Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200600001 Project Information Zoning Map Amendment 2006-08-28 • Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:10 PM To: Lisa Glass Cc: Al Reaser Subject: RE: Westhall V: information See answers embedded From: Lisa Glass Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:04 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Al Reaser Subject: Westhall V: information Elaine, School staff is considering some changes to the school districts in the Crozet area. I see Westahall V is proposed to be 38 units. When I look on-line I see about 90 lots in Westhall. So I guess I need more information. 1) Were the first phases of Westhall "by-right" ? Yes, they were by-right So not on the proposed development index that school staff gets? They should have been indicated as part of the by- right development; however, it has only been in the last year that they have been going great guns out there. 2) Do you have a concept sketch for Westhall Ph V ? Specifically showing road access. Yes, you can go here to see what is proposed: http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board of Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2006Fi1 The staff report indicates some of the previous by-right developments, I think. 3) What development was recently "turned down" in the Crozet area? I don't know of any; however, the Board did not approve Westhall, but deferred action to Sept.. The Board is also due to hear Wickham Pond next month. We don't know if they will turn down the projects. Westhall did not have 4 votes on Aug. 2; proffers have changed; whether it will be enough is not know. Hopefully, this helps. Any help is appreciated, Lisa Lisa K.Glass, Project Manager Building Services Department, Albemarle County Schools 434.975.9340; Fax: 434.975.9341; E-Mail ADDRESS: (glass@k12albemarle.org 9/6/2006 Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Sean Dougherty Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:08 PM To: 'Chris Schooley' Cc: 'jeechols@verizon.net'; Elaine Echols Subject: Westhall Chris: I have heard back from the County Attorney. The proffer change proposed represents a material change and would require re-advertising. Therefore, the 9/6 date is out, but you have time to resubmit proffers (by 8/23)for the 9/13 hearing. Let me know if you have questions. Elaine will be back on Monday. Sean R. Dougherty Senior Planner County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 296-5823, ext. 3029 8/22/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:05 PM To: Sean Dougherty Cc: Elaine Echols; Wayne Cilimberg Subject: RE: Westhall - This would be a material change that requires readvertisement under the new law. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient, you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. From: Sean Dougherty Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:43 AM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: Elaine Echols; Wayne Cilimberg Subject: FW: Westhall - Importance: High Greg: Westhall is looking to amend their cash proffer to say that 50% of the proffer would be paid upfront(as this is not my project, I am not sure how the proffer was last submitted). Is this the sort of change that requires readvertisement? Please reference e-mail below or call me with questions. I am asking on behalf of Elaine, as she is out of the office today and Friday. Sean From: Jim and Elaine Echols [mailto:jeechols©verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:18 AM To: Sean Dougherty; Wayne Cilimberg Subject: Re: Westhall Hi Sean and Wayne, I just spoke to Chris. The change is to when the cash proffer would actually be paid. He said they want to pay 50% up-front. I have no idea whether this level of a change constitutes the need for a readvertisement. Sean will need to check with Greg. If so, the 13th is the soonest date it could go the the Board, but, it requires getting with lettie to see if the 13th is available (I'd go through Allison to do that), and then get an ad to her. I don't know what changes 8/22/2006 Page 2 of 2 would be made to the ad --Greg would need to advise on that one, too. The ad deadline is noon tomorrow, so y'all will need to work quickly if it is to go to the 13th. If no readvertisement is needed, then I can write a quick exec. summary on Monday. I've asked Chris to work directly with Sean on this and hope Sean is not too inconvenienced. Thanks for doing this. Elaine Original Message From: Sean Dougherty To:jeechols@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:22 AM Elaine: Chris S. said they want to schedule for 9/13 (instead of 9/6). He also said the change to the proffers is minimal, for what that is worth....and his number is 962-8593 Sean R. Dougherty Senior Planner County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 296-5823, ext. 3029 8/22/2006 4 / Gv, "`.-, 1", yd , 9�t1" Page 1 of 1 Ella Carey From: MadiganKEA@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:45 AM To: Ella Carey Cc: dWyant@albemarle county.org Subject: todays meeting topic Westhall Phase V My name is Kathleen Madigan and I live at 5460 Jamestown Court Crozet, Va. My property is adjacent to the development of Westhall for Phase I/II. I have attended the Albemarle County Planning work session and the last Albemarle County Planning Board meeting on 7/11 voicing my opposition to the approval of this request. I am unable to attend this meeting due to my work schedule at the hospital. As a resident living in this area I would like to address the fact that there is only one road in and out of this area. disagree with the traffic study that has been completed. This study did not take into account the event traffic that occurs for Crozet Park i.e. pool traffic in the summer, baseball and soccer traffic, craft fair events at the park, the parade in the summer, etc. Most households have 2 cars. Add 2 cars per household to what is to be developed and then add for the proposal..this is a tremendous amount of traffic for this area. Yes, there is a proposal for the Eastern Connection but that can be way down the road as demonstrated by the proposed expansion of Jarman Gap Road that local residents have been hearing about for years now. I also object to this proposal as in the handouts at the Albemarle County Planning Board meeting on 7/11 there is on pg. 8 a section noting that Westhall Road can open in the future to Jamestown Court. For more than 2 years now I have been informed by the County representatives and the developers representatives that this would be a gravel road with a chain link connection across it and not be used for thru traffic..emergency outlet only. It has become a paved road, with orange cones at the end of it that are removed frequently for individuals to drive their cars thru, with a turn about area abutting my property. In fact from my deck I watch traffic turn around. I have been mislead by the county and the developer. In this area there is a small section of wooded brsh that has fallen tress, limbs etc that I have been informed by the developer that he does not have to clear....it is an eyesore. Please show your support for the community that is experienceing rapid growth and place a halt to this request for additional units. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Madigan ,stetd,1 ree-41-1, „ijii_iwv, o),-i.„,„vti v/a--e-A-40-\-- i4ec (AA Pot- j44.1 Sep" 8/2/2006 42. A/aaal vf'd geArtitia.Veiti2 . 40/dr-4-6 /iti-daL4 i-AeW(A- 3L Al 9; /Z.4'' _- `, __ / 3 ? Goo ©dv Z7� �0� on ; 3 3 2 3 `�'�, - i I a, Gd0 ! n oad Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:46 AM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers I looked at the application plan and they are not abstract when used in conjunction with the application plan. The County engineer is satisfied with the proffer wording and believes he can easily enforce what is written. Does that help? Yes, "re-grade" would be better off as "regrade", but, if we can avoid sending the proffers back for another revision and signatures, I would be very grateful. Elaine From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:44 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers I now realize these comments may be too late. In the abstract, it's hard to tell if this language is specific enough. Since these are off-site improvements, I assume that they are not shown on a plan. Will the County Engineer determine whether they have been regraded to assure proper flow? "Re-grade" or"Regrade" (see 1 and 3)? Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient, you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:37 AM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: FW: Westhall Phase V Proffers Importance: High Does this work for you? It works for me. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] 7/25/2006 Page 2 of 2 Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:35 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers 1.R e-grade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road approximately 180' adjacent to lots 84- 89 of Westhall Phase III to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road. 2.1 nstall a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch around the pipe, as necessary. 3.R egrade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road from the entrance to Claudius Crozet Park north approximately 650' to assure a a minimum 1.5-foot shoulder width, and 2-feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:22 AM To: Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers Chris -- these things still need to be addressed. 4.R e-grade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road from the main entrance to Claudius Crozet Park north approximately 180' from where to where to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road. 5.1 nstall a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch around the pipe, as necessary. 6.R egrade the ditch/shoulder in front of Claudius Crozet Park (approximately 650') [describe fixed locations or show on the application plan] to assure a a minimum 1.5-foot shoulder width, and 2- feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch. From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:17 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Westhall Phase V Proffers Elaine—Attached is the revised proffer for section 1.3.1. Chris Schooley, CLA Director of Land Development Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 Tel: (434) 951-0991 Fax: (434) 975-3542 Mob: (434) 962-8593 7/25/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:57 AM To: Chris Schooley; Elaine Echols Cc: Pam Strother Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers Elaine— If you have any corrections to this section, please email or call Pam Strother. I will be in a meeting, Pam will handle corrections and acquiring John Desmond's signature and delivery to you. Pam's direct number is 951-0959 and her email is attached herein. Chris Schooley From: Chris Schooley Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:35 AM To: 'Elaine Echols' Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers 1.R e-grade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road approximately 180' adjacent to lots 84- 89 of Westhall Phase III to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road. 2.I nstall a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch around the pipe, as necessary. 3.R egrade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road from the entrance to Claudius Crozet Park north approximately 650' to assure a a minimum 1.5-foot shoulder width, and 2-feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:22 AM To: Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V Proffers Chris -- these things still need to be addressed. 4.R e-grade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road from the main entrance to Claudius Crozet Park north approximately 180' from where to where to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road. 5.1 nstall a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch around the pipe, as necessary. 6.R egrade the ditch/shoulder in front of Claudius Crozet Park (approximately 650') [describe fixed locations or show on the application plan] to assure a a minimum 1.5-foot shoulder width, and 2- feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch. From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] 7/25/2006 Page 2 of 2 Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:17 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Westhall Phase V Proffers Elaine—Attached is the revised proffer for section 1.3.1. Chris Schooley, CLA Director of Land Development Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 Tel: (434) 951-0991 Fax: (434) 975-3542 Mob: (434) 962-8593 7/25/2006 Page l of l Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:50 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Proffers Elaine— Because of some vacation time, we could not get the letter last week. We will get it to you today or tomorrow. Thanks. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:50 PM To: Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Proffers I got them, but did you include the letter from the adjoining property owner about the temporary easement? From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley©stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:06 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Proffers They are on their way, 80% AMI, doubled the Eastern Ave proffer. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:54 AM To: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley Subject: Proffers I have received no new proffers from you. I needed them this a.m. You may not be looking at a change relative to affordable housing, but there were a number of other changes needed. Please touch base or send the final proffers asap. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/25/2006 July 20, 2006 Ms. Elaine Echols County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,VA 22902 Ref: Temporary Easement for Westhall V Dear Ms. Echols, This letter is to confirm that Lickinghole LLC will grant a private, non-exclusive 20 foot temporary greenway trail easement upon rezoning of Westhall Phase 5. The easement will be located on parcel (TMP 56-53) and granted to a legal entity deemed by the Parks and Recreation department of Albemarle County. The easement will extend for approximately 1,275 feet along the border of the Shiflett Farm LLC parcel(TM 56H-A) beginning on the northern boundary of our property. This easement will be used to construct a Class B Trail (as defined by County)in conjunction with Westhall V(TMP 56 H-A)development. If you have any questions about this arrangement or if I may be of any assistance,please feel free to contact me at(434)245-4900. Sincere , Andy Dondero Vice-President Lickinghole Creek, LLC ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES July 13, 2006 Ms. Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development- Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Va 2902-4596 Re: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Plan WWA# 205161.01 Dear Ms. Echols: This letter is to document and respond to your review comment letter dated July 7, 2006 and your additional comments dated July 10, 2006 as received in electronic format. Our responses are as follows: July 7,2006 Comments 1. Comment: The note on the application plan regarding the natural landscape screening buffer needs to be changed The last three sentences were not clear. We recommend the wording say the following: "Supplemental plantings are to be shown on a landscape plan and submitted with the first subdivision plat that contains any of lots 110 through 125. The developer shall install or bond for installation the plantings on the approved plan prior to the first building permit for any of lots 110 through 125. If bonded, the plantings shall be planted within one year of the date the bond was posted Maintenance of the buffer shall be the responsibility of the county. " Response: The Natural Landscape Screening Buffer Note on sheet 3 of 3 has been revised to reflect the requested verbiage. 2. Comment: The design of the private street serving Lot 102 and the rear parking bays for the remaining lots should be revised to meet parking lot standards (20'travel way and 10'x18'bays). [Jack will verify that this is sufficient on the plans submitted last week]. Response: The Application Plan was revised to reflect the prescribed parking lot standard with the previous submission made on 6-29-06. I would anticipate that the County Engineer would find this sufficient. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville IteCeilVieb fu< 12 47008 noevFCOpIENT 3. Comment: Recommended proffer modifications are attached. I would recommend that you wait until after the Commission meeting to finalize all changes. Response: This comment is acknowledged by the Developer, Stonehaus Development. Additional Waivers Required 1. Comment: Waiver to Section 14-422 for sidewalks and street trees on the private street and on a portion of the north side of the street and the north end of the property. Response: It is understood that staff has requested the PC/BOS act on this waiver request concurrently with the ZMA. 2. Comment: Waiver to Section 4.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for determination of lot front and to Section 4.6.3 b. which requires that double frontage lots have two front yards for the affordable housing unit section. Response: It is understood that Staff has requested the PC/BOS act on this waiver request concurrently with the ZMA. 3. Comment: Permission to disturb open space under Section 4.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Response: It is understood that Staff has requested the PC/BOS act on this waiver request concurrently with the ZMA. 4. Comment:An administrative waiver will also be necessary to approve the double frontage lots under Section 14-401 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Response: It is understood that Staff has requested the PC/BOS act on this waiver request concurrently with the ZMA. July 10,2006 Comments Received in Electronic Format 1. Comment: A few weeks ago,you said you would provide a letter of commitment from the adjoining property owner to allow for a temporary easement in the future Eastern Avenue r.o.w. Could you provide this letter with the resubmittal on Thursday? Response: The prescribed commitment letter is enclosed. 2. Comment:Also, I am wondering if you would also add a note to the application plan along the lines of "Relegated parking to be provided in general accord with accompanying illustration conceptual layout dated 3/29/06 showing buildings and driveways". 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville c04,4 UN�k �1�aBItteiteito l Response: Note 4 under General Development Information on the Cover Sheet of the Application Plan has been added reflecting the requested verbiage. I trust that the above responses and Application Plan changes properly address these issues. If you have any questions,please contact me. Sincerely, WW Associates -�-- David M. Jensen, P.E. Vice President Manager, Charlottesville Operations cc: Chris Schooley, Stonehaus Development 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville ikeb 1$64 407.). ic9‘461, Crb 1144 ttitti,. STONEHAUS A :, il,,e7dir, citi -P July 13, 2006 -4 , Ad:\i‘PA,,,,,, v jx. CP:i 4i S 11\11/41° Elaine Echols V- � nnS y Albemarle County 8 %C 401 McIntire Road (` ,, VA 22902 voiduvv"""___" Charlottesville, ,,,�" Re: Westhall V ZMA 2006-00001 In n 5 t? " Dear Ms. Echols, Stonehaus would like to request the following additional .ivers for Westhall, Phase V (/� rezoning: %1 -� I , ) 1. Waiver requiring sidewalk and planting strip for the private street previously o j submitted for a waiver. 1 /INJ �� 2. Waiver of planting strip on the north side of the street where no sidewalk is to be provided. 3. Waiver to allow asphalt instead of concrete for the path adjacen to Open Space Parcel loon( ' 4. Waiver of standard rear yards for the ble Housing Units. We propose rear Th- t-t: r I yards of three (3) feet to allow for the compact structure of the layout. Q Thank you for yo s'stanc , 1J- "CtAl flikI rtiljL C r\-0 ti \)Okiti ediAk . tlittjux -f-p-d _ Chris Schooley, A Director of Land Development 49CL ° Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 PHONE 434 974 7588 FAX 434 975 3542 +*:` '6 • • SMART SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROPERTY 2 ` I RECEIVED J U _ 13 2006 ^OMI' yf�Y DEVELOPMENT STONEHAUS July 13, 2006 Elaine Echols Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: Westhall V ZMA 2006-00001 Dear Ms. Echols, Stonehaus would like to request the following additional waivers for Westhall, Phase V rezoning: 1. Waiver requiring sidewalk and planting strip for the private street previously submitted for a waiver. 2. Waiver of planting strip on the north side of the street where no sidewalk is to be provided. 3. Waiver to allow asphalt instead of concrete for the path adjacent to Open Space Parcel C. 4. Waiver of standard rear yards for the Affordable Housing Units. We propose rear yards of three(3) feet to allow for the compact structure of the layout. Thank you for you s'stanc , • Chris Schooley, A Director of Land Development Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 PHONE 434 974 7588 FAX 434 975 3542 • • SMART SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROPERTY 0 W Cr C) Elaine Echols From: adajiatr@jmu.edu Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:26 AM To: Bill Edgerton; eric.strucko@cfaininstitute.org; Pete Craddock; Jonathan Cannon; Calvin Morris; Jo Higgins; Marcia Joseph Cc: Elaine Echols; Board of Supervisors members Subject: Planning Commission -"Westhall" proposal, Lickinghole Creek, traffic Dear Albemarle Planning Commission, I'm writing to express some concerns about a proposed development close to Lickinghole Creek, which is not far from my home on the old section of Hilltop St. in Crozet. I attended the developer's meeting last week at the Crozet Park. But due to my childcare situation, it will probably be impossible for me to attend the Planning Commission on the evening of 7/11. I am a person who fishes, canoes, and gets outdoors as much as I can. When I learned about the development I drove down to take a look. To my surprise, although the maps that the developer distributed at the meeting I attended do not make this clear,the proposed development is about .25 mile from Lickinghole Creek. It is closer still to another small un-named stream to the north. I am greatly concerned about what this proposed development and other envisaged developments in this area of the county would mean for the health of Lickinghole Creek and the Mechums River watershed. About ten minutes of poking around on the internet turned up a couple of disturbing facts. The DEQ reports, re Lickinghole Creek,that "citizen monitoring shows very strong evidence of stream degradation," and is taking this seriously enough to set up a biological monitoring station in 2007. The stream degradation rating is the same on not-so-distant Broad Axe Creek. The probable health of Lickinghole is rated as "fair"; likewise Broad Axe Creek. (There are other significant worries about this proposed development. Traffic access to Crozet Avenue would be via the already over-used Park Road, High Street, and Tabor Street, as you must already know. These roads, I can report first hand, aren't really up to handling more traffic. Walking too -- much less bicycling-- on them is not a great idea. That the developer would help with spot improvements along Park Road, and contribute to (not-yet-existent) Eastern Avenue is nice, of course. Unfortunately, these spot improvements are, as I understand it, very minor. All told, the developer's envisaged plans for dealing with traffic problems just don't constitute an adequate response to the present or future situation.) As a neighborhood resident and someone who values the outdoors greatly, I'd urge that the county bend over extremely far backwards to protect Lickinghole Creek in particular and the Mechums River watershed in general. These waterways are already stressed, and will be under even greater pressure as development in this part of Crozet proceeds. I know that the developer has in mind taking some environmentally-friendly measures. But I think that the county needs to be exceptionally vigilant about the streams and rivers in this part of Albemarle. It would be a real shame if Crozet's streams and rivers ended up like Charlottesville's. But without added protection, that is a clear danger. Once development moves further along, it'll get harder to fix the problems with our streams and rivers. If, as is inevitable, there are going to be errors here, they ought, in my opinion, to be on the side of over-protection rather than under-protection of Lickinghole Creek and the Mechums River watershed. For this reason, and because of the added stress that this development will put on the already overburdened Park Road- High Street-Tabor street, I would as a Crozet citizen urge you to go extremely slow on this proposed development in its current incarnation. What is required is more attention to the effects that this proposed development would have on our watershed, and on our 1 already-stressed roads and community. i am worried about how closely the effects of this and other developments on the Mechums River watershed are being monitored, and how closely the Planning Commission is paying attention to the present state of our watershed. At this stage, as far as I can tell, neither the concerns about the health of our watershed or the traffic problems have been adequately addressed. That this development as presently envisaged is in the best interests of the citizens of Crozet and of Albemarle County is far from clear. If it isn't clear, it seems to me that caution is in order. Sincerely, Thomas Adajian 5643 Hilltop Street Crozet 823-7223 2 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Ron White Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:42 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: July 11 meeting The only issue that I see is the 100% of area median income. The Commission may have questions about the 90-day period (60 before and 30 after CIO) but that can be addressed at that time. Rai! taro, eke'of//oat/1 County of Albemarle (434)296-5839 ext.3407 From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:33 PM To: Ron White Subject: RE: July 11 meeting Have you had a chance to look at the Westhall Proffers? They look like this: 2.1 Affordable Dwelling Units. Owner proffers to require through the lot sale contracts on the Property the construction of a minimum of six(6)Affordable Dwelling Units (17% of all units) on the Property that meet the requirements for a single family dwelling as defined below. Each Affordable Dwelling Unit shall be on a single parcel and be conveyed fee simple. A home owner's association shall be created to maintain the parking area and sidewalk. Access easements shall be required to access the two provided parking spaces for each unit. Affordable units shall be affordable to households with incomes less than one hundred percent (100%) of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that the housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income. All purchasers of affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period shall commence upon written notice from the then-current owner/builder that the unit(s) shall be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than sixty (60) days prior to anticipated receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any unit(s) sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of affordable units proffered. The requirements of this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable units. 7/5/2006 Page 2 of 2 Obviously, we have problems with the affordability definitions. Do you have other issues? From: Ron White Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:28 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: July 11 meeting I can attend but will have nothing new to report or comment on beyond the current policy. I can say that during discussions with the Board they wanted us to let them know if there were any gaps created by the housing policy. That was a result of discussions around "workforce housing". There seemed to be a desire to give some consideration to these "moderately-priced units"with the assurance that we would also get affordable units. As you know, they asked me to take the recommendations that I put forward for consideration be taken back to the Housing Committee. While we discussed some of this at the June meeting, the Housing Committee asked that discussions continue in July. I would not want to confuse the issue by providing the specifics of the recommendation to the PC but would be glad to report on the general discussion if they desire. Roa I.4&, eifel o/f/oatAit County of Albemarle (434)296-5839 ext.3407 From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:25 PM To: Ron White Subject: July 11 meeting Hi Ron -- Two applicants are wanting to provide "moderately-priced" housing instead of "affordable housing" with their rezonings. Since this issue will come up at the July 11 Board meeting, I'm wondering if you will be able to come to that meeting and discuss your report with the PC. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/5/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:00 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V-as I write the staff report Attachments: Westhall V Proffers v2 (2).doc Elaine— Attached is the proffer form submitted last time. Feel free to take some extra time to review the plan then comment. Of course, that's easier for us to swallow depending on the extent of the comments... Thanks. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:45 PM To: Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report I've just finished making changes to the staff report that will go out tomorrow. Now, I'm ready to work on the proffers. It would be beneficial if you could send me the proffers electronically so I can make the recommended changes (as I did last time) to them. I received a revised application plan from y'all last week. I have not had a chance to review it. I will be able to review it before next Tuesday's meeting and can comment on it. I'd rather not send it out to the PC with the standard memo, "we received this too late to review". If you are ok with my looking at it after the report goes out, I'll do that and get all comments to you this week. If not, I'll put the cover memo on it and then have a look at it. Please advise and don't forget to send the proffers. thx Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:42 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report Elaine— I think we left this email dialogue with you providing us some changes to the proffers. Is this coming this week? Thanks. Chris Schooley 7/5/2006 Page 2of2 From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:54 PM To: Chris Schooley; Frank Stoner Cc: jensend©adelphia.net Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report whoops, forgot one other waiver -- the waiver to allow disturbance of open space. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:51 PM To: 'Chris Schooley'; Frank Stoner Cc: 'jensend@adelphia.net' Subject: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report Hi Chris and Frank, As I write the staff report, I have found a couple of more waivers which you need and that I am recommending approval of. These waivers are: 1. Waiver of sidewalk and planting strip for the private street. 2. Waiver of planting strip on the side of the street where no sidewalk is to be provided. 3. Waiver to allow aphalt instead of concrete for the path adjacent to Open Space Parcel C. 4. Replacement of the standard measurement of front and rear yards with your yards on the application plan in the affordable housing area. Otherwise, you'll get caught having to provide 2 front yards (in the front and the back) for the smaller houses. 5. There will need to be an administrative waiver for double-frontage lots, but, we can deal with that at the subdivision stage. I also realize that you didn't proffer street trees -- we can't require street trees but would like for you to plant them in the planting strip. I'm assuming you want to proffer street trees since they are shown on the illustrated plan. We can give you language when we give you the changes in wording for the proffers. You may also want to proffer that parking will be relegated as generally shown on the illustrated plan. Please advise. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/5/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:42 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V- as I write the staff report Elaine — I think we left this email dialogue with you providing us some changes to the proffers. Is this coming this week? Thanks. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:54 PM To: Chris Schooley; Frank Stoner Cc: jensend@adelphia.net Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report whoops, forgot one other waiver -- the waiver to allow disturbance of open space. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:51 PM To: 'Chris Schooley'; Frank Stoner Cc: 'jensend@adelphia.net' Subject: Westhall Phase V - as I write the staff report Hi Chris and Frank, As I write the staff report, I have found a couple of more waivers which you need and that I am recommending approval of. These waivers are: 1. Waiver of sidewalk and planting strip for the private street. 2. Waiver of planting strip on the side of the street where no sidewalk is to be provided. 3. Waiver to allow aphalt instead of concrete for the path adjacent to Open Space Parcel C. 4. Replacement of the standard measurement of front and rear yards with your yards on the application plan in the affordable housing area. Otherwise, you'll get caught having to provide 2 front yards (in the front and the back) for the smaller houses. 5. There will need to be an administrative waiver for double-frontage lots, but, we can deal with that at the subdivision stage. I also realize that you didn't proffer street trees -- we can't require street trees but would like for you to plant them in the planting strip. I'm assuming you want to proffer street trees since they are shown on the illustrated plan. We can give you language when we give you the changes in wording for the proffers. You may also want to proffer that parking will be relegated as generally shown on the illustrated plan. 7/5/2006 Page 2 of 2 Please advise. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, A/CP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/5/2006 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES June 29, 2006 Ms. Elaine K. Echols,AICP Principal Planner Department of Community Development—Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Va 22902 Re: Westhall V ZMA 2006-0001 WWA# 205161.01 Dear Ms. Echols: This letter is to document and respond to your review comments dated June 23, 2006. Our responses are as follows: 1. Comment: Park Street Proffer. Response: I understand that this issue has been resolved between you and Chris Schooley of Stonehaus. 2. Comment: Private Street Width. Response: The plan has been revised such that the private street width is 20 feet and the parking spaces have been revised to a width of 10 (to allow 20 foot wide travel way). The detail on sheet 1 and the horizontal layout on sheet 3 of the Application Plan have been revised accordingly. If you have any question, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, WW Associates David M. Jensen, P.E. Vice President Manager, Charlottesville Operations Cc: Christopher Schooley, Stonehaus 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:51 PM To: 'Chris Schooley'; Frank Stoner Cc: 'jensend©adelphia.net' Subject: Westhall Phase V- as I write the staff report Hi Chris and Frank, As I write the staff report, I have found a couple of more waivers which you need and that I am recommending approval of. These waivers are: 1. Waiver of sidewalk and planting strip for the private street. 2. Waiver of planting strip on the side of the street where no sidewalk is to be provided. 3. Waiver to allow aphalt instead of concrete for the path adjacent to Open Space Parcel C. 4. Replacement of the standard measurement of front and rear yards with your yards on the application plan in the affordable housing area. Otherwise, you'll get caught having to provide 2 front yards (in the front and the back) for the smaller houses. 5. There will need to be an administrative waiver for double-frontage lots, but, we can deal with that at the subdivision stage. I also realize that you didn't proffer street trees -- we can't require street trees but would like for you to plant them in the planting strip. I'm assuming you want to proffer street trees since they are shown on the illustrated plan. We can give you language when we give you the changes in wording for the proffers. You may also want to proffer that parking will be relegated as generally shown on the illustrated plan. Please advise. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/25/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:18 PM To: 'Chris Schooley'; Frank Stoner Cc: djensen©wwassociates.net; Jack Kelsey; Amanda Taylor Subject: RE: Westhall Phase 5 On the Park Street Proffer, I see now what you are saying. I was concerned that the phrase, "The owner shall apply up to $250 cash for each market rate unit towards a Park Road improvement project" meant that you were donating money to the County for the County to do the project. I will give you our County Attorney's rewording fairly soon, but, the proffers don't have to be changed before the PC public hearing, just the BOS meeting. I'm glad there is no substantive issue with this proffer. Regarding the private street standard, you need to work with Jack. I need his recommendation by next Friday. Please work directly with him on his deadlines to review the standard you want to use. Thanks and I'm glad that nothing earth shattering has occurred. Also, I just gave Amanda info on property owners' lists. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:02 PM To: Elaine Echols; Frank Stoner Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net; Jack Kelsey; Amanda Taylor Subject: RE: Westhall Phase 5 Elaine — On the proffer relating to Park Street, it is our intention that we would do the work. I thought the last sentence of Proffer 1.3 conveyed that message: "Improvements shall be made by the owner, prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit for any improvements thereon." Does it need to be worded differently? I realize you have not had an opportunity to offer recommendations on this specific proffer since it is new in this submittal. I must have misunderstood during my conversation with Jack in the field. We had 24' lanes and Jack verbally approved going to an "alley standard" and our sketch that did in the field showed a 12' pavement width. We are willing to go wider as Jack recommends. I have left a message with Jack, but if he would like to make a recommendation in reply to this email, our engineers will make the changes asap. When would you need a resubmittal? Remind me again, we're set for a public hearing on July 18th? We would also like to set up a meeting with adjacent land owners beforehand. Could you send me the list of those you have notified? 6/23/2006 Page 2 of 2 Thanks for your help. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:59 PM To: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: Westhall Phase 5 Hi all - left Chris a voicemail message earlier today. I haven't finished my review, yet, but 2 potentially big issues have arisen regarding the proffers and the private street request. The proffer relating to Park Street indicates you want to give us the money to do the spot improvements. We believe that it would be more appropriate for you to proffer to make the improvements. We would have to contract with someone to do that work and typically, an applicant just proffers to make the improvements. The private street proposed at 12 feet won't work. Jack and I talked and he indicated that he can't recommend approval on thyis type of street. Please call Jack at your earliest convenience to discuss. These issues may be big or small, depending on how you want to address them. If you want to proceed with what you have provided proffer wise and private street wise, please let me know because I'll need to include that info in my staff report. I think that you need to work with Jack on the private street issues and he may be able to accommodate another review before my staff report is due. Regarding Park Road improvements, if you are willing to proffer to make the improvements listed in the proffers, then I can say that in the staff report. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 6/23/2006 , S NMNM ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS .ASSOCIATES TRANSMITTAL Ms. Judy Wiegand Date: June 15, 2006 To: Senior Planner Dept. of Community Development— Project. No.: 205161.02 Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project: Westhall V ZMA 2006-0001 gem I - . Number pec. ection/ Description Copies DrawingNo. 7 elopment Plan Sheets 1-3 1 Half-Size Set Development Plan 7 Comment Response Letters 10 Proffers (1 original—9 copies) 7 nvate Street/Private Street Standards Waiver RequeifTh WW Associates By:. David M. Jensen, P. Vice President Manager, Charlottesville Operations Ms. Wiegand, I understand that you will handle distribution of this ZMA while Ms. Echols is out. cc: Christopher Schooley, CLA, Stonehaus 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 JUN 15 2006 Lynchburg•Charlottesville COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning& Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 TO: :�QA SO (iAjC FROM: -CIF/a//?i 6(47045- ( -r-Pa , )(Ct P+11 er a-A Q ✓1 Date: 6/ /oo JOB NO/FILE NAME zy) 4 Of, D / t (,:). /1 Q i/ We are sending you the following items, ❑Attached, or ❑Under separate cover: — Copy of letter ❑ Prints LJ Pians nPlats n Specifications n Other COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION These are transmitted as checked below: nFor approval As requested Ti For review and comment _ Approved as submitted n For your use El Resubmit copies for approval nApproved as noted Return corrected prints _ Submit copies for distribution Returned for corrections _ Other / L Remarks: i 1 eQSf ,- V i k 6, ( � L 2f o4 oLeA ll(-S J (,_/'r es- Z d O 6 Signature: 11� id WA ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES June 14, 2006 Ms. Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Department of Community Development—Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Va 22902 Re: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V WWA#205161.02 Dear Ms. Echols: This letter is to document and respond to your review comments dated June 6, 2006 for the subject project. Our responses are as follows: Planning 1. Comment: The Planning Commission requested information perspectives on the appearance of the units and to see how parking on the lots would be accommodated I didn't find this information in the packet you sent. I know that this information will be important to some of the Commissioners in making their recommendation. Response: The rendered plan submitted on May 23, 2006 shows how automobiles will be relegated to the sides and back of houses. Each lot will have parking for at least two cars behind the front edge of the building. 2. Comment: There are 37 lots shown on the plan; there are 36 lots noted on the first page the prior plan says 38 lots. Please correct this information before resubmittal. Response: There are 36 residential lots (90-125 inclusive) and, 3 open space parcels (A, B & C)which results in 39 divisions of land. This has been added to the General Development Information on the cover sheet of the Application Plan. 3. Comment:Page 2 of the Application Plan shows the large shaded area that is the subject of the rezoning. There is print within that shaded area that is difficult to read because the shading is so dark. It is essential that the print be clean and it is recommended that you make the shading much lighter so the print is visible. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Alternatively,you could move the print outside of the shaded area and use arrows to point to the items being described. Response: The lighter shading is now used for the area of TMP56H-A to be rezoned and the darker shading for the residue of TMP56H-A not being rezoned. The legend has been revised accordingly. See Sheet 2 of 3 of the Application Plan. 4. Comment: The information in Note 2. indicating the minimum square footage and footprints is helpful to understand the differences between the market rate and affordable unit sizes. It is concern to Zoning because it would imply that the affordable units could not be enlarged over time.A remedy to this situation would be to proffer that the square footage at initial construction would be the square footage you have indicated as noted Response: The square footages and number of bedrooms for the market rate and affordable dwelling units has been deleted from the General Development Information on the cover sheet 1 of 3 of the Application Plan. 5. Comment:As you remember, the Commission was supportive of the detached product. If the change in unit type is for the affordable units, they may or may not be as supportive. This is especially true if an attached product is offered at 100%of the median household income as opposed to 80%of the median household income. Response: The referenced note has been deleted from the General Development Information on the cover sheet 1 of 3 of the Application Plan. 6. Comment: The County's policy for affordable housing is housing that would be affordable to families earning 80%of the median household income. North Pointe is asking the Board for consideration of approval of detached units for 80%to 120%of the median household income. Depending on the Board's support for affordable housing in this range,your proposal may or may not be acceptable. Information on the Board's position may be available after the work session on Wednesday, June 7. Response: It has been the experience of Stonehaus that there is a strong need for housing in the 80-100% bracket. In an effort to supply affordable housing for the community in an income range reflective of Crozet, Stonehaus recommends 100% of median household income. 7. Comment: The stormwater facility locations and land to be dedicated to the County for a tot lot all appear suitable now. The contribution for a pedestrian bridge is acceptable. The open space at the rear of the lots that you are offering to the County is acceptable to Parks and Recreation. The note on the plan needs to be changed, though, to remove the reference to maintenance by the Homeowners Association. You also need to add a note on the plat or a proffer that indicates the buffer will be 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville planted by the applicant and the timing for the planting. Please bear in mind that the burden to plant the buffer should be upon the applicant and not the individual homeowners. Response: Note 3 under General Development Information on the cover sheet(Sheet 1 of 3)of the Application Plan assigns ownership of the Open Space Parcels A, B & C. The Natural Landscape Screening Buffer Note on Application Plan Sheet 3 of 3, has been revised to denote that the supplemental plantings are the responsibility of the developer and that the supplemental plantings are to be installed prior to release of bond. 8. Comment: The previous Lot 97 has been divided into Lots 97-102. These lots have public street frontage with the exception of Lot 102. Therefore, a written request for Planning Commission authorization of a private street must be submitted in accordance with Code 14-233.A waiver of the private street standards (14-412.A.4 Serving 6 lots or more) will also need to be requested, in accordance with 14-412.E., for the street &parking layout shown on the plan. Provide a detail of the proposed private street cross section, including the width of the private street easement. The private street will need to be maintained by a homeowners association of some kind. You will need to demonstrate that the dues for maintenance of the private street and parking areas will not be onerous for owners of the affordable units. Response: Waivers for private street frontage and a waiver of private street standards has been submitted (see attached letter dated June 13, 2006 from Stonehaus to the Planning Commission). With approval from the County Engineer, the access for parking for the Affordable Dwelling Units has also been decreased from 24' width to 12' width, with an alley standard, to provide more green space for the units. It is anticipated that the Home Owners Association dues for the ADU's will be $40 per month. A detail of the private street has been added to the Cover Sheet(1 of 3) of the Application Plan. 9. Comment: In the street cross-section on Sheet 1 of 3, a 0.5'separation is shown between the sidewalk and r.o.w. line. MOT requires a minimum of 1 foot. Response: The street cross-section has been revised to provide 1 foot between r.o.w. line and sidewalk. The plan and lot areas have been revised accordingly. 10. Comment: The response letter notes that a 42"high fence was added to the plan, unfortunately the fence did not print on the submitted plan sheet. Please be sure the fence is displayed and labeled. Response: The 42-inch high fence around the tot lot has been added to Sheet 3 of 3 of the Application Plan. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 11. Comment:Attached are YDOT's comment on Park Road in Crozet.As you can see, YDOT is recommending widening which the Commission does not endorse. Staff will not be asking for widening. The Commission did, however, ask the developer to identify and address any needed.spot improvement to the pavement, shoulders, drainage, and or sight-lines. These have not been provided. You will need to work with the County Engineer to identify areas for improvement which should be reflected in the proffers, if you do indeed plan to provide spot improvements. Response: A proffer has been added that addresses improvements to Park Road, including a list drafted by the County Engineer and his staff following a field visit with Stonehaus. 12. Comment:Attached is a "marked up"copy of your proffers, with suggested changes from Zoning, Engineering, the County Attorney, and Planning Staff. It is likely that, after you make the changes, there will be at least one more "wordsmithing"needed prior to the County Attorney signing off on the form of the proffers. Response: The proffers have been amended and are included with this submission package. I trust that the above responses and development plan changes properly address the outstanding issues. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, WW Associates David M. Jensen, P.E. Vice President Manager, Charlottesville Operations cc: Chris Schooley, CLA, Stonehaus Bill Wuensch, P.E., Fitzgerald and Holliday, Inc. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville U fr'RcirnP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development-Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3439 Fax(434)972-4126 June 6, 2006 Mr. Frank Stoner Stonehaus Development 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Plan received May 23, 2006 Dear Frank: As you know, a Planning Commission public hearing has been set for Westhall on June 20, 2006. The hearing date was set with the expectation that most issues would have been successfully resolved by that date and that only minor changes would be needed between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meeting. As staff has reviewed the submittal received on May 23, a number of items have been identified which have not been successfully resolved. Some of these items are substantive and some of them are very minor. We believe that all of them can be resolved prior to a public hearing and would recommend that you defer your public hearing so that you have time to make the changes before submitting for a Commission decision. A list of needed changes or information is provided below: 1. The Planning Commission requested information/perspectives on the appearance of the units and to see how parking on the lots would be accommodated. I didn't find this information in the packet you sent. I know that this information +di be important to some of the Commissioners in making their recommendation. 2. There are 37 lots shown on the plan; there are 36 lots noted on the first page; the prior plan says 38 lots. Please correct this information before resubmittal. 3. Page 2 of the Application Plan shows the large shaded area that is the subject of the rezoning. There is print within that shaded area that is difficult to read because the shading is so dark. It is essential that the print be clear and it is recommended that you make the shading much lighter so the print is visible. Alternatively, you could move the print outside of the shaded area and use arrows to point to the items being described. 4. The information in Note 2. indicating the minimum square footage and footprints is helpful to understand the differences between the market rate and affordable unit sizes. It is of concern to Zoning because it would imply that the affordable units could not be ZMA 20 6-00001 Westhai; enlarged over timu. A remedy to this situation would be to proffer that thesquare footage at initial construction would be the square footage you have indicated in the note. 5. A note on the front page of the application plan says: Developer reserves the right to adjust unit footprint and product type to respond to market trends bLt there shall be no decrease in the unit number of ADU's as shown on the plan.It is not clear if this note is to relate only to the affordable units or whether you are looking for the ability to change the unit type for the entire development. As you remember, the Commission was supportive of the detached product. If the • change in unit type is for the affordable units, hey may or may not be as supportive This is especially true if an attached product is offered at 100% of the median household income as opposed to 80% of the median household income. 6. The County's policy for affordable housing is housing that would be affordable to families earning 80% of the median household income. North Pointe is asking the Board for consideration of approval of detached units for 80% to 120% of the median household income. Depending on the Board's support for affordable housing in this range, your proposal may or may not be acceptable. Information on the Board's position may be available after the worksession on Wednesday, June 7. 7. The stormwater facility locations and land to be dedicated to the County for a tot lot all appear suitable now. The contribution for a pedestrian bridge is acceptable. The open space at the rear of the lots that you are offering to the Couity is acceptable to Parks and Recreation. The note on the plan needs to be changed, though, to remove the reference to maintenance by the Homeowners Association. You also need to add a note on the plan or a proffer that indicates the buffer will be planted by the applicant and the timing for the planting. Please bear in mind that the burden to plant the buffer should be upon the applicant and not the individual homeowners. 8. The previous Lot 97 has been divided into Lots 97 — 102. These lots have public street frontage with the exception of Lot 102. Therefore, a written request for Planning Commission authorization of a private street must be submitted in accordance with Code 14- 233. A waiver of the private street standards (14-412.A.4. Serving 6 lots or more)will also need to be requested, in accordance with 14-412.E., for the street& parking layout shown on the plan. Provide a detail of the proposed private street cross section,including the width of the private street easement. The private street will need to be maintained by a homeowner association of some kind. You will need to demonstrate that the dues for maintenance of the private street and parking areas will not be onerous for owners of the affordable units. 9. In the street cross-section on Sheet 1 of 3, a 0.5' separation is shown between the sidewalk and r.o.w. line. VDOT requires a minimum of 1 foot. 10. The response letter notes that a 42" high fence was added to the plan, unfortunately the fence did not print on the submitted plan sheet. Please be sure the fence is displayed and labeled. 11. Attached are VDOT's comments on Park Road in Crozet. As you can see, VDOT is recommending widening which the Commission does not endorse. Staff will not be asking for widening. The Commission did, however, ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders, drainage, and/or sight-lines. These have not been provided. You will need to work with the County ZNIA 20:16-Q0 G. `n�esthafl Engineer to ider , areas for improvement which should be reflected in the proffers, if you do indeed plan to provide spot improvements. 12. Attached is a "marked up" copy of your proffers, withsuggested changes from Zoning, Engineering, the County Attorney, and Planning staff. It is likely that, after you make the changes, there will be at least one more "wordsmithing" needed prior to the County Attorney signing off on the form of the proffers. I would like to recommend that you work with Jack Kelsey on the Park Road spot improvement issues. July 18 looks like a possible public hearing date at the Commission that would allow for an August 9 Board hearing. If the Board decides to hold a later meeting in August instead, then, we could have an extra week for a Planning Commission hearing, if that is necessary. In either case, we need to have resubmittal information provded four weeks in advance of the Commission meeting. For July 18, that would be a June 20 deadline. Please let me know how you wish to deal with these issues. Thanks. Sincerely, RAW- rb..&_„6 Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner ZMA 2006-00001 Westh a ll STO N E H AU S June 13, 2006 Planning Commission County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 241 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Re: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Plan received May 23, 2003 Commissioners: This letter is written in response to County Staff Report dated June 6, 2006 in reference to ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Plan received May 23, 2006. Staff has identified in the report under item (8) that two separate but,related written request be submitted to the Planning Commission. The first request is authorization of a private street in accordance with Code 14-233 and the second, a waiver request of the private street standards(14-412.A.4 Serving 6 lots or more), in accordance with Code 14-412.E, for the street&parking layout shown on the Application for Zoning Map Amendment Plan dated June 14th, 2006 for Westhall V, completed by WW Associates. I would like to request authorization of a private street from the Planning Commission in accordance with Code 14-233. The general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider,would be better served by the construction of one or more private streets than by the construction of public streets. I would also like to request a waiver of the private street standards in accordance with Code 14- 412.E, for the street&parking layout shown on the Application for Zoning Map Amendment Plan dated June 14th,2006 for Westhall V, completed by WW Associates. The private street designed for Westhall V is in accordance with the five circumstances outlined in the Code 14- 233.C. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the authorization of the private street and the waiver of street requirements please feel free to call Chris Schooley at 434-951-0991. Sincerely, "F•3-‘`L" ohn Desmond Shiflett Farm, LLC Stonehaus Inc., Manager 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 PHONE 434 974 7588 FAX 434 975 3542 • • SMART SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROPERTY Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley©stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:34 PM To: Elaine Echols; Frank Stoner Cc: Judith Wiegand; Wayne Cilimberg Subject: RE: Deferral of Westhall Yes, we are deferring Westhall V until July 11th Planning Commission. Thank you. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:32 PM To: Chris Schooley; Frank Stoner Cc: Judith Wiegand; Wayne Cilimberg Subject: Deferral of Westhall This email is a request for you to confirm that you are deferring Westhall to July 11. We need all revisions in by the end of the day on Wednesday, June 14. Please send the package to Judy's attention and she will submit to reviewers. I understand you are meeting with Jack on Monday. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 7/25/2006 4cfAL U _e i '1 CPA �jRGi- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development-Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3439 Fax(434)972-4126 June 6, 2006 h-° 0 6t i ess,i) Mr. Frank Stoner it) Stonehaus Development 10 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 (13 IIp RE: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Plan received May 23, 2006 Dear Frank: As you know, a Planning Commission public hearing has been set for Westhall on June 20, 2006. The hearing date was set with the expectation that most issues would have been successfully resolved by that date and that only minor changes would be needed between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meeting. As staff has reviewed the submittal received on May 23, a number of items have been identified which have not been successfully resolved. Some of these items are substantive and some of them are very minor. We believe that all of them can be resolved prior to a public hearing and would recommend that you defer your public hearing so that you have time to make the changes before submitting for a Commission decision. A list of needed changes or information is provided below: 1. The Planning Commission requested information/perspectives on the appearance of the units and to see how parking on the lots would be accommodated. I didn't find this 1/ information in the packet you sent. I know that this information wii be important to some of the Commissioners in making their recommendation. Oft") 2. There are 37 lots shown on the plan; there are 36 lots noted on the first page; the prior U .5raC4 }-gyp plan says 38 lots. Please correct this information before resubmittal. oval �J 3' Page 2 of the Application Plan shows the large shaded area that is the subject of the rezoning. There is print within that shaded area that is difficult to read because the shading is so dark. It is essential that the print be clear and it is recommended that you make the shading much lighter so the print is visible. Alternatively, you could move the print outside of the shaded area and use arrows to point to the items being described. 4. The information in Note 2. indicating the minimum square footage and footprints is helpful to understand the differences between the market rate and affordable unit sizes. It is of concern to Zoning because it would imply that the affordable units could not be enlarged over time. A remedy to this situation would be to proffer that thesquare footage at initial construction would be the square footage you have indicated in the note. 5. A note on the front page of the application plan says: Developer reserves the right to adjust unit footprint and product type to respond to market trends btt there shall be no decrease in the unit number of ADU's as shown on the plan.It is not clear if this note is to �.. relate only to the affordable units or whether you are looking for the ability to change the unit type for the entire development. As you remember, the Commission was supportive of the detached product. If the change in unit type is for the affordable units, hey may or may not be as supportive This is especially true if an attached product is offered at 100% of the median household income as opposed to 80% of the median household income. 6. The County's policy for affordable housing is housing that would be affordable to families earning 80% of the median household income. North Pointe isasking the Board for consideration of approval of detached units for 80% to 120% of the median household income. Depending on the Board's support for affordable housing in this range, your proposal may or may not be acceptable. Information on the Board's position may be available after the worksession on Wednesday, June 7. 7. The stormwater facility locations and land to be dedicated to the County for a tot lot all appear suitable now. The contribution for a pedestrian bridge is acceptable. The open space at the rear of the lots that you are offering to the County is acceptable to Parks and Recreation. The note on the plan needs to be changed, though, to remove the reference to maintenance by the Homeowners Association. You also need to add a note on the plan or a proffer that indicates the buffer will be planted by the applicant and the timing for the planting. Please bear in mind that the burden to plant the buffer should be upon the applicant and not the individual homeowners. 8. The previous Lot 97 has been divided into Lots 97 — 102. These lots have public street frontage with the exception of Lot 102. Therefore, a written request for Planning Commission authorization of a private street must be submitted in accordance with Code 14- 233. A waiver of the private street standards (14-412.A.4. Serving 6 lots or more)will also need to be requested, in accordance with 14-412.E., for the street& parking layout shown on the plan. Provide a detail of the proposed private street cross section, including the width of the private street easement. The private street will need to be maintained by a homeowner association of some kind. You will need to demonstrate that the dues for maintenance of the private street and parking areas will not be onerous for owners of the affordable units. 9. In the street cross-section on Sheet 1 of 3, a 0.5' separation is shown between the sidewalk and r.o.w. line. VDOT requires a minimum of 1 foot. 10. The response letter notes that a 42" high fence was added to the plan, unfortunately the Vfence did not print on the submitted plan sheet. Please be sure the fence is displayed and labeled. 11. Attached are VDOT's comments on Park Road in Crozet. As you can see, VDOT is recommending widening which the Commission does not endorse. Staff will not be asking for widening. The Commission did, however, ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders, drainage, and/or sight-lines. These have not been provided. You will need to work with the County Engineer to identify areas for improvement which should be reflected in the proffers, if you do indeed plan to provide spot improvements. 12. Attached is a "marked up" copy of your proffers, withsuggested changes from Zoning, Engineering, the County Attorney, and Planning staff. It is likely that, after you make the changes, there will be at least one more "wordsmithing" needed prior to the County Attorney signing off on the form of the proffers. I would like to recommend that you work with Jack Kelsey on the Park Road spot improvement issues. July 18 looks like a possible public hearing date at the Commission that wouldallow for an August 9 Board hearing. If the Board decides to hold a later meeting in August instead, then, we could have an extra week for a Planning Commission hearing, if that is necessary. In either case, we need to have resubmittal information provded four weeks in advance of the Commission meeting. For July 18, that would be a June 20 deadline. Please let me know how you wish to deal with these issues. Thanks. Sincerely, jut Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Date: 5/23/06 PROFFER FORM Date of Proffer Signature 5/23/06 ZMA# 2006-00001 Tax Map 56H, Parcel A 8.9 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to Planned Residential Development (PRD) In accordance with Application Plan entitled " ", prepared by " ", and dated " " With respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2006-00001 (the "ZMA"), Shifflet Farms LLC (make sure that Shifflet is spelled consistently throughout the proffers — there are at least 3 different spellings) is the fee simple owner of the following parcels: • TMP 56H -00-00-A Shiftlett Farms LLC will-shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Owner," which term shall include any successors in interest. The parcel listed above are referred to collectively as the "Property." Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Owner hereby voluntary proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to the Property if the ZMA is approved by Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the ZMA and it is agreed that: (1) the ZMA itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. 1. Capital Improvements 1.1 Eastern Avenue: The owner shall contribute $1,500 cash per for each market rate unit to the County to the County's capital improvement program for the purpose of constructing Eastern Avenue to mitigate traffic impacts from the development. If Eastern Avenue has not begun construction within ten years of rezoning approval of the property, the cash proffer slaetrld shall —be reallocated to VDOT's road maintenance funds for the Whitehall Dist the County's Capital Improvement Program for transportation improvements for the Community of Crozet. Contributions shall be made in increments of $1,500 per per unit let, prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit for any improvements thereon. Comment: The recommendation is for the money to go to the County's capital improvements rather than for VDOT maintenance of roads. 1.2 Capital Impacts: The owner shall contribute $1,000 cash per for each market rate unit to the County's capital improvement program for the purpose of mitigating impacts from their development. The cash contribution shall be used for schools, libraries, fire, and rescue, parks or any other public use serving the Community of Crozet as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Affordable Housing. 2.1 Affordable Dwelling Units. Owner proffers to require through the lot sale contracts on the Property the construction of a minimum of six (6) Affordable Dwelling Units (17% of all units) on the Property that meet the requirements for a single family dwelling as defined below. Each Affordable Dwelling Unit shall be on a single parcel and be conveyed fee simple. A home owner's association willshall be created to maintain the parking area and sidewalk. Access easements will-shall be required to access the two provided parking spaces for each unit. Affordable units shall be affordable to households with incomes less than one hundred percent (100%) of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that the housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income. Comment: The County's Affordable Housing policy speaks only to 80% of the area median family income, not 100% of the area median family income for provision of affordable housing. All purchasers of affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period shall commence upon written notice from the then-current owner/builder that the unit(s)willshall be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than sixty (60) days prior to anticipated receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any unit(s) sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of affordable units proffered. The requirements of this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable units. 3. Open Space and Greenways 3.1 Temporary Greenway Connection: In conjunction with the owners of Lickinghole Creek LLC, the Owner shall record an temporary access easement for a Class B public greenway trail in a form approvable by the County on the property described as TMP 56-53 pnor to the approval of the first building permit for any new construction on the property. department of the County. The temporary access easement will-shall be replaced by the projected 80' right-of-way required for Eastern Avenue. 3.2 Trailhead Park: The Owner shall dedicate and convey to Albemarle County, Open Space, Parcel A, or"Trailhead Park" as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and grant drainage easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. The owner will-shall construct a 6' asphalt trail consisting of four(4) inches of 21-B stonebase material and 2 inches of SMA-2 asphalt or other specifications approved by the County Engineer connecting five parking spaces to the greenway system, a 2100 +/- square foot tot lot, a stormwater management facility and landscaping. The stormwater management facility shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent residential lots, the tot lot on the site, and the trailhead elements, to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The tot lot shall contain the following elements or other elements approved by the Director of Planning. .. Open space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of the public, including the residents of the Project. 3.3 Open Space: The Owner shall dedicate and convey to Albemarle County, Open Space, Parcel C, as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and grant drainage easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. The owner willshall construct a 6' asphalt trail; consisting of four (4) inches of 21-B stonebase material and 2 inches of SMA-2 asphalt or other specifications approved by the County Engineer and a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent street, greenway, and trails to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation and minimize disturbance of the stream buffer within Parcel C shown on the Application Plan to the satisfaction of the Program Authority Manager. All other development will-shall be restricted. The owner wi-llshall make a contribution of$3,000 to the County to be used by the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a pedestrian bridge in the general location shown on the Application Plan. The contribution wi-llshall be payable upon receipt of the first building permit issued for the property. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Property, subject to the restrictions that may be imposed by any declaration recorded as part of a conveyance of these areas to the County. Signatures of All Owners: Printed Names of Owners: Date: Shiflett Farms LLC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23`d day of May, 2006, by John G. Desmond, Shiflett Farms L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. My commission expires: Notary Public Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:32 AM To: 'Chris Schooley'; Frank Stoner Cc: Pam Strother Subject: RE: Proffers -Westhall Dear Chris, I hope you are enjoying the CNU. Sean Dougherty is also at the meeting and maybe you have run into him. In answering your question,the 8/2 BOS would only be possible if there isn't much public input at the PC meeting. If people from Crozet come out to the PC meeting,then we would need to have an evening BOS meeting. From the worksession, it looked like a possibility that an 8/2 meeting would work, but,we wouldn't know until the PC meeting whether we could put it on the 8/2 meeting or need an evening meeting at the Board. I thought that I conveyed that info to you. If somehow that info didn't come through, I am sorry. The best way to make sure you have an August Board date,though,would be if the Board holds a second meeting (evening meeting) in August. It is not uncommon for applicants to persuade the Board to hold an evening meeting to hear their rezoning, if an evening meeting initially isn't available. Staff has let the Board know of the need, but, it is up to the Board to make the decision. They are supposed to decide on Wednesday. If Frank has a strong opinion on the need for an August action, he may want to contact his Board member before Wednesday. Elaine Original Message From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday,June 01,2006 10:42 PM To: Elaine Echols; Frank Stoner Cc: Pam Strother Subject: RE: Proffers- Westhall Elaine-- It was my understanding that we would have PC on 6/20,a 7/12 submittal for BOS and BOS on 8/2. Chris From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 11:19 AM To: Frank Stoner Cc: Chris Schooley; Pam Strother Subject: RE: Proffers- Westhall Hi Frank, You were scheduled to go to PC on June 20 with an August date for the BOS [assuming the BOS would hold a second meeting in August. Right now they are not planning on a second meeting which would put you into the 2nd Wed. in Septemer]. The hope was that there would only be a few tweaks needed between PC and BOS so that, if almost everything was in order, we could recommend approval to the PC with the contingency that the fine tuning would take 1 place between PC and BOS. My email from yesterday was intended to say that you will need more than fine tuning. I will have comments from reviewers by next Wednesday. IF the BOS decides to hold a meeting on August 9,your PC meeting would need to be July 11, which means we would need all info in by June 13. (We'll know about their date next Wed.). IF the BOS decides to hold an evening meeting on a later date in August,then you could have another week to get your info in and we could schedule the PC on July 18. This is all I can tell you right now. Thanks. Elaine Original Message From: Frank Stoner [mailto:fstoner@stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday, June 01,2006 9:21 AM To: Elaine Echols; Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Proffers- Westhall Elaine, Thanks for your comments. Please clarify for me the scheduling issues. It sounds from your email that you would like to recommend that we agree to delay the PC public hearing. When are we scheduled to go? When do you expect to have the remaining comments from all departments? Chris is out of town this week at the CNU conference in Providence. He will work through the specific issues but I'm sure he'd like to have them all before we make revisions. Thanks, Frank Original Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:57 PM To: Chris Schooley Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Proffers- Westhall Hi Chris-- Thanks-- giving us the e-proffers will also make it easier for us to show you how to make proffer changes that enable the proffers to be legally acceptable. You've made several very positive changes to the plan and proffers. Unfortunately, I have uncovered several things that could be problematic. I'm going to list them below(in no particular order), but, please understand that they are not the complete list yet. I've got other reviewers doing their work right now,too. They could also change, if reviewers say some things aren't issues(such as#5 below). 2 1. The PC asked for information/perspectives to see how parking on the lots wouta ne accommodated. I didn't find this info. 2. It looks like you are requesting a private street for the ADU's; however, I haven't found a request for private street approval nor info on the proposed cross-section for the private street. We like to get the private streets approved with the rezonings so that the applicant doesn't have to go back to the PC a second time(and potentially risk the PC not approving the private street at a later date). 3. A note on the plan says that you reserve the right to change the unit type of the residential units. It is not clear whether the note relates to all housing on the site or just the ADU's. I think it will be problematic to the Commission for you to change unit type for the ADU's AND ask for affordable housing to be defined as 100%of the median HI-I income (affordable housing definition is 80% of the median). Anything greater than 80%has not been ever considered by the PC although the BOS is considering something similar with North Pointe. The PC is not aware of it,though. 4. The plan says you are providing 36 units; I count 37 lots; our last staff report indicated you were requesting 38 units. I'm not sure what I'm missing, but,there seems to be a disconnect. 5. Instead of having the screening area behind the houses in common area, it looks like you are wanting to convey it with the open space for the trailhead park. I'm not sure we want this; however, I am checking with Dan on it. 6. The PC asked for you to make spot improvements on Park Road; however, I didn't find any info on how you would do this or what spot improvements might be needed. 7. No specs are provided for the 6 foot trail-- we can give you specs that we'd like,though. 8. We appreciate the offer of$3000 for a pedestrian bridge. I'm just wondering whether you have any documentation on what$3000 will buy--can a pedestrian bridge be built for$3000? 9. The shading on the second page of the application plan is still so dark that it is difficult to see the words that are in the same area. There may be more/there may be fewer depending on what I hear from the staff. The bottom line,though, is that we'd rather not take your plan to the PC and say that there are so many things needing resolution that we can't recommend approval. With a few minor changes, we generally feel comfortable recommend to the PC that corrections could be made between the PC and BOS meeting. If the list is as long as it is above,we don't feel comfortable saying everything can be fixed in time. We can talk next week when you get back. But, I'd like for you to consider whether you want to go to the PC with everything fixed in July vs. going to PC in June with outstanding items like these. There is no evening August meeting for the BOS right now; however,we have 3 rezonings that need an August evening meeting, so we are trying to get the BOS to have an evening meeting in August. (We think that your proposal may generate more interest at the public hearing stage than at the worksession stage and warrant a night meeting.) We think that the BOS may not make a decision on whether to have an evening meeting in August until next Wednesday. If having an August Board date is important to you,you might want to contact your Board member. Elaine Original Message From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:44 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Proffers- Westhall Elaine -- I'm out this week for a conference, I will send you a copy next week. Chris From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Tue 5/30/2006 8:53 AM 3 To: Chris Schooley Subject: Proffers - Westhall Hi Chris-- I am wondering if you could email me a copy of the proffers(don't need to be signed) so I can email them to Ron White. When I saw that they were different than what we were expecting (up to 100% of median hh income as opposed to 80%), I realized I needed to get him a copy. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 4 Outstanding Questions for Westhall Phase V as of 5-31-06 1. The yard requirements show a 0' side yard but a 10' separation betweructures. There is also a note that says, "Developer reserves the right to adjust unit footprint and product type ‘ pond to market trends but there shall be no decrease in the unit number of ADU's as shown on the plan". I don't know if this means just the ADU's or all of the units. If all of the unit yp could be changed, should we get an extra side yard setback for the different unit . 2. They haven't requested a private street with the proposal for the ADU sec ion ;d one unit has no frontage. Since these are detached units, private street appr� can't be done administratively. So, Current Development's preference is that the private street be approved now. Is this correct? 3. Jan -- I see missing words in the proffers, but, nothing substantial. We can atch these things with Greg. I don't necessarily agree (yet) with all of the substance(latch e proffers. But, I'll work that part out with my group and bring to the meeting. Engineering issues: , 1 L ir, 1. How does the "private street" (that they haven't yet requested) look for the ADU's? - Can it meet our requirements? dzfrAor Z . 34 kw/Li-- -46- °lAi.,`. 2. How do stormwater facilities oY he haveproffered to make them suitable to i/Parks and Rec. 3. Their proffer for Eastern Avenue is $1500x 30 units for a total of $45,000 for Eastern Avenue construction and, if construction hasn't started on Eastern Avenue in 10 years, then they would allocate to VDOT's road maintenance funds for Whitehall District. Road maintenance doesn't se to be the right place for this does it? I think their contribution is on the LOW sid , as well. We'll talk about it during the DA meeting, in any case. 4. They are proffering $3000 for a pedestrian bridge -- that also seems to be o side doesn't it? Affor ble housin o��(4 o f { g 0 1. Proffer will require through the lot sale constracts on the property (for) the 019 \p\e) construction for a single family dwelling 6 units or 17%. V17, ��2. Each unit - on a sin le and conve ed in fee sim le. 9 parcelY p Is'0 n 5 3-- ro eti Nka4 ti - s ifoA 4el-t Pc Ne-e ( /2/4- say ,, •Y1'ia.1 -a44G2._ C�GG4-CiYYw.r�(%� e, fa iyiiniffiuti, AD M 51-Z e fe-14' 3. HOA created to maintain parking area and sidewalk(s) internal to the development. 4. Access easement required to the parking spaces for each unit. 5. "Affordable" in the proffer means affordable up to 100% of the median family income. 6. All purchasers are to be approved by Alb.Co. Housing or its designee. A note on the plat says: Developer reserves the right to adjust unit footprint an product type to respond to market trends but there shall be no decrease in the unit number of ADU's as shown on the plan. I think the PC bought the design, but, I don't know whether they would be ok with it being townhouses and going up to 100% of the median family income. The note is a little ambiguous, too -- it may be referring to all of the housing types and not just the adu's. Parks and Rec 1 . They will provide and record a [temporary] access easement on the`ad. fining property in a form approvable by the County Attorney. [proffer will need etter description of location, I think, but, they will provide the temporary access easement.] 2. The access easement will be abandoned when the r.o.w. is dedic t d. 3. They are expecting you [the County] to construct a Class B trail there. 4. They will dedicate the trailhead park with the first plat and grant drainage eas nts. 5. They will constructe a 2100 square foot tot lot, a stormwatcility and provide landscaping, all to the satisfaction of the Dept. of Parks. 6. There is a line in the proffers that says the area will be for the use and enjoyment of the property owners in Westhall. This line sort of comes from North Pointe and Greg . '------\) will tell them to take it out so it does not imply that they are proffering that the use will —' only be for the development even though we own it. 7. They will dedicate the open space next to the stream and stream buffer wit�he first subdivision plat. -- $ Cy r They will construct a 6' trail [needs sp 9. They will construct a stormwater facility in the area and provide la scaping, all to the satisfaction of the Dept. of Parks. ( 10. They will contribute $3000 to the County to construct a pedestrian bridge. 11. It looks like they are dedicating the screening b r behind th lots to us with the park. Do you want it? We had asked them to put . into ommon ea for HOA ),_ maintenance. Other: 1. There are 37 lots shown on the plan; there are 36 lots noted on the first page; the prior plan says 38 lots. Which is it? A ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES RECEIVED May 23, 2006 Ng 2S 74 Ms. Elaine K. Echols,AICP Principal Planner Department of EV�LOPMENT Community Development—Planning COMMUNITY G 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,Va 22902 Re: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V WWA# 205161.01 Dear Ms. Echols: This letter is document and respond to staff comments as contained in your letter dated May 5, 2006 for the subject project. Our responses are as follows: Planning 1. Comment: Commitments for Affordable Housing will need to be in the form of proffers. We will need to schedule a meeting with Ron White to know how those proffers should be written if the type of unit is acceptable. Response: A proffer that commits to providing 6 affordable housing units on the site is included. 2. Comment:As you know, our biggest concerns are with Eastern Avenue, transportation, and mitigation of impacts. The Commission will advise you on the extent to which you need to mitigate impacts of the new units. Most offers to mitigate end up as proffers. Response: A cash proffer for the construction of"Eastern Avenue"is included. Greenways Planner 1. Comment: The trailhead facilities and trailhead parking are appreciated. Response: So Noted. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 2. Comment: The area for stormwater, the tot lot, and the trailhead is pretty crowded Look for ways to provide greater area for the amenities and stormwater facilities so that the tot lot and the stormwater facility are separated more. Response: The area in question has been reconfigured in order to separate the SWM Facility and the tot lot. 3. Comment: What will the quality of the stormwater facility be? Will it be designed as an amenity? Is it intended to hold water as a retention pond? Will it be fenced? Response: The facility provides both quantity (2-year) and quality(extended detention with fore bay for pretreatment) controls. Thus,the facility is wet during storm events and for a brief period after a storm event. 4. Comment: Consider putting the northern stormwater facility near the stream buffer but do not disturb the stream buffer. Response: Facility "C"has been relocated as requested(see sheet 2 of 3). 5. Comment: We prefer the trail to be on the sewer line, so please provide access to a future trail on the sewer easement. If a pedestrian bridge is necessary to get to the sewer easement,please provide that bridge. Response: The trail within Open Space Parcel "C"has been realigned per your discussions/meetings with Chris Schooley of Stonehaus. Zoning 1. Comment: Please remove the word "cluster"from the zoning designations. Cluster is not a part of a zoning district, it simply an allowed type of development. Response: The verbiage "cluster"has been removed from the zoning destinations. 2. Comment: The Phase V Development Summary now totals the lots, roads and opens space properly. Response: So noted. 3. Comment: The external property lines are clear; however the location of the residue is not clear. Please either change the note or show where the residue of 56H-A will be. Response: The portion of parcel 56H-A being rezoned is the darker level of shading and the residue of 56H-A (not being rezoned) is the lighter level of shading as per the supplemental legend shown on Development Plan sheet 2 of 3. We have added labeling with leaders to the residue of Parcel 56H-A indicating that it is residue and is not being rezoned. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 4. Comment: The "future 240/250 connector" is on a parcel under a different ownership and, as shown on the plan, is confusing because it is not clear whether or how the street is associated with this rezoning. On the Crozet Master Plan, this street is referred to as "Eastern Avenue". If you are not planning to include this street or property containing this street in the rezoning, a note should be added to make clear that Eastern Avenue is on the adjacent parcel and the street is not reserved with this rezoning (if that is your ultimate positions after the Planning Commission Meeting). Response: "Future 240/250 connector"verbiage has been replaced with"Eastern Avenue". You are correct the location of the future"Eastern Avenue"right-of-way is located within the property of others and is not a part of this rezoning. We have added a note indicating such. 5. Comment: The affordable dwelling units appear to be on one lot—Lot 97. Is the intent to condominiumize these units?If so,please identify the common area of the lot and add it to the open space totals. Response: The development plan has been adjusted to provide a separate lot for each ADU thus, there is no longer any common area/open space. A separate HOA will be established for ADU's for maintaining common elements (travelways/parking spaces, curb and gutter, etc.) 6. Comment: The tot lot immediately adjacent to the stormwater basin will probably require fencing for the safety of the users. Since there may be no site plan required, you should be aware that the tot lot will be required to be built or bonded prior to the 31 sr Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Response: We have added a 42-inch high safety fence around the tot lot. Construction timing of the tot lot is understood. Engineering 1. Comment:A 6ft pedestrian trail is provided along the northern end of the property. If acceptable to the Commission, the plan should include a section. Response: The trail alignment to include a bridge has been shown on Development Plan sheet 3 of 3. A detail/section of the trail can be established with the Preliminary/Final Plans. 2. Comment:A tot lot is proposed adjacent to stormwater management facility "C". The conceptual design of the stormwater facility does not include a permanent pool of water, however; an extended drawdown time (after a rain event) is required to obtain the pollutant removal. A fence or other physical barrier separating the facilities is recommended. The shape of the Tot Lot can also be reconfigured to provide additional separation by extending it across the drainage easement. Any proposed play structures would need to be located and anchored in a manner that would not 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville impede maintenance of the storm sewer pipe. These comments may change if the Planning Commission does not endorse the location of the tot lot. Response: A 42-inch high safety fence around the tot lot has been added to the plan (see the Development Plan sheet 3 of 3). The tot lot has been relocated to the west of the stormwater management facility and is no longer impacted by the storm sewer pipe. 3. Comment: Updated Traffic Impact Study— The study analyzed critical intersections based on the traffic that would be generated during the peak hour. The study shows that each of these intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the connections to the future Eastern Avenue will divert a significant amount of traffic from these intersections. However, the study did not address the impact to the capacity of the existing streets. The study notes that the existing Park Road(Rte. 1204) ranges from 20.5 to 21 feet wide. Based on the current VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements this width has a maximum capacity of 1750 vehicle trips per day. Based on the traffic generated by the by-right development of Phases I—IV the traffic volume on Park Road west of Claudius drive exceeds its capacity (see table below). With the additional traffic from Phase V, the capacity of Park Road will be exceeded until the street network is connected to the future Eastern Avenue. Response: Capacity/Level or Service A Highway Capacity Manual based analysis using the current Highway Capacity Software indicates that at full build-out of the Westhall development and with no Eastern Connector, Route 1204 is expected to operate at level of service(LOS)B. Design Criteria The VDOT desired street width criteria is based on AASHTO guidelines for new construction of rural residential roadways. However(see attached), both the 1990 and "The fact that new design values are presented herein does not imply that existing streets and highways are unsafe, nor does it mandate the initiation of improvement projects. This publication is not intended as a policy for resurfacing, restoration or rehabilitation (RRR) projects......Specific site investigations and accident history analysis often indicate that the existing design features are performing in a satisfactory manner. The cost of full reconstruction for these facilities, particularly where major realignment is not required, will often not be justified....... " Impacts of Widening The existing roadway has 20.5 to 21 feet of pavement. Roadside development consists of houses in relatively close proximity to the street, the Claudius Crozet Park, and in many places trees and foliage that frames the roadway. The road is generally tangent except for a sharp curve near the western end of the roadway. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville The addition of pavement would necessitate regarding of ditch lines, and removal of existing trees and foliage This would tend to "open up"the line of sigh and would likely increase the 85th percentile speed. Also,the additional pavement and resulting ditch modifications would effectively encroach further into the abutting properties and park land. Reference the following conclusions presented to ITE: In the San Francisco area, an extensive survey of residential streets was conducted with magnetic imaging counters that were able to collect a broader range of data. In addition to the data obtained from the device, parking density information was also collected concurrently. The analysis indicated the following results: • Wider residential streets experience higher speeds for both the average and 85th percentile speeds. • On street parking density significantly affects speeds. • Traffic volume and vehicle headway affect speeds. • Significant reductions in effective street width are required to dramatically reduce speeds. [Daisa James M and John B. Peers, Narrow Residential Streets: Do They Really Slow Down Speeds?, ITE 6th Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers (1997)I Original Traffic Study(for Westhall Phases 1 —IV) An assessment of traffic conditions for Phases 1 through IV was conducted in 2004. That document provided the following information relative to this comment: Examination of VDOT and AASHTO Design Criteria At issue is the existing pavement width along Route 1204. Field measurements show a range of 20.5 ft to slightly more than 21 ft in width. The VDOT Road Design Manual indicates that for VDOT project development, a rural local road system (GS-4) should have a pavement width of 24'. This value is based on the 1990 AASHTO manual (A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets). The 1990 AAHHTO manual, page 333 states the following, "Studies on two lane two way rural highways show that undesirable conditions (inadequate vehicle clearances and edge of pavement clearances) exist on surfaces less than 22 ft wide carrying even moderate volumes of mixed traffic. A 24 ft surface is required to permit desired clearance between commercial vehicles. It is generally accepted that lane widths of 12 ft should be provided on main highways". Interpretation — this statement is in the context of highway facilities where mixed (i.e. commercial trucks)vehicles are commonly in the traffic mix. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Within the same section,in the proceeding paragraph,it is stated that "An effective width of 20 ft is considered adequate only for low-volume roads where meeting and passing is infrequent and the proportion of trucks is low". Interpretation—this statement deals with the type of low volume local road,having a very small percentage of large commercial vehicles,similar to Route 1204. Table IV-2 on page 334(1990 AASHTO)shows the relative capacity of a 10 ft lane to a 12 ft lane given various shoulder configurations. A 10 ft lane with no shoulder is reported to have 58%of the capacity of a 12 foot lane with a six foot shoulder. Keeping in mind the full capacity of a 12 ft lane with a 6 ft shoulder as being somewhere in the vicinity of 1,900 vehicles per hour(vph), 58%would be approximately 1,100 vph per lane,which is some five times the build-out peak hour volume of Route 1204. Note that further paragraphs on page 335 further suggest that lane widths as narrow as 10 ft(and even 9 ft)are noted as acceptable for low volume low speed facilities. Comparison With Other Roads in Albemarle County Driver expectation is a critically important aspect of roadway/traffic engineering and transportation planning. With that in mind,a comparison was made to see how Route 1204 met with driver expectation relative to several other facilities within Albemarle County.While this is not intended to justify the geometry of the other facilities,it is interesting to see how Route 1204 compares with operating conditions on the other familiar roadways within the County. The conclusion of the analysis is that given the 25 MPH posted/operating speed and 10.5 ft lanes,Route 1204 is heads and shoulders above these other facilities in terms of operating conditions. Consider the following: Road Name/Number Lane Widths Posted Speed ADT Location Crozet Avenue 11.5' not noted 6,600 N.of US 250 Jarmins Gap Road(691) 9.25' 40 MPH 1,800 E.of Rt 1210 Half Mile Branch(684) 9.25' 35 MPH 680 S.of Rt 691 Rt 240 E.of Crozet 10.5' 25 MPH 5,400 E.of Town Owensville Rd.(678) 10.25' 40 MPH 3,700 N.of US 250 Garth Road(614) 10.5' 50 MPH 3,400 E.of Rt 678 Free Union Road(601) 11' not noted 3,100 N.of Rt 614 Route 53 10' not noted 8,300 E.of Monticello Route 795 10.25' not noted 3,000 Ashlawn Milton Rd.(729) 10.25' not noted 4,900 near Rt. 1100 Compare to the projected build volume on Route 1204 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Route 1204(future) 10.5' 25 MPH 2,826* * reduced to 1,075 when Eastern Ave. is opened This exercise of comparison is meant to put the roadway widths and operating characteristics in perspective. As another point of interest, there is a direct correlation between roadway widths and operating speeds. The correlation is that a wider roadway will result in higher operating speeds. Across the nation, the traffic calming movement, aimed at trying to get vehicles to slow down, has resulted in the introduction of roadway narrowing through curb extensions and other means to narrow the travel way thus resulting in slowing the flow of traffic. It is arguable that widening Route 1204, even though there is no capacity problem, will result in higher travel speeds through this residential area. The existing rural facility has natural elements of traffic calming including a well developed tree canopy and lane widths less than 12 ft. These are features that other communities are seeking to retrofit into their residential roadway environments and are features that are being "brought back" in traditional neighborhood design settings. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED RESOLUTION Given the flexibility that AASHTO gives for existing roadways and potential impacts that could result from widening this roadway, the design team requests leniency in VDOT's criteria. In lieu of widening Route 1204, other transportation network improvements in the area should be considered as higher priority. I trust that the above responses and plan changes properly address staff comments. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, WW Associates David M. Jensen, P.E. Vice President Manager, Charlottesville Operations cc: Chris Schooley, CLA, Stonehaus Bill Wuensch, P.E., Fitzgerald and Holliday, Inc. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville S 4 I. f. xl ii 3. -•• 940 FOREWORD 942 • 943 As highway designers,highway engineers strive to provide for the needs of 'lanes .. 945 highway users while maintaining the integrity of the environment. Unique 8 combinations of requirements that are always conflicting result in unique gala ) la tions to the design problems. The guidance supplied by this text,A Policy on 949 Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, is based on established practices ,i,.• 950 and is supplemented by recent research. This text is also intended to form a � s 954 comprehensive reference manual for assistance in administrative, planning, 954 and educational efforts pertaining to design formulation. _ • 963 e The fact that new design values are presented herein does not imply that 0 existing streets and highways are unsafe,nor does it mandate the initiation of 968 improvement projects.This publication is not intended as a policy for resurfac- --•• `?69 ing, restoration or rehabilitation (R.R.R.) projects. For projects of this type, t 971 µ` where major revisions to horizontal or vertical curvature are not necessary or t; . 973 A practical,existing design values may he retained. Specific site investigations W and accident history analysis often indicate that the existing design features 974 are performing in a satisfactory manner. The cost of full reconstruction for , 9 these facilities, particularly where major realignment is not required, will! - ., 975 often not be justified/Resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation projects 983 enable highway agencies to improve highway safety by selectively upgrading 985 existing highway and roadside features without the cost of full reconstruction. • 989 When designing 3R projects the designer should refer to TRB Special Report 993 214,Designing Safer Roads:Practices for Resurfacing,Restoration and Reha- � g 994 bilitation and related publications for guidance. .• 996 The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by referenc- , 996 ing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Sufficient llexihil- y`77 ity is permitted to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situa- • 998 tions. Minimum values are either given or implied by the lower value in a . 1000 given range of values. The larger values within the ranges will normally be .,.r 1001 used where the social,economic and environmental (S.E.E.)impacts are not t s` 1 tx)1 critical. 100? Emphasis has been placed on the joint use of transportation corridors by • 1 002 pedestrians, cyclists and public transit vehicles. Designers should recognize 1004 the implications of this sharing of the transportation corridors and are encour- 1(X)S aged to consider not only vehicular movement,but also movement of people, ,,„„;.,,7. ,. • . I0t)8 distribution of goods.and provision of essential services,A more comprehen- ? sive transportation program is thereby emphasized. 1013 Cost-effective design is also emphasized. The traditional procedure of . comparing highway-user benefits with costs has been expanded to reflect the if needs of non-users and the environment. Although adding complexity to the analysis, this broader approach also takes into account both the need for a 7x, s Page 1 of 3 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:55 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Elaine — In the affordable housing piece, what is paragraph 8.2? Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:14 PM To: Chris Schooley Cc: Dan Mahon Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Yes -- I am sending them to you in "idea" form, meaning that they will still need to be wordsmithed by staff and the County Attorney's office before it goes to the BOS. The concepts are described below: (Also, please use the attached proffer form) Regarding pedestrian access on the adjoining parcel where Eastern Avenue would be, we recommend that you proffer to provide and record an access easement in a form approvable by the County on the property described as TMP prior to approval of the first building permit for any new construction. The access easement would be used for a greenway path with whatever characteristics you and Dan work out. Also, it needs to be clear in terms of the width of the easement and its location. We will need some kind of evidence that you will actually be able to get the access easement from the other property owners, which can be in the form of a letter from them saying that they will provide an access easement for a greenway trail. Regarding the possibility of proffering affordable housing units by size and letting the market take care of it, rather than getting the County involved, we came to a different conclusion. Zoning is worried that people will want to make changes to the unit in the future (enlarge/expand) that may put it closer to market-rate housing. They are worried about enforcing the proffer. County staff, including Ron White, prefer to have you use the current standard language which identifies on the plan which units are affordable, is clear on the type of housing (single-family detached), whether they are for sale or for rent, and how they will be offered to purchasers. Below is language we've workd with for a for-sale product Affordable units shall be affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that the housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income. All purchasers of affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period 7/25/2006 Page 2 of 3 shall commence upon written notice from the then-current owner/builder that the unit(s) will be available for sale. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any unit(s) sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of affordable units required to be provided pursuant to this terms of this paragraph 8.2. The requirements of this paragraph 8.2 shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable units. Regarding the stormwater facilities -- we can recommend that the county accept them for maintenance because Parks and Rec wants them as part of their greenway system. The proffer should be something like this: Proffer to dedicate to public use the Open Space Areas A & C (unless they become A&B) with the first subdivision plat and grant drainage easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. The proffer should also state that the stormwater facility on Open Space Parcel A shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent residential lots, the tot lot on the site, and the trailhead elements, to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The stormwater facility on Open Space Parcel C shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent street, greenway, and trails to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation and minimize disturbance of the stream buffer within Parcel C to the satisfaction of the Program Manager. I hope this is what you need. Thanks. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:43 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Elaine— Do you have any proffer recommendations for me? Thanks. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM To: Chris Schooley Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net; Bob Fooks; Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Chris -- I was in a terrible hurry when I read your email. Sorry! This works fine, but, also assumes that the PC will act on your rezoning without a second meeting. It is possible that they won't act on June 20th and I know it is possible that you may accept an action that isn't a recommendation for approval because you intend to address all outstanding issues. I can probably get you some proffer information by the end of tomorrow. I met with Greg and Jan earlier this week to get guidance. Thanks for the return phone call. 7/25/2006 Page 3 of 3 Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:59 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net; Bob Fooks; Frank Stoner Subject: Westhall V Rezoning Elaine—We will resubmit on May 23rd for the June 20th Planning Commission. Our intention would then be to resubmit on July 12th for the August 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Chris Schooley, CLA Director of Land Development Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 Tel: (434) 951-0991 Fax: (434) 975-3542 Mob: (434) 962-8593 7/25/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:05 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Elaine—That sounds great, I have taken a look at the other proffers in the area and have begun our draft but anything you can forward us would help. Thanks. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM To: Chris Schooley Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net; Bob Fooks; Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Westhall V Rezoning Chris -- I was in a terrible hurry when I read your email. Sorry! This works fine, but, also assumes that the PC will act on your rezoning without a second meeting. It is possible that they won't act on June 20th and I know it is possible that you may accept an action that isn't a recommendation for approval because you intend to address all outstanding issues. I can probably get you some proffer information by the end of tomorrow. I met with Greg and Jan earlier this week to get guidance. Thanks for the return phone call. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:59 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: djensen@wwassociates.net; Bob Fooks; Frank Stoner Subject: Westhall V Rezoning Elaine—We will resubmit on May 23rd for the June 20th Planning Commission. Our intention would then be to resubmit on July 12th for the August 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Chris Schooley, CLA Director of Land Development Stonehaus, Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 Tel: (434) 951-0991 Fax: (434) 975-3542 Mob: (434) 962-8593 7/25/2006 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Chris Schooley [CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:17 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Staff Report Elaine —Would our resubmittal be due at 5:00 pm on Tuesday the 16th? Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:48 PM To: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley; djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Staff Report Hi Frank, In order for you to make a public hearing in 30 days, we have to have everything necessary for the rezoning in our hands. I'm thinking that, once you hear from the Planning Commission, you probably want a few days to make any necessary changes, as well as those I will give you later today that are more "technical" in nature. Realistically, you would not be going to the Board before July. This means that you would have a June 6 or June 13 PC date. If you want to shoot for June 13, then May 16, which is 1 week after PC meeting, is the deadline for a new plan and proffers. Hope this helps. Elaine From: Frank Stoner [mailto:fstoner@stonehaus.net] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:52 PM To: Elaine Echols; Chris Schooley; djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Staff Report Elaine, Thanks for the feedback. We look forward to meeting with the planning commission. Do we have a public hearing date set? If not, I'd like to ask that you get us scheduled within the next 30 days so we can keep the process moving forward. Thanks for all your help. Frank From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:37 AM 5/11/2006 Page 2 of 2 To: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley; djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: Staff Report Dear Frank, Chris, and David, Attached, please find our staff report on Westhall Phase V. I see that I did not include a recommendation at the top (ugh!); however, our recommendation in the body of the report is for the PC to review the questions at the end of the report and provide feedback on 1)density and conformity with the Master Plan, 2) layout and design, 3) street impacts and Eastern Avenue; 4) mitigation of impacts. As I said to both Chris and David, I think that the biggest issues will be how to deal with traffic prior to construction of Eastern Avenue and how traffic and other impacts are mitigated. At a worksession, we generally do not make a recommendation for approval or disapproval and we would not be making such a recommendation here. I believe the PC meeting will be helpful for you and for us in knowing how the Commission believes the project should proceed. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday night. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 5/11/2006 OF A I, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 x3368 Fax (434) 972-4126 TO: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner 11 FROM: Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planner DATE: May 9, 2006 REF: Westhall Phase V - Traffic Impact Analysis Staff has reviewed the Westhall Phase V Traffic Impact Analysis and offers the comments below. The development will generate 1226 vehicle trips per day that will use Park Road (Route 1204). For the buildout scenario, the level of service (LOS) for individual movements is no less than LOS B. Park Road has the sufficient capacity to accommodate these additional trips. The TIA did not discuss how these additional trips would impact the intersection of Tabor Street and Crozet Avenue (Route 240). This intersection may have to signalized in the future and staff is determining how this intersection will be impacted the Jarmans Gap Road improvements. The TIA indicates that 80% of the site traffic will use the new connector roadway to Eastern Avenue if it is constructed verses Park Road. This scenario would be ideal due to narrow geometrics of Park Road and Tabor Street. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cc: Jack Kelsey 1 4f,� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M.Kelsey,PE—County Engineer DATE: 2 May 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The revised plan, preliminary stormwater management computations, and the updated traffic study for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed. All of my previous comments have been addressed. Comments from my review of the new information are summarized below. Approval of this application will be recommended when these items are satisfactorily addressed. Revised Plan A 6 ft.pedestrian trail is provided along the northern end of the property. Please provide a typical section. A Tot Lot is proposed adjacent to stormwater management facility "C". The conceptual design does not include a permanent pool of water, however; an extended drawdown time (after a ram event) is required to obtain the pollutant removal. A fence or other physical barrier separating the facilities is recommended. The shape of the Tot Lot can also be reconfigured to provide additional separation by extending it across the drainage easement. Any proposed play structures would need to be located and anchored in a manner that would not impede maintenance of the stormsewer pipe. Updated Traffic Impact Study The study analyzed critical intersections based on the traffic that would be generated during the peak hour. The study shows that each of these intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. Furthermore,the study demonstrates that the connections to the future Eastern Avenue will divert a significant amount of traffic from these intersections. However,the study did not address the impact to the capacity of the existing streets. The study notes that the existing Park Road(Rte. 1204)ranges from 20.5 to 21 feet wide. Based on the current VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements this width has a maximum capacity of 1750 vehicle trips per day. Based on the traffic generated by the by-right development of Phases I—IV the traffic volume on Park Road west of Claudius drive exceeds its capacity(see table below). With the additional traffic from Phase V, the capacity of Park Road will be exceeded until the street network is connected to the future Eastern Avenue. Total Trips Park Rd. Total Trips Park Rd. East of Claudius Dr. West of Claudius Dr. Predevelopment(VDT 2002 counts) 550 adt 1600 adt Add: Phases I—N 1368 adt 2418 adt Add: Phase V 1776 adt 2826 adt With Connections to Eastern Ave. 1075 adt(*) 800 adt(*) (*based on the traffic splits assumed in the traffic study) To address the immediate impacts to Park Ro• •• - e must be widened to at ast 22 fee as recommended by VDOT in their comments •:to attac ed) Please contact me if you have any questions. File E2_zmajmk Westhall_PhaseV.doc NTh n xe7 )c-12 ‘oao - fdb w.,,,,.,4,,, ENGINEERS ifflSURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES March 29, 2006 �� Ms. Elaine Echols,AICP, Principal Planner cel Department of Community Development-Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 NO 2 9 2006 Charlottesville,Va 22902-4596 T YpEV Re: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 WWA#205161.01 Dear Mr. Echols: This letter is to document and respond to agency review comments as contained in your March 5, 2006 letter. Our responses are as follows: 1. Comment: Existing physical conditions—Please provide a separate sheet that more clearly shows streams and wooded areas, including areas east of the site. Response: Sheet 2 of 3 has been revised to clearly denote existing streams and wooded areas. The area shown on the plan has been adjusted to show additional portions of TMP 56-53 (area east of the property). 2. Comment: Existing easements—It appears you have not included all of the information from the plats on your rezoning application plan, such as the 10' pedestrian easement along the property line. Response: All recorded easements thru the property have been added to sheet 2 of 3. 3. Comment:Adjoining Tracts and Parcels— The present use of adjoining tracts and parcels, along with the location of structures and streams should be included. Response: The prescribed information has been to sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3. 4. Comment: Stream buffer—Please show all stream buffers. Response: There is only one stream (unnamed tributary to Lickinghole Creek) thru the property and it is located along the northern boundary. The stream and 100 foot stream buffer has been identified on sheet 2 and 3 of 3. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 5. Comment: Summary of land uses—More information on dwelling types is needed, including whether they are attached/detached, square footage and number of bedrooms if known. Response: Product information has been added to sheet 1 of 3 under the General Development Information heading. 6. Comment: Location of Central features—Please identify any central features of Westhall development on the plan, such as amenities or neighborhood centers. Response: A tot lot with benches has been added to Open Space Parcel A on sheet 3 of 3. In addition, 6' wide pedestrian trails along with trailhead parking have been provided in Open Space Parcel A. Also, a 6' wide pedestrian trail has been provided within Open Space Parcel C. 7. Comment: Standards for Development—Information on proposed yards/setbacks, building heights, open space characteristics, landscaping or architectural characteristics related to scale,proportions, and massing at the edge of the proposed PRD have not been provided. Staff notes that you have indicated setbacks of 15'front, O'side, and 10'rear. Whether a 0'side yard is possible depends on the type of unit you are proposing. "Zero lot line"housing still requires building separation. Attached housing does not have a 0'setback; rather, it does not have a side yard setback for the attached units, although there is a side setback at corners. In order for us to advise on the appropriateness of the side yard, we need to clearly know the expected housing type. Response: See response to comment 5. 8. Comment: Compliance with Crozet Master Plan—Neighborhood 3. Response: The Application Plan on sheet 3 of 3 has been revised to include a 20' wide buffer strip along the future 240/250 Connector frontage in order to comply with the green space requirements. Further,the 34.9%open space provided exceeds the 25%required in the PRD District. The pedestrian trail along the stream as prescribed by the Crozet Master Plan has been added to sheet 3 of 3. A pedestrian trail and trail head parking is provided within/adjacent to Open Space Parcel A. A second connection to the Future 240/250 Connector has been added at the northern portion of the development. Double frontage lots are no longer an issue as a 20 foot wide landscape buffer(part of Open Space Parcel A)has been provided at the rear of these lots. The stormwater management facility in Parcel A will be landscaped similarly to that shown on sheet 3 of 3. The northern most stormwater management facility is bio-filter which is heavily planted. We believe that these facilities are such that they are sensitive to aesthetics as well as to safety(bio-filter/extended detention). The property owner does not own the property designated as the 80 foot wide right-of-way- Future 240/250 Connector and thus, cannot build the facility as noted in your comment. The right of way shown is as prescribed in the Crozet Master Plan. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville .i .. • • , • , - . - . / . ,• I • _ -. • , , 1. :j • o -� • ,� 1 . - - - . Conformity with the Neighborhood Model 1. Comment: Pedestrian Orientation—Sidewalks and a planting strip are required for new roads by the Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-422. Response: The typical pavement section reflects sidewalks and tree lawns on each side of the pavement. 2. Comment: Relegated Parking—No information has been provided on parking. Please provide this information. Where will parking be provided for the propose residences in the PRD? Response: Note 2 under the General Development Information heading on sheet 1 of 3 denotes that 2 off-street parking spaces will be provided per dwelling unit. 3. Comment:Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths—Sidewalks are provided. The six foot planting strip should be located between the curb and the sidewalk The typical pavement section indicated on your plan shows the sidewalk in the wrong location. Response: The pavement section on sheet 1 of 3 has been revised as requested. 4. Comment: Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks—Additional road connections should be provided from Westhall to future Eastern Avenue. Engineering has noted this in comments that area attached. Response: A second point of connection to the future 240/250 Connector at the north side of the property to be rezoned has been added to sheet 3 of 3. 5. Comment: Parks and Open Space—Green space should be increased adjacent to the stream, eliminating encroachment in the stream buffer, along the northern boundary of the property and a greenway trail should be provided All greenway trails should be dedicate, including the trails on the southern end of the property along Lickinghole Creek During review of other phases of Westhall, the opportunity for trail head parking was identified, approximately where lots 126 and 127 are shown for proposed Phase V. Please provide details as to what amenities will be provided within Westhall for the residents and these amenities meet the minimum 25%requirement of PRD zoning Response: The trail head parking has been added to sheet 3 of 3 along with the prescribed trail. The greenway trail along the future 240/250 Connector has been denoted to be provided within the future 240/250 Connector right-of-way. Please note that the open space provided is primarily green space and that it encompasses approximately 35%of the area devoted to residential use per the PRD criteria. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 6. Comment: Neighborhood Centers—No neighborhood center has been established for Neighborhood 3 in Crozet given the by-right development pattern of the other phases of Westhall. The CT 5 area of is intended to have a focal point that acts as a center. There is still opportunity for this to be provided in the area remaining east of the Eastern Avenue ROW, adjacent to Phase II of Westhall. Response: As agreed upon during the meeting with staff on March 16, 2006, sufficient opportunities exist on other parcels within Neighborhood 3 or the CT5 area to provide a neighborhood center and thus,this ZMA was released from this condition. 7. Comment: Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale—Please provide information on the height of the residential units proposed. Response: The building height has been added under the General Development Information heading on sheet 1 of 3. 8. Comment: Mixture of Uses—It appears no mixture of uses is proposed Response: As agreed upon during the meeting with staff on March 16, 2006 sufficient opportunities exists on other properties with the Crozet Master Plan which could provide mixed use and thus,this ZMA was released from this condition. 9. Comment: Mixture Housing Types and Affordability—It would be helpful if you provided more details on the proposed dwelling units, such as whether they would be for-sale or for-rent and what the expected sale prices/rentals rates would be. The fiscal impact planner also uses this information in determining the fiscal impacts of proposed rezoning. Please include the PRD units, along with those provided in the other phases of Westhall. This would help evaluate the proposal based on the Affordable Housing policy, a copy of which is attached for you information. Please provide information with your submittal as to how your proposal meets these affordable housing goals. Response: ADU information has been added under the General Development Information heading on sheet 1 of 3 of the Application Plan and the location of the ADU's has been added to sheet 3 of 3. 10.Comment: Redevelopment— This site is currently undeveloped. Response: That is correct. 11.Comment: Site Planning that respects Terrain— This project will impact a stream buffer as proposed. Response: The plan has been adjusted such that there is no impact on the 100 foot stream buffer(see Application Plan sheet 3 of 3). 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Zoning Comments 1. Comment: This plan is difficult to understand. Please provide a separate sheet with only the necessary information for the property requested to be rezoned to PRD. Response: Sheet 2 of 3 has been adjusted such that the property to be rezoned is clearly identified. The labeling, legends and abbreviations have been adjusted to facilitate understand of the information depicted on the Application Plan. 2. Comment: In the note entitled Phase V Development Summary, the total acreage is 8.957. If you add the 3 categories (roads, residential and open space)you get 10.969 acres. Please correct this discrepancy. There should be a Development Summary that only includes the property being rezoned It should include the number of lots/dwelling units and the applicable density, as well as the acreage in each: lots, roads, and open space. Please provide this on the sheet that has only the rezoned area. Response: The plan has been renamed Westhall V to preclude any misunderstanding if development is to be phased. The Development Summary has been revised accordingly for just the area to be rezoned (Westhall V). The area tabulation has been reconciled and the manner in which the areas are calculated is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance for the PRD District. 3. Comment: Please relabel the plans as "Application Plan". Response: The plan has been renamed as requested. 4. Comment: If a phasing plan is included, it should be only for the property subject to this rezoning. Response: The plan will not be phased and all references to phase have been deleted from the Application Plan. 5. Comment: The external property lines do not match at all with the tax map and parcel lines of 56-46. Please provide a map that shows the area to be rezoned in relationship to the existing tax map and parcel lines for the parent parcel. TMP 56- 46 no longer exists and is now TMP 56H-A. Response: Sheet 2 of 3 of the Application Plan has been adjusted to clearly denote the area of TMP 56H-A to be rezoned to PRD and the area to remain as currently zoned. In addition,the existing zone lines are clearly labeled and a legend has been added to this sheet to facilitate distinguishing the referenced information. 6. Comment: Some of the surrounding properties are identified on Sheet 2, but others are not. Please identifyeach surrounding parcel, its TMP, use and zoning. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville , • . -. 1.. ii , • / • • • :.r f • - . • • • • •$ Response: Properties adjacent/contiguous to TMP 56H-A have been added to sheet 2 of 3. 7. Comment: The area to the east of Phase V appears to be outside the rezoning. However, it may be part of parcel 46 and will become a strip of R-1 zoning that is identified on this plan as `future 240/250 connector. "It would be appropriate to include this land in the rezoning and proffer to dedicate the future road. Response: The property in question is not owned by the Applicant, Shiflett Farm, L.L.C. and thus, cannot be rezoned by the Westhall V Applicant/Owner. 8. Comment: It may be appropriate to expand this rezoning to include rezoning to R-4 the portions of Westhall Phase II that are currently zoned R-1 and show as a part of lots 25, 26 and 45. Response: At present Westhall I &II are currently being developed(i.e. under construction). Westhall III & IV are in various stages of the plan/plat approval process. 9. Comment: When this plan is resubmitted, Zoning will provide further comment. Response: So noted. Engineering Comments 1. Comment:An updated traffic impact study is needed including: • Traffic estimates based on the current ITE Manual 7th Edition. • Traffic generated by Phases I-IV based on the quantity and type of residential units approved. • Site traffic estimate for the proposed Phase V • Assessment of potential traffic splits with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. • Assessment of the impacts to Route 1204,from traffic generated by Phases I-V, with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. Response: A traffic study addressing these items is included with this resubmission. 2. Comment: Stormwater Management: • Stormwater management facility "B" (approved to serve portions of Phases I-IV) is to be relocated adjacent to the eastern property line. Note if this facility is to be enlarged to serve a portion of Phase V. • Provide preliminary stormwater computations to assure that adequate area is being designated for stormwater management. 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville 9 Response: The location of the SWM facilities have been added to sheet 3 of 3. Included with this submission are design computations. The facilities have been graded out to demonstrate compliance with calculations. 3. Comment: Provide more details regarding proposed housing type and hot the off- street parking requirements will be accommodated Response: The prescribed information has been added to the Application Plan sheet 1 of 3 under the General Development Information. 4. Comment: Increased the street width to at least 28 feet(curb to curb), to allow on- street parking that is intermittent and random. The information requested above (pertaining to product type, off-street parking accommodations, and additional connections to Eastern Avenue) may generate the need for future comments on this matter. Response: The typical pavement section has been revised to reflect such. Fire and Rescue 1. Comment: Required fire flow estimated to be 2000 GPM @ 20 PSI Please verify with the Albemarle County Service Authority that there is adequate fire flow. Response: As based on the product types and building separation noted under the General Development Information heading on sheet 1 of 3 of the Application Plan, the fire flow should be reduced to 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. We request that this application be resubmitted to Fire and Rescue for verification. Building Official 1. Comment:No comments or conditions. Response: So noted. ACSA 1. Comment: Public utilities are available for this project. Water and sewer construction drawings must be reviewed and approved before final subdivision plat approval is granted. Response: So noted. VDOT 1. Comment: This development is a continuation of an existing by-right development just east of Crozet Park off of Route 1204; 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville f a , .S ' • . • • • • • ., f Response: So noted 2. Comment: Previously this site was reviewed and recommendations to widen Route 1204 were provided. Please review the previous comments and recommend the developer make these improvements. Response: The traffic study included with this submission indicates that S.R. 1204 is adequate and remains adequate with development of Westhall V and thus, no off- site road improvements are required. (LOS B maintained). We trust that the above responses, development plan changes and traffic study address the outstanding agency issues. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely WW Associates Oaf David M. Jensen, P.E. Vice President Manager Charlottesville Operations cc: Chris Schooley, CLS, Stonehaus Development 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville OF ALaz, `IRGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development-Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3439 Fax(434)972-4126 March 5, 2006 Mr. Frank Stoner Stonehaus Development 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Preliminary Review Comments Dear Frank: Thank you for your recent submittal of the rezoning for Westhall V from R1 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District for 37 residential lots. Comments have been received from Engineering, Zoning, Current Development, Fire Rescue, and the Building Official. The Building Official offered not objection to the proposal and all other division comments, have been incorporated below, following Planning comments. Comments have not been received from VDOT. In general, the items submitted for review did not provide adequate information for all reviewers to offer a complete comment and additional comments will be provided once that information is submitted. Typically, applicants bring proposals in for preliminary feedback at regularly scheduled Monday pre-application meetings. Staff strongly recommends that you do that for any future development in this area of Crozet. Planning Comments: Submittal Requirements Section 8.5 (checklist enclosed)-Additional Information is needed to provide more specific comments on this proposal: Existing physical conditions: Please provide a separate sheet that more clearly shows streams and wooded areas, including areas east of the site. Existing easements-It appears you have not included all of the information from the plats provided on your rezoning application plan, such as the 10' pedestrian easement along the property line. Adjoining Tracts and Parcels-The present use of adjoining tracts and parcels, ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall along with the location of structures and streams should be included. Stream Buffer- Please show all stream buffers. Summary of land uses-More information on dwelling types is needed, including whether they are attached/detached, square footage and number of bedrooms if known. Location of Central features- Please identify any central features of the Westhall development on the plan, such as amenities or neighborhood centers. Standards for Development-Information on proposed yards/setbacks, building heights, open space characteristics, landscaping or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the proposed PRD have not been provided. Staff notes that you have indicated setbacks of 15' front, 0' side, and 10' rear. Whether a 0' side yard is possible depends on the type of unit you are proposing. "Zero lot line" housing still requires building separation. Attached housing does not have a 0' setback; rather, it does not have a side yard setback for the attached units, although there is a side setback at corners. In order for us to advise on the appropriateness of the side yard, we need to clearly know the expected housing type. Crozet Master Plan-The Westhall V project area is located within Neighborhood 3 of the Crozet Master Plan and has several land use designations: CT 4, CT 5, CT1 and 2 Preserve. (inset below) The Master Plan also shows the Eastern Connector along the eastern property boundary and several east-west road connections from Park Road to the Eastern Connector. CT 5 areas are intended to be a focal point within a neighborhood including a mix of uses, residential types and amenities. Recommended net densities are up to 12 dwelling units per acre or up to 18 dwelling unit per acre in a mixed use setting. Land use suggested is all attached, detached, and mixed use/residential, office, shop front stores, and civic uses. CT 4 areas are intended to support the CT 5 center areas with a variety of residential types and some mixture of uses at net densities between 4.5 dwelling units an acre and up to 18 units an acre. CT 1 & 2 areas are Preserve and Reserve areas which do not allow for development. The portion of the property designated CT Preserve/Reserve and was intended to provide a buffer along the proposed future Eastern Avenue, which is adjacent/part of this project site and to provide green space at the northern end of the property. The Green Infrastructure Map shows trails linking to this site, including trails along Lickinghole Creek and the stream that is the northern boundary of the Westhall V property. The residential densities you have proposed are well below the suggestions for this area in the Crozet Master Plan and no mixture of uses is proposed. This neighborhood of Crozet was intended to have a center in the CT 5 designated areas. This center can ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall still be provided in remaining CT 5 areas in Neighborhood 3 of Crozet. For this reason, staff believes that it is not essential for your proposal to have a mixed-use component. Eastern Avenue-The construction of Eastern Avenue is a major north/south road recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan. The expectation in the Master Plan was that the private sector would be funding and building Eastern Avenue, with the exception of the bridge over Lickinghole Creek. The Crozet Master Plan recommends that Eastern Avenue be classified as an "Avenue" and that it not include through-truck traffic. The design elements for an "Avenue" (per Crozet Master Plan) include two travel lanes, bike lanes, on-street parking, tree planting strips, sidewalks, and an optional planted median. The dimensions of these elements may also vary depending on the streets character and relationship to the adjacent development. As a result the required right-of-way may vary from 65 feet to 80 feet. Based on this information the 80 foot right-of-way shown on the plan is adequate for Eastern Avenue as envisioned by the Crozet Master Plan. Staff notes that, although there are several connections from the property under consideration for the rezoning shown on the Crozet Master Plan, there are no connections shown on the application plan. Staff believes that connections (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) are needed. With Westhall Phase V, staff is concerned about the quality of the lots 109-127, which are proposed would be double frontage lots, located between Tremont Street and the future Eastern Avenue. In Phase II of Westhall, it is noted that this is the same situation for lots 40-45. In that phase a strip of open space was provided between the lots and the future road to buffer the houses from the road. Staff is also concerned about the stormwater management ponds shown adjacent to Eastern Avenue in the open space between lots 125 and 126. These ponds should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to aesthetics and safety of the residents of Westhall and visual impacts to Eastern Avenue. For Westhall Phase V, staff recommends that you provide a 30 foot buffer between the lots and Eastern Avenue. If you wish to use a 10-foot pedestrian path rather than a sidewalk, a waiver is required. Whether this could be supported by staff depends on how you propose to construct Eastern Avenue. In addition to the buffer, please provide the specifications of that buffer along with planting details and provide details for the location and appearance of the stormwater ponds. Staff would like to discuss with you in more detail how Eastern Avenue relates to other properties east of Westhall that you may seek to develop in the future. Staff believes that commitments to construct Eastern Avenue should be made with this rezoning. ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall 3 Crozet Master Plan Place-T pe and Built Infrastructure Map r Y J i 1111111. ,. -,/,.,;‘‹),,,", i ',. .. _.._,' ._ , , '.---, -' ,-,,,,, -'-' :4,.,..,,,,, _......:—..-- , ,, . - . , , ., . „.. ,., ,,.,...„.„-.. } as .+,..‘...--.„—,, , ## 6 . , pyY* >'Ag' ... . , ..., .... . ; , ,. „‘ .:., ..\,_, ... ....." „.., _ ... , , . -_,...:„.---::,-.--,, ':_e,. ,...- .„ IN,- $f ,,, i,� „1 $ z Conformity with the Neighborhood Model- All proposals are reviewed for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Staff has made comments on each of the principles below as they relate to your proposal. Pedestrian Orientation-Sidewalks and a planting strip are required for new roads by the Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-422. Relegated Parking- No information has been provided on parking. Please provide this information. Where will parking be provided for the proposed residences in the PRD? Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Sidewalks are provided. The six foot planting strip should be located between the curb and the sidewalk. The typical pavement section indicated on your plan shows the sidewalk in the wrong location. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks- Additional road connections should be provided from Westhall to future Eastern Avenue. Engineering has noted this in comments that area attached. Parks and Open Space- Green space should be increased adjacent to the stream, eliminating encroachment in the stream buffer, along the northern boundary of the property and a greenway trail should be provided. All greenway trails should be dedicate, including the trails on the southern end of the property along Lickinghole Creek. During review of other phases of Westhall, the opportunity for trail head parking was identified, approximately where lots 126 and 127 are shown for proposed Phase V. ZMA 2006-00001 Westhail Please provide details as to what amenities will be provided within Westhall for the residents and these amenities meet the minimum 25% requirement of PRD Zoning. Neighborhood Centers-No neighborhood center has been established for Neighborhood 3 in Crozet given the by-right development pattern of the other phases of Westhall. The CT 5 area of is intended to have a focal point that acts as a center. There is still opportunity for this to be provided in the area remaining east of the Eastern Avenue ROW, adjacent to Phase II of Westhall. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Please provide information on the height of the residential units proposed. Mixture of Uses- It appears that no mixture of uses is proposed. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability— It would be helpful if you provided more details on the proposed dwelling units, such as whether they would be for-sale or for- rent and what the expected sale prices/rental rates would be. The fiscal impact planner also uses this information in determining the fiscal impacts of proposed rezonings. Please include the PRD units, along with those provided in the other phases of Westhall. This would help evaluate the proposal based on the Affordable Housing policy, a copy of which is attached for your information. Please provide information with your resubmittal as to how your proposal meets these affordable housing goals. Redevelopment-This site is currently undeveloped. Site Planning that respects Terrain- This project will impact a stream buffer as proposed. Zoning Comments: 1. This plan is difficult to understand. Please provide a separate sheet with only the necessary information for the property requested to be rezoned to PRD. 2. In the note entitled Phase V Development Summary, the total acreage is 8.957. If you add the 3 categories (roads, residential and open space) you get 10.969 acres. Please correct this discrepancy. There should be a Development Summary that only includes the property being rezoned. It should include the number of lots/dwelling units and the applicable density, as well as the acreage in each: lots, roads and open space. Please provide this on the sheet that has only the rezoned area. 3. Please relabel the plans as "Application Plan." 4. If a phasing plan is included, it should be only for the property subject to this rezoning. 5. The external property lines do not match at all with the tax map and parcel lines of 56-46. Please provide a map that shows the area to be rezoned in relationship to the existing tax map and parcel lines for the parent parcel. TMP 56-46 no ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall longer exists and is now TMP 56H-A. 6. Some of the surrounding properties are identified on Sheet 2, but others are not. Please identify each surrounding parcel, its TMP, use and zoning. 7. The area to the east of Phase V appears to be outside the rezoning. However, it may be part of parcel 46 and will become a strip of R-1 zoning that is identified on this plan as "future 240/250 connector." It would be appropriate to include this land in the rezoning and proffer to dedicate the future road. 8. It may be appropriate to expand this rezoning to include rezoning to R-4 the portions of Westhall Phase II that are currently zoned R-1 and shown as part of lots 25, 26 and 45. 9. When this plan is resubmitted, Zoning will provide further comment. Engineering 1. In response to a request from Jack Kelsey to David Jensen (02-31-06), a copy of the 2003 Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted. This study was prepared to address the potential impacts to Route 1204 from the traffic that would be generated by what is currently referred to as Westhall — Phases I, II, Ill and a portion of IV. This study was based on the development of 103 townhouse units and the site traffic generation figures from the ITE Manual -6th Edition. It also noted that interconnection to Eastern Avenue would reduce impacts to Route 1204 as vehicles on the east end would opt to travel eastward. The approved plats and plans for Phases I — IV actual created 54 single family detached dwellings and 35 townhouse units. Based on the current ITE Manual -7 Edition, the change in product type and use of current estimating data increases the site traffic generation by more than 100 average daily trips above the 2003 estimate. The approval of Phase V will generate additional trips. The magnitude of the increase will depend upon the housing product type. For example, if single family detached units are proposed, Phase V will generate 427 average daily trips (weekday only). The use of single family attached or townhouse type products will reduce this figure. An updated traffic impact study is needed including: • Traffic estimates based on the current ITE Manual 7th Edition. • Traffic generated by Phases I —IV based on the quantity and type of residential units approved. • Site traffic estimate for the proposed Phase V. • Assessment of potential traffic splits with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. • Assessment of the impacts to Route 1204, from traffic generated by Phases I — V, with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. 2, Stormwater Management— ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall 6 • Stormwater management facility"B" (approved to serve portions of Phases I—IV)is to be relocated adjacent to the eastern property line. Note if this facility is to be enlarged to serve a portion of Phase V. • Provide preliminary stormwater computations to assure that adequate area is being designated for stormwater management. 4. Provide more details regarding proposed housing type and how the off-street parking requirements will be accommodated. 5. Increased the street width to at least 28 feet (curb to curb), to allow on-street parking that is intermittent and random. The information requested above (pertaining to product type, off-street parking accommodations, and additional connections to Eastern Avenue) may generate the need for future comments on this matter. Fire Rescue Required fire flow estimated to be 2000 GPM @ 20 PSI. Please verify with the Albemarle County Service Authority that there is adequate fire flow. Building Official No comments or conditions. ACSA Public utilities are available for this project. Water and sewer construction drawings must be reviewed and approved before final subdivision plat approval is granted This item is tentatively scheduled for the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. In order to keep this item on schedule, revisions should be submitted as soon as possible. March 29, 2006 is the last day to receive new information for review prior to the May 9, 2006 meeting. I strongly recommend that you meet with Jack Kelsey and myself on this project relative to Eastern Avenue before making any changes to the plan. I also recommend that, if you decide that you wish to make no design changes to the plan or commitments to construct Eastern Avenue, that you schedule a worksession with the Planning Commission to seek appropriate guidance before proceeding further. Please feel free to call me at 296-5823 x 3252 or email me at eechols@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS- Planned District Submittal Requirements Checklist,Affordable Housing policy,Crozet Master Plan Table 1 &2 ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall 7 \\Cob-dts01\CityViewLnk\Docsl2006 Applications12006 ZMAs1200600001 WesthallV\P__ZMA_WesthalIPRD_RAR.doc ZMA 2006-00001 Westhoff 8 Page 1 of 2 David Jensen From: Elaine Echols [EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:31 PM To: djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Also -- we received the VDOT comments late last week. They are as follows: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall 1 —Phase V, Route 1204: (Elaine Echols) ❑ This development is a continuation of an existing by-right development just east of Crozet Park off of Route 1204; ❑ Previously this site was reviewed and recommendations to widen Route 1204 were provided. Please review the previous comments and recommend the developer make these improvements. From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen@wwassociates.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:53 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: 'Frank Stoner'; 'Chris Schooley' Subject: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine. I would like to schedule a meeting with you and Mr. Kelsey to review the staff comments for the subject ZMA. If possible we would like to schedule it for Thursday or Friday this week or early next week as we are trying to stay on schedule for the May 9th PC meeting. Please let me know your availability. A representative from the developer will be in attendance. Thank-you for your consideration of this matter. Regards, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations EMAIWILIki Stmorwas- PtA&NE S- AssoCiNJ"t S 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville,VA 22901 Cell Phone: 434.665.6997 Main: 434.984.2700 Fax: 434.978.1444 djensen(a�wwassociates.net www.wwassociates.net Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: David Jensen [djensen@wwassociates.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:25 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall VZMA 2006-00001 So noted. Thanks, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations t oto Assactxn s 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Cell Phone: 434.665.6997 Main: 434.984.2700 Fax: 434.978.1444 djensen@wwassociates.net www.wwassociates.net From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:24 AM To: djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Westhall VZMA 2006-00001 Application plan - 7; traffic study - 3 Thanks. From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen@wwassociates.net] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:35 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: 'Chris Schooley'; 'William Wuensch' Subject: Westhall VZMA 2006-00001 Good Afternoon Elaine, How many copies of the application plan and traffic study would you like for the resubmission on 3/29/06. Thanks, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations 3 w,r,.�sh .;z;:—. A SSOC'I ATI .S 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Cell Phone: 434.665.6997 4/3/2006 Page 1 of 3 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:44 AM To: 'Chris Schooley'; djensen@wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Thanks for the reminder, Chris. I have been talking to our Landscape Planner and we think that a 40' buffer would be best to provide a "naturalistic" landscape along Eastern Avenue. Less than that amount of area doesn't provide enough room for more than "screening trees" which we don't think was the intended buffer along Eastern Avenue. I know that the width of the buffer may seem like a lot of area and I would encourage you to look at different ways you might be able to achieve the goals of providing a vegetated strip of land along Easter Avenue. The function of that vegatated strip should be to do more than screen the backs of the houses that might back up to Eastern Avenue. We have used the following recommendation in other rezonings where a "naturalistic buffer" was desired: Landscaped buffer between residential areas and rural areas. Before (date), the Owner shall establish and thereafter maintain a vegetated buffer in the identified common areas for the buffer. The buffer shall include (i) an informal mix of screening trees, loosely staggered, 15 feet on-center; (ii) the same species of screening trees shall be clustered in groups and alternate groups of screening trees shall be provided to create a naturalistic rural landscape; (iii) large and medium shade trees shall be interspersed among the screening trees; (iv) clusters of ornamental trees shall be provided in groups of 3's and 5's; and (v) tall shrubs shall be massed to help integrate the proposed plantings into a naturalistic rural landscape. Approved plant species shall be obtained from the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List and the buffer design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Maintenance of the buffer shall be the responsibility of the Owner You may want to provide something different -- I'm just offering it as a suggestion. Also, with the area devoted to r.o.w. for Eastern Avenue potentially being wider than the amount recommended in the plan, perhaps there is area that could be devoted to the green strip. Because the Crozet Master Plan calls for a "center" in this area, there may be different design options for density and form more like a CT 4 & 5 and less like CT 3. I'm not saying that CT 3 would not be acceptable. I am saying that I think there is a lot more design freedom within your transect zones that might allow you to do something different with the property that achieves your desired density and also allows for the buffer. I do not believe a path is essential within this vegetated area. If you wanted to substitute the sidewalk for a path in this area, the Commission might view it as acceptable. We are not asking for both. Regarding your design to allow for more affordable units, I think it would be very important to get early input from the Planning Commission on the acceptability of these units because of the parking configuration. The units on 5th Street in the City seem to have a large amount of asphalt in the front yards. The parking location and amount looks contradictory to the principle of relegated parking in the Neighborhood Model. The Commission, however, might say that 3/22/2006 Page 2 of 3 affordability outweighs the need for relegated parking in this instance. I am not comfortable making that call. I am still gaining information on the status of the bridge over Lickinghole from David Benish. I hope to give you some info on that later today. I hope this information provides you with what you need to take the project to the next step. I believe we talked about a deferral and that you were thinking about resubmitting for a May 9 worksession. I still need the deferral request in writing. Please let me know soon. Thanks. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:52 AM To: Elaine Echols; djensen@wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine— From our meeting last Thursday, one action item from you was to send us a recommendation on the buffer between our lots and the proposed Eastern Boulevard. Another item we discussed was the model for our affordable housing units. As we noted, we have townhouses in Phase 3 and it would be easy to copy and paste those units onto lots 97-100. I have provided two sketches that show TH possibilities on those lots. On the other hand, we would like to develop a model at some point that addresses affordable housing in a more community conscious layout. Attached is a cottage layout similar to the development Frank referenced on 5th Street. In this scheme, 6 "cottages" (2 story, 1500 sf) are centered in a central parking area. The value of this plan is that it is more cohesive from the street than the classic TH layouts while providing a product that is detached, fulfilling what we perceive as a market need. Please give us your thoughts on the cottage layout as a potential model for achieving the affordable housing quota required by the County. Thank you for your help. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:22 PM To: djensen@wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 How about Thursday from 2:30 - 3:30? Frank -- please think about a worksession before going to the PC. I think it could be valuable to let the community provide input prior to completion of the project. It might make a difference; it might not, but, there are so many concerns in Crozet right now that we are finding worksessions to be valuable to all. Elaine 3/22/2006 Clear Day Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Pam Strother[pstrother@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:51 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Chris Schooley Subject: West Hall Phase 5 Attachments: West Hall 5 deferral letter.pdf Elaine, I have attached a letter from Chris Schooley - please let us know if you have questions concerns or trouble opening the file. Thanks — Pam No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 3/22/2006 Page 1 of 4 Elaine Echols From: Frank Stoner[fstoner@stonehaus.net] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:26 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine, Thanks for following up with Ron. I think our goal is variety and products for which there is a clear need. Frank From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:18 PM To: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley; djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Hi Frank, I forwarded your question on to Ron White and this is his response: From: Ron White Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:12 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 We are trying to stay on top of what may be coming on the market. We also want to establish some process for getting preliminary build-out information on new developments as a part of the rezoning reviews particularly in regard to proffers for affordable housing. I'm not sure where this"flood" of townhouses are. Right now we are aware of 9 affordable the units that may be built in the next twelve months. Most of the condo conversions are not getting FHA certification and we expect these units will first be made available to occupants of those units and then to investors who may rent the units are flip the units. Regardless, condo conversions do not add more units to the inventory of housing and, in fact, may have a negative impact of rental rates for other rental housing (supply/demand). From: Frank Stoner [mailto:fstoner@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:35 AM To: Elaine Echols; Chris Schooley; djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine, Our interest is in building something comparable to the cottages, not the townhomes. I would hope that the PC could embrace this as an alternative to townhouse or condo development. By the way, is the County trying to monitor the type and volume of affordable housing product that is coming to market and adjust expectations accordingly, or are they relying on developers to do that. As you know, there is a flood of condo conversions and townhouses coming to market now. Frank 4/3/2006 sTONEHi US March 22, 2006 Elaine Echols Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: Westhall V ZMA 2006-00001 Dear Elaine, Stonehaus would like to formally request a deferral for the Planning Commission hearing for this project. We will resubmit on March 29,2006 in order to have a work session with the Commission on May 9,2006. Thank you for your assistance, 61\---5 Chris Schooley, CLA Director of Land Development Stonehaus,Inc. 1412 Sachem Place,Suite 301 Charlottesville,VA 22901 PHONE 434 974 7588 FAX 434 975 3542 f tr:• 41) • SMART SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROPERTY 111,:,? Page 2 of 4 From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:15 AM To: Chris Schooley; djensen©wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 By the way -- when I sent the last email, I had only looked at the 5th Street type houses, not at the townhouses. I don't believe the form of the townhouses would be acceptable in terms of form, regardless of the affordability aspect. Again, you may want to test that with the PC. Elaine From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:52 AM To: Elaine Echols; djensen©wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner Subject: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine — From our meeting last Thursday, one action item from you was to send us a recommendation on the buffer between our lots and the proposed Eastern Boulevard. Another item we discussed was the model for our affordable housing units. As we noted, we have townhouses in Phase 3 and it would be easy to copy and paste those units onto lots 97-100. I have provided two sketches that show TH possibilities on those lots. On the other hand, we would like to develop a model at some point that addresses affordable housing in a more community conscious layout. Attached is a cottage layout similar to the development Frank referenced on 5th Street. In this scheme, 6 "cottages" (2 story, 1500 sf) are centered in a central parking area. The value of this plan is that it is more cohesive from the street than the classic TH layouts while providing a product that is detached, fulfilling what we perceive as a market need. Please give us your thoughts on the cottage layout as a potential model for achieving the affordable housing quota required by the County. Thank you for your help. Chris Schooley From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS©albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:22 PM To: djensen©wwassociates.net Cc: Frank Stoner; Chris Schooley Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 How about Thursday from 2:30 - 3:30? Frank -- please think about a worksession before going to the PC. I think it could be valuable to let the community provide input prior to completion of the project. It might make a difference; it might not, but, there are so many concerns in Crozet right now that we are finding worksessions to be valuable to all. 4/3/2006 Page 3 of 4 Elaine From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen@wwassociates.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:53 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: 'Frank Stoner'; 'Chris Schooley' Subject: Westhall Phase V ZMA 2006-00001 Elaine. I would like to schedule a meeting with you and Mr. Kelsey to review the staff comments for the subject ZMA. If possible we would like to schedule it for Thursday or Friday this week or early next week as we are trying to stay on schedule for the May 9th PC meeting. Please let me know your availability. A representative from the developer will be in attendance. Thank-you for your consideration of this matter. Regards, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations ETNf"A**2Cs IASiawrrrei t't.+:.+trt.+ Asscx:l,aITS 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Cell Phone: 434.665.6997 Main: 434.984.2700 Fax: 434.978.1444 djensen@wwassociates.net www.wwassociates.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.2.2/280-Release Date: 3/13/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.2.2/280-Release Date: 3/13/2006 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.2.6/287-Release Date: 3/21/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.2.6/287-Release Date: 3/21/2006 4/3/2006 -------_ I 1 ` `\ \ SHIFLLI 1 FARM.LLd cV 1 r / �. + ' TMP 56 53 I CO 1 , I . I 1 1 1 1 I I ZONED:R-I 1 i 1 `� +\ I USE:VACANT r i • i \ \ 1 /• I O i \ 1• 1 1 _-' '. 10 I \ 1 r / r , (p I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I lei'' 'i' 1 I l \ I 1 I + it,' �♦ `` - \ I R/W +, 1 I r R/W • \ 1 \• I r • • I 1 1 • i el to-1'S 2'3 7" FLIKIRE 240/250 CONNECTOR EONT ,� ' / / "'.diusa1040.00 / .' \ • r / 1 hord-34.07 I i'�' _ \` 652.56 ,' ,'� Chi. B arirt -SO4°10'45'1W ,7307.72 \\ \ Len h=34.07 ; 1 ' S03° 4'12' W i I(I 1 1it'1 \\ I \`� I I I V I ' I II\ II ,`--- I I I I1 I \+r' :17-‘_1/4—\:-1...: ' Sl 1 ` LOT\112 113 WI 114I ► 1' , I n I , +0 LOT 115 LOT 116 COT 117 LOT ; LOT 119 `LOT 0 1 LOT 121 I LOT 1-22'1 LOT 1?31-COT 124 I LOT 1251'`, ! 1++ 'G M LOT 111 1LOT I I 6,605\ F 5,624 SF fi,246 SF 5,625 SP 6,248 SF 5,624 S\ r 62 5624 SP i s „vF 166: L ::: J - ,---, ___-----1--___-_-,__ , \ i \s., __ • 1 ` \ - ..... ____ , ___- ,...-_ SFr 1 i I I I I `. lh \ • 016E1 / '50..0' 45.00' 50.00' 45.00' �0.0SA 45.00' I . 0.' 45.00' d1.00'_--- 50 00' S7.Q 45. -00' S0 00' 45.00' \\ \' 'S "'C 46.31 6a 4""Mik36 . • y. _ fi�1fli :�STREW �{y P# ,, 4'— — -- _.-<.,.. —,— • _ �yz�� . `'P S. J rr ova 1111111 • ER • 5•Q • 45.00'/ 45.00' 4 .60' 45.00' ` 45.00'." 10' ow !!w 60.001 r A• :/fii. i. —0.06\ \ .a.'"ti'-;1, PIM • . - •6' •,QT 95' LOT''9 �Ofi° 9 LOT TO7I LOT 106 I LdT 105 1,OT 104�OT 103 LOT 102 0 101 tOT 10A 0 -4o .Iiimme # I I 5609 SF51625SF502F6,250 SF 5625 SF ,, 04 SF 56,4SF', 1 : .- ;�C ` + 7..21 SF Tom; SF \ 5,794 \Sf` I ; �9.4iY SF',1 5,23815E 1 16 S' 3 I I / I I I ! �J'1 r • I �9\ I\ \ I I i (' I ; I; I ``�`! I 1 i I �• - 1"- �; �,I 1 +1 `\ I \I 1 + 1 , , F 1 \ ,, I 1 , ' 582.16 / \ ! 'r 'Fri` - I �� �'3 ,i::. fi'.,, /.99 \\' /N05°06'49lE H NO3 /2"� ,' SSE N NO ;06'4. �'r I f ° +`\'\ I``4 , LOT 54 1 \\ , • -� _ rail ` ' 0 i \ p • i EXISTING PST ! T7 _. �wk c` \\ `' \' \ 1 TO BE DON \\ç Y..•.- - .1-I s r, :� `\N` i .1` ! _ ! 1 ...-;a1_L.,1 , 11�, 1r- ►." ' ni'-53 1.1\ , 4 Z;\ ; !, ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IIIIIC� PLANNERS ASSOCIATES March 15, 2004 Mr. Francis H. MacCall County of Albemarle Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Shiflett Farms Preliminary Plat SUB 2004-0042 WWA Project Number: 203075.02 Dear Mr. MacCall, Please find seven (7) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy of the revised preliminary plat for Shiflett Farms reflecting the review conducted by your office, dated March 3, 2004. Our responses are in italics following each comment. Reviewer: Glenn Brooks (Department of Engineering& Public Works) - 1. The plat must show the floodplain. The latest floodplain data must be used, which is available in the County Engineering office. An updated detailed FEMA study has changed the floodplain in this area. (14-302J, 14-308) Response: The revised plans reflect the latest.flood plain information provided by Dave Hirschman in the Water Resources Department of Albemarle County. 2. The plat must show proposed topography. Grading for the roads, lots, sewer, stormwater facilities, and any other grading must be conceptually shown. (14- 302T) Response: The plans have been revised us requested. 3. The plat must show existing and proposed easements for stormwater management, access, sight distance, drainage, etc. (14-302G, 14-304) Response: The plans show new easements as anticipated at this t' _ 147 Mill Ridge Road • Lynchburg,Virginia 24502 MAR 1 200d Telephone(434)582-6175 • Fax(434)582-6179 � g _` 16. The sanitary sewer and stormsewer should be moved out of the critical slopes area leading to Lickinghole Creek. If this is not possible, a justification should be provided that demonstrates no reasonable alternative location exists. (18-4.2.6c) Response: The critical slope area is between our site and the existing sanitary sewer, and the only way to access the existing sanitary sewer from our site is to cross the critical slope area. Reviewer: Chuck Proctor (VDOT) - 1. Roadway plans will be required Response: The plans have been revised to include roadway plan and profiles. 2. Roadway shall be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision Street Standards Response: The roadways have been designed according to the current Subdivision Street Standards, and will be revised as necessary based on the traffic study. 3. The intersection of Jamestown Court and Nicolet Court shall be complete with Phase 1 of the development Response: The intersection has been revised to be included in Phase I. 4. The existing Cul-de-sac on Jamestown Court shall be removed Response: Our revised plans reflect the desire to revise the design of the cul-de- sac while keeping the right-of=way intact. 5. Mapledale Court should be replaced with a 2-lot driveway entrance Response: The plans have been revised to indicate a private road or joint driveway at Maple Dale Court. 6. In addition Park Street should be improved to accommodate the increase in traffic the development will generate. We recommend widening the roadway to a 22' section and overlay the road. This work can be accomplished within the limits of the right of way Response: The traffic study prepared by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. dated October 2003 indicated that Park Road would he minimally impacted by our site development. The developer appreciates the request to widen park road but states that doing so defeats the purpose to provide economical housing fin- this development, among other reasons Reviewer: Keith Lancaster (Zoning)- 147 Mill Ridge Road • Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY PHILIP A.SHUCET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L.BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER March 3, 2004 Glenn Brooks Development of Engineer and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments from the site review meeting held February 23, 2004 at the Charlottesville Residency office. SUB 20042-042 Shifflett Farms (Francis MacCall) § Roadway plans will be required; § Roadways shall be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision Street Standards; § The intersection of Jamestown Court and Nicolet Court shall be complete with Phase 1 of the development; § The existing Cul-de-sac on Jamestown.Court shall be removed; § Mapledale Court should be replaced with a 2-lot driveway entrance; § In addition Park Street should be improved to accommodate the increase in traffic the development will generate. We recommend widening the roadway to a 22' section and overlay the road. This work can be accomplished within hte limits of the right of way. SDP 2004-011 Timberwood Grill at Forest Lakes (Stephen Walker) § Entrance shall include Handicap Ramps CG-12: § Entrance radii shall be minimum 25'; § Sight easement will be required at the entrances; § Drainage Calculation are required; § The trip generation chart for the development should be updated and shown on the plans. Please request the applicants submit a written description of the revisions when resubmitting for review. If you should have concerns with these comments,please discuss with this office prior to sharing with the applicants. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Glenn Brooks March 3, 2004 Page Two Sincerely, C. C. Proctor III Assistant Resident Engineer cc Alan Schuck, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Stephen Walker, Francis MacCall Page 1 of 1 41) lAik, r+.JUC Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:21 PM To: 'FSTONER@STONEHAUS.NET' Subject: Comments on Westhall Phase V Attachments: P_ZMAWesthallPRD_EKE.doc; PD Checklist.doc; Crozet __Master_Plan_Table_1_Master Matrix_PlaceTypes_&_Design_Guidelines.xls; Crozet_Master Plan_Table_2_Crozet__Land_Use_&_PlaceTypes.xis Hi Frank, Attached are the comments on Westhall Phase V. I've got a copy of the same in the mail, with all of the attachments. The only one I haven't attached is the affordable housing policy. Please have a look and let me know if/when you'd like to meet. I think it would be a good idea. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375/Virus Database: 268.2.0/275 - Release Date: 3/6/2006 3/6/2006 0/04k di EI �IRGIl`��P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development-Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3439 Fax(434)972-4126 March 5, 2006 Mr. Frank Stoner Stonehaus Development 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall V Preliminary Review Comments Dear Frank: Thank you for your recent submittal of the rezoning for Westhall V from R1 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District for 37 residential lots. Comments have been received from Engineering, Zoning, Current Development, Fire Rescue, and the Building Official. The Building Official offered not objection to the proposal and all other division comments, have been incorporated below, following Planning comments. Comments have not been received from VDOT. In general, the items submitted for review did not provide adequate information for all reviewers to offer a complete comment and additional comments will be provided once that information is submitted. Typically, applicants bring proposals in for preliminary feedback at regularly scheduled Monday pre-application meetings. Staff strongly recommends that you do that for any future development in this area of Crozet. Planning Comments: Submittal Requirements Section 8.5 (checklist enclosed)-Additional Information is needed to provide more specific comments on this proposal: Existing physical conditions: Please provide a separate sheet that more clearly shows streams and wooded areas, including areas east of the site. Existing easements-It appears you have not included all of the information from the plats provided on your rezoning application plan, such as the 10' pedestrian easement along the property line. Adjoining Tracts and Parcels-The present use of adjoining tracts and parcels, ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall along with the location of structures and streams should be included. Stream Buffer- Please show all stream buffers. Summary of land uses-More information on dwelling types is needed, including whether they are attached/detached, square footage and number of bedrooms if known. Location of Central features- Please identify any central features of the Westhall development on the plan, such as amenities or neighborhood centers. Standards for Development-Information on proposed yards/setbacks, building heights, open space characteristics, landscaping or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the proposed PRD have not been provided. Staff notes that you have indicated setbacks of 15' front, 0' side, and 10' rear. Whether a 0' side yard is possible depends on the type of unit you are proposing. "Zero lot line" housing still requires building separation. Attached housing does not have a 0' setback; rather, it does not have a side yard setback for the attached units, although there is a side setback at corners. In order for us to advise on the appropriateness of the side yard, we need to clearly know the expected housing type. Crozet Master Plan-The Westhall V project area is located within Neighborhood 3 of the Crozet Master Plan and has several land use designations: CT 4, CT 5, CT1 and 2 Preserve. (inset below) The Master Plan also shows the Eastern Connector along the eastern property boundary and several east-west road connections from Park Road to the Eastern Connector. CT 5 areas are intended to be a focal point within a neighborhood including a mix of uses, residential types and amenities. Recommended net densities are up to 12 dwelling units per acre or up to 18 dwelling unit per acre in a mixed use setting. Land use suggested is all attached, detached, and mixed use/residential, office, shop front stores, and civic uses. CT 4 areas are intended to support the CT 5 center areas with a variety of residential types and some mixture of uses at net densities between 4.5 dwelling units an acre and up to 18 units an acre. CT 1 & 2 areas are Preserve and Reserve areas which do not allow for development. The portion of the property designated CT Preserve/Reserve and was intended to provide a buffer along the proposed future Eastern Avenue, which is adjacent/part of this project site and to provide green space at the northern end of the property. The Green Infrastructure Map shows trails linking to this site, including trails along Lickinghole Creek and the stream that is the northern boundary of the Westhall V property. The residential densities you have proposed are well below the suggestions for this area in the Crozet Master Plan and no mixture of uses is proposed. This neighborhood of Crozet was intended to have a center in the CT 5 designated areas. This center can ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall still be provided in remaining CT 5 areas in Neighborhood 3 of Crozet. For this reason, staff believes that it is not essential for your proposal to have a mixed-use component. Eastern Avenue- The construction of Eastern Avenue is a major north/south road recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan. The expectation in the Master Plan was that the private sector would be funding and building Eastern Avenue, with the exception of the bridge over Lickinghole Creek. The Crozet Master Plan recommends that Eastern Avenue be classified as an "Avenue" and that it not include through-truck traffic. The design elements for an "Avenue" (per Crozet Master Plan) include two travel lanes, bike lanes, on-street parking, tree planting strips, sidewalks, and an optional planted median. The dimensions of these elements may also vary depending on the streets character and relationship to the adjacent development. As a result the required right-of-way may vary from 65 feet to 80 feet. Based on this information the 80 foot right-of-way shown on the plan is adequate for Eastern Avenue as envisioned by the Crozet Master Plan. Staff notes that, although there are several connections from the property under consideration for the rezoning shown on the Crozet Master Plan, there are no connections shown on the application plan. Staff believes that connections (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) are needed. With Westhall Phase V, staff is concerned about the quality of the lots 109-127, which are proposed would be double frontage lots, located between Tremont Street and the future Eastern Avenue. In Phase II of Westhall, it is noted that this is the same situation for lots 40-45. In that phase a strip of open space was provided between the lots and the future road to buffer the houses from the road. Staff is also concerned about the stormwater management ponds shown adjacent to Eastern Avenue in the open space between lots 125 and 126. These ponds should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to aesthetics and safety of the residents of Westhall and visual impacts to Eastern Avenue. For Westhall Phase V, staff recommends that you provide a 30 foot buffer between the lots and Eastern Avenue. If you wish to use a 10-foot pedestrian path rather than a sidewalk, a waiver is required. Whether this could be supported by staff depends on how you propose to construct Eastern Avenue. In addition to the buffer, please provide the specifications of that buffer along with planting details and provide details for the location and appearance of the stormwater ponds. Staff would like to discuss with you in more detail how Eastern Avenue relates to other properties east of Westhall that you may seek to develop in the future. Staff believes that commitments to construct Eastern Avenue should be made with this rezoning. ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall Crozet Master Plan Place-T pe and Built Infrastructure Ma. `� � ,. a •rZ• -� ..- �i { ?' , 4 ! ``-, 4+pia r ,� '' -��/y 0 •! .T `5 moo:.c� 'T:'j N''....".., - .....t•. ik" _ .AINNI'll i - II% .S41;d1Ab.'s 42'‘&>•-‘11*-°.!.44.•—•`':,7\,,..::::"...4:lig"° :tog ....,..._ .- •,,,' 1 ----7,_:---- -4......„. .„.. , _,.,. , i „ . ,_„..,ti , ,-..,,,v„,,,,.. ••, „. _ .,,,....„. ..•.,„,,, , ._ ... tAltr-f‘,1 i'. ' , • T! 4.4 ,_ - s - , --. `�{i„�+ a !/ �M R _ ,„—,...-'. .,;:-.„;•.; -,...,, ..,,,:,, ._„...,, . . ....L3 .. ..7.,-'' as -, Conformity with the Neighborhood Model- All proposals are reviewed for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Staff has made comments on each of the principles below as they relate to your proposal. Pedestrian Orientation-Sidewalks and a planting strip are required for new roads by the Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-422. Relegated Parking- No information has been provided on parking. Please provide this information. Where will parking be provided for the proposed residences in the PRD? Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Sidewalks are provided. The six foot planting strip should be located between the curb and the sidewalk. The typical pavement section indicated on your plan shows the sidewalk in the wrong location. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks- Additional road connections should be provided from Westhall to future Eastern Avenue. Engineering has noted this in comments that area attached. Parks and Open Space- Green space should be increased adjacent to the stream, eliminating encroachment in the stream buffer, along the northern boundary of the property and a greenway trail should be provided. All greenway trails should be dedicate, including the trails on the southern end of the property along Lickinghole Creek. During review of other phases of Westhall, the opportunity for trail head parking was identified, approximately where lots 126 and 127 are shown for proposed Phase V. ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall Please provide details as to what amenities will be provided within Westhall for the residents and these amenities meet the minimum 25% requirement of PRD Zoning. Neighborhood Centers-No neighborhood center has been established for Neighborhood 3 in Crozet given the by-right development pattern of the other phases of Westhall. The CT 5 area of is intended to have a focal point that acts as a center. There is still opportunity for this to be provided in the area remaining east of the Eastern Avenue ROW, adjacent to Phase II of Westhall. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Please provide information on the height of the residential units proposed. Mixture of Uses- It appears that no mixture of uses is proposed. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability— It would be helpful if you provided more details on the proposed dwelling units, such as whether they would be for-sale or for- rent and what the expected sale prices/rental rates would be. The fiscal impact planner also uses this information in determining the fiscal impacts of proposed rezonings. Please include the PRD units, along with those provided in the other phases of Westhall. This would help evaluate the proposal based on the Affordable Housing policy, a copy of which is attached for your information. Please provide information with your resubmittal as to how your proposal meets these affordable housing goals. Redevelopment-This site is currently undeveloped. Site Planning that respects Terrain- This project will impact a stream buffer as proposed. Zoning Comments: 1. This plan is difficult to understand. Please provide a separate sheet with only the necessary information for the property requested to be rezoned to PRD. 2. In the note entitled Phase V Development Summary, the total acreage is 8.957. If you add the 3 categories (roads, residential and open space) you get 10.969 acres. Please correct this discrepancy. There should be a Development Summary that only includes the property being rezoned. It should include the number of lots/dwelling units and the applicable density, as well as the acreage in each: lots, roads and open space. Please provide this on the sheet that has only the rezoned area. 3. Please relabel the plans as "Application Plan." 4. If a phasing plan is included, it should be only for the property subject to this rezoning. 5. The external property lines do not match at all with the tax map and parcel lines of 56-46. Please provide a map that shows the area to be rezoned in relationship to the existing tax map and parcel lines for the parent parcel. TMP 56-46 no ZIv1A 2006-00001 Westhal! longer exists and is now TMP 56H-A. 6. Some of the surrounding properties are identified on Sheet 2, but others are not. Please identify each surrounding parcel, its TMP, use and zoning. 7. The area to the east of Phase V appears to be outside the rezoning. However, it may be part of parcel 46 and will become a strip of R-1 zoning that is identified on this plan as "future 240/250 connector." It would be appropriate to include this land in the rezoning and proffer to dedicate the future road. 8. It may be appropriate to expand this rezoning to include rezoning to R-4 the portions of Westhall Phase II that are currently zoned R-1 and shown as part of lots 25, 26 and 45. 9. When this plan is resubmitted, Zoning will provide further comment. Engineering 1. In response to a request from Jack Kelsey to David Jensen (02-31-06), a copy of the 2003 Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted. This study was prepared to address the potential impacts to Route 1204 from the traffic that would be generated by what is currently referred to as Westhall — Phases I, II, III and a portion of IV. This study was based on the development of 103 townhouse units and the site traffic generation figures from the ITE Manual -6th Edition. It also noted that interconnection to Eastern Avenue would reduce impacts to Route 1204 as vehicles on the east end would opt to travel eastward. The approved plats and plans for Phases I — IV actual created 54 single family detached dwellings and 35 townhouse units. Based on the current ITE Manual -7 Edition,the change in product type and use of current estimating data increases the site traffic generation by more than 100 average daily trips above the 2003 estimate. The approval of Phase V will generate additional trips. The magnitude of the increase will depend upon the housing product type. For example, if single family detached units are proposed, Phase V will generate 427 average daily trips (weekday only). The use of single family attached or townhouse type products will reduce this figure. An updated traffic impact study is needed including: • Traffic estimates based on the current ITE Manual 7th Edition. • Traffic generated by Phases I — IV based on the quantity and type of residential units approved. • Site traffic estimate for the proposed Phase V. • Assessment of potential traffic splits with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. • Assessment of the impacts to Route 1204, from traffic generated by Phases I — V, with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. 2, Stormwater Management— ZMA 2006-00001 Westf ial, • Stormwater management facility"B" (approved to serve portions of Phases I —IV) is to be relocated adjacent to the eastern property line. Note if this facility is to be enlarged to serve a portion of Phase V. • Provide preliminary stormwater computations to assure that adequate area is being designated for stormwater management. 4. Provide more details regarding proposed housing type and how the off-street parking requirements will be accommodated. 5. Increased the street width to at least 28 feet (curb to curb), to allow on-street parking that is intermittent and random. The information requested above (pertaining to product type, off-street parking accommodations, and additional connections to Eastern Avenue) may generate the need for future comments on this matter. Fire Rescue Required fire flow estimated to be 2000 GPM @ 20 PSI. Please verify with the Albemarle County Service Authority that there is adequate fire flow. Building Official No comments or conditions. ACSA Public utilities are available for this project. Water and sewer construction drawings must be reviewed and approved before final subdivision plat approval is granted This item is tentatively scheduled for the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. In order to keep this item on schedule, revisions should be submitted as soon as possible. March 29, 2006 is the last day to receive new information for review prior to the May 9, 2006 meeting. I strongly recommend that you meet with Jack Kelsey and myself on this project relative to Eastern Avenue before making any changes to the plan. I also recommend that, if you decide that you wish to make no design changes to the plan or commitments to construct Eastern Avenue, that you schedule a worksession with the Planning Commission to seek appropriate guidance before proceeding further. Please feel free to call me at 296-5823 x 3252 or email me at eechols@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS- Planned District Submittal Requirements Checklist,Affordable Housing policy, Crozet Master Plan Table 1 &2 ZMA 2006-00001 'Vesthall • 8/25/05 eke PLANNED DISTRICT — MIXED COMMERCIAL (PD-MC) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST Section 8.5.2. -- Preapplication conference date Section 8.2. -- Requests for waivers (if any) in writing) that demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, 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. Section 8.5.1. a. A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties improvements to those properties surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence c. A map showing: 1. The following existing physical conditions streams wooded areas potential non-tidal wetlands slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent historic structures and sites included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources floodplain any identified features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan 2. Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet (other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where topographic considerations warrant) 3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities 8/25/05 eke 4. The existing owners and zoning district 5. The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any 6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site d. An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles showing 1. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, nontidal wetlands, and other significant environmental features 2. The proposed grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals 3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths 4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape 5. Connections to existing and proposed streets proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan 6. Trip generation figures 7. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems conceptual stormwater management conceptual mitigation plan (if stream buffers are impacted) 8. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas; 9. A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities gross floor areas for commercial and industrial use 10. The general lot lay-out 11. Standards for development including proposed yards building heights open space characteristics any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. 25A.3 AREA REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF PD-MC DISTRICT 25A.3.1 Minimum area required for the establishment of a PD-MC district shall be three (3) acres. 2 • 8/25/05 eke 25A.3.2 Additional area may be added to an established PD-MC district if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were filed and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage requirement of section 25A.3.1. 25A.6 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to requirements contained herein, the requirements of sections 8.0 and 21.0 shall apply to all PD-MC districts. In addition to materials required by section 8.5.1, a transportation analysis plan shall be submitted with the application for PD-MC designation. Such plan shall show projected automobile and truck traffic generation; internal and access point turning movement; percentage estimate of traffic distribution to and from the site on external roads; and proposed improvements to the existing transportation network. 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY Approved by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors, February 4,2005 PREFACE With the adoption of the Neighborhood Model by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the charge given to address the inclusion of affordable housing in future developments, the Albemarle County Housing Committee created a Housing Policy Subcommittee to draft an affordable housing policy. The subcommittee, staffed by the County's Chief of Housing, drafted an outline of options to be considered in developing the policy. In December 2002,the Housing Committee and Office of Housing convened three focus groups consisting of housing providers (nonprofits, lenders,realtors), developers, and neighborhood representatives to discuss the needs, issues, and recommendations regarding affordable housing and public policy. The result of this work and input is the following proposal offered as an affordable housing policy for Albemarle County. Some previous work had been done leading up to the development of the policy. The Housing Committee and Board of Supervisors first defined affordable housing in July and September of 1998, respectively. The definition proposed in this policy maintains the intent of the previously-adopted general definition. The Board, at the request of the Housing Committee, adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan in November 2002. Finally, although not required for the adoption of this policy, the Board approved a request by staff to seek legislation allowing Albemarle County flexibility in creating and Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. This enabling legislation was approved in the 2002 session of the General Assembly. OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND Albemarle County's population has grown from 68,000 in 1990 to 84,000 in 2000 (23.5%). The number of occupied housing units in Albemarle County also grew with owner-occupied units increasing from 11,562 to 20,991 and rental units from 7,361 to 10,885 representing an 81.5% growth in owner-occupied units and 47.8% growth in rental units. While the overall growth in occupied units appears to be consistent with population growth based on an average of 2.5 persons per unit,the trends support the concern that cost of housing for low-to moderate-income households is increasing. These trends include cost burden and fewer affordable units being developed. It should be noted that, according to 1999 income data from the U.S. Census, of 31,916 households, 15, 689 (49.1%) had incomes below $50,000. Approximately 5,500 (17.3%)have incomes H-1 between $35,000 and $50,000. These income levels would be equivalent to sixty-to eighty-percent of the area median income. Cost Burden -According to the 2000 U.S. Census over 2000 owner-occupied households (12.4%)had housing costs that exceed 35%of their household income, while 3100 renters(30.7%)had housing costs exceeding 35%of household income. Affordable Unit Development—According to County assessment records 11,632 houses in the County would be considered affordable based on affordability defined as a maximum sales price of approximately$175,000. This represents 43.6%of all houses (26,668). However in 2001 there were only 510 affordable resales dropping to 399 affordable resales in 2002. There were 1404 total sales 2002 including 426 units(28%) defined as affordable(under$175,000). Of the total sales,318 were new homes of which only 27 of those units(8%)were considered affordable. Rental Housing—Most of the County's affordable rental housing(maximum 2-bedroom rent of$725.00) was developed prior to 1998. Four of these are multifamily properties totaling 539 units that have rents restricted by federal low-income housing tax credits. Since 1998,three properties have been developed as unrestricted or family units. While the properties have added over 450 new units only 20 units offer affordable rents. In addition to these units,97 units of elderly housing was developed with rents restricted by funding sources (bonds and tax credits). Data indicates that the current trends will continue to add pressures on housing affordability that will impact 40% of the County's population. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been developed to outline objectives and recommendations that may be used to support the County's desire to increase the number of newly developed units that may be affordable for all rezoning and special use permit applications. DEFINITION Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants shall be tenant paid rent and tenant paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to the forty percent of the County population that have household incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. For 2003, the maximum affordable home for purchase (80%median income) would be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants would be $787 (50%median income). H-2 OBJECTIVES It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the County. In particular,the County will provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership)for households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area median income by • Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate- income residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County; • Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities; • Creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods; • Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations; and, • Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the private sector alone. The County should encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County wide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County's Growth Management Policy. The provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the designated Rural Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations. STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategy: ❑ Develop and implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications. Recommendations • Develop process to measure and track existing affordable housing stock. • Update annual affordability figures for sales prices and rentals based on median income figures provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. • Assess and prioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required throughout the housing continuum. • Develop affordable housing production goals based on documented need/demand to address identified housing priorities and to insure that low- H-3 and moderate-income households have access to a sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units • Promote the use of the existing density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve affordable housing. • Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a streamlined and timely process for plan approvals. • Implement the adopted affordable policy(ies) to the greatest extent possible for all rezoning and special use permit applications. Strategy: ❑ Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low-and moderate- income families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development's size, location,timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15%of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Recommendations • Develop procedures to work with developers to phase in affordable units within a neighborhood as described in the Neighborhood Model including the use of regulatory and monetary incentives available through the County, its partners and state and federal programs. • Work with the developers and nonprofit housing organizations to create procedures to phase in affordable units in a development and ensuring that such units are compatible with other homes in the development.Affordable units should include both units for sale and units for rent. • Promote a design criterion that disperses affordable homes throughout a development and encourages a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed in designated development areas as guidance for the creation of affordable units that are scattered throughout the development. Strategy: o Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. Recommendations • Develop procedures for monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law and/or funding sources. • Establish a first right-of-refusal for the purchase of affordable units for rent or sale by the County and/or its nonprofit partners. • Develop deed restrictions and other mechanisms to insure affordable units developed with County incentives remain affordable for a specific period of time(control period). H-4 =.4Wr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE—County Engineer DATE: 27 February 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The plan for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed. In response to my email to David Jensen (02-31-06), a copy of the 2003 Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted. This study has also been reviewed. My comments are summarized below. 1. Updated Traffic Impact Study A traffic impact study,titled"Crozet Park Townhomes",was prepared by Fitzgerald&Halliday,Inc. October 2003. This study was prepared to address the potential impacts to Route 1204 from the traffic that would be generated by what is currently referred to as Westhall—Phases I, II, III and a portion of IV. This study was based on the development of 103 townhouse units and the site traffic generation figures from the ITE Manual - 6th Edition. It also noted that interconnection to Eastern Avenue would reduce impacts to Route 1204 as vehicles on the east end would opt to travel eastward. The approved plats and plans for Phases I—IV actual created 54 single family detached dwellings and 35 townhouse units. Based on the current ITE Manual-7th Edition,the change in product type and use of current estimating data increases the site traffic generation by more than 100 average daily trips above the 2003 estimate. The approval of Phase V will generate additional trips. The magnitude of the increase will depend upon the housing product type. For example,if single family detached units are proposed,Phase V will generate 427 average daily trips(weekday only). The use of single family attached or townhouse type products will reduce this figure. Provide an updated traffic impact study including: • Traffic estimates based on the current ITE Manual 7`h Edition. • Traffic generated by Phases I—IV based on the quantity and type of residential units approved. • Site traffic estimate for the proposed Phase V. • Assessment of potential traffic splits with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. • Assessment of the impacts to Route 1204, from traffic generated by Phases I — V, with and without interconnection to Eastern Avenue. 2. Stormwater Management • Stormwater management facility "B" (approved to serve portions of Phases I — IV) is to be relocated adjacent to the eastern property line. Note if this facility is to be enlarged to serve a portion of Phase V. • Provide preliminary stormwater computations to assure that adequate area is being designated for stormwater management. ZMA 2006-01 Westhall February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 2 3. Provide for additional vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian connections to the future Eastern Avenue (240-250 Connector) consistent with the Crozet Master Plan. With the exception of the connection provided for with Phase I and II development, no additional interconnections are shown. 4. Provide more details regarding proposed housing type and how the offstreet parking requirements will be accommodated. 5. Increased the street width to at least 28 feet (curb to curb), to allow onstreet parking that is intermittent and random. The information requested above(pertaining to product type,offstreet parking accommodations,and additional connections to Eastern Avenue)may generate the need for future comments on this matter. 6. At minimum a 3 foot utility strip must be provided between the curb and the edge of sidewalk in accordance with VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements. If a tree planting strip is desired or required by the County,this strip must be widened to 6 feet minimum. 7. The Eastern Avenue right-of-way illustrated in this phase,and reserved for dedication in Phase I and II, should be dedicated to public use with this rezoning request. The Crozet Master Plan recommends that Eastern Avenue be classified as an"Avenue"and that it not include through truck traffic. The design elements for an "Avenue" (per Crozet Master Plan)include two travel lanes,bike lanes,onstreet parking,tree planting strips,sidewalks,and an optional planted median. The dimensions of these elements may also vary depending on the streets character and relationship to th adjacent development. As a result the_ required right-of- way may vary from 65 feet to 80 feet as on this informatirfhe 50 foot rot-of-way shown on the pli is not adequate (Easte A nue visionec(b"y theTCrozet Master Plan. /- TO`shade% al Pii5' 8. The Phase I and II final plat delineated and labeled a 10 foot pedestrian easement along the ,k,,,, , eastern property line of Phase V. Depict and label this easement on the Phase V layout plan and note whether it is to remain or be abandoned. Please contact me if you have any questions. likk JK\ File. E l_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc