ZMA202200002 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-08-24County of Albemarle
o � �
i, Community Development Department
Memorandum
To: Ashley Davies, ashley@riverbenddev.com
Date: August 24, 2022
Re: ZMA202200002 Sieg Rezoning - Review Comment Letter
Ms. Davies:
Cameron Langille
Principal Planner, Planning
bla n¢i I le@al bemarl e.orx
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3432
Staff has reviewed your revised submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202200002 Sieg Rezoning. 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:
1. Please see historic preservation comments regarding existing structures. The applicant indicated that
documentation of these structures will be provided. Please provide this information on a future submittal.
2. Please see attached comments from Stacy Pethia regarding affordable housing. To be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8, Strategy #2g and Chapter 9, Strategy #6b, please address the following:
a. Section 4 of the COD -update the text to state "Albemarle County Office of Housing."
b. Specify the amount of cash -in -lieu for affordable units.
c. Please complete the housing evaluation form included with Ms. Pethia's comments.
3. Impacts to schools. A revised project narrative was not included with the resubmittal package. Please provide a
narrative that identifies the number of students that would be generated by the proposed dwelling units. Students
within this project would attend Red Hill Elementary, Walton Middle, and Monticello High School. Per the ACPS
September 2021 Capacity vs. Enrollment report, each school is currently under capacity. The report includes an
estimated enrollment for each school in future academic years in Appendix F of the report.
a. The applicant should use the student yield per dwelling unit calculation included on page 28 of the ACPS
Subdivision Yield Analysis report to calculate how many students would be generated at each school level
based on the amount and type of dwelling units proposed with this ZMA. Please be aware that if the
enrollment projections would make any of the schools over capacity, additional comments may be
forthcoming regarding how the applicant intends to address school capacity issues.
4. Please see attached RWSA comments. There maybe issues with sewer capacity and water flow pressure. RWSA
staff requests additional information on the anticipated utility needs for the brewery, as well as what pressure
band the developer intends to bring utilities to the project. Additional information can be found in the RWSA
comments.
5. VDOT and Transportation Planning staff have several questions and comments about technical aspects of the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Please share the data requested in VDOT comment #2.
a. Based on VDOT comment #1, it appears the agency has concerns with the proposed intersection upgrades
at the intersection between Teel Road and Route 29 as proposed by proffer #1a and the application plan.
VDOT needs to retain access to Teel Road from Route 29 South, and currently the application plan
proposes a median that would prohibit left turns from Route 29 onto Teel Road. Please continue to
coordinate with VDOT regarding design elements for this intersection.
i. Please be aware that the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan (page 38) identifies
preserving left turn movements from Teel Road onto Route 29 South as an important
consideration for this area. Has the applicant evaluated an intersection design that allows vehicles
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
to make left turns from Teel Road onto Route 29 South while also allowing left turn movements
from Route 29 South onto Teel Road?
6. At the community meeting for this project, several comments were made by property owners in the Sherwood
Farms subdivision on the east side of Route 29 regarding the proposed road improvements that would restrict left
turn lanes into and out of the project. The applicant's representatives stated that there were several design options
being reviewed for that intersection. Based on comment #5 above and concerns from the public, staff highly
encourages the developer to evaluate and provide information on different improvements that would allow
vehicles to enter Sherwood Farms through a left turn movement, and if possible, incorporate a left turn movement
from Teel Road to southbound Route 29.
a. Additional comments on this topic may be forthcoming pending completion of transportation planning
staff review.
Proffers:
1. Please update proffer #1 so that it references the new TIA date of June 21, 2022.
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
1. Sheet 2 has a label for "Limits of Rezoning" that does not include TMP 75-48, which has been incorporated into
the ZMA per this resubmittal. Please revise to accurately reflect the limits of the ZMA. It appears that the
applicant intends to rezone all of TMP 75-48 to NMD, is that correct?
2. Line work for the "Development Area" and "Limits of State Dam Inundation Zone" are not visible on Sheets land
2, respectively. Please revise.
Code of Development:
1. Maximum density of residential units - how were these calculated in Table 7? Based on staff calculations it
appears that there is 58.91 acres of land within the project designated for Regional Mixed Use which allows
residential up to 34 units an acre. 34 x 58.91=2002.94 total dwelling units possible in the development. Please
provide further documentation on how the applicant determined that up to 3,104 units could be developed under
the Comprehensive Plan future land use recommendations. The table may need to be revised as necessary.
2. Per first review comment letter, staff supports the veterinary office and hospital use as a by -right use in the
Regional Mixed Use blocks. However, these uses should still comply with the supplemental regulations specified
by Section 18-5.1.11 of the Zoning ordinance. Please provide a footnote stating such under Table 6 of the COD.
3. Per first review comment letter, Table 6 identifies breweries, wineries, and distilleries as by -right uses. However,
the Zoning Ordinance does not define these uses in commercial zoning districts. Further definition and refinement
of these uses is needed in the COD, particularly in regard to the types of accessory uses and events that may occur
in the COD is needed for this use type.
a. For example, the Zoning Ordinance contains supplemental regulations for breweries/distilleries in the
Rural Areas. See sections 18-5.1.58 and 18-5.1.59. These supplemental regulations specify hours of
operation, the types of special events allowed and how those events are permitted by the County, outdoor
sound regulations, etc. Please consider providing an expanded definition of the brewery, winery, and
distillery use that contains similar information (as relevant to this development).
4. Page 8, 2nd to last paragraph references Table 2 on Page 6 of the COD, but Table 2 is on page 9. Please revise.
5. Table 3 references Sections 2.4.3 (civic space notes) and 2.3.1(lot regulations and building regulations
descriptions) but the COD does not contain either of those Sections. It appears the correct OCD sections to
reference are 2.6.3, and Sections 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2. Please confirm and revise as necessary.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
6. Please provide additional information on how the minimum and maximum square footage of non-residential uses
was calculated in Table 7.
7. Table 2.5.2.1 states that there will be no minimum building height in the Regional Mixed Use blocks. However, the
Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan recommends buildings be at least two stories. Please either
revise the table to state a minimum of two stories or provide additional information on the reasoning for having no
minimum height in these blocks.
8. Based on the recreational amenities, proposed, it appears that the applicant is requesting approval of a substitution
request of required amenities? Please verify whether this is accurate. The amenities identified in Table 11 do not
meet the minimum required recreational facilities as specified by Section 4.16.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. If the
applicant is officially requesting a substitution of required facilities, please provide a written justification for the
request. Please be aware that substitutions can be approved administratively if the proposed facilities are
determined to be equivalent to the minimum requirements, but providing less than the required facilities requires
Board of Supervisor approval. Currently, Table 11 identifies one tot lot and 1 basketball court in Civic Space 3. Can
the facilities proposed in each civic space be further defined to identify specific recreational facilities in each civic
space? For example, will the "recreational play area' in civic space 2 include playground equipment that could
count toward being a tot lot?
Based on the number of units proposed, the following recreational amenities are required
Number of Units
500
1,365
Tot Lots
10
27
% Basketball court orequivalent
5
14
Each tot lot is required to be a minimum of 2,000 sq.ft. in area. This means that a minimum of 20,000 sq.ft. and
maximum of 54,000 sq.ft. of tot lots are required throughout the development. The COD only expressly identifies
one 8,000 sq.ft. tot lot in civic space 3.
9. Please add a note in Section 2.6.3 stating that recreational facilities in each block shall be completed when 50
percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy.
10. Section 3.4.2 of the COD references Section 2.4.1 for design standards for landscaping buffers. However, the
COD does not contain a Section 2.4.1. Please revise this paragraph to identify the correct COD section. Is this
supposed to reference Table 10 and Section 2.6.2?
11. Please consider adding additional language regarding all outdoor lighting being full -cutoff fixtures as recommended
by ARB comments. Additional language could be added to Section 3.2 of the COD for this.
Plannin¢
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.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
]6,139
Legend
75-59A V76.14
M
�Il
]5-47c+
75-59 N
]5-60
i5-58
vvub
]mbgdo
zm�,. ci.rmwm�
viw.nmi
,G,
75-57 75-65 ^
75-66
wwn4emai
Mh �naei
�J
� vu�.ereee�amw
aemal NeAs iree�0erel,pred
'�..-,.
_
ira�ammeve ump o�ud
m�mia owre
_
_/-___ �_
- -
. wre,.waoma
• rkmarcommvm
• w.w D..oioorMismµogco.
• m..uwc�o.. mom
].Sfi
•wow r
•aim.a rereaprnii.e�exa sv
_
• ivwrd SvdMb
]5-46
]5-5] 0
u ] 5
]5-48 0
tea, 6
"a
0
taC
p5
y 75-54 76NBA
]5-OC
� ]5-51
6N-B
L
75-45
N figP ]fiN-OJ--A
76N-1
j
C
n
� I 76N-01.-M ^
752 tt
u
]5-49 76N-03--C
76N-01--
-
cic w.e
m
n ]5-45A
0 ]6N-10
]5576N-03 -- U ]fiN-D1--F
i5J5
i6N-D1—K
i6 +03--F i6 -9
,n, ae sen
oisaw GGww wanr wuw.ws —,Ye "�eomms,
The proposal includes seven Tax Map Parcels (TMP). TMP numbers and the existing primary and overlay zoning districts
which apply to each parcel are noted below:
1. TMP07500-00-00-04800- R1 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District, and Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District.
2. TMP 07500-00-00-05300 - R1 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, Flood Hazard Overlay District, and Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District.
3. TMP 07500-00-00-05400 - HC Highway Commercial; AIA Airport Impact Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, and Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District.
4. TMP 07500-00-00-054AO - HC Highway Commercial; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay District, Flood Hazard Overlay District, and Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District.
5. TMP 07500-00-00-05500 - HC Highway Commercial; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay District, and Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District.
6. TMP 07500-00-00-055CO - HC Highway Commercial; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District.
7. TMP 07500-00-00-05600 - HC Highway Commercial; AIA Airport Impact Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, and Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District.
All seven properties are located in the Neighborhood 5 Comprehensive Plan Area and are subject to the recommendations
of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. In regard to future land use recommendations specifically, the
Western Urban Neighborhoods Future Land Use Plan identifies the land use categories that apply to each property.
The Western Urban Neighborhoods Future Land Use Plan contained in the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master
Plan calls for three future land use classifications on the subject properties. The categories and their general descriptions
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
are listed below, but these can also be found on pages S+W 33 and S+W 34 of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan.
1. Regional Mixed Use - Represents a mixture of retail/service uses and residential uses. Residential uses of all
housing types are permitted at densities up to 34 dwelling units/acre (du/acre). Maximum building footprints for
office uses is 20,000 sq.ft., with a maximum single -building footprint of 80,000 sq.ft. for uses other than offices.
Secondary uses that may be acceptable under this classification include automobile sales and service, and
office/flex/R&D/light industrial uses. Building heights are recommended to be a minimum of two -stories in this
classification.
2. Industrial - This classification represents uses involving manufacturing and may include processing, fabrication,
assembly, treatment, packaging, storage, sales and distribution. Commercial activities related to industrial uses are
permitted. Offices and research and development uses are also recommended. Research and development
includes any use carrying out the design, experimentation, development of prototypes, engineering, scientific
application, and administrative functions of businesses in the fields of medical technology, communication systems,
transportation, multi -media, and information technology. Secondary uses permitted under this classification
include wholesale activities, automobile related uses, and institutional uses.
3. Parks and Green Systems - parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and
equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes
adjacent to rivers and streams.
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 §18-33.6. 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 generally met but could be strengthened with revisions. The COD
contains regulations for relegated parking and building form regulations are generally
consistent with the Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
If the COD were revised to include regulations that limits the use of cul-de-sacs in the
Urban Density Residential blocks, the application would be consistent with this principle.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is met.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is met. The Master Plan identifies a Center on the subject properties. The
uses proposed are consistent with the specific definition of this Center as identified on
pages 37-38 of the Master Plan.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions. Please fill out
and Affordability
the affordable housing form provided by Stacy Pethia, and include with the resubmittal.
This will allow staff to verify that the project meets the County's affordable housing
policy.
Relegated Parking
This principle is met.
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions. Per
Transportation Networks
comments from the public at the community meeting, residents of Sherwood Farms
stated that it would be beneficial for a pedestrian crossing of some form to be provided
across Route 29 to allow use of the walking trails that will potentially connect to
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Hedgerow Park. Please consider providing some form of bicycle/pedestrian crossing, as
this would show that the development is truly connected with adjoining neighborhoods.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is generally met but could be strengthened by providing additional
Opportunities
information on the timing requirements for the construction of the transit stop.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is generally met but could be strengthened by providing additional
Amenities, and Open Space
information on access to the trails as specified in Parks & Recreation comments.
Specifically, is public parking proposed as a trailhead somewhere within the development
to allow public access to the walking trails?
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is generally met.
Human Scale
Redevelopment
This principle is met. Currently developed parcels would be redeveloped under this
proposal.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is generally met.
Careful Grading and Re-
grading of Terrain
Strategy #2q from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that "Where
grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional,
and easy to maintain, and promote interconnectivity of parcels. In all instances,
developers and builders should work to preserve areas of environmental sensitivity
shown on the Master Plans." The grading of Preserved Slopes that is proposed is only to
allow construction of new public roads and associated infrastructure to allow
development of the properties. Other slope areas will not be disturbed for solely for
purposes of creating new residential lots or commercial uses.
Clear Boundaries Between
This principle is not fully met. The conceptual plan in the COD shows dwelling units
the Development Areas and
backing up to the southwestern boundary of the project. The parcel adjacent to this area
the Rural Area
is located in the Rural Areas.
If the application were revised to 1) provide limitations on the proximity of new lots to
the Rural Area boundary and 2) provide a wider landscaping buffer along the western
perimeter, staff could more definitely say that the proposal is consistent with this
principle.
Department of Community Development - Zoning Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from Francis MacCall, fmaccall@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
Review not yet complete, comments from Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org will be sent to the applicant
upon receipt.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division - Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division - Historic Preservation
Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Engineering Division
No objection, see attached comments from Emily Cox, ecox20albemarle.org.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Department of Fire & Rescue
No objection, see attached comments from Howard Lagomarsino, hlagomarsino@albemarle.org.
Department of Parks & Recreation
Requested changes, see attached comments from Tim Padalino, toadalino(aalbemarle.org.
Department of Social Services - Housing
Requested changes, see attached comments from Stacy Pethia, soethia(@albemarle.org.
VDOT
Requested changes, see attached comments from Doug McAvoy, douglas.mcavov@vdot.virginia.gov.
ACSA
Review not yet complete, comments from Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthoritv.org will be sent to the applicant upon
receipt.
RWSA
See attached comments from Dyon Vega, dvega@rivanna.org.
Action after Receipt of Comments
The applicant had previously requested deferral of public hearings with the Planning Commission in order to resubmit a
revised application for review. Without changes, staff cannot recommend approval at this time. Upon receipt of this letter,
please inform the lead planner whether the applicant seeks to schedule a public hearing, or if a resubmittal will be made.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a $2,152.80 fee for each subsequent resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a
deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blangille@albemarle.or
Sincerely,
� -'
Cameron Langille
Principal Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Cameron Langille
From: Francis H MacCall
Division: Zoning
Date: 8/24/2022
Subject: 2nd Round - Comments ZMA2022-00002 Siea
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above
noted application(s).
1. Application Plan/General Development Plan for ZMAs
a. Show Blocks on Application plan as noted in COD.
b. For the Civic spaces/amenities, along with the existing note please make
reference to the spaces complying with 20A.9c requirements.
2. Proffers/COD (ZMAs)
Code of Development
1. Where reference is made to "Sections ??? of the Albemarle County Code" or "Section ??
and ?? of the County zoning ordinance", please revise that to be "Section 18.?.? of the
Albemarle County Code."
2. No further discussion is needed on items noted from the first round of comments.
3. It is understood that you wish to keep use tables similar to the Brookhill COD. Zoning Is
OK with that.
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, July 29, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB See Recommendations
The applicant noted the previous lighting comment )"limiting all building- and ground -mounted light fixtures to full cutoff styles,
regardless of lumens emitted, is recommended for reducing impacts and maintaining the character of adjacenVnearby rural
areas") and stated that "this" will be part of the final site plans. Including this intent in the Code of Development would help
ensure that it will be done.
Page: I' County of Albemarle Pnnted On: 08/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, July 29, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Historic Preservation See Recommendations
Page: � County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGrrAL
Date Completed: Monday, August W, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Emily Cox CDD Enaineerina No Objection
Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGrrAL
Date Completed: Monday, July 18, O Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Howard Lagomarsino - Fire Rescue No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGITAL
Date Completed: I Monday, August 01, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
ReviewerJ Tim Padalino --E Parks I See Recommendations
ACPR acknowledges the recent revisions to ZMA202200002, including but not limited to: the inclusion of additional subject
property TMP #75-48 that establishes frontage with adjoining County -owned future Hedgerow Park, the proposed trailway
system including a proposed trailway extension to future Hedgerow Park, with the opportunity for ACPR to help determine the
location of that trailway connection; the proposed the trail network shown throughout the proposed development, including
connection with the village center in Block 3 and upland park civic area in Block 5; and Code of Development details in Table
11, which designate all trails as being open to public use and which designates a minimum of 5 public parking spaces for trail
access (and additional public trail parking available in the mixed use center).
ACPR staff also acknowledges the applicant's request to meet and finalize proposed details involving the "traihvay system, trail
connections, access, and final comments." ACPR is available to discuss all parks/greenways related issues and details
(including but not limited to the listed topics, as well as ACPR comments and recommendations, below) at the applicant's
request. Please contact ACPR staff at your convenience to schedule a meeting - thank you.
Please clarify if public parking for trail access (and associated signage) "may" or "can" be provided in the park & ride lot (as
expressed in CoD 2.10.3 and comment response letter), or if this is a firm commitment being made with this rezoning proposal.
ACPR recommends providing signed, dedicated public parking for trail access in multiple locations if possible, in consideration
of anticipated levels of demand for access into future Hedgerow Park.
Please clarify the trail class and specifications (including but not limited to width and surface material) for the proposed
trailway to (future) Hedgerow Park. CoD Section 2.13 is not entirely clear. ACPR recommends this proposed trailway
connection to (future) Hedgerow Park be designed and constructed to accommodate a relatively large volume and high
frequency of use by pedestrians, dog walkers, mountain bikers, and other outdoor recreation participants.
Please clarify if the proposed trailway to (future) Hedgerow Park can be physically accommodated within the subject property,
or if it would "provide a connection to the VDOT ROW" for 1-64 as noted on the Application Plan.
Please explain any proposed use(s) of the small residue of TMP #75-53 located on the north side of 1-64 adjacent to the
Heyward Community Forest. It appears this parcel was likely divided by the construction of 1-64, and this residue appears to
be inaccessible and without functional road frontage. ACPR recommends that this physically separate portion of TMP #75-53
be evaluated for public recreational use in conjunction with the ongoing operations/use of the publicly -accessible Heyward
Community Forest.
Page: � County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, July 29, 2022 Department/DivisiorJAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Stacy Pethia Housing Department Requested Changes
1. Section 4 — Housing of the Code of Development references Community Development Department throughout the
section. Since I am no longer located in CDD, references to CDD in this section should be changed to Albemarle County
Office of Housing.
2. Same section of the CoD — There is no amount listed for the proposed cash -in -lieu of affordable units.
The affordable housing evaluation form is attached. Please fill out the form and include with next resubmittal.
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVALUATION
Project Name: ZMA202200002 - Sieg Property Rezoning_
Address: TMP 75-53: 75-56: 75-54A: 75-54: 75-55: 75-55C
Description: Rezone approximately 63.46 acres from R-1 Residential, which allows residential uses at density of up to.97 units/acre.
and Highway Commercial zoning district. to Neighborhood Model District (NMD) with a gross density of 7.48 dwelling units/acre.
Project contact name: Ashley Davies
Phone: 434-409-9127
Email: ashley@riverbenddev.com
Table 1: Housing Supply Reduction - Existing units to be removed or demolished by the project
Fill out the following information for each unit taken out of use by the project. This Includes anyhousingunits that mayhavealready
been demolished in advance of this project filing.
Current rental
Income
# of
#of ($/month)or
#
# income-
level of
Term of deed
Unit Type
bedrooms/
units Sale price per
HCV/PBV
restricted
restricted
restriction
unit
tenants?
units
units
(through mm/yy)
unit
(%AMI)'
Single-family detached'
Single-family attached'
Multifamily'
Studio/efficiency
One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
Four bedroom
Five + bedroom
Total units removed
0
To be filled out only if any units are income -restricted
2 Includes manufactured (mobile) homes
3 Includes townhomes & duplexes
Includes condominiums & apartments
Table 2: Housing Supply Addition - New units in proposed project
Fill out the following information for new housing units that will result from the project.
Current rental
Income
# of
(a/ or
#
# income-
level of
Term of deed
Unit Type
unit s bedrooms/
Sale price per
nit rice
p
HCV/PBV
restricted
restricted
restriction
unit
unit
tenants?
units
units
(through mm/yy)
(% AM I)s
Single-family detached'
Single-family attached'
Multifamily'
Studio/efficiency
One bedroom
Elm
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
Four bedroom
Five + bedroom
Total units proposed
Net ain/loss
Table 3: Compliance with Albemarle County policies
List the policy objectives/strategies, or strategic priorities, addressed through this project.
Policy
Objective, strategy, priority
Board of Supervisor Strategic Goals
Infrastructure Investment: Prioritize, plan, and invest in critical infrastructure that
responds to past and future changes and improves the capacity to serve community needs
Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 8-Objective 4: Use Development Area land efficiently to prevent premature
expansion of the Development Areas.
5 To be filled out only if any units are income -restricted
6 Includes manufactured (mobile) homes
7 Includes townhomes & duplexes
8 Includes condominiums & apartments
Chapter 8-Objective 5: Promote density within the Development Areas to help create
new compact urban places.
Housing Policy
Strategy 12a:Promote mixed -income development throughout the County's
Development Areas.
Climate Action Plan
Other (please name)
Narrative:
Describe the ways the proposed project supports Albemarle County's affordable housing needs.
1. Housing staff estimates the applicant could build approximately 43 residential dwelling units under the current R-1 zoning
(43.81 acres x .97 units/acre). Section 4. page 29of the code of developmentdoes not pro vide the number of units that could
be constructedby-right. Update this section with the by -right unit yield.
2. Section 4, page 29 of the Code of Development: The applicant proposes to provide 15% of the units representing the difference
between the number of units that could be developed on the Property under the current R-1 zoning, and the number that could
be developed following the rezoning to NMD as proposed for a maximum of approximately43 units affordable to households
with incomes no greater than 80% of area median income. Thisproposal is inconsistent with Chapter 9-5trategy 6b of the
Comprehensive Plan which recommends that at a minimum. 15% ofall units developed under rezonlneand special use
permits are affordable: Staffrecommends the applicantprovide 153o"of the totalproposedresidential units -approximately
72affordable units -as recommended underChapter 9-5tratepv6b of the 2015Comprehensive Plan.
3. Section 4.3, page 31 of the Code of Development: The apolicantdoes notprovideaproposedperunit cash -in -lieu of
affordable unitamount.
4. Page 2, paragraph 5 of the application narrative states,'affordable housing is addressed within the application plan and code of
development included with the proposal'. The submittedplandoes not appear toaddress affordable housing.
Overall, Albemarle County needs to add approximately 7,507 affordable units to the housing stock by the year 2040 in order to meet
current and future affordable housing needs. To meet this goal, the County will need to increase the affordable housing stock by 417
units per year for the next 18 years. The affordable units proposed in this project represent approximately 10% of the affordable
housing units needed this year.
Project Evaluation:
X This project positively impacts affordable housing needs in Albemarle County
This project positively impacts workforce housing needs in Albemarle County
This project has no impact on affordable orworkforce housing needs in Albemarle County
This project has a negative impact on the affordable or workforce housing stock in Albemarle County
Signature:
T
4/12/2022
Housing Policy Manager Date
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
August 5, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Cameron Langille
Re: Seig Property — Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-2022-00002
Review #2
Dear Mr. Langille:
(804) 7862701
Fax: (804) 7862940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Collins Engineering, dated 21
June 2022, and offers the following comments:
1. The Department needs to continue to have access to Teel Rd, especially during
emergencies, to and from Route 29 South. Please evaluate an intersection design to
facilitate this.
2. Comments on Traffic Impact Analysis developed by Gorove-Slade dated 21 June 2022:
a. Previous comment: Per IIM-TE 387.1, "VDOT has established a standard SJR
template that should be used for all SIR reports.
i. Response: A soft copy has been made available for your purposes.
ii. New comment: Please share the requested SJR as it does not appear to be
included in the revision.
b. Page 8, Table 5: Please show how the revised internal capture rates were
determined and how they subsequently applied to obtain the results in the table?
c. Page 18: Please explain why an RCUT was not explored as an innovative
intersection?
3. 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.
Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response
letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
August 5,2022
Attn: Cameron Langille
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,
Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
Review Comments for ZMA202200002
Project Name: SIEG PROPERTY REZONING-ZMA-DIGrrAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Dyon Vega RWSA Requested Changes
RWSA staff has reviewed application ZMA202200002 Sieg Property Rezoning. Please see below for the completed copy of the
form that was provided to RWSA by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMAApplications:
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal Yes
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X- Yes
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal Yes
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) Yes
There may be pressure issues depending on the pressure band chosen for the site. There are three different zones all within
that area. It doesn't appear this parcel was initially planned for growth so RWSA must confirm that capacity is available. The
biggest challenge will be serving the brewery and verifying the expected needs as soon as possible to evaluate if capacity can
support that use. Please provide more information on what the developer's utrdity plans are so RWSA can determine how to
best accommodate the overall project. Also, please provide information on where the project will tie into existing water and
sewer utility lines. RWSA would like more information on the utilities and proposed capacity for this plan.
Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/11/2022
Resubmittal of information for �$��°F"`8
Zoning Map Amendment t
��RG/NyP
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,958
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,479
❑
4% Technology surcharge
$59.16
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$1 538.16
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $4,141
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$2,070
❑
4% Technology surcharge
$82.80
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$2,152.80
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$237 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.19 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Amowt $ Date Paid By who9
Receipt Ck# By:
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 7/1/2021 Page 1 of 1