Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000011 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2012-01-30�1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Benish, Chief of Planning From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 Mar 2011 Rev. 1: 14 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 28 Jun 2011 Rev. 3: 4 Nov 2011 Rev.4: 30 Jan 2012 Subject: Estes Park (ZMA201000011) The rezoning plan for Estes Park adjacent to Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. It is recommended that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. In addition, traffic calming should be provided along Moubry Lane. The road is currently 38' wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. Rev. 1: The connection has been addressed. Traffic calming may still be an issue, and something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old. See the comments regarding proffer 2, below. Rev.2: This comment has been addressed in the revised layout for the intersection at this location. Rev.3: This has been changed to a multi -use trail and emergency vehicle connection at the request of the planning commission. This is in contradiction to the direction the staff is instructed to take with review, which is to seek road connections and networks. The plan also notes an AASHTO standard for the trail and emergency connection. I am not aware of such a standard. Please have the applicant specify by detailed reference or attachment, what this standard is. Rev.4: The multi -use trail and emergency vehicle connection at the request of the planning commission remains. It is noted that this is in contradiction to the direction the staff is instructed to take with review, which is to seek road connections and networks. The AASHTO reference appears to have been removed, which addresses the comment. 2. An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 6 Rev. 1: A stream assessment has not been provided. However, the layout of the development has changed to place the majority of the stream within an open space area. Unfortunately, the placement of the units directly on the stream bank makes the value of this layout somewhat ambiguous. If portions of the stream are worth preserving, a 50' buffer setback is appropriate. If they are not worth preserving, then developing the stream in a manner that will not be problem for future residents is appropriate. I am concerned that placing back patios and decks at the top of the stream bank will be a source of problems. Natural erosion, yard debris, well meaning but flawed back -yard improvement projects, and similar conflicts will be a detriment to the residences and the stream. Rev.2: A stream assessment has been provided, and the new layout addresses stream impacts and lot and yard locations. Rev.3: The new layout has moved some lots closer to the stream, which sets up an inherent conflict, and will cause problems during and after construction. Lot 51 should be moved away from the stream. Other areas should leave room for erosion and sediment control. Rev.4: Lot 68 appears to be on the stream, which will likely be graded out by the builder unless the lot is moved. 3. Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: It will be difficult to capture a large portion of the residential runoff on this plan with only one centralized location for stormwater management. Rev.4: It will be difficult to capture a large portion of the residential runoff on this plan with only one centralized location for stormwater management. 4. A traffic study should be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn Lane warrants should be included. Rev. 1: The traffic study did not indicate that further turn lanes or other improvements were Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 6 warranted per the VDOT guidelines. It is worth noting that some movements will increase significantly on Moubry Lane, such as left turns onto Proffit Road, which increase from 12 to 24 trips in the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the existing volumes on Proffit are high enough that the volume warrant for a left turn lane is very close to the threshold. If the Board is inclined to consider a safety improvement with this project, should other concerns of residents add to this borderline issue, a left turn on Proffit would be recommended. Rev.2: No change. Rev.3: The traffic study has been invalidated by the elimination of the Proffit Road and Moubry Lane connection. All traffic must now use Worth Crossing, and turn lane warrants should be examined at this location. Rev. 4: VDOT has indicated that this will not be an issue. 5. It is recommended that the end of road D be connected within the development to complete the block pattern, if it cannot be accomplished off -site as appears to be suggested. This stub - out appears to connect to the same parcel as the entrance road anyway, and a stub -out would be more appropriate further east. Rev. 1: This comment has been eliminated with the new layout. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: the new layout has a road connection one lot over from the main entrance. It is unclear why. A continuation of Road D would be more appropriate. Rev.4: Comment addressed. The continuation of the entry Road "D" appears satisfactory. 6. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. VDOT has indicated this section is short enough not to need a turn around. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: The staff report should clarify that the stubout shown must be continued to the property line on final plans. Rev.4: The staff report should clarify that the stubout shown must be continued to the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 6 property line on final plans. 7. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed with a new drainage system. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: This is still shown with a pipe connecting the off -site pond. I will caution that off -site easements and permission are required for this work. Whether or not it is obtained, this development will be required to have a low flow area for overland relief between the lots, allowing for overflow of the pond. Rev. 4: See comment for revision 3 above. This still applies. 8. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. Rev. 1: Lots 23 -26, 46 -50, still appear to problematic, but can be addressed on final plans. Rev.2: There may be some issues to be worked out with the final plans along road D and A. Rev.3: This will still be an issue for the lots along roads D and A. Rev.4: This will still be an issue for the lots along roads D and A. 9. Rev.3: This new layout with revision 3 has taken away the continuous road movement into the development off of Worth Crossing. It has been replaced with a 90 degree right turn in, and 90 degree left turn out of the development. This places the primary movement to go nowhere, toward a stub -out for future development, which will probably never have a traffic flow greater than this development. This will require exiting vehicles to stop for no apparent reason before exiting, which is nonsensical, and encourages drivers to disregard such poor traffic control. The primary movement should be to the majority traffic flow, without stopping, as on previous plans. Rev.4: The new layout has addressed this comment. 10. Rev.3: This revision has requested private roads. I can see no engineering justification for private roads in this case, and it will place an added burden upon the residents. These roads will meet VDOT standards in any case. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 6 Rev. 4: The comment for revision 3 still applies. It is recommended that these be public streets. Revision I also included proffers, and comments for these are provided below; Proffer 1: It is unclear why this entrance on Worth Crossing needs to be proffered. It is necessary for access to the development, and requirements are dictated by the subdivision ordinance and VDOT public road standards. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: It is unclear why their only access, without which the development is impossible, needs to be a proffer. Furthermore, please refer to comment 9. The road should be a continuous movement into the development. Rev. 4: Revision 4 did not include proffers Proffer 2: A speed hump is not recommended. These are difficult to maintain, or repave, and can be a potential hazard to vehicles. They can also be unattractive, which does not endear county citizens to traffic calming measures. Something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old, would not interfere with maintenance as much, and could be attractive. Rev.2: This does not appear to be an issue with the new intersection layout. Rev.3: This proffer is gone. Rev. 4: Revision 4 did not include proffers Proffer 5: Item a: Waiting to improve Moubry Lane may be more detrimental than beneficial in the long run, in that it may lengthen the time the residents experience ongoing construction. I'm not sure what else this item may accomplish. The real concern will be the length of time, and amount of disruption the residents experience. Rev.2: I am amenable to leaving this proffer as written. Item c: This item should detail how the right -of -way is to be abandoned, and whether it will be given to the abutting properties, or remain in open space or easement. Rev.2: This can be worked out with final plans and road acceptance. Item d: This item seems to leave open the possibility that the connection will not be Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 6 of 6 made. The connection should be made, whatever the circumstances. Rev.2: Item does not appear in revision 2. Rev.3: Proffer 5 is now proffer 4. Rev. 4: Revision 4 did not include proffers Proffer 4: Rev. 3: I am not aware of the AASHTO standard in this proffer. A more specific reference must be provided, or an attached detail. "Paved" is also too general a term and must be more specific. Rev. 4: Revision 4 did not include proffers Proffer 5 as on Rev.3: This proffer has proved very difficult to implement on other rezonings. It is recommended the applicant provide more specifics of how this is to be implemented. Specifically, what I am looking for is how the area is to be captured which sits on the west side of the stream, as the main collection point for stormwater is on the east side. In addition, what are the "measures to assist in removal of fine colloidal clay particles from any runoff'. Rev. 4: Revision 4 did not include proffers, and I have not received any information regarding these questions. Proffer 6: Rev.2: Item b, the timeline for establishment of permanent vegetation is now in the ordinance and does not need to be proffered. Rev.3: This proffer is gone. tile: L-') zmaZOiO -i i GEB EstesPark �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Benish, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 Mar 2011 Rev. 1: 14 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 28 Jun 2011 Rev. 3: 4 Nov 2011 Subject: Estes Park (ZMA201000011) The rezoning plan for Estes Park adjacent to Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. It is recommended that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. In addition, traffic calming should be provided along Moubry Lane. The road is currently 38' wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. Rev. 1: The connection has been addressed. Traffic calming may still be an issue, and something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old. See the comments regarding proffer 2, below. Rev.2: This comment has been addressed in the revised layout for the intersection at this location. Rev.3: This has been changed to a multi -use trail and emergency vehicle connection at the request of the planning commission. This is in contradiction to the direction the staff is instructed to take with review, which is to seek road connections and networks. The plan also notes an AASHTO standard for the trail and emergency connection. I am not aware of such a standard. Please have the applicant specify by detailed reference or attachment, what this standard is. 2. An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. Rev. 1: A stream assessment has not been provided. However, the layout of the development has changed to place the majority of the stream within an open space area. Unfortunately, the placement of the units directly on the stream bank makes the value of this layout somewhat ambiguous. If portions of the stream are worth preserving, a 50' buffer setback is appropriate. If they are not worth preserving, then developing the stream in a manner that Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 will not be problem for future residents is appropriate. I am concerned that placing back patios and decks at the top of the stream bank will be a source of problems. Natural erosion, yard debris, well meaning but flawed back -yard improvement projects, and similar conflicts will be a detriment to the residences and the stream. Rev.2: A stream assessment has been provided, and the new layout addresses stream impacts and lot and yard locations. Rev.3: The new layout has moved some lots closer to the stream, which sets up an inherent conflict, and will cause problems during and after construction. Lot 51 should be moved away from the stream. Other areas should leave room for erosion and sediment control. 3. Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: It will be difficult to capture a large portion of the residential runoff on this plan with only one centralized location for stormwater management. 4. A traffic study should be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn Lane warrants should be included. Rev. 1: The traffic study did not indicate that further turn lanes or other improvements were warranted per the VDOT guidelines. It is worth noting that some movements will increase significantly on Moubry Lane, such as left turns onto Proffit Road, which increase from 12 to 24 trips in the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the existing volumes on Proffit are high enough that the volume warrant for a left turn lane is very close to the threshold. If the Board is inclined to consider a safety improvement with this project, should other concerns of residents add to this borderline issue, a left turn on Proffit would be recommended. Rev.2: No change. Rev.3: The traffic study has been invalidated by the elimination of the Proffit Road and Moubry Lane connection. All traffic must now use Worth Crossing, and turn lane warrants should be examined at this location. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 5. It is recommended that the end of road D be connected within the development to complete the block pattern, if it cannot be accomplished off -site as appears to be suggested. This stub - out appears to connect to the same parcel as the entrance road anyway, and a stub -out would be more appropriate further east. Rev. 1: This comment has been eliminated with the new layout. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: the new layout has a road connection one lot over from the main entrance. It is unclear why. A continuation of Road D would be more appropriate. 6. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. VDOT has indicated this section is short enough not to need a turn around. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: The staff report should clarify that the stubout show must be continued to the property line on final plans. 7. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed with a new drainage system. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: This is still shown with a pipe connecting the off -site pond. I will caution that off -site easements and permission are required for this work. Whether or not it is obtained, this development will be required to have a low flow area for overland relief between the lots, allowing for overflow of the pond. 8. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. Rev. 1: Lots 23 -26, 46 -50, still appear to problematic, but can be addressed on final plans. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 Rev.2: There may be some issues to be worked out with the final plans along road D and A. Rev.3: This will still be an issue for the lots along roads D and A. 9. Rev.3: This new layout with revision 3 has taken away the continuous road movement into the development off of Worth Crossing. It has been replaced with a 90 degree right turn in, and 90 degree left turn out of the development. This places the primary movement to go nowhere, toward a stub -out for future development, which will probably never have a traffic flow greater than this development. This will require exiting vehicles to stop for no apparent reason before exiting, which is nonsensical, and encourages drivers to disregard such poor traffic control. The primary movement should be to the majority traffic flow, without stopping, as on previous plans. 10. Rev.3: This revision has requested private roads. I can see no engineering justification for private roads in this case, and it will place an added burden upon the residents. These roads will meet VDOT standards in any case. Revision 1 also included proffers, and comments for these are provided below; Proffer 1: It is unclear why this entrance on Worth Crossing needs to be proffered. It is necessary for access to the development, and requirements are dictated by the subdivision ordinance and VDOT public road standards. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: It is unclear why their only access, without which the development is impossible, needs to be a proffer. Furthermore, please refer to comment 9. The road should be a continuous movement into the development. Proffer 2: A speed hump is not recommended. These are difficult to maintain, or repave, and can be a potential hazard to vehicles. They can also be unattractive, which does not endear county citizens to traffic calming measures. Something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old, would not interfere with maintenance as much, and could be attractive. Rev.2: This does not appear to be an issue with the new intersection layout. Rev.3: This proffer is gone. Proffer 5: Item a: Waiting to improve Moubry Lane may be more detrimental than beneficial in the long Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 5 run, in that it may lengthen the time the residents experience ongoing construction. I'm not sure what else this item may accomplish. The real concern will be the length of time, and amount of disruption the residents experience. Rev.2: I am amenable to leaving this proffer as written. Item c: This item should detail how the right -of -way is to be abandoned, and whether it will be given to the abutting properties, or remain in open space or easement. Rev.2: This can be worked out with final plans and road acceptance. Item d: This item seems to leave open the possibility that the connection will not be made. The connection should be made, whatever the circumstances. Rev.2: Item does not appear in revision 2. Rev.3: Proffer 5 is now proffer 4. Proffer 4: Rev. 3: I am not aware of the AASHTO standard in this proffer. A more specific reference must be provided, or an attached detail. "Paved" is also too general a term and must be more specific. Proffer 5 as on Rev.3: This proffer has proved very difficult to implement on other rezonings. It is recommended the applicant provide more specifics of how this is to be implemented. Specifically, what I am looking for is how the area is to be captured which sits on the west side of the stream, as the main collection point for stormwater is on the east side. In addition, what are the "measures to assist in removal of fine colloidal clay particles from any runoff'. Proffer 6: Rev.2: Item b, the timeline for establishment of permanent vegetation is now in the ordinance and does not need to be proffered. Rev.3: This proffer is gone. file: E5 zma2010 -1 I GEB Estesl' ark � /RCir�1Q County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Benish From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: November 11, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -11 Estes Park The applicant is proposing the use of private streets. The applicant should pursue Planning Commission approval of the private streets with this rezoning applicant by submitting a request in accord with the provisions of Chapter 14 -233a of the Code of Albemarle and submitting the required fee. The Planning Commission must review this request because the application proposes single family detached units in addition to attached units. I would point out that the private street crosses the adjoining property. The adjoining property owners will have to be party to the subdivision and agree to establish this street as a private street. With the exception of the dedication of right of way the standard for a private street will be the same as for a public street. 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 20, 2011 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2010- 00011, Estes Park Staff has reviewed your resubmittal dated June 20, 2011 for the proposed Estes Park residential development. As noted during our meeting with you, the revised concept plan and proffers address most of the issues raised with your previous submittals. Since you have indicated you would like to take this project before the Planning Commission for a public hearing, staff has prepared the following comments approximately as they would be incorporated into a staff report for the Planning Commission. Staff recognizes and appreciates the your work to change the road network, shift the house lots away from the stream, address the removal of the cul -de -sac, and make the other changes requested in our previous comment letters. Scheduling a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission As stated in previous comment letters, the right -of -way (ROW) for the new road access from Worth Crossing must be platted, dedicated, and recorded prior to any public hearing. In order for staff to schedule the public hearing before the Planning Commission, please submit a copy of the plat showing the dedication and recordation. As soon as staff receives a copy of this plat, we will contact you to schedule the public hearing. Remaining Concerns with the Application Plan and Proffers Before staff can recommend approval of the plan and proffers, the following remaining issues need to be addressed: As discussed in previous comment letters, County and VDOT staff believe that the streets in the development should be widened enough to permit parking on both sides of the street. The current plan does show two parking spaces for each proposed unit and so complies with both County and VDOT requirements. However, one of these spaces is in the garage and the other is directly behind it in the driveway. Having two offstreet spaces per unit when they are one behind the other will result in many residents and guests parking in the street; some residents may use the garage for storage, others may not want to switch the positions of their cars to allow both offstreet spaces to be used, and neither space may be available for guests. As the development is presently laid out, VDOT will require, as a condition of acceptance into the state system, that no parking signs be posted on one side of each street. Homeowners and guests on the posted side of the street will have to park on the other side. (See VDOT Comment #1) ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Third Comment Letter, July 20, 2011 2 2. According to the traffic analysis, a left turn lane is not warranted at this time for cars turning from Proffit Road into Moubry Lane, but it is very close. Future background traffic growth on Proffit Road could warrant a left turn lane into Moubry Lane. The construction of a left turn lane appears to require right of way acquisition from adjacent parcels to accommodate road widening. While staff believes that construction of the left turn lane from Proffit Road into Moubry Lane is not necessary at this time, staff recommends that any cash proffer funds remaining after construction of the sidewalk and other improvements on Moubry Lane should be devoted to Proffit Road improvements. 3. Staff notes that the requirement for 25 percent open space in the proposed development has been met. However, staff recommends that some portion of the 25 percent be devoted to active recreational space, such as a tot lot, picnic area, or a similar amenity. This recommendation will apply even if Estes Park becomes a part of Forest Lakes. 4. Issues remain with Proffers 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, minor changes need to be made in the prefatory material and in Proffers 5 and 6 (see comments below). 5. Staff also recommends the following changes: a. There may be some issues to be worked out with the final plans regarding lot -to -lot drainage along roads D and A. (County Engineer) b. The sidewalk on the north side of road C needs to be extended to intersect with road A. (VDOT #2) c. The Phasing description at the top of the second page of Scott Collins' letter dated June 20, 2011 is a commitment that needs to be included on the cover sheet of the application plan. This will eliminate any confusion about the phasing with subsequent plans (when the letter is not part of the package). If you agree with these three changes, please provide a letter indicating your agreement that may be included in the information provided to the Planning Commission, and then the changes can be made in the plan submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Proffers NOTE: In line 3, there is a typo; please remove the second "ZMA." Proffer #1. Staff recommends that the "Worth Crossing Connection Expense" not be offset from the cash proffer for capital improvements because this is an essential connection and is normally part of the cost of development. This would eliminate the need for Proffer #1. However, if the Board approves including the Worth Crossing Connection Expense as an item to be funded from the cash proffer for capital improvements ( #3), the County Attorney notes that the phrase in the third sentence "the Owner shall work with the" does not instill confidence. First, this connection is essential; without a second entrance ( Moubry Lane is the other), the development may not be constructed. If this connection to Worth Crossing cannot be made, then another location will need to be identified and an entrance constructed there. Staff recommends deleting the entire sentence, "In addition, the Owner shall work with ... for the Worth Crossing Connection." Proffer #2. Please include in this proffer the time the sidewalk will be installed along Moubry Lane. Staff notes that the paragraph about phasing in Scott Collins' letter referred to above indicates that the sidewalk will be constructed in Phase 3. This information needs to be in the proffer. As indicated previously, staff supports subtracting the cost of the sidewalk on Moubry Lane and whatever type of traffic calming technique /device is used from the cash proffer amount for capital improvements. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Third Comment Letter, July 20, 2011 3 Proffer #3. As stated in the County's previous comment letters, staff believes that the applicant's method of calculating the number of units on which cash proffers are to be paid does not follow the County's cash proffer policy. This position will be explained in more detail in the staff report to the Planning Commission for their information and so the Board of Supervisors can provide direction to the applicant. At this time, the County Attorney requests that the last sentence of this proffer be revised to end "or at any later time as may be permitted required by state law." Also, the County Attorney notes that this proffer and Proffer #4 that provide for cash contributions do not include an annual inflation adjuster. Appropriate language should be inserted. Sample language for this adjuster is: Beginning January 1, 2012, the amount of cash contribution required by Proffer Number X shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Category issued by Marshall Valuation Service (a /k/a Marshall & Swift) (the "Index ") or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. Proffer #4. As stated in the County's previous comment letters, staff believes that the applicant's method of calculating the number of affordable housing units required does not follow the County's affordable housing policy. This position will be explained in more detail in the staff report to the Planning Commission for their information and so the Board of Supervisors can provide direction to the applicant. Staff notes that previous versions of this proffer and discussions with both the applicant and the County's Chief of Housing indicated that the applicant would proffer cash in lieu of units. If this is still the case, the language under "b" may be removed. If you wish to leave the language in the proffer, the County Attorney has provided the following comment: In the current climate, the affordable housing for sale unit proffer likely will not work. Ron White has learned from some developers that the timeframes in the proffers to construct affordable housing to notify the County and to not do so earlier than a certain period before the CO will issue (in these proffers, that latter date is 90 days before CO) doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is because spec houses are not being built. Therefore, even for affordable units, the developers aren't starting construction until they have a buyer under contract. [The County is] going to come up with language that works in the current economy. Ron said that the affordable housing proffer program can use the cash contribution rather than new units right now. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Third Comment Letter, July 20, 2011 4 Staff notes that a final version of this proffer is not necessary prior to the Commission's public hearing. We can simply note that language is still being developed. Staff will forward draft language as soon as it is available. Also, as noted above under Proffer #3, an inflation adjuster needs to be included in this proffer Proffer #5. As noted in staff's comments about Proffer #2, please include the phasing information in this proffer to make it clear when the interconnection will be made; this proffer needs to "match" the phasing referred to in Scott Collins' letter. Proffer #6. The County Engineer is checking to determine if the timeline for establishment of permanent vegetation is now in the County's Ordinance. If it is, then the timeline does not need to be included in the proffer. Staff will confirm which is the case as soon as the County Engineer reaches a decision. 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. The schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Develo pment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pd f (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $ 0 is required with your resubmittal. Please use the resubmittal form attached to this letter. If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a minimum of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing: $ 0 Cost for newspaper advertisement 0 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $ 0 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $ 0 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 0 Total amount for all notifications Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of anew date. Fees maybe paid in advance and a payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Third Comment Letter, July 20, 2011 5 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My e -mail address is jwiegand @albemarle.org Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division Attachment A VDOT Comments, dated July 15, 2011 Attachment B Resubmittal Form CC: Alan Taylor Riverbend Management 321 East Main Street, Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ashley Cooper Cooper Planning 3047 th Street, SW Charlottesville, VA 22903 Valerie Wagner Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 Cliff Fox 2280 Barrackside Farm Charlottesville, VA 22901 Judith Wiegand From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:42 AM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00011 Estes Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ZMA- 2010 -00011 Estes Park Judy, I have reviewed the referenced plan and have the following comments: 1. The site provides for two off right of way parking per unit, one in the driveway and one in the garage. This does meet VDOT's minimum requirements to permit the streets to have parking limited to one side of the street. However, it is my recommendation that the streets be designed to allow for parking on both sides of the street in anticipation that the configuration of the off right of way parking will lead to difficulties in limiting the parking to one side of the street and future residential complaints of the limited parking. 2. The sidewalk on the north side of road C needs to be extended to intersect with road A. 3. Road and drainage plans will be required to be submitted with the site development plans. 4. According to the traffic analysis received, a left turn lane is not warranted for the entrance to Moubry Lane but it is very close. Future background traffic growth on Proffit Road could warrant a left turn lane into Moubry Lane. The construction of a left turn lane appears to require right of way acquisition from adjacent parcels to accommodate road widening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel.der unzio(avdot.virainia.aov ATTACHMENT D FOR OMCEUSE014LY SPit arZMA it e An LS vmbr pad - - -- oi7 whoT Rc irA k (U. Resuhndttal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Anwndinent � PROJECT NUMBER- J31A ?l]1 &000] 1 PROJIL?Cl' KAME- Estes Park ❑ REsubmlllal Fcc is Required ❑ PerRegoed X Rcsubmdtlal Fee is Nd Required Judith C. Wiegamd Cooununity Development Pro)ect Coardi natcr Scutt Collims Name DfApp3icwK JCW $Ignatam2 1 }3L? 5rgpamre (434) 293 -3719 Phum NmobeF Dare Resubmlltal fees for Special Use Permit -- crlglnal Special Use ltrmlt tie of $1,M U Fuumsubnmssiort FRE=E U Each additional iem&anission $ cost of OrStiims p*Mge ResubmNal fees for origfnal Special Usrc Permit fee of $2,000 Q F irsi Tesubmissim FREE E3 E:achaddLiicnal resubmission $L,000 Resubmklal fees for origbral 7,aning Map Amcndrr al. foe of SYSUO D Firsi resubmission FREE [] Eachadduianal resubmission $1,250 cost of OrStiims p*Mge Resubmitlal fefs for origural 7,aning Map Amcndmcni foe of 93304 U Firm resubmission FREE U Eachadditianal resubmission $L,750 U Dekrral of scheduled public hearing at applicani's request- Add'] notice feesw•ill be required $Ll]0 To be paid after staff review for public notice: MosE appLicaliom For Spedal Use Permaks. and 7ming Map Amendment require al ]Ease one pubbe hearing by the Plamdng CoFOmYssiorr and ore public hearbrg by the Board of Supe rim m VirgurLa Slale Code regal es that police for public hearings he made by public" a ]eFpi mberlisement in the oewWWr and by rnaihng letters to adomfflt pope rt }' owners Therefore, at kma two fees for pubEe noLk* are required before aZoning Hap Aoreodreenl my he heard by the Board of Soperr]sor& The total Fee For public notice will he provided to the app8ani "rthe feral cast LsdElerntipEd and mass be paid be[Gre the appllmtlon ks heard by a pubRe bsdv, MAiff rHF?TW C TUN MIrNTY nR AI.HWMAQr.RlPA VMFWT AT MWIPA 1NITY rkWF?J iCrPkiRMTI MF1NTRE > FrepaM gmduuW LilgordalWaiaguplatuty(SD)wbws 1,M -f WlIW cost OCnM—Cus €p4MLW > PiepaFmg End mEl]IngardeuveriMeach ootim 2lternnv (5o] 5L 00 rcreadr iddltiopelnWee - actual cost of OrStiims p*Mge > Legal adtierusemmi tpub]IsbA Mee In the rewspaperforeachpublic hearing] Acdral cost {mdnlmumci3280fcrUdaladd katknsy County of Albemaiie DeparfinM of Community Dewlopmeut 401 McIntire Road Charlodesville, VA 22902 F'olae: (434) 296-5932 Fair: (434) 972 -4126 anrXIIIPW Lof L k� �'IRGIly1�' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: July 14, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 —11 Estes Park I have reviewed the most recent information and offer the following comments: 1. The proffer refers to ZMA 2011 -11 it should refer to ZMA 2010 —11. 2. The phasing shown doesn't match proffers 1 and 5 for road construction. 3. The issue of access across the adjacent property is not resolved. No further review should occur until this issue is addressed. The language in proffer addressing access is not adequate. 4. Proffer 1 discusses completion of the roads. It sets a standards that is exceptionally high. The roads will have to be constructed to the level that would permit acceptance into the state system prior to the issuance of the first building permit. While this will protect the public interest it is above the standard of construction typically required even for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy much less the issuance of a building permit. 5. Proffer 5 should be amended. The construction of the Moubry Lane connection should not be restricted. What would be a more appropriate restriction is the opening of the connection. �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 Mar 2011 Rev. 1: 14 Apr 2011 Rev.2: 28 Jun 2011 Subject: Estes Park (ZMA201000011) The rezoning plan for Estes Park adjacent to Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. It is recommended that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. In addition, traffic calming should be provided along Moubry Lane. The road is currently 38' wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. Rev. 1: The connection has been addressed. Traffic calming may still be an issue, and something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old. See the comments regarding proffer 2, below. Rev.2: This comment has been addressed in the revised layout for the intersection at this location. 2. An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. Rev. 1: A stream assessment has not been provided. However, the layout of the development has changed to place the majority of the stream within an open space area. Unfortunately, the placement of the units directly on the stream bank makes the value of this layout somewhat ambiguous. If portions of the stream are worth preserving, a 50' buffer setback is appropriate. If they are not worth preserving, then developing the stream in a manner that will not be problem for future residents is appropriate. I am concerned that placing back patios and decks at the top of the stream bank will be a source of problems. Natural erosion, yard debris, well meaning but flawed back -yard improvement projects, and similar conflicts will be a detriment to the residences and the stream. Rev.2: A stream assessment has been provided, and the new layout addresses stream impacts and lot and yard locations. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 3. Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. Rev.2: no change. 4. A traffic study should be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn Lane warrants should be included. Rev. 1: The traffic study did not indicate that further turn lanes or other improvements were warranted per the VDOT guidelines. It is worth noting that some movements will increase significantly on Moubry Lane, such as left turns onto Proffit Road, which increase from 12 to 24 trips in the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the existing volumes on Proffit are high enough that the volume warrant for a left turn lane is very close to the threshold. If the Board is inclined to consider a safety improvement with this project, should other concerns of residents add to this borderline issue, a left turn on Proffit would be recommended. Rev.2: No change. 5. It is recommended that the end of road D be connected within the development to complete the block pattern, if it cannot be accomplished off -site as appears to be suggested. This stub - out appears to connect to the same parcel as the entrance road anyway, and a stub -out would be more appropriate further east. Rev. 1: This comment has been eliminated with the new layout. Rev.2: no change. 6. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. VDOT has indicated this section is short enough not to need a turn around. Rev.2: no change. 7. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed with a new drainage system. Rev.2: no change. 8. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. Rev. 1: Lots 23 -26, 46 -50, still appear to problematic, but can be addressed on final plans. Rev.2: There may be some issues to be worked out with the final plans along road D and A. Revision 1 also included proffers, and comments for these are provided below; Proffer 1: It is unclear why this entrance on Worth Crossing needs to be proffered. It is necessary for access to the development, and requirements are dictated by the subdivision ordinance and VDOT public road standards. Rev.2: no change. Proffer 2: A speed hump is not recommended. These are difficult to maintain, or repave, and can be a potential hazard to vehicles. They can also be unattractive, which does not endear county citizens to traffic calming measures. Something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old, would not interfere with maintenance as much, and could be attractive. Rev.2: This does not appear to be an issue with the new intersection layout. Proffer 5: Item a: Waiting to improve Moubry Lane may be more detrimental than beneficial in the long run, in that it may lengthen the time the residents experience ongoing construction. I'm not sure what else this item may accomplish. The real concern will be the length of time, and amount of disruption the residents experience. Rev.2: I am amenable to leaving this proffer as written. Item c: This item should detail how the right -of -way is to be abandoned, and whether it will be given to the abutting properties, or remain in open space or easement. Rev.2: This can be worked out with final plans and road acceptance. Item d: This item seems to leave open the possibility that the connection will not be made. The connection should be made, whatever the circumstances. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 Rev.2: Item does not appear in revision 2. Rev.2: Proffer 6: Item b, the timeline for establishment of permanent vegetation is now in the ordinance and does not need to be proffered. file: E4 zma2010 -I I GEB EstesPark *—&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 28 Jun 2011 Subject: Estes park (ZMA200100011) critical slope waiver The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The majority of critical slopes which need a waiver are along the stream banks on the property. See the plan. Areas Acres Total site 12.75 acres Critical slopes 0.27 2 Critical slopes disturbed 0.1 37% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: The portion of critical slopes off the Moubry Lane cul -de -sac is exempt, and will be disturbed to make the road connection. The other road crossings are arguably exempt, but involve the layout of the development, which is being reviewed with the rezoning. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will help prevent any movement of soil. Some movement may occur over time due to natural stream bank erosion. "excessive stormwater runoff' Some subdivision road and rooftops will drain through this stream to a stormwater pond. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will try to minimize siltation during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will help to achieve long term stability. "loss of aesthetic resource" This area will be visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. It is not currently visible from off -site. "septic effluent" This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns. These critical slopes are almost inconsequential, and most of the disturbances are for roads and access, which could be considered exempt. file: E2 csw GEB EstesPark COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 May 18, 2011 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2011 - 00011, Estes Park Staff has reviewed your resubmittal dated April 4, and April 18, 2011 for the proposed Estes Park residential development. As noted during our meeting with you, the revised concept plan and proffers address many of the issues raised with your initial submittal, and staff believes that the April resubmission is an improved concept plan. However, the changes have raised some additional issues as indicated in the following comments: Planning Road Network. Several changes to the road network are required by VDOT (see Attachment A) and recommended by the County Engineer (comments below). Staff recommends that these changes to the road network be made first. Once the network has been adjusted, then the additional changes requested in these comments can be made. According to VDOT comments, parking can be accommodated on one side of each of the streets within the development, which meets the County's minimum expectations. However, it would be better for Road C to allow parking on both sides. Road C, as it connects with Moubry Lane, is expected to carry more traffic than some of the other streets within Estes Park. Staff believes the cross section on this street should be similar to Moubry Lane's (with the sidewalk and buffer strip). This would accommodate the traffic within Estes Park and, if the road appears to be the same width as traffic transitions from Road C to Moubry Lane, drivers will not be encouraged to speed up when they see a wider street ahead of them. In other words, if Moubry Lane remains wider than Road C, the appearance of a wider street will negate whatever benefit might result from the traffic calming technique /device proffered between the two developments. Staff notes that, since no vegetative /landscape buffer is required between two adjacent residential zoning districts, the strip of land behind units 27 - 39 could be narrowed so that the lots back up directly to the property line. This would provide some additional space to widen Road C. Similar shifts in other blocks of units could also provide additional usable space for the road network. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 2 Open Space & Stream. Once the road network has been adjusted, staff also recommends changes to the open space shown on the plan, including a different treatment of the stream. As stated in zoning staff's comments below, the open space shown on the April 4 plan meets the requirement for 25 percent open space. However, most of this space is not accessible or usable —it appears to be leftover areas that could not be turned into house lots. As stated in the County's Neighborhood Model, "[t]reating open space as integral to the design of the community opens the opportunity for providing all of these types of open space [recreational areas, public gathering places, and natural and landscaped areas] efficiently and well." Staff notes that the large open space shown on the first concept plan was much more usable. Even if Estes Park becomes a part of Forest Lakes and, thereby, has access to recreational amenities in Forest Lakes, the County expects some level of accessible, usable open space /recreational space in each residential development. Staff recognizes the intent to make the stream an amenity within the proposed Open Space D. Staff received the stream assessment on May 11. The assessment shows that only the portion of the stream south of the proposed Road A (near the SWIM pond) is a perennial stream and requires protection under the County's Water Protection Ordinance (WPO). Before the County received the stream assessment, the County Engineer expressed concern that: The layout of the development has changed to place the majority of the stream within an open space area. Unfortunately, the placement of the units directly on the stream bank makes the value of this layout somewhat ambiguous. If portions of the stream are worth preserving, a 50 -foot buffer setback is appropriate. If they are not worth preserving, then developing the stream in a manner that will not be a problem for future residents is appropriate. I am concerned that placing back patios and decks at the top of the stream bank will be a source of problems. Natural erosion, yard debris, well- meaning but flawed backyard improvement projects, and similar conflicts will be a detriment to the residents and to the stream. There are engineering concerns [raised by the April 4 version of the plan] which could be improved with revision .... a clear choice needs to be made on whether to preserve the main stream (or a portion) on the property, or not. If the choice is to preserve it, then the units should not be built so close to the stream bank. If the choice is not to preserve it, then pipe it, re- channel it, or move the units so that drainage and possible erosion concerns will not be a nuisance. Staff recommends that either the units be shifted to permit the stream to be completely within the open space or rechannel the stream to keep it away from back decks and yards; either approach would be acceptable. Staff recognizes that some disturbance of the stream in the areas where Roads A and C will cross it will be necessary. However, the stretch of the stream now shown within Open Space D could be a real amenity and is the type of natural feature that the County's Neighborhood Model seeks to protect with the principle "Site Planning that ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 3 Respects Terrain." Changes to the stream, such as rechanneling it, will change may change the Critical Slopes Waiver analysis. Staff recommends that Open Space E be eliminated as streets and lots are shifted. This open space is basically inaccessible for use or maintenance. If it remains as shown, an easement will be required across either lot 67 or 68 in order to permit a homeowners association or other group to mow and maintain the area. Other Changes. Staff also recommends: Phasing. The plan shows a phasing line. Please explain how phasing would be handled, in particular how the road network would serve each phase and when the connection to Moubry Lane would be made. Planning believes that one more resubmittal to adjust the road network, open space, and stream shown on the concept plan will be necessary before this zoning map amendment is ready to present to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Staff will be happy to discuss this with you as soon as you have reviewed these comments. Zoning 1. As stated in earlier Zoning comments, the ROW for the new road access from Worth Crossing must be platted, dedicated, and recorded prior to any public hearing. In order for staff to schedule the public hearing, please submit a copy of the plat showing the dedication and recordation. 2. The Applicant meets the minimum common open space requirements, but there are several areas that are not practical for use as open space. Open space D contains a stream and open space E does not have access. (See also the County Engineer's comments.) Engineering and Water Resources The traffic study did not indicate that further turn lanes or other improvements were warranted per the VDOT guidelines. Therefore, a left turn lane from Proffit Road onto Moubry Lane is not required. Please note that some movements will increase significantly on Moubry lane, such as left turns onto Proffit Road, which increase from 12 to 24 trips in the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the existing volumes on Proffit are high enough that the volume warrant for a left turn lane is very close to the threshold. This condition may become an issue raised by area residents. The County Engineer states that a speed hump [as included in Proffer #2] is not recommended. These are difficult to maintain, or repave, and can be a potential hazard to vehicles. Instead, he recommends something like a median island or chicanes as a transition between the new development and the old. This type of traffic calming would not interfere with maintenance as much and could be attractive. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 4 The engineer also indicates that Proffer #5 should detail how the right -of -way from the cul -de4- sac is to be abandoned, and whether it will be given to the abutting properties, or remain in open space or easement. Also, the Moubry Lane sidewalk should be connected to the sidewalk along Road C regardless of when each segment is constructed. Historic Preservation Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, recommends that the applicant: Provide evidence that the cemetery lot lines shown on the application plan encompass the full extent of the burial ground, or revise the cemetery lot lines to accomplish this. The determination should not be limited to extant physical evidence (stones, markers, fencing, etc.), but should also include historical research, consultation with Estes family members, and evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Define the terms of access and maintenance and provide documentation of these terms. Maintenance should include an initial clean -up and installation of fencing to surround the cemetery. Install a market to commemorate the history of the site and the Estes family. VDOT Joel DeNunzio has provided comments (Attachment A). ASCA /RWSA ACSA and RWSA have not provided additional comments since those included in the County's first comment letter dated March 11, 2011. However, staff from ACSA have sent a letter to the Forest Ridge neighbors reassuring them that the construction of Estes Park will not have a negative impact on water pressure in the area. Proffers As noted in our earlier discussions and stated in the County's comment letter dated March 11, 2011, the method used to calculate the cash proffer for capital improvements ( #3) is not correct according to the County's Cash Proffer policy, and the method used to calculate the number of affordable housing units ( #4) is also not correct. In both cases, the total number of units proposed (68) should serve as the basis for the calculations; there is no provision in either policy for subtracting the number of units permitted under the current zoning. These two proffers will be reviewed and discussed with the Board of Supervisors, since these two proffers relate to policies set by the Board. Staff will provide comments about these two proffers to the Board in a staff report at that time. Proffer #1. Staff will be recommending that the "Worth Crossing Connection Expense" not be offset from the cash proffer for capital improvements because this is an essential connection and is normally part of the cost of development. This would eliminate the need for Proffer #1. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 5 Proffer #2. Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to proffer the sidewalk on Moubry Lane. This will not only serve as a means of traffic calming, but will also provide a better interconnection with the Forest Ridge neighborhood. Please note that VDOT's requirement for a buffer strip between the sidewalk and the street will need to be incorporated in the next revision of the concept plan. Also, VDOT recommends that the traffic calming be provided in accordance with a plan developed by the methods described in the VDOT Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. Both VDOT and the County Engineer indicate that the proposed speed bump will not be acceptable, so this part of the proffer will need to be redrafted. Staff supports subtracting the cost of the sidewalk on Moubry Lane and whatever type of traffic calming technique /device is used from the cash proffer for capital improvements amount. Proffer #S. Note the County Engineer's comments (above) about the cul -de -sac. Also, the sidewalk connection should be made regardless of when the sidewalks on Moubry Lane and Road C are constructed. 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. The schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Dev elopment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedul e.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application More information about each of these options is attached. If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $ 0 is required with your resubmittal. Please use the resubmittal form attached to this letter. If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a minimum of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing: $ 0 Cost for newspaper advertisement 0 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $ 0 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $ 0 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 6 $ 0 Total amount for all notifications Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Fees may be paid in advance and a payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My e -mail address is awiegand @albemarle.org Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division Attachment A VDOT Comments, dated May 10, 2011 Attachment B Resubmittal Form C: Alan Taylor Riverbend Management 321 East Main Street, Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ashley Cooper Cooper Planning 3047 th Street, SW Charlottesville, VA 22903 Valerie Wagner Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 Cliff Fox 2280 Barrackside Farm Charlottesville, VA 22901 ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 7 From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 20111:27 PM To: Judith Wiegand ATTACHMENT A Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00011 Estes Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ZMA- 2010 -00011 Estes Park Judy, I have reviewed the referenced plan and proffers and have the following comments: 1. The minimum horizontal radius on these roads is 200 feet. The curves coming from Worth Crossing and the curve connecting Estes Park and Moubry do not meet the minimum standard. 2. The road widths are adequate for one side street parking within the Estes Development and two side street parking on Moubry. 3. The transition between the difference pavement widths needs to be in accordance with the pavement widening criteria in the VDOT Road Design Manual. The preferred method of widening would be around the horizontal curve. 4. The sidewalk along Moubry Lane will need to have a buffer strip in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual. 5. The proffers state that a traffic hump will be constructed between the developments. Traffic calming should be accomplished with the minimum radius horizontal curve and the narrowing of the pavement section. The proper process for traffic calming is initiated with the county and implemented with cooperation between the county, VDOT and the residents as stated in the Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. I do not think that a single speed bump in between the developments is an adequate method of addressing an anticipated speeding problem. The proffer related to the speed bump should be removed or changed to say that traffic calming will be provided in accordance with a plan developed by the methods described in the VDOT Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. 6. Site plans will need to be designed in accordance with the VDOT SSAR standards. Some items shown on this plan may require changes to meet those standards. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 8 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L��9r � �'JRGINZP ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 9 After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. ZMA2010- 00011, Estes Park, Second Comment Letter, May 18, 2011 FOR 4FFJCEUSL01%Y SP# arZMA it I e An LS vmb� pad - - -- oiY Wile Rc irA k (U. Resuhndttal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendinent PROJECT NlLFMBER- ZHA- MI04M011 PROJECT NAME- Eslcs Park ❑ RemANWK l Fee is Regdned Y WsubmitUl Fcc is Not R,cquircd Judith C. Wiegamd C DrNRWnty Development PrD)ect Coordmabor JCW May IS. 4411 Signature Date S¢Dtt Collins (434) 293 -3719 Nacre aFApplicaat Phow Member 5 ignatum Dale FEES Regubm Yltal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Specialf Use Penult fee of SItM I] First resubmission FREE U Fach ad&lianal msubnissiou 5500 st of 1-Ums oMge rust vd Crsltlrss poslege Resubm@lal tees for origfmal Special Use Permit fcc of SION ❑ Firsi resubmission FREE U Eacbadduianal resubmission $L.000 Reaubmitiai tees for origfmal ZDndng MapAanendmenl fee of 52,304 U FirAresubTFiLAon FREE U Eachaddioiooal renbmission 51,E st of 1-Ums oMge rust vd Crsltlrss poslege Resabmitlal &es for origfmal Znadng Map Amcndmcnt foe of S331D4 U Firsi resubmission FREE U Eachadduianal resubmission $1,754 U lleii'rral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request- Add'] nolke feeswill be required $1W To be amid after staff revkw for public notice; Moss applkations For a Zunot Map Amendment require al ]earl one public bearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearbng by the Board of Smperris m Virgbnfa Stale Code requires drat notice for puble hearings be made by publishing a legal sdvertdsemem in the newspaper and by mailbag lepers to- Aacem prq*rty owoe m Therefore, al least two fees for public notice are regmiFed before a Zanb% Map A mendmeot may be heard by the Board of Superr Isom The total lee for public notice will be provided to the applicant die r the final cog is deterudned and muss be pedd before the application is heard by a public body, MLA kE CHEC'ILS TO COUNTY OF ALREAiARLEUPA Y MENT A T CtiOM"UN ITY DES' F.T OPMErti T COUNTER > Preparing and mailing Dr di-uvmiM up to [lily (50) wtices 32W - actual post ci first -class pa UW > Repa[Eg and mulllngordzNva1Meach ratlo� �rnlly (5Gj 5LA4 car at[ual IR st of 1-Ums oMge rust vd Crsltlrss poslege D Legal adMertiswmeat fpub]bbc+d twice In thenewsWrforeachpubllr heaFing7 Actue(uW :n:lnlrnumo<5280rcrtotalartd pufticeUm! County of Alhemat'te Ilepart1me>M of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlodmille, VA 22M Voice: (434) 296 -3832 Fzt: (434) 972.4126 MOM I I NEC l or I We CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification by the Planning Commission to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth- disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver [Attachment X], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbances are in the form of Areas Acres Total site area 12.75 Area of critical slopes (man -made & natural) Man -made = 0 Natural = 0.265 0% of development 2% of development Total critical slopes area 0.265 2% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.10 37% of critical slopes The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas contain natural critical slope areas. Please see the applicant's waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed: 1. "rapid and /or large scale movement of soil and rock ". 2. "excessive stormwater run - off ": 3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water " - 4. "loss of aesthetic resource ". "septic effluent ": No /A portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Based on the above review, the applicant has /has not satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. The critical slopes areas disturbed are /are not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; Three proposed units are in areas that have critical slopes. These slopes are located along the upper portion of an intermittent stream or swale. The area of slopes are small and do not form a significant contiguous area. The system of critical slopes does not develop until farther downstream from the proposed area of disturbance. The system of critical slopes is being placed in open space. It is staff's opinion that the area of critical slopes proposed to be disturbed is insignificant. Denial of the waiver to preserve these slopes would reduce the number of units locate within the development areas. Staff opinion is that reduction in development potential within the development areas to protect insignificant slopes is not an effective use of the development areas and is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; The developer has proposed no alternatives. C. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or The property can be developed without disturbing critical slopes. D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. This issue has been addressed by staff in item A above. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings: Favorable factors: 1. Approval of the waiver permits efficient use of the development areas. 2. The slopes are not part of a significant system of critical slopes. Unfavorable factors: 1. Without a waiver to allow critical slope disturbance the property may be developed. After considering the favorable and unfavorable factors staff recommends approval of this waiver. �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 Mar 2011 Rev. 1: 14 Apr 2011 Subject: Estes Park (ZMA201000011) The rezoning plan for Estes Park adjacent to Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. It is recommended that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. In addition, traffic calming should be provided along Moubry Lane. The road is currently 38' wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. Rev. 1: The connection has been addressed. Traffic calming may still be an issue, and something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old. See the comments regarding proffer 2, below. 2. An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. Rev. 1: A stream assessment has not been provided. However, the layout of the development has changed to place the majority of the stream within an open space area. Unfortunately, the placement of the units directly on the stream bank makes the value of this layout somewhat ambiguous. If portions of the stream are worth preserving, a 50' buffer setback is appropriate. If they are not worth preserving, then developing the stream in a manner that will not be problem for future residents is appropriate. I am concerned that placing back patios and decks at the top of the stream bank will be a source of problems. Natural erosion, yard debris, well meaning but flawed back -yard improvement projects, and similar conflicts will be a detriment to the residences and the stream. 3. Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. 4. A traffic study should be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn Lane warrants should be included. Rev. 1: The traffic study did not indicate that further turn lanes or other improvements were warranted per the VDOT guidelines. It is worth noting that some movements will increase significantly on Moubry Lane, such as left turns onto Proffit Road, which increase from 12 to 24 trips in the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the existing volumes on Proffit are high enough that the volume warrant for a left turn lane is very close to the threshold. If the Board is inclined to consider a safety improvement with this project, should other concerns of residents add to this borderline issue, a left turn on Proffit would be recommended. 5. It is recommended that the end of road D be connected within the development to complete the block pattern, if it cannot be accomplished off -site as appears to be suggested. This stub - out appears to connect to the same parcel as the entrance road anyway, and a stub -out would be more appropriate further east. Rev. 1: This comments has been eliminated with the new layout. 6. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. VDOT has indicated this section is short enough not to need a turn around. 7. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed with a new drainage system. 8. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. Rev. 1: Lots 23 -26, 46 -50, still appear to problematic, but can be addressed on final plans. Revision 1 also included proffers, and comments for these are provided below; Proffer 1: It is unclear why this entrance on Worth Crossing needs to be proffered. It is necessary Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 for access to the development, and requirements are dictated by the subdivision ordinance and VDOT public road standards. Proffer 2: A speed hump is not recommended. These are difficult to maintain, or repave, and can be a potential hazard to vehicles. They can also be unattractive, which does endear county citizens to traffic calming measures. Something like a median island or chicanes would serve to transition between the new development and the old, would not interfere with maintenance as much, and could be attractive. Proffer 5: Item a: Waiting to improve Moubry Lane may be more detrimental than beneficial in the long run, in that it may lengthen the time the residents experience ongoing construction. I'm not sure what else this item may accomplish. The real concern will be the length of time, and amount of disruption the residents experience. Item c: This item should detail how the right -of -way is to be abandoned, and whether it will be given to the abutting properties, or remain in opens space or easement. Item d: This item seems to leave open the possibility that the connection will not be made. The connection should be made, whatever the circumstances. File: E3 /ma2010 -11 GEB Estesl'ark *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 14 Apr 2011 Subject: Estes park (ZMA200100011) critical slope waiver The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slopes which need a waiver are along the stream banks on the property. Areas Acres Total site 12.75 acres Critical slopes 0.27 2 Critical slopes disturbed 0.1 37% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: The portion of critical slopes off the Moubry Lane cul -de -sac is exempt, and will be disturbed to make the road connection. The other road crossings are arguably exempt, but involve the layout of the development, which is being reviewed with the rezoning. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will help prevent any movement of soil. Some movement will occur over time due to natural stream bank erosion. The close proximity of the units to the main channel will make protection during construction difficult. "excessive stormwater runoff' The subdivision road and rooftops will drain through these stream to a stormwater pond. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will try to minimize siltation during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will help to achieve long term stability. The location of units and yards in close relation to the stream will be an issue that is difficult to mitigate, and should be handled in another way. "loss of aesthetic resource" This area will be visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. It is not currently visible from off -site. "septic effluent" This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are engineering concerns which could be improved with revision. As has been discussed with the review of the rezoning plan, a clear choice needs to be made on whether to Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 preserve the main stream (or a portion) on the property, or not. If the choice is to preserve it, then the units should not be built so close to the stream bank. If the choice is not to preserve it, then pipe it, re- channel it, or move the units so that drainage and possible erosion concerns will not be a nuisance. file: EI_csw_GER_tem plate. doc - � 9 �'IRGII�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 March 11, 2011 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2011 -0001 1, Estes Park Dear Scott: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA goes to a worksession with the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan /Places29 Master Plan • Streams and critical slopes on the property • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional Planning Comments • The street layout • Open space requirements in a Planned Residential District • Additional comments from reviewers • Comments on the draft proffers Comprehensive Plan /Places29 Master Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the worksession and the public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the worksession and may change based on direction from the Commission at the worksession and /or with subsequent submittals. The Places29 Master Plan shows these parcels as Urban Density Residential, which is used in areas around Centers where multifamily housing with a gross density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is desired. Both multifamily and single - family homes including two or more housing types are expected in this designation. While the proposed density in Estes Park of 5.3 units per acre is slightly lower than the 6.01 unit minimum for an Urban Density designation, staff believes the 5.3 units is reasonable for a single - family detached neighborhood. Also, the proposed Estes Park development is surrounded by a townhouse neighborhood (Forest Lakes Townhouses) and ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 the Forest Ridge development of duplex homes, so the density in the larger area and the combination of housing types meets the intent of this designation. Land Use Table 2 (Areas Around Centers) gives a maximum height for buildings in the Urban Density designation as 4 stories or 45 feet. At 35 feet, the proposed homes will not exceed the maximum. Streams and Critical Slopes. The Places29 Parks and Green Systems Map shows critical slopes and a stream segment on this property. The County Engineer recommends that: An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. If a stream buffer is required, the applicant will need to redesign the area so that no roads or homes are built in the buffer area. Staff notes that there is a wetland area on the property that is currently in the area shown as open space. During redesign of the development, consideration should be given to keeping this area in the open space. Staff notes that critical slopes are present on the property; several lots cannot be developed without a critical slopes waiver. If, after redesign of the site, critical slope disturbance is proposed, staff recommends that the waiver be processed with the rezoning. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian The application plan shows sidewalks on both sides of all streets in the Orientation proposed development. There is no sidewalk on Worth Crossing, but the plan shows a sidewalk on both sides of Road F that could connect to a future sidewalk. If the sidewalk on Road C is shown connecting to a sidewalk on Moubry Lane, this principle will be met. Neighborhood The streets shown are too narrow to accommodate onstreet parking. Friendly Streets and Road F needs to be connected to Road D to complete the block layout. Paths Several other changes in the street layout are recommended —see comments later in this letter. Once these matters are addressed, this rinci le will be met. Interconnected The Plan shows a main entrance from Worth Crossing and a secondary Streets and one through Moubry Lane. There is also a stubout to the south. This Transportation principle is met, provided these connections are maintained in Networks subsequent submittals. Parks and Open The large Open Space B will be a good amenity for the proposed Space neighborhood. Most of the other open spaces shown would be inaccessible to most residents and useful only to those whose property shares a boundary with them. Also, the stream and wetlands area may need additional protection that could be provided by redesigning the ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 open space to include stream buffers. This principle needs to be addressed further during a redesign of the development. See comments later in this letter. Neighborhood The proposed development and the area around it are intended to be Centers residential to support nearby centers. The nearest center is on the west side of Worth Crossing; residents of the proposed development will be able to walk to a major grocery store and several other shops and businesses. This principle is met. Buildings and The proposed neighborhood would include 68 single - family homes that Spaces of Human are arranged in a compact block pattern. The maximum building height Scale would be 35 feet. If the building heights and setback shown on the plan are maintained during subsequent revisions and if the garages are deemphasized (by putting them either behind the homes facing alleys and /or pulling them back so they are no closer to the street than the front of the homes), this principle will be met. Relegated Parking Parking is in the garage (one car) and the driveway (one car) in front of each home. County regulations require two offstreet spaces for single - family detached dwellings (Section 4.22 definition of Single Family Dwelling, and Section 19.10). Staff recommends that the applicant consult with VDOT staff to make sure that VDOT does not require three spaces per unit. There is no space for onstreet parking. Staff does not believe that this is adequate parking for residents and visitors. As noted later in this letter, staff would like to see alleys used in two of the blocks and the streets widened to permit onstreet parking. This principle is not met at this time. Mixture of Uses The proposed single - family neighborhood has a duplex neighborhood and a townhouse development adjacent to it. Two churches and a daycare are also nearby. With the shopping center on the west side of Worth Crossing, the mixture of uses in this area is good; this principle is met. Mixture of Housing When considered together with the adjacent townhomes and duplexes, Types and there is a good mixture of housing types in this area. No information has Affordability been provided on eventual sales prices for the homes in the development. The applicant proposes, with the agreement of the Office of Housing, to provide cash in lieu of affordable housing units. As noted in the discussion of proffers below, the number of affordable units needs to be adjusted to meet the 15% requirement of the Affordable Housing Policy. Redevelopment There are two residences and an outbuilding on one of the parcels. These structures will be demolished in order to construct the development. Staff recommends that the historic buildings be documented. The level of documentation will depend on the architectural and historical significance of the property. Please provide photographs of the buildings to be removed and County staff will respond with additional comments, if necessary. Site Planning that As noted above, the open space may need to be reconfigured to provide Respects Terrain stream buffers and protect the wetlands. This may require redesign of the development. There is only one small area of 2:1 slopes on the site and, depending on how the open space is arranged, these slopes may or may not be disturbed. The applicant has been advised to seek a waiver during the rezoning if the slopes must be disturbed. No retaining ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 Additional Planning Comments Street Layout. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort to create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. However, staff has some concerns about the layout that should be addressed with a resubmittal.: 1. Although not required by VDOT, the County Engineer recommends that a traffic study be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn lane warrants should be included. 2. The street system shows an entrance to the proposed development (Road F) through Tax Map /Parcel 4684 -5, which is not included in the rezoning. Staff will not be able to recommend approval of this rezoning until it is confirmed that the applicant has the ability to build the road and dedicate the necessary right of way. The applicant may wish to consider adding this parcel to the rezoning. Staff also notes that Road F must be constructed in order for the development to open and that construction access should not be provided through Moubry Lane. 3. Staff is aware of the significant opposition to the Moubry Lane connection from residents of Forest Ridge. Their biggest concern is about potential cut - through traffic. Staff recommends that any redesign of the property continue to provide for an indirect connection to Moubry Lane, rather than a "straight shot" from Road F to Moubry Lane. 4. While the applicant has proposed to provide traffic calming to help mitigate impacts on Moubry Lane, staff suggests that the applicant consider constructing a sidewalk in the right -of -way on one side of Moubry Lane instead of or in addition to traffic calming. The road is currently 38 feet wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. A sidewalk on Moubry Lane should connect to the appropriate sidewalk along Road C in Estes Park. Staff acknowledges that this activity will require digging up pavement, adding curbing, and providing drainage improvements. However, this cost could be counted towards the cash proffers which would be expected with this development. 5. Staff strongly recommends that construction access not be allowed through Moubry Lane. 6. Staff appreciates the design that begins to set up a block pattern both within and outside of the development. As the applicant is creating the first part of the street network within the area bounded by Worth Crossing, Proffit Road, and the Forest Ridge development, staff strongly recommends that the applicant work with all of the property owners in this area to set up an internal network that benefits all property owners. The internal network should connect to Worth Crossing, Proffit Road, and the southern end of Moubry Lane. The approximate locations of these connections are indicated with asterisks on the Estes Park Sketch Plan (see Attachment A). One way to set up the internal network is for Road F to be connected to Road D to complete the block pattern. Staff recommends an indirect connection. This connection may be made through the block with units 57 -68 or across the southern edge of TMP 4684 -5A (see the walls are proposed. This principle will need to be revisited when with a resubmittal. Clear Boundaries This project is not located adjacent to the boundary with the Rural Areas with the Rural Areas so this principle is not relevant. Additional Planning Comments Street Layout. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the applicant's effort to create the interconnected street system shown on the application plan. However, staff has some concerns about the layout that should be addressed with a resubmittal.: 1. Although not required by VDOT, the County Engineer recommends that a traffic study be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn lane warrants should be included. 2. The street system shows an entrance to the proposed development (Road F) through Tax Map /Parcel 4684 -5, which is not included in the rezoning. Staff will not be able to recommend approval of this rezoning until it is confirmed that the applicant has the ability to build the road and dedicate the necessary right of way. The applicant may wish to consider adding this parcel to the rezoning. Staff also notes that Road F must be constructed in order for the development to open and that construction access should not be provided through Moubry Lane. 3. Staff is aware of the significant opposition to the Moubry Lane connection from residents of Forest Ridge. Their biggest concern is about potential cut - through traffic. Staff recommends that any redesign of the property continue to provide for an indirect connection to Moubry Lane, rather than a "straight shot" from Road F to Moubry Lane. 4. While the applicant has proposed to provide traffic calming to help mitigate impacts on Moubry Lane, staff suggests that the applicant consider constructing a sidewalk in the right -of -way on one side of Moubry Lane instead of or in addition to traffic calming. The road is currently 38 feet wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. A sidewalk on Moubry Lane should connect to the appropriate sidewalk along Road C in Estes Park. Staff acknowledges that this activity will require digging up pavement, adding curbing, and providing drainage improvements. However, this cost could be counted towards the cash proffers which would be expected with this development. 5. Staff strongly recommends that construction access not be allowed through Moubry Lane. 6. Staff appreciates the design that begins to set up a block pattern both within and outside of the development. As the applicant is creating the first part of the street network within the area bounded by Worth Crossing, Proffit Road, and the Forest Ridge development, staff strongly recommends that the applicant work with all of the property owners in this area to set up an internal network that benefits all property owners. The internal network should connect to Worth Crossing, Proffit Road, and the southern end of Moubry Lane. The approximate locations of these connections are indicated with asterisks on the Estes Park Sketch Plan (see Attachment A). One way to set up the internal network is for Road F to be connected to Road D to complete the block pattern. Staff recommends an indirect connection. This connection may be made through the block with units 57 -68 or across the southern edge of TMP 4684 -5A (see the ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 dashed lines on the sketch diagram). If the connection goes across the latter parcel, please provide evidence that the applicant has the ability to build the road and dedicate the necessary right of way. As part of this redesign, please consider shifting the northern end of Road D slightly to the east so an interparcel connection would be located closer to the property boundary (between TMP 46134 -5A and Maple Grove Church, see the dotted line on the sketch diagram). 7. Consideration should be given to providing midblock alleys in the two blocks where a 20 -foot wide open space is now shown (blocks with units 37 -48 and 57 -68). The garages for these houses could then face the alley and the houses themselves brought closer to the street. 8. Consideration should be given to eliminating Road E and having the houses on the north side of Road E front on the open space (with a sidewalk separating the front of each lot from the open space). As noted in VDOT's comments, Road E is too close to Road A (a waiver is available). Specific Street Requirements. 1. The street widths shown on the plan are inadequate to allow for onstreet parking (Section 4.12.16(c)(2)). Staff notes that the two street cross sections shown on the Plan are nonstandard and recommends that standard ones be used. 2. In order to show clearly where the connection with Moubry Lane will be, with the next submittal, staff requests that the relevant lot lines from the Forest Ridge plat be shown. This will clarify the area in Forest Ridge that was set aside for the connection and will show that the proposed connection is within that area. The County Engineer also recommends that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. 3. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Open Space. The park inside the development is a good feature. Other open space areas include wetlands and areas behind residential lots. As noted above, the plan may need to be redesigned to accommodate stream buffers, critical slopes, and wetlands on the site. Staff understands that the applicant is trying to achieve 25% open space with all of these areas. Staff also suggests that the applicant consider whether access to Forest Lakes amenities is possible. Staff could support a reduction of the 25% open space requirement if Forest Lakes amenities are available to residents of Estes Park. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: 1. The Application Plan does not meet the required 30' minimum distance between main structures as stated in Section 19.8 of the Ordinance. In order to preserve the compact form of development now shown on the plan, staff suggests that the Applicant apply for a modification of this section under Section 8.2(b). ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 2. The Application Plan must comply with all recreation amenities as contained in Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2. Current Development The following comments have been provided related to how your proposal may or may not be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future by Bill Fritz: The plan submitted with the applicant shows the roads within the development extending to adjacent properties. In particular it shows connection to Moubry Lane. If revisions to this plan are submitted please keep in mind that access to adjacent property will be required by Chapter 14, Section 409 of the Code of Albemarle. I mention this only in the event that revisions are submitted to this plan. Any change to the plan will need to address this provision of the Code. The plan I have reviewed meets this provision. 2. The applicant should be put on notice that the Vepco easement will need to be relocated prior to final subdivision approval. Engineerinq and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks, County Engineer: Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. 2. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. 3. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. A proffer may be necessary to ensure this occurs. VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached (Attachment A). Albemarle County Service Authority & Rivanna Water Sewer Authority Comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority included as Attachment B and those from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as Attachment C. Proffers Comments from all reviewers are consolidated below. ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 Worth Crossing Connection. Road F is the primary entrance into the proposed development. What guarantees exist that it will actually be completed? The proffer provides that the connection won't be constructed until 18 months after the later of final site plan approval or the owners of the adjoining lot dedicates the land. Assuming that the latter will be the later of the triggering events, there's no time limit as to when that would take place, so the road may never be built. Staff believes this should be changed to that Road F is in place in time for construction of the development. Because Road F is the primary entrance and is essential to the development, the cost should be borne by the developer. 2. Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Amenities. Staff believes that leaving agreement for these measures up to "the then - current owner /builder, the County, VDOT, and the Forest Ridge Home Owners' Association" does not provide enough certainty as to what these measures would be. Instead, staff recommends that this be worked out with the County and that the County Engineer should be consulted for a timeframe to complete the improvements. Staff suggests that the following items be considered prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing: a. Provision of a sidewalk on one side of Moubry Lane (in the current right -of -way). b. Traffic calming at the point where Road C joins Moubry Lane. 3. Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements Projects. The approach you have used to calculate the number of units for which a cash proffer is expected is not correct. According to the County's proffer policy as adopted by the Board on October 10, 2007, Section C. Calculation of Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount for a Rezoning: 3. A rezoning's impact on public facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units." (Section C.3.) Since the concept plan shows 68 units, this is the "gross number of proposed dwelling units" and should be used to calculate the proffer amount. Further, according to Section C.3.b., credit is not given "for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations. The proffer policy does allow exclusion of "dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing," however, since the applicant is proffering cash in lieu of affordable units and all 68 units are to be market rate units, the cash proffer will need to be paid for all 68 units. The 2010 Cash Proffer amount for single - family detached units is $17,800 (the 2011 figure is not yet available, but will be forwarded to you as soon as it is). The total for 68 units would be $1,210,400 (based on the 2010 figure). Please rewrite the proffer to eliminate the calculation at the beginning and the reference to the "Worth Crossing Connection," since that is an essential part of the development. Please be advised that some offsite improvements are eligible to be counted towards the cash proffer amount. 4. Cash Proffer for Affordable Housing. Staff understands that the applicant has discussed the provision of affordable housing with the Chief of Housing, who has agreed that "a cash contribution to Albemarle County for the affordable housing program in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) (the "Affordable Housing Cash Proffer ") for each such unit" is appropriate at this time. However, as explained above, staff notes that the policy is for 15 percent of the gross units, which would be 10.2 units, rather than 7. So the total amount ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 for this proffer would be $194,820. Also, the County Attorney and Chief of Housing both indicated that this amount to be paid should be scheduled after the inspection and prior to the issuance of the CO, so the language in the proffer should be adjusted to reflect this and the number of payments changed to 10.2. We can provide language when you are ready to revise the proffers. 5. Moubry Lane Interconnection. Staff requests that the applicant consider a fifth proffer that would provide details about the interconnection between Road C and Moubry Lane. Such a proffer would clarify when and how the connection would be made and would reassure the residents of Forest Ridge that the impacts of constructing the connection would be minimized. Staff suggests that the proffer address: • Construction of the connection will not begin until construction of the Estes Park development is nearing completion. • No Estes Park construction traffic will use Moubry Lane for construction access, except for traffic essential to construction of the connection itself. • The cul -de -sac will be removed at the time the connection is constructed. • If a sidewalk is constructed on Moubry Lane prior to construction of the connection with Road C, the sidewalk(s) on Road C will be connected to the sidewalk(s) on Moubry Lane. Resubmittal or Public Hearing 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 have 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. I may be reached at (434) 296 -5832, x. 3438 or by e-mail: jwiegand @albemarle.org ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Alan Taylor Riverbend Management 321 East Main Street, Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ashley Cooper Cooper Planning 3047 th Street, SW Charlottesville, VA 22903 Valerie Wagner Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 Cliff Fox 2280 Barrackside Farm Charlottesville, VA 22901 Ruth Estes 774 Prospect Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 Attachment A — Estes Park Sketch Diagram Attachment B — Comments from VDOT, dated February 25, 2011 Attachment B — Comments from ACSA, dated February 11, 2011 Attachment C — Comments from RWSA, dated February 23, 2011 Attachment D — Letter from JAUNT, dated February 16, 2011 ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 _I i G Pa& ke ' ba� LLF LJ -iJ _ '��� i• •`1 'i }.� .:��x c, it �� �r', -_ ff�. r.'t j < c:' 4,Y} 4,+'1 ;s kx 1. M1 m �IRGINZP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner Division: Zoning Date: March 8, 2011 Subject: ZMA2010 -11, Estes Park The following comments are in response to the Applicant's rezoning submittal. 1. The Application does not meet the required 30' minimum distance between main structures as stated in Section 19.8 of the Ordinance. It is suggested that the Applicant apply for a modification of this section under Section 8.2(b). 2. The Application must comply with all recreation amenities as contained in Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2. 3. Single - Family detached dwelling requires two off - street spaces per unit unless VDOT requires three (See, Section 4.22 definition of Single Family Dwelling, and Section 19.10). Per the Application Plan, two off - street parking spaces are provided; however, VDOT may warrant an additional space. 4. The street cross section provided on the plan will not allow space for parallel parking. See Section 4.12.16c2. 5. The Applicant should confirm that adequate ROW exists to meet the connection to Moubry Lane. 6. Proffer 1 provides for construction and improvements on a tax map not included as part of this rezoning and proffers. Additionally, the proffers contemplate a dedication that may never happen, which will not provide access to the development. If the tax map were included as part of this rezoning, the proffer should contain a deadline for the improvements to be complete. Neither the rezoning nor the application plan appears to meet the intent of a planned development under Section 8.3. 7. Proffer 2 should address approval by the County, not written agreement. The County Engineer should be consulted for a timeframe to complete the improvements. Additionally, there appear to be several typos in the proffer. 8. Proffer 3 contains two separate issues: the improvements that are predicated by this proposed rezoning for access; and cash proffer for Capital Improvement Projects. The access proffer is addressed in proffer 1 and provides for the Owner to construct improvements. The Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities is a per dwelling unit contribution based upon the gross number of proposed dwelling units and does not give credit to those permitted under existing zoning. (See 3b of Cash Proffer Policy). It is recommended that the Applicant keep the proffer separate and use the gross density of the project. The affordable housing dwelling units, as contained in Proffer 4, should be based on 10 units, not � /RCir�1Q County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: March 8, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -11 Estes Park I have reviewed the information submitted with this applicant and offer the following comments: 1. The plan submitted with the applicant shows the roads within the development extending to adjacent properties. In particular it shows connection to Moubry Lane. If revisions to this plan are submitted please keep in mind that access to adjacent property will be required by Chapter 14, Section 409 of the Code of Albemarle. I mention this only in the event that revisions are submitted to this plan. Any change to the plan will need to address this provision of the Code. The plan I have reviewed meets this provision. 2. The plan contains a note that two parking spaces will be provided on each lot. It appears that one space is to be provided in a garage and one space in front of the garage. I recommend that you confirm with the Zoning Administrator that this parking arrangement is acceptable. 3. The applicant shows road construction on adjacent property. I would not recommend approval of this rezoning until it is confirmed that the applicant has the ability to build the road and dedicate the necessary right of way. I also question if the adjacent property should be included in the rezoning as a part of the improvements necessary to develop the Estes Property in accord with the application plan are on this adjacent parcel. 4. Critical slopes are present on the property. Several lots cannot be developed without a critical slopes waiver. I recommend that waiver be processed with the rezoning. 5. The applicant should be put on notice that the Vepco easement will need to be relocated prior to final subdivision approval. *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 2 Mar 2011 Subject: Estes Park (ZMA201000011) The rezoning plan for Estes Park adjacent to Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; It is recommended that the connection with Moubry Lane be made with a continuous curve and by elimination of the cul -de -sac. In addition, traffic calming should be provided along Moubry Lane. The road is currently 38' wide curb -to -curb, and could be narrowed. 2. An assessment of the stream on the property should be made to ascertain if a portion may qualify as a perennial stream. Water Protection Ordinance section 17 -104 allows the use of "Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It appears the stream may be perennial on parcel 33. 3. Stormwater management is needed for this development. This parcel was not included in the Forest Lakes development, and does not appear to be covered by any stormwater management provided by the off -site ponds. (It is not even known whether the Forest Lakes ponds meet the current ordinance standards for existing development anyway.) This project must provide stormwater management meeting the WPO requirements, and an acceptable concept should be provided with the rezoning plan. 4. A traffic study should be provided showing distributions and providing intersection analysis on Worth Crossing at the site entrance, and at either end, and on Moubry Lane. Turn Lane warrants should be included. 5. It is recommended that the end of road D be connected within the development to complete the block pattern, if it cannot be accomplished off -site as appears to be suggested. This stub - out appears to connect to the same parcel as the entrance road anyway, and a stub -out would be more appropriate further east. 6. A road connection should be provided to the south, and the T -type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac of some sort, even if it may be temporary, should the neighboring property develop. These types of street termini are simply used as extra parking spaces in residential developments. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 7. Please indicate how the drainage outfalls will be handled, which appear to exist on proposed lot 67 flowing from under the existing driveway, and from the adjacent pond into lot 33. 8. This plan appears to involve significant lot -to -lot drainage, which is not recommended as it poses significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule -of -thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. file: E2 ina2010 -1 I GEB Estesl'ark ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 K CO-MINIONWEALU -I of VIR-C-INiA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN5POFITATFOH OHA aL0—rE9f ILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 761 Y DOT WAY CHARLOTTEMfLLE, YA 22411 Gregory A Whiney C-0iY99KH4M February 25`. 2011 Mr. Bill FtitZ Dept of PLwuung & Commun ity Developrnent 401 Malntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229102 RE: Special Use Permits and Remning Suhrnittals Dear W. Fritz: Bclvw are VDOT's comments for the Febnrary 2011 Rcmmang and Special Use Permit applications: ZMA - 2014041)11 Fsles Park (judflh lerrand) I. A cor3ceptual plan that prvpvse s stoma mainiaincd mods needs to include items hoed in 24VAC34-92 -70 of the V DOT Secondary StrectAcotptawm Regulations to be adequately evaluamad formnfnnnance tithe minimum standards. The plum is massing the Following: a. Traffic volumes on each proposed street including any fugue traffic Fi-om adjavent dcvelvpmeru that will utilim the srnxts. b. The Fturctional classifia6m of each pmpaaed strea c. The ama type and cor wativay index of the development 2. The area type is compactwkb a minimum eGnmctivity index of 1.6. This proposed plan appears to have a cou activity index of 1.5 which does not rust the minimum criteria for stems maintained roads. 3. A turn lane analysis meads to be subrnitrd for the connection to Worth Crossing. 4. The proposed subdivision has one point of aooess. Road widths will need to by in aDwrdanoe withvolumes of 2001 -4OG0 in accordance with the VDOT Road Design ManuA 13[1}7, note #l. 5. It does not appear that restnrting st vels to no parking in a subdivision with this den_Sity will provid` wiequate parking. Streets should be designed toaDcommudamc parking. 6. The T -type turnaround does not meet the minamumdesign Tcquircments of the VDOT Rued Dt&gnManust B(1 }25. 7. TLo proposed AOL of way of the Meets is m be art a minimum of 1 foot behind the sidevnA is aDDmdwn with dw roinirn n requimmients of the VDOT Road Deign Manual, 8. The eGnneution to- Marbry Lane should he consur d with this development It does not appear that there is adecruste right of way at the end of the cul -de-sac to make tlrc eoanoctiour VirginiaDOT.arg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 12 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Providers ZMA201000011 Estes Park To be filled out by ACSA for ZMAs and SPs Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50 feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 100 feet. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes _ ✓_No Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): none known ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 From: Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:04 AM To: Cc: ,abject: Follow Up Rag: Rag 3atuis Judy, Judith Wiegand gwhelan@serviceauthority.org ZMA201000011 Estes Park Follow up Ragged RWSA has reviewed the application for ZMA201000011 - Estes Park. Below is a completed copy of the form provided to us by Elaine Echols for ZMA applications: ZMA201000011 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal See Below* 4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known *RWSA is currently reworking the pressure zones in this area for future planning purposes. As a result, this parcel, which is currently served off of the high - pressure North Rivanna system, may eventually be served by a lower- pressure line. The design engineer may contact RWSA for more information on future pressure zones. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria 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 13 ZMA 2010 - 00011, Estes Park, Comment Letter, Scott Collins, March 11, 2011 AUNT February 16, 2011 Judith Wiegand, AICP Albemarle County Department of Community Development Dear Ms. Wiegand, Thankyou for the opportunity to review materialsfor ZMA201000011, Estes Park. JAUNThas the following advisory comments. This area is currently in a rural fare zone for JAUNTwhere we provide trips for both the general public and, at half fare, for seniorsand people with disabilities. 14 The connected street network is helpful and traffic circulation patterns appear generally adequate for JAUNT vehicles, but JAUNTwould prefer to see athird street connection to Prof fit Fbad if at all possible. • Assuming no on- street parking, aJAUNTvehicle loading or unloading would block one lane. If on- street parking is allowed, additional loading zoneswould be needed for JAUNTvehiclesto load and unload. • Isthe intention for Fbad Bto stub out to the south for afuture connection? It may be unlikely for the property to the south to be redeveloped, but a provision should be made for future connection(s) in the event that it doeschange. • Pedestrian connections • A more direct pedestrian connection from Moubry Lane to the shopping area along Worth Crossing should be provided. It is understandable to divert vehicles to deter cut- through traffic, but awalkway from Fbad Fto Fbad Dthrough Open Space Eor awalkway south of Fbad Bcould encourage residentsto make short t ri ps by wal ki ng. • Ensure that there are ramps where sidewalks end at Moubry Lane to transition to in- street walking. o Minor detail: sidewalks should be shown through buffer strips at each T- intersection to lineup with sidewalks on cross street (south side of Fbad Aat Fbad D, west side of Fbad D at Fbads Cand E, etc.). This may affect tree placement. Please contact me with any questions. Peter Ohlms, JAUNTMobility Manager - peteroC@ridejaunt.org - 296 -3184, ext. 120 Judith Wiegand From: Gary Whelan [gwhelan @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 3:24 PM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: ZMA201000011 Estes Park Attachments: ZMA201000011 Estes Park.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Judy, Here is the ZMA memo for Estes Park. Gary ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Providers ZMA201000011 Estes Park To be filled out by ACSA for ZMAs and SPs Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50 feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 100 feet. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes _J_No Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): none known Whelan Albemarle County Service Authority (434) 977 -4511 ext. 116 ATTACHMENT F CO LLI N B E N G 1 Irk E E R I N G St.10 C JEFFEH54LMI -VAJA #Lill I ESVILLt VA 2�FW)2 434 2W 37 10 - 43A 703 37 I $ www,401 WWI —na,flu ,Fwn1ita-0urrh MEMO To: Albemarle County Attn: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer From: Scott Collins, PE Re: Estes Park Rezoning — Additional Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Date: February 8, 2012 Mr. Brooks: In an effort to provide erosion and sediment control for the Estes Park development that exceed the current standards and regulations as set forth in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, the Owner of the development is willing to implement additional erosion control measures. These measures will be consistent with the document Number 3: Extra Erosion and Sediment Control, which is part of the current Albemarle County Engineering Design regulations. Examples of these types of additional measures that Estes Park could implement are listed below: 1. Commitment to a small maximum area exposed at one time — Estes Park shall development the property in (2) phases, which will not have more than 6 -8 acres exposed and disturbed at one time. Completion and stabilization of Phase I will occur to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Erosion and Sediment Control inspectors prior to land disturbance for the development of Phase II. 2. Commitment to finishing, stabilizing, and closing out the permit by a given date — Estes Park shall be developed in the (2) phases to ensure timely completion and stabilization of the first phase, prior to moving forward with the second phase of construction. All timelines for construction and stabilization will meet the Albemarle County regulations. 3. Commitment to independent third party professional inspections and documentation, with reporting to the county — Estes Park shall hire a professional consultant to review and inspect the erosion control measures on a weekly basis, document the findings, and provide these reports to the county for review. 4. Installation of a turbidity curtain — the contractors for Estes park shall install a turbidity curtain at the inlet point into Arbor Lake as a last measure to ensure that sediment does not flow into the existing lake. 5. Installation of reinforced silt fencing — the use of wire- backed silt fence will be used along the streams and environmental areas for added protection. 6. Provide additional wet storage and dry storage in the traps and basins — Sediment basins will be designed with additional storage volume for the wet and dry storage to allow the basins to contain all the run -off, and hold it longer in the basin to allow sediment to filter out. 7. Installation of erosion control matting for all slopes and the use of tackifiers in seeding and soil stabilization applications — measures such as these will be used for instant stabilization practices for the development, to help prevent erosion during the stabilization of the site. 8. Apply redundancy in the design- Estes Park will have a series of erosion control measures such as diversion ditches, sediment basins, reinforced silt fence, bio -logs, and turbidity curtains designed and installed in conjunction with each other to control the sediment run- off from the site. 9. Use of easily installed pre - manufactured silt control devices — these devices, listed in more detail below, will be installed to assist with erosion control measures. In addition to these types of erosion control measures listed above and in the Albemarle County design manual, Estes Park is committed to installing additional erosion control measures to assist in the removal of fine particles and colloidal soils from the run -off. These additional measures are proposed with this development to protect Arbor Lake and the downstream environmental features. Examples of these types of measures that could be used with this development for collecting and removing colloidal soils from the run -off are listed below: 1. Filter socks and Floc Logs- These measures are used as a trapping device to filter the run -off through these products which specialize in removing the fine particles and colloidal soils from the run -off. These devices are used downstream of the project in conjunction with silt fence and along roadways to protect the drainage inlet structures and remove particles before they enter the structures. 2. Departmental sediment basins — Design and construction of sediment basins with a series of different chambers to allow run -off to filter through each chamber to the next chamber while removing the fine particles and colloidal soils as the run -off passes through each chamber and filtering device. 3. Faircloth Skimmer devices — this device is added to the outfall pipe of sediment basins and assists in the filtration and removal of fine particles and colloidal soils from the water before it's released from the basin. 4. Erosion Control blankets and other ADS soil stabilization measures — these devices can be applied to and below denuded areas to prevent erosion by removing fine particles and colloidal soils from the run -off. Summary: Estes Park and its owners and developers are committed to design and implementation of additional erosion control measures and devices to protect the downstream properties and environmental features from sedimentation, during and after construction activity is completed with the development. Erosion control measures, such as those devices listed above, are to be designed and installed for additional protection above and beyond the standard erosion control design regulations for development and construction activities. These specialized techniques and the redundancy of these control measures are added measures on top of the standard erosion control devices to assist in the removal of sediment, fine particles, and colloidal soils from the run -off from the development.