HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-08-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832
August 19, 2021
Mr. Steve Edwards
Edwards Design Studio
4936 Old Boonsboro Rd.
Lynchburg, VA 24503
steve&edwardsdesianstudio.com / 434-531-7507
RE: ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen; 2o1 Submittal
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Fax (434)972-4176
Staff has reviewed the second submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202100001, Willow Glen. We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your
ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below:
Planning —General ZMA Comments
1. The project narrative states that some buildings may be four stories. Provide more information on the building
heights and which buildings may be of that height. Any building that exceeds three stories, or 40 feet, in height,
whichever is less, must have a stepback of at least 15 feet. However, a special exception application can be
submitted instead to request that the Board of Supervisors waive or modify the requirement for the 15-11.
stepback. Reviewing sheet Z8 of the application plan, a special exception for a stepback would be required. The
determination for a stepback is made from the street right-of-way, which in this case would be Dickerson Road.
Buildings such as B 1, B2, B4, and B 11 all have a portion of their building frontage along Dickerson Road as four
stories in height, requiring a stepback be included on the four-story side of the building, or a special exception to
be approved waiving that requirement.
2. Revise the information on impacts to the school system in the project narrative. The narrative states that this
project is located within the Hollymead Elem. School district. However, it appears that this development is
instead in the Baker -Butler Elem. School district.
Baker -Butler is already over -capacity and is expected to remain so over the next ten years of enrollment
projections, as is Albemarle High School. This proposal will generate additional students at the elementary and
high school levels, while decreasing middle school students at Sutherland, which is currently under -capacity. This
proposal does not appear to address the impacts from the additional students expected to be generated by the
requested increase in density. The project narrative mentions enrollment projections for the school system dating
from November 2019. The school system has more recently updated enrollment projections (dated March 2021).
It is recommended that these projection numbers be used for the analysis of potential impacts on the public
schools, as they are the most up-to-date information currently available.
Impacts on schools have been an important consideration of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
recently.
3. Interconnectivity is being reduced with this proposal. Promoting interconnectivity is a significant policy of the
County, included in both the Comprehensive Plan and in the Zoning/Subdivision ordinances. This application is
proposing to reduce connectivity with the other phase that is a part of this same project, by eliminating an
approved road, forcing any vehicles travelling between the two phases to use the Dickerson/Towncenter
intersection. Connectivity is also important for the greater Community of Hollymead as mentioned in the
Places29 plan, not just within a single project.
Also, see comments below from both the Engineering division and the Fire -Rescue Department. With the
proposed elimination of the vehicular connection between the two phases, certain requirements of Engineering,
VDOT, and Fire -Rescue may not be able to be met.
There are also no interconnections proposed with other adjacent properties that are either undeveloped or
recommended in the master plan to be developed at a greater intensity than they currently are.
4. These properties are near a designated Neighborhood Service Center (the intersection of Dickerson and
Towncenter Dr.). How is this development proposed to relate to this Center for the community? The comment
response mentions that this Neighborhood Service Center is within a suitable walking/biking distance; however,
the plan does not provide for any future interconnections in that direction as that area eventually develops, and
there are no sidewalks or bike lanes connecting this area with the designated Neighborhood Service Center.
5. Why are the setbacks being reduced from what is shown on the existing approved plan, especially in the northern
corner where Buildings 9 and 10 are proposed? These structures appear to be very close to existing single-family
homes in the Deerwood subdivision, and no buffer is being proposed in this location. This does not promote the
"appropriate and harmonious physical development" intended with the PRD zoning district. Staff cannot
accurately review the stated distances (in the comment response letter) of the buildings from the property line as
distances are not provided in the application plan. In addition, the proposed heights of the retaining walls are not
provided. The proposed heights of the apartment buildings 9 and 10 do not promote the "appropriate and
harmonious physical development" intended with the PRD. The comment response letter mentions that existing
vegetation is being preserved. Where is this preserved vegetation? In the plan set, the existing vegetation to be
preserved appears to all be on the adjacent properties, so would not be subject to this plan. In addition, the note on
sheet Z7 states that areas of preserved trees are subject to change.
The height of building B 10 is unclear, as its coloration suggests it is split like other buildings; however, its label
indicates that it is a three-story building on a slab. Clarify.
6. ZO 18-19.6.2/ ZO 18-4.16: Provide more information on the recreational facilities proposed to be included in this
development. Recreation requirements mandate a minimum of 200 square feet be provided per dwelling unit.
With 360 units proposed, 72,000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required for both phases. It does not appear that
this requirement is met with the rec spaces shown on the application plan.
a. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed rec spaces do not appear large
enough to accommodate these facilities. According to 18-4.16.2, a minimum of eight tot lots of at least
2,000 sq. ft. each is required and a minimum of four '/z-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each is
required. The square footage of the recreational facilities identified on sheet Z8 does not meet the square
footage required by the ordinance. See instead comment 21 below for another course of action since an
exception request was submitted. Tot lots must be at least 2,000 square feet. Pocket park # 1, which
includes a tot lot, is only 1,800 square feet total. Clarify this discrepancy.
7. In the parking schedule on sheet Z5 of the application plan, the required number of parking spaces should read
669 (not 668).
8. The project narrative mentions a note being placed on the application plan regarding the provision of affordable
housing in this development. However, there does not appear to be any note referencing affordable housing on
any of the eight application plan set sheets. Please clarify this discrepancy.
9. The project narrative mentions a letter provided by the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the streams along the
perimeters of this property. It would be helpful for staff to have a copy of this letter for inclusion in the project
file.
10. Neighborhood Model Principles
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the
Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Revised comments are provided (see attached
document Consistency with Neighborhood Model) on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model principles. It
is recommended that these comments and questions be addressed as well, as many of them expand on the
comments listed above.
11. Community Meeting
A community meeting was held for this rezoning application on Thursday, March 11, 2021. Additional comments
have been provided by the community since that meeting. A copy of these comments is attached to this letter.
Planning— SE2021-00007 — Recreational Requirements Comments
1. What is the difference between the recreational facility areas that are colored green and those that are colored red
on sheet Z7 of the application plan?
2. Are any facilities or equipment proposed in those areas designated for "respite," or will these areas just consist of
open space/vegetation?
3. The "pedestrian/bike-only" label on sheet Z7 points to the middle of the pond. Clarify this label.
4. Parking lot islands and planting strips around buildings and sidewalks/streets do not count as open space. Revise
sheet Z7.
Planning — SE2021-00008 — Parking Requirements Comments
1. Would the tandem spaces in front of the garages be designated for specific residents, or open to the community as
a whole? If not designated, there could be problems of access for those wishing to use the garage spaces.
2. Although a walking distance radius from this development to the services referenced in the narrative have been
provided, it is important to note that, as mentioned in comment #4 of the General Comments above, there are no
sidewalks or bike lanes existing to surrounding areas, including the designated Neighborhood Service Center, so
actually walking to these areas would be difficult. In addition, a walk to Target for example, would be longer than
the % mile suggested by the radius, as the actual routes for access do not go in a straight line. Actual walking
distances in many cases are longer than what is suggested by the radius.
3. There is currently no transit service in this area. Furthermore, there is no accommodation provided for future
transit service with this development as proposed, even though the narrative references a potential bus corridor as
a reason for the parking reduction.
4. No parking studies or information was provided with this request.
Plannine Division — Transportation
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Kevin McDermott, Chief of
Planning, kmcdermottgalbemarle.org.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff; Zoning reviewer Rebecca
Ragsdale, Principal Planner, rragsdalegalbemarle.org.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohl@albemarle.org:
What is the applicant's intent for Shannon Glen Ct.? Is the applicant proposing to submit a private road request?
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Howard Lagomarsino, the Fire & Rescue plans
reviewer, hlaeomarsinogalbemarle.org:
1) The change proposed in this ZMA appears to remove the second point of connection for Phase 1 that would be required
for emergency access - Phase 1 is more than 30 single family dwellings. This was the comment posted by Shawn Maddox,
Fire Rescue. I do not see this issue addressed as a part of the packet submitted this time.
2) The parking exception request seeks to reduce the number of available parking spaces. The number of parking spaces
required is not a matter within the fire code. Parking is addressed as a Zoning issue. The fire code addresses the need for
fire appartus access to buildings and specifies the standards for these fire lanes/freappartus access roads, including
ensuring they are not obstructed in any manner, including parking. It is Fire rescue's experience that when there are
insufficient parking arrangements, impairment of fire apparatus access increases. As a result, the request for reduction in
available parking raises concerns
Parking is a zoning issue, but Fire rescue's observations are when there are not sufficient parking spaces, improper parking
occurs. The impact of the improper parking is
Fire Rescue observations are when there are not enough spaces available, people park in a manner that obstructs fire
apparatus access. Parking is a zoning issue, but Fire Rescue opposes reduction in the number of available parking spaces
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson,
melsona,serviceauthoritv.ore.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
See the attached memorandum with comments from VDOT Area Land Use Engineer, Adam Moore,
adam.moore anvdot.virainia.eov.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a fee for all subsequent resubmittals. The resubmittal
date schedule is also attached.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
It appears that the Public Notice Requirement fees have already been paid for this application.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place in which adjoining owners need to be
notified of a new date.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
areitelbach@albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Comments from Community Member
Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles; 2"d Submittal
Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority
Memorandum from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
2021 Resubmittal Schedule for Zoning Map Amendments
Andy Reitelbach
From: Bill Mclaughlin <billmclaughlin_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 6:26 PM
To: Andy Reitelbach
Subject: Re: Resubmittal of Willow Glen Rezoning Project: ZMA2021-00001
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Andy, do you know if there was any follow up with airport regarding the
drainage pond proposed possibly attracting geese to the area?
Bill McLaughlin billmclaughlin_99@yahoo.com
On Monday, July 19, 2021, 02:19:27 PM EDT, Andy Reitelbach <mreitelbach@albemarle.org> wrote:
Good afternoon everyone,
The applicant has recently re -submitted for review the rezoning project known as Willow Glen, for property on Dickerson
Road near the airport (application number ZMA2021-00001). Please see attached for the revised documents that the
applicant provided to County staff for this project. With this resubmittal, this project will now undergo another review by
County staff and partner agencies (such as VDOT and the Albemarle Service Authority). As of this time, no public hearing
with the Albemarle County Planning Commission has been scheduled for this project. However, I'd be happy to let you all
know when it is scheduled.
Best regards,
Andy
Andrew Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Albemarle Countv
areitel bachCcDal bemarle. org
434.296.5832 x3261
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen Amendment
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
2"d Submittal of Application
Pedestrian There are pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site. However, most of
Orientation the sidewalks are adjacent to large expanses of parking. Landscaping is
important to provide greater pedestrian orientation in this development. In the
road sections on sheet Z6, no planting strips are provided for the many
sidewalks adjacent to the large parking areas, which appears to be the primary
access for residents to reach the pool, fitness center, and clubhouse.
Pedestrian connections with adjacent properties are not provided, even though
the narrative references this project as supporting nearby centers instead of
providing its own center.
This principle could be strengthened.
Mixture of Uses The application provides for only one type of housing in Phase 2, reducing the
mix from the existing greater range of housing types that are approved for this
property. However, with Phase 1 included, there are additional housing types,
but still a reduction from what is currently approved for the site with ZMA2006-
00019. This property is designated as Urban Density Residential, so residential
is the primary use recommended.
This principle is mostly met.
Neighborhood Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood
Centers centers as having four components: 1) a centralized park or outdoor amenity
which is surrounded by 2) a ring of commercial or mixed uses with 3)
surrounded by medium to high density residential uses and a final 4) outer ring
of low density residential.
There does not appear to be a visually defined neighborhood center in this
development. The recreational and open spaces in this plan are not centrally
located and connected along a common axis as they were in the originally
approved plan from 2007. Instead, they are largely fragmented around the site
and mostly located along the edges of the property. There is also no transition
from the center portions of this project to adjacent properties, especially the
Deerwood subdivision.
In the greater area, the intersection of Dickerson and Towncenter is a
designated Neighborhood Service Center. There do not appear to be any
proposed connections with that area to promote connectivity with it as this area
continues to develop in the future, either vehicular or pedestrian.
This principle could be strengthened.
Mixture of Housing I The proposal does provide multiple types of housing when including Phase 1
Types and However, it reduces the mix of housing types in Phase 2, which currently
Affordability includes a wide range of types, including condos, single-family detached,
townhouses, and duplexes, to only multi -family housing. The overall mix of
housing types is being reduced.
The project narrative mentions a note being provided on the application plan
referencing the provision of affordable housing. However, it does not appear
that there is any note on the application plan that references affordable
housing. Clarify this discrepancy.
This principle could be strengthened.
implication
Interconnected
proposes to sever the approved vehicular connection between
Streets and
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this development. Interconnected streets are an
Transportation
important feature to provide access and reduce congestion on the surrounding
Networks
road networks, especially in the development areas. In addition, no interparcel
connections are proposed with the other adjacent parcels, several of which are
currently undeveloped or may be redeveloped in the future, providing the
opportunity for future interconnections.
There are also no proposed connections toward the area around the
intersection of Dickerson Road and Towncenter Drive, which is a designated
Neighborhood Service Center in the Places29 Master Plan.
See also General Planning Comments (comments #3 and #4) for additional
information regarding this section.
This principle could be strengthened.
Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric. There are internal
Transportation sidewalks among the buildings. However, there do not appear to be any bike
Opportunities facilities, except for the one hybrid trail on the southern side of the
development.
No bike lanes or accommodations for future transit service are provided on the
site. No pedestrian paths are provided along the Dickerson Road frontage of
this property. No proposed interparcel connections are made for potential
future connections to the development of the nearby Neighborhood Service
Center.
This principle could be strengthened.
Parks, Recreational Areas such as parking lot islands and planting strips along streets cannot be
Amenities, and Open counted toward open space. Revise sheet Z7 of the plan. See also General
Space Planning Comments (comment #6) and Planning SE2021-000007 Comments
for additional information regarding this section.
The recreational and open spaces in this plan are not centrally located and
connected along a common axis as they were in the originally approved plan
from 2007. Instead, they are largely fragmented around the site and mostly
located along the edges of the property. The pond is proposed to be an
important amenity for the project; however, there is no route proposed to
promote access around the whole pond for the residents.
This principle could be strengthened.
Buildings and Space I It appears that stepbacks will be required for several buildings, as they have
of Human Scale sections of four -stories that face Dickerson Road, which is where the stepback
requirement is measured from. A special exception request to waive the
stepback requirements can also be submitted.
Two of the proposed buildings, 139 and B10, are very close to existing single-
family homes in the Deenvood subdivision. No buffer is proposed between the
new and existing structures to help provide a transition with the existing
neighborhood, and Deerwood appears to be downslope of Willow Glen,
exacerbating the height difference.
There are several retaining walls provided throughout the development.
Depending on their height, retaining walls can contribute to spaces that are not
of a human scale.
Large areas of parking also do not contribute to spaces of human scale,
especially when there are no planting strips along adjacent sidewalks (see
pedestrian orientation section above).
This principle could be strengthened
Relegated Parking There continues to be significant areas of surface parking, scattered
throughout the project area. The parking does not appear to be relegated to
the sides or rear of the project, allowing for centralized community areas to be
access without crossing rows of parking.
This principle could be strengthened.
Redevelopment The requested rezoning would permit redevelopment of the property, which is
currently largely vacant, with a few older houses located on it.
This principle appears to be met.
Respecting Terrain The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning
and Careful Grading District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed
and Re -grading of Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of Section 18-30.7.5 are
Terrain adhered to. This disturbance includes grading and the construction of future
buildings, parking areas, retaining walls, and other improvements. Compliance
with this section of the ordinance will be reviewed by the County Engineer at
the site planning stage if this rezoning request is approved. This principle
appears to be met at this time.
Clear Boundaries with I Although adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas, the subject property does
the Rural Area not border the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. All
surrounding properties are located within the Community of Hollymead of the
Places29 Master Plan area.
This principle does not apply.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes
2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Located in
Phase 1.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are high. A PRV will be required.
4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? Specified sewer segments will be over capacity with the
proposed flow. It will be the responsibility of the developer to upgrade these segments, prior to
contributing sewer flow to the system. There is a sewer upgrade agreement in place currently for
the previous Willow Glen Ph2 site plan. An updated sewer agreement may be need if the site plan
number changes.
5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A
6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site
plan/plat stage?
7) If the project is a large water user, what longterm impacts or implications do you forsee?
8) Additional comments?
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940
August 05, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Willow Glen — Rezoning Amendment
ZMA-2021-00001
Review #2
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Edwards designStudio, dated 25
March 2021, and offers the following comments:
1. Under the 2025 Build condition, the overall delay at the intersection of Dickerson and
Towncenter Drive is anticipated to increase by 99 seconds during the PM peak how. The
only recommendation RKA offers is to extend the WB right -turn lane at the subject
intersection, which will result to no reduction in delay at this location under the 2025 Build
condition.
2. RKA analyzes two (2) potential alternatives (a traffic signal and a roundabout) to help
improve LOS at the aforementioned intersection. They run signal warrants 1, 2, and 3 but
TE does not believe that warrant 3 would apply to this location, hence the signal
would likely not be warranted. According to Section 4C.04 (Paragraph 02) of the
MUTCD, Warrant 3 shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes,
manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that
attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. There will need to be a
discussion on the potential for a roundabout and/or other alternative intersection types here
at this location (possibly using VJUST as a preliminary tool).
3. Both of the left turn lane warrants for the entrances appear to be met. The graph on F-64
should be viewed as appropriate for entrances with 0-5% left turns
4. Right turn tapers will be required at both entrances. It is agreed that neither entrance is
likely to meet the full right turn lane warrant, however there is still a fair amount of right
turning traffic at each entrance.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Adam Moore at 434-422-9782.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
Resubmittal of information for �$��°F"`8
Zoning Map Amendment t
��RG/NyP
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA202100001 Willow Glen
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,958
❑
First resubmission
FREE
®
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,479
®
4% Technology surcharge
$59.16
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$1 538.16
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $4,141
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$2,070
❑
4% Technology surcharge
$82.80
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$2,152.80
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a 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.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$237 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.19 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Amowt $ Date Paid By who9
Receipt Ck# By:
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 7/1/2021 Page 1 of 1
2021 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates (1st
and 3rd Monday of the
month)
Comments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PC
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
Ad (no additional
resubmittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
than*
Monday
Wednesdav
Friday
Tuesday
Jan 04
Feb 03
Feb 05
Mar 02
Tues Jan 19
Feb 17
Feb 26
Mar 23
Feb 01
Mar 03
Mar 12
Apr 06
Feb 15
Mar 17
Mar 26
Apr 20
Mar 01
Mar 31
A r 09
May 04
Mar 15
Apr 14
Apr 23
Ma 18
Apr 05
May 05
May 07
Jun 01
Apr 19
May 19
May 21
Jun 15
May 03
Jun 02
Jun 11
Jul 06
Ma 17
Jun 16
Jun 25
Jul 20
Jun 07
Jul 07
Jul 09
Aug03
Jun 21
Jul 21
Jul 30
Aug24
Tues Jul 6
Aug04
Aug13
Sep 07
Ju119
Aug18
Aug27
Sep 21
Aug02
Sep 01
Sep 10
Oct 05
Aug16
Sep 15
Se 24
Oct 19
Tues Sep 7
Oct 06
Oct 08
Nov 02
Sep 20
Oct 20
Oct 22
Nov 16
Oct 04
Nov 03
Nov 12
Dec 07
Oct 18
Nov 17
Nov 19
Dec 14
Nov 01
Dec 01
Dec 17
Jan 11 2022
Nov 15
Dec 15
Tues Dec 22
Jan 18 2022
Dec 06
Jan 05 2022
Jan 07 2022
Feb 01 2022
Dec 13
Jan 12 2022
Jan 21 2022
Feb 15 2022
Bold italics = submittal/meeting, day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2021.
2022 dates are tentative.
`Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission, however, if due to unforeseen
circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to
the closest available aaenda date.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II -Planning
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner -Zoning
Division: Zoning
Date: August 24, 2021
Subject: Zoning Review Comments-ZMA202100001 Willow Glen, 2ntl submittal dated
July 19, 2021, including Narrative and Application Plan
SE202100007-Waive/Substitute requirements of Section 4.16
SE202100008-Parking Modification
Application Plan-
• Sheet Z5-Perhaps a note that says for "Illustrative purposes only" should be added to
clarify that sheet is not intended as part of the regulating application plan. Also,
rename the sheet Illustrative Plan on Sheet Z5 and cover sheet of plan set.
• Sheet Z7-Pocket Park 3 does not describe the features for the "respite" also
SE202100008-Parking Modification and Sheet Z6-COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED
• No data has been provided to support this request (ITE, parking studies from similar
complexes in the area). "Empirical data" was referenced but not provided.
• Two prior examples have been provided to offer some guidance.
• Prior parking reductions have been for developments located in walkable areas and
access to transit.
• Parking reductions are not special exceptions that require Board approval and this can
be addressed at the site plan review stage. Or, sufficient information can be provided to
review the reduction with the rezoning. A per unit reduction is easier for staff to track at
site plan, rather than a percentage based on the total number of spaces required.
Number of bedrooms for the units could change.
• See Fire Marshal's noted concerns regarding parking reduction.
Proffers
• This rezoning proposes to eliminate the currently applicable proffers approved with
ZMA200600019. An amended proffer statement that includes a proffer that expressly
removes/supercedes proffers associated with is the mechanism to remove/amend those
prior proffers.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax 1434) 972-4126
March 29, 2018
Michael Myers
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Dr.
Palmyra, VA 22963
RE: Parking Determination — Stonefield Block D2 Phase Two Parking Reduction Request
SDP-2019-12 TMP 61W-03-D2A, 22-61 and 90-104
Dear Mr. Myers:
This letter is an official determination in response to your request for a parking variation to allow
a 35% reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces for Stonefield Block D2
Phase Two. The request is being made in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.8,
and as permitted by the Code of Development for Albemarle Place (Code Section 5. Parking
and Loading, p. 31, paragraph 2).
The Stonefield Block D2 - Phase 2 - Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP-2019-12) proposes 160
apartments and 20,000 gross square feet of office/retail. Per the Code of Development for
Albemarle Place, the required number of parking spaces for the proposed use is 352 parking
spaces.
160 apartments (1.75 spaces/unit): 280 required parking spaces
20,000 GSF Office/Retail (4.5 spaces/1000 NSF): 72 required spaces
Total: 352 required parking spaces
The above referenced site plan currently demonstrates 240 total parking spaces, 32% less than
what is required by the Code of Development. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the full
35% allowable by the Code of Development and in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section
4.12.8.
The following "alternatives available to provide minimum number of parking spaces" were
submitted as justification for the parking reduction intentions of the applicant. For simplicity
these alternatives were reviewed as "Combinations of alternatives" and were collectively used to
justify the reduction. The responses provided below, in bold italics, address each alternative
individually, and as a group.
Shared Parking
The reduction request suggests that the offsetting peak -hour parking demands of the proposed
residential and office use will provide an approximate 17% reduction in the required number of
parking spaces.
March 29, 2019
Stonefield Block D2 Phase Two Parking Determination
Page 2
Staff agrees that the proposed residential and office uses will have offsetting peak
hour demands. This determination is not only consistent with previous parking
determinations but is supported by the data submitted by the applicant and is in
accordance with Section 4.12.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Because parking
spaces are shared and peak demand hours are at separate times for the two uses,
the total number of parking spaces that would otherwise be required can be
reduced.
Availability of Mass Transit
The reduction request suggests that the proximity and availability of the Charlottesville Area
Transit (CAT) will reduce parking demand by up to 10%.
Staff agrees that the availability of mass transit, a Transportation Demand
Management (TOM) tool in Section 4.12.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, will effectively
reduce the need to provide some of the required parking spaces. However,
because the ordinance specifically requires "safe movement' as a condition of
these alternatives, these reductions are contingent on the development of the
pedestrian link as shown on the site plan connecting Block D2 to the bus stop on
Commonwealth Dr.
Walkability and Bikeability of the Site
The reduction request suggests that the mixed use nature of the nearby site and the pedestrian
improvements proposed on the site plan will reduce parking demand by up to 10%.
Staff agrees that the walkability and bikeability of the site will have some impact
on the parking demand.
Reduced Car Ownership of Renters
The reduction request suggests that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking
rates more accurately reflect the actual demand for parking for the residential use than what is
required by the Code of Development.
Section 4.12.7 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that for mixed uses a parking
study, including estimates by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, may be
considered in making a parking recommendation. Additionally, staff has access to
the 51h edition of the Parking Generation Manual written by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. This manual suggests that 245 bedrooms (based on 75
one -bedroom apartments and 85 two -bedroom apartments, confirmed by the
applicant) would produce an average parking demand of 184 parking spaces for
mid -rise multifamily housing, and 162 parking spaces for low rise multifamily
housing (see attached reports). Based on this data and in accordance with
Section 4.12.7 staff agrees that the reduced car ownership of renters will greatly
reduce the demand of parking on site from the 280 spaces required in the Code of
Development.
Based on the combination of transportation alternatives and transportation demand
management tools described above, it is my official determination to approve this
requested parking reduction of 35%. The evidence suggests that given a 35% reduction
the site will still provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to meet its needs. This
reduction in parking requirements is made in accordance with Section 4.12.7-4.12.12 of
March 29, 2019
Stonefield Block D2 Phase Two Parking Determination
Page 3
the Zoning Ordinance, the Code of Development of Albemarle Place, as well as the
relevant data, alternatives, and TDM tools described above.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of
this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this
determination shall be final and unappealable.
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and
the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with § 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with a
fee of $258 plus the actual cost of advertising the appeal for public hearing.
Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the
Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902 or online at wvvw.albemarle.org/cdapps. This form applies to the appeal of a decision of
the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are located in
Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. They may be reviewed online at
www.albemarle.ora/countvcodebza.
(Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed
with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free plug-in is available
at the bottom of www.albemarle.org/cdaoos.)
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information
Sincerely,
Kevin McCollum
Planner
Designee to the Zoning Administrator
Kevin McCollum
From: Mike Myers <mike@30scale.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:05 PM
To: Kevin McCollum
Subject: RE: Stonefield Parking Reduction Request
Kevin, I checked in with the owner and architect, and the current bedroom is 75 1-BR and 85 2-BR. Bedroom
Breakdown follows:
Each level has:
15 - 1-BR (includes 1 studio apartment)
17 - 2-BR
49 bedrooms per level
At 5 levels, that is 245 bedrooms total.
This number will likely fluctuate as the building plans progress, but will be pretty close.
Please let me know if you need anything else, Mike
Michael F. Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph: 434-242-2866
Email: mike@30scale.com
Website: www.30scale.com
From: Kevin McCollum <kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:29 AM
To: Mike Myers <mike@30scale.com>
Subject: Stonefield Parking Reduction Request
Hey Mike,
Just wanted to update you on where we were with this request. I am meeting with Bart tomorrow (he's been out of the
office this week) to go over the draft of the parking reduction determination I have been writing. At this time, I don't see
any reason to deny the 35% reduction. What you submitted I think provides enough evidence to support the reduction,
and I don't think there is any evidence to support a denial of this request.
In the meantime, could you send me an estimate or detailed, if you have it, information on the type of units? When we
talked on the phone you suggested that the layout was 85 1 bedrooms and 75 2 bedroom units. This information would
be helpful like I said before because the ITE Parking Generation Manual provides parking demands per number of
bedrooms. Given these numbers the ITE book suggests that peak parking demand for the residential use is 176. Because
3/28/2019 https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=221&ivlabel=ODSBD&timeperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&locationCode=General Urb...
Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise)
(221)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban (no nearby rail transit)
Peak Period of Parking Demand: 10:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m.
Number of Studies: 35
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 294
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
f
33rd / 85th 95/o o Interval Confidence Standard Deviation
Average Rate Range of Rates Percentile (Coeff. of Variation)
0.75 0.41 - 1.00 0.65 / 0.87 0.70 - 0 80 0.15 (20%)
Data Plot and Equation
1.500
i
X
i
L �
N
m X
a
u
a
X
500; X X
X
X X X
184
XX
SAW L5
0 200 400 --600 800 11000---1,200-- 1.400
X = Number of Bedrooms
X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.82(X) - 20.37 R'= 0.94
Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=221&ivlabel=ODSBD&timaperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban ... 1/1
3/28/2019 https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=220&ivlabel=ODSBD&timeperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&locationCode=General Urb...
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
(220)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban (no nearby rail transit)
Peak Period of Parking Demand: 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.
Number of Studies: 45
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms: 215
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
33rd / 85th 95%° Confidence Standard Deviation
Average Rate Range of Rates Percentile Interval (Coeff. of Variation)
0 66 i 0 37 - 1.38 0.61 / 0.86 0.62 - 0.70 0.15 (23%)
- -- Data Plot and Equation
500
X x
X
400x
'
@
@
U
N X
300' X
x X
@ V X X
n
X X
a X
200 X X
162 X X X
X
154 X
X
100' X X
X �
XXX
�x 45_
00 _.. _. _ 200 _._... 400 600_...
X = Number of Bedrooms
X Study Site Fitted Curve - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.95 Ln(X) - 0.19 R'= 0.93
Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
https:/liteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=220&ivlabel=ODSBD&timeperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&IocationCode=General Urban/Suburban ... 1/1
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph.434.242.2866
mike@30scale.com
March 4, 2019
Mr. Bart Svoboda
Chief of Zoning
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE. Stonefield — Block D2 — Phase Two — Parking Reduction Request
Albemarle County TMP 61W-03-D2A, 22-61 AND 90-104
Dear Bart,
This is a request for a parking variation to allow a 35% reduction in the minimum number of required
parking spaces for the above -referenced project. The request is being made in accordance with
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.8, and as permitted by the Code of Development for Albemarle Place
(Code Section 5. Parking and Loading, p. 31, paragraph 2).
The 35% reduction request is supported by four major factors, including:
1. Shared parking of the residential and office uses.
2. Availability of mass transit to the site.
3. Walkability and "bikeability" of the Stonefield shopping center and surrounding area.
4. Reduced car ownership of renters.
Although the above factors may alone justify a 35% reduction, the parking ratio used to establish the
baseline in the COD, or Base Parking Ratio, is 20% higher than the rates published in Shared
Parking by the Urban Land Institute. Shared Parking is regarded as an authority on all matters
related to shared parking and is referenced in the Code of Development.
Shared Parking describes the Base Parking Ratio with the term "cornfield" rate, defining a project as a
free-standing land use in an area with little or no transit and only weak pedestrian connections with
other uses. In contrast, Stonefield has a strong transit program with bus service throughout the
shopping center, including along the site frontage with Inglewood Drive and Hydraulic Road.
Pedestrian connections are made throughout Stonefield and adjacent the subject parcel with concrete
sidewalks, crosswalks and curb ramps.
Notwithstanding the Base Parking Ratio used in the Code of Development, the following describes the
four major factors in justifying the reduction:
1. Shared Parking
The proposed residential and office use have offsetting peak -hour parking demands. This provides an
approximate 17% reduction in the required number of parking spaces based on an analysis of the
Shared Parking Time -of -Day Reduction Factor as found in Shared Parking, Table 2-5 (pp. 16-17). See
11Page
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph. 434.242.2866
mike@30scale.com
Appendix A for site parking tabulations and Appendix B for an analysis of Table 2-5, deriving the 17%
reduction factor.
2. Availability of mass transit
The Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) provides bus service within 450 feet of the site on District
Avenue and on Commonwealth Drive following construction of the pedestrian link as shown on the Site
Plan. Availability of mass transit reduces parking demand by up to 10%.
BUS STOP
I,OM—`—^MiN A it
rT, ryj ErS 3E3ppE3E
—t"-44V
.- PHASE 1 r _-
1260' TO HYDRAULIC NNN THs •BLOCK D2 PHASE 2
ROAD BUS STOP AT — �— MIXED -USE
REGAL CINEMA
x � i
Map Showing Nearby Bus Stops
3. Walkability and Bikeability of the site
The Shops at Stonefield consists of existing retail stores, a grocery store, movie theater, office space,
restaurants, apartments and is located adjacent Northrop Grumman, a major employer in the County.
This mix of uses in the Development Area presents employment opportunities for residents who can
walk or bike to work and may reduce the parking demand by up to 10%.
To improve the connectivity of the site, the owner is constructing a pedestrian stairwell and bike ramp
connection to the adjacent shopping center at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Commonwealth
Drive. This will allow more convenient access for residents on Commonwealth and Turtle Creek
Condominiums, and will also serve as a means for apartment residents at Stonefield to more
conveniently access employment areas along Commonwealth Drive, Greenbrier Drive, and Berkmar
Drive.
2 1 P a g e
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph. 434.242.2866
mike@30scale.com
Finally, a bicycle trail connection is planned by County Transportation that will connect Stonefield with
the east side of Seminole Trail via a flyover connection with Zan Road, which will create additional
non -automobile commuting opportunities.
4. Reduced Car Ownership of Renters
A significant trend in developments is to create live/work/play environments, typified by the Shops at
Stonefield. Another trend is to place mass transit nearby. The result of combining these trends is
fewer car trips. To recognize this, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has separated residential
uses into a number of different categories including adding Use Group 221, Low -Rise Apartments. The
average parking ratio for a suburban low-rise apartment is 1.2 spaces per unit (see Table 4-19 from
Shared Parking below) which represents a 31% reduction in the COD base parking ratio of 1.75 spaces
per unit. For comparison, this represents a 20% reduction in the ULI "cornfield" base parking ratio of
1.5 spaces per unit.
Peak -Hour Parking Accumu'af ons at Residential Land Uses
(Spaces/Dwelling Unit)
s11"Ole-F+RMM rtentil
Detuhed MO) iownh*"(224)
11.342 W-M U)K%
bed Rttlo 183 lA
free TL M. r rp'icw
Table 4-19—Shared Parking, by ULI
Low4tke NOON
Aprttmmt an AIw'rnl I722?
,..curbw )Mn Urban
58-194 066' I: .'S-iSt
+r I.D
The alternatives presented above to justify the parking reduction also meet the requirements listed
under Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.8, to wit:
4.12.8. Shared parking allows parking spaces to be shared among two (2) or more uses that
typically experience peak parking demands at different times and is located on the same
lot or on nearby lots. Because parking spaces are shared, the total number of parking
spaces that would otherwise be required may be reduced. In addition to all other
applicable requirements of this section, the following requirements shall apply to shared
parking:
a. Types of alternatives. The parking alternatives consist of street narking, as provided
in section 4.12.9, shared parking, as provided in section 4.12.10, off -site stand alone
3 1 P a g e
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph. 434.242.2866
mike@30scale.com
parking, as provided in section 4.12.11, and other reductions resulting from the
provision of mass transit or other transportation demand management tools.
Street Parking: Per Z.O. 4.12.9, street parking may count toward the parking requirement for a lot if
the space abuts the lot. The 18 parallel spaces along the private street, Inglewood Drive, are directly
adjacent to Block D2. These spaces were counted to meet the parking requirement for Block D2 on
the approved Site Plan SDP 2014-00070 and have not been counted to meet the minimum parking
requirement of Hyatt or any other use.
Shared Parking: Shared parking is being provided per Z.O. 4.12.10. As shown in the parking
tabulations in Appendix A, ten (10) tandem parking spaces located in the parking garage have not
been counted toward the number of shared parking spaces. These spaces will be reserved for rental -
occupied units.
Other reductions: The other reductions including mass transit, walkability/bikeability of the site, and
demographics of the population (renters vs. owners) are transportation demand management tools
which are allowed alternatives as described in Shared Parking.
b. Combination of alternatives. One or more parking alternatives may be used in
combination with one another or with on -site parking to attain the minimum number
of required parking spaces.
Combining the four alternatives will attain the minimum number of required parking spaces.
C. Provision of means for safe movement. Sidewalks and other means for permitting
safe movement of pedestrians between the parking area or spaces and the use or
structure they serve shall be provided.
As part of site plan approval, the owner will provide adequate infrastructure to allow the safe,
unencumbered movement of pedestrians and bicyclists, including the connection toward
Commonwealth Drive.
d. Parking not to be separated from use by major roads. No parking area or spaces
shall be separated from the use or structure they serve by a street whose
classification is greater than a major collector, unless safe and convenient access is
provided from the parking area or spaces to the use or structure and is approved by
the director of planning and community development.
All parking can be accessed from the property without the need to cross major roads.
The reduction in the number of minimum required spaces by shared parking and other techniques was
envisioned as an element of the Code of Development that would be best addressed at the time of site
plan approval when the uses and parking program could be more clearly evaluated. The residential
and office uses have offsetting peak parking demands and are compatible for shared parking
arrangements. Other factors including the availability of mass transit, walkability and bikeability of
the site, and the reduced car ownership of renters are also considered. Finally, the actual parking
4 1 P a g e
30 Scale, LLC
871 Justin Drive, Palmyra, VA 22963
Ph. 434.242.2866
mike@30scale.com
rates published in the COD are approximately 20% higher than industry standard as established by
the Urban Land Institute's publication, Shared Parking.
The benefits of a parking reduction include greater flexibility and creativity in design, higher density in
the development area, and reduction of excess impervious paving surface.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this
request.
Sincerely,
ichael Myers, P.E., CFM
Cc: John Regan, The Christopher Companies
Randy Steck, The Christopher Companies
attachments
5 1 P a g e
APPENDIX A
Site Parking Calculations
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES - BASED ON COD RATES
APARTMENTS, RENTAL, LOW-RISE
COD APARTMENT PARKING RATE
APARTMENT PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
35% REDUCTION
OFFICE/RETAIL RATE PER COD
OFFICE GSF
OFFICE GLA (0.8 X GSF)
OFFICE/RETAIL SPACES REQUIRED
35% REDUCTION
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED WITH 35% REDUCTION
PROPOSED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
PROPOSED NUMBER OF NON -SHARED PARKING SPACES
NET PROVIDED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
160 UNITS
1.75 SPACES/UNIT
280SPACES
182 SPACES
4.5 SPACES/1,000 SF
20,000 GLA
16,000 GLA
72 SPACES
47 SPACES
229 SPACES
241SPACES
10 SPACES
231SPACES
And, for the purposes of comparison to base rates published by ULI:
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES - BASED ON ULI BASE RATES ("CORNFIELD" RATES)
APARTMENTS, RENTAL, LOW-RISE
160 UNITS
BASE PARKING RATE
1.50 SPACES/UNIT
APARTMENT PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
240 SPACES
35% REDUCTION
156 SPACES
OFFICE/RETAIL RATE PER COD 3.5 SPACES/1,000 SF
OFFICE GSF 20,000 GLA
OFFICE GLA (0.8 X GSF) 16,000 GLA
OFFICE/RETAIL SPACES REQUIRED 56 SPACES
35% REDUCTION 36 SPACES
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED WITH 35% REDUCTION 192 SPACES
PROPOSED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 241 SPACES
PROPOSED NUMBER OF NON -SHARED PARKING SPACES 10 SPACES
NET PROVIDED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 231 SPACES
NET SURPLUS NUMBER OF SPACES 39 SPACES
APPENDIX B
Shared Parking Analysis for Residential and Office Uses
O
N
N
DJ
ry
N
N
M
'I
O
O
O
N
M
ti
M
W
a
N
N
OI
0
'
O
N
C
0
o
N
0
N
N
O
h
h
N
aD
O
p
N
N
M
N
W
J
O
K
Q
N
j
C
n
A
N
W
N
7
�
W
(Q
a
a?
lG
N
M
p'
M�
p
T
h
ry
W
f
N
N
O
N
:C
00
Q
O
W
o
Q
N
b
ry
z
W
T
~
o
N
N
p
a
?
a
N
Z
01
m
N
W
N
Z
M
N
a
00
n
N
m
O
�
M
O
N
N
O
W
Q
N
N
VI
W
N
W
Q
N
Q
W
U
z
O
W
F
N
N
N
W
H
N
¢
0
C
K
0
N
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 18, 2018
Trey Steigman
Management Services Corporation
RE: Parking Determination — SDP-2018-00085 (Vistas at South Pantops) Rivanna
Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Steigman:
This letter is in response to your request for a parking determination for the Vistas at South
Pantops. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to determine whether the minimum
required parking spaces for the proposed use are being satisfied. Section 4.12.6 of the zoning
ordinance establishes the minimum number of spaces that are required for the proposed use.
However, alternatives to satisfy these minimum parking requirements are established in
sections 4.12.8 and 4.12.12. This letter, therefore, is an official determination of whether the
proposed alternatives provided in your letter dated November 30, 2018, attached below,
adequately satisfy the parking requirements of 4.12.
The Vistas at South Pantops Final Site Plan (SDP-2018-00085) dated November 26, 2018
proposes 144 multifamily residential units. Per section 4.12.6 on the zoning ordinance, the
required number of on -site parking spaces for the proposed use is 266 parking spaces.
44 one bedroom units (44 x 1.5 parking spaces/unit): 66 required parking spaces
100 two bedroom units (100 x 2.0 parking spaces//unit): 200 required parking spaces
Total: 266 required on -site parking spaces
The above referenced site plan currently demonstrates 249 total on -site parking spaces, which
is 17 parking spaces (6.4%) less than the required total on -site parking spaces. The applicant is
additionally requesting for a potential reduction of up to 26 spaces (9.8%) less than the total
required by the zoning ordinance.
The following transportation demand management (TDM) tools and alternatives were submitted
as justification for the parking reduction intentions of the applicant. The responses provided
below, in bold italics, address each alternative individually, and as a group.
Pedestrian Improvements and Bicycle Rack Facilities
The Vistas at South Pantops Final Site Plan (SDP-2018-00085) proposes to install public
sidewalk improvements on the full frontage of the subject property along South Pantops Drive
and will tie-in to the existing network serving the greater Pantops area via an additional public
cross -walk at the main entrance to the subject property.
December 18, 2018
Vistas at South Pantops Parking Determination
Page 2
Although these improvements will greatly impact the ability of residents to use
transportation alternatives, section 4.12.8(c) of the zoning ordinance already
requires "safe movement' as a condition of these transportation alternatives
being used to provide the minimum parking requirements.
Because the ordinance specifically says "sidewalks and other means of providing
safe movement... shall be provided" in 4.12.8(c), we cannot count pedestrian
improvements as an alternative in themselves.
The proposal also includes the on -site installation of private bicycle rack facilities at each
apartment building to provide storage for a total of 24 bicycles.
The addition of bicycle facilities as a TDM tool will adequately provide at least some
of the on -site parking space minimum.
Mass Transit
Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) provides public mass transit services within the immediate
vicinity of the subject property. There are currently four (4) transit stops for CAT Route 10 within
walking distance of the subject property.
Mass transit is an acceptable transportation alternative that will alleviate at least
some of the minimum parking requirements. With future expansion of the lines
serving South Pantops Drive, it is also reasonable that this alternative will be
sustainable in the future.
Alternative Transportation
Existing, private on -demand services, such as Jaunt, Yellow Cab, Uber, and Lyft, as TDM tool
alternative.
On -demand transportation alternatives, such as those mentioned above, are not
currently considered sustainable options on which area residents can reasonably
rely. As such, this is not a sufficient TDM tool alternative.
Future Trends
Expectant growth and use of autonomous vehicles in the future.
At this time, future trends of autonomous vehicles do not provide a reasonable
and reliable transportation alternative sufficient for a reduced minimum parking
requirement.
Pantops Master Plan
Expected master plan updates have been incorporated in the above decisions and are,
therefore, not considered a TDM tool.
December 18, 2018
Vistas at South Pantops Parking Determination
Page 3
Based on the transportation demand management tools listed above, it is found that the
additional bicycle facilities, current and future mass transit system, and the
expected/required pedestrian infrastructure improvements (via development
requirements and the Pantops Master Plan), provide acceptable transportation
alternatives for at least some of the necessary, minimum on -site parking requirements
for this development. It is my determination that, together, these alternatives sufficiently
offset the requirements for up to 9 spaces for the one -bedroom units, and up to 10
spaces for the 2 bedroom units.
44 one bedroom units (44 x 1.3 parking spaces/unit'): 57 required spaces
100 two bedroom units (100 x 1.9 parking spaces/unite): 190 required spaces
Total: 247 required on -site parking spaces
This adjusted parking schedule of 1.3 spaces/unit for 1 bedroom units, and 1.9
spaces/unit falls within newer industry standards for apartment parking (reference ITE
and NAA standards in your previous letter dated August 17, 2018, attached below), and
also holds true to the purpose and intent of Section 4.12 of providing parking in
reasonable proportion to ones uses while supporting mass transit opportunities. In
conclusion, it is my determination that 247 on -site parking spaces together with the
transportation alternatives above will provide the minimum necessary parking facilities
for (44) 1 bedroom apartment units and (100) 2 bedroom apartment units.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of
this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this
determination shall be final and unappealable.
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and
the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with § 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with a
fee of $258 plus the actual cost of advertising the appeal for public hearing.
Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the
Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902 or online at www.albemarle.org/cdapps. This form applies to the appeal of a decision of
the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are located in
Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. They may be reviewed online at
www.albemarle.ora/countvcodebza.
(Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed
with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free plug-in is available
at the bottom of www.albemarle.org/cdapps.)
A reduction of 0.2 spaces/unit from the required 1.5 spaces/unit.
A reduction of 0.1 spaces/unit from the required 2 spaces/unit.
December 18, 2018
Vistas at South Pantops Parking Determination
Page 4
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCollum
Planner
Designee to the Zoning Administrator
f
MSC
Management Services Corporation
Real Property Mangers, Developers and Brokers
November 30, 2018
Mr. Tim Padalino, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
By Electronic Delivery (tmadalino@albemarle.org)
RE: Official Determination —Parking Minimum -Vistas at South Pantops—SDP-2018-00008
Dear Mr. Padalino:
On behalf of the Applicant for the Final Site Plan of the Vistas at South Pantops dated November 26,
2018, we hereby request an Official Determination that the submitted plan is in compliance with the
required on -site parking spaces of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12 via transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies and other directly related factors in accordance with the alternative
provisions of Section 4.12.8 and Section 4.12.12. Specifically, the Applicant hereby requests an Official
Determination that the proposed project will at a minimum provide for up to ninety percent (90%) of the
required total on -site parking spaces of the Zoning Ordinance which when demonstrated shall be
deemed to be in compliance of Section 4.12.
Please consider the following summary background and proposed site layout enclosure in support of the
Applicant's request:
LOCATION
The subject property is located at or near 303 South Pantops Drive (Route 1140), Charlottesville, VA
22911. There are many major and minor employers and several neighborhood commercial centers
within the immediate vicinity (walk/bike) of the subject property. Some of the major employers near the
subject property include State Farm Insurance Operations Center, Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital,
and Peter Jefferson Place Office Park. Some of the minor employers near the subject property include
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), Heritage Inn
Assisted Living, Virginia High School League (VHSL), and numerous professional offices, financial
institutions, retail stores and restaurants. The neighborhood commercial centers near the subject
property include Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center (Giant) and Pantops Shopping Center (Food Lion,
Roses).
102 S. First Street, Suite 301, CO. Box 5306, Cha lotte,, ille,VA 22905
(434) 977-4151 voice 434 95-811_5 fax www.mse- ONIF (IF
2 renes.com THE CATON COMPANIES
Chnrinunrillr Fnrmvill, Hnniam6nry Almi2mu RGhnmud Rnaunkr Salim Qrrrmill, NC the f ltltl'e of suteess Q
ppo8
S2.
FINAL SITE PLAN - PARKING DETAIL 50
The Vistas at South Pantops Final Site Plan (SDP-2018-00008) dated November 26, 2018 proposes 144
multi -family residential units (44 — one bedroom units, 100 - two bedroom units). Per the zoning
ordinance, the required number of on -site parking spaces for the proposed use is 266 total on -site
parking spaces. The above referenced Vistas Final Site Plan currently demonstrates 249 total on -site
parking spaces, which is 17 parking spaces or 6.4% less than the required total on -site parking spaces.
Since the project plans are a work -in -progress and building/site constraint factors that are unknown at
this time are inevitable, the Applicant requests flexibility for a potential reduction maximum of up to 26
parking spaces or 9.8% (i.e. 90% of the required on -site parking spaces).
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND BICYCLE RACK FACILITIES
The Vistas at South Pantops Final Site Plan (SDP-2018-00008) dated November 26, 2018 proposes to
install public sidewalk improvements on the full frontage of the subject property along South Pantops
Drive and throughout the project. The proposed section of public sidewalk will tie-in to the recently
expanded existing network of public sidewalk serving the greater Pantops area via proposed install of
public cross -walk at the main entrance to the subject property. The proposal also includes the on -site
installation of private bicycle rack facilities at each apartment building to provide storage for a total of
24 bicycles or 17% of the 144 total dwelling units. These measures will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
access to nearby employers, shopping areas and services providers, thereby reducing the number of
necessary on -site parking spaces.
MASS TRANSIT
Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) provides public mass transit services within the immediate vicinity
of the subject property. There are currently four (4) transit stops for CAT Route 10 within walking
distance of the subject property - # 19002 Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital Women's Hospital (<8
minutes, 0.4 miles), #19018 Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center (<I0 minutes, 0.5 miles), #14095 Pantops
Shopping Center (<12 minutes, 0.6 miles), #17230 Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital Main Entrance
(<12 minutes, 0.6 miles). Also, it is important to note that CAT Route 10 previously provided direct
service to South Pantops Drive and there have been discussions of a future route update to again include
South Pantops Drive as well as to install a major substation for rapid transit at Pantops Shopping Center.
This close proximity to multiple transit stops will make it convenient for residents of the Vistas to utilize
mass transit, thereby reducing the number of necessary on -site parking spaces.
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION
In addition to the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) mass transit services in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property, several private companies provide for on -demand alternative transportation. Some
of the established, reliable on -demand alternative transportation options serving the subject property
include Jaunt, Yellow Cab, Uber, and Lyft. The convenience of these alternative transportation services
options available for residents of the Vistas will further the number of necessary on -site parking spaces.
FUTURE TRENDS TRANSPORTATION
In addition to the mass transit and the alternative transportation serving the subject property, the future
trends of transportation suggest that autonomous vehicles will be readily available in the near term for
route scheduled and on -demand transportation services, which will further reduce the number of
necessary on -site parking spaces. For example, the County of Albemarle recently partnered with
Perrone Robotics to test deploy TONY (To Navigate You), an autonomous vehicle shuttle service in
Crozet, VA.
PANTOPS MASTER PLAN — 2018 UPDATE
During the past year, the Pantops Master Plan 2018 Update held a series of community focus meetings
guided by the County of Albemarle and the Pantops Community Advisory Committee and is still in -
progress at this time. Several of the guiding principles of the Pantops Master Plan reflect a vision for
pedestrian/bike-friendly, inter -connected sidewalk and street networks, regional transportation systems,
and regional centers, with a focus on more urban design development as characterized by the proposed
project. The proposed project will help implement this vision in a comprehensive fashion.
Each of these factors will individually and collectively reduce the need for on -site parking spaces to a
degree that it would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance as
stated in Section 4.12.1 to require that one hundred percent (100%) of the required on -site parking
spaces be provided for the project. Based on this information, we hereby request an Official
Determination that by providing up to ninety percent (90%) of the required on -site parking spaces, that
the Final Site Plan SDP-2018-00008 will be in compliance with the requirements of Section 4.12:
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Trey Steigman
Vice President, Development ------
Management Services Corporation
Enclosure Vistas SDP FSP — Sheet 3 Site Layout—11262018
cc (e-file): Vistas at South Pantops/MSC File
Kevin McCollum, Zoning Planner, County of Albemarle
Bart Svoboda, Chief of Zoning, County of Albemarle
Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
Jim Taggart, Roudabush, Gale & Associates
Riki Van-Niekerk, Roudabush, Gale & Associates
Steve Houchens, Development Manager, Management Services Corporation
0
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
g P
IANDSURV NG
Serving l )JgiJliO Sint! 1956
ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINELKINII DH-A R I\II:\I SURVEY DEI'AR'I'ML'NI
172%CAJ 1*11 PANT(R'S OR I Y L. I I I'.. A 914 MONTICELLO ROAD
JI,M L. IA(IiARI.PIL
CI I.ARI.OI-I INVIL11..\'\^1III l'1 IARLO I TILSVILLIL. VA 22WI1 \\I L
I. I ANI). I. I Ail IIIa I �.
DON FRANCO, RE.
MONE(434)979-R121 PI IONE(434)977-(205
ORIAND. JAMISO\ I
DM9D M. R(RIINSON. P.F.
I AN(434) 979- 1691 rAR(4:H)2%-5220
DAVIDA.JORDA\.I N.
AMMY AL GLORGL. L.A.
n 10,1 R4 n 1) \ M �1 I I uU KRIS
I OPHER C. W IN ILRl I. \
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Attn: Mr. Tim Padalino
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
August 17, 2018
RE: Vistas at South Pantops (SDP 2018-00008, TMP 78-20)
Requested Waiver of Parking Required per Code 4.12.6
Mr. Padalino,
Thank for your work on this project and we look forward to submitting the final site plan to the County.
To that end, we have worked with the developers (Management Services Corp.) to develop so! n0--
criteria to reduce the required minimum parking space count.
Currently County Code section 4.12.6 (Multifamily Units) requires a particular parking space cant
on unit size and bedroom count. For brevity and clarity I have abbreviated the code to the relative
sections requiring 1.5 spaces for one (1) bedroom units, and 2 parking spaces for two (2) bedroom units.�tj
This would require a total of36-9 aces for the proposed 144 units of the Vistas, based upon the current
unit mix. 247
As you are aware I'm sure, excess parking throughout the County's developments can bring about
undesired consequences. Consequences which should be avoided where possible. Aside from the
obvious issues such as increased development and maintenance costs, excess parking creates greater
quantities of impervious surface generating unnecessary and avoidable stormwater runoff. In an effort
to minimize such practices, we have examined some of our client's other, similar developments in
Albemarle County, VA. As I am sure you are aware, Management Services Corp. maintains an extensive
list of properties and gathering the metrics below is a routine practice for their internal purposes.
The following, is an analysis of recent and detailed parking needs and provisions at four similar
apartment complexes located in Albemarle County, VA, along with analysis of unit metrics. This chart
demonstrates an actual need of 1.38 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0.77 parking spaces per
bedroom on average:
1(Paga
(1) Current Utilization Analysis (Source: Internal Collected Data from MSC)
Total Total
Registered
Occupied
Occupied
Average
Average
Vehicles
Units
Bedrooms
Veh./unit
Veh./Bdrm
Barclay Place
219
158
302
1.39
0.73
North Woods
426
303
608
1.41
0.70
Turtle Creek
561
372
624
1.51
0.90 (Peak)
West Gate
329
272
431
1.21
0.76
Current Averages
1.38
0.77
(2) Industry Standard Total Spaces Required (Source: ITE)
The Following is an analysis of the expected vehicle counts of an apartment complex based on
generally accepted criteria; ITE Manual, 9`h Ed.
ITE manual, for description code 210 (Apartment Buildings) requires traffic generation figures of:
6.65 VPD (Vehicle trips per day) per dwelling unit, or 5.10 VPD per vehicle (depending on the
designer's choice of metric). This ratio, from recognized and accepted data will, by definition,
calculate the expected vehicles per dwelling unit. Further, as this is derived from a traffic
generator, this should include all vehicle traffic including guests and owners. Solving the
VPD/Dwelling divided by VPD/Veh. yields 1.3 Veh./Dwelling.
(3) Industry Standard Total Spaces Required (Source: ITE) Industry Standard
Total Spaces Required (Source: National Apartment Association)
In a recent publication the National Apartment Association (NAA) finds an ever decreasing
parking ratio in newly constructed apartment buildings.(II The increasingly urban nature of the
modern apartment environment is cited as the major contributing factor along with the related
trend away from the overall suburban character for residential development in general. NAA
finds that "mid -rise' parking ratio has declined to 1.27 spaces per unit in 2016 data set. It
should be noted, this is very similar to the actual use findings of similar developments in
Albemarle County, VA.
Assigning this metric to the current unit mix at The Vistas project of 144 units would yield a total
expected parking count of 183 spaces.
2 1 F
(4) Assignment and Selection of Design Metric
The following is a projection of the needs of the Vistas at South Pantops using the various data
developed above.
The Vistas anticipates 144 dwelling units and 248 bedrooms.
Using
(a) Current Utilization (Dwelling Unit Average) of 1.38 spaces/DU= 199 spaces.
(b) Current Utilization (Bedroom Average) of 0.77spaces/bdrm= 190 spaces.
(c) Current Utilization (Dwelling Unit Max) of 1.5 spaces/DU=216 spaces.
(d) Current Utilization (Bedroom Max) of 0.9 space/bdrm= 223 spaces.
(e) Industry Standard (ITE derivative) of 1.3 space/DU= 187 spaces.
(f) Industry Standard (NAA derivative) of 1.27 space/DU= 183 spaces.
(5) Other Factors Affecting Parking Needs
Modern high density development, such as an apartment in an urban environment, has recognized that
the existence of mass transportation opportunities has led to a functional reduction in the number of
utilized on -site parking spaces (2). Composite groups and studies, specifically of the Pantops area, call for
various mass transit options to come forward along South Pantops Drive. Options such as bus service
(currently proposed by CAT) and integrated walking networks (such as sidewalks required throughout by
VDOT) would tend to encourage reduction in the per -occupant vehicle counts.
Government too has recognized that the generic standards utilized by conventional zoning practice
tends to require too much parking. 131 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its Smart Growth
initiative, has identified integrated transportation and land planning, as a principle in protecting human
health and the environment. One of the specific strategies EPA has identified to advance that principle,
is better parking management.
Summary and Conclusion:
Based on this analysis, we find that current utilization of similar projects in Albemarle County, VA
supports a lower parking count metric. This seems to be supported by industry standard ratios between
apartment dwelling units and expected personal vehicles at those same units. Therefore we request
that the calculation factor of 1.5 parking spaces per unit be used in place of County Code section 4.12.6
for determination of the minimum required parking space count at Vistas at South Pantops. This will
3 1 P P v P
propose a minimum requirement of 216 parking spaces at the project; roughly a 19.4% reduction from
that required by section 4.12.6.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any comments or concerns.
nicer y,
7
Ji aggart, P.E.
For Roudabush Gale & Assoc., Inc.
172 S. Pantops Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
References:
(1) "The Transformation of Parking- Parking Ratios Section"; NAA Publication- 2018, pp3
(2) "Evaluating the Impact of Transit Service on Parking Demand and Requirements"; Rowe,Bae, Shen;
Transportation Research Record 2245
http�//citeseerx ist psu edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10 1.1 841 6276&reo=reol&tvpe=pdf
(3) "Smart Growth and Transportation"; United States Environmental Protection Agency; (Web)
https,//www,eoa.gov/smarterowth/smart-growth-and-transportation
4 1 P a g e
ORDINANCE NO. 19-A(15)
ZMA 2018-00003
ZMA 2005-00017
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX PARCELS 09000-00-00-001A0, 090A1-00-00-001E0, AND 07600-00-00-051AO
WHEREAS, the application to rezone 33.96 acres from R2 Residential and Neighborhood Model District
(NMD) on Tax Parcels 09000-00-00-001A0, 090A1-00-00-001E0, and 07600-00-00-051A0, including amending a
portion of ZMA 2005-00017 Biscuit Run to remove the proffers from Tax Parcel 090A 1-00-00-001 E0, is identified as
ZMA 2018-00003 Southwood Phase I ("ZMA 2018-00003"); and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2018-00003; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2019, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public
hearing on ZMA 2018-00003.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the transmittal summary and staff report prepared for ZMA 2018-00003 and their attachments,
including the revised Code of Development and the Proffers, the information presented at the public hearings, any
written comments received, the material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284 and County Code § 18-
20A.10, and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practices, the Board
hereby approves ZMA 2018-00003 with the Code of Development entitled "Southwood Phase I — A Neighborhood
Model District — Code of Development" prepared by Timmons Group, dated February 20, 2018, last revised on July
29, 2019, and the Proffers dated August 2, 2019.
»s*
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance 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 August 21, 2019.
Clerk, Board of County Supely l�
Ave Nay
Mr. Dill
Y _
Ms. Mallek
Y _
Ms. McKeel
Y
Ms. Palmer
Y _
Mr. Randolph
Y
Mr. Gallaway
Y
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. 2018-003
Original Proffers X
Amendment
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 09000-00-00-OOIAO, 090A1-00-00-OOIE0, 07600-00-00-051A0
Owner(s) of Record: SOUTHWOOD CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC
Date of Proffer Signature:
August 2, 2019
33.96 acres; TMP 90-1A (7.94 acres), TMP 76-51A (1.23 acres) to be rezoned from R-2 to NMD and TMP
90A1-1E (23.33 acres) which is to be rezoned from NMD to NMD.
Southwood Charlottesville LLC, is the owner (the "Owner") of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-00-
001A0, 090A1-00-00-OO1E0, 07600-00-00-051AO (the "Property") which is the subject of rezoning application
ZMA No. 2018-003, a project known as "Southwood Phase 1" (the "Project").
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified
above. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner
acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. This proffer statement shall supersede and replace in all respects
the proffer statements approved by the Board of Supervisors in connection with ZMA 2005-00017.
1. Removal of Proffers and Amendment of Code of Development for Biscuit Run ZMA 2005-00017
included on Tax May Parcel 090A1-00-00-0O1E0. All existing proffers associated with the Code of
Development, applications, and Application Plan for ZMA 2005-00017 relating to Tax Map Parce1090A1-
00-00-OOlEO are hereby removed and superseded by these proffers. Tax Map parcel 090Al-00-00-OOIE0
(along with parcels 09000-00-00-OOlAO and 07600-00-0051AO) shall comply with the application plan and
the Code of Development, entitled, "Southwood Phase 1, A Neighborhood Model District," dated February
20, 2018, last revised July 29, 2019.
2. Trails, Parks, Civic Spaces.
a. Greenway Connections to Potential Adiacent County Parkland. At any time from approval of this
rezoning application until the final certificate of occupancy is granted for Phase I, upon written
request by Albemarle County, the Owner shall dedicate to the County, at no cost to the County and
within six (6) months of the aforementioned written request, an easement, deed property within the 8.0
acre green space described in paragraph 2(b) to the County, and/or enter into an agreement with the
County to provide a public trail connection between the Trail described in paragraph 2(b) below and any
trail constructed by the County on abutting County property, TMP 09000-00-00-00500. The land under
easement, associated trail connection, associated signage, and any associated structures shall be
maintained in perpetuity by Albemarle County.
b. Trail Network. The Owner shall establish a trail on the Property ("the Trail"), consistent with the
County's design standards for a Class B type 1 primitive nature trail, within the 8.0 acre green space and
amenity area shown and described as Block 1 on pages 5 and 7 of the Code of Development. The general
location of the Trail is shown on the Application Plan on page 8 of the Code of Development; however
exact trail locations shall be detennined by the Owner based on site conditions and the then -current uses
of the green space and amenity area and in coordination with the County. Installation of the Trail shall
commence concurrently with the site work for Blocks 3-8 and the entire Trail shall be substantially
completed prior to issuance of the one hundredth (100*) Permit for a dwelling within Blocks 3-8. The
Trail shall be maintained by a property owners association established for Southwood. The public trail
connection between the Trail and a potential, adjacent County trail network mentioned in paragraph 1(a)
shall be maintained by the County as described in section 2a above.
c. Owner shall provide a pedestrian connection between the northern terminus of the trail within Block 2 to
the existing natural trail along the northern edge of the Southwood Trailer Park. The trail may be
provided as an enhanced sidewalk (minimum ten (10) foot wide) along the Phase 1 streets, a Class B type
2 pedestrian trail around the perimeter of Block 12, or, subject to agreement of VDOT and adjacent
property owner, as a Class B type 2 pedestrian trail within the ROW along Old Lynchburg Road, to the
public road reservation through TMP 76-51. The pedestrian improvements shall be constructed prior to
the issuance of the 300th Certificate of Occupancy in Phase 1.
SOUTHWOOD CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC,
a Virginia 7r��—
By:
Dan Rosensweig, Manager
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
MEMORANDUM
To: Applicant
From: Kevin McDermott; Planning Manager
Date: August 24, 2021
Re: ZMA202100001 —Willow Glen Transportation Comments
Phone: 434.296.5832
www.albemarle.ora
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation Planning has reviewed the
above referenced plan and associated traffic impact analysis as submitted by Dickerson Ridge, LLC and Ramey Kemp and
Associates (March 2021) and offers the following comments:
Traffic Impact Analysis
The increase in delay for the WBL at Dickerson and Towncenter from 148.1 sec in the 2025 No Build to 246.2 in the 2025
Build is a high concern and does not appear to be addressed. The proposed development would increase delay at this
location by over a minute and a half. The applicant discusses willingness to work with the County and VDOT to address
this exceptional delay, but the current application makes no commitment to this effect.
The recommendations in the TIA include extending the turn lane. However, that does not address the long delays. It also
offers solutions including a traffic signal and roundabout both of which could address the issue. VDOT comments appear
to not support the traffic signal, and that would not be the County's preference either, because it would likely result in an
increase in crashes at the intersection and add delay to the other movements in the intersection. The County would
support a roundabout at this intersection which would address the delay issues and increase safety.
The LOS for Towncenter and August shows little to no delay. However, the PM Peak Hour NBUR would be impacted by
the WBL queue at the Towncenter and Dickerson intersection which would result in much longer delays than shown here.
This would not be addressed by extending the WBL turn lane as proposed. A signal may improve this situation, but a
roundabout appears to be the best option. Separation of the NBL and NBR on August Ln would also improve this
significantly.
The turn lane warrant analyses appear to show that a right -turn taper would be required at south site driveway and a left
turn lane is required at both entrances. Despite the low percentage of southbound advancing traffic that would be making
a left turn and the low overall number of left turning vehicles, it is the County's recommendation that at least one location,
preferably the south entrance, have a left turn lane so as to not further degrade operations and safety.
Application Plan
The application plan shows that all vehicular travel within the proposed development would occur on travelways with
adjacent perpendicular parking. This system does not do a good job of meeting the County's goals related to the
Neighborhood Model as called for in the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated below. The County would prefer to
see a better network layout the relegates parking away from private or private roads or travelways for the development.
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Phone: 434.296.5832
www.albemarle.ora
• Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - This system provides a poor level of network connectivity
both internally and to potential adjacent connections. Having high levels of traffic moving through this type of
system poses safety concerns because the long straight travelways may encourage higher than appropriate
speeds and the frequency of backing vehicles could result in crashes. The applicant intends to remove the
previously required connection to the Phase 1 development and other future connections to adjacent
development will likely not be possible with this type of network.
• Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities — This proposed network is particularly difficult for bicyclists to navigate
as the frequency of vehicles backing out of parking spaces creates a hazard for bicyclists which are more difficult
for drivers to see.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me.
Kevin M. McDermott
Planning Manager
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414
kmcdermott@al bemarle.org