HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000016 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2020-12-30COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
December 23, 2020
Mr. Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett St., Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
scott@collins-en ing eering com / 434-293-3719
RE: SP202000016 Claudius Crozet Park; 2"' Submittal
Dear Mr. Collins:
Fax (434) 972-4176
Staff has reviewed your second submittal for the special use permit, SP202000016, Claudius Crozet Park amendment. We
have questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your SP
request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Comments from the Planning
Division are provided first:
Planning — General Special Use Permit Comments
1. Pay the required fee of $1,075.00 for the submittal and review of the special use permit application. This item
cannot be taken to the Planning Commission until the required fees have been paid. If you believe this statement
to be incorrect, and the fee has already been paid, please provide the receipt for the application fee. Provide
verification that this review fee has been paid, as the County's records do not indicate that this fee has been
paid yet. A public hearing with the Planning Commission cannot be scheduled until this fee has been paid.
In addition, the public advertisement fee of $435.00 must be paid prior to the Planning Commission public
hearing.
2. Include the application file number that was given to this application, SP2020-00016, on the concept plan and in
the project narrative. Comment addressed.
3. Revise the name of the plan to read a "development concept plan" instead of an application plan. Also, revise the
title of sheets 3 and 4 to reflect the plan as a "concept plan." Comment addressed.
4. Indicate on the cover sheet of the plan that TMP 56A2-04—A4 is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. (Although it is located in the ECOD, it is not likely that the ARB will review this project because of its
location and distance from the Entrance Corridor) Comment addressed.
5. Clarify how many stories the recreation facility/community center will be. It appears that it is proposed to be 32'
— will this translate to two or three stories? Will the phase 2 pool expansion be the same or of shorter height?
Comment addressed.
6. Provide more information on the listed parking requirements:
a. It does not appear that the parking study requested in the pre -application checklist was provided with the
application. Provide this study, or include more information in the project narrative.
b. Which scheduled use is being used for the pavilions and the meeting room?
c. Why are the tennis courts only listed as one space per court, when the ordinance identifies two spaces per
court as required?
d. Where is the 10% reduction for an urban park coming from?
e. The parking schedule references an approved cooperative parking agreement. Provide a copy of this
cooperative parking agreement, so that staff can accurately review the amount of shared parking being
provided, and with which other entities.
A copy of the cooperative parking agreement needs to be provided for staff review and understanding
of the proposed parking situation. The gravel parking area continues to be shown on the concept plan.
In response to Engineering comments, it was stated that this area would be removed or relabeled.
Clarify this discrepancy. Also, if the gravel parking area is to remain, provide the proposed number of
spaces on the cover sheet. The cover sheet indicated that the parking study would be revised for the
phase II construction of the pool. No initial parking study has been provided that could be revised.
Submit a copy of this parking study to Planning staff for review.
7. What is the existing structure on the R-6 zoned property currently being used for? Comment addressed.
8. Where are the existing concessions served from? It is important to ensure this use is covered by the special use
permit — see 18-5.1.16(e). Label these concession areas on the concept plan. They are referenced in the note
on sheet 4 but do not appear to be identified anywhere on the plan.
9. Where is the 34,200 sq. ft. of phase 1 listed on the concept plan cover sheet coming from? The meeting space and
exercise area only add up to 22,000 sq. ft. Are there additional uses proposed in that building? Comment
acknowledged.
10. The proposed phase 2 pool expansion needs to be shifted so that it lies outside of the minimum setback line. The
northwest corner of the structure as proposed does not meet the setback requirements for the Rural Areas zoning
district. Comment addressed. However, those 25' setback fines should be relabeled to "side setbacks," not
"rear setbacks."
11. Include in the narrative section on public facility and infrastructure impacts if there is any expected impacts on the
fire and police departments. Comment acknowledged.
12. The Certificate of Plat that was provided for this property, indeed book 1536, pge 410, references an agreement
that was recorded in deed book 859, page 196. Provide a copy of this agreement, and provide any additional
relevant information ensuring that whatever the terms of this agreement are continue to be maintained. A copy of
this agreement was not provided. Submit a copy of this agreement for staff to review. In addition, provide
information (it could be inserted into the project narrative) indicating how this proposal will continue to
maintain the terms of the agreement, how it will address any changes proposed, or if the applicant does not
expect the terms of the agreement to be affected in any way.
13. Revise section IV of the narrative. It states that there are no preserved steep slopes on the property. However,
there is a small area of preserved slopes just to the south of the pond. Comment addressed.
14. On the concept plan site layout sheet, label the proposed recreation center building and the pool expansion with
the proposed square footage of the structures, both overall square footage and the building footprint, so that staff
can have a better understanding of their size. Comment addressed.
15. Advisory Comment: A full list of proposed conditions for this special use permit will be provided prior to the
Planning Commission public hearing. At a minimum, the conditions from the existing special use permit SP1995-
00043 are likely to be retained (with modifications to reference the proposed new concept). Comment
acknowledged.
16. Advisory Comment: The community center use will be subject to the supplemental regulations found in 18-
5.1.04 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the swimming, tennis, and golf clubs use will be subject to the supplemental
regulations found in 18-5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. Comment acknowledged.
17. Advisory Comment: Site plans and VSMP plans will be required at the site development stage if this special use
permit is approved by the Board. All requirements of Section 18-32 of the Zoning Ordinance will need to be met
at this stage, including but not limited to design requirements, parking requirements, height requirements, zoning
district requirements, landscaping and lighting requirements, and compliance with the conditions of the special
use permit. Comment acknowledged.
18. Advisory Comment: The parking areas will need to be screened from the adjacent residential uses at the site
planning stage. Comment acknowledged.
19. Advisory Comment: A community meeting with nearby residents and property owners is required prior to a
public hearing. Such a community meeting is currently scheduled for October 14, 2020. Additional comments
may be provided based on the discussion and feedback from that meeting. Please see the attached letter
provided by community members and nearby property owners with questions and concerns about this
project. This letter was provided to Planning staff after the community meeting on October 14", which was
held after the first staff review comment letter was provided on October 2°". It is recommended that these
questions and concerns be addressed with the next submittal or at the Planning Commission public
hearing.
Additional Comments for Second Review
20. The letter provided by community members (mentioned above in comment # 19) indicates that the portion of
Crozet Park that is zoned R-6 is still a part of Parkside Village and will be subject to their HOA's covenants and
restrictions. Clarify the elements of the proposed plan that are expected to be constructed within the bounds of the
R-6 zoned property so that staff has a better understanding of what features may also fall under the HOA's
purview, including any new structures, sidewalks, paths, roads, drive aisles, landscaping, etc.
Plannin¢ — Special Exception Application Comments
1. Pay the required fee of $457.00 for the submittal and review of the special exception application. This item cannot
be taken to the Planning Commission until the required fees have been paid. If you believe this statement to be
incorrect, and the fee has already been paid, please provide the receipt for the application fee. Provide
verification that this review fee has been paid, as the County's records do not indicate that this fee has been
paid yet. A public hearing with the Planning Commission cannot be scheduled until this fee has been paid.
2. Provide more information in the special exception portion of the narrative identifying what is being requested
with the special exception application. Identify how far the swimming pool(s) is proposed to be from the property
line, as well as the distance from the nearest dwelling units, so that staff can better understand the scale of the
exception that is being requested. Also, show these distances on sheets 3 and 4 of the concept plan. These
distances should be provided for both pools. Comment acknowledged.
3. Provide justification for why this special exception should be granted and how any potential impacts from
granting this exception would be mitigated. Comment acknowledged.
Comments from Other Reviewing Divisions, Departments, and Agencies
Plannin¢ - Transportation
No objections at this time; Chief of Planning / Principal Transportation Planner, Kevin McDermott,
kmcdermott@albemarle.org.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Chief of Zoning, Francis
MacCall, finaccallgalbemarle.org.
En¢ineerina & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohla,albemarle.om.
Buildina Inspections Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the Building Inspections plans reviewer, Betty
Slough, bslou hg galbemarle.org:
Sheet 1, building separation references wrong code and section. Refer to current code and section.
Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks.
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Chief of Parks Planning, Tim
Padalino, ipadalino@albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Service Authority
Please see the attached comment memo provided by the ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson,
melson nnserviceauthoritv.ore.
Virainia Department of Transportation
Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff; Adam Moore, VDOT,
adam.moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov.
Next Steps
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a fee for the second resubmittal. The resubmittal date
schedule is provided for your convenience online at:
httDs://www.albemarle.orgJhome/showdocument?id=358
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$435.00 for the Public Notice Requirement (Legal Advertisement). If you believe this statement to be incorrect, and the
fee has already been paid, please provide the receipt for the fee.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a
new date.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
areitelbach&albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261.
Sincerely,
W '466 W ,ReitdkW"It
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Letter from Community Members
Memorandum from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Special Use Permit Resubmittal Form
Parkside Village Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 777
Crozet, VA 22932
October 29, 2020
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Special Use Permit SP202000016 for Claudius Crozet Park
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
As a bordering neighbor, the Parkside Village subdivision has enjoyed its close proximity to
Crozet Park and has benefitted from the numerous improvements made during recent years.
We applaud the work of so many volunteers who pour timeless energy into maintaining a safe,
clean, and enjoyable rural space, as well as those who donate to maintain and upgrade the
facilities for our friends, neighbors, and children.
Based on a survey publicized by the Crozet Park Board of Directors, it appears that a number of
Crozet community members have supported a larger recreation facility on its grounds. We
trust that this survey was balanced and neutral. While we hope that we don't one day lament
the loss of a rural park near downtown Crozet to urbanization, we do appreciate how this
expansion might meet the needs of the larger community. Trusting that other Crozet locations
were considered for a project of this magnitude, we stand in favor of the community's wishes.
With all of this said, on behalf of the Parkside Village subdivision, the Parkside Village Home
Owners Association (HOA) conveys the following concerns to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors in regards to the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Collins Engineering
on behalf of Crozet Park:
1. Parkside Village Bylaws. Tax Map Parcel 056A2-04-00-OOOA4, which is zoned residential
(R-6) was conveyed as a charitable gift to the Park for the sale price of $0 on 25 Jan
2007. However, it remains part of the Parkside subdivision and is listed as such in the
County's records. Therefore, it continues to be subject to the Architectural Review
Board of the Parkside Village Homeowners Association as declared in the Declaration of
Convents, Conditions, and Restrictions for Parkside Village recorded in the Albemarle
County Clerk's office. The ARB is required by law to not be "unreasonable, capricious, or
arbitrary"'. To avoid said "arbitrary" discretion, Crozet Park is subject to our application
1 Civ. Code § 4765(a)(2), See also Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn. (1983)142 Ca1.App.3d 642.
process just as any other property owner in the Parkside Village subdivision. We
respectfully request that the Special Use Permit be amended with a condition stating
that proposed changes to this parcel are subject to these existing and current bylaws.
2. Construction Ingress/Egress. The Special Use Permit application seeks to use the gated
emergency access road off of Hill Top Street for all construction traffic. This access road
lies on the aforementioned R-6 parcel. It was stated during the CCAC meeting held
virtually on 14 October 2020 that this was to avoid disruption to Crozet Park's visitors.
Please note that Hill Top Street is the only access route to over 80 existing homes and is
already congested with construction traffic as the only access route for Foothill
Crossing's most recent build -out phase of an additional 32 homes. The neighborhood's
only school bus stop is at the intersection of the emergency access road and Hill Top
Street and, because there is only one entrance to the subdivision, requires the school
bus to perform a three-point U-turn at this location. There are 15 or more elementary
school -aged children congregating during pick-up and drop-off. With all of these factors,
the HOA believes it is dangerous to out the additional construction burden on the
Parkside Village neighborhood, a burden which is unwilling to be borne by the Park itself
at neither its two-way main entrance nor existing secondary entrance on Park Road (see
Figure 1). We respectfully request that the Special Use Permit prohibit construction
access from Hill Top Street (and move all construction traffic to one of the two existing
entrances on Park Road).
Y
O
ZL_
wui-
iROVOYD
.ea�ve�...
nww
...: .. �.
NEEREIPON
r.
CENTER
wa.. ��n..,.e... ,
Tre
mrtwN..,r •:
Figure 1. Alternative construction access points for consideration are highlighted by dashed lines.
3. Permanent Park Ingress/Egress. During the Claudius Crozet Park Community Meeting
held virtually on 14 October 2020 (with the Crozet Community Advisory Committee,
CCAC), a community member asked if the emergency access road would become a
permanent second access point to the park. Mr. Drew Holzwarth, a member of the
Crozet Park Board of Directors representing the Park's interest at the meeting,
responded that it would be used for construction ingress/egress point and that he
couldn't commit to its use after construction is completed. However, the application
submitted to the county states otherwise:
(1) "The proposed expansion includes ... a 2nd access point onto Hill Top Street," and,
(2) "in addition, with the proposed second access connection to the park and the
recently completed section of Eastern Avenue, the additional vehicular trips per day
to the park are dispersed over the existing road infrastructure in the area to the
north, east and west of the park."
The conversion of this emergency access point into a permanent connection to the
adjacent residential neighborhood is being leveraged to gain application approval and
was therefore clear and present knowledge that neither Mr. Holzworth nor Collins
Engineering chose to share during the CCAC meeting despite the direct line of
questioning.
Our Association has several concerns that we would appreciate being taken into
consideration when determining the permanent future of this access point. We do not
believe that the VDOT minimum 280 ft sight distance is met in either direction from a
vehicle on the access road (see Figure 2). To the left (west), trees on private lots and
cars parked on driveways block this sightline. To the center -right (northeast), the steep
grade of Hill Top Street obscures oncoming traffic from this vantage point and is a
concern that is challenging to discern from maps alone (see Figure 3). We believe this
creates a dangerous intersection in a neighborhood heavily trafficked by pedestrians
and children at play.
Furthermore, the emergency access point resides on the aforementioned parcel that
was donated to the Park. It's conversion to a permanent park entrance that would send
additional vehicular traffic into our neighborhood at the expense of our and our
children's safety was neither an anticipated nor intended use for our gift.
We respectfully request that conversion of the emergency access road to a permanent
park entrance not be granted.
0
i
Figure 2. Elevated view showing sight lines originating from the proposed permanent entrance
(Drawing by Collins Engineering).
Figure 3. Photograph taken from the area of the proposed permanent park entrance (currently the
emergency access point) looking to the center -right (northeast). The steep downward grade of Hill
Top Street obscures oncoming traffic.
4. Screening. County engineers noted concerns regarding screening between the proposed
facility and the Parkside Village subdivision:
(a) "The parking areas will need to be screened from the adjacent residential uses at the
site planning stage. "Z
(b) "Consider adding screening landscaping in the area near the new structure. This may
mitigate the impact of the structure on the lots on TMPs 56A2-02-OB 19, 21, 23,
and 25."3
z Letter to Mr. Scott Collins (Collins Engineering) from Mr. Andy Reitelbach (Planning Division, County of
Albemarle) dated October 2, 2020.
3 Memorandum: Initial Review Comments for5P2020-00016. To Andy Reitelbach, From Francis H. MacCall.
Division: Zoning. Date: 91221202011010512020.
(c) "Also consider screening landscaping along the proposed entrance from Hill Top
Street. (d) Be mindful of lighting on the building when designing the building and final
site plan. The need for lighting on the west side of the building is more than likely
unnecessary which should avoid conflict (sp) the adjacent residential. Glass walls, similar
to the YMCA in McIntire Park are discouraged, as the lighting within the structure more
than likely will create a big impact to the adjacent residential properties. "4
(d) 'The landscape mentioned above may be condition (sp). This may be able to be
covered in the first standard condition as a major element. "5
After several communications with the Park regarding noise pollution in past years (for
example, the noise that was created by the pool's dome maintenance system after the
initial install and the lightning alarm siren that continues to erroneously sound and flash
after 9pm), our subdivision greatly appreciates such suggestions from the engineers.
When asked about plans to maintain a screen between the proposed facility and
adjacent neighborhood during the CCAC meeting, Collins Engineering and Mr. Holzwarth
offered little information. The submitted plan shows the removal of existing mature
growth trees at the Park's north boundary (see Figure 4). With the tree clearing for the
new Foothill subdivision bordering the Park (and erroneous over -clearing which
extended well within the 100ft buffer required for creek at the Park's northeast corner),
these trees are the only remaining light and noise abatement features on the entire
northern park boundary, a boundary that extends nearly a quarter mile along residential
neighborhoods. Their imminent removal leaves no natural screening whatsoever. We
respectfully request that a screening design plan be required by the County as a
condition prior to granting the Special Use Permit. We also request a public forum for
input on said screening plan prior to County approval.
4 Ibid.
5Ibid.
Figure 4. Photograph looking from Indigo Road towards Crozet Park. The submitted Special Use Permit
application includes removal of the large trees behind the Quick Start tennis courts, the only remaining
light and noise abatement features between the Parkside Village subdivision and the existing Park
buildings and pool.
Members of Parkside Village received a letter from Collins Engineering approximately one week
prior to the October 14`^ virtual CCAC public meeting. In addition to this short notice, the letter
also provided inaccurate Zoom information for the call. This, combined with the webinar style
format of the call, provided little opportunity for community members to interact with Collins
Engineering and Mr. Holzwarth. Questions were submitted in writing via a chat box, though
time did not allow for the host to relay all questions and concerns. The forum was not
amenable to follow-up questioning since no direct discussion between non-CCAC members and
Mr. Holzwarth and Collins Engineering was permitted. As citizens of Albemarle County and the
community of Crozet, we appreciate this opportunity now to express our concerns and make
the above requests to the BoS.
Let us clearly and unequivocally state that our intention is not to stall or stop progress on the
Park's expansion plans but rather protect, with reasonable accommodations, the surrounding
residential neighborhood. As members of the Board of Supervisors, your advocation on our
behalf forms the basis for a healthy local democracy that strikes balance between urban
development and the concerns of the citizens which already live here.
Respectfully,
Parkside Village Homeowners Association
Board Members:
Justin Beck
Emil Groth
Will Brown
Jim Duncan
Sarah Kasen
cc: Andy Reitelbach, Allie Pesch, Jennie More
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? Yes
2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Currently
served by water and sewer.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are high. Existing building should have an existing PRV.
4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? Applicant to confirm if changes in daily sewer flows are
increased. RWSA to confirm if a sewer capacity certification will be needed.
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? Utility plan approval will be required prior to site plan approval.
7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee?
8) Additional comments? Provide fixture Counts to confirm meter size during site plan stage.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for
Special Use Permit
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: SP2020-00016 Claudius Crozet Park
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
Date
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
FEES to be paid after application
For original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑
First resubmission (TO BE PAID WUEN TIDE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
Free
M
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WI6N THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$538
For original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑
FirSY resubmisslon (TO BE PAID WI6N TIDE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
Free
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WI6N TIDE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,075
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 11/2/2015 Page 1 of 1