HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-04-10vIRGIN�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Ron Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning /Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning
Date: October 21, 2013
Subject: ZMA201200003 -Out of Bounds - TMP 60 -65 — Storm water Proffer
Zoning comments on the off -site Drainage Proffer from Justin Shimp are:
-The exhibit ( "A ") for the new easement location should reference Deed Book & page numbers.
- Proffer should be more specific about what "maintenance" or "repair" actually entails.
- "Open flowing" and "fully flowing" should be defined if they are different, or use one term. Also,
define how much "removal of silt deposits in the channel" would be expected to "maintain" it (to
the before development state or to a new standard ?).
-They should either take out the proposal to "repair" or place some type of actual limit on the
responsibility, since "damage" may not necessarily be due to OOB impact, nor should it, given the new
development standards for storm water management.
-If "permission' from property owner(s) is sought, then zoning needs some type of proof of "good faith
efforts" (e.g. certified letter to owner(s) and proof of denial ?). Denial of permission takes them off the
hook? Permission should only be required of owners whose property is physically affected by the
maintenance work.
-This proffer will be difficult to administer /enforce unless it is a joint effort with Engineering.
-Prior ZMA review comments that have not been addressed are still applicable.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
August 3, 2012
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
PO Box 1113
Troy, Virginia 22974
RE: ZMA 2012 - 00003, Out of Bounds
Dear Justin:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA
moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss
these issues.
All comments from all reviewers are provided in this letter, however the major issues that will
need to be addressed before moving forward to the Planning Commission are listed below.
Many of these show up in other comments by each reviewer listed in this letter, however it is
important to identify the major concerns, and these should be addressed with a resubmittal:
1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that this property be Neighborhood Density
Residential which is 3 -6 units per acre, however this proposal is over the recommended
density of the Comp Plan at seven (7) units an acre. Staff will not be in support of a
proposed density higher than what is, recommended in the Comp Plan. The number of
units shown on the plan is within the Comp Plan recommended density, however the
proposed maximum number of units stated /requested in the code of development is not.
2. No Affordable Housing is being proposed, The Board of Supervisors adopted an
Affordable Housing Policy that requires 15% Affordable Housing either by proffered
units, or cash proffer.
3. A request was made for a waiver for the amenity requirement. Staff believes an amenity
should be provided and will be recommending denial of this waiver. The preservation of
the 1.42 acre parcel is not an amenity for the residents. Also, the existing public parks
listed are not within reasonable walking distance, and the residents must drive in order
to get to them.
4. The parking provided does not meet the required parking per the zoning ordinance. A
large reduction in parking will be required. It is recommended that on street parking be
provided to alleviate this concern (See comment 6 below).
5. On street parking is not being provided. It is recommended that some on street parking
be provided. Taking into account the Virginia State Fire Code and VDOT design
requirements, all streets should be a minimum of 32 feet in width that provide parking on
both sides and have a turning radius of not less than 25 feet.
6. Age restricted housing is stated as a reason for an amenity waiver, however this
restriction is not proffered or in the code of development as a minimum /maximum
number of units. If this development will indeed be age restricted, it will need to be either
proffered or stated in the code of development. Staff's opinion is that age restricted
(independent living) housing is not a justification for the elimination of amenities onsite,
but would be a consideration in the type of amenities and amount of parking.
7. All alleyways, travelways, and streets must be 20' in width clear, per the State Fire
Code.
8. A traffic study is required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled with the applicant,
VDOT, County Engineer and Planning Staff to set the parameters and expectations for
the study. Further information is provided concerning certain areas /intersections in the
attached VDOT and Engineering comments.
9. A preliminary investigation concerning the drainage systems along Barracks Road and
Georgetown road should be done to determine if off -site easements are necessary. (See
engineering comments for further detail)
10. An adequate channel does not exist downstream of the southern stormwater
management facility outlet; upgrades to the drainage system will be needed. Easements
from multiple downstream property owners will be needed. Provide greater detail on the
condition of the downstream drainage system with a field survey from the outlet of the
SWM facility to the stream that runs southeasterly.
11. As much stormwater as possible is not being captured for most of the development. A
stormwater facility west of Georgetown Road at the intersection with Barracks Road
appears to be necessary. Also, the southern stormwater management facility does not
appear to be large enough to treat and detain the southern watershed to County
standards.
12. An overlot grading plan is recommended to avoid grading issues as the individual lots
are developed.
13. Staff has concerns about the proposed commercial use, and recommends a work
session with the Planning Commission to get feedback on this particular use, as well as
the development proposal as a whole. See further discussion concerning this in the
Additional Planning Comments section in this letter under `Application Plan and Code of
Development'.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional Planning Comments
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
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 and the public hearing. The comments below are in
preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at
the work session and /or with subsequent submittals.
The proposed development is within Neighborhood 7 of the Comprehensive Plan and
designated as Neighborhood Density Residential. The recommended density for Neighborhood
Density is 3 -6 units /acre. The proposal does not meet the recommended density, and staff will
not support the increase in density.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later
date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
The application plan shows sidewalk on all streets and connections to
Orientation
Georgetown Road and Barracks road. However, pedestrian
intersections or "ped heads" should be provided at every corner of an
intersection, and crosswalks should also be provided. It would be
desirable for the applicant to construct sidewalks on the south side of
Barracks Road to Westminster Road or provide a cash proffer toward
the construction of a sidewalk. All of these improvements will allow
access to other existing or proposed sidewalks and existing transit
sto s. With modifications, this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
The streets shown are too narrow to accommodate on street parking.
Friendly Streets
Provide streets that allow on street parking. With road modifications
and Paths
this principle will be met.
Interconnected
The Plan shows a connection of Bennington Road and Georgetown
Streets and
Road with provides a connection into Canterbury Hills with a light. An
'Transportation
open space parcel is provided between lots 21 and 22 to provide a
Networks
future connection to the Colonnades property. This principle is met.
Parks and Open
The open space provided is not useful to future residents, considering
Space
that the open space located between lots 21 and 22 is /should be
designated as a future right of way /connection to the Colonnades. An
amenity should be provided in the proposed open space, and the
amenity waiver will not be supported. The existing parks listed are not
within walking distance in order to be considered an amenity. The
existing residence to remain on 1.42 acres is not an amenity for the
future residents. This principle is not met.
Neighborhood
The proposed development includes a possible commercial building.
Centers
Also, the development is within walking distance to Barracks Road
Shopping Center. This principle is met.
Buildings and
The proposed neighborhood includes a mixture of uses, commercial,
Spaces of Human
multi - family, townhomes, and single family residential. The maximum
Scale
building height would be 50 feet for commercial, multifamily and
townhomes, and 35 feet for. single family. The garages on the single
family homes should be deemphasized by putting them either behind
the homes facing alleys and /or pulling them back so they are not
closer to the street than the front of the homes, this language should
be added to the code of development. With the addition of language
added to the code of development, this principle will be met.
Relegated Parking
The parking requirements do not meet the minimum standards in the
zoning ordinance, and is not adequate for the number of units
proposed. There is no space for on street parking. Staff does not
believe that this is adequate parking for residents and visitors. As
noted later in this letter, staff would like the streets widened to permit
on street parking. Also, the requested build to lines and the narrow lot
widths create an issue with providing the necessary parking. The 15
foot maximum build to line does not allow for a vehicle to park in front.
of a unit without blocking the sidewalk. This principle is not met at
this time.
Mixture of Uses
There a number of different housing types as well as a commercial
building proposed to be allowed uses within this development. If the
commercial building is built, along with Barracks Rd Shopping Center
Additional Planning Comments
Street Layout and Site Distance. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort to
create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. As stated above, a traffic
analysis needs to be submitted. Staff has the following additional concerns about the layout and
design that should be addressed with a resubmittal.:
1. The layout of the project results in two critical areas for sight distance.
a. From the commercial /townhouse parking lot, sight distance is obstructed by a
crest in the road looking west; looking east, sight distance is obstructed by a
building.
b. The area between the northern property boundary and the
townhouse /commercial building will need to be held in a sight distance easement
for the benefit of the northbound right turning movement. This is the area where
the Architectural Review Board will concentrate their review. No trees or shrubs,
other than the shade trees currently proposed, will be allowed within this sight
distance triangle.
2. Impacts to adjacent properties seem unavoidable.
a. The extension of Bennington Road may kill two significant trees close to the
northern ROW boundary. The limits of the ROW are poorly marked in the field.
A field survey showing more detailed topography (at least 2ft) should be provided
and all significant trees should be located. Grading will be required outside of the
roadway to establish an adequate landing and grade transition at the intersection
within walking distance, and the Colonnades to the north, this
rinci le will be met.
Mixture of Housing
No affordable units are being proposed or proffered with this plan. A
Types and
minimum of 15% affordable housing should be provided either in units
Affordability
or by cash. The plan does allow for a number of different types of
housing, including multi - family, townhomes, and single family
residential. It has been stated that there could be an age restriction
for potential homeowners in the development, but nothing has been
proffered for this. This principle is not met.
Redevelopment
There is an existing historic residence on the property that will remain.
Staff recommends that the historic house and outbuildings be
documented. This property is within the development areas and will
not require any additional utilities, however it will require
transportation improvements. While this is an open, undeveloped lot,
it is minimizing development in the rural areas. This principle is met.
Site Planning that
There is only one small area where there are critical slopes being
Respects Terrain
disturbed. Engineering and Planning have no objection to this
disturbance. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries
This project is directly across from the rural areas. There is an
with the Rural
existing black three -board fence along Barracks Road that is a
Areas
character - defining feature and should be maintained. Meeting the
Architectural Review Board landscape requirements, and retaining
the fence, this principle will be met.
Additional Planning Comments
Street Layout and Site Distance. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort to
create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. As stated above, a traffic
analysis needs to be submitted. Staff has the following additional concerns about the layout and
design that should be addressed with a resubmittal.:
1. The layout of the project results in two critical areas for sight distance.
a. From the commercial /townhouse parking lot, sight distance is obstructed by a
crest in the road looking west; looking east, sight distance is obstructed by a
building.
b. The area between the northern property boundary and the
townhouse /commercial building will need to be held in a sight distance easement
for the benefit of the northbound right turning movement. This is the area where
the Architectural Review Board will concentrate their review. No trees or shrubs,
other than the shade trees currently proposed, will be allowed within this sight
distance triangle.
2. Impacts to adjacent properties seem unavoidable.
a. The extension of Bennington Road may kill two significant trees close to the
northern ROW boundary. The limits of the ROW are poorly marked in the field.
A field survey showing more detailed topography (at least 2ft) should be provided
and all significant trees should be located. Grading will be required outside of the
roadway to establish an adequate landing and grade transition at the intersection
with Westminster Road and this should be shown clearly.
3. There are several concerns regarding the design of the Georgetown Road and Barracks
Road intersection.
a. The through lanes of Georgetown Road should line up. This will require a shift of
the northbound thru lane to the east. A left turn lane or hatched pavement
markings will need to be added to allow for the through lane from existing
Georgetown Road to align with the new road.
b. The two traffic signal pedestals on the south side of Barracks Road are not
located on the survey. Since they will both be impacted, please provide an
updated survey showing the existing pedestals and then show where they will be
relocated to. Please also show the fourth signal post.that is needed to control
the northbound traffic from the development.
c. Please note that other issues impacts /concerns may be identified with the
completion of the traffic study.
d. Drainage system improvements are needed on the south side of Barracks Road
west of Georgetown Road underneath the new right turn lane. Drainage system
improvements may be needed on the south side of Barracks Road east of
Georgetown Road depending on the results of an adequate channel analysis that
will be fully reviewed at the time of site plan approval. A preliminary investigation
should be undertaken with the rezoning application to determine if off -site
easements are necessary.
4. The intersections of Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should provide
crosswalks and curb ramps for each direction, not just one.
Specific Street Requirements.
1. On street parking should be provided in the development. The street widths shown on
the plan are inadequate to allow for on street parking (Section 4.12.16(c)(2)).. A roadway
width of 32ft must be provided throughout the site, especially in the southern half of the
site around the houses. Recently, the Fire and Rescue Department has been requiring
a curb -to -curb width of 32ft for neighborhood streets.
2. A horizontal curve is needed on Bennington Road at the property boundary.
3. Alleys should not be used for primary access of address locations. Lots 37 -41 are
currently fronting only on an alley. The alley should be either designed as a private street
or the lots should be arranged to front on a public street.
4. Consideration should be given to provide additional off -site sidewalks on the west side of
Barracks road from the property to Westminster Road.
5. The Open Space provided between lots 21 and 22 should be designated as future right
of way to provide a future connection to the Colonnades. The width should be increased
to 60 feet and Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should be designed to
include the additional traffic.
Open Space. As stated above, the amenity reduction will not be supported by staff. The open
space provided is not an adequate amenity for this development. An amenity within the open
space should be provided for the future residents.
Application Plan and Code of Development.
Proposed Commercial Building- The Comp Plan's Urban Density Residential designation
recommended for this site may also accommodate non - residential land uses on the
scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service as defined in the plan. (See Land Use
Section of Comp Plan for further descriptions of approach, and scale of uses). The
following are potential issues /concerns with non - residential use on this site.
a. Need for residential. In the Neighborhood 7 section of the Comp Plan it states
that Neighborhood Services are not recommended because of the existing
commercial services in the area, however the proposal is consistent with the
Neighborhood Model principles. Also, the size and scale of the proposed
commercial uses is in keeping with the character and needs for the area.
Staff recommends that the applicant take this issue to the Planning
Commission for feedback.
b. The scaling /massing and location of the building and landscaping will need to
be consistent with guidelines for the Entrance Corridor.
2. Landscaping shown does not meet Entrance Corridor or the zoning ordinance. Some of
the trees shown along Barracks Road are off site. It is recommended that all planting
required be contained on site. (See additional attached ARB staff comments)
3. The County should not be involved in the Out of Bounds Architectural Review
Committee's certificates of approval and therefore any reference to the development's
Architectural Review Committee's certificates of approval and the County's building
permit should be removed.
4. Staff recommends that the lot lines and units be taken off of the application plan, and a
general block layout with the streets and alleys be submitted as the application plan (as
what is somewhat shown on sheet 5. The guidelines for setbacks, use, scale, etc are
identified in the code of development, in the descriptions of the blocks, and as notations
on the sheets, and will serve as the perimeters for the development. This will allow for
flexibility in future planning as each block is built out. However, a typical lot layout for
types of residential (multi - family, single family, townhouses) using the setbacks, build to
lines, etc should be added to the plan for clarity.
5. Lots 37 -41 do not have frontage on a public or private street. Revise so either the alley is
a private street, or the lots front on the public street.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission, it appears that these fees have already been paid:
$ 210.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 215.51 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 425.51 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 210.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 635.71 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296 -5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos @albemarle.org.
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated July 10, 2012
Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue, dated July 12, 2012
Attachment C — Comments from RWSA, dated July 12, 2012
Attachment D- Comments from Engineering, dated July 19, 2012
Attachment E- Comments from Architectural Review Board Staff, dated July 24, 2012
Attachment F- Comments from ACSA, will be forthcoming.
Attachment G- Comments from Zoning, dated August 3, 2012
Review Comments
Project Name:
Out Of Bounds
Date Completed:
Friday, August 03, 2012
Reviewer:
Ron Higgins
Department/Division /Agency: Admin Zoning Review
Reviews
- Street width and space in between units and travelway make parking spaces difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Show how parking is to be met including on- street parking.
- Amenities and Greenspace not met as per Section 20A.9
-50' height limit for Townhouses seems too tall.
-# of dwelling units exceeds that recommended in the Comp Plan Neighborhood Density designation (3 -6
units /acre).
-Why is SP being required in COD for Home Occ A in Blocks 2, 3,& 5?
-Why is Home Occ B allowed by -right in Block 4?
-Will need critical slopes waiver.
Review Status: Pending
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you.paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's.public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00 plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00 plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3. Published notice:
Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual cost
Page 3 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A. For
a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ................:.....$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
3.
Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal ....................................... ........:...................... ........................$500.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................. ............................... .....................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ...............................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00 plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00 plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3. Published notice:
Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual cost
Page 3 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning
Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
'Dec 19.2011,,T :� .
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Tue Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
Feb 27
Mar 20
Feb 6
Mar 7
Mar 12
Apr 3
Tue Feb 21
Mar 21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 30
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
Ma 14
Jun 5
Apr 16
May 16
May 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 25
Jul 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Ju1:30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 20
Sep 11
Jul 16
Aug 15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 12
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 18
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
- :Jan `8= 2013
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7.2013
Jan.,29 2013,. ° F
Dec3
Jan 22013 ;.
Jan 14 2013 ."
'Feb 5:2013..
Dec 17
Jan 1:6 201.3:' ..
Feb 4201<:3 k . =
':.. ":Feb 26 "2013.
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that
the project go to public hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or °FA`
61'd
Zoning Map Amendment � �i�,�
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature
Name of Applicant
Date Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
• First resubmission FREE
• Each additional resubmission $1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required I $180
To be paid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and 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.
MAKE C'TTF.CKC Tn COTTNTV nF AT,RF.MART.F/PAVMENT AT C'OMMTWITV DEVELOPMENT C OTTNTTi;R
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice +actual
cost of first -class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6n12011 Page 1 of 1
•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Megan Yaniglos
FROM:
Margaret Maliszewski
RE:
ZMA- 2012 -03: Out of Bounds
DATE:
July 25, 2012
I have reviewed the plan dated 6/18/2012 and I have the following comments:
General Development Plan
• Note that the landscaping shown on the application plan does not meet Entrance Corridor guidelines
and should not be considered approved. Landscaping will be reviewed at the site plan review stage.
• It is recommended that utilities be adjusted at the entrance to Georgetown Road Extended so that
street trees can be provided continuously along the extended road.
• Some EC trees along Barracks Road are shown off site. It is recommended that all planting required
to meet EC requirements /guidelines be contained on site.
• The three -board fence along Barracks Road is a character - defining feature of this part of the corridor.
Clearly indicate locations of existing black three -board fence and identify as "to remain" or "to be
demolished'.
Code of Development
Existing Features to be Preserved
• It is recommended that the applicant document the 1940s house and garage in drawings and
photographs and provide copies of the documentation to the County prior to grading/clearing. It is
recommended that outbuildings to be demolished be documented prior to demolition and copies of all
drawings and photos be provided to the County with the demolition permit application.
Colors and Facade Treatment
• Regarding earth tone colors, it is recommended that the only colors to be reviewed by County staff
should be the colors for those buildings subject to ARB review. For buildings subject to ARB review,
the color palette must be submitted at the site plan review stage. A Certificate of Appropriateness and
final site plan approval won't be granted without approved colors. The "earth -tone color" bullet in the
code of development should be revised to correctly address these issues.
• Should the "and" in the second to the last line of the "visibly discernible stories" bullet be "and/or "?
Roof Pitch and Design
• In the last bullet, clarify how trim can screen a garage door or correct the wording.
Architectural Review Committee
• The applicant should be aware that the architectural design of buildings subject to ARB review will
be set at the site plan review stage. Consequently, the applicant may wish to consider alternate timing
for Out of Bounds Architectural Review Committee review. It is recommended that the County not be
involved in the Out of Bounds Architectural Review Committee's certificates of approval and that the
last sentence of this section of the code be deleted.
Landscape Treatment
• The second sentence of this section of the code should be deleted and replaced with "Albemarle
County Entrance Corridor landscape guidelines also apply."
t,000
AL
2
`lRGtN1P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning Division
From: Phil Custer, Engineering Division
Date: 19 July 2012
Subject: Out of Bounds Rezoning Application (ZMA- 2012 - 00003)
The engineering comments regarding the rezoning application for Out of Bounds are provided below.
1. The layout of the project results in two critical areas for sight distance.
a. From the commercial/townhouse parking lot, sight distance is obstructed by a crest in the
road looking west; looking east, sight distance is obstructed by a building.
b. The area between the northern property boundary and the townhouse /commercial building
will need to be held in a sight distance easement for the benefit of the northbound right
turning movement. This is the area where the Architectural Review Board will
concentrate their review. No trees or shrubs, other than the shade trees currently
proposed, will be allowed within this sight distance triangle.
2. Impacts to adjacent properties seem unavoidable.
a. The extension of Bennington Road may kill two significant trees close to the northern
ROW boundary. The limits of the ROW are poorly marked in the field. A field survey
showing more detailed topography (at least 2ft) should be provided and all significant
trees should be located. Grading will be required outside of the roadway to establish an
adequate landing and grade transition at the intersection with Westminster Road and this
should be shown clearly.
b. The primary drainage outlet for this property is to the south through TMP's 60D -F -9 and
60D -F -8. After visiting the site, it is evident that an adequate channel does not exist
downstream of the southern SWM facility outlet; upgrades to the drainage system will be
needed. Easements from multiple downstream owners will be needed before engineering
can recommend approval of the rezoning application. The applicant should provide
greater detail on the condition of the downstream drainage system with a field survey from
the outlet of the SWM facility to the stream that runs southeasterly.
3. There are several concerns regarding the design of the Georgetown Road and Barracks Road
intersection.
a. The through lanes of Georgetown Road should line up. This will require a shift of the
northbound thru lane to the east. A left turn lane or hatched pavement markings will need
to be added to allow for the through lane from existing Georgetown Road to align with the
new road.
b. A traffic study is needed to determine whether the proposed geometries of the intersection
will be adequate and queue lengths will be acceptable. The traffic study and intersection
design should include pedestrian signals and crosswalks across each leg of the
intersection. Other improvements to the intersection may be necessary. A right turn lane
from the development may be warranted. Improvements on existing Georgetown Road
may also be required.
c. The two traffic signal pedestals on the south side of Barracks Road are not located on the
survey. Since they will both be impacted, please provide an updated survey showing the
existing pedestals and then show where they will be relocated to. Please also show the
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
fourth signal post that is needed to control the northbound traffic from the development.
d. Drainage system improvements are needed on the south side of Barracks Road west of
Georgetown Road underneath the new right turn lane. Drainage system improvements
may be needed on the south side of Barracks Road east of Georgetown Road depending on
the results of an adequate channel analysis that will be fully reviewed at the time of site
plan approval. A preliminary investigation should be undertaken with the rezoning
application to determine if off -site easements are necessary.
4. The applicant has proposed the narrowest road possible with this application. VDOT standards
allow for roads serving less than 2000 vehicles a day and no parking on either side to have a curb -
to -curb width of 24ft. However, allowing a 24ft wide road in such a dense neighborhood is not
advisable because the "no parking" rule is easily violated and difficult to enforce. VDOT has also
advised us to prohibit streets without on- street parking without a parking ordinance that details
enforcement procedures. A roadway width of 29ft must be provided throughout the site,
especially in the southern half of the site around the houses. Recently, the Fire and Rescue
Department has been requiring a curb -to -curb width of 32ft for neighborhood streets.
5. A horizontal curve is needed on Bennington Road at the property boundary.
6. To provide better connectivity and future access to the traffic light, it is recommended that the
Open Space between lots 21 and 22 be reserved for a future connection to the Collonades property.
If this recommendation is followed, the width of the open space should be 60ft and Georgetown
Road Extended from Bennington Road should be designed for the additional traffic.
7. The intersections of Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should provide crosswalks
and curb ramps for each direction, not just one.
8. The alleys must be designed using asphalt or prime and double seal.
9. Alleys should not be used for primary access of address locations. Lots 37 -41 are currently
fronting only on an alley. In this case, this "alley" should be designed as a private street or the lots
should be arranged to better front on Georgetown Road Extended.
10. Engineering has no objection to the approval of the critical slope waiver.
11. Because of the proposed density of the development, an overlot grading plan is recommended to
avoid grading issues as the individual lots are developed.
12. A review of the conceptual Stormwater Management plan yields the following comments.
a. The plan does not capture as much of the development as possible. [17- 312.C] The
northern watershed has much of the commercial building and roadway not being treated.
A stormwater facility west of Georgetown Road at the intersection with Barracks Roads
appears to be necessary.
b. The southern stormwater management facility does not appear to be large enough to treat
and detain the southern watershed to county standards, especially considering the
condition of the downstream drainage system.
Vft .: F I ilrlu. I'I*W I.MA- 2012 -00006 Oul o hoot ;ds.doe,
rN
Megan Yaniglos
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:26 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: Engineering review for Out of Bounds ZMA
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan,
Please consider this email a supplement to my previous comment letter.
The combination of the requested build -to lines and the narrow lot widths create an issue with providing the necessary
parking. The applicant should demonstrate how adequate parking is accounted for by showing a building location and
driveway for each lot. The 15ft maximum build -to line does not allow for a vehicle to park in front of a unit without
blocking the sidewalk. The minimum 20ft lot width would be occupied almost entirely by a driveway and would prevent
on- street parking to be a practical reality for much of the development.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
x3072
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:49 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: Engineering review for Out of Bounds ZMA
Megan,
Please find the engineering comments for the Out of Bounds Rezoning Application attached. Please let me know if you
have any questions regarding my review.
Thanks,
Phil
x3072
0
Review Comments
Project Name:
Out Of Bounds
Date Completed:
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Reviewer:
Robbie Gilmer
Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
1. All fire access roads public or private that have buildings with 911 address on them shall have a 20 foot
travelway.
Roads under 32 feet in width shall not have a turning radius less then 25 feet.
Review Status: See Recommendations 76.
Megan Yaniglos
From:
Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent:
Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:19 PM
To:
Megan Yaniglos
Subject:
ZMA201200003 Out of Bounds
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the application for ZMA201200003 — Out of Bounds. Below is a completed copy of the form that
was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295 -1146
9(i iDl
0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July 10`h, 2012
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the July, 2012 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP- 2012 - 000118 Castle Hill Cider Pond
1. The site plan will need to show the design for the entrance to Route 640 and the traffic plan for
the restricted turning movements on the existing entrance.
SP- 2012 - 000119 Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
1. No Comments
ZMA201200003 Out of Bounds
1. Include information on parameters of horizontal curves.
2. Some horizontal curves do not meet the VDOT Road Design Manual standards for a minimum
centerline radius of 200 feet for 25 mph roads.
3. The VDOT Road Design Manual standard of an intersection sight distance of 280 feet within
right of way is not met for intersection with entrance for commercial parking lot.
4. Sanitary sewers need to be located out of the pavement.
5. Provide traffic capacity analysis for intersection of Barracks and Georgetown Rd to determine the
needed storage for the turn lanes.
6. A second lane out of the new development at the intersection of Barracks and Garth Rd might be
necessary based on results of traffic analysis for intersection.
7. A minimum width of pavement of 29 feet is required for two lane roads with parking on both
sides in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual.
8. The minimum radial return of 25 feet is required at intersections in accordance with the VDOT
Road Design Manual.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT Culpeper
10
*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning Division
From: Phil Custer, Engineering Division
Date: 19 July 2012
Subject: Out of Bounds Rezoning Application (ZMA- 2012 - 00003)
The engineering comments regarding the rezoning application for Out of Bounds are provided below.
1. The layout of the project results in two critical areas for sight distance.
a. From the commercial/townhouse parking lot, sight distance is obstructed by a crest in the
road looking west; looking east, sight distance is obstructed by a building.
b. The area between the northern property boundary and the townhouse /commercial building
will need to be held in a sight distance easement for the benefit of the northbound right
turning movement. This is the area where the Architectural Review Board will
concentrate their review. No trees or shrubs, other than the shade trees currently
proposed, will be allowed within this sight distance triangle.
2. Impacts to adjacent properties seem unavoidable.
a. The extension of Bennington Road may kill two significant trees close to the northern
ROW boundary. The limits of the ROW are poorly marked in the field. A field survey
showing more detailed topography (at least 2ft) should be provided and all significant
trees should be located. Grading will be required outside of the roadway to establish an
adequate landing and grade transition at the intersection with Westminster Road and this
should be shown clearly.
b. The primary drainage outlet for this property is to the south through TMP's 60D -F -9 and
60D -F -8. After visiting the site, it is evident that an adequate channel does not exist
downstream of the southern SWM facility outlet; upgrades to the drainage system will be
needed. Easements from multiple downstream owners will be needed before engineering
can recommend approval of the rezoning application. The applicant should provide
greater detail on the condition of the downstream drainage system with a field survey from
the outlet of the SWM facility to the stream that runs southeasterly.
There are several concerns regarding the design of the Georgetown Road and Barracks Road
intersection.
a. The through lanes of Georgetown Road should line up. This will require a shift of the
northbound thru lane to the east. A left turn lane or hatched pavement markings will need
to be added to allow for the through lane from existing Georgetown Road to align with the
new road.
b. A traffic study is needed to determine whether the proposed geometrics of the intersection
will be adequate and queue lengths will be acceptable. The traffic study and intersection
design should include pedestrian signals and crosswalks across each leg of the
intersection. Other improvements to the intersection may be necessary. A right turn lane
from the development may be warranted. Improvements on existing Georgetown Road
may also be required.
c. The two traffic signal pedestals on the south side of Barracks Road are not located on the
survey. Since they will both be impacted, please provide an updated survey showing the
existing pedestals and then show where they will be relocated to. Please also show the
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
fourth signal post that is needed to control the northbound traffic from the development.
d. Drainage system improvements are needed on the south side of Barracks Road west of
Georgetown Road underneath the new right turn lane. Drainage system improvements
may be needed on the south side of Barracks Road east of Georgetown Road depending on
the results of an adequate channel analysis that will be fully reviewed at the time of site
plan approval. A preliminary investigation should be undertaken with the rezoning
application to determine if off -site easements are necessary.
4. The applicant has proposed the narrowest road possible with this application. VDOT standards
allow for roads serving less than 2000 vehicles a day and no parking on either side to have a curb -
to -curb width of 24ft. However, allowing a 24ft wide road in such a dense neighborhood is not
advisable because the "no parking" rule is easily violated and difficult to enforce. VDOT has also
advised us to prohibit streets without on- street parking without a parking ordinance that details
enforcement procedures. A roadway width of 29ft must be provided throughout the site,
especially in the southern half of the site around the houses. Recently, the Fire and Rescue
Department has been requiring a curb -to -curb width of 32ft for neighborhood streets.
5. A horizontal curve is needed on Bennington Road at the property boundary.
6. To provide better connectivity and future access to the traffic light, it is recommended that the
Open Space between lots 21 and 22 be reserved for a future connection to the Collonades property.
If this recommendation is followed, the width of the open space should be 60ft and Georgetown
Road Extended from Bennington Road should be designed for the additional traffic.
7. The intersections of Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should provide crosswalks
and curb ramps for each direction, not just one.
8. The alleys must be designed using asphalt or prime and double seal.
9. Alleys should not be used for primary access of address locations. Lots 37 -41 are currently
fronting only on an alley. In this case, this "alley" should be designed as a private street or the lots
should be arranged to better front on Georgetown Road Extended.
10. Engineering has no objection to the approval of the critical slope waiver.
11. Because of the proposed density of the development, an overlot grading plan is recommended to
avoid grading issues as the individual lots are developed.
12. A review of the conceptual Stormwater Management plan yields the following comments.
a. The plan does not capture as much of the development as possible. [17- 312.C] The
northern watershed has much of the commercial building and roadway not being treated.
A stormwater facility west of Georgetown Road at the intersection with Barracks Roads
appears to be necessary.
b. The southern stormwater management facility does not appear to be large enough to treat
and detain the southern watershed to county standards, especially considering the
condition of the downstream drainage system.
File: E1 zma PBC ZMA- 2012 -00003 Out of Bounds.doc
Megan Yaniglos
From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:19 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: ZMA201200003 Out of Bounds
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the application for ZMA201200003 — Out of Bounds. Below is a completed copy of the form that
was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295 -1146
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
June 12, 2013
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
PO Box 1113
Troy, Virginia 22974
RE: ZMA 2012 - 00003, Out of Bounds
Dear Justin:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA
moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss
these issues.
All comments from all reviewers are provided in this letter, however the major issues that will
need to be addressed before moving forward to the Planning Commission are listed below.
Many of these show up in other comments by each reviewer listed in this letter, however it is
important to identify the major concerns, and these should be addressed with a resubmittal:
Plan Comments:
1. It appears the runoff for the existing topography drains to a low point west and southeast
of the site. The underground detention and treatment concept for the site does not work
well with the natural flow and topography. (See engineering comment #1 for more
detailed comment and information)
2. Only the downstream easements have been provided. Existing stormsewer pipes for
connection, est and southeast of the site shall be addressed for downstream adequacy.
3. An overlot grading plan is recommended to avoid grading issues as the individual lots
are developed. An overlot grading proffer is recommended to address this.
4. Revise the walking trails to be five feet wide instead of three, and state this in the Code
of Development.
5. Add language to the Code of Development that states that the garages will be set back
from the face of the building where the units have front loaded garages. (See Relegated
Parking section of the Planning Comments.)
6. A request should be made to have sidewalks on one side of the street for Georgetown
Road Extended. This is a requirement of the subdivision ordinance in the development
areas, and should be approved with this rezoning (Section 14 -422 of the Subdivision
Ordinance).
Proffer Comments from Zoning (Ron Higgins):
1. The "Exhibit(s) References should include the "Code of Development" as also being
part of the "Application Plan ".
2. The proffer statement should use more standard language, such as in the "general
accord" proffer.
3. The general accord proffer ( #1) should make reference to the "Application Plan /Code of
Development" by name, preparer and date (e. g. by Shimp Engineering, PC, dated
4/1/2012, amended 5/20/2013; the "Plan ").
4. The cash proffers by unit types must reflect the new amounts of: $20,460.57/SFD;
$13,913.18/SFA or TH; $14,497.77/MF and state that this money shall be used for CIP
projects.
5. The public road improvements should have the standard language dealing with being
"ready for acceptance by VD07 and include timing triggers (e. g. "at first CO ").
6. As stated above, an overlot grading proffer should be considered for this development.
7. It is recommended that a proffer be provided for the amenities being shown on the plan.
Traffic Study Comments (Engineering and VDOT):
1. Please address assumption 1 stating current residents will shift to signalized intersection. It
appears from the traffic study that current residents use S. Bennington Rd to enter Barracks
Rd and may continue this routine. Also, the current residents are concerned about more
traffic into S. Bennington Rd. One improvement is to provide traffic calming measures on the
existing S. Bennington Rd.
2. Engineering recommends providing pedestrian signal improvements at intersection.
3. On Synchro report of 2020 Build AM and PM, please address why the actuated green for
SBL is less than EBL, EBT, WBL, WBT and WBR when it appears the highest volume is in
the SBL movement.
4. It appears there are increasing delays for the existing conditions when compared to the
Build 2020 model. The highest volume are from SBL, EBT, and WBR. Please address plans
or improvements to mitigate LOS for the intersection and improve flow for SBL, EBT, and
WBR.
5. The turn lane should be 150 feet with a 100 foot taper to accommodate the PM queuing
identified in the traffic study.
6. It may be advantageous to reserve right -of -way to accommodate a roundabout in the future
at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. A roundabout would improve
the traffic movements from Georgetown to Route 250. If this option is to be considered,
further evaluation of the intersection will be necessary to determine the required right -of -way
to accommodate the roundabout.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
The Neighborhood Model analysis
Additional Planning Comments
Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
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 and the public hearing. The comments below are in
preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at
the work session and /or with subsequent submittals.
The proposed development is within Neighborhood 7 of the Comprehensive Plan and
designated as Neighborhood Density Residential. The recommended density for Neighborhood
Density is 3 -6 units /acre. This proposal is within the recommended density.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later
date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian intersections or "ped heads" should be provided at every
Orientation
corner of an intersection, and crosswalks should also be provided. It
would be desirable for the applicant to construct sidewalks on the
south side of Barracks Road to Westminster Road or provide a cash
proffer toward the construction of a sidewalk. All of these
improvements will allow access to other existing or proposed
sidewalks and existing transit stops. With modifications, this principle
will be met.
Neighborhood
The parking has been adjusted and is provided on one side of the
Friendly Streets
street. There are pathways and sidewalks throughout the
and Paths
development as well as a sidewalk along Bennington Road
extenstion. This principle is met.
Interconnected
The Plan shows a connection of Bennington Road and Georgetown
Streets and
Road with provides a connection into Canterbury Hills with a light.
Transportation
Right of way is shown to the property line at the end of South
Networks
Bennington Road to provide a future connection to the Colonnades
property. his principle is met.
Parks and Open
Multiple open space areas have been provided, including a
Space
playground. Also, there is a path system the runs throughout the
development. This path should be extended to run North /South in the
open space area between South Bennington Road lots and the Single
Family, Multi - Family lots. With modifications this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
The development is within walking distance to Barracks Road
Centers
Shopping Center and also has access to bus stops along Georgetown
and Barracks Road. This principle is met.
Buildings and
The proposed neighborhood includes a mixture of residential uses.
Spaces of Human
The maximum building height would be 45 feet for multifamily and
Scale
townhomes, and 35 feet for single family. The garages on the single
family attached homes should be deemphasized by putting them
either behind the homes facing alleys and /or pulling them back so
they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes, this
language should be added to the code of development. With the
addition of language added to the code of development, this principle
will be met.
Relegated Parking
The parking is located at the back of the townhouse units, and if the
garage on the single family attached units is further back from the
face of the house, the parking will be relegated. With minor
modifications, this principle will be met.
Mixture of Uses
There a number of different housing types proposed to be allowed
uses within this development with Barracks Rd Shopping Center
within walking distance, and the Colonnades to the north, this
principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
The plan allows for a number of different types of housing, including
Types and
multi - family, townhomes, and single family residential. A proffer has
Affordability
been offered for Affordable Housing. This principle has been met.
Redevelopment
There is an existing historic residence on the property that will remain.
The applicant has allowed members of the Historic Preservation
Committee to document the house and outbuildings. This property is
within the development areas and will not require any additional
utilities, however it will require transportation improvements. While
this is an open, undeveloped lot, it is minimizing development in the
rural areas. This principle is met.
Site Planning that
There is only one small area where there are critical slopes being
Respects Terrain
disturbed. Engineering and Planning have no objection to this
disturbance. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries
This project is directly across from the rural areas. There is an
with the Rural
existing black three -board fence along Barracks Road that is a
Areas
character - defining feature and should be maintained. Meeting the
Architectural Review Board landscape requirements, and retaining
the fence, this principle will be met.
Additional Planning Comments
Street Requirements and Layout. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort
to create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. As stated above, a
traffic analysis needs to be reviewed. Staff has the following additional concerns about the
layout and design that should be addressed with a resubmittal.:
1. The intersections of Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should provide
crosswalks and curb ramps for each direction, not just one.
2. A request should be made to have sidewalks on one side of the street for Georgetown
Road Extended. This is a requirement of the subdivision ordinance in the development
areas, and should be approved with this rezoning.
3. Consideration should be given to provide additional off -site sidewalks on the west side of
Barracks road from the property to Westminster Road.
4. It appears that off site easements may be necessary for the construction of South
Bennington Road extension. Provide a letter of intent from the adjacent owners for this
construction.
Application Plan and Code of Development.
1. A note should be added to the plan that states that the maximum density is subject to
approval of stormwater management and street standards approved by the County
Engineer.
2. Add language to the Code of Development that states that the garages will be set back
from the face of the building where the units have front loaded garages. (See Relegated
Parking section of the Planning Comments.)
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. The fee for a resubmittal is $1250.00.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission: THESE FEES WERE PAID ON 6/3/13.
$ 210.10 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 340.58 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 540.58 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 210.10 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 760.78 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296 -5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
r
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated June 10, 2013
Attachment B- Comments from Engineering, dated June 11, 2013
Attachment C- Comments from Zoning, dated June 11, 2013
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
r
�IRGIS
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos
From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division: Engineering
Date: Jul 10, 2013
Subject: ZMA 2012 -00003 Out of Bounds
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the
applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added
or eliminated based on further review.
[Comment] It appears the runoff for the existing topography drains to a low point west and southeast of site.
The underground detention and treatment concept for the site do not work well with the natural flow and
topography. Capture of runoff on final plan may not work out. The SWM facility in road "A" should be
relocated to an area behind lots 1 -3. The underground facility between ammenity 1 & 2 should also be
removed, while providing the underground facility west of lots 43 and 55. Since the space is tight, lots 49 to
55 may need to shift east. The existing runoff drains to two locations and providing SWM at these areas will
minimize the impact on the natural topography. Another option is to place one detention /bioretention pond
where lots 36 -55 are situated. The cost of underground detention basins can be costly and it appears the
homeowners will be subjected to the maintenance of 3 underground detention facilities.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed.
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed.
2. [Comment] Existing stormsewer pipes for connection, west and southeast of site, shall be addressed for
downstream adequacy. Downstream easements shall be obtained before rezoning approval.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. Only the downstream easements have been provided.
[Revision 2] Comment partially addressed. Only the downstream easements have been provided.
3. [Comment] It appears the road design do not meet VDOT standards. Please refer to VDOT Road Design
Manual, Appendix 81. For a projected traffic volume up to 2000 ADT, the minimum width is 29' face of curb
to face of curb. The private road should be equivalent.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. It is recommended that Road A, Road B, and the
Bennington Road extension are 29' wide face of curb to face of curb. A portion of Bennington Road,
from Georgetown Road to Westminster Road, may be less than 29' wide due to space constraint
between two existing homes.
Per Phil Custer's recommendation letter dated July 19, 2012, "VDOT standards allow for roads
serving less than 2000 vehicles a day and no parking on either side to have a curb -to -curb width of
24ft. However, allowing a 24ft wide road in such a dense neighborhood is not advisable because the
"no parking" rule is easily violated and difficult to enforce. VDOT has also advised us to prohibit
streets without on- street parking without a parking ordinance that details enforcement procedures."
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed.
4. [Comment] An overlot grading plan is recommended for this development to avoid grading issues as
individual lots are developed.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Since the site can be developed in sections, I recommend to proffer
an overlot grading plan to ensure that adjacent properties are not impacted by runoff as each section is
developed.
[Revision 2] Grading can be addressed during WPO phase.
5. [Comment] Please revise the walking trails from 3' to 5'.
[Revision 2] Comment addressed.
Comments from Traffic Impact Study submitted on May 20, 2013.
1. [Comment] Please address assumption 1 stating current residents will shift to signalized intersection. It
appears from the traffic study that current residents use S. Bennington Rd to enter Barracks Rd and may
continue this routine. Also, the current residents are concerned about more traffic into S. Bennington Rd.
One improvement is to provide traffic calming measures on the existing S. Bennington Rd.
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed.
2. [Comment] I recommend providing pedestrian signal improvements at intersection.
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed.
3. [Comment] On Synchro report of 2020 Build AM and PM, please address why the actuated green for SBL is
less than EBL, EBT, WBL, WBT and WBR when it appears the highest volume is in the SBL movement.
Revision 2] Comment addressed.
4. [Comment] It appears there are increasing delays for the existing conditions when compared to the Build
2020 model. The highest volume are from SBL, EBT, and WBR. Please address plans or improvements to
mitigate LOS for the intersection and improve flow for SBL, EBT, and WBR.
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext.
3458 for further information.
R r,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July 10`", 2012
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the July, 2012 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP- 2012 - 000118 Castle Hill Cider Pond
1. The site plan will need to show the design for the entrance to Route 640 and the traffic plan for
the restricted turning movements on the existing entrance.
SP- 2012 - 000119 Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
1. No Comments
ZMA201200003 Out of Bounds
1. Include information on parameters of horizontal curves.
2. Some horizontal curves do not meet the VDOT Road Design Manual standards for a minimum
centerline radius of 200 feet for 25 mph roads.
3. The VDOT Road Design Manual standard of an intersection sight distance of 280 feet within
right of way is not met for intersection with entrance for commercial parking lot.
4. Sanitary sewers need to be located out of the pavement.
5. Provide traffic capacity analysis for intersection of Barracks and Georgetown Rd to determine the
needed storage for the turn lanes.
6. A second lane out of the new development at the intersection of Barracks and Garth Rd might be
necessary based on results of traffic analysis for intersection.
7. A minimum width of pavement of 29 feet is required for two lane roads with parking on both
sides in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual.
8. The minimum radial return of 25 feet is required at intersections in accordance with the VDOT
Road Design Manual.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT Culpeper
Maude Ginty
Service Auth6rity
TO: Megan Yaniglos
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: July 9, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: ZMA- 2012 - 00003 -Out of Bounds
Map /Parcel Number: 60- 65/0600000000650
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓
2.
An 8 inch water line is located approximately 40' distant.
3.
Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓
4.
An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 450' distant.
5.
An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓
6.
No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7.
and plans are currently under review.
8.
and plans have been received and approved.
9.
No plans are required.
✓
10.
Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval
prior to construction approval.
11.
Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12.
RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13.
City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓
Comments:
• A fire flow test is being sent with this document. The fire flow test was performed with the new
Stillhouse pump station online.
• Final water and sewer construction documents required for review and approval by the ACSA.
• ACSA will review water service redundancy during construction review. ✓
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
nor :�r8�
c
1 c'
� IkGi':`ti1a
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A.
For a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
3.
Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ...............................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B.
For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee...................................................................................
............................... .......................$1000.00
C.
Amendment to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D.
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N.
Required notice:
1.
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2.
Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3.
Published notice:
Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual
cost
Print Form
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal information for Special Use Permit or oFAL�
r
Zoning Map Amendment
vlRCtrnP
PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA2012 -003
Resubmittal Fee is Required
Megan Yaniglos
Community Development Project Coordinator
PROJECT NAME: Out of Bounds
F- Per Request r Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Vito Cetta/ Justin Shimp 4342078086
Name of Applicant Phone Number
Signature Date
Signature
FEES
Date
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
❑ First resubmission
FREE
F— Each additional resubmission
$500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
r Each additional resubmission
$1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
F-1 First resubmission
FREE
FX Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
F— First resubmission
FREE
F-1 Each additional resubmission
$1,750
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request - Add'l notice fees will be required
$180
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments 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 Special Use Permit or 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.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE /PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual cost of first -class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
r
�IRGIS
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos
From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division: Engineering
Date: Jun 11, 2013
Subject: ZMA 2012 -00003 Out of Bounds
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the
applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added
or eliminated based on further review.
[Comment] It appears the runoff for the existing topography drains to a low point west and southeast of site.
The underground detention and treatment concept for the site do not work well with the natural flow and
topography. Capture of runoff on final plan may not work out. The SWM facility in road "A" should be
relocated to an area behind lots 1 -3. The underground facility between ammenity 1 & 2 should also be
removed, while providing the underground facility west of lots 43 and 55. Since the space is tight, lots 49 to
55 may need to shift east. The existing runoff drains to two locations and providing SWM at these areas will
minimize the impact on the natural topography. Another option is to place one detention /bioretention pond
where lots 36 -55 are situated. The cost of underground detention basins can be costly and it appears the
homeowners will be subjected to the maintenance of 3 underground detention facilities.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed.
2. [Comment] Existing stormsewer pipes for connection, west and southeast of site, shall be addressed for
downstream adequacy. Downstream easements shall be obtained before rezoning approval.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. Only the downstream easements have been provided.
3. [Comment] It appears the road design do not meet VDOT standards. Please refer to VDOT Road Design
Manual, Appendix 81. For a projected traffic volume up to 2000 ADT, the minimum width is 29' face of curb
to face of curb. The private road should be equivalent.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. It is recommended that Road A, Road B, and the
Bennington Road extension are 29' wide face of curb to face of curb. A portion of Bennington Road,
from Georgetown Road to Westminster Road, may be less than 29' wide due to space constraint
between two existing homes.
Per Phil Custer's recommendation letter dated July 19, 2012, "VDOT standards allow for roads
serving less than 2000 vehicles a day and no parking on either side to have a curb -to -curb width of
24ft. However, allowing a 24ft wide road in such a dense neighborhood is not advisable because the
"no parking" rule is easily violated and difficult to enforce. VDOT has also advised us to prohibit
streets without on- street parking without a parking ordinance that details enforcement procedures."
4. [Comment] An overlot grading plan is recommended for this development to avoid grading issues as
individual lots are developed.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Since the site can be developed in sections, I recommend to
proffer an overlot grading plan to ensure that adjacent properties are not impacted by runoff as each
section is developed.
5. [New Comment] Please revise the walking trails from 3' to 5'.
New Comments from Traffic Impact Study submitted on May 20, 2013.
1. [New Comment] Please address assumption 1 stating current residents will shift to signalized
intersection. It appears from the traffic study that current residents use S. Bennington Rd to enter
Barracks Rd and may continue this routine. Also, the current residents are concerned about more
traffic into S. Bennington Rd. One improvement is to provide traffic calming measures on the
existing S. Bennington Rd.
2. [New Comment] I recommend providing pedestrian signal improvements at intersection.
3. [New Comment] On Synchro report of 2020 Build AM and PM, please address why the actuated
green for SBL is less than EBL, EBT, WBL, WBT and WBR when it appears the highest volume is in
the SBL movement.
4. [New Comment] It appears there are increasing delays for the existing conditions when compared to
the Build 2020 model. The highest volume are from SBL, EBT, and WBR. Please address plans or
improvements to mitigate LOS for the intersection and improve flow for SBL, EBT, and WBR.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext.
3458 for further information.
R
r
41: jRRjct� =1
A
C -'MMONWEALT'H of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
June 10, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA- 2012 -003 Out of Bounds
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the rezoning application plan for the Out of Bounds development dated
4/1/2013 with revisions dated 4/1/2013 and 5/20/2013 and offer the following comments:
1. The turn lane should be 150' with a 100' taper to accommodate the PM queuing
identified in the traffic study.
2. The T -type turn around while allowed by appendix B(1) of the Road Design manual, will
be evaluated for appropriateness in this application once formal construction plans are
submitted. Additional detail on the turnaround will be required.
3. It may be advantageous to reserve right -of -way to accommodate a roundabout in the
future at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. A roundabout would
improve the traffic movements from Georgetown to Route 250. If this option is to be
considered, further evaluation of the intersection will be necessary to determine the
required right -of -way to accommodate the roundabout.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this project, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments
Project Name: Out Of Bounds
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Reviewer: Ron Higgins
Department /Division /Agency: Zoning
Reviews
1.The "Exhibit(s) References should include the "Code of Development" as also being part of the "Application
Plan ".
2.The proffer statement should use more standard language, such as in the "general accord" proffer.
3.The general accord proffer ( #1) should make reference to the "Application Plan /Code of Development" by name,
preparer and date (e. g. by Shimp Engineering, PC, dated 4/1/2012, amended 5/20/2013; the "Plan ").
4.The cash proffers by unit types must reflect the new amounts of: $20,460.57/SFD; $13,913.18/SFA or TH;
$14,497.77/MF and state that this money shall be used for CIP projects.
5.The public road improvements should have the standard language dealing with being "ready for acceptance by
VDOT' and include timing triggers (e. g. "at first CO ", or whatever works best for us).
6.Engineering may want an overlot grading proffer as we have had on other NMDs.
Review Status: Requested Changes
' R -
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
May 6, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA- 2012 -003 Out of Bounds
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the subject rezoning, and offer the following comments:
1. Curve data for the horizontal curves shown on the plan have not been included as previously
requested. However, this information will have to be included in the construction plans for the
project and we can review at that time.
2. It appears that with the new road layout that the horizontal curves meet the required design
standards. This will be confirmed with during the construction plan review.
3. The new proposed layout has resolved the sight distance conflict with the commercial parking lot.
Care will need to be taken during the Landscaping Plan development to ensure that the street trees
do not limit the required intersection sight distance of 280 feet at each of the intersections. In
addition, all street trees need to be located at least 30 feet from the intersection in accordance with
Section B(1) -5 -D of the Road design manual.
4. The sanitary sewer has been located out of the pavement of all roads that will be taken into the
VDOT system.
5. A traffic study for this project has been provided to VDOT this morning. However, at the time of
these comments, this study has not been reviewed by VDOT.
6. The pavement width of the proposed VDOT roads appears adequate based. This will be verified
as part of the construction plan review.
7. We recommend that the bump -outs at the intersection with Bennington Road be removed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
" `,t
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT Culpeper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
May 6, 2013
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
PO Box 1113
Troy, Virginia 22974
RE: ZMA 2012 - 00003, Out of Bounds
Dear Justin:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA
moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss
these issues.
All comments from all reviewers are provided in this letter, however the major issues that will
need to be addressed before moving forward to the Planning Commission are listed below.
Many of these show up in other comments by each reviewer listed in this letter, however it is
important to identify the major concerns, and these should be addressed with a resubmittal:
1. The cul -de -sac on South Bennington Road must be 96 feet in diameter and the turn
around provided at the end of Road B will need to meet the requirements of Virginia
State Firecode Section D103.4, since these are the primary means of serving the lots.
(See additional Fire and Rescue comments for further detail)
2. The traffic study was submitted on May 6, 2013, however staff has not had time to
review. Also, some changes and modifications may come out of the review, as well as,
proffer recommendations.
3. It appears the runoff for the existing topography drains to a low point west and southeast
of the site. The underground detention and treatment concept for the site does not work
well with the natural flow and topography. (See engineering comment #1 for more
detailed comment and information)
4. Existing stormsewer pipes for connection, west and southeast of the site, shall be
addressed for downstream adequacy. Downstream easements should be provided. (see
engineering comments for further detail).
5. An overlot grading plan is recommended to avoid grading issues as the individual lots
are developed. This can be addressed through an overlot grading proffer.
6. Private street approval will be necessary. Please provide the request to be reviewed with
the rezoning request.
7. According to the County GIS, there are critical slopes in the back of the property. Either
provide a survey showing that there are no critical slopes, or submit a critical slopes
waiver along with the rezoning.
8. Provide a sidewalk all along the front of the property along Barracks Road. The previous
submittal showed a sidewalk, however this one is missing the sidewalk.
9. Proffers were referenced in this submittal, however none were submitted. Many of the
issues can be addressed with proffers. Some suggested proffers are listed further in this
letter under the Planning comments.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
The Neighborhood Model analysis
Additional Planning Comments
Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
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 and the public hearing. The comments below are in
preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at
the work session and /or with subsequent submittals.
The proposed development is within Neighborhood 7 of the Comprehensive Plan and
designated as Neighborhood Density Residential. The recommended density for Neighborhood
Density is 3 -6 units /acre. This proposal is within the recommended density.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later
date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
The revised application plan does not show sidewalks all along
Orientation
Barracks Road frontage. Sidewalks along the whole frontage of the
parcel should be provided. Also, pedestrian intersections or "ped
heads" should be provided at every corner of an intersection, and
crosswalks should also be provided. It would be desirable for the
applicant to construct sidewalks on the south side of Barracks Road to
Westminster Road or provide a cash proffer toward the construction of
a sidewalk. All of these improvements will allow access to other
existing or proposed sidewalks and existing transit stops. With
modifications, this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
The parking along Georgetown Road extended into the site should be
Friendly Streets
moved to the other side of the street where the development is
and Paths
occuring. It will be awkward for visitors and residents to come off of
Barracks Road and into the development and have to turn around to
park. Also, it is not very safe for visitors and residents to then have to
park and cross the street to get to their house /development. With road
modifications this principle will be met.
Interconnected
The Plan shows a connection of Bennington Road and Georgetown
Streets and
Road with provides a connection into Canterbury Hills with a light.
Transportation
Right of way is shown to the property line at the end of South
Networks
Bennington Road to provide a future connection to the Colonnades
property. his principle is met.
Parks and Open
Multiple open space areas have been provided, including a
Space
playground. Also, there is a path system the runs throughout the
development. This path should be extended to run North /South in the
Additional Planninq Comments
Street Requirements and Layout. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort
to create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. As stated above, a
open space area between South Bennington Road lots and the Single
Family, Multi - Family lots. With modifications this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
The development is within walking distance to Barracks Road
Centers
Shopping Center and also has access to bus stops along Georgetown
and Barracks Road. This principle is met.
Buildings and
The proposed neighborhood includes a mixture of residential uses.
Spaces of Human
The maximum building height would be 45 feet for multifamily and
Scale
townhomes, and 35 feet for single family. The garages on the single
family attached homes should be deemphasized by putting them
either behind the homes facing alleys and /or pulling them back so
they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes, this
language should be added to the code of development. With the
addition of language added to the code of development, this principle
will be met.
Relegated Parking
The parking is located at the back of the townhouse units, and if the
garage on the single family attached units is further back from the
face of the house, the parking will be relegated. With minor
modifications, this principle will be met.
Mixture of Uses
There a number of different housing types proposed to be allowed
uses within this development. with Barracks Rd Shopping Center
within walking distance, and the Colonnades to the north, this
principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
The plan allows for a number of different types of housing, including
Types and
multi - family, townhomes, and single family residential. It has been
Affordability
stated that there could be an age restriction for potential homeowners
in the development, but nothing has been proffered for this. They
have also stated that the development would include 15% affordable
housing. This should be addressed in a proffer. With the addition of
the proffer, this principle will be met.
Redevelopment
There is an existing historic residence on the property that will remain.
The applicant has allowed members of the Historic Preservation
Committee to document the house and outbuildings. This property is
within the development areas and will not require any additional
utilities, however it will require transportation improvements. While
this is an open, undeveloped lot, it is minimizing development in the
rural areas. This principle is met.
Site Planning that
There is only one small area where there are critical slopes being
Respects Terrain
disturbed. Engineering and Planning have no objection to this
disturbance. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries
This project is directly across from the rural areas. There is an
with the Rural
existing black three -board fence along Barracks Road that is a
Areas
character - defining feature and should be maintained. Meeting the
Architectural Review Board landscape requirements, and retaining
the fence, this principle will be met.
Additional Planninq Comments
Street Requirements and Layout. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort
to create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. As stated above, a
traffic analysis needs to be reviewed. Staff has the following additional concerns about the
layout and design that should be addressed with a resubmittal.:
1. The intersections of Georgetown Road Extended and Bennington Road should provide
crosswalks and curb ramps for each direction, not just one.
2. A request should be made to have sidewalks on one side of the street for Georgetown
Road Extended. This is a requirement of the subdivision ordinance in the development
areas, and should be approved with this rezoning.
3. A sidewalk should be provided on one side of the new road connection of Bennington
Road to allow pedestrians to connect from Canterbury Hills into the development and to
the bus stops along Georgetown Road.
4. The bump -outs at the intersection with Bennington Road be removed.
5. Alleys should not be used for primary access of address locations. Block 5 lots are
currently fronting only on an alley. The alley should be either designed as a private street
or the lots should be arranged to front on a public street. A private street request should
also be provided to be reviewed with the rezoning.
6. Consideration should be given to provide additional off -site sidewalks on the west side of
Barracks road from the property to Westminster Road.
7. It appears that off site easements may be necessary for the construction of South
Bennington Road extension. Provide a letter of intent from the adjacent owners for this
construction.
8. The parking along Georgetown Road Extended needs to be on the development side of
the road, see comments in the Neighborhood Model chart.
Application Plan and Code of Development.
A note should be added to the plan that states that the maximum density is subject to approval
of stormwater management and street standards approved by the County Engineer.
1. Landscaping shown does not meet Entrance Corridor or the zoning ordinance. Some of
the trees shown along Barracks Road are off site. It is recommended that all planting
required be contained on site. (See additional attached ARB staff comments)
2. A note should be added to the plan that states that the maximum density is subject to
approval of stormwater management and street standards approved by the County
Engineer.
3. Block 5 lots do not have frontage on a public or private street. Revise so either the alley
is a private street, or the lots front on the public street.
Proffers
1. Proffers have not been submitted. A proffer statement is needed with the application.
2. Application Plan (recommended proffer for assurance that the rezoning plan /design is
what will be submitted for the site plan stage)
3. Traffic improvements proffer will need to be provided.
4. Cash Proffer for units need to be provided.
5. Affordable Housing proffer will need to be provided.
6. Bennington Road connection proffer suggested.
7. Overlot Grading proffer suggested.
8. Will the amenities be proffered?
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. The fee for a second resubmittal is
$1250.00. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission, it appears that these fees have already been paid:
$ 210.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 215.51 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 425.51 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 210.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 635.71 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296 -5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated May 6, 2013
Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue, dated April 18, 2013
Attachment C- Comments from Engineering, dated April 22, 2013
Attachment D- Comments from Architectural Review Board Staff, dated April 10, 2013
Attachment E- Comments from ACSA, will be forthcoming.
Attachment F- Comments from Zoning, dated April 18, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
nor :�r8�
c
1 c'
� IkGi':`ti1a
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A.
For a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
3.
Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ...............................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B.
For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee...................................................................................
............................... .......................$1000.00
C.
Amendment to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D.
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N.
Required notice:
1.
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2.
Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00
plus the
actual cost of first class postage
3.
Published notice:
Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual
cost
2013 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing *
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 5 2012
Dec 5 2012
Dec 17 2012
Jan 8
Nov 19 2012
Dec 19 2012
Jan 7
Jan 29
Dec 3 2012
Jan 2
Jan 7
Jan 29
Dec 17 2012
Jan 16
Feb 4
Feb 26
Jan 07
Feb 5
Feb 11
Mar 5
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 25
Mar 19
Feb 4
Mar 6
Mar 18
Apr 9
Tue Feb 19
Mar 20
Apr 1
Apr 23
Mar 4
Apr 3
Apr 15
May 7
Mar 18
Apr 17
Apr 29
May 21
Apr 1
May 1
May 13
Jun 4
Apr 15
May 15
May 27
Jun 18
May 6
Jun 5
Jun 24
Jul 16
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 24
Jul 16
Jun 3
Jul 03
Jul 8
Jul 30
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 29
Aug 20
Jul 1
Jul 31
Aug 19
Sep 10
Jul 15
Aug 14
Aug 19
Sep 10
Aug 5
Sep 4
Sep 16
Oct 8
Aug 19
Sep 18
Sep 30
Oct 22
Tue Sep 3
Oct 2
Oct 21
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 28
Nov 19
Oct 7
Nov 6
Nov 18
Dec 10
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 25
Dec 17
Nov 4
Dec 4
Dec 23
Jan 14 2014
Nov 18
Dec 18
Jan 6 2014
Jan 28 2014
Dec 2
Jan 1 2014
Jan 6 2014
Jan 28 2014
Dec 16
Jan 15 2014
Feb 3 2014
Feb 25 2014
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes
that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is
ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public
hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to
public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a
recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to
defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional
deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major change in the project
proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention.
Review Comments
Project Name: Out Of Bounds
Date Completed: Thursday, April 18, 2013
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
1. Fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turn around provisions in
accordance with VA Statewide Fire Prevention Code, (VSFPC), D103.4. The cul -de -sac on South Bennington
Road must be 96' in diameter and the turn around provided at the end of Road B will need to meet the
requirements of VSPC D103.4 since these are the primary means of serving the lots that front them.
2. The turn radius for all intersections will need to be shown on a road or site plan due to the streets all being under
32' of unobstructed travel way. The radius shall not be less than 25'.
3. Road A between lots 6 and 7/8 will need to be marked no parking to allow for vehicles to turn around when
serving lots 7 thru 17.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
r
�IRGIS
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos
From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division: Engineering
Date: April 22, 2013
Subject: ZMA 2012 -00003 Out of Bounds
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the
applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added
or eliminated based on further review.
1. It appears the runoff for the existing topography drains to a low point west and southeast of site. The
underground detention and treatment concept for the site do not work well with the natural flow and
topography. Capture of runoff on final plan may not work out. The SWM facility in road "A" should be
relocated to an area behind lots 1 -3. The underground facility between ammenity 1 & 2 should also be
removed, while providing the underground facility west of lots 43 and 55. Since the space is tight, lots 49 to
55 may need to shift east. The existing runoff drains to two locations and providing SWM at these areas will
minimize the impact on the natural topography. Another option is to place one detention /bioretention pond
where lots 36 -55 are situated. The cost of underground detention basins can be costly and it appears the
homeowners will be subjected to the maintenance of 3 underground detention facilities.
2. Existing stormsewer pipes for connection, west and southeast of site, shall be addressed for downstream
adequacy. Downstream easements shall be obtained before rezoning approval.
3. It appears the road design do not meet VDOT standards. Please refer to VDOT Road Design Manual,
Appendix 81. For a projected traffic volume up to 2000 ADT, the minimum width is 29' face of curb to face of
curb. The private road should be equivalent.
4. It appears turnarounds for road "A ", Bennington Road, and road "B" do not meet VDOT and Fire Rescue
standards. Please refer to VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B1 and Fire Rescue comments.
5. It appears that road "B" is proposed to be an alley. This road serves as frontage for lots and cannot be
proposed as an alley. Please revise.
6. Please provide curb ramps.
7. An overlot grading plan is recommended for this development to avoid grading issues as individual lots are
developed.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext.
3458 for further information.
pF AL
�J�ctr�tA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Megan Yaniglos
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA- 2012 -03: Out of Bounds
DATE: April 10, 2013
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 4/1/2013 and I have the following comments:
General Development Plan
The applicant should note that a continuous row of trees on both sides of the extension of Georgetown
Road, landscaping along the EC frontage, and additional planting to mitigate the impacts of rear
elevations facing the EC will all be important components of the proposal for ARB review.
My July 25, 2012 comment regarding the three -board fence was not addressed in the current revision.
The original comment was: The three -board fence along Barracks Road is a character - defining
feature of this part of the corridor. Clearly indicate locations of existing black three -board fence and
identify as "to remain " or "to be demolished". The current set of drawings shows the fence on the
existing conditions sheet, but it is not identified for demolition. It does not appear on the General
Development Plan, but it does appear on other sheets in the application plan set. Retaining, re-
installing, and/or reconstructing the three -board fence could help re- integrate the new development
into the corridor. Please clarify the proposed treatment for the three -board fence.
Code of Development
Existing Features to be Preserved
The applicant has graciously allowed members of the Historic Preservation Committee to document
the 1940s house and outbuildings.
Colors and Fagade Treatment
My July 25, 2012 comment regarding earth tone colors was not addressed in the current revision. The
original comment was: Regarding earth tone colors, it is recommended that the only colors to be
reviewed by County staff should be the colors for those buildings subject to ARB review. For
buildings subject to ARB review, the color palette must be submitted at the site plan review stage. A
Certificate of Appropriateness and final site plan approval won't be granted without approved colors.
The "earth -tone color" bullet in the code of development should be revised to correctly address these
issues. The comment stands.
Roof Pitch and Design
My July 25, 2012 comment regarding earth tone colors was not addressed in the current revision. The
original comment was: In the last bullet, clarify how trim can screen a garage door or correct the
wording. The fourth bullet includes the same wording and should also be corrected. Possible wording
may be: Garage doors should have decorative trim and should be screened by landscaping.
Landscape Treatment
My July 25, 2012 comment regarding landscape treatment was not addressed in the current revision.
The original comment was: The second sentence of this section of the code should be deleted and
replaced with `Albemarle County Entrance Corridor landscape guidelines also apply. " The
comment stands.
Review Comments
Project Name: Out Of Bounds
Date Completed: Thursday, April 18, 2013
Reviewer: Ron Higgins
Department /Division /Agency: Admin Zoning Review
Reviews
-A critical slopes waiver will still be needed for the area at the rear of the site.
- Public or private street frontage is needed for lots 30 -55.
-Lots 43 -55 do not even have frontage on an open space as do lots 30 -42 as proposed on page 11.
- Proffer statement is needed and should address, among other things, pedestrian connections on Barracks Road
and recreational amenities as stated in your narrative on pages 5 & 9.
Review Status: Requested Changes