HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100011 Correspondence 2022-02-22 (2)The Heritage on Rio
ZMA 2021-00011
Response to Comments dated February 3, 2022
To: Andy Reitelbach
Date: February 21, 2022
Planning - General ZMA Comments (ZMA2021-00011)
1. 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.
a. More information needs to be provided on the proposed buffers, including their width. The
buffer area needs to be removed from the access easement that provides access to the
rehabilitation center, as there cannot be a landscaping buffer on top of the driveway.
Revise any appropriate buffer/open space calculations.
Response: Plans have been adjusted accordingly.
2. 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. Have sidewalks been
considered on the north side of the property to connect the proposed bus stop shelter with the
parking lot and sidewalks directly to the south? Such connections would also support more
direct access to the transit stop for residents who live in the rearbuildings or are coming
from/going to the clubhouse area.
Response: Sidewalks have been added to the illustrative plan and indicated on the application plan, to
provide additional connections to the bus stop and multi -use path.
3. 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 capacityhave been closely considered
by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors recently. 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 addition aIstudents to the school system from current enrolment
levels? Provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated by
this proposed development.
Thank you for providing the additional information on the expected impacts to schools
from this development. Schools continue to be a significant topic of discussion among
both the Planning Commissionand the Board of Supervisors for proposed residential
projects. For your information, the School Board and the County are currently working on
the FY23 budget, so more information on the proposed school improvement projects to
be included in that budget will be available in the coming months.
No additional information was provided on the assertion that students in this development will
simply comefrom other parts of the County. Even if that is the case, new students could move
into those housing units vacated by this development's residents, still increasing the overall
number of students served by the school district.
Response: Thank you for this information. As outlined in our narrative, there is sufficient capacity at
both the elementary and middle school levels, and the proposed High School Center II project will
address capacity issues at Albemarle High School.
4. 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 developmentproposed to relate to this Center for the community?
Taking into account the entire Neighborhood Service Center as a whole, the proposed
apartment units andassociated parking are able to meet the land use recommendations
for a mix of uses in the center, as this project adds residential units to a Center that is
currently largely commercial. However, the design recommendations for a Center are not
met — the parking lot areas should be relegated from the Rio Road frontage so as not to
be visible from the right-of-way.
Response: From the Relegated Parking Section of the Comprehensive Plan: "Relegated parking occurs
when parking lots are located to the side or rear of the buildings along a street." Since Building #4 is
oriented towards Travelway B, the parking is relegated to the side/rear of the building and will be
screened from Rio Road. The parking lot between Buildings 2 and 3 are to the side of the building and
will be screened as well. The plan has been revised to indicate and show adequate area for screening
the proposed parking area adjacent to Rio Road. In addition, the ARB and site plan requirements will
provide adequate screening and landscaping for this small amount of parking.
Access to public transit is also a recommendation for centers. Although there is no transit
stop located directly within this Center, it does appear that a transit stop, with a proposed
upgrade including a shelter and bench, is shown to the west of the Center, and still on this
property. It is recommended this is discussed further in the project narrative.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, the narrative has been updated to highlight the transit
stop.
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. This comment
has not been fully addressed. Renderings of the site from street -level may be helpful to
better explain the transition and how the buffer area will be addressed.
Response: A cross section has been provided with this submittal to show the relationship
between the proposed building and the existing home. The existing home, while one story,
does have a basement that is exposed on the side closest to the proposed apartment
building, so that it is essentially a two-story building on that side. However, it should be
noted that that property and home are designated as Urban Density Residential on the
Comprehensive Plan (just as is the property subject to this application), and the parcel is
zoned R6 Residential. In addition, in the applicant's correspondence with the owner, they
have relayed their plan to redevelop the parcel based on its existing R6 zoning. Given this
information, it is anticipated that this single-family home will not be retained in the future.
6. Zoning division review is pending. There may be additional comments from Planning
once the comments identified by Zoning are provided.
Response: See response to Zoning comments included in this letter.
Planning Division —Architectural Review Board (ARB)
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB
Staff Planner (Chiefof Resource Planning), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org:
1. Orient the north elevations of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 parallel to the EC street.
Response: The buildings have been oriented so they are parallel to the EC street.
2. Maintain the orientation of the east elevation of Building 3 and the west elevation of
Building 4 parallel toTravelway B.
Response: The curvature of the road and the existing overhead utilities make it
difficult to maintain the orientation of the buildings along both the Travelway and
Rio Road. Given these constraints, along with providing sufficient space for
landscaping, the buildings have been adjusted as much as possible to provide a
consistent elevation along Rio Road and Travelway B.
3. Maintain the orientation of the east elevation of Building 1 and the sets elevation of
Building 2 parallel toTravelway A.
Response: As shown on the illustrative plan, the orientation of the east elevation of
Building 1 and Building 2 parallel to Travelway A have been maintained.
4. Maintain equal setback from the EC street for Buildings 1 and 2.
Response: Equal setback has been maintained for Buildings 1 and 2.
5. Maintain equal setback from the EC street for Buildings 3 and 4.
Response: The curvature of the road and the existing overhead utilities make it
difficult to maintain the orientation of the buildings along Rio Road. Given these
constraints, along with providing sufficient space for landscaping, the buildings have
been adjusted as much as possible to provide a consistent elevation along Rio Road.
6. Move parking areas back from all street -facing elevations along Rio Road.
Response: Cross sections and dimensions have been added to the plan to indicate the area
available for plantings and provide assurance that there will be enough space for required
ARB landscaping at the site plan stage to screen the parking adequately. The plan has been
revised to indicate and show adequate area for screening the proposed parking area
adjacent to Rio Road.
7. Show a minimum of 10' of planting area able to accommodate large shade trees along all parking lot
perimeters.
Response: A minimum of 10' of planting area is available to meet this requirement, and the
application plan has the areas labeled.
8. Provide information to confirm that the retaining walls along the EC street will be
incorporated into the development as integrated site elements with an appropriate
appearance for the EC. The EC Guidelines call for limiting the use of retaining walls, but
retaining walls feature prominently throughout the site, including along theRio Road
streetscape. The concern with retaining walls so close to the EC street (whether they are
"facing in or out") is that they could have the appearance of engineered site elements but
should be used as — and look like —fully integrated site elements. Copied below for reference
are two images from the Oakleigh project (ARB-2018- 133, SDP-2017-05) showing one of the
Oakleigh buildings along the EC frontage with retaining walls as integratedsite elements.
Retaining walls are located between the street and the building and landscaping is provided
along the street and between the walls and the building. The retaining walls frame a plaza and
the landscaping not only meets the EC guidelines but supports and enhances the wall and
plaza elements.
Response: Cross sections and dimensions have been added to the plan to indicate the area
available for plantings and provide assurance that there will be enough space for required
ARB landscaping at the site plan stage.
w, r+tw
.vw wawa•
Planning Division- Transportation
Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org
1. Despite the fact that the poor operations of the Hydraulic Rd/Rio Rd/Earlysville Rd/Townwood Dr
intersection and Rio Rd West/Berkmar Dr intersection are predicted to exist in both the No -build and
the Build analysis the poor operations remain a concern for staff.
Response: The site trips are expected to increase the total approach volume at the Rio Road West /
Berkmar Drive intersection by less than 3%, and at the Hydraulic Road / Rio Road West at Earlysville
Road / Townwood Drive intersection by less than 1 %. Therefore, the cost of geometric improvements
aimed at fixing existing operational problems would not be proportional to the trip impact of this
project.
2. If the applicant is seeking a parking reduction then identifying enhancements to the internal bicycle
and pedestrian network including safe, convenient, bike parking in the application is recommended.
Response: Bike accommodations have been provided and potential locations have been identified on
the plans.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
No objections. County Engineer, Frank Pohl,fpohl@albemarle.org.
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@albemarle.org.
Application Narrative: The applicant is proposing to provide 15% of the units representing the
difference between the number of units that could be developed on the property under the current R-
6 zoning, and the number that could be developed following the rezoning to PRD as affordable units.
Under Strategy 6b of Chapter 9: Housing of the Comprehensive Plan, the percentage of affordable
units should be based on the total number of units achievable under a rezoning.
Strategy 6b: Continue to ensure that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning
and special use permits are affordable, as defined by the County's Office of Housing, or a
comparable contribution be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County.
Response: We continue to 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 R6 Residential 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.
2. Application Plan: The section related to Affordable Housing on Sheet 2 (Application Notes) of the
Application Plan notes the following:
AFFORDABLE HOVSING: A MINIMUM OF as%OF THE UNITS ABOVE THE BY -RIGHT R-6 ZONING ALLOWABLE UNITS (49) WILL BE AFFORDABLE
It is not clear if the '49' refers to the number of affordable units the applicant proposes to provide, or if
this represents the number of units on which the 15% affordable housing will be determined. This
needs to be clarified.
Response: The note has been clarified that 49 refers to by -right number of units permitted under the
current R6 Residential zoning and that 15% affordable will be provided above that number.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
No objections at this time. Howard Lagomarsino, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer,
hlagomarsino@albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
ACSA plans reviewer, RicharclNelson, rnelson@serviceauthority.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 main
crosses 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 the
applicant 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 site
plan/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 a
Orientation multi -use path along the Rio Road frontage and sidewalks, with planting
strips,along Travelways A and B. Have sidewalks been considered to connect
the proposed bus shelter with the parking lot to the south, as well as with
more direct paths to the buildings in the rear of the site?
This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened.
Response: Additional sidewalks have been added to provide additional
connections to the bus stop and multi -use path along the front of the
development.
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 mostly met.
Response: As noted previously, considering the nearby existing small
landscaping business, The 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. The plan has been revised to indicate and show adequate area for
screening the proposed parking area adjacent to Rio Road.
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.
Parking lots in Centers should be relegated from road frontage.
This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened.
Response: Building #4 has been oriented towards the internal travelway due to
grading and density constraints, and therefore, the parking is relegated to the
side of this building and the plan has been revised to show adequate area for
screening of the parking area adjacent to Rio Road within the Center
designation. As noted previously, considering the nearby existing small
landscaping business, The 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
whole.
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 mostly met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Multi -modal
Transportation
Opportunities
Response: The property is a total of 7.9 acres, given the small size of the site,
and when considered in the context for the large number of single family
residences nearby in Four Seasons and other nearby neighborhoods, as well
as the Assisted Living units at The Blake at Oakleigh all within %4 mile or less,
along with the proposed affordable units being provided, we contend that this
principle is fully met.
The internal street network appears to largely be interconnected.
In addition, there is an interparcel connection provided to the property to the
south.
This principle has been met.
This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric.
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.
Have sidewalks been considered to connect the proposed bus shelter with the
parking lot to the south, as well as with more direct paths to the buildings in the
rear of the site?
This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened.
Response: As noted above, additional sidewalks have been added to the plan
to provide additional connections within the site to the bus stop and multi -use
_
path.
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.
The buffer area needs to be removed from areas where it overlaps with the
travelway.
This principle is mostly met and could be strengthened.
Response: The buffer has been adjusted to not include areas where it overlaps
with the travelway.
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. Retaining walls along the
west side of the site and along Rio Road could create areas that do not
support spaces of human scale, depending on their proposed height.
Response: the height of the retaining walls is now shown on the plans. The
wall on the west side is 6 feet. The height of other walls are 3 and 4 feet.
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. Renderings could be helpful to better explain
the proposed transition from this site to the existing single-family home to the
west.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: A cross section has been provided with this submittal to show the
relationship between the proposed building and the existing home. The existing
home, while one story, does have a basement that is exposed on the side
closest to the proposed apartment building, so that it is essentially a two-story
building on that side. However, it should be noted that that property and home
are designated as Urban Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Oust
as is the property subject to this application), and the parcel is zoned R6
Residential. In addition, in the applicant's correspondence with the owner, they
have relayed their plan to redevelop the parcel based on its existing R6 zoning.
Given this information, it is anticipated that this single-family home will not be
retained in the future.
Relegated Parking I 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. The buffer areas have been identified with a proposed
width. However, parking in the Neighborhood Service Center area should be
relegated and not visible from the Rio Road frontage.
This principle is partially met and could be strengthened.
Response: From the Relegated Parking Section of the Comprehensive Plan:
"Relegated parking occurs when parking lots are located to the side or rear of
the buildings along a street." Since Building #4 is oriented towards Travelway
B, the parking is relegated to the side/rear of the building and will be screened
from Rio Road. The parking lot between Buildings 2 and 3 are to the side of the
building and will be screened as well. Dimensions have been added to the plan
to demonstrate adequate area to screen the parking from Rio Road and to
meet ARB landscaping requirements.
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 Zoning
and Careful Grading District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed
regrdaing 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). The
proposed size of the landscape buffer along Rio Road has been provided.
This principle has been met.
To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Development Process Manager, Zoning Review
Date: February 7, 2022
Re: Zoning Review for ZMA202100011 The Heritage on Rio -Revision 1
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted
application.
Sheet 1-Application Plan
1. opes and active recreation areas.
2. Upudie Ims sneer so That limits of Travelways A and B are (ieariv discernable o❑ the plans.
3. Where will parking be located? Lots, garages, etc?
4. Add front setback lines along Travelway B serving TMP45-26. -Rev. Not addressed. The ordinance
requires a front setback. Even if it didn't, staff would recommend it be required in this situation.
Reference Section 4.6.3(d). and Section 4.19 provides how to measure front setbacks:
5 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of theright-
of-way
Max front setback is 25' in Residential districts, doesn't indicate max for PRD. Do you intend to
establish a 35' with the PRD or want to be consistent with ordinance?
Response: 35' maximum setback is being established with this plan, and is shown on the plan.
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. Rev. The for Travelway
B shows the proposed sidewalk outside of the easement area. The plans should beadjusted so that
the sidewalks are within the access easement or the access easement expanded/additional
easements to include them.
Response: A note has been added to the plan that sidewalk easements will be provided at the site plan stage for
any sidewalk outside of the existing easement.
6
6'
ST�S/WI I CURB& GUTTER PAVED TMYELWAY CURB) GUTTER 1 11 IS
5
13 A
RRAYEL (TRAA VEL PARALLEL
LANF) SS• LA!() PARRNG
ACCESS EASEWW
CROSS SECTION: TRAVELWAV B". ST PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT
8. Transit Stop- Comments from transportation reviewers are needed to finalize comments on the
proposed transit stoo. Minimum standards must be established on the application plan for the
transit stop. Rev. Partially addressed. The note indicates a shelter and a bench will be provided
but minimum specifications are not included.
Response: As discussed, a note has been added to the plan that states that the design standards will
be established at the site plan stage in coordination with CAT and the County.
2. Establish minimum standards for the interparcel connection to T MP 45-2661.
Sheet 2-
3. Allowable Uses -Please clarify whether the intent is to allow future non-residential uses within the PRD.
4. 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
developmentand 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,
demonstratingthat 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.
Rev. Parking reduction request was submitted and reviewed. It appears consistent with other
recently approved reductions. Enhanced bike/ped facilities must be provided. See
Transportation comments.
Response: Bike accommodations have been provided and potential locations have been identified on the
plans.
S. 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?
6. 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
7. 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. Rev. I am not
sure the updated plan captures all of the discussion from the coordination meeting on January
19 but I would defer to ARB and Planning comments. Also, I think the application plan could
better define what is required in buffer areas and active rec area, particularly along the eastern
property line.
Response: Notes have been revised to indicate which areas are in open space, active recreation and
buffers.
wao -ext y uraw v hlgnngni erase
-- ----- -
DG� 'OMPREHENSIVEi�CRI LOOATIONO RAMP ••�
IT D USE DESIGNATIO R A N TO THE
1AREA FIFO
HARED-US PATHWAY
FROM THF,'ROADWAY
V /
PROPOSE' MIN.
LANDS PED
% BUF ER
I TMP 45'zb TMP 45-z6Ai
/ 505 RIO ROAD/ E1M GARDEN LLC
WEST LLC ,
TRAVELWAYIPARKING
ENVELOPE
U�
UILDING QQ
/ELOPE #5
-ORY BLDG
BASEMENT)
Q� !
O BUILDING DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
O TRAVELWAY I PARKING AREA
ACTIVE RECREATION AREAICOMMON
OPEN SPACE
_ BUFFER AREA
VDOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
PROPOSED v0' ASPHALT PATHWAY
— — — — ACCESS EASEMENT LINE
— — — — BUILDING SETBACKS
ved LIMITS OF RECREATION AREA (MIN.)
PROPERTY LINE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE
DESIGNATION AREA
OALBEMARLECOUNTY MANAGEDSLOPE'
(GIS MAPPING)
®PROPOSED RELOCATED BUS STOP WITH
NF W RI IS SHFI TFR R RFNfH
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
January 7, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development401
McIntire Road
Re: The Heritage on Rio — Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-2021-00011
Review #2
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 5 November
2021, and offers the following comments:
Comments from Culpeper District Traffic Engineering on the TIA:
a. Hydraulic & Earlysville / Townwood:
i. The existing Yellow Change and Red Clearance intervals shown in the Synchro file for the existing
AM/PM and Future No Build / Build conditions do not match the timing we provided. Note that these
parameters were calculated in accordance with the guidelines provided inthe VDOT TE-306.1 and
cannot be randomly modified.
Response: The clearance intervals for Phase 3 were inadvertently off by 1.7 seconds and 0.8
seconds, respectively. All Synchro files been revised as requested — no change to the overall
results.
ii. Looking at the Synchro files, the controller is currently running Max 1 time, which is our standard for
non -coordinated signals. We sometime useMax 2 for special programming and run that as a Special
Function in the controller. Unless there is data in the TOD Functions tab under Schedule in the timing
file indicating that Max 2 is being used, Max 1 time is what needs to be used for all non -coordinated
signals.
Response: There is no data in the TOD Functions tab, so we used Max 1 — no change to the
overall results.
iii. In addition, the Vehicle Extension parameters need to match the timingfile we provided.
Response: Vehicle extension settings for Phase 3 and Phase 8 were inadvertently switched.
This has been revised — no change to the overall results.
iv. In regards to using the optimization functionality in Synchro, we ask that the timing that is currently
running in the controller be used for all scenarios. We cannot accurately measure the actual and/or
future MOE atthe intersection with the signal being randomly optimized throughout the analysis
process. We want to see the actual impact the proposed development will have on the existing
network so if the signals are optimized randomly, it becomes difficult to quantify these potential
impacts. So optimizing the signal timing would be acceptable only as partof a mitigation measure
and the process should be documented in the report, outlying its benefits to operations.
Response: The LOS tables now include the results with the existing signal timings and
optimized signal timings for all scenarios for comparison purposes.
v. In the Synchro files under Recall Mode (phase setting), please set phases 2and 6 to Min Recall to reflect
what is currently running in the street.
Response: This has been revised — no change to the overall results.
vi. The signal timing will need to be adjusted to what is currently running in the field and the Synchro files will
need to be resubmitted for review. TheLOS and Queue length reports will then be reviewed.
Response: The LOS tables now include the results with the existing signal timings and optimized signal
timings for all scenarios for comparison purposes.
b. Berkmar Drive & Rio Road West:
i. Please adjust the phase configuration at this intersection in the Synchrofiles to reflect what is
shown in Figure 1. The LOS and Queue Length reports will then be reviewed.
Response: The eastbound and westbound phases have been switched — no change to the overall
results.
2. Per previous discussion, the right -turn taper will be required in accordance with thewarrants.
Response: The inbound trip distribution has been adjusted to reflect the revised internal site layout, and the
projected traffic volumes now warrant an eastbound right -turn taper at the proposed west driveway in the
PM peak hour, instead of at the existing Health and Rehab Center driveway. Based on discussion with
VDOT, the applicant is proposing to build an eastbound right -turn taper at the west driveway.
3. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Man ualAppendices B(1) and F, as
well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirement
Response: Noted.
47000210.3