HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600019 Other Zoning Map Amendment 2017-05-11 d, a iijittri , e pe4,4ii-
, to C --- 1(..-4 ga-/ ,
,„ , 10.• ,f
It
T
. /
ailid f,,,,, p-xt--141,aziLe
„ ,
,41 , . : , .10.-''
:, -'-- liolis, cp . /
2 5 ' /
,.. ,
E —19
.
v)
- .:( -...±......
..)
.,'"
' , ,„- --- -'•;,-4 —CI ,.„': ''''
,-, , ,,,,------.,„,, .....
_ . /,
r it' —44,4,—
A (J2, ,..._t
_
,..„ ,
,
, _. ?---4'(---:-
a.
5-1 .
,,.
i I'
t i
4.,
1\\I
— , ii
.'I.! I b•-...7---Treill
l'
r- !!
0 „ .
,
\
//
- ...- -.-.?..„-,.
. -
/
4
. _
/ /
' :,:'1 ', 1; 'I ' • " .'eriv : .: -
---4-
.
z
''.'
, I 1,,
,
.
. 7 2\ ..
----- -
--
--I'',
;
if
-- //
. ..-....'''....'
- t --; /7 ,,k—: r:
„, A 4'•.,:.‘!••,•/- :/, t.-. . :3,` .I./I '
\s\
4. 1 --- : //
\ if
-
"/
--- . ,
,/
,
1, / .,....)1/,
,. ,.- , . ''I
1--::- I . '
,
--Z----' '-----
.: '* ,:---.-s-'' .
' i - -' . if' ,/: 47:z...1,.• ii_--17- _.
_ ' 4 ir.". -.- I' 1 ` •
. --)----.---.-7- ' --. if• ' 1.410 .,, / .. 1,1 .
...S....
cl–), .
i
: „, ' /.-/-,„.. '
,
,,.. , .,
_
..., . ...4,
. . ,..--;-.4-r, /, , ..
.......
•
.-:---; ''' .
-1 /f ---4,
:'- ,,
/ '
..' '' . ."
Z ID
O cp
.. ....?', „..- I
rn co
if
al
0
z 5
<
2 a)
Y a
. ,
< 0
,
cc
1,
,41
-•
o
c�
:.-
A
j R
II
al , ti:
0 0
4
iir
,.. _-
,,, ...
,...,,..... ,
,,,,,,,::,,,,,,, _ ,,,,
, ;
.i._.„ ,. , , f— ; /
I
i '
fi
♦.ia
No
1
_ - ;` - a�
w
Xi
1CO
0 ,,
,
-g-
o - w
I ,�
730 _ o - ,..
c - 1 I 4
y
0 O JE)-2 / .-, f�� .
CO z w e
N AO
iD 1 p- 5 a
O G� C cO`°° a ]
(A - fl - ,
CO <
a
f
a
._....__
I—
-< \Fri - ✓ Q Nk 0N 'D (o J r ?r : kJ—1 ti
r , :,
II'I
T0
i ei :
IV
rZ7
4 . ,
# ,
sl Aiiiiii, Ii .,
/il
l7 N /- -II
I 0
irl, 4111,---,, .4-----1:1,,,, 1_. : -"' ' _
A m 711"11a
am . „ �s-
r
LIP.:
D
1`� 1
1
N
rD
O ,�
II
it‘ — ,
Z btii
� .
I z �O .__..:,
Amy t'i �I
I
m
2- -P. a `-
AN (,41:::1
V
7 N '71%)
i
0 A
K 0
Sire sad
Elaine Echols
From: nbrewbaker@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16,2017 7:17 AM
To: Elaine Echols
Cc: chenry@stonypointdb.com
Subject: Riverside Village Properties
Dear Ms. Echols,
As a resident of Riverside Village, I would like to notify the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of my full
support of the zoning case for Riverside Village Properties, LLC(ZAMA201600019). The following list describes why I
support this approval:
1. The proposed zoning maintains the mixed-use requirement for Block 1,
2. The proposed change does not affect the building massing or square footage from the currently approved
plan,
3. The location is appropriate for the proposed building,
4. The plan will have little or no impact on traffic in Riverside Village or Stony Point Road.
In summary, I believe the addition of these units will be an asset to Riverside Village.
Thank you for your service to all the people of Albemarle County.
Sincerely,
Nancy M. Brewbaker
535 Trailside Drive
Riverside Village
757-377-6755
Sent from my iPad
1
Elaine Echols
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:44 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: RE:Viewshed?
Elaine—my apologies for the delay in responding.Thank you for allowing Monticello to assess visibility of these parcels
that fall within the Monticello Viewshed. My comments follow:
• ZMA 201600019 Riverside Village Amendments I 078G0-00-01-000A0 I this parcel is not visible from
Monticello
• ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive I 09000000003510 this parcel may be visible from Monticello however,
given the density of existing development, I see no major concerns but would ask that the developer choose a
muted roof color.The attached screenshot shows surrounding roofs and most are darker in color,which is
preferred from Monticello's perspective.
•
1
. ::„.-.:v4
.174
Ix
w
t
y AA
,4 „. t*2 :41 „,„4 4, Si **,, t. , ...e. ' ' . ,
d5K
444 '4%,‘,,
` , *, '4====,. ori°
-* . _
Jih. rti- ,.."- 4-" 't' ' 'r4} 4 tt t
� r
�. * 4 * a N
k - • F.'�&', ; haw +,�q i, , ,.
4it
l4 ° * K 1 y h , *fin *I „� Ty.:
�, 44%44
,,4 ,: yam" t '" `R
�x
R
n
i s
4 t
} g
r r a
- 'Va. Servl•.
,;fit
e I
,
' x>
v tit 4 ;4
Thanks Elaine.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:26 PM
To: Liz Russell
Subject: Viewshed?
Can you tell me whether or not these parcels are in your viewshed?Thanks!
PROJECT: ZMA 201600019 Riverside Village Amendments
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078G0-00-01-000A0
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of Stony Point Road (Rt. 20) and Trailside Drive.
PROPOSAL: Increase maximum number of dwellings from 16 units to 36 units in Block 1.
PETITION: Modify application plan, Code of Development, and proffers for Block 1 which contains 2.41 acres and zoned
Neighborhood Model District, which allows residential (3—34 units/acre) mixed with commercial and service uses.
2
Sod
Changes in Block 1 would increase the maximum number of units from 16 to 36 which results in an increase in density
from 6.6 units per acre to units 15 units/acre;2) reduce the minimum commercial sq.ft.from 16,000 to 8,000 sq.ft. in
Block 1; 3) replace a single 5,000 sq.ft. plaza with multiple smaller plazas totaling 5,000 sq.ft.;4) reduce the minimum
build-to line on Trailside Drive from 50'to 25'; 5) make accessory uses and buildings by-right rather than by special use
permit; 6) modify proffers to provide 15%affordable units in Block 1;and 7) provide a cash proffer for the 36 additional
units of$7,419.91 for each new multi-family dwelling unit.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor
PROFFERS:Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential—residential (3-6 units/acre);supporting uses such as
religious institutions,schools and other small-scale non-residential uses;greenspace—sensitive environmental features
including stream buffers,flood plain,and adjacent slopes. and River Corridor—parks,golf courses,greenways, natural
features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3—Pantops Development Area.
POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes
PROJECT:ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035L0
LOCATION: 2511 Avinity Dr.,approx.70 feet south of the intersection with Avon St. Ext.
PROPOSAL: Rezone property to allow for apartments
PETITION: Request for 0.91 acres to be rezoned from R1 Residential zoning district,which allows residential uses at a
density of 1 unit per acre to PRD Planned Residential District which allows residential use (3—34 units/acre)with limited
commercial uses.A maximum of 24 multifamily units is proposed for a density of 26 units/acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): ENTRANCE CORRIDOR
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential—residential (6.01-34 units/acre);supporting uses such as places of
worship,schools, public and institutional uses, neighborhood scale commercial,office,and service uses in Neighborhood
4 of the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods.
POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED:Yes
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
3
'44.rl,
Elaine Echols
From: Scott A. Faust <scottfaust@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14,2017 12:51 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Cc: Chris Henry
Subject: Riverside Village Properties, LLC-ZMA201600019
Ms. Echols,
As residents of Riverside Village,we would appreciate your making the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors aware of our full support of the zoning case for Riverside Village Properties, LLC
(ZMA201600019).The following summarizes the points in favor of this project and why we support its
approval:
1. The proposed zoning maintains the mixed-use requirement for Block 1,
2. The proposed change does not affect the building massing or square footage of the currently
approved zoning for the site,
3. Commercial parking provisions in the currently approved zoning along with a new provision in
the current application effectively maintains the current number of parking spaces(size of the
parking lot) required for development of Block 1,
4. Block 1 of Riverside is an appropriate site/location for workforce housing,which is deficient in
Albemarle County,
5. Adding residential housing in Block 1(and thereby reducing commercial space in Riverside
Village)will have little to no impact on traffic in Riverside Village or on Stony Point Road,
6. Increasing residential density along an existing urban corridor with existing public transportation
is appropriate,
7. Increasing residential density in a community that has pedestrian and bicycle access to Darden
Towe Park, Food Lion, retail shops and restaurants is appropriate,
8. Increasing the residential density in Block 1 will have no impact on wetlands,steep slopes,
stream buffers or other environmental features,
9. Providing density in growth areas and near regional facilities and services is appropriate.
In summary,we think the addition of multifamily units to the currently approved zoning is a good idea,
and we ask that you support and approve this case.
Thank You.
1
Scott and Joanne Faust
1406 Trailside Ct.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
617.899.3510
scottfaustc comcast.net
2
Elaine Echols
From: Chris Bryant <cmb10790@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10,2017 2:09 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: Zoning - Riverside Village Properties, LLC
Ms. Echols,
As a resident of Riverside Village, I fully support the zoning case for Riverside Village
Properties, LLC (ZMA201600019). The list below are the points in favor of this project and
summarize my support for approval:
1. The proposed zoning maintains the mixed-use requirement for Block 1
2. The proposed change does not affect the building massing or square footage of the
currently approved zoning for the site
3. Commercial parking provisions in the current zoning will not change (size of parking lot,
number of spaces)
4. Block 1 of Riverside Village is an appropriate site/location for workforce housing
currently deficient in Albemarle County
5. Adding residential housing in Block 1 (reducing commercial space) will have little or no
impact on traffic in Riverside Village or Stony Point Road
6. Increasing residential density along an existing urban corridor with existing public
transportation is appropriate
7. Increasing residential density in a community that has pedestrian and bicycle access to
Darden Towe Park, Pantops Center, and restaurants is appropriate
8. Increasing the residential density of Block 1 will have no impact on wetlands, steep
slopes, stream buffers, or other environmental features
9. Providing density in growth areas and near regional facilities and services is appropriate
In summary, the addition of multi-family units to the currently approved zoning is favorable to
all concerned and I urge you, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to
support and grant approval in this case. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Alan B. Bryant and Christine M. Bryant
1653 Riverwalk Crossing
1
Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201600019
SubApplication Type:
Riverside Village - Amendment
Date Completed:11/29/2016
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Kevin McDermott CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:From a transportation perspective this amendment may provide some benefit through reduction in
overall trips generated, although, it could increase the number of trips made during the peak hours.
This could be offset through further promoting multi-modal options available because of the location
of the development near transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. To that end, staff recommends
consideration of residential/visitor bicycle accomodations which could include covered bicycle parking
and/storage areas to help reinforce multi-modal options available to users.
Division:
Date Completed:12/01/2016
Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/21/2016
Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:QC OK
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/14/2016
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/14/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 10/17/16.
No comments or objections.
Fire Rescue will address access during the site review process.
Division:
Date Completed:11/16/2016
Reviewer:Frank Pohl CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/22/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
There is insufficient information to determine impacts of the proposal on the Entrance Corridor.
Please provide additional information to clarify the following and to indicate how an appropriate
appearance for the Entrance Corridor will be achieved:
1. The change in appearance of the buildings resulting from the reduction in commercial space and
increase in residential units.
2. The distribution and appearance of the multiple plazas.
This information is needed with the rezoning to ensure the possibility of an approvable site plan.
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 05, 2017
Reviews Comments:There is insufficient information to determine impacts of the proposal on the Entrance Corridor.
Please provide additional information to clarify the following and to indicate how an appropriate
appearance for the Entrance Corridor will be achieved:
1. The change in appearance of the buildings resulting from the reduction in commercial space and
increase in residential units.
2. The distribution and appearance of the multiple plazas.
This information is needed with the rezoning to ensure the possibility of an approvable site plan.
Date Completed:01/19/2017
Reviewer:Elaine Echols CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/11/2017
Reviewer:Frank Pohl CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/11/2017
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/11/2017
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Tax Map Parcel correction: The correct tax map parcel needs (TMP 078G0-00-01-000A0) to be on
the application plan cover sheet and the first page of the proffers since this rezoning only applies to
Block 1.
ZMA Number is not correct on the proffers and should be updated to reference ZMA201600019
Division:
Date Completed:02/28/2017
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:• The conceptual site layout exhibit is only partially consistent with the Code of Development. It does
not show planting area available for the shrubs and flowering ornamental trees that are to be evenly
spaced around the patios (plazas).
• The most recent revision to the Code added: “One plaza will be a focal point aligned with Road C…”
The northeastern plaza does connect to Road C, but the exhibit does not illustrate any design
features that would otherwise distinguish the plaza as a focal point.
• The exhibit shows two buildings in Block 1. This differs from the layout reviewed by the ARB in
April, 2016, which showed three buildings. The roof plans of the buildings shown on the current
conceptual layout suggest buildings that are more massive in appearance than those reviewed by the
ARB. A larger footprint will require greater attention to massing and appropriate use of building forms,
architectural detailing and scale to establish an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor.
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 05, 2017
AL$
L�RGiNL�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
January 19, 2017
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main St. Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village Amendment
Revision 12-19-16
Dear Justin:
Fax (434) 972-4176
Staff has reviewed your resubmittal to add 36 units to the Riverside Village NMD. Staff questions,
comments, and recommendations follow:
Planning
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report.
The Pantops Master Plan recommends this area for Neighborhood Density residential uses (3 — 6
units/acre) along with a few non-residential uses. In addition, part of the property is
recommended for Parks and Open Space. Areas for development were established with
ZMA201200002. Calculated density for ZMA201200002 was 7 units/acre, based on areas
designated as Neighborhood Density residential. You originally asked for even greater density;
however, that density was not supported by the Pantops community nor the Planning Commission
because it was viewed as too far over the recommended density of the Pantops Master Plan.
With this amendment, proposed density is 13 units/acre based on the area designated for
Neighborhood Density (3-6 units/acre) which again exceeds the amount recommended in the
Master Plan. As you know, on September 26, 2016, initial feedback from the Pantops Community
Advisory Committee was positive and again on November 28, 2016, concerns for density were not
raised. This information will factor into the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Regarding your proposed proffer changes, while there is currently no cash proffer policy in effect,
staff is reviewing your request as a modification of the original zoning. For this reason, staff
believes that cash proffers are appropriate for all units which do not meet the County's affordable
housing definition. Because there is no policy related to workforce housing, staff cannot support
elimination of cash proffers for these units. nuwever, ii yUu win w exuuue dil UI mucic 1 HUM
casn pmflui z. ror impacL3 UI I LI IC u, providing workforce housing, you will need to define
workforce housing and the methodology to be used to enforce such a proffer. More information
nn thic i -,sup is nrovided with the 70pina rnmmonts.
Rev. 1: Methodology and language for enforcing a workforce housing proffer has been provided. Please see
additional information under the Housing section below.
We can suggest two possible options to help you mitigate impacts of the 30 units which do not
meet the County's affordable housing definition. The first would be to provide a cash proffer
calculated from the FY 2016-17 CIP ($7,419.91/multifamily unit). The other possibility would be to
calculate a per unit cost to cover the difference between $971,189.00 and the total proffer
amount that will result from constructing units 41— 69. Otherwise, you will need to provide
information on how the impacts from the 30 units will be mitigated.
Rev. 1: No change, however, in our conversation on January 18, 2017 you indicated you will explore this
option. Rebecca Ragsdale in Zoning will provide additional information on proffered amounts received to
date for the first 69 units.
Neighborhood Model
Because the design of the project is not changing, the only applicable Neighborhood Model
principles are Mixture of Use and Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space.
The proposed changes will continue to provide a mixture of uses; however, the maximum amount
of nonresidential square footage could possibly go as low as 8,000 square feet. Because the
maximum amount of nonresidential square footage in the Neighborhood Density residential
designation is 20,000 sq. ft., allowance for a reduction would bring the project into closer
conformity with recommendations in the Pantops Master Plan.
Regarding the ability to provide for multiple plazas rather than a single 5,000 sq. ft. plaza, staff is
unable to assess whether this change is substantive or not. To evaluate this change, staff asks that
you provide additional parameters to ensure that the plazas are amenities to the development
and not just leftover spaces in hard to reach areas.
Rev. 1: Thank you for the information provided in the letter of December 19. Staff still has concerns with
the need for a commitment to ensure that the new plazas will continue to provide amenities for the
development. However, in our conversation on January 18, 2017 you indicated that drawings will be
provided for staff review to assist in developing language for such a commitment.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Rebecca Ragsdale:
Code of Development and Application Plan
• Sheet 2- Parcel overview should be updated now that the property has been subdivided.
• Sheet 4- Parking notes- Zoning has had concerns about determining adequate parking since
the initial rezoning of Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-02). However, the Board ultimately
approved the calculation of 1 space/250 for non-residential uses. Note 3 must be revised
to also include the requirement for guest spaces, per the ordinance below.
2
Alhdti-fallfilv iudts, iiicludhT daipleres, single famill, attachedd, and rou-7?houses, but eYchidhr ,-
studeAt suitEs:
Number of Park-hig
Bedroonls/Unit spaces/Unit
Ally unit of 500 square feet or less 1.25
One (1) bedroom 1.50
Two (2) or more bedrooms 2.00
In addition. It part, ig Is provided on individual lots. such a5 for dllpleses and single
family attached townhouses. rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all imits in the
development, then one (1) guest space ger four (4) lulits shall be pro46ded.
• Sheet 4- Development block summary -What is the purpose of the 500 square foot
reduction in commercial per residential unit? There is a limit of 20,000 gross square feet
per building in Block 1 on Sheet 5 and a range of commercial/residential allowed in block 1.
Is there a need for this additional stipulation?
• Sheet 5 -Table of Uses- Why are accessory uses/structures by SP in Block 1?
• Sheet 6 -Affordable Units by Type and Block -The notes under this table reference a cash in
lieu of units option. This should either be deleted or cash in lieu of terms specified in
-rf— 7 This +-,hlo ., I,., -o 4 +. -,.4A - rc 1A, r1 fF --- hour r
Rev. 1: Changes to items above have been made. Modifications needed from this submittal are as follows:
• Tax Map Parcel correction: The correct tax map parcel needs (TMP 078GO-00-01-000AO) to be on
the application plan cover sheet and the first page of the proffers since this rezoning only applies to
Block 1.
Housing
Rev. 1:
The following information has been provided by Ron White:
• The following are the estimated maximum rents that could be approved for affordable
rental units. They are estimated since I don't know what utilities would be paid by the
tenant. NOTE: These rents could be approved for voucher holders.
1 bedroom $900
2 bedroom $1,000
3 bedroom $1,250
Since we do not have a policy for determining rents for workforce units, I would
recommend multiplying each of the amounts above by 1.25. 1 believe that once you get
this figure, you will find that it is likely close to what the market rents would be anyway.
As with rental units, there is no policy related to credits for work force housing; however, if
units are to be for -sale, staff believes the maximum sales price for workforce housing
would be $375,000.
Proffers
• Proffer 2 -Just as affordable housing is defined in the proffers, workforce housing terms
should be specified as well. It is recommended that the terms for workforce housing be
3
added to proffer 2.1 (reference Strategy 8a of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan for some guidance)
• Proffer 5- If you wish to exclude workforce units from cash proffers for impacts, you will
need to add to the third-fourth line of Proffer 5, "and that is not classified as an Affordable
I Init or a \A/nrkfnrra l Init " Than vnu ran rlalata Prnffar S 1
Rev. 1: Changes to items above have been made. Modifications needed from this submittal are as follows:
• ZMA Number is not correct on the proffers and should be updated to reference ZMA201600019
Engineering and Water Resources
-k Pohl, County Engineer, has no objection to this project.
Rev. 1: No change.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski: There is insufficient information to determine impacts of the proposal on
the Entrance Corridor. Please provide additional information to clarify the following and to
indicate how an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor will be achieved:
1. The change in appearance of the buildings resulting from the reduction in commercial
space and increase in residential units.
2. The distribution and appearance of the multiple plazas.
This infer --inn i- noo.Aod with the rP7nning+n enslirn the nnssihility of on innrnvihle site nlan.
Rev. 1: There isn't much information in the EC guidelines about plazas; however, and the buildings will still
need to go through ARB review. If you submit new designs for the plazas, the Design Planner can review
them.
Traffic
The following comments have been provided by the County's Transportation Planner, Kevin
McDermott: From a transportation perspective this amendment may provide some benefit
through reduction in overall trips generated, although, it could increase the number of trips made
during the peak hours. This could be offset through further promoting multi -modal options
available because of the location of the development near transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
facilities. To that end, staff recommends consideration of residential/visitor bicycle accomodations
which could include covered bicycle parking and/storage areas to help reinforce multi -modal
options available to users.
Rev. 1: Thank you for considering inclusion of resident/visitor bicycle accommodations. Staff believes that
making a commitment to provide such accommodations would be beneficial.
VDOT
•ments from VDOT are attached.
Rev. 1: Attached letter from January 19, 2017 indicates that the project is generally acceptable.
ASCA/RWSA
The following comments related to the water and sewer have been provided by Alex Morrison of
ACSA: Prior to approval the applicant shall correctly depict the existing water and sewer
C!
infrastructure on site. This update should be shown on Sheet 7. 1 will be ready to recommend
approval once this comment is addressed. The ACSA will review the water sewer connections once
the final site plan for this block is submitted for review.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
Resubmittals are received on the first and third Mondays of each month. The 2017 Submittal and
Resubmittal Schedule may be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development
/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
It may be possible to advance the application to the Planning Commission before April 4 if you
resubmit on Feb. 6 as a result of the limited number of technical changes needed for this project.
When you resubmit, please provide 5 copies of the plan and proffers.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
The zoning ordinance specifies that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings.
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees
is needed:
$ 400 Cost for newspaper advertisement
200 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 600 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.
$ 400 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 1000 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.
5
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
eechols@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
enc: Resubmittal Form
Letter from VDOT
6
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # C<» By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or��A;
Zoning Map Amendment �l�grllP'�
PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA201600019 PROJECT NAME: Riverside Village Amendment
X Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Elaine Echols
Community Development Project Coordinator
Name of Applicant
Phone Number
Signature Date Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
X Each additional resubmission $500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission 1 $1,000
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
$1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
qr
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required
$180
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 Orange Road
Culpeper- Virginia 22701
January 19, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Elaine Echols
Re: Riverside Village Amendment
ZMA-2016-00019
Review #I
Dear Ms. Echols:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced pian as submitted by Shimp Engineering, last revised
19 December 2016, and Finds it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Elaine Echols
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Ron White
Subject: Riverside Village - 24 units added
Attachments: Proffers 12-19-16.pdf
Hi Ron,
I hope you are having or have had very good holidays!
ZMA2015-03 Riverside Village has asked for 24 additional units through the current ZMA201600019.They are not
altering any of the previously approved proffers for affordable units.They are not offering any cash proffers on the new
units. (Legal said this qualifies as an "old" rezoning and they could make such proffers.)They are not making any cash
proffers because they are proffering 15%of the new 24 will be affordable as for-sale or for-rent units. In addition,they
are proffering that an additional 30%of the new units will be workforce housing units. (I think that means there will be 4
affordable units and 7 workforce units).
We will deal with the issue of cash proffers on the non-affordable units over here, but I'm wondering if you would
comment on the attached proposed proffers,especially for the workforce units.You may remember that the PC worked
on a policy for giving some credit for workforce units but couldn't finish that work in time to get it into the Comp. Plan
update so we have no official policy on workforce units.
We can talk further about this once you have had a chance to review the packet which is coming your way in the pony. I
thought I'd give you the headsup,though, and am attaching the proffers.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
f
(id ,
f ,...
, .r, ..
,,,. .,,„ ,..,
1 .
., ,,_ ___;:„4„,,
.:,,,,. , ,
. ,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange flood
Culpeper,Virginia 22101
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
January 19, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Elaine Echols
Re: Riverside Village Amendment
ZMA-2016-00019
Review#1
Dear Ms. Echols:
The Department of Transportation,Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section,has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, last revised
19 December 2016,and finds it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way.The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434)422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired please contact Justin Deel at(434)422-9894.
Sincerely,
(1641,t (d-• 4401A2
Adam J. Moore,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
1 VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
j
\./ PROJECTMANAGEMENT ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERINGa X
December 19, 2016
Ms. Elaine Echols
Principal Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village Neighborhood Model District
Responses to November 28,2016 Community Development Comments
Dear Ms. Echols,
In response to recommendations from County Staff as articulated in your November 28, 2016 letter;
please review the attached documents for presentation to the Planning Commission as they relate to the
requested zoning amendment.
After reviewing the plan in more detail we are also requesting that the Block 1 front build-to line from Road "A"
be revised from 50'-75'to 25'-75', as reflected on Sheets 4 and 6 of the Application Plan. There is no longer
a SWM facility planned for the corner of Route 20 and Road "A"and this will allow for more flexibility in the
layout of the Block. It will also allow for a larger plaza area between buildings.
Included for your review, please find:eight(8)sets of the revised Application Plan with a current revision date
of December 19, 2016 and revised proffers for the development. Please consider the following responses to
comments provided by County and VDOT Staff:
PLANNING:
• Neighborhood Density Residential—While we understand that the proposed density of solely the
block areas is 12.4 units/acre, this excludes area in roads and other amenities such as the park
dedication. The overall density of 5.7 units/acre is within the recommended Neighborhood Density
residential density of 3-6 units/acre. As was noted, the feedback from both Pantops Community
Advisory Council meetings (September 26, 2016 and November 28, 2016)did not include concerns
about the proposed density.
• Proffer changes—The revised proffers include Section 2.2, providing a definition for Workforce
Housing. The current proffers require a minimum of 15% of the new residential units within Block 1 to
meet the requirements of Affordable Housing, as defined within the proffers; and 30% of the new units
within Block 1 to meet the requirements, as defined within the proffers, for Workforce Housing. The
provision of affordable and workforce housing units within Block 1 (a ten year investment that restricts
45%of the proposed units) is intended to offset the expansion costs associated with Capital Projects,
as necessitated by the additional residential units requested within Block 1. Additional cash proffers for
residential units proposed in Block 1 are not provided.
NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL:
• Mixtures of Use—As was noted, the proposed changes continue to provide a mixture of uses for
Riverside Village as a whole. However, under the current Code of Development, no residential units
remain available for Block 1. The proposed changes allow for the possibility of mixed-use buildings
within Block 1 fronting on Route 20. As was also noted, the proposal includes possible reductions in
nonresidential square footage which would bring the project into closer conformity with the Pantops
Master Plan.
• Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space—The current concept has three civic plazas
ranging between 2,400 sf and 3,600 sf that provide opportunities for unique outdoor gathering
experiences for the residents and visitors.A central walk spine allows for accessibility and connection
to each of the building entrances from the parking lot, and acts as a link that unites each of the outdoor
spaces to the buildings as a collective whole. Providing three separate plazas for amenities (compared
to one giant space)will function better as a unifying element that provides direct access/connection to
the building interiors, making for a much better design composition. Moreover, decentralizing the plaza
from one to three will help contribute to a more neighborhood scale and feel. It is likely that the sum
total for all three spaces will far exceed the 5,000 sf that is minimally required.
ZONING:
• Sheet 2—The parcel overview on Sheet 2 has been updated to reflect the subdivision recorded for
Riverside Village.
• Sheet 4—Note three has been revised to reflect the guest parking space requirement in section 4.12.6.
• Sheet 4—The purpose of the 500 square foot reduction in commercial space in relation to each
dwelling unit is to offer the County an assurance that Block 1 can realistically accommodate the mixture
and square footage of uses proposed in the Code of Development in terms of both traffic impacts and
parking. As noted, Zoning has had concerns about adequate parking, and this stipulation should
address any concerns related to whether or not adequate parking can be provided to support the uses
proposed in Block 1. It essentially says that the maximum number of dwelling units and the maximum
non-residential square footage will not both be proposed when this moves forward to a Site Plan.
• Sheet 5—Accessory uses/structures were listed as by SP in Block 1 in the previous Code of
Development, which was obviously an oversight. We have revised this application plan to reflect
accessory uses and structures as a by-right use in Block 1.
• Sheet 6/Table VI—The notes under this table have been revised to delete the language referencing
cash in lieu of units; the developer intends to construct all of the required affordable units. Workforce
housing is addressed in the proffers.
Shimp Engineering PC ZMA 201600019 2
fir/ .
• Proffer 2—See the revised proffers.
• Proffer 5—See the revised proffers.
ENGINEERING AND WATER RESOURCES:
• The County Engineer had no objection to the project as proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:
• The intention of this proposal is for the overall layout of the block and outside appearance of the
buildings to be very close to the original design. The building appearance will be very similar to
previous proposals in regards to materials and scaling. There may be two buildings instead of three
and they may have three floors versus the two previously proposed, but exact designs have not yet
been finalized. The buildings will still front Route 20(with relegated parking) and outdoor plazas will be
provided between/on the ends of the buildings. The proposed mix of uses will result in commercial
uses on the first/second floor(s) and residential units on the second/third floor(s). As noted above,
parking will remain behind the building with limited visibility to the entrance corridor. If the plaza space
can be divided into smaller areas instead of one large one, the window(s) of visibility to the parking
between buildings will be reduced. A new ARB application will be submitted when building designs
have been finalized.
• The current concept has three civic plazas ranging between 2,400 sf and 3,600 sf that provide
opportunities for unique outdoor gathering experiences for the residents and visitors. A central walk
spine allows for accessibility and connection to each of the building entrances from the parking lot, and
acts as a link that unites each of the outdoor spaces to the buildings as a collective whole. Providing
three separate plazas for amenities (compared to one giant space) will function better as a unifying
element that provides direct access/connection to the building interiors, making for a much better
design composition. Moreover, decentralizing the plaza from one to three will help contribute to a more
neighborhood scale and feel. It is likely that the sum total for all three spaces will far exceed the 5,000
sf that is minimally required. The outdoor spaces will be more garden-like with mostly native trees and
plantings that are indigenous to the Piedmont landscape.
Traffic:
• The exact design of the site and buildings has not yet been finalized, but the developer will strongly
• consider including resident/visitor bicycle accommodations.
VDOT:
• VDOT had no objection to the project as proposed.
ACSA:
• The existing water and sewer infrastructure on site has now been correctly depicted on Sheet 3,
existing conditions (previous sheet 7 has been removed from the plan set).
Shimp Engineering PC ZMA 201600019 3
As always if you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at(434)
227-5140 and we can discuss in further detail.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Aft: Eight copies of revised Application Plan(revision date 12-19-2016)
Eight copies of revised proffers
Cc: Chris Henry, Riverside Village Properties
Shimp Engineering PC ZMA 201600019 4
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # C<» By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or��A;
Zoning Map Amendment �l�grllP'�
PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA201600019 PROJECT NAME: Riverside Village Amendment
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per X Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Request
Elaine Echols
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
12/1/16
Signature Date Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
X First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required
$180
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
November 30, 2016
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Elaine Echols
Re: Riverside Village — Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-20 l 6-00019
Review #I
Dear Ms. Echols:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 17
October 2016, and find it to be generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Justin DeeI at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Auu. KUCtv-/
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
I�1fGIT�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Date: 11-29-16
Subject: Review comments for ZMA 2016-09 Riverside Village-proposed proffer
and code of development/application plan dated 10-17-16 amendments
Code of Development and Application Plan
• Sheet 2-Update Parcel overview should be updated now that the property has been
subdivided.
• Sheet 4- Parking notes-Zoning has had concerns about determining adequate parking
since the initial rezoning of Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-02). However, the Board
ultimately approved the calculation of 1 space/250 for non-residential uses. Note 3 must
be revised to also include the requirement for guest spaces, per the ordinance below.
.1fu1tiJandlr ants.including duplexes,single family attached.and romrlrouses,bat excluding
student suites
Number of Parking
Bedrooms/Unit Spaces/Unit
Any unit of 500 square feet or less 1.25
One(1)bedroom 1.50
Two(2)or more bedrooms 2.00
In addition.if parkins is provided on individual lots.such as for duplexes and single
faintly attached townhouses.rather than in lots or hays that are shared by all units in the
development,then one(1)guest space per four(4)units shall be provided.
• Sheet 4- Development block summary-What is the purpose of the 500 square foot
reduction in commercial per residential unit?There is a limit of 20,000 gross square feet
per building in Block 1 on Sheet 5 and a range of commercial/residential allowed in block
1. Is there a need for this additional regulation?
• Sheet 5-Table of Uses-Why are accessory uses/structures by SP in Block 1?
• Sheet 6-Affordable Units by Type and Block-The notes under this table reference a cash
in lieu of units option. This should either be deleted or cash in lieu of terms specified in
Proffer 2. This table may also need updates to address workforce housing.
Proffers
• Proffer 2-Just as affordable housing is defined in the proffers, workforce housing terms
should be specified as well. It is recommended that the terms for workforce housing be
added to proffer 2.1 (reference Strategy 8a of the Housing chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan for some guidance)
• Proffer 5-There is currently no cash proffer policy in place to address whether there is an
expectation that CIP impacts from workforce units should be mitigated. If it is
recommended that workforce housing not be subject to CIP proffers, then just add that
to the third-fourth line of Proffer 5, "and that is not classified as an Affordable Unit or a
Workforce Unit..."
• Proffer 5.1-delete this language
1
sive' .
,/7,..0.-21.14_
dtoin- _
_
_. _
___ A°7 44e.44-f' `QZ Z2/.: --
/1 ..a,dy„, 0;1 e t,14‘.&,1.4 a-n cx-
byrx.(2.0-4&t_ii
-------- - ____
. ,
_
_ '
--ti .
; , ,i /.11-rN
.1.1.„4,64.1
_ _____ ,
, Frpo • _,/), 4„,,ey ib so6i,/,,,,,,,,,e
/A-e---tt-
. \-------t-e-r-%------
--t
, I
e i ,
.a
'
1 il.1/e 4• (31 ,ov , 7 s r
1 r oz_ -
' J'
/
ie. et&
. 4.
6,444:4_
, -)-----
.
Old i ii , , t_
/
- - - —
_
\
AL$
L�RGiNL�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
November 28, 2016
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main St. Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village Amendment
Dear Justin:
Fax (434) 972-4176
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal to add 36 units to the Riverside Village NMD. Staff
questions, comments, and recommendations follow:
Planning
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report.
The Pantops Master Plan recommends this area for Neighborhood Density residential uses (3 — 6
units/acre) along with a few non-residential uses. In addition, part of the property is
recommended for Parks and Open Space. Areas for development were established with
ZMA201200002. Calculated density for ZMA201200002 was 7 units/acre, based on areas
designated as Neighborhood Density residential. You originally asked for even greater density;
however, that density was not supported by the Pantops community nor the Planning Commission
because it was viewed as too far over the recommended density of the Pantops Master Plan.
With this amendment, proposed density is 13 units/acre based on the area designated for
Neighborhood Density (3-6 units/acre) which again exceeds the amount recommended in the
Master Plan. As you know, on September 26, 2016, initial feedback from the Pantops Community
Advisory Committee was positive and again on November 28, 2016, concerns for density were not
raised. This information will factor into the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Regarding your proposed proffer changes, while there is currently no cash proffer policy in effect,
staff is reviewing your request as a modification of the original zoning. For this reason, we
believes that cash proffers are appropriate for all units which do not meet the County's affordable
housing definition. Because there is no policy related to workforce housing, staff cannot support
elimination of cash proffers for these units. However, if you wish to exclude all of Block 1 from
cash proffers for impacts on the basis of providing workforce housing, you will need to define
workforce housing and the methodology to be used to enforce such a proffer. More information
on this issue is provided with the Zoning comments.
We can suggest two possible options to help you mitigate impacts of the 30 units which do not
meet the County's affordable housing definition. The first would be to provide a cash proffer
calculated from the FY 2016-17 CIP ($7,419.91/multifamily unit). The other possibility would be to
calculate a per unit cost to cover the difference between $971,189.00 and the total proffer
amount that will result from constructing units 41— 69. Otherwise, you will need to provide
information on how the impacts from the 30 units will be mitigated.
Neighborhood Model
Because the design of the project is not changing, the only applicable Neighborhood Model
principles are Mixture of Use and Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space.
The proposed changes will continue to provide a mixture of uses; however, the maximum amount
of nonresidential square footage could possibly go as low as 8,000 square feet. Because the
maximum amount of nonresidential square footage in the Neighborhood Density residential
designation is 20,000 sq. ft., allowance for a reduction would bring the project into closer
conformity with recommendations in the Pantops Master Plan.
Regarding the ability to provide for multiple plazas rather than a single 5,000 sq. ft. plaza, staff is
unable to assess whether this change is substantive or not. To evaluate this change, staff asks that
you provide additional parameters to ensure that the plazas are amenities to the development
and not just leftover spaces in hard to reach areas.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Rebecca Ragsdale:
Code of Development and Application Plan
• Sheet 2- Parcel overview should be updated now that the property has been subdivided.
• Sheet 4- Parking notes- Zoning has had concerns about determining adequate parking since
the initial rezoning of Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-02). However, the Board ultimately
approved the calculation of 1 space/250 for non-residential uses. Note 3 must be revised
to also include the requirement for guest spaces, per the ordinance below.
'llydti family units, including dnpleres, single fanuilu" attached, and towaduouses, but cvcluding
student suites:
Nrunber of Parking
Bedrooms./Unit Spaces Unit
Alry unit of 500 square feet or less 1.25
One (1) bedroom 1.50
Two (2) or more bedrooms 2.00
In addition, if parkins is provided on individual lots. such as for duplexes and single
family attached townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the
development. then one (1) guest space per four (4) uuuits shall be provided.
2
• Sheet 4- Development block summary -What is the purpose of the 500 square foot
reduction in commercial per residential unit? There is a limit of 20,000 gross square feet
per building in Block 1 on Sheet 5 and a range of commercial/residential allowed in block 1.
Is there a need for this additional stipulation?
• Sheet 5 -Table of Uses- Why are accessory uses/structures by SP in Block 1?
• Sheet 6 -Affordable Units by Type and Block -The notes under this table reference a cash in
lieu of units option. This should either be deleted or cash in lieu of terms specified in
Proffer 2. This table may also need updates to address workforce housing.
Proffers
• Proffer 2 -Just as affordable housing is defined in the proffers, workforce housing terms
should be specified as well. It is recommended that the terms for workforce housing be
added to proffer 2.1 (reference Strategy 8a of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan for some guidance)
• Proffer 5- If you wish to exclude workforce units from cash proffers for impacts, you will
need to add to the third-fourth line of Proffer 5, "and that is not classified as an Affordable
Unit or a Workforce Unit..." Then you can delete Proffer 5.1.
Engineering and Water Resources
Frank Pohl, County Engineer, has no objection to this project.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski: There is insufficient information to determine impacts of the proposal on
the Entrance Corridor. Please provide additional information to clarify the following and to
indicate how an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor will be achieved:
1. The change in appearance of the buildings resulting from the reduction in commercial
space and increase in residential units.
2. The distribution and appearance of the multiple plazas.
This information is needed with the rezoning to ensure the possibility of an approvable site plan.
Traffic
The following comments have been provided by the County's Transportation Planner, Kevin
McDermott: From a transportation perspective this amendment may provide some benefit
through reduction in overall trips generated, although, it could increase the number of trips made
during the peak hours. This could be offset through further promoting multi -modal options
available because of the location of the development near transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
facilities. To that end, staff recommends consideration of residential/visitor bicycle accomodations
which could include covered bicycle parking and/storage areas to help reinforce multi -modal
options available to users.
3
VDOT
Comments from VDOT are attached.
ASCA/RWSA
The following comments related to the water and sewer have been provided by Alex Morrison of
ACSA: Prior to approval the applicant shall correctly depict the existing water and sewer
infrastructure on site. This update should be shown on Sheet 7. 1 will be ready to recommend
approval once this comment is addressed. The ACSA will review the water sewer connections once
the final site plan for this block is submitted for review.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
Resubmittals are received on the first and third Mondays of each month. The 2017 Submittal and
Resubmittal Schedule will be posted to the County's website soon.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
The zoning ordinance specifies that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings.
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees
is needed:
$ 400 Cost for newspaper advertisement
200 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 600 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.
$ 400 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 1000 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
eechols@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols
Principal Planner/Acting Chief
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
5
fir+/
Elaine Echols
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Monday, November 28,2016 3:41 PM
To: 'Moore,Adam PE (VDOT)'
Cc: Deel,Justin (VDOT)
Subject: RE:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village- 11-28-16
You can. It just can't be required on the plan. Not every ZMA includes a plan. You all determine whether a TIA is needed
and, I believe, can require it.The information accompanies the request.
From: Moore,Adam PE (VDOT) [mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28,2016 3:39 PM
To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Deel,Justin (VDOT)<Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Re:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village-11-28-16
Elaine,
Traffic generation data is included in every TIA(which almost always accompany ZMAs). This is information absolutely
pertinent to evaluating the potential impact of the amendment. So,why can't we ask for it?
Adam J. Moore,P.E. I Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT-Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way I Charlottesville I VA
main 434.422.9782
On Nov 28,2016,at 3:35 PM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote:
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on a site plan or
plat. I don't think we can require it.
Elaine
From: Deel,Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel(a�vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28,2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore,Adam PE (VDOT)<Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village- 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However,this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS(aalbemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village- 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here is what should
have been sent, please ignore my handwritten notes.
1
(Id 44111,
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel,Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28,2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc:Justin Shimp, P.E.<Justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy<lauren@shimp-
engineering.com>; Moore,Adam PE(VDOT)<Adam.MooreCu@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village- 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village,which includes the following
comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a reduction in
traffic volume.This was not found. Please include the trip generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
{
2
Elaine Echols
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:22 PM
To: 'Alexander Morrison'
Subject: RE:ZMA201600019: Riverside Village-Amendment
Thanks.
From:Alexander Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent:Tuesday, November 15,2016 11:18 AM
To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject:ZMA201600019: Riverside Village-Amendment
Elaine,
I have reviewed the above referenced zoning map amendment. Prior to approval the applicant shall correctly depict the
existing water and sewer infrastructure on site.This update should be shown on Sheet 7. I will be ready to recommend
approval once this comment is addressed.The ACSA will review the water sewer connections once the final site plan for
this block is submitted for review.
Alexander J. Morrison,P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F)434-979-0698
1
Surrounding Uses: Riverside Village NMD Blocks 2-6(no change)
Charlottesville Elks Lodge(parcels 58A and 8A)—Private Club Use
Wilton LLC c/o VA Housing Development Authority(across Rt. 20)—Apartments
Dettor, James A or Peggy W(across Rt. 20)—R-1 residential(one SFD unit)
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
The comprehensive plan classifies this parcel, along with the remaining Riverside Village development,as Neighborhood
Density Residential,which proposes 3-6 residential dwelling units per acre.ZMA201200002 and ZMA201500003 were
established at a maximum of 3.7 DUA, near the lower end of the density range proposed for Neighborhood Density
Residential. The requested change would increase the site density to 5.7 DUA, near the upper end of the density range
proposed in Neighborhood Density Residential areas.
While remaining within the proposed residential density range for Neighborhood Density Residential areas,the proposed
change would achieve additional benefits that are noted in the Comprehensive Plan:
1) Increase availability of workforce and affordable housing opportunities within a new development
2) Increase diversity of approved, built,and units currently under construction
3) Increase availability of workforce and affordable housing opportunities within a County growth area,
4) Increase residential density along existing public transportation routes,
5) Increase residential density within walking distance to regional facilities(Darden Towe Park), and nearby shopping.
Approval of this request would achieve these goals without impacts to any of the following:
a) Unclassified roads, minor collector roads,or major collector roads(note Rte. 20, north of Rte. 250, is classified as a
rural minor arterial road);
b) Floodplains,wetlands,tree preservation areas,and managed and preserved slopes;
c) Pervious areas and stormwater management facilities;
d) Public water and sewer.
Impacts on Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure:
As noted above,the existing NMD zoning approved with ZMA201200002 and ZMA201500003 established uses that are
consistent with the availability of public facilities and public infrastructure. Each additional dwelling unit proposed in Block 1
reduces the maximum allowed commercial square footage by 500 SF; as a result,the more dwelling units proposed the more
the traffic volume decreases on Rte. 20 since the commercial uses are higher intensity with more traffic generation. The
reduction in commercial space, caused by the increase in residential units,would effectively reduce the traffic generation of
the overall Block 1 (see provided Daily Trips Generation; 1038 daily trips versus 992 daily trips). The change in Block 1 vehicle
trips are additionally insignificant when considering the benefits achieved by locating the origin of the residential trips in close
proximity to their destinations(Charlottesville and nearby retail and recreational facilities)and when considering the close
proximity of Block 1 to pedestrian/biking facilities and public transportation facilities.
Proffers:
The proffers have been amended to revise the sections pertaining to Affordable Housing (Section 2)and Cash Proffers for
Residential Units(Section 5). The 10(ten)affordable units previously proffered have been provided in Blocks 2 and 5,which
are currently under construction. The amended proffers remove"Block 1"as a possible location for any of the originally
proffered 10 affordable units. The amended proffers offer additional affordable housing in the form of 15%of any residential
units built in Block 1, if approved. Given the affordable housing proffer, and the fact that the type of residential units within
Block 1 will be workforce purposed,the owner is not offering cash proffers for those units. Section 5 has been revised
accordingly.
0
OF A4\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp
From: Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Date: September 21,2016
Subject: Mandatory pre-application meeting for Riverside Village Amendment-ZMA2012-002;
ZMA2015-003
The following are County staff comments regarding the above noted pre-application meeting. This
meeting satisfies the requirement for a pre-application meeting prior to submittal of your zoning map
amendment application ("rezoning") and/or a special use permit application. The purpose of for the
meeting is summarized below:
The purposes for a pre-application meeting are to: (i)provide the applicant and the county a
common understanding of the proposed project; (ii) inform the applicant about the proposed
project's consistency with the comprehensive plan, other relevant policies, and county
regulations; (iii) broadly identify the planning, zoning and other issues raised by the application
that need to be addressed by the applicant;(iv) inform the applicant about the applicable
procedure;and(v) allow the director to identify the information the applicant must submit with
the application, including the supplemental information delineated in subsection (c). Receiving
the relevant supplemental information will allow the application to be comprehensively and
efficiently reviewed.
The following are staff comments:
(ii)Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
• The increase in density sought is over the density recommended in the Pantops Master Plan.The
current approval is also over the density recommended, and an extensive discussion occurred
during the review for the original ZMA request.
(iii) broadly identify the planning, zoning and other issues raised by the application that need to
be addressed by the applicant
• In addition to the density over the recommended range within the Master Plan, there is concern
of additional traffic on Route 20 and parking that may be needed.
(iv)applicable procedures
• Community Meeting—the applicant is required by ordinance to undeRece a community meeting process
as part of the review of the rezoning/SP request. This meeting should be held, if possible, within 30 days
from the date the rezoning application is submitted, and can be held prior to the submittal of the rezoning
application. Adjacent property owners and neighborhoods (and the Coordinating Reviewer/planner)
should receive advance notification of this meeting (date/time/location).
• If the applicant knows of any of any waivers or modifications that are needed to implement the proposed
plan, staff recommends that those requests be submitted with the initial application. Staff will then
determine if the waivers should be approved with the rezoning action or deferred for action with site plan
and/or subdivision plat approval.
(v) Identify the information the applicant must submit with the application, including the supplemental information
• A concept plan should be submitted with the Zoning Map Amendment application.
• Attached NMD Zoning District Checklist.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Principal Planner
2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�fRGIN1°'
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 Dane of vour comment letter with vour submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an
indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the
deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set
with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do
not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution
that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the
Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The
6
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.
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.
7
1
James H. Smith
From:Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:29 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:Fwd: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
Hi Elaine,
We imagine the workforce being priced the same way you do affordable, but with a higher median income
threshold and thus higher prices. See Kelly’s math below:
Do you have any time tomorrow to meet briefly or chat about this issue? I’ve got an 8:30 meeting and a 1pm
meeting but otherwise am flexible.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Date: January 12, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Source: http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/PropertyOwnersManagers/Income-Rent-
Limits/Pages/HUDMedianIncome.aspx#.WHeT2VMrJhE
HUD Median Income for Fiscal Year 2016
Albemarle County
MSA: Charlottesville, VA HUD Metro FMR Area
Median Income: $77,800.00
Click on a column header for sorting.
Percentage One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30% $16,800.00 $19,200.00 $21,600.00 $24,300.00 $28,440.00 $32,580.00 $36,730.00 $40,890.00
40% $22,400.00 $25,600.00 $28,800.00 $31,960.00 $34,520.00 $37,080.00 $39,640.00 $42,200.00
50% $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $39,950.00 $43,150.00 $46,350.00 $49,550.00 $52,750.00
60% $33,600.00 $38,400.00 $43,200.00 $47,940.00 $51,780.00 $55,620.00 $59,460.00 $63,300.00
80% $44,750.00 $51,150.00 $57,550.00 $63,900.00 $69,050.00 $74,150.00 $79,250.00 $84,350.00
2
Non-Adjusted Income Limits for Albemarle County
Percentage: 50% 80% 100% 150%
Income: $38,900.00 $62,240.00 $77,800.00 $116,700.00
Albemarle County Median Income for 2016 = $ 77,800
80% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 62,240
120% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 93,360
PITI for Affordable Housing = (0.3 x $ 62,240) / 12 = $ 1,556 per month (maximum)
PITI for Workforce Housing = (0.3 x $ 93,360) / 12 = $ 2,334 per month (maximum)
1
James H. Smith
From:Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:54 AM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-30-16
Attachments:ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-30-16.pdf
Categories:Red Category
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our approval letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
Subject:Riverside Village
Location:Room A
Start:Wed 1/18/2017 3:00 PM
End:Wed 1/18/2017 3:50 PM
Show Time As:Tentative
Recurrence:(none)
Meeting Status:Not yet responded
Organizer:Elaine Echols
Required Attendees:Ron White; Rebecca Ragsdale
Categories:Red Category
Update with Justin Shimp on affordable proffers
1
James H. Smith
From:Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:46 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject:Riverside Village ZMA201600019
Categories:Red Category
Elaine,
We did not receive the revised application plan, only the comment response letter and proffer statement. While I agree
with your note that there may not be anything of VDOT concern on the resubmittal, since there has been revision can
you send a copy of the plan so that we can confirm?
Thanks!
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:10 PM
To:Kevin McDermott
Subject:Riverside Village
Categories:Red Category
PROJECT: ZMA 201600019 Riverside Village Amendments
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 078G0-00-01-000A0
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of Stony Point Road (Rt. 20) and Trailside Drive. PROPOSAL: Increase maximum number
of dwellings from 69 to 105 and modify the application plan, proffers and the code of development.
PETITION: Modify application plan, Code of Development, and proffers for 2.41 acres zoned Neighborhood Model
District, which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial and service uses in order to 1) increase the
maximum number of units in Block 1 from 16 to 36 which results in an increase in density from 6.6 units per acre to 13.4
units/acre; 2) reduce the min. commercial sq. ft. from 16,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. in Block 1; 3) replace a single 5,000 sq. ft.
plaza with multiple smaller plazas totaling 5,000 sq. ft.; 4) modify proffers to provide 15% affordable units in Block 1; and
5) state that cash proffers for impacts will not be provided on any units in Block1.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; and River Corridor – parks, golf courses,
greenways, natural features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 – Pantops
Development Area.
POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 3:43 PM
To:'Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)'
Cc:Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Subject:RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Categories:Red Category
Sorry for the confusion!
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) [mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Re: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying we couldn't require.
Adam J. Moore, P.E. | Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way | Charlottesville | VA
main 434.422.9782
On Nov 28, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
You can. It just can’t be required on the plan. Not every ZMA includes a plan. You all determine whether
a TIA is needed and, I believe, can require it. The information accompanies the request.
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) [mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:39 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Re: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Elaine,
Traffic generation data is included in every TIA (which almost always accompany ZMAs). This is
information absolutely pertinent to evaluating the potential impact of the amendment. So, why can't
we ask for it?
Adam J. Moore, P.E. | Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way | Charlottesville | VA
main 434.422.9782
2
On Nov 28, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on
a site plan or plat. I don’t think we can require it.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However, this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here
is what should have been sent, please ignore my handwritten notes.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy <lauren@shimp-
engineering.com>; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village, which includes the
following comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a
reduction in traffic volume. This was not found. Please include the trip
generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 3:36 PM
To:'Deel, Justin (VDOT)'
Cc:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject:RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Categories:Red Category
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on a site plan or plat. I don’t think
we can require it.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However, this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here is what should have been sent,
please ignore my handwritten notes.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy <lauren@shimp-engineering.com>; Moore, Adam
PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village, which includes the following comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a reduction in traffic volume. This
was not found. Please include the trip generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
2
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 3:39 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Subject:Re: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Categories:Red Category
Elaine,
Traffic generation data is included in every TIA (which almost always accompany ZMAs). This is information absolutely
pertinent to evaluating the potential impact of the amendment. So, why can't we ask for it?
Adam J. Moore, P.E. | Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way | Charlottesville | VA
main 434.422.9782
On Nov 28, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on a site plan or
plat. I don’t think we can require it.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However, this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here is what should
have been sent, please ignore my handwritten notes.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
2
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy <lauren@shimp-
engineering.com>; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village, which includes the following
comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a reduction in
traffic volume. This was not found. Please include the trip generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 3:40 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject:RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Categories:Red Category
Interesting. Everything else is included on this plan. Is it not all required?
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:36 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on a site plan or plat. I don’t think
we can require it.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However, this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here is what should have been sent,
please ignore my handwritten notes.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy <lauren@shimp-engineering.com>; Moore, Adam
PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
2
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village, which includes the following comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a reduction in traffic volume. This
was not found. Please include the trip generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 3:43 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Subject:Re: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Categories:Red Category
Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying we couldn't require.
Adam J. Moore, P.E. | Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way | Charlottesville | VA
main 434.422.9782
On Nov 28, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
You can. It just can’t be required on the plan. Not every ZMA includes a plan. You all determine whether
a TIA is needed and, I believe, can require it. The information accompanies the request.
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) [mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:39 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Re: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Elaine,
Traffic generation data is included in every TIA (which almost always accompany ZMAs). This is
information absolutely pertinent to evaluating the potential impact of the amendment. So, why can't
we ask for it?
Adam J. Moore, P.E. | Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way | Charlottesville | VA
main 434.422.9782
On Nov 28, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
This is not something that can be required for a SP or ZMA. I think you can request it on
a site plan or plat. I don’t think we can require it.
Elaine
2
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Thanks, Elaine. However, this still needs to be included on the plans.
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Sadly, I am finding that not every packet that went out for this ZMA was complete. Here
is what should have been sent, please ignore my handwritten notes.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Elaine
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; Lauren Gilroy <lauren@shimp-
engineering.com>; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village - 11-28-16
Ms. Echols,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201600019 Riverside Village, which includes the
following comment.
• The project narrative made reference to a daily trip generation which shows a
reduction in traffic volume. This was not found. Please include the trip
generation calculations on the plans.
Justin
Justin Deel, EIT
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:28 PM
To:'Deel, Justin (VDOT)'
Cc:Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject:RE: Riverside Village ZMA201600019
Categories:Red Category
I don’t know what happened – I put the plan in the packet I sent – something must have occurred in transit to separate
it. I am glad to send you another plan.
Do you know if we deliver to you tomorrow?
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Riverside Village ZMA201600019
Elaine,
We did not receive the revised application plan, only the comment response letter and proffer statement. While I agree
with your note that there may not be anything of VDOT concern on the resubmittal, since there has been revision can
you send a copy of the plan so that we can confirm?
Thanks!
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
James H. Smith
From:Ron White
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2017 12:05 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
I’m not available today but next Wednesday is fairly open or next Thursday morning around 10. I will try to do some
calculations based on his proposed maximum payments to determine what sales price would likely be supported. We
need to identify a sales price not a mortgage payment amount.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:20 AM
To: Ron White <rwhite2@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Would you like for me to set up a meeting?
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:29 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Fwd: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Hi Elaine,
We imagine the workforce being priced the same way you do affordable, but with a higher median income
threshold and thus higher prices. See Kelly’s math below:
Do you have any time tomorrow to meet briefly or chat about this issue? I’ve got an 8:30 meeting and a 1pm
meeting but otherwise am flexible.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Date: January 12, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
2
Source: http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/PropertyOwnersManagers/Income-Rent-
Limits/Pages/HUDMedianIncome.aspx#.WHeT2VMrJhE
HUD Median Income for Fiscal Year 2016
Albemarle County
MSA: Charlottesville, VA HUD Metro FMR Area
Median Income: $77,800.00
Click on a column header for sorting.
Percentage One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30% $16,800.00 $19,200.00 $21,600.00 $24,300.00 $28,440.00 $32,580.00 $36,730.00 $40,890.00
40% $22,400.00 $25,600.00 $28,800.00 $31,960.00 $34,520.00 $37,080.00 $39,640.00 $42,200.00
50% $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $39,950.00 $43,150.00 $46,350.00 $49,550.00 $52,750.00
60% $33,600.00 $38,400.00 $43,200.00 $47,940.00 $51,780.00 $55,620.00 $59,460.00 $63,300.00
80% $44,750.00 $51,150.00 $57,550.00 $63,900.00 $69,050.00 $74,150.00 $79,250.00 $84,350.00
Non-Adjusted Income Limits for Albemarle County
Percentage: 50% 80% 100% 150%
Income: $38,900.00 $62,240.00 $77,800.00 $116,700.00
Albemarle County Median Income for 2016 = $ 77,800
80% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 62,240
120% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 93,360
PITI for Affordable Housing = (0.3 x $ 62,240) / 12 = $ 1,556 per month (maximum)
PITI for Workforce Housing = (0.3 x $ 93,360) / 12 = $ 2,334 per month (maximum)
1
James H. Smith
From:Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:21 AM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject:Re: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
Hi Elaine,
I took a little time off over the holiday but will get back to you on this by the end of the week.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
On Dec 30, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Justin,
I hope you are having good holidays.
I am working with Ron White on the affordable housing proffers and he had some questions for which
answers would be helpful.
1. What is meant by the words in parentheses on the 2nd page of the letter, “a ten year investment
that restricts 45% of the proposed units”? The proffers don’t have any limitations on a term for
maintaining affordability.
2. What are the proposed price points would on the “workforce” units?
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:24 PM
To:'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Subject:RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
Could you please look into my questions below? I want to provide comments very soon, but need more info.
Thanks.
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Hi Elaine,
I took a little time off over the holiday but will get back to you on this by the end of the week.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
On Dec 30, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Justin,
I hope you are having good holidays.
I am working with Ron White on the affordable housing proffers and he had some questions for which
answers would be helpful.
1. What is meant by the words in parentheses on the 2nd page of the letter, “a ten year investment
that restricts 45% of the proposed units”? The proffers don’t have any limitations on a term for
maintaining affordability.
2. What are the proposed price points would on the “workforce” units?
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
2
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
James H. Smith
From:Ron White
Sent:Friday, December 30, 2016 11:57 AM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:RE: Riverside Village - 24 units added
Categories:Red Category
Thanks for clarifying. It would be helpful to know what the proposed price points would be on the “workforce” units.
Ron White
Chief of Housing
(434) 296-5839
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Ron White <rwhite2@albemarle.org>
Subject: Riverside Village - 24 units added
Hi Ron,
I hope you are having or have had very good holidays!
ZMA2015-03 Riverside Village has asked for 24 additional units through the current ZMA201600019. They are not
altering any of the previously approved proffers for affordable units. They are not offering any cash proffers on the new
units. (Legal said this qualifies as an “old” rezoning and they could make such proffers.) They are not making any cash
proffers because they are proffering 15% of the new 24 will be affordable as for-sale or for-rent units. In addition, they
are proffering that an additional 30% of the new units will be workforce housing units. (I think that means there will be 4
affordable units and 7 workforce units).
We will deal with the issue of cash proffers on the non-affordable units over here, but I’m wondering if you would
comment on the attached proposed proffers, especially for the workforce units. You may remember that the PC worked
on a policy for giving some credit for workforce units but couldn’t finish that work in time to get it into the Comp. Plan
update so we have no official policy on workforce units.
We can talk further about this once you have had a chance to review the packet which is coming your way in the pony. I
thought I’d give you the headsup, though, and am attaching the proffers.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Friday, November 04, 2016 5:47 PM
To:'John Mastrandea'; Rosalyn Schmitt; Jackson Zimmermann; Dean Tistadt; Joe Letteri
Cc:David Benish
Subject:RE: Projections
Attachments:New Res. Units in Pipeline as of 11-4-16.xlsx
Categories:Red Category
Hi all,
Attached is our updated list of projects. A map will be forthcoming.
Elaine
From: John Mastrandea [mailto:jmastrandea@k12albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:26 PM
To: Rosalyn Schmitt <rschmitt@k12albemarle.org>; Jackson Zimmermann <jzimmerm@k12albemarle.org>; Dean Tistadt
<dtistadt@k12albemarle.org>; Joe Letteri <jletteri@k12albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Projections
Attached are the projections.
________________________________________________
John H. Mastrandea
Albemarle County Public Schools
Fiscal Services Project Manager
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Phone 434-296-5829 Fax: 434-974-8004
Email: Jmastrandea@k12albemarle.org
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Monday, June 20, 2016 5:12 PM
To:Susan M. Stimart
Subject:RE: Comp. Plan info with relevance to Ec. Dev.
Categories:Red Category
Not every NMD has mixed use – they can apply for and receive an exception to this requirement. The district has been
used (sadly) by some because it has no minimum lot size and lot standards can be customized to a site.
If you want to know more about any of these, you can use the application number and look at the ad in CountyView to
see if they are really mixed use.
Take care.
Elaine
From: Susan M. Stimart
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:17 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Comp. Plan info with relevance to Ec. Dev.
I can’t tell why Lofts at Meadowcreek are considered mixed use, are they meant to be live/work units? How fun would
that be!
Have a great weekend!
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Susan M. Stimart <sstimart@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Comp. Plan info with relevance to Ec. Dev.
Application
Number Project Name
ZMA200800003 Albemarle Place
ZMA200400007 Belvedere
ZMA200500017 Biscuit Run
ZMA200700014 Boars Head Inn Meeting Pavilion-ESCP
ZMA200200004 Cascadia
ZMA200200005 Foothill Crossing
ZMA200400016 Glenwood Station
ZMA201100005 Greenbrier Commons
ZMA200500007 Haden Place
ZMA200700001 Hollymead Town Center - Area A2
ZMA201000006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2
ZMA200500005 Liberty Hall (Cross Property) - NMD
ZMA200700004 Oakleigh Farm
ZMA201500001 Old Trail Village
ZMA201200003 Out Of Bounds
ZMA200500008 Pantops Park
2
ZMA200600014 Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads
ZMA201300012 Rivanna Village
ZMA201500003 Riverside Village Neighborhood Model District
ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village
ZMA201300001 THE LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK
ZMA200400017 Wickham Pond
ZMA200500018 Wickham Pond - Phase II
ZMA200300008 Woodbrook Station
I believe that the list of projects above is the universe of NMDs. Some had amendments, so the application number may
or may not be the latest one. The names are complete, though.
Elaine
From: Susan M. Stimart
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Comp. Plan info with relevance to Ec. Dev.
Thanks Elaine, this is a really good reminder!
Can you confirm with me the “universe” of NMD rezoning we have approved,
1. Old Trail
2. Wickham Pond
3. Liberty Hall
4. Belvedere
5. North point
6. Hollymead Town Center
7. Keith Woodard’s Hydraulic/G’town corner (name?)
8. Albemarle Place/Stonefield
9. Glenwood Station - Condos in front of Fashion square Mall
10. Pantops Park (VNB)
11. Riverside Village
12. Cascadia
13. Biscuit Run
14. Haden Place
I don’t want to include Brookhill since it’s so new. Any others I’m missing?
Thanks,
Susan
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 11:29 AM
To: Faith McClintic <fmcclintic@albemarle.org>; Susan M. Stimart <sstimart@albemarle.org>
Subject: Comp. Plan info with relevance to Ec. Dev.
Hi there,
I know you are probably intimately familiar with the Ec. Dev. Chapter in the Comp. Plan, so I haven’t included it in the
info I pulled for you on statistics we used with the Comp. Plan and what is in the Housing Chapter that is probably
relevant.
3
In the attachment, I have highlighted info in yellow where I think it relates specifically to what we talked about on
Wed. I would encourage you to read all 11 pages (several are just charts) so that you know what we have said to the
world and how we have been dealing with the need for affordable housing. Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Acting Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2017 2:21 PM
To:'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; Ron White
Subject:Meet on Riverside
Categories:Red Category
I can meet next Wed. from 3-3:50. Justin and Ron, do you want to meet at CDD then?
From: Ron White
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:05 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
I’m not available today but next Wednesday is fairly open or next Thursday morning around 10. I will try to do some
calculations based on his proposed maximum payments to determine what sales price would likely be supported. We
need to identify a sales price not a mortgage payment amount.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:20 AM
To: Ron White <rwhite2@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Would you like for me to set up a meeting?
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:29 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Fwd: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Hi Elaine,
We imagine the workforce being priced the same way you do affordable, but with a higher median income
threshold and thus higher prices. See Kelly’s math below:
Do you have any time tomorrow to meet briefly or chat about this issue? I’ve got an 8:30 meeting and a 1pm
meeting but otherwise am flexible.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
2
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Date: January 12, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Source: http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/PropertyOwnersManagers/Income-Rent-
Limits/Pages/HUDMedianIncome.aspx#.WHeT2VMrJhE
HUD Median Income for Fiscal Year 2016
Albemarle County
MSA: Charlottesville, VA HUD Metro FMR Area
Median Income: $77,800.00
Click on a column header for sorting.
Percentage One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30% $16,800.00 $19,200.00 $21,600.00 $24,300.00 $28,440.00 $32,580.00 $36,730.00 $40,890.00
40% $22,400.00 $25,600.00 $28,800.00 $31,960.00 $34,520.00 $37,080.00 $39,640.00 $42,200.00
50% $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $39,950.00 $43,150.00 $46,350.00 $49,550.00 $52,750.00
60% $33,600.00 $38,400.00 $43,200.00 $47,940.00 $51,780.00 $55,620.00 $59,460.00 $63,300.00
80% $44,750.00 $51,150.00 $57,550.00 $63,900.00 $69,050.00 $74,150.00 $79,250.00 $84,350.00
Non-Adjusted Income Limits for Albemarle County
Percentage: 50% 80% 100% 150%
Income: $38,900.00 $62,240.00 $77,800.00 $116,700.00
Albemarle County Median Income for 2016 = $ 77,800
80% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 62,240
120% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 93,360
PITI for Affordable Housing = (0.3 x $ 62,240) / 12 = $ 1,556 per month (maximum)
PITI for Workforce Housing = (0.3 x $ 93,360) / 12 = $ 2,334 per month (maximum)
1
James H. Smith
From:Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:29 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:Fwd: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
Hi Elaine,
We imagine the workforce being priced the same way you do affordable, but with a higher median income
threshold and thus higher prices. See Kelly’s math below:
Do you have any time tomorrow to meet briefly or chat about this issue? I’ve got an 8:30 meeting and a 1pm
meeting but otherwise am flexible.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Date: January 12, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Source: http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/PropertyOwnersManagers/Income-Rent-
Limits/Pages/HUDMedianIncome.aspx#.WHeT2VMrJhE
HUD Median Income for Fiscal Year 2016
Albemarle County
MSA: Charlottesville, VA HUD Metro FMR Area
Median Income: $77,800.00
Click on a column header for sorting.
Percentage One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30% $16,800.00 $19,200.00 $21,600.00 $24,300.00 $28,440.00 $32,580.00 $36,730.00 $40,890.00
40% $22,400.00 $25,600.00 $28,800.00 $31,960.00 $34,520.00 $37,080.00 $39,640.00 $42,200.00
50% $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $39,950.00 $43,150.00 $46,350.00 $49,550.00 $52,750.00
60% $33,600.00 $38,400.00 $43,200.00 $47,940.00 $51,780.00 $55,620.00 $59,460.00 $63,300.00
80% $44,750.00 $51,150.00 $57,550.00 $63,900.00 $69,050.00 $74,150.00 $79,250.00 $84,350.00
2
Non-Adjusted Income Limits for Albemarle County
Percentage: 50% 80% 100% 150%
Income: $38,900.00 $62,240.00 $77,800.00 $116,700.00
Albemarle County Median Income for 2016 = $ 77,800
80% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 62,240
120% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 93,360
PITI for Affordable Housing = (0.3 x $ 62,240) / 12 = $ 1,556 per month (maximum)
PITI for Workforce Housing = (0.3 x $ 93,360) / 12 = $ 2,334 per month (maximum)
1
James H. Smith
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2017 9:20 AM
To:Ron White
Subject:FW: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Categories:Red Category
Would you like for me to set up a meeting?
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:29 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Fwd: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Hi Elaine,
We imagine the workforce being priced the same way you do affordable, but with a higher median income
threshold and thus higher prices. See Kelly’s math below:
Do you have any time tomorrow to meet briefly or chat about this issue? I’ve got an 8:30 meeting and a 1pm
meeting but otherwise am flexible.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Village Workforce Housing proffers
Date: January 12, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Source: http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/PropertyOwnersManagers/Income-Rent-
Limits/Pages/HUDMedianIncome.aspx#.WHeT2VMrJhE
HUD Median Income for Fiscal Year 2016
Albemarle County
MSA: Charlottesville, VA HUD Metro FMR Area
Median Income: $77,800.00
Click on a column header for sorting.
2
Percentage One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30% $16,800.00 $19,200.00 $21,600.00 $24,300.00 $28,440.00 $32,580.00 $36,730.00 $40,890.00
40% $22,400.00 $25,600.00 $28,800.00 $31,960.00 $34,520.00 $37,080.00 $39,640.00 $42,200.00
50% $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $39,950.00 $43,150.00 $46,350.00 $49,550.00 $52,750.00
60% $33,600.00 $38,400.00 $43,200.00 $47,940.00 $51,780.00 $55,620.00 $59,460.00 $63,300.00
80% $44,750.00 $51,150.00 $57,550.00 $63,900.00 $69,050.00 $74,150.00 $79,250.00 $84,350.00
Non-Adjusted Income Limits for Albemarle County
Percentage: 50% 80% 100% 150%
Income: $38,900.00 $62,240.00 $77,800.00 $116,700.00
Albemarle County Median Income for 2016 = $ 77,800
80% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 62,240
120% of Median Income for 2016 = $ 93,360
PITI for Affordable Housing = (0.3 x $ 62,240) / 12 = $ 1,556 per month (maximum)
PITI for Workforce Housing = (0.3 x $ 93,360) / 12 = $ 2,334 per month (maximum)
1
James H. Smith
From:Ellie Ray <ellie@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent:Friday, November 18, 2016 1:55 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:FW: Community Meeting - Riverside Village
Attachments:Untitled attachment 00022.htm; Community Meeting Guidelines.pdf; Community
Meeting Guidelines.pdf; Untitled attachment 00025.htm; Notification List for Public
Bodies.pdf; Untitled attachment 00028.htm; PrintableMap.pdf; Untitled attachment
00031.htm; prop owners.xlsx; Untitled attachment 00034.htm
Categories:Red Category
Elaine,
Can you give me advice on how to notify the HOA for Avemore and the City of Charlottesville as mentioned in your
email? Do you have a contact or address for the HOA? A specific person at the City?
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE
(434) 227-5140
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 10:22 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: Fwd: Community Meeting - Riverside Village
FYI, can you take care of this?
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Community Meeting - Riverside Village
Date: November 16, 2016 at 5:58:28 PM EST
To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Cc: Norman Dill <ndill@albemarle.org>, Daphne Spain <dspain2@albemarle.org>, Diane Caton
<DIANECATON@MSC-RENTS.COM>, Emily Kilroy <ekilroy@albemarle.org>
Hi Justin,
Sorry to be so late in getting this information to you. As you know, you need to set up a community meeting for this
project. It would preferable for you to hold this meeting before the end of the first week in November so that I can add
2
comments from the CAC meeting to your letter with staff comments. However, with the Thanksgiving holiday fast
approaching I know that may be difficult.
Attached is the notification list for the required community meeting. (Please make sure you’re able to notify the HOA for
Avemore and the City of Charlottesville.) Per the attached guidelines I’ve copied several other folks here that you’ll want
to include in the conversation to find the most appropriate date, time and place, including the Board and PC member for
the Rivanna District, the chair of the Pantops Advisory Committee, and our Community Engagement Specialist.
If this can fit into a CAC agenda that would be fine; however, if timing does not work you will need to find a different
date and possibly a different venue. I believe you are familiar with other venues in the area and, of course, there is
always the County Office Building.
Please let me know when you have a tentative date and time so I can confirm my availability to attend. Also, feel free to
contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Acting Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252