Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-12-18COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 December 18, 2019 Mr. Charlie Armstrong — Southern Development 142 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911 CharlesA(&southern-development.com / (434)-245-0895 Mr. Don Franco, P.E. — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 DFranco(aroudabush.com / (434)-977-0205 RE: Review Comment Letter #2 / ZMA-2019-00004 (Breezy Hill) Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Franco: Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your application materials (as revised and resubmitted on November 18, 2019) for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2019-00004, which is a request to rezone a total of approximately 84 acres from Rural Areas zoning district (which allows residential uses at a density of 0.5 unit/acre) to R4 Residential (which allows residential density of 4 units/acre, with the potential for additional units if bonus factors are applied), with proffers. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. As explained in the attached Action After Receipt of Comments letter, you have several options for how to proceed with your application. As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, potential next steps, and/or any other aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Thank you. Respectfully, MI Tim Pada ino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department I Planning Division tipadalinogalbemarle.org 1 (434)-296-5832 x 3088 Page 1 of 12 CDD—Planning (Review Status: "Requested Changes") The following CDD-Planning review comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional Planning comments • Conclusion Comprehensive Plan: Comments on how your proposed project conforms to the Comp Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the public hearings. The comments below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review, and may change based on direction from the Commission and/or with subsequent submittals. aiy ppym �np ypynprJ pr�rppg. o�xl4WciW�MC�Y®c.��^^Vo�e+wMe.D�Y�^eewOwdMeey Rr ppnenl MomafmNren6¢na��z Gev[ea qr pq p¢yyn 2c��RAa+vcmwcX�U�.po��emaNSb rea yaye�rys�ereppaypxidelermnpSw Wy�S.�Gt9 The "subject property" for this ZMA application includes eight properties identified as Tax Map #94, Parcels #IA, 5, 6, 8, 8A, 8C, 48, and 48A, which are within the Village of Rivanna Comprehensive Plan Area within the Development Area. The subject property is designated for "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low" uses (shown in pale yellow) and also "Parks and Green Systems" uses on the Future Land Use Map in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan). The following comments relate to aspects of your proposal which are not clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or Village of Rivanna Master Plan: Page 2 of 12 1. (Growth Capacity): County policies and recommendations (as well as community expectations) regarding the capacity for additional land development and population growth in the Village of Rivanna have been established in the Master Plan. Staff continues to have concerns about this proposal relative to the Master Plan's language regarding the necessity of completing certain infrastructure improvements (relating to transportation) prior to approving rezoning proposals within the Village of Rivanna. Specifically, the following language establishes the (potential) appropriateness of rezoning land in the Village of Rivanna as being dependent on the completion of certain infrastructure improvements and upgrades: o Implementation — Population Capacity and Future Rezonings (Master Plan p. 43): "Additional development in the Village currently is limited by Rural Areas zoning on most undeveloped parcels and the capacity of the sewage treatment plant which was installed for the Village.... In addition to sewer limitations, approval of any development by rezoning will be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation improvements, which are identified in the tables in this chapter. These improvements are needed to improve the volume to capacity ratio of US 250 between Route 22 (Louisa Road) and the City of Charlottesville. " o Implementation — Transportation (Master Plan p. 43): "Addressing traffic issues on US 250 is the highest priority for the Village of Rivanna. Several regional projects identified in the next few pages are necessary to address future growth in a larger area, but also affect the Village of Rivanna. It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs in the Village. o Timing of Development (Master Plan Executive Summary p. 7): "Approval of future development proposals should occur simultaneously with or follow provision of adequate infrastructure. " ... "Approval of future development should be monitored in conjunction with improvements to US 250 and available sewer capacity so that approval of new units or uses does not exceed capacity of the sewage treatment plant or the road system. " The transportation improvements referred to in the above excerpts are identified on Master Plan page 38. Please also note that additional "Transportation Implementation Projects" are listed and described in more detail on Master Plan pages 47-48. Written review comments from Albemarle County's Transportation Planner, Mr. Kevin McDermott, address the status of these recommended improvements and were provided earlier in the review process for this application. Those review comments (dated July 14, 2019) are attached to this review comment letter for reference. Additionally, staff have conducted an interdivisional review of the revised resubmittal materials submitted on November 18, 2019, regarding transportation improvements, impacts, and proffered commitments. Staff have concluded that the commitments made in the proffer statement are not sufficient to justify the appropriateness of the proposed development, and offer the following additional review comments: a. The proffer to implement signal timing coordination improvements using the existing signal equipment (as described in Proffer 2.a) is not adequate to offset anticipated impacts to the US 250 corridor, particularly within the context of the acute, ongoing need to address and resolve the volume to capacity ratio on this congested corridor. Additionally, to date, VDOT has not Page 3 of 12 provided affirmative indication that the proposed Proffer 2.a is feasible or appropriate, and has indicated that additional information (such as a Modification Plan for review by Traffic Engineers) is required in order to complete an evaluation of the Proffer 2.a's feasibility and beneficial value. Staff believes additional physical improvements to the existing transportation infrastructure would be necessary in order for the proposal to be considered appropriate at this time, relative to the Master Plan recommendations regarding transportation improvements. In addition to the comprehensive recommendations contained in the Master Plan, staff believes these particular physical improvements should be given careful consideration when considering how to mitigate reasonably anticipated transportation impacts: i. Extending the left turn lane on US 250 for west -bound traffic making left turns onto N. Milton Rd.; and/or ii. Extending the merge lane from Route 22 onto US 250. b. The cash proffer for transit/bus service (as described in Proffer 2.b) is not the most appropriate or beneficial way to provide expanded transit services and otherwise mitigate anticipated impacts to the transportation system. Additionally, to date, JAUNT has not provided affirmative indication that the proposed new transit service described in proposed Proffer 2.b is feasible or appropriate. Staff suggests consideration be given to alternative methods for potentially providing cash proffers to mitigate anticipated impacts, including the following: i. A cash proffer to support the development of a park -and -ride facility on -site or in the vicinity of the proposed project; and/or ii. A cash proffer designed to enhance the existing JAUNT service to Lake Monticello (for the general purposes of increasing frequency of service along this corridor and/or establishing a new "slip stop" at Breezy Hill). c. Additional verification counts would help clarify baseline traffic volumes and patterns. 2. Densi : The proposed number of dwelling units (160) and subsequent density (1.9 units/acre gross density; 2.5 units/acre net density) exceed the recommended density as articulated in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan, and as recommended by the Planning Commission at the July 30, 2019 PC Work Session. More specifically: a. Future Land Use — Residential Areas (Master Plan pp. 25-26): The Master Plan identifies the Breezy Hill subject property as being in "Area B" and recommends a "possible" residential density of 1 unit/acre for this portion of the Village of Rivanna. The following "key recommendation" in the Master Plan provides the underlying concept for the relatively low recommended residential density in this portion of the Development Areas: "Density will radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development Area." (Executive Summary, page 5; and Future Land Use — Residential Areas, page 25) In addition, the following recommendation further articulates the expectations for a gradient of development, with lower density development in the area that contains the subject property for this proposal: "Developed land on the east side of Carroll Creek is not expected to change in character, as it provides for a transition to the Rural Areas." (Future Land Use — Residential Areas, page 25) Although this recommended "possible" density of 1 unit/acre represents development at twice the density of the Rural Areas zoning district (which is 0.5 units/acre max), it would Page 4 of 12 still be relatively low density for the Development Areas, and represents residential uses at a lower density than other residential developments approved in the Village of Rivanna Development Area. b. The Planning Commission provided the following confirmation, clarification, and recommended direction for residential density for this portion of the Village of Rivanna at the July 30, 2019 Work Session: i. net residential density (not gross density) should be used in the analysis of this and other rezoning applications; and ii. net density of one dwelling unit per acre (1 unit/acre) is appropriate for this portion of the Village of Rivanna relative to the language in the adopted Master Plan, including the Future Land Use insert which designates "Area B" as having the "lowest density of this Development Area" and which further recommends a specific residential density of 1 unit/acre. Neighborhood Model Analysis: In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model (NM), which consists of twelve different recommended characteristics to guide the form of proposed development projects within the Development Areas. Initial comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided below, to the extent that each NM principle is applicable, and to the extent that each NM analysis can be conducted at this time with the materials provided to date. More detailed comments will be provided at a later date in conjunction with the preparation of a staff report. Pedestrian The proposal includes pedestrian infrastructure, including primitive nature trails Orientation and a multi -use path along US 250. Principle met. Mixture of Uses This proposal is for residential uses only (with associated infrastructure, amenities, and open space.) The Master Plan does not recommend other uses in this area. Principle is not immediately applicable. Neighborhood The Master Plan recommends a Village Center to the west of the subject property. Centers The proposal includes future interparcel connections and a multi -use path that would facilitate connectivity between this proposed development and center. Principle met. Mixture of Proposed Blocks 1 and 2 would include single-family attached and/or single-family Housing Types detached dwelling units. Proposed Blocks 3, 4, and 5 would contain only single - and Affordability family detached dwelling units. Proposed Block 6 is proposed as one single-family detached lot. Additionally, the proffer statement includes a commitment to provide affordable housing equal to 15% of the total residential units that are constructed on the property (see Proffers 3 and 4). Evaluation pending / incomplete. Page 5 of 12 Interconnected The proposed street network contains a partially interconnected street network, Streets and including vehicular inter -block connections, but relies significantly on a layout Transportation comprised of cul-de-sac streets and blocks. The proposal includes on -site Networks pedestrian connections and inter -block connections. The proposal also includes two proposed future interparcel connections to the west, a limited -access entrance on Running Deer Drive to the east (for emergency vehicles only), and a multi -use path along US 250. Principle is generally met. Multi -modal No information is provided regarding the location of any transit or bicycle Transportation infrastructure or services. Connectivity to the Village Center is incorporated into Opportunities this proposal (through the proposed future interparcel connections to the west and the proposed multi -use path along US 250), which will help provide access to multi -modal transportation opportunities. Additionally, the proposal includes a typical street section that does not contain curb and gutter or sidewalk amenities. Principle is partially met. Parks, The proposal includes an open space system comprised of primitive nature trails, Recreational undisturbed conservation areas, and one pocket park on the (rear) perimeter of the Amenities, and proposed development. However, the proposal does not contain playgrounds (or Open Space "tot lots"), or other pocket parks for active recreation, within the neighborhood blocks in closer proximity to most of the proposed dwellings. Additionally, the proposal includes a typical street section that does not contain curb and gutter or sidewalk amenities. Principle is partially met. Buildings and Evaluation pending. Space of Human Scale Relegated Evaluation pending. Parking Redevelopment Principle is generally not applicable. Respecting It appears that effort was made to situate the improvements into the existing Terrain and landscape without creating unnatural large, flat plateaus (or "pads"). The proposal Careful Grading includes proposed improvements (such as stream crossings) in proximity to steep and Re -grading slopes; with the most recent revision and resubmittal, one of these proposed of Terrain crossings has been identified as "possible driveway access." Principle is partially met. Clear Boundaries Only small portions of the subject property actually adjoin the nearby Rural Area. with the Rural Single-family homes are proposed in the area of the proposed development that is Area closest to the Rural Area. The second point of access (on Running Deer Drive) is proposed as a limited -access entrance, for use by emergency vehicles only, to minimize this proposed development's interface with and impact on Running Deer Drive and the Rural Area on the other side of that public road. Principle is partially met. Page 6 of 12 Additional Planning Comments: Curb and gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips infrastructure required by Subdivision Ordinance Sections 14-400, 14-410.H, and 14-422 are not provided in this proposal. Staff acknowledges that Sheet 1 of the General Development Plan ("Cover Sheet") includes a "Special Exception Request" note stating, "Request Exception for 14-410.H, the requirement of curb and gutter in subdivision within the Development Area. " However, no formal request for a special exception (SE) was submitted pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Sections 14-410.I and 14-203.1 (inclusive of all required information, details, and rationale as specified in Subdivision Ordinance Section 14- 410.I). To proceed with such a request, please submit the required SE application and information with this ZMA application. Alternately, you may remove this note, provide the required infrastructure in this ZMA proposal, and submit a SE request at the time of preliminary plat application if so desired at that time. Please note that staff do not necessarily agree that such a special exception is appropriate for all streets in the entire proposed development. 2. Regarding this proposed project's potential impacts to Albemarle County Public Schools, CDD- Planning staff have coordinated with ACPS staff. The following comments and analysis (below), including concerns about building capacity at Stone -Robinson Elementary School, are derived from that coordination: The proposal includes a maximum of 160 new dwelling units. The subject property is within the Southern Feeder Pattern, and residents of the proposed Breezy Hill neighborhood would attend Stone -Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School. Burley Middle School and Monticello High School both have adequate capacity to accommodate additional students. However, Stone Robinson Elementary is projected to be at its building capacity by the 2021/22 school year which will make accommodating additional students difficult. CDD-Planning Conclusion: Based on interdivisional and interagency review of the revised application materials (resubmitted on November 18, 2019), staff believes that the proposal is not consistent with Master Plan recommendations for future land use in this portion of the Village of Rivanna; and staff believes that the proffered commitments to mitigate anticipated transportation impacts are not sufficient relative to the specific Master Plan recommendations or the acute, ongoing issues related to volume to capacity ratio on the congested US 250 corridor. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposal be revised and resubmitted to address review comments contained in this comment letter and attached comment letter from the Albemarle County Transportation Planner (dated July 14, 2019). In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning snap amendment applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 33.27(B). CDD—ARB & Historic Preservation (Review Status: "Requested Changes") Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner — Resource Management, provided the following review comments on 12/4/19: An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain or improve the visual quality of all of Albemarle's roadways. The Plan also notes a concern about the integrity of the scenic quality of some roads, including Route 250 East, where new residential developments eliminate traditional frontage treatments, resulting in sustained views of sprawling residential developments with their backs turned toward the road. For consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the stormwater Page 7 of 12 facility shown adjacent to Rt. 250 be designed as an integrated landscape feature with a positive visual impact on the streetscape. CDD—Natural Resources Manager (Review Status: "See Recommendations") David Hannah, (former) Natural Resources Manager, previously provided the following review comments on 5/28/19: Based on a review of GIS data, below are some observations about the parcels identified in the ZMA application: Carroll Creek forms much of the western boundary of the project area. Two intermittent streams originate in the project area and flow westward into Carroll Creek, both have ponds/lakes associated with them. Wooded riparian buffers cover much of the property. National Wetlands Inventory shows potential wetlands associated with Carroll Creek and the lakes/ponds on the intermittent streams. No hydric soils are present. There are some steep bluffs adjacent to Carroll Creek and also in some areas along both intermittent streams. Carroll Creek and part of the northernmost intermittent stream do not meet state water quality standards for aquatic life. They were designated as impaired for aquatic life by Va DEQ, in their 2016 assessment of waters statewide. Assuming the GIS information is accurate, I would make the following recommendations: • Since Carrol Creek is an impaired waterway, land disturbance should not occur near it. The woody riparian buffer along Carrol Creek should be maintained and left undisturbed. • A buffer width of more than 100' (as required by the WPO) is recommended. • Preventing land disturbance and maintaining or creating wooded riparian buffers along the two intermittent streams is also highly recommended. This will help protect Carroll Creek as well as the section of the northernmost intermittent stream that is impaired for aquatic life. • Preventing land disturbance and maintaining wooded buffers will help conserve areas of steep slope and possible wetlands that are in close proximity to Carroll Creek and the intermittent streams. CDD-Engineering (Review Status: "No Obiection") Frank Pohl, PE, CFM, County Engineer previously provided the following review comments on 5/29/19: These comments can be addressed during subdivision/VSMP reviews. 1. The limits of floodway and base flood elevation must be determined by the applicant prior to VSMP, subdivision or site plan approval [18-30.3.13(C)1]. Grading, even for a pedestrian trail, cannot occur within the regulatory floodway unless it will be maintained by the County; however, a primitive trail is allowed in the floodway. 2. It is recommended that proposed grades do not exceed 3:1. 3. Documentation that existing ponds meet current SWM construction standards may be required. Mr. Pohl then indicated a review status of "No Objection" on 12/10/19. Albemarle County Service Authority / ACSA (Review Status: "See Recommendations") The following written review comments from ACSA were previously provided below: Page 8 of 12 ALBEMAFRLE COUNTY CC MMUNITYDEVELOPMENT- Information from Serviee Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and 5P's 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Water and Server 2) What Is the distance to the closest water and sewer Ilse, It Ira the Jurlsdlctional area? Previous meetings discussed a water main extension along Runniniz Deer Lane. Sewer is alOn.9 Glen more. Are there water pressure Issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? 5) Are there other service provi3ion issues such as the need for grinder pumps? UnkaloWnnl 6) Which issues should be reSDIved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the =ite plan/plat stage? 7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee? $) Additiorkal comments? There may be offsite credits for extending water main alone Running Deer. Full water and sewer connection fees apply. Additionally, Alexander J. Morrison, PE, Senior Civil Engineer with ACSA, communicated the following commentary via email on 7/19/19: • (Regarding water utilities and capacity): "There is no water capacity issues that would restrict the rezoning and development of Breezy Hill." • (Regarding wastewater utilities and capacity): "The ACSA conducted a study on the existing wastewater plant serving Glenmore and the surrounding community. During this study, the ACSA took into account the approved Village of Rivanna Master Plan and applied additional density factors to the undeveloped areas. The ACSA has concluded that there are no wastewater capacity issues associated with the full buildout of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan." Albemarle County Fire & Rescue (Review Status: "No Objection") The following comments (below) were previously provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox: Fire Rescue has no objections to the Zoning Map amendment as submitted but will offer the following comments that will be addressed during the site plan review process: 1. Prior to the issuance of the 31 st building permit the second entrance/exit shall be completed. 2. Travel ways must provide a minimum of 20' clear travel width, on street parking arrangements should take this in to account. 3. Adequate fire flow based on building square footage will be required along with a fire flow test prior to final acceptance. 4. Minimum turning radius shall be 25' 5. Any cul-de-sac or turn arounds will be required to meet current fire code requirements. Mr. Maddox then later indicated "No Objection" to this ZMA proposal on 9/29/19, citing the revisions made to the resubmitted application materials (resubmitted 8/19/19). Mr. Maddox also re -confirmed ACFR's review status of "No Objection" on 12/12/19. Action after Receipt of Comments: After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the following pages titled "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Page 9 of 12 Resubmittal: If you choose to resubmit, please submit revised application materials on one of the formal resubmittal dates. Please note that additional resubmittals of ZMA201900004 require additional fee payment. Please contact me if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss this comment letter or any other aspect of your proposed project, or to share any questions or requests for assistance you may have. As noted above, my phone number is (434) 296-5832 x. 3088, and my email address is t 2adalino(&albemarle.org. Page 10 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER SECOND SET OF COMMENTS FOR APPLICATION IN DEFERRAL PER Z.O. 33.52 Please do one of the following at your earliest convenience: REQUIRED PER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 33.52: (1) (Deferral Update): Provide in writing a request to update the "no later than date" for Board of Supervisors action on this ZMA application, which was previously requested and approves as November 30, 2019 in a prior approved request for deferral (pursuant to Z.O. Section 33.52) OPTIONAL PER YOUR DISCRETION: (2) (Resubmit): Indicate in writing your intention to resubmit revised application materials in response to review comments (note: additional resubmittal fees apply) (3) (Public Hearing): Request in writing a Planning Commission public hearing date (note: additional notification fees will be required for ZMA201900004 due to the PC's deferral of the October 22, 2019 public hearing at your request on October 22, 2019) (4) (Withdraw): Request in writing that your application be withdrawn Resubmittals Providing an updated deferral date does not preclude you from resubmitting revised application materials which address and resolve review comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so in accordance with the resubmittal schedule. Please be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. Please note that additional resubmittals require an additional fee payment. Failure to Respond An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as provided in subsection 33.52(B) or (C). Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check 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. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. Page 11 of 12 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment 0 PROJECT NUMBER: -ZMA•2011' &Vo-' PROJECT NAME: BREW 1 I LL g Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ 'IM FatiPc 90 . k�6? Community Development Project Coordinator _ � 12jt8�lq Signature Date Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $538 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,075 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE Each additional resubmission I $1,881 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'I notice fees will be required $194 To be Raid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 1124/17 Page 1 of 1 Page 12 of 12 OF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 TO: Applicant FROM: Kevin McDermott; Principle Planner —Transportation DATE: July 14, 2019 SUBJECT: ZMA201900004 — Breezy H i I I The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Principle Planner for Transportation has reviewed the above referenced plan and associated traffic impact statement as submitted by EPR, P,C. (March 2018) and would like to provide the following comments: The Rivanna Village Master Plan recommends specific transportation improvements (Master Plan page 38) as "essential" to "be constructed before new development occurs in the Village." The following comments provide additional information on current project status, project need, and relationship between the proposed development and that need. 1. Interchange improvements at I-64 and US 250 East -The I-64 and US 250 Interchange is fully funded for reconstruction into a diverging diamond type interchange and expected to be completed by 2023. Therefore, this project can effectively be called complete for the purposes of this rezoning application. 2. Six -lane US 250 from Free Bridge east to the I-64 interchange — The current proposal for this segment of US 250 is to develop two thru lanes and a continuous right turn lane through the entire corridor. The continuous left turn lane would be closed in favor of a median and left turn lanes as necessary. Portions of this cross-section have been completed since the approval of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. The remaining improvements are considered a high priority that will likely be a SMART Scale application in the 2020 grant cycle but are unfunded at this time. Therefore, staff considers completion of this project not be a major factor in any decision related to this rezoning. 3. Four -lane US 250 from the US250/I-64 interchange to Route 729 (Milton Road) and, possibly, Glenmore Way — Four-laning this entire segment of US 250 is neither feasible nor recommended. However, some operational improvements including widening in portions of the segment continue to be necessary and recommended. At a minimum, constructing a reversible three -lane section from the end of the current four -lane section near the I-64 interchange to the Route 22 (Louisa Road) intersection should be considered necessary to address this Comprehensive Plan requirement. These improvements are identified in the Albemarle County Transportation Priorities List at #39 in 2019. 4. Intersection improvements at US 250 and Route 729 (Milton Road) —No work on this project has been done. It currently is not a prioritized project (nor is it likely to score high on any prioritized list of County projects) and has no planning or construction funding identified. The TIA identified long queues and failing movements in the AM and PM peak hours for traffic turning from Milton Rd to US 250. Improvements at this intersection to address this issue without severely and negatively impacting through movements on US 250 should be considered necessary to address this Comprehensive Plan requirement. 5. Bridge improvement or replacement over railroad at Route 22 (Louisa Road) — This project has been completed since the approval of the Rivanna Village Master Plan. However, the bridge was replaced without additional capacity added. There is no additional space on the bridge to allow for widening beyond the two existing lanes. 6. Addition of eastbound left turn and westbound right turn lanes on US 250 at Route 616 (Black Cat Road) — This project has not been prioritized in the Albemarle County Transportation Priorities List and was not evaluated in the TIA. Staff did not request this to be evaluated because of the low number of site generated trips that would go to this intersection. The C-A MPO Long Range Transportation Plan identified some minor congestion occurring at this intersection. There would likely be a benefit from improvements such as described in the VoR Master Plan for the Black Cat Road/US 250 intersection. However, it should be noted that the proposed development of Breezy Hill would have little to no impact on traffic operations at that intersection. The TIA estimated trip generation from the proposed development shows 1,922 new daily trips and 143 and 193 new trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. While these trips represent a somewhat low percentage of the existing trips in the US 250 Corridor they are not insignificant numbers. There would be only a minimal impact to existing operations when comparing the future no -build scenario to the future build scenario. In conclusion, although the impacts of the proposed development are minimal, there is an identified impact. The VoR Master Plan is clear in its statement that `It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs. " Many of the previously recommended improvements may no longer be recommended because of changes in travel patterns and new strategies to address transportation issues. However, capacity and safety improvements on US 250 between I-64 and Route 22 remain a high priority and no significant improvements have been made to this segment of US 250 since the approval of the Master Plan. The proposed development would add a potentially noticeable number of new trips to this segment and therefore this issue should be addressed to meet the Master Plan directive. The Milton Rd and Black Cat intersections with US 250 also continue to be unaddressed problems that this development has some, albeit minor, potential to impact and should be considered secondary issues to be considered in this rezoning. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Kevin M. McDermott Principal Planner — Transportation Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414 kmcdermottkalbemarle.org