Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600003 Review Comments 2016-06-15 I 1 (id cid I Crozet Community Advisory Committee("CCAC") Resolution on Proposed West Glenn Project Floodplain Fill SP201600003 June 15, 2016 I WHEREAS, Southern Development Group has submitted an application for a special use permit ("SP") to fill the 100-year floodplain of Powell's Creek to construct an access road as part of the West Glenn Project; Ij WHEREAS,the Crozet Community Advisory Council ("CCAC") has reviewed this 41 application and related documents, heard presentations from Southern Development representatives, reviewed the county staff report,and received input from Crozet and County residents, and wishes to provide input to the Albemarle 1 County Planning Commission ("PC") and the Board of Supervisors ("BOS"); fi BE IT RESOLVED,that the Crozet Community Advisory Committee opposes the issuance of this special use permit, as proposed, for the reasons identified below. 1 • ' Because of its impact on environmental features including the stream, wetland,and floodplain areas of Powell's Creek; • Due to a lack of compliance with floodplain stream buffer and critical slope ordinances; • ` Given concern over protection of potential sensitive species that may exist in 1`I`Z'''', 1 the area. The CCAC suggests that a study be done by a third party to determine if there will be impacts to sensitive native species-if one has not e t ' been conducted already; y :`� 1.1 • Due to the impact and misalignment with the existing neighborhoods. ' t,,f' According to the Crozet Master Plan ("CMP"),new developments should be in . Y1 i keeping with the character of existing development. The development` L� )6 k t,t0`'�� 1 resulting from issuance of this SP is of significantly higher density than the ‘^-) 1 surrounding'neighborhoods; 4. 1 • Based on the CCAC's concerns regarding the method used by developers and ,/ I the County, of including non-buildable acreage in density calculations,which I results in a higher number of allowed units than would otherwise be permitted based on zoning limits or recommended by the CMP if only I buildable acreage was utilized in such density calculations. 1 3 I 3 i ii 1 1 I } I, David Stoner, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of the fi resolution adopted unanimously by the Crozet Community Advisory Committee at a 3 regular meeting held June 15, 2016 by a motion made by Leslie Burns and seconded 1 by Phil Best. CCAC Members present: David Stoner,Chair;Leslie Burns,Acting 1 Secretary;John Savage,James King, Kostas Alibertis,Alice Marshall, Mike Kunkel, 1 Beth Bassett, Kim Guenther, Phil Best,Jon McKeon. Members absent:Alice Lucan, ' Mary Gallo,Dean Eliason. 3 1 044 I A 1 David A.Stoner CCAC Chairman A 141, 1 1 I 4 I I ii 1 I li I , 1 I I I County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: West Glen Plan preparer: Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering [172 S. Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911, mmyers(a)dominionene com] Owner or rep.: Crozet Development Solutions LLC 1215 E. Market Street, Suite B / Charlottesville, VA 22902-5512 Plan received date: 10 Feb 2016 (Rev. 1) April 6, 2016 Date of comments: 27 Feb 2016; revised 11 -Mar 2016 (Rev. 1) May 6, 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein Cc: Amelia McCulley/Elaine Echols/Ron Higgins Albemarle County Community Development SP201600003 Abbreviations: BFE — base flood elevation (100 -yr flood elevation) FIRM — flood insurance rate map FIS — flood insurance study Comments 2, 3, 16 revised. (11 -Mar) En ing eerin,g comments: Attached FEMA Firmette (Map Panel 51003CO229D) shows Zone AE base elevation at FIS cross-section `I' is 715±. Ref. SPS. SP7 Cling Lane Extended Profile shows 100 -yr WSE —719.39' This, if accurate, represents rise in BFE at proposed 12'W x 8'H double box culvert, Road Sta. —17+48.73. FIS is assumed accurate, and includes Jarmans Gap Road, SR 691. This proposal if advanced in current form would require FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Fill. [CLOMR-F; Ch. 18 -Sec. 30.3.10.A.3.] [Plan / below] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Ref Sheet SP8: Proposed 10'W x 10' H triple box culvert (countersunk). Sheet 11, Existing /Proposed Modeled conditions show `No Rise' in BFE at stream cross-sections I, H2, H1, H (relevant culvert/bridge crossing stream cross-sections). 745 .. -.:Z o o ............:.. - 740 C7 4- ti- ---, ...... Z 4 �_�PROPOS® GRADE. 725 4 720 2. Proposed fill in floodplain is problematic. 18-30.3.13.A. I.: "Fill is prohibited in the regulatory floodway regardless of whether the owner demonstrates that the fill will not result in anv increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood." Reviewer spoke with Applicant (Mike Myers) 10 -Feb regarding data tables in Flood Study Information Booklet d. 19 -Jan 2016, but overlooked ordinance prohibition against fill within the floodway. Code appears to eliminate option of fill within the floodway at any point along the project Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 corridor, and this point was re-emphasized in follow-up conversation with M. Myers, 24 -Feb. A site visit is scheduled for 4 -March. Fill within floodway is impermissible. Engineering cannot support design. (11 - Mar 2016) After discussion with Zoning, earthen placement required to construct a culvert/bridge is deemed accessory, not fill. A culvert within floodway is viewed eligible for special permit [18-30.3.11]. Questions concerning rise/no-rise of BFE at points along stream corridor remain, and inform Engineering recommendation relative to design. Application indicates rise in BFE [18-30.3.13.A.1]. Engineering evaluates if "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." We have not received hydraulic/hydrologic analysis that demonstrates no -rise with this design. Note: Encroachment that would increase the water surface elevation may be allowed with Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), but requires Floodplain Administrator endorsement. There is insufficient data to merit endorsement [18-30.3.13.A.2.]. Special Permit under this approach (CLOMR) requires FEMA approval/acceptance prior to issuance of SP. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant should obtain FEMA -Approved CLOMR-F as condition of SP. Applicant response letter, 6 -Apr 2016: "Fill in the floodway fringe associated with Cross Section G1 and G2 results in a 0.2' to 0.5 rise in BFE. See HEC -RAS model and Sheet SPI I of the plans." Engineering accepts values /statement as accurate. 3. Letter d. 18 Jan 2016 included with flood study information booklet: "There will be a maximum fill of approximately 12'. A double 12'W X 8'H Box Culvert at approximate station 17+50 is proposed to convey the base flood without overtopping the road and with no net rise in the base flood elevation." Fill is prohibited within the floodway, regardless of BFE rise. Also, FEMA FIRM Map panel, when compared with design, indicates rise approaching 4.40' at proposed crossing. [this portion of comment not withdrawn; this statement remains relevant / 11 -Mar 20161 A bridge crossing that avoids fill within floodway appears the only viable alternative. Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering, questions apparent inconsistency between ordinance sections 18-30.3.11 and 30.3.13. (11 -Mar 2016) Comment withdrawn. Bridges, ferries and culverts not serving single-familysingle-finity dwellings I SP SP 4. Title/SP2 —Design scale, regional context map/parcel map (1" =1,000' & 1" =400') are inconsistent; check map scale (1" =800'?). Also: Title vicinity map scale, 1" =500' matches neither of the other two scales. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. SP3 —Provide ADT estimate used as basis of road section pavement design, since typical road section provided (else, eliminate typical road section). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. SP4-SP8 —Show WPO stream buffer in addition to floodplain/steep slopes zoning overlays. SP Application presents development (proposed Lots) as well as floodplain road crossing information. Stream buffers should be shown on these special use permit plan sheets in order to respond to questions or identify issues relating to proposed development within stream buffers. Action or recommendation on SP Application may err if stream buffers, or limits on development within stream buffers, are not considered at this time. : (Rev. 1) Addressed. [images removed] 7. SP3 /Note: Engineering review does not consider or evaluate site overview development road design, geometry, or details for Lots or streets (Road A, Road B) presented on sheet SP3; these development features should be reviewed with subdivision/road application/s. Engineering SP review comments consider special use permit information presented on other sheets. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 8. SP5 —BMP #7 and 9 are < 50' from Powell's Creek. Increase distance to 50' Min. "Mitigation to 50 feet is allowed in Crozet now." [11/11/2015 5:11 PM email —E. Echols to F. Stoner] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Provide proposed trail details (located within floodplain/floodway); plan/profile. [18-30.3.11] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: '20' trail easement for trail construction by others.' 10. SP6 —Provide footbridge schematic. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Construction by others.' 11. SP4BMP #3 —If this SWM facility proposed location requires fill, it is impermissible. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 12. SP4 —Confirm no grading, no fill, no rise in BFE at Lots 51, 52, 53. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 13. SP6 —Label retaining wall proposed for connector alignment (fill section) south of Powell's Creek. Label TW/BW, if known. (Rev. 1) Applicant 6 -Apr 2016 response acknowledged: "A note has been added to provide retaining wall dimensions with road plans. Additional topography will need to be performed to design that section for roadway." Caution: CLOMR-F approval pertains. ROAD Plans, when submitted, should include confirmation of HEC -RAS modeling data for stream cross sections G2, G1; should confirm no increase beyond BFE proposed in data table, Sheet SP 11 (Rise=0.2'-0.5'). Recommend SP condition: "Retaining Wall to be designed with Final Road Plans. Powells Creek water surface base flood elevations Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 (BFE) may not exceed proposed tabulated W. S. Elev (ft.) data, stream cross sections: G2, G1, SP201600003, Sheet SP11." 14. SP5/SP6 —Provide (H&H analysis) cross-section upstream of connector floodway fringe/retaining wall. Evaluate effect of proposed (floodway fringe) fill required to construct roadway embankment/retaining wall. [Plan excerpt, below_] (Rev. 1) Addressed. —Also, see #2, 13, above. / Y - ---- � \•\ �i \ _ 76+94.98 PRESERVED SLO i PER ALBEMARLE \ ,' \ COUNTY Q(S �'�• � � _ _ � 15. SP8 —Design proposes limited (perhaps unavoidable) impact to preserved steep slopes, which appear eligible for review/approval under 18-30.7.4.b.l.c. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Grading revised to minimize impact to preserved slopes due to road construction. C. Necessary public fatalities. Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot, provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following exist: (i) the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources such as stream buffers or floodplain; (ii) the alignment of the public facilities is consistent with the alignment of public facilities depicted or described in the comprehensive plan; (iii) the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities; or (iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an unnecessary hardship. To the extent that public facilities are established on preserved slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district, 16. SP 10 — Development and proposed improvements shown on Conceptual Mitigation Plan (SP 10) appear inconsistent with Albemarle County development policy which permits grading necessary to permanently locate SWM facilities within the landward 50 -ft of stream buffers, within Crozet Development Area. This policy does not as of this date permit hardscape development (roads, decks, residential structures) to be located within the landward 50 -ft of stream buffers. [Plan excerpt, below] (11 -Mar 2016) After staff review, the street (image below) may be viewed necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of created lots, yet this design destroys stream buffer. Alternative designs that preserve stream buffer are available. Engineering recommends against proposed design. Ordinance requires any new building site be located outside of the 100 -ft stream buffer. A number of building sites do not meet this condition [Sec. 17-604.A.]. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. SP4 appears to show the same building sites located within 100 -ft stream buffer. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Please contact John Anderson, PE/CFM, if any questions. ianderson2(aalbemarle.or2 / 434.296-5832 —x3069 Thank you File: SP201600003 West Glen 050616rev1 Stream Crossing and Master Plan Road Network Pros and Cons List Proposed stream crossing and connection to Orchard Drive Pros Cons 1. Orchard Drive can safely handle the 1. The proposed stream crossing requires a road additional traffic volume generated by this network in an area not consistent with the development. recommendations of the Master Plan. 2. Fewer existing residences will likely be 2. Stream crossings create environmental impacted by a connection to Orchard Drive impacts to the stream and floodplain, though than the alternative connection shown in the a mitigation plan is required to address the Master Plan. impacts. Crozet Master Plan road network Pros Cons 1. Road location would be consistent with the 1. Construction of this road network requires recommended road network from the Crozet additional off-site right-of-way, which is not Master Plan. available at this time. 2. Construction of roads in the locations shown 2. The off-site right-of-way, along with Blue on the Crozet Master Plan would avoid Ridge Avenue,would need substantial construction of a new stream crossing and improvements to safely accommodate the the associated environmental impacts. additional traffic volume generated by this development. Such improvements are currently not included on the County's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Capital Needs Assessment (CNA). 3. A higher number of existing residences would be impacted along these roads than would be impacted along the proposed route connecting to Orchard Drive. 11111111 Seed Aov"Lott tr„ia,nA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: 5th Street Commercial Applicant: 64 and Fifth,LLC,943 Glenwood Station Lane,Suite 201 Charlottesville,VA 22901 Owner: Morris Creek Yacht Club LLC c/o the Olympia Companies 280 Fore St.Portland,ME 04101 Primary Contact: Katurah Roell,2811 Hydraulic Road,Charlottesville,VA 229:1 Plan received date: 26 Apr 2016 Date of comments: 19 May 2016. Reviewer: John Anderson Plan Coordinator: laine Echols ZMA201200007 Engineering review 1. The existing floodplain is a urately shown on the Appl' ation Plan. 2. The proposed floodplain is in early the same locatio• shown with SP2007-63.It is dissimilar in that SP200700063 shows a retainint.wall 20'±closer to s iscuit Run. The Application Plan shifts the retaining wall away from the stream with 1 ely beneficial ect on base flood elevation. If floodplain is wider by 20'(as compared with SP2007-001.3),and if a else is equal,the base flood elevation should be lower. Designs that reduce encroachment a favore•. ZMA201200007 retaining wall design appears to do this. 3. The stream buffer disturbance is the si e t :t was approved with SP2007-00063. 4. It appears that proposed retaining walls be limited(with final site plan)to not more than 6'height. Engineering recommends ZMA approv- . etaining walls,maximum. Engineering recommends Applicant consider FEMA 2000,2008 LOMR(t:ey ar:identical),and prepare 5th Street Development Application Plan design elevations,accordingly. Also,N. e 1,below.) 5. Application Plan shows phased de -lopment(P':se A,B,C). Proposed retaining wall must be built with Phase A. Temporary slopes or p- ial fill to supp. Phase A development only was not proposed and has not been reviewed from a flood slain impact perspec,'ve. The wall and grading required to construct the wall,and landscaping at top o the wall should be inst. led with Phase A. (Also,Note 2). SITE CIRCULATION 6. Phase A is nearest 5th S. et. Building A occupies a promin t location visible from 5.h Street,a location preferred by Applicant or a possible high volume franchise. : drive-through is proposed which would require a spiraling,t ce-around travel path that introduces ad, ional distance,turning movement,points of vehicle-pedestrian-parking conflict. Alternatives exist. One is s etching building A and B. With few modifications,no :pparent loss of commercial space(SF),with ime oved circulation and safety,and enhancing pros.-cts of code preference for 30'Maximum setback w " e limiting any deviation granted (Applicant ha equested Variance(74')to 30'setback/Ref. 18-4.20 a . Applicant letter, 18 Apr 2016), Engineering ecommends this alternative. Planning provides useful alte :tive design(image below). 7. Proposed "ve-through requires 330'±additional travel if compared with . ternative building B location, even tho.gh building A is closer to 5th St. This distance may modify driver .•havior. VDOT required site entrant- design for express purpose of increased safety. Patrons,required to 'rcle building A twice,may opt i'stead to make a U-turn at the end of the median entrance shown on the A..lication Plan. A U-turn at thi ocation defeats VDOT and county safety objectives. If U-turn at this location is impermissible,the Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 twice around distance to be traveled by drive-through lane vehicles approaches''A mile. Engineering supports alternative design which promotes a direct,shorter travel path to the drive-through lane as limiting number and frequency of pedestrian/vehicle/parking conflicts. Many requirements in recent code revision (18-5.1.60,Drive-Through Windows)relate to safety. Planning's initiative to identify alternative design promotes safe and convenient access to drive-through lane without compromise or impact to business revenue. Advertisement(sign)within 5'h Street RW will alert passerby to this franchise. This alternative franchise placement(switching buildings A and B)would have all entering site traffic immediately face this building,perhaps increasing revenue. Patrons frequenting the drive-through under the proposed design may believe the building is close,when in fact the drive-through window is at least 330'further away than under the alternative design. Once aware,patron frustration may translate to U-turn movements just past the median-divided entrance. U-turn prohibition is likely to be routinely violated. Alternatives exist. Engineering commends Planning for examining a simple effective design. 8. Design should include 1-way arrow on the parking lot in front of building A. To limit tendency of patrons to perform a(prohibited)U-turn to enter the drive-through lane quickly,and even under the alternative (switching buildings A and B),building A's access to divided site entrance should be 1-way out,not 2-way. FLOODPLAIN 9. Applicant should be aware that a CLOMR-F is required prior to site plan approval. 10. Review of files indicates misconception that LOMR issued by FEMA,first in 2000 and again in 2008, redrew floodplain limits as needed to meet 5'h Street Development needs. This is not the case. While it is likely FEMA does not publish conditional letters of map revision,published LOMRs revise floodplain limits to reflect constructed development;that is,FEMA issues a LOMR after construction is complete. FEMA may also issue a LOMR to retlect more detailed topographic information. Applicant email stating "(the clearer it has become)that we do not need a CLOMR-F at this point,because we essentially already have it,"is not borne by evidence. Files indicate 2000/2008 LOMR revising floodplain was issued based on"more detailed topographic information." Applicant should pursue CLOMR-F process with FEMA. 11. 2000 and 2008 LOMR are identical,except for the date. Each reflects current effective map at this location showing that the majority of the proposed development lies within Zone AE,floodway fringe,where Biscuit Run and Moores Creek converge. Even if FEMA has or is in receipt of development data dating to 2000, supposition that FEMA has in any manner approved fill proposed with 5'h Street Development runs counter to FEMA practice to issue a LOMR only after a project is complete and field survey confirms constructed features match floodplain revision(match CLOMR). Also,the idea FEMA 2000/2008 LOMR approves fill for this project runs counter to FEMA expectation that project work occur within six months. Quoting FEMA correspondence:"Your ordinance should actually cite that project work must occur within 6 months of a permit being issued(see what counts as project work)to ensure that changes to the map(and risk)can be incorporated in a timely fashion." Applicant should furnish evidence that FEMA has approved proposed fill,and has in fact issued a Conditional Letter of Map Revision for 5th Street Development. 12. Engineering recommends ZMA review and approval reinforce and reiterate SP condition that FEMA approve a(conditional)letter of map revision(CLOMR-F)prior to Site Plan Approval(Ref.SP200700063, Condition 3). 13. A CLOMR-F,a Conditional Letter of Map Revision-Fill,would assure Albemarle County and Applicant alike that the(entire)developed property is above base flood elevation. Effect of FEMA 2000 and 2008 LOMR predicts rise in base flood elevation ranging 0.4- 1.0'feet(Moores Creek,Biscuit Run),and this is without considering downstream development(5'h Street Station,for example)or floodplain impacts that have occurred since 2000. This is the purpose of FEMA expectation that projects conditionally approved be constructed within a reasonable period of time. There is no way to predict FEMA response to additional development that has occurred downstream of 511'Street Development,TMP#76-55A and 76M1-1,in the intervening years. 14. Summary:There is no evidence at this point that FEMA(in 2000 or 2008)considered fill volume required to place fill within floodplain,consistent with Approved Plans dated 10 Mar 2008. Rather,correspondence dated 5 Jul 2000(FEMA to Albemarle)explains that floodplain boundaries were revised based on 'more detailed topographic information.' It is possible that Albemarle County files do not reflect the full record of correspondence between Applicant and FEMA. Albemarle County welcomes relevant correspondence that may show that FEMA evaluations of materials submitted by Dewberry&Davis(or other engineering Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of4 representative)included approval of fill volume. If Applicant presents such evidence,there may be a more straightforward,less time-consuming path to Final Site Plan approval. 15. Note 1 —FEMA,with August 8,2008 LOMR,revised Moores Creek base flood elevation to 386'(cross section R). Finished floor elevation(FFE)of Building A is 391.67'. Although files reveal circumstances dating to 2000 that require Applicant to coordinate proposed fill with FEMA(CLOMR-F)prior to site plan approval,proposed 5.67'vertical difference between lowest structure FFE and base flood elevation(BFE) appears to support 6'wall height,rather than 8'. Note:proposed BFE(including modeled effect of proposed fill)coincides with the base of the wall,meaning the entire height of the wall is above BFE. If Applicant elects to defer CLOMR-F approval until site plan review,Engineering recommends 6'retaining walls. Applicant may avoid base flood elevation uncertainty by pursuing CLOMR-F approval prior to ZMA Approval. 6'(Max.)retaining wall height is not a requirement,but something we recommend given that the proposed elevation of the base of the retaining wall is likely equal to the BFE. The base of the wall may experience periodic dynamic flooding,including scour and debris strike;such exposure is point in favor of less structure,not more. 16. Note 2—Landscaping above(at top of)the wall should be installed at time wall is constructed since,if small block construction using geogrid fabric that extends horizontally(with sheets of geogrid positioned every 2nd or 3rd course as anchoring)is used,landscaping at a later date may damage geogrid and compromise performance of what is in certain respects a flood wall. Engineering recommends Application Plan note that landscaping near the wall should be installed with(or soon after)the wall is built. 17. Circulation Note/Alternative design sketch/tracing courtesy of Planning: Sketched design below meets requirements for Drive-Through Windows, 18-5.1.60(a.j.)with addition of planting strips at least five(5) feet in width separating pedestrian travel ways(walks)and vehicular travel areas(Ref 18-5.1.60.e.). # r \ \ k .5\\ l .K,,,,) _ — :— .%\;\\.\-\ ,1,,,, .6 ' --- 1/ / Please call 434.296-5832—x3096 if any questions. Thank you Uses in WPO Sec. 17-604 Types of structures, improvements and activities which may be allowed in a stream buffer by program authority. Structures, improvements and activities may be authorized by the administrator in the circumstances described below,provided that a mitigation plan satisfying the requirements of section 17-406,is submitted to,and approved, by the administrator: A. Within the landward 50 horizontal f Gross Density Residential area(grass): The total area of land and water within a residential development. Residential area +net): That area of land and water within a development designed for residential purposes and unoccupied by streets, open space or parking areas, provided that individual private driveways accessory to residential uses shall not be considered streets or parking areas. Residential density (gross): The total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the gross residential area and expressed in dwelling units per acre. Residential density filet): The total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the net residential area and expressed in dwelling units per acre. (go Le Relationship of Proposed New Units from Adelaide with Projected Population and Crozet Capacity Several residents of Crozet asked how new units from this proposed development might affect the population capacity of the Crozet Development Area. As indicated in the Crozet Master Plan, full buildout, the Crozet Development Area would provide population capacity of approximately 18,000. This capacity estimate does not assume a timeline for growth, so whether Crozet grows to 18,000 by 2040,2050, or even later is not known. However, during the 2010 Crozet Master Plan update, staff provided some unofficial projections of future growth as seen below: POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2000-2030 BASED ON PAST GROWTH RATES Projection from Historic Population Growth for Crozet Year Low* High** 2010 5,560 5,640 2020 8,390 9,818 2025 10,061 12,650 2030 12,065 16,299 * Annual growth rate of 4.2%to yr 2020; growth rate of 3.7% from 2021-2030(observed 1990-1999) ** Annual growth rate of 5.7%to yr 2020; growth rate of 5.2% from 2021-2030(observed 2000—2009) Projection from Growth Trends as seen in Building Permits for Crozet Year Low*** High**** 2020 6,812 8,986 2030 8,164 12,305 ** Projection •—average number of residential •building •permits observed from 1994 to 2003 (55 permits/year) **** Projection—average number of residential building permits observed from 2004 to 2008 (136 permits/year) These projections were intended to give an idea of the potential future rate of growth. A`current in-house population estimate for Crozet is 6,854. This figure is based on 2,753 dwellings at a persons/unit multiplier of 2.49. (There were 2,192 dwellings in 2010.) If one were to project growth at a steady rate from 2010 to 2020 based on an average of 93.5 new units per year at 2.49 persons/unit, a population of 7,786 might be expected in 2020. As seen above, 7,786 is within the projected range from 2009. County projections are not considered official projections of population since Albemarle County uses the Virginia Employment Commission projections as its official projections. Based on current estimates,though, it appears that the rate of growth is well within the unofficial projections used in 2009. 1 Ntir Rachel Falkenstein From: Ron Higgins Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:04 PM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: Amelia McCulley;Bill Fritz; Rachel Falkenstein Subject: FW: SP2016-03 West Glen and Preserved Slopes 1,4 Greg: I realize this has been discussed before, but l just want to make sure I have vetted it properly(see below). As you may recall,we talked about this when we were,thinking that a new legislative act would permit the disturbance,but backed off to the "necessary public facilities"use as the only other option short of rezoning the preserved slopes. I would be happy to discuss further. Please advise. Thanks. Ron H. 4 1 From:Amelia McCulley Sent:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:59 PM I To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> ') Subject: RE:SP2016-03 West Glen and Preserved Slopes :,4., Has this been vetted with Greg? If not,we probably should do so and then memorialize with a written determination. From: Ron Higgins Sent:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:55 PM To:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Cc Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> I Subject: RE:SP2016-03 West Glen and Preserved Slopes Folks: ' From the time I began reviewing this SP and at preliminary pre-app stage in the Fall of 2015, the issue of the preserved slopes under part of the Cling Lane extension has been there. The only preserved slopes proposed to be disturbed were toward the end of the road extension,after the stream crossing, near the Orchard Drive connection. My initial thought was that this could be dealt with by the BOS as part of this legislative act, but later was convinced that such an act would have to already have occurred and be valid in order to apply. I later did a determination to memorialize this decision. Subsequently, I was able to connect the . :.. 7.,. .is ur.anc- . •- 'reserved slopes to another item in the Preserved Slopes ordinance dealing with permitted es(Sec. 30.7.4(b)(1)(c)(iii)) w -re it talks about necessary public facilities required to allow the use of the lot, . -" more spe ' " •- . .. ce is necessary to provide interconnection I required by the Code or the app ' able regulations of other public entities...". The BOS approval of the original Cling Lane. stream crossing to the wes ' cluded condition#2 "This crossing shall beconstructed to provide access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing sus.ivision. No development of residue property or access to adjacent properties is allowed until i second access is p •vided to Orchard Drive." With the condition requiring access to Orchard Drive if more than 30 lots I are added to C' g Lane or if access from Cling Lane is allowed to other properties, I determined that the disturbance of these prese -ed slopes for that purpose met the standard of 30.7.4(b)(1)(c)(iii). Ron H. I dQc i art 0 (rC lea; 5\� Coy 1 t ' ciiA 5 S� C hc�it�tins cocoa tretio v 1 • From:Amelia McCulley Sent:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:31 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:SP2016-03 West Glen and Preserved Slopes I think you were the SP reviewer. What did you determine on this? From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent:Tuesday, May 31,2016 2:25 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject:SP2016-03 West Glen and Preserved Slopes " Ron &Amelia, After talking to Bill about this project, it sounds like I will need zoning input as to whether or not disturbance to preserved slopes for a public road proposed with the West Glen SP meets the criteria for necessary public facilities under section 30.7.4(b)(1)(c). I assumed that the road met criteria (iii)the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities.They will be required by VDOT and Fire/Rescue to provide a second connection if they develop further and the disturbance to slopes is unavoidable with the second connection.The connection is also required by the previous SP1990-103. However,this connection is only required if they develop their property further.They have already developed the parcel to 30 units and I am wondering if the argument would be made that they already have reasonable use of the property with the 30 units, so the roadway is not necessary public facility. Let me know if you want to discuss/look over the plans together. Thanks. Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner _ Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext.3272 2 %me Li Mike Myers From: Charlie Armstrong [CharlesA@southern-development.comj Sent: Monday,April 04, 2016 9:19 AM To: Mike Myers; Keith Lancaster Subject: Fwd: Powell's Creek Dam Begin forwarded message: From: "Pero,Vincent D NAO" <Vincent.D.Pero(ciusace.army.mil> Date:April 4, 2016 at 8:29:04 AM EDT To: Charlie Armstrong<CharlesA@southern-development.com> Subject: RE: Powell's Creek Dam Hi Charlie, The Corps is very supportive of your proposed dam removal project. There is no mitigation required for the culvert impacts and the Corps believes the dam removal/stream restoration project is a benefit to the stream and more than offsets any impacts from the proposed road crossing. If you need any more information,please let me know. Thanks Vinny Vinny Pero Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Charlottesville Virginia Field Office 920 Gardens Boulevard, Suite 103-B Charlottesville, VA 22901 434-973-0568 The Norfolk District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. In order for us to better serve you, we would appreciate you completing our Customer Satisfaction ik Survey located at http://co smapu.usace.arm .mil/cm apex/f?p=regulatory survey. i We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to complete the survey. t Rachel Falkenstein From: Rachel Falkenstein I Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:47 AM ITo: Ron Higgins; Greg Kamptner Cc: Dan Mahon; Bob Crickenberger -4 Subject: RE: SP2016-03 West Glen j All, I wanted to follow up on the question of greenway dedication. I spoke with Dan Mahon because he had indicated to me that his preference is to have the greenway dedication in fee simple rather than an easement to give his team more Iflexibility. Dan was of the belief that the issue had already been worked out and that dedicating land should not reduce 1 the developalaility of the residue parcel (which in this case would be The Vue). Would the language below not apply fora greenway dedication? We already determined that the developers of The Vue don't have to subtract the area of public roadway for the West Glen development when calculating density. Could it not be extended to a greenway? I Perhaps a discussion for legal tomorrow? 4 1 2.1.4 REDUCTION OF LOTS BELOW MINIMUM PROHIBITED 1 The size,frontage and width of any lot of record existing on the effective date of this chapter shall not be reduced below the minimum requirements of the zoning district in which the lot is located and section 4 of this chapter except at the ei"Ott,-201,All-*:i:11:-Calf6**),aiid to public use or the exercise of eminent domain by a public entity.Any lot created after I the effective date of this chapter shall satisfy at least the minimum requirements of this chapter,except for lots created for use by a public entity to the extent that the public use may be justifiable under the powers of eminent domain. (Amended 9-9-92, 12-2-09) From: Ron Higgins Sent: Friday, May 27,2016 11:42 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:Greg Karnptner<GKarnptne@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:SP201.6-03 West Glen Rachel: I believe any reduction in the land area of the Vue property would affect the number of dwelling units they could have (6 units per acre for the smaller amount of acreage). If they did it after the development was approved it I would become a zoning violation (e.g. too many units on the property). I have copied Greg so he can weigh in. Am I I missing something? I From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:30 AM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:SP201.6-03 West Glen Ron, Another question on West Glen... Parks has requested the entire area of greenway(south of Powell's Creek) be dedicated in fee simple to the county for a greenway park/trail in the area.The developers for the Vue (since this is on their portion of the property)are not opposed to the dedication but are nervous how this would impact their density. I know that open space can be either privately owned or dedicated to public use,so this should not impact The Vue. But 1 approved there any concerns about the timing of the dedication? If the dedication takes place before the Vue is or constructed,would this be an issue? I think they would want something from us in writing before they commit. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Rachel From: Mike Myers[mailto:mmvers@dominioneng.com] Sent:Thursday, May 26,2016 5:03 PM To:Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:Charlie Armstrong<CharlesA@southern-development.com>;Keith Lancaster<klancaster@southern- development.com> Subject: RE:SP2016-03 West Glen Rachel,The applicant has spoken with the developer of the Vue about greenway dedication, and he is open to it but concerned about how it might impact his density now and in the future. Can you please provide us some additional information about how his density rights could be perpetually preserved even after a greenway is dedicated? All parties think dedication is a good idea so long as the mechanics of it can be resolved in such a way that neither development is negatively impacted. Thanks, Mike Have a great memorial day weekend! From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@ albemarle.ord] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:39 AM To: Mike Myers Cc: Charlie Armstrong; Keith Lancaster Subject: RE: SP2016-03 West Glen Hi Mike, I wanted to follow up on the greenway dedication area with this SP. Before closing the door on the opportunity for the dedication of the stream buffer area along Powell's Creek, I wanted to reach out and see what efforts you have made to discuss this with the developer of The Vue. It was unclear from your comment response letter whether or not you had discussed this with them or not. If not, I think it's a conversation worth having, and I would be happy to try to set up a meeting on this. I think it would help strengthen your application. But if you have already spoken to them about this, I don't want to press the issue. Thanks, Rachel 2 1 ' (604 Iiiiii Rachel Falkenstein g From: David Hannah j Sent: Thursday,April 21, 2016 2:43 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein Subject: Comments on West Glen g ;l Rachel, Below are some comments,and I'm sending them now rather than waiting. Some are informational only and probably not of use in responding to the applicants. They are listed (very roughly) in what may be of relevance for feedback to 1 the applicants. But please use whatever is pertinent,and feel free to ask for any clarification,etc. j • he National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)data (GIS format)shows a 10.8 acre wetland area in the project 4 area. The wetland occurs both inside and well outside of the 100'stream buffer on Powell Creek. The new road j &stream crossing pass directly through the wetland. I realize that NWI data is often inaccurate, and there may not be any wetlands on site. But some sort of review is needed. I don't the process, but believe that the Army 4 Corps(or a qualified contractor?) can do preliminary assessments based on NWI,soils&other data. Based on the findings,they determine if a site visit is necessary,and ultimately if a formal wetland delineation is i needed. I can contact Vinny Pero tofind out more about the process if you would like me to. I imagine this sort of thing has come up in the past? •' Nro details are provided on the stream restoration and planting efforts associated with removing the'concrete dam. Their response of"provide stream improvements to re-establish the stream in this location,reforestation plantings where appropriate, ." is very general, and more information is needed. But,' removing the concrete dam is a positive thing. 1 • 1_ am glad to see 3 10x10box culverts proposed (since a true bridge is not). Regardless of flooding implications, rg the large openings will be beneficial for overall stream health and integrity. 4 • The health of Powell's Creek has declined in recent years. StreamWatch monitors water quality at a site downstream of this project(and The View),south of Jarmans Gap Road. Water quality/stream health has been r assessed three times,covering the periods of 2007-09,2011-13,and 2012-14. The stream was assessed as 1 51(6' "Good"during the earliest period, but only"Fair" in the last two p "Good" means the state periods. water quality t C standards for aquatic life were met,while "Fair" means the stream failed to meet the state standards. Last,it's just hard to ignore the implications of the project beyond just the SP for the stream crossing. I know there will I (---, ) be separate review later, but are all the possible impacts totally ignored for now? If the BOS approves this SP, can they/we require some things when the full proposal is submitted? Things that caught my eye at this point include: • The road will go through preserved slopes, unavoidably it seems. • The 60" RCP culvert in that area needs more explanation. 4) • There was no real response to the questions about trails from Parks& Recreation. 5 • There will certainly be a big loss of stream buffer and forest cover as the buffer will only be 50'wide(we lose the landward 50'of the 100' buffer). I believe a mitigation plan is required before the County will agree to the use of the landward 50'for roads, building lots, etc. (per section 17-604 of the WPO). I certainly hope so,as this may .! \\\\ be the only leverage we have to offset some of the environmental impacts of the larger project. ' That's all for now. If anything else comes to mind I'll let you know. Thanks for your work on this! David Hannah Natural Resources Manager Albemarle County Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road 1 4 A 1 7r cid s sz,.% '. Dominion 400, y i Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive - (., Charlottesville,VA 22911 ^add ' A 7 o�az ' O 434.979.8121 (p) ,sects 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com i April 6, 2016 Ms. Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 RE: 2016-03 West Glen SUP for fill associated with a stream crossing Dear Rachel, I Please find attached seven (7) copies of the revised Special Use Permit Plans. The plans have been revised to address the first round of comments in accordance with the following: Planning Comments(Rachel Falkenstein) I The area northeast of Powell's Creek is designated as neighborhood density residential within the Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan (3-6 units/acre). The area southwest of Powell's Creek is designated as parks I and green space.The Parks and Green Systems Plan shows a major greenway/trail along Powell's 1 Creek.The applicant has proposed a trail within the area of greenway, south of Powell's Creek. Response:The applicant is proposing a 20'-wide trail easement with construction of the trail by others as noted on the plans since the applicant is not the contract purchaser of the area southwest of Powell's Creek. The Parks and Green Systems Plan also shows a civic space on the site. Please also consider dedicating I the entire greenway area south of Powell's Creek(outside of the roadway)to the County to allow for use by the public and to serve as the civic space for this site (see parks comments below). ) Response:The applicant is unable to commit to dedication since the applicant is not the contract purchaser of this parcel. The application plan shows some neighborhood streets in the general locations recommended Crozet MP Transportation Plan. However,the MP does not show a stream crossing or a connection to Orchard Drive through this property.Though the connection to Orchard Drive is not shown in the MP, it can provide an alternative opportunity for interconnectivity.The Comp Plan calls for the frequency of stream crossings to strike a balance between the need for interconnectivity and the potential impacts that the crossing may have on the stream bank, riparian habitat and the stream itself. Response:The applicant has been unable to secure an agreement with the adjacent property owner for a connection that is more in line with the MP. So,with this submission,the applicant continues to respectfully request the stream crossing be allowed to make the connection at l Orchard Drive. Please refer to email from applicant dated 3.31.16, summarizing the coordination efforts. Additional Planning Comments: If you have more information regarding the proposed mitigation measures (stream stabilization locations, areas of reforestation,the area of impoundment behind existing dam to be restored,etc.)please provide 111111111111111111111111111111 • Y t 8 e is c,'i j® Dominion a.14 ` Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive • , Charlottesville,VA 22911 ar o0 S` I 434.979.8121 (p) fie is 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com 1 for staff to review. These features will be more closely reviewed during WPO plan/mitigation plan review; however, it would be helpful for staff to know overall environmental impacts/improvements on site when reviewing the SP. Response:The applicant is proposing to remove the existing concrete dam and provide stream improvements to re-establish the stream in this location,reforestation plantings where 1 appropriate,and compliance with County requirements for erosion and sediment control for the proposed stream crossing and road construction. A letter of support from Mr.Vinnie Pero of the ACOE is provided with this submission that states removal of the dam by itself is adequate to offset the impacts from the stream crossing. If you have any written documentation regarding inability to make alternative connections through fj adjacent properties, please provide. Response:The applicant has performed due diligence to make alternative connections through adjacent properties. Please refer to attached email dated 3.31.16 from the applicant that describes the efforts that were made with the owner of the adjacent property. The proposed lot layout is not required to be shown on the SP application plan, as long as the development potential for the site is provided so that staff can evaluate the roadway capacity needed for the proposed crossing. Response:The proposed lot layout has been removed from the majority of the plan sheets and ti the development potential has been provided on sheet SP3. Also,the anticipated traffic from the new lots and typical road section for<2,000 vpd has been calculated and provide on Sheet SP3. S Approval of an SP for a stream crossing does not constitute approval for the proposed subdivision as shown. The lot layout, open space and street network will be more closely reviewed with the subdivision plat, road plans, and site plan for the proposed development. Here are a few initial comments based on what is shown: The roadway shown (Road B) within the stream buffer may be allowed per sec 17-604 as necessary infrastructure to allow use of the lot within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer. Disturbance for this roadway must remain outside of the 50 feet closest to the stream.This will be more closely evaluated with the road plans and subdivision plat. I Response: Ail road construction within the stream buffer is maintained outside of the 50 feet closest to the stream with the exception of the stream crossing itself,which is part of the SUP request. Per section 17-604, new building sites shall be located outside of the stream buffer. Building sites as shown within the buffer will not be permitted. Staff recommends all proposed lots be pulled out of stream I buffer and floodplain to ensure protection of these features. 3 Response: Acknowledged.`All building sites will be outside of the stream buffer.' 2of7 j (iird (iiid j 41 el s 44�4 / Dominion l 1 ® Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive I— , , '-i to.4",...., ih:' ,, '® ® Charlottesville, VA 22911 1 °.f?,�,�rr,sl 434.979.8121 (p) i�eC rs 434.979.1681 (f) is DominionEng.com l Per section 30.3.11, grading activities (not associated with the stream crossing)are not permitted in the " regulatory floodway. BMP#3 would not be permitted within the floodway fringe as shown. 11 Response: BMP#3 has been removed so that it is outside of the 100-year floodplain. Zoning Comments(Ron Higgins) ij I Rear properties of proposed houses (e.g. lots 51-53 and others)should be out of the 100 year Flood Plain. Response:The building sites will be out of the 100-year floodplain. However,the floodplain may be located on rear properties so long as the flood plain is not located in the building site area. 1 Parks & Recreation (Dan Mahon) An at-grade road crossing for the trail should be provided. Response: An at-grade crossing has been proposed with CG-12 curb ramps and a crosswalk. 1 In addition to the construction'and dedication of the trailway as shown, the entire area of the greenway south of Powell's Creek should be dedicated to the County in fee simple. Easements can be provided to allow maintenance and access to stormwater facilities within the Greenway. 3 i Response:The applicant is unable to commit to dedication since the applicant is not the contract 1 purchaser of this parcel. Also,the applicant will provide a 20'trail easement as shown but is not proposing any trail construction since the trail will be traversing property that is not under 1 contract by the applicant. 1 1 ACSA Comments(Alex Morrison) I The ACSA will require a construction submission of the roads plans to'review the proposed water/sewer utilities.The submission shall be made to the ACSA, Attn:Michael Vieira, PE. The submission shall q include 3 copies of the plan as well as water/sewer data sheets. I Response: Acknowledged,and we look forward to working with you through the construction i plan process. i The applicant shall show an ACSA access easement off of the proposed road extension to the existing i sanitary sewer behind homes located on Peach Tree Drive. 13 Response: An ACSA access easement has been provided. 9 , During the final site plan stage RWSA Wastewater Capacity Certification will be required. The ACSA will submit a request for the certification during the construction review process. 3 of 7 cd S D OtS, iuw Dominion ir ' Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive iCharlottesville, VA 22911 ye A i l , �,�� '� ' 434.979.8121 (p) a .fie ers 434.979.1681 (f) cg`s DominionEng.com Response: Acknowledged,and thank you. -74 1 Engineering Comments(John Anderson) 1. Attached FEMA Firmette (Map Panel 51003CO229D) shows Zone AE base elevation at FIS cross- section`I' is 715±. Ref. SP5. SP7 Cling Lane Extended Profile shows 100-yr WSE =719.39'This, if accurate, represents rise in BFE at proposed 12'W x 8'H double box culvert, Road Sta. =17+48.73.FIS is assumed accurate, and includes Jarmans Gap Road, SR 691.This proposal if advanced in current form I would require FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Fill. [CLOMR-F; Ch. 18-Sec. 30.3.10.A.3.] Response: Since the last submission of the plans,we have obtained the FEMA HEC-RAS model for Powell's Creek. The model has been calibrated to our proposal to indicate no rise in the 100- year flood elevation due to the stream crossing in the floodway. Refer to emailed HEC-RAS model,and summary report on Sheet SP11 of the plans. 2. Proposed fill in floodplain is problematic. 18-30.3.13.A.1.: "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." Reviewer spoke with Applicant (Mike Myers) 10-Feb regarding data 1 tables in Flood Study Information Booklet d. 19-Jan 2016, but overlooked ordinance prohibition against fill within the floodway. Code appears to eliminate option of fill within the floodway at any point along the project corridor, and this point was re-emphasized in follow-up conversation with M. Myers,24-Feb.A site visit is scheduled for 4-March. Fill within floodway is impermissible. Engineering cannot support design. (11-Mar 2016)After discussion with Zoning, earthen placement required to construct a culvert/bridge is I deemed accessory,not fill. A culvert within floodway is viewed eligible for special permit[18-30.3.11]. I Questions concerning rise/no-rise of BFE at points along stream corridor remain, and inform Engineering recommendation relative to design. Application indicates rise in BFE [18-30.3.13.A.1]. Engineering evaluates if"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 I occurrence of the base flood discharge."We have not received hydraulic/hydrologic analysis that demonstrates no-rise with this design. Note: Encroachment that would increase the water surface elevation may be allowed with Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), but requires Floodplain Administrator endorsement.There is insufficient data to merit endorsement[18-30.3.13.A.2.]. Special Permit under this approach (CLOMR) requires FEMA approval/acceptance prior to issuance of SP. Response: See response to Comment 1 above. Also,fill in the floodway fringe associated with I Cross Section G1 and G2 result in a 0.2'to 0.5' rise in BFE. See HEC-RAS model and Sheet SP11 of the plans. 3. Letter d. 18 Jan 2016 included with flood study information booklet: "There will be a maximum fill of approximately 12'. A double 12'W x 8'H Box Culvert at approximate station 17+50 is proposed to convey the base flood without overtopping the road and with no net rise in the base flood elevation." Fill is prohibited within the floodway, regardless of BFE rise. Also, FEMA FIRM Map panel,when compared with design, indicates rise approaching 4.40'at proposed crossing. [this portion of comment not withdrawn; this statement remains relevant/11-Mar 2016]A bridge crossing that avoids fill within floodway appears the only viable alternative. Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering, questions apparent inconsistency between ordinance sections 18-30.3.11 and 30.3.13. (11-Mar 2016)Comment withdrawn. Response: See response to Comment 1 and 2 above. 4of7 a l ee .% e• ars; di Dominion m % ® Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive f ® ® Charlottesville,VA 22911 l4y,` - "�, sf 434.979.8121 (p) i`e t s 434..9.79.1681 (1) s DominionEng.com 1 1 4.Title/SP2—Design scale, regional context map/parcel map(1" 1,000'& 1"=400') are inconsistent; check map scale(1"=800'?). Also:Title vicinity map scale, 1"=500' matches neither of the other two scales. Response:The maps have been updated so that the scale matches the plan. 5. SP3—Provide ADT estimate used as basis of road section pavement design,since typical road section provided (else, eliminate typical road section). 1 Response: An ADT estimate has been provided on the Sheet SP3,along with a typical road 1 section based on <2000 vpd from the VDOT Road Design Manual. . 6.SP4-SP8—Show WPO stream buffer in addition to floodplain/steep slopes zoning overlays. SP 3 Application presents development (proposed Lots) as well as floodplain road crossing information. 1 Stream buffers should be shown on these special use permit plan sheets in order to respond to questions or identify issues relating to proposed development within stream buffers. Action or recommendation on SP Application may err if stream buffers, or limits on development within stream buffers, are not I considered at this time. I Response:The WPO stream buffer has been indicated on all plan sheets. I 1 II 7.SP3/Note: Engineering review does not consider or evaluate site overview development road design, geometry, or details for Lots or streets (Road A, Road B) presented on sheet SP3;these development features should be reviewed with subdivision/road application/s. Engineering SP review comments consider special use permit information presented on other sheets. Response: Acknowledged. 1 k 1 8. SP5—BMP#7 and 9 are < 50'from Powell's` Creek. Increase distance to 50' Min. "Mitigation'to 50 feet I is allowed in Crozet now."[1 1/1 1/201 5 5:11 PM email—E. Echols to F.Stoner] ; i Response: All BMPs have been relocated to be more than 50 feet from the stream. i i 9. Provide proposed trail details (located within floodplain/floodway); plan/profile.[18-30.3.11] i Response:The applicant is opting to provide a 20'trail easement for trail construction by others. 10.SP6-Provide footbridge schematic. Response:The applicant is opting to provide a 20'trail easement for trail construction by others. 11. SP4/BMP#3-If this SWM facility proposed location requires fill, it is impermissible. Response:Acknowledged. No facilities will be located in the floodplain. 5 of 7 r fi ./S 1 st „.`" ts ' ' ssi-- yo, Dominion 41f id. / b„ Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive , i Charlottesville' VA 22911 NJ 14 t ' 411.'r i 434.979.8121 (p)mo4'44 411* ; le 434.979.1681 (f) 14 4 le e tPSS. DorninionEng.com 1 - 12. SP4—Confirm no grading, no fill, no rise in BFE at Lots 51, 52, 53. , i Response:Acknowledged. This will be demonstrated on the preliminary plat. , , i i13. SP6—Label retaining wall proposed for connector alignment(fill section) south of Povvell's Creek. I Label TW/BW, if known. ,I. , Response: A note has been added to provide retaining wall dimensions with road plans. ' Additional topography will need to be performed to design that section of roadway. A I 1 14. SP5/SP6—Provide (H&H analysis) cross-section upstream of connector floodIntay fringe/retaining wall. "1 Evaluateeffect of proposed (floodway fringe)fill required to construct roadway embankment/retaining wall. e Response:The FEMA HEC-RAS study addresses H&H for the channel and connectorfivoeodway. ?: We have also evaluated the fill in the floodplain fringe for the road construction and ha 1 determined a 0.2'to 0.5' maximum rise in BFE. , , ! 15. SP8—Design proposes limited (perhaps unavoidable) impact to preserved steep slopes,which appear i eligible for review/approval under 18-30.7.4.b.1.c. ' ?' Response:We have revised the grading to minimize impact to preserved slopes due to the road construction. 1 4 16. SP10—Development and proposed improvements shown on Conceptual Mitigation Plan I I (SP1(0))appear inconsistent with Albemarle County development policy which permits grading Crozet necessary I permanently locate SWM facilities within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers,within CeDevelopment Area.This policy does not as of this date permit hardscape development (roads, decks, residential i structures)to be located within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers. [Plan excerpt, below] (11-Mar 2016) After staff review,the street (image below) may be viewed necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable i I use of created lots, yet this design destroys stream buffer.Alternative designs that preserve streambuffer a ; available. Engineering recommends against proposed design. Ordinance requires any new building site e be located outside of the 100-ft stream buffer. A number of building sites do not meet this condition , 1 [Sec. 17-604.A.]. / 'I4 Response: We have removed the separate Conceptual Mitigation Plan from the plans and : provided a summary on Sheet SP4. li 1'4 1 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments(Troy Austin) , .: The impact to the 100-yr flood plain elevation due to the fill operation needs to be demonstrated. 1,. Response: We have obtained the FEMA HEC-RAS model from VDOT andhave calibrated the study , to include our proposed impacts. We have a no-rise at the stream crossing and a 0.2'-0.5 rise associated with fill in the floodplain fringe at Cross Sections G1 and G2 , 6of7 , A = c5 A- c(4i4���y Dominion ion rc m a ® ® Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive j .1 (,„'•. ' ',,,AF,, Charlottesville,VA 22911 °���O , 434.979.8121 (p) �e is 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com Will the 100-year storm over top any existing road or proposed road? 1 Response:The 100-year storm will not overtop the proposed roadway(7.3' of freeboard over the BFE)or the existing upstream Cling Lane culvert(6' of freeboard over the BFE)or railroad 1 crossing. In fact there is no change to the BFE that affect upstream properties as a result of the fill operations. How will the 100-year flood plain elevation compare to the finished floor elevations of existing and proposed homes? Response:We will provide finished floors at or above the 100-year flood-plain elevation as required by code.However, our standard practice is to provide at least one foot of freeboard. Note,the review of this plan is for the fill operation and not the road design. Comments on the proposed roadway including typical section, profile, alignment, drainage, etc. will be based on the road plan review when submitted. 1 j Response: Acknowledged, and we look forward to working with you through the road design/plan process. 1 I We thank you for taking the time to review these plans and trust the above adequately addresses your comments. However, please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. t i Very truly yours, 1 al ,. :y Mic idt, `/' I ~: ' - ., PE, CFM 2 Cc:Charlie Armstrong 7of7 Mike Myers From: Mike Myers Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:42 AM To: Mike Myers Subject: FW:West Glen -2 items From: Charlie Armstrong [mailto:CharlesA@southern-development.com] Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:59 PM To: Mike Myers Cc: Keith Lancaster Subject: RE: West Glen - 2 items Mike, I met with Mike and Alice Marshall to discuss the potential to work together on several dates, including September 22nd at the Crozet Gazette, December 17th at the Crozet Gazette,and finally February 9th at Southern Development. We also spoke on the phone and over email multiple times during that same time period. In those meetings we discussed many possibilities, including developing their land, connecting a road through to the top of Blue Ridge Ave via McComb St,and connecting a road through to the bottom of Blue Ridge Ave through their property and the property William Park is developing. I showed them specific drawings (some hand sketched,some that you designed)but we never got to the point of discussing money. At the February 9th meeting they had very clearly and firmly made up their mind that they are not interested in selling and are not interested in allowing a road connection through their property. They advised me that instead of cooperating they were going to fight the development proposal by any means they could muster. Maybe they never intended to explore working together. Maybe they were just on an intelligence gathering mission. Vinny and I met on site March 29th. He advised that removing the dam would be a great benefit to the stream, and that he saw no obvious issues. He was going to check his databases and get back to me. He confirmed that we'd need to do some stream bank restoration around the dam area and probably a hundred or so feet upstream because the banks are impaired by the dam backwater. I'll write him a note now. He indicated he'd send me a letter. We won't have that by the resubmit date, but hopefully in time for PC. Charlie 1 Stream Crossing and Master Plan Road Network Pros and Cons List Pray !stream � �s�ng ard, neolti©rt# rchar� rav �*.,., h _ r� Pros Cons 1. Orchard Drive can safely handle the 1. The proposed stream crossing requires a road additional traffic volume generated by this network in an area not consistent with the development. recommendations of the MasterPlan. 2. Fewer existing residences will likely be 2. Stream crossings create environmental impacted by a connection to Orchard Drive impacts to the stream and floodplain,though than the alternative connection shown in the a mitigation plan is required to address the Master Plan. impacts. Wolet Masjei Ilan road etwpr�C Pros Cons 1. Road location would be consistent with the 1. Construction of this road network requires recommended road network from the Crozet` additional off-site right-of-way, which is not Master Plan. available at this time. 2. Construction of roads in the locations shown 2. The off-site right-of-way,along with Blue on the Crozet Master Plan would avoid Ridge Avenue,would need substantial construction of a new stream crossing and improvements to safely accommodate the the associated environmental impacts. additional traffic volume generated by this development. Such improvements are currently not included on the County's Capital Improvements Program (CIP)and Capital Needs Assessment(CNA). 3. A higher number of existing residences would be impacted along these roads than would be impacted along the proposed route connecting to Orchard Drive. re-CO 0(11 —6 0 Ora tba. * . 1 ,,w'';;:iir:--''I-ZkVi- i',114440::It : 1,1-14i:2i''' ';VH:'44-tti‘1%%Pialli'''' ':+ise' 'Vkii::::- 3 ril :: N j m .121 iir ver 4. '11%;:' � W ! pi a :� A , ,_4 --,v ri,4,::::4,,,,t-, -.., 4:t,'*fi ,4 ...4.•AV ',04) .' D. o aa( - °D w ' , ,'"41;',,A1-467,44$.1 3 ` vA f , a ;',17-',t " ' ' . # '" c •P. � --0.,:,,p,,, , ,appdf. Caa,- 1 .A g O. q 3 Wi i ®VO 72141 $ Kpm 9. i.. ,....,r,,,,,.., „,..„',.., .‘r ,,,,,,,,E -,f,,,V 1 a , sr...,7- a g.- a a 5 'F,T,-1- ti;e0,-”- ..7,4i. ',,,,,,.4r .ftio--,:. ,,'•• ''44tielif:' , 40 _,,i 1 6; 1 1 3...-4,.. i it '' ir4it',tl .g-,;rZt,:, 44,r4, P‘,4-e,,. .,-.),741',..4., -.1:%-s„,, i §-a a 3 5'a iirla,:.4,:r.40,41,i.,..-?..„,-,,, .,,,..:s-..,,,,,,,,f,:a...fzvf,..:::-,,,,:* 'it' 4 ,%, ,,,SE I 5 r,r,„I :,--4.-:,,,,-,,,e--,4,t4-4P.4 .,A,,f.:;,,p,,,,,,?"4:7,4,...,0,,,, 'e-7.-'1;>e.4 1 6 3-,0 lill,z'ri•I , - 4.-.7-19.--44,4*,00,.;44.:w-,4-i-j..x,o` :•'e 4 g, o j 1 N nzo, o -on, -i * vaw • • • •• • • • • • 0 w2 ,-.3, 2 (13c= x o m m °/ O1 2 m A a ^ ,n rt it m °'° c K v c 3 a °3 ° co o' 3 ° W ° 3 o d 3 m N S' a s o f. -7---" S' 51 ,12,o. m 3• 1 3 a n n M ° m<_ o o' a ° °' m D a f o o 4 (A o o .°'�. ° m v s m v s o 3 � � fD oma - rpmo ID 0 '3" - 0 wm0. ._ mCD mo RI° o m o rD E 3 H n o v o o Co y m -* 9- = . ,..,,; ,f x .m. N < 3 m .7. m rD rt m ° ° m m m p ° a o m . El m 3 E.,13 ,-° 7.o ° - m 1 3 128 c m fD < n< oj .a Q-c o o,, v o " m3 0 3 g m 0 G r3'. rD < O p. is °1 O'°O O N w n n o. C' .mr C, tl P j M 3 %4 .m3'N O O. N m al N 3 f �• 3 m 3 : 7 m ?, °m, m• 3• Z n m m a o f Dill s o o � rt S S a a � N O O m .O H a a b �� O O po—. H W CD C) O L.'. N ° �. r c 3 E;m v m �.H !^ o' 3 m 3.m rte° n N2 ,°. 5, &, 3 , 1 n :01 m o .w c a o , a s _ :2 3 u, o Q0. 30 g'7,, ,745 ,9, -fa c. 3 rs o, c a r° m = ° °i..°o- ^° m FD, o °1 m m v m rD D rD vpi - n 3 n '^ o' a :° g. 4 r o o °moi m E. ts, c m ^ a H •N. o • �.i, £ 3 °' n m o F. A a' .m3. c o 1 4 o ti 0 0 n o o o o m =• ,, m a ,,, m 213 .5. Z m 001. 3 °^1 N v 3 a w =„01c � 5 4 N.• O— a 3 'µ 0 3 * °° Q mallZ N D c n i 0 m o o 'm_• o°„° m w N. ° 3 ° < , a 54'g m O 3 `•,. m • m 3 - o; o m o. a 32 -0 °, 5;o 3 a o• 2 m a 0 j ° a A s N 3 m Gl my o � ° � n m o C 1 c m a m m m 01 w 94 g r. o ° o m m n m c " m O 01 so ao F, °m an d s °�, 3 x aw nH N n m N 94 N, x v . n m a g o a -u, m rn o o v p a ° ° o �0 3 3 .$" 13. (12 > $ N rn °, m N S 7, F 3 N 2 N a 0 O O O ? < i °, m fD ° 4 v, p 3. ., _ A p_ n o 3 �, H a l m 3 5 m s rC a'o -„ p 21. 5. 0.M5 m 3 3 m. 2- ,=, 21. 2', • 3 c °/ m. m' 4 O sO' n nrp na 2 rD 0° 3 D o'. `3' 3 m ° 3 H E n N O X g Ft v v s ,CD 3. Q m v ° 3 0 o o, N ° a 3 p ^ m a ; o O� 3 3 _. m C S N , o O p 3 N s m< ,,, g , , of ° x o d H °, o .mN. m ° o n -§ 9,, i..% ,;s w d N. oc :, o 2, o s � w m f m a K Q o 6 m n o 138 3 2 a `,A O .< c °, a° m' N a ° a 'r 1^ p_ 3.. 0/ 3 H 3621T p p_ m , H 3 m D ;, ?r" c 3 a . o c, Ho & v g. 2 - s2 o - so 0 ,01, a * . 2. 0 o r,° < 3 f, , K m o o m - c m n m o n 3 o s s n s m 3 a n `FD o m ' ate ' c. v 0 O n m m 0f 3 c 0 r° O `cam'+, rN�° Ll rt Fli 0 a - m m , 3 Is 1-.-----" Xf____.,,,,,,Millik AI; )iir *..... _ALA Vie • I -A,.-."11,14r4 itii, w ,f 411,,,. ., ,,,:,,, ,,,,,.„,. , hilifilis At,- -it .v irjr--.,..,,„1--4 ; 1 ip. '`,r.-,.i.,Acr / - 0 .4414 / A -will- v. , 151 ,4',14,., j ; /‹.. C" 41::'. - .;311 i 6bilfe* 1r':'-',•-•,,,........--mullW 0" #4,4" ' i.... frissv...,in ./ g <4.* 8 .„.-_k ..-..... /77 .„, r- i7 of? .44* 1, , 4-; , ' / 1 i 14. ---„z, ' '"w 1 I 177 As 4144110, %Nip ,i.•-, # r-, ., ., % ......... ...i ,0A =4 2 Illihk. 9 70Z----:-A7S3 1 aillittra** 0 irikkit r s - 4.,,. ,,,- Z a , ITlittv 41k 401110,. r � C ': - 4,,, ' , 4 0•' lip.4 / . i a fit % iik .• ,," s, -I' +ik„, , !., 1 elt , r __ • „,,,, ill, , 1 : iturtill: ' , .A. #411,4 ,. -, ,. _ , , -,,„, , 7 ..„, , 1 ,,,, Q,„„c„, , , ,_ <0<iv, ,,p iiir ,,,„„ , , air / i 1 iv ift.,"..., ,,- , olio l'o-, 10, 1 , it,i,. ,,,,,,..., ,...,...... .,,,,,, . # Aii, --<?„-.„ )),, 1 s '''' ''''' OFF ' ‘)* 8 *iv Alifilt i , it I irkiiiiirfro, e.'' ' "' '1'4* 11'. / , .,.. IF 1 444 ----- Alt +- 0,v, , ., ,-, 1 i lif oir --,-,---::-\appp.,ir,„. ' to 14)..r8 „.„,,,;-‘13 ak,,,,,'W-- -7/ "Iiii, / 1 .,, 1 ; r----------- —._ 4:i'llikilliliigli <?:',' --e6s 4117V, i " '-"..y-,-- , 1 ; rit 4% 1 I ' not IMF:mini.-- ,-,--, 11iiitr 10 A i t -4......r__._v__./..wir -Aug/ smow ,4frikk At, i I 40100, , .. /4 ,0 Akin: iii...._ ,10a -, APP,At i _ „,ifillirmarb. --a•Nowir 1 11--,,-,%--!-\ i lair 11111111/01-isinwillill I pill - ' ) 1411111bArittiVr / 4liti 4111t4p, i ''''' \ / 11' a iiitakritit:7011111111111 411,7*,7 /.41 -4p4, _ 11111111151 ' ( illitir -,11111 , 1/4” 5 G -410,„ , . , , i ,,,,* *04, I -all ,„-A , ' A,. -, ,1 'Y -" ',' 4 , b , , lifit t�. ADEN.LNi -,' ,, N 444 ' l'I: ‘ .,1'- -.,� f ,, uptel,,, _,,,,,,,,,,,,T,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,:„ , lit _,,. :, I, 4, ) ., _ , , . st, 4 44,,,,,,,7,/ ..„ ,,,,,,:2„ , , 4, ...K.,, 1 i 494 tie di:/// i pt.'1 ? 4.4-6 Sr 0 1 f Ats �4a It „,f41 - .1- de, (9, 0/ Ny -.'r CA/ ii* t z,., '17,4 v 4.1,‘_vOut,”' (.( ="._\ , , _„,, . , ... ., . '7-9 ,C> ,r - , ,, ,,s, ., .,,, / / ill* 4,,,,,,,,,, i , ,... , , , ,,,, / ,,,,,,,,, _ ,,„ 40,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , .a„ 7-, '.: 44111k.4141111,11" , jitia...._ aiiiirillit'----Nik,..1' 411440, " -- At***''''''''''.--"' '': -' :,Ahkezram.uArre„.../A, /air: //:40'7, / Ariiiiii4„,/,„ , Alikk, 1"-- 2 r- t pt7:t;,.,.,,o.m-zt,o:s4t„: ,..r*,z,.+,_s_1:4f7,:s4.. ,0_ , 4 ,4, z.:1F41 '''--1.v...,;, ...0`iktr„,,...,,.. ..,,.,,7,;44;171.:,....k.._ :, , 4../ee V/ 4.1,0 ' #/logo1/4114t# 4410" A# 4 = iii ► 4710400.14,ef el.,-i A a ' It �pF A (4114 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 3 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 3 March 4,2016 Rev1 Comments:May 6,2016 Michael Myers 172 S Pantops Dr Charlottesville VA 22911 mmyers@dominioneng.com RE: SP 2016-03 West Glen Dear Mr. Myers: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the request for a special use permit for fill in the floodplain for a stream crossing. We have a few questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing.We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Planning Comments(Rachel Falkenstein) 5 Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the plan are provided below. Comments on 1 conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The area northeast of Powell's Creek is designated as neighborhood density residential within the Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan (3-6 units/acre).The area southwest of Powell's Creek is designated as parks and green space.The Parks and Green Systems Plan shows a major greenway/trail along Powell's Creek. The applicant has proposed a trail within the area of greenway, south of Powell's Creek. The Parks and Green Systems Plan also shows a civic space on the site. Please also consider dedicating the entire greenway area south of Powell's Creek(outside of the roadway)to the County to allow for use by the public and to serve as the civic space for this site(see parks comments below). The application plan shows some neighborhood streets in the general locations recommended Crozet MP Transportation Plan. However,the MP does not show a stream crossing or a connection to Orchard Drive through this property.Though the connection to Orchard Drive is not shown in the MP, it can provide an alternative opportunity for interconnectivity.The Comp Plan calls for the frequency of stream crossings to strike a balance between the need for interconnectivity and the potential impacts that the crossing may have on the stream bank, riparian habitat and the stream itself. 1 3 1 Additional Planning Comments: h • If you have more information regarding the proposed mitigation measures(stream stabilization locations, areas of reforestation,the area of impoundment behind existing dam to be restored, etc.) please provide for staff to review.These features will be more closely reviewed during WPO plan/mitigation plan review; however,it would be helpful for staff to know overall environmental impacts/improvements on site when reviewing the SP. Revi:Applicant provided letter from Corps of Engineers stating the dam removal/stream 1 restoration is a benefit to the stream. If any additional information is available regarding areas of reforestation or methods to be used for dam removal,please provide for review. • If you have any written documentation regarding inability to make alternative connections I through adjacent properties, please provide, Revl:Comment addressed.Applicant provided written record of discussions with adjoining property owners. • The proposed lot layout is not required to be shown on the SP application plan, as long as the r development potential for the site is provided so that staff can evaluate the roadway capacity needed for the proposed crossing. Revi:Commentpartially addressed.Lot layout still shown on plans and traffic counts now provided. Removing lots from plan is at the option of the applicant. • Approval of an SP for a stream crossing does not constitute approval for the proposed subdivision as shown.The lot layout,open space and street network will be more closely reviewed with the subdivision plat,road plans,and site plan for the proposed development. Here are a few initial comments based on what is shown: o The roadway shown (Road B) within the stream buffer may be allowed per sec 17-604 as necessary infrastructure to allow use of the lot within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer. Disturbance for this roadway must remain outside of the 50 feet closest to the stream. This will be more closely evaluated with the road plans and subdivision plat. j Revi: Comment addressed. o Per section 17-604,new building sites shall be located outside of the stream buffer. Building sites as shown within the buffer will not be permitted. Rev1:•Comment not addressed. o Staff recommends all proposed lots be pulled out of stream buffer and floodplain to ensure protection of these features. Rev1:Comment not addressed. o Per section 30.3.11, grading activities (not associated with the stream crossing) are not I permitted in the regulatory floodway. BMP#3 would not be permitted within the floodway fringe as shown. Revi: Comment addressed. Natural Resources Manager comments(David Hannah) (New Comments) • The National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)data (GIS format)shows a 10.8 acre wetland area in the project area.The wetland occurs both inside and outside of the 100'stream buffer on Powell's I Creek. However, NWI data is often inaccurate,and there may not be any additional wetlands on site. Has a wetlands survey been done of this whole area?Some wetlands are delineated but it is unclear if other areas of wetlands may exist. • Provide more details on the stream restoration and planting efforts associated with removing the concrete dam. 2 Zoning Comments(Ron Higgins) A • Rear properties of proposed houses(e.g. lots 51-53 and others) should be out of the 100 year Flood Plain. Revl: No objection. Parks&Recreation(Dan Mahon) An at-grade road crossing for the trail should be provided. • In addition to the construction and dedication of the trailway as shown,the entire area of the greenway south of Powell's Creek should be dedicated to the County in fee simple. Easements can be provided to allow maintenance and access to stormwater facilities within the Greenway. Rev):No additional comments have been provided by Parks&Rec. • ACSA Comments(Alex Morrison) • The ACSA will require a construction submission of the roads plans to review the proposed water/sewer utilities. The submission shall be made to the ACSA, Attn: Michael Vieira, PE.The submission shall include 3 copies of the plan as well as water/sewer data sheets. • The applicant shall show an ACSA access easement off of the proposed road extension to the existing sanitary sewer behind homes located on Peach Tree Drive. • During the final site plan stage RWSA Wastewater Capacity Certification will be required.The ACSA will submit a request for the certification during the construction review process. Revl: No objection. Engineering Comments(John Anderson) • Comments attached Virginia Department of Transportation Comments(Joel DeNunzio) • No objection Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of Comment Letter"which is attached. Resubmittal A 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 Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $111.35Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners(minimum$215 +actual postage/$1 per owner after ri 50 adjoining owners) $326.35 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing I Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed: 1 $111.35 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing I 3 . cio y , 11 $437.70 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.Al Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need 1 to be notified of a new date. 3 Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3272. 1 Sincerely, 1 (ilt-04 P211; 1 Rachel Falkenstein Senior Planner Planning Division 1 1 1 i :''''', 1 j 11ill 1 , i I i i i i 4 o DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A-a\ II ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER j 1 Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: 2 (1) Resubmit in response to review comments j (2) Request indefinite deferral 1 (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application 4 J (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 I be found here. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. I 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.) N i l ( (2) Request Indefinite Deferral I i 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 1 I public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) 1 (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set i 9 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 I 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 5 40-4 (ill I 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 1 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 11 to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. 3 Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the A r 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 I 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 I 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 I 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. 6 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SF Si 1Ft,e Amount$ Bate paid By who? I ipt# (to By: Resubmittal of information for hR Special Use Permit fir;,. PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: 8P2018-03 West Gten Owvner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Oner,Contract Purchaser Date ft Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory I I FEES to be paid after application I For original Special Use Permit fee of$1,075 GI First resubmission(To HE PAID WHEN THE RESlH MISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE sT'AE Free I ® Each additional resubmission(TO HE PAID wIIEN ME ItESUHMIS$ION IS MADE TO INI`AICE STAt'F) $535 For original Special Use Permit fee of$2,000 First resubmission(TO tit PAW 1411EN TILE Ik}!I Ii!►ISS1ON IS MADE TO INTAI SrA.FF) Free Each additional resubmission(TO BE PAID WHEN TTIE 111:'S1'11'.1.115...MON IS MADE I` INTAKE'CAFE) $1,075 1 i 7 I 2016 03 16 CCAC Notes Friday, March 18,2016 10:16 AM J4, Applicant's presentation: Now proposing 75 units density @ 6 du/ac when floodplain is subtracted=81 units Proposing 31 TH and 44 SFD 1 Questions/comments from the community: • Loss of cul-de-sac on Cling lane is a big concern • Can a connection can be provided without an extension of Cling Lane? o Staff response—connections are required by ordinance,VDOT,Fire Rescue(above 30 units). Possibility for special exception from Board but other agencies still have these requirements. • Lot sizes proposed are too small.They are 1/2 or 1/3 size of the existing lots on Cling Lane. • Powell's creek is currently designated as"fair" and all these additional impacts and runoff into the creek will only make it worse. • Slopes are too steep for proposed roadway.Can a retaining wall be added instead of steep slopes A as shown? o Applicant response-slopes proposed are 2 to 1.These slopes are permissible per the County's ordinances.Typically slopes are preferred to retaining wall for aesthetic reasons. j But applicant could look into possibility of retaining wall if this is more desired by the community. • Can slope be reduced?Plans show some very steep slopes o Developer can reduce steepness of slopes but would require larger footprint and more tree removal. • Will stream still be wooded? o Yes- 100 ft stream buffer preserved outside of road and trail/greenway dedicated. • What is distance of roadway above stream? o About 10 feet How much of the road is on the other parcel owned by PHA? o Don't know acreage,about 3/4 of road is on other parcel. When was the BLA done to add land of other parcel? o BLA was done in 2015 • Projected timeline? z o Hope for SP approval by summer, maybe late summer or fall site plan submittal. • There are no large trees on Cling lane.The street is really hot in the summer,removing large trees will make this worse. There is a lot of wildlife in the stream corridor,deer,vultures,etc. it does not seem like a good idea to cut down some of the last remaining woods near downtown Crozet. • The applicant should figure out the utility connections for this project and make sure the woods 1 within the stream buffer can remain • Utility company has already cut down some of the trees along the RR CAC should keep Adelaide in mind when the applicants for Adelaide make an argument to allow more density for affordability in Crozet.This project is already in the pipeline and proposing affordable units. West Glen Page 1 i AAA.' 1 A : ,: II.\veitli 7.t, =,, 1 r.Y.„4.t--.1..3,1r.o..—• .,::,- -3 4 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA =A '11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10(l1Orange Road Culpeper.Vorginie 22701 I Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E. I Commissioner , February 18, 2016 1-1 Ms. Rachel Falkenstein 1:11'4 DS Countyeenpiaor trmPolefannAt nol ebefrinarie Community Development 1 401 McIntire Road ' Charlottesville, VA 22902 I, Re: SP-2016-00003 West Glen 1 1 Dear Ms. Falkenstein, 111 We have reviewed the special use permit for West Glen to allow the filling of the flood plain so 4 1 that a connection to Orchard Drive can be made and offer the following comments: 11: I. The impact to the 100-year flood plain elevation due to the fill operation needs to be 4 1 demonstrated. I 2. Will the 100-year storm over top any existing road or the.1 proposed road? * 3 How will the 100-year flood plain elevation compare to the finished floor elevations of the existing and proposed homes? 4. Note, the review of this plan is for thefill operation and not on the road design. i Comments on the proposed roadway including typical section, profile, alignment, drainage, etc. will be based on the road plan review when submitted. 11 If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at ' (434)422-9782. I 1 I Sincerely, A + .A A 1 Troy Austin, P.E. I ' Area Land Use Engineer 11' Culpeper District 1 , i 1 1 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING i ! ! 1 11 1 i P Rachel Falkenstein From: Amelia McCulley Sent: Friday, March 04,2016 8:59 AM To: Ron Higgins; Rachel Falkenstein; Mark Graham I Subject: West Glen Importance: High To clarify what I've said: fill that is necessary for the construction of the bridge is an accessory use and is allowed with a bridge special use permit. If our review engineer confirms that there isn't unnecessary fill and it's related to the construction of the bridge, it's allowed. A culvert is a type of bridge and is allowed with the special use permit. 1 From: Ron Higgins I Sent:Thursday,March 03, 2016 5:18 PM To:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:West Glen I What do you think? I have the plan& review packet on my desk. From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent:Thursday, March 03,2016 1:56 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> of Subject: RE:West Glen 4 fi„tittbeitifitert ykrould be considered fi)1 From: Ron Higgins Sent:Thursday, March 03,2016 1:43 PM To:Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:West Glen Hello, Rachel: i 1 We discussed the second item with Bill this morning at pre-app assignments. Regarding the bridge in the floodway, i Amelia has confirmed with me that the support structure is part of the bridge and not considered "fill" in the floodway. l i Ron H. 1 From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent:Thursday, March 03,2016 9:22 AM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> Subject:West Glen Hey Ron, I am out pretty much the entire day tomorrow for meetings(comments due tomorrow) so I am aiming for comments completed by the end of today. Any progress on the floodway discussion? Do we need to set up a meeting with Mark and Amelia? Secondly,what do you mean by this comment: 1 Preserved Slopes to be disturbed mu be acknowledged and requested as part o is special permit approval. The way I read the ordinance,necessary public facilities are by right.What are you looking for in terms of a request? Should they verify(i)(ii) (iii)or(iv)from the ordinance copied below? I have never required an applicant to do this before. Necessary public facilities. Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot, provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following exist: (i)the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources such as stream buffers or floodplain; (ii)the alignment of the public facilities is consistent with the alignment of public facilities depicted or described in the comprehensive plan; (iii)the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities;or(iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an unnecessary hardship.To the extent that public facilities are established on preserved slopes,the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district, Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext.3272 2 Mark Graham Subject: SP2016-06 West Glen discussion Location: Rm B Start: Tue 3/1/2016 3:30 PM End: Tue 3/1/2016 4:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Rachel Falkenstein Required Attendees: John Anderson; Ron Higgins; Mark Graham 4 aria Eiag 4 ;P201608003 Wes Glen 022716.p... All, i 3-1 We would like to have a brief discussion on two items relating to this SP for fill in the floodplain for a stream crossing in Crozet.John has provided draft comments(attached)and would like to discuss first,whether fill in the floodmy is permitted (see ordinance section saying fill is prohibited) and second,what level of development is allowed within the 50 landward feet of the stream buffer in the development areas. Comments to discuss: 4 2. Proposed fill in floodplain is problematic. 18-30.3.13.A.1.:"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 s flood." Reviewer spoke with Applicant(Mike Myers)10-Feb regarding data tables in Flood Study Information Booklet d. 19-Jan 2016,but overlooked ordinance prohibition against fill within the floodway. Code appears to eliminate option of fill within the floodway at any point along the project corridor,and this point was re-emphasized in follow-up 1 conversation with M. Myers,24-Feb. A site visit is scheduled for 4-March. Fill within floodway is impermissible. Engineering cannot support design. 3. Letter d. 18 Jan 2016 included with flood study information booklet: "There will be a maximum fill of approximately 1 12'. A double 12'W x 8'H Box Culvert at approximate station 17+50 is proposed to convey the base flood without 1 overtopping the road and with no net rise in the base flood elevation." Fill is prohibited within the floodway, regardless of BFE rise.Also,FEMA FIRM Map panel,when compared with design, indicates rise approaching 4.40'at proposed crossing. A bridge crossing that avoids fill within Engineering Review Comments floodway appears the only viable alternative. Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering,questions apparent inconsistency between ordinance sections 18- 30.3.11 and 30.3.13. 16.SP10-Development and proposed improvements shown on Conceptual Mitigation Plan (SP10) appear inconsistent with Albemarle County development policy which permits grading necessary to permanently locate SWM facilities within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers,within Crozet Development Area. This policy does not as of this date permit I hardscape development(roads,decks, residential structures)to be located within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers. [Plan excerpt, below] rs 1 1 - 3 , .. , ., , , I -4 P 1 iti..411; , 4 ..'4'''111141CI I itt.°51'fi4. 1 I County of Albemarle 1 Department of Community Development I 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 1 1 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 , Fax(434)972-4126 , ) - ' i , ' Project: West Glen I 1 Plan preparer: Mike Myers,Dominion Engineering[172 S.Pantops Drive Charlottesville,VA 22911,mmyers@dominioneng.com] 3 ;17 Owner or rep.: Crozet Development Solutions LLC '-j 1215 E.Market Street,Suite B/Charlottesville,VA 22902-5512 1, Plan received date: 10 Feb 2016 11 Date of comments: 27 Feb 2016 i 1 Reviewer: John Anderson , Project Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein .-i Cc: Elaine Echols/Ron Higgins/Mark Graham Albemarle County Community Development ' , i , -1 SP201600003 , 1 Abbreviations: BFE—base flood elevation(100-yr flood elevation) 1 FIRM—flood insurance rate map -). FIS--flood insurance study _ : Engineering comments: 1 1. Attached FEMA Firtnette(Map Panel 51003CO229D)shows Zone AE base elevation at FIS cross-section ;,.'' 'I' is 715±. . .Ref.SP5 SP7 Cling Lane Extended Profile shows 100-yr WSE=719.39' This,if accurate, I; represents rise in BFE at proposed 12'W x 8'H double box culvert,Road Sta.=17+48.73. FIS is assumed accurate,and includes Jarrnans Gap Road,SR 691. This proposal if advanced in current form would :,..', require FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Fill.[CLOMR-F;Code 18-30.3.10.A.3. [Plan/below] " ----" , —-"- -'"—""" '-.- _ . f i 2. Proposed fill in floodplain is problematic. 18-30.3.13.A.1.:"Fill is prohibited in the regulatory floodway I regardless of whether the owner demonstrates that the fill will not result in any increase in the water surface 1 elevation of the base flood." Reviewer spoke with Applicant(Mike Myers) 10-Feb regarding data tables in , ' Flood Study Information Booklet d. 19-Jan 2016,but overlooked ordinance prohibition against fill within the floodway. Code appears to eliminate option of fill within the floodway at any point along the project i corridor,and this point was re-emphasized n follow-up conversation with M.Myers,24-Feb. A site visit is scheduled for 4-March. Fill within floodway is impermissible. Engineering cannot support design. 3. Letter d. 18 Jan 2016 included with flood study information booklet:"There will be a maximum fill of approximately 12'. A double 12'W x 8'H Box Culvert at approximate station 17+50 is proposed to convey the base flood without overtopping the road and with no net rise in the base flood elevation." Fill is prohibited within the floodway,regardless of BFE rise. Also,FEMA FIRM Map panel,when compared with design,indicates rise approaching 4.40'at proposed crossing. A bridge crossing that avoids fill within , , ' 1 Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 floodway appears the only viable alternative. Mike Myers,Dominion Engineering,questions apparent inconsistency between ordinance sections 18-30.3.11 and 30.3.13. Bridges,ferries and culverts not servingsin le famil dwell.in s g • g Y S SP SP 4. Title/SP2—Design scale,regional context map/parcel map(1"=1,000'& 1"=400')are inconsistent;check map scale(1"=800'?). Also:Title vicinity map scale, 1"=500'matches neither of the other two scales. 4 5. SP3—Provide ADT estimate used as basis of road section pavement design,since typical road section provided(else,eliminate typical road section). 6. SP4-SP8—Show WPO stream buffer in addition to floodplain/steep slopes zoning overlays. SP Application presents development(proposed Lots)as well iouffpermit lanas sheets infloodplain orderroad tocrossing respondnformatito questionsn. or identifyStreambissues should be shown on these special use relating to proposed development within streapm buAction iSP Applicationers mayerr if stream buffers,or limits on development withiffers.n streamor buffers, are notrecommendaton consiondered at this time. R n'J•c is A �, y `� ittb Naal E a lY �'. I�y�F'94 _ - - 1S ar ...: :�„,.. .,:�� * . s M1 „ .�., 1r0 y.. .may mer>a \w >.„,','-', .:,,,,*,..7.4. / ;, ham, ~ ',7R41011S 'N's • 41 w 9 s n 1m pa ,ffi8 G4,_. . ,.'Casp ,,-,,-4-• �4'' :t , 1 f,',4c , 2 -,\NN,_,....__,-...„\.,\,4,1,,,,-‘,,,,,\-of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7Alii1001,,,,,,,,, ..! ',.,,,,,:,,,,,,,:::::;\,- .'"\-\\\\:.\,„\\N„, ,i--,,...,.i__ __, -1 „,,,„k.:, \ d ,\ ti,\ti \ \` �\ 1 1 I Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 ryry P L] 3" . {,A7, 1 3 4adP 1. h • •4,..\,,,,, \\<:‘,-\ \ \\Niqmincitikilat,,,,:,;4,11„, s - \.. 11, it 1 �.\.\\.\ '" rt_ ,•....----q>.�-'' :.--- 'i^ - M,�,.• \\. rac..PP • S .� .,,��``\ \ ,' :'�1 J vt�a„�„F -,.......,",..,-,....,„---=,,,,, `'. , mak+ an ` vY "a.. \ \\ Til 5 b zs nrx : "”` r - N -7,177.1..„,---/•••••e-17-7)4911111111iiiiikaiiiiik •-,,,, :•,. .,... ....„1„,..„,-,y.,..- -•,„„:„,„.„,„-„,..-„,„„ii„-„:„..,,,,,„:„,.,„,„,„,-,„,„„„„„,,„:,,,,,,,,,,o,!,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,„,.\„\ ..,,,,-, • - � PN /• .1-.:.; ''.":�.. tf t i t 5 S € \\ �/' LZ 1 ,�T....h.......��,Nc,M.xx, .� - �"3�m <.. �€ \\ / am+ _«,✓ .,�'., • :r''�P 4.F o •z i aF c a W�3a` '.°�..rrml" a�� w ,n' _ ''' a�'b fir, yyyAli � =....,..,• { 1 Wa' � ��xn ,,,,.�'`^"'"«« •^"" �\ "�\fit:. � % I } _:, tt , t€ tet\ t i , 1 •; \\'\ \ \ \ '"•"•4;';'"4"44::41"""64''''411""6—'-''' t :t 'Pt ..+'. 1 y ` .,\\ A5$'1•- '* SNAi - - :: 'G pC7t ", `�r jE gttiwar r,uarn `La,: T sem, �` , r _ i 1 s w.:.: ,w 111 11141,11111111111111111111111111111„ it< t m \ \\• \\ \\ \ \ \- \\ 41 .. t ! / \ \ l .. \ t 1 t •1 f J/ / � F // f �� M `'� \ - w ' 'f s tet J tik. i1 •- �S fr j(o„ { t Y .rf . 1. r - i 7. SP3/Note:Engineering review does not consider or evaluate site overview development road design, i 4 Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 geometry,or details for Lots or streets(Road A,Road B)presented on sheet SP3;these development features should be reviewed with subdivision/road application/s. Engineering SP review comments consider special use permit information presented on other sheets. 8. SP5-BMP#7 and 9 are<50'from Powell's Creek. Increase distance to 50'Mm. "Mitigation to 50 feet is 1 allowed in Crozet now."[11/11/2015 5:11 PM email E.Echols to F.Stoner] 1 9. Provide proposed trail details(located within floodplain/floodway);plan/profile. [18-30.3.11] 1 l 10. SP6-Provide footbridge schematic. 1 11. SP4BMP#3—If this SWM facility proposed location requires fill,it is impermissible. 12. SP4-Confirm no grading,no fill,no rise in BFE at Lots 51,52,53. 1 13. SP6—Label retaining wall proposed for connector alignment(fill section)south of Powell's Creek. Label TW/BW,if known. Ali 14. SP5/SP6-Provide(H&H analysis)cross-section upstream of connector floodway fringe/retaining wall. Evaluate effect of proposed(floodway fringe)fill required to construct roadway embankment/retaining 44 wall. [Plan excerpt,below] � s'' '' i‘t..,;,,„I's, is fi fi �taal '' ,. a , � � �� -,...1'.;?(-;":, :///7/..,, Y -I ',\N., -' • - '' , , -' ''',.;..s.„. 44.,,,,,\ 44'sk ,40 dioti I I ! mA ,� ,! `;,� ,4,;... of .. \\''''\`'\\ r"'rpr PRESERVED SLAP S s•� e ' PER ALt'i pq�R{E 1 COUNTY 01S Y ,, __ 15. SP8-Design proposes limited(perhaps unavoidable)impact to preserved steep slopes,which appear 1 eligible for review/approval under 18-30.7.4.b.l.c. 11 c. Necessary public facilities.Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot, provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the I preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following exist:(i)the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources I such as stream buffers or floodplain;(ii)the alignment of the public facilities is :I consistent with the alignment of public facilities depicted or described in the 1 comprehensive plan;(iii)the disturbance is necessaryto provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities;or(iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an 11 unnecessary hardship. To the extent that public facilities are established on I preserved slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district, 16. SP10-Development and proposed improvements shown on Conceptual Mitigation Plan(SPIO)appear J inconsistent with Albemarle County development policy which permits grading necessary to permanently 11 locate SWM facilities within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers,within Crozet Development Area. This 1 policy does not as of this date permit hardscape development(roads,decks,residential structures)to be located within the landward 50-ft of stream buffers. [Plan excerpt,below] t _ , (id :j co Engineering Reviewpcaogtimnts e 5 eonf5 -i-td 4 — , j ''' 4 ' '4''' . 4.414,,,,N.,,, ,.-'4'.:-4 rtit,411‘1, ,_'•4- ' 1 :'' :1 -„:,'..L.:'' ,#0011.0...! , -,.',4 ,\/,,,.(4*.fif,N*'„,---3-...,,) _ ,,,,, z,;...,• ,,,,,,,,,, ,--' ,,'- ,e 'sk i; it i k‘irs,:ii.,'-'4 *•'.:.--.', 7i1,1jr.,4`,7i.;''.%;,,,,,,47-,,k,,irl'‘:Mx41:,,i.Trwilt - ' ,'L'..', ,'.,':It‘AF),4, 1 J ;,...z.4!',„4.!!4.,;-„-,..;7,;i4.;,A4,c1,'*.4.4"".4` lIfilit111111,1114P,!,71.47'4 ' ,•_.,.„„.:4__,-;,---...---,'"44// ,E '.; )016 i rtry<i•iti'e. ,-,,,'',,', ,,,. : - ''''"-;,,,-,,,''''*4,',"''',,,.,,-.,„'.-,-.,,•,:-:*"I.'',. ,4.'-,,,.:'.,:',.,',',-',':,,,,,,..'‘.,,,;,,....,..., '1,111,i„z'','^,' -I 9 Please contact John Anderson,PE/CFM, anyx306 i f questions. ..1.''l ianderson2@albemar1e.org/434-296-5 J,1 , .,1 7! Thank you 3 3 31 S132) (",t,i.(°(.(), 1 1!4 , 1 , 1 I : 1, .c # 1 a 1 , ' , , : ... F " • Pedestrian pass-throughs should be integrated into the circulation network wherever block lengths I exceed 400 feet and pedestrians require a direct connection with destinations, such as parks, schools,retail and employment centers,transit stops,and local or regional multi-use paths and trails. Pass-throughs should be at least 10 feet wide, as straight as possible, and well-lit so users can see 1 what is at the other end and to provide security. • Paths connecting cul-de-sacs should be a solid surface and at least 10 feet wide. • Parking lots on adjacent properties should be interconnected to allow drivers to park in one lot and j reach several destinations on foot. • Connections between parking lots should be used to minimize the number of access points to/from adjacent streets. lj he Neighborhood Model recommends block sizes that will result in a well-connected network of local streets. However, where these streets require stream crossings, a balance needs to be struck between the frequency of stream crossings and the potentis;tl impacts that such crossings have on stream banks, riparian habitat, and the stream itself. Striking this balance is particularly important for the remaining 3 large greenfield sites located in the Development Areas. 1 The following recommendations are made for stream crossings: 1 • Plan local street stream crossings strategically,linking them to minimize longer local trips on regional streets and to reduce the number of stream crossings. Stream crossings should be located where 1 they provide direct connections between complementary, activity-generating land uses located on opposite sides of a stream. } • In areas with existing vehicular bridges but without a pedestrian / bicycle connection, consider constructing a separate,low-impact bridge to serve pedestrians and bicyclists,rather than widening 1 an existing vehicle bridge. 4 6. Multimodal Transportation Opportunities Multimodal transportation means that people can choose to travel by car,on-foot, by mass-transit, or on bicycle. Multimodalism is important to help achieve livable compact urban areas. Descriptions of s multi-modal transportation options may be found in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space 1 Parks,natural areas, recreational amenities and other undeveloped open areas are essential to create 1 a high quality of life in the Development Areas. They can be "standalone" areas or part of "green" 1 systems or corridors. The following general guidelines apply to these areas: • Parks and plazas should be designed as a central and prominent feature within new developments. If parkland is donated to the County which would not be part of a new development, it should be prominently located for access and use by nearby residents. • Parks and plazas should be placed adjacent to streets to avoid the perception that the area is `1 private property. Albemarle Comprehensive Plan ADOPTED June 10, 2015 A.8.11 BACK TO TOP i kL . J A 3 1 r9a�`ls� Dominion 172 South Pantos Drive 1 °')�/AP L Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911 .e I1�em�� `I 434.979.8121 (p)� "0/ 434.979.1681 (f)"`o.°et~ °°r DominionEng.comA :1 January 15,2016 1 t Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 f I RE: West Glen Subdivision TM 55C-3-A,56-115,55C-3-A1,56A1-1-25,56A1-1-26A-Fill in Floodplain- 1 Special Use Permit Project Narrative 1 A '* Dear Rachel, 1 This letter is to serve as our narrative to accompany the submission of our Special Use Permit request for proposed I fill in the floodway and floodplain fringe for a proposed stream crossing to connect Cling Lane to Orchard Drive in 1 accordance with the approval conditions of SP 1990-103. 1 PROJECT PROPOSAL J The applicant is proposing to extend Cling Lane and construct up to 80 detached and attached single family residential units and associated roadways,utilities and stormwater management features on the northeast side of Powell's Creek as was presented at the pre-application meeting held on August 17,2015 and as was presented at a community meeting with staff and the Crozet Community Advisory Council on December 16,2015 at the Crozet Library. =s The approved Special Use Permit SP 1990-103 limits the Cling Lane development to 30 lots until a second road connection to Orchard Drive is provided. SP 1990-103 required the connection to be made to Orchard Drive.In order to construct this road connection,it is necessary to provide fill in the Powell's Creek floodway and the 1 floodplain fringe. The attached application,cover letter,and plans address the standards of both 30.3.13 and 1 30.3.14 for floodway and floodplain fringe encroachments. IThe applicant has exhausted all other options at making alternate roadway connections and is currently left with the Orchard Drive connection as a last option. The other connections suggested include McComb Street,Pleasant Green 1 Street,Buford Street or Jeremiah Lane. McComb Street is the only one of these streets that is contiguous with the subject parcel. McComb Street is a 30'ROW,which is not sufficiently wide to build a road to VDOT and County 1 standards. Though a private connection or emergency access connection are feasible,staff has determined that neither of these alternatives satisfy the condition of SP 1990-103. Therefore,the connection to Orchard is the only feasible option. 1 To this end,the applicant is proposing to construct approximately 1200 linear feet of roadway and associated drainage improvements to make the second connection for the proposed West Glen subdivision to Orchard Drive. The Special Use Permit will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots since the proposed fill will not raise the 100-year base flood elevation. Also,the character of the R-6 zoning district will not be changed since the proposed 11 Special Use is congruent with the by-right residential use. Furthermore,the Special Use Permit is in harmony with the following: I Page 1 of 3 I 9i CS Ob ds i I1 � 6Dominion o 49:1',44,6 .1A 172 South Pantops Drive 1 \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911 ifir/ m$,,0SZg;, 434.979.8121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com • The purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. -The proposed fill in the floodplain is required in I order to develop the proposed properties. The proposal has P p been prepared to meet the special requirements as designated by the County Engineer to address ordinance concerns to include not increasing the base flood elevation,honoring the floodway,preventing erosion and providingadequate 1 iigati mton. • The use permitted by right in the zoning district-the proposed fill in the floodplain provides a road connection that is complementary with the uses permitted by right in the R-6 zoning district. 11 • The regulations in Section 5 of the zoning ordinance-Section 5.1.28 allows fill areas in the flood hazard overlay district provided authorization per 30.3 is provided,which has been made part of this ap lication. of final Also,requirements such as stabilization within 7-dayspp grade and completion within one year of project commencement will be addressed by the applicant with the final construction plans. • The public health,safety and general welfare By meeting all of the applicable zoning ordinance I sections for the proposed special use as will be evidenced by final construction plans,no adverse effects to the public health,safety and general welfare are anticipated. MEETING PUBLIC BENEFIT 1 Construction of the road connection to Orchard Drive includes various measures to address the public need. First, A as part of the stream buffer mitigation measures,the applicant is proposing to provide 15%Affordable Dwelling 1 Units(ADU). Provision of ADU's will certainly meet a public need to provide additional affordable housing options 1 1 in the County. Also,providing a second point of access for the existing neighborhood will improve traffic circulation and fire and rescue response times. With the road connection,a pedestrian trail easement I ed to connect with future development. The pedestrian trail easement will include connections to Cling Lane nd Ja ans Gap Road,and including the possibility for future connections to the northwest toward Mint Springs Park. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 The land use plan is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located in the Growth 4 Area as shown on the Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan with a neighborhood density of 3-6 DU/AC. The proposal is for 4.4 DU/AC so it is within the Comprehensive Plan density range. The area southwest of Powell's Creek is 1 designated as parks and green space. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian trail easement and passive recreation area in this location. The Transportation Plan indicates conceptual street locations connecting Cling Lane to Pleasant Green Street and an extension of Jeremiah Lane through the property. The applicant will stu 1 property lines so that connections to Pleasant Green Street and/or Jeremiah Lane coub streets to the ld be made when the adjoining landowner decides to develop their property. Orchard Drive is the feasible backup option that the applicant is I pursuing. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a civic space onsite. The applicant is meeting the intent of the civic 1 space by providing a pedestrian connection the trail easement from the westernmost cul-de-sac,passive recreation 1 i area in the stream buffera tot lot,and open space throughout the development Finally,the Com rehensive Plan Neighborhood Model Guidelines recommend an equal balance of com lementa p located on o p ry,activity-generating land uses pposite sides of the stream. The applicant will include buffers and other strategies for stream protection I and preserving stream banks and riparian habitat with the final construction plans. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE The proposed development is located in the Development Area and is currently served by public water and sewer. 1 As part of the standard development procedures,a sewer capacity agreement will need to be obtained from the 4 RWSA for the projected wastewater flow. Fire flow calculations will also be provided based on existing water 1 1 Page 2 of 3 I 4 1 ) I a is sets v*e��40� Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive .i to \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911 4' /►° 434.979.$121 (p) 434.979:1681 (f) ! � "^a DominionEng.coin Isystem flow and pressure information. The proposed development also considers the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure on the east side of Peach Tree Drive. I IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 41 The applicant is proposing a number of mitigation measures to offset potential impacts on environmental features 4 as a result of the road construction within the stream buffer. These measures are described below: I 1. Removal of Existing Dam in Powell's Creek. The applicant is proposing to remove an approximate 5'-high concrete dam that impounds water in Powell's Creek as shown on the plans. Upon removal of the dam,the applicant proposes to restore the native stream flow patterns. This will serve to restore the riparian habitat that has been altered due to the dam construction and allow aquatic life to travel up and down the stream bed,restoring natural processes currently impossible due to the dam. 2. Provide armoring stabilization of the streambank with gabion baskets,cutting back of the slope,or other K approved means to reduce the further displacement of soils in strategic areas of extreme erosion along iPowell's Creek. 1 3. Reforestation in areas along Powell's Creek where tree cover is sparse in locations as shown on the plan. 4. Provision of structural(Filterras,Jellyfish)and/or non-structural( gardens,dry/wet swales,filter v strips,buffers)BMP facilities downstream of new impervious areas to reduce the non-point solution. The i proposed measures will provide additional water quality above and beyond the minimum required. J 4 We thank you very much for your review of this project and look forward to your thoughtful review and staff report. A Best Regards, Mi ael Myers,P.E.,C.F.M. Cc: Charlie Armstrong 3 Page 3 of 3 4 OSA FAlt-4174-" -w • County of Albemarle 1 Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rachel Faulkenstein 1 From: Rebecca Ragsdale 1 Division: Zoning 1 Date: August 24, 2015 1 Subject: Mandatory Preapplication Meeting Comments for August 17,2015 meeting on TMP 055C00300000A0 and other parcels 05600-00-00-11500, 055C0-03-00- 000A1, 056A1-01-00-02500, 056A1-01-00-026A0 11 The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted I mandatory pre-application meeting to discuss 1)Amending Condition #2 of SP 1990-103 and 2) fill in the flood plain/stream crossing of Powell Creek from Cling Lane to Orchard Drive. The property is zoned R6 Residential, Floodplain Overlay District (Section 30.3), and Steep 4 Slopes Overlay District (Section 30.7). SP 1990-103 applies to the parcels and limits development to 30 lots until a second road connection is provided to Orchard Drive. Regarding the R6 Residential zoning regulations, no information was provided on the concept plan as to whether this development would want bonus/cluster provisions. It was mentioned that adjacent parcels may take advantage of these provisions. Acreage in roads cannot count A towards acreage for use of cluster provisions in the R6 Zoning District. See Section 2.2 and 4.7. ` Fill in the Flood Plain/Stream Crossing of Powell Creek from Cling Lane to Orchard Drive- The special use permit should include all properties where the proposed fill/grading for the road connection will be located. According to Section 30.3.11, a special use permit is required for the following activities, which are only allowed in the floodway fringe: Grading activities,including cut or fill,in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance,but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may cause the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand 1 A submittal for grading and fill in the floodplain must address the standards of Section 30.30.14 I along with any additional information deemed necessary by the County Engineer, who is the floodplain administrator. (1164 Cid 11, Regarding Section 30.7, TMP 05600-00-00-11500 and 055C0-03-00-000A1 have areas of preserved slopes. Necessary public facilities, such as roads, may be permitted by-right under 4 the circumstances listed in the ordinance (below) and are a subject to the design standards of Section 30.7.5. Necessary public facilities.Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot,provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following exist:(i)the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources such as stream buffers or floodplain;(ii)the alignment of the public facilities is consistent with the alignment of oi public facilities depicted or described in the comprehensive plan;(iii)the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities;or(iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an unnecessary hardship.To the I extent that public facilities are established on preserved slopes,the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district, Amend Condition#2 of SP 1990-103-A special use permit request to ament this permit should H include all tax map parcels subject to SP 1990-103.Zoning has no other comments on this request other than to follow the process regarding completeness of the application below, including the I items for a special use permit amendment. Process— Reminders regarding completeness of the application I A completed special use permit application and checklist are required. Make sure all boxes are checked and you have provided the information noted on the application by that checkbox. SP Application link: http://www.albemarle.orci/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/f 4 orms/Special Use Permit Applications/Special Use Permit Application.pdf The SP checklist is needed with your submittal and must be the copy of the checklist provided to you by the County with the mandatory comments not one filled out only by you. • Provide a recorded plat of the property with the Deed Book& Page#for all properties. • Please note that all real estate taxes,nuisance charges, stormwater management utility fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the subject property,which are owed to the County of Albemarle must be paid prior to accepting the application. • The appropriate signature of the owner,the owner's agent, or a contract purchaser. If either the owner's agent or a contract purchaser signs the application then include the owner's written consent that the agent or contract purchaser may file the application on their behalf. See below for applicable signature requirements for ownership not in the name on an individual person or persons. Limited liability companies (°`LECs") Authorized signatories:The authorized signatories are: (1) if the LLC is not a manager-managed LLC, any member; (2) if the LLC is a manager-managed LLC, the manager or any member unless the articles of organization limit the members' authority 1 s I NS (Virginia Code§ 13.1-1021.1(A)); or(3) unless otherwise provided in the articles of organization or an operating agreement,the members have the power and authority to delegate to one or more other persons, including agents,officers and employees of a 1 member or manager of the LLC, members' rights and powers to manage and control the business affairs of the LLC, and to delegate by a management agreement or other agreement with, or otherwise to, other persons (Virginia Code§ 13.1-1022(D)). t'1Supporting documentation:The supporting documentation is the articles of organization (Virginia Code§ 13.1-1021.1(A) and when the power is delegated to someone other than a manager or a member, also the operating agreement and, if ttl applicable, any other agreement (Virginia Code§ 13.1-1022(D)). 1 i t. 1 e3 4 ii 1 i A. 3 36 I 9 n ' j g i 1 1 is 1 1 1 of A off, ifftt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 1 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Memorandum To: Charlie Armstrong Keith Lancaster Mike Meyers From: Rachel Falkenstein Date: 8/26/2015 Subject: TMP 55C-03-A,56A1-01-25,56A1-01-27-Pre-Application Meeting Date:8/17/15 The following are County staff comments regarding the above noted pre-application meeting.This meeting may j satisfy the requirements for the mandatory pre-application.The purpose of for the meeting is summarized 7 below: The purposes for a pre-application meeting are to:(i)provide the applicant and the county a common A understanding of the proposed project;(ii)inform the applicant about the proposed project's consistency with the comprehensive plan,other relevant policies, and county regulations;(iii)broadly identify the planning,zoning and other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by the applicant;(iv)inform the applicant about the applicable procedure;and(v)allow the director to identify the information the applicant must submit with the application,including the supplemental information delineated in subsection(c). Receiving the relevant supplemental information will allow the application to be comprehensively and efficiently reviewed (i)Common understanding of the proposed project Property Information: • SP1990-103 was approved by the BOS on June 19,1991 to allow a crossing of the floodplain at Powell's Creek to extend Cling Lane to serve 30 new lots in the Crozet Crossing Subdivision. • The SP included a condition that requires a second access to Orchard Drive for any development beyond 30 lots. I • A connection to Orchard Drive will require another special use permit(SP)for a stream crossing in the floodplain. 4 The applicant is proposing to develop the property with approximately 85 attached and detached units.The applicant has two options for developing the property: I • Amend the existing SP to removethe condition requiring second connection to Orchard Drive;or, • Submit an SP application for the stream crossing in the floodplain. (ii)Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan • The area northeast of Powell's Creek is designated as neighborhood density residential within the Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan (3-6 units/acre) • The area southwest of Powell's Creek is designated as parks and green space. 1 The Transportation Plan does not show a stream crossing or a connection to Orchard Drive through this property.The plan shows conceptual street locations connecting Cling Lane to Pleasant Green Street and an extension of Jeremiah Lane through the property. • These street locations are conceptual,though some connection to existing streets in the area would be expected as this property develops. The Parks and Green Systems Plan shows a major greenway/trail along Powell's Creek. • The Parks and Green Systems Plan also shows a civic space on the site.The Master Plan does not offer 7 specific information about the form of this civic space,but it should offer active and/or passive recreation 1 opportunities to serve new and old neighborhoods in the area.See Appendix 11: Parks and Recreation, Greenways,Blueways,,and Green Systems for more guidance.Also see Appendix 8: Neighborhood Model Design Guidance for general guidelines on parks recreational amenities and open space. • If a civic space is not provided for the neighborhood,there should at least be pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the greenway trails. • The development should conform to the Neighborhood Model recommendations.A brief outline of ways in which your plan either does or will need to conform is below: o Interconnected streets should be provided where possible.Some areas where there are currently cul-de-sacs may able to be connected to adjacent streets or to provide connections to development in the area.As discussed in the pre-app meeting,the right of way should be extended to property lines adjacent to cul-de-sacs for future connections. o A pedestrian orientation can be achieved with sidewalks and greenways. If cul-de-sacs are used, there should be connections to the greenways where possible. o Street trees should be provided between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. o No parks or amenities are shown on the pre-application plan.The concept plan should show proposed open space,greenways and a civic space for the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Model Guidelines offers the following guidance about balancing connectivity and stream protection: o The Neighborhood Model recommends block sizes that will result in a well-connected network of local streets. However,where these streets require stream crossings,a balance needs to be struck between the frequency of stream crossings and the potential impacts that such crossings have on stream banks,riparian habitat,and the stream itself.Striking this balance is particularly important for the remaining large greenfield sites located in the Development Areas. o Plan local street stream crossings strategically, linking them to minimize longer local trips on regional streets and to reduce the number of stream crossings.Stream crossings should be located where they provide direct connections between complementary,activity-generating land uses located on opposite sides of a stream. (iii)Broadly identify the planning,zoning or other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by h the applicant.Important items for consideration with your rezoning application are as follows: • Developments greater than 30 units require a minimum of two approved fire access points(see Fire Rescue comments below).Staff recommends the applicant determine if a second access point as an emergency access to McComb Street is feasible as a first step.Whether or not an emergency access _1 meeting Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code standards is feasible will help determine a path forward. Planning comments: No connection to Orchard Drive o The preferred option to develop this property would be to provide a connection between Cling Lane and existing streets to the southeast of the property(McComb St,Pleasant Green St,Buford Street or Jeremiah Lane)as shown in the Crozet Master Plan. o Staff recognizes that there are challenges with a street connection southeast of the property and the ownership of these streets may prevent a connection and roadway upgrades from happening at this time. 2 1 1 o If the applicant chooses to amend the previous SP to remove the requirement for the second connection to Orchard Drive,staff may be able to support a smaller development with fewer lots 4 in the'short term, if Fire/Rescue and VDOT access requirements can be met. o The full development of the property may be more appropriate once adjacent parcels to the southeast redevelop and allow for upgrades to existing private streets to provide a second 1 connection for drivers and emergency service vehicles. z. • Planning comments:Orchard Drive Connection o A second access to Orchard Drive as proposed requires a stream crossing and a street running parallel to the stream within the floodplain.Such a street has the potential to negatively impact water and environmental resources in the area. If construction is to be accomplished on property owned by Crozet Development Solutions only,the street would have to be located between the lots backing on to Orchard Drive and the floodplain.Such a location might create double frontage Ilots which is not allowed by ordinance.In addition,a street at this location would cross preserved slopes and the topography could make the site grading difficult to accomplish on-site.The stream crossing would also traverse an area shown for privately owned open space and, more importantly,trails shown in the Crozet Master Plan. 4 o The applicant would need to demonstrate that the proposed stream crossing can meet construction standards required by section 30.3.15,can adequately accommodate greenspace j and greenway trails along Powell's Creek and can meet all applicable County and VDOT standards for the proposed roadway.The applicant would need fee simple ownership of all properties affected or,if off-site grading is needed,off-site permissions and ultimately easements. o If the applicant is able to exhaust all possible options for street connections southeast of the property,then a stream crossing and connection to Orchard Drive may be able to be supported if reviewers find that the floodplain and WPO buffer disturbances can be properly mitigated. o This connection should be pursued as a last resort for the development of this parcel and the applicant should provide proof that connections through adjacent parcels are not feasible. • Zoning comments o See attached comments from zoning staff. I • Engineering comments: o The site doesn't appear to have any options for mitigation. This would have to be addressed when proposing disturbance to the stream buffers. Staff does not see how it could be addressed, although the possible removal of a dam on the property line could account for some,as discussed. o The traffic concerns with the development appear to be centered around impacts to small existing roads and neighborhoods which surround the proposal. This seemed to indicate that more access points to disburse or distribute this impact would be appropriate. In addition, improvements to the off-site road networks could also help. • VDOT Comments o If the 2nd connection to Orchard Drive is provided, it is likely that the majority of trips from this development will use the new connection instead of traveling via Cling Lane due to the proximity of the proposed connection to Jarmans Gap Road. If the 2nd connection to Orchard Drive is not allowed,we will need to take a closer look at Cling Lane to determine if improvements are required due to the increased trip generation of this development. o If the private gravel roadway to the east of this site were improved as a 2nd connection,we will need to look closer at Blue Ridge Avenue to determine if improvements are required due to the increased trip generation of this development. 3 j , 4. o Purely from a transportation perspective, I believe that the 2nd connection to Orchard Drive would be beneficial. In locating an appropriate location for this connection,available sight distance will need to be confirmed. o If it is determined that the 2nd connection to Orchard Drive will not be allowed due to flood plain, 1 stream buffer,or critical slope issues,the proposed cul-de-sacs would need to be built to the property lines and adequate right of way would need to be provided to allow connection of a potential roadway system on the adjacent property should the adjacent property be developed. It appears that SSAR requirements would be met under this scenario if a 2nd connection to an existing public road is not allowed by the County. • Fire/Rescue comments o One-or two family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one-or two-family 1 dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. 11 • VSFPC 503.2.1 Dimensions-Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet,exclusive of shoulders,except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6,and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. • VSFPC 503.2.3 Surface-Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. } o Fire Rescue would recommend the connection to Orchard Drive over an emergency access only from Blue Ridge Avenue. A • ACSA Comments o Sewer capacity certification will need to be obtained from RWSA for the projected wastewater ' flow,generated by this new subdivision,into their sewer interceptor. o Hydraulic calculations will need to be performed to confirm adequate fire flow through existing infrastructure, into new subdivision. o ACSA will confirm that there is adequate sewer capacity, in and around Orchard Acres,to handle the additional wastewater flow. o There is existing sanitary sewer infrastructure behind houses on east side of Peach Tree Drive that could be in conflict with proposed connector road,as shown. (iv)Applicable procedures • Pre-Application Worksession (optional): o Given the issues associated with the proposed development,you may wish to consider a pre- application worksession with the Planning Commission. Pre-application worksessions allow an -11 applicant to present a project to the Planning Commission to gather preliminary feedback on the proposed request.The worksessions are intended to help applicants know whether a project is worth pursuing and,if so,what issues need to be addressed (see attached information sheet regarding pre-application worksessions). I • SP Application and associated information: o The proposed use requires the submittal of an SP application and additional information(see below). 1 • Community Meeting: o The applicant is required by ordinance to undertake a community meeting process as part of the -11 review of the SP request.The applicant should work with the Crozet Community Advisory Council (CCAC)to use their monthly meeting as the Community Meeting for this project. 4 It F= r y o Please keep staff informed of the community meeting location and time. Staff will attend the l meeting to answer questions, but the applicant is responsible for facilitating the discussion. I o Staff has compiled a list of neighboring property owners that should be notified of the meeting (attached). 1 (v)Identify the information the applicant must submit with the application,including the supplemental 41 information. I • An SP application along with the application fee($2000 for a new SP for a stream crossing in the floodplain;$1000 to amend existing SP to remove condition requiring connection),plus the cost of public il notice requirements when the application is being processed. • A concept plan that is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements for Special Use Permits(see attached checklist). • The latest recorded plat(s). • Authorized owners'signatures. • See attached SP checklist for other required information. l' kPI-OLP Sincerely, MQO4 A 1 Rachel Falkenstein Senior Planner 1 Enc: Zoning comments SP checklist Community meeting guidelines 1 List of contacts and map for community meeting notifications Pre-application worksession information 1. I 1 a 1 01A JA, 1 5 d .7 I ;';F A y �i s -�if'iilil r iiii$ ,s irrc;t�\� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Melntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 I July 1, 1991 3 4 Orchard Acres, Inc ATTN: Richard Nunley 1420 Foxbrook Lane 1 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: sP-90-103 Orchard Acres, Inc Tax Map 55C, Parcel A Dear Mr. Nunley: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 19, 1991, approved the above-noted request to construct 1 a road crossing the floodplain of Powells Creek on 40. 64 acres zoned R-6, Residential. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion I control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to insure compliance with Section 30.3 ; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of { crossing and road and drainage plans and 1 A calculations. 1 1 d. Approval of Virginia marine Resources Commission, 1 1 if required. ( i i ' a of t (4 e E Orchard Acres, Inc II Page 2 July 1, 1992 1 2 . This stream crossing shall be constructed to provide access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing I subdivision. No development of residue property or access to adjacent properties is allowed until second access is provided to Orchard Drive. I If you should have any questions or comments regarding the 1 above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Sincerely, .$ 6.1 (/) ; !/('''t-- V. Wayn Cilimberg Directo of Plannin Community Development cc: Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins Bi. 11 1 11 A :II s I I a uPaae3of5 W S7A .TIEAR TON ` \ y$ .,_4' ,,,OAP'.-TOXMAI[OG°NE.lei ' O z, 2.,;,,..„°,.. jlpR46H1O (HJC°.13005 . \ ;r' t b 4 -A MTEO '-` 5si Fglu !II: 24?4'.4`, y4am. 4? _ fIlii' me • ! fin ffo .ili ‘04','?'-;. d ai i $ t mg1 qg >$ d ♦b°" bpi o paPI . a U mN ,'',,_,,,,.,.11L. ; 41'./ D4y1yy . ,,,__./\„.,, °pyo"°�° • p i__ '_' �'�' C pp� // S.V '; �TLm • dm../ o N'' �y��3°i�✓.dts '9,'c.:9 `. oZ Ta 0 it W 0 ' it ur t-011:.:,' ,.'/ a tomo�� i 13t � Jaz 0 i r.�i y.- a a, - sm �' y4, 11 Lao -,i.� ) %; ''%'1,., ‘,/:44// R JZ!I / 8v "{ ' /� mptsUs�. :! yyl �SJl6°D7 ----: f-.73:16, EU�Rp SSREET Ip' 1 1 irx aN1r,,A� SJI'S129w P4 !y4 l r�� gy' I`-_~—. h I }y�� a 4`---04'-- if. _?..4.4_14.4.' ' a� g 1 WI/i i .'1.`?,'4g9 ba i t _-•� rl byl. �,'i �l ♦♦♦♦♦♦` i. �,I.'1, / Y bqqO �vb i�i ;N I M4 ,ft Ar y4 ibY pg .Ui ,� Y i 00 - �/ i �&� ec ��s• �+ f • '' itit 1; vgi.e is -.zl6 a u ', w L" / , f M,,, 'cr- �N keq 14' i+=No ^t 'Lm�o '• yPo4 L4 3 , � Oct 4' g l p' t fg mgv t'll 3" 1 p o � d ''' / c`1'�1 ',,ti $o is ' �m i I 'I U m g ,v1e rs02, °0 i 141 j Ei^, SJ�o 867r UE .sa3�xpo' rol 1 /bZlt SLUE R/pDF.1YEN ROUTE �l0! gg g@ g � j i U � 1 S i,11: g ga s# � � c ^' � S o � G � b � a i H "' i € 1 iA m1 wa '$ %R 1 Thi 8 0 i o n o 10 ii i li A RlAi 1-g e n i i 4 a rg .1 l A A b r N r O 'i N ub it it iii,g. € e,i a 4 $ 41 i i i i i i A 3,4 r A m o a ; a •_•Ccmy N? 1 N I 4t li ,Lg 4 ,tN 1'a11 m o £ 4 R g rA GZl O Y. 0 N .2 y _ i• m Q �sy ; .t wl ,e•v.• � Y ? I i P i C g A S r O N tt� % y tF 1 X02 . a ° iq 4 N I n n M t' N i pQp Q $Wc g$1 g R 1 2;1y l g 1 Y i3 I 6 r tl "� # -t g ! IN e V o C r'; � f9j �i � � �4 ��? a 1 � n 2 1 E ,n . N 4 R?R 'r✓ H '.:::',,"',i,*''':,,,„" It ° g - O a :S m u3wwtRr9vx "�1Aoa i f s' — Ili I ,N 1 711, 1 1 Book: 4650 Page: 576 FileNumber: 2015-00007877 Seq: 3 4 N 5 t/YZ—r r/ ----icfpm Ili °°4,,/t'/�/ ,"44- ,, ,°/..,.G.1 (I®+so M �'°`�' �'\"S)':31'./ '°1.//r//.o 9ti511 Vam � u 640; ...1 �'Ab 4/ wN / { 1.\s,.r,,xea11 Nig'° a rte, �'� ,/‘. 67.53' 1 \ A f/ � mci 9 f / / / f r. fp // / / !iy gg� / A y i �O �'� °• yi// / / tgNi I t � `r \ // f ..I• [w og ! O Z N Z -,i'' D 4 nl/ / '/A .f/ r S 't3 : o a d 8 //ii / /8 sti, 1 "� ; , AOC /y / r4,, 'g/ j N D Y N f' O ab " /0%I rr4c,5 i 22 D 2 r .�"� g 1 1/ f8 I b,,, i , _ - .. o a 9°F b $ I U / 0yq° O• -, A z A `CSI C 5 li4 . -N41 Y' 40 Ohl / r.Sp ? i, o I o m o M ° I j • ",, (/ I 2 'n 0 r Z I \ ), C p C r Y . o` v �` 1 p t ssr 2.oBs, t !^ t1 2 A y _ a .�' fns•-- 1�1, \ 1 B.oB• 1 / N a N N a N o /'°f • 1.y r l e a'O a.l/fie _ Y i/i t//$ j" i vi M/ 44 °°/ / Oy �- Naffs 53Ya '"� s .4°4'//// ,#; / g. 1 s N., °c��'r p 4 S`Z� t 1 �1 yy� .,1'" ,---.., 'Nem 'iffiR v"- d / ;`. /• A°QA ,Y— - ° / fi bfi Oa d:� d. ".,m .� i;gc y 4t: zit J� 1d 1p 2•J.L)B N _A.n� ;:t fl mom bmq, 2 ° } 4-.9'.-. '.-. / i b.1m tz4 g 44,0. - ityll vl.,m .. .W+a� 4p'%''!',`,‘•'''4,•--.;,../" N °yg ,g/$ ° x x4g ,I , /' / -13 ks 9 • , i't11°-b \ Y` 7' / „,/ /^ /IA Er 4 ./ j t 6 �v I +ur°n N N N. aN • �n w 4,, )1,9-__,// ; w'•u 'G / � i ---- h g g lii i Book: 4650 Page: 576 FileNumber:2015-00007877 Seq:4 3 I J Page5of5 (1;110 (i'illii'lii ,r -44 41 44 y " , d J t a 4 X. RECORDED IN CLERICS OFFICE OF la ALBEMARLE ON JULY 20at 3:36:12 PM i AS REOUIR17;s -15 VA CODE 558.1-602 37 LE LOUANTL:Y$,VA0.00 ' CO • HIPP CIRUIT CLERK 1 aC 3A J z 1 A , I 4 I II 1 J 1 9 4 a 4 4 4 1 d } i .' 8 i x I Book: 4650 Page: 576 FileNumber:2015-00007877 Seq: 5