ZMA201900018 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-02-18Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201900018 —[Crozet Sports
SubApplication Type:
Date Completed:
Reviewer: Francis MacCall Division:
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments:
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Date Completed: 01-03-2020
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger Division: CDD Inspections
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Due to size a sprinkler system will be required. A needed fire flow needs to be completed and
verified with the water authority to make sure flow is sufficient.
411 other review comments will be added during building plan review.
Date Completed: 01-31-2020
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale Division: CDD Zoning
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
:,omments have been uploaded under Planning Documents and were emailed to Meg+ applicant
:earn on 1/31/20.
Date Completed: 01-16-2020
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Division: Fire Rescue
Review Status: See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
4 second entrance/exit will be required due to the size of the structure. I do have concerns about a
-onnection through the adjoining school property due to existing traffic problems, especially during
:he pick up/drop off time.
Date Completed:
01-30-2020
Reviewer:
Megan Nedostup Division: CDD Planning
Review Status:
Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
01-26-2020
Reviewer:
Margaret Maliszewski Division: CDD ARB
Review Status:
Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Page: 1 of 2
1. Provide site section(s) clarifying the level of visibility of the proposed structure from Rt. 250 EC.
2. Sports field lighting in the potential future recreation fields is not recommended due to anticipated
impacts to the EC and scenic byway.
3. Page 4 of the narrative states that a minimum building height of 60' is requested. Confirm that
"maximum" was the intent. How tall is the building illustrated in the perspective renderings?
4. The narrative mentions retention of wooded buffer adjacent to Old Trail Drive as contributing to
screening the building. Revise application plan accordingly. Does the buffer contain sufficient
evergreens for year-round buffering?
5. Explain why the added wording on page 25 of the Code of Development was added.
6. Clarify on the perspective rendering on sheet 3 of the architectural renderings package the locatior
of the 150' buffer along Rt. 250.
7. Make the following changes on the application plan:
a. Show the buffers noted in the narrative on the south, east and west sides of the site.
b. Biofilters should not extend into buffer areas.
c. Along Rt. 250 show the existing tree line, the sidewalk, the edge of pavement, and the location of
County of Albemarle Printed On: February 18, 2020
the required 150' buffer.
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
...................................................................................
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
...................................................................................
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
01-30-2020
Frank Pohl Division: CDD Engineering
Requested Changes
1) In the "DRAFT December 16, 2019" Amended Code of Development:
a. Page 12 - Recommend not approving this change. A master mitigation plan has been approved
and the development should comply with that plan, which does not allow lots to include stream
buffers.
b. Page 18 - Should the non-residential and residential be two different options for Block 19?
2) On the drawings, show all existing improvements (sidewalk/asphalt path).
3) Stormwater management will need to comply with the latest revision of the Stormwater Master
Plan (WP0201600009 approved 04/25/16). To remain grandfathered under the approved plan, the
amount of phosphorus and the volume or rate of runoff leaving each point of discharge cannot be
greater than what was approved in the Master Plan [9VAC25-870-48.A.1 ].
01-28-2020
Adam Moore
Pending
01-28-2020
Kevin McDermott
See Recommendations
Richard Nelson
Pending
Division:
VDOT
........................................................................................................................
Division:
CDD Planning
........................................................................................................................
Division:
ACSA
Page: 2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: February 18, 2020