Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100011 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-11-05COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 November 5, 2021 Ms. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 vlong@williamsmullen.com / 434-951-5709 RE: ZMA202100011 The Heritage on Rio Dear Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202100011, The Heritage on Rio. 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 (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.) 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. 3. It is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat would be needed to vacate the property lines between the various 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.) 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 percent of 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, as well as the required minimum recreational facilities. 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 %-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each is required. c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate facilities are provided. d. More information needs to be provided on the proposed buffers, including their width. e. How is the central "recreational amenity space" proposed to be accessed from throughout the site? f. The acreage of open space as labelled on the application plan does not reach the required minimum of 25%of the site. g. See comments from Zoning for more information on open space and recreational area requirements. 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. Safety features such as crosswalks should also be provided. 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 designation of uses and number of units. 7. Clarify whether parallel parking is permitted on Travelway B by the existing deed of easement. 8. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor? 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. 10. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? 11. Provide more information on the dimensions of the proposed interparcel connection to the west-southwest, with TMP 45-26B 1. There is no width or other information identified with it. 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. 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. 14. Provide more information in the project narrative on this proposal's impact on police and fire service. 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 identifying the 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 16. The project narrative indicates that all students who will live in this development will come from elsewhere in the County. How is it known that there will be no new County residents living in this development, adding additional students to the school system from current enrolment levels? Provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated by this proposed development. 17. In the narrative, provide more detail on the variety of recreational and other amentities available for use, as no amenities are identified on the application plan other than a few small areas of green space. (See also comment #4 above.) 18. On the cover sheet of the application plan and in the project narrative, provide the application number — ZMA2021-00011. 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? 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. 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? 21. 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 (SE2021-00041I 1. In the project narrative, provide the application number— SE2021-00041. 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. 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. 2. A parking lot and travelway are not appropriate uses for an Urban Mixed Use Center. 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. 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). 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 adjacent and nearby parcels to the west. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided (see attached document Consistency with Neighborhood Model) on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model principles. Planning Division — Transportation Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Transportation Planning reviewer Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning, kmcdermottgalbemarle.org . 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@albemarle.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. 2. Move paved areas back from all street -facing elevations along Rio Road. 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. 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. 5. Conceptual site sections could assist in explaining the impact (or lack thereof) of eliminating the stepback requirement. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Zoning reviewer Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner, ffaesdalea,albemarle.ore. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fnohla,albemarle.om. Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Betty Slough, Building Plans Reviewer, bslou hg galbemarle.org. Housing Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, Methig&albemarle.org. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue No objections at this time. Howard Lagomarsino, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, hlaQomarsino@albemarle.org. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from the VDOT contact — Adam Moore, adam.moore nnvdot.virainia.gov. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter, which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. 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, X. A"dwW Read" Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Subdivision Yield Analysis, ACPS Consistency with Neighborhood Model Memorandum from Kevin McDermott, Transportation Planning Memorandum from Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning Division Memorandum from Adam Moore, VDOT ZMA2021-00011 Action After Receipt of Comments Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Date Schedule Subdivision Yield Analysis Prepared by Cooperative Strategies for ACPS on August 23, 2021 Link to full report: hftps:Hresources.finalsite.net/images/vl 631898706/kl 2albemadeoEg/nxhuwduvwi8718wuyugo/ACS SubdivisionAnalysis 20210802.pdf (page 28) The table below shows the student yields by boundary, separated by housing type. The yields are grade configuration specific, meaning that if a school has a K-5 grade configuration, the yield for that boundary is based on the number of K-5 students living in that boundary. This is the case for middle school and high school as well. Student potential values should be calculated by multiplying the yield by housing type, by boundary, by the number of units expected to be developed. In cases where a housing type is currently absent within a boundary, or where the housing type yield within a boundary is an outlier, the district -wide average should be used. An example of this is the Baker -Butler Elementary School boundary; the apartment yield for this boundary is 0.80 elementary -aged students per unit, however, there are only 5 apartment units currently within that boundary. In this case, the district -wide average yield of 0.09 for elementary students living within apartment units should be used. 2019-20 Boundary AGNOR-HURT Student Yields by Boundary Apartment Condo 008 0.10 (Grade - Specific) Mobile Single Family OAS 0.14 Townhome BAKER -BUTLER 0180 033 021 BROADUS WOOD 0.13 BROWNSVILLE 0.05 033 028 CROZET 0.00 027 020 GREER 0.14 0.23 0.12 0.11 HOLLYMEAD 0.09 026 0.19 MERIWETHER LEWIS 0.00 021 MOUNTAIN VIEW 0.05 0.56 0.14 MURRAY 0.00 0.14 RED HILL 0.09 SCOTTSVILLE 0.00 023 STONE-ROBINSON OD2 0.00 - 0.11 0.02 STONY POINT 0.13 QAO 0.1S WOODBROOK 0.13 034 - 0.13 0.01 BURLEY 1 0.03 1 0.05 022 OA6 OL02 HENLEY 0.03 0.00 024 0.10 - )OUETT 0,06 0.09 028 OA7 0.06 LAKESIDE 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.10 WALTON 0.01 OAO OAS - ALBEMARLE 1 0.06 1 0.10 is 027 1 0.06 1O.OB MONTICELLO 0.03 0.00 029 0.09 0.01 WESTERN ALBEMARLE 004 0.00 0.12 0.1S - 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 a Orientation multi -use path along the Rio Road frontage and sidewalks, with planting strips, along Travelways A and B. However, it is unclear if pedestrian infrastructure is being provided internal to the site. Such pedestrian connections are especially important for access to the open space and recreational facilities for residents of the development. This principle is partially met and could be strengthened. 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, no mixture of uses is being promoted or provided for. This principle is not 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. This project provides a centralized recreational amenity space; however, it is unclear 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 Urban Mixed 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. 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. 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 Networks south. There is a proposed interparcel connection identified to the property to the 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 project with that access -way? This principle is partially met and could be strengthened. 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. Parks, Recreational The proposal provides some areas of open space, including vegetative buffers Amenities, and Open and recreational facility areas, and also indicates that at least 25% of the site Space will be open 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 an improved 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. Buildings and Space The buildings appear to be consistent with recommended building heights. of 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 the adjacent single-family detached houses to the west does not 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 partially met and could be strengthened. 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. This principle is partially met and could be strengthened. Redevelopment The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property. This principle is met. The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning Respecting Terrain 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 includes 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 Master the Rural Area Plan 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 frontage of 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. County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 MEMORANDUM Phone: 434.296.5832 www.albemarle.org 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 the above 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. o Why does the PM WBT/R improve 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 study doesn't identify any potential solutions to address this. • 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 Rio Rd West/Berkmar Dr (Table 5) o Lane Storage and Lane Group columns are mixed up. o Why does the PM EBL improve from Existing to No Build and Build? o Why does the PM SBL improve 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. 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. 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. Please provide information on how pedestrian and bike connectivity will be provided internal to the site. Staff recommends identifying additional infrastructure for bicyclists such as storage and/or bike parking. County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 Phone: 434.296.5832 www.albemarle.org • 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. 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(a)albemarle.ore z County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner Date: November 5, 201 REBECCA RAGSDALE Principal Planner, Zoning rragsdale@albemarle.org 434-296-5832 ext. 3226 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. 2. Update this sheet so that limits of Travelways A and B are clearly discernable on the plans. 3. Where will parking be located? Lots, garages, etc? 4. Add front setback lines along Travelway B serving TMP45-26. 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. 6. The open space chart and regulations should be moved to accompany the other notes on Sheet 2 that apply to recreation. 7. Minimum width for all landscape buffers must be established. 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. 9. The application plans need to clarify how the limit of 20 units within the Neighborhood Service Center will 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. 10. Establish minimum standards for the interparcel connection to TMP 45-26131. Sheet 2- 11. Allowable Uses -Please clarify whether the intent is to allow future non-residential uses within 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, 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; (vi) 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.E can be established on the lot, and showing which spaces would not be established if the modification is granted. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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 study on page 6 that two improvements are necessary? 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 zoning enforcement purposes. 15. Buffers -Specific minimum standards for all buffers and screening need to be established. It is preferred that standards already in the ordinance apply such as those found in Section 32.7.9.7. 16. Affordable Housing -The Housing Planner should review these regulations before they are finalized. At a minimum, 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. 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. 18. Regarding open space, it appears the notes are intended to clarify the regulations of Section 4.7. Please replace them with the exact wording from the ordinance. Any modifications to the section must be expressly authorized in the rezoning action. 19. Delete Notes 1, 9 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 acceptable substitutions for the basketball courts. Minimum specifications must be provided for the amenities listed proposed Sheet 3-Grading Plan 21. A legend should be added to this sheet. 22. Update this sheet so that limits of Travelways A and B are clearly discernable on the plans and where on -street parking is proposed. 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. 24. Are the stormwater facilities proposed sufficient? Can all stormwater requirements, minimum recreation and other open space requirements be met within the open space shown? 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. 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 are located. Please refer to Section 4.15 for complete sign regulations along with Section 3 for definitions. Please let me know if you would like to discuss signage further. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 October 20, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: The Heritage on Rio — Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2021-00011 Review # 1 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: (804) 7862701 Fax: (804) 7862940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Collins Engineering, dated 20 September 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. The two entrances are too close together according to Table 2-2 of Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. One will likely have to be designed as directional crossover or partial access. 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. 3. The proposed bus shelter should be behind the shared -use path, and outside of the right- of-way. 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 as shown in the models but the phases will need to be swapped. b. Under the Existing 2021 AM and PM Conditions, pedestrian timing (7 seconds of walk time and 35 seconds of FDW) on phase 6 is missing in the Synchro files. c. The Maximum Split times shown in the Synchro files for the Existing Conditions at Hydraulic & Earlysville / Townwood do not match the signal timing sheets provided in the July 28th FOIA request. Note that the signal timing should match what is currently running in the controller and it should not be optimized under the existing / No Build conditions. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING October 20, 2021 Attn: Andy Reitelbach 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 both AM 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. The ped phases, timing, and volumes (if any) will need to be added to the Synchro files for both AM and PM peak hours. e. Ensure that effective storage lengths for all turn lanes are consistent with the latest version of the VDOT TOASAM document, including removal of all taper lengths in the Synchro models. 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 the left lane. Please adjust the lane alignment for WBL and EBR to L-NA in the Synchro models to reflect existing condition. 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. 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? 5. 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. Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. 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. Asst. Resident Engineer — Land Use Charlottesville Residency October 20, 2021 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Enclosure (1) intersection Intersection Description 743Hydraulic/E arlysville&631 Rio&T ownood Intersection Number 2117 Phase Labels 1 NBL 743 2 SB 631 3 EBL 743 4 WB Town 5 SBL 631 6 NB 743 7 WBL Town 8 FEB 743 9 NBL FYA 1U EBL — 11 SBL FYA 12 EBR 1+8 13 Ped 2 14 15 Ped 6 16 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for December 14, 2021, which is within 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you need more time to make these changes, and if you prefer to move forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval, you must request deferral. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below. Within one week please do one of the following: (1) Request deferral, as required by Section 33.11, if you will resubmit, but would like to receive comments on the revised submittal, and understand the Planning Commission date will be later than December 14, 2021 (2) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on December 14, 2021 (3) Withdraw your application (1) Deferral requested To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. Please note that your request for deferral may not be accepted and the County may retain the initial scheduled hearing date. If your request for deferral is accepted the application will be deemed withdrawn if the application is not reactivated within six months of the request for deferral or within 32 months from the time the application was determined or deemed complete. (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 14, 2021 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on December 14, 2021. With this option no additional documents will be accepted, and staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant to subsection 33.11 and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as provided in subsection 33.11. Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. Resubmittal of information for �$��°F"`8 Zoning Map Amendment t ��RG/NAP PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2021-00011 The Heritage on Rio 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 ❑ Technologv surcharge +4% 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 ❑ Technology surcharge +4% 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 Amount $ Date Paid By who? 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.