Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100013 Correspondence 2022-07-06 (3)Response to Comments dated May 13, 2022 Southwood ZMA 2021-013 To: Rebecca Ragsdale Date: July 5, 2022 Enclosed are the follow resubmittal materials in connection with this application: 1. Updated Application Narrative 2. Updated Application Plan by Timmons Group 3. Updated Proffer Statement 4. Updated Code of Development 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality Determination Letters 6. Illustrative Concept School Layout Planning Commission Staff Report Unfavorable Factors: The rezoning request will add additional students to Mountain View Elementary, which is currently over capacity. This application has not adequately addressed the impacts generated by this proposed development. Response: Please see the discussion of school impacts in the revised Application Narrative. The Applicant has worked with ACPS to site and design a school site desirable and acceptable to ACPS within its anticipated timeframe for construction and is proffering to sell a school site to ACPS at a reduced price and will complete all development and pad preparation at cost. The offered 20% price reduction for the school site land corresponds to the approximately 20% contribution of students to the 400-600 capacity elementary school from the Southwood community (Phases 1 and 2). Further, the transformation of Southwood from a rental trailer park to a community of taxed lots will provide the County with an estimated additional $850,000 per year in real estate tax revenue from Habitat homes alone (not including market rate lots and homes). 2. The need for a new school has been identified but additional studies would be needed to acquire a site, design, and construct a school. Response: The Applicant has worked, and will continue to work, closely with Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of ACPS, who has communicated Habitat's offers and plans to the School Board. Habitat has provided two designs for ACPS review and has crafted proffers to accommodate the Schools' potential timelines for construction. Habitat can provide the site within the Schools' timeline, though it will ultimately be ACPS's decision whether to purchase the proffered site. The parties' working concept layout and elevations are enclosed for reference. The rezoning will add additional traffic to Old Lynchburg Rd/5th Street Extended and impact existing intersections along the corridor. The rezoning does not adequately address impacts to the section of Hickory Street from Southwood to Oak Hill Drive. No bike lanes are proposed on Hickory St. Response: The Applicant is providing 30% engineered plans for that portion of Hickory Street off - site from the southern boundary of the project to Oak Hill Drive. Once fully -designed and constructed, Oak Hill will become a public road and will serve as an alternate route to diffuse traffic in the area. Additionally, as a multi -modal Gateway into Biscuit Run park, the redevelopment will obviate vehicular trips from the southern and western neighborhoods to the entrance of the park on Route 20 South. The Southwood resident designers were concerned about the safety of bike lanes in the right-of- way and planned, instead, a 10-foot wide multi -use trail that will run parallel to Hickory Street, separated from the street by a planting strip. This multi -use trail can connect to the County's planned multi -use path on Old Lynchburg Road as well as to the Biscuit Run network of trails. The multi -use trail for pedestrians and cyclists, the fully built -out Hickory Street, and the two new transit stops will provide multi -modal routes of transit through Southwood, which will help alleviate vehicular traffic on Old Lynchburg Road. The rezoning will result in a significant increase in residential units. Developments of this size generate impacts to County parks facilities, specifically Biscuit Run. Response: Southwood Phase 2 will contribute a minimum of 227 additional affordable housing units to the County and will fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's goals of redeveloping Southwood into a mixed -income, mixed -use neighborhood with a variety of housing types at many affordable price points. In total, Southwood redevelopment will add a minimum of 484 new safe, decent and affordable homes. The net increases in real estate taxes to the County from the redevelopment will contribute substantially to the public treasury. Public parks such as Biscuit Run are intended for county residents to enjoy. The proffers include public easements over (a) the Southwood perimeter trail, (b) trail connections from public sidewalks to the perimeter trail, and (c) connections between the perimeter trail and the Biscuit Run trails. The area's Long -Range Transportation Plan identifies Southwood as a key "gateway" facilitating non -vehicular entrance into Biscuit Run Park and thereby allowing access to the park from residents of the Southern neighborhoods without driving to the main entrance on U.S. Route 20 South. This gateway is created in multiple ways through this redevelopment: transit stops, public trails and trail connections, enhanced parking on an upgraded Hickory Street, the conversion of Hickory Street from private to public right-of-way, and land use locating residences within an easy walk to the park. 5. The rezoning does not provide a commitment to construct a minimum square footage for nonresidential uses and therefore does not provide assurance for a Center as recommended by the Master Plan. Response: The Code of Development has been updated to provide a minimum of 10,000 square feet of non-residential within Phase 2. Reviewer Comments Planning Staff: Primary Areas of Concern: Schools- While an estimated number of students was provided in the revised code of development, it does not factor in Southwood residents who will remain. Please see schools yield analysis below, which suggests a higher multiplier should be used for existing residents. Planning Commission members also expressed the need for additional information on what the net increase in students would be to schools. Response: Recognizing that Southwood already has 362 existing students, Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of Albemarle County Schools, in conjunction with Habitat, prepared the analysis below to take into consideration existing students and to provide for the transition of families from trailers to various new housing types within the community. At the maximum buildout of 1,000 homes, Phase 2 would be expected to add 114 students to the southern feeder pattern over the 15- 20 year build -out of Phase 2. Phase 1 and Phase 2 together are expected to bring a net increase of 168 students, 91 of whom will be elementary students. Phase Unit Type To Number UUnits Net Increase In of Numberof flags. Elementary (K-5) Total Yield Rate' Numberof Students Middle(6-8)High(9-12) Total Yield Rate' Numberof Students Total Yield Rate' Numberof Students Total Numberof Students (K-12) Slagle Family Detached 48 37 0.14 5 0.06 2 0 09 3 11 Single Family AKacheNTownhouut IN 99 006 6 0.02 2 001 1 9 PHASE Duplex 12 9 0.06 1 0.02 0 001 0 1 Multifamily/ApaNnere 145 111 0.1d 15 0.08 9 008 9 33 Phase 1 Total 335 265 27 13 13 54 Single Family Detached 140 107 0.14 15 0.06 6 009 10 31 PHASE2 Single Family AUeched/Townhouse 710 541 0.06 32 0.02 11 001 5 49 MultifamilylApartmerf 150 114 0.14 16 008 9 008 9 34 Phase 2Total 1000 763 63 26 24 114 Phase l+Phase 2 Total 1335 1013 91 40 37 168 Net Increase in Students Current Southwood StudenW 317 154 92 116 362 245 L 132 153 530 des are calculated by dividing the current number of students living in the district by the total number of housing arils by type in the dishU Calculations were done with 201920 enrollment de for apartment units provided by PHA (0 3 student per PHA LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credit) as currant Southwood families will occupy different unit types proportionately on 202122 School Year We expect that the pattern of families aging and moving will be quite different in Southwood than in most neighborhoods with regard to the Habitat homes. Habitat homes are sold with deed covenants and mortgage structures that incentivize long-term home ownership. Therefore, children growing out of the school system will not be replaced by new children at the frequency that would occur in homes held for shorter time periods. Rather, we expect an increase, then a decline, over the next 40 years. 2. Transportation- This was addressed in the staff report. Further follow-up with transportation staff is needed based on information provided at the April 26, 2022 meeting. Response: See response to staff report above and enclosed staff response letter from Timmons Group. 3. Impacts to Biscuit Run Park -This was addressed in the staff report. Opportunities remain to address park impacts. 4. Response: See response to staff report above. 5. Establish minimum non-residential to provide Neighborhood Center -The rezoning does not provide a commitment to construct a minimum square footage for non-residential uses and therefore does not provide assurance for a Center as recommended by the Master Plan. Response: See response to staff report above. 6. Monacan Indian Nation Evaluation for Phase 2-This is a new comment and was included in the staff report for the April 26, 2022 meeting. It is recommended that Applicant consider providing commitments to this evaluation in the Code of Development. Response: A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on September 24, 2007 as part of the Biscuit Run tract. This study included archeological sites within a mile of Biscuit Run Park and none of those identified were within Phase 2 of Southwood. Further research will be conducted as required to obtain federal construction funding. 7. Existing environmental hazards/streams- See comments below; further discussion is needed. Response: See response below. Code of Development comments: Page 8-Impacts to Environmental Features -This section does not indicate if Southwood has adversely impacted streams based on failing drainfields, nor does it indicate any commitments to stream restoration. As previously discussed, 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. See Engineering comments below regarding strategies for stormwater management. Response: Habitat's consultant, Wetlands Solutions, is helping Habitat to ensure that all redevelopment work is done in compliance with DEQ guidelines. Habitat is coordinating with Greg Harper, Chief of Environmental Services, with regard to FES' stream restoration project and potential need for easements within Southwood Phase 2. Although Greg has indicated that FES' focus is restoration within the Biscuit Run Park boundaries, there is a desire by the County to retain an opportunity to provide restoration within Southwood Phase 2. Habitat is willing to grant a 50' buffer on either side of the intermittent stream in Block 13 if desired by FES to address upstream impacts to Biscuit Run. The proffers have been revised to include access and drainage easement within this area in coordination with the County. Page 17-Table 5 still needs further correction. If the minimum number of units are built in other blocks, the remaining number of units that could be built in the Urban Density Blocks is 900. Response: This table has been updated accordingly. TABLE 5, DENSITY REGULATIONS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY NON- RESIDEN'IALUSES RESIDENTIAL DENSITY USES (AND USE BLACKS RANGE (UNITS/ AREA (AC) MINIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DESIGNATION ACRE( POSSIBLE POSSIBLE NON - DWELLING DWELL]: 4' RESIDENTIAL UNITS UNLT'i 1URAING ISE) BLOCKS 13 -15 0 2C.40 0 0 - NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCKS 16- 2C 4-18 14.15 57 255 5000 DENSITY URBAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS 21- 24 8-22 1790 143 394 5000 VUAGE BLOCKS 25 - 34 9-34 40.93 i2i . i_ _ The Neighborhood Center Special Area is an overlay in the Urban Density Mixed Use land use classification, therefore, R will have the same density regulations as that ctassirrcation. 10.71 rOTALt (GROSS 93.33 S27 60AD0 DENq•VI Page 22-Table 8- The totals in the table do not match up with the total of 27.72 acres of greenspace/amenities. If this figure is correct, please include the acreage breakdown. Response: This table has been updated to clarify the greenspace and amenity acreages and total. Phase 1 Code of Development traffic- The code of development approved with ZMA 2018-03 included a trip generation limit that applied to both Phase 1 and Phase 2. but was not carried over to the Phase 2 rezoning, which now projects a greater trip generation. It appears that this could be addressed for Phase 1 with a special exception. Response: The Code of Development has been updated to state that with the approval of ZMA 2021- 013, the prior COD from ZMA 2018-003 trip generation is no longer valid and the TIA dated 2/18/2022 supersedes those traffic generation numbers stated in ZMA 2018-003. Approved ZMA 2018-03: 7iafh'c Impact The actual non-residential square footage and number of dwelling units will not exceed an additional daily vehicle trip count of 5,000 for the entire Southwood development, TMPs 90A14E, 90-1A. 76-51A 90A1-1D, 90A-4, and 90A-1C- Each subdivision plat or site plan within the Property shall designate the daily vehicle trip count provided and must be approved by VDOT. Proposed ZMA 2022-13 10-18-21 Code of Development: traffic Impact The actual non-residential square footage and number of dwelling units will not exceed an additional daily vehicle trip count of 6,943 for the entire Southwood development. TMPs 90A1-1E. 90-1A 76-51A. 90A1-11). 90A-4. and 90A-1C. Each subdivision plat or site plan within the Property shall designate the daily vehicle trip count provided and must be approved by VDOT Application Plan comments: Sheet C1.0-Add all relevant existing conditions information: • Location of drainfields/environmental issues mentioned in existing conditions of code of development but not addressed on the application plan. Response: The existing drainfields/environmental issues have not been mapped to date. During Phase 1, these issues were found during construction and we anticipate similar findings in Phase 2 and will continue to work with DEQ to plan mitigation measures. • Show existing/approved sections of Hickory Street from Old Lynchburg Road and the existing Oak Hill Drive section. -Not Addressed for the section of Hickory Street from Southwood to Oak Hill Drive. Response: The section of Hickory Street from Southwood to Oak Hill is not within the proposed rezoning tax map and parcels, and therefore is not included within the Code of Development or Application Plan. As part of the proffered engineered plans for Hickory Street, this section and design will be determined in coordination with the County. • 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 Drive will need to be addressed and improvements to mitigate impacts in the rezoning documents. Hickory Street is recommended by staff to include bike lanes. Response: Depending on the requirements of VDOT, Engineering, and Fire/Rescue at site planning stage, Hickory Street may have different designs. Parking will be provided where possible in accordance with VDOT, Engineering, and Fire/Rescue regulations; however it is possible that due to site distance and other requirements, parking may not be able to be located on the street or to only one side. Therefore, multiple options have been shown within the Code of Development to allow for flexibility of design at the site plan stage. The street will have the required planting strip, sidewalk, and has been revised to show that a 10' multi -use path will be provided on one side of the street. Sheet C6.0-See engineering comments. update the sheet to make sure both managed and preserved steep slopes are accurately shown. See Parks and Rec comments regarding stream restoration. Response: Sheet 6 in the set (labeled 5.0) the managed and preserved slopes represented are from County GIS. The legend has been updated to reflect this. Habitat is working Greg Harper of FES regarding stream restoration and will proffer an easement to allow for stream restoration within Southwood Phase 2. Proffers: Staff has concerns with many of the proffers as they should not obligate the County to maintain applicant - built improvement(s). Detailed comments were included in the April 26, 2022 staff report and PC Action memo. Response: Staff has expressed concern about County maintenance of the connections between the Southwood trail system and the Biscuit Run trails. In discussions with Tim Padalino of Parks & Recreation, he has supported the public trail connections and asked for the proffer to be reinstated after removed during a preliminary draft. These easements will work in conjunction with public access over the Southwood trail network (with maintenance remaining with Southwood) and public access easements over Southwood common area to connect the public sidewalk network in Southwood with the Southwood trail. The proffer for a multi -purpose/ trailhead parking lot has been eliminated as a concept of limited benefit to the County. A few reminders: Proposed proffers must be signed by all the owners of all parcels and submitted to CDD before the Board's public hearing. Noted Correct citation for proffers (in the second paragraph) is County Code & 18-33.7. Corrected Engineering: The previously accepted justification for allowing SWM facilities within the outer 50-ft of a stream buffer was to allow reasonable use of the lot [17-604(A)(i)]. It has since been determined that reasonable use of the lot for this project can be achieved without locating SWM facilities within the buffer. County Code Section 17-604(A)(i) is an allowance only for "structures, improvements or activities . .. for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot." Locating a stormwater management facility in the stream buffer is not necessary for reasonable use of the lot; therefore, the proposed structure does not qualify for this allowance. This determination is consistent with 9VAC25-830-140(4)(a)(1): "4. Permitted encroachments into the buffer area. a. When the application of the buffer area would result in the loss of a buildable area on a lot or parcel recorded prior to October 1, 1989, encroachments into the buffer area may be allowed through an administrative process in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Encroachments into the buffer area shall be the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable buildable area for a principal structure and necessary utilities." If you wish to locate structures, improvements, or activities within a buffer, please document why the proposed location is necessary for reasonable use of the lot. Sheet C2.0 —All SWM facilities must be shown outside of the stream buffers (e.g. Blocks 16, 19, and 34) ;notes accordingly. Table 4, page 16, Code of Development — Please delete stormwater management facilities as a permitted use within the "Green Space and Buffer" area, including the outer 50-ft of the buffer. I apologize that this is different than what I stated previously. Response: The conceptual SWM facilities have been revised to be shown outside of the stream buffer and notes and tables have been revised accordingly within the Code of Development. Please note that based on its wetlands consultant's determination that the stream in Block 13 is intermittent, which has been confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers and DEQ, the stream buffer in Block 13 has been removed. Determination letters from ACOE and DEQ are enclosed with this resubmission. The consultant is also studying the stream in Blocks 15, 19, and 20, and a note has been added to the Application Plan that indicates if the stream is found to not be perennial, the buffer in these blocks will not apply but will still be included within the greenspace/amenity area. RWSA 1. RWSA will require a sewer flow acceptance prior to final site plan approval for each phase/block. The request will need to be sent to us by ACSA and will include the following: • Estimated average daily dry weather sewage flow (ADDWF) • Point of connection into RWSA system (which manhole) • Number of units/square footage • Estimated in-service date 2. Can you send us a timeline for the project. 3. Our understanding is that the future connection tapping off the RWSA 20" WL will eventually have a looped connection by the end of this project. Response: The Applicant will address all RWSA issues during site planning. 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: May 27, 2022 Timmons Group submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) on February 21, 2022 for the Southwood Phase 2 project located in Albemarle County, Virginia. The project is County case number ZMA2021-00013. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) issued comments on the revised TIA on March 28, 2022. Timmons Group (TG) has reviewed VDOT's comments and prepared the responses below. As a result of the comments/responses, no updates to the TIA are required. Our responses to VDOT comments are as follows: VDOT Comments 1. Comments from District Traffic Engineering: a. The agency is still on SIDRA version 8 and as such cannot analyze submitted SIDRA 9 files. Please include printouts of the options and Roundabout data tabs. TG Response: The printouts of the options and roundabout data tabs are attached to this response to comments. b. Besides being conservative, is there another reason internal capture was not factored? TG Response: Internal capture was not factored/considered for several reasons. As VDOT notes, one reason was to provide a conservative, or worst - case analysis. Additionally, at the time of the analysis, there were no identified users or types of office/retail available and any internal capture between the residential units and office/retail uses would be speculative. c. Pages 39, 40 and 75: As the 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual was referenced on the scoping document, is there a reason why the 11th Edition was used instead for this submission (page 40)? In addition, the previous submission was also based on the 10th Edition. To facilitate a better estimation of the "net increase" in development, the 10the Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual should be used to estimate the trips from Phase 2. TG Response: The 11th edition of Trip Generation was used in the revised analysis as it contained significant updates to the 10th edition based off of additional studies. The 1th edition is more statistically relevant and provides a more accurate estimate of the trip generation. For example, in the 10th edition, the mobile home park (Land Use Code 240) rates/equations were based off of only 1 study. The 11th edition updated the mobile home park rates/equations to include data from 13 studies. Other land use codes had similar updates. Therefore, the trip generation contained in the revised analysis (using the 11th) edition is more accurate and provides a better estimate of site traffic. d. Pages 39 and 40: Pease clarify the Mobile Home Park status and also explain why the "Existing Residential Development — To be Removed" were not estimated as occupied dwelling units? TG Response: The existing mobile home park is still in use and residents occupy the units. The "Existing Residential Development — To be Removed" trips were calculated based on the number of dwelling units as that represents the entire traffic potential of the existing use. This approach is consistent with VDOT guidelines on estimating traffic for redevelopment sites. Further, ITE Trip Generation for this land use code (240) only contains data for "dwelling units" and not "occupied dwelling units." e. Pages 42: Please include missing distributions at Hickory Street intersection. TG Response: Page 42 (Figure 5-1) shows the residential trip distribution for the site. Per the discussion on page 41, it was assumed that 80% of residential site traffic will use the Old Lynchburg Road/Hickory Street intersection to access the site. The remaining 20% of residential traffic will access the site via Hickory Street (north) to Oak Hill Road to Stagecoach Road. This traffic appears on Figure 5- 1 at the 5th Street Extended/Stagecoach Road intersection. Per County comments on the initial TIA submission, no analysis was required along Hickory Street. f. Page 52, Figure 7-1: "2036 Existing" could be better revised as "2036 No Build." TG Response: Figure 7-1 (page 52) is titled "2036 Existing + Growth Peak Hour Volumes". As discussed in Section 7.1 (page 49 of the pdf), this figure contains the summation of the existing traffic volumes plus 1 % annual growth over the 15-year period from 2021 to 2036. g. Pages 113 and 125: Please code the Synchro models per the signal timing data. TG Response: Page 113 shows the basic signal timing data for the 5th Street Extended/1-64 Eastbound ramp intersection. TG acknowledges that in the PM Synchro model, the vehicle extension for Phases 216 should be coded as 3.5 seconds and not the 3.0 seconds in the model. Page 125 shows the basic signal timing data for the 5th Street Extended/1-64 Westbound ramp intersection. TG acknowledges that in both the AM and PM models, the minimum green time for Phase 4 should be 8.0 seconds and not the 10.0 seconds in the model and that for Phase 2, the minimum green time should be 10.0 seconds and not the 8.0 seconds in the model. It is noted that these minimum green times do not materially impact the analysis as the signal is running time of day plans during both peak hours where each phase is receiving more than the minimum green time. Both of these intersections are over capacity and have been identified by VDOT for future study/improvement. The changes in the base signal timings noted above will not materially impact the results of the analysis or the conclusions of the traffic study. 2. 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. TG Response: Noted.