Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100001 Correspondence 2021-10-18 (2)OF A tzw4tep designStudio Landscape Architecture and Site Planning I'rRG[Nti' COMMENT RESPONSES TO STAFF'S 2nd REVIEW COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 August 19, 2021 Mr. Steve Edwards Edwards Design Studio 4936 Old Boonsboro Rd. Lynchburg, VA 24503 stevena edwardsdesignstudio.com / 434-531-7507 RE: ZN A2021-00001 Willow Glen; 2°" Submittal Dear Mr. Edwards: October 18, 2021 Mr. Andy Reitelback, Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 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-ft. 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. After our Zoom meeting on 9/29121 it was determined this is no longer an issue require no response 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. The latest available information posted by Albemarle County Schools September 2021 has been incorporated into our updated Narrative. 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. We are not reducing connectivity with Phase 1, simply changing the type of interconnection. As stated, having that previous vehicular connection proved to be very costly and challenging to the project over time in conjunction with other regulatory impacts. Additionally, the vehicular connection between the phases would cause greater impact to the existing stream and increase our allowable USACE stream impacts already approved and permitted. We evaluated different types of connections and feel the option shown is the best for the project and provides the accessibility needed. Having this connection also allows both phases to continue to interact; yet remain independent. The illustration below shows the interconnection routes between Phase 1 & 2 as well as between the adjoining property in the future. t -... SWM/AMENITV POND D .J•` l a A _,•�--"^`� GLEN 00 F EXIS �i OCfF•' M. A F PHASE 7 COMPLETED AND APPROVED (ZMA 200600019) '- PEDESTRIAN/BIKE-ONLY CONNECTION PROPOSEDFUTURE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE-ONLY CONNECTION As for connections to other surrounding developments, the Deerwood neighbor offers none for us to reasonably tie into. Parcel 32-49H is a single-family lot and doesn't offer interconnection either. However, we are suggesting (as shown above) 1-2 potential future access points into Parcel 32-56. Both would be pedestrian only and at the discretion of that owner. Furthermore, we will also extend our sidewalk system along Dickerson Road to the southwest as far as grading allows possible without requiring any additional off -site easements from the Parcel 32- 56A's owner. Simiarly to the trail connections mentioned above, this sidewalk can then be extended in the future by that owner when Parcel 32-56A is developed in order to complete the pedestrian connection to the Towncenter/Dicekrson intersection and the envisioned Places29 Neighborhood Service Center. 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 walkingibiking 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. Towncenter Drive currently has both sidewalks and bike lanes along it. These serve to connection Dickerson Road to the Hollymead Towncenter. As mentioned in our #3 response, we are providing access from Phase 2 through Phase 1 to this network. Furthermore, a connection along Dickerson Road from our southeast entrance back to Towncenter Drive is possible but only with time and again participation of the Parcel 32-56 owner(s). 5. Why are the setbacks being reduced from what is shown on the existing approved plan, especially in the northern comer 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. As discussed, the coloration of B10 was incorrect and should be considered similar to a slab condition. This has been updated to read correctly on Sheet Z8. With regards to the relationship between buildings B9 & B10, below are illustations showing the historic building placements developed throughout this site's development. Previous versions actually show a greater impact to the adjacent properties than this proposal. Simple sections are also provided. Section B Section A. -- b - ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN N 0 20 40 80 0 PREVIOUS VARIATION PROPOSED O BUMING LOWIONS . CURRENTLY PROPOSED BUILDING LO :ATIOM 4 w= > 48' BUILDING 10 O. ¢� >41' BUILDING EX. al EX. a HOUSE HOUSE 600 600 al 600 I 590 590 590 580 �{yI' 580 580 570 — I— ,----- ---570 570 560 560 560 550 550 550 SECTION A SECTION B 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 %-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. The tot lot square -footage has been updated on Sheet V. 7. In the parking schedule on sheet Z5 of the application plan, the required number of parking spaces should read 669 (not 668). The table has been updated on Sheet Z5. 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. Note #4 has been added to Sheet Z4 to address affordable housing. 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. The letter is attached as part of this resubmission. 11. 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. See our responses to this later. 12. 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. Thank you for sharing the email from Bill McLaughlin regarding the pond's potentially attracting geese to the area. The storm water pond is required for storm drainage management. We can't speculate or comment on how it may attract geese. Mr. McLaughlin might want to contact Virginia's Department of Game and Inlaid Fisheries. Plannin¢ — 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? We have clarified on Sheet Z7 that green areas are outdoor facilities and red areas are indoors. 2. Are any facilities or equipment proposed in those areas designated for "respite," or will these areas just consist of open space/vegetation? This wording has been changed to indicate there will be some sort of seating opportunity. 3. The "pedestrian/bike-only" label on sheet Z7 points to the middle of the pond. Clarify this label. This label location has been revised. 4. Parking lot islands and planting strips around buildings and sidewalks/streets do not count as open space. Revise sheet Z7. Per our discussion on 9/29/21, this has been updated. 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. These will be designated for individual tenantlapartment use by the Owner through specific signage which will be developed after the site plan approval and in the construction phase. 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. Both sidewalks and bike lanes exist along Towncenter Drive from Dickerson Road back to the Hollymead Towncenter. Please refer to the illustrations below to support our previous illustration showing the project is within the stated walking distance limits. o Ni Charlotmay' £Fa SteyGidge Su es ©. ltanIIQ Airport a "'81 Mel NsQWood Village & 3861 Strummer Glen Courll sp9 Assisted Living B... _ °esr.a rmeen Bl.cknead y y ® Family Cemetery a woe v Knee Walker Dental Bonefish Grill e CM1erlonesville y lakewr DenK.y A ©BIuelBtlge Cydery o. eirydeswe Sakura TTar tQ pi ••�. �mmin p` Guys •• Five 9 9 Mins. Walking '••� WM1'aM1Wi`M1 Superior Santlw¢M1r 0.5 miles '' Aker°' °'"r' ••� Hares Teeter ® N e" r� ys °y Dairy Queen Gill °+ 4PHollymead Town Cenler PeiBmai ¢% shoa0^Small si en / SUTutlu 9 a; Fullan Bank Holly'a Nails ©��/� � r Dormer's Pia. / akmorrDO, % Goi� 7 RB615hannon Glen Count "Mq ItNeyg�ln MP 13 Mins. Walking 0.7 miles semera r an pHOltymeaE Walk re, Nosy /P16 Wells Fargo Ben4 t b, �tM Nunn Chat loVesvillep Selt Storage Michael's Diner v S aybnEge Suites B nesraurant p CherloTmMlele AVgop... e'- JA chanoneavnle 9 6 Ped alnc Den gar, ® CVS ,,[I elmry /j Fve Guys , 4— • `�e't Petsmary k mBemn 0 1D Fulton Bank R4 5 O HOIIvs Nails CilaW. Nde /'Tg�h-Foresinakes9 �1 MaDonalna 9Tim benvaMGMI o.r . rak.oti nal.ry p; ryiIIQ vAirpaL Animal Lllnic Forest Lakes Dental O .© �r 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. In the future, should bus transit routes be extended to this area, the Owner would be happy to try and accommodate a stop near the clubhouse if approached. For now, we have removed the reference from our Narrative. 4. No parking studies or information was provided with this request. Please refer to our revised Special Exception/Parking Waiver request for additional details. Plannina Division — Transportation Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning, kmcdermottkalbemarle.org. The Applicant expects to construct a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn taper at the southern entrance and widen Dickerson Road to accommodate the necessary left -turn lane as recommended from the TIA review. If these measures are possible then they will be addressed during the site plan process. Furthermore, Breeden owns and operates many developments across Virginia similar to the proposed plan. These communities, have internal parking/travelways which are consistent with other similar developments. Residents/drivers expect to encounter pedestrian, bicyclist and parking maneuvers within multi -family communities. The proposed plan has been designed to minimize these conflicts. According to Breeden, they do not have knowledge of any conflicts between residents and vehicles due to the long straight-aways in any of their other properties. As a result, they have not had to install any traffic calming measures (i.e. stop signs, pavement markings, speed humps, etc.) to -date; however, they would consider them if necessary. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Review pending, comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Zoning reviewer Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner, rraesdalenae albemarle.org. Duly noted. See our responses below. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohlkalbemarle.org: What is the applicant's intent for Shannon Glen Ct.? Is the applicant proposing to submit a private road request? Improvements were made recently to finish off the end of Shannon Glen Drive to provide an adequate turn -around space. We need to determine if a LOR/waiver is appropriate and/or submit as -built documents under a separate review process. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Howard Lagomarsino, the Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, hlaeomarsino@albemarle.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. This issue has been addressed and no longer an issue. 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/fireappartus 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. Duly Noted. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melson(aeserviceauthority.org. Comments are below. I. No response required. 2. No response required. 3. Duly noted. 4. Duly noted. S. No response required. 6. None that we can identify at this time. 7. It is not. No response required. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) See the attached memorandum with comments from VDOT Area Land Use Engineer, Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.virginia.gov. Comments are below. 1. No response required. 2. Duly noted. 3. Duly noted. 4. Duly noted. 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 10 ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen Amendment Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles 2"d Submittal of Application Pedestrian Orientation There are pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site. However, most of 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. Planting strips are not necessary or warranted for this type of development. Moreso for Neighborhood Model Districts and typically reserved along streets. However, in these developments that cater to apartments there are many inefficiencies in long-term maintenance when having sidewalks separated from the curb/parking spaces. Sidewalks are provided and connect the residents to the amenities throughout the side in a safe manner. Sidewalks are also provided and connect to Phase 1, and then beyond, to other adjacent properties and nearby commercial developments (i.e. Hollymead Towncenter). Additionally, trail connections are proposed to the adjacent parcel (TMP 32-56) if that Owner wishes in the future. 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. We feel we have adequately met this principle when considering the overall surrounding context. 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. 11 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. The pool, clubhouse and fitness center may not be situated exactly in the center of the development but they are easily accessible to all residents that works with the property, it's topography and the proposed density. We have incorporated the turn lane suggestions made from the recent traffic impact study and both VDOT and County Transportation's review along Dickerson Road. In conjunction, we have extended the internal sidewalk system out and back towards the Dickerson/Towncenter intersection to help strengthen a pedestrian connection to the possible Neighborhood Service Center in the future. However, we can not completely extend it to our property due to grading conflicts. Furthermore, it would also require getting an easement from the Owner of TMP 32-56 which will cause unnecessary delays in this rezoning application. Once Parcel 32-56 is developed in the future, that particular owner can complete the connection. Mixture of The proposal does provide multiple types of housing when including Phase Housing Types 1. However, it reduces the mix of housing types in Phase 2, which and currently includes a wide range of types, including condos, single-family Affordability 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. Note #3 has been added to Sheet Z4 to address affordable housing. Interconnected This application proposes to sever the approved vehicular connection Streets and between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this development. Interconnected streets Transportation are an important feature to provide access and reduce congestion on the Networks surrounding 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. 12 Please refer to our responses to similar questions above and in the narrative. We feel this principle has been adequately addressed and strong enough to continue in the rezoning process. Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric. There are Transportation internal sidewalks among the buildings. However, there do not appear to Opportunities be any bike 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. Please refer to the responses above that show there are both sidewalk and bike lanes along Towncenter Drive which residents will have access to through Phase 1. We feel this adequately achieves this NMD principle. Parks, Areas such as parking lot islands and planting strips along streets cannot Recreational be counted toward open space. Revise sheet Z7 of the plan. See also Amenities, and General Planning Comments (comment #6) and Planning SE2021-000007 Open Space 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. During our Zoom meeting on 9129/21 we discussed this and are now modifying Sheet Z7 to differentiate between the common open space and spaces around buildings/and or within parking lots. We have also now added a new trail route that would allow residents access to, and around, the pond. Buildings and It appears that stepbacks will be required for several buildings, as they Space of have sections of four -stories that face Dickerson Road, which is where the Human Scale stepback requirement is measured from. A special exception request to waive the stepback requirements can also be submitted. Two of the proposed buildings, B9 and B10, are very close to existing single-family homes in the Deerwood 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. 13 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 orinciole could be strenathened. After our Zoom meeting on 9129/21 it was determined the issue of stepbacks are no longer an issue and would required no response. Illustrations depicting the area around buildings 139-1310 have been provided above. Additional buffer landscaping can be handled at the site plan stage and at the discretion of the Owner. Site walls are being kept to a minimum and in most cases do not face the apartments when responding to the overall site topography. These walls also are generally not visible to Dickerson Road or the adjacent neighbors due to proper citing, building placement and the preservation of existing vegetation along the perimeter. Furthermore, at the discretion of the Owner, supplemental plantings may be incoroporated later at the site plan stage to dimmish wall heights as needed so they can relate better to the human scale. Relegated There continues to be significant areas of surface parking, scattered Parking 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. After our Zoom meeting on 9/29/21 it was determined this could be addressed through the parking lot landscape requirements at the site plan stage. No further response is required. 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. Duly noted. No response required. Respecting The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Terrain and Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Careful Grading Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of Section and Re -grading 18-30.7.5 are adhered to. This disturbance includes grading and the of Terrain 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. Duly noted. No response required. 14 Clear Although adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas, the subject property Boundaries does not border the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive with the Rural Plan. All surrounding properties are located within the Community of Area Hollymead of the Places29 Master Plan area. This principle does not apply. Duly noted. No response required. 15 To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II -Planning From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner -Zoning Division: Zoning Date: March 2, 2021 Subject: Zoning Review Comments-ZMA202100001 Willow Glen Narrative, Application Plan, and proffers last revised 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. Done. • Sheet Z7-Pocket Park 3 does not describe the features for the "respite" also This wording has been changed to indicate there will be some sort of seating opportunity. 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. Thank you. • 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. • Duly Noted. Williams Mullen has prepared an amended proffer statement and is included in this resubmission for your review/comment. 16