ZMA201900008 Application 2019-09-03ZMA RFSUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
1. Resubmission Form — ZMA 2019-00008 Parkway
Place
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: ZMA- 2019-00008 (NAME: Parkway Place)
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
d7.& ✓ September 3, 2019
Signatur6 of Owner Contract Purchaser Date
Lori Schweller, Agent 434-951-5728
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
FEES that may apply:
0
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
bearing 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
IA%-- - es 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
Ro,ised IIA)2/2015 Page I of I
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
2. Parkway Place Response Ltr Part I
WILLIAMS MULLEN
September 3, 2019
Cameron Langille
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
RE: Review Comment Letter #1: ZMA-2019-00008 Parkway Place; Kotarides Developers (the "Applicant")
Dear Mr. Langille:
Thank you for your Review Comment Letter, dated August 2, 2019, updated August 14, 2019 (to include
Transportation Planning Comments) of the Applicant's initial submittal for the zoning map amendment,
ZMA201900008 Parkway Place. Enclosed with this letter is a revised Project Narrative, Revised PRD Concept Plan,
and Revised Proffers. As you requested on August 20, 2019, this letter will provide responses to the questions and
comments in the Review Comment Letter primarily as they pertain to the Application Plan and the Neighborhood
Model Concepts. Responses to Zoning Comments are included as well.
General Application Comments:
I. Project narrative:
i. Please provide an updated project narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, and police and fire
service. Please see revised narrative, enclosed
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. Please see
revised narrative. enclosed
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. Please see revised
narrative, enclosed.
Density:
a. Sheet I of Exhibit A states the proposed gross residential density based on the overall site acreage (2731 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 imLdensity. 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. Please seethe enclosed revised Agplication Plan.
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. The Application Plan has
been undated_
ii. The applicant should use GIS to calculate the area of Privately Owned Open Space located on both
parcels and provide a measurement. The exhibit has been provided with this resubmission as
Exhibit F.
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, andthen
subtracted from the net density calculation. Net density calculation as been added to the Application Plan.
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. Please see the revised PRD Plan enclosed and the attached denEj& Exhibit F.
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.
Please see the attached revised TL4 and Ramey KeM Response Letter.
5. 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. Please see revised narrative.
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.
i. 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. The Applicant will not be disturbing any of
the area oMprising the WPD stream buffer and streams as noted on the Application Plan. The
Applicant is workine with the City of Charlottesville to Provide for slope erosion repair and lantin s
in the exisfing Park easement area.
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. The sankM sewer will be a Public sewer s stem and the im act is allowed er the
Albemarle county Loning ordinance.
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. The
sanitary sewer afi nment has been selected to minimize the 1 acts to the reserved slopes.,
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. See below, no grading im acts.
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. The applicadon Plan has been uadated to note that the Park open space is 5.89
acres. The A Leant is warkka with the Cky to obtain yemdssion for the eMMsed gradng and tooffer re 'r of gwLan
eroded L1_oW in the easement as weU as to obtain Permission to install and maintain additional plandnP& as re uired by the
ARB includin a 30' bu er alone the boun&ry between the park and the development as shown on the Plan.
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. Improvemments 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? The Applicant has discussed the nark program with Dan Mahon, and with Chris
Genic at the C' . The AgpAcant will continue to work with both Countp and Q& Parks authorities to Plan and obtain
approval for the amenities and alangWs and to pmvide for Atture maintenance • see also Proffer #3 for a patendal cash
250 000 contribution in lieu of constmdion ofthe park improvements.
b. Sheet 1 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. An access easement has been added to the lication Plan Sheet 2 or
Public access to the park area Such public easement would be VgWtual unless other public access were to su rsede it in the
uture. No aces would be installed to bar such public access.
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
dmahon@albemarle.org. Please see comments to subparagraph (a) above.
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. These
a livable districts are listed beside "Proposed Zoning" on the Application Plan.
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. Labeled on the Application Plan.
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. The note has been u dated as requested,
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 § I 8-4.7. 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)." The note has been added to Anglication Plan.
e. Revise the "Allowable Uses" note on Sheet 1 as stated in Zoning Division comments. Done.
£ 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. The notes have been removed, as requested
g. Specify the maximum building height in feet and stories in the note on Sheet 1. Done.
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. The minimum open s ace has been provided and noted on the Anylication
Plan.
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)). The original Droffer #1 has been deleted.
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. The ARB made the following_
recommendations regrardine landucapine and architectural elements. reduce the uniform' of the
sides o the two buildings on John Warner Parkway with materials and colors; break the massing o
the two buildings on John Warner farkwaE by staggering16gggering and setbacks ofoortions of buildings;
Plandne trees in accordance with standard EC Guidelines but in a more naturalistic con a uration. A
30' bu er between the development and the ark and a 20'buffer between the development and the
trailhead Park have been added to the Plan to be reviewed by the ARB durinff site lannin .
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. The road sections have been added to the
Application Plan as Sheet 2. Please see Proffer #2 for aivotential cash contribution in lieu of construction.
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. The
Public access road to the trailheadivark has been included on the Application Plan.
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. The proffer regarding road iplans,
now ro er #1 ahya4 states that such improvements would be done Drior to obtainine the first buildin
Permit even earlier than first nerdacate of occupancy), as has been discussed in communjU meetings. -
The Neighborhood Model analysis
In addition to the inserted comments below, please see the Applicant's Response Letter Part II addressing
Neighborhood Model Principles.
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 Impact 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
sWud 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. The Ap licant responds that
the proposed Proiect ful ills these recommended attributes.
• Maintain the linear park atmosphere along the parkway, thus enhancing the overall value offuture developments
bordering the parkway. The Applicant responds that the gMposed Pro'ect does continue the linear park
atmosphere by addineglantings to the City ark alonwa John Warner Parkway to enhance the Park and to
break of the view of the buildings from the trail and bE contributing the trailhead
Create districts and neighborhoods that have centers or focal points 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. The Pro'ect will provide a small social area within the
trailhead where c clists and Pedestrians can gElker to use the trail have Pic Lkand rest.
• Establish an ordered network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and transit routes that will connect new
neighborhoods, existing residential areas and non-residential districts. The Proiect will extend the trail
aloag John Warner Parkway with a multi -use trail roughly arallel to Rio Road to the southern
boundary of the ProverNovertv and includes an inter arcel vehicular connection to TMP 61-167A.
• Create appealing streeiscapes and public 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.
As shown most s eci acallon the Landsca a Plan the Pro'ect will include new tree lantin s within the
Public Park alone the Parkway and within the new trailhead ark new street trees and landsc in
throughout the proiect and alone Rio Road and a 30'-20' buffer alone the northwest north and northeast
boundaries o the develo ment area between the buildings and thUublicivark and trailhead pM&
• Integrate development with open space and recreation opportunities, including the parkway, parks and natural
areas, andpedestrian/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. The Pro'ect will enhance with additional lantin s and new abuttin
trailhead park the gdYlin 5. 93acre Ch zPark along the Earkway and will include a new tree -lined
multi -use sidewalk alone Rio Road to the southern property boundary, The Applicant is in discussions
with the City and Coun& Park authorities to plan the Pro'ect's additional glantings in the Chypark and
to Provide for maintenance in er etu' . In addition the A licant is requesting Permission to rude in
the easement area in exchange for repairing existing erosion.
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
Please see the attached Response Letter Part II for the Anolicant's responses to the Neighborhood Model
Principles. —
Site Plan/Subdivision Comments
The Applicant is not prop2gng detached single-family dwellings, so these comments are not addressed in detail.
Zoning Comments
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 of the plan regarding that feature rather than
a proffer. The formerfroffer #I proffering the Plan itself has been deleted and Note #4 on the
Plan has been updated to include the dedication of the trailhead nark to the public as Part of the
key eatures of the plam A new proffer #3 has been added to Provide for a otential cash
contribution in lieu of construeffim the trailhead park.
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.
The road dimensions have been „added to the transportation improvement designs, which have been
added to the Application Plan as Sheet Z Reference to this Sheet 2 has been added to the proffer
statement as well as a new M er #2 that Provides for a Potential cash contribution in lieu of the
Rio Road transportation improvements.
APPLICATION PLAN COMMENTS:
1. No information was provided as to how the Affordable Housing policy will be addressed. This
in ormation has been added to the a lication narrative and the Neighborhood Model Principles
discussion in Part II of this Response Letter.
2. I 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. Building story and height limits.
Public access easements landscapine and buiTerinje, and information reeardina the trailhead park
amenities have been added to the Application Plan.
3. Sheet 2-Add deed book and page number reference to existing Rivanna Trail and provide any
easement location on the plan sheet. The Deed Book and name references for the park easement
have been added to the Application Plan.
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
acre) "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 ..." Note 8 has been reworded, as requested
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. The notes on the APPlication Plan have
been updated to specify the s eci ac zoning code for the regulation for the uses on thenroperty
and the Parking,.
b. Building Heights- Specify maximum height in feet. The building height note has been unda_ ted to
specify a speciric building, height limitation with the PRD.
ZMA RESUSMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
I Parkway Place Response Ltr Part II (Neighborhood
Model Principles Analysis)
Response to Review Comments Letter #1: ZMA-201900008 Parkway Place, Part 11
Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian Orientation
The Review Comment Letter states that this principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
The Applicant believes that the Project would not benefit from commercial uses. In the Urban
Density Residential areas, secondary uses may include retail, commercial, and office uses that
support the neighborhood, open space, and institutional uses. However, retail use is not
permitted within the PRD district. Office use could be added with an approved special use
permit. In the Urban Mixed Use (in Centers), a Neighborhood Service Center is desirable.
Table LU 1: Land Uses in Centers and Uptown indicates that a Neighborhood Service Center
(NS)' should have a minimum of one (1) small green park conveniently located and intended to
be a central focal point of the center with additional open space as necessary, depending on the
intensity and mix of uses. Table LU I further recommends, with regard to Open Space, that
each Center needs a minimum of 10% usable open space and that the minimum size of the
park should be % to Y2 acre. The proposed trailhead park will comprise 1.1 acres and will serve
as a gateway to the Rivanna Trail that runs along the Parkway side of the Property, providing
parking to those beyond walking distance and a green area and information center for trail
visitors.
Having spoken with the former Director of Community Development and Parks & Recreation
about use of the Neighborhood Service Center portion of the Property, the Applicant determined
that commercial or mixed use would be less desirable at this intersection than a public trailhead
park. The trailhead park is particularly appropriate in this location because the existing trail
along John Warner Parkway comes to an abrupt stop from the southwest and has no
connection point from the northeast. Objective 4 of the Parks and Recreation, Greenways,
Blueways, Green Systems Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to "(p)rovide access points to
greenways and blueways." As Strategy 4(a) explains, "(a)ccess points are important because
they make it possible for residents and visitors to get to community destinations by trail."z The
Places29 Master Plan also recommends to "(p)rovide for trail connections from adjacent and
nearby neighborhoods to the Greenway network).' By contrast, commercial development at this
intersection would be undesirable as it would increase traffic levels to the Property. "With infill
and redevelopment, not all Neighborhood Model Principles may be applicable depending on the
context of the site."4 Considering this Center within its context, the Applicant suggests that a
public park providing access to the existing trail and conserved public open space as well as a
connection to the multi -use sidewalk to be extended southeast on Rio Road is more desirable
than commercial uses. Given that office use is the only non-residential use permitted in PRD
zoning, there is no loss in potential street -level amenities, such as coffee shops or other retail
1 Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas adopted February 2, 2011, amended June 10,
2015, Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network.
2 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. adopted June 10, 2015, Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation, Greenways,
Blueways, Green Systems, p. 11.21.
3 Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Develo ment Areas adopted February 2, 2011, amended June 10,
2015, Chapter 6, Community Facilities and Services, p. 6-3.
a Id Chapter 8, Development Areas, Objective 6, p. 8.32.
11 Page
establishments, which would not be permitted in the district and would only increase traffic in the
area.
The Project will be a focal point of a Residential Neighborhood. Parkway Place will be
organized around both privately -owned Common Open Space and Public Open Space.
Privately -owned Common Open Space will be located in the center of the community in the form
of passive recreation areas and active recreational amenities and in the southern portion of the
Property where environmental features will be preserved and stormwater management facilities
will be installed. Public Open Space will be along John Warner Parkway and at the intersection
with Rio Road in the form of the proposed trailhead park, which will provide to the surrounding
community a connection to a public open space and a Center ... with "convenient pedestrian and
bicycle connections to the Center." 5
Neighborhood Centers
The Applicant is not proposing any buildings within the portion of the Property designated as
Urban Mixed Use (in Centers). The Project will "maintain the visual integrity"' of the Rio Road
and John Warner Parkway Entrance Corridors by continuing the character of the John Warner
Parkway Entrance Corridor as rolling natural open space with tree and flower plantings. The
installation of the trailhead park with tree plantings and landscaping along the EC and
intersection will enhance the viewshed from both Rio Road and John Warner Parkway. As
described in the Mixture of Use principle section above with respect to the portion of the
property designated as Urban Density Residential, the Applicant has determined that the Project
would not be strengthened by adding non-residential buildings within the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) portion of the Property. Such mixed uses would increase the traffic in the area and
would take away from the area needed for the public trailhead park area.
61-1615
sir Lark
nnnc
`t
4X As was discussed in the ARB
VIM meeting on August 19, 2019, the
a »a,„„*a1>, �, property immediately southwest of
WL, 1", _ the Property on John Warner
""" , s• ;:'° - Parkway is owned by the City of
Charlottesville, which may help to
i' �MSe continue the unbroken greenscape
along the road and bikelped trail.
5 Id Chapter 5, Place Types, p. 5-2.
'Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 2015, Plan Summary, Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources, Objective
8, P. 5-19.
21 Page
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
The Comprehensive Plan posits a strategy of ensuring that Development Areas provide a
variety of housing types, stating that "a full range of housing types creates choices for
residents." A primary impetus for housing type choice is housing affordability, which apartments
are uniquely suited to satisfy. The Comprehensive Plan also notes that "a mixture of housing
types may not be necessary for inf ll development, depending on the context and location." As
the pie charts accompanying Strategy 2g in the Development Areas chapter and Strategy 4a in
the Housing chapter illustrates, the County has a very low stock of multifamily housing overall
and within the Development Areas specifically, being only four percent (4%) in both calculations:
Figure 9: Figure 3: !lousing Types in Albemarle County
Dwelling Unit in Developmen! Amos ,m
45FD
eVAITH
"=laFkondo
s ■rep
3arex 4fbemor7e Gainh G muiiry Osr�7op�s�rd 201s
The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Assessment published by The Central
Virginia Regional Housing Partnership of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
reports that only three percent (3%) of the land in Albemarle County is zoned for multifamily
housing, while ninety-five percent (95%) is zoned for single-family housing (Table 14.
Residential Zoning by Jurisdiction, 2018). The report goes on to explain that "(u)nder the goal
of protecting single-family neighborhoods, such zoning restricts the opportunities for multi -family
housing and increases multi -family land prices" (Id., p. 61).
The areas surrounding the development are heavily developed with single-family detached
homes, townhomes, and condominiums. As we have seen in a number of recent developments
(e.g. Rio West and Greenfield Terrace Apartments), in such context of existing residential
development, it is appropriate to consider the proposed housing type in the context of
surrounding development. The Objective 2, Strategy 2g of Urban Development Areas provides
that "(u)less a mixture of housing types already exists in an area, new development proposals
should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels" 7 (emphasis added.) In a
recent (July 30, 2019) Planning Commission work session for ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill,
Commissioners discussed the question posed by staff, "Should a variety of housing types (such
as townhomes and single-family detached) be provided within the development, or should only
single-family detached dwellings be provided?" Staff reported that "considering the proximity of
this proposed development to the existing Running Deer neighborhood, which is listed as being
'expected to retain their low -density character,' Staff believes it would not be inappropriate for
only single-family detached dwelling units to be provided in Breezy Hill." The Commission
discussed the various possibilities and the pros and cons of multiple housing types, specifically
in relation to the goals of preserving open space and providing affordable housing.
The Applicant does not propose to provide two or more housing types within this development
for several reasons. The Urban Density Residential designation calls for medium density in this
Albemarle County Comprehensive plan. Chapter 8, Development Areas, Objective 2, p. 8.18.
31 Page
location, there are a range of housing types in multiple developments in close proximity to the
Project, the development of single-family or townhome units on the property would not be an
efficient use of the property and, further, would not enhance the housing mix in the area, which
already includes townhome, condominium, and single-family options. Further, the Applicant is
proposing to provide 15% of the units (49 units if 328 units are constructed) at rental rates equal
to 30% of the gross income of 80% Area Median Income (AMI), based on family size; such
affordable rates would be maintained for at least ten (10) years. Providing such affordable units
within the Project will ensure a mix of housing affordability on site, which is the primary goal of
this strategy of the Neighborhood Model Principle as is indicated by the following statement:
"(u)nless a mixture of housing types already exists in an area, new development proposals
should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels" (emphasis added).'
Multifamily housing often provides the best affordable option in high -cost areas close to urban
development where people work.
Relegated Parking
This principle is met because all parking is relegated to the rear or sides of buildings. None of
the parking areas will be visible from the Entrance Corridors. In its August 19, 2019 advisory
hearing, the ARB decided to review illumination and parking lot landscape buffering as part of
the site plan review. The Plan will confirm that the Project has sufficient parking space for the
proposed use.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
The Applicant's traffic engineer has updated the Traffic Impact Analysis to address the
comments provided by Transportation Planning and VDOT.
Multimodal Transportation Opportunities
The Applicant's traffic engineer has updated the Traffic Impact Analysis to address the
comments provided by Transportation Planning and VDOT.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space
The Project proposal has been strengthened with respect to this principle by the following
revisions: (a) the Application Plan notes commit to specific types of recreational options, (b) the
Application Plan notes that the Applicant will construct, or contribute the funds to construct, the
amenities within the trailhead park. As discussed with Dan Mahon and Chris Gensic (City Parks
and Recreation), the developer will continue to work with the County and City to plan the control
of, and amenities within, the trailhead park, to be approved by City or County or by joint
agreement during site planning. Park amenities proposed are not all inclusive and shall be
limited to typical pocket parts type amenities. The type of park amenities and constructed
infrastructure to be installed by the developer may include:
a. Park grading
b. Entrance and parking
C. Area for public art
d. Sidewalk/sidewalk access
e. Multiuse lawn area
f. Picnic pavilion or gazebo
g. Benches and picnic tables
h. Potential off leash area (to be determined)
i. internal landscaping and shade trees
s Id Strategy 2g, p. 8.18.
4 1 P a g e
Perimeter street trees per county ordinance
The developer shall dedicate the park and improvements to public use. The County or City or
both by joint use agreement shall be responsible for maintenance and life cycle replacements in
the park. Perimeter landscape screening for parking lots, etc., as required by Albemarle County
Code, shall be maintained by the developer.
Within the existing City easement park, limited grading shall be required on the edges of the
easement park internal to the easement in areas of failing slopes and eroded soils and in limited
areas associated with infrastructure installation along the edges of the subject development. All
grading areas will be stabilized per county erosion and sediment control requirements and
planted with an appropriate mix of native vegetation designed to retain soil and provide native
habitat. Landscape buffers and planting within the easement and on the Property shall be
maintained by the developer, exclusive of meadows and landscape along the Parkway right of
way deemed to be part of the required entrance corridor streetscape.
A mix of native large shade trees and flowering trees spaced on average of 35' on center will be
required by the County to be installed along John Wamer Parkway within the easement park.
The Developer will install these plantings and anticipates maintaining them during a limited
establishment period associated with the construction of the project, after which it is expected
that the City will maintain them as part of the John Warner Parkway streetscape already
maintained by the City.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
The Architectural Review Board considered a series of 14 questions from ARB staff at its
August 19, 2019 meeting. In response to the question "(i)s human scale exhibited in the
proposal, or is it anticipated that human scale will be easily achievable in the proposed
development," the landscape architect on the ARB commented that the six -acre park and
trailhead park and porches contributed to the satisfaction of this principle. The ARB as a whole
answered that, yes, this principle had been met by the proposal. The ARB was fine with the
three-story buildings, recommending that the massing be "broken up" by (a) reducing uniformity
in materials and color, (b) staggering or setback of portions of the buildings and use of
projections and bays, and (c) the proposed landscaping. Though a mix of heights would help, it
noted, such as two-story "hyphens," it did not find them necessary for satisfying the desire for
human scale.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Regrading of Terrain
The project has been designed to respect the existing terrain and to protect the existing natural
resources of the property. All grading activity for the project will be outside of the preserved
slopes, greenways, floodplain, and stream buffers, as shown on the Application Plan. Private
utilities have been designed outside of the natural resource areas to protect these areas on the
site. The public utility connections have been designed to limit the impacts to the natural
resources on the property.
5 1 P a g e
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
4. Narrative with
a. Parkway Place Response Ltr Part II
(Neighborhood Model Principles Analysis)
Parkway Place
Zoning Map Amendment Application Narrative
Original Submission: June 17, 2019
Revised Narrative for Resubmission: September 3, 2019
Project Proposal
On behalf of Kotarides Developers, LLC ("Kotarides" or the "Applicant"), we hereby request the approval of
a Zoning Map Amendment ("ZMA") for Tax Map Parcels 06100-00-00-16700 and 06100-00-00-167CO (the
"Property"). We specifically request for the 27.31 acres comprising the Property, located at the
intersection of Rio Road East and John Warner Parkway, to be rezoned from R-4 Residential to Planned
Residential Development - PRD with proffers. The purpose of this ZMA is to allow for the development of a
multi -family apartment community to be known as "Parkway Place" (the "Project"). The development will
also include a publicly -accessible trailhead park to provide a community recreational amenity and access to
the existing Rivanna Trail system on the Property along John Warner Parkway. Attached as Exhibit A is the
Project's concept plan, entitled, "Parkway Place Development," September 3, 2019, prepared by Collins
Engineering (the "Concept Plan"). The Project layout is depicted on Sheet 1, which is referred to herein as
the "PRD Application Plan." The PRD Application Plan (Sheet 1) and the Road Improvements Plan (Sheet
2) together comprise the Application Plan.
The A licant:
Kotarides was founded in 1963 by Alex and O. Pete Kotarides as a small home builder in Virginia Beach. The
company has been family -owned and operated for the past 56 years. Kotarides built its first apartment
community in 1969 in Virginia Beach, and it continues to own and manage the community. The company
develops, builds, and manages all its properties, thus maintaining the quality of facilities and service, and is
very focused on being a good neighbor in the communities in which its properties are located.
Existing Uses:
As shown on Sheet 3 ("Existing Conditions") of the Concept Plan, TMP 61-167C (25.73 acres) contains open
fields, several agricultural outbuildings, and the Rivanna Trail; TMP 61-167 is the site of a single-family
residence. Both parcels are zoned R-4. The Property is designated for Urban Density Residential and Urban
Mixed Use (in Center) in the Comprehensive Plan. The large parcel is subject to a permanent easement on
an approximately 5.890 acre area for a public park and trail. A copy of the instrument establishing the
easement is included in the application materials.
Proposed Uses:
Kotarides proposes developing the Property into a multi -family housing community containing 328 dwelling
units, which would be a gross density of 12.01 dwelling units per acre (DUA). Sheet 1 of the Concept Plan
shows the location of the building envelopes, trave lways/parking envelopes, and greenspace. An
illustrative plan of the Project is attached as Exhibit E. As shown on Exhibit F. the Property contains 5.89
acres of Public Open Space and 1.14 acres of Private Open Space (which includes all steep slopes, stream
buffers, and flood plains). The net density of the proposed development, after subtracting the acreage of
the Public Open Space, Private Open Space, WPO stream buffer, preserved slopes, and flood plain would be
16.17 DUA: 328 / (14.95 + 5.33).
In the corner of the Property at the intersection of Rio Road and John Warner Parkway, Kotarides is working
with the County Parks and Recreation Department to design a Neighborhood Service Center consisting of a
trailhead park to provide parking for those accessing Rivanna Trail. The park would include parking and
1
may include gateway monumentation, a gazebo with trail maps, and public art. The Applicant believes that
this proposed park amenity providing connectivity to the existing trail system is a more appropriate use for
this Neighborhood Service Center than mixed use development that would bring additional traffic to the
area. As further beautification of the area and to increase the enjoyment of the Trail, Kotarides also
proposes extending the County's wildflower meadow planting project planned for City property at the
northeast corner of the Rio intersection onto the eased area along John Warner Parkway, stretching along
the western boundary of the Property.
As shown and noted on the PRD Application Plan,13.5 acres of the 27.31 total acreage would be used for
private common open space, open space dedicated to public use for the proposed trailhead park, active
recreation areas for the apartment community, a greenway continuation of the Rivanna Trail, and the
existing public open space conservation area.
Surrounding Properties:
The Property is located within the urban ring just on the edge of the Charlottesville city limits. A number of
residential neighborhoods have been developed on surrounding properties, including Belvedere, The
Reserve at Belvedere, Dunlora, Dunlora Forest, and Shepherd's Ridge at Dunlora to the north and east off
Rio Road West; and Riverrun, Treesdale, Stonehenge, and Stonewater off Rio Road East southeast of the
Property. Several institutional uses are in close proximity to the Property as well, including Charlottesville
Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) immediately northeast across John Warner Parkway, several
churches on Rio Road, and Charlottesville Waldorf School and Charlottesville Catholic School to the south.
Please refer to the Vicinity Maps attached as Exhibit C and Exhibit D for the location of the project in the
context of existing roadways and walking trails, neighborhoods, parks, and institutional uses and
businesses.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
�ry
�Mti tiy5� �•t�f' _�
Land Use Designations
The Future Land Use South Map designates the
Property as Urban Density Residential (orange),
-Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) (pink / white
strineL-Public Open Space along John Warner
Parkway (green), andPrivately Owned Open
Mce-ul ronmental Features in the western
corner (dark green) where the stream and WPO
stream buffer and 100-year flood plain are
located, along with Preserved Slopes, none of
which will be disturbed by the development.
The Places29 Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas (the "Master Plan") land use plan
designates 14.95 acres of the Property for Urban Density Residential and 5.33 acres in the northeast corner
as Urban Mixed Use (in Centers). Please see the Comprehensive Plan excerpt attached as Exhibit B and the
Density Analysis attached as Exhibit F. The Urban Density Residential designation "is used in areas around
Centers where multifamily housing with a gross density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is
desired." (See Master Plan, Ch. 4, "Land Use Designations"). The existing zoning, R-4, is inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan because it permits only four dwelling units per acre, not the medium density
2
desired in this location. Primary uses within UDR areas are multifamily and single-family residential. As
further detailed in the "Primary and Secondary Uses" section of Chapter 4, residential buildings should not
be taller than four (4) stories or 45 feet unless by exception. The Project fits squarely within the desired
primary use for areas designated as Urban Density Residential as it will be a multi -family residential
development with proposed gross density of twelve (12) DUA. All buildings are proposed as three-story
buildings no greater than 45' tall.
In the Neighborhood Service Center area, residential uses with density of 3-20 DUA and three stories, retail
and office uses, institutional uses, and open space are permitted. With 5.33 acres in this designation, the
Property could support 15 to 106 units in the Neighborhood Service Center Area. As discussed below, the
Applicant believe that an open space use is most appropriate in this area of the Property based on context.
A public park easement held by the City of Charlottesville comprises 5.89 acres of the Property along John
W. Warner Parkway. Private Open Space designation covers 1.14 acres of the Property.
Mixture of Uses
In the Urban Density Residential areas, secondary uses may include retail, commercial, and office uses that
support the neighborhood, open space, and institutional uses. However, retail use is not permitted within
the PRD district. The eastern corner of the Property at the intersection of Rio and John Warner Parkway is
designated Urban Mixed Use (in Centers), which means a location where a Neighborhood Service Center is
desirable. Table LU 1: Land Uses in Centers and Uptown indicates that a Neighborhood Service Center (NS)l
should have a minimum of one (1) small green park conveniently located and intended to be a central focal
point of the center with additional open space as necessary, depending on the intensity and mix of uses.
Table LU I further recommends, with regard to Open Space, that each Center needs a minimum of 10%
usable open space and that the minimum size of the park should be % to % acre. The proposed trailhead
park will serve as a gateway to the Rivanna Trail that runs along the Parkway side of the Property, providing
parking to those beyond walking distance and a green area and information center for trail visitors.
Having spoken with the former Director of Community Development and Parks & Recreation about use of
the Neighborhood Service Center portion of the Property, the Applicant determined that commercial or
mixed use would be less desirable at this intersection than a public trailhead park. The trailhead park is
particularly appropriate in this location because the existing trail along John Warner Parkway comes to an
abrupt stop from the southwest and has no connection point from the northeast. Objective 4 of the Parks
and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, Green Systems Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to "(p)rovide
access points to greenways and blueways." As Strategy 4(a) explains, "(a)ccess points are important
because they make it possible for residents and visitors to get to community destinations by trail."Z The
Places29 Master Plan also recommends to "(p)rovide for trail connections from adjacent and nearby
neighborhoods to the Greenway network).' By contrast, commercial development at this intersection
would be undesirable as it would increase traffic levels to the Property. "With infill and redevelopment, not
all Neighborhood Model Principles may be applicable depending on the context of the site."' Considering
this Center within its context, the Applicant suggests that a public park providing access to the existing trail
and conserved public open space as well as a connection to the multi -use sidewalk to be extended
southeast on Rio Road is more desirable than commercial uses. Given that office use is the only non-
1 Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas, adopted February 2, 2011, amended June 10, 2015,
Chapter 4.
2 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 10, 2015, Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation, Greenways,
Blueways, Green Systems, p, 11.21.
3 Places29: A Master Plan Chapter 6, Community Facilities and Services, p. 6-3.
1 Id Chapter 8, Development Areas, Objective 6, p. 8.32.
residential use permitted in PRD zoning, there is no loss in potential street -level amenities, such as coffee
shops or other retail establishments, which would not be permitted in the district and would only increase
traffic in the area.
The Project will be a focal point of a Residential Neighborhood. Parkway Place will be organized around
both privately -owned Common Open Space and Public Open Space. Common Open Space will be located in
the center of the community in the form of passive recreation areas and active recreational amenities, and
privately -owned Open Space is located in the southern portion of the Property where environmental
features will be preserved and stormwater management facilities will be installed. Public Open Space will
be along John Warner Parkway and at the intersection with Rio Road in the form of the proposed trailhead
park, which will provide to the surrounding community a connection to a public open space and a
Center ... with "convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Center."'
Mixture of Housing jyl2es
The Comprehensive Plan posits a strategy of ensuring that Development Areas provide a variety of housing
types, stating that "a full range of housing types creates choices for residents." A primary impetus for
housing type choice is housing affordability, which apartments are uniquely suited to satisfy. The
Comprehensive Plan also notes that "a mixture of housing types may not be necessary for infill
development, depending on the context and location." As the pie charts accompanying Strategy 2g in the
Development Areas chapter and Strategy 4a in the Housing chapter illustrates, the County has a very low
stock of multifamily housing overall and within the Development Areas specifically, being only four percent
(4%) in both calculations:
Figurt+ 91 Figure 3. Hawing Types in !Albemarle County
Dwelling llnib in Development Areas In
BSFO
iSFA/rm
r rrrl,.Kvn
■ MM
:tea AIL�mak Cem�ly Canmwsty Ue.dep�r�.st 70 F3
e a GFb
■ 2 SFA/T"
w 3 kaF,Ccv d�
The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Assessment published by The Central Virginia
Regional Housing Partnership of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission reports that only three
percent (3%) of the land in Albemarle County is zoned for multifamily housing, while ninety-five percent
(95%) is zoned for single-family housing (Table 14. Residential Zoning by Jurisdiction, 2018). The report
goes on to explain that "(u)nder the goal of protecting single-family neighborhoods, such zoning restricts
the opportunities for multi -family housing and increases multi -family land prices" (Id. p. 61).
The areas surrounding the development are heavily developed with single-family detached homes, single-
family attached homes, and condominiums. As we have seen in a number of recent developments (e.g. Rio
West and Greenfield Terrace Apartments), in such context of existing residential development, it is
appropriate to consider the proposed housing type in the context of surrounding development. In a recent
(July 30, 2019) Planning Commission work session for ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill, Commissioners discussed
the question posed by staff, "Should a variety of housing types (such as townhomes and single-family
detached) be provided within the development, or should only single-family detached dwellings be
s Id Chapter 5, Place Types, p. 5-2.
4
provided?" Staff reported that "considering the proximity of this proposed development to the existing
Running Deer neighborhood, which is listed as being 'expected to retain their low -density character,' Staff
believes it would not be inappropriate for only single-family detached dwelling units to be provided in
Breezy Hill." The Commission discussed the various possibilities and the pros and cons of multiple housing
types in relation to open space and affordable housing.
The Applicant does not propose to provide two or more housing types within this development for several
reasons. The Urban Density Residential designation calls for medium density in this location, there are a
range of housing types in multiple developments in close proximity to the Project, the development of
single-family or townhome units on the property would not be an efficient use of the property and, further,
would not enhance the housing mix in the area, which already includes townhome, condominium, and
single-family options. Further, the Applicant is proposing 15% affordable units within the Project for ten
years, as described in the paragraph below, which will ensure a mix of housing affordability on site, which is
the primary goal of this strategy of the Neighborhood Model Principle as is indicated by the following
statement: "Unless a mixture of housing types already exists in an area, new development proposals
should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels" (emphasis added).'
Affordable Housing:
Multifamily housing often provides the best affordable option in high -cost areas close to urban
development where people work. The Applicant will offer 15% of the units at a rental rate equal to 30% of
gross income for 80% of regional Area Median Income (AMI), based on family size, for at least ten (10)
years following issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project.
Impacts on Public Facilities & Public Infrastructure
This Project has been designed to have a minimal effect on the existing public infrastructure.
Water/Sewer:
The Property is located within the jurisdictional area for County water and sanitary sewer service. There is
an existing 12" waterline along Rio Road that will provide water and fire flow protection to accommodate
the proposed density and use of the Property. A sanitary sewer extension will be installed across Meadow
Creek and the city property to the south of the Property. The existing water and sanitary sewer utilities are
adequately sized to accommodate the Project. An alternate sanitary sewer connection is being explored
across the properties to the east of the project. Both alignments area feasible, and both alignments have a
minimal impact to the preserved slopes on the site.
Road Infrastructure:
The proposed frontage improvements along Rio Road are designed to mitigate the additional traffic from
the proposed development and help address some existing traffic issues with the Dunlora and Rio Road
intersection created by existing development. A Traffic Impact Analysis report is included with this
Application. The report includes the analysis and distribution of the traffic generated from the proposed
development. The report also outlines the proposed roadway improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts
from the fully -completed development. Four movement points are highlighted where wait times are
undesirably high. These delays will increase over time with or without Parkway Place, but the proposed
improvements will lessen the increased times in some locations. Most notably, the lane delay turning left
out of Dunlora Forest, without road improvements, is expected to increase to an extremely high level
without this Project. With the Project's proposed road improvements, the wait time will decrease over
today's levels and will be a dramatic improvement over the level that would be experienced without the
'Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Objective 2, Strategy 2g, p. 8.18.
5
Project. Please see the attached Traffic Impact Analysis for further details. All planned or proposed traffic
improvements are subject to change based on direction from VDOT. The proposed traffic improvements
are shown on Sheet 2 ("Entrance Frontage Improvement Exhibit") of the Application Plan.
Fire Rescue:
The Application Plan includes information regarding Fire & Rescue and shows 26' fire lanes, as required for
the height of the proposed buildings. Shawn Maddox indicated in the Fire Rescue Review Comments that
Fire Rescue has no objections to the Project.
Schools:
Students living within the Project would be within the current school districts for Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School, Burley Middle School, and Albemarle High School. According to planning staff, "(w)ith current
enrollment, Agnor-Hurt Elementary and Burley Middle School are under capacity; however, Albemarle High
School 2018-19 enrollment was over capacity by 126 students."7 The total impacts of the apartment
complex on the school system is minimal, due to the total number of 3-bedroom units within the
development. Less than 10% of the total number of units will be 3-bedroom units, and one third of the
units will be one -bedroom units.
The County Schools provided the following matrix and estimates:
OFFICAL CALCULATOR
Type of Dwelling Unit
Single Family (Detached)
Single Family (Attached) (162)
Town Home
Multi -Family (328 Units)
Elementary Middle High Total
0.15 0.08 0.12 0.35
0.13 (21) 0.05(8) 0.08 (13) 0.26 (42)
0.15 0.06 0.08 0.29
0.12 (40) 0.03 (10) 0.05 (16) 0.21(68)
However, using the actual transportation data provided by County Schools, the total number of expected
school students per year from this Project is 18 students, based on data for comparable projects provided
by the Albemarle County Public Schools and the relatively small proportion of larger units:
Transportation Data from Albemarle County Schools (10/2018)
Reserve at Belvedere
Arden Place
Parkway Place
Pre-K Elem Middle High
(294 Units) 0 4 1 6
(212 Units) 0 1 3 4
(328 Units) 0 6 5 7 = 18 students
Planning Commission Staff Report for ZMA201800013 Rio West, June 18, 2019.
6
Impacts on Environmental Features
The Project proposes dedication of 1.1 acres of open space to public use at the intersection of Rio Road and
John Warner Parkway. This property could be used for a trailhead, providing parking and other amenities
to the existing 5.89 acre easement already dedicated on the property for a bicycle and pedestrian trailway.
The resulting aggregate 6.99+ acre public open space dedication would commit one quarter of the Property
to open space public use. In addition, there are existing preserved steep slopes along the stream banks and
adjacent to Meadow Creek that will be preserved with this development. These preserved steep slopes will
be protected as common open space on the property and will not be disturbed. Upland pocket park areas
are also proposed within the development for active recreational amenities. These amenities include a
pool, a clubhouse, and an active recreational field. Finally, a 10' pedestrian/bike trail will extend the
existing Rivanna Trail on the north side of the Property along Rio Road on the east side of the Property. The
total amount of proposed open space, which includes open space dedicated to public use (trailhead park),
active recreation areas, the conservation area, the greenway, and common open space, is approximately
51% of the Property's acreage (less the acre to be dedicated for the Rio Road improvements). Please see
the locations and acreage calculations of open space on the Application Plan.
There are no proposed impacts to the existing streams or wetlands on the property. The Property is being
clustered with this development, and all proposed development will be limited to the areas outside of the
critical slopes, including the preserved and managed slopes, and outside of the existing floodplain, streams,
and wetland areas on the Property. Please see the Sheet 4 of Exhibit A, entitled "Grading, Stormwater
Management, & Utility Plan."
Please see the attached Part H to the Response to Review Comments Letter #1 which addresses each o
the Neighborhood Model Principles outlined in Review Comment Letter #1.
Proposed Proffers to Address Impacts
Please see the attached revised Proffer Statement.
Revised Exhibits
A Parkway Place Development Concept Plan:
Sheet 1: PRD Application Plan
Sheet 2: Entrance Frontage Improvement Exhibit (along with the PRD Application Plan,
the "Application Plan")
Sheet 3: Existing Conditions
Sheet 4: Grading, Stormwater Management & Utility Plan
8 Zoning Map; Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
C Vicinity with Walking Radius Map
D Vicinity with Driving Radius Map
E Parkway Place Development Illustrative Plan (6 sheets) and Traffic Exhibits (2 sheets)
F Parkway Place Overall Allowable Density Analysis (ZMA-2019-00008)
407522811
7
Response to Review Comments Letter #1: ZMA-201900008 Parkway Place, Part II
Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian Orientation
The Review Comment Letter states that this principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
The Applicant believes that the Project would not benefit from commercial uses. In the Urban
Density Residential areas, secondary uses may include retail, commercial, and office uses that
support the neighborhood, open space, and institutional uses. However, retail use is not
permitted within the PRD district. Office use could be added with an approved special use
permit. In the Urban Mixed Use (in Centers), a Neighborhood Service Center is desirable.
Table LU 1: Land Uses in Centers and Uptown indicates that a Neighborhood Service Center
(NS)' should have a minimum of one (1) small green park conveniently located and intended to
be a central focal point of the center with additional open space as necessary, depending on the
intensity and mix of uses. Table LU I further recommends, with regard to Open Space, that
each Center needs a minimum of 10% usable open space and that the minimum size of the
park should be'/a to'/2 acre. The proposed trailhead park will comprise 1.1 acres and will serve
as a gateway to the Rivanna Trail that runs along the Parkway side of the Property, providing
parking to those beyond walking distance and a green area and information center for trail
visitors.
Having spoken with the former Director of Community Development and Parks & Recreation
about use of the Neighborhood Service Center portion of the Property, the Applicant determined
that commercial or mixed use would be less desirable at this intersection than a public trailhead
park. The trailhead park is particularly appropriate in this location because the existing trail
along John Warner Parkway comes to an abrupt stop from the southwest and has no
connection point from the northeast. Objective 4 of the Parks and Recreation, Greenways,
Blueways, Green Systems Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to "(p)rovide access points to
greenways and blueways." As Strategy 4(a) explains, "(a)ccess points are important because
they make it possible for residents and visitors to get to community destinations by trail."2 The
Places29 Master Plan also recommends to "(p)rovide for trail connections from adjacent and
nearby neighborhoods to the Greenway network).' By contrast, commercial development at this
intersection would be undesirable as it would increase traffic levels to the Property. "With infill
and redevelopment, not all Neighborhood Model Principles may be applicable depending on the
context of the site."' Considering this Center within its context, the Applicant suggests that a
public park providing access to the existing trail and conserved public open space as well as a
connection to the multi -use sidewalk to be extended southeast on Rio Road is more desirable
than commercial uses. Given that office use is the only non-residential use permitted in PRD
zoning, there is no loss in potential street -level amenities, such as coffee shops or other retail
1 Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas adopted February 2, 2011, amended June 10,
2015, Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network.
z Albemarle County Com rehensive Plan adopted June 10, 2015, Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation, Greenways,
Blueways, Green Systems, p. 11.21.
3 Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas adopted February 2, 2011, amended June 10,
2015, Chapter 6, Community Facilities and Services, p. 6-3.
4 Id., Chapter 8, Development Areas, Objective 6, p. 8.32.
...............................................
1 jPage
establishments, which would not be permitted in the district and would only increase traffic in the
area.
The Project will be a focal point of a Residential Neighborhood. Parkway Place will be
organized around both privately -owned Common Open Space and Public Open Space.
Privately -owned Common Open Space will be located in the center of the community in the form
of passive recreation areas and active recreational amenities and in the southern portion of the
Property where environmental features will be preserved and stormwater management facilities
will be installed. Public Open Space will be along John Warner Parkway and at the intersection
with Rio Road in the form of the proposed trailhead park, which will provide to the surrounding
community a connection to a public open space and a Center ... with "convenient pedestrian and
bicycle connections to the Center."'
Neighborhood Centers
The Applicant is not proposing any buildings within the portion of the Property designated as
Urban Mixed Use (in Centers). The Project will "maintain the visual integrity'Is of the Rio Road
and John Warner Parkway Entrance Corridors by continuing the character of the John Warner
Parkway Entrance Corridor as rolling natural open space with tree and flower plantings. The
installation of the trailhead park with tree plantings and landscaping along the EC and
intersection will enhance the viewshed from both Rio Road and John Warner Parkway. As
described in the Mixture of Use principle section above with respect to the portion of the
property designated as Urban Density Residential, the Applicant has determined that the Project
would not be strengthened by adding non-residential buildings within the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) portion of the Property. Such mixed uses would increase the traffic in the area and
would take away from the area needed for the public trailhead park area.
lrerw4+ 1_ a?
As was discussed in the ARB
�-=
meeting on August 19, 2019, the
property immediately southwest of
WA 19 1
the Property on John Warner
Parkway is owned by the City of
Charlottesville, which may help to
continue the unbroken greenscape
along the road and bike/ped trail.
5 Id Chapter 5, Place Types, p. 5-2.
'Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 2015, Plan Summary, Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources, objective
8, P. 5-19.
.......................... ....
2 1 P a g e
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
The Comprehensive Plan posits a strategy of ensuring that Development Areas provide a
variety of housing types, stating that "a full range of housing types creates choices for
residents." A primary impetus for housing type choice is housing affordability, which apartments
are uniquely suited to satisfy. The Comprehensive Plan also notes that "a mixture of housing
types may not be necessary for infill development, depending on the context and location." As
the pie charts accompanying Strategy 2g in the Development Areas chapter and Strategy 4a in
the Housing chapter illustrates, the County has a very low stock of multifamily housing overall
and within the Development Areas specifically, being only four percent (4%) in both calculations:
t~lgure 9t
M"Il'o-ng :mite in Develoomw Atari
.r, .
i PISFD
SFA/T$
- �lcondo
nra
S.,wr.:;lrerMkC:.�.:'cas+wurv�r5'LsrWrY,:,:�'d .'['Jlu
Figure & Housing Types In Albemarle County
5
a 1 SFD
.+ SFAS
.3 MF/Cando
eJ MH
The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Assessment published by The Central
Virginia Regional Housing Partnership of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
reports that only three percent (3%) of the land in Albemarle County is zoned for multifamily
housing, while ninety-five percent (95%) is zoned for single-family housing (Table 14.
Residential Zoning by Jurisdiction, 2018). The report goes on to explain that "(u)nder the goal
of protecting single-family neighborhoods, such zoning restricts the opportunities for multi -family
housing and increases multi -family land prices" (Id., p. 61).
The areas surrounding the development are heavily developed with single-family detached
homes, townhomes, and condominiums. As we have seen in a number of recent developments
(e.g. Rio West and Greenfield Terrace Apartments), in such context of existing residential
development, it is appropriate to consider the proposed housing type in the context of
surrounding development. The Objective 2, Strategy 2g of Urban Development Areas provides
that "(u)less a mixture of housing types already exists in an area, new development proposals
should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels"' (emphasis added.) In a
recent (July 30, 2019) Planning Commission work session for ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill,
Commissioners discussed the question posed by staff, "Should a variety of housing types (such
as townhomes and single-family detached) be provided within the development, or should only
single-family detached dwellings be provided?" Staff reported that "considering the proximity of
this proposed development to the existing Running Deer neighborhood, which is listed as being
'expected to retain their low -density character,' Staff believes it would not be inappropriate for
only single-family detached dwelling units to be provided in Breezy Hill." The Commission
discussed the various possibilities and the pros and cons of multiple housing types, specifically
in relation to the goals of preserving open space and providing affordable housing.
The Applicant does not propose to provide two or more housing types within this development
for several reasons. The Urban Density Residential designation calls for medium density in this
' Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8, Development Areas, Objective 2, p. 8.18.
31 Pag.e.
location, there are a range of housing types in multiple developments in close proximity to the
Project, the development of single-family or townhome units on the property would not be an
efficient use of the property and, further, would not enhance the housing mix in the area, which
already includes townhome, condominium, and single-family options. Further, the Applicant is
proposing to provide 15% of the units (49 units if 328 units are constructed) at rental rates equal
to 30% of the gross income of 80% Area Median Income (AMI), based on family size; such
affordable rates would be maintained for at least ten (10) years. Providing such affordable units
within the Project will ensure a mix of housing affordability on site, which is the primary goal of
this strategy of the Neighborhood Model Principle as is indicated by the following statement:
"(u)nless a mixture of housing types already exists in an area, new development proposals
should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels" (emphasis added)."
Multifamily housing often provides the best affordable option in high -cost areas close to urban
development where people work.
Relegated Parking
This principle is met because all parking is relegated to the rear or sides of buildings. None of
the parking areas will be visible from the Entrance Corridors. In its August 19, 2019 advisory
hearing, the ARB decided to review illumination and parking lot landscape buffering as part of
the site plan review. The Plan will confirm that the Project has sufficient parking space for the
proposed use.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
The Applicant's traffic engineer has updated the Traffic Impact Analysis to address the
comments provided by Transportation Planning and VDOT.
Multimodal Transportation Opportunities
The Applicant's traffic engineer has updated the Traffic Impact Analysis to address the
comments provided by Transportation Planning and VDOT.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space
The Project proposal has been strengthened with respect to this principle by the following
revisions: (a) the Application Plan notes commit to specific types of recreational options, (b) the
Application Plan notes that the Applicant will construct, or contribute the funds to construct, the
amenities within the trailhead park. As discussed with Dan Mahon and Chris Gensic (City Parks
and Recreation), the developer will continue to work with the County and City to plan the control
of, and amenities within, the trailhead park, to be approved by City or County or by joint
agreement during site planning. Park amenities proposed are not all inclusive and shall be
limited to typical pocket park type amenities. The type of park amenities and constructed
infrastructure to be installed by the developer may include:
a. Park grading
b. Entrance and parking
C. Area for public art
d. Sidewalk/sidewalk access
e. Multiuse lawn area
f. Picnic pavilion or gazebo
g. Benches and picnic tables
h. Potential off leash area (to be determined)
i. Internal landscaping and shade trees
Id Strategy 2g, p. 8.18.
............... ----
41Page
Perimeter street trees per county ordinance
The developer shall dedicate the park and improvements to public use. The County or City or
both by joint use agreement shall be responsible for maintenance and life cycle replacements in
the park. Perimeter landscape screening for parking lots, etc., as required by Albemarle County
Code, shall be maintained by the developer.
Within the existing City easement park, limited grading shall be required on the edges of the
easement park internal to the easement in areas of failing slopes and eroded soils and in limited
areas associated with infrastructure installation along the edges of the subject development. All
grading areas will be stabilized per county erosion and sediment control requirements and
planted with an appropriate mix of native vegetation designed to retain soil and provide native
habitat. Landscape buffers and planting within the easement and on the Property shall be
maintained by the developer, exclusive of meadows and landscape along the Parkway right of
way deemed to be part of the required entrance corridor streetscape.
A mix of native large shade trees and flowering trees spaced on average of 35' on center will be
required by the County to be installed along John Warner Parkway within the easement park.
The Developer will install these plantings and anticipates maintaining them during a limited
establishment period associated with the construction of the project, after which it is expected
that the City will maintain them as part of the John Warner Parkway streetscape already
maintained by the City.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
The Architectural Review Board considered a series of 14 questions from ARB staff at its
August 19, 2019 meeting. In response to the question "(i)s human scale exhibited in the
proposal, or is it anticipated that human scale will be easily achievable in the proposed
development," the landscape architect on the ARB commented that the six -acre park and
trailhead park and porches contributed to the satisfaction of this principle. The ARB as a whole
answered that, yes, this principle had been met by the proposal. The ARB was fine with the
three-story buildings, recommending that the massing be "broken up" by (a) reducing uniformity
in materials and color, (b) staggering or setback of portions of the buildings and use of
projections and bays, and (c) the proposed landscaping. Though a mix of heights would help, it
noted, such as two-story "hyphens," it did not find them necessary for satisfying the desire for
human scale.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Regrading of Terrain
The project has been designed to respect the existing terrain and to protect the existing natural
resources of the property. All grading activity for the project will be outside of the preserved
slopes, greenways, floodplain, and stream buffers, as shown on the Application Plan. Private
utilities have been designed outside of the natural resource areas to protect these areas on the
site. The public utility connections have been designed to limit the impacts to the natural
resources on the property.
- - .....................
5 1 P a g e
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
5. Revised Proffer Statement + redlined proffer
statement
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA 2019-00008
Project Name: Parkway Place
Original Proffers X
Amendment
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700
Owner(s) of Record: Thomas D. Wetsel, Clarence H. WetseI, and Mary W. Hood
Date: September 3, 2019
Approximately 27.31 acres to be rezoned from R-4 Residential to PRD — Planned Residential
Development
Thomas D. Wetsel, CIarence H. Wetsel, and Mary W. Wood are the sole owners (collectively, the
"Owner") of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700 (the
"Property"), which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA 2019-00008, a project known as
"Parkway Place" (the "Project"). The Project Application Plan, dated June 14, 2019, last revised
September 3, 2019, is prepared by Collins Engineering and is entitled, "Parkway Place Development
Exhibit A," comprised of the PRD Application Plan (Sheet 1) and Entrance Frontage Improvements
(Sheet 2).
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning
district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the
Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable:
Rio Road Improvements: to mitigate traffic impacts, prior to obtaining the first building
permit, the Owner shall widen Rio Road East along the frontage of the Property, construct a
median and protected left -turn lane out of Dunlora Drive, and construct a right -in public
accessway from eastbound Rio Road East for the public to access the trailhead park, as
shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan (the "Rio Road Improvements"). The described
Rio Road Improvements are subject to modification by direction of the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT).
2. Notwithstanding any notes on the Application Plan to the contrary, if the Owner does not
receive final approval by County and VDOT for the Rio Road Improvements within 24
months of the date of approval of ZMA 2019-00008, then it shall contribute to the County
or VDOT, as directed by the County Director of Community Development, or his/her
designee, $750,000 as a cash contribution for the Rio Road Improvements in lieu of
constructing the Rio Road Improvements.
3. Notwithstanding any notes on the Application Plan to the contrary, if the Owner does not
receive final approval by the applicable County and City of Charlottesville authorities for
the design and amenities of the trailhead park improvements as shown on the Application
Plan (the "Trailhead Park") within 24 months of the date of approval of ZMA 2019-00008,
then it shall contribute to the County or the City of Charlottesville, as directed by the
County Director of Community Development, or his/her designee, $250,000 as a cash
contribution for construction of the Trailhead Park in lieu of constructing the Trailhead
Park.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]
2
Signature Page for Proffer Statement for Parkway Place, ZMA 2014-00008
TMPs 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700
OWNERS:
Thomas D. Wetsel by his attorney -in -fact, Mary W. Hood
Clarence H. Wetsel by his attorney -in -fact, Helena Wetsel
Mary W. Hood
40751720 vl
Original Proffers X
Amendment
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. 2019-.-0008
Project Name: Parkway Place
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700
Owner(s) of Record: Thomas D. Wetsel, Clarence H. Wetsel, and Mary W. Hood
Dat mber 3. 2
Approximately 27.31 acres to be rezoned from R-4 Residential to PRD -Planned Residential
Development
Thomas D. Wetsel, Clarence H. Wetsel, and Mary W. Wood are the sole owners (collectively, the
rOwnerl of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700 (the Propertyl,
which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA Ne. 2019-00008- a project known as
Parkway Place'tthe Projecty. The Proiect Annlication Plan. dated rune 14_ 7019 lacr rPv;ePd
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning
district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the
Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable:
-
L Rio Road Improvements: to mitigate traffic impacts, prior to obtaining the first building
permit, the Owner shall widen Rio Road East along the frontage of the Property, construct a
median and protected left -turn lane out of Dunlora Drive, and construct a right -in public
accessway from eastbound Rio Road East for the public to access the T l
Iravement 'f'�. The described Rio Road Improvements are subject to modification by
direction of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Signature Page for Proffer Statement for Parkway Place, ZMA Js.E). .OQ008
TWs 06100-00-00-167CO and 06100-00-00-16700
OWNERS:
Thomas D. Wetsel by his attorney -in -fact, Mary W. Hood
Clarence H. Wetsel by his attorney -in -fact, Helena Wetsel
Mary W. Hood
Document comparison by Workshare 10.0 on Tuesday, September 3, 2019
1:21:02 PM
Legend:
hmaim
Petetien
Style change
Format change
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions
15
Deletions
12
Moved from
2
Moved to
2
Style change
0
Format changed
0
Total changes 31
71
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
I
A. Parkway Place Development Concept Plan:
Sheet 1: PRD Application Plan
Sheet 2: Entrance Frontage Improvement Exhibit (along
with the PRD Application Plan, the "Application Plan")
Sheet 3: Existing Conditions
Sheet 4: Grading, Stormwater Management & Utility
Plan
OPEN SPACE CHART
PARCEL
7MP D610o-OPOD-16700 15R ACRES
TMP 05100-90-130.16700 25.73ACRES
TOTAL AREA: 27.31 ACRES
AREA DEDICATED TO PUBLIC R/W = LD ACRES
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 26,31 ACRES
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA= SAW ACRES (MIN.)
OPEN SPACE DEDICATED TO PUBUC USE =1.1 ACRES
ACTIVE RECREATION AREA =1.5 ACRES (MIN.)
CONSERVATION AREA = SAS ACRES
GREENWAY=0.12 ACRES (INCLUDED IN THE 5.07 ACRES)
TOTALOPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 13.56 ACRES MIN. (51.5%)
NOTES:
1. WPO STREAM BUFFERS, PRESERVED SLOPES,& GREENWAY
AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED PER THE REGULATIONS WITHIN
THE ALBEMARIE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.
2 OPEN SPACE IS DEFINED AS LAND OR WATER LEFT IN UNDISTURBED
NATURAL CONDITION AND UNOCCUPIED BY BUILDING LOTS, STRUCTURES
11
STREETS, OR PARKING LOTS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY
/ r
// �io0'STREAM
BUFFER
EXISTING MANAGED
STEEP SLOPES (TYP.) /
` L OMITS OF THE PUBLIC PARK EASEMENT
B.3 , PG.344"351
TMP 62-169 --CHARLOT �wuNbi.W2Y 23'- — - - —L - - - — - /
-
WARNER PARKWAY `'_ T -
EXISTING ASPHALT -
PATHWAY
,------_---------_-).
CONSAERV TION j BUILDING
ENVELOPE
5.89 ACRES BUILDING
j ENVELOPE
TRAVELWAYIPARICNG ENVELOPE
If I
BUILDING
ENVELOPE
f BUILDING
f ENVELOPE
TRAVELWAYIPARKING ENVELOPE
iv--GREENWAY
e (0.z2 AQ
�xC
wo' YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
TMP 61-168 /x o
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
TRAVELWAYI PARKING AREA
ACTIVE RECREATION AREA
CONSERVATION AREA
OPEN SPACE
GREENWAY
EXISTING ASPHALT PATHWAY
a ®®®®
EXISTING Zoo YR FLOODPLAIN
EASEMENT LINE
■
PROPERTY LINE
PRESERVED SLOPES
MANAGED SLOPES
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR RIO ROAD
PROPOSEDIMPROVEMErNTS
OPEN SPACE TO BF
DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE
PROPOSED zo' & 30' LAND5CAPE BUFF
PROPOSED io' PEDESTRIAN
T
& BICYCLE PATHWAY
RESERVED LAND FOR TRAILHEAD
POCKET PARK
(0 70 ACRES MIN )
ACTIVE: RECREATION
OPEN SPACE
RECREATIONAL
AMENITY SPACE
0.80 ACRES MIN
A TIVE REGRN
OPEN SPACE
VICINITY NAP ,. ,
SCALE: 1' =
C
Y
K' PENPARICRND
=p�try,
OWNERS:
TMP 06p 09-W 16700 TMP061aa-00. 167Ca
WETSEL, THOMAS D. LIFE ESTATE WE75EL, THOMAS D. e
878E k10 ROAD CAIR NCE H. WETSEL
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA,Sga1 870 E RIO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 229M
-,� a `
DEVELOPER:
KOTARIDES DEVELOPERS
-0 INDEPENDENCE BLVD. SUITEzm
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA z3455
ENGINEER_
COLONS ENGINEERING
xoo GARRETT 57, SUITE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 219a2
TAX MAP &ZONING:
o-6 7Co
061a0-8%PG.56
D.B. ., PG.
D.B.16ID
D.B.16ID
a"
R-4 RESIDENTIAL R-4 RESIDENTIAL
NTAL RESIDENTIAL
Q
TOTAL PROIECEAREA: a61oo-00-00-67- 1.58AC.
1a0-
060waoa67COCo z5.73 AC.
TOTAL
F�x ryF�--..SAc
Y
PROPOSED ZONING:
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(PRO)WITH AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT(AIA1
FLOODPLAIN HA7ARDOVERLAYOISTRKT(FHI,AREAS
T
OFMANAGED AND PRESERVED SLOPES OVERLAY
DISTRICT, ANDENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT(EQ
TMP 61-%65R
TOPOGRAPHY-
TOPOGRAPHY& BOUNDARY INFORMATION COMPILED BY
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC., IN AUGUST
amR.
KT
DATUM:
NAD 83
NETDENSRY:
OVERALL NET DE NSITYCAL CULATIONS(BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTER (3-21 UNrEJACRE) x 5.33 ACRE =15 UNITS (MIN.)A 1a6 UNITS (MA))
URBAN DE NSITY RES IDENTIAL(6.m-34 UNIT51ACR E)x24.95 ACRES-BS UNITS (MI ND&Soo UNITS (MAX)
PUBLIC&PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREA (ZERO UMITS)ACRE3 X) =O UNITS (MIN.
NOTE: ENTRANCE
OVERALL ALLOWABLE NET DENSITY: 104 UNRS(MINIJ TO 614 UMTS(MM.)
T1T1Tl
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL
?J
NOTEICATIONPL NUMBER OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UN1755HALL NOT EXCEED 318 URNS WITH THIS
APPLI[ATION PLAN.
- !r
�; f
BE SUBJECT TO VDOT I
`1 AND COUNTY REVIEW
ALLOWABLE USES:
THE ALLOWABLE USES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION LO-29.3 OFTHE
--
I'IAND APPROVAL. SEE THE
BUILDING HEIGHTS:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR7H15 DEVELOPMENT
RIO ROAD FRONTAGE
SHALL BE A 357ORY BUILDING AND THE
HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED 45 FEET.
'
�• IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
I
ACCESS
THE PROJECT CURRENTLY HAS(1)ACCESS POINTS FROM RIO ROAD THAT WILL SERVE AS ACCESS TO
THE SITE. THE DEVELOPMENT 15 PROPOSING AN INTERCONNECTION TO TMP 61-167A AS SHOWN
ONTHEAPPLICATIOMPLAN. THERE ISALSOA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONNECTION FROM THE
` TMP 6i-i65C
PROPERTYTO THE[ITYOF CHARLOTTESVILLE PROPERTYADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
,f
pl
PARKING:
PARKINGSHALLBEPRDIVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION A-4.1a OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE.
FIRE &RESCUE:
THE PROJECT SHALL CONFORM WITHALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE REGULATIONS FOR FIRE
BUILDING I
ENVELOPE
BUILDING BUILDING
ENVELOPE ENVELOPE
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT�/
IL._____
TRAVELWAYIPARKING ENVELOPE I
I
IF
♦+� COMMON OPEN I
SPA
1 I
5.07 ACRES(MIN.) a ! r
PROPOSED
♦ STORMWATER Lu r
• MANAGEMENT 0 t JI
!
FACILITY a i
TMP 6z-270 %Aftft
m ! r
r I
`\ *BUILDING ENVELOPE +
INCLUDES GARAGE
PARKING STRUCTURE''-■-
\ \ \ PROPOSED LOCATION OF
�UIISTING PRESERVED ` INTERPARCEL VEHICULAR
STEEP SLOPES (TYP.) \ ROAD CONNECTION TO TMP 62-167A
TMP ft-i67A
(:HAPHIC SCALE j \
1 D o 75 1EjO / PROPOSED i0' ASPHALT PEDESTRIAN
/ /,,�k BICYCLE PATHWAYALONG RIO
/ \ , R04D -PATHWAY TO CONNECT TO
f THE EY TING PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
( IN FEET) ALONHN WARNER PARKWAY
1 inch = 150 ft. \
BUILDING^
ENVELOPE
'L�
PROTECTION AND ACCESS TO THE SRE. ALL DRIVE LANES WRHIN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT ARE
ADIACENTTO A BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE z6'IN WIDTH FOR FIRE PROTECTION OFTHE 35TORY
BUILDINGS,
1
Y
PHASING: ALL ROADWAY FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AS SHOWN WITH THE APPLICATION PLAN FOR RIC ROAD,
TMP 61-i65B
11 1■ 1'
5HALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE FIRST BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UTILITIES. COUNTY WATER AND SEWER
WATERSHED, RIVANNA RIVER -MEADOW CREEK
S'�I �!-
/ +■
FLOODPLAIN: THERE ISAFLOODPLAIN LOCATED ON THIS SITE. FEMA MAP ID 51ou3Co2eo0 DATED FEBRUARY 4, za05. IN
ADDITION, ADAM BREACH INUNDATION ZONE EXISTS ONTHE PROPERTY FOR THE SOUTH RIVANNA DAM,
WHICH IS A FEDERAL DAM LOCATED UPSTREAM OF THE PROPERTY.
TMP 61-s65A
'rI
LAND DEDICATED TO PURL ICUSE:
FOR i R-ACRE50F OPEN SPACE SHALL BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AS SHOWN ONTHE APPLICATION PLAN
ATRAILHEAD. DURING SITE PLANNING, THE APPLICANT WILL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY AND
COUNTY PARK AUTHORITIES TO PLAN THE DESIGN, AMENITIES, AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE- ACRE
1
Ij
TRAILHEAD PARK r0 BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE. THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT ALL
1 3
4 r
N
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE FRPJLHEAD PARK AND SHALL DEDICATE 7HEMTO PUBLIC USE, IDEALLY AS
AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING CITY EASEMFNF PARK, TO BE MAINTAINED BYTHE CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE.
. yo ACRES OF RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE DEDICATEDTO PUBLIC USE AS SHOWN ON THE
e
APPLICATION PLAN FOR ROAD FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTSALONG RIO ROAD.
NOTE: WITHINTHE ROADWAY DEDICATIONAREAALONG RIOROAD,A-&ASPHALT PEDESTRMN AND
■ T) TMP 62F- C_T _
BICYCLE TRAILWAY HALL BE CONSTRUCTED, AS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION PLAN.
I r -
BUFFERS: A3o LAN--ING.UFFERSHALLBEPROMDEDAGTH LONEN-HSRNPORTX)NOFTHE PROPERTY
AND A 20 LANDSCAPING BUFFER SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF
BUILDING+
ENVELOPE ! '/TMFr62F-O7-30r'
f,
j)j t f
THEPROPERTY,AS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION PLAN. THE LANDSCAPING BUFFERS SHALL EITHER
BEA NATURAL UNDISTURBED BUFFER ORA REPLANTEDA.ANUSCAPING BUFFER. THExo'&3o'BUFFERS
SHALL BE LOCATED ALONG THE EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AND ALONGTHE
PROPOSED TRAILHEAD PARK AREA. PORTIONSOF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING BUFFERS SHALL BE
LOCATEDWITHIN THE EXISTING PUBLIC EASEMENT AND WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TO BE
ffJJ )
DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE FOR THE PROPOSED TRAILHEAD, AS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION PLAN.
! MP 62F-01-29 l
T MP - L(\
/J/162F-&-28,
Id'`
��
THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING WITHIN THESE AREAS MAYBE PRESERVEDAND MAINTAINED, OR
LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PLANTED TO CREATE THE as & 3R' LANDSCAPING BUFFERS. THE
LANDSCAPING BUFFERS SHALL BE A MI OF DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND TREES. ALL
LANDSCAPING BUFFERS WFTHINTHE CITY EASEMENT SHALL BE SURIECT TO CRY REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
AFFORDABLE HOUSINI PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOU5ING POLICY(Toop), AMENDED TUNE
I
.9,_&,SHor THE UNITS WTIAN THE PROJECTSHALL BE RENTED AT RATES EOUA1 TO 30%OFTHE
GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME OFBP%OFARA MEDIANINCOME(AMH, BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE,
+y;� MP 62F-Qj-27
FOR A MINIMUM OFTEN(a) YEARS FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OFTHE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR
THE PROJECT.
NOTES
I, �� :
-#-;-lfL'i� ` ,�'? y---'--. J. 7 EXACTLOCATIONOF ROADWAYS AND TRAVELWAYS SHALL BEIOETERMINEDWRHTHE SRE PLANPROCESS.
ALLPROPOSEDIR DWAYS SHALL HAVESTREET TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. ALL
_ TREES SHALL BEMAINTAINED BYTHEAPARTMENTCOMPLEX MANAGEMENTSERVICES.
`'TMP62F-o3-26 ' 3 THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AREAS MAYBE EXPANDED DURING THE DESIGN 'PHASESTOALLOW FOR ADDITIONALARIA TO
f ACCOMMODATE UFIlTRES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, AS NECESSARY FORTHE
F{ ' k I �DEVELOPMENT.
p ? L�.y f �, p. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN GENERAL ACCORD WELL] THE KEY FEATURES OFTHIS APPLICATION PLAN, INCLUDING
' -
# °TMP 62F-Oa-25
THE DEDICATION OF -ACRES FOR ATRAILHEAD PARK. MINOR VARIATIONS FROM THIS PLAN ARE PERMITTED, IN
ACCOIII-CEWITHALIII—LECOUNTYZONINGREQUIREMENTSANDREGULATIONS.
UTILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER, STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES, MAYBE INSTALLED WITHIN
THE CONSERVATION AREAS ONTHE PROPERTY. UTILITIES MAYBE INSTALLED WII THE PRESERVED SLOPES, IN
I
ACCORDANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS.
ff
5. ALL ROADWAY FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG RIC ROAD SHALL BE SUBIECTTD ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND VDDT REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS AND CHANGES TO THE ROADFRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITHIN THE
L
APPLICATION PLAN MAYBE IMPLEMENTED AS REOUESTED BYTHE COUNTY AND VDOT DURING THE REVIEWAND APPROVAL
PROCESS.
'
7. BUlOIOR SIDEWALKS FOR THE PEDESTRIANNETWORK THROUGHOUT THE APARTMENTCOMPLEXLICAT BEINCLUDED1NTHE
BUILDING ENVELOPE AREAS AND7RAVELWAY1PARKING ENVELOPEARER5A55HOWNONTNEAPPLICATK)N PLAN.
8. ACTIVE RECREATIONAREA*SHALL WCLUDEACLUBHOU5E, FITNESS AREA, SWIMMING POOL, RECREATION FIELD, ANDA
_ -
70TLOT,AMD07HERACTIVERECREATIONALFEATURESMAYBEPROVIDEDAT THEOWNER'SDISCRETION.
9. ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL AREAS MAY BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE S.07 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA. THETOTAL
ACREAGE OF E40; ACTIVE RECREATIONION AREA HALLBEI�ACRESON OPEN SPACE UNCLUDING THE TRECREATIONAL AREA) SHALL BEAMINIMUM OF6.57 ACRES. THE
MINIMUM ACRAG
P
5
Z
LU
X
CL Z
0 J N
� Z a
LU Q
0E-F� �g
LU8Q�
V 2 i_4
LLJ CL
Z
CL �
Y CL
Aa
I..L
JUNE 17, 2019
SCALE
1" = 150`
SHEET
EXISTING CONDITIONS Qr-7
.�W.
FUTURE z
FUTURE DUNLORA PARK RIO ROAD EAST SIDEWALK EXTENSION —_ f, I I ,r ! ul j I I _ _ -r.. k
��
SIDEWALK EXTENSION � STATE ROUTE 63 r � f N o
30' PRESCRIPTIVE & Z_ d
f...«�1F4131AB f
r -
WIDTH v
uN o�
f
Irw
Lq
x
1
�y a
1
�Z` r W$
I �d
PROPOSE ENTRANCE FRO TAGE IMPR VEMENTS
\ GZ\ \ \ NOTE: PROPOSED RIO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER �— L
O I VDOT AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS.
44 f1ul
--1 PROPOSED zoo' STORAGE f ` 4-- j —_ -�� H
PROPOSED DEDICATED � RIO ROAD EAST 1 PROPOSED DEDICATED f I AND soo' TAPER LEFT TURN Z
PROPOSED 300' f Lu
THROUGH LANE LANE w
ioo' LEFTTURN LANE STATE ROUTE 63 MERGE LANE r _
1 30' PRESCRIPTIVE & 1 -
w
�+48lA&�E WIDTH R/W - sZ LANE J - I ! 0
\ _AN
_
NNE" , ENE { _ o' TR J u~i
��
'°'ME0 xz` LANE - _ t' '' i4fl=pE —� l W a
3o SITION
LANE LANE - '_ _ _F 1z' LANE �.. f Lu ¢ a
w m Q Ln
1 ~----� _ U _ � 5
L , , g Xw 0 Z a
�7d 4, PROPOSED zoo' RIGHT ROPOSED io' PEDESTRIAN/BIKE TRAILWAY oe
PROPOSED DEDICATED I.L.Z
i' TURN LANE TAPER } a
THROUGH LANE � j I Q w�
u
-:lei m PROPOSED soo' RIGHT
O 7d TURN LANE TAPER oG
PROPOSED 300 i f I a z
1 A �� MERGE LANE ` [� GRAPHIC SCALE W
�f ` 1 111 tnn n gn 200
I x
L ---` JUNE17.2019
VAR. WIDTH ACCESS ESMT ` ^ _ ` ! — — — , ^ `
_ _ ( IN FEET) SCALE
L— ~ ^~ `~ 1 inch = 100ft. 1"=100'
i
t
SHEET 2
A
6116SR
IDUNLORA INVESTMENTS, LLC
B
61-165C
MARTIN, LAWRENCEEIR
C
61-165B
ROGERS, WILLIAM H 1R & SHARYON L
O
61-16SA
EAT RHINO, LLC
E
62F-01-C
DUNLORA FOREST PROPERTY OWNERS
62F-M-27 IPENKAVA,ROBERTA
67F-01-26 151MON, CAROLOR ROBYN RUSSELL
62F-01-25 IPOPESCU,DANAG
4�/10 LIMITS OFTHE PUBLIC PARK EASEMENT f
455V15 DB-36s6, PG,344-351 y
526/432 - AND DEDICATED TO CITY OF Q t yg
4693/742 CHARLOTTESVILLE IN DB.4622, PG.523-$37 C Qg Z
O
4717/196 / _ _�
IV
5141/521 _ - -. ggg
5159/737 ?
4470/314
l / 0 ��
—lass TMP 6s-i69 � _- - - 1 / � Z s
5050/251 --�- `- -.CITY OF - i �=J 11
a,,..�... / L
7`" CHARLOTTESVILLE R
DB 622 PG 523 R
Vd V� TR W p cH 9� TMP 61-3.67 J
SHED WETSEL, THOMAS D
-. LIFE ESTATE / • rr
� 14'x16' DB 1688 PG 564 �
- / PROPERTY CIN\\
DER c S U " Cz y
BOUNDARY BLOCK CdN RETE HO SE' O Q t
.f Y / VARIABLE WIDTH j A ' '4i °
/ VARIABLE WIDTH ��` ' O
DRAINAGE TRAIL & 'n %� j� � w"
/ DRAINAGE & t1 SLOPE EASEMENTw- A `+' O A
/ SLOPE EASEMENT Q� DB 3623 PG 344 12'x3o' -ASPHALT -o A
DB 3623 PG 344 , FRAME
- - - / 1B'x21' SHED
' } / POLE
~ J BARN
ASPHALT --`TREE LINE B
WALK' ! WOVEN UTILITY EASEMENT \
WIRE FENCE TT �='DIA
DB 3613 PG 344SILO
(�
V OVEN GRAVEL ` \
VARIABLE WIDTH ' GRAVEL WIRE C Ln
DRAINAGE - l FENCE O I m '
EASEMENT ��4*x3d STONE 10'x26' vJ
DB 343 PG 344 ' FRAME WALL RAMS Lu _
BARN SHED
ii :
' 1B'x24' J �8'xz4' FRAME
WOVEN FRAME POLE 10�2 SHED (g' OH)
WIRE FENCE ' BARN FRAME
SHED` p
TMP 61-167C
—EXISTING DAM BREAK WETSEL, THOMAS D & E
INUNDATION ZONE CLARENCE H & MARY W HOOD OWEST
TREE LINE COMMUNICATIONS - f
VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE DB s68i PG z74 EASEMENT a4 F
3144 309
&SLOPE EASEMENT EXISTING too -YEAR DB PG
DB 3613 PIS 344 FLOODPLAIN (fl'P.) G
\ / EXISTING PRESERVED STEEP
SLOPES (TYP.)
° .000pO c' H� LLI
°90� ul
y-' o LOCATION OF WATER I d-
°° PROPERTY BOUNDARY ; _ z
j PROTECTION ORDINANCE BUFFER ,,.•_ f -
! \o PER ALBEMARLE COUNTY G15 W � U)
_�
0 EXISTING MANAGED STEEP .3 J -
( o _ SLOPES(TYP.) , _ -1 W Q 0 .JQ. u o \ EXISTING STREAM K ~ z Lu
r
w
o TREE LINE t X (} a
TMP 6i-i68 °o , ti w Z f
N[F CITY OF ' TMP 6s 170 rr a
ARLOVESVILLE I o TMP 61-267A i (~/) z
DB 6zz z I ; j o iF CHARLOTTESVILLE r Q �--� a
4 GA 3 a �WALDORF SCHOOL, N/F WHITED FAMILY, LLC x 7
' BARBED DB 2159 PG 380 J Lu
J. DB 4202 PG 453 WIRE—'
° FENCE
GRAPHIC SCALE _
°o u. _ 150 0 75 150 J1JNE 17.2019
00 o o 7- 1
1 °0 1 °°°°°°°a `
0 I °C, 0 ° SCALE
n i I o ( IN FEE }
1 l I : • e 1 inch = 150 ft. SHEER
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 20.19-00009
Parkway Place
6.
E. Parkway Place Development Illustrative Plan
sheets)
0-
pobvirz N'Cess :�
.p 1
I
1
c L - ij If
Yxi i 1 i • � I- + !+ Imo_
—
�-
('r I
8 ^�
1
u Alc Access
wa
„p
ti
—
{dW }ohn Warner _
!!(
Fri'
1
r fiarkv+�Y
1
- 1
{ * LL x Z
ti* i
do
oo
Zi
meadow -- �r \ . O� :� .. z
Rubli Pm
,. ' - . — " Lti e -tUPom t r w
o
x 11
'k !;:5�Land Cape P' ICI ark 1 1 r
�4
e �.
F Trall� • .
:.,Id
e P�cn�Sheltef .
-1.
X trees to i' ' Y .-� . M 4� cct
/�y',� i ,�� � � P, fog �,,,.: � � . �� Traii A+lap;.
{ \ y,,1 " ? •1' J 4 f •.Gib
AC
femam-
♦ # r y4 'y4 �r F _1i1�i +� °Rp-
•� _ t w`f•'w7/
.. _w Buffer's f
Meadow- e,�Sto k ` .
14 _;, Planting . ,
Story * . x
82
onservaticn 3 Scary lubhou r
110
;. ti'i riF'I InC c Tot'!
sTotory
CommunityPa
t. Grill. rea .� r�f h N' f z
r _ _.e�ti� 'lot 0
w/eGazebo''` 10 a � z
-Tt
B4c#g 8.�a�arage 3 Sto[y j j
Ell Story .
,. 3 io rY 1_ `}4 w X F
Co
Ga rig E►. Va., � � ` _ � 1 ��_ � } � Z
Stormwater Am �%cfl� ¢ o
46
:Open Space
+' Future
4 xo :" , .i Connection I AUGUST 28,2019
ti ,
F} '`.- * ,F" . [O _ SCALE
41
' r •I !t14*
^�
` 1 ,#
J.
i i "•" 1 Residential Vegetative
1 ' Buffer Meadow
Ri' nna
a r,
" # Y SECTION 1- MEADOWAND BUFFER ALONG JOHN W. WARNER PARKWAY
'S ' 2
40
'
SECTION LOCATIONS
r r
i
F 4�yy
Scale
1 ' =300'
txisnng Grads, ---`_-- -_.-�
m Parking
Roadway
Public Art
Roadway
�¢
Vj
511 18, 24' 52'
24- 8'
SECTION 2- TRAILHEAD AND PUBLIC PARK
Existing Grade -^
11-.._-..I Resroerroei l�f,«a„w ! 1 �o,N„y I
walkway
5' 19 Varies 10' S' 18,
min
SECTION 3- TYPICAL PARKING CROSS SECTION
C
2
a
r.
Meadow
Rivanne
I Trail f
50'-60, i 1 10, 1
r
1s,
min
I
Scale
1"=40'
Scale
1"=40'
20'+
Scale
1 "=40'
Z
LLI
a �
O
J N
W .,
W U q
O
W
U U 0
q LU a
J f
� U) a
a
a
AUGUST 28,2019
SCALE
1"=40'
��; .
. -
W°
A-iz
# ��' _ � } 1���•'4 *tip e��r�{ 4, ,•�,
SECTION LOCATIONS
Slk.+
Scale
1"=300'
4
Residential �e
m
10'-20' 161
SECTION 4- PARK SPACE
11
SECTION 5- ENTRANCE ROAD
n
P_._
18' 11010'1 0' 26' l 1 0'� a'� 18, 26' + 18' I 5'� 10, 1 10,
SECTION 6 - RIO RD SCREENING
'f
Pace Roadway Padring
m Residential
1III IIIIf 1 f) .+ 1
130, 5' 1 ' 1 B' F 26' 1 18' S' 1 10 Varies
Scale
1 "=40'
WR
Zm
WLL s
Yu n
z m A uP
N:
Z J
a <.
a
V
y
F �
0
Residential �
Varies
Scale
1 "=40'
c
n
0_
w�
l
- r
_ r
m Rio C Riu � r
r
3 Road Road r
1 �a m ri
i
r
r
20'+ 110,
F-
2
w
a b
O
uU
w a
z
�o W
LLI
U U m
aJa
Q a
Y
d
Al1Gl18F 28,2018
Scale
1"=40` SCALE
m
Residential
Existing
Vegetation
:Le Playground Park with Gazebo
Parking Lawn
Pool =15 uubhause A, F30*lvlg Y Noting
(D 03 0
in U)
Cf)
rn in
1260'
nL
Ree,,8idanlmi -Le Parking
Residential
Parking
m
IMeadow
pool Ag Residential
Parking
j 't, VV Vo�,rrrd pl:� ,Z
John Vv MWrElF PIsigling
co 0
co
W U)
PaFk"
Storrnwater
Basin
cu
c
A
d)
C
JT
CL
N
Additional 30' wide semi -opaque buffer
as required by ARB
Existing tree§,'
to remain
0
LARGE TREES
MEDIUM TREES
®
SMALL TREES
®
LANDSCAPE SCREENING
®
SEMI —OPAQUE BUFFER
Planting of shade trees clustered to
average 35' on center, intermixed with
ornamentals per EC guidelines and
ARB comments
Open space to be dedicated to public use 1.1 ac
Supplimental planting of medium trees
every 40'along street per 32.7.9.5(d)
Additional 20' wide semi -opaque buffer
as required by ARB
Large/Med ShadeTree for
every 10 spaces per 32.7.9.6(b)
9
Preliminary Tree Canopy Calculation
Gross Site Acreage:
27.31ac
Z
w
Land Dedicated to Public Use:
(1. 1 ac)
a
Total Development Area:
26.21 ac
0
Lu
a
Common Open Space Area 5.07 ac (min)
LU
a
Greenway (included in 5.07 ac)
.12 ac
w
U
Open Space Dedicated to Public Use
1.1 ac
U
o
Active Recreation Area 1.5 ac (min)
Z E
Conservation Area
5.89 ac
g z
Total Open Space Provided (51.74%)
13.56 ac
Y
Gross Site Acreage:
27.31ac
Deductions per 32.7.9.8(c)
12.71 ac
Developed Acres
14.6 ac
Canopy Requirement: (15%) 2.19 ac
I AUGUST 6,209 1
SCALE
NTS
M
onserVation f_`.1,,ti;k
�
Preserved f'
Open Space 1
Central Parkil eighborhood Park
�s F
� _
Preserved =` `g <'' - �, -
Oper Space _rrtJ �'
r� ,
i
n
ti (�
�T Activity +`
Lawn, ;.
Pool CIyb ouse
Play Ares4E]
0 0,(`,f
C T l
. 4
B. Central Clubhouse and Pool Complex
C. Public Park
a
Z
W
O
W U)
tr
W U Q
0 a- f)2
E
W �
�U j
a a
Q d a
a
AUGUST 28,2019
SCALE
i "=60'
ZMA RESUBMITTAL
ZMA 2019-00009
Parkway Place
Eel
F. Parkway Place Overall Allowed Density Analysis (ZMA-
2019-00008)
PARKWAY PLACE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ANALYSIS (ZMA-2019-00008)
RAMEY KEMP & A$$OCIATES, mc_
1 RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
August 27, 2019
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone: (434) 296-5832
4343 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone: 804-217-8560 Fax: 804-217-8563
www.remeVkemp.com
Subject: Rio Road Multi -Family — Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Dear Mr. McDermott,
Enclosed for your review and approval is the revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) we have prepared for the
proposed neighborhood located on the southwest corner of the Rio Road at John Warner Parkway intersection.
The original TIA was submitted in October 2018.
Following is a brief response to each review comment:
Comments Provided by the County — letter dated August 8,2019:
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 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 potential for this movement and if
possible, incorporate any changes in the recommendations.
■ An analysis of the Rio Road at Dunlora Drive intersection is included in the revised TIA. The
roadway geometry at that full -movement driveway does not provide sufficient pavement to
accommodate northbound U-turns from the Dunlora Forest Drive intersection. Please note that
the site trips have very little impact on the westbound Dunlora Forest movements (Table 7).
2. 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.
■ Unfortunately, even the existing eastbound (John Warner Parkway) queue extends past the left
and right -turn lanes and is a result of limited capacity as John Warner Parkway is a two-lane
Road. Given the existing, complex roadway geometry, the County should consider installing a
two-lane roundabout through a SMART Scale project application.
Charleston, SC - Charlotte, NC - Raleigh, NC - Richmond, VA - Winston-Salem, NC
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 2 of 4
3. 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 to the modeling that should be
addressed.
■ The recommendations and Synchro geometry have been revised. The applicant will construct the
southbound left -turn lane with a "bulb -out" to ensure there is only one southbound receiving
lane on Rio Road.
4. 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 Road East.
■ The recommendations and Synchro have been revised to include a northbound median
acceleration lane on Rio Road.
5. Staff appreciates the improvements that 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 form 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 Road/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.
■ Given the existing, complex roadway geometry, we believe a two-lane roundabout would be the
best solution. The County should consider submitting a SMART Scale application.
Comments Provided by VDOT — letter dated December 7, 2018:
For the two signalized intersections of John Warner Parkway/Rio Road and Rio Road/Pen Park Road:
a) The clearance interval and signal timings for all Synchro existing models to not match the
existing. Please obtain existing conditions from Staunton TOC and revise the analysis and
reports accordingly.
b) Please use default value of (0) for the lost time adjustment (-2 used).
c) Pedestrian phases for the Rio Rd/John Warner Parkway signal are missing from all Synchro
models. Please obtain correct timing from Staunton TOC and revise the analysis accordingly.
■ Synchro models have been revised to reflect the existing timings, pedestrian phases, and lost time
adjustment.
2. The TIA included Synchro reports for the signalized intersection and HCS reports for the un-signalized
intersections (with the exception of Dunlora Drive intersection with median acceleration lane). VDOT
highly recommends using HCS 2010/2000 for Synchro output reports and requests consistency across
outputs.
■ All LOS and delays reported are from HCM, and all queues reported are the Sim Traffic
maximum queues reported from the average of 10 microsimulation runs.
01_RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 3 of 4
3. Synchro files for the build condition do not appear to be coded correctly for the following reasons:
a) For the right in and full movement entrances, no right turn taper was included. Please provide a
minimum of 100 ft. taper at both locations. This is required per Appendix F of the VDOT Road
Design Manual.
■ The tapers are now included in the revised Synchro
b) 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.
■ Per our conversation, a "dummy node" was coded into the model to more accurately reflect the
location of the median acceleration lane merge 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.
■ Noted and corrected.
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.
■ Based on discussion with VDOT, this comment is retracted, as the Figures were correct.
6. 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 for Rio Road.
■ The recommendations and Synchro geometry have been revised. The applicant will construct the
southbound left -turn lane with a "bulb -out" to ensure there is only one southbound receiving
lane on 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.
■ Noted.
8. At the full movement driveway, the NB left turn lane must have a minimum of 100 ft storage and 100 ft.
taper.
■ Noted.
9. VDOT recommends evaluating an acceleration lane for EBL traffic at the full movement entrance.
■ The recommendations and Synchro have been revised to include a northbound median
acceleration lane on Rio Road. It should be noted that the full -movement site driveway will be a
private roadway.
01_RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 4 of 4
Sincerely,
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
/� N
Michael Bailey, P.E., PTOE
Project Manager
Enclosure
Copy to: Mr. Adam Moore, P.E., VDOT
Mr. Ryan Hambleton, Kotarides
Mr. Scott Collins, P.E., Collins Engineering
Mr. Bill Mechnick, LPDA
01_RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
RAMEY KEMP & A$$OCIATES, mc_
1 RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
August 27, 2019
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone: (434) 296-5832
4343 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone: 804-217-8560 Fax: 804-217-8563
www.remeVkemp.com
Reference: Rio Road Multi -Family — Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Dear Mr. McDermott,
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. (RKA) has performed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 328-
unit multi -family development located on the southwest corner of the Rio Road at John Warner Parkway /
CATEC Driveway intersection. The access plan includes one full -movement driveway and one right -in only
driveway on Rio Road and a stub -out for a future connection on the south side of the property. If approved, the
proposed development is expected to be built in 2023. Figure 1 shows the site location and study intersections,
and Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan.
The purpose of this letter report is to provide the following:
■ Trip generation calculations
■ Evaluation of turn lane warrants for the site driveways
■ Capacity and queueing analysis of the study intersections
Existing Roadway Conditions
Route 631 (Rio Road) is a four -lane divided Minor Arterial with a 2017 Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 28,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) north of the John Warner Parkway intersection. Rio Road becomes a
two-lane Major Collector with an ADT volume of approximately 11,700 vpd and a posted speed limit of 35
mph south of the John Warner Parkway intersection. Note that the ADT along the property frontage was
calculated assuming the AM and PM peak hour volumes represent 20% of the daily traffic.
Route 2500 (John Warner Parkway) is a two-lane Minor Arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the
vicinity of the site and does not have a VDOT published ADT volume. Based on discussion with the County,
the ADT is approximately 17,500 vpd.
Route 768 (Pen Park Road) is a two-lane local road with a 2017 VDOT ADT volume of approximately 4,300
vpd, and a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of the site.
Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive) is a two-lane local road with a 2017 VDOT ADT volume of approximately 2,300
vpd, and a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of the site.
Raleigh, NC - Charleston, SC - Charlotte, NC - Columbia, SC - Richmond, VA - Winston-Salem, NC
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 2 of 11
Figure 3 shows existing lane configuration.
Existing Traffic Volumes
The AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM) turning movement counts were
conducted by Burns Service, Inc. during the week of August 27, 2018 at the following intersections:
■ Rio Road at John Warner Parkway / CATEC Driveway
■ Rio Road at Dunlora Drive
■ Rio Road at Pen Park Road / Waldorf School Road
The AM peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 AM) and PM peak hour (4:45 — 5:45 PM) turning movements counts for Rio
Road at Dunlora Forest Drive were conducted by RKA during the week of August 19, 2019.
Note that some volumes have been increased as necessary to balance between the Rio Road at John Warner
Parkway / CATEC Driveway intersection and the Rio Road at Dunlora Drive intersection. The traffic count data
are enclosed, and the existing volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Background Traffic Growth
Based on discussion with the County and VDOT, the 2018 peak hour traffic volumes were grown by an annual
rate of 2.0% for five years to estimate the 2023 peak hour traffic volumes.
Approved Development Traffic
Based on discussion with the County and VDOT, three approved developments near the site are included in this
TIA. Belvedere Residential is partially built -out, with 190 single family homes and 90 townhomes remaining to
be built and is located at the end of Belvedere Boulevard. The trip generation potential of Belvedere Residential
during a typical weekday, AM peak hour and PM peak hour was estimated using the methodologies published
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual — IOth Edition.
Table 1
ITE Trip Generation — Belvedere Residential — Weekday —1011 Edition
Weekday
Daily Traffic
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Size
(vpd)
(vph)
(vph)
(ITE Land Use Code)
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family Detached Housing
190 homes
938
938
35
106
118
70
(210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
90 units
330
330
10
33
34
20
(220)
Total Trips
1,268
1,268
45
139
152
90
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 3 of 11
Figures 5 and 6 show the trip distribution and assignment for Belvedere Residential.
Dunlora Park Residential consists of 28 single family homes and 14 townhomes and is located on Varick Street.
The ITE trip generation potential of Dunlora Park Residential is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
ITE TAD Generation — Dunlora Park Residential — Weekdav — 1011 Edition
Weekday
Land Use
Daily Traffic
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(ITE Land Use Code)
Size
(vpd)
(vph)
(vph)
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family Detached Housing
28 homes
161
161
6
19
19
11
(210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
14 units
51
51
1
6
6
4
(220)
Total Trips
212
212
7
25
25
15
Figures 7 and 8 show the trip distribution and assignment for Dunlora Park Residential.
Lochlyn Hill Residential is partially built -out, with 129 single family homes and 14 townhomes remaining to be
built and is located on the south side of Pen Park Lane. The ITE trip generation potential of Lochlyn Hill
Residential is shown in Table 3.
Table 3
ITE TriD Generation — Lochlvn Hill Residential — Weekdav —1011 Edition
Weekday
Daily Traffic
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Size
(vpd)
(vph)
(vph)
(ITE Land Use Code)
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family Detached Housing
129 homes
657
657
24
72
82
48
(210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
14 units
51
51
1
6
6
4
(220)
Total Trips
708
708
25
78
88
52
Figures 9 and 10 show the trip distribution and assignment for Lochlyn Hill Residential. The total approved
development trips are shown in Figure 11. The total approved development trips were combined with the
background growth to estimate the 2023 no -build traffic volumes, which are shown in Figure 12.
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 4 of 11
There are several other small developments currently under construction near the site (such as The Center at
Belvidere). Based on discussion with the County, it was determined that the trip generation potential of these
sites is captured in the 2% annual growth rate.
Trip Generation
The trip generation potential of the proposed neighborhood during a typical weekday, AM peak hour, and PM
peak hour was estimated using the methodologies published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual — IOth Edition. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation calculations.
Table 4
ITE Trip Generation — Typical Weekday —1011 Edition
Average Daily
Land Use
Traffic
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(ITE Land Use Code)
Size
(vpd)
(vph)
(vph)
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise)
328 units
893
893
31
87
85
54
(221)
It should be noted that Rio Road is an existing transit corridor, and some of the future residents living along Rio Road will
likely use the transit service. This will reduce the number of vehicles on Rio Road. To be conservative, this reduction was
not applied to the trip generation potential of the site or the surrounding approved developments.
Site Traffic Distribution
The following site traffic distribution was applied based on coordination with the County and VDOT:
■ 32% to / from the north on Rio Road
■ 32% to / from the south on Rio Road
■ 3 1 % to / from the south on John Warner Parkway
■ 2% to / from the east on Pen Park Road
■ 1% to / from the south on Waldorf School Road
■ 1 % to / from the north on CATEC Driveway
■ 1 % to / from the north on Dunlora Drive
Figures 13 and 14 show the site trip distribution and site trip assignment, respectively. Figure 15 shows the
projected 2023 build -out peak hour traffic volumes.
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 5 of 11
VDOT Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
The projected build -out AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed site driveways were compared
to the turn lane warrants in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Access Management Design
Standards for Entrances and Intersections:
Rio Road at Right -in Only Drivewa:
■ A southbound right -turn taper on Rio Road is warranted in the PM peak hour
Rio Road at Full -Movement Driveway:
■ A northbound left -turn lane on Rio Road is warranted
■ A southbound right -turn taper on Rio Road is warranted in the PM peak hour
Intersection Spacing Standards
VDOT requires at least 250 feet of separation between partial access driveways and full -movement driveways /
intersections on Minor Arterial roadways. The proposed right -in only driveway is approximately 180 feet south
of Dunlora Drive and 265 feet north of the proposed full -movement driveway. The proposed right -in only
driveway does not meet VDOT's minimum intersection spacing standards, so an Access Management
Exception (AME) request will be submitted.
VDOT requires at least 470 feet of separation between full -movement driveways and intersections on Minor
Arterial roadways. The proposed full -movement driveway is approximately 645 feet north of Dunlora Forest
Drive. The proposed full -movement driveway exceeds VDOT's minimum intersection spacing standards.
Traffic Capacity Analysis
Traffic capacity analysis for the study intersections was performed using Synchro 10, which is a comprehensive
software package that allows the user to model signalized and unsignalized intersections to determine levels -of -
service based on the thresholds specified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) — 6t' Edition. All queues
reported are the maximum SimTraffic queues based on the average of 10 microsimulation runs.
Note that Rio Road is considered an east / west roadway but is north / south in the vicinity of the site.
Additionally, John Warner Parkway, Dunlora Drive, Pen Park Road, and Waldorf School Road are all east /
west roadways in the vicinity of the site.
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 6 of 11
Table 5 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the signalized intersection of Rio Road at John Warner
Parkway / CATEC Driveway, and the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are enclosed for reference.
Table 5
Level -of -Service Summary for Rio Road at John Warner Parkway / CATEC Driveway
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
Storage
CONDITION
LANE
Length
Lane
Lane
Overall
Lane
Lane
Overall
GROUP
(ft)
Lane
Delay
Queue
LOS
Lane
Delay
Queue
LOS
LOS
LOS
sec
It(Delay)
sec
ft(Delay)
EBL
200
F
114.2
49
F
114.4
251
EBT/R
300
D
40.3
310
D
52.6
740
WBL
-
F
84.0
394
F
83.6
605
Existing (2018)
WBT
-
B
13.0
320
D
B
12.5
312
D
WBR
500
A
7.1
18
A
7.3
31
Traffic Conditions
NBL/T
75
F
84.3
124
(50.2 sec)
E
78.6
124
(52.3 sec)
NBR
-
E
67.3
187
E
64.3
180
SBL/T
-
F
113.6
28
F
103.6
31
SBR
125
F
98.5
6
F
101.5
9
EBL
200
F
114.4
155
F
115.0
278
EBT/R
300
D
47.2
417
E
76.8
1,278
WBL
-
F
83.4
535
F
83.9
851
No -Build (2023)
WBT
-
B
15.7
414
D
B
14.4
530
E
WBR
500
A
24
A
7
31
Traffic Conditions
NBL/T
75
F
9.
89.4
124
(53.7 sec)
E
79.3
124
(59.9 sec)
NBR
-
E
74.4
211
E
61.5
184
SBL/T
-
F
113.6
22
F
104.0
31
SBR
125
F
98.5
7
F
100.4
10
EBL
200
F
114.4
227
F
115.0
275
Build 2023
EBT/R
300
D
54.2
499
F
88.8
1,340
WBL
-
E
79.7
531
F
86.5
853
Traffic Conditions
WBT
-
B
19.4
456
D
B
14.5
604
E
Without
WBR
500
A
8.9
21
A
7.4
32
Improvements
NBL/T
75
F
82.9
124
(52.8 sec)
F
80.5
124
64.5 sec)
NBR
-
E
61.6
218
E
60.1
197
SBL/T
-
F
113.6
25
F
104.2
33
SBR
125
F
98.5
6
F
99.5
8
EBL
200
F
114.4
202
F
115.0
299
Build 2023
EBT/R
300
D
54.2
484
F
88.8
1,306
WBL
-
E
79.7
616
F
86.5
782
Traffic Conditions
WBT
-
B
19.4
500
D
B
14.5
483
E
With Median
WBR
500
A
8.9
23
.4
38
Acceleration Lane
NBL/T
-
F
82.9
179
52.8 sec)
F
8
(64.5 sec)
NBR
-
E
61.6
178
E
60.1
184
SBL/T
-
F
113.6
20
F
104.2
32
SBR
125
F
98.5
3
F
99.5
4
Capacity analysis indicates that the intersection currently operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours.
Under no -build conditions, the intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS D during the AM peak
hour and at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Under build conditions (without improvements), the intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS D
during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour.
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 7 of 11
Under build conditions (with median acceleration lane), the intersection is expected to continue to operate at
LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour with the following improvement:
■ Restripe the existing northbound shared left -through lane on Rio Road to extend the existing storage to
Dunlora Drive
Table 6 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of Rio Road at Dunlora Drive,
and the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are enclosed for reference.
Table 6
Level -of -Service Summary for Rio Road at Dunlora Drive
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
LANE
Storage
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
CONDITION
GROUP
Length
(ft)
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
sec
ft
(Delay)-
sec
ft
(Delay)'
WBLI
-
E
45.1
101
D
34.1
54
Existing (2018)
WBRI
200
B
14.6
93
B
13.5
69
N/A
N/A
Conditions
SBL2
50
A
9.3
63
A
9.4
85
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WBLI
-
F
120.1
232
F
58.8
90
No -Build (2023)
WBRI
200
C
16.9
191
C
15.0
100
N/A
N/A
Conditions
SBL2
50
A
9.8
78
A
10.0
94
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Build (2023)
WBLI
-
F
164.3
454
F
73.4
106
Conditions
WBRI
200
C
18.3
274
C
15.6
116
NBT/R
-
-
-
-
N/A
-
-
N/A
Without
SBL2
50
B
10.1
88
B
10.2
98
Improvements
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
Build (2023)
WBL'
-
D
25.5
233
C
20.7
83
Conditions
WBR'
200
D
25.5
188
C
20.7
101
With Median
NBT/R
-
-
-
-
N/A
-
-
N/A
Acceleration
SBL2
125
B
10.1
103
B
10.2
130
Lane
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1. Level of service for minor approach
2. Level of service for major street left -turn movement
3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right
turns at unsignalized intersections.
Capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -turn movement currently operates with moderate delays
(between 25 and 50 seconds) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Under no -build conditions, the minor
street left -turn movement is expected to operate with long delays (greater than 50 seconds) during both peak
hours.
Under build conditions (without improvements), capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -turn
movement is expected to operate with long delays (greater than 50 seconds) during the AM and PM peak
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 8 of 11
Under build conditions (with median acceleration lane), capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -
turn movement is expected to operate with moderate delays (between 25 and 50 seconds) during the AM peak
hour and short delays (less than 25 seconds) during PM peak hour with the following improvements:
■ Construct one southbound through lane on Rio Road
■ Restripe the existing southbound through lane on Rio Road as a dedicated left -turn lane with 125 feet of
storage and 100 feet of taper
Collision data was obtained from the Virginia Crash GIS published by VDOT based on data from the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Data was reported from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 within
150 feet of the study intersection. There have only been five reported collisions over the last 5 years and just
one angle crash, so the intersection does not meet the warrant of five or more correctable collisions over a
twelve-month period. Additionally, the collision data does not indicate an unusual crash pattern that would be
mitigated with the installation of a traffic signal.
Table 7 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of Rio Road at Dunlora Forest
Drive, and the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are enclosed for reference.
Table 7
Level -of -Service Summary for Rio Road at Dunlora Forest Drive
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
LANE
Storage
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
CONDITION
GROUP
Length
(ft)
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
sec
ft
(Delay)'
sec
ft
Delay)'
WBL'
-
D
26.1
45
D
27.3
28
WBR'
25
B
13.2
44
B
13.6
27
Existing (2018)
NBT
-
-
-
-
N/A
N/A
Traffic Conditions
NBR
200
-
-
-
-
-
SBLz
225
A
8.9
30
A
9.2
38
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
WBL'
-
D
34.2
39
E
36.8
28
WBR'
25
B
14.6
44
C
15.1
20
No -Build (2023)
NBT
-
-
-
N/A
N/A
Traffic Conditions
NBR
200
-
-
-
-
SBL2
225
A
9.3
31
A
9.7
46
SBT
-
-
-
-
-
WBL'
-
E
36.4
52
E
39.6
35
WBR'
25
B
14.8
40
C
15.6
31
Build (2023)
NBT
-
-
-
N/A
-
-
N/A
Conditions
NBR
200
-
-
-
-
SBL2
225
A
9.4
31
A
9.8
48
SBT
I -
-
I -
I
I -
I -
I -
1. Level of service for minor approach
2. Level of service for major street left -turn movement
3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right
turns at unsignalized intersections.
Capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -turn movement currently operates with moderate delays
(between 25 and 50 seconds) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Under no -build conditions, the minor
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 9 of 11
street left -turn movement is expected to continue to operate with moderate delays (between 25 and 50 seconds)
during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Under build conditions, capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -turn movement is expected to
continue to operate with moderate delays (between 25 and 50 seconds) during both the AM and PM peak hours.
No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection at build out of the neighborhood.
Table 8 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the signalized intersection of Rio Road at Pen Park Road /
Waldorf School Road, and the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are enclosed for reference.
Table 8
Level -of -Service Summary for Rio Road at Pen Park Road / Waldorf School Road
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
Storage
CONDITION
LANE
Length
Lane
Lane
Overall
Lane
Lane
Overall
GROUP
(ft)
Lane
Delay
Queue
LOS
Lane
Delay
Queue
LOS
LOS
sec
ft
(De ay)
LOS
sec
ft(Delay)
EBL/T/R
-
C
24.5
100
C
23.7
46
WBL/T
350
D
35.8
200
C
24.4
79
WBR
-
C
27.7
119
C
29.2
62
Existing (2018)
NBL
75
B
13.2
155
C
A
8.1
29
B
NBT
-
C
20.4
317
B
13.6
293
Traffic Conditions
NBR
125
B
15.2
173
(20.9 sec)
A
8.8
111
(12.8 sec)
SBL
225
B
14.6
168
A
9.4
104
SBT
-
B
17.4
284
A
8.7
202
SBR
100
B
12.8
81
A
6.4
17
EBL/T/R
-
C
31.4
102
C
26.6
53
WBL/T
350
E
57.1
248
C
27.6
90
WBR
-
D
39.1
175
C
32.6
83
No -Build (2023)
NBL
75
B
13.1
174
C
A
8.0
49
B
NBT
-
C
21.6
352
B
15.2
319
Traffic Conditions
NBR
125
B
14.4
224
(24.8 sec)
A
8.5
208
(13.9 sec)
SBL
225
B
15.8
216
B
10.9
178
SBT
-
B
17.3
334
A
9.0
297
SBR
100
B
11.8
181
A
6.1
22
EBL/T/R
-
D
36.2
116
C
28.2
48
WBL/T
350
E
58.9
206
C
29.2
96
WBR
-
C
30.7
147
C
34.6
83
Build (2023)
NBL
75
B
16.2
174
C
A
7.8
43
B
Conditions
NBT
-
C
27.6
442
B
14.7
326
NBR
125
B
16.9
208
(27.7 sec)
A
8.2
156
(13.8 sec)
SBL
225
C
21.2
242
B
11.2
131
SBT
-
C
21.8
338
A
8.8
266
SBR
100
B
1 13.9
158
A
1 5.9
18
Capacity analysis indicates that the intersection currently operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS
B during the PM peak hour. Under no -build conditions, the intersection is expected to continue to operate at
LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour.
Under build conditions, capacity analysis indicates that the intersection is expected to continue to operate at
LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour with all movements at LOS E or better.
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 10 of 11
No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection at build out of the neighborhood.
It should be noted that the County has submitted a SMART Scale project application to convert the existing
signalized Rio Road at Pen Park Road intersection into a roundabout. If the application is successful, and the
roundabout is constructed, the roundabout will likely improve the overall LOS for the intersection and will not
have an impact on other intersections in this analysis.
Table 9 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of Rio Road and Full -
movement Driveway, and the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are enclosed for reference.
Table 9
Level -of -Service Summary for Rio Road at Full -movement Driveway
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
LANE
Storage
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
Lane
Lane
Lane
Overall
CONDITION
GROUP
Length
(ft)
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
sec
ft
(Delay)
sec
ft(Delay)
Build (2023)
EBL'
-
F
50.8
211
E
49.9
79
Conditions
EBR'
-
B
13.4
92
B
13.3
41
NBL2
100
A
9.0
96
N/A3
A
9.2
68
N/A3
Without Median
NBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acceleration Lane
SBT/R
-
I -
-
-
I
-
-
-
Build (2023)
EBL'
-
C
23.4
75
C
24.3
64
Conditions
EBR'
-
B
13.4
53
B
13.4
32
NBL2
100
A
9.0
40
N/A3
A
9.2
59
3
N/A
With Median
NBT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acceleration Lane
SBT/R
-
-
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
1. Level of service for minor approach
2. Level of service for major street left -turn movement
3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right
turns at unsignalized intersections.
Capacity analysis indicates that the minor street left -turn movement is expected to operate with long delays
(greater than 50 seconds) during the AM peak hour and moderate delays (between 25 and 50 seconds) during
PM peak hours the following improvements:
Construct a northbound left -turn lane on Rio Road with 100 feet of storage and 100 feet of taper
Construct a 100 foot southbound right -turn taper on Rio Road
Construct the site driveway with one ingress lane and two egress lanes
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Kevin McDermott
Page 11 of 11
Recommendations
Based on the trip generation potential of the site, the following improvements are recommended:
Rio Road at John Warner Parkway / CATEC Driveway
■ Restripe the existing northbound shared left -through lane on Rio Road to extend the existing storage to
Dunlora Drive
Rio Road at Dunlora Drive:
■ Construct one southbound through lane on Rio Road
■ Restripe the existing southbound through lane on Rio Road as a dedicated left -turn lane with 125 feet of
storage and 100 foot taper
■ Construct a southbound acceleration lane on Rio Road
Rio Road at Right -in Only Drivewa:
■ Construct a 100 foot southbound right -turn taper on Rio Road
■ Construct the site driveway with one ingress lane
Rio Road at Full -movement Driveway:
■ Construct a northbound left -turn lane on Rio Road with 100 feet of storage and 100 foot taper
■ Construct a 100 foot southbound right -turn taper on Rio Road
■ Construct a northbound acceleration lane on Rio Road
■ Construct the site driveway with one ingress lane and two egress lanes
Figure 16 shows the recommended lane configuration.
We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please contact me at (804) 217-8560 if you have any questions
about this report.
Sincerely yours,
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Michael Bailey, P.E., PTOE
Project Manager
Enclosures: Figures, VDOT turn lane warrant diagrams, Traffic count data, Synchro output
Copy to: Mr. Adam Moore, P.E., VDOT
Mr. Ryan Hambleton, Kotarides
Mr. Scott Collins, P.E., Collins Engineering
Mr. Bill Mechnick, LPDA
®RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES
I
,J,64 %
� 4W -
t -
,
�- -
-
� - he ƒa§e Square
Nw.& 6 _ —
Cornmonweall
�
_RAMEY KEMP
j ASSOCIATES
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Rio Road Multi -Family Preliminary Site Plan
Albemarle County, Virginia
Scale: Not to Scale I Figure 2
CATEC
Driveway
500'
N
John Warner 17,500 vpd 28,000 vpd Rio
Parkway 35 mph 35 mph Road
200' � � �►
300'
Waldorf School
Road
IExisting
Traffic Signal
- ►
Existing Lane
X'
Storage (In Feet)
X vpd
Average Daily Traffic
b 200'
2,300 vpd Dunlora
35 mph Drive
cNv 25'
500 vpd Dunlora Forest
25 mph Drive
0
0
N
N
.l + L► 350'
4,300 vpd Pen Park
f r► 35 mph Road
� N
Rio Road
Existing (2018)
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Lane Configurations
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Figure 3
Scale: Not to Scale �
11
CATEC
Driveway
8 (28)
0
674 (636)
0 �
� L►
485 (537)
John Warner
Rio
Parkway
(15) 13 -
T / f—
Road
(824) 480
(36) 28
N
0
o �
62 (24)
66 (22)
�►
Dunlora
Drive
m V
G� N
O M
O
N
23 (11)
'^ °O
14 (7)
�►
Dunlora Forest
Drive
o� o
"
183 (74)
m m
f 1 (0)
�1 L.-148
(49)
Waldorf School
�
Pen Park
Road
Road
21 J
(6O
(0)2—
M
(11) 51
..
h �
LEGEND
X (I) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Rio Road
Existing (2018)
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Peak Hour Traa.
ffic Volumes
A S S O CIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 4
CATEC
Driveway
LEGF
X% (Y%) Entering
xxi, Regional 'irip uistnbution
Belvedere Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Distribution
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 5
CATEC
Driveway
LEGEND
X (I) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Rio Road
Belvedere Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Assignment
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 6
John Warner
33% ,,__11____.
Waldorf School
Road
LEGEND
X% (Y%) Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution
xxi Regional Trip Distribution
CATEC
Driveway
34%
Rio Road
Rio
Road
r 33%
Dunlora
1
33%
Drive
67%
l� M
�O M
Dunlora Park'
Residential
L
J
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park
Road
Dunlora Park Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Distribution
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 7
CATEC
Driveway
LEGEND
X (I) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Rio Road
Dunlora Park Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Assignment
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 8
CATEC
Driveway
r35%
John Warner 1 Rio 35%
Parkway r-p- Road
a
M
M
Dunlora
Drive
0
v,
M
M
1 Dunlora Forest
Drive
M
Waldorf School Pen Park
Road / Road
MT
(65%)
LEGEND Pen Park I Lochlyn Hill
Lane
Residential
X% (Y%) Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution
Rio Road
xxio Regional Trip Distribution 650�
0
Lochlyn Hill Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Distribution
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 9
CATEC
Driveway
Lochlyn Hill
Residential
LEGEND
X (I) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Rio Road
Lochlyn Hill Residential
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Assignment
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 10
CATEC
Driveway
f 63 (41)
9 (31)
John Warner
Rio
Parkway
Road
(68) 20 --►
(8) 2
oo r
°O
8 (5)
O� N
22 (13)
Dunlora
Drive
0o N
Waldorf School
Road
LEGEND
X (I) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Rio Road
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park
Road
Total Approved
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Development Volumes
A S S O CIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
a.
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 11
CATEC
Driveway
9 (31)
f 804 (741)
0 0 �
L.-543
(622)
John Warner
Rio
Parkway
(17) 14
Road
(974) 548
c
(48) 33
.. o
00
00
�GO
N
76 (31)
In kn
95 (37)
Dunlora
Drive
o
00 M
O v,
o
v
0
c
25 (12)
O
15 (8)
Dunlora Forest
Drive
00
� o
201
M N
(81)
1 (0)
Waldorf School
_.j + L►
163 (54)
Pen Park
Road
/
Road
23 J#
TM
(7)
(0) 2
oo N
`� -
(12) 56
GO rn
LEGEND
X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Rio Road
No -Build (2023)
V
RAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
A S S O CIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Figure 12
Scale: Not to Scale
CATEC
Driveway
1%
0
32%
31 %
John Warner
Parkway
'ailfl% �
T
V 7—
1%
Site
M M
0
Right -in Only
Driveway
0
0
Full -movement
Driveway
(65%)
0
(35%)
M
1
/
T
0
M
o N o
-- M N
i1� Waldorf School � L.-2%
+ Road
1%
0
N
M
Rio Road
32%
V�IRANSPORTATION
RAMEY KEMP
ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS
Rio Road Multi -Family
Albemarle County, Virginia
Rio Road 32%
Dunlora F 1
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park 20%/.
Road
Site Trip Distribution
Scale: Not to Scale I Figure 13
CATEC
Driveway
John Warner
Parkway
0
(2Wj0
10 (27)
T
V
Site
1
M
Right -in Only_,
Driveway
rn
Full -movement
Driveway
(35) 57
(19) 30
o
T
0
M
Waldorf School + 1
Road
LEGEND
N
X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour Rio Road
Rio Road
Dunlora
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park
Road
01
R A M E Y K E M P Rio Road Multi -Family Site Trip Assignment
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Figure 14
Scale: Not to Scale g
CATEC
Driveway
9 (31)
N f 804 (741)
0 0 553 (649)
John Warner Rio Road
Parkway
r
(17"
(974) 548
(74) 43
v m�
00
Site
O
O �D
M �
Right -in Only
Driveway
v
rn �
Full -movement
Driveway
(35) 57
(19) 30
M
N
1 �
Waldorf School
Road
LEGEND
X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
F--� F-
M �
76 (31)
r 95 (38)
T
0 00
o
c
O �
�
cc
202 (83)
M �
(►
l (0)
163 (54)
(8) 23
�l t F'
(0) 2 --►
0
(12)56—�
Rio
Road
Dunlora
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park
Road
Build (2023) Peak Hour
01
R A M E Y K E M P Rio Road Multi -Family Traffic Volumes
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Figure 15
Scale: Not to Scale g
CATEC
Driveway
500'
�r
John Warner
1
Parkway
300'
a;
200'
�
r�
1
Site
>r
H
Right -in Onl
Driveway
H
Full -movement
0
Driveway
o
N
0
o_
25'
�
r�
1
�f
0
0
N
o �
O N L
N
Waldorf School �► 350'
LEGEND Road
Existing Lane
t` N
Recommended Lane
X' Storage (In Feet) Rio Road
Rio Road
Dunlora
Dunlora Forest
Drive
Pen Park
Road
Recommended Lane
VRAMEY KEMP Rio Road Multi -Family Configuration
ASSOCIATES Albemarle County, Virginia
RANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Scale: Not to Scale Figure 16