Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Correspondence 2016-03-07 • PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERINW a March 7, 2016 Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development Regarding: ZMA 2015-00008—Adelaide Dear Ms. Yaniglos, After several months of receiving comments from Neighbors, County Staff and Planning Commission Members we have revised our design to address some of the comments that were presented.As you know, many comments suggested that the development should only occur by-right, if it all, and that it was the intention of the comprehensive plan to hatch this area as the low density neighborhoods are in the far north-western limits of the growth area. In the midst of these comments, which we do not consider an accurate interpretation of the comprehensive plan nor fair to the current property owner, we did pick up on some constructive comments that form the basis of our revisions. Our revisions were guided by the following general principles: 1) Increase tree preservation opportunities along 250. While we understand that a wider buffer will always be perceived to be better when a development boarders a rural area, the quality and character of that buffer is also important. Rather than clear significant amounts of mature trees to build a trail and replant vegetation, we have elected to adjust the buffer capture as much of the existing mature vegetation along the western side of the site as possible. Moving the trail behind those trees allows us the advantage of minimal disturbance along 250 as we are not fighting against requirements for clear zones or required shoulders between route 250 and the trail network. 2) Provide an inclusive series of amenities. During the Planning Commission work session it was noted that it is important to consider the relationship of the entire development to the property and not to just focus on the designated areas shown in yellow on the master plan. Our new plan seeks to push density to the center with a central pedestrian corridor running north south. This connects the neighborhood internally in addition to the looped connection that has always been planned. Rather than having internal streets which serve only lots and the cars associated with them, the central internal street opens up the Route 250 side of the parcel to the north side of the parcel in a direct route that will encourage pedestrian travel through the heart of the neighborhood rather than simply around. Comment Responses for Megan Yaniglos: 1) Comment Noted; the proposed maximum residential density has been reduced to 80 units or a gross density of approximately 4.05 DU/Ac. We selected R6 as the proposed zoning based on lot size, setbacks and permitted uses that would be most applicable for a neighborhood model inspired development in this location. It is important to note that the by-right density of this parcel,were it zoned R6, would be-155 units assuming affordable housing was provided. We proposed approximately half that number of units, and if compared to a by-right scenario, our proposed density would be an "R3 Cluster" if it existed. We agree with Staff that the more accurate mapping could be used to determine what the comp plan was looking for in terms of total green space. With our reduction in density, we fall under the 6 unit/acre ratio on the"yellow' space, as shown on the comp plan in this parcel no matter how it is viewed. 2) The revised application plan provides more details about the types of units that are permitted in different portions of the development. The new layout requires detached units around the perimeter of the w � development with the option of higher density product on the interior of the site. 3) We have revisited the buffer along Route 250 and have adjusted the layout to increase the buffers. The %<, N buffer area is broken up into 3 areas, a 75' buffer on the western most side of the site near the main entrance, a short section of buffer that decreases to 40' n::r t - middle of the site and then a third section at the eastern end of the site that increases\bac, to 75'. he 10' multi-use trail is now envisioned as meandering along the variable tree line created by th c -••e in buffer width. We believe brining the trail inward makes it more attractive and safer for users and that the variability in the buffer width is more consistent with rural area character,which is not of specific fixed tree lines, but of a more organic nature with a variety of depth and age from property to property. Notes for Application Plan: 1) As noted previously, the additional details have been added to delineate the type of units permitted in each block. 2) Rather than moving the trail closer to the road, we've taken the approach of allowing the existing trees within the ROW to remain and to meander the trail behind or, if appropriate, within the wooded buffer. The eastern most buffer will be mostly new vegetation. We think this is an opportunity to bring the trail back through a carefully planted forest before bringing the user back to Route 250. 3) Roads have been labeled as private or public as appropriate. 4) After researching the ROW for Brownsville Road and discussing the need for multiple entrances with VDOT, the consensus is that Brownsville Road will remain and we will make improvements to our half of the ROW to bring that road up to standard. That entrance will be a full entrance. 5) The layout has been re-oriented to provide a center corridor which promotes pedestrian travel through the heart of the development and from areas of density to available amenity areas. The plan has been modified to include a pocket park area on the inside of the loop. This area is envisioned as a playground area with benches and landscaping. Outside of the loop, the more rural open space area invites users to approximately six acres of preserved community area, which includes trail connections for future connectivity to downtown Crozet and Old Trail. 6) The land use table has been updated to specify that the development shall be in accordance with the cluster provisions of the R6. 7) The road cross sections have been updated to reflect the correct setbacks for the R6 district. 8) The parking areas were envisioned as associated with the affordable housing. We have removed that level of detail from this plan. During development of the site plan we may propose some limited, relegated parking to provide parking for townhouse units or to provide additional guest parking. Proffers: 1) The proffer has been adjusted to reflect the by-right density without bonus factors. 2) The proffer form has been updated as requested. 3) A timing trigger has been added to the green space dedication. We will work with staff on timing for the affordable housing proffer. Additional Planning Comments: 1) The cover sheet has been revised to show a corrected legend. Sheet C5 is a general plan of development for infrastructure and the by-right plan exhibit has been included on sheet C2. 2) This is understood. 3) This is understood. 4) The detail has been revised to increase the size of the font. 5) The font has been revised to make it more legible. VDOT Comments: 1) Utilities are shown conceptually at this time; updated plans during the site plan phase will take into account the most recent site plan requirements. 2) Roadways and alleys have been labeled as requested. 3) The layout has been adjusted to have intersections closer to 90 degrees. 4) The emergency access only road has been reclassified as a full access public road and will maintain the existing prescriptive easement and improve the road on our property. 5) Comment noted, the road has been made full access. 6) The former emergency access road will be the standard VDOT section with the exception of possibly leaving the eastern most portion as shoulder and ditch section in the vicinity of the existing telephone switching station. 7) The layout has been adjusted;final details for locations of the paths and sidewalks will be worked out at the site plan phase. 8) The prior emergency access road that was shifted away from Brownsville road has been removed and the new full access lines up with Brownsville road. 9) The traffic impact analysis has been updated and shows the proposed configuration of two primary access points. The study has been revised to include an 80% split on the traffic coming in from Charlottesville. This change triggers a taper, but not a full right turn lane. 10) The plans have been revised to show the left turn lane as warranted by the study. 11) The primary entrance has been shifted slightly to the east. ti If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at: Justin@shimp-engineerinq.com or by phone at 434-227-5140. Best Regards, Justin Shimp, P.E. Shimp Engineering, P.C.