HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-04-08COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
April 7, 2016
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA2015-008 Adelaide
Mr. Shimp:
Staff has reviewed your second submittal for your proposal to rezone TMP56-108A and 56-
26A2 from R1- Residential to R-6 Residential. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. Application plans only apply to planned districts. Since this request is not a planned
district, revise all references to "application plan" to be "proffered plan".
2. The revised plan does provide a significant buffer, even though it is not consistently 50
feet in depth, staff believes that allowing for some variation in the buffer, and providing
more than 50 feet for most of the length of Rt 250 will equally preserve the rural scenic
character. The additional landscaping as shown on the ARB submittal, should be shown
on the proffered plan with notation that it will be subject to ARB approval. Two
stormwater management facilities are still being shown within the buffer and should be
removed. See additional comments from the ARB.
3. Provide a page that has the plans on Sheet 4 and 5 reduced in scale so that the entire
parcel can be captured on one page showing that all of the area to the southwest is
being designated as open space and that there will not be improvements within this
open space along Route 250.
4. Add the following language to Note # 4 on Page 4 regarding the R- 6 Clustering: "The
lots once created with a subdivision plat will not require a minimum lot size per the R- 6
Clustering provision."
5. The plats reference a total of 19.975 acres (page 3 of the plan), the proffers reference
20.4 acres (page 1 of the proffers) and the proffered plan references 20 acres (page 4 of
the proffered plan). Please make sure that the reference to the actual acreage of the
properties to be rezoned is the same on all part of the proposal. Is there a new survey
that shows 20.4 acres or 20 acres?
Proffered Plan:
1. A notation should be added to the proffered plan to state that parking will be relegated to
the sides or rear of the buildings. Also, for single family detached with front loaded
garages, that the garage will be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the porch or front
fagade of the house.
2. Stream buffer and stormwater information should be added to sheet 4 to assure that the
area for development is outside of the buffer.
3. A trail way/pedestrian path should be provided from the internal sidewalk system to the
property line to the Cory Farm open space, so if in the future a pedestrian network is
sought to connect Cory Farm, the path will be in place.
4. The multi- use trail along Route 250 should be revised at the Brownsville Road entrance
to have the crossing to line up/be within the right of way, so that a future extension can
occur fully within the right of way.
Proffers:
1. Proffer # 2 - The last sentence should say "... shall be in general accord..."
2. Proffer #3 states that 20% of the land will be green space, however on the plan it states
25% and 25% open space is required for R6 clustered lots.
3. All traffic improvements identified by the TIA should be proffered to assure that they will
be completed with the development.
4. See attached comments from County Attorney regarding the proffers.
Traffic Study:
1. See VDOT comments attached.
2. See VDOT comments on the Brownsville Road issue, as it is still unclear on the status of
this road/prescriptive easement.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional Planning comments
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report
that will be prepared for the public hearing. The comments below are in response to the recent
submittal and with input from the Planning Commission work session.
The property is located with in the Crozet Masterplan. The land use designations for this
property is as follows: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units/acre)
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential
uses. Within the Crozet Master Plan, Neighborhood Density Residential is further described as
follows: "Housing in this area is primarily single-family detached with some single-family
attached/townhouses". The Planning Commission indicated that a variety of housing types
should be provided, including single family detached. The revised plan contains 40 single family
detached and 40 single family attached units.
The Master Plan provides for a range of density (3 to 6 units per acre) and, as we have said
previously, if the request is within the range recommended in the Master Plan, it can be
supported from the standpoint of total numbers of units. But, whether or not a total number of
units can be achieved or should be achieved at a given location depends on more than the
density range recommended in the Master Plan. It must be paired with design in keeping with
the Neighborhood Model and also with the recommended unit types in the Master Plan. And
ultimately, the BOS, on the recommendation of the PC and CAC, decides on the most
appropriate interpretation of the Plan. The current plan contains a total of 80 units, which
amounts to 5.5 units per acre and is within the recommended range of the Master Plan. The
Commission stated that design was the most important factor in regards to density and the
proposal has been revised to include important elements (greenway trail, pocket park) that the
Commission requested to be incorporated.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later
date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
All streets will be required to have sidewalks on both sides of the street per the
Orientation
ordinance
. A trail is proposed within a greenway as well as a multi -use trail along Route 250
This principle will be met with ordinance requirements
Mixture of Uses
This principle is not applicable, as non-residential is not required per the Crozet
Master Plan in this area.
Neighborhood
A pocket park in addition to the greenway/trail has been incorporated into the
Centers
design of the development.
This principle is met.
Mixture of
Housing Types
and
Affordability
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Multi -modal
Transportation
Opportunities
Parks,
Recreational
Amenities, and
i Open Space
rr
Buildings and
Space of
Human Scale
• The revised plan includes two housing typs, single family detached and attached
and 12 will be affordable.
• This principle is met
• While a vehicular interconnection to Cory Farm is not a possibility, a trail
way/pedestrian path should be provided from the internal sidewalk system to the
property line to their open space, so if in the future a pedestrian network is sought
to connect Cory Farm, the path will be in place.
. A trail connection is being made along Route 250 and further a greenway
connection to the Lickinghole Trail is being offered.
This principle could be further met by providing a pedestrian path from the
internal sidewalk system to the property line with Cory Farm open space.
. As stated above, a multi -use path is proposed along 250, however further
extending the proposed multi -use path to connect to the planned County project
that ends at Cory Farm Road should be explored/offered.
• This principle could be further met by providing additional path to connect to
planned pedestrian project
• A pocket park is provided in addition to a greenway/trail that connects to the
Lickinghold Creek Trail.
• This principle is met.
. The setback regulations were recently updated to address neighborhood model
principles. Therefore, this development will be subject to the R6 setbacks and will
meet this principle.
Relegated . Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. The garage should
Parking be set back several feet behind the front fapade or porch of the house or provide
side loaded garages, to meet this principle. A notation should be added to the
plan to this affect.
With additional information/commitment this principle can be met.
Redevelopment . This proposal is for new development within Development Areas. This principle
does not apply.
Respecting . Stream buffer should be added to sheet 4 to assure that the area for development
Terrain and is outside of the buffer.
Careful . This principle can be met with a revision.
Grading and
Re -grading of
Terrain
Clear . A buffer is provided along the full frontage of Route 250, however proposed
Boundaries additional landscaping should be shown on the plan.
with the Rural . All buffers should be owned and maintained by the developer/HOA and should
Area not be on private lots.
With additional information/commitment this principle can be met.
Additional Planning Comments:
1. The proposed development will need to meet all of the R6 ordinance requirements,
including lot size, setbacks, recreation, etc. It may be that the number of units will be
reduced if the lot sizes do not meet the requirements under R6.
2. The post master has stated that individual mailboxes will not be allowed within the
Crozet area and that group mailboxes need to be provided for new developments. If the
rezoning is approved, this should be planned for early on as the site plan is designed, so
as not to have an issue at a later date.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form (I will forward you this when you
indicate if you plan on resubmitting). There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal
date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission:
$ 115.70 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
-$ 178.00 Credit (extra paid at time of application)
$ 137.70 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 115.70 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 253.40 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Principal Planner
Planning Services
Attachment A — Comments from Housing
Attachment B — Comments from Architectural Review Board/Historic Preservation Staff, dated
April 1, 2016
Attachment C — Comments from Zoning, dated March 31, 2016
Attachment D- Comments from County Attorney
Attachment E- Comments from VDOT, dated April 8, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last gate of vour comment letter with vour
suhmittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator
2016 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal
Dates
Comments to
applicant for
decision on whether
to proceed to Public
Hearing *
Request for PC
Public Hearing,
Legal Ad
Payment Due **
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
No sooner than*
COB Auditorium
Monday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 2 2015
Dec 4 2015
Dec 21 2015
Jan 12
Nov 16 2015
Dec 18 2015
Jan 04
Jan 26
Dec 7 2015
Jan 08
Jan 11
Feb 02
Dec 21 2015
Jan 22
Feb 01
Feb 23
Jan 04
Feb 05
Feb 08
Mar 01
Tue Jan 19
Feb 19
Feb 22
Mar 15
Feb 01
Mar 04
Mar 14
Apr 05
Tue Feb 16
Mar 18
Apr 04
Apr 26
Mar 07
Apr 08
Apr 11
May 03
Mar 21
Apr 22
May 09
May 31
Apr 04
May 06
May 09
May 31
Apr 18
May 20
May 30
Jun 21
May 02
Jun 03
Jun 20
Jul 12
May 16
Jun 17
Jun 20
Jul 12
Jun 06
Jul 08
Jul 18
Aug 09
Jun 20
Jul 22
Aug 01
Aug 23
Tue Jul 05
Aug 05
Aug 22
Sep 13
Jul 18
Aug 19
Aug 22
Sep 13
Aug 01
Sep 02
Sep 05
Sep 27
Aug 15
Sep 16
Sep 19
Oct 11
Tue Sep 06
Oct 07
Oct 10
Nov 01
Sep 19
Oct 21
Oct 31
Nov 22
Oct 03
Nov 04
Nov 14
Dec 06
Oct 17
Nov 18
Nov 28
Dec 20
Nov 07
Dec 09
Dec 19
Jan 10 2017
Nov 21
Dec 23
Jan 09 2017
Jan 31 2017
Dec 05
Jan 06 2017
Jan 16 2017
Feb 07 2017
Dec 19
Jan 20 2017
Feb 06 2017
Feb 28 2017
Jan 03 2017
Feb 03 2017
Feb 13 2017
Mar 07 2017
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2016.
2017 dates are tentative.
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are
significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed
are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing.
" The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an
applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely
result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been
advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major
change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention.
Megan Yaniglos
From: Ron White
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: ZMA2015-008 Adelaide
There is something missing In 1. D.
After "Affordable Dwelling Units" I think they mean that the County would notify in writing that it may not have a
qualified purchaser for one or more of the affordable units at the time prior to "the then -current owner/builder expects
the units to be completed and..."
�Rqn 'White
Chief of Mousing
(434) 296-5839
From: Megan Yaniglos
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:10 AM
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
<joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall
<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>; Robbie Gilmer
<rgilmer@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>; Ron White <rwhite2@albemarle.org>; Gerald
Gatobu <ggatobu@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: ZMA2015-008 Adelaide
Good Morning:
The resubmittal for Adelaide was received on Monday. This is their 2nd submission. The packets for most of you
are in the pony, or I have given them to you already. However the applicant provided digital files of everything
that I wanted to pass along, as some copied here are not reviewers. Feel free to forward this onto anyone else
you think might want to see the recent submittal documents.
will be sending an interdivisional meeting invite out to the reviewers in the next day or so.
Please let me know if you have questions or trouble accessing DropBox.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a3ki3pwyzdloj7d/AABxu9QrZZHWK6p,BEPyy3lya?dl=0
Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
Megan Yaniglos
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: Planning Application Review for ZMA201500008 Adelaide - ZMA.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
These are my recommendations to the ARB. ARB comments will be provided after the ARB meeting, which is
currently scheduled for April 18.
1. Remove from the application plan the two stormwater facility options that are located in the buffer along
the EC.
2. Please note the following for future site plan submittals:
a. ARB review and approval is required for the architectural designs of the residential units,
excluding single family detached units. Note that elevations visible from the EC will need to be
fully designed with a sufficient amount of architectural detailing, and materials, colors, scale and
proportion, without blankness, to create an appropriate appearance for the EC.
b. Show shrubs at the east and west ends of the block of development adjacent to the EC to screen
accessory structures and equipment from the EC.
c. Large trees are required along interior roads, 21/z" caliper at planting, spaced 40' on center.
d. Show individual trees to remain in the buffer along the EC frontage, appropriate tree protection,
new trees to create an integrated buffer, and a tree conservation plan.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = ZMA201500008
Reviewer = Margaret Maliszewski
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 04/01/2016
'Al o
� Yy�
�IRCI,1[P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner
From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: March 31, 2016
Subject: ZMA 2015-00008 Adelaide
Please consider the following comments:
1. Application plan should show entire °~ ° '~ „ A --I, —A n,—
imnrmipmQnt-, qn- Annn Rni itP ?F Possibly provide a page that has the plans on Sheet 4
and 5 reduced in scale so that the entire parcel can be captured on one page showing that all
of the area to the southwest is being designated as open space and that there will not be
improvements within this open space along Route 250.
2. The LAND USE LEGEND on sheet 4 of the Application Plan should have the breakdown of
Area in Residential lots not just "RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS'. The number on
the in the proffer and on the plan (93) does not match the area in the table. If all 93 dwellings
will be on separate lots then with the minimum lot size for R-6 being 7,260 square feet would
mean there would be 15.5 acres in residential lots and not 8.8 acres as the LAND USE
LEGEND shows. 8.8 acres comes out to only 52 dwellings on separate lots. If there intent is to
take advantage of the clustering provision within R-6 then that should be stated since this
would not require a minimum lot size for the 93 dwellings and this may only use 8.8 acl Add
the following language to Note #4 on Page 4 regarding the R-6 Clustering "...of open space.
The lots once created with a subdivision plat will not require a minimum lot size per the R-6
Clustering provision.
3. The road cross section on sheet 5 should reference the setbacks from Section 4.19 of the
Zoning Ordinance. These were developed to promote the Neighborhood Model so they should
be used appropriately and shown propel Addressed
4. Are those parking areas on sheet 5 necessary for this plan? It just needs to be as clear as
possible that the main things for this rezoning are what show up on the proffered plan.
Addressed
5. Acreage to be rezoned. The plats reference a total of 19.975 acres (page 3 of the plan), the
proffers reference 20.4 acres (page 1 of the proffers) and the application plan references 20
acres (page 4 of the application plan). Please make sure that the reference to the actual
acreage of the properties to be rezoned is the same on all part of the proposal. Is there a new
survey that shows 20.4 acres or 20 acres?
6. Proffers general —
On the first page change the reference to Master Plan to Application Plan as follows
"Zoning Requested: R6 -Residential with Proffered Application Plan"
Proffer #2 — The last sentence should say "... shall be in general accord..."
7. Proffers general - Eventually we need to make sure that all proffers use the current standard
language for certain proffers. County attorney review of final proffers will be needed. Some of
these may be the correct way they should be written but we need to verify this.
8. Other triggers may need to be applied to revised proffers, i.e. when certain improvements will
be completed.
9. The first proffer should be the one that proffers the application plan. (See 7b below)
10. Proffer #2 -
a. This should probably read something like "There shall be no more than 93 dwelling
units within the Project"
b. The second sentence of this proffer should be at the beginning of the proffers and
should use standard language about the Project is to be developed in general accord
with the application plan (see comment #5). Are there major elements that will be
required? If so list in the proffer about being in general accord. I know this is stated on
sheet 4 but should be in the actual proffer.
11. Proffer #3 - Use standard language for dedicating an easement to public use. A trigger for
when this is to happen should be within this proffer.
12. Proffer #4 - Use standard language for this proffer.
DRAFT PROFFER STATEMENT
ADELAIDE
Date of Proffer: March 7, 2016
Project Name: Adelaide
ZMA Number: ZMA 2015-008
Owner: Judith S. Herring
Existing Zoning: R1 -Residential
Zoning Requested: R6 -Residential with Proffered Master Plan
Acreage of Parcels: 20.4
Magisterial District: White Hall
Tax Map #(s): 05600-00-00-108AO and 05600-00-00-026A2
Legal Reference: DB 666 PG 109 (Parcel 108A0) and DB 1479 PG 180 (Parcel
026A2)
Exhibits) /References: 1) Rezoning Application Plan for Adelaide (sheets 1 through 5)
dated March 7, 2016, Prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Hereafter referred to as the "Application Plan"
The Term "Owner" as referenced within this document shall include within its
meaning the owner, or owners, of record of the Property, or properties, and their
successors in interest.
Judith S. Herring, the owner of Tax map and Parcel Numbers 56-108A and 56-26A2
(hereinafter, respectively, the "Owner" and the "Property") hereby voluntarily
proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property
from the R1 District to R6 as requested (hereinafter, the "Project"), the Owner shall
develop the Property in accord with the following proffered development conditions
(each, a "Proffer," and collectively, the "Proffers"), which the Owner acknowledges
are reasonable, pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and pursuant to Section 33.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If
rezoning application ZMA 2015-008 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null
and void and of no force and effect.
1. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall provide 12 affordable housing units as
either Affordable Rentals or Affordable For Sale units, in accordance with
guidelines established by the Albemarle County Department of Housing and
approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on February 4, 2004,
within the Project in the form of 12 townhomes, multi -family or attached
dwelling units. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the
affordable units to the subsequent owners of lots designated affordable on the
site development plans or plats.
(A). Rentals. The initial net rent for each for -rent affordable unit
shall not exceed the then -current and applicable maximum net rent rate
approved 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 7purpose 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 this
paragraph shall apply for a period of ten (10) 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").
The Owner of each Affordable Rental Unit shall, at the request of the
Albemarle County Office of Housing, provide written reports
documenting rental rates and occupancies of the affordable units.
(B). r Sale. All purchasers of for -sale Affordable Housing Units shall
be approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee.
The Owner shall provide the County or its designee 120 days to identify
and pre -qualify an eligible purchaser for the Affordable Housing Units.
The 120 -day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner
that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given
more than 90 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certification of
occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified
purchaser during phis period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the
units without any `restriction on sales price or income of purchaser. If
these units are sold, this proffer shall apply to the first sale of each unit.
The maximum sales price for Affordable Housing Units is 65% of VHDA's
Maximum Sales Price for First -Time Homebuyers. The calculation
currently puts they maximum sales price for Affordable Units at $243,750.
(C). Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the
during the Affordable Term
i}nCtkc-h�
for -rent affordable units shall contain
language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph,,
1. in addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent
affordable unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall
J 14Y ) contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls
established by this paragraph 1. At least thirty (30) days prior to the
conveyance of any interest in any for -rent affordable unit during the
(J Affordable Term, the then -current owner shall notify the County in
writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone
number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this
paragraph 1'(C) have been satisfied.
(AY 11
t� (D). Option for Cash in Lieu of Af ordable Units - If at any time prior to
the County's approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for
the subject property which includes one or more for -sale Affordable
Dwelling Units, the current owner/builder expects the units to be
completed, and the County will accept a cash contribution to the County
to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Twenty Four
Thousand Three Hundred Seventy -Five Dollars ($24,375) in lieu of each
Affordable Unit(s), and the then -current owner/builder shall have the
right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income
of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable
Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the
subsequent owner/ builder provides written notice to the Albemarle
County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Units(s) will
be available for sale.
2. Residential Units. There will be a maximum of 80 dwelling units within the
development. The development shall be in accordance with the Application
Plan
N N'1C'C�( "�C�i?(-1 lylc�F�'.11`� Y►- �j
3. Greenway Dedication; Park Land and Gfeenwav Dedication. Thebwner s atY
devote a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the land within the Property to
green space. Of this green space land, within five 5
( ) years after• the first +
certificate of occupancy for a dwelling unit within the de'veinpment is approved ..J
by the County, the Owner shall dedicate land designated on the application plan -P+ C,4,(
to the County for public use for parks and open space resources and for a
greenway. After it is dedicated to public use, the Park and Greenway Area shall
continue to be included in the total area of green space and amenities within
the Property. The remaining green space land within the PropettyAhai will not
c be dedicated to the County for public use shall be maintained by the Adelaide
Owner's Association. The dedication of the Park and Greenway Area land shall
be a fee simple interest in such land eu)ci 54ydt i )e e -r t 1� ���n� r, 5cy1 N c�.y��� tvse
4. Cash Proffers for Residential Units. The Owner shall contribute cash for each
new residential unit in excess of the twenty-three (23) residential units the
Owner has demonstrated could be constructed under R-1 Residential zoning in
C. i J -ernQrp-qeoems �
existence at the time of this zoning map amendment and that is not classified
as an affordable unit for the purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of
development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure, i.e. schools,
public safety, libraries, parks and transportation. The cash contributions shall
be $4,981 for each new single family detached dwelling unit. The cash
*.,--contributions shall $3,845 for each single family attached or townhouse
dwelling unit. The cash contributions shall be Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each
Affordable Dwelling Unit. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the
issuance of the building permit for each new unit, unless the timing of the
payment is otherwise specified by state law. 44 jo cv in) I IL t tt I ► cl f Ui etrv�A
�C
114'i i is -I11%., ,rc h
Beginning January 1, 2017, the amount of the cash contribution required by i i
this proffer shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or
decrease for the proceeding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index ("MSI"). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted
to a sum less than the amount initially established by this proffer. 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 preceding calendar year, and the denominator
of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar
year most recently ended.
WITNESS the following signature:
By:
Judith S. Herring, Owner
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF , to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2016 by Judith S. Herring, Owner of Parcels 05600-00-00-108AO and
05600-00-00-026A2.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Mrginla 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 08, 2016
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Principal Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA-20I5-00008 Adelaide
Dear Ms. Yaniglos,
We have reviewed Adelaide rezoning request and the application plan dated 1217/15 with
revisions dated 03107116, as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the following comment:
1. The left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 250 and the primary entrance and Route
250 and the secondary entrance need to account for deceleration.
2. A minimum right-of-way width in accordance with VDOT Road Design Manual,
Appendix B(I), is required for the public road access from Brownsville Road.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincere
Joe . DeNunzio, P.E.
sident Engineer
DOT - Charlottesville
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING