HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202200002 Correspondence 2022-09-20County Comments
Easton Porter Responses
Plannina — General ZMA and SP Comments
1) Update the project narrative and concept plan with the assigned project numbers,
ZMA2022-00001 and SP2022-00002.
These have been adjusted.
2) Because these two applications are related, it is recommended that the narratives for the
ZMA and the SP be combined into one narrative that covers both applications. (Staff recognizes
that it appears both narratives already are largely similar; however, confirm that there is one
narrative, and include both project application numbers in the narrative.) One difference I
noticed is the inclusion of a section about proffers in the ZMA narrative that was not in the SP
narrative. Also, revise that statement to reference the rezoning application, not the special use
permit. (Proffers are not provided for special use permits.)
We are no longer seeking ZMA 2022-00001.
3) In the narrative and on the concept plans, provide more information on what is proposed for
the existing non -historic house on TMP 87-4. What will this structure be used for? Or any
changes or additions proposed for it?
TMP 87-4 is no longer included in the plan.
4) Is there a recorded easement for the entrance into the historic tavern, as it appears the
entrance is actually located on the parcel of the Pippin Hill Vineyard? A boundary line
adjustment plat should be considered to ensure the entrance is on the same property as the
tavern and inn.
The BFCA (Bundoran Farm Community Association) & EPG are both aware of a recorded
easement for the entrance to the Inn. However, EPG does not hold this easement in hand.
5) A landscaping/vegetative buffer is appropriate for the area along the common boundary line
with TMP 87-513 to the north/northeast, in order to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed
use, including the northernmost cottages, the connector road with Pippin Hill, the drain field, and
the solar array, on the neighboring property owner. The proposed road appears to be right on
the property line. Staff will likely propose a condition of the special use permit to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors requiring some sort of buffer along this common property
line.
We will share the current state of our Viewshed Analysis for sitelines on the remaining items in
the site plan listed above.
6) Although staff appreciates the proposal to plant additional landscaping along the south side of
Plank Road, across the street from the tavern, to enhance the Entrance Corridor, it is
recommended that those proposed landscaping areas be removed from the concept plan. It can
be difficult for the County to ensure compliance on a separate property that is not under
common ownership with the parcels subject to this special use permit.
These plantings have been removed from the site plan.
7) Are bollards or a gate proposed for the connector road between the tavern/inn property and
the vineyard property?
As this connecting road and path is subject to BFCA approval, we wiil work with both parties to
decide what would be most appropriate. We are open to bollards or a gate.
8) In the legend on the "proposed site plan" sheet of the concept plan, there is a reference to
"VDOTowned land." Clarify where this portion of the property is and what its boundaries are.
This has been removed form the site plan.
9) Identify the eastern entrance into the property (closest to the intersection with Route 29) as
an emergency entrance only to clarify that guests will not be using that entrance. (in addition, all
entrances must be approved by VIDOT at the site planning stage.)
An Employee Only Entry has been notated. Additionally, it is a one way entrance only.
10) In either the section on public facilities and infrastructure or the section on public health,
safety, and welfare, include a section about any potential impacts to policing services. Also, it is
recommended that it be more clearly stated that this is a commercial use, so impacts to public
school capacity are not expected.
We have added verbiage to the narrative.
11) Since this property is designated as Rural Areas in the County's Comprehensive Plan, it is
recommended that the section of the project narrative that discusses consistency with the comp
plan include a section that specifically references how this proposal supports the goals and
objectives of the Rural Areas chapter (chapter 7) of the Comp Plan. Commercial uses in the
Rural Areas should support agricultural and forestry services and products. It appears there is
already some discussion on this topic in the last sentence of that section, where it is stated that
the inn and tavern will support horticultural activities, wine -making, organic gardening, and other
ag-forestal type uses. It is recommended that this section be further expanded.
This section has been expanded.
12) Advisory Comment: There are areas of critical slopes on these parcels. These slopes
cannot be disturbed. Staff recognizes that it does not appear that they are being disturbed
based on review of the concept plan, but it is important to keep in mind.
13) Advisory Comment: Review Section 18-5.1.61 of the Zoning Ordinance
(https://Iibrary.municode.com/va/albemarle — county/codes/code — of — ordinances?nodeld=CH1 8Z
O—A RTIIBARE—S5SURE—S5.lSURE—S5.1.61 HIRETAIN). This proposed use will be subject tc
these supplementary regulations.
14) Advisory Comment: Review Section 18-10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
(https://Iibrary.municode.com/va/albemarle — county/codes/code — of — ordinances?nodeld=CH1 8Z
O—A RTIIIDIRE_S1 ORUARDIA—Sl OAARBURE). This section includes area and bulk
regulations for the Rural Areas zoning district. This proposed use will be subject to these
regulations.
15) Advisory Comment: The two parcels of this application may need to be combined into one
parcel with a boundary line adjustment plat at the site planning stage to ensure all design
criteria and regulations are met. Easements and shared use agreements may be required if they
are not combined. Removing the common property line would also help with setback
requirements, since there would be no property line down the middle of the property.
We are no longer seeking ZMA 2022-00001.
16) Advisory Comment: A full list of proposed conditions for the special use permit will be
provided prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Conditions are included to mitigate
potential impacts of the project on neighboring properties and infrastructure.
17) Advisory Comment: A community meeting with nearby residents and property owners is
required prior to public hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Such a community meeting is currently scheduled for April 4, 2022. Additional comments may
be provided based on the discussion and feedback from that meeting.
18) Advisory Comment: These properties are adjacent to an agricultural -forestal district. TMP
86-27 (owned by Boaz Mountain, LLC), which is across Plank Road to the south of the subject
parcels, is located within the Hardware Agricu Itu ral- Forestal District (AFD). It has been
determined that it is likely that these applications will need to be taken before the
Agricultural -Forestal District Advisory Committee for that body's review to determine whether the
proposed use will have an impact on the AFD. Staff will keep you informed of when this meeting
is scheduled. Scott Clark, Senior Planner 11 (sclark@albemarle.org), is the secretary of the AFD
committee and can assist with questions about this meeting.
19) Advisory Comment: These properties are located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. If the Board of Supervisors approves these applications, the site plans will need to be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
20) Advisory Comment: Site plans and VSMP plans will be required at the site development
stage if these applications are 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.
21) Advisory Comment: Review by the Zoning division is pending. Additional comments from the
Planning division may be provided once comments from Zoning have been received. Planning
Division — Transportation, Community Development Department No objections at this time.
Transportation Planning reviewer Kevin McDermott, Planning Manager,
kmcdermott@albemarle.org. Planning Division —Architectural Review Board (ARB), Community
Development Department Please see the comments below that have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Planning Manager), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org:
1. Revise the plans to correctly identify the summer kitchen.
This has been identified.
2. Provide documentation from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that the proposed
development will not negatively impact listing in the state or national registers.
Hi Matt and Colleagues:
Thanks for taking time to answer our questions. Mike Clem (DHR Archaeologist) and I looked
over the answers and we appreciate the detail and care taken in considering our questions. It is
our opinion that the project, as described, will not cause DHR to consider the delisting of the
Crossroads Tavern. Matt has added some interesting information for the file. We will keep
documents that Matt has shared in our Archives for future reference (in the Crossroads Tavern
file). The 1984 nomination was "state of the art" for its time, but nominations can be updated to
refiect updated scholarship. We know that updating the nomination is not part of the due
diligence process for the property improvements, but if there is an opportunity, new scholarship
should be incorporated into an updated nomination (officially —the update is called Additional
Documentation by the National Park Service).
- Marc Wagner, Friday, May 20th, 2022 in an email.
3. Describe how the design of the new cottages will maintain compatibility with the historic
structures without confusing new construction with old.
Cosmetically, the cottages will harken to the time period of original construction. However,
structurally, they will be completely modern, including the materials used.
4. Consider implementing educational tools for guests to explain which buildings are historic and
which are not.
Plaques & other educational tools will be used to mark historic areas vs. new construction.
5. Describe how the porte-cochere will be designed to achieve an appropriate form and scale
for the historic buildings and setting.
The porte cochere situated just north of the historic Inn, will serve as an architectural welcome
mat for guests arriving at the Crossroads Tavern and Inn as well as protect them from inclement
weather.
Its design, an open post and beam structure screened with partially trellised panels and roof
lines supporting flowering vines, will straddle the entry way and is intended to take on the form
of a diaphanous edifice offering dappled light, shadow, fragrance and color.
It is important that the form and detailing of the Porte Cochere is consistent with the character of
the existing architectural ensemble, yet be subordinate in scale. By carefully referencing the
hierarchy of structures and utilizing dissimilar materials and contemporary design details we will
ensure that guests and visitors are not confused that this intervention was constructed during
the period of historical significance of the Inn and Meeting House