ZMA201900008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-10-18COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
October 18, 2019
Lori Schweller
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
lschwellerkwilliamsmullen.com / (434) 951-5728
Valerie Wagner Long
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlong@,williamsmullen.com / (434) 951-5709
RE: Review Comment Letter #2: ZMA-2019-00008 Parkway Place
Ms. Schweller and Ms. Long:
Staff has reviewed your revised submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900008 Parkway Place. We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your
ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. Project narrative:
i. Please provide an updated project narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, and police and fire
service. Rev. 1: The impacts to schools section provides an enrollment projection that was generated
using "Transportation Data From Albemarle County Schools (10/2018)." This includes a line for
Parkway Place. Please provide more information on this; has the applicant obtained the
enrollment projections for Parkway Place directly from ACPS staff? If so, please forward that
information in the next submittal.
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. Rev.1:
Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 1: Comment not full,
addressed. The narrative states that the developer will offer 15% of the units at a rental rate eaual to 30%
of gross income for 80% of regional area median income (AMI) for at least 10 years following issuance of a
CO for the project. However, the proffer statement does not include any proffers for affordable housing.
Without proffering this, staff cannot definitively state that affordable housing is being provided and this
will be identified as an unfavorable factor in future staff reports to the Commission and Board. If the
proffer statement will be revised to include affordable housing, it should state the percentage of units
within the development that will be affordable, unit type, how rental rates will be established and
administered, terms of rent, etc. In previously approved rezoning proffering affordable units, the proffer
has also included a rental rate reporting requirement where the owner must send copies of rental/lease
agreements for affordable units to the Albemarle County Housing Office to verify that compliance with
rental rates established by the proffer.
3. Density:
a. Sheet 1 of Exhibit A states the proposed gross residential density based on the overall site acreage (27.31 acres)
and the maximum number of dwelling units possible (328). However, Chapter 8, Objective 8, Strategy 8C of the
Comprehensive Plan requires ZMAs to be evaluated based on their proposed net density. Net density is defined as
the area of a parcel that has a future land use designation other than public open space, private open space, or
green systems. The subject properties have areas of both Public Open Space and Privately Owned Open Space
land use designations. Furthermore, certain environmental features such as WPO stream buffers, floodplain, and
Preserved Steep Slopes are all identified by the Comprehensive Plan as green systems and must be subtracted
from the developable acreage of the subject parcels, even if those features lie outside of open space future land
use designations. A calculation must be provided on the application plan that clearly identifies the project's
proposed net density.
i. The Public Open Space designation on TMP 61-167C should be calculated based on the acreage of the
existing permanent park casement that was created when John Warner Parkway was built. This area
measures 5.890 according the recorded deeds and plats mentioned earlier. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. The applicant should use GIS to calculate the area of Privately Owned Open Space located on both
parcels and provide a measurement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Areas within the WPO stream buffer, 100-year floodplain, and Preserved Steep Slopes that are outside of
the 5.890 park easement and the Privately Owned Open Space must be identified and measured, and then
subtracted from the net density calculation. Rev. 1: Please verify what source was used to ascertain the
acreage figures (0.95 and 0.19) for these features in Exhibit F. State the sources used to determine
net density in the note on the Application Plan, and Exhibit F.
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. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, but please add language to the note under
the net density calculation on the application stating the du/acre for the proposed 328 units (16.17
du/acre).
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.
Rev. 1: VDOT and transportation planning staff have several remaining comments regarding the data used
in the August 27, 2019 revised TIA that pose issues for evaluating the traffic figures and proposed frontage
improvements. Additional revisions to the TIA and possibly the proposed frontage improvements are
necessary for staff to evaluate the road improvements proposed with the ZMA. Please see VDOT comments
for additional details.
i. VDOT also has stated that the schematic drawing dimensions for some of the proposed
improvements do not match the TIA recommendations. Application plan drawings should be
consistent with recommendations from the TIA.
ii. See VDOT comment regarding the acceleration lane serving left out movements at the full access
entrance. Currently, this design may not be feasible and may warrant revisions to the application
plan.
iii. VDOT and County transportation planners have stated that the TIA identifies the most suitable
solution to traffic congestion in this area would be to convert the intersection of John Warner
Parkway and Rio Road into a roundabout instead of the proposed turn lanes and dedicated
through lanes. See their comments for additional details.
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. Rev. 1: Per applicant response
letter, the applicant contends that commercial uses would not benefit the project and that the residential
and park components satisfy the Neighborhood Service Center and land use requirements outlined in
Table LU 1 of the Places 29 Master Plan.
6. The illustrative plan sheets show elements that need a commitment including the landscaping, building facades,
internal access to the public space etc. As mentioned in the Neighborhood Model Principles analysis and
comments from other reviewers, there are aspects of Exhibit E that will likely need to be added to the application
plan for a favorable recommendation. Other items could potentially also need to be added, pending review by the
ARB.
Comments from David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, regarding more details on proposed
activities in the 5.0 acre open space area are needed. The existing Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer and
intermittent streams are environmental resources that should be protected to the greatest extent possible.
Meadow Creek has been designated by the Virginia DEQ as an impaired stream, and protection of water
quality should be a priority of this development. Making a commitment to re -vegetate and enhance the
existing vegetation of those areas with locally native plants and plant communities will greatly strengthen
the application. This could be done by providing a landscaping exhibit identifying certain types of
landscaping and vegetation within and around the open space area. Please contact David for more
information on the types of species that meet these criteria. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See
attached comments from David Hannah and the ARB regarding species of vegetation and
arrangement of plants in buffers. The buffer should be shown on all applicable sheets of the
Application Plan (Including Exhibit A- Grading) in accordance with ARB comments #1-2.
Application Plan Comments:
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. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please seen Engineering Division
comment #1 regarding the northernmost outfall which currently proposes discharge over Preserved
Steep Slopes. The Ordinance does not allow this unless it qualifies as a "necessary public facility"
under Section 18-30.7.4(b)(1)(c). Please provide additional information on this so that Engineering
can evaluate the design. If Engineering determines that this qualifies as a necessary public facility,
the grading plan should be revised to show a channel or other facility to the stream channel.
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. Rev. 1: Comment potentially addressed, pending outcome of response to
comment #la and determination from Engineering.
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. Rev. 1: As stated in the
Proffers comment section below, Sheet 4 should be included in the proffer statement as part of the
Application Plan.
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. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed.
Per comment response letter from applicant, there are ongoing conversations with City staff
regarding the proposal and grading/landscaping installation that may occur within the greenway
easement. See ARB comments for additional information. Prior to public hearing, the applicant
must provide documentation from City staff verifying that the City has no objections to grading
and the 50' landscaping buffer required by the ARB.
3. The 1.1 acre open space area to be dedicated to public use partially meets the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for establishing a public park/trail access area within the Neighborhood Service (NS) center
land use designation. However, the proffered drawings provided in Exhibit A proffered do not show installation
of any improvements in the public open space. Improvements within the public open space are only shown in
Exhibit E, which is not part of the proffered plan. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. As stated in the Proffer
comment section below. The Application Plan does not currentiv show anv improvements within the public
open space area and the proffer says it does. Please revise Proffer #3. In order to allow flexibility during
site design and review, the Application Plan does not necessarily need to be revised to show specific
improvements since those details are still being worked out. That said, either the proffer needs to state
what kind of improvements the developer will design and construct (i.e. parking, benches, trails,
landscaping in compliance with ARB recommendations, etc.), or new notes should be added to the
Application Plan stating that the developer will design and construct park amenities at site
plan/subdivision plat stage and state generally what those improvements may include.
a. For staff to conclude that the open space dedication is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Places29 Master Plan recommendations, further commitment needs to be made to the proposed public
park. For example, will the specific features of the open space be installed by the developer during site
plan review and through coordination with County staff in the Department of Parks and Recreation?
b. Sheet I of the application plan does not demonstrate how public access into the public open space area
will be guaranteed — it can only be accessed through the internal private travel ways associated with the
residential buildings. If gates are installed at the two entrances onto Rio Road, public vehicular access
into the open space could be restricted. Further information is needed on this matter. The application plan
and proffer statement should clearly explain how public vehicular access into the open space will be
provided and maintained following site development. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Per applicant
response letter, there is no public access easement shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan. Please
revise and see comment #12 under the Proffer section below.
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.
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. Rev. 1:
Comment partially addressed. To avoid confusion, please state the existing overlay districts in a
separate note, do not include them in the "Proposed Zoning" note. Existing Overlay Zoning
Districts are not being revised as part of the proiect.
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. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please see Zoning Division
comment #5 for necessary revisions.
d. Add a note that defines open space as follows: "Open space" means land or water left in undisturbed
natural condition and unoccupied by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as otherwise
specifically provided in County Code § 18-4.7. Please note that only 80% of the minimum open space
may be a) located on preserved slopes and b) devoted to stormwater management facilities, unless the
facility is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake, or other water feature deemed to constitute a
desirable open space amenity per Section 18-4.7(c)(3)." Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please
add the second sentence to the end of the Open Space Chart note 2: "Please note that only 80% of
the minimum open space may be a) located on preserved slopes and b) devoted to stormwater
management facilities, unless the facility is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake, or other
water feature deemed to constitute a desirable open space amenity per Section 18-4.7(c)(3)."
e. Revise the "Allowable Uses" note on Sheet 1 as stated in Zoning Division comments. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
f. See Zoning Division comments regarding notes contained on Sheet 1. Some of the notes can be removed
since these are already required standards for the PRD District. See Zoning Division comments for
specific items that should be removed. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See Zoning Division
comment #3 regarding the phasing note.
g. Specify the maximum building height in feet and stories in the note on Sheet 1. Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. Based on the proposed building height stated in the note, the stepback
requirements of Sections 18-19.7 and 18-4.19 may apply to any structures that exceeds 40 feet in
height. Please revise the note so that it states "For each story that begins above 40 feet in height,
the minimum stepback shall be 15 feet."
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. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
i. A minimum of 6.57 acres of common open space and a minimum of 1.50 acres of recreation area
must be provided. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
i. New Comment lst Revision: The legend on Sheet 1 includes blue symbology identified as a
"Greenway." However, where drawn on the plans, this feature does not overlap with the existing John
Warner Parkway greenway easement. Is this supposed to identify another feature? It appears consistent
with the extent of the WPO stream buffer that exists on site. Please clarify and revise as necessary.
Proffers:
1. The proffer statement will need to be revised prior to moving forward with a public hearing. Application plans do
not need to be proffered for a PRD since the Zoning Ordinance requires Board approval of an application plan for
PRDs by default (See Section 18-33.18 (B)).
a. If the Architectural Review Board (ARB) determines that specific architectural or landscaping elements
must be included as part of this proposal, the illustrative drawings (Exhibit E) may need to become part of
the application plan, or Sheets 1-4 of Exhibit A may need to provide more information on elements of the
ZMA application that will be proffered. Following the ARB meeting scheduled for August 19, 2019,
more clarity on proffer statement revisions will be available. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
The ARB made several recommendations related to the proposed buildings and architectural
design. See ARB comment #4. The Application Plan can be revised so that notes are included that
commit to providing diversity in massing, architectural material, and color along the parkway and
Rio Road as recommended by ARB comments #4a-4d. Please be aware that a maior concern of
staff is the proposed massing and architectural style of the two buildings located along Rio Road;
neighbors expressed concerns about building heights and privacy at the ZMA community meeting.
Is the applicant willing to provide facade breaks and other maior facade details that reduces the
appearance of height for these two structures? ARB comments #4c and #4d touch on this.
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. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
Cross sections are not provided on Sheet 2 as stated in the comment response letter. Please revise
the Application Plan as necessary so the entirety of road improvements are shown.
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. Rev.
1: Comment not fully addressed. A right -in turn lane and travelwav adiacent to the park is shown
on the Application Plan. However, staff s initial comment was made because there is concern that
the travelwav, which will under private ownership on the land owner, is not shown within a public
access easement (for example). In theory, public access from the travelwav and into the public
open space could be restricted if a gate or some other barrier were constructed by the owner after
site build -out. Proffer #3 could be revised so that it states how public access through the property
into the public open space will be provided and guaranteed.
d. See Zoning Division comments for additional information on what aspects of the proffer statement should
be revised accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, please see Zoning Division proffer
comments #1-3 for further revisions.
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. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
f. New Comment lst Revision: Please revise Proffer #3. The Application Plan does not currently show any
improvements within the public open space area and the proffer says it does. In order to allow flexibility
during site design and review, the Application Plan does not necessarily need to be revised to show
specific improvements since those details are still being worked out. That said, either the proffer needs to
state what kind of improvements the developer will design and construct (i.e. parking, benches, trails,
landscaping in compliance with ARB recommendations, etc.), or new notes should be added to the
Application Plan stating that the developer will design and construct park amenities at site
plan/subdivision plat stage and state generally what those improvements may include.
g. New Comment 1s' Revision: Please revise Proffer #1 so that it mentions all proposed improvements
shown within Rio Road/John Warner Parkway visible on the Application Plan. This includes the right-of-
way dedication and acreage, all new and re -striped turn lanes, dedicated through -lanes, medians,
bicycle/pedestrian facilities, sidewalks, etc. Additionally, please revise the first sentence where it states
"the owner shall widen Rio Road East..." That portion of the sentence should read "the owner shall
dedicate to public use additional right-of-way along the property frontage for widening of Rio Road East
and installation of improvements as shown on the Application Plan, construct..."
h. New Comment 1st Revision: Is there a reason why Sheet 4 is not identified as part of the Application
Plan in the proffer statement? Since that drawing shows proposed grading and utilities, it should be part
of the Application Plan.
i. New Comment 1st Revision: Staff has objections to the current wording of proffer #2. It currently states
"...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 for ZMA 2019-00008, then it shall contribute to the County or
VDOT,...,$750,000 as a cash contribution for the Rio Road Improvements in lieu of constructing the Rio
Road Improvements." This language should be modified to state that the owner must submit road plans,
as required by the County and VDOT, for the Rio Road Improvements described in the application plan
within one year of the date of approval of ZMA 2019-00008. The owner must have the Rio Road
Improvements substantially complete prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Planning
Planning staff s comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan
Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments
below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review and may change based on direction from the Commission
and/or with subsequent submittals.
The proposal includes two Tax Map Parcels. The first property is identified as Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 61-167 and is
located within the Neighborhood 2 Comprehensive Plan Area, which is part of the Places29 Development Area. TMP 61-
167 measures 1.584 acres and is currently zoned R-4 Residential. The property is also located within the Airport Impact
Area (AIA) Overlay Zoning District, and the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Zoning District. TMP 61-167 is currently
occupied by a two-story detached single-family residential structure with a finished square footage of approximately
1,300 sq. ft.
The Future Land Use Plan -South contained in the Places29 Master Plan designates TMP 61-167 as a Neighborhood
Service Center (NS) with the future land use classification of Urban Mixed Use (in Centers).
The second property is identified as TMP 61-167C and is located within the Neighborhood 2 Comprehensive Plan Area,
which is part of the Places29 Development Area. TMP 61-167C measures 25.734 acres and is currently zoned R-4
Residential. The property is also located within the Airport 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
study refers to this area as the "Rolling Uplands -Open" and identifies suitable uses on these properties and others in the
immediate vicinity. Page 8 of the Jones & Jones study identifies the following general use categories as suitable in this
area:
Residential and commercial development
Park/open space; rural preservation
Transportation corridor
Since the Places29 Master Plan and Jones & Jones study were adopted in 2011 and 2001, respectively, the John Warner
Parkway has been constructed. The Meadow Creek Parkway referred to in both documents is the now existing John
Warner Parkway. This road was built according to the alignment identified as "Alternative A" in the Jones & Jones study.
A series of recommendations related to urban development patterns that should occur on properties along Rio Road and
the John Warner Parkway are listed on page 18 of the Jones & Jones study. The most pertinent recommendations are as
follows:
• Discourage excessive linear -style development (strip development) along major roads; instead encourage
compact communities with strong centers and clearly defined boundaries.
• Maintain the linear park atmosphere along the parkway, thus enhancing the overall value offuture developments
bordering the parkway.
• 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.
• Establish an ordered network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and transit routes that will connect new
neighborhoods, existing residential areas and non-residential districts.
• Create appealing streetscapes andpublic spaces with street trees and landscaping to make the neighborhood
inviting and to connect residential areas to each other as well as to commercial centers and common areas.
• Integrate development with open space and recreation opportunities, including the parkway, parks and natural
areas, and pedestrian/bike paths. Connect to surrounding park and recreation amenities such as Pen Park and
the proposed Rivanna river walk, as well as to other existing developed areas.
• Encourage new development that respects the existing landscape and that is compatible in scale, form, and
character with the terrain features.
Several maps and exhibits contained in the Jones & Jones study identify areas suitable for urban development vs. open
space, parks, trails, etc. These drawings are very general and conceptual in nature. These drawings can be viewed on
pages 19 and 22 of the study. The application plan and site layout proposed with ZMA201900008 is consistent with the
following exhibits in the study: Urban Development Pattern on page 19, Urban Development — Pedestrian Connections
on page 19, Urban Development — Vehicular Connections on page 19, and Corridor Land Use Concept on page 22.
Therefore, staff has compared the application primarily with the recommendations contained in Chapter 8 of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Places29 Master Plan. Where relevant, the Jones &Jones study recommendations are
incorporated into the analysis. See the Neighborhood Model analysis section below for specific comments.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment
applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code § 18-33.27(B). This
evaluation will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application
moved forward to public hearings.
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood
Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the
Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle is met. Note 7 on Sheet 1 of Exhibit A explains that sidewalks will be
provided along all internal streets and travel ways. Sheets 3 and 4 also show installation
of a 10' wide pedestrian/bike trailway system, which will help complete the bike/ped
network along the property frontage of Rio Road and connect to the existing trail
system within the greenway along John Warner Parkway. This design is wide enough to
promote a safe experience for both bicyclists and walkers.
Furthermore, no cul-de-sacs are shown on the application plan. Each "block" within the
project measures approximately 200'-250' in length and is broken up by the internal
travel ways. This design is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Strategy #2b that
developments should be laid out in grids as opposed to dead -ends, and that blocks
measure less than 600' in length. This will provide a frame of reference and comfortable
travel experience for those choosing to walk though and adjacent to the development.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is partially met. The proposal includes dedication of a 1.1 acre open
space area that can be used to access the greenway trail along John Warner Parkway.
This is consistent with the recommendation that "each Neighborhood Service center
should include a publicly accessible urban open space" as stated on page 5-7 of Chapter
5: Places Types of the Places29 Master Plan. However, the application could be
strengthened if additional commitments are made to design and build the park so that it
includes a plaza, gathering area, or similar elements commonly seen in pocket parks.
The proposal is partially consistent with the Places29 Master Plan recommendation that
at least two types of dwelling units be provided under the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) designation. See Chapter 4, page 4-5 of the Places29 Master Plan. Exhibit A
states that detached single family dwellings and multifamily dwellings will be
permitted, but no firm commitment has been made to provide both on site should the
ZMA be approved.
The primary reason why this proposal does not fully meet this principle is that there are
no non-residential uses proposed. As mentioned earlier, the Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) future land use designation calls for a balanced mix of retail, housing,
commercial, office, and institutional uses. Although several institutional uses currently
exist on surrounding properties, there is a lack of retail, commercial, and office uses in
the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, Page 5-7 of the Master Plan states that
Neighborhood Service centers "provide local -serving retail/service uses, such as a
drycleaner, florist, convenience store, or coffee shop in a horizontal or vertical mixed -
use configuration to support the residences, businesses, and other uses around them."
Under the Zoning Ordinance, only office uses can be allowed in the PRD district
through approval of a special use permit. The application could be strengthened if a
commitment is made to allowing uses other than strictly residential (within the limits of
the PRD district regulations) within some of the buildings in Parkway Place. Staff is
willing to discuss this comment in further detail following issuance of this comment
letter.
Rev. 1: Per applicant response letter, the applicant contends that commercial uses
would not benefit the project and that the residential and park components satisfy
the Neighborhood Service Center and land use requirements outlined in Table LU
1 of the Places 29 Master Plan.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions.
Exhibit A identifies several large and contiguous areas of outdoor open space, including
a 1.1 acre parcel that will be dedicated to public use as a trailhead access point to the
John Warner greenway. This is consistent with Strategy #2f of the Comprehensive Plan,
and the recommendations called for by the Places29 Master Plan in Neighborhood
Service centers. These centralized amenities help satisfy this principle by providing
accessible outdoor areas where residents can congregate, and civic engagement can
occur.
However, as mentioned in the analysis of the "Mixture of Uses" principle, the
application could be strengthened by providing a more diverse mix of uses. This could
be accomplished by following the land use guidelines contained in Land Use Table 1
that calls for neighborhood -level retail uses and/or office/R&D/flex space. If the project
were to designate one or two of the proposed buildings for ground floor level retail uses,
this would accomplish the goals of the Neighborhood Center principle.
Please indicate whether the project can incorporate a mix of residential and non-
residential uses within buildings, and if not, explain the reasoning as to why.
Rev. 1: Per applicant response letter, the applicant contends that commercial uses
would not benefit the project and that the residential and park components satisfy
the Neighborhood Service Center and land use requirements outlined in Table LU
1 of the Places29 Master Plan.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened by a commitment to
and Affordability
constructing more than one housing type. Exhibit A clearly states that single-family
detached and multifamily uses are permitted. However, no firm commitment has been
made that more than one housing type will actually be provided. Please verify.
Additionally, no indication or explanation is made regarding affordable housing. As
called for by Strategy #2i from the Comprehensive Plan, decisions on rezoning
applications are partially based on whether each project will provide affordable housing
units. Additionally, Strategy #6b recommends a minimum of 15% of the total units in a
rezoning should be affordable housing units. Please consult these sections of the
Comprehensive plan and verify whether any affordable units will be provided. The
Comprehensive Plan gppendix provides greater detail on how this should occur,
including the option of providing cash -in -lieu of units to the Housing Fund.
If the applicant intends to provide affordable housing, please revise the Cover Sheet and
project narrative to state the amount of affordable housing that will be provided in the
project. Staff suggests adding notes to Sheet 1 of Exhibit A to specify either a
percentage or set number of affordable units.
See Zoning comments for additional questions regarding affordable housing.
Rev. 1: Per applicant response letter, 15% of the units proposed will be affordable
at rental rates equal to 30% of the gross income of 80% Area Median Income
(AMI) based on family size, such that affordable rates would be maintained for at
least 10 years. However, this is not included in the proffer statement. Without
adding an affordable housing proffer, staff cannot say that the project satisfies this
principle. See General Application Comment #2.
Relegated Parking
This principle is partially met. It appears that parking areas will be located to the rear of
buildings along John Warner Parkway and Rio Road. However, the ARB may
determine that additional details are needed regarding parking on site. Exhibit A may
need to be revised so that parking spaces are clearly delineated to prove that the
relegated parking principle is met. The ARB may also determine that landscaping or
other screening measures should be provided on the proffered application plan.
Comments on this matter will be provided following the August 19, 2019 ARB meeting.
Staff also requests that the applicant provide written verification that they have
reviewed the Zoning Ordinance standards for minimum number of parking spaces
required to serve multifamily residential uses. This to ensure that adequate area will be
available for parking should the site be developed as apartments only. As specified in
Section 18-4.12.6, minimum number of spaces required for multifamily uses are as
follows:
• Any unit of 500 sq. ft. or less = 1.25 parking spaces/unit
• One (1) bedroom = 1.5 parking spaces/unit
• Two (2) or more bedrooms = 2.0 parking spaces/unit
Rev. 1: Comments addressed. Applicant acknowledges that they have reviewed
parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance and that adequate space is
available. Furthermore, per ARB review of the proposal at the August 19' ARB
meeting, parking areas are adequately screened and will not be visible from the
Entrance Corridors.
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is partially met.
Transportation Networks
No new streets are called for within the subject parcels by Figure 4.8 — Future
Transportation Network in the Places29 Master Plan.
Nevertheless, Exhibit A identifies an interconnection that will be provided at the
southern boundary between Parkway Place and an adjacent parcel known as TMP 61-
167A. Should that parcel be redeveloped in the future, an opportunity will be available
to create a travel way/street network parallel to Rio Road.
Furthermore, the Jones & Jones study identifies a conceptual street network on the
subject properties and adjacent parcels. See the exhibit titled Urban Development —
Vehicular Circulation on page 19. That exhibit clearly shows that existing vegetation
and open space on the south side of the subject parcels should not be disturbed in order
to create stub -outs, and the Parkway Place design is consistent with the street grid called
for by the study. The proposed layout also balances the preservation of sensitive
environmental features with the need for interconnections as specified by Strategy #2j
in the Comprehensive Plan. The single interconnection has been thoughtfully located
inside of the project.
During site plan or subdivision plat review, sidewalks will be required on both sides of
the internal travel way/street network in accordance with the County's Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Please see Transportation Planning and VDOT comments regarding the TIA submitted
with the first review. Staff have identified some issues with aspects of the TIA that
warrant revisions and further analysis. This includes, amongst other considerations, an
analysis of the impacts to the Dunlora Forest Drive/Rio Road intersection and how
congestion can be mitigated at this location. Furthermore, VDOT and Transportation
Planning staff have concerns about safety due to some of the proposed travel lanes and
turn movements near the John Warner Parkway/Rio Road intersection that would be
created by the improvements.
Rev.1: VDOT and County transportation planners have several comments that
warrant further revisions to the TIA and possibly the frontage improvements
proposed. See VDOT comments for specific technical comments regarding data
used for protected traffic figures and signal timing in the traffic capacity analysis.
VDOT also has stated that the schematic drawing dimensions for some of the
proposed improvements do not match the TIA recommendations. Drawings
should be consistent with the TIA document.
See VDOT comment regarding the acceleration lane serving left out movements at
the full access entrance. Currently, this design may not be feasible and may
warrant revisions to the application plan.
See comment #1 for Kevin McDermott regarding a roundabout at Rio Road at the
intersection with Dunlora Forest. The revised TIA shows that even with the
proposed improvements, the delay time at that intersection will increase. An
increase in delays at this intersection remain a concern with staff and members of
the public. The TIA also noted that providing a U-turn option for vehicles to make
this movement at the full access entrance is not feasible and so remains an
unaddressed issue. Why have no additional improvements at this intersection been
proposed? Has the feasibility and effects of installing a roundabout at that
intersection been evaluated?
The current wording of Proffer 2 needs revisions for staff to support it. The
language "if the owner does not receive approval by County and VDOT for the Rio
Road Improvements within 24 months of the..." should be stricken. If the proffer
intent is to provide cash for road improvements instead of constructing as shown
on the Application Plan due to unforeseen contingencies that may arise at a later
stage of the project, the wording should not place responsibility of approval on the
County; the owner needs to submit road plans for review and approval and have
them comply with the Application Plan. It is not the County's fault if the designer
cannot address review comments and get the plans approved within a certain
timeframe.
The proffer could be revised so that it states the timeframe in which the owner
shall complete the road improvements as shown on the Application Plan. Per
comments by made by the developer at the community meeting, their intent is to
complete all road improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancv
(CO) for the proiect. It could then also state that if road improvements are not
complete within that timeframe, the owner will make a cash contribution to the
County in lieu of construction.
Multimodal Transportation This principle is partially met. Sidewalks will be provided so that the pedestrian
Opportunities network both inside and outside of the project will be provided. This includes expanded
bicycle and trail networks that connect to the existing system within the John Warner
Parkway greenway.
The proposed right-of-way reservation and improvements along Rio Road are partially
consistent with the cross-section #10 contained in Appendix 3 of the Places29 Master
Plan. The future cross-section calls for a total of four lanes along this segment of Rio
Road, with 6' bicycle lanes on both sides, and a center median/turn lane area (where
applicable at intersections). The proposed medians and dedicated turn lanes from Rio
Road and onto Dunlora Drive are slightly different from the Master Plan's
recommended cross-section. That said, the intersection between John Warner Parkway
and Rio Road presents a unique situation where alternative road improvements may be
warranted in order to alleviate traffic congestion and allow safe vehicular travel along
all streets in the vicinity of Parkway Place.
VDOT staff have issued comments on the TIA and proposed Rio Road improvements.
They have several technical corrections needed to the TIA data and calculations which
are necessary before making a final determination on the TIA findings and proposed
improvements. Other VDOT comments include extending the storage length of the
north bound left turn lane to a full 100' in length. VDOT have also requested that a
cross section of the Rio Road improvements be included on the application plan. See the
attached VDOT comments for additional details.
of Ex-hibit A. Additional eo ents ftopa tfaaspot4afioa planning staff will be
feAheoming.
During the community meeting with the Places29-Rio Community Advisory Committee
meeting, the developer stated that the road improvements will be completed prior to
requesting issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for new buildings within
Parkway Place. This is consistent with proffer #2 in the proposed proffer statement and
strengthens the application.
The Long Term Transit Network map (Figure 4.9 of the Places29 Master Plan) does not
designate any future transit service being provided along either John Warner Parkway
or Rio Road. adjacent to the subject parcel. However, the plan does call for future local
collector transit service to be provided along other major streets within the Places29
development area. The plan also calls for a future bus rapid transit (BRT) route along
Route 29 to the west of the subject parcel.
Please see Transportation Planning and VDOT comments regarding the TIA submitted
with the first review. Staff have identified some issues with aspects of the TIA that
warrant revisions and further analysis. This includes, amongst other considerations, an
analysis of the impacts to the Dunlora Forest Drive/Rio Road intersection and how
congestion can be mitigated at this location. Furthermore, VDOT and Transportation
Planning staff have concerns about safety due to some of the proposed travel lanes and
turn movements near the John Warner Parkway/Rio Road intersection that would be
created by the improvements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. As stated in the proffer comment #12,
Proffer 1 should be revised so that all proposed improvements shown on Sheet 2 of
the Application Plan are mentioned.
The current wording of Proffer 2 needs revisions for staff to support it. The
language "if the owner does not receive approval by County and VDOT for the Rio
Road Improvements within 24 months of the..." should be stricken. If the proffer
intent is to provide cash for road improvements instead of constructing as shown
on the Application Plan due to unforeseen contingencies that may arise at a later
stage of the proiect, the wording should not place responsibility of approval on the
County; the owner needs to submit road plans for review and approval and have
them comply with the Application Plan. It is not the County's fault if the designer
cannot address review comments and get the plans approved within a certain
timeframe.
The proffer could be revised so that it states the timeframe in which the owner
shall complete the road improvements as shown on the Application Plan. Per
comments by made by the developer at the community meeting, their intent is to
complete all road improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
(CO) for the proiect. It could then also state that if road improvements are not
complete within that timeframe, the owner will make a cash contribution to the
County in lieu of construction.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is partially met. Exhibit A proposes a variety of open space and
Amenities, and Open Space
recreational amenities throughout the project. Some of these features will be dedicated
to public use and others will be private amenities for use of residents. As mentioned
earlier in the letter, the Zoning Division recommends adding notes about specific
equipment types that will be provided inside of Parkway Place. If notes are added to
Exhibit A regarding the specific types of recreational equipment and options that will be
provided inside of Parkway Place, this principle will be met. A commitment to
providing a range of recreational amenities will ensure that residents can enjoy both
passive and active outdoor recreational opportunities.
The most important question related to this principle is the developer's commitment to
the 1.1 acre public open space area. The application plan only commits to dedicating
the land to public use and does not clarify whether the developer will construct the
actual amenities inside of the open space or contribute toward their completion. This
question needs to be resolved prior to moving forward to a public hearing.
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, has issued comments regarding the
proposal. These comments include establishing vegetation types within the 5.0 acre
open space area near the Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer areas at the south of the
property. Exhibit A should be revised so that additional information or notes are added
specifying a commitment to installing locally native vegetation in this area of the
project. Please contact David Hannah for information on what types of landscaping and
plant species qualify as locally native.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments from David Hannah and the
ARB regarding landscape note revisions about providing native landscaping in
buffers. The current notes on Sheet 1 of the Application Plan can be revised so
that it states "The landscaping buffer shall either be a mixture of deciduous and
evergreen trees and shrubs that are locally native to Virginia. Proposed species will
be reviewed by the Director of the Department of Community Development or
his/her designee at site plan and/or subdivision plat stage." See the attached
comments for resources that can be used to identify locally native plant species.
Furthermore, if public access easements into the site for access into and out of the
park won't be shown on the Application Plan, notes can be added instead that
states "Vehicular and pedestrian public access into and out of the park will be
provided and shown on future site plans and/or subdivision plats."
Please revise Proffer #3. The Application Plan does not currently show any
improvements within the public open space area and the proffer says it does. In
order to allow flexibility during site design and review, the Application Plan does
not necessarily need to be revised to show specific improvements since those details
are still being worked out. That said, either the proffer needs to state what kind of
improvements the developer will design and construct (i.e. parking, benches, trails,
landscaping in compliance with ARB recommendations, etc.), or new notes should
be added to the Application Plan stating that the developer will design and
construct park amenities at site plan/subdivision plat stage and state generally
what those improvements may include.
Please see ARB comments #1-2 regarding the buffer at the north and west side of
the proiect. Exhibit A of the Application Plan should match the other drawings in
terms of where the buffers are proposed around buildings and parking. The
buffer also should be arranged to incorporate the 30'planting depth within the 50'
buffer as stated in ARB comment #2. Please show this on all sheets of the
Application Plan.
Buildings and Spaces of
The application's consistency with this principle is still under review. Additional
Human Scale
comments from the ARB will be forthcoming, and this will allow staff to identify any
necessary revisions for compliance with this principle. This may include commitments
to certain architectural details (building materials, colors, etc.) or landscaping (location,
spacing, species, etc.).
Currently, the application plan contains notes stating that buildings will be 3 stories,
which is consistent with heights recommended by Land Use Table 1 of the Places29
Master Plan. This will create a sense of enclosure along the streets and make the
development a welcoming environment for pedestrians.
One concern with the proffered application plan is that Sheet 3 does not clearly identify
certain details of the project's frontage conditions along Rio Road. For example, there
appears to be a planting strip between the 10' pedestrian/bicycle trail and the Rio Road
curb. Labels should be added to the detail on Sheet 3 stating the width of this strip.
Additional verification that it is adequate for growth of street trees will strengthen the
applications consistency with the recommended Rio Road cross section called for in
Appendix #3 of the Master Plan.
Rev. 1: Please see ARB comment #4. The ARB has made several recommendations
regarding the style and form of proposed buildings. These recommendations can
be incorporated into the Application Plan as notes. In particular, ARB comment
#4c will strengthen the application's consistency with this principle because it will
reduce the massing of structures along Rio Road and provide a less imposing
appearance for adjacent properties with shorter buildings. Notes should be added
to the Application Plan that are consistent with the ARB recommendations as
stated in ARB comments #4a-4d.
Redevelopment
Principle is not applicable. Property is currently undeveloped.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is not currently met. The property contains areas within the Preserved
Careful Grading and Re-
Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Sheet 4 of Exhibit A shows utility lines crossing
grading of Terrain
these features which will result in grading and disturbance of the existing terrain.
Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.1, Preserved Steep Slopes "are those slopes that have
characteristics that warrant their preservation by the prohibition of disturbance except in
the limited conditions provided in this overlay district." Only certain uses are permitted
by -right within Preserved Steep Slopes, as specified in Section 18-30.7.4 (b)(1).
Further information is needed that proves that the utility lines crossing Preserved Steep
Slopes qualify as "necessary public facilities" in accordance with Section 30.7.4
(b)(1)(c) or "distribution facilities" in accordance with Section 30.7.4 (b)(1)(f). An
exhibit demonstrating that this utility line route is the only possible way to provide
sewer to the site will help staff evaluate the proposal and determine whether it qualifies
with the Zoning Ordinance.
As mentioned earlier, if the County Engineer determines that these utility lines will be
private, then approval of the disturbances to Preserved Steep Slopes may not be allowed
as proposed. Private utilities require approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of
Supervisors. See Section 18-30.7.4 (b)(2) for additional information.
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, has issued comments regarding the
proposal. These comments include establishing vegetation types within the 5.0 acre
open space area near the Meadow Creek WPO stream buffer areas at the south of the
property. Exhibit A should be revised so that additional information or notes are added
specifying a commitment to installing locally native vegetation in this area of the
project. Please contact David Hannah for information on what types of landscaping and
plant species qualify as locally native.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Seen Engineering Division comments
regarding outfall at northwest corner over Preserved Steep Slopes.
See comments from David Hannah regarding landscape note revisions about
providing native landscaping in buffers. The current notes on Sheet 1 of the
Application Plan can be revised so that it states "The landscaping buffer shall
either be a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that are locally
native to Virginia. Proposed species will be reviewed by the Director of the
Department of Community Development or his/her designee at site plan and/or
subdivision plat stage."
Clear Boundaries Between
This principle is not applicable to the request. The subject property is located within the
the Development Areas and
Places29 Development Area. No improvements or changes in use near any boundaries
the Rural Area
with the Rural Area are proposed.
Site Plan/Subdivision Comments
1. The "Allowable Uses" note on Sheet 1 of Exhibit A states that both multifamily units and detached single-family
dwellings will be permitted. Please be aware that if detached single-family dwellings are proposed during site
development, public or private street frontage will need to be provided internally to each new lot. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed based on applicant response letter. Please see additional information comments below
for items to consider should the uses change to single-family units at site plan/subdivision plat stage.
a. Pursuant to Section 14-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance, private streets serving single-family detached
uses in the development areas require Planning Commission approval. If the applicant believes that the
neighborhood will be developed as detached single-family lots and streets will be private, please consider
submitting a request for private street authorization in a resubmittal of the ZMA application. Rev. 1: Per
applicant response, this comment is not addressed in detail because the application is not proposing
detached single-family dwellings. Nevertheless, the Allowable Uses on Sheet 1 of the Application
Plan states that permitted uses shall be in accordance with Section 18-19.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Detached single-family dwellings are a by -right use under that section. Staff reiterates
that if the rezoning is approved and the proposed uses change to something other than multifamily
dwellings, the internal streets will need to comply with all applicable section of Chapter 14.
b. Consult Section 14-234 of the Subdivision Ordinance for additional information that must be submitted
justifying approval of any proposed private streets for detached single-family residential uses. Rev. 1: Per
applicant response, this comment is not addressed in detail because the application is not proposing
detached single-family dwellings. Nevertheless, the Allowable Uses on Sheet 1 of the Application
Plan states that permitted uses shall be in accordance with Section 18-19.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Detached single-family dwellings are a by -right use under that section. Staff reiterates
that if the rezoning is approved and the proposed uses change to something other than multifamily
dwellings, the internal streets will need to comply with all applicable section of Chapter 14.
c. Be aware of the street design standards contained in Sections 14-410, 14-411, and 14-412. If streets are
needed in order to provide frontage for detached single-family lots, road widths and associated
improvements must comply with the Subdivision Ordinance standards. This comment is so that the
applicant can account for the area needed for street improvements during the ZMA review process. Rev.
1: Per applicant response, this comment is not addressed in detail because the application is not
proposing detached single-family dwellings. Nevertheless, the Allowable Uses on Sheet 1 of the
Application Plan states that permitted uses shall be in accordance with Section 18-19.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Detached single-family dwellings are a by -right use under that section. Staff
reiterates that if the rezoning is approved and the proposed uses change to something other than
multifamily dwellings, the internal streets will need to comply with all applicable section of Chapter
14.
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Please see the attached zoning comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, rra sg dalekalbemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
Comments related to transportation have been provided by Kevin McDermott, kmcdermottgalbemarle.org, and are
attached.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Comments related to the ARB have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org, and are
attached.
Department of Community Development - Natural Resources Planning
Comments related to natural resources have been provided by David Hannah, dhannahkalbemarle.org, and are attached.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
Comments related to engineering have been provided by Frank Pohl, fpohlkalbemarle.org, and are attached.
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue
Fire Rescue has no objections. See attached letter from Shawn Maddox, smaddox(cr�,albemarle.org.
VDOT
VDOT comments are attached and there are several revisions to the TIA needed before VDOT can make a final
determination on the application. Please see the attached letter from Adam Moore, adam.moorekvdot.vir ig nia.gov.
ASCA/RWSA
ACSA and RWSA have not sent comments as of October 18, 2019. Any comments will be forwarded to the applicant
upon receipt.
Department of Parks & Recreation
Review of the application is not yet complete by staff with Parks & Rec. Comments from Dan Mahon,
dmahon(&albemarle.org, will be sent to the applicant upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
The applicant requested a deferral of Board action on this application following the first review. Please see the attached
Action After Receipt of Comments letter for options.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form and submit the required fee. The resubmittal date schedule is
provided for your convenience. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and
adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blan ig lle(a),albemarle.org.
Llvu
Sincer0� r J,GfAL,W
Cameron Langille
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: ZMA201900008 Action After Receipt of Comments
2019 Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Schedule
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: 10/2/19
Subject: 2nd Zoning Comments for ZMA201900008 Parkway Place
TMP 61-167 and 61-167C
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above
noted Rezoning.
PROFFER COMMENTS:
1. This proffer must provide for more specificity in terms of minimum ROW width to be
dedicated and specific transportation improvements that are proffered. Should Exhibit A
be referenced in the proffers?
2. There is no timing specified for the applicant to submit plans for approval to the VDOT
and the County under this proffer.
3. This proffer needs more discussion with Parks and Rec. I understand they may be
setting up a meeting next week to discuss the trailhead park with the City and the
developer. I asked they include CDD as well. Proffer 2 does not contain typical proffer
language regarding dedications to the County. (sample language can be provided) The
application plan indicates the trailhead park to be dedicated. The proffer should specify
that the park is to be dedicated to the County, that the owner shall pay for the cost of the
survey, timeframe for dedication. This proffer places responsibility on the County to
approve the park plan, along with the City. The proffer should be clear that the owner is
responsible for preparing and submitting the plans for the park to the County with a
specified time following approval of the rezoning.
APPLICATION PLAN COMMENTS:
1. There is hatching shown on a portion of the buffer adjacent to the trailhead park that I
don't understand how it corresponds to the legend.
2. There are no access points or trails shown on the plan through the proposed
developments Common Open Space to the Meadow Creek Greenway or existing trail
along the parkway.
3. Phasing note- I would recommend rewording the note. Its not really phasing if all
frontage improvements must be completed prior to CO.
4. Land to be dedicated to public use note: This note should be revised accordingly once
proffer comments listed above are addressed.
5. Recreational Facilities -Suggest rewording note 8 to read that additional facilities may be
provided at the owner's discretion and that any equivalent amenities, as determined by
the Planning Director, may be substituted. According to 4.16.3.3, all project amenities
must be completed prior to 50% of units receiving COs. This provision may be modified
through the special exception process.
OF AL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
TO: Applicant
FROM: Kevin McDermott; Principle Planner —Transportation
DATE: October 15, 2019
SUBJECT: ZMA201900008 — Parkway Place
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Principle Planner for
Transportation has reviewed the above referenced proposal and associated traffic impact statements as
submitted by Ramey Kemp and Associates, Inc. (October 2019, update August 2019) and would like to
provide the following comments:
The updated TIA analyzes the Dunlora Forest Dr and shows the left turn in the AM and PM peak
moving to a failing rating. While it only adds a few seconds to the average delay, this is a
concern. It was also noted that providing a u-turn option for vehicles to make this movement at
the full access entrance is not feasible and so remains an unaddressed issue. Could a small
roundabout work at this intersection to address the issue and improve overall operations?
As previously noted 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. In the response to comments it is noted that the best way to deal with this, and many other
issues related to traffic concerns, would be to convert this intersection to a roundabout. However,
even with the option of accepting a cash proffer as discussed in the revised Proffer Statement, it is
unlikely that a roundabout could be constructed within a ten year timeframe, an undesirable
length of time to wait for these improvements. The delays at the John Warner Parkway/Rio Road
intersection remain a concern. Is it possible to increase storage length and improve operations for
this intersection approach?
The revised proffer statements includes language in #2. That states "...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 for ZMA 2019-00008, then it shall contribute to the County or
VDOT,...,$750,000 as a cash contribution for the Rio Road Improvements in lieu of constructing
the Rio Road Improvements." This language should be modified to state that the owner must
submit road plans, as required by the County and VDOT, for the Rio Road Improvements
described in the application plan within one year of the date of approval of ZMA 2019-00008.
The owner must have the Rio Road Improvements substantially complete prior to issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me.
Kevin M. McDermott
Principal Planner — Transportation
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414
kmcdermott@albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cameron Langille
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA-2019-08: Parkway Place
DATE: October 3, 2019
Listed below are comments on the Parkway Place submittal with drawings dated August 28, 2019 and
September 3, 2019.
1. The landscape buffer has been extended along the west side of the building/parking area on the
PRD Illustrative Plan, but not on Exhibit A, Grading, Stormwater & Utility Plan. The buffer
should be shown consistently on all plans.
2. The ARB recommended a 30' depth of planting in a 50' buffer along the north and west sides of the
building/parking area. This was intended to provide more flexibility in achieving a more naturalistic
arrangement of trees and shrubs and a better mix of deciduous and evergreen, and would allow for
larger shade trees placed further out — not right up against the building — to help achieve a softened
edge. The plans and notes do not show the buffer in this way.
3. The ARB asked for confirmation that landscaping can be added in the park easement and that
continued maintenance is provided for. This has not been addressed.
4. The ARB made recommendations on the form, mass and scale of the apartment buildings, as follows.
These issues are not addressed in the submittal:
a. Reduce uniformity in the massing and add diversity in architectural character, materials and
colors.
b. For the buildings adjacent to the Parkway, find ways to break up the mass, possibly
offsetting or staggering portions of the buildings, once if not twice, in addition to the
current projections and bays.
c. Two-story hyphens could allow the rooflines of the apartment buildings to break in a
meaningful way. This treatment would be most appropriate along the Parkway.
d. Porches and material changes would help establish human scale in the apartment
buildings.
5. ARB review of the design of the trailhead park is recommended at site plan review.
6. The ARB recommended the addition of trees in the open areas between the creek and the developed
area to help limit visual impacts of the development. A sanitary sewer line is proposed in this area.
Shrubs planting in a naturalistic arrangement are recommended for this area.
Cameron Langille
From: David Hannah
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Cameron Langille
Subject: FW: Flag Layer hit on Parkway Place, 3223 Proffit Rd
Cameron,
I received a hard copy of the resubmittal packet (9/3/19) for Parkway Place, ZMA2019-8. The areas of most concern
occur within what is labeled Open Space — either Common Open Space or Conservation Area. That seems ok.
There is wording about 20' and 30' landscaping buffers, and their locations. Wording includes "landscaping buffers shall
either be a natural undisturbed buffer or a replanted/landscaping buffer." "The landscaping buffers shall be a mixture of
deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees." I think we should require that all planted or replanted buffers should be
comprised of locally native species. That is, plants that are known to be native to Albemarle County, or to the central
piedmont region of Virginia if data for Albemarle County specifically is not available. There are sources of data for
plants that are locally native.
Thanks, let me know if you have questions.
David Hannah
Natural Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3325
dhannah@albemarle.org
From: David Hannah
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 10:52 AM
To: Cameron Langille <blangille@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Flag Layer hit on Parkway Place, 3223 Proffit Rd
Cameron,
I took a quick look at these plans. You are right, the areas most in need of protection (areas near the 2 streams,
preserved slopes) seem to all fall into what they have labeled as Open Space. But more definition about what is planned
for the Open Space is needed. Encouraging a landscape of locally native plants and plant communities would be
great. Areas closest to the streams would benefit from woody vegetation (trees and shrubs). There are other options as
you move away from the streams — pollinator habitat, native grassland/prairie, savanna, etc.
Let me know if you have questions or want to discuss. Thanks!
David Hannah
From: Cameron Langille <blangille@albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 6:14 PM
To: David Hannah <dhannah@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Flag Layer hit on Parkway Place, 3223 Proffit Rd
David,
I've also attached a copy of the plans they're proposing to proffer. Sheets 1 and 12 will be on interest to you. It doesn't
look like they're proposing to re -vegetate the open areas within the 100' stream buffer (see Sheet 12). They are,
however, proposing to put a storm sewer line and sanitary sewer line into the buffer area (see Sheet 4).
If you want to write an official comment stating that native, woody vegetation should be established in all the 100'
buffer area, I think that'd be a good comment. They can revise the landscaping drawing (sheet 12) to comply with this.
From: Cameron Langille
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 6:03 PM
To: David Hannah <dhannah@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Flag Layer hit on Parkway Place, 3223 Proffit Rd
Thanks David, I'm probably going to circle back with you on ZMA201900008 once I start my review!
For ZMA2019-10, talk to Andy R. He is handling that review. You'll probably want to see it — they're proposing to amend
the actual layout of the streets so that they can develop in the 2 acre back portion of the parcel that was approved for
open space only by the rezoning I handled earlier this year.
From: David Hannah <dhannah@albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:44 AM
To: Cameron Langille <blangille@albemarle.org>
Subject: Flag Layer hit on Parkway Place, 3223 Proffit Rd
Cameron,
I'm following up on Parkway Place. The only resources I see (beyond those typically accounted for in project review)
relate to Meadow Creek and an intermittent stream in the south-central portion of the property.
The far western part of parcel 167C is within 100' WPO stream buffer of Meadow Creek. Meadow Creek is was listed in
2016 by Va DEQ as Impaired for both aquatic life and recreation. So better protection of the stream is warranted. Part,
but not all, of the land within the 100' buffer is vegetated (per 2018 aerials). Native, woody vegetation should be
established in all the 100' buffer. Extending the vegetated buffer beyond 100' would also benefit Meadow Creek.
A small section of the intermittent stream, at the southern edge of parcel 167C, has a wooded buffer (per 2018
aerials). Creating a buffer of native, woody vegetation along the rest of the intermittent stream would also benefit
Meadow Creek as well as natural resources in general. There are small areas of steep topography near both Meadow
Creek and the intermittent stream. Good wooded buffers will help protect them and reduce the potential for erosion
and sedimentation.
I've attached a rough, work map of the area, with 2018 aerial imagery. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have
questions or want to discuss this.
And a question about ZMA2019-10 for 3223 Proffit Road. I submitted comments on this for ZMA2018-6 in the past. Let
me know if I need to review those or take another look at the project. Thanks,
David Hannah
Natural Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3325
dhannah@albemarle.org
Cameron Langille
From:
David Hannah
Sent:
Thursday, October 03, 2019 2:24 PM
To:
Cameron Langille
Cc:
Margaret Maliszewski
Subject:
Website links for locally native plants
Here you go —
The County's web page, which has search functions and is easy to use. Repp Glaettli (FES) was one of several people
who helped create this.
http://www.albemarle.org/nativeplants/
And here is a state web page (Va DCR) that is also easy to use, but search functions are more limited. It indicates which
counties plants can be found in, and if they are native or introduced.
http://vaplantatlas.org/news/
David Hannah
Natural Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3325
dhannah@albemarle.org
i
Cameron Langille
From: Frank Pohl
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:54 PM
To: Cameron Langille
Subject: Planning Application Review for ZMA201900008 PARKWAY PLACE.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = ZMA201900008
Reviewer = Frank Pohl
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 09/26/2019
This email was sent from County View Production.
COMMENTS:
1. SWM outfalls have been modified to avoid preserved slopes. However, the northernmost outfall appears to
propose a concentrated discharge over steep slopes. Concentrated discharges are not allowed over preserved
slopes because the concentrated flow will erode the slope and an adequate channel is required to convey the
stormwater to the stream channel (1% rule is applied at the stream channel, not the banks). Applicant may be
able to justify this outfall as a 'necessary public facility' if drainage from the Rio Road public right-of-way is
conveyed in this system. If so, a channel or other improvement will be required to the stream channel (the limits
of analysis). Also, show or state in the stormwater narrative that drainage from Rio Road will be routed through
this system and it will be dedicated to public use (but maintained by the developer).
2. Assuming the postconstruction pollution control requirement is greater than 10 Ibs/yr, and considering the site
disturbance exceeds 5 acres, at least 75% of the required phosphorus nutrient reductions must be achieved
onsite [17-502].
Review Comments for ZMA20190000
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Sunday: September 29. 2019 DepartmentfDivisionfAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue No Objection
Page: County of Albemarle
Printed On: 11010312019
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
October 16, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Cameron Langille
Re: Rio Road Multi -Family (aka Parkway Place)
ZMA2019-00008
Review #3
Dear Mr. Langille:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation & Land Use
Section, as well as the Culpeper District Traffic Engineering Section, has reviewed the above
referenced plan submitted by Collins Engineering and associated TIA by Ramey Kemp &
Associates, revised 3 September 2019 and 27 August 2019 respectively. The Department offers
the following comments:
Traffic Impact Analysis
1. Table 5; For Build 2023 without and with improvements scenarios, the signal timings
were changed from the existing. Traffic engineering recommends using existing timings
for all scenarios. If modified signal timings are necessary to enhance the traffic signal
operation, the modified timings and analysis should be included in the traffic capacity
analysis section and to be included in recommendation section. If the modified signal
timings do not enhance the signal operation, please state the reasoning for changing the
existing signal timings.
2. Table 5; Pedestrian signal timings do not match the existing in all Synchro scenarios.
Correct the timings to match existing. If pedestrian signal timings need to be modified,
please provide detailed explanation for the reasoning in the traffic capacity analysis
section.
3. Table 6; HCM 6 reports were used for the analysis results except for Build 2023 with
improvements, where HCM 2000 reports were used. Include in the traffic capacity
analysis section the reasoning of using HCM 2000 reports instead of HCM 6. HCM
reports should be consistent for all scenarios to provide sufficient comparison with
providing explanation if HCM 2000 reports are used instead of HCM 6.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
October 16, 2019
Cameron Langille
Page 2
4. Table 8; Signal timings and pedestrian signal timings for all scenarios including existing
2018 do not match the existing timings. The cycle length for the existing is 90sec and not
92sec as shown in Synchro files. If modified signal timings are necessary to enhance the
traffic signal operation, the modified timings and analysis should be included in the
traffic capacity analysis section and to be included in recommendation section. If the
modified signal timings do not enhance the signal operation, please state the reasoning
for changing the existing signal timings.
5. Table 9; HCM 6 reports were used for `Build 2023 Without Improvement's and HCM
2000 reports were used for `Build 2023 With Improvements'. Include in the traffic
capacity analysis section the reasoning of using HCM 2000 reports instead of HCM 6.
HCM reports should be consistent for all scenarios to provide sufficient comparison.
6. It appears queue lengths are based on Sim -Traffic. Please provide Sim -Traffic files along
with Synchro files. Fullow TOSAM guidelines for Sim -Traffic number of intervals
(seeding and recordings), duLtion of intervals (15 minutes) and number of runs.
Frontage Improvements
7. The proposed acceleration lane serving left out movements from the full access entrance
must be at least 525 ft. Additionally there should be a buffer distance between the end of
taper and the next intersection to avoid sight distance conflicts. Due to the spacing of
entrance on Rio Road East this design may not be feasible.
8. The schematic drawing dimensions for the left turn lane in to Dunlora Drive to not match
the recommendations in the TIA document.
9. If the proposed schematic proves infeasible, a roundabout at the full access entrance
could be considered.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
ownerldeveloper must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
01 &JIA., JL �
Adam J, Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�rRGINI°'
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
RESUBMITTAL
Within 10 days, please do one of the following:
(1) Request a Planning Commission public hearing date be scheduled
(2) Resubmit in Response to Review Comments
(3) Withdraw your application
(1) Request a Planning Commission public hearing date be scheduled
You may request that your application to be scheduled for public hearing with the Planning
Commission. Please note, once a Planning Commission date is requested, no additional information,
revisions, documents, etc will be accepted for review and analysis.
(2) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
Make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review
schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at
the Community Development page. In your comment response letter with your resubmittal, please
indicate whether or not you would like to proceed straight to the Planning Commission without getting
comments back, or if you prefer to have comments. If you choose to go straight to the Planning
Commission, please note that no additional information, revisions, documents, etc will be accepted
after your resubmittal. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter
with your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
(3) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
Revised 9-17-19 MCN
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant
to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of
the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as
provided in subsection 33.52(B) or (C).
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make
checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator.
Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Revised 9-17-19 MCN
2019 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PC
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
Ad (no additional
resubmittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
than* COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 17 2018
Jan 16
Jan 25
Feb 19
Jan 07
Feb 06
Feb 08
Mar 05
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 22
Mar 19
Feb 04
Mar 06
Mar 15
Apr 09
Tue Feb 19
Mar 20
Mar 29
Apr 23
Mar 04
Apr 03
Apr 12
May 07
Mar 18
Apr 17
Apr 26
May 21
Apr 01
May 01
May 10
Jun 04
Apr 15
May 15
May 31
Jun 25
Apr 29
May 29
May 31
Jun 25
May 06
Jun 05
Jun 14
Jul 09
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 28
Jul 23
Jun 03
Jul 03
Jul 12
Aug 06
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 26
Aug 20
Jul 01
Jul 31
Aug 09
Sep 03
Jul 15
Aug 14
Aug 30
Sep 24
Jul 29
Aug 28
Sep 13
Oct 08
Aug 05
Sep 04
Sep 13
Oct 08
Aug 19
Sep 18
Sep 27
Oct 22
Tue Sep 03
Oct 02
Oct 18
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 18
Nov 12
Sep 30
Oct 30
Nov 08
Dec 03
Oct 07
Nov 06
Nov 08
Dec 03
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 19
Dec 17
Nov 04
Dec 04
Dec 20
Jan 14 2020
Nov 18
Dec 18
Dec 20
Jan 14 2020
Dec 16
Jan 15 2020
Jan 24 2020
Feb 18 2020
Dec 30
Jan 29 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Jan 06 2020
Feb 05 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2019.
2020 dates are tentative.
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen
circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to
the closest available agenda date.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
Resubmittal of information for
k»
Zoning Map Amendment .N
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
❑
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
$194
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,881
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.08 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1