HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000005 Correspondence 2021-12-06•
Engineering • Surveying • Planning
November 19, 2021
Kevin McDermott
Planning Manager
County of Albemarle
RE: ZMA-2020-00005 Old Dominion Village
Dear Kevin,
Below are responses to the comments in your letter dated October 20, 2021
MERIDIAN
PLANNING GROuP, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: 434.882.0121
www.meric imwbe.com
General Application Comments:
1. While I understand the reason you added the additional parking lot in the southwest comer of the
development was to address the previous comment regarding the issue with all parking being located in
driveways and garages, the location of this lot is problematic. For one parking would have to be removed
from the Amenity Area calculation, for another NMD requires relegated parking and the placement in this
prominent area is not relegated. Staff recommends moving this parking out of this location
✓ Z-104: THE GUEST PARKING HAS BEEN MOVED TO A RELAGATED LOCTION BETWEEN
BLOCKS 6 & 8. GUEST PARKING IS NOT INCLUDED IN AMENITY 3 AREA.
2. As a note on the affordable housing, we are very supportive of the increase in affordable housing from 15%
to 20% in this recent submittal. However, I wanted to inform you that the Board of Supervisors did not end
up changing the requirement for affordable housing as we had expected would happen when we provided
the previous round of comments to you. I believe that exceeding the minimum requirement for affordable
housing makes your application a stronger proposal for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission
to consider but I wanted to make sure you were aware that the 15% remains the minimum required by our
Affordable Housing Policy.
✓ THE COD AND PROFFERS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO SHOW 15% MINIMUM REQUIRED.
THE OWNER HAS PROFFERED 20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN BLOCK 4.
3. Reviewing the applications consistency with the Neighborhood Model Principles, the project's alignment
with the principles related to Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities and Parks, Recreational Amenities,
and Open Space could be strengthened if trails or other provisions for the recommended greenway were
being provided.
✓ Z-104 & PROFFERS: THE OWNER HAS DECIDED TO PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN PATH AND
THE CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN AND PROFFERS.
18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
1. Sheets Z-104/105 show the relocated pedestrian path connecting from Altair Rd into the proposed public
Green Space to provide access to the Green Space. While this path is a good proposal, if the developer is
not constructing any trails in the public greenspace then this access point will likely result in umnanaged
use of the greenspace and potential impacts to the natural systems within it. Staff continues to recommend
the developer consider developing trails in this greenspace at the very least to provide some activation of
the area for the connection to access.
Page 1
✓ Z-104: A PEDESTRIAN PATH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN AND THE SIDEWALK NOW
CONNECTS TO THE PATH.
2. Sheets Z-104-106 show the parking lot in Amenity 1 as part of the Amenity. Parking is not considered an
Amenity. Please correct this for display and calculation of the area or move the lot as discussed in
Comment 2 above.
✓ Z-104: THE GUEST PARKING HAS BEEN MOVED TO A RELAGATED LOCTION BETWEEN
BLOCKS 6 & 8. GUEST PARKING IS NOT INCLUDED IN AMENITY 3 AREA.
18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments:
1. Section IH Table C. only identifies Amenity 4 with Tree Buffer as the amenity. Chapter 18 Sec. 3.1 of the
Albemarle County Code defines Amenity as: "...an indoor or outdoor area of activity designed principally
for, and accessible to, persons residing or working within a development. An outdoor area of activity may
be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths through natural
areas, courtyards, and paved pedestrian areas for gathering....... A tree buffer area does not appear to meet
this definition. Staff recommends changing this area to Green Space.
✓ Z-104 & COD: AMENITY 4 HAS BEEN REVISED TO GREESPACE 4.
2. Further, Amenity 2, describes a "Recreation Area" as the Amenity but only displays and discusses a Tot
Lot in the Amenity Area. A 4.15 acre area should have more than one small tot lot to be able to call it an
Amenity Area. Staff recommends adding other features that meet the definition of a Amenities either on the
application plan or in Section III of the Proffers.
✓ Z-104: A PEDESTRIAN PATH HAS BEEN ADDED TO AMENITY 2.
18-33.22 Proffer Statement Comments:
1. Dedication of Greenway Area. Please clarify: Are these areas being dedicated to County for fee simple
ownership or as easements for public use. If the ownership of these areas is to remain with the
development, then staff once again recommends that the developer construct the trail system within the
areas. If that is not the case, then the easements will also need to address construction of the trails.
The Application Plan seems to imply that the areas are being dedicated to the County fee simple.
However, the proffer states that you are dedicating an easement. Please clarify and correct this. We do
have an example agreement on our website here:
httys://www.albemarle.org/govemment/commurtitydevelopment/apply-for/planning-and-site-
development-applications under "Subdivisions" for a fee -simple dedication. The proffer would state
something similar to the following: "...the Owner shall dedicate to the County the Property in fee simple
for public use the Greenway area, as shown on the Application Plan"
✓ PROFFERS: THE PROFFERS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO STATE THE GREEWAY AREA
WILL BE DEDICATE IN FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.
Page 2
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Requested changes, see below for comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, ragsdale@albemarle.org.
1. Proffer 3A- This proffer is restating ordinance and application plan requirements and should be removed
from the proffer statement. Proffers are commitments to conditions that are in addition to the minimum
ordinance requirements.
✓ PROFFERS: THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED.
2. Proffer 3B-Is the greenway area to be dedicated in fee simple or an easement provided? The application
plan indicates "hereby dedicated" but the proffer indicates an easement.
✓ PROFFERS: THE PROFFERS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO STATE THE GREEWAY AREA
WILL BE DEDICATE IN FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.
3. Table C, Page 5- Tree buffers are not amenities and the Amenity 4-0.5 tree buffer indicated should move
over to the Greenspace column of the table. Parking areas cannot be counted towards amenities.
✓ Z-104 & COD: AMENITY 4 HAS BEEN REVISED TO GREENSPACE 4.
4. Rec areas should be further defined to determine that it is an amenity. If not provided with the ZMA, then
rec facilities/amenities will need to be provided at site plan.
✓ REC FACHdTIES/AMENITIES WELL BE PROVIDED AT SITE PLAN.
5. Section 4.16- The minimum recreation requirements of 4.16, in addition to any amenities (dog park) in the
code of development, are required to be provided at site plan stage. Rec facilities may be located in areas
designated as Amenities in the code of development.
✓ COD, TABLE C, NOTE 6: REC FACILITIES/AMENITIES WILL BE PROVIDED AT SITE
PLAN.
6. Amenity areas may also be located in Greenspace Areas.
✓ COMMENT NOTED.
Page 3
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review
Board (ARB) Requested changes, see comments below from Margaret Maliszewski,
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org.
t . Section 5 of the Code of Development specifies a 20' tree buffer along Rt. 240 and along the eastern
property boundary. The Application Plan/Concept Plan Z-104 shows a portion of the buffer on Block 4 and
the buffer on Block 5 as only 10' deep. The full 20' buffer depth should be maintained outside of
residential lots.
✓ Z-104: BLOCKS 4 & 5 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO PROVIDE A 20' BUFFER OUTSIDE OF
RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
2. A dog park and parking lot have been added to the comer of the development at the intersection of Rt. 240
and Parkview Drive. These are not the most appropriate site features for a prominent comer adjacent to the
EC street. Changes to parking lot size, revised orientation of the lot and/or park, extended buffer along
Parkview, fencing other than chain link, and coordination with development signage/entrance features
might provide for a more organized, orderly and attractive appearance. The location and design of these
features is subject to ARB review with the Site Development Plan.
✓ Z-105: THE GUEST PARKING HAS BEEN RELCOATED TO A RELEGATED LOCATION
BETWEEN BLOCKS 6 & 8. ADDITIONAL SCREENING HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE 20'
BUFFER AREA NEAR THE DOG PARK.
3. Is the wooded buffer mentioned in note 2 of Code section 5 the same buffer mentioned in note 3?
✓ COD, SEC V, NOTE 2: HAS BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE THE BUFFER LANGUAGE.
4. Section 5 of the Code, note 2, indicates that residential structures in blocks 4 and 5 will front on internal
streets. Page 1 of the narrative states that townhouses along Three Notch'd Road will front Three Notch'd
Road. Which orientation is proposed? Coordinate the narrative and the Code. If the backs of residences are
oriented towards the EC street, the architectural design of these units will be subject to ARB review and
approval, and the rear elevations will be required to incorporate a level of detail appropriate to the location
on the Entrance Corridor street.
✓ COD, SEC V, NOTE 3: THE NOTES HAVE BEEN REVISED TO CLARIFY THAT DRIVEWAY
ACCESS WILL BE FROM INTERNAL STREETS. THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS IN BLOCKS 4
& 5 THAT ARE FACING THREE NOTHCH'D ROAD WELL REQUIRE ARB REVIEW AND
APPROVAL OF ARCHTI'ECTURAL FEATURES.
Page 4
Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation
See Recommendations below from Tim Padalino, tpadalino@albemarle.org.
• ACPR supports the proposed Green Space and Conservation Areas being dedicated to public use as shown
on the application plan; however, ACPR again recommends that the actual trail facility be provided by the
developer in conjunction with the development of private improvements and uses.
Specifically, ACPR recommends that a greenway trail within the Green Space and Conservation Areas be
constructed by the owner/developer; and be designed and built to Class B - Type 2 "high -maintenance
pedestrian path' per the Trail Standards in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual; and be
constructed, inspected, and accepted prior to owner/developer's dedication of Green Space(s) and/or
Conservation Area(s) to the County for public use.
This position is based on previous interdivisional coordination on this application, as well as general
experience from other residential and mixed -use developments which indicate that the development and
delivery of the trail facility is a critical component of such proposed public uses.
✓ C-104 & PROFFERS: THE OWNER HAS DECIDED TO PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN PATH AND
THE CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN AND PROFFERS.
Page 5
RWSA
See the following comment from Dyon Vega, RWSA staff. dvega@rivanna.org.
RWSA has reviewed the Old Dominion Village ZMA with the most recent revision dated 3/29/21 and has the
following comments. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP &
ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X-No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
General Comments:
1. Please include RWSA easement with DB and PN on all relevant sheets.
✓ RWSA HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NOT AN EASEMENT ON THESE PARCELS.
Sheet Z-104
1. RWSA requires trees to be out of easement. The current tree buffer zone appears to be within the RWSA
easement.
✓ RWSA HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NOT AN EASEMENT ON THESE PARCELS.
2. Please include easement and show RWSA 16" DI WL on this sheet.
✓ RWSA HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NOT AN EASEMENT ON THESE PARCELS.
3. RWSA is concerned with the proximity of the back of the houses and decks being built to close to the zone
of influence of the WL.
✓ RWSA HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NOT AN EASEMENT ON THESE PARCELS.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Page 6