HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-02-11OWN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
November 6, 2020
First Revision: February 11, 2022
Kelsey Schlein
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Review Comment Letter: ZNM-2020-00012 Montclair (formerly White Gate Village)
Ms. Schlein:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000012 Montclair. We have a number
of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA
request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below:
These comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. At this time, page 45 of the adopted Crozet Master Plan states "Property east of Park Ridge Drive (Tax Map 56
Parcel 91A) is intended to remain rural and undeveloped to help break up the appearance of continuous
development along Three Notch'd Road." The Future Land Use Plan also designates TMP 56-91A as Greenspace.
The project is entirely inconsistent with the adopter Master Plan's future land use recommendations for that
parcel. Unless the current Crozet Master Plan update results in a revised future land use designation on TMP 56-
91A, staff will not recommend approval of the ZMA. Should a new Master Plan be adopted prior to this
application moving forth with public hearings, staff will be able to offer more guidance on the proposed land uses.
First revision: As acknowledged by the applicant, the 2021 Crozet Master Plan has redesignated the future
land use classifications of the properties. The future land use classifications are Neighborhood Density
Residential, Middle Density Residential, and Green Systems. See comment #5 below for additional
information.
2. The application must include a private street authorization request to allow the proposed internal streets to be
private. As currently designed, Private Alley A and B in Blocks 1 and 2 do not meet Subdivision ordinance
requirements for approval (see comment #5 under Application Plan below) or the Neighborhood Model Design
Guidance from the Appendix of the Comprehensive Plan. First revision: Some of the sub -comments below
have been addressed, but a private street authorization request still needs to be submitted by the applicant.
Action on the private street authorization request will occur at time of Planning Commission public
hearing for the ZMA.
i. Per the Subdivision Ordinance, "the term `alley' means a form of vehicular travel way providing access
to the rear and/or side lot line of abutting properties which front along streets. An alley is privately
owned and maintained, is intended to be used primarily by the owners and occupants of the abutting
properties and persons and vehicles providing services to those properties, including emergency services
vehicles, and is not intended for through traffic. An alley is not a `private street."' First revision:
Comment no loner applicable, alleys have been redesigned as private streets on the Application
Plan.
ii. Per Section 14-403 of the Subdivision Ordinance, "each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an
existing or proposed public or private street." No public or private streets are provided for frontage
purposes in Blocks I and 2 and therefore the proposal cannot be subdivided unless all lots have frontage
on a public or private street. First revision: Please provide evidence and information as specified
under Section 14-234(A) and explain how the request meets the findings under Section 14-234 (C)
on a future submittal. Please submit a private street authorization request for the private roads
proposed.
iii. Per the Comprehensive Plan Appendix, "Alleys are apart of a blockpattern, although sometimes only
half of a block is constructed. They are travel ways which help to provide "back access" to buildings and
especially to houses. They are considered to be "secondary" in the sense that the street in front of the
building should provide for parking on -street. They should not be confused with private streets which are
intended to provide primary access to buildings and structures. " First revision: Comment no longer
applicable, alleys have been redesigned as private streets on the Application Plan.
iv. Public streets would better accomplish the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for access management
as stated in Chapter 10 (pages 10.19-10.21). First revision: Applicant is still proposing some internal
private streets. Please provide a private street authorization request. Please provide evidence and
information as specified under Section 14-234(A) and explain how the request meets the findings
under Section 14-234 (C) on a future submittal.
V. Please be conscientious about avoiding the creation of double frontage lots when redesigning the alleys
and streets in Blocks 1 and 2. See Section 14-401 and 14-419 of the Subdivision Ordinance for further
information about double frontage lot requirements. First revision: Per applicant comment response, if
any lots are double frontage at time of site plan review, landscaping will be provided in accordance
with the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance.
The Code of Development (COD) does not mention how bicycle networks will be achieved within and around the
development. Please be aware that the Bike Network implementation strategy specified in the Crozet Master Plan
Appendix and the new street recommended cross section from Chapter 5 of the Crozet Master Plan state 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. First revision: The 2020 Crozet Master Plan identifies internal streets
within this project as "Future Local Streets." Per descriptive text of the Local Street typology on
pages 15-16 of the Master Plan, local streets typically do not need dedicated bicycle facilities due to
low traffic volume and speed. The Application Plan and COD show a 10' wide shared use path
being installed as part of the frontage improvements along Route 240, which is consistent with the
Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Network recommendations from pages 6-7 of the Master Plan.
4. VDOT and County Transportation staff have requested that a turn lane warrant analysis be conducted by the
applicant for Park Ridge Drive and Three Notch'd Road. Please provide this information on a future submittal.
See comments from those reviewers below. Please be aware that pending the review of the turn lane warrant
analyses, staff may find that the application has not mitigate all applicable transportation infrastructure impacts.
Currently, the only transportation improvement proposed with the application is an "approximate 30' wide ROW
reservation" along Three Notch'd Road that includes a 10' multi -use path. See below:
i. The Application Plan should provide more specificity regarding the ROW reservation. Explain why the
reservation is "approximate." When will the ROW reservation occur? First revision: Comment not
fully addressed. The ROW reservation has been revised so that 500 sg.ft. at the intersection of Park
Ridge Drive/Route 240 and 11,600 sq.ft. of ROW reservation is shown alone the property frontage
on Sheet 4 of the Application Plan. However, no notes are provided that indicate when/how the
ROW reservation will occur. Please provide additional information on the timing and mechanism
for the ROW dedication.
ii. Pending turn lane warrant analysis, staff may recommend that the ROW reservation be revised in order to
address traffic generation and street infrastructure improvement needs. First revision: Comment
addressed see attached VDOT comments.
5. The Application Plan or Code of Development need 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.
Net density is calculated by identifying the total acreage of all future land use designations within the
development, and then subtracting the acreage of Greenspace. The remaining acreage figure is the net acreage.
Divide the total number of units proposed by the net acreage figure to obtain the proposed net density. First
revision: The future land use classifications are Neighborhood Density Residential, Middle Density
Residential, and Green Systems. The revised application did not contain an exhibit showing the acreages of
these classifications, and the resulting net acreage available to calculate the permitted density. Please
provide an exhibit showing each future land use classification with an acreage measurement for each. This
is needed to verify that the proposed number of units does not exceed the recommendations of the Crozet
Master Plan.
i. A line should be added to Table C on page 4 of the COD stating the net density in each block, and the
overall net density through the entire project. First revision: Pending review of the net density exhibit
mentioned above, this comment may be addressed once staff can verify that the gross and net
density figures shown in Table C are accurate.
6. There are areas of Preserved Steep Slopes within the development that appear to be impacted by new roads and
lots in Blocks 1, 5, and 6. See Zoning Division comment #20.
i. More information is needed in order for staff to evaluate and verify whether these impacts are permitted.
Consult Section 18-30.7.5 (b)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance for further information. First revision:
Comment stands, applicant must provide justification for the proposed redesignation of Preserved
Steep Slopes. In order to remove land from the Preserved Steep Slopes overlay, the applicant must
submit field run topography demonstrating that the slopes are less than 25%, and this will be
evaluated by the County Engineer (Section 18-30.7.4 (b)(1)(h); Section 18-30.7.6). A written
explanation of the characteristics of the slopes should also be provided that identifies the
characteristics of the existing slopes and how they meet the definition of managed Slopes as opposed
to Preserved Slopes. Characteristics of Managed and Preserved Slopes can be found in Section 18-
30.7.3.
7. New Comment First Revision: Please see Historic Preservation comments regarding the White Gate Farm
house/structure. Per Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that historic resources be preserved.
As defined by the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee and based on criteria of the National
Register of Historic Places, "historic resource" is defined as a place with architectural, engineering,
archaeological, or cultural remains present in districts, sites, buildings, or structures that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
i. It is highly recommended that the White Gate Farm home be preserved and incorporated into the
development, as the date of construction (circa 1875) indicates that it may be eligible for listing in the
State and National Registers. Please work with Historic Preservation staff to document the structures and
property with the assistance of the Historic Preservation Committee.
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
1. Revise the Magisterial District note so that it states White Hall. First revision: Comment addressed.
2. Revise Sheet 2 so that it states all applicable overlay zoning districts. This includes Managed and Preserved Steep
Slopes and Entrance Corridor. First revision: Comment addressed.
3. Regarding Sheet 2: at this time, TMP 56-91A only has `water to existing structures" ACSA utility service. As
stated above, an ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Application will need to be submitted with the next ZMA
submittal, reviewed, and approved by the Board of Supervisors in order to provide water and sewer to the
development. First revision: ACSA202100002 ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Application has been
submitted. David Benish (dbenish(&albemarle.org) is managing review of the application and will provide
comments directly to the applicant.
4. Private streets are proposed to serve new lots in Block 3. This requires Planning Commission approval, per
Section 14-233 (A)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Please submit a private street authorization request in
accordance with Section 14-234 (A). Provide evidence and information as specified under Section 14-234(B) and
explain how the request meets the findings under Section 14-234 (C). First revision: Comment not addressed.
A private street authorization request and supporting documentation has not been submitted. Please
provide evidence and information as specified under Section 14-234(A) and explain how the request meets
the findings under Section 14-234 (C) on a future submittal.
5. Per Section 14-236, the proposed private alleys in Blocks 1 and 2 cannot be authorized by the agent. Per 14-236
(B), The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more alleys in the development areas
when street frontage exists or will be provided for all lots to be served by the alley(s). Currently, all proposed lots
except for the southernmost lots in Blocks 2 do not have frontage on a public or private street and therefore
cannot be subdivided. The proposed alleys cannot be authorized as currently designed. First revision: Comment
no longer applicable, alleys have been redesigned as private streets.
6. Figure A on page 9 shows the landscape buffer along Route 240 being outside of the ROW. Please explain who
will own and maintain the proposed buffer. First revision: Comment addressed.
7. Figure A on page 9 identifies a 10' wide buffer along Route 240 along the road frontage of Blocks 1 and 2.
However, the Neighborhood Model Design Guidance from the Comprehensive Plan Appendix recommends a
vegetated buffer measuring between 30' and 50' along roadways adjacent to the development area boundaries.
The proposed buffer should be widened to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. First revision: Comment
addressed.
8. Planting strips are required within the right-of-way along streets in the Development Areas, per the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The Application Plan does not show planting strips along the proposed private
streets, per the cross-section on Sheet 11. First revision: Comment not fully addressed. As indicated in the
applicant comment response letter, Private Roads A and B still do not show a planting strip. Unless the
applicant requests a waiver to not provide planting strips alone these streets, staff will note the proposed
cross-section as an unfavorable factor. If the applicant does request a waiver, then this should be
incorporated into the private street authorization request materials mentioned in comment #4.
9. On Sheet 8, please show where sidewalks and walking paths will be provided throughout the project. First
revision: Comment addressed.
10. Sidewalks are not shown within Block 1 on Sheet 6 of the Application Plan. This is not consistent with the
Pedestrian Orientation or Multimodal Transportation Opportunities Neighborhood Model Principles. First
revision: Per comments #8 and #4 above, sidewalks are not provided alone private roads A and B. Unless a
waiver for providing sidewalks is requested, this will be noted as an unfavorable factor.
Section 18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments
1. See Housing Planner comments regarding note changes on page 11. First revision: Comment addressed, see
attached no objection from Housing attached to the letter.
2. Remove references from uses that are not permitted in Table A on pages 2 and 3. See Zoning Division
comments. First revision: Comment addressed.
3. Consider adding single-family detached as a permitted use in Table A. This will allow for different residential
uses within the development without having to go through a future rezoning process. It will also make the
application more consistent with the Neighborhood Model Principles regarding a mix of housing types and
affordability. See Zoning Division comments. First revision: Comment partially addressed. The COD has
been revised to allow several dwelling unit types. However, the Application Plan seems to indicate that all
of the units will still be attached single-family. Please provide further clarification on how the developer
will commit to constructing different types of dwelling units within the project.
4. Add Family Day Home as a BR use in any blocks where residential uses are permitted. First revision: Comment
addressed.
5. Delete Public Establishments, General Commercial Service and Institutional from the use table. List uses as they
appear in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. First revision: Comment addressed.
6. Change Tier I and Tier II wireless facilities to not permitted in Block 4. First revision: Comment addressed.
7. Daycare and restaurant are mentioned as potential uses in the narrative but are not listed as BR uses in the use
table. First revision: Comment addressed.
8. A line should be added to Table C on page 4 of the COD stating the net density in each block, and the overall net
density through the entire project. First revision: Comment not fully addressed, see comment #5 under
"General Application Comments" above.
9. See Zoning and ARB comments regarding the building facade examples on Sheet 7. Figure 2 does not include
architectural elements consistent with Neighborhood Model Principles or Entrance Corridor Guidelines and
should be removed from the COD. First revision: Comment addressed, see ARB comments.
10. See Zoning and ARB comments regarding inconsistencies between architectural standard notes and the renderings
provided in the COD. Text under architectural standards should match the images for purposes of clarity. Revise
as recommended by Zoning and ARB staff. First revision: Comment mostly addressed, but please see ARB
comment 42 for wordine revisions needed on pace 6 of the COD.
11. Delete the first two notes under "Fagade Treatments" on page 7. See Zoning and ARB comments for further
information. First revision: Comment addressed.
12. Add minimum and maximum setbacks for accessory structures. See Zoning Division comments. First revision:
Comment not fully addressed, see Zonina comments.
13. It is difficult to ascertain how to apply/enforce the parking standards on page 9 based on the size of the image
provided. Please enlarge the image so staff can verify that the notes and standards for parking are being met
through the current design. See Zoning Division comments. Additionally, perpendicular parking proposed in
Block 1 is not consistent with the Neighborhood Model Guidelines, see the attached Neighborhood Model
Analysis for further information. Further comments on parking standards may be forthcoming pending future
submittal. First Revision: Comment addressed.
14. Provide more details on the size, width, and surface materials of the proposed multi -use path along Route 240. Be
aware that the Crozet Master Plan designates this segment of Route 240 as a Rural Road cross-section, which
requires a walking/biking path along one side of the road. Typically, this is a minimum 10' paved path. First
revision: Comment addressed.
15. Please explain why sidewalks and bike lanes are not provided along Park Ridge Drive. Although Park Ridge
Drive is an existing street, it does not contain sidewalks or bike lanes adjacent to the project. Regarding pedestrian
and bicycle networks in Crozet generally, the Master Plan (page 41) states "For existing neighborhoods, which
have rural section roads, paths are needed to connect neighborhoods to Downtown and to each other." It also
states "Pedestrian and bike linkages to Downtown are especially important, and the Master Plan makes
recommendations for specific improvements to enhance mobility." First revision: Per applicant comment
response letter, the Application Plan does not show sidewalks along Park Ridge Drive because the "Future
Bicycle + Pedestrian Network" map of the Crozet Master Plan does not identify future sidewalks along the
east side of Park Ridge Drive adjacent to the subject properties. Plannine staff conferred with Lone Range
Plannine staff regarding the Master Plan map and this matter, and Lone -Ranee Plannine staff verified
that the future sidewalk connections shown were intended to represent where public capital projects would
be implemented to fill in missine Baps in the pedestrian network. Park Ridge Drive is designated as an
Avenue street typology by the Master Plan. Per the written description of Avenue on imae 15 of the plan,
"Avenues should have dedicated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure." The Application Plan should show
sidewalks along Park Ridge Drive, as this would be required at time of site plan anyway.
a. When "Main Street' is completed (see page 39 of the Crozet Master Plan), Park Ridge Drive will be
connected to downtown. Feasibly, downtown Crozet is within walking distance of downtown. However,
pedestrian and bike facilities are not currently available. Please explain why the application does not
propose bike or pedestrian facilities along Park Ridge Drive. First revision: See comment response
above.
16. Provide more details on the width of the landscaping buffer and proposed landscaping materials that will be
provided in the buffer along Route 240. Be aware that the Neighborhood Model Design Guidance states `A
buffered boundary should consist of a heavily vegetated or landscaped area of 30 — 50 feet alongside the roadway
in the Development Area. This area should screen development, especially if the area would otherwise expose the
sides or rear views of buildings. " Details of proposed landscaping materials and/or other screening measures
should be provided. First revision: Comment partially addressed. See ARB comment 91. Please clarify the
contents of the buffer and reference screening requirements from the Zoning Ordinance in the text/notes
related to the buffer landscaping in the COD.
17. New Comment First Revision: Please see attached Engineering Division comments. The uses permitted in Block
4 should comply with requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance (WPO). Please make the revisions to
Table A as requested by Engineering.
Comprehensive Plan
Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing.
The subject properties are identified as Tax Map Parcels (TMP) 05600-00-00-091AO and 056E0-00-00-00200. Both
properties are located in the Crozet Development Area.
TMP 56-91A measures 12.19 acres and is zoned RA Rural Areas. It is located within the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Portions of the property lie within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District. The property has been known
historically as the White Gate Farm and it is occupied by a two-story single-family detached dwelling measuring
approximately 3,300 sq. ft. The structure is not currently occupied and used as a residence. According to GIS records, the
home was built in 1800.
TMP 56E-2 measures 5.32 acres and is zoned LI Light Industry. It is located within the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Portions of the property lie within the Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Districts. There are no
structures on the property. However, a paved driveway crosses the parcel and is used as a vehicular access way to a
structure on an adjoining property immediately to the south.
The Future Land Use Plan of the Crozet Master Plan designates three future land use classifications on portions of both
parcels:
1. Neighborhood Density Residential;
2. Middle Density Residential;
3. Green Systems.
Neighborhood Density Residential is a low -density land use classification that allow for residential units at densities
between 3-6 units/acre. Housing types include single-family detached, attached, and townhouses. Neighborhood scale
office and retail uses are acceptable as secondary land uses, provided that buildings are designed consistent with the
height & massing recommendations from the land use table on page 10 of the Master Plan.
Middle Density Residential is a low to mid -density land use classification. Recommended density is 6-12 units/acre, and
up to 18 unitstacre if affordable housing (beyond any baseline affordability requirements); or to allow for construction of
small-scale housing types: bungalow courts, small and medium multiplexes, accessory dwelling units, live/work units,
small single-family cottages, and tiny houses. Multiplexes are further defined in the Middle Density Residential section of
the Master Plan Appendix (Appendix pages 20-25). Traditional large -footprint multifamily apartment buildings are not
an acceptable housing type in this classification; multiplexes should be provided consistent with the "Small Multiplex"
and "Medium Multiplex" examples shown on page 21 of the Appendix. Neighborhood scale office and retail uses are
acceptable as secondary land uses, provided that buildings are designed consistent with the height & massing
recommendations from the land use table on page 11 of the Master Plan.
The Green Systems classification applies to areas providing ecosystem and cultural services (including recreation),
critical environmental resources, and areas held in common ownership in existing developments. Privately owned open
space and associated recreational amenities are primary uses allowed within this designation. Any areas within Green
Systems that contain sensitive environmental features such as stream buffers and steep slopes should be preserved in their
natural state.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment
applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code § 18-33.6. This evaluation
will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application moved
forward to public hearings.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Please revise the impacts to schools section of the narrative so that it identifies how many students will be generated by
the development using ACPS multipliers for each dwelling unit type proposed. Since multifamily uses are not permitted,
that row should be removed from the table. If detached single-family dwellings are added as a permitted use to the COD,
add a line and provide the calculation.
Currently, the narrative and application overall do not identify the impacts to school enrollment, and whether anything is
proposed by the applicant to offset enrollment impacts. Staff needs more information and clarify on this.
First revision: Please see the student yield ratios for Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle, and Western
Albemarle High school from the attached 2021 ACPS Subdivision Yield Analysis report:
httys:Hresources.frnalsite.net/images/vl631898706/kl2albemarieore/nxhuwduvwi8718wuvu¢i/ACS SubdivisionAn
alvsis 20210802.pdf
The table can be found on page 28 (page 30 of the online PDF). Staff suggests revising the ZMA narrative to
include a student yield calculation for each school level, and reference that the ratios were obtained from the
official2021 report.
Please be aware that no information has been provided indicating how the applicant intends to offset impacts to
schools. This will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report unless the applicant provides more
information on how school impacts will be offset.
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood
Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. A summary of the relevant principles is provided in an attachment to
this letter.
Community Meeting
Community meeting was held at the January 12, 2022 Crozet Community Advisory Committee meeting.
Department of Community Development — Zoning Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, rraesdale@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
Review not yet complete, comments or approvals from Kevin McDermott, kmcdermottCc�r�,albemarle.org, will be
forthcoming.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — Housing
No objection, see attached comments from Stacy Pethia, spethiaCc�r�,albemarle.org_.
Department of Community Development — Engineering Division
Requested changes, see attached comments from Frank Pohl, fpohl@albemarle.org
Department of Community Development — Planning Division - Natural Resources Manager
No objection, see attached comments from Kim Biasiolli, kbiasiolli@albemarle.org.
Department of Community Development — Planning Division — Historic Preservation
Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org.
Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation
No objection, see attached comments from Tim Padalino, tpadalino@albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue
See attached recommendation from Howard Lagomarsino, hlaeomarsino@albemarle.org.
VDOT
No objection, see attached comment letter from Mawr Greene, max. rg eenegvdot.vir ig nia.gov.
ASCA
Review not yet complete, comments or approvals from Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org, will be forwarded
to the applicant upon receipt.
RWSA
No objection, see attached comments from RWSA staff.
Action after Receipt of Comments
Applicant requested deferral of action on the application on November 9, 2020, in accordance with Section 18-33.52 (A)
of the Zoning Ordinance. Deferral was granted and final Board action must occur on or before September 21, 2023.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. Fees are required with each subsequent submittal.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blangille@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
L4,
Cameron Langille
Principal Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, February W, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Rebecca Ragsdale --2 FdDD Zonina 7,] Requested Changes
Page: 11County of Albemarle Printed On: 02/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, January 07, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Margaret Maliszewski
CDD ARB Requested Changes
1. Clarify the code and plan to show that the landscape buffer along Rt. 240 will be a substantial screening buffer with planting
exceeding the requirements of 32.7.9.7 and subject to ARB approval. The buffer will include a mix of trees and shrubs,
evergreen and deciduous, in an informal arrangement.
2. With a substantial screening buffer, the revisions made regarding building fagade change in plane are sufficient. However,
the use of the term "building fagade" at the end of the paragraph under "Form, Massing, and Proportion of Structures" on page
6 of the code should be clarified. Is "townhouse block" a more accurate tern?
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 02l02l2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, December 09, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Stacy Pethia ] Housina Department No Objection
Page: 11County of Albemarle Printed On: 02l02l2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, January 07, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: I Frank Pohl CDD Engineering Requested Changes
Engineering Comment:
Allowed uses and activities within the stream buffer are indicated in Chapter 17, Article VI, Stream Buffers. Storage buildings
are not allowed within stream buffers according to Article VI. I recommend eliminating the Block 4 column from the table and
adding a note stating that Block 4 uses and activities are listed in Chapter 17 Article VI and such uses and activities are also
by -right zoning uses. Or something to that effect.
Page: 11County of Albemarle Printed On: 02/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, January W, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kimbery Biasioli CDD Planning No Objection
Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 02/11/2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, January 28, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Historic Preservation Requested Changes
I ne property contains vvnne irate rarm, a nouse constructed ca. 1t5rb and remodeled and enlarged in me mus, ana a
number of outbuildings dating to ca. IW6-1916. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not yet evaluated this
property in terms of eligibility for listing in the State and National Registers, but the dates of construction and the survey notes
(attached) suggest that the buildings may have significance. Retaining the historic resources and making them an integral part
of the new development would align with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving Albemarle's historic resources. Aerial
views suggest that the structures have been allowed to deteriorate. The structures and the property should be fully documented
(a comp plan strategy), by or with the assistance of the Historic Preservation Committee, as soon as possible.
Page: 1County of Albemarle Printed On: 02l02l2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, January 07, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Tim Padalino Parks No Objection
Page: 11 � County of Albemarle Printed On: 02l02l2022
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, January W, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Howard Lagomarsino Fire Rescue No Objection
No Objection to Zoning Map Amendment, however, though not necessary to address at this stage of submission, to help in
planning future steps for this project, here are some points of concern for ACFR looks at reviewingfuture steps of projects,
especially at the site plan phase:
1) To accommodate emergency/fire vehicle access, emergency vehicle access road(s)/route(s) are required and arranged so
that they provide access to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and/or all portions of the exterior walls of
the first story of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the buildings or facility from the road.
2) An emergency/fire vehicle access road/route needs to provide an unobstructed travel way width of 20 ft. if
buildings/structures are under 30 feet tall and 26 ft. if buildings/structures are over 30 feet tall. No patrking signs are required
as appropropriate to prevent parked vehicles from encroaching the required travel way width.
3) An emergency/fire vehicle access road/route needs to provide a suitable surface to sustain the weight of emergency
apparatus weighing up to 85,000 lbs. in all weather conditions.
4) Emergency/fire vehicle access roads need to be clear of overhead obstructions at 13 ft 6 in. and below
5) To accommodate fire apparatus, turn radii serving fire apparatus access roads generally require a minimum of 25 ft. based
on the largest piece of fire apparatus expected to respond.
6) To ensure that parking does not obstruct the emergency apparatus travel way as described above, any parking must be
designed to and/or no parking signs are required to maintain the required unobstructed travel way widths.
7) Any dead-end longer than 150 ft requires an approved turn around for emergency apparatus.
8)It is desired the road grade does not exceed 10 %.
9) Provide a note on the plans of the required ISO fire calculation for the buildings.
10) Indicate on the plan the latest ACSW flow test to ensure adequate fire flow per calculation in comment # 9.
11) Provide the locations of fire hydrants as determined by calculations in # 9, with spacing in accordance with the required
fire flow calculation (This starts at 500 feet and arranged so that no building is more than 250 feet from a hydrant, but the
distances are further reduced as the required fire flow increases).
12) In areas without buildings, then hydrant spacing is required every 1000 ft to accommodate transportation emergencies.
13) If not within the ACSW service area, provide a note identifying location of closest water source suitable for emergency/fire
apparatus operations
14) Fire suppression, fire alerting systems and other building design features, such as exits, interior finishes, building access
etc., are the purview of the building official and required as directed by that office.
15) If fire suppression systems or standpipes are installed the FDC must face the road, on address side and there needs to be
hydrant within 100 ft. of the FDC, arranged so that when hydrant and FDC are in use for emergency operations, hose does
not obstruct travel way. The threads for the appliances (FDC, etc) must conform to C & 0 standard.
16) During construction, the following fire prevention steps are required, so please note them on the plan
a) Smoking shall be prohibited in areas where smoking makes conditions such as to make smoking a hazard and these
areas shall be designated with no smoking signs per Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code.
b) Areas where smoking can occur, shall have appropriate receptacles for discarded smoking materials per Virginia
Statewide Fire Prevention Code.
c) Per the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, vehicular access for firefighting shall be provided at all construction
and demolition sites, provide access to within 100 ft. of temporary or permanent fire department connections, and
have no overhead wiring or other overhead obstructions lower than 13 ft. 6 inches; this access may be via
permanent or temporary road, but shall be capable of supporting fire apparatus in all weather conditions.
.1\ f`nnlranlnr nholl nncurn N.n nlrnnf noml.nra- — -6-- nlninF..uniK" f— N _ fr-M—'+—M A.."— nnnn}mMinn nnr V
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 02/02/2022
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
December 21, 2021
Cameron Langille
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA-2020-00012 — White Gate Village
Dear Mr. Langille:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786-2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced White Gate Village, as submitted by Shimp
Engineering, dated November 17, 2021 and find it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for ZMA202000012
Project Name: WHITE GATE VILLAGE - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, January W, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Victoria Fort � RWSA No Objection
Page: 11County of Albemarle Printed On: 02l02l2022
Resubmittal of information for=��°F"`R
Zoning Map Amendment
��RGIN�I'
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,958
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THIN RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,479
❑
4% Technology surcharge
$59.16
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$1 538.16
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $4,141
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$2,070
❑
4% Technology surcharge
$82.80
TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE
$2,152.80
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$237 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.19 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
avera es between $150 and $250
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt # Ck# By:
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 7/1/2021 Page 1 of 1