HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000005 Correspondence 2021-04-08 (3)Engineering • Surveying • Planning
March 29, 2021
Kevin McDermott
Planning Manager
County of Albemarle
RE: ZMA-2020-00005 Old Dominion Village
Dear Kevin,
Below are responses to the letter addressed January 15, 2021.
IMERIDIAN
PLANNING GRouP, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: 434.882.0121
www.meric ienwbexom
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.
i. Please revise the SE request to correctly identify the Blocks with the double -frontage lots
and to remove the incorrect statement regarding the buffer requirements.
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:
4. Double frontage residential lots. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between
the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way when deemed necessary by the agent.
The submitted plan shows the double frontage lots in Blocks 4, 5, and 6 screened from
the front, not the rear of the houses. Please revise to show the lots screened from the rear
in a manner that meets Section 18-32.7.9.7 to correct this.
ii. Please revise the notes in Table D in the Code of Development to correctly reference
Section 18-32.7.9.7.
iii. Alternatively, 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.
✓ Owner has decided to provide amenity areas between lots and Right -of Way for Route 240.
Special Exception (SE) request for double frontage has been withdrawn.
2. The application includes a private street authorization request to allow all internal streets to be
private. Upon review by County Planning, Transportation Planning, Engineering staff, and
VDOT, the justification submitted with both the initial request and the subsequent request 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.
Page 1
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 which, although not a
public street in itself, provides immediate access to Route 240, which is a public street.
✓ The Owner has decided to provide public streets. Private street authorization request has
been withdrawn.
3. The previous comments on the Green space dedications were adequately addressed. However, for
the sake of clarity in the timing, please revise the Application Plan to state either "Reserved for
future dedication to the County for public use ..." or "Hereby dedicated to the County for public
use...".
✓ The labels have been revised to read "Hereby dedicated to the County for public use"
4. Section V of the COD continues to rely on the ability to provide private streets. As stated
previously staff continues to disagree with the assessment that private streets are necessary and
recommends public streets.
✓ Section V has been revised to provide public streets.
5. To be consistent with bicycle and pedestrian network recommendations found in the Crozet
Master Plan, it is staffs recommendation to include sidewalks and buffer strips that meet County
and VDOT standards on all roads in the development. However, staff no longer believes bike
facilities (bike lanes) are necessary because of the low speed and low volume of the roads. This is
inconsistent with Note 6 of Section V of the COD.
✓ Z-104: Bike facilities no longer included. Section V, Note 6 has been revised to exclude bike
facilities.
6. Section V, Note 2 of the COD has inconsistent information regarding Blocks 4 and 5, references
residential strictures in Block 1 which are not permitted according to the other application
materials, and omits information on Block 2. Please correct this.
✓ Section V, Note 2 has been revised: there are no residential structures in Block 1; all other
blocks have residential structures that front on internal streets.
7. Section V, Note 5 of the COD references a Multi -use Path along Route 240. Either a multi -use
path (Shared -use Path) or sidewalk (with a bike lane) would be appropriate but must meet VDOT
requirements and be located within the Route 240 Right -of -Way. VDOT typically requires a 10'
Shared -use Path but may approve it at 8'.
✓ Z-104: A 5' bike lane, 6' landscape strip, and 5' sidewalk have been added to the plans.
Section V, Note 5 has been revised.
8. 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.
✓ Narrative has been revised to convey that public streets are provided.
✓ Bike lanes are not required on internal roads.
✓ Trails within Greenspace 1 and 2 shall be constructed in the future by others.
Page 2
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
1. The application plan is confusing. Staff is unable to see the conceptual grading as required by
Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance. Conceptual grading must be provided. See Zoning Division
comments.
✓ Z-105: Separate grading and utility plan provided with no hatching.
2. 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-101, Z-104 , Z-105, Z-106: Internal streets will be public; all notes and labels have
been revised.
3. 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-108: Internal streets will be public; cross -sections have been revised.
4. There appears to be inconsistency regarding whether Blocks 4, 5, and 6 will front on Route 240.
Please clarify and ensure the appropriate screening is provided as necessary and discussed in
General Application Comment #1.
✓ Z-104: All residential lots will front on internal streets. There will not be any double
frontage lots. Screening is provided along Route 240.
Section 18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments
1. Section III of the COD, Table C has incorrect acreages for Green Space 2 and Totals including
percentages. Please revise. 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.
✓ Table C in Section III has been revised to show correct acreages for all amenities
and greenspaces. Percentages have also been revised and meet the 20% amenity
requirement.
2. 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.
✓ All notes revised to provide public streets.
3. Revise Section II of the COD, Table B to show the min and max units and density for UDR and
NDR as required. This cannot be in a separate narrative because it is a requirement of the COD
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 does not include units/acre. The
column should be retitled to "Allowable Density Range." See Zoning Division comments.
✓ Table B has been revised to show the minimum and maximum units and densities
for UDR and NDR, along with added notes.
Page 3
4. 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.
✓ Accessory uses have been listed in Table A.
5. Table D — see Zoning Division comments related to setbacks in the table.
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.
✓ Table D has been revised: front setbacks for Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are 15'
minimum and 20' maximum.
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.
Comments from VDH have been addressed.
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.
Page 4
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 consistent with the relegated parking consideration. 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.
In Accordance with Section 14-233 the commission may authorize one or more private streets in a
subdivision under the circumstances of "The general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the
subdivider, would be better served by the construction of one or more private streets than by the
construction of public streets."
Based on staff review of this initial design, staff does not support the private street authorization request
✓ The Owner has decided to provide public streets. Private street authorization request has
been withdrawn.
Code of Development
Page 1-
1. Prior comment not addressed — Accessory uses must be listed exactly as they are worded in the
ordinance. Home occupation, public utilities, and private utilities were added to the use table.
However, they are not listed with the exact wording used in the ordinance. Specifically, 2, 3, 5, 6,
8, 10 should be added at a minimum to the code of development.
✓ Non-residential Uses have exact wording used in the ordinance.
2. Table B — Density is a code of development requirement so that information should be provided
on page 4 and not in a separate narrative. -Gross residential density is not provided.
✓ Table B has been revised to show the allowable and provided densities for UDR and
NDR, along with added notes. Gross residential density has been provided.
3. Page 5 — Table C — Prior comments on amenities provided the definition of amenity for reference
with the expectation that the code of development would specify which types of amenities would
be provided for this development. That comment is partially addressed with the types of
Page 5
amenities listed as Dog Park, Recreation space, Clubhouse with picnic area, playground with
slides, swings, climbing features.
✓ Comment Noted.
4. Minimum square footage of the proposed clubhouse must be specified.
✓ Clubhouse is no longer being proposed.
Page 2
5. The minimum features of the Dog Park and Rec area must be specified. With the comment
addressed further, Note 3 should be deleted from the Code of Development.
✓ Previous Table C Note 3 has been removed.
6. Table C needs to be corrected. The total greenspace/amenity area is not 57.3% as 4.49 acres is
both greenspace and amenity and should not be double counted. Include both the correct total
acreage and the correct percentage in the table.
✓ Table C has been revised. Amenity areas and greenspaces do not overlap, so there is
no double counting. Total amenity area, greenspace, and amenity & greenspace
percentages are provided.
7. If trails are required to meet the minimum requirements of Section 4.16 or NMD amenities, they
must be constructed by the owner, not obligate the County to provide them. Has Parks and Rec
agreed to provide trails in the future or is owner construction of the trails needed to address
ordinance requirements?
✓ Trails in Greenspaces 1 and 2 are not required to meet requirements of Section 4.16.
Parks and Rec has not been contacted about trails.
8. Page 6 — Table D — Setbacks -Zoning staff remains concerned about setbacks for this
development. Setbacks as proposed are not consistent with the recommendations of the Crozet
Master Plan and other Development Area projects.
• A typical lot/product type has not been provided to demonstrate the need for increased
front setbacks or the need for 27' front minimums for some blocks while others propose a
20' minimum. Also, it is recommended that setbacks be simplified for ease of
administration.
✓ Setbacks have been simplified: all except Block 7 (SFD) have matching front, side,
and rear setbacks.
• A typical lot showing how setbacks will be applied for double frontage lots should also
be provided to clarify how they should be administered.
✓ Owner has decided to provide amenity areas between lots and Right -of Way for
Route 240. Special Exception (SE) request for double frontage has been withdrawn.
• Will these setbacks apply both to primary and accessory structures? This should be
clarified or accessory structure setbacks included in the table.
✓ Setbacks for accessory structures has been added to the table.
• Relegated parking, such as a setback for garages behind the building fagade is not
provided. It is not required but is typically in codes of development to address the
Neighborhood Model principles.
Page 6
✓ Garages will not be setback from building fagade.
9. Page 6 — Note 1 should use language consistent with the ordinance so that it is easier to
administer. Also, it is typical that projections decks/porches extent into rear setbacks as well.
✓ Note 1 has been revised to match the ordinance.
10. Notes 2 and 3 — Correct the reference to screening requirements. The correct section is Sec.
32.7.9.7.
✓ Notes 2 and 3 have been revised.
APPLICATION PLAN
11. Sheet Z-102 — This sheet is confusing in that there are lines and areas delineated but not labeled
or provided for in the legend. This sheet appears to show existing conditions along with the land
use areas of the CMP delineated (Greenspace, Urban Density, Neighborhood Density, etc.) At a
minimum, this sheet must be updated to clearly delineate the metes and bounds of the area
proposed to be rezoned.
✓ Z-102 now shows Boundary and Comprehensive Land Use. Z-103 now shows
existing conditions and demolition.
12. Sheet Z-103 — This sheet also shows lines/areas not labeled or accounted for in the legend.
✓ Areas not shaded are part of public right-of-way.
• Show on the application plan where sidewalks will be provided and where the 8'
multipurpose paths will be provided. Accordingly, update the typical plan view for
Townhouses to include road names on Sheet Z-106.
✓ Z-104: 8' paths no longer proposed; instead, 5' sidewalks are proposed along
internal public streets. Typical plan view is no longer shown.
• Show the existing asphalt path along Parkview Drive and any connections that will be
made to it from this development.
✓ Z-104: connection to existing asphalt path provided.
• Is there an explanation as to why 8' paths instead of 5' sidewalks are proposed along
internal roads?
✓ Z-104: 8' paths no longer proposed; instead, 5' sidewalks are proposed along
internal public streets.
13. Sheet Z-106 — The block area table and development area summary information should be moved
to Sheet Z-101 or Z-103 and also included on Page 4/5 of the COD. The greenspace summary on
Sheet Z-106 does not match the summary on Page 5 of the COD.
✓ Block area table and development area summary information moved to Sheet Z-
101. Block Area Table has been added to Page 4. Development Area Summary has
been added to Page 5.
Page 7
PROFFERS
14. Proffer 1 — Concept Plan must be deleted. Proffers must not restate requirements of the ordinance.
Compliance with the application plan and code of development are covered by the ordinance
(NMD and Section 8).
✓ Concept Plan has been removed.
15. Proffer 2 — This proffer should be renumbered to Proffer 1.
✓ Proffers have been renumbered after the removal of Concept Plan.
16. Proffer l(i) — Amenity Dedication to HOA — This proffer should renumbered to Proffer 2. The
first two sentences must be removed from the proffer statement. Timing of completion of
amenities may be an appropriate proffer. Wording similar to proffers accepted with other
developments may include suggested language below, along with the last sentence in the example
provided.
Amenity Areas 1, 2, and 3 must be substantially completed prior to the issuance of approval of
the thirty-fifth (35) CO within the project.
✓ Proffers have been renumbered. Proffer 2 has been revised to suggested changes.
17. Proffer 2 — Greenway dedication to the public — This should be renumbered to Proffer 3. Instead
of restricting use of the areas in the proffer, should be addressed in the code of
development/application plan by designating the Greenspace areas as Conservation or
Preservation Areas which is defined in the ordinance (below). Because trails and stormwater
management facilities are proposed for Greenspace Areas, designating them as Conservation
seems most appropriate. The section of the proffer that addresses dedication to public use should
be updated with proffer language consistently offered and accepted for greenway dedications.
Examples have been provided below.
Conservation area. The term "conservation area "means an area identified on a plan submitted
for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands,
floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and
stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in
conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets,
and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the County Engineer, no other
location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on
the environmental features of the area.
Preservation area. 'Preservation area" means an area identified on a plan submitted for
approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and
stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade
feature.
✓ Proffers have been renumbered. Conservation Area language has been added to
Proffer 3. Green Spaces 1 and 2 are noted as Conservation Area on the plans.
18. Proffer 3 — Financial Contributions — This proffer should be renumbered to Proffer 4. Also, it
must be reworded for consistency with state law and other standard proffer language. I will
research to provide standard language. The CCAC must not be referenced in the proffer. The
Board of Supervisors determines use of cash proffers in adoption of their budget and CIP. The
Page 8
CCAC is an advisory body that may offer input to the Board as to their recommendations for
priority projects in Crozet.
✓ Proffers have been renumbered. Language referencing the CCAC has been
removed.
Planning — Daniel Butch
Transportation Planning fast review comments 6/26/2020:
1. For frontage improvements along Route 240, minimum paved width for a publicly accessible
two -directional shared use path should be 10 feet. Staff also recommends the revision for 5' bike
lanes be added on the north side of Route 240 in accordance with VDOT standards as called for
in the Crozet Master Plan's urban street designation and County's Transportation Priorities.
✓ Paved path no longer proposed. A 5' sidewalk and 5' bike lane are proposed along
Route 240.
2. Provide bicycle/pedestrian connection from internal network to the dedicated public Green
Spaces 1 & 2 for the recommended planned greenway.
✓ Z-104: Sidewalk is proposed to connect Capella Road to Green Spaces 1 and 2
3. For future reference, refer to the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix B-1 for appropriate street
trees within planting strips adjacent to sidewalks or shard use paths.
✓ Comment noted.
Architectural Review Board — Margaret Maliszewski
1. The portions of Capella and Altair Roads with parallel parking have no street trees. EC guidelines
require trees 40' on center along the full length of interior roads.
✓ Z-104: Parallel parking has been removed.
2. A 20' screening tree buffer area is proposed along the Route 240 EC. Sheet 4 of the application
plan shows a staggered row of a single tree species in the buffer. A mix of trees will be more
appropriate. Note 3 on Sheet 7 of the Code of Development should be revised to include "mixed"
before "evergreen trees". A 20' buffer depth will not provide complete screening, so ARB review
of the proposed development will be required.
✓ Note 3 has been revised, and comment has been noted.
3. Note 2 on sheet 6 of the Code of Development references a code section that does not exist
(32.9.7d).
✓ Note 2 has been revised.
4. Note 2 on sheet 7 of the Code of Development states conflicting requirements. Residences in
blocks 4, 5, and 6 should have fronts facing the Rt. 240 Entrance Corridor.
✓ Z-104: All residential structures in Block 4 shall have fronts facing internal public
streets. Amenity 1 will separate lots from the Right -of -Way for Route 240.
Engineering — Frank Pohl
1. Previous comments addressed with the following exception:
a. Private roads are not supported. Please provide justification for private streets, including
showing the impacts to the project if the streets were public.
✓ Private streets are no longer being proposed.
Page 9
b. Private sewer lines are not exempt from buffer requirements [17-6021. The application states
the forcemain will be installed without open cutting of the soils but the application plan
indicates "direct bury", which requires open -cut trenching. Also, easements will be required
over the forcemain and gravity sewer lines. Such easements will need to be cleared and
maintained cleared for future access, which results in buffer impacts. Please relocate sewer
lines to avoid buffer impacts.
✓ Z-106 & Z-107: Proposed forcemain has been re-routed. Sewer mains have been
revised to maintain a minimum separation of 10' from buffer.
2. FEMA mapping shows there is a Zone A floodplain on the parcel. Please update the Floodplain
note on the cover sheet to include Zone A.
✓ Z-101: Floodplain note revised to include Zone A.
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.
Department of Transportation — Adam J. Moore
Land Use
1. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434)
422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
✓ Comment noted.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Page 10
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Page 11