Loading...
ZMA201900008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-12-18COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 December 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 #3: 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 few remaining comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. This includes several earlier comments related to transportation which may or may not be addressed as noted in the letter until VDOT has completed their review of the resubmittal. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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.l: 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 fully addressed. The narrative states that the developer will offer 15% of the units at a rental rate equal 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 housingisbeing provided and this will be identified as an unfavorable factor in fixture 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 pproved 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. Rev. 2: Pending any comments from Zoning, this comment addressed per revised housing note on the Application Plan. 3. Density: a. Sheet 1 of Exhibit A states the proposed gross residential density based on the overall site acreage (27.31 acres) and the maximum number of dwelling units possible (328). However, Chapter 8, Objective 8, Strategy 8C of the Comprehensive Plan requires ZMAs to be evaluated based on their proposed net density. Net density is defined as the area of a parcel that has a future land use designation other than public open space, private open space, or green systems. The subject properties have areas of both Public Open Space and Privately Owned Open Space land use designations. Furthermore, certain environmental features such as WPO stream buffers, floodplain, and Preserved Steep Slopes are all identified by the Comprehensive Plan as green systems and must be subtracted from the developable acreage of the subject parcels, even if those features lie outside of open space future land use designations. A calculation must be provided on the application plan that clearly identifies the project's proposed net density. i. The Public Open Space designation on TMP 61-167C should be calculated based on the acreage of the existing permanent park easement that was created when John Warner Parkway was built. This area measures 5.890 according the recorded deeds and plats mentioned earlier. 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. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed, Item #6B is the Allowable Density Analysis and no new notes have been added stating the source of the 0.95 and 0.19 acreages shown. The comment response letter says that there was an "Exhibit F" provided, but this was not in the submittal package. 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). Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 necessarX for staff to evaluate the road improvements proposed with the ZMA. Please see VDOT comments for additional details. Rev. 2: VDOT has not vet completed their review. Planning and Planning Transportation staff have reviewed the revised TIA. Assuming that the technical data revisions will satisfy VDOT staff, and no further technical revisions are necessarv. the revised TIA has urovided enough information to evaluate the transportation improvements. See additional comments below. 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. Rev. 2: Provided that VDOT does not have further changes, this comment is addressed. 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 mqy warrant revisions to the application plan. Rev. 2: Provided that VDOT does not have further changes, this comment is addressed. iii. VDOT and Count,, 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. Rev. 2: Based on the applicant's revised TIA and response, a roundabout will not be provided. The proposed road improvements will be constructed as shown on the Application Plan, or the cash proffer will be paid, to mitigate traffic impacts. Unless VDOT has further revisions to the TIA or proposed improvements, Planning/Transportation staff can say that operations and safety is being improved at several points/intersections. Some intersections will still be affected by a noticeable increase in delay times, while other intersections will not be noticeably affected by full build -out even at peak AM and PM travel hours. A more detailed explanation and analysis of outcomes which will result for vehicular traffic based on the proposed road improvements is provided in comments from Kevin MCDermott later in this letter. 5. The Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) future land use designation calls for a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial, office, and institutional uses. Although several institutional uses currently exist on surrounding properties, there is a lack of retail, commercial, and office uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, Page 5-7 of the Master Plan states that Neighborhood Service centers "provide local -serving retail/service uses, such as a drycleaner, florist, convenience store, or coffee shop in a horizontal or vertical mixed -use configuration to support the residences, businesses, and other uses around them." Under the Zoning Ordinance, only office uses can be allowed in the PRD district through approval of a special use permit. The application could be strengthened if a commitment is made to allowing and provide retail, commercial, or office uses within some of the buildings in Parkway Place. See Neighborhood Model analysis below for additional detail. Rev. 1: Per applicant response letter, the applicant contends that commercial uses would not benefit the proiect 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- GradinLY) in accordance with ARB comments # 1-2. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 re.ag rding 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 rg ading/landscaping installation that may occur within the erg enway 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' landscapin buffer uffer required by the ARB. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 currently show anv improvements within the public oven 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, landscapingin n compliance with ARB recommendations, etc.), or new notes should be added to the Application Plan stating that the developer will design and construct nark amenities at site nlan/subdivision plat staee and state eenerally what those improvements may include. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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? Rev. 2: Comment addressed. b. Sheet 1 of the application plan does not demonstrate how public access into the public open space area will be guaranteed — it can only be accessed through the internal private travel ways associated with the residential buildings. If gates are installed at the two entrances onto Rio Road, public vehicular access into the open space could be restricted. Further information is needed on this matter. The application plan and proffer statement should clearly explain how public vehicular access into the open space will be provided and maintained following site development. 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 # 1 g under the Proffer section below. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. c. Dan Mahon, Outdoor Recreation Supervisor with the Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation, is reviewing this ZMA. Comments from Dan have not yet been received. Planning for vehicle access into the proposed public open space should be coordinated though Community Development staff and Dan prior to the next submittal. Dan may be reached at dmahongalbemarle.org. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 project. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Unless Zoning Division review results in further comments, this comment is addressed. 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)." Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Pending Zoning review, this comment may be addressed. 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." Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 V 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. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 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. 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 nronosed 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 major facade details that reduces the appearance of height for these two structures? ARB comments #4c and #4d touch on this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Notes on Application Plan have been updated to reflect staffs recommendations. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 travelway adjacent to the park is shown on the Application Plan. However, staff s initial comment was made because there is concern that the travelway, 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 travelway and into the public open space could be restricted if a Rate 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, a contiguous public access easement is now shown throughout the proposed development where requested by staff. 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. Rev. 2: Pending Zoning Division review completion, this comment may be addressed. 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 1st 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Note 10 on Sheet 1 of the Application Plan, as well as language under the "Land Dedicated to Public Use" note now reflect staff recommendations. Final planning and design of the improvements will take place at site plan stage, and the proffer statement clearly states that the developer will construct the amenities in the park. g. New Comment 1st 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..." Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Sheet 4 is now the existing conditions reference drawing, and important items from the previous version of Sheet 4 have now been incorporated into Sheets 1-3 which are being proffered. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Proffer language revisions have eliminated the language previously in question. 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 of future 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 and public spaces with street trees and landscaping to make the neighborhood inviting and to connect residential areas to each other as well as to commercial centers and common areas. • 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 appendix 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 19th 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 projected traffic figures and signal timing in the traffic capaci , analysis. Rev. 2: Pending VDOT review, this comment may be addressed. See transportation planning comments from Kevin McDermott for further information and an assessment of the revised TIA/proposed road improvements. 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. Rev. 2: Pending VDOT review, this comment may be addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Pending VDOT review, this comment may be addressed. 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 del a t 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? Rev. 2: Based on staff review of the erevised TIA, the applicant's assertion that providing a roundabout at the site entrance on Rio Road would not benefit Dunlora Forest residents is generally true; a roundabout at this location would not alleviate the increase in delay at the Dunlora Forest Drive/Rio Road intersection because the travel time to the roundabout would exceed the delay increase for vehicles performing eastbound left turn movements from Dunlora Drive onto Rio Road. Furthermore, the applicant has indicated that they will not propose a roundabout at the intersection of Dunlora Forest Drive and Rio Road. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 bX 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 project. It the owner will make a cash contribution to the County_ in lieu of construction. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. (TIA) stibmitted with the applieation as well as the impr-evements identified on Sheet 3 of Exhibit A. Additional eefflfne*ts f+em 4anspet4atien planaing staff will be f ft 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 #1a. 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 project, the wording should not place responsibility of gpproval 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 project. 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. Rev. 2: Proffer #lb has been revised as recommended by staff. Proposed road improvements are now shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan and the proffer statement clearly identifies this as a component of the application. Please see comments from Kevin McDermott related to potential upgrades to the bus stop located across from the development. The application does not identify any proposed proffers dealing with upgrades to the stop, and this had been discussed with the applicant during meetings with County staff. Providing a proffer for construction or a cash contribution to allow upgrades such as a shelter and bench would greatly enhance the application's consistency with this principle. 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 project. Exhibit A of the Application Plan should match the other drawings in terns 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. Rev. 2: All previous comments related to this principle have been addressed and the revised application is consistent with this principle. 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' pedestrianibicycle 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 regardingt- he 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. ARB staff have no objections to the revised Application Plan. The Building Architecture notes on Sheet 1 of the Application Plan now incorporate the language recommended by staff. Buildings along Rio Road will be subiect to further review by the ARB at the site plan stage, and the exact architectural design of new buildings will be finalized at that time to be consistent with the Application Plan note. 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 ever een 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." Rev. 2: All previous comments related to this principle have been addressed through revisions to the Application Plan. The application is now consistent with this principle. 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 multifamilv dwellings. the internal streets will need to comply with all applicable section of Chanter 14. Department of Community Development — Zoning Division Zoning Division review still underway. Comments and/or recommendations from Rebecca Ragsdale, rra sg dale(a�albemarle.org will be forwarded to the applicant once review is complete. Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning Comments related to transportation have been provided by Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott(cr�,albemarle.org, and are attached. Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB) No objection, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Natural Resources Planning No objection. Department of Community Development — Engineering Division No objection, see attached recommendation from Frank Pohl, ffpohlgalbemarle.org. VDOT VDOT review still underway. Comments and/or recommendations from Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov, will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt. ASCA/RWSA ACSA and RWSA have not sent comments as of December 18, 2019. Any comments will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt. Department of Parks & Recreation No objection, see attached comments from Dan Mahon, dmahon@albemarle.org. 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(c-r�,albemarle.org. Sincerely, Cameron Langille Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development Review Comments for ZMA201900008 Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE Date Completed: Wednesday, December 18,01 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Kevin McDermott CDD Planning I See Recommendations I Assuming that the modeling results provided are accurate and satisfy outstanding VDOT comments, most transportation comments have been addressed_ Pending VDOTs assessment, some transportation comments may need to change_ Comments 1_ Rio Road/John Warner Park -way intersection is the worst operationally in the future build alternative with nearly all movements failing in both AM and PM peak_ a_ Average delay increase in the AM is 3.4 seconds, and 4.5 seconds in the PM from no build to build alternatives_ This will not result in a significant decrease in service at this intersection overall_ b_ Movements impacted the most between no build and build are as follows: left turns from Rio Road East to John Warner Parkway in the AM with a 15 second increase; through movement from John Warner Parkway to Rio Road West in the PM with a 13 second increase_ Both increases would be noticeable with long queues that exceed storage length making for driver frustrations_ c_ All other travel movements at this intersection will have little to no change 2_ The revised TIA demonstrates that proposed road improvements will greatly enhance operations and safety at the DLllllora Drive/Rio Road intersection 3_ Left turns from Dunlora Forest Drive onto Rio Road will have noticeable increases in delay of 10 and 13 seconds in the AM and PM, respectively- 4- As brought up in meetings with the applicant prior to the resribmittal there is a transit stop across the street from the development_ Upgrades to the stop, including the addition of a shelter and bench_ would greatly improve the quality of transit service adjacent to the development_ These items corild be proffered as part of the application, but the resubmittal did not address this topic_ Please note that staff will identify this as a factor unfavorable unless the applicant chooses to resubmit with revised proffers concerning the transit stop- 5- Assuming an average of 50150 split share behveen local and state funding sorirces }, ere to be utilized for constructing the proposed road improvement projects the 5ralrie offered in proffer #1 b is generally consistent )xith the cost of the improvements that would otherwise be the responsibility of the developer 6_ Providing higher density housing on this site given it's proximity to the center of the urban area and also being located on a transit route and a well -developed bike route, will provide long-term benefits to transportation addressing climate change and regional housing affordability_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: '121'18120'19 Review Comments for ZMA201900008 Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE Date Completed: Tuesday, December 17, 201 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Margaret M al i szews ki CDDARB No Objection No objection_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 12 18120'19 Review Comments for ZMA201900008 Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE Date Completed: Tuesday, December 17, 201 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Engineering No Obje-:tion I have no further objections_ Regarding proffer #1, the road improvements are usually bonded thrOLIgh the County, not VDOT Since this is already a VDOT road, VDOT will likely require a bond in the full amount of proposed improvements to allow the proposed work in the PUN Any improvements not required by VDOT will need to be bonded thrOLIgh the County though fi a street trees...:; Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 12 18120'19 Review Comments for ZMA201900008 Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE Date Completed: Wednesday, December 18, 201 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Dan Mahon Parks No Objection No objection_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 12 18120'19