Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000018 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-08-15County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: 8/15/16 Subject: Review Comments for ZMA2010-00018 The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application. 1. The cul-de-sac improvements shown at the end of phase one and in phase 2 must either be shown all in phase1 2. Proffers 1. Proffer #1 Construction of Public Streets...: Suggested revision for this proffer is as follows, further refinement per the County Attorney's office will be necessary 1. Public and Private Streets - As a condition for the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure on the Property, the Owner shall design, dedicate and complete construction of the streets, both public and private, as shown on the Phase 1 Plan as follows: a. Public streets: i. An extension of Library Avenue to High Street, ii. An extension of High Street to across Library Avenue to the future Primary Street, and iii. An extension of the Primary Street from High Street to the eastern boundary of Phase 1. b. Private streets: i. An extension from Library Avenue north to the intersection known as "The Square", Zoning Review Comments for ZMA2010-00018 ii. An extension of the street from the intersection of "The Square" to the eastern boundary of Phase 1, and iii. An extension of High Street from the future Primary Street to the street noted in b (ii). The private streets shown here may also be streets dedicated to public use and must meet the conditions noted below for dedication and completion of construction of proposed public streets. Dedication of public streets shall be achieved through a subdivision plat meeting the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code) to create a special lot composed of the right-of-way for the public street. The plat shall identify the Public Street right- of-way as being dedicated to public use. The plat shall be prepared for approval by the County under the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Completion of the construction of any street shall be deemed complete for this proffer when the following has occurred, for public streets; the streets have been deemed ready for acceptance by VDOT, and for private streets; the streets have been inspected by the County Engineer and deemed to meet the private street standards of the Design Standards Manual. NOTE: The reference to "The Square" above will need to be shown on the application plan. 2. Proffer #2 - Reservation of ROW. The area described in this proffer is in an area not included to be rezoned from HI to DCD. If this is to be included then a location and acreage will need to be known so as to be included in the area for the DCD zoning. 3. Proffer #3 — No comment at this time. 4. Proffer #4 — Remove reference to parking as a civic space use. County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: May 9, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2010-18 Crozet Square Please consider the following comments: Proffers: 1. Now that the we are considering only parts of parcels, revise the language at the beginning of the proffers as follows; Tax Map Parcel #: 056A2-01-00-07100, 056A2-01-00-071 BO (portion), and 056A2-01-00-02500 (portion), (the "Property) Rezone one parcel and portions of two additional parcels totaling 6.2407 acres, more or less, two from Heavy Industry (HI) to Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and one from Commercial (C-1) to Downtown Crozet District (DCD) In the 41h paragraph of the intro remove reference to Section 8 as this is not a planned development and not eligible for Variations. 2. Proffer #2 when will the civic space be built? What is the trigger for the completion of the space or spaces? ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's ZMA2010018: Crozet Spuare (Barnes Lumber Redevelopment) SP201400001: Crozet Square (Barnes Lumber Redevelopment) 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 0 feet (Existing 6" Cast Iron Water Main and Fire Hydrant Assembly on Site). Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 45 feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: See "Red Flags" below. 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification ✓Yes _ No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal RWSA will evaluate overall domestic water demand during the final site plan stage. 7. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) Remove language which states "expectations" by the applicant in regards to the ACSA funding infrastructure improvements for this development. Add language which portrays the following information: The ACSA and RWSA are working towards a common goal to reduce I&I within the Crozet Wastewater system. In addition to the ongoing wastewater rehabilitation an FEB study will begin in Fiscal Year 2015. An RWSA capacity certification will be required during the final site plan stage. The ACSA will apply for the RWSA capacity certification on the developer's behalf during the final site plan stage. The developer should submit a draft construction schedule, when available, so the ACSA can review the projected wastewater flows. Once the wastewater improvements schedule is determined, the ACSA will review it in conjunction with the Crozet Square construction schedule and comment accordingly. General Comment: The ACSA and RWSA are unable to provide wastewater capacity certification for a 10 year build out of the project. Wastewater capacity certification will occur during the final site plan stage. General Comment: Capacity cannot be reserved and is on a first come first serve basis at the time of application for service. General Comment: A pre -pay connection fee does not reserve capacity within the water or wastewater system. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner May 30, 2014 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2010-00018 Crozet Square SP -2014-00001 Barnes Lumber Redevelopment Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the rezoning request and special use permit request for Crozet Square/Barnes Lumber Redevelopment as submitted on May 5, 2014 and offer the following comments: 1. We continue to be concerned about on street parking between points A and B impacting the available sight distance of the intersection. This will be reviewed closely during plan review and may impact the ability for on street parking in this area. 2. Dimensions of the roadway sections and the mini roundabout will need to be confirmed to be in compliance with VDOT standards. This may be addressed during plan review. The proposed layout may need to be adjusted to meet the standards. 3. The plaza proposed at the intersection of Library Avenue and High Street will need to be designed in a fashion that does not adversely impact traffic on the proposed public roadways or create maintenance conditions that are not typical to VDOT maintained roadways. Traffic Impact Study 1. Table 3-1 in the study indicates minimal degradation with the 2019 No Build Scenario. It appears in the table that Crozet Avenue/Three Notched Road intersection may actually function worse with the Mitigation #1 Scenario. 2. The study recommends that by 2029, Crozet Avenue/Three Notched Road, Crozet Avenue/The Square, and Crozet Avenue/Library Avenue would be signalized intersections. In addition, Crozet Avenue/Jarmans Gap would signalized when Phase 2-a is completed. The spacing of these intersections would result in 4 signalized intersections within an approximately 900 foot road segment. For a minor arterial with a speed limit of 25 mph, Access Management Spacing requirements are 880 feet between each signalized intersection. The Northwest Region Traffic Operations section will need to approve any new traffic signals as well prior to installation. 3. The utilization of roundabout(s) as an alternative to signalization should be considered. 4. If connection to Three Notched Road from the development via a railroad crossing could be provided, the traffic impact to Crozet Avenue from the development would likely alleviate some of the congestion that will occur on Crozet Avenue as a result of this development. If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me at (434) 589-5871. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: May 28, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2010-18 Crozet Square Please consider the following comments: ZMA Proffers: 1. Now that the CSX properties are being considered, revise the language at the beginning of the proffers as follows; Tax Map Parcel #: 056A2-01-00-07100, 056A2-01-00-071 B0, 056A2-01-00- 02500, and 056A2-01-00-026 (the "Property) Rezone two parcels totaling 18.7 acres, more or less, from Heavy Industry (HI) to Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and two parcels totaling 1.76 acres , more or less, from Commercial (C-1) to Downtown Crozet District (DCD) 2. Proffer #3 — Blocks 4 & 5 should always have a mix use component as is permitted by right in the DCD. The proffer should be revised to state in some form that "In the case where a special use permit is granted to allow 1 st floor residential then at least Fifty -One Percent (51 %) of the aggregate ground floor space in buildings in Blocks 4 and 5 as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be non-residential uses." The conversion of the permitted residential back to non-residential should be conditioned appropriately with the special use permit and not be in the proffer. 3. Proffer #4 should remove the reference to Open Space and only have Green Space, civic space etc... The percentage of "Community Space" should be committed to be a larger amount. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012 Rev.4: 22 Jan 2014 Rev.5: 25 Mar 2014 Rev.6: 14 May 2014 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) revision 6,- The , The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic study provided with this revision raises some essential questions regarding signals and improvements on Crozet Avenue (SR810). There appears to be a conflict in that more signals are recommended, but VDOT will not allow them due to spacing requirements on the roadway. The off -set between Library Avenue (SR867) and Jarman's Gap Road (SR691) is too short to allow significant improvement. The Square is also too close to Three Notched Road (SR240) and Library Ave. It would appear that the county and VDOT need to eliminate or consolidate one or more of these intersections for impacts to be addressed. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. 3. A stormwater concept plan has been provided with this revision. This plan provides fairly standard stormwater management for individual blocks on the west, and a basin in the buffer area for blocks on the east. This appears to comply in concept with the WPO. The buffer area impact may be a problem per comment 2. It should be noted that the approval of buffer impacts are part of the rezoning approval. revision 5; The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. It is not recommended that the county approve dimensions on road sections with a rezoning. Plans are too preliminary to agree on widths. It is not clear what is meant by a shared travel lane. 5. Proposed proffer 1 references sections and details which were not found. Each of the phases needs to build on the other if they are to proceed in order. Library Avenue, the central connecting road, should Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 be built completely regardless of phases, if it is the intention that phases can be built in any order. This would apply to any other necessary improvements such as off-site transportation improvements, or stormwater management. revision 4; The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. The plan needs to specify which roads are public. 5. The hard right turns for the roads serving the southern blocks, and The Square, do not meet geometric road requirements. These will not be acceptable. 6. T -turnarounds are not recommended. They end up as parking spaces for nearby units. 7. The 5 -road intersection roundabout will require splitter islands and tighter dimensions on the southern side to maintain flow and lane widths. 8. It is not clear how the road sections apply when no median is shown on the layout. revision 3; This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; 1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. revision l; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (12.5') so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner From: John Anderson, Interim VSMP Administrator Note: Initial, Rev. 1-6 comments by Glenn E. Brooks, PE, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012 Rev.4: 22 Jan 2014 Rev.5: 25 Mar 2014 Rev. 6: 14 May 2014 Rev.7: 6 May 2016 (J. Anderson) Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) revision 7; 1. Phase 1 should include and show Phase 1 roadway improvements, especially conceptual roadway along south edge, Phase 1, shown/proposed in Exhibit 4 submitted to the county in January (Image; Also, 7_c., below). This road supports block design objective and should be included with ZMA proffered plan. 2. Conceptual SECONDARY STREET along the south edge of Phase 1 does not meet minimum VDOT spacing requirements at intersection with High St. (Note closeness of future SECONDARY STREET connection to High St -Library St intersection.) Two conceptual alternatives (submitted with previous Applications) are recommended, below: F111 Engineering Review Page 2 of 7 As the expectation from the community is for a grid system, Library Street should follow the southern property line, without a curve, and High Street should be extended northward to intersect with PRIMARY STREET to create blocks, see below: b. Alternatively, a configuration similar to what was proposed late last year (minus the pedestrian RR crossing), see below, could be acceptable: We understand the configuration above does not set the grid pattern with phase 1, but variations on what is shown above, with a relocated traffic circle might also be possible. Engineering Review Page 3 of 7 This overlay may be helpful: 4. The Phase 1 grid: the proffered plan shows not only 2 (presumed) public streets, but a series of parking lots with perpendicular parking. We believe that, unless Applicant proffers specific parking areas with the plan, the plan should show public and private streets and not parking areas. Private streets might be Neighborhood Model type streets or they may be "parking lot streets", but if a grid is intended, it needs to be shown. It is suggested that streets in purple, above, be shown on the proffered plan as private Neighborhood Model -type streets or travelways within parking lots. 5. Discussion during 28 -April meeting with VDOT (C. Proctor, Joel DeNunzio) highlights need for a physical barrier that will prevent southbound traveling left turns from Crozet Ave into the Square. Right turn ingress only is proposed with TIA. Please provide barrier design with proffered plan. 6. Engineering supports VDOT preference for Library St. -Primary St. through -street design without stop movement /stop sign, with radius curve meeting VDOT 200' Min. 7. TIA (EPR PC, by Jeanie Alexander, P.E., April 2016): a. Appendix J includes 2019 signal warrant analysis for a traffic signal at Crozet Ave-Jarmans Gap Rd, and Crozet Ave -Library Ave (Bill Wuensch; 29 -Mar, 2016). TIA, pg. iii, Summary of Recommendations, Library Ave, states: "Installation of a traffic signal at Library Avenue is warranted and necessary for efficient access to, from, and within the Barnes Lumber site. Per the MUTCD Signal Warrants, both the peak hour and four hour warrants are met in 2019 and 2029." Recommend proffers include date of signal installation at Crozet Ave -Library Avenue be tied to phased development, to threshold commercial space, for example. Thresholds will need to be established as to when signal or other physical improvements are needed (Also #5.). b. Pg. 6, Table 5 shows the Square is proposed to be an un -signalized, right turn ingress only, under all design scenarios. Recommend Phase 1 Land Use & Transportation Plan, Exhibit A, d. 02/03/2016 include Crozet Ave design elements; that Phase 1 show plan view design of intersections at The Square and Crozet Ave, and signal at Library Ave and Crozet Ave. Engineering Review Page 4 of 7 c. Recommend TIA include SECONDARY STREET -High St. Intersection analysis, a Phase I intersection. See Figure 16 -2029 Phase 2 Schematic Plan, Ex. 3, Schematic Site Plan, incl. with schematics near end of thinner volume: TIA, Barnes Lumber Site, Phase 1, April 2016. 8. Engineering supports Planning view that developer is going to have to work something out with the businesses on the Square, including timing for when change (right turn ingress only) to the entrance to The Square (St.) may or will occur. 9. Revise unconventional design (SW corner of Phase 1) where Library St. width narrows as it enters Phase 1. This design will challenge driving behavior by forcing drivers to cross /swing into path of vehicles exiting the Library, and heading toward Crozet Ave. Proposed Phase 1 design runs counter to driver expectation by forcing drivers on Library St. to venture somewhat into westbound lane at a point near the SW corner of Phase 1, before continuing eastward. 10. Apr -4 2016 Applicant /Milestone letter states "All technical infrastructure and storm water design issues will be addressed at the preliminary and final site plan levels of the development process." ZMAs require conceptual stormwater management design and narrative that may take the form of "County approval of a master stormwater plan obtained prior to the first initial site plan approval." [Ref. ZMA201500007; Brookhill Subdivision; Alb. County] Recommend Applicant provide SWM master plan prior to initial site plan for review /approval, and ensure condition is met through proffered plan. 11. Recommend extend improvements to High Street (to accommodate traffic) down to the intersection with Tabor. revision 6: The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic study provided with this revision raises some essential questions regarding signals and improvements on Crozet Avenue (SR810). There appears to be a conflict in that more signals are recommended, but VDOT will not allow them due to spacing requirements on the roadway. The off -set between Library Avenue (SR867) and Jarman's Gap Road (SR691) is too short to allow significant improvement. The Square is also too close to Three Notched Road (SR240) and Library Ave. It would appear that the county and VDOT need to eliminate or consolidate one or more of these intersections for impacts to be addressed. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. 3. A stormwater concept plan has been provided with this revision. This plan provides fairly standard stormwater management for individual blocks on the west, and a basin in the buffer area for blocks on the east. This appears to comply in concept with the WPO. The buffer area impact may be a problem per comment 2. It should be noted that the approval of buffer impacts are part of the rezoning approval. revision S: The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. Engineering Review Page 5 of 7 4. It is not recommended that the county approve dimensions on road sections with a rezoning. Plans are too preliminary to agree on widths. It is not clear what is meant by a shared travel lane. 5. Proposed proffer 1 references sections and details which were not found. Each of the phases needs to build on the other if they are to proceed in order. Library Avenue, the central connecting road, should be built completely regardless of phases, if it is the intention that phases can be built in any order. This would apply to any other necessary improvements such as off-site transportation improvements, or stormwater management. revision 4: The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. The plan needs to specify which roads are public. 5. The hard right turns for the roads serving the southern blocks, and The Square, do not meet geometric road requirements. These will not be acceptable. 6. T -turnarounds are not recommended. They end up as parking spaces for nearby units. 7. The 5 -road intersection roundabout will require splitter islands and tighter dimensions on the southern side to maintain flow and lane widths. 8. It is not clear how the road sections apply when no median is shown on the layout. revision 3; This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. Engineering Review Page 6 of 7 revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; 1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. revision l; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (12.5') so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. Engineering Review Page 7 of 7 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17 -320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. ZMA201000018 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment_050616_rev7.docx COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner May 6, 2016 Ms. Elaine Echols Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Comments on the traffic study and concept plan for the Barnes Lumber Property Crozet, Va. Dear Ms. Echols: I have completed my review of the traffic study done by EPR for the Milestone Partners LLC, and have the following comments: The internal network has to provide two functions. It connects the developments to the east (i.e. Parkside Village, Creekside, etc.) to Library Ave and onto Crozet Ave., and provides access to the development. This can be accomplished in two ways: one is to provide a continuous facility through the property; or provide two parallel facilities with connecting road that can spread out the crossing movements between the two roadways at several locations. From VDOT's perspective the continuous facility is preferred; however the network would be acceptable. Note that the concept shown in the traffic study show one primary facility with a 90 degree intersection in the middle. This concept has the major turning movement at one location, which is not acceptable. It also shows a future parallel roadway that connects to High St. adjacent its connection to Library Ave extended this does not meet spacing standards and is not acceptable. For the network option both roadways and the connecting roads (minimum 2) would need to be public with similar design features. The roads within the Phase 1 area should be shown and constructed as part of that phase. Parallel parking can be included if desired. The intersection treatment should also be considered in the design. (Note that if all -way stops are warranted and used, roundabouts should be considered as the preferred treatment.) The desire here is to identify the road network both public and private and deal with the road attributes at site plan. Overall the study adequately represents the affects the development will have on the existing roadway network; VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Ms. Elaine Echols May 6, 2016 Page 2 of 3 The study show that the intersections on Crozet Avenue will deteriorate over time, but remain above acceptable levels. The development will increase that deterioration to unacceptable levels without improvements. This is due to the lack of connections both to Route 240 (Three Notch Road) to the north and to Route 250 to the south to relieve some the traffic that currently and in the future can only ingress and egress the areas using Crozet Ave. The County needs to persue solutions to address this situation and ultimately the main issue for the developing areas east of Crozet Avenue; The study does account for some trips to and from the developments to the east. This distribution will increase as the developments proceed forward and when the north and south connections discussed above are completed. The current distribution is the worst case scenario and therefore shows a greater impact on Crozet Avenue as the study states. It is imperative however that the connection south to Route 250 and north to Route 240 be built in order to provide another outlet for this and the other development traffic in this area; The study shows the intersections Library Ave. and Jarmans Gap Rd and Three Notch Rd. with Crozet Ave., which are impacted by the development, will require improvements to continue to function acceptably with the development. Based on the study the Phase 1 Build scenario of the development reduces the Level of Service and increases the Delay in both peak hour periods at both Three Notch Rd and Library Ave intersections to unacceptable levels (`E' with 47 Sec. of Delay and F with 204 Sec. of Delay respectively), and reduce the EB approach LOS on Jarmans Gap Rd. to an `E' with 40 sec. of delay. This will require improvements to these intersections. These improvements need to be designed and included with the Phase 1 scenario site plans. The study call for installing signals at Library Ave and possibly at Jarmans Gap Rd. These may address the operations but they do not meet the spacing standards and are not the safest treatment option. It is state policy to consider signalization of intersection as a last option due to the safety concerns they present. Therefore it is recommended the intersection be evaluated for roundabouts (The `Mini' roundabout diameters less than 90 feet with fully mountable center islands may work in these locations without major right of way impacts). The study did not provide any recommendations for the Three Notch Rd. intersection with Crozet Ave. The intersection is the center of the Crozet village and due to the limited/restricted area at the intersection there are very limited options to address the impacts of growth and future development without impacting the surrounding properties. The study should investigate options for addressing this intersection (possibly a Roundabout); The study recommends reconfiguring the access to The Square to a right in only to eliminate the conflicts cause by queues backing into the adjacent intersections, and to reduce cut through traffic. This is preferred by VDOT and would reduce the conflicts on Crozet Avenue at the connection and should be include and installed as part of the development improvements; Ms. Elaine Echols May 6, 2016 Page 3 of 3 • The bottom line is that until additional connections to Route 240 and Route 250 and the full network connections are constructed any development east of Crozet Ave will continue to increases delay and deteriorate the level of service on the corridor because their access is only to/from Crozet Avenue. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-829-7558. Sincerely, Charles C. Proctor III Transportation Planner Culpeper District CC: Marshall Barron Joel DeNunzio o � CIRC; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 May 4, 2016 Frank R. Stoner Milestone Partners 3002 nd Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201000018: Crozet Square Dear Frank: Thank you for the submittal of April 18, 2016. Staff have reviewed the narrative, the proposed plan, the proffers and the traffic impact analysis. Our comments are provided below: The Proposed Plan In the proposed plan, seen to the right, you are showing three blocks, 4 parking areas, a public street to ultimately connect with Hilltop Drive, and another potential future connection from High Street. The level of commitment to this plan is unclear from the proposed proffers (for more information, please see comments on proffers later in this letter). It seems that, although there are blocks, parking areas, and connections shown, the only thing for which a commitment is being made is the public street system. As we have discussed previously, development of a grid is the preferred pattern for this downtown area. This can be achieved by making a commitment to provide a private street network, which could include "parking lot streets" as seen in the dashed lines on the following page: VDOT has said, "This network has to provide two functions. It has to connect the developments to the east (i.e. Parkside Village, Creekside, etc.) to Library Ave and onto Crozet Ave., and provide access to the development itself. This can be accomplished in two ways: one is to provide a continuous facility through the property; or two is to build parallel facilities with connecting roads (a grid) that can spread out the crossing movements between the two roadways." While VDOT has said they would prefer a single continuous road, they had said that the grid is also acceptable. I know that we talked previously about the need to extend Library Street onto your property if the adjoining owners to the south won't provide r.o.w. across the northern part of their properties. However, VDOT sees operational issues with the curvature of the road as shown on your plan. They believe that it creates a movement that will encourage speed and show preference to a travel movement that does not honor the grid system. In addition, the curve sets up an unapprovable offset with High Street. We would support the network as shown on the image below. If r.o.w. from the adjoining owners is not available Library Street should be extended across your property in the general location — ---- below. Again, according to VDOT, "For the network option both roadways and the connecting roads (minimum 2) would be public with �...�� similar design features. The roads within the Phase 1 V area should be shown and constructed as ` part of that phase. Parallel parking can be included if desired. The --- intersection treatment should also be considered in the design. (Note that if all -way stops are warranted and used, roundabouts should be considered as the preferred treatment. The desire here is to identify the road network both public and private and deal with the road attributes at site plan." You will note that you proposed the configuration below late last year, which we said we could support (minus the RR crossing). You told us early this year that it would not work because it couldn't meet the — - expectations of the community for a grid network. VDOT has x told us that this is an example of the continuous facility and would be acceptable. When you resubmit, it will be important to show the offsite road network because your traffic study showed the need for modifications to the current entrance from Crozet Avenue to the Square. Specifically, the traffic study noted that this connection needs to be included as it is being converted to a right -in only or possibly a right in/out. The study identifies this as an essential improvement and VDOT concurs. As we have discussed previously, this change cannot be made without working with the business owners along The Square. Have you done this? If not, you will need to win the support of the community for this change and enlist their help with the business owners. VDOT has also said that "The study shows the intersections Library Ave. and Jarmans Gap Rd and Three Notch Rd. with Crozet Ave., which are impacted by the development, will require improvements to continue to function acceptably with the development. Based on the study the Phase 1 Build scenario of the development reduces the Level of Service and increases the Delay in both peak hour periods at both Three Notch Rd and Library Ave intersections to unacceptable levels ('E' with 47 Sec. of Delay and F with 204 Sec. of delay respectively), and reduce the EB approach LOS on Jarmans Gap Rd. to an 'E' with 40 sec. of delay. This will require improvements to these intersections. These improvements need to be designed and included with the Phase 1 scenario site plans. We note that the traffic study implies that someone other than the applicant will make the physical improvements at Crozet Avenue and Library Street. At present, the County does not have money for the improvements nor are they programmed into any CIP. Whether or when they get on the CIP is not known. VDOT may or may not be willing to fund these physical improvements. Once thresholds are established, future development will likely need to be conditioned on those improvements. The Plan and proffers indicate that you aren't willing to improve High Street to the intersection with Tabor Street. VDOT has said that partial improvements to High Street will not work. As with Crozet Avenue and Library Street, the County does not have money for improvements to High Street nor are they programmed into any CIP. Whether or when they get on the CIP is not known. The timing for the full improvement to Tabor Street should be established with this zoning. In summary, we recommend that you make the following changes and commitments: 1. Make a commitment to build according to the plan. 2. Denote public and private streets or travelways on the plan so that it is clear that a grid and blocks are being created and that not all streets are expected to be public. 3. Please do not show the location of the parking lots unless you plan to build them at that location. 4. Show parallel and perpendicular streets/travelways on the plan, rather than the curved extension of Library Ave. into the site. 5. If you cannot obtain the r.o.w. across lots to the south of the site, Library Street should be extended across your property. VDOT's full set of comments are attached. However, we have not had a chance to talk to VDOT about them to understand what kinds of commitments other than those above might be needed. A follow-up meeting with all of us at the table is strongly recommended. Affordable Housing (attached comments from Ron White) No residential buildings are proposed with this ZMA; however, we note that you have provided proffers for affordable housing. We commend you for this addition. Entrance Corridor (from Margaret Maliszewski) 1. Standard Entrance Corridor landscaping will be required and can be reviewed with the site plan. A landscape strip will be needed along the railroad side of the development, free of utilities and easements. Allow for utility -free planting area along all streets, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, hammerheads, etc. Note that the purpose of the Entrance Corridor overlay is to establish buildings that have an appropriate appearance, and to enhance the development with landscaping. It is not the intent of the EC overlay to use landscape screening to hide inappropriately designed development. Approval of the application plan should allow for shifting of streets, parking and other site improvements to allow for landscaping to satisfy Entrance Corridor requirements. 2. It is anticipated that the development will be inward oriented. Nevertheless, the elevations of buildings visible from the Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors should not have a "back of building" appearance. The ARB will expect fully designed elevations with careful attention to materials, colors, details, proportions and the relative scale of buildings to each other. The applicant may find that a work session with the ARB could provide the needed guidance in this regard. RWSA/ACSA Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Victoria Fort) has provided these comments: 1. The development will require a flow capacity certification from RWSA prior to final site plan approval. 2. RWSA does not reserve capacity in its system for specific development projects. Substantial changes in future average daily flow to the RWSA systems, changes in regulations, and other future factors could result in changes in RWSA's capability to accept additional flow. 3. RWSA will need to review an estimate of wastewater flows from this development in addition to a projected build -out schedule in order to better determine whether adequate capacity will exist to serve this development. In addition to these general comments, on page 4 of 5 of the cover letter resubmittal, the applicant states that "the applicant's expectation is that the County will invest in the public facilities and services needed to serve the Barnes Lumber Redevelopment and the DCD in general". RWSA agrees with ACSA's previous comment that this language regarding expectations should be removed from the application. Albemarle County Service Authority (Jeremy Lynn) has provided these comments: 1. Remove language which states "expectations" by the applicant in regards to the ACSA funding infrastructure improvements for this development. 2. Add language which portrays the following information: The ACSA and RWSA are working towards a common goal to reduce I&I within the Crozet Wastewater system. In addition to the ongoing wastewater rehabilitation an FEB study will begin in Fiscal Year 2017. An RWSA capacity certification will be required during the final site plan stage. The ACSA will apply for the RWSA capacity certification on the developer's behalf during the final site plan stage. The developer should submit a draft construction schedule, when available, so the ACSA can review the projected wastewater flows. Once the wastewater improvements schedule is determined, the ACSA will review it in conjunction with the Crozet Square construction schedule and comment accordingly. 3. General Comment: The ACSA and RWSA are unable to provide wastewater capacity certification for a 10 year build out of the project. Wastewater capacity certification will occur during the final site plan stage. 4. General Comment: Capacity cannot be reserved and is on a first come first serve basis at the time of application for service. 5. General Comment: A pre -pay connection fee does not reserve capacity within the water or wastewater system. Stormwater Management 1. As you may remember, stormwater management was an issue discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. A conceptual plan for stormwater management is needed for this rezoning. It cannot be postponed to the site plan stage. Other Engineering Comments — attached from John Anderson Proffers • The list of TMPs should include a portion of 056A2-01-00-02500. The DCD is not a planned district, so Section 8.5.5.3 is not applicable and the plan you provide cannot be treated as an Application Plan for which variations can be approved. You may refer to your plan as an Application Plan, but referring to it as a Rezoning Plan is also possible. • Please be very clear as to whether you are proffering a plan of development and if so, which elements are being proffered. It is recommended that you provide a proffered plan rather than a "concept plan" or "schematic plan". 1. Please see comments about transportation improvements at the beginning of this letter. 2. It will be important to identify who decides on the location for and elements of the civic space. You may wish to add something to the effect that the location for and elements of the civic space must be approved by the Director of Community Development or Planning after consultation with the Crozet Community Advisory Committee. 3. See attachment on Affordable Housing. As of today, I have not received comments from the Zoning Division; however, I expect them on Monday and I will send them to you as soon as I get them. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Develop ment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. If you choose to go directly to public hearing without addressing these comments, staff will need to know a minimum of twenty-one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing so that a legal ad may be placed and notifications to neighbors sent. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is eechols@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Acting Chief of Planning COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 16, 2014 Frank R. Stoner Milestone 3002 nd Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201000018/Crozet Square and SP201400001/Barnes Lumber Redevelopment Dear Frank: Staff has reviewed your re -submittal for a rezoning from HI Heavy Industrial to DCD Downtown Crozet District and for a special use permit to allow up to 200 residential units of any authorized dwelling type in the DCD district under Section(s) 20B.2F 1, 2, 4, and 5 of zoning ordinance. For quick reference, the following is a quick synopsis of the big outstanding issues that are complex, but in need of some level of resolution prior to public hearing: • Commitment to percentage of employment vs. residential uses (CMP goal). • Community green location and expectation (CMP goal). • Transportation/TIA • Phasing Plan needs clarification • Engineering Comments (stormwater and stream) • Proffers need technical and substantive revision. • ACSA/RWSA comments The details regarding these big issues are further discussed throughout this letter. Staff believes the other outstanding issues described in this letter are issues that can be resolved relatively quickly. We have several questions and comments, which are listed below: Some of the previous comments remain for contextual reference with the items in red being revised comments. All other staff comments provided have been revised. ZMA Comments: Planning The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant: • The subject proposed development is located on a large parcel of land in the 1 Downtown Crozet area that is slated for redevelopment opportunities guided by the Crozet Master Plan (CMP). One of the primary recommendations for Downtown Crozet and in particular for this property in the CMP is that development includes a mixture of office, research and development (R&D), flex uses, retail, and service uses in redevelopment of the lumber yard property. In review of the plan submitted, there is not a lot of information about the yellow area described as residential. It appears to be approximately half or 50% of the developable area of the subject property. The percentage of total land area in residential use per the CMP for downtown is intended to be a low to moderate density form, while the expectancy for the rest of the developable land area is for a significant portion of the development to provide employment, and other economic opportunities that are typically expected in a downtown area. Thus, per the CMP, residential and light industrial uses are secondary uses for this area. If the residential use is 50% or more of the proposed development this would reflect to some extent a lost opportunity for the non-residential mix of use recommended in the CMP for the downtown Crozet area. Provide additional information that shows how this development will be a development with residential uses as secondary uses. For example, providing the percentage of land area or square feet for the various proposed uses within the development will help provide a comparison for primary and secondary uses. If the residential uses are the primary uses and not secondary, you need to explain and justify why you wish to make this development a primary residential use development, which is not the recommendation of the CMP for this property. Proffer 2 has been added to address a commitment for non-residential uses on the ground floor spaces of buildings located within blocks 4 and 5 to be at least fifty-one percent (51 %). This proffer also allows flexibility for buildings that include ground floor residential uses within blocks 4 and 5 to be constructed to be adaptable to non-residential uses in the future. However, there is no commitment provided for the percentage of mix of uses for blocks 6, 7 and 8. The separate land use and block densities table is not clear since there is no estimated square footage for commercial or residential provided for block 6. Currently, there is no guarantee that blocks 6, 7, and 8 could not all be developed with only residential uses. How do you plan to provide a full commitment to employment and other economic opportunities as primary uses and residential as a secondary use within this proposed development as recommended above and in the CMP? • The DCD provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail, service, and civic uses with light industrial and residential uses as secondary uses. The regulations for the DCD are intended to promote a development form and character that is different from typical suburban development allowed by conventional zoning. Because the DCD District in many ways determines the form and character of development, in this particular case, we feel a conceptual plan can be a bubble plan. In addition to showing where the various development uses will be located (as you have shown in the legend with various color descriptions) the bubble plan should show important elements of the project, such as the general location of Main Street, major road connections, and the public green/plaza. As described in the CMP, Main Street includes on -street parking, medians, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. these are important elements that V, should also be noted on the plan (i.e. by showing the expected street cross section). The DCD regulation determines the form of development; therefore, showing details such as specific building locations, parking areas and travelways is a bit premature at this stage of the process and can be confusing since these details can change as you get into the site plan process. For example, identifying general areas for parking is good, but you do not need to show the specific parking lot with layout/design. As you can see by some of the staff comments in this letter, once these details are shown, staff reviews the plans accordingly. A good bubble plan can provide staff with enough general information about the proposed development without getting into a level of detail that may need to change later on. The conceptual plan is now revised to address some of the staff recommendations per the staff comment letter dated February 26. The following remain outstanding issues that should be addressed: The location for the public green/plaza is no longer depicted on the conceptual plan. The community green is an important element that is recommended in the CMP. Although a proffer provides a commitment of 15% of the land within the property being set aside for green and civic spaces, a general location of the community green is not provided and the 15% is inclusive of a variety of options for green and open space as described in the proffer. While it is not necessary to know the specific details of the community green at this stage in the process, it is recommended that enough information is provided to ensure that the community green will be an appropriate area for the community. • There are physical constraints regarding how this proposed development will tie in with the Square, in terms of road connections, parking and expectations for the connector road as shown on your plan. Per the comments from VDOT and Engineering (see page 4 and attachment of this letter for comments) provide additional clarification (narrative information) regarding how this proposed development will tie in with the Square and any additional information regarding your vision for this connection. See item 1 in the proffer section on pages 5 and 6 of this letter for a suggested use for the area near the square. See attached comments from VDOT regarding this issue. This remains an outstanding issue with VDOT. • To be clear of the intent, a note should be included on the Land Use and Block Density Chart that explains that it is for illustrative purposes only and is not being proffered with the conceptual plan. • The plan provided shows an adjacent area for development (CSX property) within this proposal that you do not own. It is not recommended that you show development on property you do not own. However, the CSX property is designated for industrial types of uses. Also, the recommendation for the CSX property is an important one in the CMP for the downtown area. As a result, the uses proposed for the CSX property should be included in other portions of your site, particularly for the areas adjacent to the CSX property. We suggest the CSX property either be removed from this plan or if you wish to show it, you can note or delineate this area in a different way on the plan. Regarding the explanation in reference to being successful in negotiating a purchase agreement with CSX, and wanting to add the CSX site to the ZMA and SUP request, there should be a contingency plan in case negotiations for the CSX property take longer than anticipated. If possible, the contingency language should include a provision for the CSX property that allows the property to be included in this ZMA and SUP requests should these legislative acts get approved, so that an amendment is not needed to include the CSX property at a later date. • There are concerns with the Main Street road layout as shown. It appears to have on -street parking and a round -about. The Crozet Master Plan (CMP) shows a street section for an Avenue, which includes on -street parking, a median strip, bike lane, sidewalk and a landscape strip. Will the main road shown on the plan be able to accommodate this? If yes, explain how this is planned. The CMP shows a typical section for an Avenue inclusive of a median strip. The revised street section shown on the conceptual plan does not include a median strip. The street section shown in the 2010 CMP was carried over from the 2004 CMP. There are many downtowns with streets that do not include median strips. • Will this development be phased? If yes, please describe the phase plan. For example, are there specific blocks or areas that will be developed first? We suggest you use a block approach. It will be easier to follow and easier to reference as you develop proffers. A block approach is helpful for distinction purposes. A phasing plan is provided in the proffers and in the response letter to staff. The phasing plan in the response letter to staff refers to the extension of Library Avenue from Point B to Point C and to the end of blocks 4 & 5 to Parkside Village. Is it to the end of blocks 4 & 5 or to Parkside Village? The phasing plan in the response letter also describes iii. The extension of libra,� Avenue from point A to B ........constructed on or before issuance of the 26' building permit. It seems this should be phase I The two phasing plans are not consistent with each other. Which plan do you wish to go by? The phasing plan described in the proffers is somewhat confusing. It is recommended that the phasing of Library Avenue be revised to be clearer. Is it possible to build Library Avenue all the way out in phase I? The concept for the community green is not clear. Is it public owned/dedicated, private, or a combination of both? Is the Downtown community green, the proposed plaza area? If yes, is this area intended for general public use or is it intended for use by private entities with restaurants, etc. It could also be an area that includes both types of users, but this is not clear. It seems the community green/plaza should be accessible to the community and not necessarily tied to a particular building or use. With block designations it is easier to reference and provide more possible flexible locations for a community green/plaza. Explain how the proposed plaza area will function as a public space with a road intersection going through the middle of it. It is difficult to visualize how this public space will work. What is the intent of the community green? And how will it function? See previous bullet two above for discussion on the community green. Previous plans for this development showed green space in the non-residential areas. This revised plan shows pocket parks primarily in the residential areas. Pocket parks and/or green space can be located in the non-residential portions of the development as well. It is encouraged and recommended in the CMP. Pocket parks are no longer shown on the revised plan. The revised proffer as discussed above in bullet two could possibly address this concern, but there is not enough information provided to be sure of this. With regards to parking, you have discussed some of your concerns in previous communications regarding the financial difficulty in providing structured parking 4 versus providing large amounts of surface parking, therefore, taking up space from potential development. Without knowing the specifics of the uses going into this development, it is somewhat difficult to determine how much parking will actually be needed. In trying to understand your concerns, are you trying to provide parking for a specific potential user? A variety of approaches could be considered: As in Stonefield, there is a larger schemed plan that is approved (i.e. future structured parking), but for a variety of reasons, the developer is not ready to develop to this form, so they are developing based on the current market (surface parking), and hopefully will be able to revisit the large plan when the timing is appropriate. Per the DCD, the details for the number of required parking spaces could come later in the process, unless there is a specific end result you wish to achieve now rather than later. Another approach could be similar to Stonefield in that you make a big picture plan and provide flexibility that allows you to build for the current market and increase what you provide when the appropriate density allows it. Section 2013.4 of the Zoning Ordinance provides some options regarding required parking. Although there are a minimum number of parking spaces required, there is no maximum amount of required parking spaces. In developing this property we suggest you always keep the intent of the DCD in mind. Perhaps you have to initially develop for the current market (surface parking) and phase (structured parking) for the future, goals that are currently hard to reach, but could be easier as the market improves. This is a small downtown, surrounded by a fair amount of existing residential neighborhoods. The CMP envisions residents walking, and biking to the downtown as well. Providing multi -modal opportunities is also encouraged. It is difficult to fully comment on your parking concerns without having all the details/information regarding your proposal. However, it is not necessary for us to have all the details at this time. Perhaps you are proposing to develop this property at a larger scale than is necessary. The need for 3 times the required parking appears that the commercial buildings proposed might be larger than the DCD intends, since the DCD describes parking for non-residential uses at one (1) space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of net floor area. The County does not currently have plans to provide a parking deck to the Crozet Library. The expectation for public parking at the library is that the parking is available for public use when the library is not in business operation. • It should be noted on the revised plan that all roads shown on the plan will be public. Zoning See the proffer section of this letter for comments related to zoning matters provided by Francis MacCall. Engineering and Water Resources See the attachment for comments related to engineering and water resources, which have been provided by Glenn Brooks. Staff has just received the traffic study for this proposed rezoning via electronic mail on April 15, 2014.Comments regarding the traffic study will not be expected for at least 4 weeks. VDOT 5 See the attachment for comments related to transportation issues for the ZMA and SP, which have been provided by Troy Austin. Staff has just received the traffic study for this proposed rezoning via electronic mail on April 15, 2014.Comments regarding the traffic study will not be expected for at least 4 weeks. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: • It is anticipated that the development will be inward oriented. Nevertheless, the elevations of buildings visible from the Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors should not have a "back of building" appearance. The ARB will expect fully designed elevations with careful attention to materials, colors, details, proportions and the relative scale of buildings to each other. The applicant may find that a work session with the ARB could provide the needed guidance in this regard. • Standard Entrance Corridor landscaping will be required and will be reviewed with the site plan. A landscape strip will be needed along the railroad side of the development, free of utilities and easements. Allow for utility -free planting area along all streets, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, hammerheads, etc. Note that the purpose of the Entrance Corridor overlay is to establish buildings that have an appropriate appearance, and to enhance the development with landscaping. It is not the intent of the EC overlay to use landscape screening to hide inappropriately designed development. In response to the applicant's question, there is no plan for TMP: 56A201J124. • The Crozet Historic District was listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register on 9/20/2012 and in the National Register of Historic Places on 11/28/2012. This comment was originally made in response to a statement in the applicant's materials that the district was "proposed". There are no additional regulations related to the historic district. The designation is confirmation that the historic character of the area is significant, a factor also recognized in the Entrance Corridor overlay. ASCA/RWSA See the attachment for comments related to water and sewer services, which have been provided by Alexander Morrison. Fire/Rescue The following comments related to Fire/Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: There are no comments or objections to the rezoning. Housing The following comments related to housing/affordable housing have been provided by Ron White: • We assume compliance with the affordable units would be based on approval of R site plans. The proffer language needs to be tighter than referring to "areas shown in yellow and purple" particularly since there are two purple areas (one dark and one lighter indicating future development). Also, it would be much clearer if the last sentence in proffer 4 stated that "The subsequent owner/builder shall create for -sale units with sales prices not exceeding sixty- five percent (65%) of the Virginia Housing Development Authority's maximum sales prices for first-time homebuyers and for -rent units with gross rents not to exceed Fair Market Rents as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." The current proposal referencing 80% of area median income and PITI is often confusing. The alternative is to just state that the subsequent owner/builder shall create affordable units as described in A and B adding the definition of affordable in each of those sections. Proffers The following comments related to the proffers are provided by Claudette Grant: 1. For your reference, please see the following example for proffer language when a conceptual plan is proffered: Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner .acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable. 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the Plan titled "Sheet 2 of 2" prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. dated February 1, 2013, and revised July 12, 2013 (hereafter the "Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements in the approximate location, number and extent as shown on the Plan: a. The Property shall not be divided into more than three (3) lots, including the Residue Lot 1 shown on the Plan. - b. Existing sidewalk immediately adjacent to the proposed driveways for lots 2 & 3 will be maintained. If the sidewalk mentioned above is damaged during installation of said driveways then it will be repaired so as to provide safe and convenient access as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. For your reference, please see the following example for proffer language dealing with cash in lieu of affordable units: A. 15% Affordable Requirement. The Owner shall provide a mixture of affordable housing units and cash in lieu of affordable housing units equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project (the "15% Affordable Requirement"). The affordable housing mixture shall be comprised as follows: (i). The Owner shall provide affordable housing dwelling units equal to at least seven and one-half percent (7.5%) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for -sale or for -lease affordable dwelling units as described in this paragraph 1 (the "Affordable Dwelling Units" or "Affordable Units"). The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single-family attached housing (townhouses or duplexes), condominiums or single family detached units. The Owner or its successor in interest reserves the right to provide the Affordable Dwelling Units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or any combination. (ii) In lieu of each additional affordable dwelling unit that would otherwise be required to meet the remainder of the 15% Affordable Requirement for affordable housing within the Project after the Owner has provided the Affordable Dwelling Units referenced in Paragraph 1(A)(i), the Owner shall make a cash FA contribution to Albemarle County for the affordable housing program in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) for each such unit (the "Affordable Housing Cash Proffer") as described herein. For example, if the total number of residential dwelling units within the Project is one hundred nine (109), 16 Affordable Units would be required to meet the 15% requirement. The Owner shall provide eight (8) Affordable Dwelling Units to satisfy the 7.5% requirement of paragraph 1 A(i), and One Hundred Fifty - Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars ($152,800.00) ($19,100 x 8) to satisfy the requirements of paragraph IA(ii). Any unit for which the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer is contributed as provided herein shall count as an Affordable Dwelling Unit for purposes of this Paragraph 1, but as a market rate unit for purposes of Paragraph 2. (iii). If the 15% Affordable Requirement has not already been satisfied as determined by the County pursuant to these proffers prior to the issuance of the building permits for each of buildings C, D, and H shown on the General Development Plan, the Owner shall either demonstrate to the County's satisfaction that at least 15% of the residential dwelling units in such building will be Affordable Dwelling Units, or the Owner shall pay the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer to the County in lieu of each Affordable Dwelling Unit that would otherwise be required to be paid to achieve the 15% Affordable Requirement for the building being permitted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Owner may "carry-over" or "bank" credits for affordable units in the event previously built buildings within the Project provided more than 15% Affordable Units, or in the event the Owner has paid the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer for an equivalent number of units ("Affordable Credits"). Any such additional Affordable Credits shall be allocated toward the fifteen percent (15%) minimum for the buildings that remain to be constructed of buildings C, D and H as shown on the General Development Plan. 3. The language in Proffer 1 (b.) referring to VDOT needs to be revised. What are Detail 1 and Detail 2 referring to? 4. The 15% allotted for affordable housing should be based on all the housing provided in the development, not just the housing provided in the special use permit. If you see this differently you should explain this. Residential use is a by - right use within the DCD. However, this is a rezoning request. This property is currently zoned HI, not DCD, and residential uses are allowed by special use permit in the HI district. It is not clear but appears you have separated the areas where affordable housing can take place. Please clarify this, as it could be difficult to enforce. The policy calls for 15% of all residential units in a development, not 15% of certain units. What determines the build out for this development? How do you know when you get to the 15%? 5. Proffer 4 B. (3) the first sentence has a typographical error "then then" 6. The County has a cash proffer policy that addresses impacts to the County's capital improvements pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be impacted by the rezoning. All rezoning requests which intensify development of a property are reviewed for impacts to the public infrastructure. The County policy also requires that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. The Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning request that permit residential uses in accordance with the cash proffer policy. The Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. You have indicated that you are not offering cash proffers for various reasons. The impacts of this proposal are considered. This remains an outstanding issue. The following comment related to the proffers and zoning concerns have been provided by Francis MacCall: 1. Please verify the 16.64 acres for the rezoning (recorded plats). Our current records has the total for the two parcels being 18.703 not 16.64. 2. Refer to the Conceptual Plan as the Conceptual Plan throughout the proffers. There are some "Concept Plan" and "Barnes Lumber Conceptual Plan" references. E:3 3. Start the proffers with the paragraph that starts as follows" The Conceptual Plan shall refer to that certain..." The second proffer should be what is shown as #1. 4. In Proffer #1 on the statement provided letter "b", it is suggested that the last sentence be worded something like this "This segment of Library Drive shall be completed at the earlier of either prior to the issuance of any final certificate of occupancy for any building in Block1 or prior to the issuance of any final certificate of occupancy for the twenty-sixth (26th) dwelling unit in Blocks 7 and 8." This is subject to County Attorney approval of final language. 5. There appear to be parts of Proffer #2 in the statement provided that should be a condition of the special use permit for the residential units and it seems that portions of proffer #2 could be a proffer. This will need to be vetted with the County Attorney to see what the most appropriate action will be. Staff anticipates the next proffer re -submittal going to the County Attorney for review and will pose this issue at that time. 6. Proffer #3 in the statement provided should remove the reference to Open Space and only have Green Space, civic space etc... It is suggested that the 15% be tracked by designating the same language as is in Proffer #4 regarding the tracking of affordable units with site plans and subdivisions. Knowing that we want this Green and Civic space spread out throughout the development this wording should be revised with how the County would like to see that broken down per area block of group of blocks. 7. Proffer #4 in the statement provided the first sentence should refer to blocks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 not by the colors since all of the other proffers are referring to blocks. SP Planning The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant: • Staff will provide conditions for the special use permit. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below.. (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendmen t Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant(@-albernarle.org Sincerely, &ft Av-&�J Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Enc: Engineering, VDOT, ACSA/RWSA Comments Resubmittal Form County of Albemarle rtment of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: April 9, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2010-18 Crozet Square Please consider the following comments: ZMA Proffers: 1. Please have the applicant verify the 16.64 acres for the rezoning (recorded plats). Our current records has the total for the two parcels being 18.703 not 16.64. 2. Refer to the Conceptual Plan as the Conceptual Plan throughout the proffers. There are some "Concept Plan" and "Barnes Lumber Conceptual Plan" references. 3. Start the proffers with the paragraph that starts as follows" The Conceptual Plan shall refer to that certain..." The second proffer should be what is shown as #1. 4. In Proffer #1 on the statement provided letter "b", it is suggested that the last sentence be worded something like this "This segment of Library Drive shall be completed at the earlier of either prior to the issuance of any final certificate of occupancy for any building in Blockl or prior to the issuance of any final certificate of occupancy for the twenty-sixth (26th) dwelling unit in Blocks 7 and 8." This is subject to County Attorney approval of final language. 5. Proffer #2 in the statement provided should be somehow incorporated into a condition of the special use permit for the residential units and not be a proffer. 6. Proffer #3 in the statement provided should remove the reference to Open Space and only have Green Space, civic space etc... It is suggested that the 15% be tracked by designating the same language as is in Proffer #4 regarding the tracking of affordable units with site plans and subdivisions. Knowing that we want this Green and Civic space spread out throughout the development this wording should be revised with how the County would like to see that broken down per area block of group of blocks. 7. Proffer #4 in the statement provided the first sentence should refer to blocks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 not by the colors since all of the other proffers are referring to blocks. 8. Proffer #4 in the statement provided Letter C, Zoning is checking with the County Attorney on the language of the owner giving cash in lieu of constructing. Please see Ron or come to the Legal Meeting on the 10th COMMONWEAL'THH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7801 Orange Road Wpeper, Vrguva 227,05 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner March 27, 2014 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2010-00018 Crozet Square SP -2014-00001 Barnes Lumber Redevelopment Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the rezoning request and special use permit request for Crozet SquareBames Lumber Redevelopment as submitted on March 17, 2014 and offer the following comments: 1. There are still concerns with the connection to The Square. The layout shown is essentially a 90° curve with a connection to a potential parking lot rather than a T -intersection. This alignment does not satisfy the minimum radius requirement. 2. It would seem that building the section of Library Avenue from point A to point B earlier in the process would be more of a benefit to the transportation in the area than when it is proposed to be built. There are concerns with the intersection of Crozet Avenue and The Square and High Street is a narrow side street and Library Avenue would better accommodate the increase in traffic in this area. 3. The on -street parking shown on the road cross section between points A and B is likely to create a conflict with the sight distance for the intersection. The parking will not be allowed in this location if it obstructs sight distance. 4. Per VDOT standards, the planting strip shown in the cross sections needs to be a minimum of 6' with the street trees being planted a minimum of 3' behind the back of curb. 5. The response letter indicates that the sewer line cannot be located outside of the paved surface due to the compact urban nature of commercial development. This submittal does not show the sewer line as previous submittals did, so for this review, this item has been addressed. However, manholes located within the paved surface create a long term maintenance issue for VDOT. We will look at this very closely during plan review to identify a design that minimizes maintenance problems for VDOT. 6. Review of the updated TIA should occur prior to the requests being considered by the Planning Commission. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, VT Troy ustin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Claudette Grant From: Alex Morrison [amorrison@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 10:34 AM To: Claudette Grant Cc: vfort@rivanna.org Subject: ZMA2010018: Crozet Square Claudette, The ACSA has received the above referenced ZMA resubmittal. The ACSA and RWSA have discussed the application. The following comments represent the reviews by the ACSA and RWSA: General Information: • Currently there are capacity limitations in the public wastewater infrastructure serving the Crozet area. • The ACSA and RWSA are working towards a reduction in I&I within the Crozet public wastewater system. • The ACSA and RWSA have scheduled the "Crozet FEB Study' to begin in fiscal year 2015. • The Crozet public wastewater infrastructure will be upgraded, when applicable, through developer participation and/or a special rate district. • RWSA Capacity Certification will be required for this development. This is a requirement of any development within the Crozet service area. The ACSA will submit the application during review of the final site plan. • The ACSA does not reserve capacity within the water or wastewater system. Water and wastewater is provided on a first come first serve basis which is designated as the "application for service." • A valid building permit for the building being served and full payment of the connection fees for the building being served is required to submit an "application for service." Response Letter (3/17/14): • Section RWSA and ACSA (a) o The ACSA does not reserve water and wastewater capacity. The ACSA cannot confirm water and wastewater capacity for a 10 year build -out. Refer to the information provided under "general information." The ACSA and RWSA are working towards increasing capacity in the Crozet Wastewater infrastructure. This is being accomplished through I&I reduction. In addition, an "FEB Study" will begin during fiscal year 2015. The results of this study will be implemented, when applicable, through developer participation and/or a special rate district. Application Narratives: • Water & Sewer o The ACSA and RWSA are working towards increasing the capacity within the Crozet Wastewater Infrastructure. This will be accomplished through a schedule determined by the ACSA and RWSA. Certain items required to be constructed will be funded through developer participation and/or a special rate district. ■ Revise the paragraph to better reflect comments provided by the ACSA and RWSA. Public Facilities, Services and General Infrastructure o The ACSA and RWSA are working towards increasing the capacity within the Crozet Wastewater Infrastructure. This will be accomplished through a schedule determined by the ACSA and RWSA. Certain items required to be constructed will be funded through developer participation and/or a special rate district. ■ Revise the paragraph to better reflect comments provided by the ACSA and RWSA. The comments provided above are for use by the applicant to revise certain sections pertaining to water and wastewater infrastructure. The applicant should understand the goals of the ACSA and RWSA to increase the capacity within the Crozet Wastewater Infrastructure. The applicant should also understand that certain items required to meet these goals will be funded through developer participation and/or a special rate district. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns that you may have. Thank you. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434-979-0698 NJti Ut'N1t,L uJL' urNLY Jr F or LIMA 8 Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt 4 Cktl By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment PROJECT NUMBER: Lltftiko-0001 PROJECT NAME: t�►d7.e�J�iulatGlf�meX L�►1�' �� �°��mf�� —0 5PAg00CDi V Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator tgnature ate Name of Applicant 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 cost of first-class postage Resubmittal fees for origin 1 Special Use Peru 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 cost of first-class postage 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'] notice fees will be required $180 To be Daid after staff review forllublic 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. .ter T., ..`. TM. A ( . i D nn A Di r, /n A vnarNT A T Pr)Mr.411NiTV r1FVF.1 .0PNiF.NT COUNTER i Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual i' Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first-class postage Actual cost i- Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fay:: (434) 972-4126 6/7/2011 Pa_e 1 of 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012 Rev.4: 22 Jan 2014 Rev.5: 25 Mar 2014 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) revision 5; The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. It is not recommended that the county approve dimensions on road sections with a rezoning. Plans are too preliminary to agree on widths. It is not clear what is meant by a shared travel lane. 5. Proposed proffer 1 references sections and details which were not found. Each of the phases needs to build on the other if they are to proceed in order. Library Avenue, the central connecting road, should be built completely regardless of phases, if it is the intention that phases can be built in any order. This would apply to any other necessary improvements such as off-site transportation improvements, or stormwater management. revision 4; The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. The plan needs to specify which roads are public. 5. The hard right turns for the roads serving the southern blocks, and The Square, do not meet geometric road requirements. These will not be acceptable. 6. T -turnarounds are not recommended. They end up as parking spaces for nearby units. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 7. The 5 -road intersection roundabout will require splitter islands and tighter dimensions on the southern side to maintain flow and lane widths. 8. It is not clear how the road sections apply when no median is shown on the layout. revision 3; This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; I. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. revision 1; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (125) so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 February 26, 2014 Frank R. Stoner Milestone 300 2nd Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201000018/Crozet Square and SP201400001/Barnes Lumber Redevelopment Dear Frank: Staff has reviewed your re -submittal for a rezoning from HI Heavy Industrial to DCD Downtown Crozet District and for a special use permit to allow up to 200 residential units of any authorized dwelling type in the DCD district under Section(s) 20B.2F 1, 2, 4, and 5 of zoning ordinance. We have several questions and comments, which are listed below: ZMA Comments: Planning The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant: • The subject proposed development is located on a large parcel of land in the Downtown Crozet area that is slated for redevelopment opportunities guided by the Crozet Master Plan (CMP). One of the primary recommendations for Downtown Crozet and in particular for this property in the CMP is that development includes a mixture of office, research and development (R&D), flex uses, retail, and service uses in redevelopment of the lumber yard property. In review of the plan submitted, there is not a lot of information about the yellow area described as residential. It appears to be approximately half or 50% of the developable area of the subject property. The percentage of total land area in residential use per the CMP for downtown is intended to be a low to moderate density form, while the expectancy for the rest of the developable land area is for a significant portion of the development to provide employment, and other economic opportunities that are typically expected in a downtown area. Thus, per the CMP, residential and light industrial uses are secondary uses for this area. If the residential use is 50% or more of the proposed development this would reflect to some extent a lost opportunity for the non-residential mix of use recommended in the CMP for the downtown Crozet area. 1 Provide additional information that shows how this development will be a development with residential uses as secondary uses. For example, providing the percentage of land area or square. feet for the various proposed uses within the development will help provide a comparison for primary and secondary uses. If the residential uses are the primary uses and not secondary, you need to explain and justify why you wish to make this development a primary residential use development, which is not the recommendation of the CMP for this property. • The DCD provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail, service, and civic uses with light industrial and residential uses as secondary uses. The regulations for the DCD are intended to promote a development form and character that is different from typical suburban development allowed by conventional. zoning. Because the DCD District in many ways determines the form and character of development, in this particular case, we feel a conceptual plan can be a bubble plan. In addition to showing where the various development uses will be located (as you have shown in the legend with various color descriptions) the bubble plan should show important elements of the project, such as the general location of Main Street, major road connections, and the public green/plaza. As described in the CMP, Main Street includes on -street parking, medians, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. these are important elements that should also be noted on the plan (i.e. by showing the expected street cross section). The DCD regulation determines the form of development; therefore, showing details such as specific building locations, parking areas and travelways is a bit premature at this stage of the process and can be confusing since these details can change as you get into the site plan process. For example, identifying general areas for parking is good, but you do not need to show the specific parking lot with layout/design. As you can see by some of the staff comments in this letter, once these details are shown, staff reviews the plans accordingly. A good bubble plan can provide staff with enough general information about the proposed development without getting into a level of detail that may need to change later on. • There are physical constraints regarding how this proposed development will tie in with the Square, in terms of road connections, parking and expectations for the connector road as shown on your plan. Per the comments from VDOT and Engineering (see page 4 and attachment of this letter for comments) provide additional clarification (narrative information) regarding how this proposed development will tie in with the Square and any additional information regarding your vision for this connection. See item 1 in the proffer section on pages 5 and 6 of this letter for a suggested use for the area near the square. • Elaborate on what the difference is between the salmon colored mixed use and the purple colored mixed use shown on the conceptual plan. It would be helpful to have this information delineated/noted on the plan. • The plan provided shows an adjacent area for development (CSX property) within this proposal that you do not own. It is not recommended that you show development on property you do not own. However, the CSX property is designated for industrial types of uses. Also, the recommendation for the CSX property is an important one in the CMP for the downtown area. As a result, the uses proposed for the CSX property should be included in other portions of your site,_particularlyfor the areas adjacent to the CSX property. We suggest the CSX property either be removed from this plan or if you wish to show it, you can note V, or delineate this area in a different way on the plan. • There are concerns with the Main Street road layout as shown. It appears to have on -street parking and a round -about. The Crozet Master Plan (CMP) shows a street section for an Avenue, which includes on -street parking, a median strip, bike lane, sidewalk and a landscape strip. Will the main road shown on the plan be able to accommodate this? If yes, explain how this is planned. • Will this development be phased? If yes, please describe the phase plan. For example, are there specific blocks or areas that will be developed first? We suggest you use a block approach. It will be easier to follow and easier to reference as you develop proffers. A block approach is helpful for distinction purposes. • The concept for the community green is not clear. Is it public owned/dedicated, private, or a combination of both? Is the Downtown community green, the proposed plaza area? If yes, is this area intended for general public use or is it intended for use by private entities with restaurants, etc. It could also be an area that includes both types of users, but this is not clear. It seems the community green/plaza should be accessible to the community and not necessarily tied to a particular building or use. With block designations it is easier to reference and provide more possible flexible locations for a community green/plaza. Explain how the proposed plaza area will function as a public space with a. road intersection going through the middle of it. It is difficult to visualize how this public space will work. What is the intent of the community green? And how will it function? Previous plans for this development showed green space in the non-residential areas. This revised plan shows pocket parks primarily in the residential areas. Pocket parks and/or green space can be located in the non-residential portions of the development as well. It is encouraged and recommended in the CMP. With regards to parking, you have discussed some of your concerns in previous communications regarding the financial difficulty in providing structured parking versus providing large amounts of surface parking, therefore, taking up space from potential development. Without knowing the specifics of the uses going into this development, it is somewhat difficult to determine how much parking will .actually be needed. In trying to understand your concerns, are you trying to provide parking for a specific potential user? A variety of approaches could be considered: As in Stonefield, there is a larger schemed plan that is approved (i.e. future structured parking), but for a variety of reasons, the developer is not ready to develop to this form, so they are developing based on the current market (surface parking), and hopefully will be able to revisit the large plan when the timing is appropriate. Per the DCD, the details for the number of required parking spaces could come later in the process, unless there is a specific end result you wish to achieve now rather than later. Another approach could be similar to Stonefield in that you make a big picture plan and provide flexibility that allows you to build for the current market and increase what you provide when the appropriate density allows it. Section 20B.4 of the Zoning Ordinance provides some options regarding required parking. Although there are a minimum number of parking spaces required, there is no maximum amount of required parking spaces. In developing you have to initially develop for the current market (surface parking) and phase 3 (structured parking) for the future, goals that are currently hard to reach, but could be easier as the market improves. This is a small downtown, surrounded by a fair amount of existing residential neighborhoods. The CMP envisions residents walking, and biking to the downtown as well. Providing multi -modal opportunities is also encouraged. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters are provided by Francis MacCall: • If the C & O Railway property owners have not signed on to the application before re- submittal then the next plan that comes in must remove all reference to those properties being shown with a proposed use plus the proposed road improvements will need to be moved from the C & O Railway property as well. The application plan needs to have the Residential, Commercial/Retail, and Mixed Use, areas on the plan given numbered blocks. These numbered blocks will help with the establishment of the residential uses proposed by Special Use Permit and the timing to establish the desired mixture of development. The plaza area only shows up on the concept plan for the SP, so it will need to be also shown on the ZMA application plan if it is to remain. Engineering and Water Resources See the attachment for comments related to engineering and water resources, which have been provided by Glenn Brooks: VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues are provided by Troy Austin. These comments are for the ZMA and SP: • A full scale drawing would be helpful for review. • The connection to The Square does not meet the minimum radius requirements. • The parking shown near the intersections appears to create obstacles to the sight lines at the intersection. • The sewer line, will need to be located outside of the paved surface. • The plan view does not accurately represent the typical sections provided. • The roundabout needs to be designed with proper splitter islands. The alignment of the private streets off of the roundabout may not work as shown. • Access Management Spacing regulations need to be considered. The private streets to the east of the roundabout appear to be too close to each other. • There.is a portion of the roundabout and roadway that appears to be located on property owned by the railroad. • The traffic study for this development needs to be completed and submitted for review. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: • It is anticipated that the development will be inward oriented. Nevertheless, the elevations of buildings visible from the Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors should not have a "back of building" appearance. The ARB will expect fully designed elevations with careful attention to materials, colors, details, proportions and the relative scale of buildings to each other. • Standard Entrance Corridor landscaping will be required and will be reviewed with the site plan. A landscape strip will be needed along the railroad side of the development, free of utilities and easements. Allow for utility -free planting area .along all streets, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, hammerheads, etc. • Note that the Crozet Historic District was listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register on 9/20/2012 and in the National Register of Historic Places on 11/28/2012. ASCA/RWSA Comments have not been received yet. Once the comments have been completed and sent, staff will send them to you. Fire/Rescue The following comments related to Fire/Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: There are no objections to the rezoning of this property. The following is a list of things to keep in mind as the project moves forward. These comments apply to both the ZMA and SP: 1. Construction documents shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. VSFPC 501.3 2. Where required, Fire Apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with sections VSFPC 503.1.1- 503.1.3 and VSFPC Appendix D 3. Specifications - Fire apparatus roads shall be installed and arranged in accordance with sections VSFPC 503.2.1 — 503.2.8 4. Markings — Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings shall conform to VSFPC 503.3,VSFPC D103.6 — D103.6.2 and Albemarle County Code section 6-204 5. Obstructions to fire apparatus access roads shall conform to VSFPC 503.4 6. Required gates or barricades for fire apparatus access roads shall conform to VSFPC 503.5 — 503.6 7. Key Boxes required on all commercial buildings per VSFPC 506.1 8. Fire Protection water supply requirements shall conform to VSFPC 507 and VSFPC Appendix C 9. Fire Flow requirements shall conform to VSFPC Appendix B 10. Fire Department Connections shall conform to VSFPC, 912 and Albemarle County requires that the connection be within 50 ft of a hydrant. Housing Comments have not been received because proffers are not specific to housing/affordable housing. Once you have addressed these issues more specifically, comments will be provided to you. Proffers The following comments related to the proffers are provided by Claudette Grant: 11n-regards-to-the-public-space/plaza,—what-happens-if-the-intersection-locat 5 does not work? Consider providing flexibility in proffer 2 to locate the public space/plaza elsewhere on the property. One suggestion to consider is reserving some area near the Square that could be an extension of the Square for the public space. Per the VDOT comments, transitioning this proposed development with the Square could be difficult. Setting aside area in this location for the public space may be a good idea, given the potential problems. Additional questions regarding Proffer 2 include: Is the intent of Proffer 2 to incorporate the public and private spaces for outdoor restaurant seating? What happens if the plaza costs more than $200,000? Consider proffering $200,000 plus the value of the land? Will there be additional public parking for this public space? If yes, will there be some level of commitment to provide this? In general this proffer should provide the information needed to develop this space as you envision it, but also needs to provide a level of flexibility in case something needs to change. This could help so that you do not need to come back and amend the proffer later. 2. The 15% allotted for affordable housing should be based on all the housing provided in the development, not just the housing provided in the special use permit. If you see this differently you should explain this. 3. How many residential units are proposed for this development? The section on conditions states that you will construct no more than 100 residential units in the areas shown in yellow designated for residential use on the Conceptual Plan, but you also state in the project proposal that you are requesting approval to build up to 200 residential units- without by right commercial uses on the first floor. You go on to explain that these will be constructed in the transitional areas shown in yellow on the attached land use plan. It is unclear where the different types of residential units will be located on the property. For example, it appears single family units will be allowed per the special use permit request, but not in the yellow or light violet areas, yet the single family units could be a transitional use in the yellow area. Also unclear is where the multifamily/apartments will be located on the property. There are areas in the narratives that appear contradictory with proffers and conditions. 4. The Plan should be proffered to provide commitments to major elements within this development. 5. The County has a cash proffer policy that addresses impacts to the County's capital improvements pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be impacted by the rezoning. All rezoning requests which intensify development of a property are reviewed for impacts to the public infrastructure. The County policy also requires that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. The Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning request that permit residential uses in accordance with the cash proffer policy. The Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. You have indicated that you are not offering cash proffers for various reasons. The impacts of this proposal are considered. 6. The proffers will need to be written in standard proffer language and in the appropriate proffer format. The following comment related to the proffers_ and zoning concerns have been provided by Francis MacCall: 0 1. The road construction proffer should include some standard language regarding the completion of the road being required before the first CO of a new residential or commercial building is issued. SP Planninq The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant: • As already mentioned, the number of residential units is unclear. The ZMA says not more than 100 units. The SP says up to 200 residential units. Which is it? • While I understand your SP request for residential, it is important that you work to provide strong commercial/employment uses that focus on the recommendations described in the CMP. Without focus on the non-residential uses, I am concerned that we may get another primarily residential development plus a road connection. This is not the intent of the CMP for this area. • The submittal does not appear to specifically address Section 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit: Additional factors when considering special use permits of the Zoning Ordinance. Please describe how this SP request addresses the four criteria listed in Section 20B.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. • We suggest you look at your needs and the big picture for this development to make sure you are considering appropriate uses that will work in this development. Zonlingi The following comments related to zoning matters are provided by Francis MacCall: • If the public plaza is to remain then the Board of Supervisors will need to grant a modification to the maximum setbacks for any building within each block of the four corners of the intersection that includes the plaza (Another reason to number blocks on the plan). A supplement page to the application. plan that provides more detail to the plaza and building locations will be needed to evaluate the modification request. • Each of the proposed SP conditions for the residential uses should reference "residential units" and not just "units". • In the proposed condition #3 the agreement to construct "residential units" does not say in what area these units will front on Library Ave. The following provides direction that will help with tracking conditions like the proposed Condition #3: The application plan needs to have the Residential, Commercial/Retail, and Mixed Use, areas on the plan given numbered blocks. These numbered blocks will help with the establishment of the residential uses proposed by Special Use Permit and the timing to establish the desired mixture of development. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources are provided by Glenn Brooks: Engineering comments will depend on the traffic study. That appears to be the only significant factor in changing uses to residential, other than changing the downtown district character. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: • The addition of residential uses is not expected to have any additional negative impact on 7 Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://wwW.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Develop ment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendmen t Schedule.pdf (2). Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrantca albemarle.orq Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Enc: Engineering Comments Resubmittal Form County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: January 30, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2010-18 Crozet Square and SP 2014-01 Please consider the following comments: ZMA SP 1. If the C & O Railway property owners have not signed on to the application before resubmittal then the next plan that comes in must remove all reference to those properties being shown with a proposed use plus the proposed road improvements will need to be moved from the C & O Railway property as well. 2. The application plan needs to have the Residential, Commercial/Retail, and Mixed Use, areas on the plan given numbered blocks. These numbered blocks will help with the establishment of the residential uses proposed by Special Use Permit and the timing to establish the desired mixture of development. 3. Part of the road construction proffer should be some standard language regarding the completion of the road being required before the first CO of and new residential or commercial building is issued. 4. The plaza area only shows up on the concept plan for the SP, so it will need to be also shown on the ZMA application plan if it is to remain. 5. If the public plaza is to remain then the Board of Supervisors will need to grant a modification to the maximum setbacks for any building within each block of the four corners of the intersection that includes the plaza (Another reason to number blocks on the plan). A supplement page to the application plan that provides more detail to the plaza and building locations will be needed to evaluate the modification request. 6. Each of the proposed SP conditions for the residential uses should reference "residential units" and not just "units". 7. In their proposed condition #3 the agreement to construct "residential units" (see above) does not say in what area these units that will front on Library Ave. See Comment #2 for direction that will help with tracking conditions like their proposed #3. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012 Rev.4: 22 Jan 2014 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) revision 4; The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use; 1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues resolved, and the accompanying off-site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for approval. 2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval. 3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3. 4. The plan needs to specify which roads are public. 5. The hard right turns for the roads serving the southern blocks, and The Square, do not meet geometric road requirements. These will not be acceptable. 6. T -turnarounds are not recommended. They end up as parking spaces for nearby units. 7. The 5 -road intersection roundabout will require splitter islands and tighter dimensions on the southern side to maintain flow and lane widths. 8. It is not clear how the road sections apply when no median is shown on the layout. revision 3; This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; 1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. revision 1; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (125) so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt A W By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use ]Permit or �' r Zoning Map Amendment ClNi! PROJECT NUMBER: �11�/� aGiy noal &' PROJECT NAME: �iyn2g+ .` 1imrV_ S90)0140000 1 kede,+Icfo n . ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request qKResubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date Name of Applicant 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 Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Y5N4t}r... Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of 52,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 • V: ) J fir / »x...rr,: I r .... t ..i.':. �.. 4.. :5r ,5 ,7 1.. ` ! t. r�r ti `�..Sv^.:Mw'� r t 3.� *i Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of 53,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 .,.,._t.r.:3✓t j :. 'i r.1i y'..: ?r.• Y >: ,..:++ 4�+ ,...rii y _ y s 15 ! Gt .�5� R, v x C ..,.` 5 1 Y,1 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request—Add'] notice fees will be required $180 To be Daid after staff review forT)ublic 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 requited 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 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 Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) —,> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public harm County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 2290,2 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 6/7/2011 Paye I 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 April 18, 2012 Katurah Roell Piedmont Development Group 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Dear Katurah: Staff has reviewed your submittal regarding traffic study for Barnes Lumber property rezoning, which was dated and received March 16th, 2012. Engineerinq and Water Resources The following comments are provided by Glenn Brooks: The submitted information/revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues are provided by Joel DeNunzio: a. The initial Chapter 527 comments that were sent from the VDOT review need to be addressed. b. For the scenarios in the Testing Land Use Changes table, improvements for each phase of development need to be identified. The document does not appear to identify any improvements other than the type of traffic control. The original study identified a number of auxiliary lane improvements that are not identified here. c. The proposal to make improvements after the traffic is in place does not appear to be adequate. Improvements should be identified and constructed as the development occurs and need to be in place at the time they are needed. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendmen t Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cqrant �,albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment i PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA c20/DL960/E PROJECT NAME:�j��i ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 �g2f§7 V y7�;� F�h k .Yt�� h� .. .' .bc`fitry �+•�1., 'a' � �*�6, t«"4 �y ru�,3t d1T..'. +:a�i', tal "-0, J .'TM�f�.,�r i ,.} Ys. .,. Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 ar IM Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each resubmission $1,250 padditional yf�e��`..,.:7t..�f F-.`��.'�'�viO.a ,. F?."�2�rtYd:�,`,�`„i`wstY',a�.•k�vtlE�e'�in a..'"�.. .'.�i�t�`„i',�n�,.T§. .�r�,e� Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 � dy 11111101 1111 �'� x �_% F?�`'�A.. ,S��FX� ���3,�4, i. ..'f�z�•'wY�•�,�hP�9:tAY.w 9' YA�� 1. p' 4*zaizfrmF«.TA,"•r.�.< �in3�^ ,S. h} Pj;mz3�.. 1z° .�<• ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add' I notice fees will be required $180 To be Daid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. 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 regal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development . 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 4/28/2011 Page 1 of 1 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 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 IJun 5 Apr 16 May 16 May 28 Jun 19 May 7 Jun 6 Jun 25 Jul 17 May 21 Jun 20 Jul 9 J6131 Jun 4 Thu Jul 5 Jul 16 Aug 7 Jun 18 Jul 18 Jul 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 Dec 3 Jan 2 2013 Jan 14 2013 Feb 5 2013 Dec 17 Jan 16 273-1 -3r Feb 4 2013 Feb 262013 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 ari riaariling is tha lagt rinta at whirh an annlirant can decide whether to resubmit or no County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) revision 3; This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points; a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review. This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions were used for the partially built phases. b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks on the application plan. c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection improvements. d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage, certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan. e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs. The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the impacts are already there. revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; 1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. revision 1; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is be needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (125) so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. COMMONWEALTH H ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS September 9, 2011 Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Crozet Square Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, 24 VAC 30-155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources, P.C. on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled Crozet Square by Piedmont Development Group. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the errors or omissions, key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Some minor revisions will be necessary to complete the Traffic Impact Study and some recommendations may change due to the revisions. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincerely, ?Land eNunzio Use Engineer Cc: Mr. Bill Wuensch, P.E., PTOE WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Crozet Square, Crozet VA Albemarle County, VA Project ID: ZMA-2010-00018 Prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources, P.C. for Piedmont Development Group Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions: Section VI of the report on page 16 incorrectly references Figure 6, 7 and. 8 for site trip distribution, trip assignment and pass -by -credits respectively and needs to be corrected or the referenced figures need to be added to the study. • Figures 9 and 10 do not graphically show intersection #10 on the maps but does show the intersection diagram. The Route 250 timing optimization in the Synchro model needs to use the standard phasing of the traffic signals as shown in the timing data that was provided by VDOT for the Route 250 corridor. The analysis needs to reflect phases 2 & 6 as being the mainline phases with phases 1 & 5 as being the main line left turn phases. At the intersection of Rt. 250 & Old Trail Drive, the year 2020' No Build shows the eastbound left turn traffic volumes as being 388 AM and 65PM vehicles. The 2020 Build shows the AM as 349 and the PM as 59. With the Build condition it would appear the volumes from this approach should not be dropping, but should at least remain the same. The study needs to verify if this is correct and if not, have the volumes adjusted and distributed over the rest of the study intersections. The report should include a warrant analysis that indicates at what point in the build out of the proposed site a traffic signal will be needed at the intersection of Main Street and Crozet Avenue. The warrant analysis needs to be in the format of the VDOT Northwest Regional Operations template. Summary of Data: • With correction or verification of the items identified in the Errors and Omissions section of this report, the study generally meets the requirements of the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis. • The study identifies many needed improvements to intersections along the existing network of roads. VDOT has the following comments for the identified improvements: o 'Three Notched at Crozet Avenue -The study recommends a traffic signal and a westbound left turn lane from Three Notched Road to Crozet Avenue. The 2020 Build Volumes show an 18% increase from the No Build Volumes for the northbound Crozet Avenue approach. Widening of this approach is constrained by the railroad underpass and improvements are unlikely which may cause extensive queuing on this approach. Left turn volumes from westbound Three Notched Road to Crozet Avenue are well into volumes that will require dual left turn lanes for this approach. Widening of this approach will be limited to the north due to right of way and to the south due to the railroad. The construction of a traffic signal at this location will be difficult for the northbound Crozet Avenue approach due to limited sight distance from the railroad overpass. In addition, Crozet Avenue is functionally classified as a rural minor arterial road with a posted speed of 25 mph and access management standards that allow for signal spacing at 1,050 foot intervals. This intersection is about 180 feet from the existing signal at The Square, 620 feet from the intersection at Main Street and 925 feet from the intersection at Jarmans Gap road. For informational purposes, the urban minor arterial signal spacing standard is 880 feet for 25 mph. o Crozet Avenue at "The Square" -The study recommends removal of the traffic signal at this location and conversion to a right in/ out type intersection. The conversion to an effective restricted movement intersection will be difficult to properly channelize to allow for only a right in/ out operation without constructing a median on Crozet Avenue which will be restricted due to the narrow railroad underpass. The railroad to the north and business's to the south of The Square will restrict channelization on The Square entrance from being effective. There also appears to be sight distance restrictions at this intersection for the right out movement which may become more apparent with the removal of the signal along with an existing issue with the radial return on the northeast quadrant on the intersection being run over by vehicles. o Main Street at Crozet Avenue- The study recommends the need for a left turn lane on Crozet Avenue southbound and a traffic signal. The traffic volumes indicated in the study build conditions for the PM peak for Crozet Avenue southbound traffic are approaching those that may require dual left turn lanes to operate within acceptable levels of service. The left turn volumes from Main Street to Crozet Avenue for the build conditions are above the volumes that may require dual left turn lanes. The widening of both Crozet Avenue and Main Street to accommodate either the single left turn lane or dual left turn lanes will likely require right of way acquisition in order to achieve acceptable levels of service. Also, the access management spacing of signals at this location will conflict with other existing or proposed signals. o Tabor Street at Crozet Avenue- Without improvements to the different intersections studied in the report traffic spill-over will occur and various other streets will also have a deterioration of Level of Service. An example of this would be the impacts to Tabor St. The analysis indicates Tabor St. as being unchanged by this develop during the 2020 Build condition, but with queued entrance and exit points to the Crozet Square Development Tabor St. and Hill Top St. would be a likely alternative route for many of the trips. o Jarmans Gap at Crozet Avenue- The report identifies a possible need for a traffic signal at this location that may conflict with the spacing standards for signal locations. In addition, left turn lane additions at this intersection may require additional right of way for the widening. Study Recommendation: • At this time there are no plans for any of the listed improvements within the VDOT Six Year Plan. Albemarle County should identify how these improvements will be fundedin addition to how the right of way will be acquired for the improvements. The intersections Ilk - and road segments in this area will have unacceptable levels of service and excessive queuing without the identified improvements. VDOT recommends that all stakeholders be involved in any further recommendations for the removal of the signal at Crozet Avenue and The Square, and converting the intersection to a right in/ out condition. This change will impact approximately 6 businesses. Other Items: The proposed traffic signals in the report do not meet the Access Management Spacing standards and any reduction to these standards will need an exception to be approved by the VDOT Culpeper District Administrator. These exceptions are not guaranteed to be approved even if they are part of an approved application plan or proffered by the developer. The application plan that was submitted with the study shows a layout of the public road with entrances that do not meet the current VDOT Access Management Spacing Standards. The application plan should be revised to reflect these current standards along with all road design standards including right of way width for the proposed extension of Main Street. FOR OF111C E Ub1, VINLY -�r ifor zavia i Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment h7rnN' PROJECT NUMBER: 2040/0V00 PROJECT NAME: GrO2et btGWQ, ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required UrResubmittal Fee is Not Required �Y---)4s gL'V111 Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date ka-kt4 h Poe ll Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additiona'l��r3'esubmissioln 6 �a ]�� 5 ��� (ray Lays $560 �5 $'� { L4 �L�t: ��.. t'�.5 , ry Ys;? W? ', '�i ", I.,'� i'taT ?! '^ :� 4 ;+1't ,'+Y'':t; 5;if k;„4ii)�s {. ' .' , . ?.eG;ti.°d i i, : f ,+�v� b : }'i , r?�, reS".i��+}�:�5 4> Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 ROOM I Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 }}^ Ri3P`"3u"2�YlY��r Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmiosssionrzit .S�Hifi"ktw�f�Ck4rai��s'�t��aYii'�3Lkhd�SI€�i�h'.�' ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add '1 notice fees will be required $1,750 $180 To be Daid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided .to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must. be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE -CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER i Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage $1.00 for each additional notice + actual Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost .of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fab: (434) 972-4126 4/28/2011 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 August 3, 2011 Katurah Roell Piedmont Development Group 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Third Submittal Dated 6-6-11(Suspended) Dear Katurah: Staff has reviewed your third submittal for a rezoning from HI Heavy Industrial to DCD Downtown Crozet District. This submittal was suspended from a formal review on June 14, 2011 until the traffic and stream study were submitted for review. The stream and traffic studies were submitted approximately July 7, 2011. Planning 1. Staff suggests you provide a table of allowable uses within the proposed development with notation that uses not included in the table are not allowed in the Code of Development (COD). This will be easier for applicant and the County to track once implementation occurs. 2. A table or chart describing the allowable heights per building/block will also be. helpful. On page 5 of the COD, in the Block #7 uses section, what is the proposed height of -the buildings in this block? How many stories are proposed? There seems to be some inconsistency with the amount of floors and the description. in this section. Please clarify. 3. Each building seems to be described in the COD, but not necessarily on the plan. Staff suggests the buildings as shown on the plan be labeled with a brief description, and then if someone wants more detail they can refer to the COD for additional information. 4. In the COD on page 2, the -first bullet. under the uses section, describes a 6 -story hotel/inn that will enclose the west end of the pedestrian mall. Should .this say the east end? Please clarify. 5. Pages 2 and 3 of.the COD, the last sentences in the Block #3 and Block #4 descriptions could -use some additional explanation. What is the intent of these sentences? Perhaps these sentences need to be expanded? 6. Page 5 of the COD in the Block #6 description describes an indoor/outdoor "community space". It would be helpful if this space were labeled on the application plan.. Should this last sentence in this paragraph say conveniently located to the "existing and proposed" residential development? 7. Is Main Street a public street like Library Avenue? If yes, it should be labeled on the plan. 8. The roads need to be labeled private or public. This could be a chart in the COD. It might also be helpful if a description and intent of Library Avenue were provided in the COD. 9. Buildings on the edges/periphery of this development need to have a front and rear fagade that relates to both sides of the building in order to connect to the interior of the development and the existing community located on the exterior of the site. Proffers As previously mentioned in the March 23, 2011 staff comment letter, other commitments that would be expected with any rezoning are: 1. Proffer for 15% affordable housing, which I believe you are, proposing more, but this needs to be described. 2. Cash proffer for residential uses. Affordable units would not be subject to the cash proffer. 3. Proffers related to any off site transportation improvements needed after the 527 study is done. Commitments will likely be needed for development in relation to the timing of off-site transportation improvements. .4. The need for architecture to reflect vernacular architecture in Crozet exists. This was noted with the original comments and we understand this may be a commitment you are not willing to make. 5.1 Please. consider a commitment to honor the history of the lumberyard use at this sight. Suggestions, as indicated in the first set of comments are a local historic marker in a prominent place in the development or a display-for.the library. 6. As you know; we are not aware of contamination issues at this site; however, consideration should be given -to having a Level 1 Environmental Impact Study done due to the use and adjacent railroad use. 7. In addition -to the above previously mentioned comments; the proffers should be in the legal proffer format. 8. As mentioned in the zoning comments, there needs -to be clarification regarding -the allowed and non -allowed uses. It may be useful -to meet -with both planning and zoning staff to work through this. Current Development The following comments related to site plan issues have been provided by.Bill Fritz: -1. Access -to TMP56A2:1=25:should be provided near buildings -7, 9 and -10. If building'I intends to have a drive thru this. should be made clear. It -appears-that insufficient stacking exists with --the current design -to supporta drive-thru. .2. The Porte-cochere for Building2 makes use -of an entrance with.a very severe angled intersection. Limiting stacking is available. Vehicles could blockthe area causing backup onto -the public street. Entrance Corridor Thefollowing comments related to -the .Entrance Corridor Guidelines- have .been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. A row of trees is shown with the landscape buffer along the north side of Blocks 1 and 2. It is recommended that the details of the planting in the buffers along the railroad be reviewed and approved by the ARB at the site plan review stage. Planting other than the row of trees illustrated on the application plan will likely be required. A mixed, staggered planting of trees and shrubs will likely be recommended. A 15'-20' planting area (rather than the 10' shown) would provide for a more effective buffer. 2. The buffer should continue along the north side of Block 3, the west side of Block 4, and the full length of the north side of Block 2. 3. The proposed development appears to be inward oriented. The elevations of buildings visible from the. Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors should not have a "back of building" appearance. The proposed 6 -story buildings will have visibility from greater distances along the Corridors, with the potential of all sides of the buildings having visibility from some vantage point on the Corridors. Careful attention to materials, colors, details, and proportions will be required, as well as therelative scale of the buildings to each other. Zoninq The following comments related to zoning issues have been provided by Francis MacCall: 1. The cover letter says that the Design Proffers and the COD refer to the Block "Bubble" Plan but it appears that they also refer to the application plan even though they say that the application. plan is for information only. Clarification is needed. 2. In the COD on pages 1 and 2, staff suggests you provide a range denoting the proposed size of the pedestrian mall. The range should provide flexibility and perhaps the elimination of a variation, should the size of the pedestrian mall need to change. 3. In the COD on page 3, Block 4 references the intent of Block 3. Please clarify. 4. Page 6 of the COD, in the Design proffers section the language .for the second reference to the landscape buffer adjacent to the Hilltop Road residences does not appear to match what is on the conceptual pian. 5. Also on page 6 of the COD, in the Design proffers, the uses need clarification (Not sure why the by right uses listed need to be further excluded with this proposal, the exclusions do not appear to have any explained reason. They state in block 2 that a hotel/inn will be in the block but it is crossed out in the list of by right uses. The same question stands for the special use permit uses.) 6. The Application Plan should show the points of connection to adjacent tracts -to the north for future development. 7. Clarify the status of the Crozet Square connection out to Crozet Avenue. It is staffs understanding that the County now owns the property adjacent to Crozet Square and Crozet Avenue. This -needs to be confirmed with the County Attorney's office since there is a need to retain this property for the "road easement". Engineering and Water Resources Please see the comments provided by Glenn Brooks on the following page. i Fire/Rescue The following comment.related to fire rescue issues were provided by James Barber, who recently retired: 1.. Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification... VDOT We will forward comments from VDOT once we receive them. Once staff review is completed,.we will forward comments to you regarding the traffic and stream study. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in.response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendmen A Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet.or need additional information. My email address is cgrant(a-)-albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Comm unity -Development County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) Current comments, revision 2; The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed. The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns; 1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property as shown. 2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works to limit these movements. 3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem. We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer. Current comments, revision 1; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is be needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (12.5') so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ZMA201000018 Crozet Square To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50'. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 100'. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification _✓_Yes _No Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): It appears that the project will generate flows in excess of 40,000 gpd, requiring RWSA capacity certification. A meeting has been scheduled with RWSA to discuss flow acceptance and sewer capacity issues in regard to the Crozet area and a request has been made to RWSA for Certification of Capacity. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 March 23, 2011 Katurah Roell Piedmont Development Group 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Second Submittal Dated 2-21-11 Dear Katurah: Staff has reviewed your second submittal for a rezoning from HI Heavy Industrial to DCD Downtown Crozet District. Our comments are consolidated below. Planninq Conceptual Plan Thank you for providing a plan to show a possible development scheme for the property. Unfortunately, some staff members have been confused with the plan because they thought you intended to proffer the plan. I have explained that your idea is to proffer a concept plan that identifies the features for the development but does not commit to details. At present, Planning believes that your plan is intended to look something like the attachment, minus the buildings and parking lots. Staff believes that a commitment to a plan with these elements will be needed: a. Street network (grid system), including what is to be public and what will be private. b. The Mall area c. Location of other amenities and the qualities of those amenities. d. Areas of non -disturbance, if there are any e. Access, including track access to the buildings to use the rail line f. An area for employment uses g. The buffer and landscape areas In addition to the expected proffered plan, we offer the following comments and questions. 1. How the list of buildings with their square footages, uses, and heights is to be reviewed? What types of commitments are intended? 2. 1 note that buildings 8-13 are shown on the non -proffered plan for research and development or light industrial. Please give additional consideration restricting some of the uses in Block 4 because of the proximity to Parkside Village. Also, truck access for these uses should not be expected through the Parkside Village residential streets. As mentioned in the first set of comments, please demonstrate how you plan to make a commitment for research and development or light industrial uses in the development. 3. A redesign of portions of the site will be needed to address streams and stream buffers (see comments from County Engineer) as well as limits of development. The term "limits of development" means the boundary with the CSX property as well as any areas that will not be disturbed. 4. Staff notes that sections have been provided for streets within the development and that Library Avenue now extends to Hilltop Street in a more acceptable location. The location of Library Avenue, as shown on the plan, will need a commitment. Identification and a commitment for public streets is needed. A 12 -foot sidewalk containing trees in grates should be acceptable; however, sidewalks will be needed on both sides of public and private streets. A waiver could be considered to allow for a sidewalk on only one side of the street; however, a case would need to be made as to why sidewalks are needed only on one side. 5. You may want to consider a split zoning on the development. Staff notes that earlier you wanted to have stand-alone residential buildings adjacent to Parkside Village. A split -zoning can achieve that. Due to the fact that building setbacks are required to be 25 feet in conventional residential districts, staff recommends you consider a PRD designation for the residential part of the development, if you decide to request split zoning. 6. Staff appreciates attention being paid for buffer areas adjacent to residential properties and believes the adjoining residents will also be appreciative. The standards you intend to use over and above Zoning requirements need to be provided either in proffers, on the plan, or in both places. If you need permission to disturb this area for grading, that permission will need to be provided by the Planning Commission. If you decide to pursue split zoning on the parcel, be aware of how screening and buffering will need to be provided. Objectionable uses (parking areas at a minimum) will need a 20 foot screening buffer. 7. You emailed a question a few weeks ago related to the potential closing of Ellison Street r.o.w. As said in the email, you will need to do the deed research on the Ellison Street r.o.w. so you can find out how it was created and how that affects its dissolution. Regarding the Oak Street r.o.w., I'd suggest that you talk to Tom Lincoln. He was the surveyor who identified Oak Street as having a 40' r.o.w but being an "unopened street". 8. You also emailed two plans last week showing a parking lot off-site. One of the plans appears to show parking structures along Library Avenue. None of the other reviewers has looked at these two plans, so the comments are mine only. I would offer that the version with less parking adjacent to the railroad allows for the frontage of buildings on the square to be extended along the same plane in the new part of the development. This arrangement is better than what is shown in the plan of 2- 22-11. The downside is that a parking structure with what appears to be a blank wall is along Library Avenue. This kind of frontage condition on Library Avenue would not be possible due to the requirement for fagade and building breaks. I am not certain why parking is shown off-site. 9. You asked in the emails about whether requesting a special use permit for 6 -story buildings would be appropriate at this time. The answer is "yes" if you are willing to commit to a location. I notice that two buildings are identified as 6 stories on the list of buildings and uses. Consideration of the special use permit could occur that would allow 6 -story buildings of a hotel and senior living area (one of each) at interchangeable locations. Proffers As previously mentioned, other commitments that would be expected with any rezoning are: 1. Proffer for 15% affordable housing 2. Cash proffer for residential uses. Affordable units would not be subject to the cash proffer. 3. Proffers related to any off-site transportation improvements needed after the 527 study is done. Commitments will likely be needed for development in relation to the timing of off-site transportation improvements. 2 4. The need for architecture to reflect vernacular architecture in Crozet exists. We noted this with our original comments. As you indicated at the CCAC meeting in January, this may be a commitment you are not willing to make. 5. Please consider a commitment to honor the history of the lumberyard use at this sight. Suggestions, as indicated in the first set of comments are a local historic marker in a prominent place in the development or a display for the library. 6. Although we know of no contamination issues at this site, consideration should be given to having a Level 1 Environmental Impact Study done due to the use and adjacent railroad use. Zoning Please be aware that the area and bulk regulations are very specific to how the development should be established. With the plan submitted there are 5 things Zoning would like to make sure that are specifically reiterated regarding the DCD regulations: 1. It should be clearly understood that "Each building abutting a street shall have a primary entrance from either the front or side of the building. A building also may have secondary entrances on the side or rear of the building. If the primary entrance is located on the side of a building, its doors shall face the front of the building." 2. It appears that some shared parking will probably be necessary for some blocks. Be aware of the shared parking regulations. 3. Density was not identified. The regulations identify a maximum of 36 dwelling units per acre. 4. The sidewalk requirements specifically identify that they will be shown on an appropriate site plan. The rezoning plan provided shows some of the sidewalks and it did not appear to meet the 8' width requirement for sidewalks that do not front streets. 5. The proper facade breaks be adhered to. Building 6 does not appear to meet that. Staff understands that a more general plan may be proffered that does not include the details of the plan under review. Zoning wants to make sure the applicant is aware of the regulations and how they would apply if this detailed plan were to be proffered. Current Development — has no additional comments at this time. Engineering and Water Resources Please see the comments provided by Glenn Brooks on the following page. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. Provide additional detail and clarification on the proposed phasing of this project. Show how the northern boundary of Blocks 2 and 3 will be treated if construction of those blocks precedes construction in the "future development" area. Continuation of the landscape buffer shown on Blocks 1 and 4 would be appropriate. Show how parking and circulation will work if construction of Blocks 2 and 3 precedes construction in the "future development" area. If "future development" will be concurrent with Blocks 2 and 3, clarify this on the plan. 2. Show a landscape treatment along the northern side of the "future development" area (comment by Elaine: It would be better to remove the "future development area" from the plan as it implies that the applicant owns this property.) 3. Landscape buffer should be provided along the parking areas that front the railroad and along the buildings that front the railroad (although the character of the planting in those areas may differ). 3 4. A row of trees is shown with the landscape buffer along the north side of Blocks 1 and 2. It is recommended that the details of the planting in the buffers along the railroad be reviewed and approved by the ARB at the site plan review stage. Planting other than the row of trees illustrated on the application plan will likely be required. A mixed, staggered planting of trees and shrubs will likely be recommended. A 15-20' planting area (rather than the 10' shown) would provide for a more effective buffer. The proposed development appears to be inward oriented. The elevations of buildings visible from the Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors should not have a "back of building" appearance. The proposed 6 -story buildings will have visibility from greater distances along the Corridors, with the potential of all sides of the buildings having visibility from some vantage point on the Corridors. Careful attention to materials, colors, details, and proportions will be required, as well as the relative scale of the buildings to each other. VDOT The following comments were provided by Joel DeNunzio at VDOT. I do not believe he has yet looked at the scoping form that was sent by Bill Wuensch this week. I understand that a scoping session is planned for Monday, March 28 at 1:30 p.m. 1. Previous comments from the SUP-ZMA letter dated January 28, 2011 that have not been addressed are the following: a. Show trip generation for the development. b. Items listed for concept plans for acceptance into the State Secondary System that are still missing are: i. Proposed volumes on each street. ii. Area Type and Connectivity Index. 2. Items that need to be addressed to avoid conflicts at the site plan phase are as follows: a. The functional classification and design speed for Main Street needs to be shown. It is expected that Main Street will be an Urban Collector with a design speed of 30 mph and ADT greater than 6000. b. Horizontal curves must meet the minimum requirements of the GS -7 standard. Locations that transition from no median to medians where the road centerline is not coincident with the edge of lane must have a minimum edge of lane radius in accordance with the GS -7 standard. c. Access Management i. If a signal will be warranted by this development at the intersection of Main Street and Crozet Ave, it will not meet the minimum spacing standard of 1050 feet for Crozet Ave and needs to be addressed. Crozet is a rural minor arterial with a speed of less than 40 mph. ii. The entrance spacing for Main Street as a 30 mph collector is 200 feet. Most entrances shown on the plan do not meet this requirement. iii. One way entrances have a minimum width of 16 feet and two way entrances are 30 feet. The minimum throat length for an entrance with one egress is 30 feet. The minimum effective radius on entrances is 30 feet and needs to be adjusted upwards when the design vehicle warrants a larger radius in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F-81. iv. Left and right turn lanes need to be analyzed at each entrance. d. Is the road labeled as "Connect to Existing Crozet Ave" a proposed public road? It needs to be a continuous movement with the parking lot access as an entrance. e. Typical Sections: i. Right of Way needs to be set a minimum of 1 foot behind any item to be publically maintained and include all elements of the typical section including clear zone as shown in Appendix B(1) of the VDOT Road Design Manual. The clear zone for Main Street for 40 mph or less and ADT greater than 6000 is 14 to 16 feet. Show the clear zone on the typical sections. ii. Street trees that are within the clear zone need to meet the clear zone requirements or be located out of the clear zone. iii. Sidewalk needs to be along both sides of the Main Street in accordance with SSAR page 45. 4 iv. The travel lanes on Main Street need to be 12 feet wide in accordance with standard GS -7 note 1. Bike lanes with parallel parking need to be a minimum of 5 feet in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual A-89. f. Utility plan i. Sanitary and storm sewer pipes need to have a minimum 45 degree deflection when crossing roads. ii. Manholes need to be located outside of the sidewalks. iii. Waterlines need to be located outside of the pavement on the collector road. ACSA/RWSA The following comments were provided by Victoria Fort of RWSA: 1. The site and utility plan included in this submission indicate several potential conflicts with the existing RWSA 12" waterline, including but not limited to utility crossings, waterline connections, and landscaping within the RWSA easement. In order to evaluate these impacts, RWSA requests a copy of the utility and landscaping plans once they are submitted for review. 2. As mentioned previously and as presented in the land use summary, the development will generate sewage flows greater than 40,000 gallons/day, which will require a capacity certification from RWSA. (ACSA has requested the capacity certification from RWSA.) Resubmittal or Public Hearinq Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on 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), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral 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.) 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 actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your most recent submittal. 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. I look forward to meeting with you on Friday. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols Principal Planner for the Development Areas Elaine Echols From: Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:10 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: 'Gary Whelan'; amorrison@serviceauthority.org Subject: RE: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Elaine, RWSA has reviewed the submittal for ZMA201000018 Crozet Square, dated 2/23/2011, and has the following comments: 1. The site and utility plan included in this submission indicate several potential conflicts with the existing RWSA 12" waterline, including but not limited to utility crossings, waterline connections, and landscaping within the RWSA easement. In order to evaluate these impacts, RWSA requests a copy of the utility and landscaping plans once they are submitted for review. 2. As mentioned previously and as presented in the land use summary, the development will generate sewage flows greater than 40,000 gallons/day, which will require a capacity certification from RWSA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Develoument Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) Current comments, revision 1; The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application. 1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings. 2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two public roads. 3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on-site. The re -use of water on-site, green roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but some quantitative commitment is be needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused with commitments with the rezoning. 4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it. 5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation. 6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (12.5') so exiting and entering vehicles can stay within their lane. 7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance, and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the rezoning. 9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square. 10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west. While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17-320B, this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308. 11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of traffic to assume from future connections to the east. 12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded. Original comments of 18 Jan 2011; The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping (omitted with revision 1). 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled. 1� #0 Li V N i W� Lu" Alt Z, Z0 Lu i I i /* #0 Albemarle County Serv'H're, Av' ''('06� ioit Serving ♦ Conservirq March 8, 2011 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Attn: Jennifer Whitaker, P. E. 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902••9016 Re: Crozet Square Dear Ms. Whitaker: The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) formerly requests a Certification of Capacity for the above -referenced project. This project is located on the Barnes Lumber site in Crozet. An estimate of 49,000 gallons per day will eventually discharge into RWSA MI -I CZI-101, via the existing ACSA 8 -inch diameter system. This is in response to an application plan and prior to site plan stage. Please contact me if you have further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Gary M. Whelan Civil Engineer GMW:dmg 06050201Crozot5g030811 168 Spotnap Road ® Charlottesville, VA 22911 ® 'fel (434) 977-4511 o Fax (43/1) 979-0698 www.serviceauthorily.org �'IRGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 February 3, 2011 Katurah Roell Piedmont Development Group 2811 Hydraulic Road . Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Dear Katurah: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a rezoning from HI Heavy Industrial to DCD Downtown Crozet District has a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your project goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are consolidated below. Planning- Initial lanningInitial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Crozet Master Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. Specific requirements or recommendations in this section are in bold italics. Recommendations are made to help bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. As a rule, the Planning Commission looks closely at recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan before making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether to approve a project. Recommendations from Crozet Master Plan Recommendation from Plan Comment Locations for office/R&D/flex/ provide primary The proposal is for redevelopment of the J. employment uses in Downtown and are considered Bruce Barnes Lumber Company. Please necessary and. are a high priority in addition to retail, demonstrate how and where access to residential, and service uses. Flexibility exists in where the rail line isnot precluded and how these uses are provided in Downtown. While office/R&D/Flex/light industrial uses could be provided in one or more different locations in the Downtown, the location of the current J. Bruce Barnes Lumber Company has particular opportunities due to its historic industrial use and its location adjacent to the rail line. Care should be taken in redevelopment of Downtown so that access to the rail line is not precluded. • Direct new commercial and employment growth to The redevelopment of the property will Downtown. help accomplish this goal. • Include a mixture of office, research and The DCD Zoning district requested will development (R&D), flex uses, retail, and service ensure a mixture of uses on the property; uses in redevelopment of the lumber yard property. however, it is not clear where office, Residential and light industrial uses are secondary R&D/flex uses will be provided or how uses for this area. the community will be ensured that these uses will be provided. Please provide this information. • Reuse viable buildings within the Downtown. Where It is expected that the lumber yard buildings cannot be preserved, new construction buildings will be replaced with new should reflect the vernacular architecture in Crozet. buildings. Please provide information on how new construction will reflect the vernacular architecture of Crozet. I understand thay you may not wish to do this. • Consider recommendations from the Community of The property was surveyed but is not Crozet Architectural Resources Study and included in the potential historic district. Strategies Report for properties located within the The lumber company itself certainly has a potential Crozet Historic District. place in the history of Crozet. The Gazette reported that the company traces its roots to 1922. If the buildings will all be demolished, it would be good to have a more detailed survey with a written history of the company and the site. Possible ways to honor the history of the use might be a local historic marker in a prominent place in the development or a display for the library. • Encourage a "block" form of development in A "block" form of development is shown on undeveloped areas of the Downtown. a concept plan. Please make a commitment to a grid road system to ensure that the block form will occur. • Create a Downtown community green. A pedestrian mall is shown on the plan which can function as the recommended community green. Please make a commitment for this pedestrian mall or other important amenities for the area. • Include pocket parks in block development and Greenspace and open space are identified redevelopment., on the concept plan. Please make a commitment to provide important greenspace and open space with this development. • Look for new opportunities to promote or take if you wish to commit to any of these advantage of agritourism, heritage tourism,'and programs or initiatives within the other tourism initiatives in Western Albemarle such development, please show with design as the Artisan Trail; Monticello Wine Trail, and Brew features in the plan or through proffers. Rid e Trail. • Create destinations in the Downtown that support If the development occurs in accordance tourism initiatives. with the DCD, and with the features shown on the concept plan it will be a destination that supports tourism initiatives. "Main Street" "Main Street" is a new two-lane urban avenue expected in Crozet. It will connect Park Ridge Road with Crozet Avenue. (See Avenue illustration below.) In some portions of the road, where right-of- way or other constraints limit the ability to achieve a typical Avenue section, the road may transition from an avenue to a street section. Construction phasing should begin from the west (Crozet Avenue) eastward. A portion of the street will be constructed with the new library project. This will ensure critical linkages between Downtown and new development to the south and east. Recommendations for "Main Street": • Plan and initiate the first stages of a new "Main Street" parallel.to and south of the CSX tracks F k` running from Crozet Avenue eastward. • Require construction of "Main Street" with redevelopment of the - J. Bruce Barnes Lumber rpe RuWo fnranA,w,.o Company parcels. Neighborhood Model All proposals are reviewed for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. In this particular case, the DCD will ensure that the principles are met. Comments on specific principles are provided on the following page: Interconnected Streets and Interconnections are shown on the concept plan and form a Transportation Networks "block" pattern. Commitments will be needed fora public (and potentially private) set of streets within the area to form these blocks. It is acknowledged that the connection to the CSX property will take time to accomplish. The main street, to be called "Library Avenue, should provide for more direct public access from east to west in Crozet. Modifications to the plan shown will be needed to ensure that the interconnections to existing streets will be made appropriately. Commitment to a cross-section will also be needed. Parks and Open Space Parks and open space are shown on the concept plan; however, no commitments to provide these items have been ' made to date. Staff acknowledges that the applicant intends to provide such commitments. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if more detailed plans are provided. Zonin The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins: 1. The boundary for the rezoning is unclear. Clarifythe boundary to show the total development and indicate those parcels being requested for rezoning. One building is outside the boundary and one is inside the boundary, but both are now DCD. 2. There will likely need to be proffers to address various commitments. 3 Current Development The following comments have been provided related to how your proposal may or may not be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future by Bill Fritz: What has been provided is a schematic plan showing one potential layout for this development. I would recommend that the location of street connections with other parcels be resolved at the time of the rezoning. Other issues will be addressed with the submittal of the site plans. The applicant shows parking near CSX. This parking may be appropriately located for a stand alone parking lot. The applicant may want to pursue a special use permit at the same time as this rezoning. Engineering and Water Resources Please see the comments provided by Glenn'Brooks on the following page. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: Preliminary comments: 1. A consistent landscape treatment should be proposed along the railroad side of the property, particularly if parking lots will be located along that frontage. Given the location along the railroad, a dense planting area may be appropriate. 2. The proposed development appears to be inward oriented. The elevations of buildings visible from Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue should not have a "back of building" appearance. 3. The lack of detail in the plan limits the ability to comment. VDOT The following comments were provided by Joel DeNunzio at VDOT: 1. This plan needs to show proposed trip generation. It appears that it may meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. 2. Preliminary conceptual plans proposing state maintained roads need to include items listed in the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30-92-70. This plan is missing the following information: a. Proposed traffic volumes on each street. b. The proposed use and density of each area. c. Proposed locations of transportation facilities. d. The proposed functional classification of each street. e. Area type and connectivity index. f. Adjoining property information at stub outs. 3. Many of the proposed elements appear to be in conflict with VDOT's SSAR requirements and/or the VDOT Road Design Manual. These include intersection types, turnaround designs, and access management standards. ACSA/RWSA The following comments were provided by Victoria Fort of RWSA: ZMA201000018 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal See below 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification 'See below 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal See below 4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known It appears that the project will generate sewage flows greater than 40,000 gallons per day which will require a capacity certification from RWSA. LI While there are no known pressure issues that will affect this proposal, the development will likely tap the existing RWSA Crozet Waterline in order to serve this parcel. As such, RWSA will need to review final site plans. Information from ACSA: ZMA201000018 Crozet Square Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. 1. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50'. 2. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 100'. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes No 6. 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): none known Proffers and Plan Staff appreciates a conceptual plan to review; however, itis difficult to determine what is actually being shown in terms of use of buildings. We are not requesting a detailed proffered plan, but there are some specifics we believe should be shown on a proffered plan: 1. Street network,_ including what is to be public and what might be private. A cross-section for the main thoroughfare through the property is provided in the Crozet Master Plan. Major elements of this section would be expected in redevelopment of the property. 2. The Mall area 3. Location of amenities and the qualities of those amenities. 4. Where access to the rail line will be preserved 5. An area for employment uses You may wish to provide "use areas" on the plan for specific types of uses, such as "light industrial', "Office/R&D/Flex", "Retail". The identification of these areas is only important if you wish to use the plan as a means to ensure an area for employment uses. Please be sure to read the list of uses available in the DCD and the standards for the uses. For example, residential uses are allowed if the first floor is non-residential. An apartment. building with apartments on the first floor would not be allowed. Other commitments that would be expected with any rezoning are: 1. Proffer for. 15% affordable housing 2. Cash proffer for residential uses 3. Proffers related to any off-site transportation improvements needed after the 527 study is done. Commitments will likely be needed for development in relation to the timing of off-site transportation improvements. Although we know of no contamination issues at this, site, consideration should be given to having a Level 1 Environmental Impact Study done due to the use and adjacent railroad use. Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: 5 (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on 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), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral 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.) 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 actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. 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. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I will be glad to setup a meeting with the County Engineer and VDOT to discuss the street network and 527 Scoping. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols Principal Planner for the Development Areas 2 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Jan 2011 Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018) The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping. 1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc. 2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads. 3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate what other measures will be used within the development. 4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting should be scheduled.