Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200600001 Engineering Information Zoning Map Amendment 2006-07-02 Jack Kelsey From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:52 PM To: Elaine Echols; Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: Westhall V and Haden Place Attachments: E4_zmajmk_HadenPlace.doc; E4_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc it E4_zma_imk_Hade E4_zma_imk_West nPlace.doc(50... hall_PhaseV.doc... Elaine & Rebecca, I have had to leave town to help my Mom & Dad with the demolition/repair of water damage done to their home from the disastrous flooding that recently occcurred in Binghamton, NY. They unfortunately ended up with 2-1/2 feet of water in the downstairs level. I have attached my recent comments on the referenced projects. Hope you have (had) a good July 4th! Sincerely, Jack Kelsey 1 • • OF A4gpol COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE—County Engineer DATE: 30 June 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The revised plan (received June 15, 2006) for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed and my comments are summarized below. Approval of this application will be recommended when these items are satisfactorily addressed. Sheet 3 of 3 • Based on my conversation with the consultant the private street serving Lot 102 and the rear parking bays for the remaining lots will be revised to meet parking lot standards(20'travelway and 10'x18'bays). The private street standards(serving 6 or more lots)would require this street to meet VDOT public street standards. Therefore,the consultant will include with the private street request, a request for a Planning Commission waiver of the private street geometries. Since Lots 97— 101 will front on and the dwellings will be oriented toward the public street,I support the proposed geometries. Traffic Study: • Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission,pavement widening will not be required. However, the Commission did ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders, drainage, and/or sight-lines. Proffers • Proffer 1.3 —Please remove the dollar limit for the spot improvements to Park Road. Please contact me if you have any questions. File: E4_zmajmk Westhall_PhaseV.doc 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 arking layout shown on the Application for Zoning Map Amendment Plan dated June 14th, 20 6 for Westhall V, completed1 by WW Associates. WtU y'p ck 40 1-e-tc {o lQ a o>~ AA I would like to request authorization of a • e street from the PlanninglCommission in (o(7o Feu b accordance with Code 14-233. The eral welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better sere y the construction of one or more private streets than by the construction of public stree . I would also like to nest a waiver of the private street standards in accordance with Code 14- 412.E, for the stt e king layout shown on the Application for Zoning Map Amendment Plan dated J ne 14th, 200 for Westhall V, completed by WW Associates. The private street designed for 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, 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 2 Jack Kelsey From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:30 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall waiver-curb and gutter? Just to be clear the requirements the expectation is this would also comply with the standards in 18-4.12.16 & 17. Sincerely, Jack M. Kelsey, PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:27 AM To: Jack Kelsey Subject: RE: Westhall waiver - curb and gutter? Thanks. From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:27 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Westhall waiver - curb and gutter? My expectation is that this "parking area" meet all the requirements of 18-4.12.15, including curb. Gutter is only required when necessary to control/direct runoff. Sincerely, Jack M. Kelsey, PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax From: Elaine Echols 6/28/2006 Page 2 of 2 Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:21 AM To: Jack Kelsey Subject: Westhall waiver - curb and gutter? Importance: High Does the applicant need to request a waiver for curb and gutter or is curb and gutter expected? Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 6/28/2006 Jack Kelsey Subject: Updated: Westhall - Park St. and private street Location: Jack's office Start: Thu 6/22/2006 1:00 PM End: Thu 6/22/2006 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Accepted Required Attendees: Elaine Echols; Jack Kelsey Sorry about the time change! Hi Jack -- 2 questions about Westhall: 1. What do you think about their private street request -- do you have enough info and is 12 feet ok? If you don't have enough info, what do you need? 2. Did you suggest to the applicant that they donate money to the County for the improvements to Park Road? They aren't planning to make the improvements, but, Greg is wondering if we have the project in the CIP to accept as a donation or if they should make the improvements. (I don't think we have it in our CIP). I would think that they should make the improvements, but need to know if you suggested otherwise. thx 1 WAmENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES June 14, 2006 Ms. Elaine K. Echols, MCP 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 dcxdt 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 d(erences 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 LDOT's comment on Park Road in Crozet. As you can see, MOT 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 o� lllllll� Qiiiiil I IN 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 wii 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 footprintsis 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 000 ,A t : • enlarged over rime. A remedy to this situation would oe 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 bii 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 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 ZMA 2006-000Gi. `Alestr'aU • Engineer to luentify areas for improvement which shouiu 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, Lgut Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall Page 1of1 Jack Kelsey From: Greg Cooley Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:43 PM To: 'Chris Schooley' Cc: L.J. Lopez; Jack Kelsey; Warner Wilkerson Subject: RE: Westhall V Chris Below is a summary from our meeting concerning the Park Road spot improvements: 1. Re-grade the ditch/shoulder(approximately 180') in front of the town homes currently under construction. It will be important to grade the ditch for proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road. 2. Install a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street. It may be necessary to re-grade the ditch around the pipe. 3. In front of Claudius Crozet Park(approximately 650'), re-grade the ditch/shoulder. Maintain a minimum 1.5' shoulder width, and 2' from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch. Greg Cooley 434-296-5832 ext 3336 • From: Chris Schooley [mailto:CSchooley@stonehaus.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 AM To: Jack Kelsey Cc: Greg Cooley; L.J. Lopez Subject: RE: Westhall V Greg — When you send the list of items to be fixed on Park Road, please make sure that LJ Lopez (Loopez@stonehaus.net) is copied on the email. We are trying to finish up the proffers today for resubmittal to the County. Thanks for your help. Chris Schooley 6/28/2006 Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:43 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Westhall V Attachments: DRAFT E3_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc Elaine, I have attached my draft comments. These comments will be finalized after our "wrap-up" meeting on Monday. Sincerely, Jack M.Kelsey, PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax 6/2/2006 ,(gA emu-vx ��RciN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M.Kelsey,PE—County Engineer DATE: 2 June 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The revised plan(received May 28,2006)for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed and my comments are summarized below. Approval of this application will be recommended when these items are satisfactorily addressed. Sheet 1 of 3: • Please change the 0.5' separation between the sidewalk and the right-of-way line to the 1 foot minimum required by VDOT. Sheet 3 of 3 • A 6 ft.pedestrian trail is provided along the northern end of the property. Please specify in the"legend" the type of surface associated with the shading used on the pedestrian path or provide a typical section. • 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. • 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. Provide a detail of the proposed private street cross section, including the width of the private street easement. Traffic Study: • Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission,pavement widening will not be required. However,the Commission did ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders,drainage,and/or sight-lines. Proffers • Proffer 1.1 -2nd Sentence: I suggest"reallocated to VDOT's road maintenance fund for the Whitehall District" be changed to "reallocated to the County capital improvements program for transportation improvements within the Whitehall District". Please contact me if you have any questions. File: E3_zma_jmk Westhall_PhaseV.doc Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey From: Proctor, Charles C. [Charles.Proctor@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:22 AM To: Winn, Jr., John W. L.S.; Elaine Echols; Jack Kelsey Cc: Utterback, James S. PMP; Giometti, John A. P.E. Subject: Westhall Phase 5 ZMA Followup comments Elaine, In response to the follow-up comments from WW&Associates concerning the Westhall Phase V rezoning, I have the following: • The development both current and proposed will increase the traffic on Park Street, High Street and Tabor Street. The traffic study indicates the daily ADT for section 1 through 5 will increase by 1226 weekday trips. This increase nearly doubles the current traffic on the existing roadways. All of these facilities have pavement widths of approximately 20'. According to the Road Design Manual the minimum pavement width for this type of road carrying volume is 22' to 24'. I recommend the developer trench widen these roads to provide the additional pavement width to bring the roadways up to the 22' minimum criteria. If there are any questions please contact the residency office. Thank you Cr( 9 Chuck Charles C. Proctor III � 444_ 5-e/✓7'AA ' District Transportation Planner(PD-10) Culpeper District k4,e, DE -40 PVC u--{ - (lr- 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 iC�� 540-829-7558 c �- ' vYN-c•-• L'-4 42'1A, charles.proctor@VDOT.virginia.gov l S , or ... Ave. . yabw ham- (•r." �v e v tie Svr s . nivl" INtw) /1,4_ 6/5/2006 ALg ism COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M.Kelsey,PE—County Engineer DATE: 2 June 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The revised plan(received May 28,2006)for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed and my comments are summarized below. Approval of this application will be recommended when these items are satisfactorily addressed. Sheet 1 of 3: • Please change the 0.5' separation between the sidewalk and the right-of-way line to the 1 foot minimum required by VDOT. Sheet 3 of 3 ( • A 6 ft.pedestrian trail is provided along the northern end of the property. Please specify in the"legend" that shading used on the pedestrian path represents an"asphalt"surface or provide a typical section. ✓ • 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. • 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 ke• 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. Traffic Study: • Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission,pavement widening will not be required. However,the Commission did ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders, drainage,and/or sight-lines. Proffers • Proffer 1.1 -2"a Sentence: I suggest"reallocated to VDOT's road maintenance fund for the Whitehall District" be changed to "reallocated to the County capital improvements program for transportation improvements within the Whitehall District". Please contact me if you have any questions. File: E3_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc ,A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jack M.Kelsey,PE—County Engineer DATE: 2 June 2006 SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V The revised plan(received May 28,2006)for the referenced zoning map amendment has been reviewed and my comments are summarized below. Approval of this application will be recommended when these items are satisfactorily addressed. Sheet 1 of 3: • Please change the 0.5' separation between the sidewalk and the right-of-way line to the 1 foot minimum required by VDOT. Sheet 3 of 3 • A 6 ft.pedestrian trail is provided along the northern end of the property. Please specify in the"legend" that shading used on the pedestrian path represents an"asphalt"surface or provide a typical section. • 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. • 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. Traffic Study: • Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission,pavement widening will not be required. However,the Commission did ask the developer to identify and address any needed spot improvements to the pavement, shoulders,drainage, and/or sight-lines. Proffers • Proffer 1.1 -2nd Sentence: I suggest"reallocated to VDOT's road maintenance fund for the Whitehall District" be changed to "reallocated to the County capital improvements program for transportation improvements within the Whitehall District". Please contact me if you have any questions. File: E3_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 12:20 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Dan Mahon Subject: Westhall V I've looked over the recently submitted response letter, plan set, and proffer statement. Before I write up my comments I have two questions. 1. Lots 97 - 101 front on a public street, so the rear parking could be served by an alley. Unfortunately, Lot 102 does not front on a street - thus the need for the private street (and private street request). From the standpoint of function this accessway serves as a private street for 1 lot and access to parking spaces only for the remaining lots. I'm having difficulty trying to figure out which provision of 14-233 (private street request in DA) this would fall under. The geometrics shown are adequate for the proposed function, but this doesn't seem to fit into the categories in 14-412 used to determine the applicable private street standards. How should the private street request and applicable standards be addressed? 2. A 6 ft. pedestrian path is shown in the Trailhead Park and the Open Space (Parcel C) that will be dedicated to the County. The "shading" used is not defined in the drawing "Legend" (sheet 1 of 3) and is not specified on the plan. As presented on the plans & in the proffers the type of surface is at the developer's choosing. What type of surface is expected by P&R at these locations? Sincerely, Jack M. Kelsey, PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax 6/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey NN-- From: Elaine Echols b �'� —to 'i'Y�V"� w`' l � i�i Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:10 AM Jam^ S G. G 01NL n V _ To: Jack Kelsey ACT t b cX 1�u v Subject: Westhall Phase V (Lcc4'r-e-c ck,v`. C. ttttttuuuW.2,\F Hi Jack -- (o 1- (o-z d..o.r r uw-e s4v-4-c L,.. e — -1A S --d "-- '1.' Y%\i .e. In looking at Westhall Phase V, I've of these questions -- you cannprovide answers at our meetinjnext week or before: Art... r fk SW. o t �rli��a 'fill s S & , 5 t 1 joi- G.LJb 1. How does the "private street" (that they haven't yet requested) look for the ul an it meet our requirements? (q,,,L 4(,e.' — —Pk '` 0,.. -nc y A P-e, ue vt 6k� 0-erni4- - A— t.v.—b 44-e ,/1.b do stormwater facilities look? They have proffered fo ma t em suitable to Parks and Rec. 04.04- /3. Their proffer for Eastern Avenu is $1500x 30 units for a total of$45,000 for Eastern Avenue construction a , if construction hasn't started on Eastern Avenue in 10 years, then they would allocate to VDOT's road intenance funds for Whitehall District. Road maintenance doesn't seem to be the right place for this does it? I think their contribution is on the LOW side, as well. We'll talk about it during the DA meeting, in any case. yhey are proffering $3000 for a pedestrian bridge -- that also seems to be on the low side does t it? Thanks. Elaine ' Elaine K. Echols, A/CP p� nPrincipal Planner F-cJ (4� Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development - 401 McIntire Road "7'4) r Charlottesville, VA 22902 tfr 434/296-5823 x 3252 l — Wv b --\— J Vc��� �A. ( A\ C ) 5/30/2006 Ofi) 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 (PRO) With respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2006-00001 (the "ZMA"), Shifflet Farms LLC is the fee simple owner of the following parcels: • TMP 56H -00-00-A Shiftlett Farms LLC will 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 per market rate unit 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 construction within ten years of rezoning approval of the property, the cash pro er should e reallocated to VDOT's road maintenance funds for the Whitehall District. 'ons shall be mad in increments of$1,500 per lot, prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit for an improvements there �� on. svw4t ,1,, Iv..pry T 1.2 Capital Impacts: The owner shall contribute $1,000 per market rate unit to the County's capital improvement program for the purpose of mitigating impacts from this 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 will be created to maintain the parking area and sidewalk. Access easements will 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) 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 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 provide and record an access easement in a form approvable by the County on the property described as TMP 56-53 prior to the approval of the first building permit for any new construction. A Type B trail will be constructed by the Parks and Recreation department of the County. The temporary easement will 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 dr •' asements in a form approved by the County Attorney. The owner will construct a 6' trail nnecting five parking spaces to the greenway system, a 2100 +/- square foot tot to , rmwater facility and landscaping. The stormwater 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. All other development will be �` nv I�2., -u4V restricted. These areas snail 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. 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 CIe easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. The owner will construct a 6 trai and a stormwater facility. The stormwater facility shall be designed such that its , 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. All other development will be restricted. The owner will make a contribution of$3,000 to the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a pedestrian bridge. The contribution will 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: j 1 0 -rA Jnii 6. Msg.No16P 5•23. giv Farms LLC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23'1 day of May,2006,by John G. Desmond, Shiflett Farms L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. Mycommission expires: - `- P t� 010 KrE -O 0 ,....5z4 ---- Notary Public W ? ()&" ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES May 23, 2006 REC!Z VED Ms. Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner MAY ul15 Department of Community Development—Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Va 22902 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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'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 theproperty. If acceptable to the Commission, the plan should include a section. 4Ns .4 Response: The trail alignment to include a bridge has been shown on Development q4 c3` Plan sheet 3 of 3. A detail/section of the trail can be established with the 2 sr( `� Preliminary/Final Plans. yr- k 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 4`) �‘ ,4�� water, however; an extended drawdown time (after a rain event) is required to obtain '1 �' the pollutant removal. A fence or other physical barrier separating the facilities is 0,V4recommended 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 ?:frc w c, / 1402 Greenbrier Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22901 v r til Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 CJ\4".1( `- 1C — —_..._....__..._...._......_... yl%kd C�19� �° `y�v' . `�"� Lynchburg•Charlottesville ' , � 01' 4:1 impede maintenance of the storm sewer pipe. These comments may change if the Planning Commission does not endorse the location of the tot lot. Vk.5 � ,gyp Response: A 42-inch high safety fence around the tot lot has been added to the plan St, UY_- (see the Development Plan sheet 3 of 3). The tot lot has been relocated to the west of ` o� the stormwater management facility and is no longer impacted by the storm sewer J\ / pipe. k U iCk Js, 3. Comment: Updated Traffic Impact Study— The study analyzed critical intersections kcx based on the traffic that would be generated during the peak hour. The study shows 6•,{J'' ( that each of these intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. 1�J5 oP Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the connections to the future Eastern c1 . Avenue will divert a significant amount of traffic from these intersections. However, 5 the study did not address the impact to the capacity of the existing streets. The study k l, _ 1,4 notes that the existing Park Road(Rte. 1204) ranges from 20.5 to 21 feet wide. Based ijk 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. \-5 Response: Capacity/Level or Service � j, 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 , 3 , Eastern Connector, Route 1204 is expected to operate at level of service (LOS)B. p'' Design Criteria 03.Nyam, f C 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 ?j J` 0streets and highways are unsafe, nor does it mandate the initiation of 1QV improvement projects. This publication is not intended as a policy for ` • resurfacing, restoration or rehabilitation (RRR) projects......Specific site X VP investigations and accident history analysis often indicate that the existing e ' design features are performing in a satisfactory manner. The cost of full reconstruction for these facilities, particularly where major realignment is not � ,�.r�'N�yC, \� required, will often not be justified....... „ , , < Impacts of Widening� The existing roadway has 20.5 to 21 feet of pavement. Roadside development consists setierVe-A of houses in relatively close proximity to the street, the Claudius Crozet Park, and in �- Xt7 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 IIII 1 `,, Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 65 'kd4X b. 3" 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)J 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 AA ISTO 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 xliii : 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 • •••• • 948 combinations of requirements that are always conflicting result in unique solu- lanes 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 ...... 950 and is supplemented by recent research. This text is also intended to form a -•-• 954 comprehensive reference manual for assistance in administrative, planning, • •• 959 and educational efforts pertaining to design formulation. 963 The fact that new design va ues are presenherein oes not imp y t at 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- 969 ing, restoration or rehabilitation(R.R.R.) projects. For projects of this type, 971 where major revisions to horizontal or vertical curvature are not necessary or . a. - «.•• 97 practical,existing design values may he retained. Specific site investigations 973 and accident history analysis often indicate that the existing design features . 974 are performing in a satisfactory manner. The cost of full reconstruction for .• 974 these facilities, particular] where major reali meet is not r uired, will a'.•••••• 975 often not be 'notified Resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation projects •••••• 983 i, 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- ,IC •••• 994 bilitation and related publications for guidance. 996 The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by reterenc- .. 996 ing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Sufficient Qexibil- $ 997 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 •• •• 1001 used where the social, economic and environmental(S.E.E.)impacts are not 1001 `. critical. 1002 Emphasis has been placed on the joint use of transportation corridors by 1002 pedestrians, cyclists and public transit vehicles. Designers should recognize 0. 1(l04 the implications of this sharing of the transportation corridors and are encour- 1005 ,a aged to consider not only vehicular movement, but also movement of people, >R=` 1008 distribution of goods.and provision of essential services. A more comprehen- -_ 1012 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 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 COMMUNITY OF CROZET 5/4/2006 Units Number of Existing Dwelling units as of 6/05,estimated by GDS 1451 Number of By-Right Dwelling Units/Lots Approved(FINAL SUB&Final SDP)2004&2005-No CO's as of 6/05 SUB 04-136 Ballard Field 63 SUB 04-102 Upper Ballard Field 43 SUB 05-113 Westhall I&II(SF) 49 SDP 05-17 Ballard Field Townhouses 79 SUB 05-391 Old Trail Creekside II-Phase 1-Final 35 Total 269 Number of Units/Lots on Approved PRELIMINARY Plats and Site Plans SUB 04-288 Old Trail Creekside 24 SUB 05-259 Old Trail Creekside II-Phase I 96 SUB 05-229 Clayton 27 SUB 05-146 Westhall Phase III 9 SUB 04-134 West End at Western Ridge 17 SDP 05-90 Westhall Phase IV 36 Total 173 Number of Units-Rezonings APPROVED in Crozet since Master Plan Adoption ZMA 04-24 Old Trail Village 2275 ZMA 04-17 Wickham Pond 107 Total 2382 Number of Units-Rezonings UNDER REVIEW ZMA-02-05 &89 ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 51 ZMA 05-07 Haden Place 34 ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 127 ZMA 06-01 Westhall Phase V 38 ZMA 06-03 Jarman Hill 96 Total 346 Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey From: Jack Kelsey Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:48 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Westhall Attachments: E2_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc; VDT Comments_030806.pdf My comments and VDTs comments are attached. I'll also post in CityView. Sincerely, Jack M.Kelsey, PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle,Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax 5/2/2006 , OF AL,t finGicat' 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 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 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—N 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 Road,I recommend the pavement be widened to at least 22 feet,as stated in the VDOT comments dated 8 March 2006 and 3 March 2004 (see attached). However, the most effective solution would be the provision of additional means of access via the construction of Eastern Avenue. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachment File: E2_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV.doc Y 4. Jir COMMONCOMMONWEA1,1 II OF VTR GiNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,VA 22701 GREGORY A.WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER March 8, 2006 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Please find our comments for the February 2006 Rezonings and Special Use Permits: SP 2006-00003 American Cancer Society Polo Match,Route 684: (Amy Arnold) • This is a one day event scheduled for June 18, 2006. • The site is located off of Roseland Farm Road(a private road) off of Route 684. • The event may have an impact on the day of the match only. Therefore some traffic control plan should be developed to coordinate traffic at the 691 intersection and the Route 250 intersection with Route 684. FZMA 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. 1------"*".444.414111090YEAttsos rxOEx+t.>dac 1 9 0 6 < 2 0 0 6 March 8, 2006 Mr. Bill Fritz Page Two If there are any questions please contact me at the residency office. Sincerely, eA)-(A.L;a John W. Winn Jr. L.S. cc: David Benish, Juan Wade, Glenn Brooks,Allan Schuck, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, Elaine Echols,Joan McDowell, and John Giometti rk i 1 , l y lf COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY PHILIP A.SHUCET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L.BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER March 3, 2004 S 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) (AKA Westhall) § 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 Jack Kelsey From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:08 PM To: Bill Fritz; Jan Sprinkle; Jack Kelsey Cc: Tamara Ambler Subject: Westhall Phase V Resubmitted Hi all, Westhall Phase V has been resubmitted. It is going to the PC on May 10 for a worksession. A traffic impact analysis and stormwater management plan has been submitted with the new information. I think that Jan's issues of clarity may be resolved. Now that you may be able to see what is going on, you may be able to provide more detailed comments relative to zoning. I am going to set up a meeting where we can look this over together to see what has changed and judge what you need to provide me for the worksession. I've put the plans in your respective boxes. I've put a deadline for comments in CityView. 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 '10/2006 Y, dt' � COMMONWEAETT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,VA 22701 GREGORY A.WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER March 8, 2006 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning &Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Please find our comments for the February 2006 Rezonings and Special Use Permits: SP 2006-00003 American Cancer Society Polo Match,Route 684: (Amy Arnold) • This is a one day event scheduled for June 18, 2006. • The site is located off of Roseland Farm Road (a private road) off of Route 684. • The event may have an impact on the day of the match only. Therefore some traffic control plan should be developed to coordinate traffic at the 691 intersection and the Route 250 intersection with Route 684. 1.11111111. fJesthall 1 —Phase V, Route 120laine 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. al."'--------00yEAlts aF RANsPo rhTION ExCELLU4CE 1 9 0 6 • 2 0 0 6 1 •r March 8, 2006 Mr. Bill Fritz Page Two If there are any questions please contact me at the residency office. Sincerely, (yt,._C1..u9 L.S. John W. Winn Jr. L.S. cc: David Benish, Juan Wade, Glenn Brooks, Allan Schuck, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, and John Giometti c�l 4JO(D me,4,,,,i gr-,-_7J... \tor co-i ivto-,,c6 : 3 a.,t d rio W. S e-t- r O-iter Cavin445 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM MA- wf G , TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner s GvwA 'Q R-F L �^eC6 ii FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE—County Engineer f DATE: 27 February 2006 CXri L��S �w �tv ,r—C SUBJECT: ZMA 2006-01 Westhall—Phase V N J.�N Unr( (. 4..Q//S l`?N1 . 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 uk. A traffic impact study,titled"Crozet Park Townhomes",was prepared by Fitzgerald&Halliday,Inc. or, 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 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. v 2. Stormwater Management L . 1 • Stormwater management facility "B" (approved to serve portions of Phases I — IV) is to be Sv �Jl 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 V 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. a tree planting strip is desired or required by the County,this strip must be widened o 6 feet mimum. \rl The Eastern Avenue right-of-way illustrated in this phase,and reserved for dedication in Phase I Vim' S and II publicrezoning request. be dedicated to use with this re uest. 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 the adjacent development. As a result the required right-of- way may vary from 65 feet to 80 feet. Based on this information the 50 foot right-of-way shown on the plan is not adequate for Eastern Avenue as envisioned by the Crozet Master Plan. 1 /8 The Phase I and II final plat delineated and labeled a 10 foot pedestrian easement along the 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. JK\ File El_zmajmk_Westhall_PhaseV doc A ; , , _____. i ,4. 1 1 r , li -:,:_? ,,, g I (1 i i t-. , 1 . i•-?Zsc 4 0 I 1 4 1 .r. 4 —5 --F ? „-cl-E.A./ _, , /.-37 a 0 __43 --- 1 .. 1 `. . --p_ a . p---,...,,,u _., J 4 i I 3 _LA 1 1 ,r---,..,„.___________i , --; , --. .... / j 1 4 g .31' J\1 - - _ 4 Pi 3 p , , -,, , 0 ,... ---- _ . , I4 ,,„, ,..„ i , ., , ,=, , i -4 ,-._ -f. 1 / -,, .. ., „ ,..., , ,, ,, i.„ 4.___. 1 -_-..-.1 jju F (0 v, V 6 %.__ . J-r k_ - ' cl- 1. f \ A- 4- ---' .. . .1 ‘r-r- TO- _48 s I 1- 4 _.9 tl I Page 1 of Jack Kelsey From: David Jensen [djensen©wwassociates.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:16 AM To: Jack Kelsey Subject: FW: Westhall Phase V ZMA Attachments: 487.pdf.pdf Jack, Attached is the F&H Crozet Park Townhomes Traffic Assessment Study for S.R. 1204. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations PLIAVI ASSOCIATES 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: 434.978.2908 Fax: 434.978.1444 djensen@wwassociates.net www.wwassociates.net From: Melissa Dowell [mailto:mdowell@wwassociates.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:03 AM To: djensen@wwassociates.net Subject: Melissa Dowell Office Coordinator WW Associates, Inc. 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, Va 22901 Phone 434.984.2700 fax 434.978.1444 2/23/2006 Page 1 of 1 Jack Kelsey From: David Jensen [djensen@wwassociates.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:26 PM To: Jack Kelsey Subject: RE: Westhall Phase V ZMA Jack, I'll dig it up for you. I believe I can get it to you tomorrow. Regards, David M. Jensen, PE Manager Charlottesville Operations Sl iYw kY.kS ASSOCIATES 1402 Greenbrier Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: 434.978.2908 Fax: 434.978.1444 djensen@wwassociates.net www.wwassociates.net From: Jack Kelsey [mailto:JKELSEY©albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:06 PM et-; c0,L £ To: David Jensen Subject: Westhall Phase V ZMA David, I'm reviewing the ZMA for Westhall Phase V. I was going through the files for the previous phases to see if there was any analysis of potential off-site impacts to the existing street system. I noticed a reference you made to a study conducted by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. dated October 2003, but have been unable to locate a copy in our files. In brief-what was the scope of the study? Did it include this phase? Can you provide me with a copy? Sincerely, Jack M. Kelsey,PE County Engineer Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia jkelsey@albemarle.org (434)296-5832 ext 3376 (434)989-4182 Mobile (434)972-4099 Fax 2/21/2006 tilett (4,of COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS, SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE: Karen Kilby,VDOT Culpeper Chuck Proctor,VDOT Jack McClelland,Albemarle County Health Department Jay Schlothauer,Building Codes and Zoning Services Gary Whelan, Albemarle County Service Authority Bill Fritz,Zoning and Current Development Jack Kelsey,Administration—County Engineer James Barber,Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Division Jan Sprinkle,Zoning Dan Mahon,Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation Margaret Maliszewski,Architectural Review Board Julie Mahon, Historic Preservation Planner Greg Harper,Environmental Planning FROM: Albemarle County Department of Community Development—Planning Division DATE: February 6, 2006 RE: New Rezonings and Special Use Permits This memo contains the list of special use permit and rezoning applications received on January 23, 2006. Written comments are requested on the following items by February 24, 2006. PROJECT: SP 2006-00003 American Cancer Society Pink Ribbon Polo LEAD REVIEWER: Amy Arnold PROPOSED: One day polo match,benefits American Cancer Society ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA--Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density(0.5 unit/acre) SECTION: Section 31.2.4, 10.2.2.42, 5.1.27 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space, and natural,historic and scenic resources/density(0.5 unit/acre) LOCATION: King Family Winery, 6640 Roseland Farm,Crozet MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall PROJECT: ZMA 2006-00001 Westhall 1- Phase V LEAD REVIEWER: Elaine Echols PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.957 acres from R-1 Residential(1 unit/acre)to PRD Planned Residential District residential(3 -34 units/acre). 38 single family detached units proposed at a density of 4 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes No X(if they are submitted later in the process, this should be updated) EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: CT 4 CT 5 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes No X cc: Architectural Review Board(6) Krystal Brinkley Mary Hughes Jill Marks Melissa Spangler United States Postal Service USPS Manager—Maintenance Jennifer Whitaker E-mail copy: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Steve Allshouse Karla Bower Ella Carey Harrison Rue Jim Tolbert Lisa Green John Jones Sabrina Stanwood Tom Foley Wayne Cilimberg David Benish Jeff Werner Amelia McCulley Ron White Lee Catlin Amy Arnold Roderick Burton Lauren Sandy OFFICE USE ONLY ZMA# a000- 000©l TMP .) 5 G 6 D - U (3 - C O - O 4i lr 0 O Sign# 6/q ! Magisterial District: h l 4�-�- Staff: Y/.d P Date: I\3t) i Application for Zoning Map Amendment re ❑ Under 50 acres=$1020 0 50 acres or more=$1570 ❑ Minor amendment to previous request=$220 Project Name(how should we refer to this application?): Westhall Phase V *Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: PRD • (*staff will assist you with this item) Number of acres to be rezoned(if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): 9.002 Is this an amendment to an existing Planned District? ❑YES ✓❑NO Is this an amendment to existing proffers? ❑YES p NO Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this_application? p✓ YES 0 NO Are you submitting a preliminary subdivision plat with this application? p YES--0 NO Are you proffering a plan with this application? ✓l YES 0 NO Contact Person(Who should we call/wnte concerning this project?): Frank Stoner, Stonehaus Address 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22901 Daytime Phone(434) 974-7588 Fax# 975-3542 E-mail fstoner@stonehaus.net Owner of Record Shiflett Farm,L.L.0 do Stonehaus Address 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22901 974-7588 Fax# 975-3542 E-mail fstoner@stonehaus.net Daytime Phone(434) Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing? Who is requesting the rezoning?): Shiflett Farm,L.L.0 do Stonehaus Address 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 301 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22901 Daytime Phone(434) 974-7588 Fax# 975-3542 E-mail fstoner@stonehaus.net Tax map and parcel: 56-46 Physical Street Address(if assigned): none Location of property(landmarks,intersections,or other): End of Park Road, Crozet Does the owner of this property own(or have any ownership interest in)any abutting property? If yes,please list those tax map and parcel numbers 56-53 OFFICE USE ONLY /' /7 h Fee amount$/O'90 Date Paid i I�3 I0 eck# t/0)'✓ y Who? f-�G( 1 ; -p Receipt#tjt J ei/ �y ) ) i dory: r 0 Special Use Permits: 0 ZMAs&Proffers: -, ❑ Variances: 0 Letter of Authorization ?;'w _gr _ • Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? 0 YES 0 NO �, d�Q County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 7 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Voice: (434)296-5832 Fax: (434)972-4126 e , 7/1/04 Paget 3 Ni- , 1,-- Section 15.2-2284 of the Code of Virginia states that, "Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of property, the comprehensive plan,the suitability of property for various uses,the trends of growth or change,the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies,the transportation requirements of the community,the requirements for airports, housing, schools,parks,playgrounds,recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources,the preservation of flood plains,the preservation of agricultural and forestal land,the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the locality." The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? R-1 What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve? Densification of-Urban Growth Area consistent with Comprehensive Plan for Crozet. Are public water,sewer,and roads available to serve this site? Will there be any impact on these facilities? Yes,there are adequate public facilities to serve the development. What impact will there be on the County's natural,scenic,and historic resources? No significant impact. Site is adjacent to existing trailer park and residential development. OPTIONAL:Do you have plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved? If so please describe: Yes.We plan to develop a PRD consistent with plane submitted with this application. If you would like to proffer any restrictions on the development of the property,please list these proffers on the following optional attachment entitled,"PROFFER FORM". Proffers are voluntary offers to use property in a more restrictive way than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By State Code,proffers must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezoning must give rise to the need for the proffers;the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operation of the property;and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 7/1/04 Page 2 of 3 Describe your request in detail including why you are requesting this particular zoning district. ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED—provide two (2) copies of each p 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey,please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat-Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property;it needs to be described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. p 2. Ownership information—If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including,but not limited to,the name of a corporation,partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. • If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: p 3. Provide 16 copies of any drawings or conceptual plans. ❑ 4. Proffer Form signed by owner(s). ❑ 5. Additional Information, if any. (16 Copies) Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate,true, and correct to the best of my knowledge.-- /, 6.-y4) _ _ _ . ,qi . rr i , ('. C- , SicN, (;ruit .�:,, r p'4i .cam" 6 - M., - ,�, ,n cr - 1 <�/Z.1/ ' Signature of Owner ` Date f A.-,,;' , --S AI k".. .1 (g11)`1/.. cl 3 Print Name Daytime phone number of.Signatoryy_., — - •--. <<cyipt-4-t ' '1'°� ` 7/1/04 Pate` of 3 Pa• ge 1 of 2 John Shepherd From: Pam Strother[pstrother@stonehaus.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:55 AM To: John Shepherd; Frank Stoner; Bob Fooks; Chris Schooley Cc: Elaine Echols Subject: RE ZMA-2006-1 Westhall Phase V Yes, phase 5 is single family detached dwellings. The trip generation is on sheet 3 of 3, on each road in a directional arrow that show the counts. Let me know if you have trouble finding it. From: John ShepherdZmailto:JSHEPHER@albemarle.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:45 AM To: Pam Strother; Frank Stoner; Bob Fooks; Chris Schooley Cc: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: ZMA-2006-1 Westhall Phase V Frank and Pam, I appreciate the clarification of the acreage. Please confirm that the proposal is for single family detached dwellings and provide the trip generation figure. Thank you John From: Pam Strother [mailto:pstrother©stonehaus.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:25 AM To: Frank Stoner; Bob Fooks; Chris Schooley; John Shepherd Subject: RE: ZMA-2006-1 Westhall Phase V Mr. Shepherd, I have just confirmed with the Engineer - WW associates. The acreage being rezoned is 8.957. It is correct on the plan and wrong on the application. I have attached a PDF of the application - I crossed out the wrong acreage and put in the correct acreage. Thanks! From: Frank Stoner Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:04 PM To: Bob Fooks; Chris Schooley; Pam Strother Subject: FW: ZMA-2006-1 Westhall Phase V I responded by phone on Friday but was unclear about the acreage. Apparently, there is a discrepancy between the application and the plan. Can you all get to the bottom of the problem and clarify for John. Thanks, Page2of2 Frank From: John Shepherd [mailto:JSHEPHER@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:22 PM To: Frank Stoner Cc: Elaine Echols • Subject: ZMA-2006-1 Westhall Phase V Frank, I ask that you clarify the following items in order to complete the application. This information must be received by noon on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006. 1. Number of dwelling units; 2. Type of dwelling units; 3. -Acreage of the area to be rezoned; and, 4. _Trip generation figures. — - Thank you. John 296-5832 X 3023