HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000005 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-07-02COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
July 2, 2020
Tim Miller
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22901
tmillerkmeridianwbe.com / (434) 882-0121
RE: Review Comment Letter: ZMA-2020-00005 Old Dominion Village
Mr. Miller:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000005 Old Dominion Village. We
have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on
your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below:
These comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
Application includes a Special Exception (SE) request to Section 14-401 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
double -frontage lots in Blocks 2 and 6. The SE request states that fronts of the townhouses will face Route 240. It
also states that Section 14-419 "does not require landscape buffer if there is a street to provide rear access to the
lots." There is no section of the Subdivision Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance that says screening is not required if
rear access is provided to double frontage lots. Section 14-401 only allows double frontage lots if screening
measures are provided as specified in Section 18-32.7.9.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Per Section 18-32.7.9.7
(a)(4), double frontage residential lots must be screened as follows:
i. [32.7.9.7 (b)] Types of screening permitted. Screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing
vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence, or a combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
agent.
ii. [32.7.9.7 (c)] Minimum sizes ofplant materials. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum four feet in height
when planted. Shrubs shall be a minimum 18 inches in height when planted. All trees to be planted shall
meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen.
iii. [32.7.9.7 (d)] Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only
a planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing vegetation
shall not be less than 20 feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant materials shall consist of a
double staggered row of evergreen trees planted 15 feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen
shrubs planted ten feet on center, or an alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent.
iv. Waiving the screening requirements of Section 14-419 requires approval of a separate Special Exception
request. Please revise the SE request as necessary to explain/justify how the double frontage lots meet
Code requirements.
V. If the applicant chooses to revise the application to provide screening measures as specified in Section 18-
32.7.9.7, revise the Application Plan as necessary to show the 20' buffer area. Section IV (page 3) of the
Code of Development (COD) will also need to be revised to state the screening requirements for Blocks 2
and 6.
2. The application includes a private street authorization request to allow all internal streets to be private. Upon
further review by County Planning, Transportation Planning, Engineering staff, and VDOT, the justification
submitted does not adequately explain why private streets are justified in the project. See additional comments
under the Private Street Authorization Request section below, as well as comments from other reviewers.
i. Recommendations for setbacks, sidewalks, and other design elements for Urban Streets are specified in
the Comprehensive Plan Appendix.
ii. Public streets would better accomplish the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for access management
as stated in Chapter 5 (pages 10.19-10.21) because VDOT would require a second public street
connection to the development. This could be accomplished by extending Road B or C westward to
connect to Parkview Drive.
3. Please provide information on impacts to the existing 50' gas line easement recorded in DB 333, pg. 194. Road B
and Block 3 encroach into the easement. Has the applicant contacted the easement holder to verify that the
proposed improvements are allowed in the easement? If so, please provide documentation of easement holder
approval. If not, staff highly recommends contacting the easement holder to verify that development is allowed
within the easement.
4. The Crozet Master Plan Parks & Green Systems Plan shows a major greenway or trail connection on the eastern
side of TMP 56-74A, and then an east -west major greenway or trail along the northern edge of the project
boundary. As outlined in Chapter 6 (pages 46-47) of the Crozet Master Plan, major greenway/trails on the plan
are intended to be public, and "it is expected that large sections of the greenway system would be built, as
opportunities arise, by civic groups and/or members of the development community." A recommendation in
Chapter 4 (page 31-32) of the Crozet Master Plan further states "Development for the area east of Crozet Avenue
should focus on greenway development, key pedestrian/bike linkages, the construction of public amenities such as
schools and parks, and creation of roads and bridges." It also recommends "Establishing a greenway trail (for
pedestrians and bikes) from Lickinghole Creek basin to Crozet Park and Downtown."
i. See comments from Chief of Parks Planning, Tim Padalino, that are attached. Parks & Recreation
recommends that the land shown on the Parks & Green Systems Plan be dedicated or reserved to the
County for future dedication to public use to be consistent with the greenway recommendations.
ii. Footnote 1 under Section III of the COD states that all recreation/open space areas are to be private. No
public trails or greenways are proposed. This is inconsistent with the Master Plan. See comments from
Parks & Recreation staff below for additional information.
iii. Please be aware that if no public greenways or trails provided, this will be cited as an unfavorable factor
in the staff report for this application.
5. Per footnote 9 in Section V of the COD, "no bike lanes are provided within the development." This is inconsistent
with the Bike Network implementation strategy specified in the Crozet Master Plan Appendix. It is also
inconsistent with the new street recommended cross section from Chapter 5 of the Crozet Master Plan, which
states that all new streets should "should have two lanes and be built with the features of an urban street." The
implementation strategy recommends requiring "construction of bike and pedestrian connections with
development projects."
i. Please be aware that if bike lanes are not provided, this will be cited as an unfavorable factor in the staff
report for this application.
6. If the application is revised so that public streets are provided, public greenway/trails are provided, and bike lanes
are provided along internal public streets, revise the Narrative as necessary.
7. Chapter 5 of the Crozet Master Plan (page 38) recommends that Three Notch'd Road be designed to an Urban
Street section, which includes bike lanes. The application does not currently propose bike lanes on Three Notch'd
Road, which is inconsistent with the Master Plan. Per Transportation Planning staff comments, staff recommends
that the proposal be revised so that a 5' bike lane is installed on the north side of the road in accordance with
VDOT standards on Rt 240 as called for in Crozet Master Plan and County Transportation Priorities.
8. VDOT and County Transportation staff have requested that a turn lane warrant analysis be conducted by the
applicant. Please provide this information on a future submittal. See comments from those reviewers below.
9. The Application Plan needs to include a net density calculation so that staff can verify that the total number of
units complies with the Crozet Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The acreage of Urban
Density Residential (UDR), Neighborhood Density Residential (NDR), Greenspace, and Rural Areas needs to be
stated. Then, the allowable range of units for the UDR and NDR needs to be calculated. UDR allows 6.01-34
du/acre, and NDR allows 3-6 du/acre.
i. The "Project's Consistancy (sic) with the Comprehensive Plan" section of the narrative needs to be
revised so that it calculates the allowable number of units for net density as described above. The current
calculation in this section does not use the allowable density ranges for the NDR and UDR areas.
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
1. Revise Sheets Z-103 and Z-104 so that the entirety of both subject parcels are shown. Eastern portions of TNT
56-74A are not visible on these sheets.
2. How will access be provided to Amenity Area 1? It is landlocked by residential and commercial blocks.
3. See Zoning Division Comment #32 regarding Amenity Area 2. Planning staff share Zoning concerns that this
amenity will not be usable due to its location behind residential blocks.
4. Please provide additional detail on what types of facilities or equipment will be provided in Amenity Area 3.
5. Conceptual Grading is not shown on the Application Plan as required by Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Conceptual grading must be provided. See Zoning Division comment #34.
6. If public greenways or trails will be provided as recommended by the Crozet Master Plan Parks & Green Systems
Plan please show these on the Application Plan.
7. If internal streets will be public as mentioned in earlier comments, revise road labels on Sheet Z-104 so they state
"public."
a. If public streets will be provided, remove the private street note from Sheet Z-101.
8. If internal streets will be public as mentioned in earlier comments, revise the cross -sections on Sheet Z-105 so
they state "public street" and meet the Urban Street cross-section shown on page 38 of Chapter 5 of the Crozet
Master Plan.
9. If bike lanes will be provided as mentioned in earlier comments, please revise the street sections on Sheet Z-105
to show bike lanes. This includes internal streets and Route 240.
10. Sheet Z-103 includes areas between Route 240 and Residential Blocks 2 and 6. These areas are not labeled. What
is proposed there? See Zoning Division comment #28.
11. Update the Application Plan so that it clarifies the locations and amounts of existing parking that will be retained.
See Zoning Division comment #29.
12. Per comment #1 above, show screening on the Application Plan behind Blocks 2 and 6 if this is proposed. See
Zoning Division comment #30.
13. Sheet Z-105: The amenity and greenspace tables must be consistent between the Application Plan and the Code of
Development. Only one table should be provided so there is no confusion when administering the requirements.
Note 1 is incorrect. Please refer to the Amenity/Greenspace regulations for NMD districts which require 20% of
the gross acreage to be devoted to amenities. Those amenities may include rec facilities consistent with 4.16. See
Zoning Division comment #35.
14. Planting strips are required within the right-of-way along streets in the Development Areas, per the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance.
a. See ARB comments #2, 3, 4, and 7 regarding landscaping and screening. Ensure that adequate space is
available for street trees along Route 240 and internal streets.
Section 18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments
1. Correct TMP numbers in the first paragraph.
2. Remove references from uses that are not permitted in Table A. See Zoning Division comments.
3. Consider adding other non-residential uses as allowable uses in Block 1 Commercial in Table A. This will allow
for different uses to occupy this block without having to go through a rezoning process. See Zoning Division
comments. Allowable non-residential uses in the NDR land use classification include institutional uses, such as
places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare centers and
preschools).
4. If public greenways or trails will be provided as recommended by the Crozet Master Plan Parks & Green Systems
Plan, please revise Section III of the COD as necessary. This includes:
a. Revising footnote #1 under Table C.
b. Add a row/column to Table C stating the type, acreage, etc. of public greenway/trail areas.
5. If internal streets will be public as mentioned in earlier comments, revise Note 3 under Table C so that it does not
mention private streets.
6. If bike lanes will be provided as mentioned in earlier comments, please revise Note 9 in Section V of the COD.
This includes internal streets and Route 240.
7. Revise the "MAX Block Gross Density" column in Table B so that it states the minimum and maximum ranges of
dwelling units proposed in each block. It currently only states a numerical figure, not a range or units/acre. The
column should be retitled to "Allowable Density Range."
8. State the Minimum and Maximum Non -Residential SF in the columns in Table B for the Block 1 Commercial.
9. Update Table A so that the cells for each use type in each block either states BR, SP, or N.
10. See Zoning Division comments: Notes 1, 2, and 5 under Table A need to be deleted or revised as described.
a. Add home occupations as a use to Table A, per Zoning comment.
11. Accessory uses must be listed in Table A and must consistent with the ordinance so there is no confusion as to
which uses are allowed. See Zoning Division comment for a description of accessory uses that are allowed in
NMD districts.
12. Table A should state what types of utilities are permitted in each block. Add rows to the table stating what types
of public or private utilities are allowed.
13. Table B states that one dwelling unit is permitted in Block 1 Commercial, but residential uses are not listed as BR
uses in Table A so this must be corrected.
14. Table B includes a reference to multifamily dwellings in the "Permitted Housing Types" column. According to
Table I, MF is not a permitted use in the NMD so this must be corrected.
15. Table C includes area in acreage, but table indicates that the area is in SF. Please correct this table.
16. Table C - The emergency access road area should not be counted towards amenity area, please remove.
17. Table C - the amenity and greenspace tables must be consistent between the Application Plan and the Code of
Development. Only one table should be provided so there is no confusion when administering the requirements.
Note 1 is incorrect. Please refer to the Amenity/Greenspace regulations for NMD districts which require 20% of
the gross acreage to be devoted to amenities. Those amenities may include rec facilities consistent with 4.16. See
Zoning Division comment #35.
18. The total acreage in Table B and Table C adds up to 19.47 acres. 19.47 +3.30 Rural Area acreage = 22.77 total
acres. However, the parcels measure a combined 23.68 acres. Where is the missing 0.91 acres? Update the
figures in Tables B and C as necessary. See Zoning Division comment 17 for additional revisions to acreage
figures.
19. Table V — see Zoning Division comments related to revising setbacks stated in the table. Side setbacks should not
state a range, it should only state a minimum. Minimum and Maximum setbacks are only required for front
setbacks.
a. Appendix A.8 of the Comprehensive Plan contain recommended setbacks for developments based on
their transect location. This development should provide setbacks in accordance with Transect 2 or 3 for
Local/Neighborhood Streets. See page A.2.8 of the Appendix. Minimum and maximum front setbacks
for transects 2 and 3 are from 5'-20' and this is much less than the maximum setbacks listed for some of
the residential blocks. Please revise.
20. Clarify the intent of Note 5 under Table V related to alternative parking. Per Zoning Division comment #23, If
alternative parking strategies or reductions under Section 4.12 are proposed, written request and justification must
be provided. The sentence regarding minimum parking requirements may restrict some uses that historically
require large amounts is confusing.
21. Table V — please revise notes in accordance with Zoning Division comments #20-27.
22. Planting strips are required within the right-of-way along streets in the Development Areas, per the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The COD does not specify what landscaping requirements or treatments will be
provided. Please state something in the COD about landscaping treatments that will be provided along streets.
ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Application & Central Sewerage System Request
The applicant is requesting to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary from "No designation" and "Water Only to
existing structures" to "Water and Sewer."
The subject property is located within the County's Crozet Development Area. See the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan's Community Facilities chapter (Objective 9: Provide public water and sewer in the Development
Areas), for additional information that is considered with ACSA jurisdictional area amendment requests.
See attached ACSA comments. A privately -owned pump station is necessary to provide sewer service to the
development. Privately owned pump stations are classified as central sewerage systems by Chapter 14 and 16 of the
County Code. Central sewerage systems require approval by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 16-103
of the Code of Ordinances. The request is being reviewed by the County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and ACSA.
See comment #4 from the County Engineer. In order to evaluate the central sewerage system request for the private pump
station, all required documentation Specified in Section 16-102 of the County Ordinance must be submitted. Please
provide this documentation on the next submittal.
VDH has provided comments stating that they recommend that all existing septic tanks serving structures within the
parcel be abandoned and not simply disconnected. Please provide information on what will be done with the existing
septic tanks. See VDH comments below.
Private Street Authorization Request
The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to authorize private streets within the development in accordance
with Section 14-233 (A)(1). This project is located in the development areas and is proposed to be zoned Neighborhood
Model Development (NMD). Per Section 14-233 (A)(1), the Commission may authorize one (1) or more private streets in
neighborhood model developments if the private streets would enable the principles of the neighborhood model to be
more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street, without diminishing other principles of the
neighborhood model, in the following circumstances:
• (i) the subdivision would have a streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model;
• (ii) the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan;
• (iii) rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a common amenity;
• (iv) a significant environmental resource would be protected; or
• (v) relegated parking would be provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided.
In relation to consideration (i), the proposed on -street parking is not consistent with the Neighborhood Model relegated
parking principles. From a design and safety standpoint, Planning staff and the County Engineer object to perpendicular
on -street spaces because they require cars to back into actual street lanes, which is a safety hazard. With other
developments that have had on -street parking approved, the spaces have been designed as parallel to travel lanes, which is
consistent with the Neighborhood Model. Furthermore, ARB staff do not support the location of on -street parking at the
south end of Block 3 because they are visible from the Entrance Corridor.
The justification offered for letter (ii) states that if off-street parking/garages are provided, then units would be reduced
and the proposal wouldn't meet Comprehensive Plan density goals. However, staff cannot verify that this is accurate
without additional information about how many units would need to be eliminated and the resulting density.
The justification offered for consideration (iii) appears to be true for Blocks 8 and 9, which will face Amenity 4.
However, all other blocks appear to face the streets and vehicular access will be provided at the front of buildings. This is
not consistent with this consideration factor.
The justification offered for consideration (iv) states that private streets will prevent impacts to the WPO stream buffer.
However, VDOT, Planning, and the County Engineer discussed this, and these streets could be public streets and provide
an additional connection to Parkview Drive east of Block 3, which would meet VDOT minimum connection
requirements, and not impact the stream buffer north/west of Block 3.
Off-street parking lots could be provided within the development instead of the on -street spaces. This would be more
consistent with the relegated parking consideration than the current perpendicular on -street design. Please provide
additional information that explains why off-street parking cannot be provided as an alternative. Although this may result
in loss of a few dwelling units, it appears this could be done and still be consistent with the Master Plan density
recommendations.
Based on staff review of this initial design, staff does not support the private street authorization request. Please provide
additional information on how this request meets all five circumstances outlined in the Ordinance.
In accordance with Section 14-234 (C) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the agent and the commission may authorize one or
more private streets in a subdivision if it finds that:
• 1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
The County Engineer and Planning staff do not believe that the on -street parking proposed along Roads B and C
is the best design in terms of safety. Perpendicular parking requires vehicles to back out into travel lanes on these
streets. The on -street parking may pose a safety issue for vehicles traveling on Road B. The design of the road
would be much more consistent with this requirement, as well as the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Model
Principles, if some or all of the parking spaces are moved off of the street to an off-street parking lot, or moved to
private driveways, for example. See County Engineer comments for
• 2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed
private street;
The Crozet Master Plan Transportation Plan does not call for a public street within the subject property of in the
approximate location of the proposed private streets.
• 3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof or
by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any
easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street;
Per applicant's private street authorization request, the HOA would own and maintain the private streets in the
development.
If the applicant chooses to keep the streets private instead of public, be aware that review and approval of an
instrument evidencing maintenance of the proposed private streets will be required at time of plat review and
approval.
• 4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will not
serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and
The proposed private streets will only intersect the state highway system in one location along Virginia State
Route 240 Three Notch'd Road.
• 5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay
district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
Although there is a small area of Flood Hazard Overlay District on the subject property, the development will not
encroach into the FH area so this section is not applicable to the request.
Special Exception to Zoning Ordinance Supplemental Regulations
There is a special exception request related to supplemental regulations required for uses categorized as commercial
kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital, animal shelter.
1. Section 18-5.1.11 (b): "For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than 200 feet to
any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed and non -soundproofed confinements, sound measured at
the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed 55 decibels."
The special exception requests to vary (reduce) the minimum separation distance from 200' to 50.'
The request states that the vet clinic will be sound -proofed. However, no documentation is provided to verify this. Staff
will support the SE request if further documentation is provided on what soundproofing measures will be used and noise
level is attenuated as required by the Ordinance. See Zoning Division Comment #6.
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 subject properties are identified as Tax Map Parcels (TMP) 05600-00-00-067BO and 05600-00-00-074A0. Both
properties are located in the Crozet Development Area.
TMP 56-67B measures 9.42 acres and is zoned RA Rural Areas. It is located within the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Portions of the property lie within the FH Flood Hazard Overlay District, and the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay
District. In 1990, a 1-story building measuring approximately 3,200 sq. ft. was built on the southern portion of the
property closest to Three Notch'd Road. It is currently occupied by the Crozet Veterinary Care Center as a veterinary
hospital use. The northern half of the property is undeveloped and features a mix of vegetation.
TMP 56-74A measures 14.259 acres and is zoned RA Rural Areas. It is located within the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Portions of the property lie within the Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Districts. There is a 1-story
single-family residential dwelling with a basement on the property. The remainder of the property features vegetation.
The Land Use Plan contained in Chapter 4 of the Crozet Master Plan designates three future land use classifications on
portions of both parcels:
1. Urban Density Residential (orange on map above);
2. Neighborhood Density Residential (yellow on map above);
3. Greenspace (green on map above).
The Crozet Master Plan explains that the Urban Density Residential classification represents `primarily residential
areas with a density of 6 —12 residential units per acre. "
• All housing types are represented in this category, including single-family detached, townhouses, and apartments.
• Also includes places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare
centers and preschools).
• Small-scale, neighborhood serving commercial and offices are allowed by exception only, provided that
commercial buildings measure less than 5,000 sq. ft. and office buildings measure less than 20,000 sq. ft. per site.
The Neighborhood Density Residential classification represents "residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6
residential units per acre."
• Housing in this designation should primarily be single-family detached with some single-family
attached/townhouses.
• Non-residential uses include institutional uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early
childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools).
The Greenspace classification applies to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space, environmental
features and active park areas. It also contains important environmental features and privately -owned park and
recreational areas which may be active or passive. Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plains,
and adjacent slopes are included in this category. Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the
sensitive environmental areas, while active recreation is planned for other areas.
A portion of TMP 05600-00-00-074AO is located outside of the development area boundary. Use of land in that portion of
the development will need to remain consistent with recommendations in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan.
As stated on page 29 in Chapter 4 of the Crozet Master Plan, specific recommendations for this section of Crozet include
supporting "residential developments that create a live/work neighborhood. Encourage only office, retail, and services
that directly support industry in this area."
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. A summary of the relevant principles is provided in an attachment to
this letter.
Community Meeting
Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a community meeting to be held prior to moving forward with a public
hearing. Staff has determined that the community meeting will be held virtually using Zoom and Publicinput.com with the
Crozet CAC in July 2020. The following meeting times are possible, please let staff know which dates you are available:
• Monday, July 20th from 6-7 PM
• Monday, July 27th from 6-7 PM
• Tuesday, July 28th from 6-7PM
• Wednesday, July 29th from 6-7 PM
• Thursday, July 30th from 6-7PM
Once the applicant has confirmed a meeting date, staff will send follow-up information regarding preparation of invitation
letters to the community meeting. Please be aware that invitation letters need to be sent out to surrounding properties at
least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. Staff advises the applicant to select a date that will allow ample time
to prepare and send invitation letters.
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, rra sg dale&albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
Requested changes, see attached comments from Dan Butch, dbutchkalbemarle.org.
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 — Housing
No objection, see attached comments from Stacy Pethia, spethia =,albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl(kalbemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — Inspections Division
No objection, see the attached comments from Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(c�r�,albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — E911 Service
Requested changes, see attached comments from Brian Becker, bbecker =,albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation
Requested changes, see attached comments from Tim Padalino, tWadalino(aalbemarle.org.
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue
Review comments are not yet ready from Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org. Comments or approvals will be
forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
VDOT
Review comments are not yet ready from Adam Moore, adam.moore(cvdot.vir ig nia.gov. Comments or approvals will be
forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
ASCA
Requested changes, see attached comments from ACSA staff.
RWSA
Requested changes, see attached comments from RWSA staff.
Virginia Department of Health
Requested changes, see attached comments from VDH staff.
Action after Receipt of Comments
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for (September 1, 2020) which
represents 90 days from acceptance of your application for review. From this comment letter you will see that staff
recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without changes, staff cannot recommend approval
and your application will be taken to the Commission as originally submitted.
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter"
which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first 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 blan ig lle(c�r�,albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Cameron Langille
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
Attachment — ZMA202000005 Old Dominion Villaae
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
FPdestrian The application proposes sidewalks along all internal streets and Route 240,
Orientation which is consistent with Strategy #2a of the Comprehensive Plan.
The internal street network is laid out in a block fashion and will provide a
frame of reference for walkers using internal sidewalks. This is consistent with
Strategy #2b of the Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses The application only provides a mix of residential dwellings (single family
attached and detached) and a veterinary clinic. However, vet clinics are the
only non-residential use permitted. This principle could be strengthened by
allowing additional non-residential uses in Block 1 Commercial that are
consistent with the Crozet Master Plan's recommendations. Allowable uses in
the NDR designation include institutional uses, such as places of worship,
public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare
centers and preschools).
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened.
Neighborhood
Centers
Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood
centers as having four components: 1) a centralized park or outdoor amenity
which is surrounded by 2) a ring of commercial or mixed uses with 3)
surrounded by medium to high density residential uses and a final 4) outer ring
of low density residential.
Old Dominion Village provides centralized park/outdoor amenities and medium
density residential uses. The Application could be strengthened by allowing
additional non-residential uses consistent with Crozet Master Plan
recommendations.
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened.
Mixture of Housing The Application Plan allows single-family detached and attached dwellings
Types and such as townhouses.
Affordability
The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing, per the Housing
Policy in the Comprehensive Plan.
This DrinciDle is met.
Interconnected Per comments regarding the private street authorization request, an additional
Streets and interconnection could be made between the development and Parkview Drive
south of Block 3. As stated in Strategy #2j of the Comprehensive Plan, "The
Transportation
Networks
Multi -modal
Transportation
Opportunities
Parks, Recreational
Amenities, and Open
Space
County's subdivision regulations changed in 2005 to require that street
connections are built to the property line of adjoining properties.
Interconnections continue to be important in new developments to avoid
creating an isolated environment that requires motorists to travel long,
roundabout routes. Although street connections can be resisted by existing
neighborhoods, connections provide alternate traffic routes for old and new
neighborhoods and can also improve emergency response time."
The private streets proposed only provide one connection between the
development and existing streets. If public streets were provided, a
connection to Parkview Drive could be made without impacts to the WPO
stream buffer. At this time, staff does not support the private street
authorization request. Providing public streets and the Parkview Drive
connection would allow for alternative traffic routes for new residents of Old
Dominion Village and would alleviate traffic congestion at the single entrance
on Route 240.
Per Transportation Planning comments, and recommendations from the Crozet
Master Plan, new streets should have bike lanes, and none are provided.
Route 240 is also recommended to have a bike lane on the north side of the
road adjacent to the development, but this is not provided. Staff recommends
providing bike lanes as specified in the Master Plan/Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is not fully met.
Pedestrian facilities are provided inside the project and along Route 240.
However, no new trails or greenway areas are shown within the project, as
recommended by the Crozet Master Plan. Staff recommends providing
greenway trails.
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened.
The proposal demonstrates consistency with Crozet Master Plan
recommendations for areas of the properties that are designated as
Greenspace.
The designation of the WPO Buffer area along Parrot Branch and along it's
unnamed tributary as "Greenspace" on the Application Plan is consistent with
the Parks & Green Systems Plan, in terms of conserving and protecting one of
the identified "Environmental Features" on that plan. This is also consistent
with Strategy #21 of the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Crozet Master Plan Parks & Green Systems Plan includes a
recommendation for a "Major Greenway" along Parrot Branch, but neither the
Application Plan or other application materials for ZMA-2020-00005 include
any provision for this recommended greenway.
Buildings and Space
of Human Scale
F_
Relegated Parking
Redevelopment
To satisfy the "Major Greenway" recommendation in the Parks & Green
Systems Plan in the adopted Crozet Master Plan, please consider revising the
application materials to include a reservation of land along Parrot Branch, for
future dedication to the County upon demand, for inclusion in the County's
planned greenway system. Parks & Recreation staff remain available to
coordinate with the applicants on the location of such a reservation of land, in
conjunction with Community Development staff.
This principle is not fully met.
The Code of Development is consistent with recommended building heights.
However, the COD needs to be revised so that setbacks in residential blocks
are consistent with Appendix A.8 of the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, some
front setbacks could be a maximum of 40.' The Appendix recommends
maximum front setbacks of 20.'
Per ARB comments, the following issues have been identified related to
buildings and spaces of human scale:
The orientation of Block 7 suggests that the eastern elevation is the
rear of the building. As such, landscaping will be needed between the
Block 7 buildings and the property line. Show planting area on the
application plan.
This principle is not fully met.
The Application Plan shows on -street parking spaces along Road B and Road
C. This is not consistent with this principle, which states that parking should be
provided to the side or rear of buildings. The principle also states that
"Relegated parking is best illustrated in downtown areas where on -street
parking is provided parallel to the street and off-street parking is in separate
lots, parking structures, or accessed from alleys." If the on -street parking was
redesigned to be parallel instead of perpendicular, or if on -street parking
spaces were relocated to an off-street parking lot area, the application would
be consistent with this principle.
Per ARB comments, the following issues have been identified related to
relegated parking:
The row of parking located at the south end of Block 3 should be
moved away from the Entrance Corridor. A location at the north end of
the block would be appropriate.
This principle is not met.
The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property that is
consistent with the County's growth management policy.
Respecting Terrain
and Careful Grading
and Re -grading of
Terrain
Clear Boundaries with
the Rural Area
This principle is met.
The property contains areas within both the Managed and Preserved Steep
Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of
Section 18-30.7.5 are adhered to. This includes future buildings and parking
areas.
The Application plan does not include a conceptual grading plan as required
by Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance. This needs to be provided before staff
can verify that the application is consistent with this principle.
This principle is not met.
The subject property is located within the Crozet Development Area. It is
adjacent to the Rural Area boundary, and a portion of TMP 56-74A is within
the Rural Area of the Comp Plan. It appears that the Rural Area portion will
remain in its natural state, which features WPO stream buffer and critical
slopes. This will provide a physical and visual boundary between the project
and the Rural Area, consistent with Strategy #2r of the Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is met.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
From:
Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner
Division:
Zoning
Date:
6/29/2020
Subject: ZMA202000005 Old Dominion Village Code of Development and Application
Plan last revised 5/18/2020
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
Page 1-
1. Correct the TMP reference in the first paragraph.
2. Uses that are not permitted do not need to be listed in the table so please remove the
reference to multifamily from the use table.
3. Consider adding additional non-commercial uses such as office if the veterinary office ever
closes.
4. The application plan and code of development are not clear as to what is being considered
stand-alone parking. The perpendicular spaces to Road C appear to be existing spaces to
remain associated with the veterinary office and I don't think would be considered stand-
alone parking.
5. Note 1 under the use must be deleted. We have definitions of these uses in our ordinance
and Note 6 was added per my suggestion.
6. Note 2 must be deleted. The vet use is listed as a permitted use in the use table. I do
recommend that the supplemental regulations 5.1.11 and special exception, if approved be
included below that table with use regulations.
Sec_ 5.1.11 - Commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital, animal shelter_ % 9 R P
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal shelter shall be subject to the following:
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, ro structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than 500
feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six feet in height
shall be located within 50 feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning
administrator:
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than 200 feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
and non -soundproofed confinements, sound measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed 55 decibels:
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations.
special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other things:
Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts: Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other
Mears.
7. Delete Note 5. Permitted uses must be listed in the use table, not by reference in notes. Add
Home Occupation to use table.
8. Accessory uses must be listed consistent with the ordinance so there is no confusion as to
which uses are allowed. According to the NMD, the following uses are typically permitted,
although drive -through windows would not be appropriate in this case:
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is
permitted in a determination by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to County Code § 18-8.5.5.2(c](1):
1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those uses allowed only by special use permit
delineated in subsections 20A.6(bX2) and (b)(3): provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development.
2. Water, sewer, energy and communications distribution facilities.
3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings.
4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses.
S. Temporary construction headquarters and tem porary construction storage yards (reference 5.1.181.
6. Public uses (reference 5�.
7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses.
8. Group homes. where the district includes residential uses.
9. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference J.
10. Farmers' markets (reference 5.1.47 .
11. Family day homes (reference 5�. (Added 9-11-13)
12. Drivethroughwindows (reference 5.1.60). (Added 3-2-16)
13. Homestays(reference 5.1.48)
Page 2
9. Table II -Block 1 Commercial lists one dwelling unit permitted but residential uses are not
listed as BR uses in Table I so this must be corrected.
10. Table II -Block 1 Commercial must include a minimum and maximum sq. ft. for the use.
11. Table II -The Max Gross Density column does not actually include gross density but is the
maximum number of units repeated.
12. Table II -Gross residential density is not provided. The density on the Total row of the table
provides Net Density.
13. Table II includes a reference to MF in total row. According to Table I, MF is not a permitted
use in the NMD so this must be corrected.
Page 3
14. Table III includes area in acreage but table indicates that the area is in SF. Please correct
this table.
15. The emergency access road area should not be counted towards amenity area.
16. Note 3-Clarify why this signage is needed? If this remains in the COD, indicate on the
application plan what section of road this would apply to.
17. The total project area according to acreage indicated on Sheet Z-101 of the application plan
is 23.679 acres and Table II indicates 5.86 acres will be devoted to residential or
commercial blocks. That should leave 17.819 acres that should be accounted for in Table III.
It appears only 4.34+9.27=13.61 acres are included in Table III. What is the remaining area
to be used for? Devoted to ROW dedication?
18. Please refer to 20A.9 and the following terminology with definition that should be used for
NMD COD and application plans to define what amenities will be provided. Recreation areas
provided in accordance with 4.16 count as amenities.
Amenity. "Amenity" means an indoor or outdoor area of activity designed principally for, and
accessible to, persons residing or working within a development. An outdoor area of activity
may be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths
through natural areas, courtyards, and paved pedestrian areas for gathering. An indoor area of
activity includes, but is not limited to gyms, weight rooms, indoor swimming pools, and indoor
basketball courts. Amenities may be located in required green space and be included in both
required green space and amenity calculations.
Page 4-
19. Table V-Setbacks should be simplified and consistent unless there is a streetscape/design
reason for the variations. Typically, only a minimum and maximum is required for front
setbacks. A minimum side setback should must be established and not a range for side
setbacks.
20. Table V-Residential Units allowable and Residential Unit Type can be deleted as this is
already provided in Table II on page 2.
21. Note 1 is not necessary. The height limit is already specified in the regulation table above.
The building footprint limit of 6,000 SF should be moved to Table II on page 2.
22. Note 2-Please clarify what the allowable encroachment will be in feet.
23. Note 3-If alternative parking strategies or reductions under Section 4.12 are proposed,
written request and justification must be provided. The sentence regarding minimum parking
requirements may restrict some uses that historically require large amounts is confusing.
24. Note 4-4.11 does not contain building separation requirements. Also, CODs do not need to
repeat ordinance requirements.
25. Note 5-Clarify this proposed regulation. Also, page 3 of the COD indicates units in Blocks 2
& 6 would face Rt. 240.
26. Note 6-If Planning deems this necessary, please clarify on the application plan where this
screening would be provided.
27. Note 7- This is already a requirement of the ordinance so does not need to be listed in the
COD. Delete Note 7.
APPLICATION PLAN
28. Sheet Z-103 appears to have an area along the eastern property line that is not labeled in
terms of proposed use.
29. The application plan and code of development are not clear as to what is being considered
stand-alone parking. The perpendicular spaces to Road C appear to be existing spaces to
remain associated with the veterinary office. The application plan should be updated to
clarify what is existing parking to remain, if any.
30. The application plan should be updated to reflect the required screening, if Planning still
deems it necessary according to Note 4 of the COD.
31. Z-103 and Z-104 must show the entirety of the parcel subject to this rezoning. The
easternmost portion of TMP 56-74A is not shown on these sheets.
32. Amenity Area 2- 1 have concerns that this will not be a usable amenity area given its location
adjacent to two roads and behind the residences in Block 3. Also, the acreage for the
emergency access road should not be included in the acreage for the amenity area. The
plan and code of development should be revised to indicate what amenities and how will be
provided in this area.
33. Amenity Area 3-Provide details on what amenities will be provided and how they will be
accessed.
34. Conceptual Grading has not been provided for the entire site as required by Section 33.
35. Sheet Z-105-The amenity and greenspace tables must be consistent between the application
plan and the code of development. Only one table should be provided so there is no confusion
when administering the requirements. Note 1 is incorrect. Please refer to the
Amen ity/Greenspace regulations for NMD districts which require 20% of the gross acreage to
be devoted to amenities. Those amenities may include rec facilities consistent with 4.16.
Sec. 20A.9 - Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas.
Each NMD shall include the following:
a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential,
urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area
devoted to green space shall be at least 20 percent of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office regional or
industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least 15 percent of the gross acreage of the
area proposed to be rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections 20A.9(a)(1) and 20A.9(a)(2), the
recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum
area devoted to green space.
4. The minimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the
applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to
adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the known
future uses of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood
model goals of the comprehensive plan.
Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential,
urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall
be at least 20 percent of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office
regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent of the gross
acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections 20A.9(b)(1) and 20A.9(b)(2), the
recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum
area devoted to amenities.
4. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the
applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to
adjoining or nearby properties containing amenities; the proportion of residential uses to nonresidential
uses proposed; the known future uses of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better
achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan.
c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the following:
1. At least 90 percent of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one -quarter mile walk of an amenity.
2. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed amenity.
3. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served.
4. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from recognized
sources of engineering and recreational standards.
5. In nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily accessible to
patrons and employees of the development.
d. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in grass or other
vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity.
e. Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be included
as green space area.
f. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall be included
as green space area.
( Ord. 03-18(2) , 3-19-03; Ord. 09-18(9) , 10-14-09)
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Old Dominion Village
Date Completed: Friday, June 26, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Daniel Butch CDD Plannina .. Requested Changes El
ZMA2O2O-5
Transportation Planning first review comments 6/26/2O2O:
Provide turn lane analysis for Rt 240 providing assessment need to justify for right turn lane and for no left turn lane_
Provide 5 foot bike lane to VDCT standards on Rt 240 as called for in Crozet Master Plan and County Transportation Priorites_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/30/2020
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Old dominion Village
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski -E FEUD ARB .. Requested Changes
1. The row of parking located at the south end of Block 3 should be moved away from the Entrance Corridor_ A location at the
north end of the block would be appropriate.
2. Clarify how the Block 3 residential units can be built over the gas easement.
3. Show that there is sufficient planting area for large shade trees along Rt. 240. Revise the application plan to show the
easements associated with utilities that run along the frontage and planting area that will accommodate Marge shade trees whose
mature size will not conflict with the utilities or easements_
4. The orientation of Block 7 suggests that the eastern elevation is the rear of the building. As such, landscaping will be needed
between the Block 7 buildings and the property line. Show planting area on the application plan.
5. Clarify in note 1 on page 4 of the Code what 'one (2)' means.
6. Clarify in note 6 on page 4 of the Code what 'provide three different reasonable types of screening options- __.n means.
T. Large shade trees are required along both sides of road A_ Provide sufficient planting width for large trees_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/30/2020
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Oid aominian Village
Date Completed: Wednesday, July D1, 2020 Departmentll7ivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Stacy Pethia v Housing Henartment .. No Objection El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 07l02l2020
Review Comments for ZMA202000005 L
Project Name: Old Dominion Village
Date Completed: Wednesday, July D1, 2020 Department/DivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina� Requested Changes
1. Water quantity requirements: (1 ) Channel protection — Energy balance is required if discharging to a natural stormwater
conveyance system [9VAG25-870-66.13]. (2) Flood protection — 2-yr and 10-yr requirements [9VAC25-870-66.C1.
2. Relocate the sanitary sewer that is located with the stream buffer to be out of the buffer. Impacts from public utilities is
allowed but must be minimized [17-602.B.2]. It appears the sewer can he located out of the buffer.
3. Private sanitary sewer systems must meet industry standards (e.g. 10-ft separation from street trees). It appears routing of
some sewer lines may interfere with required street trees_
4. A central sewerage system request is required [16-102] and must be reviewed by the county engineer. The request and
recommendation should go to the board with the ZMA request.
5. Private streets are not supported, with exception to the parking facility at the end of Road B. Applicant must provide
justification for private streets where located in a development area 114-233 and 14-234]_ Perpendicular parking, even on a
private street that serves as a through street, does not meet VDOT standards and is not supported_ The County relies on VDOT
standards for private streets, when allowed.
fi. A Zone A floodpiain is located on this property. Requirements of Section 18-30.3.13_C must be addressed, which includes
determining the flo-odway and floodplain limits and base flood elevation.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 07l02l2020
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Old aorninian Village
Date Completed: Friciay, June 05, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections .. No Objection El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/30/2020
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Old Dominion Village
Date Completed: Tuesday, June D9, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Brian Becker CDD E911 .. Requested Changes
Critical Issues: The proposed 'Private Road A°, 'Private Road B°, 'Private Road C° and 'Private Road F will each require road
names.
Comments: The private roads designated 'Private Road AA, 'Private Road B°, 'Private Road C' and 'Private Road E° will each
require road names, per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2
of the PDF):
'it is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling
units or business structures shall be named..."
Please note that the section of the road designated as 'Private Road D° is a continuation of 'Private Road U and should be
named as such. Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for the four roads that will require road names;
for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be
accessed at the link in the Resources section.
Resources
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
hfps:ffwww.albemarle_org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Geographic_Data_Services/Forms/Road_Naming_and_P
raperly_Numbering_Ordinance_and_Manual. pdf
Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: htkp:;:www.albemarle.orgralbemarle.!upload.!images.!webappsfroadsf.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/30/2020
Reviewer Tim Padalino
Parks Requested Changes
The Application Plan (dated 5/18/2020) is partially consistent, but partially inconsistent, with the Parks & Green Systems Plan
in the adapted Crozet Master Plan.
The designation ❑f the WPO Buffer area along Parrot Branch and along it's unnamed tributary as "Greenspace" on the
Application Plan is consistent with the Parks & Green Systems Plan, in terms ❑f conserving and protecting one of the identified
"Environmental Features" on that plan_
However, the Parks & Green Systems Plan includes a recommendation for a "Major Greenway" along Parrot Branch. but
neither the Application Plan or other application materials for ZMA-2020-00005 include any provision for this recommended
greenway.
To satisfy the "Major Greenway" recommendation in the Parks & Green Systems Plan in the adopted Crozet Master Plan,
please revise the application materials to include a reservation of land along Parrot Branch, for future dedication to the County
upon demand, for inclusion in the County's planned greenway system. Parks & Recreation staff remain available to coordinate
with the applicants on the location of such a reservation of land, in conjunction with Community Development staff.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑m 06130/2020
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Currently in limited service area
jurisdictional area.
2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Water main
stubout located on Parkview Drive. The closest sewer is approximately 500 feet from the parcel.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are high. Private pressure reducing valves will be required for homes where
water pressure exceeds 80 psi.
4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? Offsite sewer easements will be needed. This site will need to
pump to access gravity sewer.
5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A
6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site
plan/plat stage? These can be addressed at the site plan stage.
7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee?
8) Additional comments? RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required. This is within the Beaver
Creek drainage shed. A pump station will be needed to connect to gravity sewer. In previous
PreApp meetings, ACSA has indicated that the pump station be privately owned. Looking at the
topography, it is not possible to install gravity sewer from the site to existing sewer.
Cameron Langille
From:
Dyon Vega <DVega@rivanna.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 9:11 AM
To:
Cameron Langille
Cc:
vfort@rivanna.org; Richard Nelson
Subject:
ZMA Old dominion Village comments
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Cameron,
RWSA has reviewed application ZMA20200005 Old Dominion Village. Below is a completed copy of the form that was
provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal Requires flow acceptance
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X-Yes No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) yes, commented
Sheet Z-103:
1. Please show and label RWSA 16" DI Waterline and easement (it is incorrectly labeled as 8" water main).
2. Buildings in block 2 and block 6 will need to have adequate separation from the 16" DI waterline.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Dyon Vega
Civil Engineer
RI
VAN..
WATERII:�TH
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
(434) 977-2970, Ext. 170
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.rivanna.or�
Cameron Langille
From: Mazurowski, Alan <alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Cameron Langille
Subject: Re: ZMA202000005 Old Dominion Village - Private Pump Station for Sewer
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Cameron,
Since the proposed development will result in the veterinary care clinic and all new construction to be connected to
ACSA water & sewer, my main concern is whether any of that construction will impact any existing wells or onsite septic
systems. After researching our files, there does not appear to be any existing wells on either parcel, but both the care
clinic and residence to be removed are connected to onsite septic systems. So my only recommendation is that existing
septic tanks be abandoned rather than just disconnected and left in place.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Alan
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage & Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:04 PM Cameron Langille <blangille@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Alan,
I am the lead reviewer of this zoning map amendment application that is proposing to rezone two properties out in
Crozet for residential use. The properties are not connected to ACSA public sewer lines, and in order to extend sewer
service to the development, ACSA has indicated that a private pump station/force main will be needed within the
project due to topography in the area. The Tax Map Parcel (TMP) numbers are 05600-00-00-074AO and 05600-00-00-
067B0 and they are located on the north side of Route 240 Three Notch'd Road.
Privately owned pump stations are classified as central seweage systems by Chapters 14 and 16 of the County Code.
Central sewerage systems require approval by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 16-103 of the Code
of Ordinances. These requests are supposed to be evaluated by the County Engineer and VDH.
I've attached the relevant application materials, and comments I have received thus far from ACSA staff. Can you take a
look at this and let me know if VDH has any comments or recommendations?
Thanks for your help,
Cameron
Cameron Langille I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
blangille@albemarle.or�
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3432
Review Comments for ZMA202000005
Project Name: Old Dorninian Village
Date Completed: Tuesday, June DO, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kimb" Biasiolli v FEDB Plan nina .. No Objection Li
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 06/30/2020
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
FIRST SET OF COMMENTS
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for September 1,
2020, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a
90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in
this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without
these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by July 10, 2020. If you choose
not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but
without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below.
Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application.
Within one week, please do one of the following:
(1) Request deferral to resubmit to address comments, pursuant to Section 33.52(A)(1).
Please understand that if a deferral request is made, the Planning Commission public
hearing date will be later than September 1, 2020.
(2) Request to proceed to a Planning Commission public hearing on September 1, 2020. All
advertising fees must be paid by August 7, 2020.
(3) Withdraw your application.
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to 36
months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is June 2, 2023. However, all
outstanding information necessary for Commission action must be submitted by March 1, 2023,
according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 (A)(2) of the Albemarle County Code).
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
Revised 9-17-19 MCN
(2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 1, 2020
At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning
Commission on September 1, 2020. With this option no additional documents will be accepted, and
staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation
of approval.
(3) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Resubmittals
As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address
changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so
following the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your
comment letter with your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
Failure to Respond
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant
to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of
the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as
provided in subsection 33.52(B) or (C).
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make
checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator.
Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Revised 9-17-19 MCN
2020 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates (1st,
3rd, and 5th Monday of
the month)
Comments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PC
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
Ad (no additional
resubmittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
than* COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Jan 06
Feb 05
Feb 14
Mar 10
Jan 21
Feb 19
Feb 28
Mar 24
Feb 03
Mar 04
Mar 13
Apr 07
Feb 18
Mar 18
Mar 27
Apr 21
Mar 02
Apr 01
Apr 10
May 05
Mar 16
Apr 15
Apr 24
May 19
Mar 30
Apr 29
May 08
Jun 02
Apr 06
May 06
May 08
Jun 02
Apr 20
May 20
May 22
Jun 16
May 04
Jun 03
Jun 12
Jul 07
May 18
Jun 17
Jun 26
Jul 21
Jun 01
Jul 01
Jul 10
Aug 04
Jun 15
Jul 15
Jul 24
Aug 18
Jun 29
Jul 29
Aug 07
Sep 01
Jul 06
Aug 05
Aug 07
Sep 01
Jul 20
Aug 19
Aug 28
Sep 22
Aug 03
Sep 02
Sep 11
Oct 06
Aug17
Sep 16
Sep 25
Oct 20
Aug 31
Sep 30
Oct 16
Nov 10
Sep 08
Oct 07
Oct 16
Nov 10
Sep 21
Oct 21
Oct 30
Nov 24
Oct 05
Nov 04
Nov 06
Dec 01
Oct 19
Nov 18
Nov 13
Dec 08
Nov 02
Dec 02
Dec 18
Jan 12 2021
Nov 16
Dec 16
Dec 18
Jan 12 2021
Dec 21
Jan 20 2021
Jan 29 2021
Feb 23 2021
Jan 04 2021
Feb 03 2021
Feb 05 2021
Mar 02 2021
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2020.
2021 dates are tentative.
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen
circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to
the closest available agenda date.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
Resubmittal of information for
k»
Zoning Map Amendment .N
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
❑
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
$194
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,881
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.08 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1