The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201200002 Action Letter 2013-11-25COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 November 25, 2013 Justin Shimp, P.E. 201 E. Main St., Suite M Charlottesville, Va. .22902 RE: ZMA201200002 & SP201300001 Riverside Village TAX MAP 78/PARCEL 58; TAX MAP 78B/SECTION 1/PARCELS 101 through 303 Dear Mr. Shimp: On November 13, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved the above noted requests on the above noted parcels as follows: Regarding ZMA201200002 Approval of request to rezone from R1 to NMD is subject to the Code of Development and application plan/plan of development, both dated May 21, 2012 and revised September 6, 2013, and the ' attached proffers dated November 4, 2013. Please refer to these documents for any future applications and requests on this property. Regarding SP201300001 Approval of request to fill in the flood hazard overlay district is not subject to any conditions. Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved may lawfully begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met. This includes: • compliance with applicable PROFFERS; • compliance with requirements of the CODE OF DEVELOPMENT; • approval of and compliance with a SITE PLAN; and • approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE. Before proceeding with further use of this property or should you have questions regarding the above - noted action, please contact Rebecca Ragsdale at 296-5832. Sincerely, t° V. ayne C�Irib Director of Planning cc: Gordonsville R Charlottesville, Va. 22902 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ZMA 2012-00002, RIVERSIDE VILLAGE WHEREAS, Riverside Village Properties Inc. ("Riverside Village") is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 07800-00-00-05800 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Riverside Village filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SUB 2014-00138, Riverside Village, to vary the Application Plan and the Code of Development approved in conjunction with ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, to exempt porches and dormers from the minimum roof pitch requirement in Section VIII, Architectural Standards, on page 6 of the Applicant's revised Application Plan and Code of Development dated May 12, 2012 and last revised January 6, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive summary prepared in conjunction with the special exception request, staff s supporting analysis included in the executive summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions in Albemarle County Code § § 18-8.5.5.3(c) and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to vary the Application Plan and the Code of Development approved in conjunction with ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, as described hereinabove. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on May 6, 2015. er , Boar o County Supervisors ye Nay Mr. Boyd Y Ms. Dittmar Y Ms. Mallek Y Ms. McKeel Y Ms. Palmer Y Mr. Sheffield Y AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 June 5, 2013 Mr. Justin Shimp 201 E. Main St., Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201200002 — Riverside Village Dear Mr. Shimp: Fax (434) 972-4126 On April 9, 2013, the subject proposal went to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. ZMA201200002 and SP201300001 were indefinitely deferred at your request. The general consensus of the Planning Commission was: The nonresidential amount of square footage in excess of 20,000 square feet was less of a concern. Concern is the cumulative effect of residential development and the 50,000 square feet of nonresidential, particularly on traffic at the 20/250 intersection. General agreement with staff's analysis of the permissible residential density. General support for the nonresidential location and form. Some support of the pedestrian mews concept. Agreement with staff regarding fill in the floodplain. In response to the staff report and the Planning Commission public hearing you resubmitted information, inclusive of revisions on May 6, 2013. Your request is to rezone 18.67 acres from R-1 Residential to NMD Neighborhood Model for a revised maximum of 69 residential units and up to 46,000 square feet of proposed commercial uses for five (5) buildings. Approximately 8.8 acres of this property is located in the floodplain, and some floodplain disturbance is expected for the development. Staff has reviewed your May 6, 2013 submittal and have the following comments and questions: STAFF COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT APPLICATION: 1. The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. However, the residential net density proposed in the application is higher than the density recommended in the PMP. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately 8.8 acres of which is in the floodplain. The PMP 1 recommends 3-6 units per acre, which would allow for 30-59 units on the portion of the site outside of the floodplain. In 2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the density calculation and use the 3-6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008, the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely impact the floodplain. Staff recommends no more than 59 units for the site as designated in the PMP. Rev. 2: Not addressed. Rev. 3: Not addressed. Rev. 4: The net density, not including the floodplain acreage is approximately 7 units per acre. You have decreased the maximum number of units to 69. This is closer to the recommendation in the PMP, but still over the recommendation by approximately 10 units. 2. Non-residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. A prior proposal showed offices along Route 20 and retail/commercial uses along the river corridor, which was more in keeping with the recommendations outlined in the PMP. Staff believes that non-residential uses along Route 20 should be limited to primarily office use since nearby Avemore and Cascadia will provide for neighborhood service uses in this area. The proposed maximum 41,000 square feet for non-residential (single building not to exceed 25,000 s.f.) uses is well above the standards set forth in the PMP, which recommends small office buildings less than 20,000 square feet. Staff recommends limiting the size of commercial buildings proposed along Route 20 to be more in keeping with the recommendations in the PMP. Rev. 2 The proposed square footage for commercial uses, along with the restriction (noted on Sheet 5) which limits the gross square footage of commercial buildings to 20,000 is more in keeping with the PMP. However, a mix of office and retail uses are still proposed for the buildings along Route 20. It is still recommended that the non- residential uses along Route 20 be limited to primarily office use, since nearby developments will provide for neighborhood service uses in the area. Retail uses are also proposed on this site near the river. This is partially met. It is not completely consistent with the PMP. Rev. 3 No change from Rev. 2. Rev. 4 The application plan has been revised to propose a range of 16,000 to 46,000 square feet of commercial space. This range is large and has different implications as they relate to required parking and the various uses that could be located in the commercial spaces. See zoning comments for additional discussion regarding the commercial uses. With the proposed wide range of possible commercial square footage, it is difficult to determine the impacts of the commercial development on this property. 3. A pedestrian path connecting the development to the river is proposed in the development, which enhances the site's natural features and meets the River Corridor guidelines outlined in the PMP. However, backyard areas and sidewalks in Blocks 3 and 4, and buildings in Block 3 are proposed in the floodplain. Also stormwater facilities are located in the floodplain. The disturbance proposed to the floodplain for this development does not meet this PMP guideline. Please review recommendations by the Planning Commission at the two previous work sessions held in 2007 and 2008. 2 Staff strongly recommends that you revise the plan to reduce the impact of the development plan on the floodplain. Fill work for any necessary improvements in the floodplain will require a special use permit and should be processed with the rezoning. (See item #1 in the Engineering and Water Resources section of this letter) Rev. 2 Although you have made some revisions related to this issue, in general, the issues remain outstanding. Sidewalks, and in particular buildings #10 and 11 are shown to be located in the floodplain or right on the floodplain boundary. Proposed stormwater facilities also remain located in the floodplain. The revised plan shows a new building #6, the picnic pavilion, in the floodplain. Please clarify the details of building #6. For example, is it a building, or a picnic area with or without a roof? As previously stated, staff suggests the previous recommendations be followed. Rev. 3 The same outstanding issues from Rev. 2 still remain, with the exception that buildings #10 and #11 are no longer shown on the plan, however, some block boundaries are still shown right on the floodplain boundary. Also building #6 the picnic pavilion is no longer shown on the plan, but is referenced throughout the code of development as still being located in the floodplain. The previous staff recommendation still remains. Rev. 4 Basically this issue has not been addressed. The picnic pavilion is not specifically referenced in the code of development as still being located in the floodplain; however, the code of development describes accessory buildings and uses including storage buildings being permitted in block 6 (the park area located in the floodplain) with an SP. This is not recommended by staff. 4. Amenities such as open space/future park have been provided in the proposed development. This 8.1 acre park has been included on the plan. It is not clear what the intention will be for this area. Will it be dedicated to public use for a park, as shown in previous plans? Is parking available for the future park? Commitment to the future park area should be addressed through proffers. Rev. 2 The park area is now 8.46 acres, and you have stated that a future public park dedication shall be proffered with this application, however, proffers have not been submitted. Will this proposed park use existing parking areas located at the adjacent Darden Towe Park? Rev. 3 Proffers are now submitted. Rev. 4 No change. 5. It is important that the Zoning Ordinance be followed as it relates to the Neighborhood Model District regulations. Section A.3 (a, b, and d) need to be included in any re -submittal. Rev. 2 Revisions satisfying Sections A.3 (a, and d) are fine. Section A.3 (b), the traffic and parking needs study needs to be clarified. (Please see Zoning comments) Rev. 3 Traffic study has been provided. Rev. 4 Please see Zoning comments, as there remain outstanding issues with parking. 6. Proposed frontage improvements to accommodate the widening of Route 20 as recommended in the PMP (See page 39 in PMP) need to be included. (See item #2 of the attached VDOT letter) Rev. 2 As noted in your response letter (December 17, 2012), all of the proposed frontage improvements to accommodate the widening of Route 20 as recommended in the PMP have not been addressed. This issue still needs to be addressed. Rev. 3 A proffer has now been provided to address the road frontage. 3 Rev. 4 Please see engineering and VDOT comments regarding outstanding issues for the frontage improvements on Route 20. 7. In general, there remain many inconsistencies between the plan and code of development that need to be revised, so that they match up with each other. Rev. 3 This has not been completely addressed. Rev. 4 Comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. Neighborhood Model: The following describes the previous outstanding Neighborhood Model Principles and how they have been addressed with the proposed project: Pedestrian Orientation A system of sidewalks and pedestrian access to adjacent Rivanna River Walk is proposed within the development. Connecting the sidewalk system to Route 20 would be an added bonus for the development. Rev. 2 This principle is met and there is now a pedestrian connection to Route 20. Rev. 3 This has been addressed. Rev. 4 No change. Mixture of Housing A mixture of housing types is included with the proposed development. Types and However, comments provided in this letter regarding the proffers Affordability addressing affordable housing should be addressed. Rev. 2 Although there is a section in the code of development focusing on affordable housing, staff believes the affordable housing requirement should be in a proffer. See Zoning comments. Rev. 3 Proffers have been provided to address affordable housing. Rev. 4 Revised proffers have not been submitted. No change. Site Planning that There are important environmental features on the site, such as the Respects Terrain floodplain, stream buffers, and critical slopes that should be protected and maintained. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the need for protection of the floodplain. Rev. 2 This principle needs to be addressed. Rev. 3 This principle still needs to be addressed. Rev. 4 No change. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD) 1. As previously requested, please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the designated blocks with Section II of the COD. Rev. 4 Not addressed. 2. The block characteristics on sheet 6 need to be consistent with the lot/parking/building regulations table shown on sheet 5. For example, on sheet 5, block 1 min/max stories are shown as 2 -3, however, block characteristics on sheet 6 shows block 1 shall consist of 2 story buildings. Also block characteristics shown on sheet 6, describes block 1 with commercial buildings. However, residential uses are also described to be located in this M block throughout the code of development and application plan, but this use is not described as a use within this section of the documents submitted. Please clarify this. Rev. 4 This is corrected. 3. Sheet 6, Section II A. Preliminary Lot Layout: Clarify this section. Is this what you want for the development? Not sure of the relationship between what is described in this section and the range of possibilities noted in other sections of the code, which could yield a totally different plan layout. Rev. 4 Not addressed. What is the intent for this? 4. Sheet 6, Section IV Table of Uses by Block. This table is confusing because Block I allows some residential, but it is not depicted within the table. There is a note below the table that speaks to mixed uses being allowed in blocks 1 and 5. It seems you should describe what residential uses you will permit in block 1 also. Perhaps the use of asterisks that refer to the notes below this table would be helpful. Rev. 4 This is corrected. 5. Sheet 7, section X Lot and building height regulations (refer to Plan sheets 4 and 5) is not consistent with the lot/parking/building regulation section shown on sheet 5. This needs to be revised to be consistent. Rev. 3: This still needs to be done. Rev. 4 No change. 6. Sheet 7, Restrictions/Requirements associated with Standards above section (1) has typos that should be corrected. Rev. 4 This is corrected. 7. Sheet 7, the area that you are describing as conservation area on the application plan should be labeled. Rev. 4 No change. In addition, Section II C. on Sheet 6 does not match up with Section XI D. on sheet 7. These should be consistent with each other. 8. Rev. 3: In general, Parts I, II and III of the COD do not appear to be required parts of a code of development and the County Attorney suggest that they not be part of the code, which is regulatory in nature and enforced by Zoning. They should be under a different heading. Rev. 4 No change. 9. Parts I and lion Sheet 6 are unclear and should be eliminated as suggested in the previous comment. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -DETAILED COMMENTS Planning 1. As previously mentioned in this letter, sheets 4 and 5, describe what the actual plan is for blocks 2 and 5. There are many possibilities for unit types and stories of buildings. With different unit types the layout of the plan could be significantly different. How do you plan to deal with this issue? Rev. 4 This is now an issue mainly for block 2, but block 4 could be included. 2. It appears there will be disturbance to areas of critical slopes. It is recommended a special exceptance be requested for the disturbance. This remains an outstanding issue. Rev. 3: This remains an outstanding issue. Rev. 4 This is addressed. 3. Parking, stormwater facilities, and a picnic shelter are shown in the floodplain. Staff does not recommend this. Rev. 3: This remains an outstanding issue. Rev. 4 No change. Specific reference to the picnic shelter has been eliminated, but accessory buildings and storage buildings can be included in the floodplain with a special use permit. 5 4. Several of the units in block 2 do not have street frontage. How will this be resolved? Rev. 3: This remains an outstanding issue. Rev. 4 This is still unclear. 5. Sheet 5; clarify the last sentence under Development Block Summary. What is the intent of this sentence? Rev. 4 This is addressed. 6. Rev. 3: Minimum —maximum range of residential units shown on Sheet 4 is not consistent with the range shown on sheet S. Rev. 4 This is addressed. 7. Rev. 3: Clarify the maximum commercial square footage allowed. Is it 50,000 or 20,000? 8. Rev. 4 This is still unclear. 9. Rev. 3: On sheet 5 total acreage is different on the Development Block summary than on the land use summary. Rev. 4 No change 10. Rev. 3: Sheets 5 and 6 stories are inconsistent. See block 1 on sheet 6. Rev. 4 This is addressed. 11. Rev. 3: Section V. Sheet 6 not consistent with sheet 5 Development Block Summary permitted housing types. Rev. 4 No change 12. Rev. 3: Sheet 7, Section X. Lot and Building Height Regulations Block 1 Min lot width is 50' and is 80' on Sheet 5 lot/..... table. Rev. 4 No change 13. Rev. 3: Make sure if tables are repeated that they are consistent with each other. Rev. 4 No change 14. Rev. 4 On Sheet 5, the Development Block Summary Max. Block Gross Density DU/Acre Blocks 2, 3 and total are incorrect. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: 1. Adequate parking is provided for proposed residential in Blocks 2, 3 & 4. However, it is impossible to ascertain parking needs in the mixed use blocks that contain residential and commercial. This problem is compounded given the Development Summary on sheet 5 which allows for minimum/maximum square footage/residential types. Rev. 3: This issue still needs to be addressed. Rev. 4: No change. 2. Additionally, the applicant is suggesting that the parking standard for office (1 space per 250s.f.) be utilized for the mixed use blocks yet the plan calls out retail, which will require a higher parking standard. It appears that other commercial uses are also allowed which may also demand more parking. Rev. 4: No change. 3. The parking, square footage and residential unit types are further confusing when reviewing the COD as the Applicant calls out specific square footage and residential unit numbers per block. Rev. 4: No change. 6 4. There appear to be many inconsistencies on different sheets. Please clarify what is in each Block and provide consistency among the blocks/pages. Rev. 4: No change. 5. Zoning will not support a general parking standard of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. without supporting documentation. The Applicant must request a modification and provide ITE data or other research for Zoning to review. Rev. 4: No change. 6. Rev. 4: No proffers were submitted for review. 7. Rev. 4: Page 6, V. under Block 5 of the application plan contains incorrect dwelling types. 8. Rev. 4: Proffer B1 does not make sense around the 6th line down. "The requirement that the rents for such rents...." 9. If the Applicant wants to use the office parking standard and Zoning is able to support it, higher impact commercial uses should be proffered out. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks: 1. A special use permit for fill in the floodplain is required and should be processed with the rezoning. Encroachments to increase development are not recommended for approval. Fill for necessary improvements on Rt. 20 could be recommended for approval with appropriate map changes. Rev.B: Not yet received. Rev.9: A special use permit was received and comments sent separately. Encroachments to increase development are not recommended. Rev. 10: No change 2. Stormwater management facilities should be out of the floodplain. Rev.B: Stormwater facilities are still in the floodplain, along with parking and buildings. Rev. 9: no change Rev. 10: No change 3. An updated traffic study is needed to assess impacts. Previous studies projected as much as a 10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection. This intersection's efficiency could be improved by lane widening on both sides at Rt. 20 and Riverbend, and a right -turn lane from Rt. 250. Rev.B: Not yet received. Rev.9: This has been received and is under review by VDOT. As expected, the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 250 is failing. The applicant has posited that this intersection has such a high volume of traffic that the impacts from this site are approximately 3% taken in total. However, for the crucial left turning movement onto Rt. 250, it is 12% (34/287), or 17% (60/343) for the right turn movement. This is significant, and improvements to this intersection and signal are recommended. Rev. 10: No change 4. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans had the widening to the eastern boundary. The road constriction between entrances is impractical. Also, the gap to the existing lane widening to the west leaves an odd constriction in lanes at this point, and it is not clear that lanes line up in either direction. 7 Rev.B: The improvements to the North on Rt. 20 have been shown, but it is not clear whether they line up with lanes across the intersection at Darden Towe and Fontana Drive. The improvements toward the Rt. 250 intersection appear to be terminated earlier on the plan sheets. Rev.9: Detail 8/CS9 appears to be short sidewalk as shown in 7/CS9. There will be an odd constriction in lanes on either side of this site if approved as proposed, but I defer to VDOT on the road design. The details added for roads and alleys 1/CS9 through 5/CS9 cannot be guaranteed for dimensions. Widths and other dimensions will be depended on final designs. Rev. 10: No change 5. The island in the northern entrance will be ineffective. The only way to prohibit left turns is to install a median on Rt. 20. Rev. 8: Please refer to item 3. Left turns should probably be prohibited. Unprotected lefts at both entrances are a potential cause of serious accidents. Rev. 9: The unprotected left turns from Rt.20 and from the site are not recommended. Rev. 10: No change 6. The parking inside the northern entrance is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance. Rev. 8: This has been addressed. Rev. 10: No change 7. The road/alley layout is inadequate. Alleys are for secondary access only. Frontage to all lots should be on a private or public road with on -street parking available. This includes the loop road in front of lots 13-18. Rev. 8: Units 19-26 and 28-33 do not have road frontage. Alleys cannot be the sole means of access to units. These must be served by roads. Rev. 9: Blocks 2C, 2B, and 2A do not appear to have road frontage, and are not recommended for approval. Rev. 10: These blocks do not have adequate access or parking. Approval is not recommended. 8. Adequate outfall for stormwater under Free Bridge Lane will be a concern and will likely require offsite improvements. Rev.B: Not addressed on plans or proffers. Rev. 9: Not addressed. Rev. 10: No change 9. This development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent facilities from the floodplain should keep these disturbances temporary. Rev.B: Not addressed. Rev. 9: Not addressed. Rev. 10: No change Many of these comments are a continuation from previous reviews for SP200700057 and ZMA200700024, which should be referenced. Here is a small visual comparison of plans for recent years of review, using the floodplain line as a constant, which is shown in blue. With regard to this line, the 2008 plan is the most compliant. The 2013 plan is similar to early 2011. 2011 2011 2008 Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. Buildings 1-4 are oriented parallel to the EC with all parking relegated to the opposite side of the buildings and building entrances provided at the sides (north or south). The applicant should be aware that the EC elevations and the north and south elevations will be required to have the appearance of fully designed building facades. Rev. 4: No change. 2. Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that trees will be required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and the facilities will be required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an "engineered" appearance. Rev. 3 and 4: Landscaping will be approved with the site plan, not the application plan, but note that trees and shrubs will be required along the EC frontage in the vicinity of SWM facilities #1 and #3, and the facilities will be required to be fully integrated into the landscape, without an "engineered" appearance. VDOT See attached comments related to transportation issues provided by Troy Austin. PROFFERS Rev. 4: Revised proffers have not been provided. What is the status of the proffers, which need to be substantively and technically revised? I suggest a meeting with Glenn and I to work out the floodplain, special use permit and street design/mews issues. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant@albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development C: Gordonsville Realty Investments, Inc. 9 o COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 18, 2013 Justin Shimp, P.E., Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main St. Suite M Charlottesville, VA. 22902 RE: ZMA201200002 & SP201300001 Riverside Village TAX MAP PARCEL: 07800000005800 Dear Mr. Shimp: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 2013, by a vote of 6:0 approved the applicants request for indefinite deferral of the above -noted petitions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior. Planner Planning Division Phone (434) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Justin Shimp 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 2008 RE: ZMA2007-00024 Riverside Village Fax (434) 972-4012 On August 26, 2008, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above -noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. RR/SM ATTACHMENT D �r _ �) ATTACHMENT 1 ZMA-2007-00024 Riverside Village — (Concurrent SP -2007-057) Work Session The Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2007-00024 Riverside Village (Concurrent SP -2007-057). The Commission reviewed and provided comments on the following four questions posed by staff. 1. Is the maximum square footage of non-residential land uses appropriate for this site, including 30,000 square feet of commercialloffice space proposed in Block 1, or should the maximum allowed be reduced? The Commission had no concerns and felt the square footage per building was appropriate for the site. 2. Should additional land dedicated for the public park and amenities be required, in addition to park proffer? The Commission did not recommend that additional park land or amenities be dedicated. The Commission recommended that the applicant provide for urban amenities internal to the development, such as small pocket parks that may have seating. 3. Are the scale and massing of the mixed use buildings in Block 3 appropriate? Generally the Planning Commission liked the relationship of the buildings to the Rivanna River and did not have concerns about the proposed height of four stories. However, they recommended breaking up the massing of the buildings in Block 3. 4. Are the roof rain gardens approximately located adjacent to Route 20 or should they be relocated? The Commission believed that the rain gardens were a beneficial feature that should remain, but recommended they be relocated and not be placed adjacent to Route 20 and that pedestrian orientation of the buildings to the street should be improved. The Commission also felt that providing for green roofs and Low Impact Development (LID) in the development was positive. Other Commission comments: o Some Commissioners were concerned that the applicant's proposed plans would still impact the flood plain and recommended that the plans be revised to eliminate impacts in to the flood plain. o The Commission noted that future submittals and review of this proposal should address the proffer policy and provide adequate proffers to address all impacts of the proposed development, including schools, libraries, and fire rescue and police. o Some concern was expressed about making sure that the parking was adequate for residential/commercial, no matter what entities went into the commercial spaces. ATTACHMENT D