HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000005 Correspondence 2020-12-07 (2)Engineering • Surveying • Planning
November 9, 2020
Cameron Langille
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
RE: ZMA-2020-00005 Old Dominion Village
Dear Cameron:
IMERIDIAN
PLANNING GROUP, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: 434.882.0121
www.meric imwbexom
Enclosed are 12 copies of the revised ZMA application plans, Code of Development, and Narrative.
Two copies of each of the following documents are also enclosed:
1. A revised copy of the Request for Central Sewer system.
2. A copy of the agreement between Sheeflee, LLC and Martin Schuhnan to allow for connection to
existing sanitary pump station.
3. Reliability Classification Worksheet for Sewage Pump Station.
4. Traffic Entrance Study generated by EPR, PC
5. Noise Measurement Report generated by Acentech
6. E-mail from Ben Zienty with Columbia Gas
Below are responses to the letter addressed July 2, 2020.
General Application Comments
1. 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 01 Minimum sizes of plant 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 specification of the American Association
of Nurserymen.
Ill. [32.7.9.7 (d)] Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or exiting
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 plan 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.
Page 1
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 18-32.7.98.7, 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.
✓ Blocks 2 and 6 are now Blocks 4, 5, and 6. A 20' Buffer Area for Blocks 4, 5, 6 & 7 have
been added to the plans. Table D has been revised to show 20' Buffer for Blocks 4, 5, 6 & 7.
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.
✓ The proposed design elements are a mixture of Local/Neighborhood and Through streets in
order to best meet the pedestrian uses and density for the property. The front setback is
larger than recommended due to the fact the property line is located behind the curb. The
planting strip and 8' Multi -use path will be within an access easement along the front of
some of lots. In addition, the driveways must be long enough to accommodate a parked car
between the mutti-use path the structure.
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.
✓ Parkview is a private road so extending Capella Road will not provide a second public
street connection.
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.
✓ Columbia Gas is the current Owner of the gas easement. We have worked with them on
adjusting the grading to meet their requirements for the proposed development. Refer to
attached e-mail from Ben Zienty stating he is amendable to the proposed grading and
improvements within the gas 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
Page 2
"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.
✓ The WPO Buffer (Green Spaces 1 & 2) will be dedicated to public use.
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.
✓ The WPO Buffer (Green Spaces 1 & 2) will be dedicated to public use.
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.
✓ The WPO Buffer (Green Spaces 1 & 2) will be dedicated to public use.
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.
✓ Footnote 9 is now Footnote 8. It states that 8' wide asphalt Multi -Use Paths will be
provided along all internal private streets for pedestrian and bike use.
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.
✓ The Narrative has been revised to state Green Space in the stream buffer will be dedicated
to public use. There will be 8' wide asphalt Multi -Use Paths along all internal private street
for pedestrian and bike use. Internal private streets are shown.
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.
✓ Z-103 & Z-106: A 6' planting strip and 8' Multi -use Path have been added to the plans.
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.
✓ Attached is a copy of the Traffic Entrance Study that was conducted by EPR PC. The Turn
Lane Warrant Analysis shows that a right turn and taper is not required, and left turn lane
is not required for the development. The Applicant has decided to dedicate Right-of-way
for a future right turn and taper and to provide a 100' right turn taper. Refer to Z-103.
Page 3
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 Consistency (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.
✓ The Narrative has been revised to show Net Density Ranges for UDR and NDR areas.
Page 4
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 TMP 56-74A are not visible on these sheets.
✓ Z-103 & Z-104: Entirety of both parcels are shown.
2. How will access be provided to Amenity Area 1? It is landlocked by residential and commercial
blocks.
✓ Z-103: the location of Amenity 1 has been revised. It is not next to Aldair Road.
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.
✓ Z-103: Amenity 2 has been removed.
4. Please provide additional detail on what types of facilities or equipment will be provided in
Amenity Area 3.
✓ The Code of Development and Narrative have been revised to state types of facilities
and equipment.
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.
✓ Z-103: Conceptual grading is shown.
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.
✓ Z-103: the WPO Buffer (Green Spaces 1 & 2) will be dedicated to public use.
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.
✓ Z-103: Internal streets will be private roads.
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.
✓ Z-103: Internal streets will be private roads.
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.
✓ Z-106: Typical road section shows 8' wide Multi -use Paths will be provided for
pedestrian and bike use.
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.
✓ Z-103: These areas have been removed.
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.
Page 5
✓ Z-103: All of the existing parking will be removed. A new parking lot will be
constructed next to the existing clinic.
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.
✓ Z-103: Blocks 2 and 6 are now Blocks 4, 5, and 6. Screening trees in a 20' buffer are
shown behind Blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7.
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.
✓ Z-106: The amenity and greenspace tables have been removed from the plan. Table
C in the Code of Development has been revised to show amenity/Greenspace is
greater than 20% of the gross acreage.
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.
✓ Z-103 & Z-106: A 6' planting strip is shown along Route 240. A 5' planting strip is
shown along internal private streets.
Page 6
Section 18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments
1. Correct TMP numbers in the first paragraph.
✓ The TMP numbers have been corrected.
2. Remove references from uses that are not permitted in Table A. See Zoning Division comments.
✓ The Multi -Family use has been removed from the table.
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).
✓ Additional by -right uses have been added to Table A.
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.
✓ Note 1 has been revised.
b. Add a row/column to Table C stating the type, acreage, etc. of public greenway/trail areas.
✓ Refer to Green Spaces 1 & 2 on Table C.
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.
✓ Internal streets will be private.
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.
✓ Note 9 is now Note 8. The note now states that an 8' wide Multi -Use Path shall be
provided along internal streets and Route 240 for pedestrian and bike use.
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."
✓ Table B has been revised to show minimum and maximum units for UDR and NDR.
8. State the Minimum and Maximum Non -Residential SF in the columns in Table B for the Block 1
Commercial.
✓ The table now shows minimum & maximum SF for Block 1.
9. Update Table A so that the cells for each use type in each block either states BR, SP, or N.
✓ The table has been revised.
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.
✓ The table has been revised.
Page 7
11. Accessory uses must be listed in Table A and must be 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.
✓ The table has been revised.
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.
✓ Table A has been revised to show public and private utilities.
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.
✓ The table has been revised.
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.
✓ The table has been revised.
15. Table C includes area in acreage, but table indicates that the area is in SF. Please correct this
table.
✓ The table has been corrected.
16. Table C - The emergency access road area should not be counted towards amenity area, please
remove.
✓ The table has been revised.
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.
✓ The table has been removed from the plans. The table now shows
Amenity/Greenspace are greater than 20% of the gross acreage.
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.
✓ The missing acreage is in private right-of-way. Refer to Area Summaries on Z-106
for areas summaries.
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.
Page 8
✓ Table V is now Table D. The proposed landscape strip, Multi -use Paths and
driveways shall be located along the front of the residential lots so the minimum
front setback must 30' to accommodate these uses.
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.
✓ Note 5 has been revised. Alternative parking is not proposed.
21. Table V — please revise notes in accordance with Zoning Division comments #20-27,
✓ Table V is now Table D. The table has been revised.
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.
✓ Section V provides a description of landscape buffers and street trees.
Page 9
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.
✓ A copy of the Request for Central Sewer System is attached. It addresses all of the items
required in Section 16-602. A copy of the Reliability Classification Worksheet for Sewage
Pump Station is attached.
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.
✓ Z-102: a note stating `Remove all existing septic tanks" has been added.
Page 10
Private Street Authorization Request
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
✓ Z-103: parallel parking is shown along Capella Road and Altair Road. A new off-
street parking lot is shown next to the existing building.
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.
✓ Comment noted.
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.
✓ Comment noted.
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.
✓ Comment noted.
5.1f 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.
✓ Comment noted.
Page 11
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.
✓ Attached is a copy of the report by Acentech showing the noise levels 40-feet from the kennel
at two locations. The maximum noise level at Location 1 was 49.8 decibels, and at Location 2
it was 53.9 decibels. These are below the maximum allowable of 55 decibels.
Code of Development
Page 1-
1. Correct the TMP reference in the first paragraph.
✓ TMP reference has been corrected.
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.
✓ Multi -family reference has been removed.
3. Consider adding additional non-commercial uses such as office if the veterinary office ever
closes.
✓ Additional by -right uses have been added to the Non -Residential use.
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 do not think would be considered standalone parking.
✓ Parking has been revised. Parallel parking along the roads and a new off-street
parking lot on Block 1 Commercial.
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.
✓ Note 1 has been removed.
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.
✓ Note 2 is now Note 1. It has been revised as requested.
7. Delete Note 5. Permitted uses must be listed in the use table, not by reference in notes. Add
Home Occupation to use table
Page 12
✓ Notes have been revised.
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:
✓ Table has been revised to show By -right uses.
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.
✓ Table B has been corrected.
10. Table II -Block 1 Commercial must include a minimum and maximum sq. ft. for the use.
✓ Table B now shows minimum and maximum SF.
11. Table II -The Max Gross Density column does not actually include gross density but is the
maximum number of units repeated.
✓ Table B has been revised.
12. Table II -Gross residential density is not provided. The density on the Total row of the table
provides Net Density.
✓ Table B has been revised
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.
✓ Table B: MF has been revised to SFA.
Page 3
14. Table III includes area in acreage, but table indicates that the area is in SF. Please correct this
table.
✓ Table C has been revised.
15. The emergency access road area should not be counted towards amenity area.
✓ Table C no longer includes emergency access towards an amenity.
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.
✓ Note 3 has been removed. Capella Road now connects to Parkview Drive.
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?
✓ The missing area is for private right-of-way. Refer toZ-106 for area summaries.
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
Page 13
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.
✓ Comment noted.
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.
✓ Table V is now Table D. The setbacks have been revised.
20. Table V-Residential Units allowable and Residential Unit Type can be deleted as this is already
provided in Table II on page 2.
✓ Table D has been revised.
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.
✓ Note has been removed.
22. Note 2-Please clarify what the allowable encroachment will be in feet.
✓ Note 2 is now Note 1. The note has been revised to state a maximum of 5' into the
front setback.
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.
✓ Notes have been revised. Alternative parking no longer proposed.
24. Note 4-4.11 does not contain building separation requirements. Also, CODS do not need to repeat
ordinance requirements.
✓ Note 4 has been removed.
25. Note 5-Clarify this proposed regulation. Also, page 3 of the COD indicates units in Blocks 2 & 6
would face Rt. 240.
✓ Blocks 2 and 6 are now Blocks 4, 5, & 6. The townhouses in Blocks 4, 5 and 6 shall
front on Route 240.
26. Note 6-If Planning deems this necessary, please clarify on the application plan where this
screening would be provided.
✓ Z-103: 20' buffer and screening trees are shown.
27. Note 7- This is already a requirement of the ordinance so does not need to be listed in the COD.
Delete Note 7.
✓ Note 7 has been removed.
Page 14
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.
✓ Z-103: Block 7 now extends to the eastern property line.
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.
✓ Z-103: parallel parking is shown along Capella Road and Altair Road. A new off-
street parking lot is shown next to the existing building.
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.
✓ Z-103: Screening trees have been added.
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.
✓ Z-103 & Z-104: Entirety of both parcels are now shown
32. Amenity Area 2- I 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 amenity
area. The plan and code of development should be revised to indicate what amenities and how
will be provided in this area.
✓ Z-103: Amenity 2 has been removed.
33. Amenity Area 3-Provide details on what amenities will be provided and how they will be
assessed.
✓ Z-103: description of amenities has been added to the plan, narrative and COD.
34. Conceptual Grading has not been provided for the entire site as required by Section 33.
✓ Z-103: Grading has been provided for the entire site.
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 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.
✓ Z-105: Note 1 has been revised.
Page 15
Planning — Daniel Butch
2MA2020-5
Transportation Planning fast review comments 6/26/2020:
1. Provide turn lane analysis for Rt 240 providing assessment need to justify for right turn land and
for no left turn lane.
✓ Attached is a copy of the Traffic Entrance Study that was conducted by EPR PC.
The Turn Lane Warrant Analysis shows that a right turn and taper is not required,
and left turn lane is not required for the development. The Applicant has decided to
dedicate Right-of-way for a future right turn and taper and to provide a 100' right
turn taper. Refer to Z-103.
2. Provide 5-foot bike lane to VDOT standards on Rt 240 as called for in the Crozet Master Plan and
County Transportation Priorities.
✓ Z-103 & Z-106: A 6' planting strip and 8' Multi -use Path have been added to the
plans.
Page 16
Architectural Review Board — Margaret Maliszewski
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.
✓ Z-103: Block 3 is now Block 4. The off-street parking has been removed.
2. Clarify how the Block 3 residential units can be built over the gas easement.
✓ Z-103: Block 3 is now Block 4. Buildings in Block 4 will be outside of 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 large shade trees whose mature size will not conflict with the
utilities or easements.
✓ Z-103: landscaping is shown between Rt. 240 and buildings.
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.
✓ Z-103: landscaping is shown between block 7 and East property line.
5. Clarify in note 1 on page 4 of the Code what "one (2)" means.
✓ COD Page 4: Note 1 has been clarified
6. Clarify in note 6 on page 4 of the Code what "provide three different reasonable types of
screening options..." means.
✓ Notes have been revised.
7. Large shade trees are required along both sides of road A. Provide sufficient planting width for
large trees.
✓ Z-106: A 5' planting strip is shown along all internal roads. A 6' Planting strip is
shown along Route 240.
Page 17
Engineering — Frank Pohl
1. Water quality requirements: (1) Channel protection — Energy balance is required if discharging to
a natural stormwater conveyance system [ 9VAC25-870-66B]. (2) Flood protection — 2-yr and
10-yr requirements [9VAC25-870-66.C].
✓ Comment noted. These will be addressed as part of Site plan Approval.
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.21. It appears the sewer can be
located out of the buffer.
✓ Z-104: Sanitary gravity sewer has been relocated outside of the stream buffer. The
direct bury sanitary force main will be installed with the stream buffer without
causing any impacts.
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.
✓ Z-104: Sanitary sewer has been moved outside of planting strip.
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.
✓ A Central Sewer System request has been submitted.
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 [14-
233 and 14-2341. 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.
✓ The parking facility at the end of Road B has been removed. The Perpendicular
parking has been revised to parallel parking.
6. A Zone A floodplain is located on this property. Requirements of Section 18-30.3.13.0 must be
addressed, which includes determining the floodway and floodplain limits and base flood
elevation.
✓ This will be addressed during site plan process.
Page 18
Emergency — Brian Becker
Critical Issues: The proposed "Private Road A", "Private Road B", "Private Road C", and "Private Road
E" will each require road names.
Comments: The private roads designated "Private Road A", "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..."
✓ Z-103: Private Roads have been renamed
Please note that the section of the road designated as "Private Road D" is a continuation of "Private Road
C" 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 choice is not acceptable.
✓ Z-103: "Private Road C' & "Private Road D" have been combined into "Antares
Road"
Page 19
Parks — Tim Padalino
The Application Plan (dated 5/18/2020) is partially inconsistent, with the Parks & Green Systems Plan in
the adopted Crozet Master Plan.
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.
However, the Parks & Green Systems Plan includes a recommendation for a "Major Greenway" along
Parrot Branch, but neither the Application Plan nor 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 provide 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 will the applicants on the location of such
a reservation of land, in conjunction with Community Development staff.
✓ The WPO Buffer (Green Space 1) will be dedicated to public Use.
Page 20
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA 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
stub out 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 the 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 the 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 foresee?
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 Pre-App 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.
Page 21
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority — Dyon Vega
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary)
Sheet Z-103
1. Please show and label RWSA 16" Waterline and easement (it is incorrectly labeled as 8" water
main).
✓ Label has been corrected.
2. Buildings in block 2 and block 6 will need to have adequate separation from the 16" DI waterline.
✓ Buildings will be a minimum of 30' from the 16" DI waterline.
Page 22
Department of Transportation — Adam J. Moore
Land Use
1. Please provide trip generation data.
✓ Attached is a copy of the Traffic Entrance Study that was conducted by EPR PC.
The report includes trip generation data.
2. Please provide left turn lane analysis off of Three Notch'd., Road Route 240.
✓ Attached is a copy of the Traffic Entrance Study that was conducted by EPR PC. The
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis shows that a left turn lane is not required for the
development.
3. Please note that the proposed entrance must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and (F), as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other
requirements.
✓ Comment noted.
4. If in the next revision some streets are proposed to be pubic, a second connection, likely to
Parkview Drive must be made to meet SSAR requirements.
✓ Comment noted.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Page 23