HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-09-10*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 9 Dec 2013
Rev. 1: 27 Mar 2014
Rev.2: 16 July 2014
Rev.3: 10 Sep 2014
Subject: Avinity 2 (zma20l3000l6)
Revision 3 of Sep 9, 2014;
The addition of an island at the intersection of the neighborhoods may or may not work to distribute
exiting traffic on the phase 1 loop. This helps somewhat, if drivers will honor it, but there does not
appear to be a solution to the underlying problem; specifically that the phase 1 roads were not built
with through - traffic in mind. They are the absolute minimum width (24') with very little parking for
residents and guests on the street. They are lined with close driveways and narrow parallel parking,
which will present safety hazards. Incoming traffic is on a straight downhill run, where speeding
might be a concern. More could be done to alleviate potential issues.
The only complete solution I can think of is to separate the new neighborhood with its own entrance on
Rt. 20, and only a pedestrian /emergency connection to Avinity phase 1.
Traffic calming and channeling measures all have an impact on the Avinity phase 1 neighborhood and
drivers. However, if more of these are sought, there could be raised crossings near the courtyard and at
intersections, which might alleviate speeding problems. A traffic circle might be better than a
channelized island. The entrance on Route 20 would help with volume (currently shown as a possible
future connection.)
2. Please see previous comments regarding steep slopes. This plan does not appear to meet ordinance
requirements.
3. Please see previous comments regarding VSMP requirements. This plan does not appear to follow the
treatment trains requested by the new regulations.
Revision 2 of July 16`h, 2014;
4. The traffic impacts need to be addressed. See previous comments. There has been discussion of
modifying the loop in phase 1 to use 1 way circulation and intersection channeling to better distribute
the impacts of through - traffic. Traffic calming may also be an option.
5. The slopes around the proposed pond on parcel 16C are now managed slopes in the steeps slopes
overlay district. The plan may have to change to meet the construction standards. (This refers also to
previously approved WPO plans.)
6. This section of Avinity will need to meet new VSMP requirements, effective July ls`. The applicant
should be aware that the runoff reduction method will need to be followed, and the concepts provided
so far, with only end -of -pipe treatement, may not meet new requirements.
Revision 1 of March 27`h, 2014;
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
7. The traffic impacts should be studied. The impacts to the phase 1 loop may be significant if the phase
1 roads were not designed for additional traffic. The signal and turning warrants, as well as queuing
on Avon Street should be investigated.
8. The slopes around the proposed pond on parcel 16C are now managed slopes in the steeps slopes
overlay district. The plan may have to change to meet the construction standards.
Original review of Dec. 9`h, 2013;
The zoning map amendment for Avinity Phase 2 has been reviewed. The following comments and
recommendatiosn are provided for your use;
9. Stormwater management should meet the new state regulations passed last year. The county ordinance
is being updated, with public hearings scheduled in the next two months. The new regulations will be
in effect before a site plan is approved for this development.
10. As identified by VDOT, the spacing of the entrance which places the Kappa Sig. entrance in the turn
lane is problematic.
11. It appears that public roads could be provided through the first loop from Rt. 20 and to the
interconnection. These roads appear to meet VDOT standard dimensions anyway, and this may avoid
the possibility of a spite strip.
12. The traffic impacts should be studied. The impacts to the phase 1 loop may be significant if the phase
1 roads were not designed for additional traffic. The signal and turning warrants, as well as queuing
on both Avon Street and Rt. 20 should be investigated.
13. The steep grades adjacent to the proposed Pebble Drive on the south side of the site show extensive
work on TM91 -16B. This owner should be part of the application or provide easements prior to the
application going forward.
14. A critical slopes waiver does not appear necessary. The critical slopes shown being disturbed near
phase 1 are all part of access and utilities necessary for the two developments. The small portion
shown near Rt. 20 on the applicant's plan is not shown on the county topography. It is not of
consequence, and will be necessarily disturbed for the construction of the proposed Pebble Drive.
15. It is recommended that road widths not be specified on the zoning plan, as these will have to meet
VDOT and County minimums. The plan should specify where parking is to be prohibited, as this will
allow narrower streets.
16. The Code indicates that alleys and green space as frontage may appear on final plans. This does not
appear feasible given the layout of roads and narrow blocks in the zoning plan. Green space as
frontage is not recommended. Alleys serving as the primary means of access are not recommended.
file: E2_ zma_GEB_Avinity2.doc