ZMA201900008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-07-14County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
Memorandum
To: Steven Blaine, sblaine@woodsrogers.com
Date: July 14, 2021
Re: ZMA201900008 Rio Point (formerly Parkway Place) — Fifth Review Comment Letter
Mr. Blaine:
Cameron Langille
Senior Planner II, Planning
bla ngille0albemarle.org
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3432
Staff has reviewed your revised submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900008 Rio Point (formerly known as
Parkway Place). We have a few remaining 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:
Please ensure that the proffers reference a plan title that is consistent with the plans given. See Zoning Division
comment #1. 5th Review: Comment addressed.
2. Please see comments from the Housing Planner and Zoning Division. The County is currently updating the
affordable housing policy. Planning staff encourage the applicant to contact Stacy Pethia, soethia0albemarle.o1g,
to obtain further information on the contents of the proposed housing policy update. In summary, the proposed
housing policy increases the percentage of affordable units to 20% instead of 15%. St' Review: Please see
attached Housing comments. Current housing policy has affordable housing set at 50% AMI. but the note
on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan states that affordable units will be provided at 80% AMI.
3. Please verify the acreage of land being dedicated to public right-of-way (ROW) along Rio Road E. The narrative
states 0.77 acres, but the proffer statement and Sheet 2 of the application plan state 0.82 acres. Revise the proffer
statement, application plan, and narrative as necessary to ensure the figures are consistent and accurate. 51'
Review: Comment addressed.
4. Please see Transportation Planning staff comment #2. The build scenario with the proposed roundabout results in
additional queuing and delay for traffic along John Warner Parkway versus the no build scenario. Does the
applicant propose any strategies to address this? Ste Review: Comment addressed. see attached
Transportation Planning comments.
5. Per attached Transportation Planning comments, the Rio Rd intersection at the proposed full movement driveway
would operate with a failing movement for vehicles leaving the site wishing to turn left. This issue should be
addressed to prevent people from turning right and attempting U-turns somewhere further south on Rio Rd East
or taking unnecessary risks to get out between traffic. 5th Review: No objection, see attached Transportation
Planning comments.
6. Please see attached Transportation Planning comments regarding questions about roundabouts at the
intersections of Pen Park Road and Dunlora Forest Drive. Revisions to the TIA may be needed to adequately
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
evaluate traffic impacts at those intersections. 51h Review: Comment addressed. see attached Transportation
Planning comments.
7. Transportation Planning staff and VDOT staff have requested technical revisions to the TIA. Please see the
attached comments. The TIA will need to be revised in order for those reviewers to fully evaluate the TIA and
proposed traffic impacts resulting from the project. 5" Review: Comment addressed, see attached
Transportation Planning and VDOT comments.
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
Please see Transportation Planning comment #1 and VDOT comments #1-2. Please provide a figure of the
roundabout concept showing storage and lane configuration and potential dedication of land proffered to
accommodate the roundabout, other road improvements, and shared -use path. The proffers indicate that road
improvements are shown on the application plan. However, no road improvement details are shown. Please
show all proposed road improvements on the application plan and ensure that the proffer statement references
the appropriate sheet where road improvements are shown. Per VDOT comments, distances between nearby
intersections to the proposed entrances are needed. 51h Review: Comment addressed, see attached
Transportation Planning and VDOT comments.
a. This comment can be addressed by adding exhibits and additional construction details related to the
improvements to the application plan. 51' Review: Comment addressed. see attached Transportation
Planning and VDOT comments.
b. Alternatively, the applicant could explain the proposed improvements in written detail within the proffer
statement. Sth Review: Comment addressed. see attached Transportation Planning and VDOT
comments.
2. The application plan does not show the full length of the proposed public access easement going into the
development to provide access to the future trailhead park. Proffer #21b references the access easement, so the
easement limits should be clearly delineated and labeled as "public access easement" Sth Review: Comment
addressed.
3. Please move the open space calculations chart to Sheet 1 of the plan. 5`h Review: Comment addressed.
4. Sheet 1 identifies a 0.12-acre greenway area. Approximately 1/3 of the greenway area is located outside of the
existing John Warner Parkway greenway easement. Please clarify the developer's intent of the greenway that lies
outside of the greenway easement; is this shown on the application plan because it is going to be dedicated to
public use, or is this simply shown because the Places29 Master Plan identifies that small section as "Greenway"
future land use? 5" Review: Comment addressed.
5. Sheet 2 — see Zoning Division comments. Please remove notes 2, 5, and 6. 51h Review: Comment addressed.
6. Sheet 2 — notes #8 and #9. It appears that the minimum recreational facilities required by Section 4.16 of the
Zoning Ordinance are not being provided. If any substitutions are proposed that request should be made at this
time. See Zoning Division comments for a table that shows required and proposed recreational amenities. 51h
Review: Comment addressed.
7. Sheet 2 building stepbacks note — please consider revising this note. As mentioned in Zoning comments, the
maximum building height is 45 feet in height with a stepback required at 40 feet. The stepback trigger height is
only 5 feet higher than the maximum height allowed. Has the applicant verified the anticipated height of the
structures, and is this total less than 40 feet? If the buildings are anticipated to meet the 45-foot maximum, it
would make sense to begin stepbacks at a lower height than 40 feet. 51h Review: Comment addressed.
8. Please add a legend to Sheet 3. Sth Review: Comment addressed.
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
9. Please see attached Zoning Division comments for recommended changes to architectural notes on Sheet 2.
Proffers:
Per Zoning Division comments - Proffer 1 (b)-This proffer should be re -worded to "Upon written request by the
County, but no sooner than five (5) years from the date of approval of ZMA 2019-08, the owner must contribute
within 180 days (suggest a shorter time frame] $750,000 cash to the County for the purposes of funding
transportation improvements to John Warner Parkway or Rio Road within the vicinity of the project. 51' Review:
Please see attached Zoning Division comments. The intent of this comment was for the wording "no later
than' o be used in the proffer statement. If the applicant does not object to this, please revise the proffer
so that language is incorporated.
2. Per Zoning Division comments - Proffer 1 (c)- Wording must be added "Owner shall design and construct," 51'
Review: Comment addressed.
3. Per Zoning Division comments - Proffer 2(a)- Minimum amenities for the trail must be specified on the Application
Plan and the approval process either in the proffers or on the application plan. Some requirements are indicated
with Note 9 on Sheet 2. The note on Sheet 2 of the application plan only says "developer will coordinate' and this
is not sufficient for enforcement purposes. 51h Review: Comment addressed.
4. Per Zoning Division comments - Proffer 2(b)- Add wording to the last sentence of the proffer, the owner must
make the necessary subdivision application within 30/60/90 days of the request and dedication must occur X
number of days from the request date. SO Review: Comment addressed.
5. Per Transportation Planning comments - Please remove the reference to Charlottesville Area Transit in proffer 3.(a)
and replace with public transit stop. In 3.(b), the decision should be left to the County on where to place the
transit stop, not the City. Stn Review: Comment addressed.
Plannino
Planning staffs 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.
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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;
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
A primary objective of the Neighborhood Service center (NS) designated on TMP 61-167 is to "provide increased
pedestrian and bicycle access to the everydaygoods 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.
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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 mostly met. Note 7 on Sheet 1 of Exhibit A explains that sidewalks will
be provided along all internal streets and travel ways.
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 #21b 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.
However, the application plan does not include a label or callout describing the width of
the shared use path along Rio Road E. Please provide a detail or description of the size,
materials, etc. of the shared use path. St' Review: Comment addressed. Sheet 3 of the
Application Plan shows that this will be a 10' wide Class A shared use path.
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.
The applicant mentions in the project narrative that they have evaluated providing a
greater mixture of uses other than residential and open sace. As recommended by the
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
plan, a mixture of uses in these land use designations would non-residential uses such
as neighborhood level commercial. Per the narrative, the applicant believes this would
not strengthen the project.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is partially met.
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.
The applicant mentions in the project narrative that they have evaluated providing non-
residential uses such as neighborhood level commercial, but that this would not
strengthen the project. Staff acknowledges that the applicant is choosing not to
provide neighborhood level retail within this project.
Mixture of Housing Types
Notes on Sheet 2 of the application plan state that 15% of the units proposed will be
affordable at rental rates equal to 30% of the gross income of 80% Area Median Income
and Affordability
(AMI) based on family size, such that affordable rates would be maintained for at least
10 years. The Housing Planner and Zoning have several comments regarding revisions
to the affordable housing note, please see attached. 511 Review: Please see attached
Housing comments.
�ele ated Parkin,
This principle is met.
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is not fully 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 asspecified by Strategy #2'
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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
for 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. S' Review: Comment addressed. see attached
VDOT and Transportation Planning comments.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is partially met. Sidewalks will be provided so that the pedestrian network
Opportunities
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.
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 #1 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.
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). Please provide a construction detail or exhibit that provides
greater details on the roundabout, shared use paths, and all other transportation
improvements mentioned in proffer #1C. 51' Review: Comment addressed. See
attached Transportation Planning and VDOT comments.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is met. Please see attached Parks & Recreation comments regarding
Amenities, and Open Space
signage within the proposed 1.1-acre park.
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is partially met.
Human Scale
Please see attached ARB comments. ARB staff recommend breaking the proposed
single buildings on the north/west side of the development into smaller footprints/more
buildings. If a new structure gets built and covers the entire building footprint shown,
this will have visual impacts that need to be mitigated in some fashion. Please clarify
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
whether the intent is to construct buildings that occupy the full footprints shown on the
application plan. 51h Review: Comment addressed.
Redevelopment
Principle is not applicable. Property is currently undeveloped.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is met.
Careful Grading and Re-
grading of Terrain
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.
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, rraasdaleC@albemarle.orq.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
No objection, see attached comments from Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
No objection, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
No objection, see attached comments from Frank Pohl, fi2ohl@albemarle.org.
VDOT
No objection, see attached VDOT comments from Adam Moore, adam.mooreOvdot.virginia.gov and Doug McAvoy,
douglas.mcavoy@vdot.virgi nia.gov.
Department of Parks & Recreation
See attached comments from Tim Padalino, tpadalinoC@albemarle.orq
Department of Social Services - Housing
See attached recommendation from Stacy Pethia, spethia@albemarle.org,
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blangille(c@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
7 W
Cameron Langille
Principal Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Review Comments for ZMA201900008
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Friday, July 09, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zonina Requested Changes
-Minimum requirements of Section 4.16 are not met. Section 4.16 allows substitutions of equipment or facilities may be
approved by the director of planning and community development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the
facilities listed above, and are appropriate to the needs of the occupants. The rec requirements can only be reduced by
special exception. As noted, 7 tot lots would be required with this development and the latest application plan proposes no tot
lots.
-Proffer 1(b)-"no later than" I believe was the intent of the proffer as offered.
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/14/2021
Review Comments for ZMA201900008
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Thursday, July 08, 2021 Department/Division/Agency Review Status:
Reviewer: Kevin MCDermolf
CDD Plannina
No Objection
Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/14/2021
Cameron Langille
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:11 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= Margaret Maliszewski
Review Status = No Objection
Completed Date = 07/01/2021
This email was sent from County View Production.
Review Comments for ZMA201900008
Project Name: PARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/14/2021
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940
July 13, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Cameron Langille
Re: Rio Point (Parkway Place) — Zoning Map Amendment Request
ZMA-2019-00008
Review #2
Dear Mr. Langille:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Timmons Group, dated 4 June
2021, and offers the following comments:
1. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices 13(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
The Department finds the plans generally acceptable. If further information is desired, please
contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOlorg
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Cameron Langille
From: Tim Padalino
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 3:05 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 = Tim Padalino
Review Status = See Recommendations
Completed Date = 07/09/2021
1. Land Dedicated to Public Use ("Trailhead Park," "Conservation Area." and "Greenway" ):
1a. ACPR maintains support for the proposed use of this 1.1-acre area to be dedicated to public use as a "trailhead park"
for public enjoyment and public access to the Rivanna Trail /John Warner Parkway shared use path.
1b. ACPR acknowledges Note 4 on Sheet 2 which states "THE DEVELOPER SHALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PARK
AMENITIES FOR THE "TRAILHEAD PARK". THE AMENITIES SHALL INCLUDE THE ASPHALT PARKING AREA WITH A
MINIMUM OF 12 PARKING SPACES, BENCHES, TRAIL CONNECTIONS, LANDSCAPING, PUBLIC ART, AND A GAZEBO OR
OTHER SMALL STRUCTURE." ACPR staff further acknowledges the additional descriptions of the Trailhead Park in the
"Proposed Uses" section on Page 2 of the Revised Project Narrative.
1c. ACPR also acknowledges Proffer #2(a), which indicates ACPR review and approval of amenities within the proposed
Trailhead Park. ACPR remains supportive of participating in a park planning/design process with the applicant or owner,
to help finalize and approve the specific uses, amenities, and improvements within this proposed Trailhead Park that
would meet or exceed the amenities listed in Proffer #2(a) ["...a minimum of 12 parking spaces, benches, trail
connections, landscaping, public art, and a gazebo or other small structure"] and described in the Proposed Uses section
of the Revised Project Narrative ["...gateway monumentation, [a gazebo] with trail maps or other small structure, and
public art."
1d. ACPR staff pre-emptively notes that the proposed trail connections and signage/maps (described in the project
narrative) should clearly direct trail users to publicly -accessible facilities and amenities, and should not provide
wayfinding information that would facilitate trespassing on private property.
1.e ACPR acknowledges the proposed 0.12-acre dedication of land to public use as a greenway. Thank you for clarifying
that project detail and resolving the prior ACPR review comment.
2. ZMA Application Plan:
2a. ACPR staff acknowledges the proposed ROW dedication and proposed construction of a 10' pedestrian and bicycle
pathway along E Rio Road, and strongly supports the inclusion and provision of this proposed public facility.
2b. ACPR staff acknowledges the proposed "0.12 acre greenway" to be dedicated to public use. ACPR staff supports
dedication of public greenway area in this vicinity, along the southwestern portions of the subject property closest to
the Meadow Creek stream corridor, to help facilitate future greenway connectivity.
2c. Please clarify if the "Greenway Trail: 0.65 acres" (specified in the "Recreation Space Requirements - Provided" table
on Sheet 2) includes the proposed construction of any new greenway trail in the 0.12-acre greenway dedication area, or
in the 0.32-acre greenway area (identified as part of the "conservation area").
2d. Staff acknowledges the proposed Landscape Buffer and the developer's plans to "retain existing natural undisturbed
vegetation or plant a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs native to Virginia" (as described on Sheet 2).
ACPR staff supports the protection, retention, maintenance, and management of (healthy) existing vegetation within the
proposed Landscape Buffer, and supports supplementing that existing vegetation with a mixture of additional trees and
shrubs native to Virginia.
2e. Staff also acknowledges the proposed amenities for the proposed on -site (private) active recreation area listed on
Sheet 2, and strongly recommends the provision of some (private) playground equipment and other active recreation
amenities on -site for residents and guests.
3. Proposed Land Uses: ACPR staff reasonably anticipate that the proposed 328 new dwelling units would produce an
increased demand for, and result in increased impacts to, existing County parks, greenways, and blueways (water
recreation). Staff believes the proposed open space dedications and provisions of publicly -accessible recreational
amenities would be beneficial and are partially helpful, but are not fully proportional to the reasonably anticipated
impacts to existing County parks and outdoor recreation resources.
This email was sent from County View Production.
Review Comments for ZMA201900008
Project Name:IPARKWAY PLACE
Date Completed: Monday, June 28, 2021 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Stacy Pethia Housing Department see Recommendations
Housing comments are as follows:
The applicant proposes providing 15% of the total number of housing units as affordable housing, however, the last sentence of
the second paragraph under the section 'Definitions of Affordable Housing' (page A.9.4) of Appendix 9: Affordable Housing
Policy of the Comprehensive Plan sets maximum affordable gross rent (rent + utilities) at 50%AMI.
A copy of the current housing policy, with the current affordable maximum affordable rent definition, is attached for reference.
Thanks,
Stacy
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/14/2021
Appendix 9: Housing
This information is intended to provide greater detail on items described in the Housing Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. Items in this appendix are part of the Comprehensive Plan, provide policy direction
as if they were a strategy within the individual chapter, and carry the same weight of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Table of Contents
Page
Title and Description
Number
A.9.3
Affordable Housing Policy
Provides strategies and recommendations pursuant to the policy of Albemarle County
to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the County.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.1
Page intentionally left blank.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.2
BACK TO TOP
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
Amended June 10, 2015
Preface
With the adoption of the Neighborhood Model by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
charge given to address the inclusion of affordable housing in future developments, the Albemarle County
Housing Committee created a Housing Policy Subcommittee to draft an affordable housing policy. The
subcommittee, staffed by the County's Chief of Housing, drafted an outline of options to be considered in
developing the policy. In December 2002, the Housing Committee and Office of Housing convened three
focus groups consisting of housing providers (nonprofits, lenders, and realtors), developers, and
neighborhood representatives to discuss the needs, issues, and recommendations regarding affordable
housing and public policy. The result of this work and input is the following proposal offered as an
affordable housing policy for Albemarle County.
Some previous work had been done leading up to the development of the policy. The Housing Committee
and Board of Supervisors first defined affordable housing in July and September of 1998, respectively.
The definition proposed in this policy maintains the intent of the previously -adopted general definition. The
Board, at the request of the Housing Committee, adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan in November 2002. Finally, although not required for the adoption of this policy, the Board approved
a request by staff to seek legislation allowing Albemarle County flexibility in creating and Affordable
Dwelling Unit Ordinance. This enabling legislation was approved in the 2002 session of the General
Assembly.
Overview and Background Leading to Development of Policy
Population and Housing - Albemarle County's population has grown from 68,000 in 1990 to 84,000 in
2000 (23.5%). The number of occupied housing units in Albemarle County also grew with owner -occupied
units increasing from 11,562 to 20,991 and rental units from 7,361 to 10,885 representing an 81.5%
growth in owner -occupied units and 47.8% growth in rental units.
While the overall growth in occupied units appears to be consistent with population growth based on an
average of 2.5 persons per unit, the trends support the concern that cost of housing for low- to moderate -
income households is increasing. These trends include cost burden and fewer affordable units being
developed. It should be noted that, according to 1999 income data from the U.S. Census, of 31,916
households, 15, 689 (49.1 %) had incomes below $50,000. Approximately 5,500 (17.3%) have incomes
between $35,000 and $50,000. These income levels would be equivalent to sixty- to eighty -percent of
the area median income.
Cost Burden - According to the 2000 U.S. Census over 2000 owner -occupied households (12.4%) had
housing costs that exceed 35% of their household income, while 3100 renters (30.7%) had housing costs
exceeding 35% of household income.
Affordable Unit Development —According to County assessment records 11,632 houses in the County would
be considered affordable based on affordability defined as a maximum sales price of approximately
$175,000. This represents 43.6%of all houses (26,668). However in 2001 there were only 510 affordable
resales dropping to 399 affordable resales in 2002. There were 1404 total sales 2002 including 426
units (28%) defined as affordable (under $175,000). Of the total sales, 318 were new homes of which
only 27 of those units (8%) were considered affordable.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.3
BACK TO TOP
Rental Housing — Most of the County's affordable rental housing (maximum 2-bedroom rent of $725.00)
was developed prior to 1998. Four of these are multifamily properties totaling 539 units that have rents
restricted by federal low-income housing tax credits. Since 1998, three properties have been developed
as unrestricted or family units. While the properties have added over 450 new units only 20 units offer
affordable rents. In addition to these units, 97 units of elderly housing was developed with rents restricted
by funding sources (bonds and tax credits).
Data indicates that the current trends will continue to add pressures on housing affordability that will impact
40% of the County's population. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been developed to outline
objectives and recommendations that may be used to support the County's desire to increase the number
of newly developed units that may be affordable for all rezoning and special use permit applications.
Definition of Affordable Housing
Affordable housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30%
of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include principal, interest, real estate taxes,
and homeowner's insurance (PIT/). Housing costs for tenants shall be tenant -paid rent and tenant -paid utilities
with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice
Voucher Program.
Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to the forty
percent of the County population that have household incomes at or below 80% of the area median income.
For 2003, the maximum affordable home for purchase (80% median income) would be $172,000 and
maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants would be $787 (50% median income).
Objectives
It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work
in the County. In particular, the County will provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and
for -profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental
and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area median income by:
• Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate -income residents of
Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County;
• Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities;
• Creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods;
• Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations; and,
• Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the
private sector alone.
The County should encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County wide and the
development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County's Growth Management Policy. The
provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be consistent
with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a higher level of services and facilities
(both public and private) are available to support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the
designated Rural Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.4
BACK TO TOP
Strategies and Recommendations:
Strategy 1: Develop and implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing
affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications.
Recommendations:
• Develop process to measure and track existing affordable housing stock.
• Update annual affordability figures for sales prices and rentals based on median income figures
provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Assess and prioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required throughout the housing
continuum.
• Develop affordable housing production goals based on documented need/demand to address
identified housing priorities and to insure that low -and moderate -income households have access to a
sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units.
• Promote the use of the existing density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve affordable housing.
• Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a streamlined and timely process
for plan approvals.
• Implement the adopted affordable policy(ies) to the greatest extent possible for all rezoning and
special use permit applications.
Strategy 2: Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low -and moderate -income
families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development's size, location,
timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning
and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing
Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of
the County.
Recommendations:
• Develop procedures to work with developers to phase in affordable units within a neighborhood as
described in the Neighborhood Model including the use of regulatory and monetary incentives available
through the County, its partners and state and federal programs.
Work with the developers and nonprofit housing organizations to create procedures to phase in
affordable units in a development and ensuring that such units are compatible with other homes in the
development. Affordable units should include both units for sale and units for rent.
• Promote a design criterion that disperses affordable homes throughout a development and encourages
a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed in designated development areas as guidance
for the creation of affordable units that are scattered throughout the development.
Strategy 3: Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of
affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public
resources.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.5
BACK TO TOP
Recommendations:
• Develop procedures for monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law
and/or funding sources.
• Establish a first right -of -refusal for the purchase of affordable units for rent or sale by the County
and/or its nonprofit partners.
• Develop deed restrictions and other mechanisms to insure affordable units developed with County
incentives remain affordable for a specific period of time (control period).
Strategy 4: Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector
including nonprofit and for -profit housing providers and lenders.
Recommendations
• Develop methods for reviewing the processes and effectiveness of prequalifying and certifying families
for purchase or rental units produced. Utilize the nonprofit housing agencies and County's Homebuyer
Clubs to identify and prequalify purchasers and renters for affordable housing units.
• Increase access to counseling by expanding the County's homeownership education programs and
utilizing similar services provided by others.
• Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and help clarify roles and responsibilities for each
including, but not limited to, community development, housing development, affordable lending, and
housing counseling.
• Develop formal and informal procedures for dialogue with and among the private sector (for -profit
and nonprofit) development community to increase production of affordable housing during the
rezoning and special use permitting processes.
• Foster arrangements between for -profit developers and the nonprofit organizations to facilitate the
purchase of lots and/or units and insure occupancy of units by eligible households.
• Promote affordable housing by increasing participation with the real estate community including
representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment council, and homebuilders).
• Provide encouragement and incentives to nonprofit housing providers for the purchase, construction,
rehabilitation and/or management of affordable owner -occupied and rental units.
• Promote understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and participate with
neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues.
Strategy 5: Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for
the development and/or financing of affordable housing.
Recommendations
• Support tax credit applications for properties that preserve or create affordable rental units.
• Develop strategies for effectively leveraging public and private funds to maximize resources for
affordable housing including options for capitalizing a housing trust fund.
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015
A.9.6
BACK TO TOP