ZMA201900008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-08-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
August 2, 2019 (updated 8-14-2019 to include Transportation Planning comments)
Lori Schweller
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
lschwellergwilliamsmullen.com / (434) 951-5728
Valerie Wagner Long
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlong ,,williamsmullen.com / (434) 951-5709
RE: Review Comment Letter #1: ZMA-2019-00008 Parkway Place
Ms. Schweller and Ms. Long:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900008 Parkway Place. We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your
ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. Project narrative:
i. Please provide an updated project narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, and police and fire
service.
ii. Please revise the "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" section of the narrative so that it states all
four future land use designations called for by the Places29 Master Plan. No mention is made of the
Public Open Space and Privately Owned Open Space, Environmental Features designations.
2. Affordable housing: The narrative and application plan make no mention of how the project addresses the
Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for providing a minimum of 15% affordable housing in developments
subject to rezoning approvals. Please provide more information on how this will be addressed through the ZMA.
See Zoning Division comments and the Neighborhood Model analysis section below.
3. Density:
a. Sheet 1 of Exhibit A states the proposed gross residential density based on the overall site acreage (27.31 acres)
and the maximum number of dwelling units possible (328). However, Chapter 8, Objective 8, Strategy 8C of the
Comprehensive Plan requires ZMAs to be evaluated based on their proposed net density. Net density is defined as
the area of a parcel that has a future land use designation other than public open space, private open space, or
green systems. The subject properties have areas of both Public Open Space and Privately Owned Open Space
land use designations. Furthermore, certain environmental features such as WPO stream buffers, floodplain, and
Preserved Steep Slopes are all identified by the Comprehensive Plan as green systems and must be subtracted
from the developable acreage of the subject parcels, even if those features lie outside of open space future land
use designations. A calculation must be provided on the application plan that clearly identifies the project's
proposed net density.
i. The Public Open Space designation on TMP 61-167C should be calculated based on the acreage of the
existing permanent park easement that was created when John Warner Parkway was built. This area
measures 5.890 according the recorded deeds and plats mentioned earlier.
ii. The applicant should use GIS to calculate the area of Privately Owned Open Space located on both
parcels and provide a measurement.
iii. Areas within the WPO stream buffer, 100-year floodplain, and Preserved Steep Slopes that are outside of
the 5.890 park easement and the Privately Owned Open Space must be identified and measured, and then
subtracted from the net density calculation.
b. Add a line stating the proposed net residential density within the overall development. The calculation should
identify the minimum and maximum number of dwelling units needed to comply with the Places29 Master Plan
future land use designations. Please remember that the Urban Density Residential (UDR) designation calls for
densities between 6.01-34 units/acre. The Urban Mixed Use (in centers) designation calls for residential
densities between 3-20 units/acre. Acreages of both land use designations should be measured (after identifying
and subtracting green systems acreage) and the minimum and maximum dwelling units in both designations
should be calculated individually.
4. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has several comments on technical aspects of the TIA that
must be addressed prior to making a final recommendation on the proposal. See the attached letter from VDOT.
The Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) future land use designation calls for a balanced mix of retail, housing,
commercial, office, and institutional uses. Although several institutional uses currently exist on surrounding
properties, there is a lack of retail, commercial, and office uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, Page 5-7
of the Master Plan states that Neighborhood Service centers "provide local -serving retail/service uses, such as a
drycleaner, florist, convenience store, or coffee shop in a horizontal or vertical mixed -use configuration to support
the residences, businesses, and other uses around them." Under the Zoning Ordinance, only office uses can be
allowed in the PRD district through approval of a special use permit. The application could be strengthened if a
commitment is made to allowing and provide retail, commercial, or office uses within some of the buildings in
Parkway Place. See Neighborhood Model analysis below for additional detail.
6. The illustrative plan sheets show elements that need a commitment including the landscaping, building facades,
internal access to the public space etc. As mentioned in the Neighborhood Model Principles analysis and
comments from other reviewers, there are aspects of Exhibit E that will likely need to be added to the application
plan for a favorable recommendation. Other items could potentially also need to be added, pending review by the
ARB.
Comments from David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, regarding more details on proposed
activities in the 5.0 acre open space area are needed. The existing Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer and
intermittent streams are environmental resources that should be protected to the greatest extent possible.
Meadow Creek has been designated by the Virginia DEQ as an impaired stream, and protection of water
quality should be a priority of this development. Making a commitment to re -vegetate and enhance the
existing vegetation of those areas with locally native plants and plant communities will greatly strengthen
the application. This could be done by providing a landscaping exhibit identifying certain types of
landscaping and vegetation within and around the open space area. Please contact David for more
information on the types of species that meet these criteria.
Application Plan Comments:
1. Sheet 4 of the application plan shows a proposed 8" sanitary sewer and storm sewer outfall crossing through areas
that are within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning District. As mentioned in the comments from the
County Engineer below, private utilities may not be allowable within areas of Preserved Steep Slopes. Uses that
can be permitted by -right in areas designated as Preserved Steep Slopes can be found in Section 30.7.4 (b) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
a. Explain whether these utilities will be within public easements or private easements. See Section 30.7.4
(b)(1)(c) for an explanation of the types of necessary public facilities that can be permitted by -right within
Preserved Steep Slopes.
b. If these utilities will be within private easements, provide more information that this crossing of the
Preserved Steep Slopes is the only possible route for these utility distribution lines to be installed in order
to allow reasonable use of the property. See Section 30.7.4 (b)(1)(f) for more information. This can be
included as a written section in the narrative, and staff suggests also providing an exhibit demonstrating
that this is the only possible route for the connections to be made. This will be reviewed by the County
Engineer and ACSA.
c. Demonstrating compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Overlay District's standards will help this proposal
meet the Neighborhood Model principle of "Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of
Terrain" as mentioned in the Neighborhood Model analysis section below.
2. A permanent public park easement was created on TMP 61-167C and was originally recorded in DB 3613, pages
344-351. The permanent park easement was turned over to the City of Charlottesville through with a quitclaim
deed recorded in DB 4622, pages 523-537.
a. Sheet 4 of the application plan shows grading inside of the park easement. Additionally, the application
plan appears to show the park easement as following the boundaries of the 5.5 acre Conservation area.
However, the actual easement measures 5.890 acres according to the recorded instruments. Staff needs
verification from the City of Charlottesville that they have no objections to the grading in the park
easement as shown, and that they have no issues with having presumed development occur within the
missing 0.39 acres. Please contact the City directly and provide verification from them on the next
submittal that there are no objections to either of these items.
3. The 1.1 acre open space area to be dedicated to public use partially meets the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for establishing a public park/trail access area within the Neighborhood Service (NS) center
land use designation. However, the proffered drawings provided in Exhibit A proffered do not show installation
of any improvements in the public open space. Improvements within the public open space are only shown in
Exhibit E, which is not part of the proffered plan.
a. For staff to conclude that the open space dedication is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Places29 Master Plan recommendations, further commitment needs to be made to the proposed public
park. For example, will the specific features of the open space be installed by the developer during site
plan review and through coordination with County staff in the Department of Parks and Recreation?
b. Sheet I of the application plan does not demonstrate how public access into the public open space area
will be guaranteed — it can only be accessed through the internal private travel ways associated with the
residential buildings. If gates are installed at the two entrances onto Rio Road, public vehicular access
into the open space could be restricted. Further information is needed on this matter. The application plan
and proffer statement should clearly explain how public vehicular access into the open space will be
provided and maintained following site development.
c. Dan Mahon, Outdoor Recreation Supervisor with the Albemarle County Department of Parks &
Recreation, is reviewing this ZMA. Comments from Dan have not yet been received. Planning for
vehicle access into the proposed public open space should be coordinated though Community
Development staff and Dan prior to the next submittal. Dan may be reached at dmahongalbemarle.org.
4. Please revise the application plan, Exhibit A, as follows:
a. Under "General Notes" on Sheet 1, please state all applicable overlay zoning districts that apply to the
subject properties. These include: Airport Impact Area (AIA), Entrance Corridor (EC), Flood Hazard
Overlay (FH), and areas of Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning Districts.
b. Sheets 1 and 2: Clearly delineate the boundaries of the public park easement that was created through
Deed Book 3613, pages 344-351 and then dedicated to the City of Charlottesville in DB 4622, pages 523-
537. Label the easement boundaries with the recorded instrument number. See Zoning Division
comments for additional information.
c. Per the request for substitution of recreational requirements required by Section 4.16 of the Zoning
Ordinance that was submitted, revise Note 8 on Sheet 1 so that it states "Active recreation must include a
clubhouse, fitness area, swimming pool, recreation fields, playground, etc." See Zoning Division
comments for further information.
d. Add a note that defines open space as follows: "Open space" means land or water left in undisturbed
natural condition and unoccupied by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as otherwise
specifically provided in County Code § 18-4.7. Please note that only 80% of the minimum open space
may be a) located on preserved slopes and b) devoted to stormwater management facilities, unless the
facility is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake, or other water feature deemed to constitute a
desirable open space amenity per Section 18-4.7(c)(3)."
e. Revise the "Allowable Uses" note on Sheet 1 as stated in Zoning Division comments.
f. See Zoning Division comments regarding notes contained on Sheet 1. Some of the notes can be removed
since these are already required standards for the PRD District. See Zoning Division comments for
specific items that should be removed.
g. Specify the maximum building height in feet and stories in the note on Sheet 1.
h. Note #9 on Sheet 1 conflicts with the Zoning ordinance requirements. The development requires 1.50
acres of recreation area, per Section 18-4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance based on the 328 units proposed.
The acreage cannot be varied "by a maximum of 10%" as stated in Note 9 unless a waiver application is
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Section 18-19.6.1 requires a total of 6.57 acres of
"common open space" in order to establish a PRD district.
i. A minimum of 6.57 acres of common open space and a minimum of 1.50 acres of recreation area
must be provided.
Proffers:
1. The proffer statement will need to be revised prior to moving forward with a public hearing. Application plans do
not need to be proffered for a PRD since the Zoning Ordinance requires Board approval of an application plan for
PRDs by default (See Section 18-33.18 (B)).
a. If the Architectural Review Board (ARB) determines that specific architectural or landscaping elements
must be included as part of this proposal, the illustrative drawings (Exhibit E) may need to become part of
the application plan, or Sheets 1-4 of Exhibit A may need to provide more information on elements of the
ZMA application that will be proffered. Following the ARB meeting scheduled for August 19, 2019,
more clarity on proffer statement revisions will be available.
b. Staff highly recommends providing cross sections for the proposed improvements along Rio Road as part
of the proffered plan. Currently, only a plan view of these improvements is shown on Sheet 3 of Exhibit
A (application plan) and no exact dimensions, widths, etc. are noted. Since the TIA uses these proposed
improvements to demonstrate that impact to Rio Road and Dunlora Drive will be mitigated once installed,
a higher level of detail should be provided on the proffer plan.
c. See the earlier comment regarding vehicular access into the public open space. This is already identified
as a deficiency in the proffered drawings, so they can be revised in order to address staff comments.
d. See Zoning Division comments for additional information on what aspects of the proffer statement should
be revised accordingly.
e. The proposed proffer#2 is an item that can be included in a written proffer statement. The commitment to
completing any proposed road improvements prior to issuance of the first CO strengthens the application,
so staff encourages the developer to include a written proffer statement.
Planning
Planning staff s comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan
Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments
below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review and may change based on direction from the Commission
and/or with subsequent submittals.
The proposal includes two Tax Map Parcels. The first property is identified as Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 61-167 and is
located within the Neighborhood 2 Comprehensive Plan Area, which is part of the Places29 Development Area. TMP 61-
167 measures 1.584 acres and is currently zoned R-4 Residential. The property is also located within the Airport Impact
Area (AIA) Overlay Zoning District, and the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Zoning District. TMP 61-167 is currently
occupied by a two-story detached single-family residential structure with a finished square footage of approximately
1,300 sq. ft.
The Future Land Use Plan -South contained in the Places29 Master Plan designates TMP 61-167 as a Neighborhood
Service Center (NS) with the future land use classification of Urban Mixed Use (in Centers).
The second property is identified as TMP 61-167C and is located within the Neighborhood 2 Comprehensive Plan Area,
which is part of the Places29 Development Area. TMP 61-167C measures 25.734 acres and is currently zoned R-4
Residential. The property is also located within the Airport hnpact Area (AIA) Overlay Zoning District, and the Entrance
Corridor (EC) Overlay Zoning District. Portions of the property are located within the Managed and Preserved Steep
Slopes Overlay Districts, as well as a small area at the southwest corner of the property that is within the Flood Hazard
(FH) Overlay Zoning District. TMP 61-167C contains mostly open fields with some areas covered by mature tree and
shrub vegetation. There are eight (8) structures on TMP 61-167C that have been used as agricultural outbuildings in the
past.
The Future Land Use Plan -South contained in the Places29 Master Plan calls for four future land use classifications across
different portions of TMP 61-167C:
1. Urban Mixed Use (in Centers);
2. Urban Density Residential;
3. Public Open Space;
4. Privatively Owned Open Space, Environmental Features;
A primary objective of the Neighborhood Service center (NS) designated on TMP 61-167 is to "provide increased
pedestrian and bicycle access to the everyday goods and services offered" in the NS center. According to page 4-14 of the
Places29 Master Plan, NS centers should have "a visual and physical relationship to major roads that makes them
accessible to additional customers from outside the immediate neighborhood."
Page 4-18 of the Places29 Master Plan identifies this NS as "The Meadow Creek Parkway" center and states that "land
uses shown on the Future Land Use Map in the immediate vicinity of the Parkway are derived from the Jones & Jones
study, which still provides guidance for development in the area immediately adjacent to the Parkway and Rio Road
corridor. The study recommendations should be considered during review of land use decisions. " The Jones & Jones
study refers to this area as the "Rolling Uplands -Open" and identifies suitable uses on these properties and others in the
immediate vicinity. Page 8 of the Jones & Jones study identifies the following general use categories as suitable in this
area:
Residential and commercial development
Park/open space; rural preservation
Transportation corridor
Since the Places29 Master Plan and Jones & Jones study were adopted in 2011 and 2001, respectively, the John Warner
Parkway has been constructed. The Meadow Creek Parkway referred to in both documents is the now existing John
Warner Parkway. This road was built according to the alignment identified as "Alternative A" in the Jones & Jones study.
A series of recommendations related to urban development patterns that should occur on properties along Rio Road and
the John Warner Parkway are listed on page 18 of the Jones & Jones study. The most pertinent recommendations are as
follows:
• Discourage excessive linear -style development (strip development) along major roads; instead encourage
compact communities with strong centers and clearly defined boundaries.
• Maintain the linear park atmosphere along the parkway, thus enhancing the overall value of future developments
bordering the parkway.
• Create districts and neighborhoods that have centers or focalpoints for congregating. These centers may include
parks, plazas, schools, community centers, or small commercial and social areas. Centers should be within easy
walking distance for most residents in the neighborhood.
• Establish an ordered network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and transit routes that will connect new
neighborhoods, existing residential areas and non-residential districts.
• Create appealing streetscapes andpublic spaces with street trees and landscaping to make the neighborhood
inviting and to connect residential areas to each other as well as to commercial centers and common areas.
• Integrate development with open space and recreation opportunities, including the parkway, parks and natural
areas, and pedestrian/bike paths. Connect to surrounding park and recreation amenities such as Pen Park and
the proposed Rivanna river walk, as well as to other existing developed areas.
• Encourage new development that respects the existing landscape and that is compatible in scale, form, and
character with the terrain features.
Several maps and exhibits contained in the Jones & Jones study identify areas suitable for urban development vs. open
space, parks, trails, etc. These drawings are very general and conceptual in nature. These drawings can be viewed on
pages 19 and 22 of the study. The application plan and site layout proposed with ZMA201900008 is consistent with the
following exhibits in the study: Urban Development Pattern on page 19, Urban Development — Pedestrian Connections
on page 19, Urban Development — Vehicular Connections on page 19, and Corridor Land Use Concept on page 22.
Therefore, staff has compared the application primarily with the recommendations contained in Chapter 8 of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Places29 Master Plan. Where relevant, the Jones &Jones study recommendations are
incorporated into the analysis. See the Neighborhood Model analysis section below for specific comments.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment
applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code § 18-33.27(B). This
evaluation will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application
moved forward to public hearings.
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood
Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the
Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle is met. Note 7 on Sheet 1 of Exhibit A explains that sidewalks will be
provided along all internal streets and travel ways. Sheets 3 and 4 also show installation
of a 10' wide pedestrian/bike trailway system, which will help complete the bike/ped
network along the property frontage of Rio Road and connect to the existing trail
system within the greenway along John Warner Parkway. This design is wide enough to
promote a safe experience for both bicyclists and walkers.
Furthermore, no cul-de-sacs are shown on the application plan. Each "block" within the
project measures approximately 200'-250' in length and is broken up by the internal
travel ways. This design is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Strategy #2b that
developments should be laid out in grids as opposed to dead -ends, and that blocks
measure less than 600' in length. This will provide a frame of reference and comfortable
travel experience for those choosing to walk though and adjacent to the development.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is partially met. The proposal includes dedication of a 1.1 acre open
space area that can be used to access the greenway trail along John Warner Parkway.
This is consistent with the recommendation that "each Neighborhood Service center
should include a publicly accessible urban open space" as stated on page 5-7 of Chapter
5: Places Types of the Places29 Master Plan. However, the application could be
strengthened if additional commitments are made to design and build the park so that it
includes a plaza, gathering area, or similar elements commonly seen in pocket parks.
The proposal is partially consistent with the Places29 Master Plan recommendation that
at least two types of dwelling units be provided under the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) designation. See Chapter 4, page 4-5 of the Places29 Master Plan. Exhibit A
states that detached single family dwellings and multifamily dwellings will be
permitted, but no firm commitment has been made to provide both on site should the
ZMA be approved.
The primary reason why this proposal does not fully meet this principle is that there are
no non-residential uses proposed. As mentioned earlier, the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) future land use designation calls for a balanced mix of retail, housing,
commercial, office, and institutional uses. Although several institutional uses currently
exist on surrounding properties, there is a lack of retail, commercial, and office uses in
the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, Page 5-7 of the Master Plan states that
Neighborhood Service centers "provide local -serving retail/service uses, such as a
drycleaner, florist, convenience store, or coffee shop in a horizontal or vertical mixed -
use configuration to support the residences, businesses, and other uses around them."
Under the Zoning Ordinance, only office uses can be allowed in the PRD district
through approval of a special use permit. The application could be strengthened if a
commitment is made to allowing uses other than strictly residential (within the limits of
the PRD district regulations) within some of the buildings in Parkway Place. Staff is
willing to discuss this comment in further detail following issuance of this comment
letter.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions.
Exhibit A identifies several large and contiguous areas of outdoor open space, including
a 1.1 acre parcel that will be dedicated to public use as a trailhead access point to the
John Warner greenway. This is consistent with Strategy #2f of the Comprehensive Plan,
and the recommendations called for by the Places29 Master Plan in Neighborhood
Service centers. These centralized amenities help satisfy this principle by providing
accessible outdoor areas where residents can congregate, and civic engagement can
occur.
However, as mentioned in the analysis of the "Mixture of Uses" principle, the
application could be strengthened by providing a more diverse mix of uses. This could
be accomplished by following the land use guidelines contained in Land Use Table 1
that calls for neighborhood -level retail uses and/or office/R&D/flex space. If the project
were to designate one or two of the proposed buildings for ground floor level retail uses,
this would accomplish the goals of the Neighborhood Center principle.
Please indicate whether the project can incorporate a mix of residential and non-
residential uses within buildings, and if not, explain the reasoning as to why.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened by a commitment to
and Affordability
constructing more than one housing type. Exhibit A clearly states that single-family
detached and multifamily uses are permitted. However, no firm commitment has been
made that more than one housing type will actually be provided. Please verify.
Additionally, no indication or explanation is made regarding affordable housing. As
called for by Strategy #2i from the Comprehensive Plan, decisions on rezoning
applications are partially based on whether each project will provide affordable housing
units. Additionally, Strategy #6b recommends a minimum of 15% of the total units in a
rezoning should be affordable housing units. Please consult these sections of the
Comprehensive plan and verify whether any affordable units will be provided. The
Comprehensive Plan aqppendix provides greater detail on how this should occur,
including the option of providing cash -in -lieu of units to the Housing Fund.
If the applicant intends to provide affordable housing, please revise the Cover Sheet and
project narrative to state the amount of affordable housing that will be provided in the
project. Staff suggests adding notes to Sheet 1 of Exhibit A to specify either a
percentage or set number of affordable units.
See Zoning comments for additional questions regarding affordable housing.
Relegated Parking
This principle is partially met. It appears that parking areas will be located to the rear of
buildings along John Warner Parkway and Rio Road. However, the ARB may
determine that additional details are needed regarding parking on site. Exhibit A may
need to be revised so that parking spaces are clearly delineated to prove that the
relegated parking principle is met. The ARB may also determine that landscaping or
other screening measures should be provided on the proffered application plan.
Comments on this matter will be provided following the August 19, 2019 ARB meeting.
Staff also requests that the applicant provide written verification that they have
reviewed the Zoning Ordinance standards for minimum number of parking spaces
required to serve multifamily residential uses. This to ensure that adequate area will be
available for parking should the site be developed as apartments only. As specified in
Section 18-4.12.6, minimum number of spaces required for multifamily uses are as
follows:
0 Any unit of 500 s . ft. or less = 1.25 parking spaces/unit
• One (1) bedroom = 1.5 parking spaces/unit
• Two 2 or more bedrooms = 2.0 parking spaces/unit
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is partially met.
Transportation Networks
No new streets are called for within the subject parcels by Figure 4.8 — Future
Transportation Network in the Places29 Master Plan.
Nevertheless, Exhibit A identifies an interconnection that will be provided at the
southern boundary between Parkway Place and an adjacent parcel known as TMP 61-
167A. Should that parcel be redeveloped in the future, an opportunity will be available
to create a travel way/street network parallel to Rio Road.
Furthermore, the Jones & Jones study identifies a conceptual street network on the
subject properties and adjacent parcels. See the exhibit titled Urban Development —
Vehicular Circulation on page 19. That exhibit clearly shows that existing vegetation
and open space on the south side of the subject parcels should not be disturbed in order
to create stub -outs, and the Parkway Place design is consistent with the street grid called
for by the study. The proposed layout also balances the preservation of sensitive
environmental features with the need for interconnections as specified by Strategy #2j
in the Comprehensive Plan. The single interconnection has been thoughtfully located
inside of the project.
During site plan or subdivision plat review, sidewalks will be required on both sides of
the internal travel way/street network in accordance with the County's Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Please see Transportation Planning and VDOT comments regarding the TIA
submitted with the first review. Staff have identified some issues with aspects of
the TIA that warrant revisions and further analysis. This includes, amongst other
considerations, an analysis of the impacts to the Dunlora Forest Drive/Rio Road
intersection and how congestion can be mitigated at this location. Furthermore,
VDOT and Transportation Planning staff have concerns about safety due to some
of the proposed travel lanes and turn movements near the John Warner
Parkway/Rio Road intersection that would be created by the improvements.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is partially met. Sidewalks will be provided so that the pedestrian
Opportunities
network both inside and outside of the project will be provided. This includes expanded
bicycle and trail networks that connect to the existing system within the John Warner
Parkway greenway.
The proposed right-of-way reservation and improvements along Rio Road are partially
consistent with the cross-section #10 contained in Appendix 3 of the Places29 Master
Plan. The future cross-section calls for a total of four lanes along this segment of Rio
Road, with 6' bicycle lanes on both sides, and a center median/turn lane area (where
applicable at intersections). The proposed medians and dedicated turn lanes from Rio
Road and onto Dunlora Drive are slightly different from the Master Plan's
recommended cross-section. That said, the intersection between John Warner Parkway
and Rio Road presents a unique situation where alternative road improvements may be
warranted in order to alleviate traffic congestion and allow safe vehicular travel along
all streets in the vicinity of Parkway Place.
VDOT staff have issued comments on the TIA and proposed Rio Road improvements.
They have several technical corrections needed to the TIA data and calculations which
are necessary before making a final determination on the TIA findings and proposed
improvements. Other VDOT comments include extending the storage length of the
north bound left turn lane to a full 100' in length. VDOT have also requested that a
cross section of the Rio Road improvements be included on the application plan. See the
attached VDOT comments for additional details.
(T-1A) s4mitted with the appliea4ien as well as the impr-evements identified en Sheet 3
of Exhibit A. Additional eo ents from planning staff will be
f l4h
During the community meeting with the Places29-Rio Community Advisory Committee
meeting, the developer stated that the road improvements will be completed prior to
requesting issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for new buildings within
Parkway Place. This is consistent with proffer #2 in the proposed proffer statement and
strengthens the application.
The Long Term Transit Network map (Figure 4.9 of the Places29 Master Plan) does not
designate any future transit service being provided along either John Warner Parkway
or Rio Road. adjacent to the subject parcel. However, the plan does call for future local
collector transit service to be provided along other major streets within the Places29
development area. The plan also calls for a future bus rapid transit (BRT) route along
Route 29 to the west of the subject parcel.
Please see Transportation Planning and VDOT comments regarding the TIA
submitted with the first review. Staff have identified some issues with aspects of
the TIA that warrant revisions and further analysis. This includes, amongst other
considerations, an analysis of the impacts to the Dunlora Forest Drive/Rio Road
intersection and how congestion can be mitigated at this location. Furthermore,
VDOT and Transportation Planning staff have concerns about safety due to some
of the proposed travel lanes and turn movements near the John Warner
Parkway/Rio Road intersection that would be created by the improvements.
Parks, Recreational This principle is partially met. Exhibit A proposes a variety of open space and
Amenities, and Open Space recreational amenities throughout the project. Some of these features will be dedicated
to public use and others will be private amenities for use of residents. As mentioned
earlier in the letter, the Zoning Division recommends adding notes about specific
equipment types that will be provided inside of Parkway Place. If notes are added to
Exhibit A regarding the specific types of recreational equipment and options that will be
provided inside of Parkway Place, this principle will be met. A commitment to
providing a range of recreational amenities will ensure that residents can enjoy both
passive and active outdoor recreational opportunities.
The most important question related to this principle is the developer's commitment to
the 1.1 acre public open space area. The application plan only commits to dedicating
the land to public use and does not clarify whether the developer will construct the
actual amenities inside of the open space or contribute toward their completion. This
question needs to be resolved prior to moving forward to a public hearing.
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, has issued comments regarding the
proposal. These comments include establishing vegetation types within the 5.0 acre
open space area near the Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer areas at the south of the
property. Exhibit A should be revised so that additional information or notes are added
specifying a commitment to installing locally native vegetation in this area of the
project. Please contact David Hannah for information on what types of landscaping and
plant species qualify as locally native.
Buildings and Spaces of
The application's consistency with this principle is still under review. Additional
Human Scale
comments from the ARB will be forthcoming, and this will allow staff to identify any
necessary revisions for compliance with this principle. This may include commitments
to certain architectural details (building materials, colors, etc.) or landscaping (location,
spacing, species, etc.).
Currently, the application plan contains notes stating that buildings will be 3 stories,
which is consistent with heights recommended by Land Use Table 1 of the Places29
Master Plan. This will create a sense of enclosure along the streets and make the
development a welcoming environment for pedestrians.
One concern with the proffered application plan is that Sheet 3 does not clearly identify
certain details of the project's frontage conditions along Rio Road. For example, there
appears to be a planting strip between the 10' pedestrian/bicycle trail and the Rio Road
curb. Labels should be added to the detail on Sheet 3 stating the width of this strip.
Additional verification that it is adequate for growth of street trees will strengthen the
applications consistency with the recommended Rio Road cross section called for in
Appendix #3 of the Master Plan.
Redevelopment
Principle is not applicable. Property is currently undeveloped.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is not currently met. The property contains areas within the Preserved
Careful Grading and Re-
Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Sheet 4 of Exhibit A shows utility lines crossing
grading of Terrain
these features which will result in grading and disturbance of the existing terrain.
Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.1, Preserved Steep Slopes "are those slopes that have
characteristics that warrant their preservation by the prohibition of disturbance except in
the limited conditions provided in this overlay district." Only certain uses are permitted
by -right within Preserved Steep Slopes, as specified in Section 18-30.7.4 (b)(1).
Further information is needed that proves that the utility lines crossing Preserved Steep
Slopes qualify as "necessary public facilities" in accordance with Section 30.7.4
(b)(1)(c) or "distribution facilities" in accordance with Section 30.7.4 (b)(1)(f). An
exhibit demonstrating that this utility line route is the only possible way to provide
sewer to the site will help staff evaluate the proposal and determine whether it qualifies
with the Zoning Ordinance.
As mentioned earlier, if the County Engineer determines that these utility lines will be
private, then approval of the disturbances to Preserved Steep Slopes may not be allowed
as proposed. Private utilities require approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of
Supervisors. See Section 18-30.7.4 (b)(2) for additional information.
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, has issued comments regarding the
proposal. These comments include establishing vegetation types within the 5.0 acre
open space area near the Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer areas at the south of the
property. Exhibit A should be revised so that additional information or notes are added
specifying a commitment to installing locally native vegetation in this area of the
project. Please contact David Hannah for information on what types of landscaping and
plant species qualify as locally native.
Clear Boundaries Between
This principle is not applicable to the request. The subject property is located within the
the Development Areas and
Places29 Development Area. No improvements or changes in use near any boundaries
the Rural Area
with the Rural Area are proposed.
Site Plan/Subdivision Comments
The "Allowable Uses" note on Sheet 1 of Exhibit A states that both multifamily units and detached single-family
dwellings will be permitted. Please be aware that if detached single-family dwellings are proposed during site
development, public or private street frontage will need to be provided internally to each new lot.
a. Pursuant to Section 14-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance, private streets serving single-family detached
uses in the development areas require Planning Commission approval. If the applicant believes that the
neighborhood will be developed as detached single-family lots and streets will be private, please consider
submitting a request for private street authorization in a resubmittal of the ZMA application.
b. Consult Section 14-234 of the Subdivision Ordinance for additional information that must be submitted
justifying approval of any proposed private streets for detached single-family residential uses.
c. Be aware of the street design standards contained in Sections 14-410, 14-411, and 14-412. If streets are
needed in order to provide frontage for detached single-family lots, road widths and associated
improvements must comply with the Subdivision Ordinance standards. This comment is so that the
applicant can account for the area needed for street improvements during the ZMA review process.
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Please see the attached zoning comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, rra sg dalekalbemarle.org, and Kevin McCollum,
kmccollumgalbemarle. org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
Comments related to transportation have been provided by Kevin McDermott, kmcdermottgalbemarle.org, and are
attached.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Written review comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org, related to the Architectural Review
Board requirements will be available following the August 19, 2019 ARB meeting.
Department of Community Development - Natural Resources Planning
Comments related to natural resources have been provided by David Hannah, dhannahkalbemarle.org, and are attached.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
Comments related to engineering have been provided by Frank Pohl, fpohlkalbemarle.org, and are attached.
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue
Comments related to Fire & Rescue have been provided by Shawn Maddox, smaddoxgalbemarle.org, and are attached.
VDOT
VDOT comments are attached and there are several revisions to the TIA needed before VDOT can make a final
determination on the application. Please see the attached letter from Adam Moore, adam.mooregvdot.vir ig nia.gov.
ASCA/RWSA
See attached comments from ACSA and RWSA staff.
Department of Parks & Recreation
Review of the application is not yet complete by staff with Parks & Rec. Comments from Dan Mahon,
dmahongalbemarle.org, will be sent to the applicant upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for (September 24, 2019) which
represents 84 days from acceptance of your application for review. From this comment letter you will see that staff
recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without changes, staff cannot recommend approval
and your application will be taken to the Commission as originally submitted.
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter"
which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date
schedule is provided for your convenience. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place
and adjoining owners need to be notified of anew date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blan ig llegalbemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Cameron Langille
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: ZMA201900008 Action After Receipt of Comments
2019 Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Schedule
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner and Kevin McCollum, Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: 7/19/2019
Subject: 15t Zoning Comments for ZMA201900008 Parkway Place
TMP 61-167 and 61-167C
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above
noted Rezoning.
PROFFER COMMENTS:
1. PRD is a planned development subject to the requirements of Section 8 of the
ordinance. As such, I don't believe that it is necessary to proffer the plan. If the purpose
of the proffer is to prevent any variations to the trailhead park, I suggest revising note #4
on the plan regarding that feature rather than a proffer.
2. This proffer must provide for more specificity in terms of minimum ROW width to be
dedicated and specific transportation improvements that are proffered. Provide reference
in the proffer to Sheet 3.
APPLICATION PLAN COMMENTS:
1. No information was provided as to how the Affordable Housing policy will be addressed.
2. 1 understand the Application Plan to be sheets 1-4. Should there be features (ex.
landscape plan or building height elevations) that need to be defined as major elements
of the plan they should be called out as sheets of the application plan, not attached
illustrative sheets.
3. Sheet 2-Add deed book and page number reference to existing Rivanna Trail and
provide any easement location on the plan sheet.
4. Recreational Facilities
a. The Applicant is requesting a special exception of the requirements of Section
4.16. Zoning has no objection; however, we would like to guarantee the inclusion
of active recreation. The proposal suggests the inclusion of a pool, clubhouse, tot
lot, recreation fields, amongst other things, however, Note 8 on Exhibit A Sheet 1
suggests that this active recreation area (1.5 acres) "may" include those
elements. To ensure that active recreation will be built and be a legitimate
substitute of the requirements of 4.16 Zoning suggests that Note 8 be reworded
to say the "Active Recreation Area must include a clubhouse, fitness area,
swimming pool, recreation fields, playgrounds tot lots..."
5. General Notes
a. A lot of the subsections of the general notes on Exhibit A Sheet 1 include
regulations that are already reflected in the Zoning Ordinance, such as parking
and uses. These regulations are already outlined in Section 19 (PRD) of the
Zoning Ordinance and there is no need to include them unless the applicant
wants to specifically limit the development to those uses and elements listed in
this section. To condense this section Zoning suggests taking these unneeded
sections out or simply referencing the applicable sections of the Ordinance.
b. Building Heights -Specify maximum height in feet.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
TO: Applicant
FROM: Kevin McDermott; Principle Planner —Transportation
DATE: August 08, 2019
SUBJECT: ZMA201900008 — Parkway Place
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Principle Planner for
Transportation has reviewed the above referenced proposal and associated traffic impact statements as
submitted by Ramey Kemp and Associates, Inc. (June 2019) and would like to provide the following
comments:
• Public and staff have identified concerns regarding the Dunlora Forest Dr intersection with Rio
Rd primarily related to left turns out of Dunlora Forest Dr. We request an analysis of intersection
operations at that location as an update to the TIA. Please contact me regarding the methodology
for this assessment. An opportunity may exist to allow a U-turn movement at the primary site
entrance that would allow vehicles exiting Dunlora Forest Dr desiring to turn left to instead make
a right turn and then a U-turn at that intersection as a better option for this movement. Please
analyze the potential for this movement and if possible, incorporate any changes in the
recommendations.
• The PM queue at the John Warner Parkway leg of the Rio Rd/John Warner Parkway intersection
extends far beyond the current storage length for both the right and left turn lanes. Wouldn't this
compound the poor operations for that direction of travel. It is noted that the No -build future
would also have this issue, but it would be worse in the Build scenario.
• Staff has concerns regarding the two lanes entering Rio Rd East from the Rio Rd/John Warner
Parkway intersection. This could cause confusion and a safety issue. Suggest reducing to one -lane
and then have left turning vehicles shift into a left -turn lane. This may result in changes in the
modeling that should be addressed.
• The Rio Rd intersection at the proposed full movement driveway would operate with a failing
movement for vehicles leaving the site wishing to turn left. This issue should be addressed to
prevent people from turning right and attempting U-turns somewhere further south on Rio Rd
East.
• Staff appreciates the improvements the applicant proposes to make to the Dunlora Dr intersection
with Rio Rd through the protected lane for left turning vehicles. This is a major improvement
from a safety and delay perspective from the current situation. Additionally, the extension of the
shared -use path south on Rio and new trailhead and parking will improve biking and walking
infrastructure in the area. However, staff does remain concerned regarding the poor operations at
the Rio Rd/John Warner Parkway characterized by the long delays for the primary movements at
this intersection. Any information on how this issue could be mitigated would be appreciated.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me.
Kevin M. McDermott
Principal Planner — Transportation
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414
kmcdermott@albemarle.org
Review Comments for �������� []
�����"������ L]
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE I
Date Completed: Friday, August 02, 2019 Dmpartmmnt/Divis|onlAgoncy: Review Gtm1««z
O
Reviewer: David Hannah F1 See Recommendations
C�
The only noaoumea | see (beyond those typically accounted for in project review) relate to Meadow Creek and an intermittent
atmann in the south-central portion of the property.
The far western part ofparcel 1G7Ciawithin 100'WzOstream buffer ofMeadow Creek- Meadow Creek iewas listed in201Gby
Va DEQ as Impaired for both aquatic life and recreation- So better protection of the stream is vvorrmntod. Part, but not all- of
the land within the 100'buffer iavegetated (per 2018aerio|a). Native, woody vegetation should beestablished inall the 100'
buffer- Extending the vegetated buffer beyond 100'wmu|d also benefit Meadow Creek-
/4arnaUaectionoftheintornnittentatremnn.attheaouthernedgeofpame|1G7C.haaovvoodedbuffer(per201Gmerim|a).
Cremtingmbufferofnotive.woodywegetationo|ongthereatoftheinterrnittentatreannvvou|dm|aobenefitMeodow/CreokaavveU
as natural resources in general- There are ernaU areas ofsteep topography near both [Neodovv Creek and the intermittent
stream. Good wooded buffers will help protect them and reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
The areas most in need of protection (areas near the 2 atreanne, preserved slopes) seem to all fall into what they have labeled
as Open Space- But more definition about what is planned for the Open Space is needed. Encouraging m landscape of locally
native plants and plant communities would be great- /4roae closest to the atreonna would benefit from woody vegetation (trees
and shrubs). There are other options as you move away from the streams — pollinator habitat- native grassland/prairie, savanna,
etc-
���
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: F08-M-'2019
-AwO
r
rA
lor
Cie
'r )�✓ -fir `�y � I ��+ .'
BAREFOOT CT
r"
1
y
Cameron Langille
From: Frank Pohl
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 5:25 PM
To: Cameron Langille
Subject: Planning Application Review for ZMA201900008 PARKWAY PLACE.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = ZMA201900008
Reviewer = Frank Pohl
Review Status = No Objection
Completed Date = 07/26/2019
This email was sent from County View Production.
COMMENTS:
[30.7.4-b.11 Private stormwater outfalls may not be allowed by -right on preserved slopes. A separate request may be
required to allow impact of preserved slopes if these are not necessary public facilities.
VESCH - Silt fence must be installed at least 5 feet beyond the base of disturbed slopes. This may affect where grading is
shown up to property lines along the south property line. This can be addressed during the VSMP/Site Plan process.
Reviw Comments for ZMA201900008
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Monday, July 08, 2019 DepartmenVDivisiontAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue No Objection
Page: El— County of Albemarle Printed Cn: F07—,.'3—OF20-19
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virgmia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
July 30, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Kevin McDermott
Re: Rio Road Multi -Family (aka Parkway Place) — Traffic Impact Analysis
Review #2
Dear Mr. McDermott:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation & Land Use
Section, as well as the Culpeper District Traffic Engineering Section, has reviewed the above
referenced plan as submitted by Ramey Kemp & Associates, dated 6 June 2019, and offers the
following comments:
1. For the two signalized intersections of John Warner Parkway/Rio Road and Rio
Road/Pen Park Road:
• The clearance interval and signal timings for all Synchro existing models to not
match the existing. Please obtain the existing conditions from Staunton TOC and
revise the analysis and reports accordingly.
• Please use the default value of (0) for the lost time adjustment (-2 used).
• Pedestrian phases for the Rio Rd./John Warner Parkway signal are missing from
all Synchro models. Please obtain the correct timing from Staunton TOC and
revise the analysis accordingly.
2. The TI . included Synchro reports for the signalized intersections and HCS reports for
un-signalized intersections (with the exception of the Dunlora Drive intersection with
median acceleration lane). VDOT highly recommends using HCS 2010/2000 for Synchro
output reports and requests consistency across outputs.
3. Synchro files for the build condition do not appear to be coded correctly for the following
reasons:
• For the right in and full movement entrances, no right turn taper was included.
Please provide a minimum 100 ft. taper at both locations. This is required per
Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual.
• At the right in entrance, the model shows two lanes (through and through/right)
for the upstream and two lanes downstream with a merge area. This configuration
does not match what is recommended in the "Recommendations" section.
4. The Synchro model for No Build 2023 PM Peak hour appears to have an incorrect right
turn volume for the intersection of Dunlora Drive.
5. Figures 11, 12 and 15; The Pen Park Road trip assignment appears to be incorrect. The
left and right turn volumes from Lochlyn Hill residential development were added to the
through movement. Please revise accordingly.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
July 30, 2019
Kevin McDermott
Page 2
b. VDOT does not recommend extending the proposed SBL lane in to Dunlora Drive to the
Rio Road/John Warner Parkway intersection as it may create safety conflict concerns
between Dunlora Drive traffic and WBL traffic from Rio Road.
7. VDOT recommends submitting a conceptual layout of the improvements to Rio Road
along the subject property's frontage. There are numerous geometric elements that must
be reviewed and may impact the site's layout constraints.
8. At the full movement driveway, the NB left turn lane must have a minimum 100 ft.
storage and 100 ft. taper.
9. VDOT recommends evaluating an acceleration lane for EBL traffic at the full movement
entrance.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. lw core, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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? Water is
located along Rio.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressure may be high in this area. PRVs may be required if pressure is above 80 psi on site.
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? Backflow will be
required if apartments are developed.
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 sewer capacity certification will be required at site plan stage. RWSA
will need to review and approve water connection. The Waldorf School is looking at proposed
development. Explore potential partnership to get sewer on site.
Cameron Langille
From:
Dyon Vega <DVega@rivanna.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 09, 2019 2:22 PM
To:
Cameron Langille
Cc:
vfort@rivanna.org; Richard Nelson
Subject:
ZMA201900008 Parkway Place
Cameron,
RWSA has reviewed application ZMA201900008 Parkway Place. Below is a completed copy of the form that was
provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications.
General notes:
RWSA will request site plans for this site. Tapping our watermain is likely and will need to review.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal Requires flow acceptance letter
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X-Yes No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Dyon Vega
Civil Engineer
ANIN,
'CATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
(434) 977-2970, Ext. 170
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.rivanna.or
1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
FIRST SET OF COMMENTS
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for September 24,
2019, which is 84 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a
90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in
this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without
these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by August 23, 2019. If you choose
not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but
without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below.
Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application.
Please do one of the following on or before August 23, 2019:
(1) Request deferral to resubmit to address comments, pursuant to Section 33.52(A)(1).
Please understand that if a deferral request is made, the Planning Commission public
hearing date will be later than September 24, 2019.
(2) Request to proceed to a Planning Commission public hearing on September 24, 2019. All
advertising fees must be paid by August 23, 2019.
(3) Withdraw your application.
(1) Deferral Request and Resubmittal
To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to 36
months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is July 2, 2022. However, all
outstanding information necessary for Commission action must be submitted by April 1, 2022,
according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 (A)(2) of the Albemarle County Code).
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
(2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 24, 2019
At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning
Commission on September 24, 2019. With this option, staff will take your project to the Commission
as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval.
(3) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Resubmittals
As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address
changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so
following the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your
comment letter with vour submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
Failure to Respond
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant
to subsection 33.52(A), and fails to provide within 120 days before the end of the deferral period all of
the information required to allow the Board to act on the application. (See Section 18-33.53 (C) of the
Albemarle County Code).
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make
checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator.
Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
2019 Submittal and Review Schedule I
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PC
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
Ad (no additional
resubmittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
than* COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 17 2018
Jan 16
Jan 25
Feb 19
Jan 07
Feb 06
Feb 08
Mar 05
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 22
Mar 19
Feb 04
Mar 06
Mar 15
Apr 09
Tue Feb 19
Mar 20
Mar 29
Apr 23
Mar 04
Apr 03
Apr 12
May 07
Mar 18
Apr 17
Apr 26
May 21
Apr 01
May 01
May 10
Jun 04
Apr 15
May 15
May 31
Jun 25
Apr 29
May 29
May 31
Jun 25
May 06
Jun 05
Jun 14
Jul 09
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 28
Jul 23
Jun 03
Jul 03
Jul 12
Aug 06
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 26
Aug 20
Jul 01
Jul 31
Aug 09
Sep 03
Jul 15
Aug 14
Aug 30
Sep 24
Jul 29
Aug 28
Sep 13
Oct 08
Aug 05
Sep 04
Sep 13
Oct 08
Aug 19
Sep 18
Sep 27
Oct 22
Tue Sep 03
Oct 02
Oct 18
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 18
Nov 12
Sep 30
Oct 30
Nov 08
Dec 03
Oct 07
Nov 06
Nov 08
Dec 03
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 19
Dec 17
Nov 04
Dec 04
Dec 20
Jan 14 2020
Nov 18
Dec 18
Dec 20
Jan 14 2020
Dec 16
Jan 15 2020
Jan 24 2020
Feb 18 2020
Dec 30
Jan 29 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Jan 06 2020
Feb 05 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2019.
2020 dates are tentative.
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen
circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to
the closest available agenda date.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# BY:
Resubmittal of information for ,
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
❑
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
$194
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,881
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.08 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1