 79 , 2,083 , 1,200 . 3,362 Loadine: Standards Required loading in Area A-2 shall be provided in accordance with all the regulations of Section 4.I2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, except as modified below as per Waiver Request #3: · Section 4.I2.13.a is modified so that the determination of the required number of loading spaces shall be based on the total non-residential gross leasable square footage within Blocks A, B, C & D and not on gross leasable square footage per lot basis. Loading spaces shall be located within the same block rather than the same lot based on a maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area plus one (I) space for each additional 20,000 square feet of non- residential gross leasable area addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement. No loading space shall be required for the Community Center in Block B. The location of Area A's loading spaces shall be dispersed throughout Blocks A, B, C & D in logical fashion. · Section 4.12.13.a is modified as per Waiver Request #3 so that the determination of the required number of dumpsters 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT shall be based on the total non-residential gross leasable square footage within Blocks A, B, C & D and not on a per lot basis. Dumpsters shall be provided on the basis of one (1) dumpster pad, which does not impede any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles, for every 4,000 gross square feet of non- residential building within Blocks A, B, C & D. Buildings shall be allowed to share dumpster pads with actual location determined at the site development stage. Other DesiJ!n Standards Street Lie:htine:: Street lights are permitted in along Area A-2's public and private streets. The VDOT regulations and standards for street lights shall regulate the usage impacts for all street lights in Area A-2. A request for waiver is submitted to modify the spillover requirements for Section 4.I7,b.1 (see Waiver Request #9) of the Albemarle County Code to allow spillover from non-residential and mixed-use buildings throughout Area A-2. The spillover in these areas shall not exceed a Y2 foot-candle at the edge of the vehicle travelway (i.e. the area between the parked cars and travelway). Si2na2e: For signs in Area A, the signage regulations established in section 4.I5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance shall govern all signage within the Area A NMD except for the location of signs relative to setbacks, property lines, right-of- ways as requested for modification or waiver below: (note: Nothing in this modification shall be deemed to affect the Architectural Review Board's ability to issue a Certificated of Appropriateness for signs visible from the Entrance Corridor) A request for waiver is submitted for Section 4.15.A.I (Waiver Request #5) to allow for off-site signs to be authorized without a special use permit as long as the signage permitted under this modification shall be located within Area A2 NMD and used for the sole purpose of advertising or providing direction to uses wholly contained within Area A2 NMD. The maximum size of such off-site signs shall not exceed 30 square feet, and such free-standing signage shall not exceed I2 feet 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT in height without a special use permit. This provision shall have no effect on the parcels allotment of off site signs. A request for waiver is submitted for Section 4.I5.5.A.3 (Waiver Request #6) to allow freestanding, portable, canopy, awning and projecting signs to extend into the right of way ofTo"Ml Center Road and Meeting Street (i.e., the Pedestrian and Landscape zones depicted on Exhibit 6) without a special use permit so long as: (I) All VDOT standards and regulations are met; (2) The County Engineer has determined that an adequate clear zone for pedestrian traffic can be maintained on the sidewalks. (an adequate pedestrian clear zone shall be defined as a reasonably straight path paralleling the road way that is a minimum of five (5) feet wide and seven (7) feet high); and, (3) For the purpose of regulating the size and number of signs, all other applicable regulations of Section 4.I5 shall apply to signs located in the Pedestrian and Landscape Zones as if these signs were on the parcel or parcels to which they are immediately adjacent to. A request for waiver is submitted for the minimum sign setbacks established in Section 4.I5.II (Waiver Request #7) providing that sign locations are approved by VDOT and the County Engineer determines that the sign location would not compromise public health, safety or welfare. Buffers & Screenine: Areas: Area A's service areas and objectionable features shall meet the standards established below in lieu of the standards set forth in Section 32.7.9.8 of the Albemarle County Code as per Waiver Request #14: I. Non-residential uses are not required to be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. 2. If the Developer provides surface parking areas with 4 or more spaces, the surface parking lot shall be relegated to the side or rear of buildings. Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall provide a three (3) foot hedge, an opaque wall/fence a minimum of three (3) feet tall, and/or other features which shall be designed to reduce visibility (not necessarily "screen") the parking from the street, an adjacent residential use, or rural areas districts. Vegetation provided to meet this requirement shall not be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement of the County Ordinance. When screening is required along the frontage of public streets, the agent shall determine if the street tree requirement has been met. 3. Objectionable features including, but not limited to, the following uses shall be screened from adjacent residential districts with a opaque wall or fence at least one (1) foot taller than the highest part of the objectionable feature, but no taller than (6) feet: loading areas, refuse areas, storage yards, detention ponds, and recreational facilities determined to be of objectionable character by the agent other than children's play areas where visibility is necessary or passive recreation areas where visibility is desirable.. 36 I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER - AREA A a CODE OF DEVELOPMENT 4. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residence and the public right-of-way when deemed appropriate by the agent. Fences and Walls: The Master Plan for Area A works to develop a strong sense of community. Accordingly fencing must be planned and constructed in a manner that enhances this sense of community. General Regulations: · The finished side of fences must always face out from the lot · Both sides of all fences must be painted or stained · Chain link fencing is not allowed · The preferred material for free-standing walls is brick or stone with a minimum width of 8-inches and capped with a minimum overhang of 1- inch. For brick walls the brick used in freestanding walls shall match any brick used in the primary building. Sustainable Desie:n: · Areas for tree planting will be accommodated along the southern edge of buildings and pedestrian networks where possible · Areas of parking shall be planted to reduce the amount of energy retained in surface parking lots · Areas in the greenway with significant slope shall be reforested at the rate of one (1) tree per 4,000 square feet of slope · To the extent feasible, the commercial and residential structures shall be constructed to an efficient standard · Stormwater management design shall work to provide smaller dispersed biofilters and rain gardens in order to increase the functionality of the larger detention ponds · Areas along the greenway and in the development that are level may be made available as gardening areas for residents of the Hollymead Town Center. 37 RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Oat.: 1. g dOO'1- Agendellem .: 3 Clerk's initials: '1I7'f1 " WORK SESSION 08.08.07 BISCUIT RUN PROFFERS County's base-case scenario (utilizing reasonable constituent product mix) AS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SFD SFNTH MF # of units 650 1,210 1,240 Proffer $ per unit $17,500 $11,900 $12,400 Total $ Proffer $11,375,000 $14,399,000 $15,376,000 Affordable housing unit (15%) proffer exemption MF 465 $12,400 -$5,766,000 IOLII profJt:r need per BOS SYi3S j .000 Total applicant proffers $30,858,341 Additional proffered items $9,249,237 j oul .lpplicaIl ( proffer, S 1 0.10-, ')-S Surplus applicant proffers $4,723,578 BISCUIT RUN PROFFERS County's extreme scenario (County's assumption of 100% SFD units) AS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SFD # of units 3,100 Proffer $ per unit $17,500 Total $ Proffer $54,250,000 Affordable housing unit (15%) proffer exemption SFD 465 $17,500 -$8,137,500 j 0(,11 proBer Ileed per BOS S I(), \\2. ')00 Total applicant proffers $30,858,341 Additional proffered items $9,249,237 Additional cash contributions $10,619,750 10(,11 ,lppliuIl( proffer, S')0.-2-,52S Surplus applicant proffers $4,614,828 ADDITIONAL PROFFERED ITEMS Proffered Item Cash Units Quantity Unit Value Total Value LEED: Residential units Construct EA 310 $9,375 $2,906,250 Commercial space Construct SF 50,000 $6 $281,250 Subtotal $3,187,500 Transit: Private transit service Cash $2,148,927 Transit stops - land Construct AC 0.028 $110,000 $3,080 Transit stops - construction Construct EA 6 $25,000 $150,000 Kiss'n'ride facility - land Construct AC 0.03 $110,000 $3,300 Park'n'ride facility - land Construct AC 0.143 $110,000 $15,730 Park'n'ride facility - construction Construct SF 6,240 $4 $21,840 Car sharing spaces Construct AC 0.012 $110,000 $1,320 Subtotal $2,344,197 Transportation: Mill Creek Connector - land [@ 50' ROW] Construct AC 0.344 $110,000 $37,840 Mill Creek Connector - construction of path Construct LF 300 $25 $7,50Q Mill Creek Connector - construction of road Construct MI 0.057 $4,600,000 $262,200 Subtotal $307,540 Other: E&S/critical slopes Construct EA 3,100 $600 $1,860,000 Phase I archaeological Perform $65,000 Mill Creek South buffer Dedicate AC 13.5 $110,000 $1,485,000 Subtotal $3,410,000 IOIAl S').21'ur ADDITIONAL CASH CONTRIBUTIONS County's extreme scenario SFD Less: SFNTH/MF (avg.) Incremental proffer per SFD unit Per Unit $17,500 -$12.150 $5,350 SFD (extreme scenario) Less: SFD (base case) Incremental SFD units Less: Affordable housing (exempted) Incremental market-rate SFD units # of Units 3,100 -650 2,450 -465 1,985 JOLt! iIlLrcl11cnt,ll prof!clcd .1I1101lIlt S lo,(,j 9.-':;0 Applicant will pay $5,350 to Albemarle County to be used at its discretion toward Capital Improvement Projects within Neighborhoods 4 & 5 for each SFD building permit issued beyond the 650th SFD permit (assumed in base case), and the applicant will be simi- larly credited for each SFNTH/MF building permit issued beyond the 2,450th to address any variance from County's assumed constituent product mix. Affordable housing units exempted. Payments shall be escalated in accordance with Marshall Swift building cost index. \---- POTENTIAL COST IMPROVEMENTS VDOT proposed improvements to Rt. 20 from Biscuit Run to Rt. 53 Route 20: North section - Mill Creek Dr. north to Route 53 Route 20: South section - Mill Creek Dr. south to Biscuit run site Total Route 20 VDOT pro-rata share to applicant Applicant pro-rata share Ie,,: Hi'LUll run j[Ollta~l IIllf;JI>ILllllll!' $10,576,800 $17,984,200 $28,561,000 45% $12,852,4 50 " ~ ,~ j ~ noo !Ol,llnet pro r.ll.1 ,h,1rl 10 .11'1'1!l,l!l! S-30-,I'iO Figures raken from VDOT pro-rara share rabIes, March 2007 and VDOT memo dared May 15, 2007 Steven W. Blaine Forest Lodge, LLC 123 East Main Street, 8th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 p (434) 245-3423 f (434) 296-0905 steven. blaine@leclairryan.com Key: - North section - South section - Frontage {j(jE;J'CEa/-tJ.,..9'?//n. Aug.-t a, 2007 Board of Supervlson WOI1l Session Biscuit Run Proffers County's base-case scenariO (utilizing reasonable constituent product mix) SlJ,;rcD.d- Y1'un As adooled bv the Board of Suoervisors: SFD SFAfTH MF # of units 650 1,210 1.240 Proffer $ per unit $17,500 $11.900 $12,400 Total $ Proffer $11.375.000 $14,399.000 $15,376,000 Affordable housing unit (15%) proffer exemption MF 465 $12,400 -$5,766.000 T 'ell l,fl lfl r III t.,J I-,l't er)s ,:":S )( t ()ll() Total applicant proffers $30.858,341 $9,249,237 Additional proffered items I 111 II fJl ,11111 I( f1l'r... S-!(' 1j ~ <) 'd Surplus applicant proffers $4,723,578 Additional Proffered Items gj(:sc.uU-~ Proffered Item Cash Units Quantity Unit Value Total Value LEED: Residential units Construct EA 310 $9.375 $2,906,250 Commert:ial space Construct SF 50.000 $6 $281,250 Subtotal $3,187,500 Transit: Private transit service Cash $2,148,927 Transit stops - land Construct AC 0.028 $110.000 $3.080 Transit stops ~ construction Construct EA 6 $25,000 $150,000 Kiss'n'rlde facility - land Construct AC 0.03 $110,000 $3,300 Par1<'n'ride facility - land Construct AC 0.143 $110,000 $15,730 Par1<'n'rlde facility - construction Construct SF 6.240 $4 $21,840 Car sharing spaces Construct AC 0.012 $110.000 $1.320 Subtotal $2,344,197 Transportation: Mill Creek Connector -land [@ 50' ROW] Construct AC 0.344 $110,000 $37,840 Mill Creek Connector - construction of path Construct LF 300 $25 $7.500 Mill Creek Connector - construction of road Construct MI 0.057 $4.800.000 $262,200 Subtotal $307,540 Other: E&S/critical slopes Construct EA 3,100 $600 $1,860,000 Phase I archaeological Perform $65,000 Mill Creek South buffer Dedicate AC 13.5 $110,000 $1.485,000 Subtotal $3,410,000 Biscuit Run Proffers County's extreme scenario (County's assumption of 100% SFD units) aJ,;~c<<u-~~ As adooted bv the Board of Suoervlsors: SFD # of units 3,100 Total $ Proffer $54,250,000 Proffer $ per unit $17,500 Affordable housing unit (15%) proffer exemption SFD 465 $17,500 -$8.137,500 Tot 11 plOftPI Ilt. ! fl' r 80S -: l6 112 sou Totai applicant proffers $30,858,341 $9,249.237 $10.619.750 Additional proffered items Additional cash contributions Tt 1'1 dPf,II' .tn! I Idff. Ie. ,:,l "- ..;" tl Surplus applicant proffers $4.614,828 Additional Cash Contributions County's extreme scenario {jjJt~CNL/ ~/l- SFD Less: SFAfTH/MF (avg,) Incremental prolIer per SFD unit fl!!J.l!!.!l $17.500 :lli.1QQ $5,350 SFD (extreme scenalio) Less: SFD (base case) Incremental SFD units Less: Affordable housing (exempted) Incremental market-rate SFD units ~ 3,100 ~ 2,450 -465 1,985 IO'llph)(llhlltl',I()lf,lld 11l'IUllt :)1!Jfl]I 5d Applicant will pay $5.350 to Albemarle County to be used at its discretion toward Capital Improvement Projects within Neighborhoods 4 & 5 for each SFD building permit issued beyond the 650" SFD permit (assumed in base case), and the applicant will be similarly credited for each SFAfTHlMF building permit issued beyond the 2,450" to address any valiance from County's assumed constituent product mix. Affordable housing units exempted. Payments shall be escalated in accordance with Marshall & Swift building cost index. Potential Cost Imorovements VDOT proposed Improvements to Rt. 20 from Biscuit Run to Rt. 53 {j&;rcud~n Route 20: North section - Mill Creek Dr. north to Route 53 Route 20: South section - Mill Creek Dr. south to Biscuit run site Total Route 20 VDOT pro-rata share to applicant Applicant pro-rata share Le-::s BISCUit run frontage :~nprcv8menlS $10,576,800 $17984200 $28,561.000 45% $12.652,450 .;i9~f2:l.5".Q9~O (credit per VDOT 5.15.07 memo) $7,307,450 Total net pro-rata share to applicant Figures taken from VDOT pro-rata share tables, March 2007 and VDOT memo dated May 15, 2007 -- ./. ~ - ..' Key: - -North section - _South section - Frontage Neillhborhood Center Lavout and Orientation .Destination-style department stores and "big-box" development will not be allowed within Biscuit Run. Other than a grocery store of up to 60.000 sQ. ft., no retail larger than 20,000 sq. ft. will be allowed. .Commercial uses that front Route 20 shall not exceed 10.000 square feet for any single user so as to avoid the effect of large monolithic buildings 'ove~ooking' Route 20. . The east-west connector will be the main commercial street within the Neighborhood Center. The majority, (at least 50%) of the doors of the commercial uses. other than recreation uses, will be located so as to front along the east-west connector, .A11 off-street parking within 600 feet of Route 20 will be relegated away from Route 20 so that large par1<ing fields may not be visible from Route 20. Other Drofters work with Dhaslno to Drotect Jandscaoe .Ove~ot grading plans (Proffer 4) - Provide for stable graded slopes, disposition of surface drainage and 20% or lower driveway slopes -Critical slopes waivers for roads (Proffer SA) - prevents road construction on steep slopes withoot Planning Commission approval -Enhanced erosion and sediment control measures (Proffer 56) . Requires 20% higher sediment removal rate during construction .Enhanced stonn water management controls (Proffer SC) - Requires 20% higher sediment removal rate for permanent stonn water controls [j(j,&:u/.r~ aJ,;ra///-~ [j{Jf';j'f-YLX..tl,_C/lU/Z Reference Slides Proffer Cost Summary Proffered Item Ot88nwavalTraiIalPllrk&/PI.vnelda Greenway dedication Greenway b"ail within Biscuit Run Greenway trail extension to 1-64 SoccerlLac:rosse field dedication Socc8rIlaaos6e field improvements coriribution DistrictP.k District Perk master plan Su_ Leamlna CenterlUbrarv School site School site improvements Library Su...... T...nsoortatlon Generallransp::lrtation fund conbibution ITS improvements SUnsetlFontaine Connector Old Lynchburg Road contribution Habitat for Humanity coriribution Off-site signal - fi" street Exl/Sunset Off-sile signal - RI. 2G'Avon Off-site Tum lanes - fi" Streetll-64 East.W....Southwood Connector @15% (exci. Sol.<hwood ROW) Stream crossing - East-West Connector@ 15% Stream aossing - District Park aossing @ 100% Subtotal Tl'llnaftlFlNI & ReseU8 Transit contribution Ambulance & tire engine su_ Cash Units Dedicate k ConslrucI LF Cuh LF Dedicate k. Cash Dedicate k. Cuh Dedicate k. Construd Cash eash Cuh Cash eash eash Construct Construct Construd EA ConslnJd LF Construct EA Construct EA Cash Cash aJiraur YPun Quantity Unit Value Total Value 120 $4.000 $480.000 24.000 $25 $600.000 4,000 $25 $100,000 3 $110.000 $330,000 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 402 $12,800 $5,145,600 $200.000 ~ $8.40S.000 12 $110,000 $1,320,000 $869,691 $869.691 $500.000 ~ $2.680.691 $7,750,000 $150,000 $150.000 $1.550,000 $1.550,000 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 $1,000.000 $1.000,000 $160.000 $160.000 $160.000 $160,000 4 $100.000 $400,000 10.650 $2,293,050 1 $2.500.000 $375.000 1 $2,500.000 ~ $17.888.0s0 $1,000.000 $1,000,000 $875,000 mMQQ $1.875.000 $16,225.000 $7,357.741 $7,275.600 $11,711 Cash Dir9ct coostruction Dedications Per Maximum matfcet,..,. unit val.. (85% of 3, 100 units _ 2,635 units) a 1 . i.&:.Wd..lJ(/I"n 10 Staff's Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors provide direction regarding the issues mentioned in the staff report, so the applicant has the opportunity to respond with appropriate language and revisions to the proffers, code of development, and application plan before the public hearing. 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA-2005-00017 Biscuit Run AGENDA DATE: August 8, 2007 SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 828 acres from R1, and R2 residential to NMD Neighborhood Model District. Approximately 3,100 residential units and a nei~hborhood center, which would include commercial, office and community uses are proposed. ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ~ Ii..., ATTACHMENTS: YES STAFF CONT ACTIS): Cilimberg, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: NO OWNER/APPLICANT PURCHASER: I Forest Lodge L. L. C., with LeClair Ryan as the contact, Torti Gallas & Partners, Inc. as the land planners with Collins Engineering as the consulting engineer is the applicant; Forest Lodge L. L. C., Elizabeth Breeden, and Biscuit Run, L. L. C. are the property owners. .ACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors held a work session on the Biscuit Run project on July 11, 2007. The following were the outstanding substantive'matters discussed during the work session and the direction the Board provided (in bold), additional staff comments (in italics) and the applicant's response to date (in bold italics): . The location of the Mill Creek connection, as previously mentioned, is still a work in progress. The applicant has provided additional information. This is currently under review with the County Engineer. Finding a location for the connection that is appropriate and feasible remains an open issue. Board Direction: The Board recommended that the connection be a T- intersection in the Mill Creek South subdivision as long as the interconnection could be engineered appropr~ately. The interconnection would initially be for a pedestrian and bicycle connection with the possibility for a full vehicular connection in the future. Additional Staff Comment: The connection needs to be in a location that provides acceptable design for vehicular access and proper intersection with Stoney Creek Drive. Applicant's response: The applicant has not submitted any new information. · The applicant has included in proffers 2 A2, 2C1 and 2C2 cash contributions towards affordable housing in the amount of $16,500 for each affordable unit not provided in the project. The Board of Supervisors has recently concluded that $19,100 should be provided in lieu of each affordable unit. The discrepancy in the amount of contribution provided will need to be addressed. Board Direction: The Board confirmed that $19,100 should be provided in lieu of each affordable unit. . Additional Staff Comment: There is no additional staff comment. Applicant's response: The applicant has not submitted any new information, but has indicated I acceptance of the Board's conclusion. . Staff supports proffer 6 G: Improvements to Old Lynchburg Road (City Section), but recommends that if the funds are not utilized with ten years that these funds be available to the City for a project identifiet. in the southern City neighborhoods. Board Direction: The Board questioned making proffers available to the City when there is a revenue sharing agreement between the City and County, where the City receives 10% of County tax revenue. Additional Staff Comment: The following general example details what the City might earn based on the revenue sharing agreement: Old Lynchburg Road Proffer: $1,550,000/3100 units=$500/unit County property taxes=$OO. 68/$100 of assessment Example 1: House assessed at $300,000= $2, 040/year in property taxes 10% to the City=$204/year Example 2: House assessed at $400,000=$2, 720/year in property taxes 10% to the City =$306/year Applicant's response: The applicant has provided a proffer in the amount of $1,550,000 for improvements to Old Lynchburg Road. The applicant seeks guidance from the Board regarding the direction of these funds. . The applicant has submitted three special use permits for stream crossings, which are currently under review by staff. Board Direction: There was no direction regarding this matter. Additional Staff Comment: Staff is working on the review and comments for the special use perm. requests. Applicant's response: No additional information necessary at this time. . The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States Average, and the Board has indicated its preference for the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index. Board Direction: No additional direction was provided. Additional Staff Comment: No additional comment provided. Applicant's response: The applicant has agreed to provide a proffer based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index. . Since the Commission's public hearing on Biscuit Run, the Board of Supervisors has further clarified its intent for a Cash Proffer Policy and passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. In doing so, the Board has accepted the Fiscal Impact Committee's methodology to determine the cash impact of residential development by dwelling unit type. Rounded off, the resulting calculated impacts that the Board has also accepted are $17,500 per single family detached unit, $12,400 per apartment unit and $11,900 per townhouse/condominium unit. It was the consensus of the Board that, with the exception of affordable dwelling units, all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash proffer calculations applied to the accepted per unit rates. The Board also indicated that the only credits against the cash proffer expectations that will be accepted are for land or improvements related to schools, parks, libraries, public safety and transportation projects identified i' the Capital Improvements Program, the Comprehensive Plan and/or a Master Plan and that other proffers are to be considered outside the cash proffer expectations. The Board further agreed that when 2 the number of unit types is not specified in a re-zoning, the single family detached rate should be used per total number of dwelling units. I erhe following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current Board proffer policy intent: Cash Proffer Policy Expectation = $35,546,500 (3,100 units of various types less 465 (15%) on-site affordable units X cash proffer by unit type) to $48,825,000 (3,100 units less 310 (10%) on-units X $17,500) Value of Current Proffers = $18,144,691 Additional Cash Expectation = , $17,401,809 to $30,680,309 Among th~ c~edits the applicant has claimed that are outside the cash prott;er policy expectations indicated by the Board to date are: ' ~ I'" $5,145,600 for a district park $200,000 for district park master plan $2,500,000 for stream crossing to district park $1,000,000 for Habitat for Humanity $2,293,050 for 15% of the EastlWest. Southwood Connector .375,000 for 15% of the stream crossing for the EastlWest. Southwood Connector $1,000,000 for Transit $12,513,650 not counted as credits Generally speaking, the applicant's cash, land and improvement proffers that are consistent with the Board expectations are not initiated until the 500th Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The Board's indications have been that per unit cash proffers should begin with the first residential building permit. As noted above, there is a difference of approximately $17.4 to $30.7 million between the applicant's proffers meeting the Board's expectations and the project's cash impact. The applicant has made other quantitative and qualitative commitments to the project and the County, including the district park, the road connecting Rt. 20 and Old Lynchburg Rd. (Rt. 631), cash for Habitat for Humanity, transit, LEED certified buildings and Neighborhood Model design that should be considered outside the cash proffer expectations. Staff and the applicant need the Board's guidance as to the adequacy of the applicant's proffers as discussed above. Board Direction: The Board agreed to accept all the values that the applicant indicated as offsets. Based on the applicant's proffer cost summary, the total value of proffers provided is $30,858,341. However, this still leaves the applicant short of the Board's expectations by between $4,688,159 to $17,966,659. The Board did indicate that they may be willing to give the applicant some credit for providing proffers relating to LEED units and transit design. The Board did say there is an expectation .hat the applicant will follow the Neighborhood Model and no credit should be given for that. No Wlirection was given regarding how much credit should be given for LEED units and transit design. Additional Staff Comment: Staff researched and talked with local experts in the fields of LEED and transit design. Staff did not find any definitive information regarding how to determine credits for LEED units and 3 transit design. Staff does note that prior consideration of incorporating LEED design in County projects indicated a potential increase in initial consideration costs of approximately 2%. Applicant's response: The applicant has provided additional information regarding potential credit fo other proffers. (See Exhibit A) During the work session the Board also agreed that they had many unanswered questions that still needed to be addressed. The Board agreed to send a list of questions to staff that needed to be addressed prior to their work session in August. DISCUSSION: The following items are the questions and concerns that the Board of Supervisors gave to staff following the last work session. The first sixteen items were provided by Sally Thomas. Items 17 - 21 were provided by Dennis Rooker. Items 22 - 26 were provided by Lindsay Dorrier. Item 27 was provided by Mark Graham and Sally Thomas expressed similar concerns. Item 28 was provided by David Slutzky. Staff's response follows the question/concerns in bold italics; the staff providing the response is also identified. 1. The design of the spine road will be crucial to transit, pedestrian safety, walkable school building, and value as a Southern Connector. I and Chuck Proctor of VDOT have discussed this and believe that it should be a boulevard - potential for 4 lanes of traffic with a planted median. The planted median acts as a pedestrian-safe-zone as well as cutting the appearance of 4 lanes of highway. As Charles Proctor wrote in memo to me on July 10, Proffer6D - It is recommended that the County consider the typical section for the connector road. The proffers and sheet 4 of the General Development Plan (GDP) show a 2-lane undivided section with parking on one or both sides of the road and bike lanes. The county should consider if they want a boulevard typical and whether the typical can accommodate a 4- lane section is necessary in the future with bike lanes. Juandiego Wade and Claudette Grant: Staff agrees with the neighborhood model street design for a boulevard. Staff believes a 2 lane divided road with parking and bike lanes that will be able to accommodate an ultimate 4-lane section if necessary or warranted by VDOT in the future is appropriate. 2. To make the development transit-using, the densest development needs to be near the boulevard. The proposed design with 2 bus stops in the neighborhood may be useful for intra-development shuttle, but not ideal for commuter bus, which should be as close to an express bus as we can get. Claudette Grant and Juandiego Wade: The majority of the development is within a five minute walk or less to a transit stop. Page 25 of the Code of Development (COD) shows 4 transit stops located in Biscuit Run and one transit stop located in the adjacent Southwood Mobile Home Park. There is also a Kiss and Ride stop in Biscuit Run. 3. Mill Creek connector, its design and the design of streets within Biscuit Run (BR) that lead to that connector is crucial. I'm open to having it be a road blocked with stanchions for a number of years, but we need to discuss the design (so it's not a slip ramp out of BR through Mill Creek) and the timing or policy for its opening. Board direction: As previously mentioned in this report, at the last work session the Board recommended that the connection be a T- intersection in the Mill Creek South subdivision as long as the interconnection could be engineered appropriately. The interconnection would initially be a pedestrian and bicycle connection. 4. The location of the road through Southwood may be able to wait for further planning within that community, but VDOT is eager for the road to align with the Sunset/Fontaine connector - which puts it in a location that Habitat does not find attractive at this time. We should give guidance before planning gets too far along. Juandiego Wade: Staff supports VDOT's recommendation for this road to align with Sunset Avenue (future alignment of the Sunset/Fontaine connector). Staff has informed Habitat for Humanity and the applicant of this concern. However, staff believes it is appropriate to leave thf' ultimate location flexible at this time to allow further consideration during the development process when Habitat's plans may be better understood. 5. VDOT's issues should be explicitly addressed. 4 . . . July 10 memo from Charles Proctor: re: proffer 6H (frontage improvements) - The terms "spot improvements" and "as reasonably necessary to provide safe and convenient access to Biscuit Run" should be removed. Frontage improvements along State Route 631 need to be designed and constructed to VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Collector road (GS-3) and improvements along the frontage of State Route 20 need to be designed and constructed to VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Minor Arterial road (GS-2). Also, the right of way that is necessary to accommodate the improvements that is owned by the developer should not be considered an expense to the owner and this statement should be clear in this section. Juandiego Wade: Staff supports VDOT's recommendation and the new language should be included in the proffers. 6. VDOT's cost estimates should be explicitly addressed even if we are going to stipulate cash proffers based on our proffer policy rather than based on VDOT cost estimates. We should make it clear what the gap is as, tlnless we reject the projects that VDOT regards as addressing Biscuit Run's impacts, the cost differential will be picked up by taxpayers, local and/or state. JLi'andiego Wade: VDOT has given the County a memo with, an'sxplanation of the cost estimates for Route 20 and Route 631. This memo is attached as Exhibit B. As described in the memo there are varying factors that relate to the total cost for improvements to Routes 20 and 631 as well as the applicant's pro rata share. Claudette Grant: The applicant has provided cash proffers for transportation as they believe address impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project. However, Exhibit B shows that the actual cost to complete important infrastructure improvements relating to this project (as well as other growth factors) are more than the cash being proffered. It is un-known if the projects being identified by VDOT will ultimately be desired by the County, but if the applicant were to cover the shortage in cash proffers as relates to total impacts noted earlier in this report, there would be additional funds to devote to transportation improvements. Staff does recommend that all of the transportation improvement funds be committed to one account for the County to choose the best improvements relating to this project located in Neighborhoods 4 and/or 5. 7. The Park's cost to the County is what? This goes under the category of looking a gift horse in the mouth. While we are all delighted at getting the acreage, we should be forthright in our acknowledging that there will be considerable costs to the County when utilizing this gift. Pat Mullaney: The developer has also proffered $200,000 for the master plan for the park. The cost of development of the property and the annual operating expenses will be contingent upon the final agreed upon master plan. The phasing of that development and hence the County's capital spending will be under the County's control. The need for park facilities to serve the southern urban area is already anticipated in the County's CIP with $3.75 million scheduled in FY13 though FY15. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, anticipates that the majority of the park acres will remain in a natural state with trails. Natural areas and trails will have the lowest impact as far as development and operating costs. Without any better information available staff assumes 50 developed park acres and 350 undeveloped. How many of those developed park acres are in high level maintenance fields would be determined by the master plan and therefore would also impact the development and operating costs. For instance, in County parks like Chris Greene or Mint Springs the annual cost to maintain a developed park acre is about $2,500. An acre of high level maintenance ball field jumps to about $5,500 in annual operating cost. When you combine all of the County's developed and undeveloped park acres together the cost to the County is about $500/acre. Given the information we have, staff guesses/estimates in today's dollars, the ultimate development of the park to be in the $5 - $7 million dollar range (but the "how much" and "when" remains in the County's control) and the annual operating budget to be about $200,000. The acceptance of the gift doesn't force the County to spend this money. Trying to meet the area's recreation needs does. Without the gift of land the County would have to seek (purchase) land elsewhere if the County wants to meet these needs. Assuming, the property is currently in land use, the tax dollar loss is probably insignificant. 5 8. We need to discuss the widening' of the 5th Street bridge. ~~~~~~~~0~~~~/ ::-'=::-.:::::=":::=:-='-::=:: :7:2~ ~ ~'- ~~..~-:;:::~;.:,;-:::.~I' t ,r; X ~. ". <.. ,.~.~ /.... ""- ._-::::.:'2Z....~-~;;?l,., ,':;.~.. -- "'. ;:..-.---, ,',' '-:'> ----==-~r.;_ '- ,,~./. .-. ~'~-d~ /' ..... ./.1':" /...... '---::~>-, .( ~ .......f?/:....:...-:r'_ ./ ~~-~- '..,:~~t" ',' /-- / ~-..;..~-=- :'"~ '. ''(4 ...z~ :.:-::-- ...~~L.~~+.~~==!=:-The Biscuit Run transportation study called for the widening of the 5th Street bridge over Interstate 64 to allow for two full-length parallel turn lanes, a need not yet addressed by VDOT, County staff, the applicant's proffers, or the Board of Supervisors (see diagram prepared by Charlottesville Tomorrow above). Juandiego Wade: The widening of the 5th Street bridge is a project that VDOT had been evaluating prior to the Biscuit Run (BR) project. The BR project will likely exeedite the need to widen the bridge, but is not the sole reason for widening. The widening of 5t Street over 1-64 will be a major project. VDOT has included a minor improvement to widen the westbound exit approach lanes to 5th Street in the recently adopted Primary Plan 2008-2013. According to VDOT, this particular improvement is based on current deficiencies, not the BR project. The applicant has included cash proffers for off-site transportation improvements, one of which is a lane addition and bridge expansion on 5th Street at the intersection of 1-64 and 5th Street. Staff realizes this will not pay for the entire cost of widening 5th Street over 1-64. A cost estimate for this improvement has not been provided. 9. Grading plans need clarification, especially for the phasing of the amount of land that will be graded at any given time. The proffer's wording is interpreted by some to open up most of the land for being laid bare, contrary to what I believe was intended by county staff. This needs clarification and, possibly, changes. (p. 47 of COD) This is listed in our staff report on the proffers. Claudette Grant: The phasing section (page 47) in the Code of Development (COD) is a bit confusing. This is one of the outstanding items staff has requested be re-written more clearly. The intent of the phasing section is that initially development of phases A and D will begin with construction of the Connector Road and access to the proposed District Park. After this no more than two phases may be developed at the same time. A third phase can only begin after 80% of the developable area within anyone of the two initial phases is platted (as evidenced by the recording of a final subdivision plat approved by Albemarle County). The applicant can choose any other phase to do next after phases A and D are complete. In other words, there is no specific order to the rest of the phases. 10. Commercial area's design. Everyone seems to agree that this area should not be designed as anything like a strip mall on Route 20, but that's not clear in the design as presented. It should be clustered around the spine road, or running east-west. (pp 10-11 COD) Claudette Grant: Page 11 of the COD describes the Neighborhood Center. Some of the description in the COD includes the following: "Buildings and parking areas will be oriented internally to Biscuit Run and away from Route 20. The Neighborhood Center District is centrally located on the largest developable tract within the site and is therefore well connected to the rest of the entire village of Biscuit Run through the continuity of the street network, pedestrian trails and sidewalks. Its location on the east/west connector also makes it convenient to future transit service." Staff's understanding of the neighborhood/commercial center is that it is primarily for the Biscuit Run residents; however, the applicant does anticipate that the uses will capture some residents who live in the vicinity or traffic passing by. Page 10 of the COD shows the spine road going through the middle of the Neighborhood Center. Staff suggests the COD include additional language/examples that show more clearly that the neighborhood center will not become a strip mall, but will be clustered around the east-west spine road giving less focus towards Route 20. 11. We need to clarify the developer and the County's response to VDOT's issues: 6 . . . The Pro-Rata share information that was previously sent to the county was for informational purposes only and did not necessarily reflect improvements that are needed 'entirely due to the impacts associated with the proposed Biscuit Run re-zoning. Of the examples provided, only the Route 20 scenario was analyzed in the traffic study, and recommended for major improvement (Le. widening) to address future capacity concerns (projected at 22,940 vpd in 2021). For the Route 20 corridor, the development at build out will increase the traffic on the corridor by 45% (40% residential, 5% commercial) and should be responsible for 45% of any improvement cost to the corridor beyond the development frontage. Based on the recommended 4-lane divided typical section, an estimate was developed using a 2014 construction year with a projected cost of $28.561 million and a pro-rata share of $12.974 million. This estimate includes the site frontage improvements in addition to the off-site improvements. The frontage improvement costs are estimated at $5.545 million leaving $23.016 million for the off site improvements. Of this cost, the developer's pro-rata share is $10.454 million. The southern 2 - lane section of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) though not directly addressed in the traffic study beyond the individual site entrances has some sub-standard vertical and horizontal ge'bmetry, limited sight distances and a narrow typical section a"d~will require improvements. Based on the plans recently received, it appears that a majority of this section fronts property controlled by the development (approximately 0.9 miles) and the developer will be required to improve this section as the entrances are developed. The other two example corridors, Avon St. and the northern section of Old Lynchburg Road, will provide acceptable levels of service in the future based on the traffic study analysis aside from some additional turn lane and signal needs related to the background growth.' This is a memo from Joel DeNunzio to Juan Wade on May 15, 2007. Juandiego Wade: The applicant did revise their proffers to address VDOT's concern. Staff did not give the applicant direction on what improvements should take place on Route 20. As a result, the proffer was written to give the County flexibility on how to use the funds based on guidance for the PC and BOS. The public has spoken both in support of and against the widening of Route 20. The widening of Route 20 from Route 53 to Mill Creek Drive has been a high primary priority of the BOS for many years. Also refer to staff's discussion in question 6. Further, in the July memo: General Development Plan: All typical sections that are to be accepted to state maintenance must include a gutter pan adjacent to the curb. The main connection road typical sections need to be addressed for their adequacy as stated above. Is there an issue with the type of curb-and-gutters that are required, and if so is it something that should be discussed at this level? Mark Graham: Curb and gutter standards are specified by VDOT for public roads. Code of Development: Street Specifications - All design speeds need to be determined according to the volume of traffic on a section. Design speeds should be determined after projected traffic is placed on the streets. Claudette Grant: Staff agrees. 12. Preservation areas. Areas that are intended for complete preservation seem to me to be exactly the type of area that our Natural Heritage Committee can be helpful with. Someone, whether or not it is that committee, needs to inventory the assets that are intended to be "preserved" in those areas. Just keeping construction out of them is not the equivalent of preserving their natural assets. Scott Clark: Regarding the need for an inventory of assets, staff agrees this can be valuable. Perhaps the applicant can hire a consultant to do this. Staff and/or the Natural Heritage Committee could advise on the standards to be met and could review the results. Staff agrees that just keeping construction out of the preservation areas is not the equivalent of preserving their natural assets. Site work well outside these "preservation areas" could also impact or destroy their resources. 13. Straightening Avon Street as it approaches BR - this involves several properties not owned by the applicant. The County should get a clear plan of action to guide decisions that will be made in the future, so that the ultimate location of that road reflects the improvements desired by VDOT and by the design team working on BR. 7 Juandiego Wade: Staff agrees. This is an issue that needs to be addressed during the master planning for this area. 14. Items listed as not yet satisfactory to our staff all need to be addressed. Absolutely crucial ones are erosion control plan, protection of archeological and cultural resources, and timing of the proffers. Claudette Grant: Staff agrees. The applicant intends to make the requested revisions after the August fIh work session with the Board. 15. This is probably only my own confusion, but please, staff, make sure that the $1 million to Habitat is not being given credit twice (ROW purchase?). Juandiego Wade: Staff is aware and the applicant has not been credited twice. , 16. Last, clarify the responsi~ilities of the "successors and assigns" to the water and sewer infrastructure of the future. Although ACSA is satisfied with their agreements with the developer, we owe it to future homeowners in this development to clarify what the future responsibilities are going to be. Furthermore, it appears that the County will have some responsibility for building additional capacity in the interceptor once the County becomes a landowner in the development (Le. owns the park). Gary Fern: The Agreement with Forest Lodge, LLC affords the ACSA the decision to undertake the design and/or construction of the Biscuit Run Trunk Sewer or require the developer, under the supervision of the ACSA, to design and construct the Trunk Sewer. The decision as to who will perform the design and construction will be made at the appropriate time. With that being stated, there may not be a need to collect any monies depending upon the decision. If it is decided that the ACSA would undertake the design and construction of the Biscuit Run Trunk Sewer, ACSA could determine the appropriate charges at that time and assess the charges accordingly. The ACSA Board could assess the charges to the developer, their successors and assigns. One scenario is to only charge those who own the remaining lots which require the need for the upgraded Trunk Sewer. Since they will need the upgraded Trunk Sewer, they will be more likely to pay for the Trunk Sewer improvements. It may be some time before these decisions need to be made. If the County owns the 400 acres of park land, is the County a successor and assign? Yes, the County, by receiving the land from the developer, is a "successor and assign". The County, as landowner, could decide to "develop" the land. Development could take the form of restrooms for ballfields or housing. ACSA hopes that the County would make that decision before 80% of the Projected Peak Flow Prior to Rezoning is reached. What about individual home owners that are already living there? Yes, since the individual homeowner purchased the property from a builder, who purchased the property from Forest Lodge, LLC, they are a "successor and assign". If so how can we be assured that they will be clearly notified of these responsibilities when they purchase their home? If the ACSA believes that clearly notifying the individual homeowners is its responsibility, ACSA could attach a notice to the site plan submitted for review by the builder, provide the homeowner with notification when they start their account, and put a notice on their water/sewer bills. If we were just to require those who own the remaining undeveloped lots to pony up, would they be likely to go to court claiming a lack of fairness..... they are getting penalized for ending up with the hot potato? It is not the existing homeowners who need the wastewater capacity; it is the undeveloped lot owners, after 80% of the Projected Peak Flow Prior to Rezoning, who need the wastewater capacity. I think that it is unlikely that a developer/builder, who owns undeveloped lots after 80% of the Projected Peak Flow Prior to Rezoning, would claim a "lack of fairness". Doing so, would be admitting that they did not perform due diligence in the purchasing of the property. The developers/builders of undeveloped lots after 80% of the Projected Peak Flow Prior to Rezoning, provided they perform proper due diligence, will understand the need to lower their 8 . . . purchase price to Forest Lodge, LLC, because they will be required to pay for the Biscuit Run Truck Sewer Upgrade. These developers/builders will be wearing gloves when playing "hot potato. II Developers/builders who do not perform proper due diligence (and also do not wear gloves while playing "hot potato" don't stay developers/builders very long (and get their hands burnt). In this scenario, the land remains undeveloped (until the developer/builder sells it) because the Biscuit Run Trunk Sewer Upgrades are not constructed and the ACSA will not issue any water meters. Beights Development (Old Trail Developer) is working with RWSA on upgrading/replacing sections of the Crozet Interceptor as required in the Agreement between the ACSA and Beights Development. It appears that this Agreement is working. 17. Does phasing control grading or not? Tying the ability to move on to new areas for grading to platting would theoretically allow the entire site to be graded at the same time. It would seem to me that there must be a requirement that an area needs to be restabilized before moving on to grade the next area. We need to keep in mind that some of the "phases" may be larger than Hollymead Town Center. Claudette Grant: As previously described in this report, the phasing section (page 47) in the Code of Development is a bit confusing. This is one of the outstanding items staff has requested be re-written more clearly. The intent of the phasing section is that initially development of phases A and D will begin with construction of the Connector Road and access to the proposed District Park. After this no more than two phases may be developed at the same time. A third phase can only begin after 80% of the developable area within anyone of the two initial phases is platted (as evidenced by the recording of a final subdivision plat approved by Albemarle County). The applicant can choose any other phase to do next after phases A and D are complete. In other words, there is no specific order to the rest of the phases. 18. Dennis Rooker agrees with Sally Thomas that there is a need to make certain that the commercial center doesn't end up looking like a strip center along Rt. 20. One way to perhaps assure an interior focus would be to require that at least (75%?) of the commercial buildings be on the east-west street. Claudette Grant: Refer to number 10 above. 19. We need a good discussion of the affordable housing proffers and how they work. Several of us have commented that we don't support affordable rental units with a 5 year limit on affordability, but that's in the proffers. The $16,500 needs to be changed to $19,100. There needs to be an assurance that affordable units will be phased into the development and that the geographic location will be reasonably dispersed. I don't see that in the proffers. As I read the proffers, about 2,000 units could be built before an affordable unit is built and the affordable units could all be clustered together. Under the proffers, all of the cash in lieu of affordable units could end up going to design fees for the Southwood Development; is that what we want? Ron White: Staff attempted to address the affordability issues (term and others) in a work session on June 13. However, due to a late start this part of the discussion was limited and referred back to the Housing Committee. At this time there is little guidance other than a question of the applicability of a five-year term of affordability for rental units. Staff has not heard a consensus from the Board or Planning Commission on what this term should be. In fact, one Board member stated on June 13 that he would like to see 30 years and another said he did not favor any rent controls. That leaves staff in a very awkward position. The main reason that staff has accepted a five-year term on previous proffers is that, based on other guidance, the five-year term seemed reasonable. This other guidance includes: 1. The term currently in the Zoning Ordinance applicable to density bonuses for affordable housing is five years. NOTE: Staff has recommended revising those sections of the ordinance to ten years. The Planning Commission will have a public hearing on September 4 on the proposed ZT A. 9 2. The Code of Virginia requires that when a locality provides financial resources to a development as an incentive for affordable housing, then the term of affordability shall be a minimum of ten years. 3. The Internal Revenue Service requires that projects receiving low-income housing tax credits be affordable for a minimum of fifteen years. L1HTC provides a significant portion (often as much as 50%) of development costs in the form of equity. The Housing Committee and staff would welcome further direction from the Board on what they deem as reasonable. With regard to phasing of affordable units, we have usually done that as part of the site plan review. The Housing Director believes the intent of Item D under Affordable Housing in the proffer state,ment last revised June 12, 2007 is that the applicant would have to maintain a "running total" of at least 15% of units being affordable (or for which cash has been proffered) ~rior to the approval of any site plan. In other words, the fir~( site plan would have to have at least 15% but could have up to 30% with the extra units "carrtla over". This does not address when the units will be built. Zoning has indicated on previous proffers that setting up quotas for issuing building permits for affordable units is not a reasonable or enforceable approach since developed lots will be sold to multiple builders and some lots will not be designated as affordable. Putting language in the proffers to assure that affordable units have to be built in a certain percentage of all units could result in refusing to issue building permits to Builder B who has not designated affordable lots if Builder A (with affordable lots) has not built his units. The dispersion of affordable units can be handled at site plan approval. The only amount designated for design fees in Southwood is $500,000 which is the equivalent of 26 units of affordable housing. The cash equivalent for the other 129 units, if not provided in Biscuit Run, would come to the County and initially be restricted for use in Southwood to support the development of affordable housing. The County would have complete control over how that funding is used in Southwood. If Southwood has not submitted site plans by the time Biscuit Run has provided 310 affordable units or the equivalent of 310 units in a combination of units and cash, the County would be authorized to redirect any cash proffers designated for Southwood to other affordable housing projects in the County. The cash proffer is not a set amount by an amount derived by a formula. The current calculation equates to $19,100. The formula is that "a comparable contribution should equal 10% of the affordable sales price at the time the contribution is made". The affordable sales price is sixty-five percent (65%) of the VHDA maximum sales price/loan limits for their first- time homebuyers programs. This was discussed at the June 13 work session and staff was instructed to use it as operating policy until the Affordable Housing Policy is amended. 20. We didn't finish the discussion on what, if any, credit should be given for LEED certifications and neighborhood model design. Claudette Grant: The applicant is requesting $13,933/unit in proffers for 10% of on-site units for LEED units. It is unclear how the applicant received this figure. The Board agreed that the applicant should not receive credit for neighborhood model design, which is an expectation from the Board. 21. We need to continue to keep in mind that we have a cash proffer policy which expects a certain level of cash proffer by this development as an offset to costs to the community. When the developer allocates $1 million here or there, he is taking credit for that allocation against the total cash proffers, so we need to be clear in our own minds that those allocations are how we want the cash proffer money to be spent. Claudette Grant: See page 3 and 4 of this report for additional information regarding this. Also see staff's suggestion in question 6 regarding possible additional funds that would be lumped together with previous proffered cash and put in one account. These funds would be used at the discretion of the County for needed improvements in Neighborhoods 4 and 5. 10 . . . 22. What recommendations are being made to address the additional traffic on Avon St. Ext and Route 20? This is already a problematic area and what infrastructure improvements need to be made? Timetable? Location and design of entrance/exits on Route 20 and Avon Street? Four lane of Rt. 20 to Rt. 64? It has been mentioned but will change character of area. How much pressure will be put on Route 20 to C'ville and how can we address safety concerns? Juandiego Wade: The specific recommendations for improvements to Avon Street have not been identified at this point. The applicant has proffered funds to undertake any improvements determined by the County. The applicant will improve Route 20 along its frontage. Improvements to the remaining section of Route 20 have not been identified. Staff did not give the applicant direction on what improvements should take place on Route 20. As a result, the proffer was written to give the County flexibility on how to use the funds based on guidance from the PC and BOS. The public has spoken both in support of and against the widening of. Route 20. The widening of Route 20 from Route 53 to Mill Creek Drive has been a high primary priority of the BOS for many years. I"~ , ~ 'i.., If the proffers are adopted by the BOS, staff will work closely with VDOT and the residents to determine specific improvements as well as timing. The site plan identifies the location of the access points. Again, it has not been determined if Route 20 will be widened to four lanes to 1-64. The BOS can provide staff direction on this project. The applicant has proffered funding for this improvement. This project will increase the traffic to the City of Charlottesville. Staff has worked closely with City staff to address any safety concerns. The applicant has proffered funds to address some of these safety concerns on OLR. 23. What are plans for storm drainage along border of Biscuit Run and Mill Creek South? Runoff concerns for Mill Creek residents. Claudette Grant: The following request was made by the Planning Commission at their public hearing: "Language provided by the County Engineer shall be used to include an erosion control plan for each phase and the accommodation of drainage out fall on adjacent properties through easements." Although Proffer 5 - Critical Slopes, Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management was revised, it does not address the accommodation of drainage outfall on adjacent properties through easements. This is an outstanding issue that will need to be addressed. 24. What are plans for buffer between Biscuit Run and Mill Creek South? Claudette Grant: The applicant refers to the area on the Biscuit Run property between Biscuit Run and Mill Creek South as Passive Recreation Area. The Code of Development (page 39) describes this area as remaining in a natural state. These may include areas of critical slope and storm water management facilities where natural terrain and vegetation will remain undisturbed or will be planted with native trees and plants after disturbance. 25. Will commercial area on Route 20 draw vehicles commuting to C'ville each day or will it be primarily for Biscuit Run residents? Juandiego Wade: The TIA anticipates that the commercial area along Rt. 20 will draw some traffic commuting north to Chville, but the majority of the traffic will be from the Biscuit Run Development. 26. What are recommendations for infrastructure and roads for increased traffic on Old Lynchburg Road? Juandiego Wade and Wayne Cilimberg: The applicant will improve Old Lynchburg Road along its frontage. Proffer funds can be used for Old Lynchburg Road in the City. 27. There is general concern regarding the spine road and timing. As currently proposed, there is no commitment to completing the spine road within a fixed time period. Instead, it is tied to the 500th Certificate of Occupancy. In other words, if they averaged 100 units/year, it would be approximately II 7 years from now until the road is required to be open to traffic (5 years @ 100 units/year + 2 years from now until 1st completed house). If they developed at 50 units/year, it would be 12 years from now until the road is required to be open to traffic. If the road is considered an important linkage for transit, emergency vehicles (until a Southern Parkway can be built), and connectedness, staff would recommend the following: Mark Graham: Staff recommends the proffer include language similar to what was done with North Pointe to assure timely completion of road improvements. In this case, staff would recommend within 5 years or the 20(fh building permit, whichever comes first. Similarly, there is no commitment to provide access to the proposed park site within a fixed time' period. ' Mark Graham: Staff encourages similar language for that situation. Mark Graham: Bigger picture: With proffers that are tied to levels of development, the County needs the proffers to be tied to approval of Building Permits or approval of site plans and subdivision plats. We should avoid tying proffers to Certificates of Occupancy whenever possible. 28. Proffer number 7 - Transit relates to funding a bus route between Biscuit Run and the transit center. David Slutzky has discussed significant changes in this proffer with the applicant, and expects that the applicant will agree to fund the operating costs of such a route for so long as the route provides service to the development...there are other details relating to this proffer, which David can discuss at another time. Claudette Grant: Staff has no comment on this. Other Staff Comments: Cash Proffer Policy Credits Mark Graham: In evaluating credits against the proposed cash proffer policy, staff has recognized the cash proffer policy is designed to address project impacts against five specific infrastructure improvements in the CIP, approved Master Plans, or the County's Strategic Plan. Those improvements are limited to Schools, Transportation, Libraries, Parks, and Public Safety facilities. All other impacts associated with a development fall outside of what the proposed cash proffer policy would address. While other benefits of a development can be considered for credits against the proposed cash proffer policy, staff believes it is important to recognize the development's impact on the community, as defined by the cash proffer policy, is not being addressed when credits are given for benefits outside of those five categories. Credits for project benefits outside of those areas means more of the development's impact is being shifted to the community at large to fund, which dilutes the intent of the cash proffer policy. Thus, I continue to caution against credits that do not address the specific impacts the cash proffer policy is being designed to address. This approach is consistent with how other localities are using a cash proffer policy. Finally, with respect the Development Review Task Force's recommendation for a cash proffer policy, I anticipate allowing credits outside of these five specific areas will have the opposite result from what was intended. The Task Force anticipated a cash proffer policy would reduce uncertainty and simplify the process, but I anticipate these credits will have an opposite effect. Applicants have a strong financial incentive to seek these credits and I anticipate they will continue to "stretch" those considerations over the next several years until a policy for allowed credits evolves. For that period, I anticipate the complexity and uncertainty associated with rezoning applications will increase, meaning staff will need to spend more time evaluating proffers and additional Board worksessions will be needed to better define allowed credits. Transportation Cash Proffer Mark Graham: Recognizing the intent of the proposed cash proffer policy, I've encouraged the applicant to provide one proffer for the cash being provided and that proffer be set on a "per unit" basis, with the only restriction that the money be spent on transportation improvements in Neighborhoods 4 and 5. This would leave the allocation of the proffer funds to the County Board's discretion. That flexibility would allow the County to maximize the effective use of the cash proffers, recognizing this money may be used to leverage other funding sources. I2 In establishing the appropriate per unit cash for such a proffer, I believe it is important to consider what the applicant has previously proposed to fund, VDOT's position on the appropriate level of funding for this .development, and the Board's expectation for cash proffers. A copy of VDOT's recommendation is attached to he report and the Board's expectation not yet addressed is anticipated between $4,688,159 and $17,966,659 as described in the background of this report. If the County used the middle of the range as the expectation, an additional $11 Million would be anticipated. I recommend this amount be used as the anticipated additional cash proffer. Erosion and Sediment Control Mark Graham: I believe the two concerns to address with this proffer are 1) how long will the area remain disturbed and 2) how effective the sediment control measures will be. The applicant is proffering the latter to my satisfaction. In my opinion, the current phasing proffer does not accomplish anything. Instead of worrying about how many phases are developed at one time, I would prefer a proffer which says that any phase developed will be stabilized in no more than 6 months, with a possible 3 month extension where weather has prevented',the developer from completing that phase on time. This W041d IaJ&O exclude activities covered by a building permit. I believe this would be the most effective way to minimize damage to the downstream areas from the construction. Staff has not reviewed Exhibit C. It is being included as an exhibit with this report at the request of the applicant. The following items will need to be completed prior to the public hearing: . 1) Language in the proffers will need to be clarified. 2) Revised information will need to be submitted. The applicant has indicated that instead of making revisions now, he will resubmit revised information after the second Board of Supervisors work session. 3) There remain outstanding issues from the Planning Commission public hearing that need resolution. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors provide direction regarding the issues in this report, so the applicant has the opportunity to respond with appropriate language and revisions to the proffers, code of development, and application plan before the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBITA: Potential Credits for Proffers Not Counted by Cash Proffer Policy EXHIBIT B: Memo from Joel Denunzio dated May 15, 2007 EXHIBIT C: Letter from Tara Rowan Boyd dated August 1, 2007 . 13 . . . David S. Ekern, P.E. COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH ()F VIRGlNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 VirginiaDOT.org To: Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planner, Albemarle County ii:To~: Joel DeNunzio, Staff Engineer, VDOT Charlottesville Residency Subject: Biscuit Run Pro-Rata Share Information ~ 'i'll<' Date: May 15th, 2007 This memorandum is to provide follow-up information relating to VDOT's previous e-mail sent to Albemarle County on March 5th, 2007 on the above subject. It is the purpose of this document to clarify the information that was previously sent to the county and attempt to more accurately reflect transportation needs that have been identified in the accepted traffic study submitted for the above mentioned re-zoning proposal. The Pro-Rata share information that was previously sent to the county was for informational purposes only and did not necessarily reflect improvements that are needed entirely due to the impacts associated with the proposed Biscuit Run re-zoning. Of the examples provided, only the Route 20 scenario was analyzed in the traffic study, and recommended for major improvement (i.e. widening) to address future capacity concerns (projected at 22,940 vpd in 2021). For the Route 20 corridor, the development at build out will increase the traffic on the corridor by 45% (40% residential, 5% commer~ial) and should be responsible for 45% of any improvement cost to the corridor beyond the development frontage. Based on the recommended 4-lane divided tvpical section. an estimate was developed using a 2014 construction year with a projected cost of$28.561 million and a pro-rata share of$12.974 million. This estimate includes the site frontage improvements in addition to the off-site improvements. The frontage improvement costs are estimated at $5.545 million leaving $23.016 million for the off site improvements. Of this cost, the developer's pro-rata share is $10.454 million. The southern 2 - lane section of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) though not directly addressed in the traffic study beyond the individual site entrances has some sub-standard vertical and horizontal geometry, limited sight distances and a narrow typical section and will require improvements. Based on the plans recently received, it appears that a majority of this section fronts property controlled by the development (approximately 0.9 miles) and the developer will be required to improve this section as the entrances are developed. The other two example corridors, Avon St. and the northern section of Old Lynchburg Road, will provide acceptable levels of service in the future based on the traffic study analysis aside from some additional turn lane and signal needs related to the background growth. Exhibit B . L< LECLAIR RYAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Professional Corporation 123 East Main Street 8th Floor Owionesville, Virginia 22902 434.245.3444 TARA ROWAN BOYD tboyd@leclairryan.com Direct Dial: 434.245.3429 Fax: 434.296.0905 August 1, 2007 BY HAND ~; ;"f~.:~;~ Claudette Grant, Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Biscuit Run ZMA-2005-017 (our file no. 08377.0227) Dear Ms. Grant: . Enclosed please find our responses to the questions raised by staff and the Board of Supervisors in their emailed correspondence since our July 11, 2007 worksession. We also appreciated the opportunity to meet with staff this week. Based on that meeting and the Supervisors' comments, our clients believe they must address the perceived "gap" of$4.5M to $18M between the value of the Biscuit Run proffers and the County's proposed cash proffer policy. The source of the perceived gap is twofold: first, a difference between the improvements that have been proffered and the line-items that have received "credit" against the cash proffer expectation, and second, ambiguity in the range of the cash proffer expectation based on what mix of unit types is ultimately built. To address the first source of the perceived gap, we enclose a spreadsheet assigning value to the proffers that have not to date been credited against the county's proposed cash proffer expectation. While we understand that these proffered improvements may fall outside the ambit of the cash proffer policy, they nevertheless present real, quantifiable benefits to the community that offset impacts of the development and therefore merit consideration in the rezoning process. The aggregate value of these improvements is $9,249,237. . To resolve the second source of the perceived gap, the applicant is willing to add a "make-up" proffer to address any shortfall in cash received per unit in the event more single-family detached dwellings are ultimately built than presently estimated. The per- unit shortfall would be $5,350, representing the difference between the County's per-unit cash proffer expectation for single-family detached dwellings and the average of the per- Alexandria . HlackshlJrg . ChilrJottt'sviJII..' . Glen AHt"n . Norfolk .. Rit'hmond .. Roanoke .. Virginia Beach . Washington DC W W\V .1e(,..1 a i rry an. co III Exhibit C Claudette Grant, Senior Planner August 1, 2007 Page 2 of2 unit cash proffers for multifamily and single-family attached. Enclosed are two short worksheets addressing two scenarios: the first one is the County's "best case" scenario, which assumes the present mix of unit types will actually built and no make-up proffer will be required. The second one represents the County's "extreme" scenario of 3,100 single-family detached units (a scenario that the applicant does not intend to construct and believes is impossible based on site constraints). In the unlikely event that all units at Biscuit Run were single-family detached, the make-up proffer would result in an additional cash flow to the County of$10,619,750. /., I ~ 'i",' In either case outlined on the enclosed documents, by accepting the Biscuit Run proffers, the County comes out over $4M ahead of the proposed cash proffer policy. We hope this will not only dispei concerns about adequate mitigation of the development's impacts, but demonstrate that the goals of the cash proffer policy may be met through innovative, community-responsive proffers. Thank you very much for your thoughtful review of the enclosed. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Enclosures c.c.: Forest Lodge, LLC . . . Responses to Supervisors' and Staff's Emailed Questions on Biscuit Run M. Graham's questions: 1. Commit to completing roads The applicant will revise Proffer 6D for the w/in set time, not linked to Connector Rd. and Proffer IF(3) for the District Park buildout. Rd. link to provide for construction within 5 years after approval of the first building permit (excluding , the Breeden parcel). 10, 2. VDOT curb & gutter Agreed- no action. ~'i Wo" requirements are overkill. , 3. ACSA agreement/capacity Resolved by G.Fern's 7/17/07 email correspondence. issues. L.Dorrier's questions: 1. Traffic on Avon St. and Rt. 20: . Applicant has provided 9.3 million dollars toward infrastructure/safety. general transportation needs under Proffer 6C which may be applied toward widening Rt. 20 to four lanes if the County chooses to do so, or to other improvements along the corridor. . The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was approved by the County and VDOT does not recommend altering the intersection of Avon St. and Rt. 20 in conjunction with Biscuit Run's development. Right-of-way is provided within Biscuit Run to realign Avon St. in the future. County may draw upon the general transportation funds provided by the applicant under Proffer 6C to realign the intersection of Avon St. and Rt. 20. . Applicant will construct required frontage improvements along Rt. 20 as part of any site plan or subdivision plat to VDOT standards and will address safety issues along the frontage of the Biscuit Run development. 2. Storm drainage along boundary This concern is resolved by the passive recreation with MCS. area buffering Biscuit Run from Mill Creek and containing all of the Biscuit Run property that would drain toward Mill Creek. As shown by the topographic maps in the General Development Plan, no developed area in Biscuit Run will drain toward Mill Creek. 3. Buffer with Mill Creek South. As described on p. 39 of the Code of Development, this area will remain in a natural state. 4. Function of neighborhood . The neighborhood center was designed by Torti center commercial area. Gallas to follow the Neighborhood Model principles. . Its location minimizes impacts to critical slopes, wetlands, streams, floodplains, historic sites and , neighboring properties. . Provides lO-min walk to the densest parts of the development. 5. Old Lynchburg traffic: . Applicant has agreed to build or fund a list of infrastructure/safety. improvements recommended in the TIA, including installation of a traffic light at Old Lynchburg Rd./Fifth St. and Sunset Ave., and construction of turn lanes at the intersection of Fifth St. and 1-64. See Proffer 6. . Applicant is funding improvements to the City section of Old Lynchburg Rd. requested by the City of Charlottesville. . Applicant will construct required frontage improvements along Old Lynchburg Rd. as part of any site plan or subdivision plat to VDOT standards and will address safety issues along the frontage of the Biscuit Run develooment. S.Thomas' questions: 1. Design the connector Rd. as a 4- . Traffic numbers in the TIA and as estimated by lane divided boulevard. VDOT do not justify a 4-lane cross section. . A four-lane, divided Rd. is incompatible with the pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhood center and will encourage speeding. 0 Destroys the tight building enclosure. 0 Removes on-St. parking that can alleviate vast parking lots. . Proposed design will accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians and traffic flows at responsible speeds. . If absolutely necessary, parking lanes may in the future convert to travel lanes. 2. Put density and transit stops . Five proposed stop locations put 90% of residents along connector Rd. within a 5-minute walk of transit. . Proffer 7B allows the County to modify the bus stop locations to "facilitate efficient transit service to the property" if an alternative layout emerges, 3. Build MCS connector as a "Rd. See Proffer 6E and correspondence from MCS on blocked with stanchions." design of connector- no action. 2 . . . 4. Align Southwood Connector . The Rd. alignment shown on the Biscuit Run w/Sunset. plans was preferred by Habitat to minimize disturbance to existing Southwood residents. . Agreement with Habitat contemplates this alignment. 5. Revise Proffer 6H to specify . All roads in Biscuit run will be public and thus current standard for frontage subject to VDOT approval. improvements. . All subdivision plats will be reviewed by VDOT, , which will require frontage improvements to I" provide safe and conv~nient access. 111ft' . VDOT requires public roads and frontage improvements to comply with the most current Rd. standards. . Buildout of Biscuit Run Rd. network will occur over many years. . Specific standards proffered now may conflict with VDOT standards when Rd. is built. 6. Address gap between VDOT . VDOT pro-rata share cost figures provided to the cost estimates and County via email in March and May 15th memo transportation proffer values. "are based on the costs to address all improvements that may be needed" within each road corridor-effectively a "wish list" of improvements proposed by VDOT and not recommended in the traffic study to mitigate , traffic specifically generated by Biscuit Run, . Applicant's TIA shows the need to widen Rt. 20 north of Mill Creek Drive to four lanes is generated by projected background traffic even if Biscuit Run is not developed. Traffic generated by Biscuit Run will not generate any need to widen Rt. 20 to four lanes at any point, though it does contribute towards future traffic, mostly on the section of Rt. 20 south of Mill Creek Drive to the Biscuit Run entrance. . VDOT's calculation that Biscuit Run "will increase traffic on the corridor by 45%" is not supported by the traffic study: VDOT provides no basis for this percentage. . Traffic projections as limited by VDOT in the TIA do not provide meaningful credit for traffic reduction strategies embraced by Biscuit Run such as permanent transit service, car-pooling and car-sharing facilities, Neighborhood Model design and commuter bike trails. As a result, both the share of traffic generation and the share of costs are overstated by the factor that these traffic 3 reduction strategies are effective. 7. Cost of District Park. Resolved by P.Mullaney's 7/18/07 email correspondence. 8, Widening for 5th St. Bridge YDOT anticipates a future need for widening of the Fifth St. bridge based on existing traffic, not traffic , specifically generated by Biscuit Run. The TIA demonstrates that an acceptable level of service can be achieved with the improvements identified in the traffic study, even with Biscuit Run fully built-out. 9. Clarify grading proffer; show . Proffers 4 and 5 for overlot grading, critical how prevents mass grading. slopes, E&S and stormwater work together with the phasing plan to minimize harmful effects of grading: 0 Grading plans must provide for stable graded slopes, disposition of surface drainage and 20% or lower driveway slopes, all to County Engineer's satisfaction. 0 Waivers must be obtained for all roads on critical slopes: this prevents Rd. construction on steep slopes without Planning Commission approval. 0 E&S measures provided during construction must achieve a sediment removal rate 20% higher than otherwise required, to the County Engineer's satisfaction. 0 Permanent stormwater controls must also yield a sediment removal rate 20% higher than otherwise required, to the County Engineer's satisfaction. 0 Phasing limits the area that may receive final County subdivision plat approval- including posting of bonds-at anyone time. 10. Design of neighborhood center The east/west connector road through Biscuit Run, not - not a strip mall. Rt. 20, will be the main commercial street in the neighborhood center. P. 11 of the COD will be revised to resolve this concern. 11. Respond to YDOT's 7/15/07 See response to S.Thomas' question #6 above. memo ('fair share' figures) 12. Gutter pans on all roads. Applicant must already build all roads to YDOT standard. 13. Adequacy of connector Rd. x- OK- no action. sections. 4 . . . 14. Determine design speeds after OK- no action. projected traffic is placed on streets. 15. Have Natural Heritage Applicant has asked the NHC to meet on aspects of the Committee inventory project that are relevant to NHC's purpose and is preservation areas. awaiting a response. 16. Plan of action for straightening . The Biscuit Run road network aligns with the Avon St. in future. future relocation of Avon St. , Biscuit Run has agreed to extend the road to the . II, , boundary with its nort~t1fIl neighbor. ,.., . Avon Park has also reserved future right-of-way in the same alignment. 17. Address all open staff questions. Technical matters pointed out by staff in their 5/22/07 correspondence will be addressed in the revision of the COD and GDP. 18. Don't credit $IM Habitat . The applicant is making a $IM contribution so contribution twice. that Habitat for Humanity may purchase Southwood Mobile Home Park. Applicant will also construct the road through Southwood at no cost to Habitat. . Biscuit Run may separately contribute up to $500,000 in design services to Habitat, which is credited against its 15% affordable housing obligation. . Biscuit Run may also contribute cash to Habitat for constructing affordable units at Southwood. This cash is also credited against its affordable housing obligation. . Habitat can use the funds to provide housing for the poorest citizens, achieving more bang for each buck spent bv Biscuit Run on affordable housing. 19. Clarify 'successors and assigns' J.Bowling has addressed this question with the ACSA language in ACSA agreements. board - no action. D.Slutzky's question on transit: Proffer #7 contains the applicant's ideas for establishing transit as a viable transportation option at Biscuit Run, and includes the following: . $IM cash contribution to start a regional transit authority · Construction of at least 6 transit stops in Biscuit Run, including 1 kiss'n'ride facility · Construction of at least a 20-space park' n' ride lot in Biscuit Run · Designation of at least 3 parking spaces in Biscuit Run for car sharing (e.g., Zipcars) · Provision of a permanent transit service from Biscuit Run to the City funded by homeowners 5 D.Rooker's questions: 1. Require restabilization of See response to S.Thomas' question #9 above. graded areas in phasing plan. 2. Require 75% of commercial . The EfW connector will be the main commercial buildings to be on east/west street in the neighborhood center. It abuts the connector street. densest districts (except where it approaches the creek). . The COD will be revised to provide that a majority of the commercial doors will front on the EfW connector. 3. Clarify aff. housing proffer and See response to S.Thomas' question #18 above. amount that could go to Habitat. 4. Credit for LEED. . The applicant relied on industry and government literature on costs of LEED construction. \ . All sources agree there are incremental costs to LEED compliance, but amount varies. . The proffered LEED "certified" standard and the possibility of economies of scale in construction would lower costs of compliance. . The lack of local green expertise and the rezoning applicant's inability to realize long-term energy efficiency gains from LEED technology would increase costs of compliance. . Conservatively, we estimate a 3.75% increase in construction costs. . The County's 2% estimate is erroneously based on one source (a private green building consultant) whose report deals with school construction outside Virginia and relies on a net present value analysis of long-term benefits of green building (including teacher retention and asthma reduction), none of which will accrue to the rezoning applicant. 5. 'Credit' for proffers against . See attached 'Potential Credits' spreadsheet proffer policy expectation. valuing proffers not included in the proffer policy. . These improvements would not have been constructed but for the rezoning of the property. . Applicant respectfully requests consideration of these items as part of the rezoning. I See, e.g., GSA LEED Cost Study Final Repor\ to U.S. General Services Admin. (Oct. 2004); Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Bud~eting Methodology (July 2(04); Analvzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification, prepared for the American Chemistry Council (Apr. 16,2003); LEED: A Value-Based Perspective, presentation to 14th Annual Convention & Exhibition for the Metal Construction Industry (Oct. 20, 2004). 6 . . . Biscuit Run Proffers County's Base Case Scenario (utilizing reasonable constituent product mix) SFD SF A/TH MF # of Units 650 1,210 11240 AS ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERSIVORS: Proffer $ Total Per Unit $ Proffer 17.500 $11,375,000 11,900 $14,399,000 12,400 $15,376,000 !'MF' Affordable Housing Unit h<;%) Proffer Exemption 12,400 -$5176~;'boo 465 Total Proffer Need per BOS $ 13,428 /mkt rate unit $35,384,000 Applicant Proffers - Total* $30,858,341 'see itemized Proffers Cost Summary (at cost or mutually agreed-upon value, as applicable) Additional Proffered Items** "see additional proffered items worksheet $9,249,237 Total Applicant Proffers $40,107,578 $ 15,221 /mkt rate unit Surplus Applicant Proffers $4,723,578 Biscuit Run Proffers Maximum/Extreme Scenario - County's Upper End of Range (based upon assumption of 100% SFD units utilized in arriving at project's impact at the Maximum end of range cited in Staff reports) SFD # of Units 3,100 AS ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERSIVORS: P~offer $ Total Per Unit $ Proffer 17,500 $54,250,000 SFD 465 Affordable Housing Unit (10;%) Proffer Exemption 17,500 -$8,137,500 Total Proffer Need per BOS $46,112,500 $ 17,500 /mkt rate unit Applicant Proffers - Total* $30,858,341 'see itemized Proffers Cost Summary (at cost or mutually agreed-upon value, as applicable) Additional Proffered Items** "see additional proffered items worksheet $9,249,237 Additional Cash Contr - Total*** $10,619,750 "'additional cash contribution of $5,350 per market-rate SFD unit above 650 SFD units; 8596 of 3,100 units, less 650 units, times $5,350 Total Applicant Proffers $50,727,328 $ 19,251 /mkt rate unit Survlus Applicant Proffers $4,614,828 . . . .a ~ )( w /1, I iii = c J!! o 11. ...... ..... ~ ... '2 ::I ...... ~~ 0""C5 LilLil C\l..... ~~ '0'0 !~ u u c: c: o 0 '00 .5.5 ~ ~I o 0 u u CO (fl.?!. LilLil ,...,... MM ; ~ ! 15158 C\lC\lLil ~. ..: ,..: coco C\l..... vI~g LillO ,...~ (') ai ~ ~8 0"" Lil ~ <u. WCIl ~ tl'O 2 2 'ti)'tii c: c: 88 I Ql .l!l ~ .c VI ::1_ (ij .!!1 al =ecs ~oo~~~ W Ql 0 ..Ja:u o 8 C\l Ql ::I iii S oa:; .c ~ g :a 0 E@: :5 0 ~ ~'5 i ~ m 5-8 Ql + @ ~=s ~_Co en -.-.Q ~~x Q) O!>, !!!_Xm ~ ~N ~m@ VI (ij....."O.-@ VI~'" >g>!iVlQl681 ''E.- - 0 G> (,) C).t: OlEo.c~!c:'P VI::I~ VI Q,VI.- c: ~l:lOVlVlo~O 11.1ll.....<COC\lI1.(') ""g080oo", Sj08(')~~~~ as M 0"" M Iii ..: ..: ~. ~~Lil~""'C\l~ ..... ..... -E969- C\i ~ C\i ~ ~ 8888;h8 0"" Iii 0"" 0"" 0"" .....C\I.......... ...... ......f:9............ .,.... ~ ~~ ~ reI08~~~ q o",,:C\l.q o 0100 u<uuu.u <W<<CIl< oogtioo 22... 222 ...----- .c VI VI VI VI VI VI VI c: c: c: c: c: c: ~888888 +.:1 'iij c: e ~ c Cl 'iij oll .c u c: Ql .c ..: J!! Qi .c VI ... .E ~ lii ~ c: o t3"O"C~ Ql ::Ic:C:o (J ~~.!!(,.) "2"1:1 l'gJ lllj8~~~~ ==~~=a.~.~co ~c.o..!-- - !!!.s.s Ql~~'E~ -~~:g:c:cco:Q J!! 'iij 'iij -c: F .c: .c :::. ~ 51 a-Vl~~ ~CI) if.=.=~~~~ c: ~ u 2 0080 ~15C\l~ ,..: ,..: C\i ",' ~~~a 8~8 ~ g ~ t ~8C; M(')O o 0 ~~~ 'Egg .5.:=.= VI VI VI c: c: c: 888 ="0 ~!~ ~1515 066 :~~ -...... 'g~~ .!!!88 . . . ... ... ... 000 :""igj~~- ~oXoXoX.l!! OlQl Ol OlQl .s ~e~..Q ~~~~a5 ~~~~ c: o ." &l VI Ql c: .!!! N c: ~ ::I .... .E _ .e 'e ~ "'0 < u VI~ :go _0 u> < c;)G; :=1Q 8.c- ul1.S( (ij III ~. ~-g~ louR E~CIl ... .. U '2(ij'5 ::IVI'i .:. 8. ,.. ~e!5 Ol Q,'" Cii c: e E 0 al 'x = Q, e 6 III 8:lii8 <11.(') 888~ g18l2g ~~~.~ ~ ;g i 8 0"" ..... ~ 8 ..... M < W u < 'Es:Ql S~B VI 0 ._ cti 8~0 (UC6 .g = VI Cl ::I ~o.c 05l~ iiialo -"fiCll- ~....~s ~~~~ '-=1 U Ol ... ~ ~cn:g~(/) ...oll.c= OWI1.~ Lil M ..... ~!i~" ~ ~ N ~ ..J CI: ~ .l!l '2 ::I 8 E "# B ~ =a. g> i '2 .s ~ {l 0 VI "0 =0 51 c ..... _ co U8 :5 is. . VI Cl 15 m.5 oX E ~ ]! CIl Cl Cl oll '0 ,5 ~ ~ .~ .E ~ ~ ~ ~ ::I E 11. 8 ! '0 "0 E'C: c: CD Cii : E 5 Cii i.s lil VI CIl 15 ~ u VI g ~ Ol E 'e g>,g g 1 VI o :c oX &l ~,5 ~ ur g "ice ~ ~ Q!e .E al .EM e ~ eo Q) - i~ j ~ c;:::U VI .s i~ 8- ~ .u Ol iii ~ g>~ B c. ~g ~ ~ e'- U ~ Q,~ g> VI 6~ '2 ~ i~ ~ III ~5i .9. ~ Qli ~ "i ~B ~ l3 c:: .- c: ~ Ol'g 11. Ol VI .- .c > 8 i j 'i ,.. Ql Q,' 2l.~ g f!j B~ .!!1 Ola. CVl is. ~-t .!!1 ~ E _ is.c: 0 E06 U VI~ uW 15 ij o. ~ "'''0 tll~ 8~~lii ..J'i5 ...s.! -0= ]jglc.~ ::I C ~ _ c 1;) r:J _ Q) E = "u; 81531E.s~8 _Q)~~U>"'''- J9=~g-~(J c....Ill-.EOlE ~ Olo> ~ i iii>.~ m Q) ~- Q)- l3~VI~~Q,7ii c:'-i." OlOl 0 .- ~.c VIOl .... = ~ i U ... tij~~.l!l15~s E 15 III &l .~ ::I 15 :;::(jOl;;:::"O(jE VllEQlOlQlXQl loow OlCJ)a: ~w > Ql E Ol e o-o-_t=_Q. Z:::"J::~~!~.E ..... M 15 "# ~ @ Cl > III ... 'c ::I Os ,... C\l Iii ~ ~ Ql f ,g _110 ~,... C')II) rtSr: 11)0 110_ !! Transit Subsidy - Present Value Year (1) Units built (Revenue per year (2) Present value (3) 2009 260 $15,600 $14,848.30 2010 520 $31,200 $28,972.30 2011 780 $46,800 $42,398.49 2012 1040 $62,400 $55,152.51 2013 1300 $78,000 $67,259.16 2014 1560 $93,600 $78,742.43 2015 1820 $109,200 $89,625.53 2016 2080 $124,800 $99,930.90 2017 2340 $140,400 $109,680.26 2018 2600 $156,000 $118,894.59 2019 2860 $171,600 $127,594.19 2020 3100 $186,000 $134,928.19 2021 3100 $186,000 $131,637.26 2022 3100 $186,000 $128,426.59 2023 3100 $186,000 $125,294.24 2024 3100 $186,000 $122,238.28 2025 3100 $186,000 $119,256.86 2026 3100 $186,000 $116,348.16 2027 3100 $186,000 $113,510.40 2028 3100 $186,000 $110,741.85 2029 3100 $186,000 $108,040.83 2030 3100 $186,000 $105,405.69 TOTAL $2,148,926.98 Notes: (1) Assumes a 12-year buildout (between 10 and 15 years) for 3,100 u (2) Based on $5.00 per unit per month. Does not account for increases in HOA fees, which may rise by up to 15% per year. (3) Based on 2.5% per annl,lm avg inflation rate , ~ Ii,"," . . . .2 '0 D.. JJ e D.. .= 1Il III I.) -'l '1::l Gl E ~ o I.) '0 z E! ~ e D.. .. .E .l!l :c l!! ~ E .!! o D.. al ~ o ll: '2: ::1- ~~ 00 I() I() N r- lit ~ 0'0 ! ~~ c: c ,g,g <J <J EE III III C c 8 8 '0'0 fl."$. I() I() .....,... MM ;::1 ~ 19 I- ; ! 000 ll)lOo NNIi) cD .,..: ~~ OCO~ C>>N... N~C"i ~ ... lOCO ,...~ M oj 6It 00 roO MO o lO ~ ~u. wC/) ~l uts 2 2 Ui'tii c e: 88 E ~ Gl !!J al 'c U) ::1_ ro .~ 15 .,~o "'lai~J:l c~E0 wII)8 ~a:: o M o N II) 2 ~ ,s .= ~ C .~ oE ~ '1::l 0 :;:,;; ':0 0 ~ "cs ~ ~ 0, ::1-0 Gl + @) U:;:: ._.. Co In ~.B ~~'X ~ o!>. l!! oX 0, III ~N ~cn@) ~ 1ii~-o'-@)",~- ~g>!l~"'8l5Sl ai'Eo.2 ~ !lg>~ Ul::l~"'o.""s:c "'::!O lIJ "'0 III 0 a.1II~Cl:CONa.M ~1i588go~..... C>>OOM.....;:!;M~ 05C"'idriu-i"":"":"ft-" V~l()tf9--C'\IE:f9'1!it or- ..- tA-t.tt c"") N ~ N ~ ... OOOOoq-O oooo~o 0000 0 0.000 0 ......NT-_ ...... ......ftt__ _ 6It ~~ ~ COCOMMON N o~-.:;t...... ~ o~~~ o ocoo 1.)~I.)I.)u.u ~w~~C/)~ uUUU'O'o ESE ESE .J::.tnVJfhcnU'JV> 1Il C c: c c c c 8888888 .;..;/ 'jji c: l!! I- c o tl l5 2 :o'O"O~ fl ~.@'@8 .~~c,..~ 5l.!!l8:?;~~lII :=:.;,.;,'5'~'~1/) ~a.a.~"""'" - ~B.9~~.g'E~ -~~.t:~r::c ro~ .! 'iij 'ij; '"c: 'Or=. ..c. s::. :3 ~ e: c 01/) -l!: -l!: ~ CI) 'C l!! ~ .'!l III III III a.1-1-=>'a.a.u c: o U II) I/) II) e: .!!l N c: III -e ::I ... .2 ~~ l!! I/) < 8 ~b G~ 0000 ;:!;g~;,; ,..:,..: N ,,- M~COO ~ NCO) ~... OlOO ONO o~o o 0 ~ g ~ . oq- ~ ~O,... OlO MO o 0 uu.- ~..J:E 'OU'o SEE I/) I/) I/) c: c: C 888 ..c -0 ~-I'O s.!le 0-- a:: 0 0 . C C 000 Lt)+:;':C @)22 ;'':;)t) C e: C .!!l 8 8 , , o (s 0 ~I~~HI :q~~~0 ~~~~ ~ M'Q; ~I/) iii III 86:8 -~oq- ,~-o N 01:)'" (ij-uS E~C/) '2iij~ i'ln} l68.c o.eo Gl 0. 0:: roc:~ E 0 III 'x == 0. e 6 5l o.QjO ~a.g 888~ 0000 g~gg co.~ ~ "I' ... -pj ~ 4017... o o CO <>It o o o o ~ r- ~ o o r- M 10 M ~ ~ w u ~ ~E~ I/) .g ._ 8c: Gl al a.c .~~ Ul~E 8-g,s Vi 1'0 5 -nC/)- ~"-~~ .,lIISlo i..:/'O Q; ... :g 1I)ii5~~CI) :6o!l.=~ Owa.:E .... M N ai ~ sf ~ ~ !!J '2: ::I o o r- M '0 "$. 10 co @) g> III '2: ::I 05 " N .0 ;; o C tf!. .~ ~ Q. 01 0. e: 1II '2: II) .9 S 01 '" '8 ~ .~ "E,g '5 1II C iii ~ ~ 8 ::I 01 '0 !B ~ ~ E l!! .!!l C/) 01 '-~ ~ ~ ... ~ '~ .2 0 Gl ~ ~ c 0 C'O ::I E a. 8 l!! '0 ~ C ~ : ~ is ~ ~.9 I/) I/) C/) '0 ~ ~ l3 co E 'f g>,g M g .~ ~ Sl @ t;:E~ Gl 1II-4oI7 15 ul ~'O 'ill al ~.~ 8.~ ~ "'0 .l() .2 "Oa. g>": ~ lD 0:: M ~ "':t: ~o ~ ~e iiii .~ &a. l;:::8 EQ) 'E19 :ll CI)~ lSe: 8- u::l cQ) 'ii5 ~Q; g>~ ~ o.~ :20 _ lSo. 1) .S: '0 ~ 'E 0.& g> ';t l5~ c 8!...~ -g~ ~ lIIQl U)c: ..9.. cO) 111'0 10 ,g~ ~~ ~ ~fO ""1'0 _ <JI/) ~~ e l!!-g 5l .S: a. ~ fl sJ j '~Jj ",II) fl .e-c ,- 'S: II> .!!! ~~.~ me. ~~ ~ E~ ~5 8 ull/) 8~ '0 16~ !! a.~ fa.; '" Q')-O w~ 8ai-"ffi ....J:C; __08. -0 ~ .l!llll l:J, ::I c: S . c: V;-'l_GlE='(j; 803l~.9g~ E~~g~2u c..."O.-.2GlE GlGl8!-o-ElII E ~ a.S ~'ai e ~:ql/)~~o.iii c'-alO::GlGlQ .- a t5 ~ ~ f; 2: ~iJ'~!!Jai:llJ!l Eaillllil.s-g5j ~'133l'ajal~~ ~'WllC/)a::I/)W> ~ E E ~ z 2.g ~ ff ~ ~ .E ...Clll ~t; ~~ Clllr- a~ Transit Subsidy - Present Value Year (1 ) Units built (Revenue per year (2) Present value (3) 2009 260 $15,600 $14,848.30 2010 520 $31,200 $28,972.30 2011 780 $46,800 $42,398.49 2012 1040 $62,400 $55,152.51 2013 1300 $78,000 $67,259.16 2014 1560 $93,600 $78,742.43 2015 1820 $109,200 $89,625.53 2016 2080 $124,800 $99,930.90 /, 2017 2340 $140,400 $109,680.26 , ~'i w'" 2018 2600 $156,000 $118,894.59 2019 2860 $171,600 $127,594.19 2020 3100 $186,000 $134,928.19 2021 3100 $186,000 $131,637.26 2022 3100 $186,000 $128,426.59 2023 3100 $186,000 $125,294.24 2024 3100 $186,000 $122,238.28 2025 3100 $186,000 $119,256.86 2026 3100 $186,000 $116,348.16 2027 3100 $186,000 $113,510.40 2028 3100 $186,000 $110,741.85 2029 3100 $186,000 $108,040.83 2030 3100 $186,000 $105,405.69 TOTAL $2,148,926.98 Notes: (1) Assumes a 12-year buildout (between 10 and 15 years) for 3,100 u (2) Based on $5.00 per unit per month, Does not account for increases in HOA fees, which may rise by up to 15% per year. (3) Based on 2.5% per annum avg inflation rate I Nini Almy 1766 Stoney Creek Drive Charlottesville VA 22902 To the Board of Supervisors: July 24,2007 As a resident of Mill Creek South I am concerned about the impact of the proposed Biscuit Run Development and I am following with interest the process of approval for this new community. Commendably, the Board of Supervisors has adopted the "neighborhood model" as a standard in planning for future growth. However the protection of the quality of existing neighborhoods, previously approved by the County, needs to be considered as well. Specifically I would like to reiterate the Mill Creek South Board of Director's opposition to the proposed paved vehicular road connecting Biscuit Run with Mill Creek South at Stoney Creek Drive and the accompanying increased traffic through our subdivision. Stoney Creek Drive, a steep and narrow two lane road, is the only road for the residents of 200 plus homes in Mill Creek South in or out of our subdivision to Avon A venue Extended. Several of our neighbors, without turnarounds for their driveways, need to back their cars onto Stoney Creek Drive to exit the subdivision. The dangers inherent in backing on to Stoney Creek Drive would be increased dramatically were there to be a vehicular connector with Biscuit Run. We have no objection to a connector in the form of a biking or hiking path and a fire lane between the two communities, and, in fact, would welcome that. Some of the Supervisors and appointed officials view such a paved vehicular connector as a way for the residents of Mill Creek South to obtain access to soccer fields, shopping, and other amenities of Biscuit Run. We residents of Mill Creek South view the proposed vehicular connector as a tempting short cut to Avon A venue for hundreds of Biscuit Run residents and other drivers, increasing the volume of traffic on Stoney Creek Drive tenfold and more. Clearly, this would create a negative impact on the quality of our life in Mill Creek South. Please don't impose this vehicular connecting road on us. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Ni nl Aid j COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 April] I. 2007 Steve Blaine c/o LeClair Ryan 123 E. Main Street, 8th Floor Charlottesville, V A 22902 RE: ZMA 2005-017 Biscuit Run (formerly Fox Ridge) Signs #52, 56, 63 (Tax Map and Parcel 90-5, 90-6D (portion), 90-17D, 90-A-3, 90-A 1-1, 90-A] -1 E, 90A-lA,90A-lB) Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 27, 2007, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, based on unresolved issues as stated in the staff report, including outstanding issues on transportation proffers of major proportions. I. As described by Attachments E & J the lack of details on the plan and code of development makes staff analysis difficult. 2. The current proffers are not consistent with the application plan and code of development dated December 12,2006. 3. Substantive and technical issues still remain with the proffers. 4. Issues described in Attachments E, J & L are still outstanding. 5. A revised plan, code of development and/or proffers needs to be submitted. The revised infonnation should be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 6. It should be made clear that the list reiterated by Mr. Cilimberg, although it was a blueprint for further work, did not resolve major substantive issues that are still outstanding, including among other things the cash amounts in the proffers. 7. The following summary addresses the points discussed by the Commission as reiterated by Mr. Cilimberg: . The Commission is generally satisfied with the Application Plan, but wants the plan to specifically reflect preservation areas not to be disturbed, and conservation areas and the conditions of their disturbance and restoration. The Commission also asked that the plan show the connection to Mill Creek South in a location that would provide acceptable vehicular connection in the future. The applicant indicated agreement to do these things. . The Commission requests a plan to phase or sequence the development so as to understand the order of development and its relationship to the provision of infrastructure as well as enable the best management of grading and storm water management by the County. The applicant indicated agreement to build the through road from Route 20 to Route 631 (inclusive of the Southwood Connector) and to provide pedestrian and bicycle connection from Mill Creek South to the District Park as part ofthe initial development of the project. The applicant did not indicate a willingness to provide a sequencing plan for the full development. The Commission requests a full Phase I Archeological Study be completed prior to grading/disturbance of the site and necessary measures to avoid resources be employed based on the findings ofthe study. The applicant indicated agreement to conduct such a study for potential "hot spot" areas identified in the Phase I reconnaissance survey and those areas necessary to meet other Federal permitting requirements as they may be applicable. The Commission requests that the necessary additional monies to build the green way connection northward from the northern property boundary be provided. The applicant indicated agreement to do this. The Commission has mixed feelings as to expectations for affordable housing. The majority of the Commission agrees that at least 10 percent affordable housing be provided in Biscuit Run and that credit for off-site housing in Southwood's redevelopment could be accomplished through either actual down payment assistance funding and/or funding of their development plans. If Southwood does not end up developing, the Commission wants the money to be provided for a similar project to Southwood or the full IS percent affordable housing be provided in Biscuit Run. The applicant indicated agreement to do this. The Commission wants 12 usable acres to be provided for the Learning Center. The applicant indicated agreement to do this. After some discussion and varying opinions, the Commissioners agree that they do not request additional funding to offset the Biscuit Run impact on middle and high schools. The Commission agrees that this is the kind of thing that the Board really needs to pay attention to in developing a proffer policy (as well as parks). The Commission agrees with the applicant's commitment to donate 92 acres ofland plus right-of- way and utilities for a District Park and $200,000 to fund the master plan for the park's development. The Commission does not feel that additional funds for park improvements are necessary . The Commission wants, as a minimum, the North Pointe proffer regarding grading to be committed for Biscuit Run. The applicant indicated agreement with this. In addressing transportation impacts, the Commission agrees with the physical improvements the applicant has proposed in the proffers. Regarding cash proffers to address transportation impacts, the Commission suggested that the issue be revisited with the idea of the applicant proffering more cash to address impacts and that cash be collected in a single fund to better allow the Biscuit Run related transportation impacts to be addressed as needed (rather than be collected in multiple funds where Biscuit Run's proportionate share of the improvements to be constructed will sit until government funding for the remainder is available to undertake the particular project). The applicant indicated agreement to consider changes in their commitment, but not likely at the levels noted by VDOT in their latest comments. The Commission wants the applicant to make a greater commitment to transit. The applicant indicated agreement to consider changes in their commitment. The Commission wants to see agreements reached for the connector road through Southwood. The applicant and the Southwood owner indicated this will be accomplished very soon. The Commission agrees that, at a minimum, the master sewer phasing plan should be covered by agreements between the applicant and ACSA and R WSA. ACSA representatives anticipate these agreements. The Commission agrees with the proffer regarding phasing the retail portion of the development and does not see the need for the applicant to provide leased space for a library, but it does want a . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 2 cash commitment towards library development in the southern urban area. The applicant indicated a willingness to do this. · The Commission agrees with the applicant's commitment to apply for critical slope waivers for roads in the project. 8. One Commissioner felt that a proffer should be made for fire/rescue because 7,000 additional residents would necessitate an ambulance and an additional engine. 9. Some Commissioners thought the actual proffer values may be lower than the applicant said they are committed to provide and the difference may allow the applicant to commit more to transportation. 10. Regarding transportation, the Commission feels a full commitment to the City of Charlottesville's request should be provided, inclusive of$I.5 million to fund Old Lynchburg Road improvements as well as $250,000 for ITS and funding towards the Sunset/Fontaine Connector. Additionally, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the waivers and modifications requests for ZMA-2005-0] 7, Biscuit Run. This petition was originally scheduled for a work session with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on April] 1,2007. On April 4, 2007, the Board of Supervisors requested that ZMA-2005-0] 7 Biscuit Run go back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Following the resubmission, review, and analysis of revised information, this petition is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on May 29,2007. 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, .-1 /. ~ : ,./. t. ,/ . . . ,{..+-----" i I / (~..-- /, /' , ./1/ .' / II r\ ),_.J //:' s.~: . \ i'Lt,(J/cLlk y.d LI/,-/l'v Cfaudette Grant / Senior Planner Planning Division CG/aer Cc: Torti Gallas & Partners, Inc. 1300 Spring Street, Suite 400, Silver Spring, MD 209] 0 Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 East Jefferson Street, Suite 300, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Forest Lodge Land Trust; Sue B Minor & John M Atkinson Co-Trustees 8817 Portner Ave Suite 2, Manassas, V A 22] ] 0 Ella Carey Jack Ke]sey .., .) POLICY SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS It is the Board's preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County's deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline. If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. Ifnot advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy. Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing. This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually. (Adopted 12/07/2005) WOMEN'S EQUALITY DA Y WHEREAS, many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give women the right to vote; and WHEREAS, citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this County do not unjustly discriminate against females, and any other group; and WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American women; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim August 26, 2007 as WOMEN'S EQUALITY DA Y in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men. Signed and sealed this 8th day of August, 2007. Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Memorandum FROM: Members, Board of superviV Ella W. Jordan, CMC, ~ August 1, 2007 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Reading List for August 8, 2007 September 6, 2006 - Mr. Boyd December 6, 2006 - Mr. Wyant January 3, 2007 Pages 1 - 24 (end at item #13d) - Mr. Dorrier Pages 24 (beginning at item #13d) - Ms. Thomas January 10, 2007 Pages 24 (beginning with item #8.4) - Mr. Dorrier March 14,2007 Ms. Thomas May 9, 2007 Mr. Slutzky NOTE: Please remember to pull your minutes at the meeting, if they are not read. Thanks. /ewj COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5841 FAX (434) 296-5800 August 9, 2007 Mr. Caruso Brown Administrative Services Director Region Ten Community Services Board 502 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Region Ten's FY08 Performance Contract Dear Caruso: Pursuant to your tra...nsmittal of July 12, 2007, this is to confirm that on August 8, 2007 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, by unanimous recorded vote, passed a motion to approve Region Ten's Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Contract with the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this action. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, JT. County Executive RWT,Jr/dbm 07.028 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Contract between Region Ten & the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS) AGENDA DATE: August 8, 2007 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREQUEST: Obtain County approval of FY08 Performance Contract CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No STAFF CONTACTfS): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis REVIEWED BY: ----- LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: Each year, Region Ten and other Community Services Boards (CSBs) throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia enter into Performance Agreements with the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS) for the delivery of these services in their respective communities. Although Region Ten is the primary signatory to this agreement, federal and state regulations require that the local goveming bodies establishing a CSB approve these contracts for the CSB to be eligible to receive state-controlled funds for these services. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 1 : Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents. DISCUSSION: Annual Performance Contracts between the VDMHMRSAS and CSBs delineate the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the CSBs for the delivery of mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services in their respective service areas. In addition, the contracts describe sources of funding for the CSB, stipulate requirements for compliance with federal regulations, establish performance measures, as well as procedures for administering these standards, and describe general terms and conditions for its administration. Though the County of Albemarle is not a party to this contract, Virginia Code ~ 37.2-508(0) requires that the local governing bodies establishing a CSB approve these contracts for the CSB to be eligible to receive state-controlled funds for these services. Staff has reviewed the proposed Contract and found no terms adverse to the County. BUDGET IMPACT: The County's FY08 appropriation for Region Ten totals $566,276. Ofthis amount, $450,627 is identified as "comprehensive services," including outpatient, case management, emergency, day support, residential, prevention and early intervention services for mental health, mental retardation, and substance use disorders and prevention. The balance of funding ($115,649) represents the County's share of local programs funded by the City and County such as the Mohr Center, jail services, children services, and child's early intervention grant. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recognizing the important services provided by Region Ten to the citizens of Albemarle County, as well as the requirements of the Code of Virginia for Region Ten to execute its FY08 Performance Contract with the VDMHMRSAS, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve this Contract. ATTACHMENTS: A copy of the FY08 Region Ten Performance Agreement is available in the Clerk's Office for review. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mcintire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 20, 2007 Ms. Lori H. SChweller, Esquire c/o LeClair Ryan 123 East Main 8t root I 8th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902-2017 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS- Tax Map 43, Parcel40A (Property of Jeffrey F. & Corinne S. Buckalew) Jack Jouett Magisterial District Dear Ms. Schweller: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 43, Parcel40A contains seven parcels of record with a combined total of twenty-two (22) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Tax Ma -Parcel, lots TM 43 - 40A, One, A TM 43 - 40A, One, B I TM 43 -40A, One, C t~_IM 43.-: 40A, One, E _____ TM 43 - 40A, One, F i__~_IM 43 - 40A, One, G L_ TM 43 - 40A, Two [_______ TOTAL Acrea e 103.31 ac. 25.24 ac. 4.4 ac. 1.5 ac. 8.82 ac. 49.89 ac. 10.00 ac. Develo ment Rights I 5 I ~ ~ 1 4 5 o 22 Our records indicate Tax Map 43, Parcel 40A, contains 202.83 acres and six (6) dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 3325, page 545. 1:IOEPTICommunity DevelopmentiZoning & Current Development DivisionlDelerminations ot Parce1\43-40A lOD 2007-13, 1 Eagle Hill Farm.doc The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance on December 10,1980, is recorded in Deed Book 659. page 367, and is dated October 18, 1978. The deed conveyed 193 acres, more or less, known as Parcels A, B, C, E, F, and G from James F. & Rosemary R. Lewis to Edward W. & Betty Knight Scripps. Based on this deed, Tax Map 43, Parcel 40A, at that time, was determined to be six (6) parcels of record with twenty-two (22) development rights referred to in the chart above as parcel One, lots A, B, C, E, F and G. Deed Book 868, page 204, dated February 14, 1986, conveyed the same six (6) parcels from Edward W. & Betty Knight Scripps to First Scripps League Realty Co. This transaction had no effect on the six parcels of record. Deed Book 1451, page 598, dated December 16,1994, conveyed 10 acres, known as Parcel X, from Rosemary R. Dent to First Scripps League Realty Co. This deed divided the 10 acre parcel off of the main Dent property (Tax Map 44, Parcel 1 ) while retaining all of development rights for the main residue. The plat for that deed (Deed Book 1451, page 600) showed parcel X added to Tax Map 43. Parcel40A, resulting in the present total acreage of 202.83. This transaction had no effect on the six parcels of record or their development rights and is referred to in the chart above as parcel Two. Deed Book 1547, page 306, dated June 28, 1996, conveyed the 202.4 acres (the original 202.83 acres minus a condemnation of a small portion for highway purposes) from First Scripps League Realty Co. to Scripps League Newspapers, Inc. This transaction had no effect on the parcels. Deed Book 1547, page 309, dated June 28,1996, conveyed the same 202.4 acres from Scripps League Newspapers, Inc. to Scripps Enterprises, Inc. This transaction had no effect on the parcels. Deed Book 3325, page 545, dated November 21,2006, conveyed the same 202.4 acres from Scripps Enterprises, Inc. to Jeffrey F. & Corinne S. Buckalew, the present owners. This transaction had no effect on the parcels. The parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcel with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shalf be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. 1:\DEPTlCommunity Development\Zoning & Current Development DivisionlDeterminations of Parcel\43-40A lOD 2007-13, 2 Eagle Hill Farm"doc If you have any questions, please contact me. Copy: Gay Carver, Real Estate Supervisor Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Jeffrey F. & Corinne S. Buckalew ['\DEpnCommunity Development\Zoning & Current Development DivisionlDeterminations of Parcel\43-40A LOD 2007-13. 3 Eagle Hill Farm.doc LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mcintire Road, Suite 325 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A THANK GREG KAMPTNER DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEYS PHONE: (434) 972-4067 FAX; (434) 972-4068 countyattorney@albemarle.org ANDREW H. HERRICK ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY August 13, 2007 John W. Winn Jr., L.S. Virginia Depmiment of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Re: Deed of Easement from County of Albemarle, Virginia to Commonwealth of Virginia on TMP 100-35 in Walnut Creek Park Dear Mr. Winn: Please find enclosed the original Deed referenced above, which was approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2007 and signed by Mr. Tucker on behalf of the County of Albemarle. Please return a copy of the Deed and the recording receipt to me once it's been fully signed and recorded. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, \~C,~ Marsha A. Davis Legal Services Assistant Imd cc: ~la W. Jordan Patrick K. Mullaney - TAX MAP #100-35 RW-203 Revised 4/05 UPC PREPARED BY VDOT UNDER SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Exempted from recordation taxes and fees under Sections 58.1-8I1 (A)(3), 58.1-811 (C)(5), 58.1-3315,25.1-418, 42.1-70, 17.1-266, and 17.1-279 (E) THIS DEED, made this 13th day of August, 2007, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Grantee, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor doth hereby grant and convey to the Grantee the perpetual right and easement to construct, operate and maintain a drainage ditch for the purpose of draining State Highway Route 631, in Scottsville Magisterial District, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, upon and across the lands and property of the Grantor adjacent to the road, and including the right of egress and ingress to same. The drainage easement is located and marked in GREEN on a copy of a sketch attached hereto as a part hereof and recorded simultaneously herewith in the State Highway Plat Book , Page It is agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the drainage ditch and to cut and clear all undergrowth and other obstructions in and along the drainage ditch or adjacent thereto that may in any way in danger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor by the execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid route as they affect its property have been fully explained to it or to its authorized representative. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Walnut Creek Park Drainage Easement AGENDA DATE: August8,2007 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider granting to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) a permanent drainage easement in Walnut Creek Park ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Herrick, Mullaney ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~-- l BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advised that a pipe under Old Lynchburg Road near Walnut Creek Park is in need of repair. VDOT is requesting a permanent drainage easement from the surrounding property owners, including the County, to acquire the necessary property rights to make the improvements. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural Resources. DISCUSSION: Virginia Code S 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying an interest in County-owned real property. The proposed 15-foot-wide permanent drainage easement would extend 50 feet back from Old Lynchburg Road on County-owned Tax Map Parcel Number 100-35. The proposed easement is well-removed from Walnut Creek Lake and the other public facilities at the Park, and would have no adverse impact on either of them. The County would have no responsibility for constructing or maintaining any drainage improvements. Staff has reviewed the request and has determined it will not have any adverse impacts on the County's use of the property. BUDGET IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS A - Resolution B - Letter from VDOT Contract Administrator John W. Winn, Jr. C - Proposed deed of easement D - Plat showinq proposed easement Attachment A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE CONVEYANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG WALNUT CREEK TO VDOT WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns a certain parcel of land, known as Tax Map Parcel 100-35, where Old Lynchburg Road crosses Walnut Creek; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") has requested a drainage easement along Walnut Creek to replace an existing pipe under Old Lynchburg Road; and WHEREAS, the terms ofthe proposed Deed do not obligate the County to construct or maintain any improvements; and WHEREAS, the proposed drainage easement would have no adverse impact on Walnut Creek Lake or any other facility at Walnut Creek Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a Deed and any other document(s) necessary to convey a drainage easement along Walnut Creek to the Virginia Department of Transportation. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of _ to _, as recorded below, at a meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant Attachment B TAX MAP #100-35 RW -203 Revised 4/05 UPC PREPARED BY VDOT UNDER SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Exempted from recordation taxes and fees under Sections 58.1-81l(A)(3), 58.l-811(C)(5), 58.1-3315, 25.1-418, 42.1-70,17.1-266, and 17.1-279(E) TillS DEED, made this 3rd day of July, 2007, by and between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Grantor (even though more than one), and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Grantee, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby aclmowledged, the Grantor doth hereby grant and convey to the Grantee the perpetual right and easement to construct, operate and maintain a drainage ditch for the purpose of draining State Highway Route 631, in Scottsville Magisterial District, in the Cm.mty of Albemarle, Virginia, upon and across the lands and property of the Grantor adjacent to the road, and including the right of egress and ingress to same. The drainage easement is located and marked in GREEN on a copy of a sketch attached hereto as a part hereof and recorded simultaneously herewith in the State Highway Plat Book , Page It is agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and her agents shall have the right to inspect the drainage ditch and to cut and clear all undergrowth and other obstructions in and along the drainage ditch or adjacent thereto that may in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor by the execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid route as they affect IDS property have been fully explained to him or his authorized representative. The Grantor covenants and agrees for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that he has been made aware of his right to receive just compensation for the easement herein conveyed, and that the - 1 - considerations aforementioned and paid to him shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages, if any, by reason of the location, construction, operation and maintenance of the drainage ditch. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 20_, by day of My Commission expires Notary Public - 2 - Attachment C COMMONWJEALTI-I OF VIRGINIA DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER, VIRGINIA 22701 VirginiaDOT.org July 3, 2007 County of Albemarle C/O Finance AdministratiOn Rm 149 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 2290I Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing on behalf of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department is trying to replace a pipe that is in need of repair. The fix will require a permanent drainage easement. It is situated half on the Oliva property and half on the Albemarle County park property. The easement across the road is entirely on the Hudson property. I have enclosed a deed for this easement along with a sketch of the proposed easement highlighted in green. Please sign and have this document notarized and return to me in the envelope provided. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at (434)293-0011. Thank you Sincerely ~ ~ w. W--lt Ls. ~hn W. Winn Jr. L.S. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Attachment D :-- ;:0 r0- O') c...> ...... I' , I , I , I ' I ' GJ I ',q I ' lJ1 I " al , I I I I I I I o ..., Ol 5' Ol (Q CD m Ol C/J CD 3 CD ;a. C. (Q :J o oo"J -.. o N -.. N o o oo"J o CJ1 o co W ...... @ c;:,-;() to~a- ~~~ l.N~(t) U'l 'o".J Ct) , -- lJ I lJ C')u . I ~:-:J: I -::..1'\) c::: I U'la~ I acoo I :::> I 11lJ1~ la I~ I ' < I I I I I ~ f"l1~ lJ, ;32 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , @ @ " " , , " , , " , , " , , " , , " , , " , ' """ tlfJ / ~ ./0'" / ' / 'I " / / '," " " ::0 " " ~', " / " " " " " " " " " ~ , f"l1 'lJ ::0 '- ~ f"l1 lJ ~ ::0 C:;' lJ-;~ 9:J!>::Cl. f',J .,- CX:l8t ~ ~ lJJ'o ~ :-~ U'l-::..r- 1.0 -- -. O'):J:~ I'vQ Q ~. Q , , , , ::0 , '- " ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , ::0 , '- 'rr,~ lJ "U s:: lJ1 q // / / / / // @ @ ,- / I' <0~~" ,,;/ ~2 ,~,G1 q 2-;~:::> / a " ~!>::Cl.~ , ...' ::::::--0C) / ' ./ CX:l 8 -.., -.., ~J'~~ -::..:-<!><!> CX:ll.N~3 1..0, _::::.Q VICt) -, ~2D Ct) / / ;3Y --{ QLJ ~ :::J", :::J- Qa a ....... \) '" (~. 'OJV)~p. Crl --{(]) -... (]) -... Cl tJ Q'" :::J- ~~3"LJ )::,. '" ~~ tJ (]) Q -... (]) -- Q (]) ....... (]):3(])'" tJ C)- ~ :::Jr- '" ::tJ :::J :::J:3 (])V)tJ ....... (]) Q ....... -r,:::J C) < (]) ClQ -... V):3C)", :::J "'(]) -... Crl ::tJ Cl :::J :::J (]) -...ClaCl \Q ....... a ....... 'i-:::JC)Q " Q '" -.......... aCt) a Cb Q (]) Q (]) :::J '.J CDCD~~LJ ....... :3Cl :::J (]) -... " Crl '" Ci) :::J '.J\)CltJ '" \Q (]) ....... a <)(]) Ct) . . ~ ....... c:: :::J ~~~(])3 ~ f\J.......Q'" f\J a 8€ ~ ~ '" Cl " c:: ~ (]) n-, Q -... Q(]):O....... f\) -... :::J :::J\S (]) ~ tJ~ (]) --{ \) :3 ::) ~(]) :::J 8 a ~'" '" Q Crl \) Cl (J)' ....... (]) :::J a a ....... . -- \Q '" Crl 'i- :::J Q(]) '.J GJ.......~:3 V) --{~ ~ ....... ::0 .......'" (]) C) Q ....... ....... Crl ~n-, \Q()'::J ~:3 :3 -... 'i- Q '" (]) :3Cl ::;' -... -... ....... Cl Q (]) ~CD 'i- Q '.J (])Crl ....... (]) -... :::J(]) Cl a a ~ '" C\:) -...:3 a(]) Crl "",:::J -... "'" a '" I r~~- ..... (..... t=:'.~.:~ ~,,~,'/' ;~, r' " k~,t>- 1'-- l .J \ /~ i J~>i-v~~f)</ 1;",'1'" I, ' CI~'~<~;"':\ ''\ '~,'.~.... , ,...<' ~~d\, '-;~ '/]~~~}J,y;t.\ ,// ...y 'I ,<,,}. I , ! , ~ /, ';I. ' / \ / \ -.:t:!7'FI;"'r' ~,,( T - I - < /~_ ,:,,~ \~~clc\1 '-:/:-)"J: "y ~~ \' __ ~~ "I, " , \1 ',1 I'" I./';;':'V;:-i '. ~- 0)" ".-::: r \1 I"'; L........o:-j.. .,:< 2U~' 'y'/ ~ ' ",' 0,/' '~" "./~'J-' "", \ /~ ~-..;O"-"=1- I I~<< "<~V-:V!~ \ '- --ij 7\ ~ \ ~0) x_\.;"\ 1-L" I >. \1" "1 7".1:' I \ \ II /1 --" ~ \ I ~ r-- -- - --":;._ '-- -' Y '- I \-.[ <:-- I \ I' '1 \ I .' I j .- '.' ~> / . ,,}f C" \ I \.-;;.' ",/...... / .' ~Y,..-:::/'- 1- /"" :2,;-- - I ,-..---- T;;-~ -~\).. \ I '" .. '1/ "p \ I' - "'" ._[ '" !. :>t /'\ \ , i 't .- ~ -'" r '~ /' \ -'7 . 0 2llO 0Cll "'1/ ~_ \~-J.\~~ ::.: :=..:" ZMA 2004-18 Fontana 4C Background · Portion of property was zoned R-4 in 1994 · Property zoned R-1 was left for a future rezoning · Property zoned RA was left until the property could be served by public water · Preliminary plat from 1997 expired · Water service improved · Several ZMA applications reviewed; staff report distributed in August 2006 · Applicant has been working with staff since then 1 Specifics of the Project: · Rezoning from RA, R 1, R4 to R4 with proffered plan · 34 single family lots on approx 17 ac · Density slightly < 2 du/ac · 150/0 affordable housing based on 25 units in form of cash of $19,100 for 3.75 units · $17,500 per unit for 25 units as cash proffer to mitigate impacts TE~R:~ ..,.'_.....-. -- ? ~ '2 .- 2 s: z :z -- ! 0 ..... ,;~- ,,' J" TO LuXOR 'S~IlASI" .. 2 2 Proffers - New proffers have correct date of plan and have deleted wording that is no longer necessary concerning disposition of cash · Conformity with plan · Overlot grading · Cash in lieu of ADU's of $19,100 for 3.5 units · 5 trees/lot {approx. 10/acre · Architectural restrictions for Monticello Viewshed · Pedestrian paths · Cash proffer of $17,500 for 25 units · No applic. for grading until all improvements in prior Phases 1, 2, 3, and are completed. 3 Outstanding Issues · Since no affordable housing units are to be provided, cash-in-lieu should be equivalent to 15% of all units, not a portion of the units · Since almost % of the units could not be built by-right, cash proffer should be on all units · PC believes that Fontana Drive should be upgraded from Rt. 20 to existing terminus · PC did not approve waivers for street sections or critical slopes - if BOS approves rezonin~, PC will have to approve street sections and critical slopes waiver · Citizens in Fontana are concerned about the quality of existing trails and trails under construction in the development Recommendation Staff cannot recommend approval without resolution of the outstanding issues 4 Waivers Recommended · Section 14-409 for interconnection to east · Section 14-410 for curb and gutter on Cortina Way and Belluno Lane · Section 14-422 to substitute an asphalt path on one side of the street for sidewalks on both sides for Belluno Lane and waive sidewalk on Cortina Way · Section 14-4220 to eliminate planting strips on Belluno Lane and Cortina Way 5 I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 04-08 Fontana Phase 4C AGENDA DATE: August 8, 2007 SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request to rezone approximately 17.10 acres from RA, R-1, and R-4 (existing zoning) to R-4 with proffered plan and other proffers ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols ATTACHMENTS: YES lEGAL REVIEW: NO BACKGROUND: On March 17,2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. The Commission discussed the proposal and recommended disapproval for the following reasons: 1. The "form" is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the previously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved subdivision and is the last phase of the development. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side of Fontana Drive extended are not proposed, Off-site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to deal with run-off from this new section. Although bonds are being held in the applicant's name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership, Traffic conditions on Fontana Drive have not been addressed, 2, .: 5. 6. Other issues of Planning Commission concern related to the Monticello viewshed and the need for curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the portion of Fontana Drive from Route 20 to its current terminus, Several waivers had been requested which were not approved by the Commission, These waiver requests were for interconnections to the east, and curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees on three of the new streets instead of just one of the new streets. DISCUSSION: Since the Planning Commission met, the applicant has worked to resolve many of the outstanding issues, He has changed the cross-section of Fontana Drive to show curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strips and has provided for appropriate drainage improvements, He has proffered that his covenants will contain restrictions on fac;:ade color and roof material, in keeping with the Monticello Design Guidelines, He has increased his proffer for affordable housing and made a cash proffer for impacts of the new units, He has provided additional information to the County Engineer regarding ways to deal with drainage, which have been approved by the County Engineer, He has added Phase 4B to the list of phases for which he proffers to complete before submitting a grading plan for erosion and sediment control. All of these changes have either been made in the proffers (Exhibit A) or the proffered rezoning plan (Exhibit B). The applicant did not offer to make any changes to the already constructed part of Fontana Drive that goes through the existing Fontana subdivision, This street is a rural section with shoulders and ditches, He said that, to widen this street and add curb and gutter would require redoing the drainage system and affecting the front part of 26 adjoining owners' .ts, It is possible that right-of-way acquisition would be necessary. Staff had not recommended this change to Fontana rive to the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission's March public hearing on this project, the Board of Supervisors has began work in earnest on establishing a cash proffer policy. They set an expectation that all residential rezonings will mitigate impacts to schools, libraries, parks, fire and rescue, and transportation at a level of $17,500 per single family detached unit. It was a/so the consensus of the Board that, with the exception of affordable dwelling units provided, all new rezonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the per unit cash proffer calculations, The Board said that, unless there was only a small difference between the number of units allowed by-right and the number proposed for rezoning, the ca~;, proffer would be expected for all proposed units. The applicant could build 9 units by right, which is a little more than % the number of units proposed, He has subtracted 9 units from 34 to result in 25 units for which cash proffers and affordable housing proffers are made, Staff does not believe that 9 units is small enough difference between the number of units allowed by-right and the 34 proposed, For mitigating impacts to public facilities, the applicant is making for a cash proffer of $17,500 per unit for 25 units for a total value of $437,500, This amount distributed over 34 units yields a per unit proffer of $12,867.65, The expected proffer of $17,500 for 34 units would yield $595,000, The applicant's proffer is $157,500 short of the Board's expectation, In addition, the applicant has proffered $19,100 per unit for 3,75 units (15% of 25 units). The resulting calculation yields a value of $ 71,625 for cash in lieu of affordable units. Since cash instead of affordable units is being proffered to meet the affordable housing policy, staff believes that $19,100 should be provided for 5 (15% of 34) units for a total of $95,500. The applicant's proffer for affordable housing is $23,875 short of the Board's expectation, Board Policy Relative to Receipt of Signed Proffers and Plans The applicant submitted signed proffers and a rezoning plan on July 19, 2007 for this public hearing, The plan showed 35 units instead of 34 units, which is the number reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proffers indicated that only 34 of the 35 lots would be developed. Staff noted to the applicant that this change was problematic in terms of implementation of proffers, For that reason, the applicant resubmitted a rezoning plan on July 30, 2007 showing only 34 lots. These 34 lots are slightly different in configuration than the ones viewed by the Commission; however, the plan is basically the same, Minor changes to the proffers were needed which were made by the applicant by July 30,2007, However, since that time' the County Attorney's office has advised that some of the previously provided language would need to be dropped due :' changes in state law regarding cash proffers. Because the applicant is in Europe, he was not able to provide original signed proffers by the date established by the Board of Supervisors and faxed the proffers instead. He has said that he will provide the original on Monday, August 6, While the changes requested by the County Attorney's office and original signatures can be accommodated prior to the public hearing, the Board will need to decide whether its policy relative to final proffers has been satisfied, Waivers The staff report includes a set of waivers requested by the applicant which were not approved by the Planning Commission. Because the requested district is not a planned district, and because the applicant did not make an appeal of the Commission's action on the waivers within 10 days of that decision, the Board cannot approve the waivers with the rezoning. If the rezoning is successful, though, the applicant will need to make application for a critical slopes waiver from the Planning Commission in order to build the development as shown on the proffered plan. The applicant will also need to seek waivers from the Commission for curb, gutter, and street trees on the two short cul-de-sacs which are accessed by the Via Florence which is an existing street. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the expectations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. The applicant did not offer to make changes to the already constructed part of Fontana as desired by the Commission. It should be noted that, although desirable, staff has not recommended these changes due to the difficulties in achieving them, 2, The applicant has not proffered to pay for the full cash impact of the proposal as expected by the Board of Supervisors. 3. The applicant has not proffered to fully provide for affordable housing with units or cash as set out in the County's affordable housing policy. i ,", ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: Signed proffers dated July 30, 2007 EXHIBIT 8: Rezoning Plan dated July 30, 2007 38-JUL-87 18: 27 ,07/JO/~007 12~08 FAl: 4H 6.17 .:1110 . . . R . M . N i c h 0 1 sRAYNOR MARTIN & 88853795394 PRGE: 4 It! 003 DDt be detrimental to the public health. safety or welfare, to the orderly development oftbe Projeet, and to the land a~iaccnt thereto. 1. The Otmor may request that the l'1an be amended at any time. All amendments shall be subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer. 3. AlroNQle Bo1llin2; The Owner shall make a contribution of $71 ,625 (equival~t to $19,100 cash in Ueu of three and tbre&-quartm [3.75] affordable: dwelling UDits), or $2106.62 pa' unit to the County for the purpose of aftOmablc housing. Each daIlh contribution shall be due and payable with each application for a building pdnnit. Each casb contribution shaU be used for the purpORt offuMing affordable housing pr'Ogrm:ns in Albemarle C6unty. lfthis cllllb contribution has not ~n exhausted by the County for the stated purpt:JAe within five (5) yearB from the date of the last payment of the oonttibution. all unexpended funds shan be applied to any public use within Neighborhood 3. ~ At least one hundred-fifty (150) trees shall be planted OJ retained on the subdivided lots. Trees shall be distributed am~ alllotB with a minimum of 5 trees per lot. The five trees to be counted On each lot Buill be marked in the field for inspection pmpose&. The owner shall D.ot rcquem a certificaU! of occuPlmCy until a final zoniD.g inspection il performed and all required trees are in place. 4, Standard fo.. trees to be retained: Deciduous tree!! to be retained shall he at least a 1 Ya inch caliper d.b.h. and non-deciduous trcE!I _hall be at least four (4) feet in height. All trees to be retained shall be identified on erosion and sediment oonno) plau, final grading plans, and road pl8D5. A tree C01l8t.tvi'ttion plan in accordance with Section 32.7.9.4. oftbe Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted and approved prior to approvalof any erosion and sediment conrrol permit for grading. Stc@r'dI for tt"MlI to be pl...ted: All trees shall be planted in accordance with either the steDdatdlzod Imdscape spaiification& jointly adopted by the Virginia N1D1Ie:r'YIIlen's Association, the Virginia Society ofIAndaeapc Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Land$cape Archir.eets, or the road and bridge speci6clltions of the Virginia Department ofTl1ID8pOrtation. At planting. deciduous trees shall be at least i 1 Y:E inche8 in caliper d.b.h.; non-deciduous trees shall be at lellBt four (4) feet in height. 5. Casb QD)ff@'.i. After applying the nine "by-right'" Lots, the Owner shall contribute $437,500 [34minw19 c 25 x $17,500], or S12,867.65 cash to the County fO{ ClIICh llDir conslrncted within the Property for tho pUlpOSC ofmiti211ting impacts from thfJ development. Each caah "outn"bution shall be used for improvements for schools, libraries, public lIBf~ty, parks IUld transportation as identified in the County" B Capital ImprO'U'mncmts Program. The cash contribution shall be paid in incI'CI:Oents of $12,867 .6S cuh for each unit prior to or at the timo of ismAnGe of a buil~ permit for each unit. If . this cash contribution hl!8 not bcc::n cxhauJted by the County for the stB.ted. ptlIposc within five (5)' years from.the date of the lut payment of the Contribution, all unexpended fimdJ shall be appli~Ho any public U~ witirlti Neighborhood 3, 3 30-JUL-07 18: 28 , . 0 .1J'J/:lII/~007 U:OII r'A.,l 4J4 617 Jll R M. Nichols . JlAR'fIN. RAYNOR 08053795394 PRGE: 5 I4!JOU4 6. An.gal AdiQs~t or Cuh Proffe..,; Beginning January 1,2009, the amount of each oash ~oDtribution ratuircd in Proftars 3 md 5 shall be adjusted annually until paid, to :mflc:ct llI1y mc:nnlOO or de<irCll58 for the pX'Clcccfing calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building COlt lDd~ (the "Msrl In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum. less than the amount initially established by these protIers. The annual adjUltment ihall be made by multiplying the prot!eru1 caah contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which ,hall be the MSI u ofDeccrnbcr 1 in tllcl year: preoeding the calendar Y6lr moat recently ended, and the dcmomiuBror of which shall be the MSI as ofDeccmber 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each CIlMl contribution that is being pud in irwramcmbl. the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each y~lI'. 7. FJn.l AD....oy..= The Own<< shall ttOt Sdbmit an appliGation for an erosion and sediment control permit for gradiDs UIl.til improv<<nents have been completed for phUcs 1,2, 3, and 4A and 4B of the Fontana Subdivision and all bond, held by the County in conjunction with subdivision" stor:mw8ter management, and C:t'Osion control for prior phases have been released by the County. 8, Architechlnll Slalld8J'da: The Owner shall require aA part ofth.e covenants fuX' Fontana Phase 4C that all.stru.ctures be constructed using medi\m1 shaded earth-tone col~ for fS9lde tteatmerrt of the buildingll and darlc, non-reflective materials ror rool!l. The colonl for the ~ade treatmeniB and the coloTS flfid materials for the roofs shall be subject to prior approval by the Director of Planning. -l..J~LL 5i of Owner 7/.Jo/~ 7 . t Date j'r.3r f- A. M. NichoJ.g, Trustee Fontana Land Trust 4 313-JUL-13718:27 Q7/30/2007 12:07 FAX 434 817 3110 R. M. Nichols MA~TIN " RAYNOR 1381353795394 PRGE IGIlJ Exhibit A .0 Original Protter Amended Proffer -::r- (Amendn1ent H 1 to ZMA 94-06 ) PROFFER FORM FOR. FONTANA PHASE 4C Date: July 30, 2007 ZMA# 04-18 Tax MlIp and Parcel Numba Tax MaD 78:E, P,arcl!l A 17.15 Ac'(e5 to be rezoned from RL R4. RA to M Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zonin~ Ordinance:, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. Tlwse oonditions avo proffe:rod as a part of the requested rezoning and it is aan::cd that suoh CODditioIl8 are reasonable. L Conformity with Plu!!: Fontana Phase 4C.will be developed in gen<<al accord with the plans: entitl~ .'Fontana - Phase 4C Rezoni1l8 Plsn," prepared by Terra flogineaing and Land S()bl;icn:\~, datcxl. 2007. II copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, (the ."Plan''). No more than thirty~fonr (34) dwelling units shall be developed in Fontana Ph3$e 4C. . 2, Filtalll GtadioE Plall: The Owner shall submit a final grading plan meeting the requirements of this section (hereitWter, the "Final Grading Plan") with the application for each &U bdivision of the residential units shown on the PIau identified in Proffer 1 above. The Final Grading Plan &hall show existing md proposed topographic features to be considered in the development ofthc proposed subdivision. The FiDaJ OrlloCling Plan shall be approved by the COmIty EngjIlet'll:' prior to the approval of the first preliminary subdivision plat. The subdivision shall be graded u shown on the approved Final Gt'llding Plan. No ee:rtificatl? of oooupancy shall be issued for any dwellin.g on a lot where the County En~Clr hall dctcrm.incd the lot is not g('aded consistent with the approved Final Grading Plan. The Final Grading Plan shall satisfy the following; A The Final Grading Plan shall show all proposed street&, building /lites, Burface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer dc:te.mxines are needed to verify that the: Plm satisfies the requirements of this proffilr. B. The Final Grading Plan shall be drawn to seale not greater thllD one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. c, All proposed grading shall be shown at contour interVals not greater than two (2) feet, . 1 30-JUL-07 18:27 ~U/JU/~UU'I U; V'I .l"AJ. 4J4 11.1'1 JUU R M. Nichols . JlARTtN lj, l{A):NUt{ 08053795394 PRGE: 3 ~UU2 D. AU COJ1CQ1trated 5urface drainages over lots shall be clearly sho1llD With the proposed grading. All proposed gradiDg shall be shown to assure tluU amfaco drainage can provide adequate relief from flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer failli. Graded slopes on Iota proposed to be planted with tuxf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gr-wcot oftbrcc: (3) feet horizontal cUlitance for each one (1) foot of vertical tiJre ar fall (~: 1). Steeper slopes Ehall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriet.D by dle County's prngnun authority in ill approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shJ11 not exceed a gradimt of two (2) feet othorirontal distance fOJ; each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2: 1), unless the County Engineer finds that the gra.ding reoommendatioDl! for steeper 1l1opes bave adequately addrell~t.d the impacta. E. Surface drainage from one~ba1f (112) acre of land or from three (3) or more, whicbevw ill grcate:r in. area, shall be coUected in a storm 'ISwen- or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. F. All drainage from stroets shall be canied acrolls klt; in a storm sewer to a point beyond the rear of the building site. G. The Final Grading Plan liball demonstrate that an;u-ea at lCll8t ten (10) f~ct in width. or to ~ lot line if the distance is 10315 than ten (10) feet, from the portion of the !lmwtu~ facing the :rtR;ct has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent a4jacent to possible entrances that will not be served by a stairway. This Waded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways coxmooting the dwelling to the street. H, Any requirement oftbis condition may be waived by the County :Engineer by submitting a waiver rcqllcst with. the preliminary plat. If mch a request is made. it !hall include: (i) a justification fot the request COD.1:3ined in. certified engineer's rcporti (il) a vicinity map showing a larger Bt:rcet MtWork at a !'leale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (ill) a conceptual plan at a scale nO smaller then Que (1) inch equals two bundred (200) ~t showing surveyed bOWldar1es oftbe property; (iv) topography of the property at :five (5) foot intervalfl for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to 11 di81BnCe of five hundnld (500) feel from the boundary lint or II lesser distance determined to be suffioient by the agent; (v) the lo<:ations of streamsl stream buffcrsl steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (vi) the proposed layout of streets and lot!J, unit types, uses, and location ofparldng. a.s applicable. In revi~inS a waiver requcsl the C01IDty Bngineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satiJnes the puxpoae of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent de~e. In approving a waiver, the County Engineer shall :find that requiring compliance with ~ ;tequirement oftbia condition would not furward the purposes of tho County"s Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances or otherWise serve the public iDtcreat; ao.d granting the waiver would "2 a:l ~ ~ J: >< W u ~ ~ 00 < z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s:: ~ h~ '" <en ~ef\j; ~ ~ ~ ~ p::~ ml~~ ~ o 8 z I ~..~ ~ i ~ U~ll<~ "'< ~~ ~o z w~ I~.: Q ~ r ~ ~!ll< Z N ~ ~~ ~~ ~; < p:: ~ ~ Z o ~ ...JI ~. ::::> 0:: II t- I ~ i ! '" ~ z 0 . z . t 0 I~ ~ i= w en (.) . 0 w en ~i i ~ 0 ~ 0:: I~ I -' 0:: . c( (.) -' Ii ~ a: ~ I ~ . . ~ ,d I ~ I h ~ . 3: w z ., f1 ~ . :s ~~ j!: o ~~~~i II ~ Z 051 t- . 0 :::l ...~ ~ ~ ~~i~~ (.) ~ ! i ~ I~~~ n~ ~ In un! ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1-<'1 I ./II ~ ill I- III I lid ! ~ mid II! 1I11! '"! llil!~ l ! Z <(I aJ. 0:: ::::> . Z o t w UJ .. 0 a 0:: ~ ~ I I ~ ~ Z o · t w UJ ~ 0:: -' ~ ~ I ~ 0:: C ~ ~ I-' . Z o u. I tt . :::l o (.) 9 -' w . Z :::l 0:: In ~ ; N111 ~~ o~ ..... ~ ~ en ~~ s en ~'.~~~~ ~ ~~~ffi~~~.~.!! 1-4 ~ '"~~;:J::Z::O-''' ~ ~a~~in~~~ ~ , , ''': QQ '" - ~ "':NM'" Lt')..o ~~ Zt.'J Ii ~ u I LI n~ P I ~ I-4n~; i i ~~ I j j L t ~ Iii ~ d d ~Ii! j ~ ~ i~ ~ III' ! ~ n! ~ ffi ffi 1m ~ i i ~j ~ Inn ~ ~ 1-4 ~ M ~ i i en rn rn .. ~~~l --- i_It: "- . ....... ~ .1 f. I: I~ g i:tJ ~3 ~ I.'! .~ ~ II r../ -. , ". ~ ; l~ 1-4 ~~ >L :1 ~ I q! 1lI1111'1!!1111 1,1 UI ~ Ii i Iii IIIIIIII II i I!!! II u i ~ ~ li ~ II t~!l:t!i!!!i&IliU>~I!!~~ . I ,+!I:!!I lHS~ O:ij:J:: ~ ~ ~ - - (,) s I ~ . ~~ - ~ i -~ i~ = a i h ~ ~ I i Ii, 11~ it ~~ h >1 ! hP ~lqPi li!IIIIIIII!!IIIII!!!II!!! ~j ; ;~! J I a i I~ U j i II ~~ i is !l ~ ~ .~~I ~ r~~ og ~ rill II ~ ~ Kg NV'ld DNINOZffiI ~~~ U i a i r( 1 ~ N ~ ~ i ~ ~I~ L ~ ~ ~~U~~ (' i~.i II I s ~I~ ~il bi VINImnA 'A.LNl1o::> ll'lllVK:m'lV 8818Im~n;s 111'r' /I' ! N ~.U~ ~.~ III DNINOZffiI ;)t 3SVHd - VNV ~NO.d: ~ ~ i~~i .~~ . .~ HIll Jlp ~ ~ 0 .,~" ~~~~~~ imill It] I ~~ ~ ~; ! I ~~!!H!H! ~ t'jilJi It ! ~ ~ ;.; ~ >- llill mil ~~iU ~Iil~ lilll II ~ II ~ I~i J~ ~t: i ~ 0 Is ~U ~ ~~ IU ~ h~ ~ i~ m ~ ~~ ~- i!l i $! II! I ~ It; ~ I i!! ~ 5~ ~; ~~ Iii~ W~ w 8 a:: ~ !# ~ ~ ~ ~ ii5 !!l ~ . .<<: ~. .... " o ~ tr ~ o ........... . . .. . .. . (.os) 3MlO VNVlNO;:/ ,.. .. ~ .. ~~ f.j9 ~ili1~ ! ~ .....j!;~ ~~~~ 9~9~ . . . . !Q . ~ : . . . 'i. ~ '\ \ :iNV1 ~a... ~ ~ ~ a.: ~ l1. ~ III C'\I ~ l1. j! .,.", ~\. (! . ~I " In -. i I. ~I . ~ I:lI . a:::~ o~ ><m ~~ 1-00 ---- III S ~ 15 ~ ~~ U 15~ ~I ~ ~ z ~ :ao ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:a z I; ~ 0 !i; ill i ~ u ~ ~ ~; UJ UJ ~!l! I ~ ~ ~ *; U +c.o;~~ ~"'>- ic. !il '" N . ( COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 40] McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 . . April 26, 2007 Steve Driver Terra Engineering & Land Solutions 415 4th Street NE Charlottesville, V A 22902 RE: ZMA-2004-018 Fontana Phase 4C (Signs #37, 45) Tax Map 78E Parcel A Dear Mr. Driver: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17, 2007, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-2004-000 18, Fontana Phase 4C to the Board of Supervisors, based on traffic conditions that have not yet been addressed, and the following unfavorable factors listed in the staff report: 1, The "form" is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the previously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development. 2. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved subdivision and is the last phase ofthe development. 3, Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side Fontana Drive extended are not proposed, 4. Off-site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to deal with run-off from this new section, 5. Although bonds are being held in the applicant's name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership, 6. Traffic conditions on Fontana Drive have not been addressed, Additionally, the Planning Commission unanimously denied all of the associated waiver requests as listed on page 19 of the staff report for ZMA-2004-0 18, Fontana Phase 4C, including the critical slopes waiver request Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 8, 2007. It is the Board of Supervisor's preference that a public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, please submit final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to our office no later than Monday, July 16,2007. Please review the attached submission of materials policy established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2005. 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, fJro~ ~/ Mu~ Elaine Echols Principal Planner for the Development Areas Planning Division EKE/aer Cc: Fontana Land Trust; A M Nichols Trustee POBox 143, Marysville CA 95901-0143 Ella Carey Jack Kelsey . . . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: April 17, 2007 July 11, 2007 Owners: Fontana Land Trust Applicant: A.M, (Tony) Nichols with Terra Engineering and Land Solutions as consulting engineer Acreage: 17.145 acres Rezone from: RA Rural Area, R-1, and R-4 Residential (existing zoning) to R-4 with proffered plan and other proffers TMP: TM 78E Parcel A By-right use: Theoretically, 34 units using all density Location: At intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt bonuses; Applicant has determined 9 single-family 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 detached units in actuality due to terrain. miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) - See Attachments A and B Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers: Yes Proposal: Single family detached housing at a Requested # of Dwelling Units: 34 gross density of 1.98 units per acre DA (Development Area): Neighborhood Thre~ Compo Plan Designation: Crozet Master Plan - - Pantops Neighborhood Density Residential 3 - 6 units per acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses \ Character of Property: Wooded with steep Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential terrain (Fontana Subdivision) and undeveloped, Proposed Cascadia mixed-use development adjoins the property to the west; Proposed Lake Ridge single family development to the north, actors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposed development increases 1. The "form" is not in keeping with the Neighborhood density from 9 units to 34 units in the Model; however, it is similar to the previously designated Development Areas. approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase ~. Cash proffers are provided for all proposed of that development lots in the development to mitigate off-site 2. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use impacts. These proffers include the Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved affordable housing units as well as the units subdivision and is the last phase of the which could be built by-right development 3, North of Via Florence, the proposed street section for Brunello Court will be in keeping ~. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side with the County's requirements that reflect Fontana Drive extended are not proposed, the Neighborhood Model. ~, Off-site drainage improvements in the developed 4. The development will be able to use the part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to existing recreational facilities and connect, deal with run-off from this new section, into a path system for the rest of Fontana. 0, Although bonds are being held in the applicant's 0, Interconnections are appropriately made. name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership. RECOMMENDATION: There are three outstanding engineering issues related to drainage, a proposed Istreet cross-section, and completing improvements in prior phases of the development The County Engineer is expected to be at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss these issues with the /Commission, Once these issues are resolved, staff can recommend approval of the rezoning provided he following changes to the proffers and rezoning plan are made between the Commission and Board of Isupervisor's meeting: 1. The cross-sections for Brunello Court and Fontana Drive on the rezoning plan will be changed to meet the County's requirements for curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees on both sides of the street or only for Brunello Court if the Commission grants a waiver for curb, gutter and sidewalks on one side of Fontana Drive. 2. The rezoning plan will be changed to reflect the Cascadia note for dedication of r,o.w. on demand of the county, and construction of an emergency access-way and pedestrian path within the r.o,w, 3. The proffers will be corrected for affordable housing to clarify the cash proffer of $2475 per unit, remove the slope protection proffer, and remove the emergency access proffer. 14. The proffers will meet any other legal wording requirements identified by the County Attorney's office, 2 ST AFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ZMA 04-08 FONTANA PHASE 4C With Waiver Requestsfor Sections 14-409,410, 14-422 B. and 14-422 D. of the Subdivision Ordinance EL~INE K. ECHOLS, AICP APRIL 17, 2007 JULY 11, 2007 PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C PROPOSAL: Rezone 15.71 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at 4 units per acre for 31 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.68 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCA nON: At the intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt. 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78E-A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna . CHARACTER OF THE AREA The property is located at the end of Fontana Drive. It is surrounded by the existing Fontana development and the undeveloped properties proposed as Cascadia (mixed use) and Lake Ridge (single family detached) developments. (See Attachments A and 8.) The site is wooded and very hilly. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The rezoning plan (Attachment C) shows the desired layout with thirty-four lots for single-family detached units on both sides of four proposed public streets - Fontana Drive, Brunello Court, Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. Seven lots are proposed on the existing street Via Florence. The lots range in size from 0.25 acres to 0.82 acres. Fontana Drive is shown as a future extension to the northern property line to provide access to the Lake Ridge development. An interconnection is provided to the recently approved Cascadia development to the west. A proffer has been made to allow emergency access to Cascadia for a period of five years, with the ability to convert the r.o.W. to a permanent interconnection after that time. Lots 12- 18 on Via Florence would have been platted previously except for a prohibition against rezoning properties above the 600 foot elevation until public water was available. They were shown as "open space" on the now-expired preliminary plat. Portions of the proposed lots are currently zoned RA. Public water has become available and the development would be the last phase of the Fontana subdivision, Waivers to interconnections, curb/gutter, sidewalks and planting strips are proposed by the applicant for Belluno Lane and Cortina Way, . The property has split-zoning. Rural Areas (RA) zoning exists on 4.4 acres, R-4 zoning exists on 3.34 acres, and R-l zoning is present on 9.21 acres, The request is to rezone the area to R-4 with " .) proffered plan. Additional proffers are made for overlot grading, affordable housing, cash for fire and police, adding trees to lots, and pedestrian paths shown on the plan. The final proffer commits the applicant to finish all prior phases of Fontana with bonds being released prior to applying for final plat approval of the last phase of Fontana, with the exception of one phase. (See Attachment D.) APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has said that the property provides residential infill in a designated growth area as the justification for the request. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY The zoning on the property stems from ZMA 94-06 Upper Pantops Land Trust rezoning in which 108.2 acres were rezoned from R-1 and R-15 to R6, 62 acres were rezoned from RA to R-4, and 154 acres were rezoned from RA to R-1. The split zoning results from a prior zoning action. This action rezoned a portion of the property under consideration as R-4. Land above 600 feet in elevation was left as RA because at the time it could not be served by public water. The remaining land in the development area was left as R-1 property for a future rezoning. Public water is now available to properties above 600 feet in elevation. The Board denied the applicant's request to rezone 2.4 acres from R-15 to C 1 and the request to rezone those areas above 600 feet in elevation. A preliminary plat for the Fontana development initially was approved December 19, 1997 (SUB 97-036) then was extended to June 18, 1998. The preliminary plat expired in 2003 and some of the sections of Fontana had to be re-approved with a new preliminary plat. The preliminary plat for this section of Fontana expired and no new preliminary plat has been submitted. A copy of the rezoning staff report for the last rezoning and approved proffers are included as Attachments E and F. The expired preliminary plat is shown on Attachment G. All Fontana lots except those under consideration for the rezoning have been platted. Essentially this same proposal was under review in August of last year. A staff report was distributed; however, the applicant requested deferral to reconsider his proposal. After several months, the applicant has resubmitted all but Lot 118 for rezoning. Lot 118 is owned by the applicant and contains his residence. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Land Use Plan recommends the area for neighborhood density residential at a density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Phase 4C of Fontana would result in a density of 1.98 units per acre which is less than the minimum density recommended in the Land Use Plan. The applicant has said that he wishes to continue the form of development previously approved for and built in Fontana, Staff believes that, due to the terrain and the fact that this development would be the last 34 lots of a 183 lot development, approving density that is lower than the Plan recommends is acceptable. The Land Use Plan makes the following statements relative to this development in Neighborhood Three (Pantops): . New development and redevelopment along Route 250 East and Route 20 should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello's viewshed and along a designated Entrance Corridor Roadways. Utilize the voluntary guidelines outlined in the Neighborhood Three Study for development within the Monticello viewshed. 4 This part of Fontana is within the Monticello viewshed. To address concerns raised during the time of the original rezoning, the applicant is continuing to proffer planting of ten trees per acre to reduce some of the visual impact associated with construction of new homes. The applicant could commit to limiting house and roof colors and roof designs in accordance with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers, but has not done this. As the remainder of Fontana was not limited by any architectural standards, staff believes that limiting the remaining 30 lots would not be as advantageous as it would have been when the property was originally rezoned. . . Provide Community level park service to the eastern portion of the Neighborhood by installing Community parkfacilities at Darden Towe Park. Cash proffered to the County includes the ability to use the money for upgrading Darden Towe Park. · Consider the recommendations of the Neighborhood Three Study for the location of walkways, streetlights and bicycle facilities Walkways are proposed on the plan. Streetlights are not proposed for the development. No bicycle facilities are recommended in the study for this area. The Neighborhood Model: Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed below. . Pedestrian Orientation Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks . A pedestrian orientation was never established with the Fontana development. The existing subdivision was created using rural cross- section streets and a path system to lead to the community center. All parts of the path system have not been installed and pedestrian access in the development is limited at present. The applicant is proposing a path adjacent to Belluno Lane as a substitute for the sidewalk requirement of the subdivision ordinance. More discussion of pedestrian paths takes place in the "Waiver" section of this report. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths are characterized by street trees, sidewalks, and houses with shallow setbacks. The applicant proposes a rural cross-section with no street trees or sidewalks and with front setbacks of 35 feet on two of the cul-de-sacs. On two other streets, the applicant proposes an urban section. The cross-section for Brunello Court meets the County's standard. The cross-section for Fontana Drive is not shown meeting the County's cross-section; however, the applicant has indicated that he will revise the plan so show the standard cross-section. This principle is met. The property connects with the prior phases of Fontana from Fontana Drive and extends to the Lake Ridge subdivision (See Attachment H,) The Subdivision Ordinance requires interconnections to adjacent parcels. An interconnection to the west to Cascadia is shown on the plan. The applicant will need to modify the application plan to reflect the same language as was approved with the Cascadia plan, Further discussion of the proffer for emergency access takes place later in the report. 5 Three cul-de-sacs are proposed within the development. Two of the cul-de- sacs are short and could not reasonably connect with another street. Brunello Court, which is a longer cul-de-sac, could connect with Via Florence, but, staff is persuaded that the grading necessary to make the vertical curve would create very steep slopes and, as a result, staff does not recommend this interconnection. Belluno Lane could connect to Ashcroft; however, this part of Fontana is at the edge of the development area and an interconnection at that location is not recommended. This principle is met. Parks and Open No parks or open space are provided within this portion of the development, Space but residents will have access to the Fontana community center which contains a swimming pool. The preliminary plat previously approved for Fontana showed open space in areas that are now shown as lots. Staff does not know if the Fontana residents expected the open space at this location to be permanent or if they knew that it might some day be converted to lots. Staff believes that the lot sizes in Fontana and the community center were intended to meet the open space needs of the community and provision of open space in this part of the development is not essential. This principle is met. Neighborhood The closest neighborhood center is the community center which is less than Centers ~ mile away. The next closest centers will be in Avemore and, a pedestrian connection will be made to Cascadia. Buildings and This development proposes a conventional single-family detached Spaces of Human development with minimum front setbacks of 35 feet. Heights are also Scale restricted to 35 feet. This principle is not met; however, as this development is the last portion of a larger development created with a different form, staff does not believe it needs to be met. Relegated Parking No commitments to relegate parking are made. As previously mentioned with other principles, staff does not believe that the principle must be met because the remainder of the development was built with a different form and changing the form for the remaining units may not make sense. Mixture of Uses No mixture of uses is provided and this principle is not met; however, it does not appear necessary for this principle to be met with this small single family development after much of the Fontana development with a single- use has occurred. Mixture of Housing A single type of housing is proposed and proffers are made for cash in lieu Types and of units to meet the County's affordability goal. With only 34 units Affordability provided, staff believes it is not necessary to provide a mixture of housing types. Staff will comment on the affordability aspect later in the report. Redevelopment The site is currently undeveloped and this principle does not apply. Site Planning that The site has many topographic issues; however, the applicant has proffered Respects Terrain to provide an overlot grading plan. This principle is met in that grading will be done which creates more gentle slopes than allowed currently by ordinance. Clear Boundaries The project is located entirely within the Development Areas so this with the Rural principle is not applicable. Areas 6 . STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance. This district (hereafter referred to as R-4) is created to establish a plan implementation zone that: -Provides for compact, medium-density, single-family development; -Permits a variety of housing types; and -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and development amenities. R-4 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) Fontana is not providing compact, medium density development; however, the remainder of Fontana is zoned R-4 and two-thirds of the proposed lots are less than a half acre. For these reasons, staff believes that R-4 is the appropriate zoning district for the development. Public need and justification for the change: The County's Comprehensive Plan supports rezoning proposals which are in conformity with recommendations for use, density, and form. The proposal is in conformity with use but not in conformity with density recommendations. This does not appear to be problematic, however, given that the development is the last portion of a larger . development to be built. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources - The County's Open Space Plan shows this area to have important wooded areas. As with the rezoning in 1994, the wooded areas were important for the Monticello viewshed. To deal with the viewshed, the applicant had proffered and continues to proffer to retain or provide ten trees per acre on the site. Regarding cultural and historic resources, the following resources are located within one mile of the project area and are considered to be historic (fifty years old or older) and/or historically significant according to the Commonwealth's Division of Historic Resources: a. 002-0037 - franklin, c, 1790 colonial dwelling and outbuildings. b, 002-0130 - Pan tops Farm, c. 1936 Colonial Revival dwelling. c, 002-0363 - Town & Country Motor Hotel, c. 1950 motel and restaurant. d, 002-1038 - Wilton, c. 1900 Victorian era farmstead. Wilton, formerly located to the east of Route 20, has been lost to development and historic resources located along the Route 250 corridor such as Town & Country Motor Hotel and Pantops Farm will not suffer any additional adverse impact as a result of this project due to existing development in the Pantops area. However, the physical location of Fontana Phase 4C makes it visible from Monticello and Franklin. . Although Albemarle County has not established historic resource regulations, the County does encourage voluntary preservation measures to maintain the important historic character and 7 significant architectural and archaeological resources of the County and provided the following recommendations to the applicant: a. Locate building sites outside of the viewshed of the historic resources identified above. b. For building siding and trim, use colors and materials that blend with the natural environment, do not use highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs. c. Pavement visible from off-site should be darkened to blend with the natural environment. d. Minimize clearing and grading. e. Retain natural vegetation when possible. f. Replant cleared and graded areas with informal plantings that at maturity will blend with natural vegetation. As indicated previously, the applicant has not offered any architectural restrictions on the houses, but, in keeping with the previous proffers, has committed to retain or replant 10 trees per acre. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: Fontana Drive was designed to accommodate the trips generated from this development. The owner of the development also installed the traffic signal at Route 20. Staff believes that impacts of traffic were mitigated with installation of the signal. VDOT comments in relation to the final plan submittal were sent via email. They are included as Attachment I. Schools - The development will generate approximately thirteen additional students who will attend Monticello High School, Burley Middle School, and Stoney Point Elementary School. Projects and expenses anticipated for the schools serving Fontana include construction of a new auditorium at Monticello High School ($5 million), an energy conservation/lighting upgrade for Stoney Point Elementary ($147,000), HVAC replacement at Stoney Point Elementary ($265,000), and general computer upgrades ($1 million). These improvements, though not the sole responsibility of the applicant, total $6,512,000. Fire, Rescue, Police - Fire Service is provided by the City of Charlottesville and Rescue is provided through the Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad. The Community Facilities plan indicates that a new fire station is needed in Neighborhood Three. The applicant has proffered $3000 per unit for all units, including the units for which cash is paid for affordable housing, for fire, police, rescue, and parks. Utilities - Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer service is available to serve the site, Comments provided in November 2004 are included in this packet as Attachment J. Staff is awaiting updated comments from ACSA concerning the last rezoning plan submittal which will be provided at or before the Planning Commission meeting. Stormwater Management - Stormwater management is provided on-site and a proposed pipe system is shown on the plan to convey drainage through the existing Fontana development. The County Engineer has asked that the proposed pipe system be continued further to address concerns for stormwater management and adequate channels. The applicant has responded that "the storm water system currently consists of several rip rap lined channels in accordance with previously approved plans, The as-built channels are adequate for conveying the design storm runoff. One rip rap channel section provides drainage for runoff on Via Florence and is positioned between two lots, The main rip rap ditch is located at the bottom of the hill in a natural drainage way (between Via Florence cul-de-sac and Treviso Lane) and, as constructed, has a low probability of backing up water and causing flooding during major storm events." 8 . . . "Our concern is that placing pipe into and filling this ditch with soil will cause the stormwater to flow unnaturally, in a forced way, to surface inlets. This would place a high dependence on some entity (likely the homeowners association) to maintain the drop inlets regularly to remove leaves, sticks and other debris. Normally, in a subdivision, this would not be an issue since most watershed areas are typically small. In this case, the natural channel in the low area conveys stormwater from a large 27 acre off-site area in Ashcroft. (A drainage area map showing the 27 acres was delivered last week as requested). The offsite area consists of paved roads and rooftops, with the vast majority in a natural state containing surface debris from trees including large and small tree limbs, sticks and leaves. Rapid runoff from large storms will likely carry this debris from Ashcroft into Fontana, thus clogging inlets. Due to this unusual circumstance, we recommend that the natural channel, as lined with Class I rip rap, remain in its current state, unless otherwise required to be modified for adequacy at the time of final plan review and approval." The County Engineer disagrees with this conclusion and has said, "The applicant has provided information on off-site areas draining through the channel in the common area of phase 3. In view of this information, the piping of upstream development drainage is recommended to be discontinued at this point. On the current plan, this means the piping system should continue to the rear of the phase 4B lots (96-97)." Fiscal Impact Analysis: A fiscal impact analysis was done previously when the proposal was for only 30 lots. The analysis used the applicant's conclusion that only 9 lots could actually be created. The summary of the fiscal impact analysis revealed a negative net fiscal impact. This situation was not unusual in that almost all residential projects result in a net negative fiscal impact. The applicant recently increased the number of lots to be created and modified the area to be rezoned. Planning staff also ascertained from the Fiscal Impact Planner that the analysis should have been based on the number of theoretical units available, not the number of units which the applicant said actually could be built. Under the most recent proposal, the number of theoretical units and the number of proposed units is exactly the same, For these reasons and because of time constraints of the Fiscal Impact Planner, an updated FIA was not done, nor was the earlier one included in this packet. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The Fontana subdivision is the closest developed property. As the proposal is for single-family residential use and the surrounding uses are either undeveloped or single-family residential, no negative impact is expected on surrounding properties. PROFFERS Attachment D contains the current proffers. The County Attorney's office has reviewed the proffers and indicates that wording changes are necessary. Some of the changes involve using standard language from other approved rezonings, Individual proffers are described below: Proffer 1: Conformity with Plans - The applicant is proffering the rezoning plan. This proffer is appropriate and will need to be updated with the last revised version of the rezoning plan, Proffer 2: Final 2;radin2; plan: An overlot grading plan is proffered which is acceptable to staff. Proffer 3: Affordable Housin2;: The applicant is proffering to provide cash in lieu of affordable housing units which is acceptable to the Housing Director. Although the proffer is not written correctly, the applicant has indicated he will be providing $2427 per unit which equals which is 9 equal to $16,500 for 5 units (15% of the total units proposed). The Housing Director believes that it would be more advantageous to the County if half of the money was provided up-front at the time of building permit and the other half when the 16th unit is permitted; however, it is acceptable as proffered. Proffer 4: Slope Protection: This proffer is not necessary because the zoning ordinance allows for critical slopes waivers. The history of the proffer may be useful to the Commission and Board, though. Existing proffers for the property include a prohibition against building on any critical slopes and prior proposed amendments sought to retain the proffer. Staff pointed out to the applicant during several reviews of the plan that there would be no way to avoid building on critical slopes with the lots shown on the plan. Staff also indicated that none of the critical slopes was part of a system of slopes related to a stream valley and likely could support a waiver. The applicant has not requested a critical slopes waiver with this submittal; however, a critical slopes waiver request could be processed with the subdivision plat in the future. Staff recommends that the proffer be removed and critical slopes disturbance for building sites be considered with the subdivision plat. Proffer 5: Trees: As indicated in Attachment F, a prior proffer required that ten trees per acre be provided or retained on all lot designated areas on the final plan. The purpose of this proffer is to try to provide for visual buffering from Monticello by retaining or replanting trees. It is acceptable. Proffer 6: Pedestrian Paths: The owner has indicated he will build the pedestrian paths shown on the rezoning plan according to standards in the Design Standards Manual. The proffer says that the owner will not request a building permit for the 9th house until the paths are completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. This proffer will need to be wordsmithed; however, it is generally acceptable. Proffer 7: Cash Proffer: The owner is proffering $3000 per unit for 34 units for parks, fire, rescue and police. The proffer value would be $102,000. The table below compares the recently approved residential rezonings w:ith cash proffers. Rezoning # of Units Cash Proffer ZMA 03-12 Stillfried Lane Townhouses 26 $3000/unit for capital improvements or affordable housing programs; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities. ZMA 05-14 Poplar Glen (currently 28 $3200/unit for capital improvements scheduled for a BaS hearing on July 5, and $66,000 for affordable housing 2006) program in lieu of providing four affordable units; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities. ZMA 04-24 Old Trail Village 2275 $50,000 Cash proffer for park projects, Cash proffer for schools: $1000/sfd unit; $500/th unit; $250/apt.; Cash proffer for public faculties: $1000/sfd unit; $500/th 10 . . . unit; $250/mfunit; and physical improvements including completion of Western A venue and dedication of land for Western Park. ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 43 $3,200 per unit cash proffer for public facilities; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities. ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 330 Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $3,000 /sfd, $2500/th, $2000/mf unit. ZMA 05-07 Haden Place 36 Cash proffer transportation projects in the crp: $3200 sfd/ market-rate units and $2700/sfa; off-site road improvements to Haden and Killdeer Lanes approx. $40,000. ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 106 Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $4500/market-rate unit ZMA 06-01 Westhall V 34 Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $1000/market-rate unit; $3000/market-rate unit for Eastern A venue; Spot improvements to Park Road (approx $7500); $3000 for a pedestrian bridge; on-site green way trails, parking area for trailhead, and off-site temporary easement for greenway ZMA 06-05 A vinity (PROPOSED) 124 Cash proffer for projects in crp: $3200/market rate unit. ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at 521 Cash proffer for transportation or Glenmore (PROPOSED) schools for market rate units: $3200/sfd; $3000/sfa; $2500/mf; dedication ofr.o.w.; park improvements. ZMA 04 - Fontana Phase 4C 30 Cash proffer for projects in crp: (PROPOSED) $3000/unit. Note: sfd = single family detached, th = townhouse, mfd = multifamily Regarding adequacy of the proffers, staff believes that, based on its actions on recent residential rezonings, the Board has set an expectation for offsets to impacts caused by residential developments. Different types and levels of rezonings will have different impacts. The location of the proposed development also plays into the amount and type of offsets needed. As such, staff must rely on previous actions of the Board as guidance to applicants on expectations for off-sets to impacts of new development and thus, believes that the amount of money to be applied towards fire, rescue, and police is generally consistent with previous actions. 11 Proffer 8: Cascadia Subdivision Emere:encv Access: This proffer provides a 50' r.o.w. for emergency access with minimal grading to be used exclusively by law enforcement and fire and rescue vehicles to Cascadia for a five-year period. Because the subdivision ordinance requires interconnections, an applicant cannot proffer a substitute. The applicant has agreed verbally to drop this proffer, add an identical note to the rezoning plan as exists on the Cascadia General Development Plan indicating that the r.o.w. will be dedicated on demand and will provide for emergency access and a pedestrian path until that time. If the rezoning plan is approved with this note, as with Cascadia, then an administrative waiver to construct the path will be granted during the subdivision process. The applicant will need to bond construction of a future street as required in the subdivision ordinance. Proffer 9: Final Approval: Proffer 8 says that the owner will not submit an application for an erosion and sediment control permit until all improvements in Phases I, 2, 3, and 4a of the Fontana subdivision have been completed. There are a number of outstanding bonds being held on Fontana for improvements that need to be completed, including the pedestrian paths. The applicant has begun work on completing the pedestrian paths and is working out an arrangement with the Subdivision Agent to relocate paths that cannot be built as shown on the approved subdivision plats. The proffer ensures that the paths and all other improvements in previous phases will be built before the applicant starts on this phase. Staffhas asked that all of Phase 4 be included with the proffer. The owner has indicated that he has sold the property in Phase 4b and does not have control over it. Staff notes that the Phase 4 bonds are in the name of Fontana Land Trust and recommends that they be included in proffer 9. WAIVERS With this development, the applicant is requesting waivers for curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees on two short cul-de-sacs and curb and gutter and sidewalks on one side of Fontana Drive. The applicant is also asking that the interconnections to the south and to the north be the only required interconnections. Waiver to Section 14-409 for interconnections: In reviewing a request, the Commission is to consider the following: (i) the engineering requirements for coordination and connection: There is no existing or proposed street to which the connection could be made because of the existing development and topography. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to extend a street to the east. (ii) whether the need for coordination and connection outweighs the impacts on environmental resources such as streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, andfloodplain: There would be impacts on streams and steep slopes, (iii) whether the street would and should be extended into the rural areas: If the street were extended to the east, it would be extended into the rural areas. 12 (iv) whether there is an alternative street connection from another location in the subdivision that is preferable because of design, trafflc flow, or the promotion of the goals of the comprehensive plan, including the neighborhood model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan: There are three other interconnections proposed - Fontana Drive extended to the north to Lake Ridge, Cascadia to the west, and Fontana Drive into the rest of Fontana to the south. The proposed master plan for the Pantops area does not include an interconnection to the east from Fontana to Ashcroft. . (v) whether the waiver would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be satisfied to a greater extent so that the overall goals of the neighborhood model are more fully achieved: Granting the waiver would not enable any of the neighborhood model principles to be more fully achieved. In approving a waiver, the commission shallfind that requiring coordination would notforward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto. From an engineering perspective, an environmental perspective, and a rural area policy perspective, it makes no sense to extend a street to the east. A more orderly development pattern is actually achieved by not making the connection. Staff does not believe that granting the waiver would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. Staff recommends that the waiver to interconnect to Ashcroft be granted. . Waiver to Section 14-410 for curb and gutter for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane and one half of Fontana Drive: In particular, the applicant has requested a half-rural/half-urban section for the following reasons: 1. Only one lot (lot 118) exists on the west side of Fontana Drive. With this rezoning only one additional lot is being requested. Thus, only two lots which are large in size compared to the other R-4 lots shown along Brunello Court, are positioned along a stretch of road more than 1,000 feet in length. Thus, the use demands little to no need for a western sidewalk. 2, Comparatively, of the 16 lots proposed in this area of the rezoning, 15 are positioned to the east side of Fontana Drive and only one to the west. Thus foot traffic is derived from the east side, not the west. 3. The apex of the hill along Fontana Drive occurs at Fontana CourtNerona Drive intersection. The next full (cross) intersection is planned in Lake Ridge after crossing a major ravine. These two full intersections provide a logical transition in the road cross-section. 4, Street trees can be provided along the west side without curb and gutter and sidewalk on that side, 5, Stormwater runoff will be minimal since the drainage area is limited to a narrow strip (one half of road on the west side) defined by the crown or centerline of road. The land west of the road lies at and predominately below the road. Unlike the east side, no drainage is directed to the road. Thus, a western gutter pan with curb drop inlets is not necessary to handle the minimal run 0 ff. . The applicant has respectfully requested that the planning commission provide support of a modified urban road section, 13 The County Engineer has said that on Fontana Drive the ordinance should be adhered to, and an urban curb-and-gutter section should be used. The half-and-half section is not supported. In reviewing a request, the Commission is to consider the following: (i) the number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served -Eleven lots are proposed on Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. The applicant wishes to continue the character of the existing Fontana development which has similarly sized lots. The smallest lot is 0.28 acres and the largest lot is 0.58 acres. From Fontana Drive northward into Lake Ridge, considerably more lots are proposed. Although in Fontana, there are only 3 new lots which would take access from Fontana Drive, there are 97 development area lots and 7 RA lots in the Lake Ridge subdivision, all of which require access from Fontana Drive. (ii.) the length of the street - There are two streets for which the rural section is requested - a 125 foot long cul-de-sac (Cortina Way) and a 400 foot long cul-de-sac (Belluno Lane). Staff believes that the short length of these two cul-de-sacs helps to justify use of a rural section. Fontana Drive through Lake Ridge is 1745 feet which is considerably longer. (ii) whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of streets constructed to a rural cross-section - The two cul-de-sacs extend from an existing rural cross-section street - Via Florence. Fontana Drive would extend from a rural cross- section street into an urban section being provided by Lake Ridge. (iii) the proximity of the subdivision and the street to the boundaries of the development and rural areas - The lots to be served by the cul-de-sacs Cortina Way and Belluno Lane are on the edge of the development area. The 110 lots being served by Fontana Drive extended (Lake Ridge and lots in Fontana 4C) are almost all in the development area. (iv) whether the street terminates in the neighborhood or at the edge of the development area or is otherwise expected to provide interconnections to abutting lands -- The two cul-de- sacs terminate in the neighborhood and these are at the edge of the development area. Fontana Drive extends into Lake Ridge, most of which is in the development area. (v) whether a rural cross-section in the development areas furthers the goals of the comprehensive plan, with particular emphasis on the Neighborhood Model and the applicable neighborhood master plan; South of Via Florence, the development is a conventional development which does not further the principles of the Neighborhood Model, except that some pedestrian access is proposed. North of Via Florence, new residential development is proposed with curb and gutter, sidewalks and street trees on both Brunello Court and in Lake Ridge. (vi) whether the use of a rural cross-section would enable a different principle of the Neighborhood Model to be more fully implemented; Use of a rural cross-section would not help a principle of the Neighborhood Model to be more fully implemented. (vii) whether the proposed density of the subdivision is consistent with the density recommended in the Land Use Plan section of the comprehensive plan - The density ofthe 14 . proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the density recommended in the Lands Use Plan. Gross density is 1.98 units per acre; the Land Use Plan recommends as least 3 units per acre. When this consideration was added to the list of considerations, the recommending committee to the Board was concerned that applicants might decline to develop in accordance with the densities of the Comprehensive Plan and seek waivers to do conventional development. The committee thought that providing low density inside the Development Areas was not a sufficient reason to grant a waiver for curb and gutter. lfthe Commission did not grant the waiver, developers might choose to provide greater density to help recoup their cost for the added infrastructure and provide a form of development more in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. (viii) In approving a waiver, the commission shallfind that requiring curb or curb and gutter would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto. Staff believes that requiring curb and gutter on the Cortina Way and Belluno Lane is not essential due to the length and the location of the two cul-de-sacs on the edge of the development area. It will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to sound engineering practices and the land adjacent thereto. . Staff believes that requiring curb and gutter on both sides of Fontana Drive extended would serve the public health safety and welfare by providing a consistent street section into Lake Ridge and a consistent method for handling runoff from the street. The applicant has indicated to staff that there will be major difficulty in meeting VDOT requirements for horizontal curvature and that requiring a street section similar to the one proposed for Lake Ridge will cause difficulty in street alignment for Lake Ridge. To date, the County Engineer has not agreed with the applicant. At this juncture, staff cannot recommend approval of the waiver for curb and gutter on one side of the street for Fontana Drive. Waiver to Section 14-422 of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks. The applicant has asked for a waiver to provide an asphalt path on one side of the street instead of sidewalks on both sides of the street for Belluno Lane and no sidewalks on Cortina Way. The applicant has proposed a sidewalk on the east side of Fontana Drive only. The reason for the applicant's proposal for a sidewalk on the east side of Fontana Drive follows: "We have a hardship on Fontana Drive. Three lots (112,113, and 118) are recorded lots with built houses, The front right-of-way lines are based on the original Fontana Preliminary Plat road alignment (showing a 50' right-of-way). This road alignment is made up of reverse curves with no tangent sections. To avoid misalignment of the road centerline with the existing Fontana Drive, it is necessary to position the centerline of proposed Fontana Drive 25 from lots 112 and 113. The urban street sections have been revised to meet the County's minimum requirements and are depicted on the plans. The west side of Fontana Drive has only two lots (likely to be combined into one at a lager date) and an emergency access. Thus a waiver is requested to construct this side without curb and gutter and sidewalk. For these waiver requests, the following analysis is made: . In reviewing a request to waive the requirement for sidewalks, the commission shall consider whether: IS (i) a waiver to allow a rural cross-section has been granted - A waiver for a rural cross-section has been requested on Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. A pedestrian path is proposed along Belluno Lane. An asphalt path could be considered in keeping with the rural cross-section. The applicant has also requested a half-rural/half-urban section on Fontana Drive extended to the boundary with Lake Ridge where an urban section is proposed. The rural section is proposed without a sidewalk. (ii) a surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the character of the proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood - Asphalt is proposed for the path on Belluno Lane. Other paths in Fontana are asphalt as well as primitive. No sidewalk is proposed on the west side of Fontana Drive extended. (iii) sidewalks on one side of the street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on only one side of the street - No environmental constraints are identified and lots are provided on both sides of the street for the two cul-de-sacs. Although slopes exist on the west side of Fontana Drive extended, they are expected to be graded substantially with installation of the Fontana Drive. Lots are proposed on both sides of the street. (iv) the sidewalks reasonably can connect into an existing or future pedestrian system in the area - A pedestrian system was planned for all phases of the Fontana development which is currently under completion. Where paths cannot be constructed as shown on the approved final plats for Phases 1 - 4, the applicant will be providing alternatives acceptable to the subdivision agent. Once constructed, the pedestrian path on Belluno Lane will connect into an existing pedestrian system as well as connect to Lake Ridge. For Fontana Drive extended, sidewalks on both sides of the street could connect into a consistent street section being proposed for Lake Ridge. (v) the length of the street is so short and the density of the development is so low that it is unlikely that the sidewalk would be used to an extent that it would provide a public benefit- - The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement entirely on Cortina Way which is so short that most people would not use it. An asphalt path would be used on Belluno Lane on at least one side of the street. As previously stated, the length of Fontana Drive is considerably longer than the two cul-de- sacs proposed for a rural cross-section. In Fontana 4C, Fontana Drive extended is 675 feet long. Having sidewalks on both sides of the street extending into Lake Ridge provides the benefit that pedestrians would not have to cross the street to get to a sidewalk system when walking from Lake Ridge to Fontana and vice versa. (vi) an alternate pedestrian system including an alternative pavement could provide more appropriate access throughout the subdivision and to adjoining lands, based on a proposed alternative profile submitted by the subdivider -- Staff believes that for Belluno Lane, an asphalt path meeting standards in the County's Design Standards manual would be appropriate. A sidewalk on on-side of the street only is proposed by the developer for Fontana Drive extended, 16 (vii) the sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained - With the street sections proposed for Belluno Lane and Cortina Way, the asphalt path would need to be in a private easement . rather than in the r.o.w. (viii) the waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the Neighborhood Model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan - The waiver for a sidewalk on Cortina way does not promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan or Neighborhood Model; allowance for a path on only one side of Belluno Lane helps to achieve the principle for a pedestrian orientation. Providing for a sidewalk on only one side of the street on Fontana Drive extended does not forward the goals for a pedestrian orientation for the new section of Fontana and Lake Ridge. (ix) and waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the Neighborhood Model to be more fully achieved. A different principle of the Neighborhood Model would not be more fully achieved by waiving sidewalks, requiring them on one side of two streets, or by modifying the surface. In approving a waiver, the commission shallfind that requiring sidewalks would notforward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto. . Staff believes that granting the waiver for a sidewalk on Cortina Way would not be detrimental because the sidewalk likely would not be used due to the short length of the cul-de-sac and arrangement of lots. Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk waiver for Cortina Way, Also Staff believes that granting the waivers to allow an asphalt path on one side of the street on Belluno Lane would not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare. Requiring a sidewalk on one side of the street would be an improvement in pedestrian access over the previously approved phases of Fontana which did not require sidewalks or paths on either side of the streets. Staff believes differently for Fontana Drive extended. Having a sidewalk on both sides of the street serves the new section of Fontana Drive as well as Lake Ridge. A section with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the streets connects more cleanly with Lake Ridge, than a half urban, half rural section, Waivers to Section 14-422 D of the Subdivision Ordinance for planting strips are requested in for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane, The following analysis is provided for both areas on the plan: In reviewing a request to waive any requirementfor planting strips, the commission shall consider whether: (i) a waiver to allow a rural cross-section has been granted--A rural cross-section has been requested for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. (ii) a sidewalk waiver has been granted--Sidewalk waivers are recommended on Cortina Way and Belluno Lane, where Belluno Lane would potentially have an asphalt path, . 17 (iii) reducing the size of or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the Neighborhood Model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan--Providing a planting strip on rural cross-section streets becomes very difficult and begs the question of whether an urban section is more appropriate. Since staff has recommended a rural cross-section street for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane, it accepts that these goals will not be met at this location. (iv) waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the Neighborhood Model to be more fully achieved--A different principle of the Neighborhood Model would not be achieved by eliminating the street tree requirements. In approving a waiver, the commission shallfind that requiring planting strips would notforward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, and to the land adjacent thereto --Staff believes that, for orderly development of the area and to the land adjacent thereto, planting strips are not necessary along the streets for which rural cross- sections are approved. Staff recommends approval of a waiver to the planting strip requirement for Belluno Lane and Cortina Way. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff and the applicant for this rezoning have been working on this project for the last several years. After much discussion, the applicant has realized the benefit of providing an urban cross-section for Brunello Court, He has proposed a half-rural/half-urban section for Fontana Drive with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on one side of the street. The applicant has also agreed to add the same note as Cascadia provided on its plan. The applicant has also agreed to make proffer changes requested by the County Attorney's office. Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposed development is located in the designated Development Areas. 2. Cash proffers are provided for all proposed lots in the development to mitigate off-site impacts, These proffers include the affordable housing units as well as the units which could be built by- right. 3. North of Via Florence, the proposed street section for Brunello Court will be in keeping with the County's requirements that reflect the Neighborhood Model. 4. The development will be able to use the existing recreational facilities and connect into a path system for the rest of Fontana. 5. Interconnections are appropriately made. Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. The "form" is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the pre- viously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development. 2. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved subdivision and is the last phase of the development. 3. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side Fontana Drive extended are not proposed. 4. Off-site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to deal with run-off from this new section, 18 5. Although bonds are being held in the applicant's name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in . Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership. RECOMMENDATION The three outstanding issues relate to engineering concerns of staff. The County Engineer is expected to be at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss these issues with the Commission. Once these issues are resolved, staff can recommend approval of the rezoning provided the following changes to the proffers and rezoning plan are made between the Commission and Board of Supervisor's meeting: 1. The cross-sections for Brunello Court and Fontana Drive on the rezoning plan will be changed to meet the County's requirements for curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees on both sides of the street or only for Brunello Court if the Commission grants a waiver for curb, gutter and sidewalks on one side of Fontana Drive 2. The rezoning plan will be changed to reflect the Cascadia note for dedication ofr.o.w. on demand of the county, and construction of an emergency access-way and pedestrian path within the r.o.w. 3. The proffers will be corrected for affordable housing to clarify the cash proffer of $2475 per unit, remove the slope protection proffer, and remove the emergency access proffer, 4. The proffers will meet any other legal wording requirements identified by the County Attorney's office. . WAIVERS If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, staff recommends approval of the following waivers: 1, Section 14-409 to require only the interconnections shown on the rezoning plan. 2. Section 14-410 to allow for a rural section on Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. 3, Section 14-422 of the Subdivision Ordinance to substitute an asphalt path meeting standards of the County's design manual for Belluno Lane. 4, Section 14-422 to waive the sidewalk requirement on Cortina Way. 5. Section 14-422 to allow for a sidewalk on one-side of the street only on Belluno Lane. 6, Section 14-422 (D) to waive the requirement for planting strips on Belluno Lane and Cortina Way, Staff does not recommend approval of a waiver to Sections 14-422 to allow for a rural section with no sidewalk on the west side of Fontana Drive extended, . A TT ACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Tax Map ATTACHMENT B: Aerial Photo of Fontana 4C A TT ACHMENT C: Fontana 4C Rezoning Plan prepared by Terra Engineering and dated March 27,2007 ATTACHMENT D: Proffers dated March 27,2007 19 ATTACHMENT E: Rezoning staff report for ZMA 94-06 ATTACHMENT F: Proffers dated January 5,1995 ATTACHMENT G: Preliminary Plat last approved June 18, 1998 ATTACHMENT H: Cascadia/FontanalLake Ridge Composite August 2006 ATTACHMENT I: VDOT Comments by email dated 4/3/07 ATTACHMENT J: ACSA Comments dated November 8, 2004 and November 18,2004 20 ,~ \ ~rI'''''''''''-' ~. j: ,,=' ~~' ! ',7 ,.,: 'iIO"\~ 62-23 73A1 Attachment A 28A ..-........... '- 62-25C1 62-25C " 280 62-26A ,_ '" ZMA-2004-018 FONTANA PHASE 4C TAX MAP 78E PARCEL A & PARCEL 118 62-25 / ~. / 59 / / ,/ / 78-57 / 32= Scale 650 9n Albemarle County ,..I NotE: This map is tor display purposes only ana shows parcels as of 12/3112005 See Map Bool< Introduction tor additional derails Fontana . . . Comprehensive Plan Areas - Overview Roads o Road Bridges - Roads . Buildings Driveways c:::: Parcels Lakes and Reservoirs Ponds Major Streams Other Streams Attachment B August7,2006 Geographic Data Services Room 227 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 _\ N All data is provided for graphic representation only. The County of Albemarle expressly disclaims all warranties of any type. expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranty as to the accuracy of the data, merchantability. or fitness for a particular purpose. Aeriallmagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia - Maps are for internal use only. u - = ~ s -= ~ ~ - - < u ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ....J <( C:::! ::> C::: U ll.t oo~ z 9 ~~ E-t g~ a ~~i ~o Ol:>s: lr) 00 ~~S; c:r ~~r~ 0 ~~;!; "" ~ \wi ~ ~ ~~~ ~ m 8 2S Hi~~ ~h ~ ~ i z ~~ I~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~. Z ~ N ~ ~; ~~ ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ Z h Z 0 0 j:: j:: (.) ~ (.) w w en en ~ :l ~ 0:: 0:: ~ Z ~ I a:: <( a:: ~ ~ I m I ~ ~ I tl I ~ W c:: Ii: > ii: :::> 0 ::> 0 <C (.) ~ . j Z 9 ~ ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ...J Z W ~~ ~ Z :::> " 0:: i co ~ ~ z ~j ~~ II Z o t5 w en o ~ 0:: ~ ~ (.) ~ I - >- ~ ~ ~ - 0 (.) o!l W Z ~ :s o Z :::> ...J ...J W co ! ~ ~ ~ " ww ~~~~ ~ ~~~ i ~~~ ! ~~~ ~9~~ ~ !~~ ~ ~ ~ ..;: H~~ ~ o ! ~ i ~ ~ J ~ u~ ili.! !II. . III 1111 ~ lillll 'Ill It!ll Illl1 Ililll I I ~ dh~~ m~~e ~ N~ I ~~ - ~ ffi :I: rn ~ il ~!~~~ o "'. ~ )l( ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,_ ~ ~ '" ~........;>< -< '" 00 !-<~-;_~~~~:= t:' (/j...:i"'~g;~~u ""'" 8 ~;>< 0 ffi ~ ~~gjz_~~ 00 I z ~ 9 L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ld ~ U ~ P ~ ~ I ; Ii ~ ~11~i~ Q ~~hl z ~~~.~ < ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ i i III ~ ~~J~ ~ IIII~ i ~ ~~ ~ Ii Ii I 00 ~:i o~ z" ~~ ~~ (/j ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~...'" ~!-<!-< ~!ii .....:= 00 en (/j i-=..-----~~(j:-- -_OJ Ii . '. ,~ ~ i,' :! I ~ ~ I' ~ ~ ~ ~~ U", t:' JI I ""'".'" u U ) u i! 'II' u ~ ~ ~ ~ ! II !Il! il'!!l ! ! iI, lil!I!llh!hl i~~~!ii~~~&~j~. I~~~~~~~~il~~~~ iph ~ni~~h~~~~~~L~~~~~ b h ~ ~ R 1ft u,. .l.N"'~~Q,f;~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ I ,..... Il- ~ t ...." <!>":r,, a: " a. iE u:,; "112""" ~~ ~ r" I J. " I, 1 v II ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ,- ~'~~ 6 - ! - - if !j .i ~m i~ ~. ~~~~ ~~ii~n -~ ~I tl-nq ~~ ~ 0 ~~1161~lsiilgilli~I~I~1 ~I~ Q u ~ n u ~ ~ >! 0 Q<) \08 II ~@@ z ~I ;~~" : 18 i I ~ ~ 8 j iJ II u ~ ~ 0- fT' !E" liS :l! - 6 W W ':i: <0 - It: "1;':>::<0 0" ~ i~ '" 5l 01 "I II ~ I I -Ir)CI ~:A~ Ihlli! 2 · 'I (1 ~ 119':'" ~Jh ~ II f ;"0- lill ill ~ ;;; ..1:;1:;~1:;~li2~ i f.lei! Hq ~ ~ ~~ffi~ffi~ffi I I'HI ~tl ~ o ~ 0 <<,,<""" !uj II I ! ~ ~~ ~~ ~nh~~ )ihf. J it ; h ~ ugs ~+"'d.="'N"" tjiiH~ ~i ! w.~O ....;Nf"i.Iri.or-: NV'Id DNINOZ3:~ N ~ 0 E N ~ ::r.: rJl z; (J , , " .. , ~ , I cI ~ i~ I I ~1 Cl .\.:i, " I " , "I' ;1;, 10 ro ,... a. ::!E 1- .. l;I ~~~ M ",; ~I~ ~~~ ~t ~~:a~ ~~~ ~d ~ ~ u ~ ~: VINIDlIlA 'X.LNilO:l 31l1VNilIl'IV DNINOZ3:lI Jt 3:SVHd - VNV ~NOtl I, I \ " \ \ \ \\', "\ \ '. "- ...., ~, /-.---: <.::~~,.:-{,,':'- ~.... '.-....- ~ ....--. \ \ lei -... '.; I "~,~.~~. <;' '/' ;. no.., '. ," ,\ :\./'\ '1; ~ :.,. ,'.1 ) '.\ ..- -'~',,:,--..: ". - .." -..' ....... ", :".1 ~, . ~'.. -'-'~~'-....~ ..... .......... "-- , '....~. . / " -'" .,...... - / ~/~ / / '........~ /, .... ".- , I " , -" " "_:'~~:'~;2~~~: ' ,', ....t.:. .:':.. . . __~_ _.....:~,<..<: =:,":0';" ....... ........... - ....~:' -'-...~.. -._~. ~ "~,_::::~ ~:::,~~':" .-~'-":: "':;', 1 . ..~. "' ,;, . ~_. ." . .., . ~'::;'~.~,':..':' :,'f~ < ..,1 , _'. .i _ " ,:'~1',;:\:~;.,.,,, ' . . .:i }~". ! - ",'" ..~ :~i': ~~. :. ,_..' "', 'r \ "r:,,,. : :1' . :,:.' ~h..:" __...:.,;"'.1 ," ~~j ". -""~.', of' \:1 . . '~~.\. "-, " . '.2: F; ~... ~g," .,,1;;....., - ~> :'-m~J", .';':>.'-., '-: I :/ ["I ,,; It' ; ! I.,' i' -I': ; i" .... ~".. --- :-~, "-'- ,. '~" . .::~..., " ,> r~.l_~': ~\\\,:,'\ \ \~\':l\ ,J. ' '" ,', , I , , / ;' :!: !;( .. -,1./ . ; I' .I .' !' \'1: ~~ oC/) xc:( :::>aJ ~~ I-c/) .--- '" 8 ffi ~ "- ill '" ~ 8~ ffi~ ~o d ,. No: ~ u.() ~~ 10 .. >- ~ gg "' ~~ ~ ~ ~Z .. 0: fe8 z I;; ~ ~ ,- . ' ~ w 1 0: 0 ~lli >- "' W wW " W .. rnif 0 " W Z o:w .. ~ .. 0: ~ w"' z 1.\ ~U'i "' "' U'i!l! w 15 !l! fil 5 z 15 ~~ w 0 0 * . ::= "' d , . -j( . "'<::I ~' !.: ! ~ . ~~~ .1", J Z""; N fr . . . ~~ Attachment D Original Proffer Amended Proffer .-:1. (Amendment # 4) PROFFER FORM FOR FONTANA PHASE 4C Date: March 27.2007 ZMA#0418 Tax Map and Parcel Number TaxMa-078E. Parcel A 16.95 Acres to be rezoned from Rl. R4. RA to R4 Pursuantto Section33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered asa part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itselfgives rise to the need. for the conditions, . and .(2) such .conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. Conformity with Plans: Fontana 4C shall be developed in general accord with the plans entitled, "Fontana 4C Rezoning, Rezoning Plan," prepared by Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, dated January 25, 2007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, (the "Plan"). No more than thirty four (34) dwelling units shall be developed within Fontana Phase 4C. 2. Final eradin2 plan: The Owner shall submit a final grading plan meeting the requirements of this section (hereinafter, the "Final Grading Plan") with the application for each subdivision of the residential units shown on the Plan identified in Proffer 1 above. The Final Grading Plan shall show existing and proposed topographic features to be considered in the development of the proposed subdivision. The Final Grading Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. The subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved Final Grading Plan. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer has determined the lot is not graded consistent with the approved grading Plan. The Plan shall satisfy the following: A. The Final Grading Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer. B. The Final Grading Plan shall be drawn to scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. C. All proposed grading be shown at contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet 1 .Go Attachment D D. All.concentrated surfacedr~ges over lots shall be clearly shown with the . proposedgradin,g. Allproposedgrading. sfuillbe shownto. B$surethat surface drain.age can.provide. adequate reliefJroIIl tloodingofdwelliIlgs in the event a storm se\Ver fails. Graded sl()pes on lots pr()posed t() be planted with turf grasses (hiWllS~shallnot exceed a gradient oftbxee (3) feethonzontaIdistanceforeach one (I) foot ofverli.cal rise or fall (3:1). .Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determlnedto.be.appropriate.by the. County's pr()gram authority in its approval of an erosion .and sediment control plan for the 1~44i~tur~iJJ.g actiyj~..Tb.7sesteeHe! sl9pes slla11~ot. e){c~eda ga.4ieIlt()ftwo (2) .feet .o:fliOiizoiiijil distance for each . one (1) foot ofv~rticaIrise or fall (2: 1), unless the County Engineer.-fmds thatfue grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts. E. Surface drainage from one-ha1f(1/2) acre ofland or from three (3) lots or more lots, whichever is greater inarea,shaIl be collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. F. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the rear of the building site. G. The Final Grading Plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20)percent unless certified by an engineer that the driveway at the proposed steepness would be safe and convenient for vehicles (including emergency vehicles) to use the driveway, and shall include grading transitions at the street that the agent determines will allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping the vehicle body on the driveway or the street. Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than eight (8) percent. F. The Final Grading Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if the distance is less than ten (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street. H. Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a waiver request with the preliminary plat. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a justification for the request contained in a certified engineer's report; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv) topography of the property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a 2 .' . ;<;> Attachment D I. distance offivepundred (500) feet from'the bounciar)rJineor alesser clistance determined to'be.,sllfficie~t by 'the ',agent; ,(v)'~e,lo~ationsofstreatll~,sti:eatn buffer~, steep 'slopes, fl,ooup1ains; known w~tIands;~,F~Vi)thepF()po~ed layout ofstreetsand1Qts," uIiittypes,'uses,' andlop~tiop.ofparldAg",as'applicable. "In r,evie~~awaiverrequest, file Qounty En~eershaJlconsider whet1l~r the wter.tuttive proposed 1:>ythe OWner satisfies'ib.ejJl.wposeoftliereqwemeAttobe waived to atleastan equivalentdewee.Inapproving a waiver, the CoUnty Engineershallfind<that req~g cOInpliance\Vitli,the,requirementofthis condition would not forward the purposes of theCotinty's Subdivision and Water ~r9t~cti9P,qr~lina~p~,s8f. ()th~~~,~s~rvT"the,p1-iqlic"irlt~r~~t; a.tJ.cl~a.tJ.tffi~,tl1e . Wa1y~i'woUldnQtbe' d~ii1.in~i1tID'to:thelluolic'h;ea1th~ 'safetY ofweffare,t6"the orderly development of the Project, and to the land adjacent thereto. The Owner may request that the Plan be amendedatanytipIe. All amendments shall be' subject, to the review and 'approval by the County Engineer. . . 3. AffordableHousine;: The owner shall contribute $12,375' ($2,4 75 x 5) cash per unit, whichshallb~paid,priorto,or at the timeof,l,'S, suan, .ce ofab, uilding permit. Thecash cOIl;tribution shallbe usedfor the purpose ()ffunding affordable housing programs in Albemarle County. If this contribution has not been exhausted by the County fOr the stated purpose within ten years of the last payment of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner. 4. Slone,nrotection: In order to protect slopes of25% or greater, a waiver shall be requested to section 4.2.1 of the zoning ordinance. 5. Trees: At least one hundred-fifty (150) trees shall be planted or retained on the subdivided lots. Trees shall be distributed among all lots with a minimum of 5 trees per lot. The five trees to be counted on each lot shall be marked in the field for inspection purposes. The 'Owner shall not request a certificate of occupancy until a final zoning inspection is performed and all required trees are in place. Standards for trees to be retained: Deciduous trees to be retained shall have at least a 1 ~ inch caliper d.b.h. and non-deciduous trees shall be at least four feet in height. All trees to be retained shall be identified on erosion and sediment control plans, finaI grading plans and road plans. A tree conservation plan in accordance with Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted and approved prior to.approval of any erosion and sediment control permit for grading. Standards for trees to be nlanted: All trees shall be planted in accordance with either the standardized landscape specifications jointly adopted by the Virginia Nurserymen's Association, the Virginia Society of Landscape Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, or the road and bridge specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Deciduous trees shall be at least 1 ~ inches in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be at least four feet in height at planting 3 p Attachment D .. 6,PedestrianDaths:Pedestrian paths shaH beconstructedac~ord1ngtothe s~dardsfor pc;,~~p~ntpc;,destri~patb$in the Alb~markCounty P~signf3~dw:d.sManua1. The o~~.sha11notrequestthatthe Couniyissuethe ninth (9th) bui1dit1g,.permituntilthe paths Imve'be~n cOIlJ,pleted to the reasonable sati~faction of the Department of Community D~ve19InneJJ.t 7. Cash;proffer: . The owner flhallcontribute$102~OOO($3,OOO x34)~which ~hallbepaid prior to or at the time of issuance .of a buildingpennit to the County's capitaLimprovement p~~~~ fPF~~,l?y,rp.9fle()fIP.itigatiIW; .in?:l?~st~. .from thi~4<?y~19Pll1~~t. ~.e pash cont.n1)unoris]w.Fbeuse~rfofiriipfoveriients"fofffre~te$cue~'parkSand. police: 8. Cascadi~ SubdivisionFjll1er~encv Access: There shall be provided a fifty-foot (50~) right-of-wa.y'f()rth~pUfl>ose of emergency access orilYandto be used exclusively by the law enforcement~ frreandr~scue vehicles to the Casc~a Subdivision for a five~year period~conun.encing with the · date th,e Cotinty of Albemarle Engineering Department provides a construction permit for Ph~e 4C. Beyond the five year period~ the emergency road maybe converted toa connector road. . 9. Final aDDroval: The owner shall not submit an application for an erosion and sediment controlpermitfor grading until improvements have been completed.for phases 1~ 2 ~ 3 and 4A of the Fontana Subdivision and allbonds held by the County in conjunction with subdivision~ stormwater management~ and erosion control for the prior phases have been released by the County. 1M Al~~ Signature of Owner 4- . M . AJ I o../l-OL..P Pnnted Name of Owner .f/~7/09 , / Date 1'Mr2\userslsraynorIClientslNichols, AnthooylPhase 4C Proffer 03.27,07,doc 4 . . . Attachment E STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ JANUARY 3, 1995 JANUARY 18, 1995 ZMA-94-06 - Upper Pantops Land Trust Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of a total acreage of 325 acres resulting in a maximum of 1,025 dwelling units with a maximum gross density of3.18 dwelling units per acre, 2.4 acres are proposed for commercial use. Current zoning of the property could permit up to 1,11 0 dwelling units. This request is filed in order to reallocate the development potential across the site in a more uniform manner. Also proposed is 2.4 acres of C-l zoning which is proposed on Route 250. Access to this site is proposed from two points on Route 250 and a single point on Route 20. The access to Route 20 would be combined with access to Wilton Farm Apartments. The applicant has provided the following proffers: As applicant we proffer the following conditions as a part of the rezoning request of ZMA-94-06 North Pantops. 1. The applicant will restrict the access to the property to one (1) entrance off of Route 20N across from the Elks Drive at the Wilton entrance. Two (2) entrances off of Route 250 in the area of the existing frontage. 2. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. 3. Ten trees per acre shall be provided or retained on alt'lot designated areas of the [mal approved plan. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2" to 2" in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be distributed among all lots. Petition: Upper Pantops Land Trust petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 106.8 acres from R-l, Residential and R-15, Residential;'to R-6, Residential and 2.4 acres from R-15 to C-1, Commercial and 62 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential and 154 acres from RA to R-1.)property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 57, 12, 12B, 55D1 and 55A4, is located on the north side ofRt. 250. The property is bordered by Rt. 20 on the west and Westminster Canterbury to the east. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for Low Density (1-4 dwelling units per acre), Medium Density (4.01-10 dwelling units per acre), and High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. 1 E Character of the Area: This site rises from Route 250 a total of approximately 200 feet in elevation. The site is mostly wooded and scattered areas of critical slopes do exist. Two utility easements, (telephone and high voltage power line,) cross the property. Some intermittent streams do exist on site. The property has frontage on both Route 20 and Route 250. RECOMMENDATION IS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and is able to support the residential rezoning areas with the exception of those areas above the 600 foot elevation. Staff does not support the proposed commercial zoning. These areas and uses may be deleted as permitted under Section 33.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which states in part: "The Commission need not confme its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that petitioned for." Plannin~ and Zonin~ History: Two rezonings, ZMA-81-01 and ZMA-81-02, have been filed for this area. Both of these request were withdrawn prior to extensive review. ZMA-81-01 was a request to rezone 339 acres to R-15. ZMA-81-02 was a request to rezone 161 acres to HC, Highway Commercial, this request replaced ZMA-81-01. No other relevant history is available for this site. A subdivision plat for 74 single family lots has been submitted and is under review in the area currently zoned R-15. The proposed density of the development for the area shown on the plat is 2.16 dwelling units per acre. During the review of this plat issues of access to Route 250 have arisen. Based on this plat review staffwill be able to provide comment as to access to Route 250. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for low, medium and high density residential. The neighborhood boundary is defmed as being the 600 foot elevation. A small portion of the site lies above the 600 foot elevation and in accord with Section 33.5 staff recommends that the Board not consider that portion of the site lying above the 600 foot elevation for rezoning. The area above 600 feet should remain RA. Under the existing zoning the maximum number of theoretical units is 1,110. The current zoning of the area includes R-15, R-1 and RA land. Some of these designations are lower than recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, the holding capacity of this area 2 . . . f may be higher than exists under current zoning. The proposed rezoning is a reduction in the maximum number of units which may be located in this area under existing zoning. Staff has stated a concern in past rezonings that under utilization of density in the urban areas may tend to increase pressure on the Rural Areas due to development in the Rural Areas or request for expansion of growth areas into areas currently designated as Rural. The Plan states on page 155 "Require unified planned developments for projects with seventy-five or more dwelling units. Require a viable homeowner's organization that can maintain meaningful open space, recreation areas, and pedestrian linkages. The appropriate locations for unified planned developments are designated Communities and the Urban Area, and in those Villages which can support this scale of development." The applicant has not submitted a Planned Development. Staff is concerned that the Comprehensive Plan is too rigid in its assumption that any residential development or more than 75 dwellings must have a homeowners association and other dictated features. A sketch showing a potential layout for the development has been submitted. This sketch does indicate open space and recreation facilities however, these features are not proffered. Proffers two and three address areas to be preserved and landscaping to be provided. The Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan, identifies this area as containing significant wooded areas and as containing areas of critical slopes. The existence of critical slopes tends to reduce the maximum development potential for the area and tends to discourage the construction of multi-family housing due to the need to perform grading to provide suitable building pads and parking areas. A proffer is proposed limiting activity on critical slopes, tree preservation provisions are also proffered. This site is visible from Monticello and the Entrance Corridor. I In acknowledgement of the potential impact that development of this site could have on these features the applicant has stated that tree clearing will be limited to the minimum extent possible. The proffered technique for landscaping is similar to that employed in the adjacent Ashcroft development. This will not completely screen the development from surrounding areas but will significantly reduce the overall impact. The applicant is proposing to locate commercial zoning along Route 250 which could serve the proposed development and Route 250. The provision of support commercial services for developments of this size is generally encouraged. The Comprehensive Plan notes significant commercial area in proximity to this site, but no commercial use is recommended on this site. The Plan states on page 169 "Prevent further 'strip development' along Route 250 East and Route 20 North with the implementation of development plans. These plans are to be sensitive to Route 250 and Route 20 as entry corridors to the Urban Area and provide screening of the 1 The Open Space Plan calls for protection of the viewshed of Monticello but does not delineate the area to be protected. This leaves the Planning Staff with virtually no guidance and invites protracted debate. The County should officially identify the land areas subject to this recommendation. 3 f development from Monticello." No plan of development is available. Staff opinion is that there is extensive commercial land already designated and/or zoned in this area and the proposed commercial zoning constitutes further strip development of Route 250. Without a Planned Development approach to this development or other guarantee it cannot be ensured that the commercial zoning would be developed to primarily serve the residential development. STAFF COMMENT: At the request of the Board of Supervisors staff typically prepares. a fiscal impact analysis for residential rezonings. No such study has been prepared for this application as the proposed zoning reduces the maximum number of units permitted by 85, no additional fiscal implications will occur. Staff notes as the primary issue the lack of a plan of development whether proffered or pursued thru a Planned Development approach. Previous rezoning applications and developments plans for the Wilton Farms development have addressed access to Route 20. This applicant has been involved in previous discussions regarding access to Route 20. The applicant's access proposal to Route 20 is consistent with past planning efforts. Staff appreciates the applicant's efforts to coordinate access on Route 20 for this and other developments in the area. However, to ensure coordination and clarify access to Route 20 north a unified access plan for this property and Wilton, including responsibilities of the owners, should be developed. Staff is able to provide comment as to access to Route 250 based on review of a subdivision plat currently pending for a portion of this site and the applicant's proffer limiting access locations. Two entrances to Route 250 are proffered. The westernmost entrance is proposed at the existing Route 250 crossover located just west of State Farm Blvd. This crossover currently serves the Montessori School and the Amoco gas station. The property owners on both the north and south side of Route 250, which includes the land now under review, worked with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) during the preparation of the road plans for Route 250 in order to obtain the crossover. In return for this crossover the use of the crossover was limited by agreement with VDOT to 4,000 vehicle trips per day. This agreement was not signed by the County. Any road plans reviewed by VDOT will need to insure compliance with this agreement or the agreement will require renegotiation by the parties involved. Information received to date by Virginia Department of Transportation indicates that the 4,000 vehicle trips per day level has not been exceeded. Renegotiation could involve such issues as signalization of the crossover. The proposed commercial land would be located so as to have access to this crossover. The easternmost access to this site is not located at a crossover. This entrance is located approximately 150 feet west ofthe crossover serving State Farm Blvd. Access at the crossover would involve land not controlled by the applicant which is developed with a restaurant. Access to this crossover would involve wholesale revisions to the site potentially removing the existing building. Section 18-37(0) of the Subdivision Ordinance states in part that unless approved by the Commission "In the case of any multi-Ianed divided highway; no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within 500 4 . . . E feet of any such crossover..." The latest revised plat for the 74 lot subdivision has received the following comment from VDOT "The above referenced plat has been reviewed and appears satisfactory. Based on this approval, the developer can proceed with road plans along with drainage calculation submittal for review. II Staff notes that this comment is for the 74 lot subdivision only. The latest comments from VDOT regarding the rezoning are included as Attachment D. In order to address the overall impact of this development on the transportation system VDOT has stated that a traffic generation study would be necessary. Some information has been provided however, VDOT is unable to provide additional comment. Additional traffic information will likely be required by Virginia Department of Transportation during subdivision review, in order to determine the appropriate road design. The lower elevations (southern portion) of this site are currently in the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for water and sewer. That portion of the site located north of the high voltage power line is not within the jurisdictional area. Should the Board choose to approve this request they should take action to include this area in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The proposed level of development in that area currently zoned R-15 is more achievable than that permitted by existing zoning due to terrain; 2. Proffers are proposed which limit the points of access; 3. Proffers are proposed which serve to protect features identified in the Open Space Plan. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. No plan of development has been submitted as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed level of development is less than permitted under existing zoning; 3. Commercial Zoning & Residential Zoning in areas not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan are included in the request. Staff is unable to support any rezoning for that area lying above the 600 foot elevation due to the specific statements contained in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the bouhdar~es for the Growth Area. The proposed location of commercial zoning on Route 250 is inconsistent with the land use recommendations for this portion of Route 250. Limited supporting commercial services are generally appropriate for large developments, staff is unable to support the request for commercial land due to land use designation for the area and the proximity of developed 5 f commercial uses and areas recommended/zoned for commercial development. Staff recommends that the area requested for commercial zoning be designated as R -6 as is requested for the surrounding area. The applicant's proffers regarding development on critical slopes and provision of trees will serve to address multiple concerns of the Comprehensive Plan. These proffers will minimize impact to the viewshed of the Entrance Corridor and Monticello, as well as protecting those areas identified in the Open Space Plan. Staff is concerned that this development allows fewer units than is currently permitted and that the level of proposed development may result in a significantly lower level of development than is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. While no mech~sm exists to require development at the maximum level recommended by the Comprehensive Plan or of a given zoning designation, staff is concerned that the loss of potential development due to "downzoning" or zoning at a level less than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan may result in increased pressure on the Rural Areas or areas of the Urban Area not suited to intense development. The Comprehensive Plan's statements regarding the provision of unified planned developments is intended to allow review of development proposals of a large scale. Typically in a reviewing request of this scale, staff requests a planned development approach. Such was requested with this proposal, but not provided by the applicant. Staff is able to provide comment as to this projects impact due to previous reviews, on Route 20, and current review applications, on Route 250. Staff opinion is that minimal additional information could be obtained with the provision of a plan of development. Existing Ordinance provision will allow for the orderly development of the property. Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposed development with the proposed proffers is superior to the nature of development which may occur under the existing zoning. Staff remains concerned over the loss of potential residential units. However, the proposed development addresses several concerns of the Comprehensive Plan in a method superior to that which could occur under by-right development. Based on these comments staff is able to support this request subject to the applicant's proffers, the deletion of those areas lying above the 600 foot elevation and no commercial zoning. The proffers proposed by the applicant are: As applicant we proffer the following conditions as a part of the rezoning request of ZMA-94-06 North Pantops. 1. The applicant will restrict the access to the property to one (1) entrance off of Route 20 N across from the Elks Drive at the Wilton entrance. Two (2) entrances off of Route 250 in the area of the existing frontage. 2. No grading or construction on slopes of25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. 6 . . . E 3. Ten trees per acre shall be provided or retained on all lot designated areas of the [mal approved plan. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2" to 2" in caliper; non-decidous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be distributed among all lots. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Information D - Virginia Department of Transportation's comments 7 ", ~-"~TTACHMENT A I E .. .. ( ! ~~~/'~'" .. I~ @J "" (..." ~" ~..~ , I '-. 1>:V\ '''"" 1 c"\ \ . . ,-\\ . ~, ~. r':, @] j @I] I I ~ o .... \'1 \ ,/G 1\~~5~V ,/ , i~{;' \~"; ~ o I ) CoiI,le' Mln " JHO~'h L'_~ j 222~ 0"':1 78 " , -t,.. .. ~ ."., (.' .. "'. ..;- \ <;) q../ ., .' \.~.J _\:'1 ,1'" ,~ ~!W' J '~ " \ \ ,". / " .- I j :..'"' - "lful / -'- li@ / " ~ @// v . KEY WEST- srcTlON 628 ~~~. ,,y'" L., \\"'j>-~ ~I ~~':>A \ ~ ~9~_,"'-, /' l L~.A\ \91\.)JI i I " 1 1 ATTACHMENT BI" "'r: ',------""'-- \ 90 , ,I EXISTING CONDITIONS , 73 S1A )ARK ON 2 ~~ ~ . ~lfji:3i-: /:0/ ,..-.-:::;;:://<..<...- ~ --:....-::.. ~~;~::<<, :/. ~:,' ::~ ~.~~ 61 ~d '~,:'::~- PROiPOSED CONDITIONS : -:::00~~o~ ;~.::i:::; _:~~ ~~ ~. ~f~ ~'~ ~~ ~<:-...~..... ~ ',,~~ ~," ,- -'-' .-- ^ ~~} ~ ~=i~ ~"~~~;_/ '\ K 7'Y')'"". / '/ \/"1 .......'.../ [(F ,,~/' -"...; "- II ,,, /f ''''' :lc- - ,1M -y, '~~\Yd I ATTACHMENTB , '~I Page 21 f -f 4BB^~-~ -. -. 8 --'- ~,-, ---,-- .. "'1'--' 70 ' ~B" -~ 698 _________ 4BB ......... 37A _/ 71BI. A.' ~ ... J ~. . ( ~~~:.... FA t 33 .)c, tv \~E-rD . , ..,,' '7'~[ -.::: = ~~2r ~ - KEY WEST:=:---= - L'.,' .. ~ - .HTI~ 628 .' 't~~'''- .. I I , 1 i .~ 49E '-.' ~9~{ /, , .' ~9E2 " )_1 ,_~_ .___, '86.. JL.....O.,. SEE t ,'3 ~, >. ----,,_. ~ c=- ~ - - .- nc n II PROPOSED C-l --.... .J--' o. ,,- 888'31.1 WIll ~O~ OOOOor. o oci-'C 00000 PROPOSED R-6 "" .. "--- _B~ '-'-., "--.. -............. 8~C ~ :\ \\\~ ., IG _SECTICNMt :\-\\\~ - ~ JI , I 1 {Ole .- "'-fa 'AI !f!:: ;::-;cl;;;i; ,\ ~ ~ \ \ , \ )( ,oc ~ ~ Land Trust , t. I 51A J 50 t?1ij: fl. ~ I ( \ ~~ ..-J, 7518 , ~ r -, I ~ ',-+/ / 32 ~~-;'~_ ~ ~ ~/:: ~ ~~'~5 . ~" ............ ~~ ro or , / ~9F ~~'S'~""'~~~' 1~"1 '---:'0 (; ~ '0' ZMA 94-06 upper Pantops .~"!J I 511' -/4 ~.-==r(ll:o' u,r:'n ~~ I I' 77 i1iol I~ ~ 't' \ \~, / ~~J&' .~ ~~k~'" ~ 20L . - - 61 611 ",1 10 6~1~-<' J 1lA ~ 7' '0' l/-~ ! 20M / . . . f IATTACHMENT CI CHARLES WILLIAM HURT VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 8147 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VrnCINIA 22906 AREA CODE 804 TELEPHONE 979-818' FAX 296-3510 December 20, 1994 William D. Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Re: ZMA-94-06 Property of North Pantops on State Route 250 and State Route 20 Dear Mr. Fritz, As applicant we proffer the following conditions as a part of the rezoning request of ZMA-94-06 North Pantops. 1. The applicant will restrict the access to the property to one (1) entrance off of Route 20 N across from the Elks Drive at the Wilton entrance. Two (2) entrances off of Route 250 in the area of the existing frontage. 2. No grading or construction on slopes of25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. 3. Ten trees per acre shall be provided or retained on all lot designated areas of the final approved plan. Deciduous trees shall be 1 112" to 2" in caliper; non- deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be distributed among all lots, If you have any questions or need further information regarding these matters, please call me at 979-8181. Thank you for your time and attention, Respectfully, ./. " r, )t.-.., ,"~ .... /. ' , {,../ Charles W, Hurt cc: Katurah Roell RECEIVED .tL 2 0 1994 Planning Dept. ~ L~TTACHMENT cl 1 'Page 21 CHARLES WILLIAM HURT VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 8147 CHARLOTrESVILLE, V mGINlA 22906 AREA CODE 804 TELEPHONE 979.8181 FAX 296-3510 December 20, 1994 William D. Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Re: ZMA-94-06 Property of North Pantops on State Route 250 and State Route 20 Dear Mr. Fritz, On December 19, 1994, I met with Hank Hinnant of Westminster Canterbury to discuss the rezoning and development activities on North Pantops. Items discussed covered the rezoning of the entire parcel. The change ofthe land that is immediately adjacent to Westminister and Aschroft that is Zoned R-15 to R-6 and the land to West from R-1 to R-6 up to the Virginia Power Line. From the power line to the first major ridge, the zoning will change from R-A to R-4 and from the ridge to the PRD will change to R-l. Entrances at North Pantops and across from the Aamoco Station and at Rt. 20 where discussed, including the emergency access to Ashcroft from N, Pantops. The area ofland recently filled along Rt. 250 next to the Montessori School will be changed to C-1. Mr. Hinnant and his assistant made positive comments for our proposed changes and felt that these are appropriate uses for the land. We also reviewed the first phase of Luxor Subdivision for the lot and road layout and price range. They commented that it sounded similar to Ashcroft and that it would be a nice improvement since Westminster overlooks this area of proposed homes, Also, on Friday December 16, 1994, I met with members of the Ashcroft Homeowners Association to review the above mention plans. They to felt approving of this proposal and that it was an improvement to the current zoning, better protecting there property values. If you have any questions or need further information regarding these matters, please call me at 979-8181. Thank you for your time and attention. RespeCtfullY'~ ~0k ' Katurah S, Roell RECEIVED cc: Charles W. Hurt Ll..; 2 0 1994 Planning Dept. . . . CE,7(P) Rev. 11,91 I ATTACHMENT 0 I COMMON\NEALTH OF "~~.RGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAND USE PERMIT e ." i: ~ \, '., t ~'_ jJ .~:~ ;' ~,_. .. ,. ;>Ol~ ,) ...... ~] I J i .... ~ ~ '" ~ November 22, 1994 ZMA-94-06 Upper Pantops Land Trust Mr. William Fritz Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Fritz: We have the following comments in reference to your November 16, 1994 letter: ]. To effectively address the impact, a traffic generation study would be necessary. We do not have information on how much acreage is to be used for residential, how much acreage will be reserved for steep slopes, recreation, etc. 2. The type of commercial development should be addressed, 3. Traffic should be directed in this overall development so that the crossover on Route 250 does not surpass 4000 VPD for this entrance. If you have further concerns, please advise. Yours truly, )/ .il /. \" /q>;;(/ II )c~/ / H. W. Ml{~'S Assistant Resident Engineer , , HWM/ldw cc: Wanda Moore . . . Attachment F REci:JVED CHARLES WILLIAM HURT , l,j J '. 6 1995 VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 8147 CHARLOlTESVILLE, VmCINIA 22906 Planning Dept. AREA CODE 804 TELEPHONE 979-8181 FAX 296-3510 January 5, 1995 William D. Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Re: ZMA-94-06 Property of North Pantops on State Route 250 and State Route 20 Dear Mr. Fritz, 1. Access to the property will be limited to one (1) entrance off of Route 20 North across from Elks Drive at the Wilton entrance and two (2) points of access on Route 250 in the area of the existing frontage. 2. There will be no grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, storm water management facilities and the like except as approved by the County Engineer. Topographic information for all portions of the property will be provided with 5 foot or less contour intervals, 3. Ten trees per acre shall be provided or retained on all designated area of the final approved plans. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2" to 2" in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Location shall be distributed among all lots. These proffers will continue to remain in effect in the event that the Board of Supervisors does not rezone the areas requested for commercial use or those areas above 600 feet. L <.:- --;o~ '-'__. L,... '_ ~?L." 7 ". = Virginia Land Trust Charles W. Hurt, Trustee I j / '--I C) - c CI) E .c C.) ~ <( <:e: z . ,.. . Z~: ......... ~ : ~-,' ~.r., Z o ~ -. ~ $ ~~ f--4 < -J ~ ~ 0:::: < Z ~ :=E - .....J u.:l c;:::: ~ I 1 / '-II!~ ,.. Jj~.t . i.1,t:umm ~~2: s:!!luHuiUm'il ! f ,~Ii Aj'",,"~'" I : j ~r I ! ~: I s. ,I 2' ' 1 t! '1 " ! je , , f " ;S ~ ~ ~ ~ ',', V (I ../ gJ ;! / ..." I '" ( ~ ~;Ir~~,'jd:' ,/",) ':;:'" . -'I. .. -- / -! ~., ?f ' " .. .. . \ --:-:/.: -;:- - ';1':'-- I'?~ .~ ~, ". -r--,... . It' " ~i"-:-- ,/ V\"''- , -r....... ,", )'<17/' ~ll),) . ".-,' <:>~: --J. 0....': / ...,. /..'" ~~,.".' ;;" ~ Ol~' <7><1,.' ",; r-~' ' <oJ . ,_.,."''' .~. \ '~1"'~ I ",. ',,/" "- ,.. /. '. ",' -;..' . :n~ '...p.; .~t' ..,~ I"""' Z ' .,..., ..' .' ,~. .,>. . I "', ". .. _ . .".....,. ../ .. /. ,to" .:-/' .. .' Jt' , '. /': : -.' .-..I 0 .. .. .~, ~'c'l . / ,,:, ;, Jj;' ~,o , <~~. .' ,! -<(' . _ .,.. . .,". ,..... \ ".,"'.. r-- Cl _ f . ". /' ..,., . . ~. ", ..... ., ':.. ,,", L.. ' '~"/.'I"" .,.> , _/1/.1-- -' ,~' ,./',--, J..~ . .: L" " ' "(1" 'Ol,:' ''1('' ._-,'.,' -.."..... 'y' " " . -.: u . .~: 'f' \/ ;',/' 'r':~" ....r~;.:;: :,1 I~ i___."l<o ~<" ~~:\o!'; I!~l/ . . Z <oJ ~. c: . /. .' ^ <> ... ....., . ,,'f . 'Cv' ..", " · . ~ Z '-:;' -: -~ ,...\ f\ "".~:,.. ': ~'-'\- _1.'\' . 'C): ~ :'- .ji....... r...: . ~ ,. --.. " .,.. ..,.. ..." .' ..." f-< Z . ..., ,', ..,',,' O' 'DO '\"'. ",~ ' .J :~. '../ ~r""~ Z ,~ .:,,/ ..: .J <."'. ., .\..'/ '" '11" 'n:.j' I ;-..;:' , ':J-..!:' .~. o . ., ' . i.... ..../. ." J' ,...~!-", ,. ." ..... .l'<t. o u ".. .~./ /' if:: .. _2',' I I~ ~:' I.'~.-Jl-~' '11 M- ;;.:!c, : ,.' " '" . .. .'" . O' ..'.y' .n,. -' '.' f'J' -'If ., .' . ) ../. '..' e: /.', .'. . '.:' -\<"'i\. '1; , :.J W.l";' r. .' ~ "",.c r . :' M-' _, .. >-11l,~' \ \.L.c",-,,; ."'i"') fn": ~ I~ , ,'_. /$':' '" ,',I', :;,. . ": ,..,..,'. ,....c,'i!.< ~: '..>i : ~.i . .i,'.' ~ _.. _. .~. .. ." ,<;0, _.. .",, .._} ..... ':0\ v;fR/Y,'--, ,': ...x .. I. _<... ..,. .', ,!..' _,. 'I~' . ..m'. ., ",-, ... .... - .,-'J I~' '; .. ';;' ..?: ,,' 'j " .., . ~I ..., k' :./, '?,(' ...," ., ..,c.: j" . :. . \. -....;' j....' ...' ',. ~ ~'. ;. ~ .. y.: C~ C...) /1"'..' -" ",: >~, .:"....-;.L: I ~,,::.>.:. .. ._~,~.".;, . ___",:: i' ,:.. '.~"; :."') a;'h .J:,.:;..,,1i;.r;.' I~!"!. .. _'___..:.,.:...~" ~ '_'," .'" ~:'!,!C ,r, K'< ::~'-'1 ',- ..>^ ~.,. /!-'/ · · \ 0; ~ --- i '" . ..."..,.". ......' -.." .. .. 'f ~".", .",,~. ,. 'R"'" .. ," ... ,._," ,..... ; . ",_"..,.' c (. vy.,:s" .)., \""., .. * '.. ,. ., ~.. '. ,. ~'j' ~ ~. "J::o '-"'w; '~' /' '{J,~,\,~)' ,.... ~ ",-----i 4 ~<. " ~O.~...(~,.. ,.; '. ,'. .",.r ;,.f#.i-,. ~;...,..;/'~~: ;,...., ". :> Z __ . -:' :...... ":.," _,;:,:,";:,~~"'__" ,~V',:~~_..,':'. _.:~_.'....., (' ..y,. _.(~". '. ' - 0 0' ..".. ~. /~. "'''. ,. -, , .~. . '..>' ~,.., '.' ..: - .... ~ "0 ./.. ~,'_~ . ,,' "1,1 ,..<" Y). _~..>..' Cl L.. . .' ....... .... 't.. . . . '\ ,,' - .~," ..\ ~ , . ,',,;: ..-:........... ..' : [...._:.... )~~.,_..~ ':/.', ...:,....~';:./"',' /'A..' U .," _. . ...... ",_" ". ".. ... .... ". ,,;"Y..' .. .<..... -0: <,,",,'c j' . .. .. . .', '! .'. . ,.... r"" ,. '/..\" Z ~ .~:.. .)c,,;, ..'. 'to ',', ,:-e -. ,:.,-';.;7 .. .>. y....o. \':" . Z kl ,,~~~ =; / ^,:.~.', /" ~:... ...... :!;: 1 .~.: 'Y.;::..~;p.::-:~y .~;.\.\ \.1!~',\"I~i" 0 Z v IP.~ ...._:~ 'a~~ 1 ~, _ _.,' . I, l.' ,<1'1 ..J . ., / _. ' .. / ,.....' . .~. ..... . ,.. - 0 . '.' . ,'_. .",./0.' , .~_... -,-,...;:.> ., _~'I ..::'~:' .iI. ~ . ..'~ ,. ..... . ' ~. ..." .'_ .' __ . I.' .. U . ",' . ...' i1i... "o/~' ".'. '" .\: ~'.---- ~;7 . .;~ ....;;;/ : r"'-;I .. ::> t-:'~ ,,} ...:,. ...",.; ?;/ '. .'t..,,', '. .~, ./ j~~ .". .,;;-..'; /' "; .,.,._ ". .>*..," ..,.. _ ,. To . "'\ o. ,y.:..: '. .f/I< 1 ~ :" :.:-. _, ;" _~" \\'.......~.. ,t>-." "/' ,~, .....-':.."!'~ ~ C:;~/. ~';:-'1t1/~1:: ,~ .<; .'. . .f '...' ~.., - ....'/ : .. \ .....t.... :'- ~5"/~ .r.O~ -.,1' .. ~> -.c. i' '. "".;:. .,. _:;:... --?"- ;" ......-:'> ,,,!. \ ,'j- -:.. oJ..<- '"?;J; : " ", r,_ '. _ J:;" .,:. .r':":"".... /,p" ., l""~'~' ~" n""'/ rr::.,"',(O .. .,,", .~.. c.. ' '. c ... ". . ,/,,' .\. .,.. '.-. ,. \ /;"",';;~"" :~' ~..--{.r h ',..: '. .. ..;.:: . , . ~.- ,,' 'l ~i"V' ....{ \ .y./ z< ..~. '. rr;' I" C ',.. '. ...., v __ "'-;;- ."~' -.'y, '.'" .. '" ... ~dl ;'. ~ ,-::/.= ......> :~.. ':.. ~' ':. ~~}.. ~~~:i-:~ll/ ;', ~.~', . ,~ .' /;"., _,..,.. ... ' . . ,.' .. "I'~ ~~ ";. '.#:: .. rO:N~ , /.!;:~ ..,;,;t:. ,', . ...JS .... /".: -I' j,-(, :.,' ......:-" .,',-' ,.,1<'0.. J' ' .. .,' . .. ,. <,.,. .,,~: 'i i~' :' "'~. ~.' ,I l..;.; i~" r:-....... ' c . .' --:., i"" · ..' N' 1 I .~.... I"~ ., '..;:.1'..1;;:-. /' i ..<,. ~""'/I:( .,-::~""~~ j. r;,' ,~~, I ::~: Jl, .' ", 'r::: (I'~.... .~; ", ~/ :~~.~. O'.=-: :..t-~, ~ :,:':)(, ;-/:'f f, ,Mi'. .I::'~~"':."" . . ... r . .. ' , .. ... ' .. ' -.." ;/! . ""~ ,~ .- ", :,..:r ,;,:! '~',/ ,.. ..:..:;. 7.((::" .--., :.-J' i .':', \ . I \~. . ~.. ..' .' .... -e,: /' ..' ~:=5"t'"_.,,.,'__4' '!'.\\-~'--t' <Dr':'" / "- "',' . ." ~:......,.. ., ....' .~. , .. . . ." . N ...., , . ../ . :r . ~,........, <. ....",.T-.<(..'l-" · ....N.,~ '~ ' ,~-'~ / . . ' ' ' ',. . ..... ,,- \ """ ... '\' ... ' ' . . .. ... .......". .. ,1'-'" ,- \' '. \1:\ 1- I ' .... : , . ....." , · .. r: . .:;:l.'. '.. ,,- ;...... ,....., . ,/:. :.-.....::-/. ..~,.~,. 1./11...:"'; > . . ~ , .........~ ....~, \ "I(f'\..J ~ Z I' / ;~_~,'_"T: ,! '- ...... "%" ..::, . ......t. 1....* -:.;. , ~ 0 ,. .:':';' / ~,.;,~~\ ...~\,~-'_:;.);~~ )~'ii...:'-:~',' 1~'':-':~'- _\..:.v.;.~; ..: _ c ..' "..... 0" ." ...., .,. '." '" ", ., .. --"'",' ' Cl f-< . ,., / .,:..' . ....' ., -. .>,/-.'X. ." '.~! .",,' I . U I . 'J / ;.,'.'- .....- . .,..' .". ~P.3>'A'Y/ .... 't.. " ' :.: . ~. '.'\,. . .\ \ _ '" I.:' ,', C /. .," "'.'- .. ~'" -, ...... /''''=''''-;;'''"1/.,'\;.11' /,' .. I ... _ ,.,' ," ~.. c' ."_ ___ . ' j-:"'l'd'''' " ~.,;; .' fT' s:: Z~ i".. ;' . / .;..'!Ii .--w:.. :.~.."..,.:. .", '.~,-'--::"..'~' -. '" .... '\ ... ::: z Z ,f I J:""'~ ,.,,~,' .,.. \ 'I' I' ,.' ,," ,.' ' I"""' ~ 0 .' : " .. '. 'F'.,:' ....' 0; .,., ; .; ,.,.' .. _..;... -:)~~ ., .. . .-. /" . :::= 0 <oJ .. ,'. / c .~" ..... . .. i ,0'" . i .,. ,..' ..,.. .- ,..., u .... ,. I . :..."... .,....,~. ....,~ .' {' . ... Cl - .... .".~ / .. '. ...' ~ _ _...__._J.... · f-< ,/ i -.:U .......'...J ' ' -'" _ ,~ ." Ad'. '1 ... Z . i' .1<: .. ':. Z :; Z I "..j".. ~ Q ... 0 ,. / . 1.7:.';/'. \_,.. 0 f-< "' U / / ,.d ,\ U 0 / / .: /" ~~ / /~~. fl.I1J'::> ~ / " :"~~ . ~ I \. . < 0 _ _-:.~. : k U ~. . .: 1. . Cf'J .... .' ~ - ':, . "" ~ Z ~ ~ / . . Q' ~<.(; '. a~o P.(t' ~. -fA. O' 'VO 'to' ,- I - s::: (I) E .s::: '<" () cu - - <( ?j ?! '} ~Iv>?, . O~...' ','Y", .',... '- ,._ e.l ~-1/(tO'~:' _... .... "~.{...,,O.:l'. .~.. I . . ~ . ffI .. I · LLI I- - <<I) C) a... ::E: C) '-' LLI C) ~ - lDI:: LLI :::.=:: <C ---I ",' ~ if .' I . . ',,\ 1/--. ,/ fi ,1 r f! Ii Ii l ~\ " ~C' in 'l/ !'I i ~.,... [81 181 I CQ i '1' i 1 i I ,~ /~\~, C<";/'~;~\: /I~j/ 6 ' '---1) i r) ~-.L. / /'c~r "ii-, I (~~ I~~ 'I ~~ 0'-' / .... -- \;".. \' ~ /V\ 1,' I /1/ I // , I ( """ I I I ~ ----.! i --------- <C :z: IX: :z: C) LL. -- "'i ~~ ~i I~ ~ ~g Wi '-' 01 Oi s~ ....1 ....' L~J CQ i "'", L_ " !:!. <C - ~ <C '-' <<I) <C '-' ./ ,::/ o Fontana Phase 4C . Elaine Echols From: Denunzio, Joel D" P,E. [JoeI.Denunzio@VDOTvirginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11 :05 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Fontana Phase 4C Elaine, I have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments: · Fontana Drive should be extended to the property line. · The connection to Cascadia should be made with this plan · The typical section on Fontana should have curb and gutter on both sides of the typical. · Fontana Dr. needs to be checked for angle breaks in the proposed alignment. · The trail on Belluno Lane should be located outside of the proposed RfW If you have any questions, please contact me, Thanks, Joel . Joel DeNunzio, P. E. Residency Program Manager 434-293-0011 Ext. 120 joel, denu nzio@VirginiaDOT,org . 4/1 0/2007 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT J TO: Tarpley Gillespie, Planner FROM: Gary Whelan, Engineering Technician DATE: November 8, 2004 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Fontana Phase 4C (TM 78E-OA) The below checked items apply to this site. ZMA-2004-018 -1L -1L . -1L -1L -1L -1L 9. -1L 10. 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: A. Water and sewer B. Water only c. Water only to existing structure D. Limited;service 2. An ~ inch water line is located onsite. 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydJ::'ant, located 100' distant from this site plan, is gpm ~ at 20 psi residual. 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located onsite. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements within existing and and approved. No plans are required. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. Final site plan may/may not be signed. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. 7. 8. or obstructions shall be placed or future easements. plans are currently under review. plans have been received and 1l. 12. Comments: Show water meter locations. Show sewer laterals. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: . -1L meter locations waterline locations sewer line locations easements . waterline size sewer line size expected wastewater flows expected water demands Page+of2 Attachment J T.ill!pleyGUletipie Prom: p,~te'~ofham:[p,gorham@acSanetc()ni] sent: ThufSday;November 18, 2004 12:37PM To: TarplE;l.}' GiI.lespie Cc: PaurShoop; Jer~my Lynn SIJt).ject: RE:Re~pone$to.your recent letter concerning expansion of Fantana Site. . ~~~:6~cSfiO.fi'S'~P~~CJ~arerelatetl't6~tnEf.rezo-ni~~n6r'Fontana"p'hase"4G;wnichballs'"f6rcttfe,' creatioo'or'fhore-'Iots cmJh~J<:lCldJ>g,~~lgI1a~C1~~ Via FI()r~D9~C1-"C1l3run~II().c()Ut1~ .A:. pre",i()l!~ I~y()ut S~9'JV~d .~}C1rg~rI9tsand open space, which nowafE;l,proposed to. be divided into. 24 smaller lots. I will break up my camments into the categories of;sElw~r"anC1water: Water: TherewHlbeno impactta the'existiD9 water customers in Fantanafram the additianallots. praposed in Fontana Phase4C.AIIQfthe lots will be served by the water system in Ashcraft subdivision. This systElm operates on ahig~erpressure band than the current upper regions of Fontana and will be kept separate from the Fontana system. Sewer: There is enough capacity in the existing and proposed sewer lines to accammadate the increase in the numberaf lots. If the rezaningis approved revised canstruction drawings wHlbe required far the areas where the new lots are being created. Let us know ifyau have any questions. Thanks. -Pete -----QriginaIMessage----- From~ Tarpley Gillespie [mailta:tgillespie@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 17,200410:22 AM To: Pete Gorham Subject: FW: Respones to. yaur recent letter concerning expansian af Fontana Site. Pete, As you the persan who can respand to the questions about water pressure and utilities? If not, cauld yau point me in the right direction. Thanks! Tarpley Vest Gillespie, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 434-296-5823 ext. 3386 FAJ{:434-972-4012 From: JoenAnne5@aol.com [mailta:JoenAnne5@aol.cam] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:01 AM To: members-owner@faai.org; TonyBance@aal.com; tgillespie@albemarle.org Subject: Respones to yaur recent letter cancerning expansian of Fantana Site. Dear Sir: I am not sure what your letter is identifying as to where the additianal homes will be. The map shaws an area that to. my knowledge, already is laid out and lots have been sold. I have heard that the area ATTACHMENT J -Page-z'of2'" . straighfahead,whenyoucorl1eup FontanaDrive was the only area that was in question 8stobe 'SU"l:ldiVid~d,'. ,~l'hereis.a,s J, reetthatiscoIT!pletely faido,' ut, with, SO.ld"sig,ns, ont~elots,off9f V, el':, em", ia Drive. Tlii~.,cannotbJ~,anarea tOcbeChanged. ',.., " , " ",. ,." ' , ,',' " ~~flj!'~':~1lI1~"~,,,~el9l?}'-'i"tot1\lS;lO!ad~J2~'Sif1ille'bPl'[lilO. .."'~.i$lO,!","'dd"~in'!I1e17 ~,~~,~er~~,,::!hl~J~J()'~f:!:,clpnl:i,'~Y :a!lgWin~Ethe', ~,UI!d~r~().99'~l:iJ~ri:tS;RI~Fi'19/6 'l}orp~;p,eFac:re. 'Iqo not undel"$tandWhythe'Countywould:allowthe Developer of Fontana 'to do, tf'jis~ ~11)Q1R~~RtJ~,gt~r;:J~Pdm9~t~fjn~;~7~ig'~!1~"otEqQtan~l.c99~i8fi!f~,c;j,p.~J'?-r:~mQyj~.9,.W8~,tlle9mities, suqhas tl:1.e;Olub,ffouse,'swlmmlqg~poor":r:e,,nJs Co.Urts""etc.We:Were,regulreqtOijoln.the., Home Owners Assoc.andpl:\yan assessment. However,thatwasallrjght since we only had'to ,!)harethe fiqiHtie~cWiUl.;1(0)f~JT!ilies. ,. GITilntedtfl~';aCfdjt.i(m,al'familie$WOU.ld'~lJ$e9qclitiPn~Lf!;l,nd~rto:colne,'.i"to the:AssociatioJith9weverwasn'tthefaCilitiessizesforthe'170" fami/ie~an'd 'not\Vhatever wilL be the newnumberoffamilies? Shouldwe /ookatincreasing the size of the Club House and Pool and other . ' ,... ,,9..,.I1JlU~J!t~!~ .,E'?n~"p~~i,~~$~92,:,,,",,~,,i.;J';':;';'''J ".---;,'-p",.",'''''",."",.;,.;"..:'''''.:;.".c";,.;",,;;;,,....,...;,' ,',',', ,,' ,....L,;,.."...:".? . Aseconoc6"... '. .....tonjstheutilitie~.- J\/Ioftheutilities wiU.betaxed .a,ljttlefuithe'rqYincrea.~in9the numb..er .Qffatrnirtes,yp~mthi's.h ill. ,L.etus,addressw~terfir$.t... All ~.the,hQme,~.uP.amt..around the_clup house'havea'poosterpump in theiLbasem~ntorcrawl,space,'Th;s ista briqg th!'i!waterpressure up . therequiren1entlto.oPtainan "()qc;4P~n9Y:PElrmitfromt~>C,ounty. .A/LtlJE;l homesth,atwillbe..buillnear this,area'Nillhavethe,same. requil\ementlt iSinterestingto notethatwhenJ bOU~ht'lV1Yhouse, Jot '171, (Jessica&Sreg'l-;jurnphreYsHorne)' was. not . /ot.171 'butapumpin,g istationto.boo$t:thewater:pressure up on this hill. Theimeetingofthe' required water pressure.!imclthernaintenanceofthatfaciliw is now the responsibility of each of the home. owners, WhatwiUhappen to the overall waterpressure as more and rnore,families are added to this water main?/ was toldbyaCountyinspectorwhen.1 first moved in that,thewatermain.sizecomingupthe' hill was marginaL . If added homes are permitted,' should;there bean additional watedinesand should there be a boosterstation added. WjWthegas'/inesupportthe added home? I know on the real cold. days of last winter, I noted' a lower f1ameirlmy ,9?sfire place. . . What about the sewage line, wilUhere. be enough : capacity? Insummary/ believe the plan should not be approved without a great deal of evaluation. A/so since this is a mandatory Home Owners Assoc., the present home owners should have a vote in what is proposed and approved, since it affects every one of us, . Joe Parrillo . -