HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100011 Correspondence 2021-12-06Response to Comments dated November 5, 2021
To: Andy Reitelbach
Date: December 6, 2021
Planning — General ZMA Comments (ZMA2021-00011)
1. Include the net density along with the gross density of the proposal on page 2 of the narrative. (It appears, however, that
they are likely the same.)
Response: Plan has been updated to state net density. As noted, the net density and gross density are the same for this
project.
2. Any proposed subdivision that will occur with this development will need to meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.6 and the
Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 14.
Response: Noted.
3. It is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat would be needed to vacate the property lines between thevarious
parcels. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning stage but is something to be aware of at the site planning stage if the
zoning map amendment is approved.)
Response: Noted, this will be completed at the site plan stage of the process.
4. ZO 18-19.6.2/ ZO 18-4.16: As a PRD, an improved level of amenities and creative design of the site should be provided.
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, up to five percentof the site area. With
250 units proposed, 0.3995 acres (17,402.22 square feet) of recreational space is required. It does not appear that this
requirement is met with the amenity space shown on the application plan.
a. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational spaces from the other open space areas, such as the
vegetative buffers, so it is more clear what amenities and open space are being provided and where (there can be
some overlap), and to ensure there is space to accommodate the minimum 25% required, aswell as the required
minimum recreational facilities.
Response: The application plan includes (2) areas for recreational activities. These areas are labeled on the plan,
and are minimum areas. The recreational areas provided area 0.74 acres.
b. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. Not all of the proposed rec facility spaces appear large
enough to accommodate these facilities. According to 18-4.16.2, a minimum of five tot lots of at least 2,000 sq. ft.
each is required and a minimum of three''%rcourt basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft.each is required.
Response: As noted above, the location of the recreational areas have been shown and identified on the
application plan. One area is 0.54 acres and the other area is 0.20 acres. These areas are adequate sizes for
recreation.
c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate facilities are
provided.
Response: Sheet 2 on the application plan lists out a number of recreational amenities that may be provided within
the proposed recreational areas shown on the application plan. The final recreational amenity package will be
determined with the final site plan. At that time, a substitution request will be submitted to the county for the
proposed recreational amenity package.
d. More information needs to be provided on the proposed buffers, including their width.
Response: The width of the buffers have been added to the application plan.
e. How is the central `recreational amenity space" proposed to be accessed from throughout the site?
Response: See the illustrative plan for the pedestrian sidewalks and pathways through the development providing
access to the recreational amenities.
f. The acreage of open space as labelled on the application plan does not reach the required minimum of 25% of the
site.
Response: The open space/Greenspace on the site includes the recreational area, common open space, and
buffer areas. The total acreage of these greenspaces/open spaces total 2 acres, which exceeds the required 25%
on the site.
g. See comments from Zoning for more information on open space and recreational area requirements.
Response: See the illustrative plan that identifies the amenities to be provided at site plan.
5. There is a lack of pedestrian orientation identified throughout the internal travelways of the development. Sidewalks and
planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets of the development. Safetyfeatures such as crosswalks
should also be provided.
Response: A note has been added to the application plan indicating that pedestrian sidewalks and pathways are included
in the building and parking envelops. In addition, the illustrative plan included with the resubmission shows the sidewalk
network through the site.
6. The parking areas must meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.12. Parking design and the number of parking spaces will be
determined at the site plan stage, if the zoning map amendment is approved, based on the final designationof uses and
number of units.
Response: A parking reduction request has been included with the resubmittal.
7. Clarify whether parallel parking is permitted on Travelway B by the existing deed of easement.
Response: A deed was provided with the resubmittal that provides this information.
8. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor?
Response: Additional waste management facilities may be provided as needed at the site plan stage. Adequate facilities
will be provided as required under the ordinance.
9. On the application plan, the same type of dashed line appears to be used for both the setback lines and the boundaries of
the easements. Revise the plan so that these features are identified using different types of lines.
Response: The plan has been revised accordingly.
10. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously?
Response: A phase 1 environmental impact statement has been completed and no issues were found with the site.
11. Provide more information on the dimensions of the proposed interparcel connection to the west-southwest, withTMP 45-
26131. There is no width or other information identified with it.
Response: The plans have been revised to include additional information accordingly.
12. In the project narrative, provide more clarification on how the project would improve the public road network, as all of the
streets in the development are currently proposed to be private, including the interparcel connections.
Response: No streets are proposed with this development, only accessways and travelways to serve the apartments and
existing assisted living facility. An interconnection has been provided to the east, however. The needed and required
improvements for the impact of traffic to and from the site have been included. See additional response to VDOT
comments.
13. Are there any interparcel connections proposed toward the east? At the pre-app meeting, it was discussed that there is an
existing access easement of some type on the property of Oakleigh/the Blake.
Response: See updated plan, a potential future interparcel connection to the east has been provided.
14. Provide more information in the project narrative on this proposal's impact on police and fire service.
Response: See included revised narrative.
15. See the attached document provided by ACPS for more information regarding expected student yields in the various school
districts. This information will be used in the staff report to the Planning Commission identifyingthe expected impact of this
development on the local schools. Student generation numbers and school capacity have been closely considered by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors recently
Response: See yield rate chart below. Within the schools Long Range Planning Advisory Recommendations dated
September 9, 2021, the chart on page 13 indicates that both Agnor-Hurt and Burley Middle have capacity and will continue
to have capacity in the coming years. There is a recommendation for a new elementary school in the northern feeder
pattern, however, this is needed particularly for Baker -Butler which currently has large capacity issues and is anticipated to
increase. The new elementary school will help alleviate issues across the northern feeder pattern, including Agnor-Hurt. A
study for middle schools is recommended as well, however, again, Burley Middle will have capacity in the coming years
according to the information in the study. Albemarle High School is currently over capacity and will continue to be over
capacity, however, it is recommended that the High School Center II project be funded, which will help alleviate the
capacity issues at the high school.
Apartment/Multi-Family
Agnor-Hurt Elementary (0.08 Yield Rate)
20
Burley Middle (0.03 Yield Rate)
8
Albemarle High (0.06 Yield Rate)
15
Total Units:
250
Total Potential Students:
43
16. The project narrative indicates that all students who will live in this development will come from elsewhere in theCounty.
How is it known that there will be no new County residents living in this development, adding additionalstudents to the
school system from current enrolment levels? Provide more information on the expected number of students to be
generated by this proposed development.
Response: See response to #15 above for additional student yield information. Also, the narrative has been updated to
expand on the impact to schools.
17. In the narrative, provide more detail on the variety of recreational and other amenities available for use, as no amenities are
identified on the application plan other than a few small areas of green space. (See also comment #4above.)
Response: See response to comment in #4 above.
18. On the cover sheet of the application plan and in the project narrative, provide the application number—ZMA2021-00011.
Response: Cover sheet has been updated accordingly.
19. How is proposed that the appropriate density of residential units will be provided within the Urban Mixed Use Center -
designated portion of the development, as the proposed building straddles the two land use designations?
Response: The building that is straddling the land use designation will contain a maximum of 28 units. Since approximately
half of the building is within the Center designation, it is reasonable to state that approximately half of the units are within
Center, a maximum of 14 units. This is well within the recommended density of a maximum of 20 units, as stated on Sheet
2 of the plan.
20. The northeastern portion of this property is designated as Urban Mixed Use Center in the Places29 Master Plan. How is it
proposed that this development will be in conformance with this recommended land use? A parking lot,which is currently
shown on the application plan as making up the majority of the area of this land use, is not an appropriate use for a Urban
Mixed Use Center.
Response: Residential is a recommended use within the Neighborhood Center designation in the Master Plan. Considering
the nearby existing small landscaping business, Garden Spot, with existing commercial zoning, as well as the new veterans
memorial park and non-residential uses permitted (SDP 2008-101 approved 13,680 sf) within the Oakleigh development, it
is our contention that a mixture of non-residential uses has been provided already for this Neighborhood Center
designation. The center should be viewed as a whole and the proposed residential is complimentary when considering this
center as a whole. In addition, during the most recent amendment for the Oakleigh development (ZMA 2016-015), staff
stated that the Neighborhood Service Center designation was intended to reflect the non-residential uses approved with the
original Oakleigh rezoning, see analysis from staff report below. The proposed parking is necessary for the residential use,
which is a recommended use in the Master Plan, and a portion of the residential is contained within the center designation.
In addition, the proposed development is less than % mile walk of the designated, and prioritized, Rio Small Area plan area,
and less than mile from Northside Library.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use: The Places29 Master Plan recommends two land uses for this area: Urban Density
Residential and Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) for a Neighborhood Service Center (see Attachment
F). The Neighborhood Service Center designation was intended to reflect the Oakleigh plan for a
maximum of 28,800 square feet of non-residential uses along Rio Road. The remainder of the
property remained Urban Density residential. Uses in the buildings along Rio Road in the
Neighborhood Service Center are not intended to change with this rezoning request. Urban Density
Residential provides for a density range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and incorporates a
range of dwelling types, as well as non-residential uses such as institutional, commercial, office and
service uses.
21. These properties are near a designated Neighborhood Service Center (along Rio Road). How is this development proposed
to relate to this Center for the community?
Response: See response to comment #20 above.
22. See below and attached for comments from the Zoning division. There may be additional comments from Planning once the
revisions and/or additional information identified by Zoning are provided.
Planning — Special Exception Application Comments (SE2021-00041)
1. In the project narrative, provide the application number— SE2021-00041.
Response: Narrative has been updated accordingly.
2. In the project narrative, identify the specific buildings for which the special exception is being requested. Numbers
or other identifiers should be provided to each of the proposed buildings on the application plan for reference.
Response: Narrative and plans have been updated accordingly.
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of
the staff report.
1. These properties are designated as Urban Density Residential and Urban Mixed -Use Center in the Places29 Master
Plan, which recommends a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet. The requested zoning district of PRD,
Planned Residential Development, permits a maximum height of 65 feet, which is not consistent with the Master Plan
recommendations.
Response: The proposed buildings will be within the recommendations of the Master Plan when using the definition of
building height within the Zoning Ordinance. The rear of some buildings will be taller than 45 feet, due to the design
for walkout basements and to incorporate the buildings into the terrain, which is in alignment with the Neighborhood
Model Principle "Grading that Respects Terrain". While the Master Plan does recommend a smaller building height,
given it also recommends a density of up to 34 units/acre, and given the requirements for amenities and parking, it
simply is not feasible to meet all the recommendations and requirements without having walkout basement
apartments. In addition, the proposed development is meeting other goals of the comprehensive plan, including the
Growth Management Policy and Objective 4 of the Comprehensive Plan's Development Areas Chapter: "Use
Development Area land efficiently to prevent premature expansion of the Development Areas'.
2. A parking lot and travelway are not appropriate uses for an Urban Mixed -Use Center.
Response: See response for comment #20 above.
3. Design of the area is also important for an Urban Mixed -Use Center, especially if the recommended mixture of
residential and commercial uses is not being provided.
Response: See response for comment #20 above.
4. This project, with 370 dwelling units proposed, will likely generate significant impacts on the surrounding area,
including on facilities such as transportation infrastructure and schools. This project is not in a priority area of the
Places29 Master Plan and is evaluated using the criteria identified on page 8-8 of the Master Plan (in Chapter 8).
Response: The proposal is for 250 total units. See response to comments regarding schools above and transportation
below. In addition, the PL29 Master Plan is over a decade old and has not been updated to current development and
implementation of projects recommended within the plan. During the rezoning of Brookhill, another development
outside of the priority area, an analysis was done on the completion of those transportation recommendations within
the Master Plan and found that the majority of those recommended were satisfied, and since that time even more of
those recommendations have been completed, including Hillsdale Drive extended.
On page 8-8 it states that the County would provide more guidance on proposed developments outside of priority
areas in the future: "As one of the first implementation projects under this Master Plan, County staff will develop more
detailed guidance, including specific objective criteria, in the form of a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment about
the County's expectations for proposed developments outside of the Priority Areas." If there is guidance and criteria
staff could provide for expectations of developments outside of Priority Areas, it would be helpful for this development
and others.
5. There does not appear to be an appropriate transition from the three- and four-story apartment buildings on the west
side of the site, to the existing single-family detached house and Four Seasons subdivision on the adjacentand nearby
parcels to the west
Response: A buffer is proposed along the western property line, and Four Season HOA has open space (TMP 61X1-
00-00-00100) between this proposed development and the units, that together provide an adequate buffer and
transition. In addition, it is our contention that a buffer or transition is not needed or required in between residential
uses, and that Objective 5 "Promote density within the Development Areas to help create new compact urban places"
with associated strategies within the Development Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan supports this.
Planning Division —Architectural Review Board (ARB)
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief
of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski(cDalbemarle.org:
1. Reconsider the alignment of the buildings fronting Rio Road. Orient buildings parallel to the EC street. Coordinate the
orientation and setback of the pairs of buildings at the entrances into the site to create opportunities for architecture to
support an organized appearance and to establish hierarchy.
Response: The buildings have been oriented such that they are parallel to Rio Road where possible. The exception is
the eastern most building adjacent to the EC, which given the size, has been oriented to the internal travelway. The
buildings and landscaping are subject to ARB review and approval the site plan stage and will meet the architectural
design and landscaping as required.
2. Move paved areas back from all street -facing elevations along Rio Road.
Response: The majority of the parking has been located to the rear of the building away from Rio Road, with the exception of
the eastern parking area. This parking area is set back X feet from the edge of Rio Road and will include landscape screening
as required by the ARB and the ordinance at site plan stage to block it from the EC.
3. Increase the depth of the landscape buffer on the perimeters of the development to provide sufficient planting area for
trees and shrubs. The current plan shows retaining walls severely limiting planting area along a majority of the perimeters.
Adjust notes and narrative accordingly.
Response: Lanscaping will be provided in the buffer where possible and practical. A buffer is not required for residential to
residential, therefore, it's appropriate for this area to have some retaining walls. Notes have been adjusted accordingly.
4. Retaining walls feature prominently in the streetscape along Rio Road. If visible from the street, appropriate materials,
colors, terracing and landscaping will be required.
Response: Noted.
5. Conceptual site sections could assist in explaining the impact (or lack thereof) of eliminating the stepback requirement.
Response: The buildings that are proposed to modify the stepback are those located behind the three-story buildings along
Rio Road where a stepback wouldn't be discernible or visible from the EC.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl[?o.albemarle.org.
1. Add a paragraph to the application plan describing how SWIM will be addressed (quality and quantity).
Response: Plan has been updated accordingly.
Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department
No objections at this time. Betty Slough, Building Plans Reviewer, bslough(&albemarle.org.
Office of Housing
Stacy Pethia, spethia(cb_albemarle.org.
1. The 15% affordable housing standard should be applied to the total number of units built, not the additional units
allowed under the rezoning.
Response: We contend that it is appropriate and reasonable to only require that the 15% affordable housing requirement
apply only to those units over -and -above the number of units already allowed by -right under the Property's existing zoning
(49 units). This is consistent with the prior approval for the near -by Oakleigh development where credit was given for the by -
right units towards the number of affordable required.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
No objections at this time. Howard Lagomarsino, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, hlagomarsino(cDalbemarle.org.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
ACSA plans reviewer, RichardNelson, rnelson(cbserviceauthority.org.
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? Water maincrosses through the
site. Sewer is located on the neighboring parcel.
3. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures in the
area are high. A Pressure Reducing Valve will be required for each building.
4. Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which theapplicant and staff
should be aware? N/A
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 siteplan/plat stage?
7. If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee?
8. Additional comments? RWSA will need to review and approve the water main connection along Rio Rd.
Response: Noted.
Attachment—ZMA2021-00011 The Heritage on Rio
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian There are several pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site, including amulti-
Orientation use path along the Rio Road frontage and sidewalks, with planting strips,along
Travelways A and B. However, it is unclear if pedestrian infrastructure isbeing
provided internal to the site. Such pedestrian connections are especiallyimportant for
access to the open space and recreational facilities for residents of the development.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: See illustrative plan for pedestrian facilities through the site.
Mixture of Uses The application provides for only one type of residential unit. In addition, a portion of
this property is designated for Urban Mixed Use Center; however, nomixture of uses is
being promoted or provided for.
This principle is not met.
Response: Viewing this area as a whole, a mixture of uses is provided within'% mile or
less. As response to comment #20 states, what is recommended is a Neighborhood
Service center, and the uses already in the area provide the mixture that is discussed
within the Master Plan and the proposed apartments support the mixture. Nearby,
proposed, or existing single family detached, single family attached, assisted living,
retail landscape use, veterans memorial park, and the proposed multi -family
apartments, all provide a wide variety of a mixture of uses and housing types in this
area. Please note that the guidance within the Comp Plan supports this by stating on
page 8.14 "All proposals will need to be considered in a larger context, particularly as
thev relate to the mix of uses."
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 ringof low density residential.
This project provides a centralized recreational amenity space; however, it isunclear
if this area is easily accessible to the rest of the development, as no pedestrian
connections are identified.
In addition, the northeastern portion of this property is designated as an UrbanMixed
Use Center in the Places29 plan. This area does not appear to be framed by the
development in any way, and a parking lot and travelway, is not an appropriate use for
such a land use designation.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: See response to comment #20 and Mixture of Uses above.
Mixture of Housing
The proposal provides for only one type of residential unit; however, the
Types and
applicant does propose to provide some affordable units.
Affordability
This principle is partially met.
7
area, a mixture of housing types is provided within % mile or less.
Interconnected The internal street network appears to largely be interconnected.
Streets and
Transportation In addition, there is an interparcel connection provided to the property to the south.
Networks There is a proposed interparcel connection identified to the property tothe west;
however, no standards or dimensions are provided for it.
No interparcel connections are provided to the property to the east. However, it
appears there is an existing access easement of some sort in the Oakleigh
development to the east. Is there any proposed connection through this projectwith
that access -way?
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: A future interconnection is shown on the updated plan to the east.
Multi -modal
This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric.
Transportation
Opportunities
However, there is a multi -use path proposed for the Rio Road frontage of the
development. In addition, a transit stop with shelter is proposed to be located along
Rio Road. Sidewalks are proposed along the travelways.
However, it is unclear if any additional internal sidewalks are proposed,
especially connecting to the proposed open space areas.
This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened.
Response: Internal sidewalks are shown on the updated plan. Please note, that there
are also existing bike lanes in this area along Rio Road that will remain with this
development.
Parks, Recreational
The proposal provides some areas of open space, including vegetative buffersand
Amenities, and Open
recreational facility areas, and also indicates that at least 25% of the site will be open
Space
space.
However, more information needs to be provided regarding the open space and
recreational areas for staff to adequately evaluate the recreational amenities and
open space provided on the site. As a PRD, there should be animproved level of
amenities.
The amenity and recreational areas provided do not appear to meet the
requirements of 18-4.16, including both minimum square footage of
recreational area and minimum required facilities.
The size and standards of the buffers are not provided.
Demonstrate that the minimum recreational requirements can be met,
including the number of tot lots and asphalt recreational areas.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: Additional amenity information has been provided.
Buildings and Spaceof I ne ouudmgs appear to be consistent with recommended building heights.
Human Scale In addition, there appear to be some large retaining walls around the site;however, their
proposed heights are not identified.
The transition from the three- and four-story apartment buildings in this development to
he adjacent single-family detached houses to the west doesnot promote a harmonious
scale. Although landscaped buffers are identified,their standards and size are not
provided, so it is difficult for staff to analyze their potential impact.
This principle is partialIV met and could be strengthened.
Response: Additional information regarding the size of the buffers has been provided.
Please see response to comment #5 under the Comp Plan comments for the transition.
Relegated Parking Most of the parking areas appear to be relegated from the Rio Road frontage. For the
areas that are not, screening landscaping would be appropriate to help buffer this
parking. However, the width of the proposed buffer areas is not provided. It is not clear if
any parallel parking is being provided along travelways.
sponse: Screening is required under the site plan for the proposed parking areas, in
iition the site plans and proposal adjacent to Rio Road are required to be approved
the ARB. This comment will be addressed in the site plan where the already existing
linances and design guidelines in place will need to be met.
Redevelopment The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property.This
principle is met.
Respecting Terrain
The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay ZoningDistrict.
and Careful Grading
Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be
and Re -grading of
disturbed if the design standards of Section 18-30.7.5 areadhered to. This includes
Terrain
future buildings and parking areas.
This principle appears to be met.
Clear Boundaries with
The subject property is located within Neighborhood 1 of the Places29 MasterPlan
the Rural Area
area. It is adjacent to the Rural Area boundary (across Rio Road). It appears that the
provision of a landscaped buffer along the Rio Road frontageof this project provides a
boundary with the Rural Area across the road; however, the proposed size of this
buffer is not identified.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: The Comprehensive Plan under this principle states: "In most
circumstances, development in the Development Areas should extend to the Rural
Area boundary in order to use the full potential of the Development Areas and not have
to expand into the Rural Area." And specifically identifies this area as an example
illustration on page 8.26. A buffer is not needed, however one is provided to allow for
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Phone:
401 McIntire Road, North Wing 434.296.5832www.albemarle.org
Charlottesville, VA 22902.4579
MEMORANDUM
To: Applicant
From: Kevin McDermott; Planning Manager
Date: October 28, 2021
Re: ZMA202100011 — The Heritage on Rio Transportation Comments
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation Planning has reviewed
theabove referenced plan and associated traffic impact analysis as submitted by Ramey Kemp Associates (September
2021) and offers the following comments:
Traffic Impact Analysis
• Hydraulic Rd/RioRd/Earlysville Rd/Townwood Dr (Table 2)
o Lane Storage and Lane Group columns are mixed up.
Response: This was a typo and has been revised. See included update.
o Why does the PM WBT/R improve from No Build to Build?
Response: Splits were optimized in No -Build and Build conditions in the original TIA submittal. In the revised
TIA, splits were optimized for Build conditions only, and the delay for the WBT/R movement now increases from
No -Build to Build.
o Although there are not significant increases between No Build and Build queuing conditions are
concerning especially those movements where the lane storage is significantly exceeded. The
studydoesn't identify any potential solutions to address this.
Response: Existing conditions show queues extending beyond the storage lanes for the EBL and SBL
movements with existing timings in place. When the signal timing is optimized for the Build conditions, the
operation of the EBL movement improves significantly, but the operation of the SBL degrades. However, the
overall operation of the intersection would improve dramatically — the overall average delay would decrease by
35% in the PM peak hour. Note that this project will not add any vehicles to the EBL movement, and just 1
vehicle to the SBL movement.
• Staff recommends the western site driveway as a right-in/right-out access to reduce confusion and improve safety
of the TWLTL. Improvements to the median may be necessary to ensure safety of the motorists
Response: VDOT requires 470 feet between full -movement driveways on Rio Road West, and the proposed driveway
is 480 feet west of the existing Rehab Center driveway, which exceeds the minimum spacing standards.
Rio Rd West/Berkmar Dr (Table 5)
o Lane Storage and Lane Group columns are mixed up.
Response: This was a typo and has been revised. See included update.
o Why does the PM EBL improve from Existing to No Build and Build?
Response: Existing PM timing splits were based on Coordination Pattern 21. Splits were then optimized in No -Build
and Build conditions in the original TIA submittal. The eastbound left -turn only receives 14 seconds of green time,
which is too short when there are 451 left turns. In the revised TIA, the green time for this movement was held for
the No -Build conditions, and increased significantly when the Synchro model optimized the Build conditions.
o Why does the PM SBL improve from No Build to Build?
10
Response: Splits were optimized in No -Build and Build conditions in the original TIA submittal. In the revised TIA,
splits were optimized for Build conditions only, and the delay for this movement now increases from No -Build to
Build.
o Although there are not significant increases between No Build and Build, queuing conditions are
concerning especially those movements where the lane storage is significantly exceeded and at the EBL
where the queueing in the TWLTL extends to a length that blocks numerous commercial and private street
entrances. The study doesn't identify any potential solutions to address this.
Response: The eastbound left -turn queue at this intersection is 855 feet in the PM peak hour under no -build
conditions. A second eastbound left -turn lane would be needed to significantly shorten the queue length, but that
would be very expensive to build due to steep slopes and a signal pole in the west quadrant, and the existing building
in the north quadrant of the intersection. The projected no -build volume is 486 vehicles, and the site will add just 4
vehicles — less than a 1% impact, so this project should not be responsible for geometric improvements at this
intersection. The analysis shows that optimizing the signal timing would improve the operation of this movement,
and the overall intersection to LOS D.
• The Recommendations state that all of the intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS. However, the queuing
that extends significantly beyond the available storage or through other access points.
Response: We acknowledge that there are some individual movements that currently experience queueing issues, but
this project will not significantly increase the volume on those movements, and the analysis shows that optimizing the
signal timing would provide some relief to those movements.
Application Plan
• If the development proposes to remove the existing bike lane on Rio staff suggests providing a ramp for bicyclists
to access the shared -use path across the frontage of the of the property from that bike lane. Another option,
which would be preferred is to extend the shared -use path to the next adjacent curb cut beyond the property
boundary.
Response: The development is not proposing to remove the bike lanes from Rio Road, however, a ramp has
been provided and is noted on the updated plans.
• Please provide information on how pedestrian and bike connectivity will be provided internal to the site.
Response: Sidewalks have added to the plan that will provide pedestrian access internal to the development. Bicyclist
can simply use the travelways provided.
• Staff recommends identifying additional infrastructure for bicyclists such as storage and/or bike parking.
Response: Bike storage and/or racks will be determined as needed at the site plan stage or if requested by the future
residents.
• The proposed transit stop will likely be difficult to permit in the VDOT right -of way. Staff suggests moving it out of
the VDOT right-of-way and placing on private property with a public access easement and maintenance
agreement.
Response: A note has been added to the plan that states that the proposed transit stop will be located at the site
plan stage in coordination with the County, CAT, and VDOT.
11
2
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
i;
��BGIN�Q'
To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner Zoning
Date: November 5, 201
Re: Zoning Review for ZMA202100011 The Heritage on Rio (Application Plan and Narrative dated
September 20, 2021)
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application.Sheet 1-
Application Plan
1. Number building envelopes and active recreation areas.
Response: Plan has been updated accordingly.
2. Update this sheet so that limits of Travelways A and B are clearly discernable on the plans.
Response: Plan has been updated accordingly.
3. Where will parking be located? Lots, garages, etc?
Response: Parking will meet the standards of the ordinance at site plan stage and be located within the buildings
(structured) or on lots shown within the parking envelopes.
4. Add front setback lines along Travelway B serving TMP45-26.
Response: Setbacks are defined as "the distance by which any building or structure is separated from any street,
road access easement, or lot line." Travelway B is neither a street, road, or lot line, and therefore, setbacks only
apply to Rio Road.
5. Provide a deed book and page number reference on the application plan for Travelway B. Provide
verification that the travelway can serve as access to the proposed development.
Response: Information has been provided regarding this easement.
6. The open space chart and regulations should be moved to accompany the other notes on Sheet 2 thatapply to
recreation.
Response: There is not enough room on Sheet 2 for this chart, so we left it on the application plan, as it relates
to these sheet.
7. Minimum width for all landscape buffers must be established.
Response: Width of buffers are noted on the updated plans.
8. Transit Stop- Comments from transportation reviewers are needed to finalize comments on the proposed
transit stop. Minimum standards must be established on the application plan for the transit stop.
Response: Additional information has been noted on the plans regarding the elements of the transit stop
which will include a shelter and bench.
9. The application plans need to clarify how the limit of 20 units within the Neighborhood Service Centerwill be
enforced. Does the note apply to the entire building envelope at the corner of Rio and Travelway? The Urban
Density/Neighborhood Service Center line is bisecting the building envelope.
Response: The entire building will only contain 28 units. The note has been clarified.
10. Establish minimum standards for the interparcel connection to TMP 45-26131.
Response: Width of the interparcel connection has been provided on the plans.
Sheet 2-
11. Allowable Uses -Please clarify whether the intent is to allow future non-residential uses within the PRD.
Response: Plan has been clarified to state that the uses permitted will be in accordance with the PRD.
12. Parking reductions may only be approved after review of a full parking study:
a. For each request to modify the minimum number of parking spaces required by section 4.12.6,
the developer shall submit a study prepared by a transportation planner, traffic consultant,
12
licensed engineer or architect justifying the modification. The study shall include the following:
(i) a calculation of the number of off-street parking spaces required by section 4.12.6;
(ii) the total square footage of all uses within the existing and proposed development
and the square footage devoted to each type of use therein;
(iii) trip generation rates expected for the uses within the existing and proposed
development;
(iv) data pertaining to a similar use or uses and the associated parking needs;
(v) the developer's plan to provide alternative solutions to off-street parking on the lot;
NO the developer's plan to provide incentives for employees to use transportation
modes other than single -occupancy motor vehicles; and
(vii) an amended site plan, or if no site plan exists, a schematic drawing, demonstrating
that the number of off-street parking spaces required by section 4.12.6 can be
established on the lot, and showing which spaces would not be established if the
modification is granted.
Response: A parking reduction request has been included with this resubmittal.
13. Land dedicated to public use -This note needs to specify minimum standards for the ROW dedication along with
any other improvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts identified by transportation reviewers. The
project narrative seems to indicate in the last bullet under the traffic studyon page 6 that two improvements are
necessary?
Response: The improvements identified in the traffic study are shown on the Application Plan. Since the approval
will require any future plans be in general accord with the Application Plan, as well as approved by VDOT and the
County, additional information is not needed. The right of way dedication is shown as well, and the width varies, if
there is specific language the County or VDOT prefers to be used, please provide the language to be
incorporated on the plans.
14. Building architecture -Is this note necessary given that the buildings along Rio are subject to the ARB review and
EC guidelines? If there are specific standards staff believes are important and beyond the guidelines and notes
are needed, the note will need to be revised. As written, it is too general for zoningenforcement purposes.
Response: Note has been revised to state that the buildings are subject to ARB review and approval.
15. Buffers -Specific minimum standards for all buffers and screening need to be established. It is preferredthat
standards already in the ordinance apply such as those found in Section 32.7.9.7.
Response: Note has been added to the plan that all buffers will meet standards set in Section 32.7.9.7.
16. Affordable Housing -The Housing Planner should review these regulations before they are finalized. At aminimum,
language should be added to ensure the requirements are enforceable and use standard language. Examples
can be provided. Also, the narrative describes this note as a proffer, which it is not.
Response: The note and narrative have been revised accordingly.
17. Notes should be organized by category. All open space and rec requirements should be in one place.All public
road requirements/notes should be in the same place. Please reorganize accordingly.
Response: Notes have been reorganized accordingly.
18. Regarding open space, it appears the notes are intended to clarify the regulations of Section 4. Please
replace them with the exact wording from the ordinance. Any modifications to the section mustbe expressly
authorized in the rezoning action.
Response: Note has been revised to reference requirements in 4.7.
19. Delete Notes 1, 9
Response: Notes have been removed.
20. Notes 8 appears to indicate that the requirements of Section 4.16 will be met and no reduction in amenities has been
requested. Based on the number of units, 5 tot lots would be required for example along with the other recreation
requirements of Section 4.16. To avoid any confusion at site plan stage, clarify what is required and specific waivers
and substitutions should be addressed with the rezoning. For example, if the number of required tot lots are being
reduced, this needs to be documented as to what equivalent substitution is acceptable. The swimming pool, club
house, and rec field are acceptablesubstitutions for the basketball courts. Minimum specifications must be provided
for the amenities listed proposed
Response: A recreational substitution request will be submitted with the site plan, if required.
Sheet 3-Grading Plan
21. A legend should be added to this sheet.
Response: Legend has been added.
22. Update this sheet so that limits of Travelways A and B are clearly discernable on the plans and whereon -street
parking is proposed.
13
23. Make sure all proposed retaining walls are shown on the plans. If proposed or recommended by other staff,
include any special standards for the retaining ways on that sheet if they differ from the ordinance.
Response: Potential retaining walls are shown on the plans. Since the plan has not been fully engineered, as is
not required at rezoning stage, retaining walls may need to be added or removed. Retaining walls adjacent to the
entrance corridor will require ARB review and approval, along with engineering at the site plan stage and will
meet ordinance requirements.
24. Are the stormwater facilities proposed sufficient? Can all stormwater requirements, minimum recreationand other
open space requirements be met within the open space shown?
Response: Stormwater requirements along with the other requirements can be met and will be detailed at site
plan.
25. SE202100041- The application plan needs to indicate which buildings, and where on the buildings, any
conditions of approval related to the special exception apply. Conditions should be listed on the application plan.
Response: No conditions are proposed with the special exception request, if the County will be imposing
conditions, please provide those conditions to be added to the plans. Buildings that are subject to the requested
special exception have been noted.
26. SP200900005-A special use permit was approved on this parcel to allow an-offsite sign for the Charlottesville
Health and Rehabilitation Center. There are no conditions of approval with the SP and off -site signs are allowed in
all districts. R6 and PRD are subject to the same sign regulations. Off -site signs count towards the number of
freestanding signs that may be allowed on the parcel where they arelocated. Please refer to Section 4.15 for
complete sign regulations along v%fith Section 3 for definitions. Please let me know if you would like to discuss
signage further.
Response: Noted.
14
D
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
October 20, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development401
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902Attn:
Andy Reitelbach
Re: The Heritage on Rio — Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-2021-00011
Review #1
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section,
has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Collins Engineering, dated 20September
2021, and offers the following comments:
1. The two entrances are too close together according to Table 2-2 of Appendix F of theRoad
Design Manual. One will likely have to be designed as directional crossover orpartial access.
Response: VDOT requires 470 feet between full -movement driveways on Rio Road West, and the proposed
driveway is 480 feet west of the existing Rehab Center driveway, which exceeds the minimum spacing
standards.
2. Shared -use paths allow access for bikes and pedestrians, while the sidewalks on either end of
the property only allow access for pedestrians. Provide ramps on either end of the shared -use
path to allow bikes to move back to the marked bike -lane on Rio Rd and ensure that blind
pedestrians won't accidentally move down them.
Response: Required ramps will be provided and shown at the site plan stage.
3. The proposed bus shelter should be behind the shared -use path, and outside of the right-of-
way.
Response: A notation to the plan has been added that states the bus shelter will be located at
site plan in coordination with the County, CAT, and VDOT.
4. Comments from Traffic Engineering on the Traffic Impact Analysis:
a. The phase configuration for the signal at Hydraulic & Earlysville / Townwood will need to
be adjusted to reflect fill condition (see figure in Enclosure (1) for reference). Rio Rd /
Hydraulic may still be maintained as an east -west roadway asshown in the models but
the phases will need to be swapped.
Response: The phasing has been revised.
b. Under the Existing 2021 AM and PM Conditions, pedestrian timing (7 seconds ofwalk
time and 35 seconds of FDW) on phase 6 is missing in the Synchro files.
Response: The pedestrian timings have been added to phase 6 at the intersection of
Hydraulic / Rio Road at Earlysville Road / Townwood Drive.
c. The Maximum Split times shown in the Synchro files for the Existing Conditionsat
Hydraulic & Earlysville / Townwood do not match the signal timing sheets provided in
the July 28th FOIA request. Note that the signal timing should matchwhat is currently
15
running in the controller and it should not be optimized under the existing / No Build
conditions.
Response: There were no Time of Day plans provided in the signal timings so splits
were optimized in all conditions. The Synchro has been revised to include Max 2 splits
at this intersection for Existing and No -Build scenarios.
d. At the intersection of Rio Rd / Berkmar Dr, please use the Min Green times on page 1
of the timing sheet rather the Perm Min Green shown on page 8 for bothAM and PM
peak periods. There are 4 pedestrian crosswalks at the Rio Rd / Berkmar Dr
intersection but none of them are shown in the Synchro model. Theped phases, timing,
and volumes (if any) will need to be added to the Synchro files for both AM and PM
peak hours.
Response: Min green times have been used as the "Minimum Initial' setting in the
revised Synchro models. Pedestrian phases, volumes and timings have been
included in the revised analysis.
e. Ensure that effective storage lengths for all turn lanes are consistent with the latestversion
of the VDOT TOASAM document, including removal of all taper lengthsin the Synchro
models.
Response: The synchro models have been updated to include effective storage lengths for
turn lanes and tapers have been set to zero.
f. It is understood that Berkmar has a 3-lane cross section on the south side of Rio Rd,
but based on Street View (2019), vehicles are entering the intersection in theleft lane.
Please adjust the lane alignment for WBL and EBR to L-NA in the Synchro models to
reflect existing condition.
Response: The simulation settings have been adjusted as requested.
g. Please remove the Bend Node west of the intersection of Rio Rd / Health &Rehab
Driveway as it will affect delay at that intersection for EB vehicles.
Response: This node was included to note the location of the future driveway for
existing and no -build conditions. The node has been removed even though delay
at the Health & Rehab Driveway remained the same.
h. It appears that warrant for a right -turn taper is met at Rio Rd / Health & Rehab
Driveway during the PM peak so why is it not being recommended at this location?
Response: The build -out traffic volumes are well below the right -turn taper threshold
in the AM peak hour, and barely meet the warrant in the PM peak hour. A right -turn
taper on Rio Road West is not recommended in this case because it would provide
little benefit, and it would be very expensive to build due to the following:
o The existing Rehab Center monument sign would have to be relocated
o A drainage inlet would have to be relocated
o The steep slope of the shoulder would require significant fill and grading
Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
Response: Noted.
Heritage on Rio Response to 1st Review County Comments(46494380.4)
16