HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200800001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2008-09-16�� OF ALg�
� rIRGINI�r.:
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
From: John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration
Date: September 16, 2008
Subject: ZMA- 2008 -1 East Pantops Complex
Revision of Comments dated March 4, 2008
These comments address the plan revised on August 18, 2008. These comments may be
revised after further review and discussion with other staff.
1. The Zoning Division defers to the opinion of the Planning Division regarding the
appropriateness of this rezoning.
2. Section 24.2.2.14 may require a special permit if the demand for water and sewer
exceeds the specified standards. The site is determined to be the 9.06 acres
designated as the Proposed Hotel Site on Sheet 3. This comment has not been
addressed. This must be addressed at the rezoning stage.
(24.2.2.14) Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added
6- 14 -89)
3. The staff report should provide guidance in the event that a use other than hotel
permitted in the HC district and not proffered out is proposed for the site in the future.
The following comments address what are primarily site plan issues.
The plan appears to require a waiver for the disturbance of critical slopes. It is
recommended that this be handled at the rezoning stage. A request for the
modification has been submitted.
2. In the notes on the application plan indicate that Parcel 33 is in the Flood Hazard
Overlay District.
3. Provide separate setbacks for the commercial property and the RA property. The
commercial setback must include the 20 -foot parking setback adjacent to the RA
property.
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder \26606.docPage 1 of 2
4. The proposed hotels have a total of 200 rooms. The ordinance requires 200 spaces
for this use assuming there is not a conference center or restaurant. Section 4.12.4 (a)
requires that parking can not exceed the required number of spaces by more than 20
percent. This must be addressed at the site plan stage.
5. Section 21.4 requires that the hotel(s) must be set back an additional 2 feet for every
foot of height above 35 feet from the yard adjacent to the street right of way and the
RA district.
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder \26606.docPage 2 of 2
*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 7 Mar 2008
Rev. 1: 30 Apr 2008
Rev.2: 15 Sep 2008
Subject: East Pantops Complex (ZMA200800001, SP200800001 -2)
The rezoning plan with accompanying special use permits has been reviewed. The following comments
are offered for your use;
1. A preliminary grading plan should be provided. The impacts of this development are very dependent
on this plan.
Rev. 1: The grading on the plan is incomplete. Grading is not shown for all improvements.
Rev.2: The grading plan appears to be complete. There are no comments on the current grading plan.
2. A waiver to develop on areas of critical slope needs to be requested. Portions of this plan do not look
possible without such a waiver.
Rev. 1: The critical slopes analysis cannot be reviewed until complete grading information is provided,
and stream buffer disturbances are minimized.
Rev.2: The remaining critical slope disturbances appear acceptable. There are no engineering
concerns which prohibit approval of the critical slopes waiver by the Planning Commission.
3. Stream buffer impacts must be shown and preliminary mitigation proposals made. It appears that in
some cases buffer disturbance are not necessary for reasonable use of the site. Only the entrance itself
appears necessary. Please correct the buffer lines shown on the plan to be measured 100' from the top
of each stream bank.
Rev. 1: The stream buffer on the east side is still shown incorrectly. No preliminary mitigation
proposals have been received. It appears buffer disturbances could be further minimized by
realignment of the road. It is not clear whether the extent of proposed buffer disturbance could be
mitigated.
Rev.2: A mitigation plan will be required prior to final site plan approvals.
4. The right -in- right -out proposal in the entrance does not appear workable without also closing the
median on Rt. 250. Unfortunately, this concept presents significant difficulties for vehicles wishing to
go west out of the site. There is no convenient place for a u -turn.
Rev. 1: The proposed road entrance appears too close to Rt. 64 for adequate operation according to
VDOT standards. VDOT has indicated a right -in right -out is acceptable, although the crossover
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 3
spacing does not meet standard. This sets up a u -turn at the Jarman's entrance. It is my contention
that this will not function adequately unless the cross -over is closed. Drivers will recognize that there
is less risk crossing traffic for a short distance at the entrance, than crossing traffic for a longer distance
to make the u -turn. In other words, crossing traffic to make a u -turn at the Jarman's entrance is no
better than just making a left from this entrance. There does not appear to be a good solution for an
entrance in this location.
Rev.2: This issue remains essentially the same. An entrance in this location present difficulties for
westbound vehicles.
5. It appears grading will require a special use permit for fill in the floodplain. This should be provided
with the rezoning, or the tennis courts and soccer fields relocated.
Rev. 1: The stormwater management facility is shown in the floodplain. Please move this facility out
of the floodplain.
Rev.2: The current plan does not show any improvements in the floodplain. This comment is
addressed.
6. A traffic study appears necessary. The traffic generation table provided is not sufficient to assess the
impacts from the site. The applicant will need to follow the VDOT 527 regulations. Improvements
on Rt. 250 may be necessary. Impacts to the interchange seem likely.
Rev. 1: A traffic study was not received.
Rev.2: The currently proposed traffic does not meet the thresholds for a study. This comment has
been addressed.
7. The proposed entrance to the parking area appears too close to the entrance on Rt. 250. Left turning
vehicles may interfere with entering traffic.
Rev. 1: The entrance to the HC parcel is still proposed too close to the road intersection.
Rev.2: The turn was removed, and this comments is addressed.
8. Conceptual stormwater management and water quality are needed. The reserved area shown on the
plan does not appear adequate to serve the majority of the site. Preliminary removal rate computations
should be performed for drainage areas on the site, and a conceptual plan prepared with this
information as a guide.
Rev. 1: Preliminary removal rate computations were not received. The tennis courts, roadway and trail
head parking areas do not appear to be treated.
Rev.2: The current concept appears adequate.
9. A Tier 3 or 4 groundwater study appears necessary with the future subdivision and site plans. It is
recommended this information be provided with the proposed rezoning.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 3
Rev. 1: Groundwater information was not received.
Rev.2: Please refer to comments by the Groundwater Manager.
10. The plan needs to specify whether public or private roads are proposed. If private, planning
commission authorization should be requested according to the subdivision ordinance.
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. Public roads are proposed.
Rev.2: comment addressed.
Further comments may be necessary upon revision. There was not enough information supplied with this
application for a complete review.
file: E2 _zma_GEB_EastPantopsComplex.doc
Phone (434) 296 -5832
�� OF ALBS,
�'IRGI1�1�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
MEMORANDUM
Fax (434) 972 -4126
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: September 3, 2008
RE: ZMA -08 -01 and SP- 2008 -01: East Pantops Complex — Athletic Facility
I have reviewed the revised plans (dated 8/18/08) submitted for the above - referenced proposal.
Regarding impacts to the Entrance Corridors:
1. The applicant has provided site sections to help clarify the anticipated visibility of the proposed
buildings from the Entrance Corridors and has suggested that existing wooded areas will screen
most of the proposed buildings from most views. However, it appears that the hotel will be visible
from Route 250 at the entrance into the site, and when the parcels adjacent to Route 250 develop,
wooded areas will be removed and clear views of the hotels and views of the athletic facility will
become available.
2. Because there will be some visibility of the proposed buildings, the size of the athletic facility and
the orientation of the hotels could have negative impacts on the ECs. No information has been
submitted regarding the architectural design of any of the proposed buildings. As such, it is not
possible to determine the full extent of impacts on the Entrance Corridor. However, it is anticipated
that athletic facility will utilize rooftop mechanical equipment. Visible rooftop equipment will not
meet the EC Guidelines.
3. The site currently has a wooded, rural appearance that establishes a strong character and a positive
appearance on the Entrance Corridors. The extensive grading and tree removal in the proposed
development, even with minimally visible buildings, will alter this character. It is not possible to
determine from the information submitted that the proposal will be appropriate for the ECs.
4. The landscaping shown on the concept plan, though revised from the last submittal, is still subject
to ARB review.
Regarding impacts to historic and cultural resources:
The concept plan has not been revised to include the location and identification of all cultural resources
on and near the site. Consequently, the full impact of the proposed development on these resources
cannot be determined at this time. Generally, it is anticipated that the proposed development will
negatively impact at least some of these resources. The applicant has proffered a Phase 1
archaeological survey prior to final site plan approval. This timing is too late and limiting the work to a
Phase 1 survey does not allow for appropriate work based on Phase 1 findings. It is recommended that
a survey of historic and cultural resources be conducted, with resources located on the proposed
development plan, during the rezoning review stage, so that staff may fully asses the extent of impacts
of the proposal on existing resources. A proffer regarding additional architectural and archaeological
survey and documentation will be appropriate, but the proposed proffer is not adequate.
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
September 17, 2008
Kirsten Munz
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson St.
Charlottesville VA 22902
Re: ZMA 2008 - 00001, SP2008 -00001 East Pantops
Dear Kirsten:
Thank you for your recent resubmittal of the rezoning and special use permit applications for the East
Pantops Complex.
This letter contains reviewer comments on the August 18, 2008 submission of the plans for these two
applications.
Please respond no later than September 22 so that we can discuss the next steps —by that date, we need to
know if you intend to submit revisions on an upcoming submission date, or proceed to a Planning
Commission hearing (no earlier than October 14).
COMMENTS
Planning – Rural Areas (Scott Clark)
In overall scale, while some uses have been removed or reduced, this submission does not vary
significantly from the proposal that went to the March 25, 2008 work session with the Planning
Commission. Please see the attached "Excerpt from Final Planning Commission Action Memo,
March 25, 2008," which summarizes the Commission's reaction to the proposals. A rezoning to
Highway Commercial is not appropriate under the Comprehensive Plan policies outlined in the
work - session staff report. The Commission was willing to consider a commercial recreation
facility if the scale was reduced. Although some facilities have been removed, the proposed facility
is still too large and intense to be appropriate in the Rural Areas.
The remainder of the comments on these applications relate to details of the plan. However, even
if those individual concerns are addressed, staff recommendation on the project's overall character
will not change, based on what is proposed in this submission.
• A detail question about the sports facility —is the interior a single floor? Is the height necessary to
accommodate soccer and lacrosse, or will there be basement or additional floors for offices or
other uses? In general, overall scale is more of a concern than interior design, but it would be
helpful to understand what is driving the vertical size of the building.
• Although it appears that sewage issues are being worked out with the Health Department, the issue
of water supply and water usage still needs to be addressed. Please also see comments below from
Josh Rubinstein.
• It appears that Tamara Ambler's comments regarding piping of the stream by the entrance have
been noted but not responded to.
• The proposed plan for the rezoning shows a hotel, but the proffers would permit a wide variety of
uses with very different impacts. The proffers should be revised to permit only the intended uses,
and the application should include impact estimates (water use /demand, septic capacity,
road/traffic impacts, visibility, stormwater impacts, building sizes /footprints, etc.) for each use, so
that the maximum impact can be calculated. Also, showing a specific use and design on the
application plan but permitting other uses would cause difficulties for future site plans.
• Please see the attached "Sample Proffer Form for Format" and "Sample Language for Road -
construction Proffers" for the correct formatting for the next proffer submission. Proffers need to
be properly formatted and reviewed by the County Attorney's office before any public hearing.
Planning – Groundwater (Josh Rubinstein)
The County's well data base has a single well on the portion of the parcel requested to be rezoned.
This well yields three (3) gallons per minute (gpm). The range of yields for wells in the data base
that are within a half mile of the parcel is two (2) to thirty (30) gpm. Estimates of water useage and
an analysis of water availability are needed to evaluate whether or not the site can support the
proposed usees.
If the proposed HC rezoning is approved, any use above 400 gallons per site -acre day would
require a Special Use permit under section 24.2.2(14) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning – Design/Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski)
• See attached comments.
Zoning (John Shepherd)
• See attached comments.
Current Development – Site Planning (Bill Fritz)
• See attached comments.
County Engineer (Glenn Brooks)
• See attached comments.
Virginia Department of Transportation (Joel Denunzio)
• See previous comments regarding entrance design and traffic issues.
Virginia partment of Health (Bill Craun)
0 I received the revised preliminary feasibility report and generally, there appears to be sufficient
area for drain fields to support the development. However, all the potential areas that were
discussed in the engineering report were not shown on the plat submitted by Collins.
• I would suggest an overlay of all the available drain field areas with the proposed buildings and
parking areas. There was only one 2 acre drain field area shown and it appeared to have a major
power line easement running through the middle.
• I have spoken with the project engineers and they know that this is going to be what the health
department calls a mass drain field and before a permit is issued, water mounding studies, deep
soil borings, nitrate analysis, monitoring wells and other geological investigations are going to
have to be conducted.
Before any of this however, we will call for a preliminary engineering conference with health
department engineers to make sure nothing has been overlooked.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Excerpt from Final Planning Commission Action Memo, March 25, 2008
In summary, a work session was held by the Planning Commission on East Pantops Complex for four
connected applications on the following: a zoning map amendment to rezone from RA, Rural Areas to HC,
Highway Commercial; and three special use permits for: Swim, Golf, Tennis or similar athletic facility
(section 10.2.2.4, reference 5.1.16); Display Parking in the Entrance Corridor (30.6.3.2(b)); and Additional
Development Rights (10.2.2 (28)) and 10.5.2.1). In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the proposals.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made
comments and suggestions. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken.
The Planning Commission made the following comments regarding the questions posed by staff:
Does the Commission feel that the requested rezoning (ZMA- 2008 - 00001) from RA to HC is
appropriate in this location under the Comprehensive Plan?
It was the consensus of the majority of the Commission (with the exception of Ms. Porterfield) that the
requested rezoning from RA to HC is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and not appropriate
in this location. Some Commissioners said that such a proposal should not be considered without an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. There was no indication by the Commissioners that a
comprehensive plan amendment would be appropriate for this area. Staff indicated that the next
opportunity for applicant submission of a Comprehensive Plan amendment application would be
September, 2008.
If the property was to be rezoned, Ms. Porterfield noted her preference might be LI. She said that
consideration should be given to the fact that the property was located at the intersection of Route 250
and I -64 that today did not appear to be rural in relation to other nearby properties.
2. Does the Commission feel that an athletic facility (as proposed in SP- 2008 - 00001) is appropriate in
this location under the Comprehensive Plan?
It was the general consensus of the majority of the Commission (with the exception of Ms. Porterfield)
that the athletic facility (as proposed in SP- 2008 - 00001) is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission did note that an athletic facility of a smaller scale and size might be appropriate. But,
the Commission would need to know a lot more about the impacts of that facility in this location if it
was going to proceed as a special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield stated that she would like to see the proposal fully developed so that the Planning
Commission actually had something to look at, such as plans, size, what the building is going to look
like, etc. She felt there is a real advantage for the Albemarle community to have the facility in this
location because of I -64 access.
3. Does the Commission feel that granting additional development rights (as proposed in SP -2008-
00006) is appropriate under the Comprehensive Plan?
It was the consensus of the full Commission that granting additional development rights (as proposed in
SP- 2008 - 00006) is not appropriate under the Comprehensive Plan.
Sample Proffer Form for Format
Original Proffers
Amendment
[THE "ORIGINAL PROFFERS" LINE SHOULD BE MARKED WITH AN "X" IF THESE
PROFFERS ARE THE FIRST PROFFERS TO BE APPLIED TO THE LAND UNDER ITS
PROPOSED ZONING; THE "AMENDMENT" LINE SHOULD BE MARKED WITH AN "X"
ONLY IF THESE PROFFERS AMEND EXISTING PROFFERS AND THE ZONING DISTRICT
DESIGNATION IS NOT BEING CHANGED]
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. [INSERT ZMA NUMBER ISSUED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT]
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): [INSERT 14 -DIGIT TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER OF
EACH PARCEL OR PORTION THEREOF BEING REZONED; IF PORTION OF PARCEL
BEING REZONED, NOTE THAT IT IS A PORTION, E.G., "(portion) "]
Owner(s) of Record: [INSERT NAMES OF OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL PARCELS,
EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR ON RECORD INSTRUMENTS]
Date of Proffer Signature: [INSERT DATE THE PROFFERS ARE SIGNED]
[INSERT ACREAGE] acres to be rezoned from [INSERT CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT] to
[INSERT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT]
, is the owner (the "Owner ") of Tax Map and Parcel
Number [INSERT 14 -DIGIT TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER] (the "Property ") which is the
subject of rezoning application ZMA No. [INSERT ZMA NUMBER ISSUED BY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT], a project known as "[INSERT NAME OF PROJECT]" (the "Project ").
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning
district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner
acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
1. The use of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section 24.2.1 (5), . .
. [insert all subsection references], the uses otherwise allowed by right under Section 24.2.1(1), .. .
[insert all subsection references] which shall be permitted only by a special use permit, and the uses
allowed by special use permit under Section 24.2.2, of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County,
Virginia as those Sections are in effect on [insert date of approval of ZMA by BOS], copies of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. [Proffer 2 (road improvements) needs to be completely revised using standard proffer
language — key elements are the extent of the road improvements, the timing for starting the
improvements, and the completion of the improvements; Proffer 2B does not appear to be necessary
because internal access would be provided as part of the site plan process — check with Current
Development); here are some examples:
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for housing units in the project, the owner shall construct the
following improvements to the satisfaction of the County Engineer:
1. Re -grade the ditch/shoulder(approximately 180') from [describe fixed locations or show on the
application plan to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road.
2. Install a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch around the
pipe, as necessary.
3. Regrade the ditch /shoulder in front of Claudius Crozet Park (approximately 650') [describe fixed
locations or show on the application plan] to assure a a minimum 1.5 -foot shoulder width, and 2-
feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch.
Improvements shall be made by the owner, prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for any
improvements thereon.
Frontage Improvements. Contemporaneously with, and as part of, frontage improvements along Scottsville
Road (Rt. 20) and Old Lynchburg Road required in connection with any subdivision plat or site plan for the
Property, the Owner shall construct such turn lanes and improvements to the horizontal alignment, vertical
alignment and cross - section of Scottsville Road (Rt. 20) and Old Lynchburg Road as reasonably necessary to
provide safe and convenient access to Biscuit Run; provided, however, that the Owner's responsibility under
this Proffer 6E shall be limited to the extent of the Property's frontage only, and shall be contingent, as
applicable, on provision of adequate off -site right of way and easements without expense to the Owner.
Improvements constructed in accordance with this Proffer 6F shall be designed and constructed to applicable
VDOT standards, including, without limitation, VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Collector
road (GS -3) and VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Minor Arterial road (GS -21. as such
standards may be amended from time to time.
The Owner shall design, construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following:
The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the
Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT "). All of the foregoing
improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the
Owner, the County and VDOT. Except for Meeting Street and Town Center Drive, the road plans will be
submitted to VDOT and the County with the first site plan or subdivision plat, and will be constructed and
accepted by VDOT within two years from the date of approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat, except
as described in paragraph F below:
A. A continuous right turn lane on Route 29 southbound from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the
southern boundary of Area A.
B. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of the PD -MC zoning
boundary at Powell Creek.
C. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the northern boundary of Area A, such that
Meeting Street will have two northbound and two south bound travel lanes, one northbound and one
southbound bicycle lane. Initially, one lane in each direction will [CAO: This should be changed to "may" to
provide flexibility just in case circumstances change.] be utilized as on street parking.
D. An entrance to Route 29 southbound (right in/ right out only) in the area to the south of building B, as
shown on the Development Plan.
E. Town Center Drive from the Western Boundary of Area B to Route 606. This section of Town Center
Drive shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes, with a cross section approved by the County and
VDOT in a minimum 60 -foot wide right -of -way.
F. Within one year after the date of approval of this rezoning, the following streets shall be constructed and
offered for acceptance for public maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation:
Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the northern boundary of Area A
(Paragraph C, above).
Town Center Drive from the western boundary of Area B to Route 606 (Paragraph E, above).
3 [Proffer 3 (Phase I archaeological survey) needs to be revised; here are some examples:
Archaeological Survey. Prior to commencing land disturbance within any area depicted in red on Exhibit
C hereto (collectively, the "Potential Resource Sites "), the following investigations shall be made as
indicated: (a) for Potential Resource Sites labeled as "Phase I Survey" on Exhibit C, systematic shovel
testing of low relief landforms with archeological potential that will be impacted by the proposed
development, and (b) for Potential Resource Sites labeled as "Archeological Reconnaissance" on Exhibit
C, pedestrian survey and visual inspection of various crossings and shovel testing when determined
necessary by the archeologists conducting the investigation. Each such investigation shall comply with the
standards and procedures set forth in Exhibit D hereto. In addition, in the event that any human remains are
encountered in the course of conducting any investigation in accordance with this Proffer 10, no land
disturbance shall proceed in the affected area until delivery of evidence to the County that all applicable
regulations regarding the disturbance or removal of such remains have been complied with, or that avoidance
can be achieved. The Owner shall provide evidence to the County's Director of Planning that the
individual supervising the investigations required by this Proffer 10 is a qualified archeologist who meets
the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The
Owner shall provide all reports generated by investigations conducted in accordance with this Proffer 10 to
the County's Director of Planning, and the Owner shall obtain from the Director written confirmation that
the investigations were made in conformance with Exhibits C and D hereto, and shall incorporate any
approved treatment plans into the development plans for the Property and adhere to such treatment plans
during all clearing, grading and construction activities on the Property.
Archaeological Survey. A Phase I Archaeological Study for the Property shall be submitted by the Owner
to the Director of Planning for his review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. An
archaeological resource treatment plan shall be submitted by the Owner to, and approved by, the Director
of Planning for all sites in the Phase I study that are recommended for Phase II evaluation, and /or identified
as being eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. If a Phase II study is
undertaken, such a study shall be approved by the Director of Planning and a treatment plan for said sites
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Planning for sites that are determined to be eligible
for inclusion the National Register of Historic Places and /or those sites that require a Phase III study. If, in
a Phase II study, a site is determined to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places and said site is to be preserved in place, the treatment plan shall include nomination of the site to the
National Register of Historic Places. If a Phase III study is undertaken for said sites, such studies shall be
approved by the Director of Planning prior to land disturbance within the study area. All Phase 1, Phase II,
and Phase III studies shall meet the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Guidelines for Preparing
Archaeological Resource Management Reports and the Secretary of the Interior's Standard and Guidelines
for Archaeological Documentation, as applicable, and shall be conducted under the supervision of a
qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards. All approved treatment plans shall be incorporated into the plan of development
for the site and shall be adhered to during the clearing, grading, and construction activities thereon.
4. [Proffer 4 (Dedication of Land for recreational/open space purposes) needs to be revised;
here are some examples:
The Owner shall dedicate in fee simple a minimum 4.5 -acre "Greenway" to Albemarle County. The land to be
dedicated as the Greenway is identified on the Application Plan as "Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle
County", and shall include all flood plain area along Powell Creek. The Owner shall complete the
improvements shown on the Application Plan and shall dedicate the Greenway to the County at the time of the
first site plan approval. The Owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to
convey the Greenway to the County.
Before the building permit for the first dwelling in any Phase containing any portion of the Greenway is
issued, the Owner shall design, construct and install a trail and associated improvements on the portion of
the Greenway located within such Phase in substantial accordance with the Greenway Master Plan, all at
the Owner's sole expense. The Owner may, with the express written consent of the County's Parks and
Recreation Department, maintain in accordance with the standards set forth in the Greenway Master Plan
any portion of the Greenway that has been previously dedicated to public use. If the Greenway is
dedicated by one or more subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the Greenway and bear
a notation that the Greenway is dedicated for public use. If, at the time the County requests dedication of
the Greenway, any part of the Greenway has not been dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay
the costs of surveying the Greenway, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one
or more deeds of dedication.
In order to establish a future public greenway trail for the County along the Rivanna River, within one (1)
year after the date of approval of ZMA 2006 -1016, the Owner shall dedicate in fee simple to the County
for public use no less than XXXX acres in greenway area, as shown on Attachment A, entitled "Glenmore
Greenway Trail, Final Exhibit," prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc. and dated June 18,
2007, and identified as the "Additional Area to be Dedicated — 14.98 acres" (hereinafter referred to as the
"Greenway Trail Area. ".
A. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, no buildings shall be
constructed or erected within the Greenway Trail Area without the consent of the County
and it shall be otherwise preserved in its natural state except for establishing pedestrian
and riding trails and general beautification including, but not limited to, the clearing of
underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river.
B. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, the Owner may grant across
the Greenway Trail Area utility easements, access easements to the Rivanna River for
residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the Glenmore Country Club and may
build riding trails or make similar uses of the area, provided that such utility and access
easements allow the County's use of the surface of the easement area to be used as a
greenway, including the establishment of signs, benches and other accessory
improvements, and do not otherwise interfere with the County's future use of the
Greenway Trail Area as a greenway.
C. The Owner may convey the Greenway Trail by gift deed and dedication, and may convey
such interest subject to the continued the previously granted utility and access easements,
and provided further that the trails established by the Owner shall continue as part of the
greenway system, and the property owners and guests within Glenmore shall have access
to and over such greenways at all times they are open to the public. The gift deed and
dedication shall be accompanied by either a subdivision plats depicting the Greenway
Trail Area and bearing a notation that the Greenway Trail Area is dedicated for public use.
If, at the time of dedication, the Greenway Trail Area is not dedicated by an
accompanying subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the Greenway
Trail Area, preparing a plat or other depiction thereof acceptable to the Director of
Community Development and the County Attorney and preparing and recording the deed.
D. After dedication, the Greenway Trail Area shall continue to be counted as open space for
the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density.
3.1 Temporary Greenway Connection: In conjunction with the owners of Lickinghole Creek LLC, the
Owner shall record a temporary access easement for a Class B public greenway as specified in the County's
Comprehensive Plan, in a form approvable by the County on the property described as TMP 0560- 00 -00-
05300 prior to the approval of the first building permit for any new construction on the property. The
temporary access easement shall be replaced by the projected 80' right -of -way required for Eastern Avenue.
3.2 Trailhead Park: The Owner shall dedicate and convey in fee - simple to Albemarle County, Open
Space, Parcel A, or " Trailhead Park" as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and grant
drainage easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. In conjunction with improvements approved
with the first subdivision plat, the owner shall construct a 6' asphalt trail consisting of four (4) inches of 21 -B
stonebase material and two (2) inches of SMA -2 asphalt or other specifications approved by the County
Engineer. The trail shall connect five parking spaces to the greenway system, a 2100 +/- square foot tot lot
with a 42" fence, a stormwater management facility and landscaping. The stormwater management facility
shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the
adjacent residential lots, the tot lot on the site, and the trailhead elements, to the satisfaction of the Department
of Parks and Recreation. The tot lot shall contain the following elements: a play structure, a small swing set
and a set of two spring mounted riding figures, or other elements approved by the Director of Planning. Open
space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of the public, including the residents of
the project.
3.3 Open Space: The Owner shall dedicate and convey to Albemarle County, Open Space, Parcel C,
as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and grant drainage easements in a form
approved by the County Attorney. The owner shall construct a 6' asphalt trail consisting of four (4) inches
of 21 -B stonebase material and two (2) inches of SMA -2 asphalt or other specifications approved by the
County Engineer and a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility shall be
designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent street,
greenway, and trails to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation and minimize
disturbance of the stream buffer within Parcel C shown on the Application Plan to the satisfaction of the
Program Authority.. Open space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of the
public, including the residents of the project. The owner shall make a contribution of $3,000 to the County
to be used by the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a pedestrian bridge in the
general location shown on the Application Plan. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of of
the first building permit for the property
[SIGNATURE IF LAND IS OWNED BY ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS; EACH OWNER OF
RECORD MUST SIGN THE PROFFERS]
OWNER
[INSERT NAME BY WHICH LAND IS OWNED]
[SIGNATURE IF LAND IS OWNED BY ONE OR MORE ENTITIES; EACH OWNER OF
RECORD MUST SIGN THE PROFFERS]
OWNER
By: [INSERT OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF ENTITY THAT OWNS THE LAND]
Title: [INSERT TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF ENTITY]
[INSERT NAME OF ENTITY BY WHICH LAND IS OWNED]
[DELETE ALL BRACKETED TEXT WHEN THE PROFFERS ARE PREPARED AND DELETE
OR ADD OWNER SIGNATURE LINES AS APPROPRIATE]
Sample Language for Road - construction Proffers
Design
Pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT "), the City of
Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle (the "County "), the Owner shall construct ...
The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the
Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT ").
Improvements constructed in accordance with this Proffer shall be designed and constructed to applicable
VDOT standards, including, without limitation. VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Collector
road (GS -3) and VDOT's Geometric Design Standard for a Rural Minor Arterial road (GS -2), as such
standards may be amended from time to time.
The foregoing improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans
agreed to between the Owner, the County and VDOT.
Dedication by plat/what happens if not:
The Owner shall dedicate public right -of -way, as shown on final site plans, and construct a right turn lane
on Avon Street southbound from the northern boundary of the Property to the intersection of Avon Street
and the Parkway. If warranted, the Owner shall construct a left turn lane and signal improvements at the
intersection of Avon Street and the Bent Creek Parkway. If the public right -of -way is not dedicated by
subdivision plat, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey
the public right -of -way to the County.
If the right -of -way is dedicated by one or more subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict
the right -of -way and bear a notation that the right -of -way is dedicated for public use. If the right -of -way
has not been dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the right -of -way,
preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one or more deeds of dedication.
Timing of construction:
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for housing units in the project, the owner shall construct the
following improvements ...
Improvements shall be made by the owner, prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for any
improvements thereon.
Contemporaneously with, and as part of, any road improvements required in connection with any
subdivision plat or site plan for the Property, the Owner shall construct ...
When street construction deemed complete:
Unless sooner required by VDOT as a condition of site plan approval, the Avon Street Improvements shall
be constructed, bonded and ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for
acceptance into the public system, and the County Engineer shall have determined that the roadway is safe
and convenient for traffic as a condition of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the
Property.
The Parkway shall be constructed, bonded and ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors for acceptance into the public system, and the County Engineer shall have determined that
the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic (hereinafter, "completed ") as a condition of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the first building within the Property.
Within one year after the date of approval of this rezoning, the following streets shall be constructed and
offered for acceptance for public maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation:
Combination:
The Owner shall design, construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following:
�� OF ALg�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Scott Clark
From:
Bill Fritz
Division:
Zoning and Current Development
Date:
April 28, 2008
Subject: East Pantops Athletic Complex ZMA 2008 -01
The following comments are based on those issues that have been identified that would impact subdivision or
site plan review only:
1. Significant areas of critical slopes exist. In order for development to occur as proposed by the
applicant a modification of Section 4.2.5 will be required. It is recommended that this modification
request be processed with the Rezoning.
2. The soils in this area are typically not suited for subsurface drainfields. It is recommended that a
preliminary soils analysis be performed with this application to determine if the land can
accommodate the proposed uses.
3. The proposed development impacts the floodplain (stormwater facility). It appears that a special use
permit will be required for the activity proposed in the floodplain.
4. Disturbance of the 20 foot undisturbed buffer area between commercial and rural areas will occur for
the construction of the hotel. This modification should be submitted by the applicant and considered
by the Planning Commission during the review of this application. Building heights are unknown so it
is not possible to determine if increased building setbacks will also be required.
5. If land is not dedicated to Albemarle County the subdivision of the Rural Area as proposed would be
in violation of Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In short, that section states that not more than
31 acres of any parcel may be in lots of less than 21 acres. A variance, processed by the Board of
Zoning Appeals, is the only method of modifying that provision. It may not be varied or waived by
the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
6. All reference to remaining development rights should be taken off of the plan until it is determined
what, if any parcels will be accepted by the County.
Phone (434) 296 -5832
�� OF ALBS,
�'IRGI1�1�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: April 25, 2008
RE: SP- 2008 -01: East Pantops Complex — Athletic Facility
ZMA- 08 -01: East Pantops Complex
Fax (434) 972 -4126
I have reviewed the revised plans (dated 4/15/08) submitted for the above - referenced proposal and I
have the following comments regarding impacts to the Entrance Corridor.
1. The proposed development could have a significant impact on the Entrance Corridor. The size
and treatment of the athletic facility (lighting, in particular) and the location and orientation of
the hotels could result in negative impacts.
2. The proposed indoor recreation building is extremely large. If visible from the EC, the mass
and scale of this building would not be appropriate for this location. Breaking the building up
into multiple, smaller structures might reduce impacts.
3. Site sections through the site from various vantage points along the EC should be provided to
help clarify the extent of visibility and potential impacts.
4. No information has been submitted regarding the architectural design of any of the proposed
buildings. As such, it is not possible to determine the full extent of impacts on the Entrance
Corridor.
5. The regular spacing of trees in a single row along the entrance drive may not be considered
appropriate for this location. A planting scheme with a more rural character might be
appropriate.
Furthermore, there are numerous historic (50 years old or older) architectural and archaeological
resources identified in the area, including but not limited to the site of Lego Farm on parcels 33 and
33C, and Monticello and Shadwell adjacent to the project area. The proposed development could have
a negative impact on these resources. Architectural survey and documentation and archaeological
investigations will likely be recommended to determine the full extent of existing resources and to
better understand the impacts of the proposal on existing resources. The concept plans should be
revised to include the location and identification of all cultural resources on and near the site.
ALg�,��
�'rRGIN1�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
September 11, 2009
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
800 East Jefferson St.
Charlottesville VA 22902
Dear Scott
I am writing to let you know that the two remaining East Pantops applications (ZMA20080001 and
SP20080001) are now considered withdrawn. The applications were deferred indefinitely on April 30th,
2008. Section 31.6.2(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance states that an indefinitely deferred application shall be
considered withdrawn if the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors has not acted on it within 12
months of the date of the deferral.
Yours,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
�� OF ALg�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Scott Clark
From:
Bill Fritz
Division:
Zoning and Current Development
Date:
September 15, 2008
Subject: ZMA 2008 -1 East Pantops Complex
The following comments are based on those issues that have been identified that would impact subdivision
or site plan review only:
1. Significant areas of critical slopes exist. In order for development to occur as proposed by the
applicant a modification of Section 4.2.5 will be required. It is recommended that this modification
request be processed with the Rezoning. The applicant has submitted a request for modification.
2. The soils in this area are typically not suited for subsurface drainfields. It is recommended that a
preliminary soils analysis be performed with this application to determine if the land can
accommodate the proposed uses. It is my understanding that the applicant has submitted
information for review by the Health Department.
3. Building heights are unknown so it is not possible to determine if increased building setbacks will
also be required.
4. Proffer 2(a) is not necessary. This will be required with review of the Site Plan.
5. Proffer 2(b) does not state when the improvements will be installed and provides a general design
standard not a specific design standard.
6. Proffer 4 does not state when land will be dedicated.
7. No proffer exists to insure construction of parking or other improvements within land proposed for
dedication.
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
April 25, 2008
VMDO Architect
c/o Todd Bullard or Jim Richardson
200 E Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB2007 -00152 Brownsville Elementary School Addition & Renovations
Tax Mp 56, Parcel 17A
Dear Gentlemen:
I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above - referenced project, which included site plan sheets 1 -6 and
10, and architectural sheets 7 -9.1 have the following comments.
1. A note on Sheet 3 reads,
"HVAC units shall be located only on flat roof sections behind sloped classroom roofs so that they
are substantially screened from the Entrance Corridor. Note, the HVAC units for the gym and
cafeteria addition shall be located inside the building on the mezzanine level."
The note on the drawings presented at the February 4, 2008 meeting read,
"HVAC units shall be located only on flat roof sections behind sloped classroom roofs so that they
are not visible from the Entrance Corridor. Note, the HVAC units for the _ shall be located inside
the building on the mezzanine level."
I cannot approve the change in wording from "are not visible" to "are substantially screened ". Revise the
note to include the original wording in the first sentence.
2. Condition #2 in our February 27, 2008 letter stated that the Willow Oaks and Sugar Maples were to be
increased in size to 3 1 /2" caliper at planting. This change has not been made. In the plant list, revise the
caliper size of the Willow Oaks and Sugar Maples to 3' /z" minimum at planting.
3. Areas of "transition brick" are noted in the new submittal. The transition area isn't clear in the color
rendering of the architectural elevations. Please submit a copy of the black and white line drawings for
better clarity.
Please provide:
1. One sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates
on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the
changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Cc: Neale Craft
ARB File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff
has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit
additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be
collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: Todd Bullard DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB2007 -152 Brownsville School
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal Code
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
1
Margaret
Maliszewski
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private/ public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB2007 -00152
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
1
Margaret
Maliszewski