HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-02-09Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201500001
SubApplication Type:
Old Trail Village
Date Completed:12/14/2016
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO MODIFY FREE STANDING SIGN REGULATIONS APPROVED 12/14/16
Division:
Date Completed:01/23/2015
Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:QC OK
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/06/2015
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/03/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/27/2015
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/27/2015
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks CDD Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/25/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:It is difficult to fully and accurately assess the proposed revisions without a strike-through version of
the approved Code. It is recommended that one be submitted for review.
1. Clarify in the “Signage” section (page 18) of the Code the type of non-standard signs being
discussed; for example, street signs.
2. Several phrases in the second paragraph of the “Entrance Corridor Protection” section of the Code
(page 18) are unclear. Clarify the reference to “scenic corridor criteria”. Who determines what plant
material is healthy and thriving? How is it determined if plant material can be protected and
preserved? What are the highest standards for plant specifications? Who is making the
determinations and when?
3. Elimination of the 150’ forested buffer (under “Entrance Corridor Protection”, page18) does not
support the goals of the Entrance Corridors or the goal of preserving the rural character of Crozet
(mentioned in the previous paragraph). Reinstate the previous language or provide for review
additional information to support the request for the change.
4. Reinstate the 5 regulations originally listed on page 29 of the approved Code.
5. Reinstate the second and third paragraphs on page 40 of the approved Code: “Adjacent to Route
250, trees within existing forested areas shall be preserved and maintained at a minimum depth of
one hundred fifty feet. Adjacent to Route 250 in areas which are currently unforested, a twenty foot
deep hedgerow shall be planted and maintained. Existing wooded areas along the south end of Old
Trail Drive shall be preserved and maintained.”
6. On page 22 of the proposed Code, the following statement needs alternate wording/further
clarification: “Contemporary styles will be allowed with the integration of traditional themes that are
translated into the contemporary designs.” Also, revise “if used in scale with” to something more like,
“shall be in scale with”.
7. Alternate wording may be desired at the top of page 5 of the proposed Code. There may be
instances where landscape modifications are needed in a part of the development whose character
differs from that of the Village Center.
8. It is recommended that the phrases “reasonably possible” be eliminated from the “Parking” section
on page 7 of the proposed Code.
Division:
Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 12, 2017
250, trees within existing forested areas shall be preserved and maintained at a minimum depth of
one hundred fifty feet. Adjacent to Route 250 in areas which are currently unforested, a twenty foot
deep hedgerow shall be planted and maintained. Existing wooded areas along the south end of Old
Trail Drive shall be preserved and maintained.”
6. On page 22 of the proposed Code, the following statement needs alternate wording/further
clarification: “Contemporary styles will be allowed with the integration of traditional themes that are
translated into the contemporary designs.” Also, revise “if used in scale with” to something more like,
“shall be in scale with”.
7. Alternate wording may be desired at the top of page 5 of the proposed Code. There may be
instances where landscape modifications are needed in a part of the development whose character
differs from that of the Village Center.
8. It is recommended that the phrases “reasonably possible” be eliminated from the “Parking” section
on page 7 of the proposed Code.
Date Completed:02/14/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 1/20/15
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:03/06/2015
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/30/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. On page 23, the new language regarding the EC buffer reduces the 150’ buffer to a 20’ hedgerow
where unhealthy vegetation is present. Reduction of the buffer to this degree is not appropriate.
Recommended revised wording: “In the 150’ buffer, where vegetation is not healthy, existing
vegetation shall be supplemented to establish a healthy buffer to the full depth of 150’.”
2. Notes 4 and 5 on page 23 include wording from the original Code that is somewhat unclear.
Combining the two notes as follows would provide greater clarity: “Accessory equipment and
structures, which include loading areas, service areas, refuse areas, mechanical equipment,
above-ground utilities, and security fencing devices, shall be integrated into the site plan by utilizing
buildings or changes in grade for screening. Planting shall not be an acceptable solution for
screening poorly sited equipment or structures. Views off accessory structures and equipment shall
be eliminated from the Entrance Corridor.”
3. Approval of the broad request for a waiver of maximum sign area to not count graphic symbols is
not recommended. A waiver request related to a specific design (submitted for review with the waiver
request) is recommended.
Division:
Date Completed:09/30/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/24/2015
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Division:
Page:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 12, 2017
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Comments under Planning Documents
Date Completed:10/08/2015
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 9/1/15.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:12/02/2015
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:PC date set fro 12/15- need to resubmit before BOS date is set
Division:
Date Completed:11/19/2015
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/23/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/25/2015
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:comments in planning docs and saved here:
https://ia2010.albemarle.org/CDD/CV_Docs/2015/ZMA/ZMA201500001 Old Trail Village
Division:
Date Completed:11/30/2015
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I reviewed the resubmittal with Jeremy. We took a look at the master utility plan that was provided.
Although it shows the future blocks, the existing development is not correctly shown. The applicant
shall update the utility master plan to correctly show the existing development.
Division:
Date Completed:02/09/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:bos 2-10
Division:
Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 12, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Date: November 25, 2015
Subject: ZMA 2015-01 Old Trail Village
Proffers, Application Plan, and Code of Development proposed
amendments dated November 2, 2015
Page 20, Cluster Cottage Units Parking -The parking requirements for single family detached
units are below. The parking calculation of 1/1.25 spaces can only be approved for cluster
cottages after a parking study, with data and justification, has been reviewed by the zoning
administrator. This has not been submitted but can be reviewed with site plans for cluster
cottages. The parking requirements for a single family dwelling are indicated below.
Dwellings: (Amended 2-5-03)
Single family detached (including manufactured homes): Two (2) spaces per unit, except when the Virginia
Department of Transportation requires three (3) spaces to offset the loss of ancillary onstreet parking
because a reduced urban street width has been permitted in accordance with the "VDOT Subdivision Street
Requirements."
Multi family units, including duplexes, single family attached, and townhouses, but excluding student
suites:
Number of Parking
Bedrooms/Unit Spaces/Unit
Any unit of 500 square feet or less 1.25
One (1) bedroom 1.50
Two (2) or more bedrooms 2.00
In addition, if parking is provided on individual lots, such as for duplexes and single family attached
townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the development, then one (1) guest
space per four (4) units shall be provided.
The code was revised to provide 1.5 spaces per unit. The comment was still not addressed.
This should be removed from the code of development and a parking study submitted when the
cluster cottages are developed. Or, submit the study now per section 4 of the ordinance.
Application Plan Cover Sheet -055E0 -01-00-000A2 was not listed as one of the parcels this
rezoning applies to. Please confirm the legal ad for Old Trail lists all the parcels that are
included with this ZMA.
Application Plan Sheet 2 -The note regarding the road between block 22 and 32 should be
revised, if Engineering and Planning support leaving this as an optional road.
Sign waiver analysis is provided as a separate attachment. The applicant still needs to
provide a justification that addresses the criteria in Section 8.b(3): Waivers and modifications.
An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 and 32, or the applicable planned
development district regulations be waived or modified by the board of supervisors, as follows:
1. Submittal of request for waiver or modification. If the applicant requests such a waiver or modification as part of
the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application plan, and shall
demonstrate how the findings required by subsection 8.2(b)(3) would be satisfied.
2. Timing of request. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32 establishing a procedure for
considering a waiver or modification, any request for a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as
part of the application plan; provided that an owner within a planned development may request a waiver or
modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32 at any time, under the procedures and requirements
established therefore.
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in
sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32, a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found: (i) to be consistent
with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and
satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8; (ii) to be consistent with planned development design
principles; (iii) that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general
welfare; and (iv) in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation
would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
2
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering
Date: Rev.2: 19 Nov 2015
Subject: Old Trail Village amendment (ZMA201500001)
There are no concerns with the proffer changes. The concerns with the application plan are all minor and
have been sufficiently addressed and discussed with the applicant. It is still recommended that the
stormwater master plan be completed, but it is not crucial that it be part of this zoning change. The public
road network appears acceptable. It is recommended that it be made clear that the private road portions
can end up as parking lots and travelways instead, as in the case of N and P.
Private Street Authorization Request
The request for private street authorization is recommended for approval. There are no engineering issues.
There is no objection to the waiver of curb, gutter and sidewalks on secondary access to amenity oriented
lots. The curb and gutter drainage concerns can be addressed on final plans.
file: E3 zma GEB OldTrail amendment.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
October 8, 2015
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2015-00001, Old Trail Village
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA
moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss
these issues. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. It would be preferable if a black line version of the original Code of Development (COD)
was provided. It is difficult to distinguish between the proposed code changes and the
previously approved code.
Rev1: Comment discussed and no longer needed.
2. The replacement of tables with text is not the direction that the COD should be going in.
It is difficult for Zoning to implement and will cause issues down the road during site plan
stage, as interpretation is an issue. Instead of text, the tables should be brought back
and simplified.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. Since this application does not apply to all of Old Trail Village (as lots have been sold
and those owner's are not a part of the application), any reference to this COD replacing
the previous COD should be removed.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. In addition to comment #3 above, a map should be provided in the Code of Development
that shows which Blocks this COD will regulate.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. There are some changes requested that will require the amendment of the Application
Plan. A new application will need to be submitted for these to occur. Comments on the
COD that are relevant to this comment are provided below.
Rev1: Additional comments are provided by Zoning and Engineering regarding
the revised Application Plan.
6. All waivers, variations, exceptions mentioned in the COD need to submitted with the
application and approved. Simply stating "no exception or variation will be required
during subdivision or site plan" is not acceptable. There are many instances of this within
the proposed COD, for example, private streets, curb and gutter, sidewalk and planting
strips, etc.
Rev1: Comment partially addressed. The proposed standards for private streets
do not meet ordinance requirements. Private street standards are found in 14-412.
Language should state that the private streets will meet those stated in the
ordinance, or an additional modification should be requested outside of the curb,
gutter, planting strip and sidewalk modification request. As stated by the County
Engineer, the 20' width is for private streets serving 3-5 lots only, and may not be
applicable to every case.
7. Stormwater management needs to be addressed. Many meetings have occurred
regarding this, and this should be addressed with this submittal.
Rev1: The County Engineer is recommending that the master plan be incorporated
into this submittal. If the master plan is not incorporated, the existing, not valid
stormwater sheet of the application plan should be removed, and language should
be added to the COD that states that a Master Plan will be submitted and approved
prior to the first site plan or subdivision for the Blocks subject to this rezoning.
See comments from County Engineer.
Additional Comments:
1. Perpendicular parking along streets is not acceptable. All references to
perpendicular parking should be removed.
2. Public roads need to be established with reasonable certainty. Language within
the Code and Plan that state that any road can change, be removed, etc should be
removed.
3. Building heights should match those that are within the Downtown Crozet District.
See detailed comments within the Planning marked Code of Development.
4. Approval of the broad request for a waiver of maximum sign area to not count
graphic symbols is not recommended. A waiver request related to a specific
design (submitted for review with the waiver request) is recommended.
Application Plan:
1. The removal of the 150 foot buffer along Route 250 is unacceptable. If this is
proposed/requested, a new application plan is required. See attached ARB comments
on the buffer.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Additional Comments:
1. See attached comments from Zoning and Engineering regarding the application
plan.
Code of Development:
1. A large number of corrections need to be made to the Code of Development (See
attached comments from Planning, Zoning, ARB, Engineering, and VDOT).
Rev1: See additional Comments from Planning, Zoning, ARB, and Engineering.
Planning Comments are given directly in COD document.
Proffers:
1. The affordable housing proffer does not meet current standard language. (See previous
comments made on 12/12/14 with ZMA2014-04. Input for the Housing Director is
needed prior to revising this proffer language. (See comments from Zoning and Housing)
Rev1: Comment needs more work, see additional comments below from Greg
Kamptner and Ron White regarding the affordable housing proffer.
2. No changes have been made to Proffer 7 to address the driveway construction
standards. (See comments from Engineering and Zoning)
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. Comments have not been received yet on the proffers from the County Attorney's office.
Once comments are received, I will forward them onto you.
Rev1: See comments below.
Additional Comments:
1. When will the 90 -day notice may be given? The current and original proffers were
open-ended as to when the notice was to be given. These were the first affordable
housing proffers and they did not include language that tied the notice to a period
around the anticipated issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The "when the
Affordable Unit(s) will be available for sale" is rather open, allowing the applicant
to send the notice that an affordable unit will be available for sale in 2017. (Greg
Kamptner)
2. They left the 90 -day notification period in and the wording would still allow for a
unit to be listed in MLS and marketed without being built. Since they are unlikely
to proffer changing this, we should seek some information on how they will
comply with the intent of the policy and have that as a part of the proffer if
appropriate. For example, will they hold a subsequent owner (builder) to this
requirement through the sales contract? If not, the subsequent owner could
market a product for 90 days and then build something entirely different. I
understand that David has said that Old Trail is committed to the affordable units
but a future owner of the lots may not be. (Ron White)
3. Proffer 2(C): The mixture of types of Affordable housing units should not be
revised as proposed. As proposed, Staff cannot support this change as it is
important to have varied housing types offered for affordable housing.
Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report
that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in
preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at
the work session and/or with subsequent submittals.
The existing zoning approved for Old Trail Village is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan lanc
use designations of Mixed Use Residential which includes commercial, and office uses,
Neighborhood Density Residential which includes supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools and other small scale non-residential uses, and Urban Density Residential which
includes supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses.
Additional Planning Comments
1. Page 4- Building heights and setbacks should not be determined at subdivision or site
plan stage. The COD should state the requirements of the development. Remove this
language.
Rev1: See comments above and within the marked -up COD regarding building
heights.
2. Page 5- Streets should be identified as being public or private and should not be
determined at site plan or subdivision stage. Additionally, if private streets are proposed,
they will need to be approved via the exception process stated in the Subdivision
Ordinance. The request should be submitted and processed with this rezoning
amendment. In order to request private streets, they will need to be identified.
Rev1: See comments from County Engineer regarding the private streets. Further
discussion will need to take place for a blanket private street approval. The streets
will need to meet requirements of the ordinance. Also, the private street request
does not contain adequate information for evaluation. The information required
per Section 14-234 has not been provided. The standards for the streets has been
proposed to be reduced, a request and justification for a reduction in the
standards needs to be provided.
3. Page 5- Streets are a major aspect and the "bones" of an application plan. While streets
can shift here and there, deletion and major changes are required to be evaluated to
determine if a variation is required. Stating that street sections can be eliminated by
administrative approval is not acceptable and this statement should be removed.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Page 7 of the COD states that the Developer
reserves the right to build additional roads, public or private. As state above, the
streets, specifically the public streets, are a major aspect of an application plan
and should be shown.
4. Page 6- Staff is evaluating whether 30 feet is sufficient for lots that are facing an amenity
area. Previously, 30 feet was the minimum with 50 feet from face of unit to face of unit.
Further comment will be forthcoming.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. Page 6- Again, all waivers and requests for any modifications to streets must be
identified by a plan and submitted and approved with the rezoning. If these requests are
not made during the rezoning amendment, they will be required during the subdivision
process.
Rev1: See comment above regarding the Private Street request. Also, please note,
where Amenity lots are located and served by a private street that does not
include sidewalk, sidewalk will be required along the amenity area to service the
residences. This should be addressed in the Amenity Lot portion of the COD.
6. Page 7- The phrase "shall use reasonable efforts" should be revised to the old language
that states "shall be". Relegated parking is a principal of the Neighborhood Model, and
should be implemented in Old Trail. Please re -read the parking section in the approved
COD and use this language.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. Table 4- Cluster Cottage units. Staff will need to discuss this further with the Zoning
Administrator and County Attorney to determine if this would be a new use, or if the form
for single family Cluster Cottage units is sufficient.
Rev1: See comments on this unit type within the COD.
8. Page 14- Non-residential setbacks are not provided. Also, a blanket five foot setback is
not sufficient. The setback table from the approved COD should be included in the
revised COD. Also, there may be issues with site distance with a blanket setback (See
VDOT comments).
Rev1: Comment addressed. See comment in COD regarding maximum building
setback.
9. Page 14- The proposed heights are taller than what was previously approved in the
existing COD. Specifically, the five story buildings. Also, language such as "shall be
allowed with appropriate scale and transition" is impossible to administer at site plan
stage. Further clarification and/or table indicating which blocks allow certain building
heights for commercial areas should be provided. The existing COD is unclear as well,
and what has been provided does not clarify building heights and scale.
Rev1: See comments within the COD and above regarding building height. Old
Trail should follow the same standard that was set in the DCD.
10. Page 14- The existing COD states that for Block 34 the minimum lot size is 7,000 square
feet. Please state why the minimum lot sizes in this block are getting significantly
smaller.
Rev1: Comment addressed in response letter.
11. The sections for Blocks 19, 24 and 25 were removed from this COD. Is there a reason
why? This section should be included in the proposed COD. If you would like to remove
this section, please provide a justification for review.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. The regulations for Buffers and Screening adjacent to 250 should also be included in this
COD and not removed. If you would like to remove this section, please provide a
justification for review.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission:
$ 203.40 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)- It appears that this fee was paid.
$ 403.40 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 203.40 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 606.80 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Principal Planner
Planning Service
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Date: October 1, 2015
Subject: ZMA 2015-01 Old Trail Village
Proffers, Application Plan, and Code of Development proposed
amendments dated September 1, 2015
Reminder -This rezoning applies only to undeveloped blocks of Old Trail. A map should be
provided in the Code of Development that shows which Blocks this code of development will
regulate. This amended code cannot apply to the already developed properties in Old Trail
unless those owners have signed this rezoning application. Refer to Section 33.2.b.(8)
addresses what signatures will be required for a rezoning (below). A sentence that clarifies this
should be added to the project history on Page 3.
1. Required signatures on owner -initiated application. Each owner -initiated application for a
zoning map amendment shall be signed by the owner of each parcel that is the subject of the
proposed zoning map amendment, provided that:
a. Amendments to existing proffers. An owner whose parcel is subject to proffers may apply to
amend the proffers applicable solely to the owner's parcel, provided that written notice of the
application is provided to the owners of other parcels subject to the same proffers under Virginia
Code §§ 15.2-2204(H) and 15.2-2302. However, the signatures of the owners of the other parcels
subject to the same proffers shall not be required.
b. Amendments to planned developments. An owner within an existing planned development may
apply for a zoning map amendment, and the signatures of any other owners within the planned
development is required only if the amendment could result in or require: (i) a change in use,
density or intensity on that parcel; (ii) a change to any regulation in a code of development that
would apply to that parcel; (iii) a change to an owner's express obligation under a regulation in a
code of development; or (iv) a change to the application plan that would apply to that parcel.
Code of Development Comments:
Pages 6-7- Regulations regarding the application plan are covered in the zoning ordinance.
Also, "conceptual application plan" is not a term from the ordinance. Wherever referenced,
the term should be replaced with "application plan"
Page 8, Note 2. Codes of development -speed limits are not a regulation enforced by zoning
and should not be in the code of development.
Page 9 -Third paragraph, last sentence, delete "wherever reasonably possible" . The
language from page 19 of the original Old Trail code of development should be added back
to this section. This would allow the option of turning front loaded garages sideways to
relegate parking.
Page 13 -include reference to Proffer 8 so there is no confusion about which pathways are
being described in this section of the code of development.
Page 17 -It is unclear what note #5 means.
Page 17 -Height limits should be established in feet, not just stories. Recommend using the
regulations of the DCD district for building height and include provisions for stepbacks.
Page 18 -Accessory structure setbacks -Previous comment not addressed. Please clarify if
these setbacks also apply to detached accessory structures.
Page 20, Cluster Cottage Units Parking -The parking requirements for single family
detached units are below. The parking calculation of 1/1.25 spaces can only be approved for
cluster cottages after a parking study, with data and justification, has been reviewed by the
zoning administrator. This has not been submitted but can be reviewed with site plans for
cluster cottages. The parking requirements for a single family dwelling are indicated below.
Dwellings: (Amended 2-5-03)
Single family detached (including manufactured homes): Two (2) spaces per unit, except when the Virginia
Department of Transportation requires three (3) spaces to offset the loss of ancillary onstreet parking
because a reduced urban street width has been permitted in accordance with the "VDOT Subdivision Street
Requirements."
Multi family units, including duplexes, single family attached, and townhouses, but excluding student
suites:
Number of Parking
Bedrooms/Unit Spaces/Unit
Any unit of 500 square feet or less 1.25
One (1) bedroom 1.50
Two (2) or more bedrooms 2.00
In addition, if parking is provided on individual lots, such as for duplexes and single family attached
townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the development, then one (1) guest
space per four (4) units shall be provided.
Page 20, Cluster Cottage Units -minimum lot frontage of 10' does not seem adequate. Is
the intent to subdivide the cluster cottage units in the future or have condominimum
ownership?
Page 22, Stormwater --- awaiting latest update on this issue from the County Engineer.
Zoning and Planning advised, based on the conceptual stormwater master plan we received
4/15/15, that the changes appeared eligible for a variation at the conceptual level under
Section 8.5.5.3. Zoning hasn't received a final stormwater master plan to review. It is
strongly recommended that the stormwater and conceptual grading sheets of the application
plan be updated with this rezoning process rather than process a separate variation. If
changes go beyond what can be done as a variation, then another rezoning could be
necessary.
Page 22, Signage -The request to increase sign height for freestanding signs to 16' is
consistent with the maximum sign height in the PDMC and PDSC districts. There is
precedent for NMD districts with a commercial component, line Stonefield, requesting to
utilize sign regulations from commercial districts. There is no precedent for approval of
exceeding the area requirements. A specific design proposal and further justification is
needed to support that waiver request. If recommended for approval, there should be a
maximum sign area established.
Page 23 -Should the EC Corridor guidelines also apply to Block 33?
Application Plan Comments -
Cover sheet -General Notes 2 and 3 along with the adjacent owners information has not
been updated.
Sheet 2 -The note regarding the road between block 22 and 32 should be revised, if
Engineering and Planning support leaving this as an optional road. Future stream
buffer/flood plain impacts will still need to be addressed when the road plan/site plan is
submitted.
2
Sheet 2 -Note regarding street B -if this is supported by Engineering and Planning, a
design detail/street section needs to be established.
Sheet 6 -This sheet needs to be provided to show the area applicable to this rezoning or
a separate updated survey if it hasn't already been provided.
All other sheets should be either updated or removed from this plan set if not required
application plan information or if the regulations are provided elsewhere (ex. Open
Space sheet).
Proffers- Proffer 2AThe affordable housing for -sale unit proffer does not meet current standard
language. The notice to Housing that the unit is available for sale should be updated to for
consistency with other proffers approved. (See previous comments made on 12/12/14 with ZMA
2014-04. Input from the Housing Director is needed prior to revising this proffer language.
Waiver requests #1 and 2 -If these waiver requests are supported by Engineering and
Planning, a design detail/street section needs to be provided. It references a minimum of 20
width but a cross section should be provided to clarify if planting strips, sidewalks, etc. will still
be provided in the code of development/application plan with waiver #1.
3
Review Comments
ZMA201600001
Project Name: old Trail Village
Date Completed: ' Nednesday, September 30, 2015 F1
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
D e pa rtm e ntfD ivis i o nfAg e n cy: ARB
Reviews Comments:
1- On page 23, the new language regarding the EC buffer reduces the 150' buffer to a 0' hedgerow
where unhealthy vegetation is present- Reduction of the buffer to this degree is not appropriate
Recommended revised wording= 'In the 150' buffer, where vegetation is not healthy, existing vegetation
shall be supplemented to establish a healthy buffer to the full depth of 150'-`
2- Notes 4 and 5 on page 23 include wording from the original Code that is somewhat unclear -
Combining the two notes as follows would provide greater clarity_ 'Accessory equipment and structures,
which include loading areas, service areas, refuse areas, mechanical equipment, above -ground utilities,
and security fencing devices, shall be integrated into the site plan by utilizing buildings or changes in
grade for screening- Planting shall not be an acceptable solution for screening poorly sited equipment or
structures- Views off accessory structures and equipment shall be eliminated from the Entrance
Corridor -a
3- Approval of the broad request for a waiver of maximum sign area to not corint graphic symbols is not
recommended- A waiver request related to a specific design (submitted for review with the waiver
request) is recommended
Review status: I Requested Changes F-]
I
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On:1010712015
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering
Date: 27 Feb 2015
Rev. 1: 22 Sep 2015
Subject: Old Trail Village amendment (ZMA201500001)
There are no engineering concerns with the changes to the proffers for affordable units. The following
comments are offered for your review of the Old Trail Village amendment.
Code of Development
1. It is not clear whether a new application plan is intended. A plan was not received. Please clarify.
(This would include the preliminary grading plan, stormwater management, new block plan, etc.)
Rev. 1: Regarding the amended application plan, by sheet:
Sheet 2:
Sheet 3:
Sheet 4:
Sheet 7:
Sheet 8:
Sheet 9:
a. It is not clear how the road which ends at the pool parking lot can be considered a part
of the road network without being aligned with block 1 or 2 and continuing through.
b. There should be no right angles in the major roads, like shown at block 31A, 5, 27.
c. The notes reserving rights should be removed. A zoning document should not bypass
ordinance requirements like stream buffer disturbances and mitigation.
d. Perpendicular parking is not allowed on streets. This makes them parking lots.
This sheet is no longer accurate and needs to be replaced with the current stormwater
master plans.
See the comments for sheet 2. All apply.
The conceptual grading plan is no longer accurate, and can be removed.
This sheet is redundant and can be removed.
This sheet could be updated with utilities installed.
Sheets 2-9:
These sheets are being re -submitted with Timmons Group and Scott Collins seals, which
does not appear to be accurate. I understand these documents were prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. with March Mountain Properties.
2. A stormwater management plan was not received. This has been discussed for some time, and
mentioned a few times in this amendment (ex. p.18), but has not been received. It appears as though
stormwater management must be reviewed and approved prior to this amendment proceeding to public
hearing.
Rev. 1: The zoning documents need to be updated with the current stormwater master plans.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 4
3. If the alignment of streets and sidewalks must generally conform, this does not appear to reconcile with
the elimination of any street section by administrative approval. Perhaps instances could be provided,
or more information provided regarding the administrative approval, which does not appear to be
different than a variation.
Rev. 1: Language replaced, and application plan provided. See comment 4.
4. Page 5 indicates "any road that is shown ... may nevertheless be built as a public road, a private road, or
merely as an accessway... ". This is not acceptable. The public road network should be established
with reasonable certainty, and private and public roads provided as necessary for frontage requirements
and access to each unit.
Rev. 1: Streets are now addressed on sheets 6-8 of the proposed Code of Development. Comments
addressing the new language are provided below;
a. Remove the language, "...planting strips, sidewalks and curbing are not required in any alleys
or for private roads that provide street "frontage" for amenity -oriented lots." A rezoning
cannot remove ordinance requirements, such as for 14-422 and 14-410. This requires an
ordinance amendment, or using waiver and variations as set by ordinance.
b. Remove the language, "The Developer reserves the right to build additional roads not shown
in Table 3 below. These additional roads may be either public or private, upon approval of a
private street waiver. Private streets shall have a minimum width of 20' from face of curb to
face of curb per Section 14-412A.2.b of the Albemarle County Code." Changes to the
application plan, or evaluation of plats for conformity is as given in the code. The referenced
private street width is for private streets of 3-5 lots as given in the Code. It is not applicable to
every case. Private street authorization is per the Code 14-233.
c. In Table 3 and the application plan, the right angles on Roads B and H are not acceptable.
d. In Table 3 and the application plan, Road N is not an acceptable alignment for part of the
major road network.
e. In Table 3, note 4, and the application plan, Road T is not clear. It should be a part of the
system, or not.
f. In Table 3 note 2 and the application plan, Road B is not to have perpendicular parking if it is
to remain a road and part of the network. Perpendicular parking makes a parking lot.
g. In Table 3 note 3 and the application plan, the design speed is typically dictated by traffic
projections or counts, and up to VDOT.
Page 6 indicates standards for alleys with a 20' or 16' clear alleyway, and it is mentioned multiple
times in other areas. This may be reasonable on some plans, and it may not be reasonable on others.
Such specific standards should be removed. County standards are provided in the subdivision
ordinance, section 14-410D, "The county engineer shall consider the provision of adequate access to
required onsite parking and/or garages, unimpeded vehicular circulation along the alley, an adequate
clear zone along the alley, and other safety issues deemed appropriate for the conditions."
Rev. 1: This appears to have been replaced with language for Amenity lots on sheet 8. This is not
acceptable. Green space does not substitute for road frontage. The rezoning should not remove the
requirements for private roads, sidewalks, planting strips, and curb and gutter, as given in the Code.
See comment 8.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 4
6. Page 6 attempts to exempt "private roads that function as alleys" from curb, sidewalks and street trees.
It is unclear what a private road that functions as an alley is supposed to be. This language should be
removed. Waivers from requirements for the county standard urban section are provided in county
code, 14-410I and 14-422E.
Rev. 1: See comment 5.
7. Page 6 indicates alternative paving to be approved by the Director. This should be the authority of the
County Engineer or VDOT. Sound engineering practice follows established AASHTO or VDOT
pavement design.
Rev. 1: Addressed on page 7.
8. Options for alternative road frontage are in contradiction to the county code. The definitions of roads
and alleys (14-236) in the subdivision ordinance provide road access to each lot, and alleys only as a
secondary means of access. An alley is not an alley if it is the sole means of vehicle access. A green
space or "mews" is not road access, and creates substandard units which do not have adequate
proximity of vehicle access for private and emergency use. Amenity frontage and cluster cottage unit
layouts should be placed on roads. When placed only on alleys they should not be allowed. The
neighborhood model did not create alleys to have them replace roads. Each unit must have frontage on
a street according to county code.
Rev. 1: Not addressed. See comment 5.
9. Page 10 indicates pathway connections will be constructed prior to implementation of final
construction plans. This is not practical and should be revised to say within 6 months after approvals,
like the proffer.
Rev. 1: Addressed on pages 13-14.
10. Stormwater Management on page 18 should refer to the Engineering Division, or County Engineer.
Rev. 1: This section, now on page 22, is not acceptable. Stormwater management needs to be updated
to reflect the current master plan (in process).
11. Road signage should not be allowed which does not follow the national and international standards
and symbols for safety and legibility, the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.) This
is important, as such standards have been proven to affect compliance and safety by normalizing driver
expectations. While it has been a trend to use other signage schemes as a fashion statement for certain
developments (Glenmore, and recently Stonefield are examples), this has not been approved by the
County Engineer, and should not be allowed. It compromises driver safety and federal regulation.
Even with road name signs for the E-911 program, the County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Ordinance and Manual does not allow alteration of the green name plate and format, only the type of
post, provided it is maintained privately. This leaves only information, advertising, and other such
non -regulatory signs as safe for artistic expression.
Rev. 1: This language appears to have been eliminated.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 4 of 4
12. In the past, there was a variation that went to public hearing regarding the setback of garage fronts
from travelways. This (and other variations) should be made part of the code of development, and
perhaps undergo some revision in keeping with similar by -right development elsewhere in the county
(Stonefield, Hollymead).
Rev. 1: I see that proffer item 7H, regarding driveways, has been removed. I did not find anything that
replaces it.
Private Street Authorization Request
A blanket approval of unspecified future private streets is not recommended. This request is predicated
upon the idea that private streets can be to a lesser standard than public streets, allowing greater density. It
is not clear that this would always be the case. The referenced code sections would not always be
applicable.
Request of Waiver of Street Standards
This is not recommended for approval. There should not be a group of homes that has less safety and
convenience than provided to every other lot in the county by Code. See comments 5 & 8.
file: E2 zma GEB O1dTrail amendment.doc
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 6, 2015
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2015-00001, Old Trail Village
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA
moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss
these issues. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. It would be preferable if a black line version of the original Code of Development (COD)
was provided. It is difficult to distinguish between the proposed code changes and the
previously approved code.
2. The replacement of tables with text is not the direction that the COD should be going in.
It is difficult for Zoning to implement and will cause issues down the road during site plan
stage, as interpretation is an issue. Instead of text, the tables should be brought back
and simplified.
3. Since this application does not apply to all of Old Trail Village (as lots have been sold
and those owner's are not a part of the application), any reference to this COD replacing
the previous COD should be removed.
4. In addition to comment #3 above, a map should be provided in the Code of Development
that shows which Blocks this COD will regulate.
5. There are some changes requested that will require the amendment of the Application
Plan. A new application will need to be submitted for these to occur. Comments on the
COD that are relevant to this comment are provided below.
6. All waivers, variations, exceptions mentioned in the COD need to submitted with the
application and approved. Simply stating "no exception or variation will be required
during subdivision or site plan" is not acceptable. There are many instances of this within
the proposed COD, for example, private streets, curb and gutter, sidewalk and planting
strips, etc.
7. Stormwater management needs to be addressed. Many meetings have occurred
regarding this, and this should be addressed with this submittal.
Application Plan:
1. The removal of the 150 foot buffer along Route 250 is unacceptable. If this is
proposed/requested, a new application plan is required. See attached ARB comments
on the buffer.
Code of Development:
1. A large number of corrections need to be made to the Code of Development (See
attached comments from Planning, Zoning, ARB, Engineering, and VDOT).
Proffers:
1. The affordable housing proffer does not meet current standard language. (See previous
comments made on 12/12/14 with ZMA2014-04. Input for the Housing Director is neede
prior to revising this proffer language. (See comments from Zoning and Housing)
2. No changes have been made to Proffer 7 to address the driveway construction
standards. (See comments from Engineering and Zoning)
3. Comments have not been received yet on the proffers from the County Attorney's office.
Once comments are received, I will forward them onto you.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
Additional Planning Comments
Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report
that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in
preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at
the work session and/or with subsequent submittals.
The existing zoning approved for Old Trail Village is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan land
use designations of Mixed Use Residential which includes commercial, and office uses,
Neighborhood Density Residential which includes supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools and other small scale non-residential uses, and Urban Density Residential which
includes supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses.
Additional Planning Comments
1. Page 4- Building heights and setbacks should not be determined at subdivision or site
plan stage. The COD should state the requirements of the development. Remove this
language.
2. Page 5- Streets should be identified as being public or private and should not be
determined at site plan or subdivision stage. Additionally, if private streets are proposed,
they will need to be approved via the exception process stated in the Subdivision
Ordinance. The request should be submitted and processed with this rezoning
amendment. In order to request private streets, they will need to be identified.
3. Page 5- Streets are a major aspect and the "bones" of an application plan. While streets
can shift here and there, deletion and major changes are required to be evaluated to
determine if a variation is required. Stating that street sections can be eliminated by
administrative approval is not acceptable and this statement should be removed.
4. Page 6- Staff is evaluating whether 30 feet is sufficient for lots that are facing an amenity
area. Previously, 30 feet was the minimum with 50 feet from face of unit to face of unit.
Further comment will be forthcoming.
5. Page 6- Again, all waivers and requests for any modifications to streets must be
identified by a plan and submitted and approved with the rezoning. If these requests are
not made during the rezoning amendment, they will be required during the subdivision
process.
6. Page 7- The phrase "shall use reasonable efforts" should be revised to the old language
that states "shall be". Relegated parking is a principal of the Neighborhood Model, and
should be implemented in Old Trail. Please re -read the parking section in the approved
COD and use this language.
7. Table 4- Cluster Cottage units. Staff will need to discuss this further with the Zoning
Administrator and County Attorney to determine if this would be a new use, or if the form
for single family Cluster Cottage units is sufficient.
8. Page 14- Non-residential setbacks are not provided. Also, a blanket five foot setback is
not sufficient. The setback table from the approved COD should be included in the
revised COD. Also, there may be issues with site distance with a blanket setback (See
VDOT comments).
9. Page 14- The proposed heights are taller than what was previously approved in the
existing COD. Specifically, the five story buildings. Also, language such as "shall be
allowed with appropriate scale and transition" is impossible to administer at site plan
stage. Further clarification and/or table indicating which blocks allow certain building
heights for commercial areas should be provided. The existing COD is unclear as well,
and what has been provided does not clarify building heights and scale.
10. Page 14- The existing COD states that for Block 34 the minimum lot size is 7,000 square
feet. Please state why the minimum lot sizes in this block are getting significantly
smaller.
11. The sections for Blocks 19, 24 and 25 were removed from this COD. Is there a reason
why? This section should be included in the proposed COD. If you would like to remove
this section, please provide a justification for review.
12. The regulations for Buffers and Screening adjacent to 250 should also be included in this
COD and not removed. If you would like to remove this section, please provide a
justification for review.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants
pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission:
$ 203.40 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 403.40 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing needed.
$ 203.40 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 606.80 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same
time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is
(434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Services
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Date: February 27, 2015
Subject: ZMA 2015-01 Old Trail Village
Proffers and Code of Development proposed amendments dated January
20, 2015
This rezoning applies only to undeveloped blocks of Old Trail. A map should be provided in
the Code of Development that shows which Blocks this code of development will regulate.
This amended code cannot apply to the already developed properties in Old Trail unless
those owners have signed this rezoning application. Refer to Section 33.2.b.(8) addresses
what signatures will be required for a rezoning (below). A sentence that clarifies this should
be added to the project history on Page 3.
1. Required signatures on owner -initiated application. Each owner -initiated application for a
zoning map amendment shall be signed by the owner of each parcel that is the subject of the
proposed zoning map amendment, provided that:
a. Amendments to existing proffers. An owner whose parcel is subject to proffers may apply to
amend the proffers applicable solely to the owner's parcel, provided that written notice of the
application is provided to the owners of other parcels subject to the same proffers under Virginia
Code §§ 15.2-2204(H) and 15.2-2302. However, the signatures of the owners of the other parcels
subject to the same proffers shall not be required.
b. Amendments to planned developments. An owner within an existing planned development may
apply for a zoning map amendment, and the signatures of any other owners within the planned
development is required only if the amendment could result in or require: (i) a change in use,
density or intensity on that parcel; (ii) a change to any regulation in a code of development that
would apply to that parcel; (iii) a change to an owner's express obligation under a regulation in a
code of development; or (iv) a change to the application plan that would apply to that parcel.
The code of development, application plan, and variations approved to -date will still apply to
the blocks already developed in Old Trail. The third paragraph on page 3 should be revised
to say this as well.
Unless also revised during the rezoning process, development must comply with the
Application Plan, including the plan set dated June 24, 2005, last revised September 12,
2005, or seek variations under Section 8. Sheet 2 of the Application Plan set titled
"Conceptual General Development Plan" is the only plan sheet considered "illustrative." The
note on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan allows flexibility for individual lot layouts and parking
areas within blocks. Also, I believe that flexibility in location of biofliters/stormwater
management facilities is permitted without a variation.
The Application Plan section on pages 4-5 should be deleted. Regulations regarding the
application plan are covered in the zoning ordinance.
Based on some of the changes the code proposes, I think a new application plan that
governs future blocks should be submitted and would probably make things a lot simpler for
both the developer and County to administer aka make future submittals go smoother.
Page 5, need to add back be added back -Table 3 Streetscape standards. Revise them to
reflect what is described on page 5. A waiver must be processed with this rezoning, to the
extent the SUB ordinance to allow what is decribed on page 6. Specific standards and
diagrams of should clarify in what design scenarios the Amenity Frontage and Low Impact
Roads will be appropriate.
Page 6, Amenity Frontage -I would recommend changing the terms used so there is no
confusion to something like "Amenity -oriented lots" because "frontage" as used in the
ordiance must be a street.
o Frontage: The continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent road.
4.6.1 FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
Lot frontage and the minimum lot width shall be established as follows:
a. Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.6, every lot shall front on an existing public
street, or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained
by the Virginia Department of Transportation, except that private roads shall be permitted in
accordance with section 14-514 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle.
See. 14-403 Lot frontage.
a. Each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an existing or proposed street; provided that this
requirement shall not apply to any lot that would be created from the subdivision of a parcel where two
(2) or more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14, 2009 and one existing dwelling would be
located on each lot created.
If the units face a grass mall/greenspace, they should still be served by a public/private
street at the rear of a lot as required by the ordinance. An "alley" is not a street as defined in
the ordinance. I believe waivers/modifications to this section of the ordinance are needed.
Also, notes should be added to Table 7 as to how Sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.4. of the
ordinance apply/not apply for lots in Old Trail.
Page 7, delete "use reasonable efforts", "reasonably possible" in all instances where it is
used. Page 7 last paragraph, what parking analysis has been provided? Is this referencing
parking studies approved by the ZA for existing blocks? Future reductions will have to be
reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with Section 4.
Page 8, Open Space should also be added back to this exhibit. The buffer along 250 is not
shown.
Page 9, revisions to the code of development should note how the requirements of Section
4.16 are met. If not, a waiver should be processed with this rezoning request.
Table 4 -Note 1 should be added to another section of the code of development and is
regulations clarified. I'd like to get input from the County Attorney on Note 6.
Page 14, Accessory structure setbacks should be included in the code of development,
including whether attached garages are permitted on single family detached lots.
Page 18, Stormwater --- awaiting updates on this issue. Consider whether that will also mean
changes to application plan will be needed needed?
Page 18, What type of signage is this provision meant to address on page 18? Street signs?
Pages 18-19, Entrance Corridor Protection/Buffer with Henley should be revised to include
what was approved with the original code of development on pages 28-29 and page 40.
Page 19, Guidelines for Tree Preservation -Are these protections measures more stringent
than current standards for tree preservation?
Pages 20-22, Section 20A now requires architectural standards but not styles (see below). I
think specific standards should be identified in this section of the code of development.
g. Architectural standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following:
1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures which may be provided through illustrations;
2
2. Fagade treatments;
3. The preservation of historic structures, sites, cemeteries, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources; and
4. Architectural styles, materials, colors and textures if these elements are determined to be necessary in order
for a proposed development to be compatible with its contiguous developed surroundings. The provisions in a
code of development adopted prior to October 14, 2009 pertaining to subsections 20A.5(g)(1) through (4) shall
be the only architectural standards in the code of development that apply to the planned development
Proffers:
o The affordable housing proffer does not meet current standard language. (See
previous comments made on 12/12/14 with ZMA 2014-04. Input from the Housing
Director is needed prior to revising this proffer language.
o No changes have been made to Proffer 7 to address the driveway construction
standards (18' driveway requirements).
3
Megan Yaniglos
From: Ron White
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos; Greg Kamptner
Subject: RE: ZMA 2015-0000_ Old Trail Village
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Although the revised proffers and the same 90 -day notification period as described in Option 1- A. (2). a. as the
originals, this has been used by current builders to simply advertise the to -be -built units in MLS for ninety days and meet
the requirement. The concern is that the advertised unit may never be built and after the period expires a market -rate
unit could be built and the proffer satisfied. Most proffers include a notification period tied to the completion of the
unit and issuance of a CO. If the proffers are to be revised, we should request similar language. The 90 -day period is
fine but it should start sixty days before expected completion and expire thirty days after issuance of CO.
Option 2 — A. (2). b. is problematic in that it does not comply with the County's Affordable Housing Policy. The Policy
states that beneficiaries of the County's programs and policies related to the Policy are those at or below 80% of the
area median income. As it is currently written, I do not believe we can allow an affordable unit to be built without at
least attempting to qualify and eligible family (below 80% AMI) for purchase during a specific period. Allowing
developers to control sales price through deed restrictions may be something for the future but I believe we would have
to revised our Policy before that happens.
�Rqn 'White
Chief ofDousing
(434) 296-5839
Review Comments
Project Name: Old Trail Village
Date Completed: 1wednesday, February 25, 2015
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski 0
Department/DivisionlAgency: ARB F1
Reviews Comments:
It is difficult to fully and accurately assess the proposed revisions without a strike -through version of the approved Code_ It
is recommended that one be submitted for review_
1_ Clarify in the 'Signage' section (page 18) of the Code the type of non-standard signs being discussed; for example.
street signs_
2_ Several phrases in the second paragraph of the 'Entrance Corridor Protection` section of the Code (page 181 are
unclear_ Clarify the reference to 'scenic corridor criteria'- Who determines what plant material is healthy and thriving? Ho}x
is it determined if plant material can be protected and preserved? What are the highest standards for plant specifications?
Who is making the determinations and when?
3_ Elimination of the 150' forested buffer (under 'Entrance Corridor Protection', page 18) does not support the goals of the
Entrance Corridors or the goal of preserving the rural character of Crozet (mentioned in the previous paragraph)_ Reinstate
the previous language or provide for review additional information to support the request for the change_
4_ Reinstate the 5 regulations originally listed on page 29 of the approved Code_
5_ Reinstate the second and third paragraphs on page 40 of the approved Code= 'Adjacent to Route 250, trees within
existing forested areas shall be preserved and maintained at a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet_ Adjacent to Route
250 in areas which are currently unforested, a twenty foot deep hedgerow shall be planted and maintained_ Existing
wooded areas along the south end of Old Trail Drive shall be preserved and maintained-'
6. On page 22 of the proposed Code, the following statement needs alternate wording/further clarification= 'Contemporary
styles will be allowed with the integration of traditional themes that are translated into the contemporary designs_" Also,
revise 'if used in scale with' to something more like, shall be in scale with"_
7_ Alternate wording may be desired at the top of page 5 of the proposed Code_ There may be instances where landscape
modifications are needed in a part of the development whose character differs from that of the Village Center_
8_ It is recommended that the phrases 'reasonably possible" be eliminated from the 'Parking" section on page 7 of the
proposed Code_
Review status: I Requested Changes I -
Page: 11 County of Albemarle On: 31612015
Megan Yaniglos
From: Alex Morrison[amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:49 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: ZMA201500001: Old Trail Village
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan,
The ACSA has reviewed the ZMA request for Old Trail Village. Prior to the ACSA recommending approval, the applicant
shall address the following comments:
• Submit a revised master plan to the ACSA (Alexander Morrison, EIT) depicting the reduction in residential units.
• Advise if you are proposing a higher density of non-residential uses, or if the development will just build out at a
lower density.
Feel free to contact me with any questions 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
Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/acsaconnect
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning
From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering
Date: 27 Feb 2015
Subject: Old Trail Village amendment (ZMA201500001)
There are no engineering concerns with the changes to the proffers for affordable units. The following
comments are offered for your review of the Old Trail Village amendment.
Code of Development
1. It is not clear whether a new application plan is intended. A plan was not received. Please clarify.
(This would include the preliminary grading plan, stormwater management, new block plan, etc.)
2. A stormwater management plan was not received. This has been discussed for some time, and
mentioned a few times in this amendment (ex. p.18), but has not been received. It appears as though
stormwater management must be reviewed and approved prior to this amendment proceeding to public
hearing.
3. If the alignment of streets and sidewalks must generally conform, this does not appear to reconcile with
the elimination of any street section by administrative approval. Perhaps instances could be provided,
or more information provided regarding the administrative approval, which does not appear to be
different than a variation.
4. Page 5 indicates "any road that is shown ... may nevertheless be built as a public road, a private road, or
merely as an accessway...". This is not acceptable. The public road network should be established
with reasonable certainty, and private and public roads provided as necessary for frontage requirements
and access to each unit.
5. Page 6 indicates standards for alleys with a 20' or 16' clear alleyway, and it is mentioned multiple
times in other areas. This may be reasonable on some plans, and it may not be reasonable on others.
Such specific standards should be removed. County standards are provided in the subdivision
ordinance, section 14-410D, "The county engineer shall consider the provision of adequate access to
required onsite parking and/or garages, unimpeded vehicular circulation along the alley, an adequate
clear zone along the alley, and other safety issues deemed appropriate for the conditions."
6. Page 6 attempts to exempt "private roads that function as alleys" from curb, sidewalks and street trees.
It is unclear what a private road that functions as an alley is supposed to be. This language should be
removed. Waivers from requirements for the county standard urban section are provided in county
code, 14-410I and 14-422E.
7. Page 6 indicates alternative paving to be approved by the Director. This should be the authority of the
County Engineer or VDOT. Sound engineering practice follows established AASHTO or VDOT
pavement design.
8. Options for alternative road frontage are in contradiction to the county code. The definitions of roads
and alleys (14-236) in the subdivision ordinance provide road access to each lot, and alleys only as a
secondary means of access. An alley is not an alley if it is the sole means of vehicle access. A green
space or "mews" is not road access, and creates substandard units which do not have adequate
proximity of vehicle access for private and emergency use. Amenity frontage and cluster cottage unit
layouts should be placed on roads. When placed only on alleys they should not be allowed. The
neighborhood model did not create alleys to have them replace roads. Each unit must have frontage on
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
a street according to county code.
9. Page 10 indicates pathway connections will be constructed prior to implementation of final
construction plans. This is not practical and should be revised to say within 6 months after approvals,
like the proffer.
10. Stormwater Management on page 18 should refer to the Engineering Division, or County Engineer.
11. Road signage should not be allowed which does not follow the national and international standards
and symbols for safety and legibility, the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.) This
is important, as such standards have been proven to affect compliance and safety by normalizing driver
expectations. While it has been a trend to use other signage schemes as a fashion statement for certain
developments (Glenmore, and recently Stonefield are examples), this has not been approved by the
County Engineer, and should not be allowed. It compromises driver safety and federal regulation.
Even with road name signs for the E-911 program, the County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Ordinance and Manual does not allow alteration of the green name plate and format, only the type of
post, provided it is maintained privately. This leaves only information, advertising, and other such
non -regulatory signs as safe for artistic expression.
12. In the past, there was a variation that went to public hearing regarding the setback of garage fronts
from travelways. This (and other variations) should be made part of the code of development, and
perhaps undergo some revision in keeping with similar by -right development elsewhere in the county
(Stonefield, Hollymead).
file: El zma GEB O1dTrail amendment.doc