HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100013 Correspondence 2022-03-03V
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
December 7. 2021
Rebecca Ragsdale Planning
Manager rragsdale(a)albemarle.org
Telephone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3226
RE: ZMA202100013 Southwood Phase 2- First Review Comments
Ms. Symmes:
Staff has reviewed the initial submittal for a rezoning (ZMA202100013) for Southwood Phase 2,
including the Code of Development and Application Plan dated October 18, 2021. Comments
received to -date are provided below.
Our comments are provided below and organized based on a brief list of key issues and concerns
followed by detailed review comments. We have a number of questions and comments which we
believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet
with you to discuss these issues.
Issues identified by both staff and the public on the proposal, including those mentioned at
the community meeting:
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
2. Amenities and minimum recreation requirements
3. Code of Development and Application Plan changes are requested. Further
information and analysis could result in additional changes to both.
4. Schools impacts
5. Transportation impacts
Planning Comments and Zoning Comments:
Comprehensive Plan -Detailed comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive
Plan (Comp Plan) will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part
of the staff report that will be prepared or public hearing. Initial comments on how the proposal
relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Staff will provide a Neighborhood Model
analysis once additional information is provided.
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan (MP)
The MP lists Southwood as a Priority Area, and the Land Use Plan designates these parcels as
Urban Density Residential with a Center, and Parks and Green Systems. The descriptions of these
land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and the Center designation are below.
Urban Density Residential This designation represents residential areas with supporting
uses and non-residential uses. Density ranges from at a density of 6.01- 34 dwellings per
acre. Building height is recommended at 1-3 stories, additional stories where appropriate.
Primary uses include residential uses of all housing types. Places of worship, public and
private schools, early childhood education centers (day care centers and pre-schools),
public uses, and public institutional
uses. Secondary uses include neighborhood serving retail/commercial areas.
Figure 19:
Southwood Mobile Home Park
9. The Southwood (Figure 19) Center contains the existing
Southwood Mobile Home Park which contains
approximately 1500 residents, 342 mobile homes of
various ages and states of repair, a Boys and Girls Club
facility, and many children. It is recommended for Urban
Density Residential development.
Redevelopment of the Southwood Mobile Home Park
should be as a mixed -income, mixed use community. A
mixture of housing types for different income levels is
expected. A retail and/or services area should be
provided for the neighborhood. The proposed Southern
Connector road
prolect is also a
part of the planned future development. At this time,
Habitat for Humanity is planning for the redevelopment
of the mobile home park as a mixed -income, mixed -use
community. During the planning stage, opportunities may
exist for the County to partner with Habitat for Humanity
to help request grant money, significantly improve and
expand the regional inventory of affordable housing, tie
into the transportation network throughout the area, and
if Habitat for Humanity is able to exchange land owned
by the State for Biscuit Run State Park, obtain land to
add to the County inventory of playing fields.
areas (see below). It states that when centers are areas of mixed use, such as what is
proposed and recommended by the MP for Southwood, that they help provide a form that allows
for a continuum of uses, from least intensive to most intensive. This continuum starts at the
center (most intensive) and radiates outward from there. This strategy also states that centers
should be visually discernible to help
create and facilitate a sense of Neighborhood Centers
arrival, and that new centers should wat.a. 2F• continue to promote center, as local paints for neighborhoods and places for civic
be created with the MP engagement.
recommendations. As stated
previously, the MP recommends that
Southwood be developed as a mixed
income, mixed use community to
include a mixture of housing types,
and a retail and/or services area
should be provided for the
neighborhood.
The Comprehensive
Plan recommends a height of one (1)
to three (3) stories in this
location (Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood centers are final pairs or places in a neighborhood or area where people congregate.
A carver may be a spool or park, location of a major employer or a shopping area. like the
Charlottesville downtown mall, centers are depinatlons. They are very important in creating the Identity
of an area and can be the heart of a neighborhmd Identifying existing centers and plaoa for new
centers is a major component of developing a Master Plan. As seen in Figure 7, they are Intended to
be located within a comfortable walkable distance (crop rosexcited, 'b mile) from homes. This dinmce
an be increased up to'h mile if a center comams a transit
pop. Figure 7: Illustration''/{ Mile
when centers are employment hubs or areas of mixed use,
they help provide a form thin allows for o continwm of uses,
Lam lean teteapve to most Intensive. In Figure 7, the most
intensive center would be found in Area 5.
Legend far Figure 7:
Parkaraedasramers,
■ Camaraal or nexed we ores
■ sLedem to high demny residential area
❑ Lowtomecumdeney,endemsta,—
Distance from Neighborhood Center
�a oT-\
Inc
�L�
o����
S.—e: Commenty Dnign and Inhlerere X II
the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan), with taller heights permitted
where appropriate.
In previous reviews, it was determined that the Comprehensive Plan designation of Center
for Southwood was in between the Neighborhood Service Center and Community Center.
The Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan does not provide
descriptions of its Centers. Therefore, the Places29 Master Plan Center descriptions were
used. Neighborhood Service Centers allow up to three (3) stories, and Community Centers
allow up to four (4) stories.
Only after much review and discussion, including Planning Commission input, was Phase 1
approved for up to 4 stories in certain areas. In the Phase 2 proposal, building heights of up
to 4 stories are proposed more extensively proposed along with up to 5 stories proposed in
the center area. There seems to be an enlargement and extension of intensity beyond the
center designation in the master plan, although it appears the transect concept is
maintained. This will need further discussion as to the appropriateness of building heights
and compliance with the center recommendation. There has not been sufficient information
submitted to date to determine if a building height above three (3) stories is appropriate in
this location. Based on the Applicant's discussion with Rebecca Ragsdale on February
9, 2022, we understand that planning staff is no longer concerned about height in this
area as it is internal to the site and does not affect Old Lynchburg Road frontage. We
note that the need for five stories/65' in the Neighborhood Center Special Area is
intended to accommodate the "two over two" townhome-like condominium product
that will be used extensively in Phase 2.
Code of Development:
1. Page 4-
a. Phase 2 Area 1A is not defined. Removed all references to the "Area"
concept to avoid confusion. (Areas were used by the Applicant for
construction phasing planning.)
b. Last paragraph, left hand side, explain what this means regarding the
UDA designation and TND standards. The Applicant is no longer
pursuing a UDA designation.
c. What is referred to as the Concept Plan is really the regulating block
plan and should be described as such to avoid confusion. Changed the
labels and description in the document text to "Regulating Block
Plan."
2. Page 6-Figure 4-This is not a Concept Plan but a Regulating Block Plan. The
information on this page must be combined with Figure 6-Application Plan. The more
information that is in one place, the easier to administer the COD and avoid
confusion. Changed the labels and description in the document text to
"Regulating Block Plan."
3. Page 7-Figure 5-This is an illustrative exhibit and should be moved to the narrative
section of the document and not included in sections with regulations. Moved this
exhibit to the narrative section of the document.
4. Page-8-
a. A 30% deviation of block acreage is more significant than that approved in
Phasel. Staff believes 15% as approved in Phase 1 is more appropriate. On
February 9, 2022, we had a conversation with Rebecca Ragsdale and
decided, and she agreed, that Urban Density Mixed Use Areas can deviate
up to 15%; however, all other blocks can deviate up to 30%. This will
allow us to modify the smaller lower -density blocks as needed but will
not cause an increase in the project density.
b. Block descriptions do not seem to align with other tables and figures
regarding the Neighborhood Center Special Area and Urban Mixed Use -
Hickory Overlay. Added the Neighborhood Center Special Area to
applicable tables and figures. The Habitat team decided to remove the
Urban Density Mixed Use - Hickory Overlay from the COD.
c. Regulations for the Neighborhood Center Special Area are not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. On February 9,2022, the
Applicant had a conversation with Rebecca Ragsdale and she shared
that she discussed this with the Neighborhood Planning team. She
confirmed that it was determined by County long range planning staff
that the Neighborhood Center Special Area location in Phase 2 along
Hickory Street is in accord with the Southern and Western
Neighborhood Master Plan's center designation.
5. Page 9-
a. Combine Figure 6 with Figure 4. Combined Figure 6 with Figure 4 into one
Application Plan (see page 11).
b. What are the Areas supposed to define? Clearly define and establish any
proposed regulations for these areas in the COD and on the Application Plan.
Are they meant to represent phasing? The Applicant determined that the
Areas are no longer relevant and they have been removed from the
document.
6. Page 11- No justification/parking study in accordance with Section 4.12 has been
submitted to evaluate the parking requirement of 1.5/multifamily unit. Two -bedroom
units would require 2/unit and adequate guest parking must be addressed. The
Applicant will submit a Parking Waiver Request.
7. Page 12- Refence to Tourist Lodging must be replaced with Homestay (5.1.48).
Changed Tourist Lodging to Homestays (5.1.48).
8. Page 13-
a. Neighborhood Special Area Uses are not addressed. Neighborhood Center
Special Area Uses are now addressed in the table. The NCSA is an
overlay in the Urban Density Mixed Use land use classification; therefore,
it will have the same permitted/prohibited non-residential uses as that
classification.
b. The Flood Hazard Overlay district is a separate overlay district within the
zoning ordinance. It should not be included in the NMD specific use
regulations table. Removed the Flood Hazard Overlay District from the
table.
9. Page 14-
a. A 30% deviation of block acreage is more significant than that approved in
Phase 1. Staff believes 15% as approved in Phase 1 is more appropriate. On
February 9, 2022, we had a conversation with Rebecca Ragsdale and
decided, and she agreed, that Urban Density Mixed Use Areas can deviate
up to 15%; however, all other blocks can deviate up to 30%. This will
allow us to modify the smaller lower -density blocks as needed but will
not cause an increase in the project density.
b. The term `residential building typology" should be replaced with specific
housing types listed in the use table of the COD. Added a reference to the
residential uses table (Table 2).
c. Correct Table 4 which indicates up to 1,391 units in the Urban Density Mixed
Use Blocks but the total maximum number of units permitted within the
development is 1,000. Correct density range. Maximum density in the Urban
Density Mixed Use Blocks was changed from 1,391 units to 1,000 units.
d. Add total acreage of the rezoning and gross residential density in accordance
with Section 20A.7. Added this to the table.
e. As proposed, an additional 40,000 square feet of non-residential shall be
permitted by Special Use Permit. A note is not the appropriate mechanism for
this. It may be more appropriate to propose this in the use table. What uses
may be increased and in what blocks? This has to be considered in the context
of the TIA as well as the Comp Plan. An additional 40,000 SF of non-
residential space is no longer permitted by Special Use Permit.
10. Page 15-16-See Comprehensive Plan section below. Following further
discussion, amendments to this table may be needed. Noted.
11. Page 17 information could be combined with Page 18 and simplified into the
specific minimum requirements for the parks and rec areas. As written, there
are no minimum standards defined so that site plans can be reviewed for
compliance with the COD. Added additional detail to Chapter 8.0 to
ensure that site plans can be reviewed for compliance with the COD.
12. Page 18-19
a. Proposed amenities do not meet the requirements of Section 20.A. A total
of 20% amenities is required based on gross acreage. Table 7 now shows
that 21 % of the gross site acreage is amenity and civic space.
b. Proposed amenities and parks do not meet the minimum requirements of
Section 4.16. Substitutions or waivers of minimum requirements must be
expressly approved. An analysis and justification should accompany that
request, as was provided with the Phase 1 rezoning. Substitutions can be
made administratively but reducing requirements requires a Special Exception.
Also, see relevant Parks and Rec comments. Table 7 identifies 22
Neighborhood Parks, 11 Active Use Recreational Areas, and 1 Central
Park, which satisfies the requirements under 4.16 for 1,000 units as
shown on the table below. Resident planners will determine the specific
programming of these amenities at the site planning stage.
c. Table 7-Open Space is not a term to be used in the NMD zoning regulations.
Define what that category is meant to include using NMD terminology
(Greenspace, amenities, conservation, preservation). The table needs to be
reorgized. The trail amenity should be counted in amenities acreage.
Minimum recreation provided to meet Section 4.16 may count as required
NMD amenities. Required recreation based on Section 4.16 is below. Noted.
Removed the term "Open Space" from the COD and reorganized the
table to include the trail amenity in the Amenities and Civic Space
acreage.
Number of Units
531 Units
1000 Units
Tot Lots
11
21
% Basketball court or
equivalent recreation
5.5
10
13. Page 22 and 23-These pages should be moved to the beginning of the COD and not in
the regulatory section of the document as they include general narratives. The
transportation and schools sections under proposed impacts to public facilities will need
updates. The latest information regarding schools long-range planning should be included.
a. Provide an updated narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, as
Mountain View Elementary School is currently over -capacity and further
residential development would increase this over -capacity issue. Recent
recommendations of the long range planning committee are not included. School
capacity was also brought up as a concern among the public at the community
meeting. The narrative section has been updated accordingly.
14. Page 24-See Engineering comments attached regarding strategies for
stormwater management. Noted.
15. Page 24-Affordable housing -The proposed provisions require a minimum of 231 units
and allow for a range of housing types. However, there is no regulation that addresses
block distribution or minimums for each housing type. Southwood is being developed
very intentionally as a mixed -income neighborhood. Development in Phase 1
demonstrates the Applicant's commitment to a variety of housing types and price
points to address all income levels. Affordable housing will be distributed among
the blocks throughout Phase 2, but it is premature to identify the location of
affordable and market rate lots at the zoning stage. Development requires market
rate within each resident -planned village to fund affordable housing construction.
The Applicant is offering a minimum of 227 affordable units, which will equate to
23%-43% of all units in Phase 2 (based on 531 minimum and 1000 maximum
number of units). In addition, it has not been the practice to designate housing
type minimums at the zoning stage, and it is unknown at this time what type of
housing the residents of Southwood would like and can afford. In addition, the
Applicant is proffering to hold a parcel within Block 25 until July 1, 2023 for the
development of at least 60 Low Income Housing Tax Credit units.
Application Plan:
16. Sheet C0.0-Include basic site data or reference to code of development as to
maximum number of units, etc. Noted. Added a section to include the
maximum proposed number of residential units and the maximum
proposed non-residential square footage.
17. Sheet C1.0-Add all relevant existing conditions information. All relevant existing
conditions information has been added.
a. Location of drainfields mentioned in narrative. Habitat does not currently
have data on where drain fields are located.
b. Accurately show both managed and preserved slopes. Slopes are only
identified as preserved on this sheet. Both managed and preserved
slopes are now accurately shown on sheet C1.0.
c. Show existing/approved sections of Hickory Street from Old Lynchburg
Road and the existing Oak Hill Drive section. The approved section of
Hickory Street in Phase 1 was added to sheet C1.0. Oak Hill Drive is
outside of the project boundary so this street section has not been
added.
d. Show TMP, zoning, and use of abutting properties. TMP's, zoning, and parcel
use has been included on sheet C1.0.
18. Sheet C2.0-Similar to COD comment above, What are the Areas supposed to
define? Clearly establish definitions/regulations for the Areas in the COD and on
the Application Plan. Are they meant to represent phasing? Removed all
references to the "Area" concept to avoid confusion. (Areas were used by
the Applicant for construction phasing planning.)
19. Sheet C3.0-
a. Show Block 7 and the road connection as described in the Road Network
note on this sheet. Block 7 road connection has been added to sheet
C3.0.
b. Any private roads will need private road approval. Update the note that
says they "may" be utilized to indicate the separate approval process at the
time of site plan or subdivision review. Added "may" to this note and we
acknowledge that private streets need separate approvals from the
Planning Commission.
c. Stormwater Management note: see Engineering comments below and
request to include strategies for stormwater with the application plan. SWM
information has been added to sheet C2.0.
d. Trail system note: Trail requirements are covered in the COD and other
sheets of the application plan so this note does not seem necessary.
Removed this note from the plan.
e. Show approved section of Hickory Street. The Hickory Street section
should be established on the Application Plan and not left to three different
options. Hickory Street impacts beyond the project boundary to Oak Hill will
need to be addressed and improvements to mitigate impacts in the
rezoning documents. A Hickory Street section has not been approved
yet. The Hickory Street section shall be selected and designed during
final engineering. Addressing Hickory Street impacts beyond the
project boundary to Oak Hill is an offsite improvement.
20. Sheet C4.0-Combine information on this sheet with C2.0. These sheets were
combined into one Application Plan.
21. Sheet C6.0-See engineering comments. Also, update the sheet to make sure
both managed and preserved steep slopes are accurately shown. Also, see
Parks and Rec comments regarding stream restoration. Noted. The
Conceptual Grading Plan now shows both managed and preserved
slopes.
Proffers:
Transportation review is not complete so transit proffer comments will be provided at a later
date. See Parks and Recreation comments regarding trails proffer. Noted.
Schools comments were provided by Maya Kumazawa
(mkumazawa(ZDk12albemarle.org) on November 29, 2021:
Here is the data for the current number of students from Southwood attending ACPS schools:
Pre K: 25
K-5: 158
6-8: 95
9-12: 113
Total: 391
Regarding the projected yield, I saw that the proposal was up to 1,000 units, but I didn't see
a specific breakdown by unit type. I have attached the student yield rates that can be
applied to the proposed units being built. The rates for the schools that Southwood is
districted for are:
Mountain View (0.05 for apartments, 0.14 for single family homes, 0.06 for
townhomes) Burley (0.03 for apartments, 0.06 for single family homes, 0.02 for
townhomes) Monticello (0.03 for apartments, 0.09 for single family homes, 0.01 for
townhomes)
Thank you. We have added additional detail to the Proposed Impact on Public
Facilities and Infrastructure section of the document. This section now includes a
table with student generation calculations. The Applicant is proffering to the County
an option to purchase a 5.7-acre school site on Block 34 for use as a school,
childhood education center and/or community center.
Housing Comments provided by Stacev Pethia on December 6. 2021:
Code of Development Section 10 (page 24)-Section 10 (e) states `each subdivision plat or site
plan will designate the number of affordable units provided and the minimum number of required
affordable units.
Recommend adding a requirement that the lots for affordable units shall be shown on the plats
and site plans. This will conform with any federal grant requirements (e.g., CDBG) should
Habitat apply for such funding for Phase 2 development. Added this note to section 10.0
Affordable Housing.
Only a small portion of the subject property falls within the Entrance Corridor overlay and the
property is not adjacent to the EC street. Consequently, it is anticipated that visual impacts from
this portion of the development on the EC will be limited. Noted. Thank you.
Building Inspections- No objection. Noted. Thank you.
Fire/Rescue- No objection. Noted. Thank you.
Engineering- Comments are attached. Noted. Thank you.
Parks and Recreation- Comments are attached. Noted. Thank you.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)- Comments are attached. Noted. Thank you.
VDOT and Transportation Planning
Comments are expected to be finalized next week. This includes future comments on transit and
will include additional code of development application plan comments. Noted. Thank you.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached best at
rraosdalela)albemarle.ora.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Form
Schools Subdivision Yield Analysis
Engineering Comments
Parks and Recreation Comments
ACSA Comments
Subdivision Yield Analysis
Prepared by Cooperative Strategies for ACPS on August 23, 2021
report:Link to full
Subdiv.sionAnalysis1 1:1 .. ...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 outtier, 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.
019 20 Student Yields by Bitji=
Bound.try partmen Con
m
�A�7\lliYiPl
-
ELEMENTARY SUBTOTAL000 0.20 0 7 0 17
a.m.a-��
1 1
�I�J•�
1 �.
1 1
• •
1 1
1 11
F SUBTOTAL 0.04 0.08
• •
11
111
�-
11
WESTERN ALBEMARLE
11•
111®-
HIGHSUBTOTAL 0.OS 0.1.02
Engineering comments provided by Frank Pohl (fpohl(a)albemarle.orci) dated
December 3, 2021:
Show conceptual stormwater management facility locations on the application plan.
SWM information has been updated on sheet C2.0. Conceptual facilities have
been shown in approximate locations.
2. State that at least 75% of required nutrient reductions will be provided on -site
on the application plan or in the Code of Development. This note has been
added to the SWM summary.
3. Note on Page 12 states "All residential lots shall be outside of stream buffers,
preserved slopes, and floodplains." Please clearly delineate the stream buffer, steep
slopes, and floodplains on Figure 5, Pg 7, Code of Development, or provide another
exhibit to show that lots are not within these environmental features. Sheet C6.0
comes close to showing this but does not include lots. Lots and other development
must not extend into stream buffers [17-601.C]. It appears that lots encroach into the
stream buffers and possibly steep slopes. It also appears units are proposed abutting
stream buffers, which may not be constructed without impacting the buffer. Please
add conceptual lot layout to Sheet C6.0 or provide another exhibit that shows the lots
and all environmental features. Sheet C5.0 shows the conceptual layout and
grading with critical areas within the development. Note these are only
concepts and grading/development will not occur in critical areas such as the
floodplain, stream buffers, and preserved slopes.
4. Table 3, Pg 13 of the Code of Development:
a. Clarify if "buffer" means "stream buffer." If so, green space and stream buffers
should be in separate columns because uses allowed in each are different. Added
a note to Table 3 to say, "The following uses, while permitted in the Green
Space and Buffer land use classification, are not permitted in stream buffers:
Farmers Market, Public Recreational Facilities, Tier I and II Wireless Service
Facilities, Public Playgrounds and Parks, Urban Agriculture, and Community
Gardens."
b. The uses listed as farmers market, public recreational facilities, tier I and 11
wireless service facilities, public playgrounds and parks, urban agriculture, and
community gardens are not allowed in stream buffers. Add a column for stream
buffers and do not include these uses in this column. Added a note to Table 3
to say, "The following uses, while permitted in the Green Space and Buffer
land use classification, are not permitted in stream buffers: Farmers
Market, Public Recreational Facilities, Tier I and 11 Wireless Service
Facilities, Public Playgrounds and Parks, Urban Agriculture, and
Community Gardens."
c. Correct the Flood Hazard Overlay district code reference from
"30.3.05.2.2" to "30.3.11." There is no section as referenced. The
Applicant decided to remove this district from the COD.
d. Add "within outer 50-ft only with mitigation" to the end of the non-
residential use "Stormwater Management Facilities." Added this as a
note below Table 3.
5. Change all "buffer" references to "stream buffer" if the buffer is a stream buffer.
There are different types of buffers, please clarify and modify as needed. The
"Green Space and Buffer" land use classification refers to stream buffers. We
have left this land use classification as -is so that the Phase 2 COD remains
consistent with the Phase 1 COD.
6. Code of Development, Pg 24, Strategies for Shared Stormwater:
a. State that at least 75% of required nutrient reductions will be provided on -
site [17- 502.A.3]. Added this to the Strategies for Shared Stormwater
section on page 7.
b. Discharging to a natural stream requires design meeting the energy balance
if discharge does not meet the 1 % rule before discharging to the stream.
Update the note to reflect this or simply state that water quantity
requirements will meet VSMP regulations. Added a note to say that water
quantity requirements will meet VSMP regulations.
ACSA comments provided by Richard Nelson Richard Nelson
(rnelson@serviceauthority.org) dated December 3, 2021:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes
2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? On
site/Southwood Phase 1.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? None known.
4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware?
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? ACSA to
determine is a 12-water main upsizing, along main road, is desired during site plan stage.
8) Additional comments? RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required, prior to site plan
approval.
Thank you for your comments. The Applicant will obtain RWSA sewer capacity certification
prior to site plan approval.
Parks and Recreation Comments provided by Tim Pacialino
(tpadalino@albemarle.org) dated November 29, 2021:
Proposed "Trail and Greenway Connections" Proffers: ACPR will not accept the proffered
greenway easement(s) across private property open space. Because ACPR must focus our
limited resources on the development, management, and maintenance of the adjoining public
Biscuit Run Park property, ACPR cannot accept perpetual maintenance responsibilities for
the proposed primitive trails through Southwood Phase 2. Noted. The proffer has been
updated to state that upon written request by Albemarle County, Habitat will dedicate
easements over public trail connections between the Southwood primitive nature trail
and any trail constructed by the County on abutting County property.
2. The proposed 1,000 dwelling units, and proposed 60,000 SF of non-residential land uses,
would reasonably be expected to produce a major increase in demand for open space and
recreational opportunities — and would very likely equate to major increases in the use of and
the impacts to the adjoining Biscuit Run Park property. However, the proffer statement does
not include any voluntary commitments to help the County manage or mitigate the reasonably
anticipated surge in demand/use of the adjoining public park property, or the reasonably
anticipated increases in impacts to the same.
As a courtesy and for informational purposes, ACPR has identified potential opportunities to
voluntarily help address reasonably anticipated impacts, including: development and
dedication of a public park trailhead, development and dedication of bike/ped bridge(s) from
Southwood to Biscuit Run Park property, or both (or dedication of land and/or cash proffers for
same). Noted. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for construction in Block 29
or Block 30, Habitat will construct a parking lot containing ten (10) parking spaces for
use as one or more of the following: a public park trailhead connecting to the public
trail connections, daytime commuter parking lot, parking area for Southwood residents'
commercial vehicles, and outdoor market and special event space, as determined by
the County (the "Multi -Purpose Lot"). Should the County prefer to receive a cash
contribution toward construction of a public trailhead or commuter parking lot on
public property (e.g. Biscuit Run Park), the Owner will contribute Fifty Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($50,000) toward the County's construction of a parking lot on public
property in lieu of constructing the Multi -Purpose Lot.
3. ACPR recognizes and supports the proposed inclusion of numerous "Active Use Recreational
Areas" amenities. Based on recent and existing local recreational trends and the unmet
demand for active recreation areas, ACPR considers the on -site inclusion of these proposed
active recreational facilities as being critically important — both for the direct benefit of future
residents and for mitigating impacts to public facilities that would very likely be generated by
the proposed new land uses. Noted, thank you.
4. Proposed Block 18, which is located along the property boundary with Biscuit Run Park,
would involve grading and tree removal as well as construction of new dwelling units
and/or other new structures. All of these proposed land use changes would very likely
visually impact the viewshed from the park property, and also alter the visitor experience of
the park property, through the conversion of one side of the main Biscuit Run river valley
from an undeveloped, natural riparian landscape to a constructed residential built
environment.
Therefore, ACPR recommends a grading buffer be established for Block 18 along the
property boundary with the Biscuit Run Park property. A minimum buffer of 30' is
recommended. Some such type of grading buffer would help the proposed redevelopment
better meet the "Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -Grading of Terrain"
Neighborhood Model Development principle, as well as the "Proposed Impact on Public
Facilities and Infrastructure" evaluation criteria.
In such a scenario, ACPR recommends that any such grading buffer include an exception
to allow for the implementation of the proposed private primitive trail, provided that trail
construction best practices are used and tree removal is minimized. The Regulating Block
Plan has been revised to include a 30' strip of Green Space and Buffer between
Block 18 and TMP 09OA1-00-00-00100 (Biscuit Run Park). This 30' buffer will create
separation between residential lots and the Biscuit Run Park. A trail will run through
this buffer. Grading is permitted in the Green Space and Buffer blocks; however, it
will not occur on preserved slopes, stream buffers, and/or other sensitive
environmental features.
5. Please note that Albemarle County Facilities & Environmental Services (FES) is actively
planning to conduct a stream restoration project on Biscuit Run and/or one of its tributaries.
Based on the Biscuit Run Restoration Master Plan prepared by Ecosystem Services for
Albemarle County FES, the current priority restoration site is expected to be a segment of an
unnamed tributary ("UTY) which is adjacent to the Southwood property (proposed Blocks 13
and 18). Coordination between Southwood, Habitat, CDD, FES, and ACPR should take place
during this ZMA process to help facilitate successful stream restoration location, design,
timeline, and other project details. Noted, thank you.
1001 Boulders Parkway P 804.200.6500
T I M M O N S GROUP Suite 300 F 804.560.1016
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Richmond, VA 23225 www.timmons.com
To: Kevin McDermott, PE (Albemarle) and
Doug McAvoy, Jr., PE (VDOT)
From: Steve Schmidt, PE, PTOE (Timmons Group)
RE: Southwood Phase 2 TIA Response to County/VDOT Comments
Date: February 18,2022
Timmons Group prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated October 13, 2021 forth e/Southwood Phase
2 project located in Albemarle County, Virginia. The project is County case number ZMA2021-00013.
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Transportation Planning (CDD) issued
comments on the TIA/rezoning on December 15, 2021 and the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) issued comments on December 14, 2021.
Timmons Group (TG) has reviewed CDD/VDOT's comments (in bold below) and prepared the responses
below. As a result of the comments/responses, a revised TIA has been prepared and is submitted with
these responses.
Our responses to CDOT comments are as follows:
CDD Comments
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation
Planning has reviewed the above referenced resubmitted application plan and associated traffic impact
analysis by Habitat for Humanity/Southwood and Timmons Group (March 2021) and offers the
following comments:
1. It doesn't appear that any trips were assigned to Hickory Street in the analysis which may have been
an oversight when the scoping meeting was held for this TIA. It seems that some percentage should
be assumed to utilize that as roadway for trips to and from the development. Can an assumption
for that distribution be developed and discussed in this study? I don't believe any intersection
analysis is necessary, but volumes would be helpful.
TG Response: 20% of the projected residential site trips will access the site via Hickory Street to Oak
Hill Drive to Stagecoach Road. This was not discussed textually in Section 5.3, however, this
distribution is shown in Figure 5-1. The text of the report will be revised for clarification.
CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIs I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES