HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000077 Other 2003-03-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBERS:
SP 2002-023 White Gables Condos
Planning Commission, February 11, 2003
Board of Supervisors, March 19, 2003
S UBJECT/PROPOSALIREOU EST: Request for special use
permit to allow development of a maximum of 76
ACTION: `INFORMATION:
condominium dwelling units in accordance with Section
Yes -Recommend approval
23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15,
Residential Use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The
CONSENT AGENDA:
property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 26 and 27A, -
ACTION: INFORMATION:
contains 7.097 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District on the north side of Ivy Road [Route #250
West] approximately 1/4 mile west of the intersection of Ivy
ATTACHMENTS:
Road and the 291250 By-pass. The property is zoned CO,
yes
Commercial Office, and EC', Entrance Corridor. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this properly as Office
REVIEWED BY:
Service in Neighborhood Seven.
STAFF _CONTACT S : Ms. Thomas, Mr.Cilimber
BACKGROUND: The White; Gables Condos special permit application was heard by the Planning Commission on
February 11,2003 and recommended for approval, with conditions. After the Planning Commission's public hearing, the
Assistant County Attorney suggested that the language of the recommended conditions be clarified and made more
specific (see Attachment A). The applicant has reviewed the amended conditions and is in agreement with them.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval, with, conditions.
Attachments:
A- Proposed Conditions of Approval (with amended language)
03-12-03 04:43 .IN
ATTACHMENT A
White Gables Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
[revised for March 19 BOS hearing]
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan (January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit
justification dated April 22, 2002.
2. As shown on the Conceptual Plan, no new structures shall be located in the
front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of
two hundred fifteen (215) feet between the southem-most structure and the
front (southern) property line;
3. The entrance road shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the
applicant to an urban road standard from its junction with Route250 West to
the interior loop, and shall include a`sidewalk or other' appropriate pedestrian
path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning
and Community Development and Engineering and Public Works, along one
side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road.
4. All roads on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the
Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by applicant to an urban section
standard, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet, final width to be
determined atthe time of final site plan approval ,bythe Director of ,
Engineering and Public Works. All roads connecting to adjacent properties
shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side,
constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and
Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk
at Ivy Road.
5. Upon request by the County, an access easement shall be provided on the
property for traffic from the Kappa Sigma property (Tax Map 60-,Parcels 27
and 2713) across the White Gables property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan. This access shall be constructed by the
applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4.
6.Should a consolidated entrance be located at'a point west of the White
Gables property in the future, an access easement shall be provided on the
property for traffic from the National Legal Research Group property (Tax
Map 60, Parcel 25) across the White Gables property, and this access shall
be reserved on the final subdivisionplat/site plan. This access shall be
constructed by the applicant to the same standardas required in Condition 4.
In the event that such consolidated entrance is provided, either the Virginia -
Department of Transportation (VDOT") or the County s Director of
Engineering may require the applicant to close the existing entrance shown
on the Conceptual Plan, convert it to a right in/right out only entrance/exit, or
require that other modifications be made to the entrance.
1
7. Within each pavilion shown on the Conceptual Plan, the largest condominium
unit shall be at least 30% larger, based on floor area, than the smallest unit
within the same pavilion.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to
design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter
of January 28,`2003 (Attachment H): The applicant shall be responsible for
the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the intersection
of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by
VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition.
Unless the signal already has been installed, the applicant shall pay to the
County the cost of the signal as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the
applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security")
acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the signal
(currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in
the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so,
that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after
the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not
in an interest -bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount
of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer
price index;
(b) If, at any until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special
use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and
VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering approve the signal's
installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit for the
fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic
signal, and the applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30)
days;
(c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction of the
access road or other. elements of the future transportation 'improvement
project other than the traffic signal.
10. The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with
road improvements to Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of
Engineering and Public Works in conjunction with preliminary subdivision/site
plan approval:
2
02720703. 00:3o IN.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia22902-459i
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
February, 13, 2003
Vito Cetta
Weather Hill Homes
315 Old Ivy Way
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: SP-02-023 White Gables; Tax Map 60, Parcels 26 and 26A
Dear Mr. Cetta:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 11. 2003, by a vote of 4:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions;:
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan (January 10, 2003
revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002.
2. As shown on the Conceptual Plan),. no new structures shall be located in the front (southern) portion
of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred fifteen (21S) feet between the
southem-most structure and the front (southern) property line.
3. The entrance road shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban
road standard from its junction withRoute250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a sidewalk
or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of
Planning and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the, public
sidewalk at Ivy Road. `
4. All roads on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be
constructed by the applicant to an urban.section standard and shall include a sidewalk or other
appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed 20 a standard acceptable to the Departments
of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy
Road.
5.Upon request by the County, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from
Kappa Sigma across White Gables to its entrance at Ivy Road; this access shall be constructed by
the applicant to the same standard as that serving the Legal Research property to the east; the
access easement shall be reserved on the final subdivision plattsite plan.
6. Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property in the future,
an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the Legal Research parcel .
(Parcel 25) across White Gables, and White Gables may be required to close its present entrance,
convert it to a right in/right out only, or make other modifications as determined by VDOT and the
County's Director of Engineering; this access shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan.
7. Residential condominium unit types (size, configuration, pricing, etc.) shall be mixed within and
among each of the pavilions constructed on the site.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation related
to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003
(Attachment H).
9. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the
intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by VDOT and the
County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition. Unless the signal already has been
installed, the applicant shall pay to the County the cost of the signal as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the applicant shall place funds in
escrow or provide other security acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the
signal (currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in the year in which
the security is provided. The security or escrow shall continue so that it is available to pay for the
cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security
provided that is not in an interest -bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of
the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index.
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT
authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Director of
Engineering approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit
for the fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic signal, and the
applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30) days; or
(c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction of the access road or other
elements of the future transportation improvement project other than the traffic signal.
10. The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements to
Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of Engineering and Public Works.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 19, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me. \ )
Sincerely,
Susan Thomas
Senior Planner
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON: SUSAN THOMA% AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: FEBRUARY 11, 2003
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARCH 19, 2003
SP 2002-023 WHITE GABLES CONDOS
Revised for the February 11, 2003 meeting; new information and/or changes'are indicated
in bold font.'
AARolicant's Proposal:
Weather Hill Homes, applicant, proposes to construct six (6) condominium complexes
containing a maximum of 76 units on two parcels of land located on the north side of Ivy Road
(Route 250 West), opposite Birdwood Estate (see Attachments A and B). These units are
designed for older couples and individuals, and would be similar to the Ednam development
located across Ivy Road to the southwest. The existing house on the site would be used as a
community building, with the potential for a few offices for residents. (see Attachment C)
The Commission held a work session on this project on September 10, 2002, at which
indicated general agreement with the residential use and concept plan on the site. Issues of
primary concern at that time were traffic and access, impacts to the historic character and
appearance of this portion of the Ivy Road corridor, and mass and scale of structures on
the site
Petition for SRecial Use Permit: `
Request for special use permit to allow development of a maximum of 76 condominium dwelling
units in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15,
Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 60
Parcels 26 and 27A, contains 7.097 acres, and is located in the Samuel`Miller Magisterial District
on the north side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West) approximately 1 /4 mile west of the intersection
of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office, and EC,
Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service in
Neighborhood Seven.
Approval by the Commission of one-way circulation, and curvilinear and parallel parking is also
requested by the applicant.
Character of the Area:
This portion of Neighborhood Seven is best known for a series of historic estates and homes,
some of which have been adapted for re -use as offices and sites of special events. A substantial
amount of infill residential and office use has occurred around these older structures, generally
maintaining the original character of the area. The Legal Research Group, located on the
adjacent property to the east, and the Ednam condominium and office developments are
examples of this infill and adaptive re -use. It is staffs understanding that the Institute of
Textile Technology property is or soon will be listed for sale. A number of proposals have
been made,for the White Gables property, none of which reached this level of design specificity
or review.
Several relativelyundeveloped University of Virginia properties are located on the south side of
Route 250 West, including Birdwood Golf Course, and these could influence the character of the
1
area significantly if they were developed more intensively. The University has not identifiedany
for these the present time.
specific plans properties at
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant has asserted that there is a need for in -fill housing in this portion of the Designated ,
Development Area, to serve residents down -sizing from neighborhoods such as Farmington and
Ednam Forest who no longer wish to or are able to maintain large properties.
Zoning and Subdivision History
6/29/99 SP 1999-052 Charles W. Hurt (indefinite deferral): proposal for 66
condominiums
10/22/99 SUB 1999-27 Hurt Investment: created second, front parcel (Parcel 27A) from
parent parcel (Parcel 26)
10/16/00 SP 2000-68 Terry Deane Dance Studio (indefinite deferral): proposal to allow
structure to be used as dance studio
12/18/00 SP 2000-81 Terry Deane Dance Studio and Reception Hall (indefinite
deferral): proposal to allow structure to be used as dance studio and rental facility
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Office Service in Neighborhood Seven. Zoning
is CO, Commercial Office, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The intent of the CO district is: "to
permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting
accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts
and other more intensive commercial and :industrial districts." A-15 Residentialuse is allowed in
a CO district, by special permit.
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan makes the following recommendations relevant
to this request:
- Development plans along Route 250 West are to be sensitive -to its status as an Entrance
Corridor Roadway;
- No Community Service and/or Neighborhood Service uses are recommended because the
existing commercial services on Route 250 West and in the City adequately support the area
and are easily accessible;
- Transportation Improvements include;
Widen Route 250 West (Ivy Road) to four lanes. [This' policy recommendation relates to
that portion of the road lying east of the 29/250 By-pass, and is no longer supported by
the City.]
Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road
improvements.
- Utility Improvements include:
Upgrades to the Meadowcreek Interceptor
2
- Locate a new. fire and rescue station in this area to service Neighborhoods Six and, Seven, the
University and Ivy as response times require. The station should be funded and operated
jointly by the City, County, and University. , The station should be staffed by volunteers to
the greatest extent possible..;
Thee Comprehensive Plan, Land'Use Plan, sets forth several General Principles for Land Use in
Designated Development Areas which are relevant to this proposal and supported by it:
■ Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. ,
■ Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher
gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past.
■ Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under -used areas within
the designated Development Areas.
■ Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads.
■ Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support, and
enhance the Development Areas.
The Neighborhood Model
Twelve principles of development are set forth in the Neighborhood Model. A staff discussion
of the manner in which this development proposal addresses each principle is included below.
Pedestrian.Orientation - The six proposed condominium complexes are organized around a
central lawn, with walkways leading from each building to the interior one way access
road/driveway, and presumably across the access road/driveway to the lawn. The lawn, '/< of an
acre in size, is intended for use by residents, and includes several features that might be walking
destinations, such as a reflecting pool, bocce court, gazebo, and some small groves of trees. The
concept plan does not show paved walkways as part of the lawn. Topographically, there are
opportunities for pedestrian connections to the adjacent parcels although none are shown;
Comprehensive Plan recommendations call for pedestrian and bicycle facilities with any public
road improvements. The applicant is willing to provide these improvements along Ivy Road
Pedestrian facilities will also be included with the access road improvements to White Gables
and Legal Research, at the time of site plan submittal.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths — The concept plan shows a separated entrance
with a private two-way,22-foot urban section access following the existing driveway'
alignment to the loop intersection. A private two-way 22-foot urban section access also
extends to the Legal Research property boundary to the east, which will be served by the
improved White Gables entrance. Should Kappa Sigma wish to connect to the White
Gables entrance; that property would be similarly served with an internal access.
Engineering and Planning have endorsed an urban road standard for both of these road
sections. The White Gables interior residential loop varies between 22 and 12 feet, and is
currently shown as a rural cross section road. At site plan, Engineering will verify that a
rural section road can adequately direct stormwater to stormwater structures on the site.
3
The intention is that the White Gables access and connector to Legal Research will remain
private access roads.
Currently no pedestrian facilities are shown along the interior roads on the concept plan
but they are called for along Ivy Road. Staff recommends that the interior connector
road(s) and entrance road include a sidewalk or other type of pedestrian path along one
side, designed and constructed to the satisfaction of Planning and Engineering, to allow
residents and employees access to the public sidewalk and suggests that this path be
designed to minimize disturbance to the existing trees, vegetation, topography, and historic
character of the area
Engineering in a previous comment indicated that it would support the request for one-way
circulation as well as curvilinear and parallel parking,'around the Lawn area. The Engineer's
current comment about the inadvisability of a westbound acceleration lane has been _
incorporated into the current concept plan, which now shows a yield sign at Ivy Road with
no acceleration lane. (see Attachment D)
The zoning text amendment related to parking requirements currently under is scheduled
for the February 5 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Changes to the portions of the
ZTA related to one-way circulation, curvilinear and parallel parking are not anticipated.
However, because the ordinance changes have not yet been approved, the applicant wishes
to request approval for the three circulation provisions noted above from the Planning
Commission.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - The proposed entrance along the
current driveway; alignment represents the applicant's compromise after many attempts at
consolidating existing entrances and traffic at more centrally located points along the
corridor. Internal factors at Kappa Sigma have made it impossible for the organization to
respond to the applicant's offer to relocate and construct the existing entrance to a point
opposite Birdwood Golf Course, although there appears to be general support for the idea.
Another concept put the relocated entrance along the Kappa Sigma property line, or at the
existing Kappa Sigma eastern entrance, but again internal factors precluded a decision by
that organization. Ultimately the applicant succeeded in working with the Legal Research
property owner to.route the latter's traffic through the new White Gables entrance,;which
would provide increased traffic volume insupport of the signal request and remedy a long-
standing afternoon peak hour exit problem for the office building. The applicant is willing
to work with the County to provide flexibility in locating the shared access at a central
location. No connection to the north is suggested, given the presence of the railroad.
Parks and Open Space — Approximately 43 percent of the site would have pervious cover
j under the applicant's Concept Plan. The arrangement of the open space allows access and use by
all of the six complexes. A number of the large trees on the site will be preserved under the plan; .
this issue has been extensively addressed by the Architectural Review Board and therefore won't
be discussed here, although staff has a copy of the Tree Report which it will provide to any
interested Commissioner. A conservation plan is required at the site plan stage to assure that
trees indicated for retention are not lost.
Neighborhood Centers — Both the Bellair Market and Boar's Head Irm appear to be
neighborhood centers, in that they generate steady activity and serve the larger neighborhood.
With several large properties and structures prominent in the local area, there is no one clear
4
physical center. As proposed, White Gables would relate to the neighborhood centers similarly to
other properties along the corridor, such as Ednam and Farmington.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale — The proposed pavilions are large structures,; four of
them containing three floors and two four floors. (Staff notes that the two tallest structures are
located at the lowest portion of the site, the northeast comer, and in fact their rooflines are within
one foot of the opposing three-story structures across the lawn.) All of the buildings are much
larger than the original house although their positioning relative to it is much more favorable,
with the front two structures approximately in line with it, north to south.
The mass of the pavilions is mitigated at least somewhat by their formal arrangement around the
large lawn, which provides balance to the building size. Mature trees on the site also tend to
balance the size of the buildings. The formality of the site organization seems appropriate along'
this corridor and is reminiscent of landmark sites like the Farmington estate house and
Birdwood. Responding to earlier Architectural Review Board concerns, the applicant reduced
the front buildings' side dimensions such that they more closely reflect the width and height of
the house. There has also been an attempt to make the southern elevation of the front two
buildings hook more like a front presentation, which was another ARB concern. The complexes
also line up south to north behind the front two pavilions, which minimizes their visibility from
the corridor. Their mass seems more significant in visual impact from within the site than it
would be to the traveling public, but adjacent properties would certainly be aware of the mass
and bulk of the buildings.
A significant change has been made to the concept plan since the September work session,
and that is the elimination of the, two southern structures, most visible from the road. This
change maintains the front lawnundisturbed except for the entrance roads, and preserves
the historic setback between buildings and stone wall In staffs view, this is a very
signifiicant,,positive development for the proposed site, the adjacent properties, and for this
historic and beautiful section of Ivy Road.
Staff notes that a by -right office development on this site would have less motivation than the
condominiums to be sensitive to the issue of human scale, particularly if the two parcels were
developed under separate schemes. However, office occupants would not live with the scale and
mass of the buildings; as residents of course would on a daily basis, The fact that this proposal
addresses both parcels with one development concept, incorporates the original residence in the
architectural treatment and orientation of the new structures , and leaves the front lawn intact are
positive features, is a strong advantage, in staffs view.
With the elimination of the two front structures and relocation of the remaining six
structures at or behind the existing residence and off the front parcel, staff is not as
concerned with the sequencing. of construction of the complexes as previously since. their ,
visibility is greatly reduced.
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the project on three occasions, and its most
recent comments are attached (see Attachment J). The project will be reviewed for a
fourth time on February 18.
Relegated Parking - This proposal very successfully relegates residential parking in
subterranean garages. This parking arrangement is permitted byright. Guest parking is located
around the lawn, along the one-way driveway. There is one entrance to the connected
I
subterranean parking areas per range, economizing on the need for entrances and impervious
surfaces. It is noted that Pavilion H may have a second level of subterranean parking if needed.
Mixture of Uses - The existing residence on the site will become a community building under
this proposal, with the potential for a few small office spaces for use by residents within it. In
staffs view, it primarily a support structure for the residential use and does not tnily mix uses.
With an appropriate design, office use could be mixed successfully with the condominiums on
this site. However,a substantial supply of office use exists along the corridor and more is not
needed on this site. Staff finds the residential use to be appropriate on this site.
Mixture of Housing Types, and Affordability —The site does not mix housing types; however,
the applicant has indicated that there is likely to be some variety in the size and cost of
condominium units due to market demand. The high land cost makes affordable housing
problematic on this site, Within Neighborhoods Six and Seven there is a mixture of housing
types and affordability, on a larger scale.
Redevelopment - The existing residence on the site will be redeveloped as a community
building. The orientation of the lawn in front of and behind it, with new structures ranging north
and south at the edges of the site, appears to be a significant feature of the redevelopment.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain -Although the six structures are large in comparison to the
existing house, grading appears to be quite careful and mainly confined to the building
footprints. Base elevations of the complexes mostly take advantage of existing grades. The
subterranean parking appears to be designed to utilize site topography. Engineering has
indicated that the applicant's stormwater management concept appears to be acceptable with
more information needed on drainage control and water qualityatsite plan stage. (see
Attachment D)
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas — The parcel is located at northern edge of the
Neighborhood Seven, a portion of the Designated Development Area. This boundary is
reinforced by the presence of the railroad to the north, forming a clear edge for the site.
i
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all speciaLwe permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board ofSupervisors that such use will not be ofsubstantial detriment to
ad iaCent pYOpeP1V.
White Gables is consistent with other developments along this portion of the Ivy Road corridor
in its residential use and targeted upscale retirement market. The mass of the buildings is also
similar in scale to portions of the Ednam development, although the site arrangement is quite
different. Most of the proposed structures are less visible - or may even be invisible from the
public road since they are "lined up" behind the front two buildings - but their mass may be more
conspicuous to those on the site. No substantial detriment to adjacent properties is expected as a '
3 result of this project.
' The adjacent property owners, lessors of the National Legal Research Group Building,
have indicated a willingness to combine their traffic with that of White Gables, in a shared
1 6:
E
entrance. For this consolidation to be optimal, the,dUrreut Legal Research entrance should
be closed.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, .
This use is consistent with existing uses in the district and by its nature will not negatively -
impact the district character. As noted at the work session, the verbal and written comments
received by staff from an adjacent property owner regarding the significance of the front
setback have been addressed in the current concept plan. The plan preserves a front lawn
similar to that of the other four properties between Piedmont Tractor and the Farmington
entrance road, originally under one family ownership. Staff notes that if the special permit
Is approved.as proposed in this concept plan, the front parcel will essentially be
undeveloped
Other surrounding properties currently zoned CO were originally were part of the same family
group, and face adaptive re-use/infill challenges similar to White Gables. No significant change
to the character of the surrounding district is anticipated, primarily because under this plan new
structures would be concentrated at the rear of the site where they would have less visibility and
impact to adjacent properties.
The number of condominium complexes contemplated for this site by White Gables would
create a greater density of development than currently exists on any of the four historic parcels
along this stretch of the corridor. Density created on this site appears to be similar to or less than
the Ednam development, by comparison
and that such use will !be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinanee.
The condominium use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and the CO
district.
with the uses permitted by 13kht in the district.
The proposed Pavilion VI in particular will visually impact the National Legal Research
Group property, which now has a relatively undeveloped western view. The applicant has
increased the setback between Pavilion VI and the Legal' Research office building to 50
feet, to mitigate the effect of the two large buildings on each other and on the public. (No
setback is required under the ordinance in the CO district.) The proposed residential use
itself will not negatively affect other Commercial Office uses. However, given the size of the
pavilions, significant visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties and the Ivy Road corridor
could result from the, White Gables development if HVAC and other equipment were located at
the rear of the buildings and not placed and enclosed or screened carefully. The ARB review
addresses this andother visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor.
Staff notes that a residential development like this one is more dependent for its success on
retaining the aesthetic appeal of the corridor and co -existing with the surrounding neighborhood
than a by -right commercial office use would be. Similarly, under a by -right commercial office
development scheme, little other than the ARB review of impacts to the Entrance Corridor would
influence the site design. Staff believes that the proposed use is in harmony with the other uses
permitted by4ight in this district.
r with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.0 regulations do not address this use.
7.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the area of most concern in terms of public safety, for several reasons. This section of
the 250 West corridor carries a high volume of traffic, has many access points, exhibits
horizontal and vertical curvature, and already has three traffic signals. There is a difficult
balance between maintaining traffic flow and providing for safe and convenient access to the
public road. The applicant has proposed upgrading the existing entrance on property to
serve the new condominium units as well as the Legal Research Group, which would
subsequently close its existing entrance. Provisions have also been made to connect Kappa
Sigma to the White Gables access, or, better yet, carry traffic from White Gables and Legal
Research across Kappa Sigma, to a new consolidated entrance to be developed opposite
Birdwood Golf Course. The applicant's transportation consultant submitted a warrant
analysis to VDOT, requesting a signal at the current entrance. The Culpeper District
found that one of the signal warrants would be met under the proposal, and it was staffs
understanding that the District was willing to approve a signal. However, the
Charlottesville Residency has recommended against installation of a signal until all three
entrances (Kappa Sigma, White Gables, Legal Research) can be consolidated. The
Residency will approve a commercial entrance permit for the project, however. (see
Attachments F, G and H)
National Legal Research in particular has a very difficult traffic situation that will
deteriorate further as traffic increases. The White Gables proposal would address this
existing situation effectively. The 250 West Advisory Committee has stated that it does not
support the immediate installation of a traffic signal at the consolidated entrance, but only
when warrants listed under Section 4C-2 of VDOT's Manual are met. The Committee also
has stated that the Birdwood location is the preferred location for the signal. (see
Attachment 1).
Anticipated traffic under residential development (the special permit proposal) indicates
that average weekday vehicle trips per day (vtpd) for 76 Condominiums would be 445. The
weekday AM peak hour traffic would be 33 (7-9 AM), with weekday PM peak hour traffic
41 (4-6 PM). The average Saturday vehicle trips per day for 76 condominiums would be
431; the average Sunday vehicle trips per day for 76 condominiums would be 368. (per
ITE Code 230)
Anticipated traffic under general office (the by -right development proposal) indicates that
average weekday vehicle trips per day for 420,000 square feet of general office would be
4624, with weekday AM peak hour traffic would be 655. The weekday PM peak hour
traffic would be 626. The average Saturday vehicle trips for a 420,000 square foot general
office building would be 995. The average Sunday vehicle trips for a 420,000 square foot
general office building would be 411.
In summary, traffic generation from the proposed residential development would likely
generate less significant traffic impacts than by -right development under current zoning.
(The following assumptions were used in determining the average general office vehicle
trips: 20,000 square.feet of land developable for an office building per acre, and each acre
developed with a three story building. This scenario would represent an extremely
intensive office development.)
le-� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
This project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on three occasions, and
the current revised plan will be reviewed again on February 18. In the past, primary
concerns of the ARB-have been the scale of the proposed structures relative to the existing
house and Ivy Road corridor, maintenance of the historic character of area, and
preservation of the mature trees and historic character of the front lawn. The conditions
previously recommended by the ARB of relevance to this revised plan are set forth below.
A. The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with
mature trees as viewed from the EC;
B. Destroyed trees shall be replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with
increased caliper and increased quantity;
C. The stone wall at the front of the property shall be maintained. If the existing entrance
will be closed, it shall be closed such that the stone wall is extended in a manner
consistent with the existing appearance. The new entrance and driveway shall also be
consistent with the existing appearance. A stone gateway and iron gates shall be
created;
D. Any signs proposed in the future shall not overpower the stone wall at the front of the
property or the entrance to the property and shall be compatible with both;
E. The entrance and travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will
be removed from the site(s);
F. The renovation of the residence into a community building shall maintain the historic
appearance of the building;
G. Condominium complex basements and garage doors shall be oriented away from the
EC to eliminate visibility;
H. Grading shall respect the natural slopes at the front of the property between the
existing building and Route 250;
I. Paving in front of the existing residence shall be kept at a minimum.
J. Additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline
requirements is considered to be desirable on this site and must be approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
SUMMARY
In staffs opinion, the following factors are favorable to this request:
■ The residential use takes advantage of the proximity of the site to existing commercial
development which can provide goods and services to future residents.
• The residential use helps to create a mix relative to the adjacent office and institutional
uses.
■ The residential use is arranged to preserve the historic front lawn at the southern
portion of the property, concentrating density at the rear of the site where it does not
affect the character of the corridor as significantly.
W
■ Most of the structures will not be easily seen from Ivy Road.
■ The formality of the design is in keeping with the historic character of the corridor and
neighborhood.
■ The consolidation of the National Legal Research traffic with that of White Gables and
subsequent closing of the Legal Research entrance will improve traffic flow and safety
on the corridor.
In staffs opinion, the following factors are not favorable to this request:
■ At this time the applicant has been unable to consolidate entrances on the north side of
Ivy Road at the preferred Kappa Sigma location opposite Birdwood Golf Course,
although the consolidation of White Gables and Legal Research is positive.
■ The mass of the proposed pavilions may be inappropriately large.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
On balance, staff finds that the applicant's special permit application for residential use
would not create adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or the district, and in fact
would compliment and benefit from existing uses. Preservation of the front lawn and
concentration of structures at the rear of the site are significant, positive features of the site
plan that would be very unlikely under a by -right development scheme. Some beneficial
consolidation of traffic is achieved with this plan, and greater traffic consolidation may be
possible in the future. In staffs view, the applicant is demonstrating a willingness to
continue working to achieve an optimal traffic management solution. Thus, staff
recommends approval with Conditions 1 through 6 below, along with an additional
condition regarding the future installation of a traffic signal. At the time of submittal of
this report, staff is still in the process of working with the applicant, and his attorney, the
County Attorney and the Director of Engineering to draft a condition that adequately
addresses future installation of a traffic signal by the applicant.
Special Permit
Staff notes that approval from the Architectural Review Board is necessary and requires a
separate action. At its November meeting, the ARB proposed a series of conditions, of
which those that relate to the current (revised) plan are set forth below. Based on the ARB
conditions and those proposed for Planning Commission action (1 through 8 below), staff
recommends approval of the White Gables Condos Special Permit 2002-023 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan
(January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification
dated April 22, 2002:
2. As shown on the Conceptual Plan), no new structures shall be located in the front
(southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred
twenty (220) feet between the southern -most structure and the front (southern)
property line.
10
3. The entrance road shown on the ConceptualPlah-shall be constructed to an urban road
standard from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a
sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to
the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, along one side
connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road;
4.' All connector roads to adjacent properties shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be
constructed to an urban section standard; the connector road to the Legal Research
parcel located to the east (Parcel 25) shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate
pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard acceptable to the
Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to
the public sidewalk at Ivy Road
5. Upon request, access shall be provided for traffic from Kappa Sigma across White,
Gables to its entrance at Ivy Road; this access shall be constructed to the same standard
as that serving the Legal Research property to the east;
6. Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property,
White Gables shall provide access across its property to traffic from the Legal Research
parcel (Parcel 25);
7: Residential condominium unit types (size, configuration, pricing, etc.) shall be mixed
within and among each of the pavilions constructed on the site;
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation related to design and construction, of the entrance to the property, as
outlined in its letter of January 28,`2003 (Attachment H);
9. (As mentioned previously, staff will provide draft language for an additional condition
prior to the February 11 meeting.)
Request for one-way circulation, curvilinear and parallel parking:
In the event that proposed revisions to the parking ordinance are not approved by the
Board of Supervisors on February 5, staff recommends approval by the Commission of the
applicant's request for one-way circulation, and curvilinear and parallel parking along the
interior loop drive..
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Area Map
B —Plat
C - Applicant's Justification
D 12/16/02 Letter from Applicant's Engineer
E — i/7/03 Engineering comments
F — 7/17/02:Letter from Owners of National Legal Research Group Building
G — 7/17/02 VDOT comments
H = 7/25/02 VDOT comments
I-1/29103 VDOT comments
J .1/29/03 Memorandum from 250 West Task Force
K-11/25/02 ARB Action Letter
Under Separate Cover: Architectural Packet (includes Concept Plan)
11 '
A I I AUHMEP
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON APRIL I, 2002 NOTES
SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.I.
O OF MY. KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION d
:LEGAL REFERENCES
ATTACHMENT
B
AN IN
EUEF AND IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IT IS
LIEF
T.M. 60-26 - D.B. 1896-235, 237 PLAT, D.B..1764-91 d
De. PLAT
-
OMPLETE AND ACCURATE
1960-53
T:M.60-27A-. D.B. 960-579 d.D.B: 1895-237 PLAT
2
ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE. RATE MAPS
DATEDDEC.' 16, 1980 1COMMUNITY PANEL 510006 0220 81, .
PARCEL A d PARCEL B DO NOT LIE W -ZONE A 000 YEAR
FLOOD PLAN), BUT IS LOCATED W ZONE C.
-
G { 3.
PARCEL A SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC
�. vA
AND POWER COMPANY ID.B. 722-305. d.D.B. 262-4641:
PIPE FOUND THE CHESAPEAKE i 0140
N17.2S22"E RAILWAY COMPANY
y.. A 4,
PARCEL A d PARCEL B SUBJECT 70 EASEMENT TO
1.09'
q'' a
CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA ID.B, 615-451)
D.B..169-- 593,594-PLAT FROM CORNER
Nj Z
. INSOFAR AS IT MAY APPLY. -
a
5.
NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. PARCEL A [.PARCEL 8
SUBJECT. TO. ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS
`
IROJ S55.56.00•.
N
CPNTe..
UTILITIES, AND/OR COVENANTS THAT MAY EMST,
Z95'
SET a 19a IRON
..
6.. THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS
P. E SET
7 BASED ON CURRENT FIELD SURVEY..
R4CA.S.
50'��
8U/CDjryG.
FFNCF
PO
4. II.5C25"
PO.
I
CP..
B9§?P
v L- 40
- BUFFER SETS ACK�AREA
4
\ 404.
IRO C-
(D.B..IB96-238 PLAT)
IR14'
RON
\ FOUND CS- S50.0218"E
/ \
S49.5313-W
FOUND ROCK 50.00'
T.M. 60 - 26
BUILDING RON
z PARCEL A
SET RON FOUND
�N56I0038"E
5.045 ACRES
w N45.54'37-W 7.99'.
c b i`
..
i 150.95'.. FROM CORNER
Z O m
0. f vi Q
LL ..
m Q N n
NjQ.Ja W n POLE
POLE
N w�. POLE :K
GRAVEL m
1Ospo^' i. ;;/DRIVE m
o J
i A -
d 2 RICK
a .BRICK
148.6' ,
—+
-1 - ✓k SLATE
RON: N4 i 'SLATE. STEPS
FOUND IB•44 g3„�i N67. 76:2 tPp6��T
B3N � Sp.O�48'•W \
I-L p•- 6y3
o�`�` RON R0N CONCRETE
n p+`�` �OUND FOUND CASINGS
a
cmm \� ` T.M. 60 - 27A ; a
PARCEL B m m
2.052 ACRES N y
\aA
30' S.B.L. ID.e 1896 - 238 P
IRON
LAT1 RON
— __FO
ROCK WALL ` �'. -FOUND
POWER d... N67.48'46"W WATERf ''-,ROCK COLUMN
TEL. LINE 365.33"
U.S.
METER .. .
ROUTE 25O VARIABLE R/W 'PAVEMENT - -
.
BOUNDARY'S PHYSICAL SURVEY
PARCEL A, THE<PROPERTY OF VIRGINIA LAND TRUST
AND PARCEL B, THE PROPERTY OF WHITE GABLES I LAND TRUST
LOCATED ON U.S. ROUTE 250
•T"O 0
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT.: -:
ALBEMARLF COUNTY , VIRGINIA
�� �♦
SCALE : 1" = 100' DATE : APRIL I, 2002
dd
FOR
ROGERW. RAY i.
VITO CETTA
1331.. i
-
F'•/•Z:a'��- .�
ROGER W. RAY d. ASSOC., INC.
�%AbSURXi0
40,*,4*4.
1717-I5 ALLIED STREET
-
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22903 @64i
ATTACHMENT C 5
X ,W
Owner of tan (As IN -.SIP 40 442�1��j
414 LAI
rt K15 LrA
FI:
S a
• Da ume Phone Email
Applicant (Whois'thewntmpmwmpmmting?Whoismqumlingthc sp=iaI=?): • ITO' C$7yRr e LIL
Address t�150 0WO IV, Y WHY City C+YhrL_L. State Vk
Daytime Phone( Fax L"rLSbE-mail
441L
Taz*apan
W
I , OM
, Location pro I pertyamw I r . narics. - i L om iom ahvi r4 M-M',45,1 I D 4 r,.raif X;A►LSD LAtiS'�T
WMAN 1PAWWWWWA
';
ry Z-n �W .
oes IV � EaMtai�y' jG�h�ijjnteresfm)'any abutting property? if es, I e Iiit"
I .. � , : r— TI.. r. •"n �. ..:-: . I
-f.'. -
U�rVikrs
:.,3
:c. : t.,s v w- a5 3
WhattsthcComprchcasivcPlandcsignationfort6uproluxtyv "`
Howwillthe proposed special use aCfectadjicentproperty?
''lug �^ t>4A&y4T IN k146z IIIVG MWF OpfV.Evs eta
-c `tlo act"rz`sitr►h==iy wssr.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? LS pQ Ddr WIw-
"mmmm�r... TILs Y71L9r.!7I/X im A-PAAZl'nVIC1L.#,*✓ .lid Or6t%ar-l3hAIt[-IOfIA �Q..tzdv
-rs a v� • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ — ter. — a.� r
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
ht i ,C. 'M12 KJS VS6 VµPOL GD ZQt4I K& MS WSTRAC '
tGiMIXGW U56.
How isthc use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? 9-,'IS- is
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
ztg
14,6te: if you are requesting a special use perrnit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the'plat*or surveyed diawing.
2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization 'including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association; or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a documenf acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to'do'so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acc5ptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of. the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
3Drawings or conceptual ' I,
onceptial.plaris if any.
4. Additional Information, if any..
- I hereby certify. that I own the subject property, or have th
S Igm Dart
--ture,
power to act on behalf of the owner
and'accurate to the bcst of my
'Otk., k4 ft 4
NE-u
W
k
ATTACHMENT EI
12
l\�
McKEE CARSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHREClS..
LAND PLANNERS..
16 December 2002
I-&. Susan Thomas "
Albemarle County Planning & Commun ity Development
401 Mchtire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: White Gables; Submission of Amended Plan
Dear Susan:
Please find attached our formal resubmission materials for the proposed White Gables development. We would
like this information to serve as an enhancement, and where appropriate, a clarification of materials previously
provided to you by Vito Cetta as part of his original application. Rather than reiterate much of the information
contained in that report, we would like to briefly describe how the plan of development has rhanged and offer
justification for these changes, all of which we hope have resulted in a plan that is supportable by staff.
The original concept called for the ultimate construction of eight buildings consisting of two rows of four
structures flanking either side of the manor house. Proximity of the new buildings to Route 250, the scale cf the
structures closest to the roadway and the configuration of paved areas out front of the manor house were topics
of considerable discussion at the initial hearing. Also of primary concern, whether to the ARB or, Planning
Commission; were the means of ingress/egress to the project from the public roadway and the means by which
stornrwater management was to take place.
Since the first application was discussed the plan has undergone several design iterations. Among those were
several resizings of the front -most buildings and even replacement of those structures with duplex townhomes.
With each alternative, changes to the site package in front of the manor house also occurred. Shifting of the
main entry to the project moved in response to the evolution of talks between Vito Cetta and his neighbors.
Each entry location carve with its own set of design parameters around which we developed solutions. What is
before you today is a comprehensive site development proposal that responds to the concerns anddesires of the
various agencies involved to date as well as the programmatic and fiscal objectives of the Applicant.
You will note that the current plan calls for only six buildings. There are no half buildings or townhomes
proposed. This makes for a cleaner design at this point in the planning process. Buildings have been pulled
back into the site and away from Route 250 (329' vs. 224' and 263' vs. 154' respectively) such that their facades
generally align with the existing structures within this precinct. The buildings closest to Route 250 are one story
lower than their counterparts to the rear of the site. hi total, 76 units are proposed with this submission.
A traffic study was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates and submitted to VDOT for review. The study
suggests that a signal would be warranted when traffic from the National Legal Research Group is redirected
toward this site and the proposed new entrance. We welcome this level of consolidation and encourage Kappa
Sigma to participate as well. Opportunity for future access to both adjacent parcels has been accommodated.
Afffisted NM Frets Sport (bnceofs. Ltd
Sol East'riigh Street 9 CharlotlesAle, Vrginia 22902 • 804.979-7522 • Fax: 804.977-1194 • mc®mckeecarson.com • www.mckeemrson.co:n
RECEIVED IN
PLANNING DEC. 16, 200
Ms. Susan Thomas
16 December 2002
Page 2
The entrance to the property is now proposed at the location of the current site entry. The proposed entrance
configuration suggests the removal of the existing stonewing walls and having the existing gap in the main wall
serve as the location for an inbound traffic lane. The terminal pier of the western wall section will also remain as
a centerpiece within a traffic island between entering and exiting lanes. This central column will still hold the
brass "White Gables' plaque. The stone wall length will be reduced in only a westerly direction and its new
terminus graced with a new, but matching column. Once through the wall, a singular accessway will follow
very closely the alignment of the existing driveway thereby reducing the amount of pavement found in the area
between the manor home and Route 250 and preserving many of the noteworthy trees that currently contribute
to the front yard setting.
As with the first submission, all parking for residents and a few guest spaces will be provided under the
buildings. The balance of the guest spaces will be located as adjuncts to the one way travelway that
circumnavigates the rear garden commons. Unlike the travelway itself, these parking areas will be established
as porous paving zones that can also support truck and emergency vehicle traffic while serving as stormwater
infiltration zones. The balance of the stormwater management program is to be handled through the installation
of a series of infiltration banks. Insofar as the site is sandwiched between the-Birdwood and Farmington Golf
Courses, this means of collecting storing and treating runoff entirely underground seemed the most functional
and appealing. Because White Gables will be: developed inphases, a modular product line was selected.
Beyond the aesthetic and environmental concerns, we also recognize the, quantitative sensitivities surrounding
the handling of storm runoff. To that end we have chosen to propose an on -site system robust enough to handle
a 100-year storm event. With this management approach, we can assure our downstream neighbors that runoff
from development at White Gables will not adversely impact their property.
Very minimal grading is required to realize the development concept. This means that the design should
dovetail well with the site and result in little or no change when viewed from the public domain. You will note
that not only have we preserved numerous mature plantings, but the plan also suggests significant new
plantings to replace those lost to construction and to enhance the site architecture.
We hope that the accompanying plan and support documentation meets your needs for distribution to staff and
the Commission. Should you need further information or additional copies please let us know. We appreciate
your assistance in processing this request and look forward to your comments and the guidance of all involved.
Sinc rely yours,
Maxz E. Keller, CLA
MEKmek
enclosure: Plans
xc: Vito Cetta
- 0219
ATTACHMENT E
Albemarle County Development Departments S P-2062-023
SPIN Submission and Comments white Gables Condos
Engineering SIP revision s
reviewer received reviewed decision
Jeff Thomas 12/17/02 1/7/03 approved with conditions
The special use permit application'for the White Gables Condominiums received on December 17,2002
has been reviewed. The Engineering Department recommends approval with the following conditions.
1. Drainage control must be provided, and runoff must be directed to the proposed SWM facilities. [13-
32.7.4, 17-315] There are currently no drainage control measures shown on the concept plan, and we
believe it is unreasonable to expect that all runoff will be sheet flow. We realize that such details are
probably beyond the scope of a special use permit concept plan. Therefore, adequate drainage control
must be included on the site plan.
2. The entrance driveway must be an urban section road to the loop intersection. All connections to
adjoining properties must be urban section roadways.
3. We feel the acceleration/deceleration lane to the west does not provide adequate weaving length given
the amount of traffic on U.S. 250, particularly during the peak hour periods. The right turn only lane must
therefore terminate at the westbound lane for U.S. 250 with a yield condition.
The following comments must be addressed with the site plan.
1. An access easement must be provided for the future Legal Research driveway. It must be platted and
recorded prior to final site plan approval
2. We offer the following comments regarding the conceptual stormwater management plan.
a) We support the applicant's desire to use alternative SWM technologies such as the Hancor Land Max
system. From the manufacturers literature and notes on the concept plan, it appears that the primary
consideration has been a reduction in runoff volume. Water quality must also be addressed. We feel that
it is possible that the Hancor system can be adapted for water quality treatment as well as detention.
b) The Hancor system and similar technologies relies heavily on porous soils, which may or may not be
present on -site. This may necessitate additional excavation of the existing soil and placement of porous
media to achieve the desired result.
c) As stated above, it is important that as much impervious area runoff as possible be directed to the
SWM facilities.
d) We support the concept of the "porous paving grid" shown on the plan. However, we feel that
Grasspave and similar materials are not well -suited to high traffic areas. Most of the examples pictured in
the Grasspave brochure are overflow parking lots, fire lanes, and other areas which do not experience
frequent use. We recommend the stone pavers be used in the areas indicated on the concept plan.
These pavers should provide an infiltration benefit and more durable parking surface. If the applicant
feels this is not possible, then the SWM facilities could be expanded to compensate for the additional
impervious area.
117103 04:54 PM
Page 1 of 1
19
ATTACHMENT F
ROSSER ASSOCIATES, LLC
POST OFFICE BOX 6668
CHARLOTTESVELLE, VA 22906
July 17, 2002
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Albemarle County Department of Planning and
Community Development
401 ?%4clntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: White Gables project on Ivy Road
As next -door neighbors to the seven acre site called "White Gables" which is
situated on the north side of Ivy Road between our property, the National Legal Research
Group Building at 2421 Ivy Road, and the national offices of Kappa Sigma, we are
greatly concerned about the 8 building, 78 condominium unit development proposed by
Weather Hill Homes (Vito Cetta, Developer/Architect).
Each unit proposed by Weather Hill Homes will have two bedrooms and a den;
assuming a likely density of 3 persons per unit and 2 cars per unit, the development will
add 234 persons and 156 cars. By any standard, this seems to be a staggering population
to add to the already intensely crowded 250 West corridor, especially in terms of
automobile traffic. We at National Legal Research Group literally put our lives at risk
every evening when we try to turn left onto Rt. 250 in the face of unrelenting rush hour
traffic heading west. To a lesser degree, we face this same problem in the morning when
we come to work.
We are not sure that the new traffic light proposed by Weather Hill will truly
alleviate safety concerns. There are already 4 traffic lights in the short span between
Bellair and Boar's Head, yet our own entrance remains very dangerous. The light at
Bellair is the site of frequent accidents. Simply eliminating "right on red" turns from the
underpass onto Rt. 250 might reduce the chance of accidents and might provide more
breaks in west -bound traffic, thus increasing the opportunities for safe exit.
The 250 West corridor is uniquely beautiful, being largely devoid of commercial
development and exhibiting some of the best landscaping in our community. Very
simply, it's among the prettiest roads in Albemarle County or anywhere for that matter!
Between Bellair and Boar's Head, every property has a matching swatch of green lawn
with bordering stone walls. This look will be detrimentally altered by the proposed
development. Two 2 imposing buildings will be placed in front of the old Rinehart house
20
to
and a road parallel to the bordering wall will be constructed. The lovely lawn will be lost
and many mature trees will be destroyed.
Preservation of the 250 West corridor has been a priority of many individuals and
civic organizations, such as the Albemarle Chapter of the Garden Club of Virginia. Many
property owners along Rt. 250 have donated conservation easements to preserve the
distinctive beauty of this gateway.
For these reasons, we fervently urge you to narrow the scope of the White Gables
project and disallow the two proposed buildings in front of the old Rinehart house. Their
placement will destroy the continuity of the lawn that starts at our property and continues
to the Farmington entrance. Mature trees will be lost and the stone wall will be breached
by the proposed traffic light. The parallel road(s) inside the stone wall will be highly
visible. The increase in traffic is obviously a safety issue of particular concern to us, but
also affects everyone who uses Route 250. A reduction in the scale of the project will, at
the very least, reduce the traffic it will undoubtedly generate.
With sincere thanks for your consideration.
ATTACHMENT G
0
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
Philip A. Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN
COWSSIONER RESIDENTENGINEER
July 17, 2002
White Gables Signal
Susan Thomas
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Susan,
Using the available data and trip generation projections, the proposed intersection between 250 and
Birdwood & White Gables / Kappa Sigma barely meets one of the signal warrants.
The Culpeper District Traffic Engineering section has recommended that the proposed consolidation
of the White Gables and Kappa Sigma entrances, and their realignment with the Birdwood Golf
Course entrance, should proceed. Once the consolidation and realignment is complete, the merits of
a signal at this location can be more adequately assessed. When a signal is needed, as determined
by the Traffic Engineering section in Culpeper, it should be installed at the cost of the developer(s) of
the affected properties.
If there are any questions or concerns, please advise.
cc: Anne Hagan
Charles Proctor
Sincerely,
Matthew C. Grimes, EIT
Transportation Engineer
22
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 sT CENTURY
. H
ATTACHMENT H
0
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VOOT WAY
Philip A. Shuc®t CHARLO7TESVIU.E VA 22911 - JAMES L BRYAN
COMMISS101di i - " RESMENT ENGINEER
Jul 25, 2002
White Gables Signal
Susan Thomas
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Susan,
In response to you request for clarification on the proposed signal on US 250 at the Birdwood Golf
Course entrance, I offer the following comments.
As I mentioned previously, the planning analysis we are able to conduct with the available data and
trip generation projections indicates that the proposed intersection between 250 and Birdwood &
White Gables / Kappa Sigma barely meets one of the signal warrants.
The Culpeper District Traffic Engineering section has recommended that the proposed consolidation
of the White Gables and Kappa Sigma entrances, and their realignment with the Birdwood'Golf
Course entrance, should proceed. Once the consolidation and realignment is complete, the merits of
a signal at this location can be more adequately assessed by studying the actual traffic volumes and
driver behavior patterns of the new, intersection.
When a signal is needed, as determined by the Traffic Engineering section in Culpeper, it should be
installed at the cost of the developer(s) of the affected properties. The approximate cost for this new
signal and its required control equipment is $140,000
If there are.anyquestions or concerns,,please advise.
Sincerely,
Matthew C. Grimes, EIT
Transportation Engineer
cc via email: Anne Hagan
Charles Proctor
r 23
�A.
- TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 sT CENTURY -
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
Phi11p A. Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA M911 JAMES L BRYAN
coMMNSSK*ER RESIDENT ENG VEER
January 28, 2003
Susan Thomas
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: White Gables,SP-2002-23
Dear Ms. h as,
The purpose of this letter is to present our comments on the proposedWhite Gables development on
US 250. As you know, the applicant has requested a traffic signal and has delivered a signal warrant
study, which incorporates traffic from the proposed development as well as the adjacent Legal
Research offices. This study showed that only one of the eight signal warrants will be met when
construction of the proposed development is complete:
The most recent proposals submitted to the Residency show that the adjacent Kappa Sigma property
will not access the proposed signal, and that the entrance to the Legal Research offices will remain
open. Leaving these entrances open, particularly since the Kappa Sigma traffic will not have access to
the signal, is not consistent with prudent access management practices. Therefore, Charlottesville
Residency staff recommends against the installation of a traffic signal at this location until such time as
the Kappa Sigma, White Gables, and Legal Research individual driveways can be closed and
consolidated at a single intersection with US 250.
If the site proceeds according to the most recent proposal, but without signalization, the site entrance
should be redesigned to eliminate the free flowing right turn lane currently shown on the plans. A two
lane egress will bepermitted, however, both left and right lanes must have a full stop condition. In
addition, the concrete structures shown at the entrance should not extend beyond the face of the
proposed curb.
If there are any questions or concerns, please advise.
Sincerely,
Matthew C. Grimes, EIT
Transportation Planning Engineer
cc via email Juan Wade
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE21u CENTURY
ATTACHMENTJ
Route 250 West Task Force
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
To: Susan Thomas, Albemarle County Senior Planner
From: Route 250 West Task Forco� `"`
Ref White Gable Condos Proposal
Date: June 3, 2002- Revised July 24, 2002 Revised January 29 2003
The Task Force has reviewed the most current plans for the White Gable Condos and had
a presentation from Mr. Vito. Cetta at their last Task Force meeting. The Task Force
would like to update their July24, 2002 memo. The Board of Supervisors charged the
;. Task Force with reviewing development proposals along the Route 250 West corridor
and the impact they could have on the traffic and safety along the corridor.
The Task Force offers the following, comments:
• The Task Force strongly believes the parcels adjacent to the White Gable Site should
have one combined access to Route 250 and the access should align with the
Birdwood Golf Course access..
• The parcels should have an internal road off Route 250 West that connects the ,
parcels.
The Task Force believes it is critically important to determine the intended use of
Parcel B, which is adjacent to Route 250 West.
• The Task Force does not support the immediate installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of U.S. 250, Birdwood Golf Course, and the combined White Gables'
access. A traffic signal should be installed when the warrants listed under section 4C-
2 of VDOT'sManual are met.
• The developer of the White Gables Condos should proffer a land conservation
easement along; portion of the site adjacent to Route 250.
Thank you for your consideration.
2M
ATTACHMENT K
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
November25, 2002
Vito Cetta
315 Old Ivy Way, Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ARB-2002-122 White Gables; Tax Map 60, Parcels 26 and 27A
Dear Mr. Cetta:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on November 18, 2002, completed a
preliminary review of the above -noted request to establish a 70-unit condominium complex composed of
eight 2- and 3-story buildings with underground parking and central amenities.
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit, the Board voted to send the following recommendation
to the Planning Commission:
The AIRS offers no objection to the special use permit for White Gables, ARB-2002-122, based on the
plans presented to the AIRS, with the following recommendations:
1. The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with mature trees as
viewed from the EC.
2. Destroyed trees shall be replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with increased caliper and
increased quantity.
3. The scale of Pavilions 7 and 8 should be further reduced.
4. The stone wall at the front of the property shall be maintained. If the existing entrance will be closed, it shall
be closed such that the stone wall is extended in a manner consistent with the existing appearance. The
new entrance and driveway shall also be consistent with the existing appearance. A stone gateway and iron
gates shall be created.
5. Any signs proposed in the future shall not overpower the stone wall at the front of the property or the
entrance to the properly and shall be compatible with both.
6. The entrance and travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will be removed from
the site(s).
7. The renovation of the residence into a community building shall maintain the historic appearance of the
building.
8. Townhouse basements and garage doors shall be oriented away from the EC to eliminate visibility.
9. Grading shall respect the natural slopes at the front of the property between the existing building and Route
250.
10. Paving in front of the existing residence shall be kept at a minimum.
11. That additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline requirements will be
appropriate for this site.
2V
Page 2
November 25, 2002
Regarding the site plan, the ARB offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal.
Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments
may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan.
1. The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with mature trees as
viewed from the EC.
2. Destroyed trees shall be replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with increased caliper
and increased quantity.
3. Continue to improve the compatibility of scale of Pavilions 7 and 8 with the existing building. Buildings
7 and 8 are still too large. The scale. issue includes height, footprint and mass. Deeper articulation in
the buildings would be beneficial.
4. The new entrance and driveway shall be consistent with the existing appearance of the site. A stone
gateway and iron gates shall be created. Drawings shall be submitted for review and approval of the
ARB.
5. Any signs proposed in the future shall not overpower the stone wall at the front of the property or the
entrance to the property and shall be Compatible with both.
6. The entrance and travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will be removed
from the site(s).
7. The renovation of the residence into a community building shall maintain the historic appearance of
the building. Provide detailed information on the proposed changes to the exterior of the building
visible from the EC.
8. Provide information on all proposed retaining walls visible from the EC, including location, heights,
materials, appearance, visibility.
9. Provide a grading plan.
10. Regarding landscaping:
• A full landscape review has not been done at this time. Provide for final review a detailed landscape
plan identifying the plants with botanical names and proposed sizes.
• Show spot elevations at the corners of the buildings in order to evaluate what trees can actually
remain.
+ The Tree Inventory Report recommends that trees #49 & #50 be saved, but the Tree Inventory Plan
identifies them for removal. Please reconcile the difference.
• The loss of existing mature trees is a concern because they define the character of the property as
viewed from the EC- Because of the substantial, number of mature healthy trees that are proposed to
be removed, consider reducing the size of Pavilions 5 and 6 to retain more trees, and compensate for
the lost units with an additional pavilion located at the rear center portion of the site.
• Sign the Conservation Plan Checklist. Show on the plan the information that is required by the
checklist to demonstrate the measures that will be implemented during construction to protect any
existing trees that are proposed for preservation (i.e., tree protection fence, trunk armoring detail, tree
wells, tree walls).
• Additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline requirements will be appropriate
for this site.
• If a new entrance will be proposed, provide complete landscape information for all parcels that will be
impacted by the entrance proposal
• More trees should be added at the front of the site to maintain the existing character. The trees
should be a mix of evergreen and deciduous and should be spaced along the new driveway or
distributed
You may submit an application for continued ARB review of your site at your earliest convenience. Schedules,
applications, and checklists are available at www.albemarle.oryplannine.
Page 3
November 25, 2002
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Please include a memo outlining how
each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those
changes in the memo also.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
-)Wa'C O Y
Margaret Maliszewski
Design Planner
MM/jcf
Cc: File
Susan Thomas