Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800003 Correspondence 2019-01-07Southwood Phase 1 REZONING COUNTY COMMENT RESPONSE to REVISION #1 Original Submission Date: February 20, 2018 Revision #1: July 2, 2018 Staff comments dated August 6, 2018 Revision #2: January 7, 2019 ZMA 2018-003 - Southwood Phase 1 Tax Map and Parcel Numbers: 090A1-00-00-001EO, 09000-00-00-001AO, and 07600-00-0051A0 Owners of Record: Southwood Charlottesville LLC Amending portion of ZMA200500017 Biscuit Run included on TMP 90A1-1E: 1. Previous comments regarding the amendment of the Biscuit Run NMD were acknowledged by the applicant and they have indicated that a proffer statement will be submitted. This statement will be reviewed and comments may be given when it is submitted. According to Section 33.2.b.1(a) and (b), signatures of other property owners are not required but written notice shall be required to other property owners subject to the same proffers within the Biscuit Run planned development. This will be completed by County staff. Response: Noted. Please see the proffer statement submitted with this application. General Application Comments: 1. A work session with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will take place on August 7th. After this work session, additional comments may be provided based on the feedback received. Response: See the attached Evolution document for a summary response to comments and concerns that came out of this work session and other formal and informal comments from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This document summarizes comments and concerns and the responses that are found throughout the Application Plan, Code of Development, and History and Context Documents of this revised submission. 2. Affordable Housing: for this first phase a commitment needs to be made that 15% will be affordable to meet the policy. There is a scenario in which less than 15% will be provided. The work session with the Planning Commission and the Board may provide additional guidance. Response: See Block and Uses in the Code of Development for a regulations regarding affordable housing. A minimum of 15% has been included in the Code of Development. 3. The term "transect" is a specific planning term that describes how development occurs over a large area and not just one development. It is recommended that the COD be revised to state the areas as "character area 1-5 (C1, C2, etc) so as not to provide confusion. Also, the way that the transects are proposed (1-5) regarding density and level of development is the opposite of how the terms are described/used around the country-T-1 is the least dense area and increasing in density/level of development as the number gets to 5-6. http://www.dpz.com/Initiatives/Transect Response: See Character Areas and Regulations section of the Code of Development. "Transects" have been omitted and replaced with "Character Areas" C-1 to C-5. Application Plan/Code of Development: Code of Development: Planning/Zoning (Megan Nedostup; Rebecca Ragsdale): 1. Note that items under the Neighborhood Model analysis (below) that are italicized should be addressed in the COD. Response: Most of these elements are included within the Code of Development. Exceptions include the narrative "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan", which is found in the History and Context Document provided in this revised submission along with all narrative "evaluation criteria" from the NMD. Exceptions also include daily vehicle trip count, which is included in the Local Traffic Study provided in this revised submission. 2. Page 17 of the COD ("Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan") says that UDR allows up to 35 du/acre, while the actual limit is 34 du/acre. Response: See Evaluation Criteria in the History and Context Document. The "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" section been updated and the reference to 35 du/acre has been revised to 34 du/acre. 3. Page 18-19-Affordable Housing- Additional narrative, examples, and detail has been provided to outline the overall goals and approach, which is helpful. Following input from the Board and Planning Commission in their August 7 work session, a regulatory table must be added that establishes the minimum number of affordable units required by block. The narrative is confusing as to what the minimum will be for each block. Typically, affordable housing commitments have been 2-fold for for -sale units where the income of the qualified purchaser and sale price are reviewed by the Housing Director. For rental units, the Housing Director has provided maximum rental rates. Response: See Block and Uses in the Code of Development for regulations regarding affordable housing. 4. Page 21-Carriage units: Previous comment has been partially addressed. If carriage houses will not count towards density and be considered accessory units, typically there is a standard, either percentage (35%-50% gfa of the primary dwelling) or max sq. ft. that limits their size. Response: See Residential Uses by Block in the Block and Uses section within the Code of Development for definition of carriage unit, which includes a max percentage of the primary dwelling to limit size. 5. Page 21: Please list these two uses separately so there is no confusion. Home occupation class A's are not allowed in accessory structures. Also, delete sheds as a use. Sheds are covered by the accessory uses and buildings category. a. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings b. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses Response: See Residential Uses by Block in the Block and Uses section within the Code of Development, sheds have been eliminated and home occupation, Class A is listed as a singular use. 6. Page 21-Daily vehicle trip count limit -Enforceable standards (How, what, who?) must be established in the code of development so it is clear how the 5,000 vtpd regulation is to be administered during site plan, subdivision, and zoning clearance reviews. Response: Please see Local Traffic Impact Study for standards to regulate daily vehicle trip count. 7. Page 22-Move Home Occupation Class A and Class B to the residential chart on Page 21. Response: See Residential Uses by Block in the Block and Uses section within the Code of Development - home occupation, Class A and Class B, are listed in the residential chant. 8. Page 22 and Non -Residential Uses by Block: Based on RLUIPA and the uses allowed in this COD, it would not be permitted to totally exclude religious assembly. RLUIPA states that religious uses cannot be treated differently than secular institutional uses (e.g. a school compared to a church). They must be treated on equal terms. RLUIPA does allow for a zoning district to completely exclude religious uses, as long as they are allowed somewhere in the jurisdiction and do not have unreasonable burdens. However, if a zoning district allows for other institutional uses, such as schools or clubs and lodges, it must also allow for religious uses. Religious uses do not only include churches; they may also include rooms used for meetings, soup kitchens, religious gatherings in homes, and schools with both religious and secular uses. Considering that the COD allows for private schools, clubs and lodges, event halls and community centers, it would seem that religious uses should be allowed as well. The COD could restrict institutional uses to certain areas, as long as all institutional uses were treated equally. Response: See Non-residential Uses by Block in Block and Uses section within the Code of Development, religious assembly is permitted in all blocks. 9. Page 23-Parking (Rebecca)- I have no objection to the modification request. The parking space location table must be revised/simplified so it is easier to read and administer. Also, the requirement that parking must be located within a 200' radius must be added as a note to the 2 regulatory table, not included in the narrative. I recommend that the 200' radius be measured from the building, not the lot. Also, previous comments that safe pedestrian access (paths, sidewalks) be provided from parking to the use have not been included. Response: See Parking in the Code of Development, these adjustments have been made and a table has been provided. 10. Page 23 Parking- What is public way? Do you mean right of way? When not adjacent to building, but adjacent to residential areas, parking should be screened as well. Will the screening requirement be per the existing ordinance? Or what will the requirement be? Response: See Parking and Road Section + Framework Streets sections in the Code of Development, reference to "public way" has been replaced with "framework streets", which are also illustrated in the Application Plan and referenced in the site plans and diagrams throughout the Code of Development. 11. Page 27-Tree Preservation Area -This must also be added to the Application Plan. Clearly show, to - scale, on the application plan where the tree preservation area is located. The code of development must specify standards for this area. Where is the 30' measured from? Is this supposed to be an undisturbed buffer area? Can it be disturbed and replanted? What are the planting standards? Response: See the Application Plan and the Application Plan in the Code of Development, the tree preservation area is now shown. This is called the "Trail Buffer Area" in the Code of Development. Please see Green Space + Amenity Definitions in the Code of Development for standards within this area. 12. Page 28- the title has been fixed, however the description says "units facing", not "lots facing". Response: See Recreational Areas + Facilities in the Code of Development, "units facing" has been replaced with "lots facing". 13. Page 31- The Comprehensive Plan and discussions concerning the size of the center have been centered/recommended that the center in Southwood be a Neighborhood Service Center. The regulations proposed for T-1 especially, and also T-2 provide for a much larger center than just Neighborhood Service. While the Southern and Western neighborhoods do not have a table describing the centers, Places29 Master Plan does and Southwood should follow those recommendations. See attached table. The maximum building height recommended is 3 stories and a single footprint of 15,OOOsf. What is proposed is way above these recommendations, and is more in line with a "Destination Center" which has not been the understanding, and what has been heard from the residents thus far. It is recommended that T-1 and T-2 be revised to fit with a Neighborhood Service designation. Response: See updated Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development. Regulations such as building height, setback, building fagade, footprint area, and building height variations are defined for these Character Areas, which are now labeled C-5 and C-4. These regulations have been expanded and refined with the intention of allowing the character of these areas to be developed as defined within the Code of Development. 14. Page 31- Footnote E is not clear on what the design would be. An illustration should be provided to show what is intended. Response: See updated Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development for definition diagrams and tables. 15. Page 31- Stepbacks should be provided after the 3rd story in T-1. In addition, 5 feet is not a sufficient stepback to provide variation/breaks along the street. Five feet would not be noticeable to a pedestrian. It is recommended that the stepback be set at 15' which is consistent with the zoning ordinance and also is being recommended for Rio29 Small Area plan. Response: See footnotes in updated Setback + Building Regulations section in the Code of Development for regulations about stepbacks. 16. Page 31- Maximum front setbacks should be provided for T-4 and T-5 in order to be in line with the Neighborhood Model. Response: See table in updated Setback + Building Regulations in Code of Development for updated front setbacks. T-4 and T-5 are now called C-1 and C-2. 17. Page 30- More specificity needs to be given for regulated parking. Does this mean to the side and rear of buildings/units? Response: See Parking in the Code of Development for regulations about regulated parking. 3 18. Page 29-32-Setbacks, Height and other lot regulations- The standards must be enforceable and they cannot be modified without a special exception approved by the Board of Supervisors. Notes C and D need to be removed. Note E will need to be clarified, perhaps with an illustration on how this would be developed. "Side Corner" is not a term in the ordinance, a corner lot has two front and two sides according to the zoning ordinance. Please clarify the intent for how corner lots would be treated (side setback applying to one of the fronts?) Following the work session on August 7, staff will provide more detailed comments on necessary revisions to this section of the code of development or if it should be removed and a more simplified table added back. If page 30 remains, it will need revision to include regulatory language to define what is expected for the street edge, etc. Examples can be provided by staff. Response: See Setback + Building Regulations in Code of Development for updated footnotes and definitions. Corner Setbacks are included in the diagrams and regulation definitions. Application Plan 1. Previous comment: Sheet A1.01 and A1.02-To simplify the plan set and to address ordinance requirements, consolidate these sheets. Typically the tax map parcel number, zoning, and use of adjacent parcels are labeled on the regional context or existing conditions sheets. When addressing this comment, please be sure to include the following: • If the project is to amend an existing planned development district and the proposed amendment would affect less area than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended application plan, code of development, proffers or any special use permit or special exception would apply Response: See forthcoming Attachment E for a diagram showing proposed changes to the existing planned development district. 2. Sheet A2.01-Emergency Access -What are the minimum standards for the secondary emergency access? Add a note that specifies the standard, or a note as determined by the Fire Marshal. Response: During Site Plan application process, design development will be coordinated with fire/rescue and VDOT. Transportation (Adam Moore (VDOT): Comments forthcoming Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox): 1. 1 don't quite understand the one way streets widening to 20' at 150' increments. If the primary access to a structure is on the one way road then the entire length of the road must meet the 20' requirement unless previously discussed allowances are made. Response: See Road Sections and Framework Streets in the Code of Development for updated one-way road section. The road width has been adjusted. 2. Thank you for addressing the second entrance/exit. Fire Rescue will work with the applicant during the road plan/site plan process to meet the intent of the codes and the project. Response: Noted, thank you. Engineering (Frank Pohl): 1. Provide conceptual locations of stormwater facilities. Facilities must not be located within stream buffers, steep slopes, or floodplain limits. Response: See Strategies for Shared Stormwater in the History Document included in this revised submission for a conceptual stormwater facilities. 2. Floodplain Study must be submitted to FEMA to modify floodplain mapping. Modeling does not appear to be calibrated with FEMA mapping. If grading (i.e. for trails) is expected to occur within the limits of the floodplain, the regulated floodway must also need be determined because grading is not allowed within the floodway, but is allowed within the floodplain fringe. The regulated floodway does not appear to be shown on the "100 YR FLOOD MAP", even though it is included in the legend. This can be done as part of the VSMP permitting process and is not required for the ZMA application. Response: Noted, we intend to follow the required process. Proffers: 12 1. A proffer for the greenway trail should be offered. Staff will provide standard language for modification/discussion. Response: A proffer for the greenway is included within the proffer statement in this revised submission. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for a work session or public hearing. These parcels are within the Southern and Western Neighborhood Master Plan and are designated as Urban Density Residential (residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses) with a Center designated along Old Lynchburg Road. The number of units proposed is within the recommended density in the Comp Plan, also there is a mixture of uses in Block B that could provide for a Neighborhood Center to be located within the development. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. Please note that those comments bolded should be addressed. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided. Response: Responses below address staff comments in bold, as provided on August 6, 2018. Pedestrian Orientation • While sidewalks are provided in all street sections, some of the sections allow for sidewalks up against the curb without a planting strip in between the curb and sidewalk. • The planting strips provided in some of the sections are not wide enough for a tree to be planted. A tree cannot survive in less than 6'. • Where there is no planting strip, the sidewalk should be a minimum of 8 feet wide. • If the sidewalks are intended to serve as multi -use paths, the minimum width should be 10 feet. • As stated above, Block B should have a stepback requirement, in addition stepbacks should be a minimum of 15', as the pedestrian is not going to be able to distinguish that small of a setback from the street. • A maximum setback should be provided for in T-4 and T-5 • Will lighting be provided? If so, please note that full cut-off fixtures are required per Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. RESPONSE: See Road Sections + Framework Streets in the Code of Development for notes about planting strips less than six -feet (6') and for road sections without a planting strip, refer to the notes within the road sections. For minimum sidewalk size without a planting strip, see Road Sections + Framework Streets in the Code of Development, the width of sidewalks in all potential framework street road sections include an option for up to an eight -foot (8') sidewalk. At this time, none of the sidewalks are intended to serve as multi -modal paths, refer to the Green Space + Amenity Area of the Code of the Development for Pedestrian Connection Area regulations. Refer to the footnotes in Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development for updated stepback regulations. Lighting will comply with section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mixture of Uses 5 • A mix of uses is proposed in Block A and Block B • Block A non-residential uses are scaled so that they are neighborhood oriented, where Block B allows more flexibility for uses that could draw outside residents. • Screening for the off -site parking should be considered if located near residences. • The uses proposed were developed and vetted by the residents and the more intense non-residential uses were decided to be located in Block B. RESPONSE: See Parking in the Code of Development for parking area regulations for parking areas with 5 or more spaces Neighborhood Centers • The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center should be provided here. This center was discussed as being neighborhood focused and not necessarily serving the outside community. • The scale and requirements listed for Block B would allow a much larger center than neighborhood and should be scaled back to be more inline with the recommendations for a neighborhood center (number or stories, stepbacks, maximum footprint) • A feature should be considered to idenitify Block B as a center. Some examples: special landscaping, corner plaza, public art. RESPONSE: See Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development for building regulations in the Character Areas within Block B. The building regulations have been adjusted to reflect and reinforce the desired neighborhood character of this block and allow for development to reflect this character. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability • One scenario for this rezoning would allow for less than 15% affordable to be provided. A commitment should be for 15% to be provided. • A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the code requires a mix of housing types within the development. RESPONSE: See Block and Uses in the Code of Development for affordable housing regulations. 15% or more affordable housing is required. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks • Connections to existing trails on adjacent properties should be made where possible. A future connection to Biscuit Run park should also be provided upon demand of the County. • Cul-de-sacs are not mentioned in the code. A statement regarding interconnected streets should be provided in the code. Example language: "Cul-de-sacs shall not be utilized unless it is not feasible to connect streets due to existing environmentally sensitive areas, stormwater management facilities, steep terrain, grade separations, and/or street design requirements that prohibit a grid form or connections as determined by the Director of Planning in consultation with VDOT, Fire/Rescue, and County Engineer when appropriate" RESPONSE: See proffer statement included in this revised submission for greenway trail and connections. During Site Plan Application process, all efforts will be directed to interconnect streets. Any terminus points will be addressed with County, VDOT, and Fire/Rescue during Site Plan application(s) . Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities • Most of the streets are local/neighborhood streets where bike riders can ride within the lane, however the section for Hickory Street should consider having designated bike lanes. • An existing bus stop is located within Southwood. Additional opportunities should be explored for another bus stop to be located within Phase 1. RESPONSE: See Road Section + Framework Streets in the Code of Development for notes about bike lanes. 0 Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space • Open space is being provided along the stream buffers where a trail will be located. • Additional recreational areas will be provided within Block A and Block B in accordance with 4.16 of the Zoning ordinance with the exception of one tot lot being replaced by the trail system in Block A. • Additional open space and recreational areas exist in the existing portion of Southwood that will remain for Phase 1. Buildings and Space of Human Scale • See previous comments above regarding regulations for the Character Areas • Consider maximum building setbacks so buildings are located adjacent to the street with relegated parking and pedestrian -oriented entrances (see new setbacks Section 4.19- 4.20 and Downtown Crozet District 206.3 for guidance). • Provide rules for relegation of parking (see relegated parking comments below). RESPONSE: See response above for comments regarding regulations for the Character Areas. See Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development for maximum building setbacks. See response below for comment about relegation of parking. Relegated Parking • Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. See comments above regarding relegation of parking and clarifying the permissions/requirements. • Parking areas located adjacent to the street should be screened from streets. • Provide a setback for front loaded garages from the porch or front of the house (3-5 feet). RESPONSE: See Parking in Code of Development for regulations regarding relegated parking for parking areas. See Setback + Building Regulations in the Code of Development for garage setback regulations, these setbacks have been adjusted. Redevelopment This first phase of redevelopment for Southwood is located on property that is currently not developed, therefore, for Phase I, this principle does not apply. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain • Avoid disturbances to preserved steep slopes where possible. • Information should be provided that retaining walls in the community should meet the design standards required for the disturbance of managed slopes in section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. RESPONSE: See Evaluation Criteria for "Site Planning that Respects the Terrain" within the History and Context Document included in this revised submission, all development will comply with section 30.7. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area • More detail needs to be provided for the buffer along Old Lynchburg Rd. See above comments. RESPONSE: See Trail Buffer Area section within the Green Space & Amenity Definition of the Code of Development for regulations about the buffer along Old Lynchburg Road. Please feel free to call me with any questions or if I can provide additional information Thank you Kurt Keesecker b rwa rc h itects P" TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. To: Kevin McDermott (Albemarle County) From: Steve Schmidt, PE, PTOE RE: Southwood — Response to VDOT Comments Date: January 7, 2019 Copy: Craig Kotarski, PE, LEED AP (Timmons Group) 1001 Boulders Parkway P 804.200.6500 Suite 300 F 804.560.1016 Richmond, VA 23225 www.timmons.com Timmons Group completed a traffic study for the proposed Southwood redevelopment which was submitted on 10/24/18. VDOT issued comments on the TIA on December 20, 2018. We offer the following responses to those comments: VDOT Comment #1: The trip generation accounts forreplacement of500"dwelling units". Tripgeneration is calculated based on the type of dwelling unit (single family detached, low rise apartment, etc.). Please provide a more comprehensive summation of the trip generation based on the type of units that will be removed plus the types of units to be constructed. If typology of units is not yet determined, the most conservative (based on tripgeneration) blend that could fit on the siteshould be used. TG Response: As detailed in the revised study, the existing traffic counts at the Route 631/Hickory Street intersection indicate the existing mobile homes generate more traffic than the ITE data for mobile homes would indicate. When compared to the ITE data, the existing mobile homes are equivalent from a traffic perspective to apartments/townhomes. Therefore, in Phase 2, from a traffic perspective, the proposed 500 new residential units (90% of which will be apartment/townhomes) would replace the existing 341 mobile home units for a net increase of 159 new units. VDOT Comment #2: Table I; the value shown for Intersection 4, SBLTR PM does not match the associated Synchro outputs. TG Response: Noted. This has been corrected. VDOT Comment #3: Tables 2, 4, and 5; while it is acknowledged that the volumes are increasing, some of the delay increases shown between 2018 and 2024 are inconsistent with the volume increase. For instance the intersection of Old Lynchburg Rd. and 5" Street is shown to have an increase in AM southbound volume of 93% but a delay increase of 776%. Similarly, the intersection of 5th Street and Stagecoach Road shows PM southbound volume increasing by 25%, yet the delay increases by 178S%. Please review the Synchro coding and submit a copy of the original files to VDOT for review. TG Response: The discrepancy in the increase in volume to the increase in delay is a result of the roadway (and Synchro model) being above capacity. As an intersection's v/c ratio approaches and exceeds 1.0 (which occurs in the noted examples) the ability of the Highway Capacity Manual methodology to calculate delay breaks down. CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Southwood —Traffic Analysis Response to Comments January 7, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Analysis of intersections with v/c ratios greater than 1.0 will yield analysis results that are not proportional to increases in volume. The intersections are above capacity and improvements are required as noted in the revised TIA. The Synchro files have been submitted to VDOT for review. VDOT Comment #4: Figure 6; some of the 2024 total background volumes are the same as the existing values, which is incorrect. Please review values to ensure accuracy of the analysis. TG Response: Noted. This has been reviewed and corrected where applicable. It is important to note that the 1% annual growth rate was applied to the mainline movements only and therefore some side street volumes (Hickory Street for example) will be the same from existing to background conditions. VDOT Comment #5: Figure 10; some of the total future volumes do not add up correctly from the 2024 total background volume and 2024 phase I site trips. TG Response: Noted. This has been reviewed and corrected where applicable. VDOT Comment #6: The analysis is projecting an increase of left turn traffic at 5th Street and Stagecoach Road of 20%. This traffic will presumably use Hickory Street. Please note that Hickory Street is a private road and this change will represent a significant change in use and may necessitate changes to the school zone as currently the school is the only user of this portion of the road. Does the County know who is responsible for maintenance of Hickory Street and will increasing its use be acceptable? TG Response: The existing traffic from the mobile home park utilizes 5th Street, Stagecoach Road, and Hickory Street as a secondary access point. The TIA assumes the residential traffic only from the proposed development will follow suit. VDOT Comment #7: The conclusions section states that the proposed development will have little or no impact on the study intersections. This is not consistent with the included analysis. Though the development's entrance from Old Lynchburg may show adequate levels of service there are offsite impacts identified in the analysis. TG Response: The conclusions of the TIA have been revised. It is important to note that the increase in traffic from Southwood will not cause any new intersections to fail. The increase in traffic from the approved developments and the 1% annual growth rate are the primary cause of intersection failures. VDOT Comment #8: This study identifies future transportation concerns for this corridor both related to, and independent of the proposed development. For instance, increases in side street delay at Old Lynchburg and Stagecoach Road are shown in the study and appear to be exacerbated by the proposed development. Planning level solutions and mitigation analysis are recommended at this time to identify potential improvement projects and/or mitigating proffers. TG Response: The conclusions of the TIA have been revised. The increase in traffic from the approved developments and the 1% annual growth rate are the primary cause of intersection failures. For example, the side street delay at the Stagecoach Road intersection is greater than 1,500 seconds per vehicle under background 2024 conditions (without the site). Should you have any questions or comments please contact me at (804.200.6502).