Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2011-11-16AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 November 16, 2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010-00017 — Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed the revised proffers dated October 12th for the subject rezoning request for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076RO-00-00-00100 & 076RO-00-00-OOOE4. Our comments are consolidated below. The comment numbers match the proffer numbers: Proffers Proffer 1: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the first sentence, change "Owner agrees to additional restrictions to apply..." to "The following restrictions shall apply within..." Proffer 2: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the third line, suggest changing "dedicate" to "convey" (in this context, "dedicate" has a connotation of conveying something for public use) and add a deadline for completing the conveyance after the RCA makes a request. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley of Zoning: (Previous comment does not appear to have been addressed) Because the existing trail plan for Redfields (proposed by the applicant and approved by the County) shows trails on this property, we cannot accept a proffer that restricts the residents from using the trail until the property is conveyed to the Association. Proffer 3: No comments Proffer 4: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: What equipment will be included in the tot lot and what does the proffer require that would not be required under Zoning Ordinance 4.16? Also, what is a "scenic area"? Proffer 5: No Comments Proffer 6: No Comments Proffer 7: The following comment has been provided by Joel DeNunzio of VDOT: This proffer identifies the owner providing a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road for the additional traffic. The proffer also says the owner will perform an overlay on the existing pavement if the analysis recommends this improvement. This was not the intent of the VDOT comments previously submitted. The existing Fieldstone Road was designed for the number of trips associated with the existing number of units accessing the existing road. The new proposed development adds about 1000 trips per day and over doubles the existing traffic. The existing Fieldstone road was not designed for this volume of traffic and requires additional pavement thickness for the new proposed volume in addition to adequate drainage. The developers engineer proposed a 2 inch overlay of the road to get the needed pavement structure but this would not be adequate for this road. VDOT requested a pavement analysis prior to the increase in the structural capacity to identify existing base failures in the road. This road is close to 20 years old and a simple overlay will not bring it up to capacity due to existing base, subbase and surface failures. The proper way to identify the needs for the road and to increase the structural capacity is to: design the adequate pavement structure for the proposed pavement according to the new traffic numbers, perform a pavement analysis, mill the existing surface material, replace base materials or base and subbase materials in places identified on the pavement analysis where there are failures in the base or subbase, excavate unsuitable materials where needed, install underdrains along the road due to the new volumes being in excess of 1000 trips per day, add asphalt base material in accordance with the new pavement structure for the proposed number of trips, add surface asphalt material in accordance with the new pavement structure for the proposed number of trips. The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: Based on conversations with Joel DeNunzio, it is suggested that the reference to "overlay" on line 4 be changed to "reconstruction". The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: This proffer should state "improvements" and keep it open because it will depend. It should also state the "first final subdivision plat in phase V.' Proffer 8: The following comment has been provided by Glenn Brooks: Proffer 8 commits the owner to build an asphalt path from phase 5 to Redfields Road. This should be on a plan, and all affected property owners should be part of the request. From a practical standpoint, the right-of- way referenced in this proffer contains landscaping, ditches and areas that are maintained as yards. Asphalt paths have also historically had significant quality issues. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: It is not clear how this can be accommodated within the right-of-way as stated/proposed. This needs to be worked out either way — as proposed or by showing that adequate easement exists for it to be on private property on existing lots. Proffer 9: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: This proffer may address the concerns of some residents in the existing Redfields development; however, this really is not a proffer. We don't anticipate the County wanting to put itself in a position of enforcing this proffer. These matters are more appropriate in a recorded declaration of restrictions. 2 The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: Based on this proffer, proposed phase V will need to stand on its own in meeting recreational requirements and based on a proposal of over 80 townhouse units, two tot lots are required with a minimum 2,000 square feet (Section 4.16.2). The plan shows one tot lot. Proffer 10: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the last sentence, "Wintergreen" should be changed to "Evergreen" and the timing for installing the gate and vehicular access should be added. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: This proffer should either state a standard or state that it will be built to a standard acceptable by Albemarle County Fire Rescue. It also needs to state a trigger as to when it will be built. As we have discussed, this rezoning request is scheduled for a Board of Supervisors public hearing on December 14, 2011. In summary, the executive summary to the Board of Supervisors for the December 14, 2011 public hearing will be based on the existing proffers reviewed by staff and the comments in this letter. The proffers are in need of both technical and substantive revisions and based on the staff comments described in this letter, the proffers would not be supported by the County Attorney's office or reviewing staff. If the project is to stay active and you wish to keep the December 14th public hearing with the Board of Supervisors, you will need to provide the existing, signed proffers by Monday, November 21, 2011, which is when the legal ad and proffers for the December 14, 2011 Board meeting need to be completed. If you wish to resubmit revised proffers, we will reschedule the public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is carant(@albemarle.ora Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 12 Jan 2011 Rev. 1: 5 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev. 3: 8 Aug 2011 Rev.4: 7 Nov 2011 Subject: Redfields phase 5 (ZMA201000017) The application and plan for extending Redfields Phase 5 into the open space has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA20 100000 1, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) Rev. 1: Two of the facilities proposed with this amendment have significant impacts to stream buffer and critical slopes. These should be revised to eliminate or better minimize impacts. Rev.2: comment addressed. Rev.3-4: no new plans have been provided, only proffers. 2. It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) Rev. 1: The Class B type 1 standard is noted. A Class A was referenced in the original proffers for Redfields. A recorded easement should be obtained before any plan approvals for the off-site portion. Rev.2: comment addressed. Rev.3: no new plans have been provided. Rev.4: The proffers now contain, in number 8, a promise to build an asphalt path from phase 5 to Redfields Road. This should be on a plan, and all affected property owners should be part of the request. From a practical standpoint, the right-of-way referenced in this proffer contains landscaping, ditches and areas that are maintained as yards. Asphalt paths have also historically had significant quality issues. 3. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 5 held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the exact same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Rev.1-4: It is recommended that delinquent bond work be completed before any approvals. 4. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re -graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: This issue has not been addressed. I don't understand how the other access points mentioned by the applicant will help the situation. This may be better clarified with traffic counts and a study. Rev.2: This has been discussed with the applicant in a meeting, and the response letter indicates a traffic study, which I have not seen. Regardless, most of the improvements I'm talking about are physical geometric improvements not related to volume. The response also indicates they already have approval for these units, which seems crazy, as they cannot build the proposal without this rezoning being approved. This intersection should be improved. Rev.1-4: It is recommended that this intersection be improved. The primary movement is from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 through -right onto Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781, and the reverse, accessing the Rt. 631 intersection. The intersection needs to be re -graded to make this the primary movement, or the movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Country Green Rt. 875 toward Old Lynchburg Rd. Rt. 780, and eventually the future signal on Rt. 631. Either of these alternatives would eliminate the awkward 3 -way stop currently used to indiscriminately halt everyone for this problematic geometry. The road is built such that Country Green Rt. 875 appears to be continuation of the southern portion of Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 around a sharp turn. 5. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: The fact that the original development was approved in 1989 does not guarantee that this issue has been addressed. In 1989 traffic concerns were much less on this road, and development review was much different. The applicant should provide an exact measurement of the sight distance and what it would take to improve it if necessary, including considerations such as lanes and markings. Rev.2: The applicant needs to provide actual measurements of sight distance. Rev.3-4: Measurements have been provided showing inadequacies in sight distance at the Redfield Road entrance. This needs to be corrected in such as way that tall weeds and vegetation do not block sight distance in the future. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 5 6. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. Rev. 1: A traffic study should be provided. Rev.2: I have not received/reviewed a traffic study. Rev.3-4: The study indicates future problems at the left turn movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Rt. 631, and the left turn movement at Mountainwood and Old Lynchburg Road Rt. 780. The county should re-examine its long term plans in this area to direct traffic to future signals. See comment 4. Re -alignment of the Country Green Rt. 875 and Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 intersection to direct traffic toward Rt. 780 would help the future functioning of the Sunset Ave. Ext Rt. 781 and Rt. 631 intersection, which is the only intersection cited in the traffic study as needing attention. 7. The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not possible to develop lots 25-26, 4, and 103-107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. Rev. 1: The applicant has indicated that a critical slope waiver will not be necessary because roads and stormwater facilities are exempt. The exemption under section 18-4.2.6c is for facilities necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. This does not appear to be the case. The disturbances proposed for grading lots, stormwater management and erosion control measures can be scaled back with other parts of the proposed development, or realigned. Rev.2: A revised critical slopes waiver request is required to match the revised plan. Rev.3-4: There will be about 0.5 acres of disturbance of critical slopes, primarily for the entrance road and stormwater management and erosion control measures. These disturbances are technically exempt [18-4.2.6c]. With the current plan layout there are no reasonable alternatives to disturbing this small amount of critical slopes. 8. The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. Rev. 1-4: comment addressed. 9. The T -turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. Rev. 1: The T -turnaround should not be used. A cul-de-sac should be used. Rev.2-4: comment addressed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 5 10. The plan should include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul-de-sac at the new terminus. Rev. 1: This comment appears to be addressed. Rev.2-4: comment addressed. 11. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. Rev. 1: The comment still applies. As shown, it must be assumed that all these areas will be disturbed. This will be an issue with a critical slopes waiver. Rev.2-4: comment addressed. 12. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. It is not enough to place a note on the plan. If the review is to be delayed until final plans, the rezoning has to establish the criteria to be used for such a plan. Only the rezoning can establish requirements for such a plan, and various forms of proffers have been used for this in the past. Rev.2: I am curious as to whether this is standard language provided by the county attorney. Do we really need such vague statements as "approval shall not be unreasonably withheld." Rev.3: I object to the language (5.iv) "such finding not to be unreasonably withheld." If such colored commentary is to be in proffers, it should be two-sided, such as, "such finding not to be unreasonably requested or withheld." Rev.4: The offensive language has been removed. 13. It is unclear to me that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. Rev. 1-4: A travelway standard and private road standard for multi -family will be used. In conclusion, I will note that as a former homeowner in Redfields for almost ten years, this land was always represented to me as a natural area which would not be developed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 5 Map for reference; Map s ror oisgay purposes Dory • cenai Imagery «om the commorweaitn of utryima am Omer Spumes pti ^0 14: 6 e ea 1 Charlottesville �f�7g 76-46F 76-45 Ci ry � 1m 781 Legend m pp map may p: app ar p le�� N 7' 76R7 RA1 764gOC 76-46C m -03--C 76R7 -02-1A I: / m 0 16P\ -02 6k p2 I S 0 ��b °�' 76448 �sgs'c \ .<�� �i� F FSM o o..., a },1Y076R 02 .1 .•- A ^� 76R1 -01-1A . 76480 i ^ 7 ♦,. a 11611,0 1 R� � �YQ-P/AA 2sR6,R 02 022S?2I41`OQ�-p10A1r11.b66 p1/A. 10�1A61µ�'.A;e,1µ1�A1612��/1i3.0 1 71r3R��01"3fi0{�- -1 5 \sR,/A ,pAb �_' 7766- 8E.0i6'Tr12-1o6fU7!Ila 'J ,p16Q136oQ� Sp0 7 8076'�AR6P11011"ViRe 08B 76R -E4 -A A 7O6 -466 C9.QO/ 76R -OS --S 'L 10p p 1 4b, � 76P -0i- 1 A -06 16 61y 6µ0' A2 l:s 10•pej01 '� eRl. \.Q,1 � \ �(101♦ \ � 78?..a 16Q OQi^\' 16P 1'�bQ-� 104 PA X16 ) c 11 6 ♦ G A sRsS��� VILIPtER,\\\ \ � d ♦ �W ���9P \`.v\ p•02'2 Alp pp: a �'\ 76� _ 1 i6 n 6Q p 76F 150 4 \\111ry a 76P: 16 AOQ 1 ¢ �" fi 6`yA �� 76R 0 7j/ 1NK- 6 12 i1. 4 f.36`a` 76k OA- 01'�'� %., 16 'Y 6R O4 19 16� l /sRR 04 76R-6 oF� 76-135]P1\,4h`� ry¢ /� 7646C7 \� -•. 1.� z / 4-6 b,;.o�, ✓ 1/�6` 1`O ��' i �'n'_6.12054, 7s:12 I 7'0 "00 ;psRsR. 7�'og12s 6R.o4.B 761 s7s \ 76-46E X13 26'12f7A.pa 76R 1 Rb422 76-46A 875 6R 76Rti4R9 o�eR a.,1z `L/6 �s�R4.s773 �n 780 165h 76-46H ry" CSS;?' .mss ^ X67 �. o. +Y ¢ y� .� a 76-54P i,Y �� ^� H �76R-64'-1719 /S 9 76-496 .S. yry ryA7 p 4�. " ^ 7652E Q U 76-53D ^ lsS of j;c 16P 781 ZN 9P 16e `� 631 160 M <nr 76-49C 16j G1y0 h�Pry ^f6 TM: 76 16 G., 0JE4 16 76-53 ♦ 16� VyC�G?^ �^� 76-53P 76-531( 76-51B, 176- A CVO IT" 7653E ^ � � 76153Q 63 / 89-73D 90E-5 76-51C 5 3 H 9bE-A s2 / �,• 076 76-53F2 9pR sBF �� %531 oQ' c :4 AMBROSE CC a♦ m 90E-t'4A '90 vs d 76_'53F1 8B- rn s t,7 9 76 5�'1 - - 9OA-2 - 544 ft 9p� 7 90E-7 7347 90F ` 9 988�7p 631 m 90A1 -1D • �. 9pE 98� 79 �, x'78 '.a 090 06Pi 2 98 8 81=7 - 30�V 90484 ��0E-!A `F9 9p 1-1 / 90A-4 901c 73 `90 F7 � -:.r U,.2 • R/S .� r- � 90E-11 �� X20 9 90-1 A 76-51A € capeaan-a �esery rnw,.a cemae pis Map s ror oisgay purposes Dory • cenai Imagery «om the commorweaitn of utryima am Omer Spumes r� 'AL � IRGS?at� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: October 21, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010-017 Redfields — Z6 These comments are based on my review of this resubmittal with proffers dated October 12, 2011 sent via letter from Steve Blaine of the same date: 1. Proffer #1 — The proposed revisions are responsive to my prior comments. The proposed proffer now limits disturbance and provides for replanting where practical. 2. (Prior comment does not appear to have been addressed) Because the existing trail plan for Redfields (proposed by the applicant and approved by the County) shows trails on this property, we cannot accept a proffer that restricts the residents from using the trail until the property is conveyed to the Association. 3. Proffer #5 — The proposed revisions are responsive to my prior comments. 4. Proffer #6 — The proposed revisions appear to be responsive to prior comments. 5. Proffer #7 — Based on the interdivision meeting discussion with VDOT and the County Engineer, a pavement overlay is insufficient and this road was not previously approved and/or designed to carry this proposed traffic. The proffer should state "improvements" and keep it open because it will depend. It should also state the "first final subdivision plat in phase V." 6. New proffer #8 — It is not clear how this can be accommodated within the right-of-way as stated/proposed. This needs to be worked out either way — as proposed or by showing that adequate easement exists for it to be on private property on existing lots. 7. New proffer #9 — Based on this proffer, proposed phase V will need to stand on its own in meeting recreational requirements. Based on a proposal of over 80 townhouse units, two tot lots are required with a minimum 2,000 square feet (Section 4.16.2). The plan shows one tot lot. 8. New proffer #10 — This proffer should either state a standard or state that it will be build to a standard acceptable by Albemarle County Fire Rescue. It also needs to state a trigger as to when it will be built. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: August 18, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010-017 Redfields — Z5 I appreciate the revisions to proffers per staff comments. These comments are based on my review of this resubmittal with proffers dated July 18, 2011: Proffer #1 — While this proffer language is improved, there are still concerns about what it achieves. This area is called a buffer, yet because disturbance is allowed with little limitation, it is effectively open space. Even the provision of replanting will be limited by certain uses, such as utilities. Staff suggests that for it to serve the purpose / intent of a buffer that limitations to encroachment be included in the proffer. As an example, staff recommends limiting disturbance to a) the location of public utilities when an alternative location is not practical and/or b) removal of trees that are determined by an arborist to be diseased or dying. For the replanting standard, please add that the 1 1/2 inch caliper is as measured at six inches above ground (Reference Section 4.3). 2. Because the existing trail plan for Redfields (proposed by the applicant and approved by the County) shows trails on this property, we cannot accept a proffer that restricts the residents from using the trail until the property is conveyed to the Association. 3. Proffer #5 — The lead-in language should state "before the first final subdivision plat is approved" rather than "a final subdivision plat." 4. Please use Greg's suggested language for Proffer #6. The current language intends to bind property that is not part of this rezoning application. I appreciate that this is the applicant's attempt to be responsive to our suggestion that they clarify with a proffer that they are reducing the number of lots/dwellings that can be developed. 5. Proffer #7 — It seems odd that the only action is a pavement analysis. It does not obligate the developer to any action based on the results of the pavement analysis. 6. Because we have run into some problems when property is conveyed and obligations remain, it is sometimes better for the proffer to obligate the Developer rather than the Owner. This might best be addressed by Greg. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia -22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax' (434) 972-4176 August 17, .2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010-00017 Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed your fourth submittal for rezoning received on July 18th for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076RO-00-00-00100 & 076RO-00-00-OOOE4. Our comments are consolidated below: Planding The plan shows the 100 foot buffer as undisturbed. Is this an undisturbed buffer? Proffer#1 seems to allow a lot of room for disturbance. Please refer to ZMA200100001 proffers for proffers relating to Section 4.7, which addresses disturbance in open space areas. In general staff has expressed some concerns regarding this proposal both in comment letters and during meetings. As we have discussed, these concerns still remain issues. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical revisions. Engineering The following comments related to engineering matters have been provided. by Glenn Brooks: As previously mentioned, it is -recommended .that delinquent bond work be completed before any approvals. Before adding more development -to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue -Extended and Country Green Lane needs -to be realigned and re -graded. It isthe sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for -the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms.'The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping -for leftturns.- This development will create a significant increase in -traffic at this intersection. It is -noted that VDOT placed signs -at this intersection -for a -three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the.same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec .2006.) 'Rev.3: It is recommended that -this intersection be improved. The primary movement is -from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 -through -right onto Sunset Ave..Ext. Rt. 781, and the reverse, accessing the Rt. 631 intersection. The intersection needs -to be re -graded to make this the primary movement or the movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Country Green Rt. 875 toward Old Lynchburg Rd. Rt. 780, and eventually the future signal on Rt. 631. Either of these alternatives would eliminate the awkward 3 -way stop currently used to indiscriminately halt everyone for this problematic geometry. The road is built such that Country Green Rt. 875 appears to be continuation of the southern portion of Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 around a sharp turn. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for.ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev..3: Measurements have been provided. showing inadequacies.in sight distance -at the Redfield Road entrance. This needs to be corrected in such -as way that -tall weeds -and vegetation do not block sight distance in the future. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. Rev.3: The study indicates future problems at the left turn movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Rt. 631, and the left turn movement at Mountainwood and Old Lynchburg Road Rt. 780. The county should re-examine its long term plans in -this area to direct traffic to future signals. See comment 4. Re -alignment of the Country Green Rt. 875 and Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 intersection to direct traffic toward Rt. 780 would help the future functioning of the Sunset Ave. Ext Rt. 781 and Rt. 631 intersection, which is the only intersection cited in'the traffic study as needing attention. • There will be about 0.5 acres of disturbance of critical slopes, primarily for the entrance road. and. stormwater management and erosion control measures. These disturbances are technically exempt [18-4.2.6c]. With the current plan layout there are no reasonable alternatives to disturbing this small amount of critical slopes. • With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. Rev.3:_I object to the language (5.iv) "such finding not to be -unreasonably withheld." If such colored commentary is to be in proffers; it should be two-sided, such as, "such finding not to be unreasonably requested or withheld." You may want to look at other similar proffers. Based on this being a government entity, it is always going to be reasonable. Current Development The following comment related to site plan issues is provided by Bill Fritz: The critical slopes analysis will be prepared for the staff report. VDOT I• Please see attached memo from Joel DeNunzio. Proffers .Zoning and Planning staff have been working with the County Attorney regarding acceptable proffer language for this rezoning proposal. The County Attorney is revising the proposed language which we will provide -to you as soon as we have it. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read -this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: 2' http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Developm ent/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. -My email address is cgrant .albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachments COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS August 17"', 2011 Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Redfields Phase 5 Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, 24 VAC 30-155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled Redfields Phase 5 by Collins Engineering. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio Area Land Use Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Redfields Phase 5 Residential Development Albemarle County, VA Project ID: ZMA-2010-00017 Prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources for Collins Engineering Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions: • No errors or omissions have been identified by the VDOT review of the traffic impact study. Summary of Data: • The study adequately addresses the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis regulations. • The study does not identify any major impacts to the transportation network from the development. • The safety study indicates that the crashes on Route 781 and Route 875 are mainly due to the two roads having narrow travel lanes with little to no shoulder from the travelway to the ditch. The safety study also indicates that the steep approach grades contribute to crashes at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Road during adverse weather conditions. The data indicates that these crashes are minor in nature with only property damage. • The sight distance section of the safety study indicates that minor grading and trimming of vegetation will bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the current VDOT intersection sight distance standard. VDOT conducted a safety study at this intersection in 2002 and installed intersection approach warning signs on Route 781 on each approach to the intersection of Route 1270 due to limited stopping sight distance along 781 from a crest vertical curve. Study Recommendation: • The County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue. • The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road. Other Items: • A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid BY who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment - PROJECT NUMBER ��i©`- ��� PROJEC.T NAME:-)?Od P L ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number Resubmittal Fee is Not Required ! 11t Signature ate Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 $200+ actual cost of first-class postage ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 ,, Affie ,v �i _ lt..t.•-.. : m � .'�1„��� ..�. ....K. � S;-.,. MI F� .�sa�.. i`$"F,s`iiR: WWIN,, Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 w L Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission M-10-019=11 WONW, ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a.Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public. notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. CKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMA.RLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER MAKE CHE `? Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200+ actual cost of first-class postage $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first-class postage Actual cost Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126. 4/25/2011 Page 1 of 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 12 Jan 2011 Rev. 1: 5 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Rev.3: 8 Aug 2011 Subject: Redfields phase 5 (ZMA201000017) The application and plan for extending Redfields Phase 5 into the open space has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA20 100000 1, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) Rev. 1: Two of the facilities proposed with this amendment have significant impacts to stream buffer and critical slopes. These should be revised to eliminate or better minimize impacts. Rev.2: comment addressed. 2. It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) Rev. 1: The Class B type 1 standard is noted. A Class A was referenced in the original proffers for Redfields. A recorded easement should be obtained before any plan approvals for the off-site portion. Rev.2: comment addressed. 3. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the exact same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Rev. 1: Delinquent bond work needs to be completed before any approvals. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: It is recommended that delinquent bond work be completed before any approvals. 4. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re -graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 5 and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: This issue has not been addressed. I don't understand how the other access points mentioned by the applicant will help the situation. This may be better clarified with traffic counts and a study. Rev.2: This has been discussed with the applicant in a meeting, and the response letter indicates a traffic study, which I have not seen. Regardless, most of the improvements I'm talking about are physical geometric improvements not related to volume. The response also indicates they already have approval for these units, which seems crazy, as they cannot build the proposal without this rezoning being approved. This intersection should be improved. Rev.3: It is recommended that this intersection be improved. The primary movement is from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 through -right onto Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781, and the reverse, accessing the Rt. 631 intersection. The intersection needs to be re -graded to make this the primary movement, or the movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Country Green Rt. 875 toward Old Lynchburg Rd. Rt. 780, and eventually the future signal on Rt. 631. Either of these alternatives would eliminate the awkward 3 -way stop currently used to indiscriminately halt everyone for this problematic geometry. The road is built such that Country Green Rt. 875 appears to be continuation of the southern portion of Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 around a sharp turn. 5. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: The fact that the original development was approved in 1989 does not guarantee that this issue has been addressed. In 1989 traffic concerns were much less on this road, and development review was much different. The applicant should provide an exact measurement of the sight distance and what it would take to improve it if necessary, including considerations such as lanes and markings. Rev.2: The applicant needs to provide actual measurements of sight distance. Rev.3: Measurements have been provided showing inadequacies in sight distance at the Redfield Road entrance. This needs to be corrected in such as way that tall weeds and vegetation do not block sight distance in the future. 6. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. Rev. 1: A traffic study should be provided. Rev.2: I have not received/reviewed a traffic study. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 5 Rev.3: The study indicates future problems at the left turn movement from Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 onto Rt. 631, and the left turn movement at Mountainwood and Old Lynchburg Road Rt. 780. The county should re-examine its long term plans in this area to direct traffic to future signals. See comment 4. Re -alignment of the Country Green Rt. 875 and Sunset Ave. Ext. Rt. 781 intersection to direct traffic toward Rt. 780 would help the future functioning of the Sunset Ave. Ext Rt. 781 and Rt. 631 intersection, which is the only intersection cited in the traffic study as needing attention. 7. The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not possible to develop lots 25-26, 4, and 103-107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. Rev. 1: The applicant has indicated that a critical slope waiver will not be necessary because roads and stormwater facilities are exempt. The exemption under section 18-4.2.6c is for facilities necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. This does not appear to be the case. The disturbances proposed for grading lots, stormwater management and erosion control measures can be scaled back with other parts of the proposed development, or realigned. Rev.2: A revised critical slopes waiver request is required to match the revised plan. Rev.3: There will be about 0.5 acres of disturbance of critical slopes, primarily for the entrance road and stormwater management and erosion control measures. These disturbances are technically exempt [18-4.2.6c]. With the current plan layout there are no reasonable alternatives to disturbing this small amount of critical slopes. 8. The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. Rev. 1: comment addressed. 9. The T -turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. Rev. 1: The T -turnaround should not be used. A cul-de-sac should be used. Rev.2: comment addressed. 10. The plan should include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul-de-sac at the new terminus. Rev. 1: This comment appears to be addressed. Rev.2: comment addressed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 5 11. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. Rev. 1: The comment still applies. As shown, it must be assumed that all these areas will be disturbed. This will be an issue with a critical slopes waiver. Rev.2: comment addressed. 12. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. It is not enough to place a note on the plan. If the review is to be delayed until final plans, the rezoning has to establish the criteria to be used for such a plan. Only the rezoning can establish requirements for such a plan, and various forms of proffers have been used for this in the past. Rev.2: I am curious as to whether this is standard language provided by the county attorney. Do we really need such vague statements as "approval shall not be unreasonably withheld." Rev.3: I object to the language (5.iv) "such finding not to be unreasonably withheld." If such colored commentary is to be in proffers, it should be two-sided, such as, "such finding not to be unreasonably requested or withheld." 13. It is unclear to me that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. Rev. 1: A travelway standard and private road standard for multi -family will be used. In conclusion, I will note that as a former homeowner in Redfields for almost ten years, this land was always represented to me as a natural area which would not be developed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 5 Map for reference; Map s ror oisgay purposes Dory • cenai Imagery «om the commorweaitn of utryima am Omer Spumes pti ^0 14: 6 e ea 1 Charlottesville �f�7g 76-46F 76-45 Ci ry � 1m 781 Legend m pp map may p: app ar p le�� N 7' 76R7 RA1 764gOC 76-46C m -03--C 76R7 -02-1A I: / m 0 16P\ -02 6k p2 I S 0 ��b °�' 76448 �sgs'c \ .<�� �i� F FSM o o..., a },1Y076R 02 .1 .•- A ^� 76R1 -01-1A . 76480 i ^ 7 ♦,. a 11611,0 1 R� � �YQ-P/AA 2sR6,R 02 022S?2I41`OQ�-p10A1r11.b66 p1/A. 10�1A61µ�'.A;e,1µ1�A1612��/1i3.0 1 71r3R��01"3fi0{�- -1 5 \sR,/A ,pAb �_' 7766- 8E.0i6'Tr12-1o6fU7!Ila 'J ,p16Q136oQ� Sp0 7 8076'�AR6P11011"ViRe 08B 76R -E4 -A A 7O6 -466 C9.QO/ 76R -OS --S 'L 10p p 1 4b, � 76P -0i- 1 A -06 16 61y 6µ0' A2 l:s 10•pej01 '� eRl. \.Q,1 � \ �(101♦ \ � 78?..a 16Q OQi^\' 16P 1'�bQ-� 104 PA X16 ) c 11 6 ♦ G A sRsS��� VILIPtER,\\\ \ � d ♦ �W ���9P \`.v\ p•02'2 Alp pp: a �'\ 76� _ 1 i6 n 6Q p 76F 150 4 \\111ry a 76P: 16 AOQ 1 ¢ �" fi 6`yA �� 76R 0 7j/ 1NK- 6 12 i1. 4 f.36`a` 76k OA- 01'�'� %., 16 'Y 6R O4 19 16� l /sRR 04 76R-6 oF� 76-135]P1\,4h`� ry¢ /� 7646C7 \� -•. 1.� z / 4-6 b,;.o�, ✓ 1/�6` 1`O ��' i �'n'_6.12054, 7s:12 I 7'0 "00 ;psRsR. 7�'og12s 6R.o4.B 761 s7s \ 76-46E X13 26'12f7A.pa 76R 1 Rb422 76-46A 875 6R 76Rti4R9 o�eR a.,1z `L/6 �s�R4.s773 �n 780 165h 76-46H ry" CSS;?' .mss ^ X67 �. o. +Y ¢ y� .� a 76-54P i,Y �� ^� H �76R-64'-1719 /S 9 76-496 .S. yry ryA7 p 4�. " ^ 7652E Q U 76-53D ^ lsS of j;c 16P 781 ZN 9P 16e `� 631 160 M <nr 76-49C 16j G1y0 h�Pry ^f6 TM: 76 16 G., 0JE4 16 76-53 ♦ 16� VyC�G?^ �^� 76-53P 76-531( 76-51B, 176- A CVO IT" 7653E ^ � � 76153Q 63 / 89-73D 90E-5 76-51C 5 3 H 9bE-A s2 / �,• 076 76-53F2 9pR sBF �� %531 oQ' c :4 AMBROSE CC a♦ m 90E-t'4A '90 vs d 76_'53F1 8B- rn s t,7 9 76 5�'1 - - 9OA-2 - 544 ft 9p� 7 90E-7 7347 90F ` 9 988�7p 631 m 90A1 -1D • �. 9pE 98� 79 �, x'78 '.a 090 06Pi 2 98 8 81=7 - 30�V 90484 ��0E-!A `F9 9p 1-1 / 90A-4 901c 73 `90 F7 � -:.r U,.2 • R/S .� r- � 90E-11 �� X20 9 90-1 A 76-51A € capeaan-a �esery rnw,.a cemae pis Map s ror oisgay purposes Dory • cenai Imagery «om the commorweaitn of utryima am Omer Spumes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 July 6, 2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010-00017 — Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed your third submittal for rezoning received on June 6th for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076RO-00-00-00100 & 076RO-00-00-OOOE4. Our comments are consolidated below: Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission work session on November 30, 2010 for the related Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA201000001) request is still pending further study as it relates to the proposed future development of the subject Redfields open space area. The outstanding issue relating to the Comprehensive Plan Rural Area designation of this area remains a staff concern. Previous comments from the staff comment letters dated February 10th and April 20th still remain. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: • The following is provided regarding clarification about our comments suggesting the need for proffer language to reduce the permitted number of units: If a new proffer does not amend the existing proffer allowing 656 units, arguably that many units could still be built even if on property not subject to the current rezoning application. Without this amendment, the applicant's assertion that they are reducing the number of allowed units is not valid. • The proposed "undisturbed buffer" is neither a buffer nor is it undisturbed (as noted in proffer #1 and the Application Plan) with the currently proposed language. The proffer allows it to be disturbed "without limitation" for utilities and for the trail. I suggest that disturbance for utilities and the trail be allowed only if no alternative location is practical and only if you replant to a certain standard, to the extent permitted by the use (trail, utility, etc.). Much of the proffer language is not standard acceptable proffer language. The entire "reservations and clarifications" section does not seem appropriate for a proffer. • Proffer #2 as written is confusing and open to multiple interpretations. If the intent is to convey the open space only if the property is developed, it can be stated more plainly. Proffer #3 proposes a primitive trail, which is not our Development Areas standard for a trail. Since this is proposed to be developed as a project in the Development Area, you should revise this proffer to provide a more upgraded trail, more in keeping with the Development Area standards for trails. While we understand that the proposed trail will connect to an existing trail system that does not meet our current standards and that the proposed trail may be difficult to build we suggest that the proposed trail be upgraded to Development Area standards wherever possible. Proffer #4 is awkward as written, and it can lead to multiple interpretations. We suggest you state the following: "prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 65th dwelling, the following recreational improvements shall be constructed ..." Engineering The following comments related to engineering matters have been provided by Glenn Brooks: Staff acknowledges your response that you are aware of the previous staff comment related to the completion of bond work, however, staff is still concerned and would like to see the delinquent bond work completed before any approvals. Staff has previously discussed with you the concerns of an unsafe intersection at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane. Please see the staff comment letter dated April .20, 2011 for details. Staff believes most of the improvements are physical geometric improvements not related to volume. This intersection should be improved. • Regarding the safety concerns related to the main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended, as previously requested, staff would like you to provide actual measurements of sight distance. • A revised critical slopes waiver request is required to match the revised plan. Proffer 5 regarding overlot grading contains language that does not appear to be standard proffer language. For example, "approval... shall not be unreasonably withheld." is vague. • Staff is currently reviewing the traffic study, however, based on a preliminary review of the traffic study, staff would like to see the build -out year extended to a more reasonable year. .Also staff is concerned that the traffic study is not inclusive of other proposed developments within the vicinity of the proposed subject project. Albemarle County Service Authority The following comments related to water and sewer issues have been provided by Alexander Morrison: .• Gravity sewer option will be pursued for this development. VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Joel DeNunzio: • We received and preliminarily reviewed a Traffic Impact Study. A meeting is tentatively. .scheduled with you for July 12th prior to VDOT submitting written comments to the County on the study. • As previously mentioned, the application plan needs to show the connectivity index calculation. The plan lists an index of 1.6 but when I calculate -the index it is 1.5. The standard for the geometry of the road is a GS-SSAR. • Adding .2 inches of surface material to the existing Fieldstone Road will not increase the structural capacity of the road. A detailed pavement analysis needs to be performed prior to any proposed improvements for pavement structure. Consider providing a proffer for road improvements needed. The road widths need to be in accordance with the GS-SSAR standard -for ADT 2000-4000 per the note that lists roads with one access point. Limited parking on the streets will require a minimum of.2 parking spaces per unit off the right of way. The plan needs to identify adequate parking. I am concerned that the '10 foot front setback on the townhouse units will limit off right of way parking. 0) Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Developm ent/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development C: Redfields Development Corporation 3 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit �or �°6' lz Zoning Map Amendment �717�N PROJECT NUMBER: ? ft)h a1 U —QQ0 1_7 PROJECT NAME: pe4&ug ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Na(&L — 716,11 Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date Name of Applicant I Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original -Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE .❑ Each additional Tesubmission $1,750 .❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add' 1 notice fees will be required I $180 To be Daid after staff review for public notice: Mostapplicationsfora Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires -that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal .advertisement in -the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two -fees -for public notice are required before.a.Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided :to the applicant.after the final cost is determined.and must be paid before the application is heard by_a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 4/28/2011 Page i of 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: June 28, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010-017 Redfields — Z4 These comments are based on my review of this resubmittal: 1. The applicant asks for clarification about our comments suggesting the need for proffer language to reduce the permitted number of units. If a new proffer does not amend the existing proffer allowing 656 units, arguably that many units could still be built even if on property not subject to the current rezoning application. Without this amendment, the applicant's assertion that they are reducing the number of allowed units is not valid. 2. The proposed "undisturbed buffer" is neither a buffer nor is it undisturbed (as noted in proffer #1 and the Application Plan) with the currently proposed language. The proffer allows it to be disturbed "without limitation" for utilities and for the trail. I suggest that disturbance for utilities and the trail be allowed only if no alternative location is practical and only if they replant to a certain standard, to the extent permitted by the use (trail, utility, etc.). 3. Much of the proffer language seems to be legal posturing and is not standard acceptable proffer language. The entire "reservations and clarifications" section does not seem appropriate for a proffer. (Please seek input from the County Attorney's office on this.) 4. Proffer #2 as written is confusing and open to multiple interpretations. If they intent is that they convey the open space only if the property is developed, it can be stated more plainly. 5. Proffer #3 still proposes a primitive trail, not our development areas standard for a trail. While this is a connection to an existing trail system that does not meet our current standards, it does not seem to be a good idea to even waive the cross -slope standard in addition to the surface standard for all new trails. 6. Proffer #4 is also written very awkwardly and it can lead to multiple interpretations. Why not just state "prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 65t" dwelling, the following recreational improvements shall be constructed ..." County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 12 Jan 2011 Rev. 1: 5 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 10 June 2011 Subject: Redfields phase 5 (ZMA201000017) The application and plan for extending Redfields Phase 5 into the open space has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA20 100000 1, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) Rev. 1: Two of the facilities proposed with this amendment have significant impacts to stream buffer and critical slopes. These should be revised to eliminate or better minimize impacts. Rev.2: comment addressed. 2. It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) Rev. 1: The Class B type 1 standard is noted. A Class A was referenced in the original proffers for Redfields. A recorded easement should be obtained before any plan approvals for the off-site portion. Rev.2: comment addressed. 3. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the exact same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Rev. 1: Delinquent bond work needs to be completed before any approvals. Rev.2: no change. 4. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re -graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: This issue has not been addressed. I don't understand how the other access points mentioned by the applicant will help the situation. This may be better clarified with traffic counts and a study. Rev.2: This has been discussed with the applicant in a meeting, and the response letter indicates a traffic study, which I have not seen. Regardless, most of the improvements I'm talking about are physical geometric improvements not related to volume. The response also indicates they already have approval for these units, which seems crazy, as they cannot build the proposal without this rezoning being approved. This intersection should be improved. 5. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev. 1: The fact that the original development was approved in 1989 does not guarantee that this issue has been addressed. In 1989 traffic concerns were much less on this road, and development review was much different. The applicant should provide an exact measurement of the sight distance and what it would take to improve it if necessary, including considerations such as lanes and markings. Rev.2: The applicant needs to provide actual measurements of sight distance. 6. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. Rev. 1: A traffic study should be provided. Rev.2: I have not received/reviewed a traffic study. 7. The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not possible to develop lots 25-26, 4, and 103-107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. Rev. 1: The applicant has indicated that a critical slope waiver will not be necessary because roads and stormwater facilities are exempt. The exemption under section 18-4.2.6c is for facilities necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. This does not appear to be the case. The disturbances proposed for grading lots, stormwater management and erosion control measures can be scaled back with other parts of the proposed development, or realigned. Rev.2: A revised critical slopes waiver request is required to match the revised plan. 8. The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 Rev. 1: comment addressed. 9. The T -turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. Rev. 1: The T -turnaround should not be used. A cul-de-sac should be used. Rev.2: comment addressed. 10. The plan should include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul-de-sac at the new terminus. Rev. 1: This comment appears to be addressed. Rev.2: comment addressed. 11. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. Rev. 1: The comment still applies. As shown, it must be assumed that all these areas will be disturbed. This will be an issue with a critical slopes waiver. Rev.2: comment addressed. 12. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. It is not enough to place a note on the plan. If the review is to be delayed until final plans, the rezoning has to establish the criteria to be used for such a plan. Only the rezoning can establish requirements for such a plan, and various forms of proffers have been used for this in the past. Rev.2: I am curious as to whether this is standard language provided by the county attorney. Do we really need such vague statements as "approval.. shall not be unreasonably withheld." 13. It is unclear to me that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. Rev. 1: A travelway standard and private road standard for multi -family will be used. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 In conclusion, I will note that as a former homeowner in Redfields for almost ten years, this land was always represented to me as a natural area which would not be developed. AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 April 20, 2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010-00017 — Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed your second submittal for rezoning received on March 21St for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076RO-00-00-00100 & 076RO-00-00-OOOE4. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning • For clarification, the approved 656 units were approved for specific phases within the Redfields development. The open space phase was never approved to allow development of residential units. The current allowed use of the subject property is open space. The Board of Supervisors was fairly clear that in order to develop in the subject open space a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning would be necessary. If this area could be developed by -right, this rezoning request would not be needed. • As mentioned previously and in several comments below there is a need for proffers. Notes on the plan will not suffice. • There are approved proffers for the Redfields development. Will these proffers be amended? It seems they would need to be. • As shown on the plan, the undisturbed buffer to Sherwood Farms should also be included in a proffer. • Clarify Note 6. on Sheet 4 of the plans. Comprehensive Plan As previously mentioned in the staff comment letter dated February 10, 2011, the Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject property as Rural Areas. Previous comments from that staff comment letter still remain. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: • Since you are proposing a reduction in the number of units that can be built, are you proposing a change to the proffer that would legally reduce the number of units possible? This should be clarified with a proffer. • You claim to exceed the open space requirement of 25%. This is not your requirement since the proffer already offers 30% open space, not 25%. The application proposes building heights of 35 ft. but the Application Plan also states that "Up to 65' may be permitted subject to Section 18-19.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance" Including this last sentence is confusing. It should be removed. This should also be clarified with a proffer. In regards to the proposed segment of trail that goes off-site, who owns this property and do you have permission to use it? Is it the applicant's property? Will the adjoining residents also be allowed to use this trail system? Please clarify this with a proffer applicable to this property. Application Plan Sheet 5 shows "proposed tree limits (typ)." This has no effect without clear proffer language or other notes on the plan as to whether / where and how trees are to be preserved. This should also be a proffer applicable to this property. Previous comment stated "Your submittal states that this proposal will "allow for protection of critical slopes in the area, preservation of existing trees, and a substantial buffer adjacent to the existing residential parcels." Staff strongly recommends that all of these proposals be clearly depicted on the plan and within proffers. Engineering The following comments related to engineering matters have been provided by Glenn Brooks: • Conceptual stormwater management has now been provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. Two of the facilities proposed with this amendment have significant impacts to stream buffer and critical slopes. These should be revised to better minimize impacts. • The Class B type 1 standard is now noted. However, a recorded easement should be obtained before any plan approvals for the off-site portion. • The following previous comment is still a concern. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. Delinquent bond work needs to be completed before any approvals. • The following comment was included in the previous staff comments. It remains an issue that has not been addressed. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re -graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. Please explain how the other access points mentioned in your letter will help this situation. This issue may be better clarified with traffic counts and a study. • The following comment remains an issue. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. The fact that the original development was approved in 1989 does not guarantee that this issue has been addressed. In 1989 traffic concerns were much less on this road, and development review was much different. The applicant should provide an exact measurement of the sight distance and what it would take to improve it if necessary, including considerations such as lanes and markings. • As previously mentioned, a traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. • While you have indicated that a critical slope waiver will not be necessary because roads and stormwater facilities are exempt, the exemption under section 18-4.2.6c is for facilities 2 necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. This does not appear to be the case. The disturbances proposed for grading lots, stormwater management and erosion control measures can be scaled back with other parts of the proposed development, or realigned. Regarding the previous comment about T -turnarounds at the ends of streets, staff still feels these should not be used. A cul-de-sac should be used. The following previous comment still applies. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. As shown, it must be assumed that all these areas will be disturbed. This will be an issue with a critical slopes waiver. The following previous comment is still not addressed. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. A note on the plan is not sufficient. The rezoning can and should establish requirements for such a plan. There are various forms of proffers that have been used for this in the past. A travelway standard and private road standard for multi -family will be used for "Alley A". Current Development The following comments related to site plan issues have been provided by Bill Fritz: • You have proposed zero lot lines. Please verify with the fire official that adequate fire flow is or will be available in this area to permit the use of zero lot lines. Approval of the rezoning with zero lot line development will not relieve the requirement of obtaining fire official approval. • You have discussed Cedarwood Court and Teel Lane in regards to possible connections. These roads are distant from this rezoning and have no relationship to the rezoning currently before the County. • The trail design has been addressed; however, the timing for installation has not. Albemarle County Service Authority The following comments related to water and sewer issues have been provided by Alexander Morrison: • Please look at a gravity option for sewer to the Mosby lines so you will be draining into the Biscuit Run basin. JAUNT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Peter Ohlms: • The following is provided for your information: Redfields is in JAUNT's urban fare zone, where JAUNT provides trips primarily for people with disabilities. Charlottesville Area Transit would be the main transit option for the general public, and CAT's Route 2B currently operates near the site on Old Lynchburg Rd. and Fifth Street Extended. VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Joel DeNunzio: • The following previous comments have not been adequately addressed: The proposed stub out ends at an already subdivided lot in the Mountain Valley subdivision which does not appear to be common area according to the plan or county GIS Web as stated in the reply letter or a feasible future connection and will not meet the SSAR requirement of multiple connections in multiple directions. • Area Type and connectivity index are incorrect on the plan and need revisions. This layout does not appear to meet the connectivity index requirement of the SSAR's. Also, I am not considering the t turnaround a stub out for the above reasons and am calculating it as an intersection. With that condition the index is 1.33. If the stub out were in an acceptable location, the index would improve to 1.45 but will still not be the minimum 1.6 that is required for state maintained roads. • Adjoining property data to the lot that the stub out ends at is still not provided in the plan. • Proposed traffic volumes need to be projected with the methods in the ITE manual and Chapter 527 Regulations. This development needs to use the regression equations and the projected trips on the streets and the title sheet need adjustment. This proposed plan will meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. • Many elements continue to appear in conflict with the SSAR regulation and those conflicts will be noted below. This review is only of the layout and there is specific information that this plan does not show that the road plans will include. Any conflicts with this plan will need to be resolved to meet the minimum requirement and standards of the SSAR's prior to site plan approval. Traffic Study • Trip generation rates are used instead of the regression equations, which is not in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Administrative Code 24VAC30-155-60 section D2. The equations will result in an ADT of 1130 VPD and 111 in the PM peak hour. This meets the threshold to require a Chapter 527 Study as stated in comment #4. SSAR • The connectivity index calculations and a diagram should be included with the plan. The calculation is incorrect. • The index calculation is 1.33 and does not meet the minimum of 1.6 for a compact area type. This layout does not qualify for state maintained roads. • The proposed stub out is not in a feasible location for a future connection and is not acceptable as proposed. The stub out needs to be located to the Wintergreen Farm property, TMP -76-49B. Typical Section • Road widths will need to be in accordance with the GS -SSR standard for roads with ADT's of 2000-4000 because there is only one access point. The minimum road width is 36 feet. • Grade 2% to the right of way line at 1 foot behind the sidewalk. • The reduced radius on the cul-de-sac will need approval from the county and emergency services. Geometry The curve on road B appears to be less than the minimum 200 foot radius. The intersection sight distance from the alley around lots 31, 32, 131, and 130 will cut across townhouse units #127, 128, 129 and 130. The minimum intersection spacing is 200 feet and this included alley's. Drainage M • The initial drainage layout appears to have multiple storm sewer pipes crossing the road at angles greater than 45 degrees and out of the right of way. These items will need to be addressed with the road plan or site plan. For your information, the following describes our process: Resubmittal or Public Hearinq Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that has not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development C: Redfields Development Corporation 5 L i oF AL/ II , \IkGl'0' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: April 20, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -017 Redfields — Z2 (Revised) These comments are based on my review of this resubmittal: 1. It was surprising to read the applicant's resubmittal narrative in which they claim they are entitled to this approval and it is not really a rezoning. The facts of this review should be clearly laid out for the Commission and public so they do not get confused by the applicant's rhetoric. The current allowed use of the property is open space, not development of residential units. 2. The applicant also claims they are proposing a reduction in the number of units that can be built but they are not proposing a change to the proffer that would legally reduce the number of units possible. This should be clarified with a proffer. 3. The applicant also claims that they are exceeding the open space requirement of 25 %. This is not their requirement since their proffer already offers 30% open space, not 25 %. 4. The application proposes building heights of 35 ft. but the Application Plan states contrary and confusing info. They should remove the reference to 65 ft. This should be clarified with a proffer. i r : 5. Please check with the County Engineer about the trail standard. The primitive trail proposal ' f does not appear to meet the standard recommended for the Development Areas. IP� ,,, C6W /('� 6. They are proposing a segment of trail that goes off -site. This needs to be tied down further. Who owns that property and have they given permission? Does this mean the adjoining residents will also be allowed to use this trail system? This should be clarified with a proffer applicable to this property. 7. Application Plan Sheet 5 shows "proposed tree limits (typ)." This has no effect without clear proffer language or other notes on the plan as to whether / where and how trees are to be preserved. This offer must be important to the applicant since they also list "approximate wooded area to remain." This should be a proffer applicable to this property. My prior comment: The applicant's submittal states that this proposal will "allow for protection of critical slopes in the area, preservation of existing trees, and a substantial buffer adjacent to the existing residential parcels." Staff strongly recommends that all of these proposals be clearly depicted on the plan and within proffers. 8. Claudette, please confirm that the buffer adjacent to Sherwood Farms is being maintained as previously proffered. ) c C4 ei *te 1 "av :;„ y /Z,1it a At 4. • .k 54;4 liKisi` t(�►ls . si }� or e, a a4.- ci-a. 6 P'; NV 11 - f r�,; I ne. k., -- •4,. &K►s k4,6 --,,,% L w i ce y> r ' , � f r� sc '''j fot-+ )I i 4-- AX 5 `^ " r} .cam. kites S C'cl - �rd.►1S iN -kg. ' i» k in SC) Review Comments Project Name: Redfields PRD Date Completed: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 Reviewer: Bill Fritz Department/Division /Agency: CommDev- Current Development Reviews Comments: Most of prior comments have been addressed. However, two comments have not been addressed: 1. The attached units appear to be close to the right of way. The setbacks for the development should be established with the PRD review. - The applicant has proposed zero lot lines. I would encourage the applicant to verify with the fire official that adequate fire flow is or will be available in this area to permit the use of zero lot line. Approval of the rezoning with zero lot line development will not relieve the requirement of obtaining fire official approval. 2. 120 units will share a single point of acccess to Fieldstone Road. During the review of a site plan the zoning ordinance requires that developments of 50 units or more have two points of access (32.7.2.4). This provision does not apply to subdivsions. However, it may be a factor in the review of the rezoning application. - The applicant has discussed Cedarwood Court and Teel Lane which are distant from this rezoning and have no relationship to the rezoning currently before the County. (The applicant has also stated this is application is not a rezoning. Does the applicant intend to withdraw this application ?) 3. The trail design has been addressed however the timing for installation has not. Review Status: Pending Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 04/21/2011 Claudette Grant From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:45 PM To: Claudette Grant Cc: Philip Custer Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00017 Redfield's ZMA- 2010 -00017 Redfield's Claudette, I have reviewed the referenced proposed rezoning application plan and have the following comments: Previous comments that have not been adequately addressed: 1. The proposed stub out ends at an already subdivided lot in the Mountain Valley subdivision which does not appear to be common area according to the plan or county GIS Web as stated in the reply letter or a feasible future connection and will not meet the SSAR requirement of multiple connections in multiple directions. 2. Area Type and connectivity index are incorrect on the plan and need revisions. This layout does not appear to meet the connectivity index requirement of the SSAR's. Also, I am not considering the t turnaround a stub out for the above reasons and am calculating it as an intersection. With that condition the index is 1.33. If the stub out were in an acceptable location, the index would improve to 1.45 but will still not be the minimum 1.6 that is required for state maintained roads. 3. Adjoining property data to the lot that the stub out ends at is still not provided in the plan. 4. Proposed traffic volumes need to be projected with the methods in the ITE manual and Chapter 527 Regulations. This development needs to use the regression equations and the projected trips on the streets and the title sheet need adjustment. This proposed plan will meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. 5. Many elements continue to appear in conflict with the SSAR regulation and those conflicts will be noted below. This review is only of the layout and there is specific information that this plan does not show that the road plans will include. Any conflicts with this plan will need to be resolved to meet the minimum requirement and standards of the SSAR's prior to site plan approval. Traffic Study 6. Trip generation rates are used instead of the regression equations which is not in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Administrative Code 24VAC30- 155 -60 section D2. The equations will result in an ADT of 1130 VPD and 111 in the PM peak hour. This meets the threshold to require a Chapter 527 Study as stated in comment #4. SSAR 7. The connectivity index calculations and a diagram should be included with the plan. The calculation is incorrect. 8. The index calculation is 1.33 and does not meet the minimum of 1.6 for a compact area type. This layout does not qualify for state maintained roads. 9. The proposed stub out is not in a feasible location for a future connection and is not acceptable as proposed. The stub out needs to be located to the Wintergreen Farm property, TMP- 76 -49B. Typical Section 1 10. Road widths will need to be in attordance with the GS -SSR standard for roams with ADT's of 2000 -4000 because there is only one access point. The minimum road width is 36 feet. 11. Grade 2% to the right of way line at 1 foot behind the sidewalk. 12. The reduced radius on the cul -de -sac will need approval from the county and emergency services. Geometry 13. The curve on road B appears to be less than the minimum 200 foot radius. 14. The intersection sight distance from the alley around lots 31, 32, 131, and 130 will cut across townhouse units #127, 128, 129 and 130. 15. The minimum intersection spacing is 200 feet and this included alley's. Drainage 16. The initial drainage layout appears to have multiple storm sewer pipes crossing the road at angles greater than 45 degrees and out of the right of way. These items will need to be addressed with the road plan or site plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 joel.denunzio(aa vdot.virginia.gov 2 4 pF Al g� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 12 Jan 2011 Rev.1: 5 Apr 2011 Subject: Redfields phase 5 (ZMA201000017) The application and plan for extending Redfields Phase 5 into the open space has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use 1. Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA201000001, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) Rev.1: Two of the facilities proposed with this amendment have significant impacts to stream buffer and critical slopes. These should be revised to better minimize impacts. 2. It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) Rev.1: The Class B type 1 standard is noted. A recorded easement should be obtained before any plan approvals for the off -site portion. 3. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the exact same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Rev.1: Delinquent bond work needs to be completed before any approvals. 4. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re- graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev.1: This issue has not been addressed. I don't understand how the other access points mentioned by the applicant will help the situation. This may be better clarified with traffic counts and a study. New Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 5. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) Rev.1: The fact that the original development was approved in 1989 does not guarantee that this issue has been addressed. In 1989 traffic concerns were much less on this road, and development review was much different. The applicant should provide an exact measurement of the sight distance and what it would take to improve it if necessary, including considerations such as lanes and markings. 6. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. Rev.1: A traffic study should be provided. 7. The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not possible to develop lots 25 -26, 4, and 103 -107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. Rev.1: The applicant has indicated that a critical slope waiver will not be necessary because roads and stormwater facilities are exempt. The exemption under section 18- 4.2.6c is for facilities necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. This does not appear to be the case. The disturbances proposed for grading lots, stormwater management and erosion control measures can be scaled back with other parts of the proposed development, or realigned. 8. The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. Rev.1: comment addressed. 9. The T- turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. t -) - 0 +. , Rev.1: The T- turnaround should not be used. A cul -de -sac should be used. 10. The plan should include the removal of the existing cul -de -sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul -de -sac at the new terminus. Rev.1: This comment appears to be addressed. 11. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. Rev.1: The comment still applies. As shown, it must be assumed that all these areas will be disturbed. This will be an issue with a critical slopes waiver. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 12. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re- grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. Rev.1: This comment has not been addressed. It is not enough to place a note on the plan. Only the rezoning can establish requirements for such a plan, and various forms of proffers have been used for this in the past. 13. It is unclear to me that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. Rev.1: A travelway standard and private road standard for multi - family will be used. In conclusion, I will note that as a former homeowner in Redfields for almost ten years, this land was always represented to me as a natural area which would not be developed. Claudette Grant From: Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:46 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: RE: ZMA201000017 Redfields PRD Claudette, I have reviewed the recent submittal for ZMA201000017 - Redfields, dated 3/22/2011, and RWSA has no additional comments at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfortOrivanna.orq] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:23 PM To: 'cgrant @albemarle.org' Subject: ZMA201000017 Redfields PRD Claudette, RWSA has reviewed the application for ZMA201000017 - Redfields PRD. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for ZMA Applications. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Victoria To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's ZMA201000017 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known -- See below 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known The current number of units proposed does not require a capacity certification; however, if future site plans show development of 148 units or more, approval of sewage flows will be required by RWSA. Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434.977.2970 ext. 205 Fax: 434.295.1146 1 • ALBEMARLE COUNTY ( 4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Info ation from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for x water x sewer water to existing structures only not in jurisdictional area. 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is (12" D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property) feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is (8" D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property) feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal : 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes x No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) - Revised plan shows 138 residential units a, 270 GPD= 37,260 GPD. This is right under the capacity certification cutoff. - We would like you to look at a gravity option for sewer to the Mosby lines so you will be draining into the Biscuit Run basin. Claudette Grant From: Peter @ JAUNT [petero @ridejaunt.org] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:30 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: ZMA 2010 -017 Redfields Claudette, Thank you for the additional materials related to the amended application plan for Redfields. I failed to note in my earlier comments that Redfields is in JAUNT's urban fare zone, where we provide trips primarily for people with disabilities. Charlottesville Area Transit would be the main transit option for the general public, and CAT's Route 2B currently operates near the site on Old Lynchburg Rd. and Fifth Street Extended. Other than that, JAUNT has no new specific comments at this time. I will, however, reiterate the importance of providing increased connectivity as land is developed in and near the urban area. The applicant's letter makes it clear that its proposal is likely already allowed by the site's zoning, and the proposal may be appropriate for its site and location. However, although Redfields is close to the urban area, relatively close to transit, and some of the proposed project may have an urban feel, it lacks the overall density and connectivity needed to support efficient transit service in the future. Critical slopes and wooded buffers are valuable natural features to protect, but in the urban area the need to protect these features should be balanced with the need to provide well- connected, transit - supportive land uses and avoid sprawl. Peter Ohlms Mobility Manager JAUNT 104 Keystone Place Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296 -3184 ext. 120 peteroPridejaunt.org 1 AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 February 10, 2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010-00017 — Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for rezoning received on December 20th for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076RO-00-00-00100 & 076RO-00-00-OOOE4. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject property as Rural Areas. The Rural Areas Plan places a strong emphasis on resource protection, through the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestall, open space, and natural, biological, historic and scenic resources, and farming and forestall activities. As discussed in detail during the Planning Commission work session for CPA201000001 Redfields, this proposal is inconsistent with the Growth Management Policy and Rural Areas policies. Please see the staff report for CPA201000001 regarding Comprehensive Plan concerns. Section 8.5.1 in the Zoning Ordinance needs to be followed as it relates to this submittal. • A regional context map should be included. • The correct information needs to be provided on the application plan as it relates to surrounding properties. For example, 076NO-01-00-000E2 is Cheryl Brunk or John Hanger, 076NO-00-00-008BO is David Reynolds or Deborah and 076NO-00-00- 008131 is James Perkins or Alison Coffey. Please also make sure the parcel id is in the correct location. • Include the existing owners and zoning district. • The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any. • The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site. • An application plan base on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be uses 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. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape 4. Trip generation figures 5. The general lay -out for the water and sewer systems conceptual stormwater management conceptual mitigation plan (if stream buffers are impacted) 6. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as amenities and recreation areas 7. A summary of dwelling unit types 8. Standards for development including proposed yards Building heights Open space characteristics • Make sure the plan address the requirements of the PRD zoning (Chapter 18, Section 19 in the Zoning Ordinance). • Will proffers be provided? • Protection of important environmental features, such as critical slopes and wooded areas need to be considered. • If the stream located on the site is going to be crossed a special use permit may be needed. • Provide additional information regarding the potential interconnection to the Mountain Valley subdivision. How much additional traffic could this connection bring through the Redfields development? Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: • This rezoning constitutes a change to the approved trail plan for the existing Redfields PRD. This plan should more clearly depict which trails exist and which are proposed. For those that are proposed, they should show that the trail standard can be met. Given the fact that trails are proposed on critical slopes, we have concern that some of these trails may not be physically feasible under our standards. The plan should state the appropriate trail standard proposed. In addition, the trails should show logical connections at several points to both the proposed development and the existing Redfields development. It should be part of the trail system. • The plan does not show provision for active recreation area. Active recreation is required under the Ordinance. The applicant's submittal states that this proposal will "allow for protection of critical slopes in the area, preservation of existing trees, and a substantial buffer adjacent to the existing residential parcels." Staff strongly recommends that all of these proposals be clearly depicted on the plan and within proffers. Please check the percentage of open space and list the amount of "common open space." By prior proffers, the existing Redfields is required to provide 30% common open space. Engineering The following comments related to engineering matters have been provided by Glenn Brooks: • Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA201000001, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) • It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the 2 upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) • It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) • Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re -graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This comment was made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) • The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This comment was made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) • A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. • The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not possible to develop lots 25-26, 4, and 103-107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. • The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. • The T -turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. • The plan should include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul-de-sac at the new terminus. • There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. • With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. • It is unclear that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. Current Development The following comments related to site plan issues have been provided by Bill Fritz: The attached units appear to be close to the right of way. The setbacks for the development should be established with the PRD review. 120 units will share a single point of access to Fieldstone Road. During the review of a site plan the zoning ordinance requires that developments of 50 units or more have two points of access (32.7.2.4). This provision does not apply to subdivisions. However, it may be a factor in the review of the rezoning application. The trail design and timing for installation need to be addressed with the rezoning. RWSA The following comments related to sewer line issues have been provided by Victoria Fort: The current number of units proposed does not require a capacity certification; however, if future site plans show development of 148 units or more, approval of sewage flows will be required by RW SA. Fire and Rescue The following comments related to fire and rescue issues have been provided by James Barber: This must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. JAUNT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Peter Ohlms: • The traffic circulation patterns appear generally adequate for JAUNT vehicles, but JAUNT would prefer to see more connectivity. Disconnected pod -like developments create problems for efficiently routing vehicles. 1. Internally, the area of Roads A, B, C, and D has only one entrance and exit for 120 units. 2. Externally, is there any possibility of Fieldstone Road being extended to provide another connection into and out of the neighborhood? • Enhanced trail access appears to be possible by providing additional connections, if slopes permit (i.e. at the end of Road B and between parcels at the end of Road C). VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Joel DeNunzio: • Preliminary conceptual plans proposing state maintained roads need to include items listed in the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30-92-70. This plan is missing the following information: a. Proposed functional classification of all roads within the development. b. Area type and connectivity index. c. Adjoining property information at the proposed stub out. It is unclear if the stub out will be on developable land or if it ends at a residential parcel. d. Proposed traffic volumes on each street. • The plan needs to show the proposed trip generation. It appears that this plan will meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. • Many of the proposed elements appear to be in conflict with VDOT's SSAR requirements and/ or the VDOT Road Design Manual. These include intersection types, turnaround designs, and access management standards. For your information, the following describes our process: Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: M (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that has not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development C: Redfields Development Corporation 5 Claudette Grant From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:23 AM To: Claudette Grant Subject: Review for ZMA201000017 Redfields PRD. 1. The applicant should be aware that critical slopes are present on site. This may result in lot reconfiguration /elimination in order to achieve building sites. The applicant may request a waiver of the critical slopes provisions. 2. The attached units appear to be close to the right of way. The setbacks for the development should be established with the PRD review. 3. 120 units will share a single point of access to Fieldstone Road. During the review of a site plan the zoning ordinance requires that developments of 50 units or more have two points of access (32.7.2.4). This provision does not apply to subdivsions. However, it may be a factor in the review of the rezoning application. 4. The trail design and timing for installation should be addressed during the rezoning. 1 ng¢. �FKt�� xm 4 ,. T , COMMONWEALTH of VI ; TIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 Gregory A. Whirley COMMISSIONER January 28, 2011 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Below are VDOT's comments for the January 2011 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications: SP -2010- 00049, 00050 Howardsville Camping and Livery (Scott Clark) 1. No comments SP- 2010 - 00051, 00052 Spring Hill Farm - Stream Crossing (Scott Clark) 1. A permit will be required for the proposed entrance to route 637. The entrance location may require adjustment if there is not adequate sight distance at the proposed location. The applicant should contact VDOT to review the site. SP- 2010 -00053 South Plains Presbyterian Church (Scott Clark) 1. No comments for the removal of the manse. 2. Prior VDOT comments addressed the existing entrance. It is expected that the church is still planning phase II to replace the parking lot and upgrade the entrances to the current standard. If no additional work is planned for the parking lot, the entrances need to be upgraded to the current standard. SP -2010 -00054 Sandridge Disposal Service (Joan McDowell) 1. The applicant needs to contact VDOT to set up an inspection of the entrance for commercial standards. SP- 2010 - 00055, 00056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (,Joan McDowell) 1. According to ITE trip generation, this site appears to meet the threshold to require a Chapter 527 TIA. SP- 2010 -00057 Pine Know Historical Center (Eryn Brennan) 1. The site plan will need to show a commercial entrance in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F. SP- 2010 -00058 Charlottesville Power Equipment (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. Putt Putt Lane is a private road. 2. There is a traffic signal proffered by the developer of Putt Putt Lane at the intersection with Rio Road. This signal is not yet warranted but added traffic to the private road may change the requirement. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ZMA -2010 -00015 Cedar Hill (Judith Wiegand) 1. No comments. ZMA- 2010 -00016 Woolen Mills (Claudette Grant) 1. No comments. ZMA- 2010 -00017 Redfields PRD (Claudette Grant) 1. Preliminary conceptual plans proposing state maintained roads need to include items listed in the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30- 92 -70. This plan is missing the following information: a. Proposed functional classification of all roads within the development. b. Area type and connectivity index. c. Adjoining property information at the proposed stub out. It is unclear if the stub out will • be on developable land or if it ends at a residential parcel. d. Proposed traffic volumes on each street. 2. The plan needs to show the proposed trip generation. It appears that this plan will meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. 3. Many of the proposed elements appear to be in conflict with VDOT's SSAR requirements and/ or the VDOT Road Design Manual. These include intersection types, turnaround designs, and access management standards. ZMA- 2010 -00018 Crozet Square (Elaine Echols) 1. This plan needs to show proposed trip generation. It appears that it may meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. 2. Preliminary conceptual plans proposing state maintained roads need to include items listed in the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30- 92 -70. This plan is missing the following information: a. Proposed traffic volumes on each street. b. The proposed use and density of each area. c. Proposed locations of transportation facilities. d. The proposed functional classification of each street. e. Area type and connectivity index. f. Adjoining property information at stub outs. 3. Many of the proposed elements appear to be in conflict with VDOT's SSAR requirements and/ or the VDOT Road Design Manual. These include intersection types, turnaround designs, and access management standards. ZMA- 2010 - 00019, 00001 Shoppers World (Judith Wiegand) 1. This increase in retail and bank uses meets the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING G o v A IN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator • Division: Zoning Date: January 28, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -017 Redfields — Z1 (Revised) These comments are based on my initial review of this application: 1. Staff did check with the County Attorney's office and confirmed that it is a legal requirement for all current Redfields property owners to be notified of this rezoning request. We previously reviewed this application in light of Section 8.6a of the Zoning Ordinance and decided that only the owners of this property must sign the rezoning application. 2. This rezoning constitutes a change to the approved trail plan for the existing Redfields PRD. This plan should more clearly depict which trails exist and which are proposed. For those that are proposed, they should show that the trail standard can be met. Given the fact that trails are proposed on critical slopes, we have concern that some of these trails may not be physically feasible under our standards. The plan should state the appropriate trail standard proposed. In addition, the trails should show logical connections at several points to both the proposed development and the existing Redfields development. It should be part of the trail system. 3. The plan does not show provision for active recreation area. Active recreation is required under the Ordinance. 4. The applicant's submittal states that this proposal will "allow for protection of critical slopes in the area, preservation of existing trees, and a substantial buffer adjacent to the existing residential parcels." Staff strongly recommends that all of these proposals be clearly depicted on the plan and within proffers. 5. Please check the percentage of open space and list the amount of "common open space." By prior proffers, the existing Redfields is required to provide 30% common open space. Claudette Grant From: Marcia Joseph [marcia481 @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:06 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: Fwd: open space designation - zoning application plan FYI Begin forwarded message: From: "Greg Kamptner" <gkamptner(c�albemarle.orq> Date: January 21, 2011 3:50:35 PM EST To: "Marcia Joseph" <marcia481 @earthlink.net> Subject: RE: open space designation - zoning application plan Marcia - Neither the Zoning nor the Subdivision Ordinances establish by regulation when the conveyance has to take place, however there does have to be a transfer of common open space from the developer to the residents. The expectation is that the conveyance would be made to the homeowners' association (HOA). I discussed this issue with Community Development staff yesterday and there are three possible scenarios. A developer could proffer the timing of the conveyance of the common open space to the HOA. In the absence of proffers, restrictive covenants may spell out when the lands designated as common areas (which would include the common open space in most if not all cases) on the subdivision plat would be conveyed to the HOA. Note that restrictive covenants often leave control of the HOA with the developer until a specified number of lots have been sold. In the absence of either applicable proffers or restrictive covenants, if Zoning received a complaint that common open space was designated on a plat but was not being held by the residents (HOA), Zoning would enforce the requirement after an appropriate investigation. Neither approval of the application plan, or the approval or recordation of the subdivision plat, conveys the interest to the residents /HOA. Hope this helps. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner a(�.albemarle.orq 434- 972 -4067 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 a designated recipient you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you have received this by mistake. Thank you. From: Marcia Joseph [mailto:marcia481©earthlink.neti Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:43 PM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: open space designation - zoning application plan 1 Greg, We spoke about this mental puzzle last Friday. And here it is again. If common open space is designated on a zoning application plan and the application plan is part of an existing development, and is approved by the board of supervisors, when does the open space designation become the possession or jurisdiction of the home owners association? Does that possession or jurisdiction occur once the application plan is approved? Or does it occur when the area is platted and the plat is recorded? Thanks, Marcia Marcia Joseph. ASLA, AICP Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 phone 434 -984 -4199 cell 434-996-1572 fax 434 - 984 -3098 marcia481(a∎earthlink.net 2 cf Alg .�' z r 'kW!" County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: January 19, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -017 Redfields — Z1 I do not have any supporting submittal information and only can find the plan. If you have information that you think might be relevant to my review, please let me know and I will copy yours. These comments are based on my initial review of this application: 1. We will check with the County Attorney's office to confirm that this is a legal requirement but think that all current Redfields property owners should be notified of this rezoning request. We did review this in light of Section 8.6a of the Zoning Ordinance and decided that only the owners of this property must sign the rezoning application. We recommend that all current owners be notified. 2. This rezoning constitutes a change to the approved trail plan for the existing Redfields PRD. This plan should more clearly depict which trails exist and which are proposed. For those that are proposed, they should show that the trail standard can be met. Given the fact that trails are proposed on critical slopes, we have concern that some of these trails may not be physically feasible under our standards. The plan should state the appropriate trail standard proposed. In addition, the trails should show logical connections at several points to both the proposed development and the existing Redfields development. It should be part of the trail system. 3. The plan does not show provision for active recreation area. Active recreation is required under the Ordinance. 4. Note #3 lists 215 remaining allowable units at Redfields and note #5 lists 138 proposed units. It is not clear whether the 138 proposed units are in addition to or instead of the 215 remaining allowable units in the existing Redfields development. 5. Please check the percentage of open space and list the amount of "common open space." By prior proffers, the existing Redfields is required to provide 30% common open space. ` �11F a(BF, 1107 L County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 12 Jan 2011 Subject: Redfields phase 5 (ZMA201000017) The application and plan for extending Redfields Phase 5 into the open space has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. Conceptual stormwater management should be provided. Any stormwater management for this plan would appear to have a significant impact on critical slopes and stream buffers. (This issue was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA201000001, in comments of 11 Oct 2010.) 2. It is recommended that a standard be used for the pedestrian trail if it is to be required as part of the rezoning. The portion of the trail off of the property should have an easement before any final plan approvals, or it should be relocated on the property and close the upper loop. (As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in comments of 11 Oct 2010, these trail loops have been a neighborhood amenity for many years.) 3. It is recommended that no new approvals be granted in Redfields until the Phase 4B stormwater bond work is completed and this bond can be released. This bond was first posted in 2003, and is being held for an incomplete basin in an otherwise completed subdivision. (This is the exact same comment as made on 11 Oct 2010 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) 4. Before adding more development to Redfields, the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Lane needs to be realigned and re- graded. It is the sole means of access to Redfields, and it is an unsafe intersection. The grade from Sunset into the curve is too steep for safe stopping in inclement weather. It is too narrow for the amount of traffic, and has no shoulders. The ditches overrun the road at this intersection in significant storms. The sharp curve on Country Green has poor sight distance. It is a dangerous curve not suitable for stopping for left turns. This development will create a significant increase in traffic at this intersection. It is noted that VDOT placed signs at this intersection for a three way stop to try and alleviate these problems. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) 5. The main entrance to Redfields on Sunset Avenue Extended has poor sight distance over the vertical curve. This is a concern especially for cars turning left into the subdivision. (This is the same comment made for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006.) 6. A traffic study should be provided, both to address the concerns mentioned above, and to define any impacts to roads and pavement sections within the development. 7. The critical slope waiver should be requested with the rezoning. It will not be possible to develop this site without extensive disturbance of critical slopes. Please refer to the former critical slope analysis done for ZMA200600020 on 4 Dec 2006, which has almost the same layout. As an example, it is not Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 possible to develop lots 25 -26, 4, and 103 -107 without removing the critical slopes on the lots. Some area downstream of them would also be removed for erosion control facilities on the overall grading. 8. The triangular island in the intersection of roads A, B, and C should be replaced by a small traffic circle. This would create the same green space with less of a confusion of merging lanes. 9. The T- turnarounds at the ends of streets should be avoided in denser developments. The county has approved quite a few of these in the last few years, since VDOT started permitting them as alternative turnaround designs. However, I have learned that these are simply used as extra parking spaces. 10. The plan should include the removal of the existing cul -de -sac at the end of Fieldstone Road, and the construction of a temporary cul -de -sac at the new terminus. 11. There does not appear to be a need to clear the entire depth of the lots as shown at the perimeter of the project site. The rear of the lots could be wooded, which would serve to reduce slope disturbances. 12. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the product type, or on the extent of re- grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. 13. It is unclear to me that "Alley A" would meet the qualifications of an alley. It appears more like a travelway through parking lots, which is a different standard. In conclusion, I will note that as a former homeowner in Redfields for almost ten years, this land was always represented to me as a natural area which would not be developed.