Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000035 Review Comments 2010-05-17G FA larA vIRGINt` COUNTY ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434)296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: May 17, 2010 Keith Whipple 11 3 Street SE Charlottesville, VA, 22902. RE: SDP-2010-00035 West Village Preliminary Site Plan Dear Sir, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Planner) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (Pending) Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Monday June 1 2010. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, er • Id Gatobu, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385 Fax: (434)972 -4126 woe n lRGIl County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Keith Whipple From:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date:May 18, 2010 Subject: SDP2010 -00035 West Village Preliminary Site Plan The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 0 32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: a. WEST VILLAGE SDP (2010 -35) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Please add the SDP #2010 -35 to the cover page for present and future reference), County and State; Add the County where the proposed development will betaking place. b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: Section 4.16.1 and 4.16.2: Square footage of recreation area, Developed recreational area(s) shall be provided for every development of thirty (30) units or more equal to or exceeding four (4) dwelling units per acre, except for single - family and two family dwellings developed on conventional lots. A list of required recreational amenities can be found in sections 4.16.1 and 4.16.2 of the zoning ordinance. Please include on the site plan recreational amenities satisfying sections 4.16.1 and 4.16.2 of the zoning ordinance. Maximum height of all structures; Indicate on the site plan the maximum height of the proposed structures /buildings. Schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; _indicate the amount of parkin required and amount provided per Block. This will make it simple to understand where /how the parking for each block is being provided. E.2. Block A (5X21 =10 spaces required. Block B [12 x 2.251 = 27 spaces, Block C (24 - x 21 = .48 - spaces and Block D (24 x 2.251 =54 spaces. Required Parking is 10+ 27+ 48+54= 139 parking spaces. State the amount of parking provided for each block. If a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. The maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area will be required at final site plan stage. The maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation in square feet will be used in landscape calculations. c. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development. Is the project phased? Judging from the Blocks shown on the preliminary site plan it seems Iike the project will be completed in different phases /per block. Please confirm. A boundary line adjustment plat must be approved before final site plan approval is granted. 1 Section 2.4.1. Bonus factors shall be applied to the gross density - standard level in accordance with the regulations of the applicable district, except that the resulting density shall not exceed the recommended density shown in the comprehensive plan. Affordable housing bonus density cannot be granted. With the additional density for affordable housing, the project will exceed the recommended density shown on the comprehensive plan (Crozet Master Plan). See comments from the Planning Division. (Rebecca Ragsdale) The project can only be developed to R6 conventional by- right density. Section 14 -404 Single point of access required. Each lot, other than a corner lot within the development areas, shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or alley established at the same time as the subdivision. All lots in Block A must be accessed through an internal street and not from Blue Ridge Avenue. The agent can waive this requirement per section 14 -404.D of the subdivision ordinance. A request for the waiver must be submitted as indicated in section 14- 404.D. Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext.3385 for further information. 2 o County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:18 May 2010 Subject: West Village Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2010 - 00035) The preliminary site plan for the West Village has been reviewed. The following comments are provided: 1. The 100 -year floodplain should correspond to FEMA flood elevations within the study. The flood elevations shown within the study are to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 1988) and the site survey is said to have used the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 1929). The site survey should be converted to NAVD 1988 to match the datum of the floodplain study. For further information, please refer to the FEMA website.) Additionally, the floodplain limits should be revised as necessary to relate the elevations within the study to the site. topography. In other words, at the locations shown on the FEMA study, match the 675, 680, 686, and 693 elevations to the contour lines of the site - specific survey and interpolate where appropriate. 2. This site is located within the watershed of the County maintained Lickinghole Creek SWM facility. Per Board policy, all development within this watershed must pay a pro -rata fee in exchange for the water quality treatment provided by the facility. The West Village project is not required to provide SWM quality onsite and County Engineering will not be reviewing the future WPO application for water quality requirement. The pro -rata fee will computed at the time of final site plan approval. 3. The only stormwater management requirements to be reviewed for this project will be detention of the 2 and 10 year storms to pre - development rates. This will be reviewed with the WPO application in conjunction with fmal site plan. Additionally, because of the considerable size of the watershed to Powell's Creek (-2450acres) relative to the site (-20acres), the County will likely iookfavorably upon a detention waiver if requested by the applicant per 17- 314.G. 4. If the ESC plan is not phased considerably, I see no alternative for the ESC plan other than a basin located within the 100 -year floodplain, which would require a Special Use Permit. I recommend revising the layout of development to locate a stormwater detention facility out of the floodplain and to make sure it is large enough to provide the proper ESC volume during construction. Otherwise, a sediment basin will be needed in the southeastern comer of the site and will likely consume much of the developable area of block 4. 5. This site generates more than 200 VPD and doubles the volume of traffic currently experienced by the existing road (Blue Ridge Avenue ADT 330). Therefore, the project requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (Chapter 527) before approval. 6. There is a considerable amount of vacant land northwest of this property. Once this land is developed to its full potential as currently zoned and a public road connection is made to Cling Lane, it is likely that the ADT for West Village Avenue will be greater than 2000 vehicles a day. The ADT would be higher if the Master Plan densities were used. Therefore, the road should be designed for an ADT greater than 2000 vehicles a day unless otherwise approved by VDOT. 7. Please show the construction of West Village Drive to the property line of TMP 56A1- 01 -31. [14- 409.B] The requirement may be waived by the agent. At this time, I do support the waiving of this requirement. 8. Please show the sight distance triangles for each entrance onto West Village Avenue. For the Ij Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 entrance closest to the end of the street show the sight triangle to the north on the existing platted ROW. 9. The swale will not work with the street trees in place. Please either request that the agent waive the street tree requirements in this area or remove the swale. 10. The Water Quality Swale within the VDOT ROW will require the county to enter into an agreement with VDOT to assure its maintenance. The County will subsequently be required to enter into an agreement with the property owner to assure the swale's maintenance by the Homeowners association. I have some concerns with the current design, but because this BMP is not needed for county SWM requirements, the issue can be addressed during the final review of the plan. 11. The Stream Buffer for this section of the county is 100ft from the edge of bank or the limits of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater. 12. If a retaining wall is needed adjacent to the intersection of West Village Ave. and Blue Ridge Ave., a guardrail will be required. This guardrail must be within the VDOT ROW. Please show the guardrail on the plan and adjust property boundaries and setbacks accordingly. I recommend removing the need for a retaining wall by providing a 3:1 slope to existing grade. 13. The first entrance onto West Village Drive may be too steep and need to be revised during the final site plan. [18- 4.12.17] 14. The permeable paving will be reviewed during the final site plan stage once the section has been determined. However, pavers will likely need to be removed from all entrances onto the State ROW. f 1 p:p 1R {.' :dp2()li)t)OO Albemarle County Service Authority Serving • Conserving TO: Gerald Gatobu FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: May 17, 2010 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for:West Village - Preliminary SDP201000035 TM 56 -6, 6A1, 6B, 6C, 6D The below checked items apply to this site. 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: J A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. A 12 inch water line is located approximately 20' distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. J 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 160' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. J 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. J 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. J 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Final site plan approval will not be granted until applicant has entered into an agreement to upgrade downstream sewer facilities. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org Og A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development From:Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Date:May 17, 2010 Subject:SDP 2010 - 35 West Village West Village includes 9.916 acres total, including 5 separate tax map parcels that are all zoned R -6. The applicant is proposing 64 units, a density of 6.45 units /acre, and is requesting a density increase for affordable housing. (Zoning Ordinance Sections 18.16.4 and 18.2.4) Please see my comments below regarding the Crozet Master Plan. The Crozet Master Plan adopted in 2004 designates the West Village properties as a proposed park/recreation natural area/Development Area Preserve CT 1 on TMP 56 -6 and 56 -6A1. TMPs 56 -6B, 6C, and 6D are designated CT 4, which recommends 12 dwelling units per acre for townhouses /apartments. Sheet 1 of the site plan only indicates the Comprehensive Plan designation as onlyUrban General CT4. The area designated CT4 totals 3 acres. At12 du/acre that would suggest about 36 units under the current Crozet Master Plan. (30 units if calculated as net density using only 80% of the area designated CT4, which is how the Planning Division calculates available density when performing rezoning or special use permit reviews.) 4.,..1pp( `va6 01C7 6 L _ .-- .,I I - 4, a V aca1.01-xa i.o a , / ki . 1 - +, jjj TTT7y' ia SE 1,,,, E,J; - 5.... ay asF4f.0.9FL9 v I 1 ' 1- ? ^ , j, t i'i.'t,..c • { z Ly.i i I I , } jjCC_ _ ' w y f y.. II a SSGpt 7 r r..t _ 4 . 1 S .1.6 ! j j I r•••., rK; k.`4`I ' ` 7 / r + . azi sae:m -t tars.. L1 t f;-(„ a a:. -1 ; ... 5 J v'I 'r _a The County is in the process of updating the 2004 Crozet Master Plan. The draft Crozet Master Plan dated May 13, 2010 shows different land use designations from the 2004 plan. It recommends Neighborhood Density residential for properties in West Village, with the exception of the portion of 56 -6 in the flood plain/stream buffer and 56 -6A1 which are recommended Semi -Public Open Space. The updated master plan no longer shows all of 56 -6 for preservation. Neighborhood Density Residential recommends up to 6 dwelling units per acre, primarily single family detached with some attached. The proposed master plan would suggest about 38 units per acre or 30 using net density and only 80% of the acreage designated Neighborhood Density on Map. The plan shows no improvements along the frontage of Blue Ridge Avenue. Does the ordinance require improvements? If so, staff recommends that sidewalks and street trees be provided along the frontage. 1 Application #: , SDP201000035 TShort Review Comments Project Name: West Village Preliminary Preliminary— Residential Date Completed:05/07/2010 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE DEVELOPER SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAME OPTIONS. "WEST VILLAGE AVE." IS - NOT A VALID ROAD NAME. ALSO THERE ARE.2 ADDITIONAL ROADS THAT WILL NEED TO BE NAMED. THESE CHANGES SHOULD BETAKEN CARE OF BEFORE FINAL PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. Date Completed:05/04/2010 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:05/12/2010 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated Apr11.26, 2010. Provide two barrier -free parking spaces to serve Block C. One of these must be van - accessible. Provide one van - accessible, barrier -free parking space to serve Block D. The buildings in Block D must include sprinkler systems. Show the sprinkler mains. The buildings in Block C might require sprinkler systems. Either show the sprinkler mains, or indicate that:2 -hour rated firewails will be constructed between the units. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 i r- COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINLA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER May 18` 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville. VA 2 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 20 2010 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 20 2010 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2010 - 00031 First Baptist Church - Major (Megan Yaniglos) Will this site cause an increase to traffic on route 605? The road currently has an ADT of 60 trips per day. SDP - 2010 - 00034 Earlysville Service Center - Preliminary (Elizabeth Marotta) This entrance has previously been reviewed and approved. SDP - 2010 - 00035 West Village Preliminary Site Plan (Gerald Gatobu) 1. For the proposed road to be eligible for acceptance into the Secondary System of Roads it must meet the connectivity requirements set in Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements. The area type is rural so the road only needs to have multiple connections in varying directions in accordance with 24VAC30 -92 -60 section 3. The future extension must be constructed to the property line. 2. The proposed road needs to show the proposed functional classification and traffic volume anticipated when the land served is fully developed. This includes anticipated traffic from the adjacent property once developed. 3. Road widths need to be in accordance with the values for projected volumes 2001- 4000 in accordance with GS -SSAR. 4. The entrance on the north side of Block A lot 3 needs to show adequate sight distance. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 5. Commercial entrances need to have a minimum width of 24 feet in accordance with Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. They also need to have a throat length according to the number of egress lanes. 6. The minimum effective radius on an entrance should be 25 feet in accordance with Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 7. Is there a speed table proposed at station 14 +00. Traffic calming should be accomplished through the geometrics of the road and not with physical measures. 8. The swale should not be located between the parking lane and the sidewalk. The sidewalk should be adjacent to the parking with a 3 foot buffer and the swale on other side of the sidewalk. 9. Final plans will need to include drainage calculations and pavement design. 10. If parking lanes are used, they should be continuous and then necked down at the intersections instead of having individual spaces along the road. SUB 2010 - 00049 Nydrie Farm - Preliminary (Megan Yaniglos) 1. Show projected traffic from the subdivision. 2. The entrance to Route 715 needs to show adequate sight distance in accordance with the Commercial Entrance Standards in Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 3. Recommend a 20 foot dedication along the frontage of route 715 and 627. 4. The entrance needs to be designed in accordance with figure 4 -8 of Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Gerald Gatobu From:Justin Weiler [jweiler @rivanna.org] Sent:Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:13 PM To:Gary Whelan'; Gerald Gatobu Cc:Michelle S. Simpson, PE Subject:West Village Comments Gary and Gerald, RWSA has reviewed the preliminary site plan for West Village that was prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 4/26/10 and has the following comments for the applicant: 1. RWSA owns an 8" sewerline that runs along the southern boundary of the project. Some of the RWSA sewerline and manholes are shown on the plans while others are not shown. Please show and label all RWSA manholes and sewerlines. Also, please show and label the existing RWSA easement for the sewerline. Please contact me for additional information regarding which sewerlines are owned by RWSA and which ones are owned by ACSA. 2. As part of the Jarmans Gap Road Improvements that are currently being designed by VDOT, the RWSA sewerline that runs along the southern boundary will be relocated. Please show and label the proposed sewerline based on the most recent VDOT plans. Please also show the RWSA easement for the proposed sewerline. 3. RWSA has concerns about the proposed storm water outfall for this project and the effect it could have on the RWSA sewerline. RWSA will need to evaluate this issue once the existing and proposed sewerlines are clearly shown on the plans. 4. The existing RWSA waterline in Blue Ridge Ave. is a 12" waterline, not an 8" as shown on the plans. 5. Please remove the proposed tap on the RWSA waterline for lots 1 and 2 of block A. These buildings should be served by waterlines within the site. I will not be able to attend the site review committee meeting tomorrow. Could you please pass these comments along to the applicant? Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Justin Justin Weiler, E.I.T. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434.977.2970 ext. 206 Fax: 434.295.1146 1 q illll (IN 8 Q= COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434).296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: May 17, 2010 Keith Whipple 113 Street SE Charlottesville, VA,22902. RE: SDP-2010-00035 West Village Preliminary Site Plan Dear Sir, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division ofZoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle CountyDivision of Planning (Planner) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (Pending) Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Albemarle County Geographic andData Services (GDS) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make theTevisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make'therequestedrevisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copyto the Department of CommunityDevelopment including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Monday June 1 to submit this information by this date willresult in suspension of the review • schedule. Review willresume when revisions are submitted along with areinstatement fee of $65. Please contactme at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, e er. Id•Gatobu,PrincipalPlanner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385' Fax: (434)972 -4126 1 y.R ro County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Keith Whipple From: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: .Zoning and CurrentDevelopment Date:May 18,2010 Subject: SDP2010 -00035 West Village .Preliminary Site Plan The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall containthe following information: a. WEST•VILLAGE SDP (2010 -35) PREL MINARY SITE PLAN Please add the SDP #2010 -35to the cover page•for present and future reference) qm County and State; Add the County where the proposed development will betaking place. CI b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use including: a• Section 4.16.1 and .4.16.2: Square footage of recreation area, Developed recreational area(s) shall be provided for every development of (30) units or more equal to or exceeding four (4) dwelling units. per acre, except for single- family and two family dwellings developed on conventional lots. A Iist of required recreational amenities can be - found in sections •4161 and 4.162 of the zoning ordinance. Please include on - the site plan recreational amenities satisfying sections 4161 and 416.2 of the zoning ordinance. vIlfaximum height of all structures; Indicate on the site plan the maximum height of the proposedstructures/buildings. Schedule of parking including maximum amount - required and amount provided; indicate the amount of - parking required and amount provided per Block. This will make it .simple - to understand here /howthe parking for each 'block is being provided. :E.g. Block A !'5x21 =10 spaces required.Block B [12 x:2:251= 27 •spaces, Block -C [24 x 21=48-spaces and Block D [24 .x2:251=54 •spaces. Required Parking is 10 +27 +48+54 =139 parking spaces. State the amount of parking - provided for each block. la If a landscape plan is required, amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. The maximum amount of paved parking and -vehicular circulation area - will be required at site n plan-stage. The maximum amount of paved parking and .vehicular circulation in square will Abe used in landscape calculations. c. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development. Is the project phased? : Judging from the Blocks shown on - the preliminary site plan it seems like -the project will be completed in different phases /per block. Please confirm. 7 41 A boundary line adjustment plat must be approved before final site plan approval is granted. 1 Section2.4.1. Bonus factors shall be applied to the gross density - standard level in accordance with the re lations of the applicable district, except that the resulting density shall not exceed the recommended g ensity shown in the comprehensive plan. Affordable housing bonus density cannot be granted. With the additional density for affordable housing, the project will exceed the recommended a - 6GZ it density shown on the comprehensive plan (Crozet Master Plan). See comments from the Planning p • Division. (Rebecca Ragsdale) The project can only be developed to R6 conventional by- right 6'! '"' ' V • density. Section 14 -404 Single point of access required. Each lot, other than a comer lot within the development areas, shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or alley 7 / - established at the same time as the subdivision. ,All lots in Block A must be accessed through an internal street and not from Blue Ridge Avenue.' The agent can waive this requirement per section 14 -404.D of the subdivision ordinance. A request the waiver must be submitted as indicated in section 14- 4041). Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at .296-5832 ext.3385 for further. information. oupoptiej fig 2 oF ` n County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, CurrentDevelopment engineering review Date:18 May2010 Subject: West Preliminary Site Plan (SDP-2010-00035) The preliminary site plan for the West Village has been reviewed. The following comments are provided: 1. The 100 -year floodplain should correspond to FEMA flood elevations within the study. The flood elevations shown within the study are to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 1988) and the site survey is said to have used the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 1929). The site survey should be converted to NAVD 1988 to matchthe'datum of the floodplain study. For further information, please refer to the FEMA website.) Additionally, the floodplain limits should be revised as necessary to relate the elevations within the study to the sit&topography. In other words, at the locations shown on the FEMA study, match the 675, 680, 686, and 693 elevations to the contour lines of the site - specific survey and interpolate where appropriate. 2. This site is located within the watershed of the County maintained Lickinghole Creek SWM facility. Per Board policy, all development within this watershed must pay a pro -rata fee in exchange for the water quality treatment provided by the facility. The West Village project is not required to provide SWM quality onsite and County Engineering will not be reviewing the future WPO application for water quality requirement. The pro -rata fee will computed at the time of final site plan approval. 3. The only stormwater management requirements to be reviewed for this project will be detention of the2 and 10 year storms to pre- developmentrates. This will be reviewed with the WPO application in conjunction with final site plan. Additionally, because ofthe considerable size of the watershed to Powell's Creek (2450acres) relative to the site (20acres), the County will likely lookfavorably upon a detention waiver if requested by the applicant per 17- 314.G. 4. If the ESC plan is not phased considerably, I see no alternative for the ESC plan other a basin located within the 100- yearffloodplain, which would require a Special Use Permit. I recommend revising the layout of development to locate a stormwater detention facility out of the ' floodplain and to make sure it is large enough to provide the properESC volume during construction. Otherwise, a sediment basin will be needed in the southeastern comer of the site and will likely consume much of the developable area of block-4. 5. This site generates more than 200 VPD and doubles the volume of traffic currently experienced by the existingroad (Blue Ridge Avenue ADT330). Therefore, theprojectrequires a Traffic Impact Analysis (Chapter 527) before approval. 6. There is .a considerable amount of vacant land northwest of this property. Once this land is developed its full potential as currently zoned and apublicroad connection is to Cling Lane, it is likelythat the ADT for West Village Avenue will be greater than2000 vehicles a day. The ADT would be higher if the Master Plan densities were used. Therefore,'theroad should be designed for an ADT greater than 2000 vehicles a day unless otherwise approved by VDOT. 7. Please show the construction of West Village Drive to the property line of TMP 56A1- 01 -31. [14- 409.B] The requirement may be waived by the agent. At this time, I do support the waiving of this requirement ' 8. Please show the sight distance triangles for each entrance onto West Village Avenue. For the Current Development Engineering Review Comments Paget of2 entrance closest to the end of the street show the sight triangle to the north on the existing platted ROW. 9. The swale will not work with the street trees in place. Please either request that the agent waive the street tree requirements in this area or remove the swale. 10. The Water Quality Swale within the VDOT ROW will require the.countyto enter into an agreement with VDOT to assure its maintenance. The County will subsequently berequired•to enter into an agreement with the property owner to assure the swale's maintenance by the Homeowners association. I have some concerns with the current design, but because this BMP is not needed for county SWM the issue can be addressed during the final of the plan. 11. The Stream Buffer for this section of the county is 100ft fromthe edge of bank or the limits of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater. 12. If a retaining wall is needed adjacent to the intersection of West Village Ave. and Blue Ridge Ave., a guardrail will be required. This guardrail must be within the VDOT ROW. Please show the guardrail on the plan and adjust property boundaries and setbacks accordingly. I recommend removing the need for a retaining wall by providing a 3:1 slope existing grade. 13. The first entrance onto West Village Drive may be too steep and need to berevised during the final site plan. [18- 4.12.17] 14. The permeable paving will be reviewed during the final site plan stage once the section has been determined. However, pavers will likely need to be removed from all entrances onto the State ROW. File: F:l_psp_Pl3C'_sdp2010fl0035 Wiest Village.doe ti Unlade County Service .Authrity Serving • Conserving TO: Gerald Gatobu FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: May 17, .2010 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for. West Village- Preliminary SDP201000035 TM 56 -6, 6A1, 6B, 6C, 6D The below checked items apply to site. J 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: J A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service i J 2. A 12 inch water line is located approximately20' distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 160' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required, J 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Final site plan approval will not be granted until applicant has entered into an agreement to upgrade downstream sewer facilities. i fThesiteplandoesnotshoworincorrectlyshows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 - 4511- Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org F County of Albemarle Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development From:Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Date:May 17, 2010 Subject:SDP2010 -35 West Village West Village includes 9.916 acres total, including 5 separate tax map parcels that are all zoned R -6. The applicant is proposing 64 units, a density of 6.45 units /acre, and is requesting a density increase for affordable housing. (Zoning Ordinance Sections 18.16.4 and 18.2.4) Please see my comments below regarding the Crozet Master Plan. The Crozet Master Plan adopted in 2004 designates the West Village properties as a proposed park/recreation natural area/Development Area Preserve CT 1 on TMP 56 -6 and 56 -6A1. TMPs 56 -6B, 6C, and 6D are designated CT 4, which recommends 12 dwelling units per acre for townhouses /apartments. Sheet 1 of the site plan only indicates the Comprehensive Plan designation as onlyUrban General CT4. The area designated CT4 totals 3 acres. At12 du/acre that would suggest about 36 units under the current Crozet Master Plan. (30 units if calculated as net density using only 80% of the area designated CT4, which is how the Planning Division calculates available density when performing rezoning or special use permit reviews.) p 1_?!-V ae'to+ s a1 -01'row 1SS r . y ^ 1 _ YR,,yyy Y, - t xaulaoti 1 n0;1 - ' 1eauo+niv b /aft:r.4, , milTao ry a y r1 i esa mac 2p 1 Wad:' . • 41 n E sBae_f TE - - I yo rw , ," i 4e Z "J ' Pt'+ sscoi r•1 v t _ fCf.9C {4 l M.0531'- iT t} fC•01 1 fW M l c75G071 B.I dk,V .074I B LA ' r L_ J The County is in the process of updating the 2004 Crozet Master Plan. The draft Crozet Master Plan dated May 13, 2010 shows different land use designations from the 2004 plan. It recommends Neighborhood Density residential for properties in West Village, with the exception of the portion of 56 -6 in the flood plain/stream buffer and 56 -6A1 which are recommended Semi -Public Open Space. The updated master plan no longer shows all of 56 -6 for preservation. Neighborhood Density Residential recommends up to 6 dwelling units per acre, primarily single family detached with some attached. The proposed masterplan would suggest about 38 units per acre or 30 using net density and only 80% of the acreage designated NeighborhoodDensity on Map. The plan shows no improvements along the frontage of Blue Ridge Avenue. Does the ordinance require improvements? If so, staff recommends that sidewalks and street trees be provided along the frontage. Application#:SDP201000035 Short Review `Comments Project Name; West Village - . Preliminary Preliminary— Residential Date Completed:05/07/2010. Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE DEVELOPER SHOULD CONTACTTHIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAME OPTIONS, "WEST VILLAGE AVE." IS A VALID ROAD NAME. ALSO THERE ARE2 ADDITIONAL ROADS WILL NEED TO BE NAMED. THESE CHANGES SHOULD BETAKEN CARE OF BEFORE FINAL PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. Date Completed:05/04/2010 Reviewer:James.Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to •field inspection and verification. Date Completed:05/12/2010 Reviewer Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated Apri1.26,. Provide two barrier -free parking spaces to serve Block C. One of these must be van - accessible. Provide one van - accessible, barrier -free parking space to serve .Block D. The buildings in Block ID must include sprinkler systems. Show the 'sprinkler mains. The buildings in Block C might require sprinkler systems. Either show the sprinkler mains, or indicate that2 -hour ratedlirewalls will be constructed between the units. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed on: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 S' iffi (It 11x11 COMMONWEALTR of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER May 18` 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 20` 2010 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT' s comments on the Site Plans for the May 20 2010 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP First Baptist Church - Maior (Megan Yaniglos) Will this site cause an increase to traffic on route 605? The road currently has an ADT of 60 trips per day. SDP - 2010 - 00034 Earlysville Service Center - Preliminary (Elizabeth Marotta) t• This entrance has previously been reviewed and approved. SDP - 2010 - 00035 West Village Preliminary Site Plan (Gerald Gatobu) 1. For the proposed road to be eligible for acceptance into the Secondary System of Roads it must meet the connectivity requirements set in Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements. The area type is rural so the road only needs to have multiple connections in varying directions in accordance with 24VAC30 -92 -60 section 3. The future extension must be constructed to the property line. 2. The proposed road needs to show the proposed functional classification and traffic volume anticipated when the land served is fully developed. This includes anticipated traffic from the adjacentproperty once developed. 3. Road widths need to be in accordance with the values for projected volumes 2001- 4000 in accordance with GS -SSAR. 4. The entrance on the north side of Block A lot 3 needs to show adequate sight distance. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 5. Commercial entrances need to have a minimum width of 24 feet in accordance with Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. They also need to have a throat length according to the number of egress lanes. 6. The minimum effective radius on an entrance should be 25 feet in accordance with Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 7. Is there a speed table proposed at station 14 +00. Traffic calming should be accomplished through the geometries of the road and not with physical measures. 8. The swale should not be located between the parking lane and the sidewalk. The sidewalk should be adjacent to the parking with a 3 foot buffer and the swale on other side of the sidewalk. 9. Final plans will need to include drainage calculations and pavement design. 10. If parking lanes are used, they should be continuous and then necked down at the intersections instead of having individual spaces along the road. SUB - 2010 -00049 Nvdrie Farm Preliminary (MeganYaniglos) 1. Show projected traffic from the subdivision. 2. The entrance to Route 715 needs to show adequate sight distance in accordance with the Commercial Entrance Standards in Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 3. Recommend a20 foot dedication along the frontage of route 715 and 627. 4. The entrance needs to be designed in accordance with figure 4 -8 of Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434-293-0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Gerald Gatobu From:Justin Weiler Oweiler @rivanna.org] Sent:Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:13 PM To:Gary Whelan'; Gerald Gatobu Cc:Michelle S. Simpson, PE Subject:West Village Comments Gary and Gerald, RWSA has reviewed the preliminary site plan for West Village that was prepared -by Water Street Studio and dated 4126/10 and has the following comments for the applicant: 1. RWSA owns an 8" sewerline that runs along the southern boundary of the project. Some of the RWSA sewerline and manholes are shown on plans while others are not shown. Please show and label all RWSA manholes and sewerlines. Also, please show.and label the existing RWSA easement for the sewerline. Please contact me for additional information regarding which sewerlines are owned by RWSA and which ones are owned by ACSA. 2. As part of the Jarmans Gap Road Improvements that are currently being designed by VDOT, the RWSA sewerline that runs along the southern boundary will be relocated. Please show and label the proposed sewerline based on the most recent VDOT plans. Please also show the RWSA easement for the proposed sewerline. 3. RWSA has concerns about the proposed storm water outfall for this project and the effect it could have on the RWSA sewerline. RWSA will need to evaluate this issue once the existing and proposed sewerlines are clearly shown on the plans. 4. The existing RWSA waterline in Blue Ridge Ave. is a 1.2" waterline, not an 8" as shown on the plans. 5. Please remove the proposed tap on the RWSA waterline lots 1 and.2 of block A. These buildings should be served .by waterlines within the site. I will not be able to attend the site review committee meeting tomorrow. Could you please pass these comments along to the applicant? Please let me know if you have any questions or concems. Thanks. Justin Justin Weiler, E.17. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone:.434.977.2970 ext. 206 Fax: - 434.295.1146 1 J JV gg r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:16 February 2011 Subject: West Village Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2010 - 00035) The third revision to the preliminary site plan for West Village, received 11 February 2011, has been reviewed. I feel the plan has reached a point that preliminary approval can be granted with conditions. I have one or two remaining technical concerns with the current plan which I will list as conditions below along with the normal conditional engineering items required for final site plan approval: The setback to the Block B townhomes is not drawn correctly. The setback must be drawn from the edge of the 20ft access easement, as required per 18- 4.6.3.d. As drawn, this modification will not affect the building placement. A screening fence, also to be approved by the planner for Current Development, is to be provided at the top of the retaining wall adjacent to the properties to the north Approval of all engineering site and road plan requirements and policies [DM, 18 -32.5, 18 -32.6] Approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting all state and local standards that requires no fill within the floodplain [Chapter 17 -WPO, VESCH] Payment of the Lickinghole Basin Fee [17 -316] Continuation of Low- Impact Development strategties, so that the detention waiver provided by the County Engineer is still valid, and providing an adequate channel to the perennial stream from each concentrated discharge point [17 -314] All other aspects of the preliminary plan as drawn are acceptable and the applicant will be expected to maintain critical elements (such as the alignment of the roadway, addition of the sidewalk and curbing along Blue Ridge Ave., etc.) when the final plan is submitted for review. 1oVAl4. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:25 January 2011 Subject: West Village Preliminary Site Plan (SDP -2010- 00035) The second revision to the preliminary site plan for West Village, received 28 December 2010, has been reviewed. The plans have been significantly modified and additional comments are necessary. The following comments are provided: Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 6. There is a considerable amount of vacant land northwest of this property. Once this land is developed to its full potential as currently zoned and a public road connection is made to Cling Lane. it is likely that the ADT for West Village Avenue will be greater than 2000 vehicles a day. The ADT would be higher if the Master Plan densities were used. Therefore, the road should be designed for an ADT greater than 2000 vehicles a day unless otherwise approved by VDOT. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Despite the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet Development Area exhibiting lower densities for the parcels in question than the previous document, the by -right development of the parcels to the west with their existing zoning will likely cause Artist Way to experience daily traffic greater than 2000 vehicles. The projection by Renaissance Planning Group is 1701 the highest possible volume as claimed on page 16 of their report. Several likely development scenarios exist that would result in an ADT higher than 2000 vehicles a day onto Artist's Way. Most notably. the 20 acres not in "developable area'' cannot he discounted completely. There are several methods within the Co1171t1' ordinance that allows land owners to concentrate the development rights of the whole parcel into the developable area. For instance, the West Village application has an overall density of 5.95units /acre even though —35% of the property is within floodplain. Also. using the applicant's developable land assumption 27.6 acres could only he developed), if the properties to the best were developed with 7nore than 13% of the units being single family detached homes. the ADT would he greater 117a17 2000 vehicles a dal'. It is 7771' understanding that VDOT is also requiring the road to be constructed to meet the 2001 - 4000 ADT standard because the project has 01111' 011e access point. To meet this standard, it appears that the roadway section for areas of one -sided parking 771uSt be expanded to 29fi (if approved by VDOT, otherwise the width must be WO and the horizontal curve will need to he flattened to a radius of 33 1i. When the road construction plans are designed, please note that the sight distance and vertical alignment will need to he consider a design speed of'30mph. The current cross - section for Artist's Way with parking 017 one side has a discrepancv regarding the curb -to -curb width. Rev. 2) The horizontal geometry of the roadway is adequate. The alignment of the road and additional 25' ROW to the paper alley on the adjacent property appear to be adequate to the Chief of Current Development regarding 14 -409. VDOT must approve the reduction of curb - to -curb width as allowed by note 9 on GS -SSR. County Engineering has no objection to the Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 curb -to -curb width reduction. The vertical element of the road did not receive county engineering review. 7. Please show the construction of West Village Drive to the property line of TMP 56A1- 01 -31. [14- 409.B] The requirement may be waived by the agent. At this time, 1 do support the waiving of this requirement. Rev. 1) As I hopefully clarified during the Site Review Committee Meeting, the last sentence in this comment was incorrectly written. 1 do not support the waiving of the extension requirement. This matter is to he considered by the Planner, however. It is my understanding that the road must he constructed to the adjacent property in order to meet VDOT's acceptance requirements. Rev. 2) The alignment of the road and additional 25' ROW to the paper alley on the adjacent property appear to be adequate to the Chief of Current Development regarding 14 -409. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 16. (Rev. 2) The Chief of Current Development is willing to use alley standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Design Manual, including the 14ft width and lack of curbing, where alleys are shown on site plans. However, alleys are defined by the county ordinance as a travelway that provies access to the side and /or rear of lots. The travelway proposed by the applicant at the front of the Block B units does not meet this definition. Therefore, per 18- 4.6.3.d, a 25f1 setback would be required from the 20ft easement of this travelway. Given this requirement and the floodplain at the rear of the property, the current alignment is unacceptable. 17. (Rev. 2) The parking lot in Block D must possess a travelway with a width of 24ft. The units within Block D must also be placed 2S11 from the edge of this travelway to meet the setback requirements of 18- 4.6.3. [18- 4.12.16] 18. (Rev. 2) One way circulation must be contained completely onsite unless a waiver is granted by the Chief of Current Development. A VDOT maintained roadway cannot be used to complete a one -way loop. Please remove all notes indicating one -way travel. [18- 4.12.17.c.2] 19. (Rev. 2) The parking lot adjacent to the parcels to the north must be screened per 18- 32.7.9.8. It appears a screening fence at the top of the wall would be an acceptable alternative, since some safety measure will be needed at the top of the wall due to its height. No modification to the preliminary plan is needed to address this comment. This comment is provided at this time to note that a screening fence will be required at the top of this wall when the final site plan is submitted COMMONWEALTH of V' IRQ N A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER November 4, 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: West Village Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with § 15.2- 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, 24 VAC 30 -155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Renaissance Planning on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled West Village by WaterStreet Studio. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincerely,i loel DeNunzio Land Use Engineer Cc: William Wuensch P.E., P.T.O.E. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING rest, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:18 October 2010 Subject: West Village Preliminary Site Plan (SDP -2010- 00035) The first revision to the preliminary site plan for West Village has been reviewed. The following comments are provided: 3. The only stormwater management requirements to be reviewed for this project will be detention of the 2 and 10 year storms to pre - development rates. This will be reviewed with the WPO application in conjunction with final site plan. Additionally, because of the considerable size of the watershed to Powell's Creek (- 2450acres) relative to the site (- 20acres), the County will likely look favorably upon a detention waiver if requested by the applicant per 17- 314.G. Rev. I) The county engineer has conditionally granted a detention waiver: The plans meet the requirenments the detention waiver. This is granted with the condition that the channels to Powells Creek be examined for connections to the creek, such that erosion will not occur in, future, either along the overbank area, or within Powells Creek itself. It appears efforts are being made to reduce runoff impacts from the site, and these play a part in the waiver of the 2 year storm requirements, which are designed to protect channels directly downstream. The plan must maintain at least the stormwater features proposed within the latest set or else be subject to reconsideration of the request. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 5. This site generates more than 200 VPD and doubles the volume of traffic currently experienced by the existing road (Blue Ridge Avenue ADT 330). Therefore, the project requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (Chapter 527) before approval. Rev. 1) The County Engineer offers the following comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis: A scoping document was not part of this report. As a result some things are unclear. 1.Does this development meet VDOT's connectivity requirements? 2.Does the volume from a connection (per 1) need to be considered? 3.Can off -site improvements be required? 4.Do the volumes from the build -out of Old Trail need to be incorporated? Depending on the answers to these questions, widening and upgrading of Blue Ridge Avenue (to the standards ofArtists Way), as well as intersection improvements on Jarman 's Gap road may be necessary. 6. There is a considerable amount of vacant land northwest of this property. Once this land is developed to its full potential as currently zoned and a public road connection is made to Cling Lane, it is likely that the ADT for West Village Avenue will be greater than 2000 vehicles a day. The ADT would be higher if the Master Plan densities were used. Therefore, the road should be designed for an ADT greater than 2000 vehicles a day unless otherwise approved by VDOT. Rev. 1) Comnzent has not been addressed. Despite the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet Development Area exhibiting lower densities for the parcels in question than the previous document, the by -right development of the parcels to the west with their existing zoning will likely cause Artist Way to experience daily traffic greater than 2000 vehicles. The projection by Renaissance Planning Group is not the highest possible volume as claimed on page 16 of their report. Several likely development scenarios exist that would result in an ADT higher than 2000 vehicles a day onto Artist's Way. Most notably, the 20 acres not in developable area" cannot be discounted completely. There are several methods within the county ordinance that allows land owners to concentrate the development rights of the whole parcel into the developable area. For instance, the West Village application has an overall density of 5.95units /acre even though —35% of the property is within Also, using the applicant's developable land assumption (27.6 acres could only be developed), ?idle properties to the west were developed with more than 13% of the units being single family detached homes, the ADT would be greater than 2000 vehicles a day. It is my understanding that VDOT is also requiring the road to be constructed to nzeet the 2001- 4000 ADT standard because the project has only one access point. To meet this standard, it appears that the roadway section for areas of one -sided parking must be expanded to 2911 (if approved by VDOT, otherwise the width must be 31 ft) and the horizontal curve will need to be flattened to a radius of 335ft. When the road construction plans are designed, please note that the sight distance and vertical alignment will need to be consider a design speed of 30nzph. The current cross - section for Artist's Way with parking on one side has a discrepancy regarding the curb -to -curb width. 7. Please show the construction of West Village Drive to the property line of TMP 56A1-01-31. [14- 409.B] The requirement may be waived by the agent. At this time, 1 do support the waiving of this requirement. Rev. 1) As I hopeful!) clarified during the Site Review Committee Meeting, the last sentence in this comment was incorrectly written. I do not support the waiving of the extension requirement. This matter is to be considered by the Planner, however. It is my understanding Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 that the road must be constructed to the adjacent property in order to meet VDOT's acceptance requirements. 8. Please show the sight distance triangles for each entrance onto West Village Avenue. For the entrance closest to the end of the street show the sight triangle to the north on the existing platted ROW. Rev. 1) The sight distance triangles have been shown and there appears to be no obvious obstructions. No _further information is required for the preliminary plat with regard to sight distance. However, when the road plans are submitted, vertical profiles of the sight lines will be needed for Artist's Way looking both left and right onto Blue Ridge Avenue. 9. The swale will not work with the street trees in place. Please either request that the agent waive the street tree requirements in this area or remove the swale and replace with the standard 6ft planting strip. Rev. 1) The water quality swale within the ROW has been removed, so the street trees can remain. However, the normal spacing requirement of 50j1 should be followed when the road plans are submitted later. X18- 32.7.9.61 Rev. 1) It appears as though a sidewalk is being proposed along existing Blue Ridge Avenue, which would be required by Planning through 18- 32.7.2.8 if not shown. Because the sidewalk is located in an area where a ditch would be, please provide curbing at the edge of the roadway when the road plans are submitted. The curbing will require a new drainage structure on Blue Ridge Avenue north of the intersection with Artists Way. This does not need to be addressed until the final application is submitted. k9 -31.) xa COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER November 4, 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22402 Subject: West Village Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with §15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, 24 VAC 30 -155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Renaissance Planning on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled West Village by WaterStreet Studio. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincerely; Joel DeNunzio Land Use Engineer Cc: William Wuensch P.E., P.T.O.E. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled West Village, Crozet VA Albemarle County, VA Project ID: SDP -2010 -00035 Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group for WaterStreet Studio Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions The study did not provide left turn warrants for the Jarmans Gap Road and Blue Ridge Avenue intersection for the 2020 build scenario. It does not appear that the warrants will be met but they should be included in the report. Figure 5 should indicate which percentage is either Am or PM. Summary of Data With the minor changes in the Errors and Omissions section of this report, the study results are acceptable and meet the regulatory requirements. Study Recommendation The interconnection discussed at the end of the report does not include an analysis that addresses any improvements that may be needed with future development to the intersection at Blue Ridge Ave and Jarmans Gap Road. The county may want the study to include the future growth analysis. Other Items The site plan should comply with the Crozet Master Plan. The connector road should be shown on a larger aerial photo with the interconnection shown to ensure it will work for future development.