Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500025 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-04-11COUNTY OFALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 July 31, 2015 Revl : October 28, 2015 Rev2: April 11, 2016 Scott Collins Collins Engineering 200 Garrett St. Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA2015-007; SP2015-025, Brookhill Mr. Collins: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA) and special use permit (SP). We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA and SP moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. VDOT has not provided comments on the TIA to date. Additional comments and clarifications may occur once these comments are received. 2. Permission from the Board of Supervisors is needed to use the County property for the interconnection to Ashwood Blvd. This will occur along with the request for rezoning but will need to be a separate action. If you are offering to provide a park and ride lot along side this connection as shown on the exhibit submitted on March 18th include a proffer to that effect. The park and ride will provide additional public value and address a need in this location. 3. Additional information/study is needed for the Historic House. See attached comments from Historic Resources. 4. A waiver/modification list was provided with previous comments, to date the only requests that have been received have been for recreation requirements and private streets. It is unclear if any of these requests need to be modified based upon the latest plan and COD. If so, please submit updated requests. Please note that during the site plan/subdivision process, additional modifications may be identified and will need to be approved at that stage. Waivers/special exceptions needed: 0 14-233(A) requires PC authorization of private streets. Rev2: Please indicate blocks where private streets are anticipated. o 14-422 (E) & (F) requires PC exception of sidewalk and planting strip along streets for lots fronting on greenspace. 0 32.3.5 (B) requires agent approved exception of street tree requirement for lots fronting on greenspace (section 32.7.9.5) Rev2: These will be processed as variations with private the street authorization since street trees/sidewalks are provided in a different location. 32.7.7 Recreation variation (as required by section 4.16) Rev2: Civic Space/Recreational Amenities have been updated in COD to provide minimum area for recreation requirements. Applicant has indicated a variation is no longer requested. The number of dwelling units will determine the ultimate requirements for recreation facilities. There appears to be enough area provided to meet the recreation requirements from 4.16. Substitution requests may be needed with final site plans or staff can process the previously submitted request with the rezoning. Please clarify how you would like to proceed with the recreation requirements. Application Plan: 1. Comments regarding the application plan from Zoning, Planning, ARB and Engineering are attached. 2. The application plan still notes that the historic house is not a part of the rezoning, please revise. 3. Pg. 5 states that "no block size shall be modified more than 15% of the gross land area depicted in Figure 1 on page 8." Figure 1 is the illustrative street network plan. I think this should refer instead to Table 2 (pg 6). Consider adding this as a note to the bottom of the table. 4. There is an existing sewer and sewer easement on the property along the streams. Where possible, the trails should follow/be located over top of this easement. This will allow minimal grading and clearing which will be less disturbance on the stream buffer. Provide language in the Code of Development to state that the trail will be located here within the Greenway Section (page 18) and the Trailways Section (page 27). Code of Development: 1. See attached comments from Zoning, ARB/Historic Resources, and Engineering. 2. A footnote should be added to setback tables that states `Buildings over 3 stories require a 26' wide, exclusive of shoulders, aerial fire apparatus access road that is no more than 30' from the building' as required by Fire and Recue. 3. The COD is a little confusing regarding the civic areas between blocks 1-3 and 5. Consider listing Central Park and Linear Park as separate rows and listing facilities, size and blocks for each to avoid confusion at site plan. 4. Rear loaded garage setbacks should be either less than 5 feet or 18 feet or more and not in between. Carriage house parking needs to be addressed. See attached recently approved diagram for parking for Old Trail Village. 5. Albemarle County recently amended its setback regulations in conventional zoning districts to encourage a style of development that is more consistent with the Neighborhood Model. Please modify the proposed setbacks to be consistent with the residential (non -infill) and commercial setbacks and stepbacks outlined in Sections 4.19 and 4.20 of the zoning ordinance. a. Neighborhood Service Center: State that side and rear minimum setbacks for any primary structure shall be constructed and separated in accordance with the current edition of the Building Code. Please look at/reference zoning ordinance sections above. b. Urban Density Residential: Maximum front setback should be 25'. Language can be added to allow exceptions during site plan. Garage setbacks should be from the travelway or the sidewalk, as cars should not block the sidewalk. See comment #4 regarding garages above as well. A minimum/maximum lot frontage is not needed. Please look at/reference zoning ordinance sections above. Neighborhood Denisty Residential: Maximum front setback should be 25'. Language can be added to allow exceptions during site plan. Garage setbacks should be from the travelway or the sidewalk, as cars should not block the sidewalk. See comment #4 regarding garages above as well. A minimum/maximum lot frontage is not needed. Please look at/reference zoning ordinance sections above. Proffers: 1. RWSA has requested that as part of Proffer #2 that a commitment be made to implement a signage plan to warn trail users of inundation zone and designate evacuation routes. See attached RWSA comments. 2. The Rio Mills connection is currently being pursued as a public project. Proffer 1(D) should be amended to be more flexible so that the equivalent amount of funding to build the road would be offered for the Ashwood connection to Rio Mills (on the west side of Rt 29) in lieu of the connection should the Rio Mills connection be built prior to Brookhill developing. 3. A commitment should be made for the maintenance and approval of the salamander crossings on Polo Grounds Road. See attached comments from VDOT and the Natural Resource Manager as well. 4. If you are offering to provide a park and ride lot as shown on the exhibit submitted on March 18th include a proffer to that effect. The park and ride will provide additional public value and address a need in this location. See attached comments from Parks and Rec on this park and ride. 5. The greenway proffer states that it will be dedicated to the County, however the COD on page 18 it states that this will be maintained by the HOA. Clarify. 6. See additional attached comments from Zoning, County Attorney, and Housing regarding the proffers. Special Use Permit: 1. Submit Floodplain Development Permit Application. See attached comments from Engineering. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive 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 work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at the work session and/or with subsequent submittals. The property is located within the Places29 Masterplan. The land use designations for this property are as follows: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) — retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; NS - Neighborhood Service Center; Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features — privately owned recreational amenities and open space/ floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features. While the County encourages development in the development areas, this property has not been identified in the Places29 Masterplan as a priority area. On page 8-8 of the implementation chapter it states "if the infrastructure needed to support a proposed development outside of the Priority Areas is not in place, the proposed development should not be approved." To date Staff cannot determine if the traffic impacts have been addressed since VDOT has not provided comments on the TIA. This letter will be updated to state whether or not the impacts have been addressed once VDOT comments are received. 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 Blocks of 200-300 feet in length should be used in the most intensely developed Orientation mixed-use areas. Rev2: Mid -block break is provided. Consider a range of block size rather than "approximately 600 feet." This is not enforceable. Blocks of 200-300 feet are still recommended for the center. Blocks of 300-400 feet should be used in mixed use areas which are less intensely developed. Rev2: 400-600 ft block size proposed. Consider reducing minimum to 300 ft to allow smaller blocks, if site design permits. Cul-de-sacs should be eliminated where possible. Cul-de-sacs adjacent to streams where crossings are not possible might be permissible; however, some of these might be able to be eliminated by redesigning the block layouts to better follow the natural topography. More interconnections should be provided in areas where cul-de-sacs end in close proximity to other cul-de-sacs. Rev2: Comment partially addressed. Language is provided within tables on pages 9-11 calling for an interconnected street grid; however, the street exhibit on page 8 shows at least 20 cul-de-sacs, some of which appear to be located in areas where interconnection could be made, but it is difficult to judge without a more detailed plan showing elevation and grading. A stronger commitment could be made to make cul-de-sacs the exception rather than the rule, especially in Neighborhood Density Residential Blocks. Mixture of Uses The proposal includes a multitude of uses appropriate for the Neighborhood Service Center. This principle has been addressed. Neighborhood The proposal includes parks, civic center, open spaces, and an elementary Centers school This principle has been addressed. Mixture of 15% affordable housing is proffered, along with a mixture of mulit-family, Housing Types detached and attached single family housing. This principle has been and addressed. Affordability Interconnected Cul-de-sacs should be eliminated where possible. Streets and i y Rev2: Comment partially addressed. Language is provided within Transportation tables on pages 9-11 calling for an interconnected street grid; however, Networks the street exhibit on page 8 shows at least 20 cul-de-sacs, some of which appear to be located in areas where interconnection could be made, but it is difficult to judge without a more detailed plan showing elevation and grading. A stronger commitment could be made to make cul-de-sacs the exception rather than the rule, especially in Neighborhood Density Residential Blocks. Multi -modal A bus stop, possible park and ride lot, bike lanes, muli-use path, and trails are Transportation provided. Please note, bicycle parking should be provided at the Opportunities pool/clubhouse within urban density residential blocks rather than using this features as a substitute for bike parking. This principle has been addressed. --------------- Parks, 4 acres of parks, 34 acres of open space, 49 acres of greenway are proposed Recreational ➢ Rev 2: Please note, the required recreation facilities will be dictated by Amenities, and the number of units in the development and based on section 4.16. Open Space There appears to be enough area to accomplish the minimum recreational amenities required by this section. ➢ The elementary school site will provide an additional civic space for this development. The COD is a little confusing regarding the civic areas between blocks 1-3 and 5. This could cause confusion at site plan review. Consider listing Central Park and Linear Park as separate rows and listing facilities, size and blocks for each to avoid confusion. Buildings and Space of Human Scale ' Relegated Parking ➢ Revisions are needed to the setbacks to at a minimum match those recently adopted. See comments above regarding the setbacks in the COD. Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. Consider adding minimum setbacks for parking which are equal to or greater than minimum building setbacks, especially in the mixed use center (see DCD Section 2013.3 for guidance). Rev2: Comment addressed; however, please clarify in relegated parking guidelines (p. 27) what is meant by "relegated by buildings from public r/w" and "not relegated..." Consider calling these "parking as an accessory use" and "parking as a primary use (stand alone parking)" Consider adding a front setback for front loaded garages that is several feet behind the primary residence for single family units. Rev2: Match garage maximum setbacks from section 4.19 (18' for front loading, 5' for side loading). See comments above in COD section regarding garage setbacks. Redevelopment • This proposal is for new development within Development Areas. The existing home will be preserved. This principle does not apply. Respecting • Avoid disturbances to preserved steep slopes where possible. Terrain and • Try to construct roads along existing contours where possible. Careful • Disturbances to slopes appear to be minimal. Please keep these comments Grading and in mind as you plan neighborhood streets and future lots. Re -grading of Terrain Clear • Vegetative buffers have been added to the COD. This principle is Boundaries addressed. with the Rural Area Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, it appears that these fees have already been paid: $ 218.75 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 418.75 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. $ 218.75 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 637.50 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is (434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos@albemarle.org. Sincerely, "Ok Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner Planning Services Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated April 1, 2016 Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue dated March 20, 2016 Attachment C — Comments from Engineering, dated April 5, 2016 Attachment D- Comments from Architectural Review Board/Historic Preservation Staff, dated April 1, 2016 Attachment E- Comments from ACSA dated April 1, 2016 Attachment F- Comments from Zoning, dated April 4, 2016 Attachment G- Comments from County Attorney- Proffer Mark Up Attachment H- Comments from Parks and Recreation, dated April 5, 2016 Attachment I- Comments from Housing Director, dated March 14, 2016 Attachment J- Comments from Natural Resources Manager, dated April 1, 2016 Attachment K- Comments from RWSA, dated April 5, 2016 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FTT4k941OI_W141.4.101 12due] r419I► iITA hhIa4:11a9:1:1 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. 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 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for k» Zoning Map Amendment .N PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1 2016 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing * Request for PC Public Hearing, Legal Ad Payment Due ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Friday Monday Tuesday Nov 2 2015 Dec 4 2015 Dec 21 2015 Jan 12 Nov 16 2015 Dec 18 2015 Jan 04 Jan 26 Dec 7 2015 Jan 08 Jan 11 Feb 02 Dec 21 2015 Jan 22 Feb 01 Feb 23 Jan 04 Feb 05 Feb 08 Mar 01 Tue Jan 19 Feb 19 Feb 22 Mar 15 Feb 01 Mar 04 Mar 14 Apr 05 Tue Feb 16 Mar 18 Apr 04 Apr 26 Mar 07 Apr 08 Apr 11 May 03 Mar 21 Apr 22 May 09 May 31 Apr 04 May 06 May 09 May 31 Apr 18 May 20 May 30 Jun 21 May 02 Jun 03 Jun 20 Jul 12 May 16 Jun 17 Jun 20 Jul 12 Jun 06 Jul 08 Jul 18 Aug 09 Jun 20 Jul 22 Aug 01 Aug 23 Tue Jul 05 Aug 05 Aug 22 Sep 13 Jul 18 Aug 19 Aug 22 Sep 13 Aug 01 Sep 02 Sep 05 Sep 27 Aug 15 Sep 16 Sep 19 Oct 11 Tue Sep 06 Oct 07 Oct 10 Nov 01 Sep 19 Oct 21 Oct 31 Nov 22 Oct 03 Nov 04 Nov 14 Dec 06 Oct 17 Nov 18 Nov 28 Dec 20 Nov 07 Dec 09 Dec 19 Jan 10 2017 Nov 21 Dec 23 Jan 09 2017 Jan 31 2017 Dec 05 Jan 06 2017 Jan 16 2017 Feb 07 2017 Dec 19 Jan 20 2017 Feb 06 2017 Feb 28 2017 Jan 03 2017 Feb 03 2017 Feb 13 2017 Mar 07 2017 Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2016. 2017 dates are tentative. * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. " The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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. COMMONWEALTH of VIRQIN1IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner April 1, 2016 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2015-00007, SP -2015-00025 Brookhill Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the revised proffer statement, code of development, application plan dated 6/15/15 with revisions dated 9/21/15 and 03/07/16 and offer the following comments: 1. VDOT is in the process of reviewing the TIA submitted. Additional comments concerning the application plan, supplemental plan, proffer statement and code of development may be provided upon completion of the TIA review. 2. There is not enough detail on the application plan outside of the limits of improvement. All roads will need to be designed according to the roadway functional classification with information provided on the horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, and typical section of the roadway. 3. The traffic phasing plan as shown in Figure A. should be in accordance with the approved TIA. 4. The proposed salamander crossings are to be permitted to the county or the developer under bond and permit. A maintenance agreement for the crossings will be required. 5. On -Street parking should not receive a blanket approval for restrictions as shown in the Code of Development typical sections. 6. The connector road on Ashwood Boulevard should be moved towards the east to provide adequate clearance from the existing SWM Facility #3 and to better line up with the median `bullnose'. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Joel D. DeNunzio, P.E. Resident Engineer VDOT - Charlottesville WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Review Comments ZMA20150000T Project Name: -rcckhill Date Completed: ' 3unday, March 20, 2016 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer DepartmentfDivisionfAgency: I Fire Rescue Reviews Comments: Based on ZMAdated 317116_ Things to keep in mind about the Neighborhood Service Center_ 1_ Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided_ For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof. the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater_ 2_ Aerial fire apparatris access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof - 3 -D1 05-3 hereof_ 3_D105.3 Proximity to building_ At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building_ The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official_ Review status: I See Recommendations I - Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0411--2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer John Anderson (Rev.2) Date: 29 July 2015 Rev. 1: 14 Oct 2015 Rev.2: 5 Apr 2016 Subject: Brookhill (ZMA201500007) (SP201500025) The documents submitted with the rezoning request to establish the Brookhill Neighborhood Model District have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; If addressed with Rev. 1, several comments were removed to limit length. Transportation improvements; 1. It is recommended that Polo Grounds Road and the associated signal on Rt. 29 be relocated to a place within the development. This will remove Polo Grounds Road from the floodplain, and avoid adding another signal on Rt. 29, while still providing a new central entrance to the development. If the proposed signal is added as shown, not only will there be more delay, but there may be problems with safety in queuing, similar to what has occurred to the north on Rt. 29. Rev.l: not addressed. Rev.2: Withdrawn. 2. Rev.l: addressed. 3. Rev. 1: The block roads have been removed from the plan. 4. Rev. 1: The block roads have been removed from the plan. 5. Typical conceptual sections should be provided for all road improvements, including Polo Grounds Road and Rt. 29. Rev.l: Connector road section B does not meet ordinance requirements for planting strips. Note 1 is incorrect. Alleys are not roads. Rev.2: Partially Addressed. As follow-up: Street Network Chart, p. 24, appears to indicate Neighborhood Center Main Street will have a bike lane. Please revise Fig. 10, p. 25, to show bike lane. 6. Rev.l: addressed. Primitive trails. 7. Language in the proposed code, section 2.9, regarding 90 -degree spaces along roads and alleys should be removed. This is not typically allowed along roads and alleys, but in special circumstance where parking lots are designed in conjunction with muli-family housing without driveways. Perpendicular parking on a travelway is a parking lot, which is not typically a road. Rev.l: Please modify note 1 on the plan. Alleys and parking lots are private, but they are not private roads. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 9 Rev.2: Addressed. 8. The setbacks for garages provided in the proposed code is not adequate. Reference the waiver for Old Trail Block 13, which was before the Board of Supervisors in November of 2012. The actual setback will depend on the vehicle travel lane width and placement, and also on the steepness of the driveway. Rev.1: Not found. There are setbacks to property lines on p.17 of the COD. Setbacks from the road or alley travelways are not discussed and will be evaluated with final plans. Rev.2: Min. 5'/10' (No Max) setbacks for detached/attached garages, respectively, appear problematic. It is Engineering Div. understanding that setback must be designed to prevent or allow parking in a driveway. Setbacks <5' or >18' either prevent or allow cars to park off-street (clear of travelway). Defer to Planning. Traffic study; 9. Individual movements southwest bound left onto Rt. 29 from Polo Grounds Road fail with significant delays. This is the movement that will be the most important to existing residents in this area, and there should be an improvement in level of service. Rev.1: Not addressed. The applicant has indicated triple lefts from Polo Grounds Road, but the delay comparison was not found. Rev.2: ZMA Application Plan proposes Option B, with right-in/right-out at site entrance on U.S. 29 N of Polo Grounds (Site Driveway 1). Feb. 2016 RKA TIA, p. 42, states: "For the build conditions under Option B, this intersection [Polo Grounds Rd/U.S. Rt. 29] is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour with the following improvements: Extend westbound right -turn lane on Polo Grounds Road from 50 feet to 200 feet of storage Construct two new westbound left -turn lane on Polo Grounds Road with 650 feet of storage. Under Option B, with these improvements in place, the capacity analysis indicates that the westbound movements on Polo Grounds Road are expected to operate at LOS F with multi -cycle delays for most drivers during the peak hours." It is reasonable to ask why Option B is proposed. Also, ref. Table 6, Analysis Summary of U.S. 29 at Polo Grounds Road /Rio Mills Road (p. 44). Also: Sec. 10.2, RECOMMENDED OPTION —"Based on the analysis, the projected traffic operations under Option A are significantly better than Option B for several reasons" (p. 57). Also, July 31, 2015 VDOT (ZMA) review comments (TIA comment 1.): The study "only considers the operational effects of the development," "Additional scenarios that address both operation and safety issues at all of the study intersections should be added to the TIA." Pg. 3 of Feb TIA reports discussion with VDOT during a meeting Jan 28 that examined future conversion of U.S. 29/Rio Mills Road to right-in/right- out (after extension of Berkmar Drive is complete), noting that "it would eliminate two signal phases, which would have a significant positive impact on the progression of traffic in both directions on U.S. 29 ...documented in Table 6 of this report." [Option AA] Eliminating phases is response to VDOT safety- related concerns. Roadway improvements recommended by TIA (p. 3, 57) are not accepted to any appreciable degree. Signalized entrance to development on U.S. 29, N of Polo Grounds (Option A); southbound left -turn lanes on North/South and East/West Connector Roads onto Polo Grounds Road; eastbound left -turn lane on Polo Grounds Road onto East/West Connector Rd with 150 -ft of storage. None is accepted. Rather, Option B, with lowest level of service and longest left -turn delays for vehicles entering U.S. 29 from Polo Grounds Rd is selected. Recommend revise Application Plan to reflect TIA general/specific recommendations. Stream Buffers, Open Space; 10. Most of the open space shown on the edges of each phase of the plan will be used for erosion control and Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 9 stormwater management. This may not be the intent of the Neighborhood Model. Rev.l: Addressed through the establishment of a "greenway" where these measures are not supposed to disturb land. See Code of Development. 11. Measures to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance will need clarification on the application plan. It does not appear possible to mitigate for all stream buffer impacts on this plan, as all areas will be developed. Rev.l: Not addressed. The statements under "2.4 Greenway" of the Code of Development say mitigation can occur off-site on property not owned by the developers or owners of Brookhill. The county does not have a program for off-site mitigation, and expects mitigation to be on-site. If there is a specific proposal, it should be made now. Rev.2: Addressed. The language in the COD about mitigation has been removed. 12. The extent of lot areas should be shown on the application plan, such that it is clear lot areas are out of stream buffers. Rev.l: It appears this was meant to be addressed with the language under "2.4 Green Space and Amenities". This section states green space will be outside of private lots, however I don't find language which states the Green Space includes all Greenway or Stream Buffers. Rev.2: Addressed. See 2.4 Greenspace and Amenities. 13. The extent of stream buffers on this site is not yet known. Each stream will have to be evaluated for perennial characteristics. Some of the smaller streams on the property may be considered perennial, and thus have stream buffers. The GIS layer from the county is typically inaccurate when it comes to these tributary streams, because it is based on old USGS maps. Rev.l: Not yet finalized. Rev.2: Addressed. See Environmental -TNT 4 -sheet Surveyed Wetlands & Waters of the U.S. Map dated 10115115. 14. The maximum extent of clearing and grading to install the multi -use trail in the stream buffer should be clarified on the application plan. Rev.l: This has been changed to a primitive trail. 15. There must be an attempt to locate utilities outside of stream buffers, including sanitary sewer and stormwater. Existing cleared paths and existing facilities which already compromise much of the buffers should be shown and clarified and differentiated from proposed facilities. Stomwater must be out of the buffers, unless reasonably impossible. It cannot be put in the buffers simply to have more developable lot area. Rev.l: Addressed. See comments for Code of Development. Grading and Slopes; 16. The same line type is used for stormsewer and retaining walls. Another line type for retaining walls should be used to make the plan legible in this regard. The maximum height of walls should not exceed those of managed slopes in the zoning ordinance. Rev.l: Grading details like retaining walls are to be addressed with later plans, per section "2.7 Grading". Rev.2: Avoid preserved slopes. Proposed 2:1 grading of preserved slopes on the north side of Polo Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 9 Ground Rd, Sta. 34+00 - 38+50, maybe allowed under 18-30.7.4.b.l.g., provided preserved slopes are preserved to the maximum extent practical. Engineering does not support proposed 2:1 grading. Experience with failed preserved slopes ''/z mile from preserved slopes on Polo Grounds Road informs this comment. Slopes may appear deceptively stable, when in fact least disturbance may introduce a cascade of events difficult to limit or control through structural means. Show steep slopes on Brookhill Special Use Permit & CLOMR Plan. Avoid grading preserved steep slopes. At a minimum, provide conceptual retaining walls on the north side of Polo Ground Road. 17. It will not be possible to protect the preserved slopes as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The development will need to be pulled back to allow for erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, sewer lines, and lot grading outside of preserved slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes for private stormwater management facilities is not allowed under Zoning Ordinance section 30.7.4. In addition, other utilities must demonstrate that they are necessary for use of the lot, which does not appear to be the case, as lots are not yet created. Utilities must be located outside of preserved slopes where possible. Rev.1: Many of the preserved slopes are shown in open space. I did not find any statements or commitments not to grade, build walls, or establish utilities in these areas. Rev.2: Not addressed. Also, see item #16 above, concerning steep slopes. 18. It is not clear what the three phases proposed in the code of development accomplish, if multiple phases can be open at once, and there is no specific order, and only temporary stabilization is required before more disturbance is allowed. A specific acreage of total disturbance would be sufficient to set a limit to mass grading, if that is the intent. Rev.1: The language in section "2.5 Phasing" indicates no more than 6 development blocks are to be cleared and graded at one time. This is the only commitment found. The phasing diagram does not appear to be tied to anything, and since infrastructure (roads, utilities, grading) is not included, nothing much is accomplished, as this is the majority of the work. There are also errors in the VSMP permit process, which must be removed from the language. See comments on the code of development below. Rev.2: Ref. initial comment above —"and only temporary stabilization is required before more disturbance is allowed" appears to persist in 2.5 Phasing: "All disturbed areas within a phase of development, exclusive of any lot under construction with a building permit, shall be seeded and strawed, prior to the start of the next phase of development' should be revised to read "shall be permanently stabilized, prior to the start of the next phase." Permanent stabilization may be evaluated against a pre-set value, 90% permanent vegetative cover, for example. Also, as follow-up: 2.5 Phasing states that "The first phase shall be limited to 80 acres of disturbance, inclusive of roadway improvements, installation of utilities, and construction of all stormwater management and erosion and sediment control facilities. The first phase shall include the development of the Neighborhood center. The remaining portion of the development shall be constructed within no less than (3) phases." This is ambiguous. It is clear from Fig. A: Brookhill Traffic Phasing Plan that roads will be built or improved in phases. It is likely that later phase sediment basins may be converted into permanent SWM facilities. Recommend revise language for clarity. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control; 19. I recommend removing all stormwater from the zoning application plans, unless there is a major feature, such as a lake, that is central to the development plan. But, as long as stormwater is being treated like a necessary but peripheral utility, there is no point in holding up the rezoning with review. Stormwater will have to meet all requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance and state regulations. Proffers or code can set simple parameters on stormwater management. Such parameters might be; a. Facilities will be located outside of buffers and lots, preserved slopes and floodplains. b. Extra measures will be provided at X location or for X area. c. County approval of a master stormwater plan will be obtained prior to the first initial site plan or plat approval. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 9 Rev.1: This has been addressed by removing the stormwater concept plan. The language remaining in the code of development needs to be cleaned up a bit. The stormwater section "2.6" states facilities will be out of buffer areas, while the sections on buffer areas seem to say otherwise. The following comments may not apply if the above approach is taken; 20. There will need to be sediment basins and traps in all natural low points on current topography at the periphery of each phase. The plan should allow for this, so that facilities can be placed outside of floodplains, stream buffers, and preserved slope areas. Rev.1: Addressed, see comment 19. 21. Stormwater management facilities, where possible, should coincide with significant erosion and sediment control measures. The plan cannot protect the streams from the site disturbance as currently shown. Rev.1: Addressed, see comment 19. 22. With any stormwater concept or plan, preliminary water quality load and treatment calculations should be provided on the state worksheets for each drainage area within the disturbed areas. Development drainage areas should coincide wherever possible with natural drainage areas. Rev.1: Addressed, see comment 19. 23. The notes on sheet 5 of the application plan, and the last sentence of section 2.7 in the proposed code, should be removed. A workable concept plan with load and treatment calculations according to the state methods is needed. Rev.1: Addressed, see comment 19. 24. Stormwater management basins, facilities, and maintenance access roads must be off of lots, and placed so as not to be a nuisance to future homeowners. Rev.1: Addressed, see comment 19. Floodplains; 25. The floodplain elevations in this area must be adjusted to match current topography (18-30.3.7). In areas where the Rivanna River controls the elevations, the elevation data is obtained from the FIS and applied to current topography. Areas should be added to the FIRM map areas, but not subtracted without a LOMA. Rev.1: Not addressed. The application needs to show the regulatory floodplain and flood hazard overlay district. Rev.2: County recommends Applicant initiate LOMA process with FEMA immediately. Brookhill Special Use Permit & CLOMR Plan, March 4, 2016 (8 sheets) proposes substantial areas be removed from FEMA 100 -year floodplain based on modeled 100 -year floodplain and updated topography of the property. Special Use Permit & CLOMR Plan proposes fill within modeled 100 -year floodplain to improve Polo Grounds Rd. Engineering recommends Special Use Permit condition require `No rise' in elevation of the 100 -year floodplain for FEMA Zone AE, South Fork Rivanna River, and further recommends as condition of Zoning, Special Use Permit, Final Subdivision, or Final Site Plan Approval prior to creating any Lot for sale or permitting development within any Area shaded and identified to be removed from FEMA 100 year Floodplain that FEMA accept and approve Applicant's revised 100 -year floodplain boundaries as shown on the CLOMR Plan. There is no assurance at this point on this date that FEMA will accept revised 100 -year Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 6 of 9 floodplain boundaries shown on CLOMR Plan dated March 4, 2016. Again, please initiate CLOMR review and approval process with FEMA immediately since County does not coordinate on Applicant's behalf 26. In the areas of approximated floodplain on tributary streams, basic hydrologic and hydraulic computations should be provided to estimate the base flood elevation within the development (18-30.3.13). This base floodplain elevation data is used in conjunction with the map interpolation, although the map may not be changed without a LOMA. Currently, in comparison to the county GIS data, the floodplain is shown incorrectly on the plans. Rev.l: Not addressed. Rev.2: Partially addressed. March 4, 2016 CLOMR Plan presents certain HEC -RAS variables and modeled results. FEMA floodplain (FIRM Panel) may not be changed without a LOMA. Applicant response letter (Mar. 7) reference "to determine the new floodplain" should not be taken to suggest County review is sufficient to approve new floodplain. It is not; or to suggest County will coordinate ZMA with FEMA. County advises Applicant to coordinate project objectives, to submit CLOMR Application to FEMA Region III as soon as possible to ensure that specific critical assumptions concerning development within areas currently shown as lying within 100 -year floodplain are in fact viable, and that it is safe for Applicant to design relative to these assumptions. Also, item #25, above. 27. The current proposal does not allow enough room to place adequate erosion control measures outside the floodplain. Development should be pulled back enough so that all earthwork is outside the floodplain. Rev.l: To be addressed later on grading plans. 28. A floodplain development permit is required. Rev.l: Not received. Rev.2: Not received. Proffers; 29. The dedication plat for Polo Grounds Road cannot be approved until all road and necessary infrastructure plans are approved and constructed or bonded. Rev.l: As revised, proffer IA only talks about preparing a plat and deed. Rev.2: Addressed. 30. The code of development contains items that are typically reflected in proffers; (a) overlot grading plans, (b) phasing of grading and disturbances, (c) dedication of greenways, etc. Rev.l: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 31. Rev. 1: Timelines which indicate "constructed or bonded" have been a considerable trouble for staff It has taken many hours of meetings and enforcement actions to have improvements constructed when there is no definitive timeline. There should be a date specified, or a definite limit to the number of building permits and plans approved or accepted prior to all proffered improvements being complete and accepted in full. Rev.2: Addressed. 32. Rev.l: The construction traffic proposal in IE may be a safety hazard if it requires a construction entrance to be on Rt. 29. No entrances on Rt.29 or Polo Grounds road have been approved. Construction entrances should be left up to staff and the state. It cannot be assumed that the best location for construction entrances is necessarily in the location of the future roads and site entrances. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 7 of 9 Rev.2: Addressed. 33. Rev. 1: Proffer 2A will likely be problematic, taking inordinate amounts of staff time with resident concerns. Trails should be built before residents move in. This is also in section 2.12 of the code of development. Rev.2: Application Plan depicts a limited trail system. If a more extensive primitive trail system is proposed, please show on Application Plan. 2.4.1 Greenway: "The Greenway features primitive nature trails throughout the stream corridors on the property." Special Use Permit; (SP201500025) 34. Information regarding the special use permit application for fill in the floodplain was not provided. The Design Standards Manual contains a list of the technical submittal information. It is recommended that the rezoning not move forward without a full review of the special use permit. Rev.l: Not received. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Submit Floodplain Development Permit Application. Review Design Standards Manual and 18-30.3.12.A. Ref. FEMA Firm Panel 280. Show floodway South Fork Rivanna River relative to project/Polo Grounds Rd proposed improvements. Ref. 18-30.3.11 (Table) Permitted and Prohibited Uses and Structures; Stream Crossings and Grading Activities. In this 30.3.11 table, grading activities, including cut and fill within the floodway which the Floodplain Administrator determines will or may cause the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand, are prohibited. Grading activities which may cause the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand within the floodway fringe may be permitted by special use permit; however, ordinance provides conflicting prohibition at 18-30.3.13.A.1. Within Zone AE floodplain (true of this project at this location) "Any encroachment, including new construction, substantial improvements, fencing crossing a stream channel, or other development, but excluding fill, is prohibited unless the owner demonstrates in a floodplain impact plan that the proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood within the county during the occurrence of the base flood discharge." Then, this: "Fill is prohibited in the regulatory floodway regardless of whether the owner demonstrates that the fill will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood. March 4, 2016 Brookhill Special Use Permit & CLOMR Plan proposes fill within the regulatory floodway. Reviewer cannot immediately identify means for approving grading associated with Polo Grounds Rd improvements, but will confer with Zoning. The 100 -yr floodplain horizontal limit is proposed to follow the 360' contour to more accurately reflect FEMA HEC -RAS model (sheet 8). After speaking with Gregor Patsch, it is also apparently true that proposed grading associated with Polo Grounds Rd improvements will have no effect (`No rise') on the BFE along the project corridor [4/5/16, 30 -min conversation, JA -GP]. Code of Development; 35. Rev. 1: "Greenways" states that utilities may be constructed within the Greenway with no mitigation requirements. This must be altered or removed. Development in stream buffers for utilities has exemptions per Code 17-602. A rezoning is not supposed to remove ordinance requirements. Rev.2: Addressed. 36. Rev. 1: "Phasing" is changing the definition of "stabilization". This is defined in state standards for erosion and sediment control 9VAC25-840-10. Any other definition is not acceptable. Rev.2: Partially Addressed. Also, #18, above. 37. Rev. 1: "Phasing" is proposing to remove areas from the permit when stabilized. This is not possible under the state regulations. Permits can be terminated, or amended to increase acreage. They cannot be reduced. In addition, builders on lots within a larger common plan of development are given agreements in lieu of plans as part of the building permit process. The state does not require a complete VSMP permit for building lots. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 8 of 9 Rev.2: Addressed. 38. Rev. 1: "Phasing" proposes six distinct phases. There is nothing tied to them (order of progression, amount of disturbance, etc.), so they appear meaningless. This is further emphasized by not including all the infrastructure improvements in the phases. Rev.2: Addressed. 39.Rev. 1: Section "2.8.3 Alleys" must be revised. Alleys are defined by ordinance. They cannot be private roads. Rev.2: Addressed. 40. Rev. 1: Section "2.8.4": "cul-de-sacs along the Greenway" needs to be clarified. It is not clear what these are. Rev.2: Addressed. Although 3/7 Applicant response letter states that "the use of cul-de-sacs has been further defined within the Code and clarified," there is no apparent reference to cul-de-sacs in the COD. 41. Rev. 1: Section "2.8.6"; Improvements to establish an entrance to the property (signal and turn lanes) are not considered off-site mitigating improvements. They are simply the minimum requirements for building an entrance, even in by -right cases. Rev.2: Addressed. 42. Rev.2/(New): Exhibit C: Ashwood Boulevard Connection Landscaping Exhibit shows proposed N/S Connector Road crossing the eastern half of TMP# 461354C. This proposed Connector Road (included in RKA February 2016 TIA) is projected to carry 15% of exiting development traffic under Option A, B, or C (Figs. 7, 8, 9). This percentage is important in that it provides relief for the other three proposed entrance/exit points considered by the TIA. It is important from a subdivision connectivity perspective. If school, town center, or other destinations within this development serve residents located north of Brookhill, then without this connection, school/transit buses and vehicles are forced to enter or exit via Rt. 29, or circle the entire development, and approach from one of two southern entrances on Polo Ground Rd. It is typically true (pointedly true, in this case) that project design should consider the current County - adopted Access Management Plan for the Rt. 29 corridor. VDOT ZMA review comment letter dated Jul - 31, 2015 states that the Access Management plan for the Rt. 29 corridor does not include a full access entrance onto Route 29 for this development. As VDOT has near -certain control over Rt. 29 interchange design, Albemarle County may value control over this possible subdivision entry/exit point. Possible uses of county -owned TMP#46B5-1C are fewer now that VDOT has located Rt. 29 Improvement SWM Facility #3 on this parcel. Access, grading, and design of this facility occupy well over 1/3 the area of the parcel. It is fortunate that area remains to provide connection with Ashwood Boulevard. Were this connection made at any other point, design of a Connector Road with Ashwood Boulevard would likely impact preserved slopes or perennial streams to a greater degree than the design proposed with Exhibit C. Exhibit C is the preferred alternative from a resource protection standpoint. 43. Rev.2/(New): County signals intent to use 10/15/15 Environmental -TNT Surveyed Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Map, 4 -sheet Preliminary USACE Jurisdictional Determination to update County GIS, to show (Water Protection Ordinance) stream buffers. Sec. 17-600: "The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of any perennial stream and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist." Stream buffers shown on Environmental -TNT 4 -sheet plan are not in every case measured from the edge of contiguous wetlands. In these cases, County GIS, once perennial stream/wetland information is transferred, may show stream buffers that preclude development in certain areas, since buffers may extend further than shown on the Environmental -TNT plans. 44. Rev.2/(New): Figure B: Polo Grounds Road Salamander Crossing Exhibit appears to be flush with pavement. Whether essential to function of crossing or not, this is likely less -preferable from a long-term performance perspective. VDOT will not maintain these structures. They will also likely be destroyed Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 9 of 9 during any milling/overlay operation. Questions arise: would contractors be able to both install the crossings and install pavement sections? Would these crossings, if set flush with asphalt surface, provide adequate bearing for design traffic, over a period of decades? Will crossings, if set flush with pavement, create problems similar to joints at a bridge approach? Could these crossings be set at an elevation below stone base, in compact subgrade? Private Street Request; A blanket approval of unspecified future private streets is not recommended. This request is made referencing code section 14-233A.l(iii), for rear access to lots facing a public amenity. This is not enough, as rear access can be provided by a public road. Rear lot access and facing a public amenity do not rule out public roads. Which way a lot faces makes no difference in street design. This request is predicated upon the idea that private streets can be to a lesser standard than public streets, allowing greater density and lower cost. The code of development goes so far as to propose that these private streets will actually be designed like alleys. This is not supported. Private Street Standards Waiver; The requested waiver of sidewalks and street trees required by section 14-422 E and F is not supported if it allows the other standards on the roads to be eliminated. These streets should not be designed as alleys. file: El zma201500007 GEB Brookhill.doc ZMA201500007 Brookhill 040516reQ Megan Yaniglos From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:10 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Planning Application Review for ZMA201500007 Brookhill. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 1. Provide a Phase 2 evaluation of the Brookhill house. The evaluation should consider and provide recommendations on the impacts on National Register eligibility of reducing the acreage associated with the house from 38 to 3 acres and the potential significance of landscaping associated with the house. It should clarify the contributing/non- contributing status of the outbuildings. 2. Provide a Phase 2 survey for the 19' century component of archaeological site 44AB0673 or extend the Block 19 boundaries to fully encompass the 191h century component boundaries. 3. Provide for review a treatment plan for the impacts to the various historic resources identified in the Phase 1 and 2 cultural resources reports. 4. Provide a cemetery delineation for the burial(s) associated with Louis Dunn and the areas of periwinkle on the east and west sides of the Brookhill dwelling. 5. A slave cemetery is purported to be located in what would be Block 1 of the development. Provide a cemetery delineation and a treatment plan if burials are located. 6. When the Block 19 boundary is superimposed on the cultural resources plan, the block excludes the Dunn cemetery. Adjust the Block 19 boundaries to contain the full extent of the Dunn cemetery, the areas of periwinkle in the vicinity of the house, and any other cemeteries located in that general vicinity. 7. In addition to the historic marker for the Brookhill house, a second historic marker is recommended to commemorate the prehistoric context of the overall property. 8. Revise the description of the house buffer in 2.4.2 to indicate a combination of natural undisturbed wooded area and new landscaping. 9. The location of SWM facility 2 appears to leave no buffer on the EC side, which will not establish an appropriate appearance for the EC. At the site plan review stage, options for adding landscaping on the Rt. 29 side of the facility should be explored with VDOT. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number= ZMA201500007 Reviewer = Margaret Maliszewski Review Status = Requested Changes Completed Date = 04/01/2016 Megan Yaniglos From: Alex Morrison<amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:23 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Megan, I just have our standard comments for this ZMA which are as follows: • RWSA Capacity Certification will be required. • A construction submittal to the ACSA will be required at the final site plan stage. • A hydraulic analysis will be required for the proposed water system at the final site plan stage. I hereby recommend approval of ZMA2015007. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F) 434-979-0698 From: Megan Yaniglos[mailto:myaniglos@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 11:39 AM To: Amelia McCulley; Gerald Gatobu; Margaret Maliszewski; Alex Morrison; vfort@rivanna.org; Robbie Gilmer; Joel DeNunzio, P.E.; Greg Kamptner; David Hannah; Rachel Falkenstein; Amanda Burbage; Troy Austin; Dan Mahon; Bob Crickenberger Subject: RE: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Good Morning, Just a reminder that comments for this submittal are due to me today, if you haven't already given them to me. Please let me know if you won't be able to make this deadline and what day you plan on getting me comments. Also, if you don't have any comments, let me know that as well. Thank you! Megan Yaniglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 Good Morning: The resubmittal for Brookhill was received on Monday. This is their 3rd submission. The packets for most of you are in the pony, or I have given them to you already. However the applicant provided digital files of everything i AA, f County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner From: Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner Date: April 4, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2015-07 BrookhIII — 3rd Zoning Comments I have reviewed the application and have the following comments: Proffers: a. Proffer 1A & 1C - Please use wording "Owner shall dedicate" rather than "Owner shall offer for dedication." The former is more precise standard language and it removes debate over the requirement. b. Proffer 1 A, 1 B, 1 D & 2A — The timing trigger refers to the 50th CO for single family dwellings. There should be an alternate trigger for commercial square footage and/ or residential dwellings that are not single family to ensure that these transportation improvements are made in time to serve these uses. Alternate language could include "Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for 50th unit (or whatever is appropriate given the traffic study) or X0,000 square feet of non-residential use ..." Other common transportation proffer language is a time period from the approval of the first final subdivision plat or site plan, such as "within 1 year of the approval of the first final site plan or subdivision plat involving new development..." c. Proffer 1 C second paragraph — clarify that "owner" means developer for the County - owned property. This is important because a private developer's proffer cannot obligate the County to actions such as maintenance. d. Proffer 2A i. The proffer language conflicts with the Code of Development regarding trail ownership. If the trails are being dedicated to the County, a fee simple dedication is preferred and is most common. If the trails will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, the proffer language should be amended to reflect this. ii. It would also be helpful if terms were clarified: "greenway" is typically the public linear park system whereas "trails" is the typical term for private use. The owner/developer's reservation on the greenway may be too limiting for our full greenway use. I recommend that you seek the Deputy County Attorney's input on the exclusions from the reservation. e. Proffer 2B i. The proffer refers to 3.2 acres of land dedicated to Parks and Civic Space, but the Code of Development refers to 9.3 acres. These should be made consistent. ii. In addition, for any parks that will be privately owned (Owner's Association), it is not necessary to specify the conveyance and cost information in the last sentence of 213. f. Proffer 4 — we are not familiar with the use of "accessory" units as affordable housing. Please confirm with the Housing Chief that this is acceptable rental affordable housing. g. Proffer 6 i. Please consider allowing a secondary or interim public use for the school site if the school is not needed before the sunset date. For example, another rezoning allowed a property to be used as a park in the interim before a school site could be built. ii. If an interim or secondary use is not identified, please extend the time period for the County's use of the property as a school from 10 years to 15 or 20 years. Proffers are needed to address development phasing, overlot grading, landscape buffers, and historic resources. These are mentioned in the Code of Development, but without a proffer, they are almost impossible to enforce. Proffers are particularly important for those items negotiated with neighbors and others and with items which are major elements of the project. 2. Code of Development: a. Table 2 (Land Use Area) — Please list the total area within each block allocated to parks, greenways, or other recreational amenities per the Zoning Ordinance. b. Table 3 (Permitted/ Prohibited Residential Uses by Block) i. The Zoning Ordinance considers townhouses, triplexes, quadraplexes, etc. as attached dwellings - they do not need to be listed separately. ii. Footnote — if the carriage houses count against density, why is there any need to limit their size? c. Table 4 (Permitted/ Prohibited Non- Residential Uses by Block) — The Zoning Ordinance considers "eating establishments" to be "restaurants" — please use this term. d. Table 5 (Density Regulations) — Zero is not an acceptable minimum non-residential square footage for mixed-use districts. e. 2.3.2 Lot Regulations & Setbacks i. (Prior Comment) Albemarle County recently amended its setback regulations in conventional zoning districts to encourage a style of development that is more consistent with the Neighborhood Model. Consider modifying the proposed setbacks to be consistent with the residential (non -infill) and commercial setbacks and stepbacks outlined in Sections 4.19 and 4.20 of the zoning ordinance. ii. Side setbacks - The fire code requires a minimum 10 foot building separation. iii. Fire code requires buildings over 3 stories to be located no more than 30 feet from an access road. iv. Minimum garage setbacks should be 18 feet to ensure that cars parked in a driveway do not block sidewalks or travelways. v. We recommend that buildings may exceed 5 stories by special exception rather than special use permit. vi. Clarify what is meant by / what qualifies as frontage on a "plaza or greenspace." f. Greenway— the Code of Development should be consistent with the proffer language concerning greenway ownership and maintenance. See review comment 1 d. g. 2.4.2 Buffers i. Suggest adding a proffer to address buffers. Recommend that buffer encroachment language be further clarified with a reference to someone's review, such as Planning Director's. ii. Remove the following — "if the proposed right-of-way of the adjacent public streets encroach into the Brookhill property." This statement does not make sense because right-of-way is fee -simple and does not encroach onto private property in the same way an easement does. h. Civic Space/ Recreational Amenities — Please specify whether the area listed in the table is total or per block. i. 2.5 Phasing — Suggest adding a proffer to address phasing. j. 2.7 Grading — Suggest adding a proffer to address overlot grading. k. 2.8.2 Pedestrian Network — Please remove the sentence: "Maintenance of the sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association." If they are in the public right-of-way, they are typically maintained by VDOT. I. 2.13 Historic Resources — Suggest adding a proffer to address the landscaping buffer and historical marker. m. Architectural Standards — References to porches should be added to the setbacks table in 2.3.2. Original Proffers _X Amendment Brookhill PROFFER STATEMENT Date: March 7, 2016 [Draft] ZMA No. 2015-007 Brookhill Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 04600-00-00-018A0, 04600-00-00-01800 and 04600-00-00-01900 Owner(s) of Record: CHARLES R. HAUGH & ELIZABETH ANN OGLESBY HAUGH; CHARLES R. HAUGH, & E. J. OGLESBY JR, TRUSTEES; and CROCKETT CORPORATION, a VIRGINIA CORPORATION Date of Proffer Signature: 112016 Approximately 277.5 acres to be rezoned from R-1 Residential to NMD (Neighborhood Model District) P49f t.11r6rak� CHARLES Ry,HAUGH & ELIZABETH ANN OGLESBY HAUGH are the owners of Tax Map Parcel 04600-00-00-018A0; CHARLES R,HAUGH & EJ.OGLESBY JR,TRUSTEES are (lie owners of 'Tax Map - Parcel 04600-00-00-01800; and CROCKETT CORPORATION is the owner of Tax Map Parcel 04600-00- 00-01900; all of the owners of such parcels are referred to herein, collectively as the "Owner" and the parcelsr. are referred to herein as the "Property". The Property q the subject of the rezoning application identified by ) Albemarle County (the "County") as "ZMA 2015-00 , for a project known as "Brookhill"(the "Project"), vo/ which includes the application plan prepared by Collins Engineering entitled, "Brookhill Neighborhood Model seJ Cd5 District (NMD) Application Plan" last revised [February 16, 2016] (the "Application Plan"), a Code of Development entitled the `Brookhill Neighborhood Model Code of Development," last revised [March 7, 2016] (the "Code of Development"). Capitalized terms, not otherwise defined in these Proffers shall have the same definitions as set forth in either the Code of Development or the Application Plan. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the proposed rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable. 1. Transportation Improvements A. Polo Grounds Road Improvements. Pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), the Owner shall construct all intersection and turn lane improvements, including improvements to the horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and cross-section of Polo Grounds Road ("Polo Grounds Road Improvements"). 14,uprovements shall -be in-general--accord-.with the.Application-Plan. The Polo Grounds Road Improvements shall be completed in two phases. Phase I, as depicted on the Figure A, Brookhill Traffic Phasing Plan ("Traffic Phasing Plan"), shall include salamander tunnels, more particularly as shown in Figure B, ("Salamander Crossing Exhibit"), and shall be completed prior to issuance of approval of the fiftieth 0"') certificate of occupancy ("CO") issue �V j� for a single family dwelling within the Project. Phas lV�ball be completed prior to issuance o �L� `t"4C approval-offiftieth (50"') CO within Blocks 14-18 oft Pr�ect. c� With the first final subdivision plat, or site plan for any of the Property, excluding the subdivision of Block 19, Owner shall offer for dedication sufficient land to permit the construction of the Polo Grounds Road Improvements as shown on the Application Plan. (The dedication plat for Polo Ground Road Improvements shall not be approved until all road and infrastructure plans are approved and i he -Pae of 7 1(np OttC6 Ive -P(114A 6` w �T&Z-vi-r- `k5 v)e�ti FW -Opp i ,r @i"t�Y1, fz1 �i�•� i1ti(��� r r�l�°.il��-i'lfi�i� constructed or bonded). Owner shall bear the costs associated with preparation of the Polo Grounds Road Intersection Improvements dedication plat for review and approval by Albemarle County (the "County). B. Route 29 Intersection Improvements. Pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportati nl"V-DOT".), the Owner shall construct all intersection and turn lane improvements along Route 29, n general accord with improvements shown on the Application Plan ("Route 29 Intersection Improvements"). _The7-Route 29 Intersection Improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of approval -of the fiftieth (501h) CO issued for a single family dwelling within the Project. V C. Ashwood Boulevard Connection. Pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of. Transportation ("VDOT"), the Owner shall construct the Ashwood Boulevard Connection, i(general accord with improvements and landscaping shown on Exhibit C, Ashwood Boulevard Connecilon ("Ashwood Boulevard Connection','"}— TheAshwood Boulevard Connection, which includes a pedestrian connection, shall be,completed or bonded during Phase II roadway improvements as shown on Traffic Phasing Plan and prior to —tho pproval of the first final site plan or subdivision plat for J5 rf� improvements within Block 3. }R. � Until such,,Ge ,�i.}Jjic. Li`��', t`cr f p� t- tll�vr��� tme as the Cdun deterinQS o s mil the sh oad Boulevard Connection forublic- 1�� dedication; the Owner shall- be responsible for all maintenance, repairs, bonding and insurance. The r, Ind '',ck- Owner shall submit ani_ easement and maintenance agreement that is acceptable to- t[W County as a condition for the first subdivis%n or first final site plan approval within, lock 9. The Owner's �q'1Y ] improvements shall be offered fo dedication, together with the County -owned right-of-way at such time �(y as the County determines to sub it the Ashwood Boulevard Connection for public dedication. LAI D. ,-- ]•��crri lir 1�i�.rr�x'-rnr -� CL�� iSt('cY�i�:r; {'��a�:r"r�E-r-ri ,_ D. Rio Mills Road Connection. /the Owner shall construct a two lane road connection from Rio Mills Road to the newly -constructed, Berkmar Drive Extension in the approximate location shown on Exhibit D, Rio Mills Roadway Connection ("Rio Mills Road Connection"). The Rio Mills Road Connection shall be completed prioro the later to occur of: i) completion and opening of the Berkmar Drive Extension and ii) issuan e of approval of the fiftieth (50`h) CO issued for a single family dwelling within the Project. 1�_. -) ICer 1 ,�, (y E. The road improvements listed in paragraphs ]A, 113, 1C and 1D above shall be constructed in aee6rdance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by VDOT. All of the foregoing improvements listed in paragraphs IA, 113, IC and 1 D above shall be designed and constructed to applicable VDOT standards, including, without limitation, VDOT's Geometric Design. All NEA iye-cl +'mprr" ef7x-f#.S Lij 11 �(.iA Wi—LICh .�A 1, i r'es IVi C41�. r P,1, 'ttv,le1 SIV.,, be rW'0ff-`C� C1 -UA f I r k ►R �r} - , Wz 0 -Ya" 9 ctrl¢ 1f'X'. r' ,IIIc (ell 41 1LY iCFi4�"i;IfY17=1ti . I..yransit 5tou. The O" Feer sha��`construc�a�ransit Stop 'witI " `t id general Iocation shown as a proposed Transit Stop on the Application Plan (the "Transit Stop"). The Transit Stop shall be designed and constructed in coordination with, and approval by the County Director of Community Development and Regional Transit Authority (if in place) and shall incorporate a shelter, including a rest bench, pedestrian access, and signage consistent with other similar transit facilities. The Transit Stop shall be installed and completed concurrently with the installation of surrounding roads and sidewalks within Block 1. G. Public Transit Operating_ Expenses. Within sixty (60) days of transit services having co nenced by JAUNT, CAT, or a regional transit authority, the Owner shall contribute Fifty Thousand Dol rs ($50,000) to the County to be used for operating expenses relating to transit service to the Property�d Owner shall contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to the County each year thereafter fora• period of nine (9) .t() additional years, such that the cash contributed to the County pursuant to this --Proffer IG, shall total not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). The monetary co tributign in years two (2) through ten Page 2 of 7tiJ C ' jjj�, _ 61f,�j ne ri Y� L l"``����,,C''�c1ir�'( �x fKi ! ..� L G1�.et i �� eRtx, ��Y��t .s� ��� �� ►� ifs1 � r� ��` � r e(+ t.�� SIFr?rt .JJJJ c� ' j � ; =� , �c I�. tom_ jTi;n� ,r �! Y�Iti rZ74 L at ��.►Su t '� he- '1�r�,ns �: � Sra-v � c �' �iz'r A 6 ri c-LOp cu-yA tt I� if f - t . (10) shall be paid by the anniversary date of the first contribution and each such contribution shall be conditioned upon consistent transit service being provided to the Property during the twelve (12) month period prior to such contribution. H. Construction Traffic Management. The Owner shall establish Construction Entrances to the Property in locations as approved by the County and VDOT as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Site Plan process. During the period in which all roads will be constructed within the Property (and until completion), construction traffic shall be required to use the Construction Entrances as designated in the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The owner shall prohibit such construction traffic from entering the Project via Ashwood Boulevard and Montgomery Ridge Road. 2. Trails, Parks and Civic Spaces. The Owner shall provide the following improvements within the property: A. Trail Network. A primitive trail network, consistent with the County's design standards for a Class B- type 1 primitive nature trail, shall be established within the Greenway as described within the Code of Development. The general location of the trail network is shown on the Application Plan, however exact trail locations shall be determined based on site conditions. Installation of the trail network shall commence concurrently with the site work for the first Block developed within the Project and the entire trail network shall be completed prior to issuance of approval of the fiftieth (50'h) CO for a single family dwelling within the Project. Upon the request of the County, but not prior to the issuance of the fiftieth (50`h) CO within the Project, the Owner shall dedicate to the County an easement for public use over the Greenway area, as shown on the Application Plan. Prior to the County's request to dedicate such easement, the Owner may dedicate portions of the Greenway by easement concurrently with one or more subdivision plats for areas lying adjacent to the Greenway; provided however, that Owner may reserve in such easements, rights of access for grading, utilities and maintenance. Each subdivision plat shall depict the Greenway area to be dedicated and shall bear a notation t�Wthe Greenway area is dedicated for public use. If, at the time the County requests dedication pfthe Greenway, any part of the Greenway that has not been dedicated by subdivision plat, sha > (within six (6) months of such request) at Owner's cost, surveyed, platted and recordedwit one or more deeds of easement dedication. L '�nC,t ctC' :K•j— ct'd��`IIC-1 �^:i{f� ��r. B. Parks and Civic Spaces. The Owner shall provide not less than 3.2 acres of land within the Project for Parks and Civic Spaces as described in the Code of Development and generally shown on the Application Plan. Each park or Civic Space shall be substantially completed prior to the issuance of approval -of the tenth (10`x') CO for the Block in which it is located. Parks and Civic Spaces shall be conveyed to, and maintained by the Owner's Association. The Owner shall pay the cost of subdividing and conveying the Parks and Civic Spaces to the Owner's Association. 3. Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements Proiects. The Owner shall contribute cash on a per "market -rate" dwelling unit basis in excess of the number of units that are allowed by right under the zoning in existence at the time of this zoning amendment for the purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure, i.e., schools, public safety, libraries, parks and transportation. For the purposes of this Proffer 3, the number of units allowed by right under the R-1 Residential zoning is two hundred sixty-nine (269) single-family detached units. A Page 3 of 7 T& 41\,_2 Pre �Icl o�tS "market rate" unit is any single-familyCt'alitfit in�tiierUjeit�s of ®ether contria For -Sale Affordable Housing Unit or For -Rent Affordable Unit as described in Proffer 4. The cash butions shall be Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen Dollars ($4,918.00) for each single family detached dwelling unit, other than a constructed For -Sale Affordable Dwelling Unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 4. In other words, the cash contribution for market rate single family units shall begin after a building permit for the 269th single family unit is issued and prior to the Owner obtaining a building permit for the 2701h single family unit. The cash contributions shall be Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($3,845.00) for each single family attached dwelling unit, other than a constructed For -Sale Affordable Housing Unit or a For Rent Affordable Housing Unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 4. The cash contributions shall be Five Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two Dollars ($5,262.00) for each multifamily dwelling unit, other than a constructed For Sale Affordable Housing Unit or For Rent Affordable Housing Unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 4. Except for the first 269 single family units, (which shall be exempt from this cash proffer) the cash contribution shall be p4id after completion of the final inspection and prior-tQ, the time -of the issuance of any CO for each new unit; provided however I(at the cash contributions shall not be made until the number of units have been completed that results in why� would otherwise have been a total cash contribution of $[TBD --value of school site and Rio Mills Road C,prineetion] (the "In-kind Contribution). The In-kind Contribution reflects the value of the improvements th.af the Owner has committed to make in these proffers that are for the benefit of the public. In other words tJTe Owner shall not be required to pay the per unit cash contributions described herein until the -time of the-issganee of the -building permit for a new unit completed after applying a credit for the In-kind Contribution `�f $[TBD --value of school site and Rio Mills Road Connection]. In the event that the Project is complet d prior to the balance of the In-kind Contributions being exhausted, any remaining balance of the In-kind ntribution may not be applied for any other project or development. nth �L fl 4. Affordable Housing. - `1 The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to fifteen percent { 5% o e total number of market rate .Ar residential units constructed on the Property. For example, if one hundred (100) total market rate units are 'Pte5' constructed in the Project, Fifteen (15) units, or their equivalent, are required to be provided to satisfy this Proffer 4? The Owner or its successors in interest reserve the right to meet the affordable housing objective tcWll fs• r through variety of housing types, including but not limited to for sale units, rental units, accessory units and jhu';e_ carriage units, or through cash contributions, as more particularly described in sections 4A and 4B below. A. For -Sale Affordable Housing Units. All purchasers of the For -Sale Affordable Housing Units, (defined below) shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. "For- v��. , Sale Affordable Housing Units" shall be dwelling units offered for sale at prices for which �' households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the apa-mediattincome may qualify. L'gl The Owner shall provide the County or its designee a period o �u�ninety (90)..Aays to .identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser For -Sale Affordable housing Unit ih r nett' (90) day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner thattlle unit(s) ` )all bevilable for sale. This notice shall not be given more thanione hundred twenty (120),days rior to re6eipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the applicable For -5h16 Afford ble 14 ousing U ' ;the arty or its designee may then have thirty 30 days within -which to Ovide a qua Tied piirchaser for such For -Sale Affordable -Housing--Unit. If the County or it designee do_ n t provide a ualified_purchaser during- the ninety f90) day period, the Owne shall have t ight to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the pur. aser(s). Z 4 c-) (CUL) $ f'� B. For -Rent Affordable Housing (1) Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each r ntal sing unit for which Owner seeks qualification for the purposes of this proffer 4, ("For -Ret Af rdable Housing Unit")shall not exceed the then - current and applicable maximum net rent r to a roved by the Albemarle County Housing Office. Page of ' e, COO r j���' ��L) In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Housing Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). For purpose of this proffer 413, the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for-.suc1.1- for-rents- for such For -Rent Affordable Housing Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph 4B shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each For -Rent Affordable Housing Unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term"). (2) Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent Affordable Housing Units during the A&rda_ble Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this -Subparagraph (2)J In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any For -Rent Housing Unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 4B. At least thirty AO(30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any For -Rent Affordable Housing Unit during the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 4B(2) have been satisfied. (3) Reporting Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each For -Rent Affordable Housing Unit, the then -current Owner shall provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require. C. Cash in lieu of Constructing Affordable Dwelling Units. In lieu of constructing For -Sale, or For - Rent Affordable Dwelling Units for fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of Units, the Owner has the option to make a cash contribution to Albemarle County for the affordable housing program in the amount of Twenty -Four Thousand-aOCThree Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($24,375.00) (the "Affordable Housing Cash Proffer") for each such unit as follows: the Owner shall pay the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer to the County, if the Affordable Housing requirement has not been proportionally met otherwise, in four (4) installments; after an inspection and prior to the issuance of approval of a CO for each of the four hundredth (4001h), six hundreth (600`h), eight hundreth (800`h), and one thousandth (1000`h) dwelling unit within the Project. The total cash contribution due to Albemarle County at each of the four (4) payment periods as noted above shall be based on the total number of affordable units built at that point in time. I ►��t 5. Cost Index. Beginning January 1 of each year following the approval of this rezoning, the amount of each cash contribution required by Proffers 3 and 4 shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the proceeding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index ("MSI"). The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount due for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the MSI as of December I in the preceding calendar year, the denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended (the "Annual Percentage Change"). By way of example, the first annual adjustment shall be $ x 2017 MSI/2016 MSI. Each annual adjustment shall be based on the amount of the proffered cash contribution due for the immediately preceding year based on the formula contained in this Proffer 5 (the amount derived from such Page 5 of 7 formula shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Cash Contribution Due"), provided, however, in no event shall the cash contribution amount paid by the Owner be less than $ per single family detached dwelling unit and $ per single family attached dwelling unit and $ per multifamily dwelling unit under Proffer 3 or $ per affordable dwelling unit under Proffer 4 (the "Minimum Cash Contribution"). The Annual Percentage Change shall be calculated each year using the Cash Contribution Due, even though it may be less than the Minimum Cash Contribution, HOWEVER, the amount paid by the Owner shall not be less than the Minimum Cash Contribution. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. 6. ElementaFy School Site. MWithin one year after request: the County, but in no event earlier than one year after the date of issuance of apprevaf-oll the first (I") CO issued for a single family dwelling within the Project, the Owner shall dedicate to the County, by General Warranty Deed and without consideration, fee simple title to a parcel of land for a public elementary school of not less than five (5) acres abutting a publicly -dedicated right of way, as shown on the Application Plan and labeled "Elementary School Site" (the " Elementary School Site"). The Elementary School Site shall be a graded and compacted pad site with water, sewer and electricity utility connections constructed to the edge of the parcel to accommodate an elementary school. If the County determines within ten (10) years after the date of issuance of approval_qthe first (I") CO issued for a single family dwelling within the Project that the Elementary School Site will not be used as such, or the County fails to request the conveyance of the Elementary School Site within te_nl (10) years after the date of issuance_af approvao`� the first (I") CO issued for a single family dwelling within' a I'roje�t, 6"_ ameLof'land. hall.ieven to the Owner, or its successors in title to be developed as allowed withthe Code I Development, This Proffer Statement may be executed in any number of eoui erparts, each of wKi - hall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one 114 the same ins ument. �►v Ii '-h'rr ie i` qvil Alb I 4 _r eavcde -1-h(� re -kiss Eleven%1n� Se,%j 1 :Si� ie-, a f ne) Page 6 of 7 WITNESS the following signature: OWNERS of Tax Map Parcel 04600-00-00-018A0: By: CHARLES R. HAUGH By: ELIZABETH ANN OGLESBY HAUGH Date: OWNERS of Tax Map Parcel 04600-00-00-01800: By: CHARLES R. HAUGH, TRUSTEE By: E. J. OGLESBY,ITRUSTEE Date: `V..) OWNER of Tax Map Parcel 04600-00-00-01900: CROCKETT CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation By: Charles R. Haugh, its President Date: BROOKHILL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (Contract Purchaser) , Manager Date: 30581191_1 Page 7 of 7 April 5, 2016 Department of Parks and Recreation has reviewed this and consider the site on the corner of Ashwood Blvd and Route 29 as well suited for use as both trailhead and 'park and ride' parking. With this we would want to include the following: 1. An informational kiosk 2. Uniform signage designed to identify and delineate both the public and semi-public routes and facilities on the site. 3. A pedestrian crosswalk leading from the parking area to the trails 4. Where possible co -locate the greenway trail over the sewer lines. 5. Determine what the bridge and bench designs will be. Clarify the term public with regards to facilities and historical resources described in the Code of Development. Megan Yaniglos From: Ron White Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:21 AM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Couple of comments as follow: 4. A. The language on the notification period is a bit odd — looks like they got the 90 -day and 120 -day periods interchanged. They should also include the reference to the VHDA Maximum Sales Price for First -Time Homebuyers in the language re. maximum sales price. (recommend similar language that is in Adelaide). 4. C. It seems a rather long time to wait until the 400th unit for the first installment if the developer chooses cash proffers. I think before we accept any language re. a schedule of payments we need to understand the proposed phasing of the development. I don't have any recommendation until understanding the proposed development. �Rqn White Chief of9fonsing (434) 296-5839 From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:06 AM To: Ron White <rwhite2@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Ron, forgot to include you on this email. My apologies. Megan Yaniglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:01 AM To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org>; Gerald Gatobu <ggatobu@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMal iszewski@albemarle.org>; Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>; 'Victoria Fort' <vfort@rivanna.org>; Robbie Gilmer <rgilmer@albemarle.org>; DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. <Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov>; Greg Kamptner <GKam ptne@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins <rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Hannah <dhannah@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; 'Rosalyn Schmitt' <rschmitt@k12albemarle.org>; Susan M. Stimart <sstimart@albemarle.org>; Faith McClintic <fmcclintic@albemarle.org>; Amanda Burbage <aburbage@albemarle.org> Subject: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Good Morning: The resubmittal for Brookhill was received on Monday. This is their 3rd submission. The packets for most of you are in the pony, or I have given them to you already. However the applicant provided digital files of everything that I wanted to pass along, as some copied here are not reviewers. Some of the information they only gave one paper copy (wetland map for example), so this will also provide you an opportunity to see everything if you so desire. Feel free to forward this onto anyone else you think might want to see the recent submittal documents. will be sending an interdivisional meeting invite out to the reviewers in the next day or so. Please let me know if you have questions or trouble accessing DropBox. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gyndcsdal4aornt/AAAsDtg2tL4w7CH-N2yiRe-Oa?dl=0 Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 Megan Yaniglos From: David Hannah Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:13 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Megan, Here are some things to include. Most were talked about at the review meeting, but there might be a couple of additional items. Let me know if anything is unclear or needs to be discussed. Here goes: • The county (you can specify the Natural Resources Manager if you want) and VDOT need to approve the specifications for the salamander tunnels. The developers' engineer may already have specs in hand? • Devin Floyd (of the County's Natural Heritage Committee) has discussed the tunnels with the developers, and they have agreed that at -grade slotted tunnels are appropriate. • The inversion walls and culvert heads are needed to funnel the salamanders to the tunnels (tunnel funnels!), also discussed by Devin and the developers • The mapped locations of the tunnels are good • We need to decide who will be responsible for maintaining the tunnels, and how future VDOT work (resurfacing, road repairs, etc.) will impact them. But these types of tunnels have been used in many other places, so this should not be a large problem to figure out. David Hannah From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 11:39 AM To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Gerald Gatobu <ggatobu@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMal iszewski@albemarle.org>; Alex Morrison<amorrison@serviceauthority.org>; vfort@rivanna.org; Robbie Gilmer <rgilmer@albemarle.org>; Joel DeNunzio, P.E. <joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov>; Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>; David Hannah <dhannah@albemarle.org>; Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; Amanda Burbage <aburbage@albemarle.org>; Troy Austin <Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov>; Dan Mahon <DMAHON@albemarle.org>; Bob Crickenberger <BCRICKE@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Good Morning, Just a reminder that comments for this submittal are due to me today, if you haven't already given them to me. Please let me know if you won't be able to make this deadline and what day you plan on getting me comments. Also, if you don't have any comments, let me know that as well. Thank you! Megan Yanlglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 Megan Yaniglos From: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:51 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: ZMA2015-007 Brookhill Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Megan, RWSA has reviewed the ZMA Application resubmittal for the Brookhill Development as prepared by Collins Engineering and dated 3/7/2016 and has the following comments for the applicant: The following previous comments were not addressed/acknowledged in this submittal: 1. As part of future site plans, RWSA wishes for the developer to create and implement a signage plan (to be approved by RWSA) to warn trail users of the inundation zone and designate evacuation routes in the event of a rapid rise in the water level. If possible, RWSA wishes to discuss including this item in the "Trails, Parks and Civic Spaces" proffer. 2. RWSA and ACSA have been in discussions regarding connectivity of water lines north of the Rivanna River and may require multiple interconnections between water lines serving Brookhill and those in adjacent neighborhoods. There may also be opportunities to include betterment to upsize or extend the proposed water lines through Brookhill in an effort to improve water service all along the Route 29 Corridor. RWSA wishes to make note that this betterment and/or additional utility interconnections may be requested during site plan review. As a separate note, there was interest in why a salamander crossing exhibit was included with the resubmittal. Is there an endangered species or other special considerations that need to be made near wetlands and stream buffers that RWSA should be aware of for future projects? We want to be sure we're keeping up with any requirements, especially those in or near waterways, as a lot of RWSA facilities are in or near streams. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 J9-c QQ a L T Q O 17 w bC O O L � v r� Q CL Q w i e}Q ao 4 41 121 m= � i E Z N y t °D O _ p C� •a o� w 0 �� W f-- a —OCW N U ~fid O w O do ,0 Oa�Ti tai an MEMMN N O Oi V' .� N v E O c� 4 a� cn.c 0 03 U U N rsfnOw om ?, Q i 'i•- a>O �O 0- �4- - �q y �� a, � O R��� -si E m or S It m O dV c 0 C h ID N v N la �oO Qb m m 91 ; AVO O 0 O-JQ �d ?Q Ot � my t!1 C �•.�. = o CrL 67 O 3 U O W O� C?O Ca ¢C.L O COQ t Z N a 6w'mdWW a T4s MJ [ 4 ` Q q �°JDJ +,9I j S ~ 5ai W wAR-IOS 000dg 6ulkDd md3 orad W 'WW B[ W yr W N OLLJ a V"°'�° saoodg bwod Q EL' wrr ,c aooyn5 z wrr J J 3 O WX> ,a[ Q v Ca ti V2 E 0 j W j' i J Eno s 7E —odg 6ul"d OJ A d3 wM L N V m Q x w� m a6olog AO ZTffRf a WWI < UJ J i � U (v" o fn O o z' O W Z 0 COUNTY OFALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 July 31, 2015 Scott Collins Collins Engineering 200 Garrett St. Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA2015 -007; SP2015 -025, Brookhill Mr. Collins: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA) and special use permit (SP). We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA and SP moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. Route 29 is a Corridor of Statewide Significance. When the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted the Route 29 Corridor Study in 2010, it instructed VDOT to work to minimize the number of traffic signals on the corridor. To this end, VDOT will only consider new signals on Corridors of Statewide Significance as the last option after all other possible solutions have been reviewed and determined to be inappropriate for this location. Further, the current County adopted Access Management Plan for the Route 29 corridor does not include a full access entrance onto Route 29 for this development. See attached VDOT comments for additional information /comments. 2. Permission from the Board of Supervisors is needed to use the County property for the interconnection to Ashwood Blvd. Deed book 1973 pg 437 (the deed used to convey the property to the County- attached) also states that a buffer be provided when development occurs. A proffer will need to be provided to clearly address how Brookhill will use and improve the property, and include obligations to build the road, complete the plats, and provide the buffer including the extent of the buffering. a. Additional permission needs to be given by Forest Lakes for the extent of the buffer area as conditioned in the above referenced deed. 3. The Places29 Masterplan includes a Neighborhood Service Center (NS) on the property. The recommendations under the NS designations are not reflected in the Code of Development (COD). For example, restrictions on building height and building size should be reflected in the COD. Overall, adjustments need to be made to the Code of Development for the proposal to conform with the Master Plan recommendations. Pay close attention to Tables LU1, LU2 and Figure 5.1 in the Plan. Comments on the COD are attached, however a meeting will be necessary to further discuss expectations /information needed. 4. It is difficult to determine if preserved slopes are being impacted. The hatching should be revised so that the impact can be evaluated on the grading and utility plan. It appears that the development will need to be pulled back to allow for erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, sewer lines, and lot grading outside of preserved slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes for private stormwater management facilities is not allowed under Zoning Ordinance section 30.7.4. In addition, other utilities must demonstrate that they are necessary for use of the lot, which does not appear to be the case, as lots are not yet created. Utilities must be located outside of preserved slopes where possible. If impacts to preserved slopes are anticipated with this development, an additional rezoning request will be required. 5. The information regarding the special use permit application for fill in the floodplain was not provided. The Design Standards Manual contains a list of technical submittal information. Additional comments regarding the SP will be provided once the correct information is submitted. 6. A number of waiver /modifications /exceptions are needed to be considered with this request. A list has been provided within this comment letter, however additional requests may be needed if they are identified as the project continues, and as the overall design changes to address comments. Application Plan: 1. If possible, the application plan should include only one sheet instead of multiple sheets. All the other sheets should be labeled as exhibits. The street sections and other substantial elements should be incorporated into the proffers or COD. a. Further, it is recommended that all stormwater be removed from the zoning application plans, unless there is a major feature, such as a lake, that is central to the development plan. But, as long as stormwater is being treated like a necessary but peripheral utility, there is no point in holding up the rezoning with review. Stormwater will have to meet all requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance and state regulations. Proffers or code can set simple parameters on stormwater management. Such parameters might be; i. Facilities will be located outside of buffers and lots, preserved slopes and floodplains. ii. Extra measures will be provided at X location or for X area. iii. County approval of a master stormwater plan will be obtained prior to the first intial site plan or plat approval. 2. Show the Route 29 widening improvements and adjust the buffer as necessary on the application plan. Also, a multi -use path is a part of the widening plans, so the one currently being shown as proposed should be removed as it is not needed. 3. The internal roads and alleys in the blocks should be removed from the application plan. Show only those major roads (North /South connector road, East/West connector road, etc) and connections that are necessary and add arrows to indicate access /connections into the blocks. Road sections for different types of roads, and text within the COD will indicate the design for the overall development and road alignment and location for internal streets should be left to the site plan stage, as all public and private roads will be required to meet either VDOT or County standards. If a lesser design is anticipated, waiver /exception requests should be submitted to be considered with the rezoning. Some of the roads as shown on the plans do not meet VDOT or County standards. Code of Development: 1. Neighborhood Service Centers within Places29 (P29) contains recommendations for maximum square footage of building footprints, and maximum number of stories based on uses. Reference Table LU1: NS for the details. Revisions to the COD should be made to conform with the recommendations in P29. Additional stories may be permitted, however form will need to be addressed to evaluate that request. Additionally, there are other changes that need to be made to the COD in order to include the recommendations within the Masterplan for Neighborhood Density Residentail and Urban Density Residential. 2. Three civic spaces are recommended within the P29 plan on this property. Detail, location, and descriptions should be added to the COD for these spaces. 3. Consideration should be made to revise the COD to follow a form /style similar to the Downtown Crozet District (DCD) ordinance (Section 20 of the Zoning Ordinance) and /or the Rivanna Village COD (Approved 7- 9 -14). Both the DCD and Rivanna Village Code will be a useful template that has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors and clearly states the form, use, setbacks, heights, as well as defines and describes key required elements. The DCD contains form exhibits that clearly show regulations that should be considered for this COD. Proffers: 1. Proffer 1 (Transportation Improvements) — The proffer language should more clearly address the specific trigger for the improvement. For example, consider using the following wording: "Prior to the approval of the first final subdivision plat or site plan for the Property, whichever comes first, the Owner shall construct..." 2. The dedication of Polo Grounds Road cannot occur until all road and necessary infrastructure plans are approved and constructed or bonded. 3. The affordable housing proffer may need to be revised. The Housing Director is considering other methods for affordable housing, however language has not been developed to date. Working closely with the Housing Director and staff to create the revised language will need to occur. 4. Proffer language should be added to address the following impacts and improvements to the development: i. Trigger(s) to address the completion of the greenway and trail network. ii. Trigger(s) to address the completion of the recreational amenities outlined in the application plan. iii. Creation and maintenance of the Route 29 screening buffer as described within the Code of Development. Clear language is necessary for a) replanting and b) any allowance for clearing and grading. The additional buffer between property lines should also be addressed. iv. Phasing of the Brookhill development as outlined in Section 2.5 of the Code of Development. v. Measures that will be taken to ensure that historic resources are protected throughout the development process as outlined in Section 2.10 of the Code of Development. vi. Tree preservation guidelines as outlined in Section 3.8 of the Code of Development. vii. If a bus /transit stop is proposed, as shown on the application plan, a trigger to address the completion and the design of the stop. viii. The construction entrance for the development ix. As stated above, the impacts to the County's property for the interconnection to Ashewood Blvd, including obligations to build the road, complete the plats, and provide the buffer including the extent of the buffering and satisfaction of those stated in the deed. x. Stormwater management and overlot grading. Identified Waivers /Modifications /Exceptions Needed: 1. Waivers /special exceptions needed: a. 14- 233(A) requires PC authorization of private streets. b. 14 -422 (E) & (F) requires PC exception of sidewalk and planting strip along streets for lots fronting on greenspace. c. 32.3.5 (B) requires agent approved exception of street tree requirement for lots fronting on greenspace (section 32.7.9.5). d. Additional waivers /special exceptions may be needed. 2. [30.7.4] Permitted uses in steep slopes: a. It is difficult to distinguish between preserved and managed slopes on the grading plan. Provide more differentiation between slope types. b. Preserved slopes should not be disturbed for this development, unless for necessary public facilities, if the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes. c. Disturbances to preserved slopes may be permitted for the North -South Connector Road if an alternative alignment does not exist. d. Disturbances to preserved slopes may also be permitted for trails. 3. [4.16] Recreation Regulations: a. Based on the proposed numbers of units this development will require 17 -30 tot lots and 8 -15 half - courts for basketball (or substitutions of equivalent facilities). b. Ensure enough park acreage is provided for the required amenities. c. Consider including requirements for minimum amenities in COD based on number of units or referencing section 4.16 for recreational standards. 4. [14 -409 & 410] Streets and Alleys a. Extend street or street right -of -way to the property line adjacent to Coralberry Place even if a road connection is not possible at this time. b. Each street shall be configured to conform to natural topography where possible and to provide vehicular /pedestrian interconnections within the subdivision. Eliminate cul -de -sacs where possible. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan The Neighborhood Model analysis Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive 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 work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at the work session and /or with subsequent submittals. The property is located with in the Places29 Masterplan. The land use designations for this property are as follows: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units /acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small -scale non - residential uses; Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) — retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; NS- Neighborhood Service Center; Privately Owned Open Space /Environmental Features — privately owned recreational amenities and open space/ floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features. While the County encourages development in the development areas, this property has not been identified in the Places29 Masterplan as a priority area. On page 8 -8 of the implementation chapter it states "if the infrastructure needed to support a proposed development outside of the Priority Areas is not in place, the proposed development should not be approved." Currently, the proposal does not address the traffic infrastructure needed to support the development. Development in non priority areas needs to address infrastructure needs. Within the Masterplan, three civic spaces and a Neighborhood Service Center are shown. The civic spaces have not been identified with this proposal and additional information concerning these spaces needs to be incorporated within the Code of Development. In addition, as stated above, there are some portions of the Code of Development that need to be revised to incorporate the recommendations in reference to Land Use (specifically within the Neighborhood Service Center) of the Places29 Masterplan. In general, and with some modifications, the uses and density meet the recommendations within the Masterplan, however the infrastructure needed to support the development has not been adequately addressed. 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. Much of the language in the COD provides a narrative about how the development might display neighborhood model characteristics rather than providing enforceable rules governing the form of the development. For example, language stating that the mixed -use center will include pedestrian- sensitive streets and relegated parking is not enforceable. Consider incorporating rules for these features such as maximum building setbacks, parking setbacks, percentages for the mixture of uses and screening treatments for parking areas. More details are provided below. Pedestrian Orientation Mixture of Uses Neighborhood Centers Blocks of 200 -300 feet in length should be used in the most intensely developed mixed -use areas. Blocks of 300 -400 feet should be used in mixed use areas which are less intensely developed. Blocks of 400 -600 feet are appropriate in the least intensively developed /residential areas. Incorporate maximum block sizes into the COD and /or consider provisions for building fagade breaks (see DCD- Downtown Crozet District Section 20B.3(D) for sample language for fagade breaks) Cul -de -sacs should be eliminated where possible. Cul -de -sacs adjacent to streams where crossings are not possible might be permissible; however, some of these might be able to be eliminated by redesigning the block layouts to better follow the natural topography. More interconnections should be provided in areas where cul -de -sacs end in close proximity to other cul -de -sacs. —i The COD only provides for a minimum of 10,000 square feet of non - residential floor area. This is not a sufficient mix of uses for up to 1550 residential units. Consider a mix of uses in the mixed use center as recommended in the Places 29 Master Plan for urban mixed use (Table LU2). Consider maximum single - building footprints in the center as recommended in the Places29 Master Plan for Neighborhood Service Centers (Table LU 1). The development provides a center where a mixture of uses are permitted; however, nothing in the COD requires this mix of uses beyond a small minimum 10,000 sq ft non - commercial space (see comments above about mixture of uses). Provide more information on the form of development in the neighborhood center. Consider incorporating rules into the COD that would ensure this form will be developed. Provide more information on the form of the linear park in the center. Will a plaza or square be provided or is this predominantly a natural area? Block sizes in the mixed use center should be smaller (see mixture of uses comments above). Mixture of 15% affordable housing is proffered. Housing Types A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the code and requires a mix of housing types within the development. Affordability Minimum densities should be provided, not just maximums. Minimums should match those in the Comp Plan. Interconnected Cul -de -sacs should be eliminated where possible. Streets and Connections to existing trails on adjacent properties should be made where Transportation possible. Networks Some of the trails leading to the center seem to meander more than necessary. Provide direct pedestrian access to the mixed use center where possible, especially for the blocks that do not have direct vehicular access to the center. For instance, a direct pedestrian connection from Block 14 to the mixed use center should be provided. If additional stream crossings for pedestrian paths are not possible, provide direct pathways to the proposed crossing from blocks east of the stream. Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities The COD and application plan call for a bus stop in the mixed use center. Consider including this in the proffers (CAT should be consulted first). Which of the trails, if any, are bicycle friendly? What standards will the trails be built to? Label trail types on the application plan and provide trail standards within the COD. Direct pedestrian and bicycle paths should be provided to mixed use center (see interconnected streets above). Consider adding a pedestrian path or sidewalk along the north side of Polo Grounds Road to allow residents of Brookhill and adjacent neighborhoods to access Route 29 sidewalks. Consider adding provisions for bicycle parking in the COD within the mixed use center (see DCD Section 20B.4(B)(3) for guidance) Parks, 4 acres of parks, 34 acres of open space, 49 acres of greenway are proposed Recreational Consider adding parking for public access to trail networks, perhaps near the Amenities, and Ashwood connection. Open Space Provide access to trails from cul -de -sacs where possible. Provide more information on the form of the proposed parks, especially the linear park in the center. Provide rules in the COD governing parks and park amenities. This need not be so specific as to include the exact location of parks; instead, consider providing minimum amenities and park acreages based on numbers of units (see Section 4.16 for minimum requirements) as well as provisions for public access to parks and /or trails. Buildings and Consider maximum building setbacks especially in mixed use and urban density Space of blocks so buildings are located adjacent to the street with relegated parking and Human Scale pedestrian- oriented entrances (see new setbacks Section 4.19 -4.20 and Downtown Crozet District 208.3 for guidance). Provide rules for relegation of parking (see relegated parking comments below). Relegated Parking Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. Consider adding minimum setbacks for parking which are equal to or greater than minimum building setbacks, especially in the mixed use center (see DCD Section 20B.3 for guidance). Parking areas located adjacent to the street should be screened from streets. Provide rules for screening of parking (see DCD Section 20B.4(D) for guidance). Consider adding a front setback for front loaded garages that is several feet behind the primary residence for single family units. Redevelopment This proposal is for new development within Development Areas. The existing home will be preserved. This principle does not apply. Respecting Avoid disturbances to preserved steep slopes where possible. Terrain and Try to construct roads along existing contours where possible. Careful Grading and Re- grading of Terrain Clear The vegetative buffer along Route 29 should be provided outside of the VDOT Boundaries right -of -way and future widening improvements. with the Rural A 30 -50 foot vegetated buffer should be provided along Polo Grounds Road to Area screen the development from the Rural Area. All buffers should be owned and maintained by the developer /HOA and should not be on private lots. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, it appears that these fees have already been paid: $ 218.75 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 418.75 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. $ 218.75 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 637.50 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is (434) 296 -5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos @albemarle.org. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner Planning Services Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated July 31, 2015 Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue- forthcoming Attachment C — Comments from RWSA, dated July 17, 2015 Attachment D- Comments from Engineering, dated July 29, 2015 Attachment E- Comments from Architectural Review Board /Historic Preservation Staff, dated July 24, 2015 Attachment F- Comments from ACSA- forthcoming Attachment G- Comments from Zoning, dated July 29, 2015 Attachment H- Deed Book 1973 Pg 437 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 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. FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS A. For a special use permit: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 3. Day care center; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 5. 5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 6. Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 7. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ............................... $1,000.00 8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00 B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance: Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00 C. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00 D. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) — Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00 N. Required notice: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): Fee............................................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 3. Published notice: Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual cost 2015 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments * ** With Planning Commission Worksession Deadline for Filing (3 P.M.) Planning Commission Worksession if Worksession is Chosen No sooner than* COB Auditorium Resubmittal Deadline Following PC Worksession** PLEASE SEE THE RESUBMITTAL SCHEDULE Monday Tuesday Monday Tue Jan 20 Apr 14 Tue Feb 17 Apr 14 ** Mar 16 May 12 ** Apr 20 Jun 23 ** May 18 Jul 21 ** Jun 15 Aug 11 ** Jul 20 Sep 15 ** Aug 17 Oct 13 ** Sep 21 Nov 24 ** Oct 19 Jan 19 2016 ** Dec 7 Feb 9 2016 ** Tue Jan 19 2016 Apr 12 2016 ** Bold italics = submittal /meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2015. 2016 dates are tentative. * PC Worksessions are not required, but may be recommended for rezonings and some SP's depending on the corresponding level of project complexity. If scheduled, detailed written comments will be provided after the worksession. (Please see Resubmittal Schedule.) ** Resubmittals are accepted on ANY resubmittal Monday listed after the date of the written comments to the applicant. The PC public hearing date is the earliest date at which the request may be heard after the corresponding resubmittal deadline date. * ** Board of Supervisors' worksessions and public hearings will be scheduled after the Planning Commision's action on applications. These schedules provide basic information. Please consult with the Planning Division for more details regarding schedules and processing 2015 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing * Request for PC Public Hearing, Legal Ad Payment Due ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Nov 03 Dec 03 Dec 22 Jan 13 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 05 Jan 27 Dec 01 Tue Dec 30 Jan 05 Jan 27 Dec 15 Jan 14 Feb 02 Feb 24 Jan 05 Feb 04 Feb 09 Mar 03 Tue Jan 20 Feb 18 Feb 23 Mar 17 Feb 02 Mar 04 Mar 16 Apr 07 Tue Feb 17 Mar 18 Mar 30 Apr 21 Mar 02 Apr 01 Apr 13 May 05 Mar 16 Apr 15 Apr 27 May 19 Apr 06 May 06 May l l Jun 02 Apr 20 May 20 May 25 Jun 16 May 04 Jun 03 Jun 22 Jul 14 May 18 Jun 17 Jun 22 Jul 14 Jun 01 Jul 01 Jul 06 Jul 28 Jun 15 Jul 15 Jul 27 Aug 18 Jul 06 Aug 05 Aug 10 Sep 01 Jul 20 Aug 19 Tue Sep 01 Sep 22 Aug 03 Sep 02 Sep 14 Oct 06 Aug 17 Sep 16 Sep 28 Oct 20 Tue Sep 01 Sep 30 Oct 19 Nov 10 Sep 14 Oct 14 Oct 26 Nov 17 Oct 05 Nov 04 Nov 16 Dec 08 Oct 19 Nov 18 Nov 23 Dec 15 Nov 02 Dec 02 Dec 21 Jan 12 2016 Nov 16 Dec 16 Dec 21 Jan 12 2016 Dec 07 Jan 06 Jan 11 2016 Feb 02 2016 Dec 21 Jan 20 2016 Feb 01 2016 Feb 23 2016 Jan 04 2016 Feb 03 2016 Feb 08 2016 Mar 01 2016 Bold italics = submittal /meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2015. 2016 dates are tentative. * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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. t COMMU,N wEAu ti of VIRGINIA VCP>m11911!A1 vF tRR1v5r0R1A1lVN 1501 Orange Road C61;;vP .. VIP,;— 22701 Charles m. R11patrlcit, P.E. cRTT1..z10ROr July 3 t; 2) 1:) Ms. Megan Yaniglos Princ ;pal Planner County of Alnernurtu Department of Community Develupr„znt 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 me: ZMA -2015 -00007 Broomid Dear Ms. Yaniglos: Wu have rev;ewed the tratt,rr impact analysis_ the proffer statement, the code of develor,nem and the application t.Ian fb, the prop03cd Brounill development and otter the following comments: General CV,ntt,euts 1. 1 he current County adopted Access Management clan for the Route 29 corridor does .,ut include a tull access a „trance o „to Route 29 for this development. The plan shows preservin,, the exizting d,iveWay i„ to the cu„e nt residences and one passible right - in/right -out entrance near Ashwc;vd Blvd. Ze3 part of a quadrant type grade ,eparated intersection. The primary entrances to this site w4rz connectio „3 W Polo Grundy Road aA Ashwood Blvd. In addition, the long term plan as indicated in tn4 Access ManageLsicr,t Plan i3 tu retain the at -grade intersection for the Polo Ground Road/Ru .tu L9 intersection. Tnz long te,,,, recommendation calls for a grade separated intersection at the Ashwood Blvd..`tcoute 29 int%zracctiort to extend AShWuod Blvd. to Berkmar Drive extended. 2. Route 29 is a Corridor of Statewide Significance. When the Communwealth Transportat;;-,n Board adopted the Route 29 Corridor Study in 2010; it instructed VDOT to work to minimiz4 the num=L of tratt,4 signals an the conidu, with the fallowing Policy Statement: CUSS Access Point and Access Control rudey Statement: In managing lire CorrZors of Statewide Significance, and to minimize the number of traffic si,nals, it is the policy of the Commonwealrh Transportation Board (CTB) that intersections,;, .e. access points to those corridors shall be planned, designed, operated and maintained to en.. «, a minimum delay to through traffic. Access locarions tinder consideration shall be evaluared for the impact to corridor travel time and mitigation strategies, including.- land use planning, acces.. ... anasenrent, mode shift, transit enhancements, and'or aggressive traffic operational strategies. I„ aaaition, the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD states that: V_ ", roadway corridor designated by the CTB as a Corridor of Statewide Significance, intersections o,-,.e-,.- access yoints whin meet warrants for traffic signals shall not have a new traffic signal installed until -Ire, natives such as grade separations, parallel service roads, roundabouts, and other possible options have been evaluated and determined no, to be appropriate for the l ocarro... To this end, VDOT will only consider new signals on Corridors of statewide Sign;t,cmxe as the last option atter all other possible sblutiuns have been reviewed and determined to nz; inappropriate ter this location. FU, this project, there are other alternatives to a new traffic si5..al (Opti„n A) that can ad5rc33 the access tUt the development. These Options need to be pursued and developed. In aaaition, the development Should consider improvements to the other intersections �Ashwood Blvd. and Pilo G,uunds ROaa) that can eliminate signal phases and possibly the signals entirely. Ptotfer SLaLemeut 1. A3 a Lull access entrance with a new traffic signal onto Route 29 is nut currently bein, considered a3,. viable option, proffer I.C. should be revised accordingly. C_ ode of Development 1. Section 2.8.1 teterences Table 9, however I was unable to locate Table 9. I believe th;3 should be Table 8. 2. Section 2.8.2 retc,cnces boat collector and cotnteVor roads_ apparently interchangeably. if these are referrin, to Mc „u „e roadway3, they should be ,eterenced consistently. 1. The Winage and tape, lengths of the right turn lane onto Rte. 29 should be shown. 2. 1 nc. tupers for the turn lanes have been labeled as "transition, ". This is a little confusing because there needs to UG tuitions trot„ 3 -lane sectivus to 2 -lane sections as shown in Appendix F of the Road uesign Manuals. i ne t,vn3,tivn3 at the ea3tcrnmost ent,ance to the development du not appear to be correct. 3. This p,upo3ed improvement plan is based on the assurrtprion that a new full access entranicc with a tramc signal will be allowed o„ to Route 29. The developer and engineer have been repeatedly i.TZ;rrncd that a new rull access e„ ttaucu and signal will not be allowed at this rime onto mute /_9 for this devemprnLnt. All alternati yes for p,uviding aCCCss to the development must be evaluated and deemed inappropriate u4rorc a new signal will be considered. The Polo Grounds Road improvement plan will need to be rev ;3:.d accordingly. 1. What is the typical section proposed for roads AA; F; W, a (the loop portion), zaid Z-! 2. All roadways to be accepted into the secondary system for araintenance by VuO i will need tz; maintain a ,r,i „imum of 200' centerline radius. This applies to the loop sections of roadway if they are prupu3;.d tz; be maintamUa by VDUT. 3. The intersections of roads B ac C; roads F & J. and roads L & M need tc be replaced with a minlinum of 200' uertterline radius. 4. I, is unclea, where road A transitions from typical section A to typirul section B. Traffic Im act Anal 3 ;3 Comments 1. The study only considers tnz; operational ett-,ct3 uf the development. Thu corrida, currently has a high accident rate due to the existinr, 3 ;6.,uls on tnc eurridor. The addition ut another 12.000 new daily trips tram the development and a new si,.al us recommended by the study will ce,tainly inc,ease the accident rate. Additional scenarios that aii1c:33 both operatic., and safety;35uus at all of the study inte,suctions should be added to the 1 IA. 2. The existing network coded in Synchro shows three receiving lanes M, th; southbound side at Pulu Grounds Road when there are actually 4 receiving lanes. The otner 3ccnariV3 i „a.. ac the fourth latte. 3. The study dzc3 not currently amign any site trips to the west bound left turn movement at the Ashwood nlvd. /tcoute 29 intersect ;un in the Option A scenario. It is likely that there will be some volu,ne of traffic from Brookhill that will use tni3 r .te tu tra cl south. 4. Both Option A and Option B show significant degradation of the Ievel of service at tnc Polo Grounds Road i,ttutsection. The ovu,all delay of the intersection in the PM scenario for both ot.tiona ;3 approximatny uuuble the delay i-,t the existing (2014) condition. [n addition, the NB through volume exceeds Zopacity in butn options' PM scenarios. Additional improvetnems to those proposed in the study and /or;Ymuvative t,cattr,ent measures appea, to be necessary to mitigate the development impacts on the intersect.un. 5. Per TIA G.M— .lines, the HCM methodology shall also be included in the TIA. The nCivi output reports need to be provided and any appr-vpt;ate corrections to the tables in the TIA need to be made for all scenarios to reriect tnu HCM re3.lts. 6. Many of the queues reported in the study are shown on the output ,;,ports with tnc 'W% symbols, indicating that the calculated queues may not be correct and may oc i-mr.gcr. When tncse symbul5 appear, the recummendatian is to verify the queues using Sim 1 raffic and report tnu actual queuu3 ter the move,neuts. This analysis u,ust be run in accordance with the Traffic Operations AnaIya;u Toil uuidebuuk. 7. The delay of the corridor from Polo Grounds Road to Ashwood BIvU. in the nurtnbound through rnavement mate than doubles with both Option A and Option rs in the PM scenario. The ;nC,ease in delay is greater fa, Option A than Option B. This needs to be addressed and mitiEat;en options included in the TIA. 3 1. The clv5u5t current t,Red transit mute is Charlottesville Area Transit's (CAT) Route 5 whicn 3crves tnc Rig Hill Snrppirtg Center a„ a thu Walt „art and Sam's Club on Hilton Heights noad. The clv3u3t bus stop 13 almost a mile (walking distance) fron, the northeastern comer of the US /_9 and Polo Grz .na3 Road intc,3L�tion. 2. Pedestrian a4Ce55 to the bus stop would require crossing US 29 at Pam Uround3 Read ,which 6 nine lanes (including tn,,, lanes) and additionally crossing rolo Grounds Roaa (two lm,cs ex,3tmg). There du ttvt appear to be pudestrian facilities to accommodate pedestrian Cl0551n� at thi3 intersect,vrr. There are sidewalks on both sides of US 29. 3. The Route 5 bus has 30 minute headways between 6:15 a„ and 10:45 pm and it provides direct access w destinations including Fashion Square mall and the Bµ —uLks Road Snipping Center. Thee are two transtc, points on Route 5 which connect with four other routes prz,.iding azzcss to Univet5ity of Virginia, duw„ town ChUYIoltesvillc, and other important destinations. 4. The 2011 CAT Transit Development Plan (TDP) recurnrncnded it nLw Route 5B within six yea, s that would provide access to the point farther north on US 29. i nat line ha3 ,rUt brMu implemented anZI was not libtea in CAT's most recent TDP update letter from 2014. Thcrefore, at thi3 ti,,,c there ate ..v tta „sit routes at any of this study's analyzed intersections. 5. JAUNT provides paratransit service througnout the City of Charlc;ttL3ville and five suttuunding Ceuttties (Albemarle_ Buckingham, Fluvanna, i.ouisa, and Nelsu.,) and limited access to another ttve counties in the tegiou. JAUNT also operates commuter ruute3 clung U5 15, US 29, US 250, VA 20, and VA 151 into the suttuunding counties. Connections between CAT and JAUNT-s commuter,uutes ar, available dcwt,tcwn and would require a transfer from Route J. If you ..ccZi additio,tai i„t'vtutation conceuti,tg this project. please de net hesitate to contact me at tzF34) 422 -9782. Sincerely, ,&� Albt6 Troy Austin_ F.E. Area La „d Use Engitt�et Cµipcper Di3t.irt vvE KEEP ORGIMA MOvING July 17, 2015 Megan, RWSA has reviewed application SP201500025 & ZMA201500007 Brookhill. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications. To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X Yes* No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known *The Development is expected to produce well over 40,000 gpd of wastewater at full buildout, therefore a flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval for all phases of this development. A significant portion of the property sits within the dam breach inundation area for the RWSA South Fork Rivanna Dam, which is approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the proposed development. Additional mitigation measures may be required to address this issue. Attached is a map showing the inundation areas for a sunny day and PMF breach of the dam. Additional information can be provided by RWSA at the request of the applicant. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 ♦ ' ♦ . , r ' ♦ •' ., • , • \ � � � ..' N�� �I .(=r h•by `y r ! . •'i �iw. 'A e,, r' 1� y 1 t .� .r � C7 "I �� - �G '. ,r ♦. =, Z �A ♦� y \y' y.jj -'. � «r ' a I,' :�. l iw Y� '. �• '., P • i , wV � I e MIN • III , ♦ �. � � `tea !��♦ • � ��� ��� ♦° �� ° <.Ct.t � s ♦ i� ♦ t > / .♦ a .�,'` • r * r' j � . • ♦ � - ♦ ._.ryf � •,.o` ,• a. _ ♦ , � - 7 1 C E � y y ♦ • �:' ♦ tt� v t . r /I �I � -��\ \'I ♦ ���"`\ t .1 N. ♦ - � � ,� � IJ • . w .• 11 'r.�� ♦t♦ 7 •p..! � •t • a� ♦ 1t,��� �- �,� % a ' v'w `w .1 `� a.'I • __ } � j ./� t t. � � � ~� 7 ♦ •I , t♦ � I * ���'-. Sa � � �`� � ♦ ' 1 I : j I � ✓ ♦ ` i •• I . I. 111 � x /.z ■ ��;. • « ,r■ �� % o �. /G � i :� :1 � •... ••a r ! any /� > . "%•t ,' E Il;'%� +R�•51�� '' 1 �...� r; ` y a/ - • • ••a 1 , ` EL'OlL 1' \ t t ` C '� aI♦ R•�!'�l� • iuf�' -.' - • , a 1 ♦ / I /� rya; f *` \ • \ . ♦ � ,i I( ra ���I' � ♦, % ♦. I _ 1 ' 11 � r� a j •v /� i, 00' ♦ a� . ��_- � i.T ,, • � � � ` � •- '�• I � :1 11 • Elf I , � � �$ MIAN - +'may � � ♦ � ..i t __ � -, . . �_ - t . � �, �� \I I _ 1 '11 � �' +`w` t',s / /� a aa�Vr'`u • ♦~ ♦�� � °•a mss.- ",, :, ;� � r � � • • r_. ' (` ♦ �� . .��- ___ �� '� ,, �\ � ��� � �� ♦ .1 '` �� ,�•� ♦'. � .�:��' � �� t, �t• •:� t .♦ ♦rte � r� , � /� , �'• : • • 1 _. `� ♦ ^••. -1. '♦ Aim- : . • � •F +R � °''' a�y I� n � 1 � —� • - 1 ■ ► ` _ -a , . - . ■ >` .t/ ` � ` a ,--ice' ' `' � '° = -�� -,. .11 � _ #' s �� - \ •r �� � !,� /� /� � / , �'�A' ° ' ° •� a��" •r l '! ��a� 1,, r� ` ,.i/ r 1 'I •.r � � \ � � i/ • a ,a. � 1 - ` � �� � � � � '\ a . t ♦ -�!� • . !mot ♦ �' � ��� ! �di � ,t .� r ♦ � � �� V► III J 1 �ti I yo. � � .s, � �9 S'cor 4p0 Q O . dap ...�• • 4 Aoo � 17 yo° ■ A6 � � G U ... � ° Q � (3) 0 ' � `a��a.Q, �o � J R �' o ��� ♦ 500 � o �o a0 US Route 29 Bridge o O o 6 b aoo �..- ♦ yo° 7 ° Distance from Dam: 0.43 miles Oo ° ° W ° 480 bti o Probable Maximum Flood O Time of Arrival of Peak Flood: 54 min. Max. Discharge: 165,500 cfs d : Depth of Water from Stream Bed: 70.6 feet -- Da F� o / of Q y y Breach /� ♦ O b ° Time of Arrival of First Flood Waters: 6 min. O o ° { • (4) - •i r 00 tt Time of Arrival of Peak Flood: 18 min. ° Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge o Q ! o Sett Max. Discharge: 85,700 cfs Probable Maximum Flood o f7 N • Q Distance from Dam: 2.15 miles Depth of Water from Stream Bed: 40.0 feet � � . i —_ ,s Time of Arrival of Peak Flood: 1 hr. Max. Discharge: 153,800 cfs • �J2n p O �Q Depth of Water from Stream Bed: 77.6 feet °br \ � �Q f5 P o y°° Sunny Day Breach Time of Arrival of First Flood Waters: 30 m• �' o . g6o ,N° AAj c° 4 460 �� o o° Ak° a � 420 �•• b`y/ Doi ,�'t �a o' 0 44o \ I a, �• / i �Ja �n 1 ,p O °_ � � • ('0 o o 440 �p aso � Alp �° .3yp 0 Is IN 920a 44a 0° _T�a_� °s o �� ' * / . tit ' ♦ ' 01 • 1 "'C A \ ,� � � la� J �t 11 r R •- T I ,:1 c I� � _ _ I t � 4, l• 1 ! - •I1 t 1 � I ��^_ >\� = =� o .�� .mil •�', � I , I �� ♦ . '' 620 III I •�1,l,Y,' "�•� • f - �'�EL �♦ r r�� ,t� 11 Discharge: ■ 11 _� .� ♦ ■• I �I" 1 '• ,c, �- •, _ / // a ♦ _ ,- _ _ , , :1 �' `` ' 'J � ♦y \ ` Jf r 1 `,r � •\ ~^ •t •I •-A I ��• / / � • Water � t .. a.� ,• ' , \ ,r 1 ` / ♦ I I�'l,, ��) !1 � � '� � � � �� � � � / i' '• .: i ,f" - i � a♦ � ■ � \ � �� n % '. ' s%� • �.. � 1 • �• .,• � Ili ;1 .: 1 •t :1 1 � 't V t a 1 I r` � i � I ♦` 1 - ♦ � l C I, ' i ,� � • C „ ,• � � a.. ♦�.� ♦ ♦� • ! ; 1V` �aG// i � ,., >� �� � � III 1 V � V � �' %. ♦ ill ♦ �� R � r� � �'' 4� � I " � � .♦ �_ . 1 , r • rr �, j : / /�/ • ♦ � el ♦ • •�. • .� f � q: y , t, •s ,�:� J! f♦ ,. "'w �``�.; %• -n _• �• t ; �V �,. 1� � •I " °I \� •� ♦ ♦ ,• •�1 R � 4`Z� >I w ♦... _w�� '� • t � v ,�w�+ �i��t �� O�+ ♦,��V ♦ •• ���t t • R:i� � t ♦ � , � k ♦• D .1 , ). + :, �'� � ♦ ♦ / ��•r1 ♦.:� E, �Iia at��� � � >,i ♦• E ♦ ♦ t � t .t ♦ ♦ � / t f ' �'. -E � � '� .11 � � � i I � .1 ,• , , ' � d -. � • �.. • � A ' t .. S _ - , > � �✓ s•��♦ � SEE ♦ �• ♦ 1� � � I • �� �• � �... -. a... � ,.Q r ♦ ♦ I ♦ < • � " •, .(,;•fi�♦ 1 1 ♦ ♦ � � .♦ � , 1 � �� h � as , ��.��� � ,., � { � �I ��'• s r ` • ct - iil ta, • i . +• ►• �t ♦ A .♦ I� ♦ ♦ � •. ♦ �, f � r,,,�./ •;, � � ♦ . ♦ S'� :�' ,. �, .! � •1_,., 11 � !�1 � ♦♦ • � �V //i �� � ... � � • ♦ 'mot'. � _ r t . � w ♦ > ;. � � � � ,: � �i , '♦ ''1 ..♦' \ % � / � � � ' �s. ���!> y �♦ ;m / � � `►� ♦ � =' _ ♦ °..171 ;� s r � � .• I ♦ � � ,, ,+ I �'� � ! • • . � I _ . �• ., _, .♦ _ _ 1 a ��- t!", �. pf !' �'� ♦ , • +A9t�• �� ,._�'r- Ia.41� �•• ♦_ � a - ` � : � � +R v ♦ r ♦ j , / � ,, 1 •r . ♦� I �,- , ` � /y( \�'� .� :♦ .11 � ••�' �_ _ ,� , mow• �� ' ♦ a, ♦ � � � ,IJI I . • � �/� /�TILr. 7♦ ,• • t.�' ,•�(s,. � �,!: I Y � r >,ii .✓ 1 I , �I � � _ , "'I r•` \ ',I ,• ,.�'si' null ::• . ' �. ♦ � � w � .• � i� - a♦ �' ♦, v.„ Y, > ,! I i •' � - , �• • r � � , •! �•- ♦� � �+ r•, l ♦� '� -� ✓� • rug. �.. ♦�, ♦ �> /�t ♦♦ � , I j ♦ J.,, • .t •Yt , J`�a 'i. � ••t •� ���. ��7 1•. `,'I ♦� % y `� �'° ! ,! /, � R :i ♦'• ., • .1 .1 I , 'I 111 ■ � ,,I ♦ ♦ • - ♦ � • � , � � � . f� jr' �.♦ C E � � Y Vie, ,. � R' • . `• � , •.,1 . ' �11 �.��'', r • ♦ - ads. �.:,� 1 d•� * � � ,), a f ♦�•t's .'�`.3��_ I �I ♦ �` �• � '� �� ''r a � .1 nnn . � - • �� t a a t j mil :� �r1� � ••S' � ., •;` .•�•�..'hw • � r 1 ,i ,?r♦ I � ' .,11 {l ``�'�ij � • I t � � � � / tom, ♦• � � • , '�T rw �! � I R ♦ a >' ^. ♦ .1 , , .� \, �t , ° � 111111 ��� � /' ,♦ � Bed: 32.2 feet ��••, �:T_7 'it� •���. �� • ! /�. �t ♦ �� ♦ • • t r ♦ - -QSil� LIN ` ♦° ♦' e / "r r 111 +\ • • a / ��a ��'a:,�I `• �., I' � `, ♦• •' v 1 �- �� �� "I R., � YID F� .■ • •, •': _ . a t 1. ��I «Y .� .�� ♦ V i 1. • au1 :r 1' > ,,� rl .� .♦ / /� • '�1�, ��1'. 1, '� ?> n�` 0 • .I r MIN �A ♦- + �� �,I�,. -`� ..•� /1���i �I �� : /� L ":1 //• • •t %L�►' °1 / 'a1 '�� '� /f6 \�d V♦ '♦ 1 �I ErAT-1a.411 11 x•1,1 11 r ' _ Railroads _ • • • Notes: f�] Buildings Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority VANN South ' ' ' Project No. 6841—VA inundation 1 1 - provided 1 • - 1 1 1 1 Sheet / 695 Moores • Engineering dam • - 1 1 information County • Boundary 1��-� Emergency Action • • •• 434-977-2970 434-295-1146 . 1 data pro 1 - 1 1 be - 1 - I • K ' • • . • ' • on ' ' • at on • m , ' ' ' ' i- • . SEWER AUTHORITY December I I • 1 1 • 1 1. 1 1 . _1 • • • / 1 1 • 11 • -1 1 • • • Engineering Department. Inundation Locations FERC Project No. 6841 -VA J:�RWSA�EAPs�SRIVANNA�SOUTHRIVANNA-EAP-2014.mxd YlAGIl`11A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 29 July 2015 Subject: Brookhill (ZMA201500007) The documents submitted with the rezoning request to establish the Brookhill Neighborhood Model District have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; Transportation improvements; 1. It is recommended that Polo Grounds Road and the associated signal on Rt. 29 be relocated to a place within the development. This will remove Polo Grounds Road from the floodplain, and avoid adding another signal on Rt. 29, while still providing a new central entrance to the development. If the proposed signal is added as shown, not only will there be more delay, but there may be problems with safety in queuing, similar to what has occurred to the north on Rt. 29. 2. The plans should show and account for scheduled improvements to Rt. 29. Much of the proposed buffer may be taken up by these improvements, together with necessary turn lanes and slope work for this development. 3. Roads should not contain right - angled turns. Road layouts should follow the minimum radii contained in the VDOT standards. This includes the future connections to the commercial areas, and where odd islands and turnarounds have been used to substitute for a road curve. 4. The road terminus treatments need clarification, whether they are actually full road sections in a loop, or some sort of alternative cul -de -sac, which will be more difficult to get approved. 5. Typical conceptual sections should be provided for all road improvements, including Polo Grounds Road and Rt. 29. 6. Trail typical sections should be specified according to the table in the Design Standards Manual. All trails should be constructed and complete before the first building permit, in order to avoid inevitable conflicts with the lot owners. 7. Language in the proposed code, section 2.9, regarding 90- degree spaces along roads and alleys should be removed. This is not typically allowed along roads and alleys, but in special circumstance where parking lots are designed in conjunction with muli- family housing without driveways. Perpendicular parking on a travelway is a parking lot, which is not typically a road. 8. The setbacks for garages provided in the proposed code is not adequate. Reference the waiver for Old Trail Block 13, which was before the Board of Supervisors in November of 2012. The actual setback will depend on the vehicle travel lane width and placement, and also on the steepness of the driveway. Traffic study; 9. Individual movements southwest bound left onto Rt. 29 from Polo Grounds Road fail with significant delays. This is the movement that will be the most important to existing residents in this area, and there should be an improvement in level of service. Stream Buffers, Open Space; Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 10. Most of the open space shown on the edges of each phase of the plan will be used for erosion control and stormwater management. This may not be the intent of the Neighborhood Model. 11. Measures to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance will need clarification on the application plan. It does not appear possible to mitigate for all stream buffer impacts on this plan, as all areas will be developed. 12. The extent of lot areas should be shown on the application plan, such that it is clear lot areas are out of stream buffers. 13. The extent of stream buffers on this site is not yet known. Each stream will have to be evaluated for perennial characteristics. Some of the smaller streams on the property may be considered perennial, and thus have stream buffers. The GIS layer from the county is typically inaccurate when it comes to these tributary streams, because it is based on old USGS maps. 14. The maximum extent of clearing and grading to install the multi -use trail in the stream buffer should be clarified on the application plan. 15. There must be an attempt to locate utilities outside of stream buffers, including sanitary sewer and stormwater. Existing cleared paths and existing facilities which already compromise much of the buffers should be shown and clarified and differentiated from proposed facilities. Stomwater must be out of the buffers, unless reasonably impossible. It cannot be put in the buffers simply to have more developable lot area. Grading and Slopes; 16. The same line type is used for stormsewer and retaining walls. Another line type for retaining walls should be used to make the plan legible in this regard. The maximum height of walls should not exceed those of managed slopes in the zoning ordinance. 17. It will not be possible to protect the preserved slopes as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The development will need to be pulled back to allow for erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, sewer lines, and lot grading outside of preserved slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes for private stormwater management facilities is not allowed under Zoning Ordinance section 30.7.4. In addition, other utilities must demonstrate that they are necessary for use of the lot, which does not appear to be the case, as lots are not yet created. Utilities must be located outside of preserved slopes where possible. 18. It is not clear what the three phases proposed in the code of development accomplish, if multiple phases can be open at once, and there is no specific order, and only temporary stabilization is required before more disturbance is allowed. A specific acreage of total disturbance would be sufficient to set a limit to mass grading, if that is the intent. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control; 19. I recommend removing all stormwater from the zoning application plans, unless there is a major feature, such as a lake, that is central to the development plan. But, as long as stormwater is being treated like a necessary but peripheral utility, there is no point in holding up the rezoning with review. Stormwater will have to meet all requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance and state regulations. Proffers or code can set simple parameters on stormwater management. Such parameters might be; a. Facilities will be located outside of buffers and lots, preserved slopes and floodplains. b. Extra measures will be provided at X location or for X area. c. County approval of a master stormwater plan will be obtained prior to the first intial site Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 plan or plat approval. The following comments may not apply if the above approach is taken; 20. There will need to be sediment basins and traps in all natural low points on current topography at the periphery of each phase. The plan should allow for this, so that facilities can be placed outside of floodplains, stream buffers, and preserved slope areas. 21. Stormwater management facilities, where possible, should coincide with significant erosion and sediment control measures. The plan cannot protect the streams from the site disturbance as currently shown. 22. With any stormwater concept or plan, preliminary water quality load and treatment calculations should be provided on the state worksheets for each drainage area within the disturbed areas. Development drainage areas should coincide wherever possible with natural drainage areas. 23. The notes on sheet 5 of the application plan, and the last sentence of section 2.7 in the proposed code, should be removed. A workable concept plan with load and treatment calculations according to the state methods is needed. 24. Stormwater management basins, facilities, and maintenance access roads must be off of lots, and placed so as not to be a nuisance to future homeowners. Floodplains; 25. The floodplain elevations in this area must be adjusted to match current topography (18- 30.3.7). In areas where the Rivanna River controls the elevations, the elevation data is obtained from the FIS and applied to current topography. Areas should be added to the FIRM map areas, but not subtracted without a LOMA. 26. In the areas of approximated floodplain on tributary streams, basic hydrologic and hydraulic computations should be provided to estimate the base flood elevation within the development (18- 30.3.13). This base floodplain elevation data is used in conjunction with the map interpolation, although the map may not be changed without a LOMA. Currently, in comparison to the county GIS data, the floodplain is shown incorrectly on the plans. 27. The current proposal does not allow enough room to place adequate erosion control measures outside the floodplain. Development should be pulled back enough so that all earthwork is outside the floodplain. 28. A floodplain development permit is required. Proffers; 29. The dedication plat for Polo Grounds Road cannot be approved until all road and necessary infrastructure plans are approved and constructed or bonded. 30. The code of development contains items that are typically reflected in proffers; (a) overlot grading plans, (b) phasing of grading and disturbances, (c) dedication of greenways, etc. Special Use Permit; 31. Information regarding the special use permit application for fill in the floodplain was not provided. The Design Standards Manual contains a list of the technical submittal information. It is recommended that the rezoning not move forward without a full review of the special use permit. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 file: EO zma201500007 GEB Brookhill.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner RE: ZMA- 2015 -07: Brookhill DATE: July 24, 2015 I have reviewed the above -noted application and have the following comments: General issues 1. Correct the page numbers in the Table of Contents in the Code of Development. 2. Correct the reference to the extent of development subject to ARB review referenced in the last sentence on page 20 of the Code of Development. If the Rt. 29 buffer truly acts as a buffer, there may not be many buildings that are visible from Rt. 29, and therefore not much architecture that needs ARB review. However, the full depth of parcels 18 and 19 fall within the overlay district. (18A is outside the overlay.) Also, ARB review is not limited to buildings; the overall site development is subject to review. 3. Show all existing buildings, outbuildings, ruins and the cemetery on the existing conditions plan. Treatment of the historic Brookhill house and site: 4. The Code says that the vision for the Brookhill house is to foster preservation of the resource. Preservation appears to be limited to maintaining a curtilage around the house. Maintaining the curtilage is appropriate, but the extent of the curtilage needs definition and more intense preservation of the resource is warranted. 5. The house appears to be in need of maintenance and repair. Proffer a treatment plan addressing repair, regular maintenance and preservation of significant architectural features. 6. Determine if the Brookhill property is still eligible for listing in the National and State registers considering the reduced size of the property. If the property is still eligible, complete the nomination process. 7. Clarify the intent regarding the marker for the Brookhill house. Does the reference to marker "in accordance with DHR guidelines" mean that a highway marker whose design is approved through the DHR marker process is proposed? Or does it mean a marker similar to the design and character of a DHR- approved marker will be installed? Who is responsible for designing and paying for the marker? When will the marker for the manor house be installed? Markers are typically meant for public education. A marker on private property will not meet this goal. The Code should address these issues. 8. If existing outbuildings and ruins have not been fully documented, proffer full documentation prior to demolition. If documentation is already complete, provide copies. Note that demolition permits are required for the outbuildings. 9. Revise the application plan, Code and/or proffers to more specifically document the extent of the landscape to be preserved around the historic Brookhill residence. It is recommended that all mature trees in the front, back and side yards, and wooded area that surrounds and visually "contains" the yard be preserved. The individual mature trees and the wooded area need to be shown more clearly on the plans. Provide additional information to clarify the supplemental landscaping intended for the property. Clarify "landscaping will be planted on the manor house lot to supplement screening of the viewshed from the house ". Identify which viewshed is to receive screening. Clarify the type and extent of screening intended. The application plan or Code may need a detail sheet to properly address these issues. Treatment of grave site 10. The Code (2.10 page 20) states that the grave site located on the Brookhill parcel will be preserved, but no preservation measures are outlined. Fencing and signage identifying the grave site are recommended, as is the institution of a long -term preservation and maintenance plan for the grave site and its surroundings. Issues to address may include: grave marker stabilization, repair, conservation, cleaning, and/or restoration; and routine maintenance plan, including guidelines for lawn care, plant care, tree pruning, invasive vegetation control, weeding. Archaeological resources 11. Figure 9 identifies proposed Phase 1 testing areas for potential archaeological sites and road crossings, and Phase 1 areas previously tested by VDOT. Provide a copy of the report(s) addressing the previously tested areas and information supporting the determination of areas proposed for Phase 1 testing. The Code should address the proposed archaeological work, and potential for additional phases of work. 12. The installation of a historical marker, in addition to the Brookhill house marker, would be appropriate to address the history of the overall project area. Content may be based on findings of the archaeological work. This marker should be addressed in the Code and/or proffers. Buffers 13. If clearing and grading are proposed in the 70' buffer, it isn't really a buffer. Revise the Code to address the Route 29 buffer as it will exist following VDOT Rt. 29 improvements. Reference buffer depth following Rt. 29 improvements. Locating stormwater facilities and utilities in the buffer is not appropriate. 14. Identify on the plan the "not currently vegetated areas" of the Rt. 29 and perimeter buffers that are referenced in the Code (page 15, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2). 15. Replanting of the Rt. 29 buffer must meet the requirements of the Places 29 forested buffer designation, which exceeds the requirements of 32.7.9. ARB approval of the buffer planting is also required. Revise the Code accordingly. 16. Coordinate the note on the application plan that references the location of the path along Rt. 29 with the VDOT road plans. Provide trees between the path and vehicle travelways. Main Street Boulevard Entrance 17. Entrance Corridor guidelines require 21/2" caliper street trees along interior streets, spaced 40' on center. Although some accommodations are typically made to coordinate landscaping with utilities and sight distance requirements, it will not be appropriate to alter this planting to accommodate utilities along Main Street Boulevard. Revise the Code to address this. Polo Grounds Road 18. The appearance of Polo Grounds Road following improvements is a concern. A wide, bare roadside will not have an appropriate appearance. Replanting graded slopes, holding stormwater facilities a significant distance off the right -of -way, and providing additional planting to integrate stormwater facilities into the landscape would be appropriate. pF AL13��r u r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner From: Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner Date: July 29, 2015 Subject: ZMA 2015 -07 Brookhill — 15t Zoning Comments I have reviewed the application and have the following comments: Proffers: a. Proffer 1 (Transportation Improvements) — The proffer language should more clearly address the specific trigger for the improvement. For example, consider using the following wording: "Prior to the approval of the first final subdivision plat or site plan for the Property, whichever comes first, the Owner shall construct..." b. Proffer language should be added to address the following: i. Trigger(s) to address the completion of the greenway and trail network. ii. Trigger(s) to address the completion of the recreational amenities outlined in the application plan. iii. Creation and maintenance of the Route 29 screening buffer as described within the Code of Development. Clear language is necessary for a) replanting and b) any allowance for clearing and grading. iv. Phasing of the Brookhill development as outlined in Section 2.5 of the Code of Development. v. Measures that will be taken to ensure that historic resources are protected throughout the development process as outlined in Section 2.10 of the Code of Development. vi. Tree preservation guidelines as outlined in Section 3.8 of the Code of Development. 2. Application Plan: a. The existing conditions map (sheet 2), the grading and utility plan (sheet 4) and the stormwater management plan (sheet 5) should more clearly differentiate between preserved slopes and managed slopes. b. It would be helpful to show steep slopes on the application plan to more clearly illustrate whether or not these slopes will be disturbed by the proposed development. Please be advised that disturbance of steep slopes is subject to Section 30.7. If any special use permits or special exceptions are necessitated by the proposed disturbance of steep slopes, we advise addressing that at this time. c. The Dunn cemetery and archaic woodland campsite area should be shown on the existing conditions map. d. Proposed trail connections along the northern portion of Brookhill do not align with the existing trail network in Forest Lakes. Consider a connection to the existing trail system at Ravenscroft Way. e. Different trail types (paved vs unpaved) should be distinguished on the application plan. Please preliminarily check the grades to assure that the proposed trail locations can reasonably comply with the maximum grade for the trail per Section 7 -H of the Design Standards Manual. f. Add hatching for the open space in Block 14 as it is shown in the rest of the plan. g. In the land use table shown on the plan, please list total percentages for each type of greenspace (parks, greenway, open space, buffers) for the entire development. In this table or elsewhere in the Code of Development, the total area within each block allocated to parks, greenways, or other recreational amenities should be specified. It is not necessary to break out the area devoted to open space and buffers by block, only to show the total area devoted to these uses across the development. Federal dam break inundation zones are not required to be shown, but may be useful to include on the existing conditions plan. We recommend that you omit them from the application plan. 3. Code of Development: a. Table 2 (Land Use Area) — Please list total percentages for each type of greenspace (parks, greenway, open space, buffers) for the entire development. In this table or elsewhere in the Code of Development, the total area within each block allocated to parks, greenways, or other recreational amenities should be specified. It is not necessary to break out the area devoted to open space and buffers by block, only to show the total area devoted to these uses across the development. b. Table 3 (Allowable Uses by Block) i. Consider further grouping uses by broad class rather than specific use (retail, service, office, public/ civic, residential, etc.). Refer to the Downtown Crozet District zoning classifications outlined in Section 20B of the Albemarle County zoning ordinance. ii. Please provide a legend outlining symbols used for by -right vs special permit uses. iii. Class A Home Occupations, Tourist Lodging, Group homes and Family day homes are required by -right in any district allowing residential uses per Section 20A.6 (a) of the zoning ordinance. iv. Outdoor storage & display is required to be permitted by special use permit per Section 20A.6(b). v. Omit the following use: Cellular communication, microwave, and radio wave transmission and relay towers, as it is in conflict with the Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities. vi. Change School of Special Instruction to Private School per the current zoning ordinance terminology. vii. Libraries and Museums should be listed as separate uses. viii. On page 9, "Electric, gas, oil, and communications distribution facilities..." should be listed as "Water, sewer, energy & communication facilities" per the current zoning ordinance terminology. ix. The following uses should be omitted from the table: Country Store — Rural Area use; covered by Food & Grocery Stores and/ or Convenience Stores Bed & Breakfast — Rural Area use; covered by Tourist Lodging Farm Wineries & Farm Breweries — Rural Area uses; Breweries are covered in the Development Area by Manufacturing/ Processing/ Assembly/ Fabrication/ Recycling; Scale is limited to 4,000 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts. If such a use is desired, recommend allowing by SP in the Neighborhood Service Center area per the Comprehensive Plan Special Events — Rural Area use Class A & B Home Occupations — repeated at end of table x. Are carriage houses anticipated as a unit type? If so, they should be accounted for in the uses table and the density calculations (detached counts as a residential unit if it includes facilities for cooking, sleeping & sanitation). xi. Recommend making Hotels, motels, and inns an SP use in Block 16 to provide for greater oversight of use of Brookhill manor house. c. Table 4 (Density Regulations) i. Zero is not an acceptable minimum density in mixed use districts. Please refer to the recommended density ranges established in Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Service Center (3 -20 units/ acre), Urban Density Residential (6.01 -34 units/ acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential (3 -6 units/ acre). A minimum of non - residential use (greater than zero) within the mixed use blocks must be listed either by % or by area. d. Building Regulations — Please specify which section of the zoning ordinance this section refers to. If the reference relates to the definition (such as of height and story), that is Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Table 7 — For Urban Mixed Use Center, there appears to be an inconsistency between the maximum number of stories permitted for single family attached/ townhouses (5) and the maximum building height (40'). f. Table 5 (Minimum Lot Setbacks) i. Albemarle County recently amended its setback regulations in conventional zoning districts to encourage a style of development that is more consistent with the Neighborhood Model. Consider modifying Table 5 to be consistent with the residential (non - infill) and commercial setbacks and stepbacks outlined in Sections 4.19 and 4.20 of the zoning ordinance. ii. Provide a definition of integral garage or omit if it is not an important design concept. Because it is not a current term in our Ordinance, it is advisable to omit it. iii. Is there a reason the 1' encroachment for architectural features and overhangs only applies to side yard setbacks? iv. Recommend replacing the term "building" with "structure" to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and to not have the use of both terms result in confusion. g. Table 6 (Minimum/ Maximum Lot Size and Coverage) — Recommend removing maximum lot coverage requirements from the table and allow setbacks to dictate the developable area of a lot and greenspace requirements to provide area that is not impervious cover. h. Green Space & Amenities i. Parks - More detail is needed on the proposed recreational amenities affiliated with each of the parks shown on the application plan. It is not clear which, if any, parks are proposed to be dedicated to public use. For any proposed for public use, please work with Parks and Recreation. ii. Greenway - Please clarify whether use of greenways is open to the public or only to Brookhill residents and what trail standards will be used. (See also related comment 2e.) iii. Buffers — It isn't clear from the language in the Code of Development whether or not buffers are counted as open space. Section 2.4.2 states that the Perimeter Buffer is located within the designated open space for the development, but Section 2.4.5 indicates that buffers are not included as open space. If buffers are included within the open space calculation, the land use table should not list them separately. i. Architectural & Landscape Standards i. Specific architectural style guidelines are discouraged within a Code of Development and may be more appropriate to include within an HOA covenant. j. Section 2.8 — Transportation This section will need to be revised to more clearly differentiate major transportation features from those that may be changed by special exception or administrative approval. Clear criteria will need to be developed to distinguish between the two. 4. Please be advised that the "Preface to Application" document has no regulatory purpose for this rezoning. Either it should be omitted or it should be listed as a narrative for information. 5. SP 2015 -025 Fill in the floodplain — please clarify if there is any proposed fill in the floodway. It all fill is proposed in the fringe, please state this on the plan. 6. Extension of multi -use trail system is proposed off -site based on the Application Plan (sheet 1). We will need to check with the Deputy County Attorney to confirm that off -site improvements such as this can be enforced. Page 4 of 6 A Portion of T u Map -*B5, Parcd tK r 913 PG 0 4 31 015152 PREPARED BY: McGuirelVoods LLP EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER THE VIRGINIA CODE (1950), AS AMENDED SECTION 58.1 -811 (3) This DEED OF GIFT made this 23`d day of October 2000, by and between FOREST MAKES ASSOCIATES, a Virginia general partnership, Grantor, party of the first part, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee, party of the second part, whose address is 401 McIntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902; WITNESSETH: The Grantor does hereby GRANT, GIVE and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle the following described real property: All that certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being in Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 4.7514 acres, more or less, shown as Parcel A on a plat consisting of two pages dated May 25, 2000 made by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. titled "Subdivision Plat of Parcel A, A Portion of Forest Lakes South, Tax Map 46135, Parcel 1, To Be Dedicated to Public Use, Rivanna Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia" attached hereto and recorded herewith; SUBJECT TO the hereinafter reserved easements; BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the Grantor herein named by deed of Frank A. Kessler dated March 15, 1989, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1041, page 549 and by deed of correction from Frank A. Kessler dated July 25, 1990, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1116, page 435. The Grantor reserves for itself, its successors and its assigns the following easements: 1) Sign and Landscape easement as shown on the aforesaid plat; 2) 10' drainage and/or utility easement along all lot lines; and 3) a perpetual easement and right to dedicate a 20' wide easement shown on the aforesaid plat as "20' Sanitary Sewer Easement For Future Construction." Book: 1973 Page: 437 FileNumber.2000- 00015152 Seq: 1 Page 2 of 6 et1913QGO438 There is imposed upon the property herein conveyed a restriction that upon development of the property, the Grantee and its successors in title shall provide along the property lines a reasonable visual screeninglbuffering zone acceptable to the Grantor, its successors or assigns. The County of Albemarle, as evidenced by the signature of its duly authorized official, accepts title to the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to easements contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the property hereby conveyed, which have not expired by limitation of time contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective and any lien, inchoate or otherwise for real estate taxes or assessments not yet due and payable. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES, a Virginia Gpneral Partnership By: Lfi General Stephen N. Runkle 2 (SEAL) 9IA (SEAL) ve Book: 1973 Page: 437 HeNumber:2000- 00015152 Seq:2 Page 3 of 6 6K=973FGn439 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY /COUNTY OF o wit: The foregoing instrument %vas acknowledged before me this / day of 2000 by Stephen N. Runkle as General Partner of Forest Lakes Associates. My commission JANET E. SHIFLETT N'Vary Public Com.�►onwealth of Virginia /�Rot Public ;.. fey emra ENx..seM 30.2002 STATE OF VIRGINIA - /COUNTY OF 6&%WGtA&, to Wit: The foregoing instrument Was acknowledged before me this 0 day of 2000 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. My commission expires:4D 1 Notary Public APPROVED AS TO FORM: .4 . ty Aomey 11REA127876. 1 3 Book: 1973 Page: 437 FileNumber.2000- 00015152 Seq:3 Page 4 of 6 H CL Q +r. Z LLJ V Z Q ILLf L= g 1 0 W 60 O ' Lu 3C O Z NC U � a r ■ n z LlS Cc F' Q cn M a CD LLJ Q LLJ 0� Q 0) L a x w E a L) k V" L� d L U04) CV 671 MCLO 00 C 0 m C E m v C m Oi L Lm 10L3L04J L CA 01000J000 n u *- +1 u X 10 uj 6.4 4K 0 LL— 'at.. ss 7 CAVE (D :1%4J A COE- �-+ ►+ 7 W Ll C 01 m C WOOLGI C3 Q N a� 41 Mw n L0 uwx {r o o v �+ a C°) U) CL COMC�0LO °4J Q mC E � En »vLV Co Li �%s+ 000 v 4) v a m ran rz- X f-- cn U) tea= a" cn Cof�4L3V%- a r- -m : am- vv45 U- Cl- t) cc 49 6-4 0 F- 4 0 © w � C uj >. I-- CL Q J�►.lJJ� v L M J Q z rr �� � J C.3 CC CX • j CC CL U U) MR � may o�j `a U 1 .Ll co a w �`j 4" M C.? CC Fw- 4 ti > t Z $ z� z r H Q 44��w � } Q C] Q w wc°a 0 �0� z - U a D Lt%'C�yj a°r � w H za U7 CL fP.. cr Q a c �a d e a LLi r; H CL Q +r. Z LLJ V Z Q ILLf L= g 1 0 W 60 O ' Lu 3C O Z NC U � a r ■ n z LlS Cc F' Q cn M a CD LLJ Q LLJ 0� Q 0) L a x w E a L) k V" d L U04) CV 671 MCLO 00 C 0 m C E m v C m Oi L Lm 10L3L04J L 01000J000 n u *- +1 u �+uvwom 10 uj 6.4 (D m ..., ., a 4 cc 'at.. ss 7 CAVE (D :1%4J A COE- �-+ ►+ 7 W Ll C 01 m C WOOLGI Q O a 0 4+'l 4 a N Mwr-Owt- 41 p n L0 uwx {r o o v �+ a C°) U) CL COMC�0LO °4J Q mC E 0 0, _CJr-++ aId LO UU) »vLV Co Li �%s+ 000 v 4) v a m ill nt r_w )OX0 st nD a„ U) tea= ai ++ o ++ m w m Cof�4L3V%- a r- -m : am- vv45 H CL Q +r. Z LLJ V Z Q ILLf L= g 1 0 W 60 O ' Lu 3C O Z NC U � a r ■ n z LlS Cc F' Q cn M a CD LLJ Q LLJ 0� Q 0) L a x w E a L) k X �t C- 10 n 0 .a _OD Cl LO Q my Q La n ID h qry O (r) .+ �* w O N Lai J w d h N W 4H �- �! U N U) U! .moo 0U. (D wo fA N M 8.4 uj GC � t LW • F- 0 " CE �6-4 3z 1 Z"C OL mz °" LL 4x -C w z 0 N H R a H LL w H F1 .r w• It 'I oci 4 �2 at 2 oy %ki o Book: 1973 Page: 437 FileNumber:2000- 00015152 Seq:4 r V" d 671 a Lm a En z uj 6.4 4 cc H C En N -C -j U) U) p Fri le aId LO UU) .9 J JX1- Lei) o U) tea= U- Cl- t) F- 4 0 C w v L a X �t C- 10 n 0 .a _OD Cl LO Q my Q La n ID h qry O (r) .+ �* w O N Lai J w d h N W 4H �- �! U N U) U! .moo 0U. (D wo fA N M 8.4 uj GC � t LW • F- 0 " CE �6-4 3z 1 Z"C OL mz °" LL 4x -C w z 0 N H R a H LL w H F1 .r w• It 'I oci 4 �2 at 2 oy %ki o Book: 1973 Page: 437 FileNumber:2000- 00015152 Seq:4 r Page 5 of 6 1 rD v / Q r r �-u C cL- f Q c � r r fI - O r �a c QLL ~ a a) cri CL E " ��., �' L] � � 110 0 /� t 9 M -4a* 1 r ai'i Q �\ \ C► 2aS�E''a,t 118 0 -gam- 5/ tun a) Cu Cc Ci ct W Z Cta4 Et / ° m Q opt as ®� IS m W mw cx tu Okn �E c Qaa �� 1 $ + Q (ef to j 00 !� of a � an �•L, # ci Q � r 3.60.59.DEH 0 09•ZE 3.60.5. KN cri cc � • � � $ U .09 //.TT4�((t!!��++u ,pE•LOE IOE,LV,� N Y *0'8 u! TTy q Sys 'I'B'N 62 3lnO8 *s*n �O } 1 'e Ali r- • w x` eVA Do 4• j; xa I% it ' x' a 'oa i k% t 1.411 t O a ®� o� ui f � Sk _~ E �a Uj z ° 05 - sa mo ' -- -_ 00'061 ET'S1 3.60.59.DEH 0 09•ZE 3.60.5. KN cri cc � • � � $ U .09 //.TT4�((t!!��++u ,pE•LOE IOE,LV,� N Y *0'8 u! TTy q Sys 'I'B'N 62 3lnO8 *s*n �O } 1 'e Ali r- • w x` eVA Do 4• j; xa I% it ' x' a 'oa i k% t 1.411 t O a ®� Page 6 of 6 BK = 973PGO442 VIRGINIA: IN THE CLEWS OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE: THIS DEED WAS PRESENTED, AND WITH CERTIFICATE ANNEXED. iS ADMITTED TO RECORD Oti� —© 2000 AT��O'CIAlCti le M. STATE TAX S (039) LOCAL TAX S 12131 TRANSFER FEE S /, 00 (212) I.T.T.F. S_ --4- —(10151 VSLF $ 1.00 11441 CLERK'S FEE $ . P ll 13011 PLAT S 00 SECT.58.1 -802: TES 13: STATE TAX LOCAL TAX S S_ (038) !'2201 SHELBY J. NIARSHALL,CLERK LOCAL TAX S (223) TOTAL $ /Q • 60 Book: 1973 Page: 437 ileNumber:2000- 00015152 Seq:6