Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZMA200000009 Study 2003-11-11
NORTH POINTE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CORRESPONDENCE/NOTES Elaine Echols From: Mark Graham Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:24 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: language Matt has not said this means all improvements in place, only the road has to be demonstrated as adequate. If we want to say what this means, you can say Engineering believe this means it must be shown that the Proffitt/Leake intersection will function at a level of service"C"or better 10 years from now when the development is completed. —Original Message— From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday,November 11,2003 3:25 PM To: Mark Graham Subject: language VDOT's requirement that Proffitt Road between Leake Road and Route 29 be demonstrated as adequate prior to use of Leake Road as an entrance to the development. and the applicant's proffer only for money to design the section of road between Leake and Route 29 plus money for a roundabout. Do you think it would be appropriate to add what "demonstrated as adequate" could involve? I'd really like to get out there that this may mean constructing all improvements. Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org Elaine Echols From: Mark Graham Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:24 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: North Pointe staff report My changes are in your copy. I'm finishing up my comments right now and will send them to you for review before posting. —Original Message— From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, November 11,2003 1:16 PM To: Mark Graham Subject: North Pointe staff report Hi Mark -- Here is a portion of my staff report relative to unresolved issues with no changes to the design of the plan. Is it written correctly? Transportation Attachment E contains the latest letter from VDOT regarding North Pointe's plan and proffers. Unresolved issues include: • VDOT's request for a 4-lane (spine) road from Proffitt to Route 29 at Lewis and Clarke Drive. The North Pointe Plan shows a 2-lane section on Leake Road, a 4-lane section from Proffitt the north end of Leake Road to the Town Center, then a split roadwayiservice road area for diagonal parking in front of the Town Center, then a 2-lane road to Rt. 29 at Lewis and Clarke Drive. • VDOT's requests that Northwest Passage be built to North Pointe Blvd. prior to the development of more than 290,000 square feet of commercial space . County Engineering recommends that Northwest Passage and the 29 improvements associated with this intersection be completed prior to any new Phase 2 or 3 residential units being constructed to the north of the inter-section of Northwest Pas-sag d N rt P to . • VDOT's requires a right turn lane on Route 29 North in addition to the third northbound (and southbound) lane and the application plan shows a continuous right turn lane without a right turn lane. • VDOT's recommendation that the roundabout at the center entrance be moved east in order for the intersection with Route 29 and the center entrance to work. Engineering does not believe this comment can be accommodated without a significant reconfiguration of the entire site, but appreciates VDOT's concern with traffic backing up into intersections. • VDOT's requirement that Proffitt Road between Leake Road and Route 29 be demonstrated as adequate prior to use of Leake Road as an entrance to the development. and the applicant's proffer only for money to design the section of road between Leake and Route 29 plus money for a roundabout. • VDOT's request that $150.000 proffered by the applicant be used to fund a study that shows how a Rt 29 I Profitt Road interchange can be built in conjunction with the roundabout at Leake Road. • The applicant has still not addressed phasing of the Leake Road improvements Engineering believes all improvement associated with Leake Road access should be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for more than 290.000 square feet of commercial space in the development. All of these items are substantive and require additional discussion between the County, VDOT, and the applicant in order to find resolution. Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 2 • .,• la 1 w. 7 yr. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY Philip A.Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER November 5, 2003 Elaine Echols Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject:North Pointe Proffers (2003-10-21 revision) Dear Ms. Echols, The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the revised proffers submitted for the North Pointe development proposal (ZMA-2000-072) dated October 21, 2003. Proffer 5.2 (a) Internal Roads The following table contains recommendations for minimum cross sections of the proposed North Pointe Blvd and North West Passage. The cross section detail sheets in the application plans may be removed. Road Minimum Cross Section Phasing Recommendation North Pointe Blvd Four Lanes. Concurrent with Phase I From 649 to Northside Dr Ext. Commercial section North Pointe Blvd. Four lanes, with two lanes used for on- Prior to the development of> From Northside Ext. to NW Passage street parking, to be converted to travel 290 ksf non-residential lanes in the future. The conversion of construction parking lanes to travel lanes should be acknowledged in the proffers and on the site plans, and should not be used in required parking calculations. NW Passage Two lanes on four lanes of graded Prior to the development of> From North Pointe Blvd to US 29 ROW, with a 10' multi-use path. 290 ksf non-residential construction Proffer 5.3 External Road Improvements and Phasing The phrase "and or contribute to" should either be stricken or amended such that the amount of any monetary contributions for improvements to US 29 are based solely on costs developed by VDOT staff. The reference to the design speed of external road improvements should be changed to 60 mph, with 55 mph speed limit, or deleted altogether. The plans for any road improvements must be approved by VDOT staff prior to the issuance of permit, and the plans must therefore be based on the design speed specified by VDOT staff. NOV 1 0 003 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21'CENTURY North Pointe Proffer Revision 2003-10-21 .nme October,2003 Page 2 of 2 Proffer 5.3 (a) (1)—(3) Phasing of Public Improvements The application plan does not correctly depict the through lanes, which are to be 1000' long and 12' wide. The transition lengths shall be determined VDOT staff in the course of road plan review. A statement that"a right turn lane shall be constructed, the geometrics of which will be determined by VDOT staff' should be added to the lists of improvements for each entrance. The length of this turn lane shall not exceed a continuous right turn lane across the North Pointe frontage. The provision of these right turn lanes will be a condition of VDOT permit approval. Comments on the Proposed Roundabouts The roundabout analyses submitted by the applicant indicate that the roundabouts have adequate capacity; additional comments will be provided upon review of the road plans. However, the traffic impact analyses of the signals at US 29 and SC 649 (Profitt Rd.), as well as the proposed signal at US 29 and the main commercial entrance, indicate that queues on the westbound approaches to these signals will adversely effect the operations of the roundabouts. These results are consistent with the analyses conducted for the Hollymead Town Center, which also indicated that queues would extend past the intersection of SC 649 (Profitt Rd.) and Leake Rd. In order to prevent queues at the intersections with US 29 from impacting the proposed roundabouts, we recommend the following: Main Commercial Entrance Roundabout: • The roundabout at the main commercial entrance and North Point Blvd should be moved east approximately 100' to ensure that it is not affected by queues from intersection of the entrance road with US 29. Profitt/ Leake Roundabout: • Profitt Rd. must be improved such that queues from the intersection of Profitt Rd and US 29 do not extend into the roundabout. • The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and the UNJAM 2025 plans call for an interchange at the intersection of SC 649 (Profitt/ Airport Rd) and US 29. If a roundabout is constructed at Leake Rd, the ability to economically constructed an interchange at US 29 and SC 649 will be severely restricted. The applicants should therefore proffer S150,000 to fund a VDOT feasibility study and concept plan for an interchange that can be constructed given the constraints that their use of Leake Rd. will impose. Sincerely,, Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc via email Mark Graham m g ra ha m „SIDRA LOS Summary.xls e10-23-03 06:54 Table 1 North Pointe Development-Albemarle County, Virginia aaSIDRA Analysis Results 2010 AM Peak Hour Phased Volume 2010 AM Peak Hour Total Volume Leake Dr Leake Dr LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A o -41 ♦ I* o o 41 1 o co LOS A 4— LOS A A*_ (t LOS A --A 4— LOS A co LOS A —0- + LOS A LOS A —► + LOS A ° 3 LOS A LOS A 3 3 LOS A LOS A w a) a) a)41 ? N I I* 41 I ill' J LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Leake Dr Leake Dr 2010 PM Peak Hour Phased Volume 2010 PM Peak Hour Total Volume Leake Dr Leake Dr LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A o Jr-41 I `► o o 41 II, o 16 LOS A 4— LOS A o co LOS A LOS A c`B ( LOS A —I 4— LOS A "" rp LOS A —* 4-- LOS A 1 v, LOS A --IF LOS A N 0 LOS A —i ' LOS A N J J a) 41 ? J LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Leake Dr Leake Dr mgraham EISIDRA LOS Summary.xls C)10-23-03 06:54 Table 4 North Pointe Development-Albemarle County, Virginia aaSIDRA Analysis Results 2010 AM Peak Hour Phased Volume 2010 AM Peak Hour Total Volume Leake Dr Leake Dr LOSA LOSA LOSA LOSA LOSA LOSA 1 cr LOS A ----4 LOSA cc cc LOS A LOS A cc V LOS A —► LOS A g - LOS A --10- '4--- LOS A V a LOS A — LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Worth Crossing Worth Crossing 2010 PM Peak Hour Phased Volume 2010 PM Peak Hour Total Volume Leake Dr Leake Dr LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B LOS B IP.- Ili lir cC LOS A 4- — LOS A cC CC LOS A LOS B cr g LOS A —► 4-- LOS A V V LOS A —0- f-- LOS B V LOS A L LOS A ' LOS A — LOS B a 41 I LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C LOS C Worth Crossing Worth Crossing L5:90 £0-£Z-01,ED slx•£00460 awnloA 1e301 040Z vtivig Table 1 TRIP GENERATION North Point Development-Albemarle County,Virginia AM PEAK PM PEAK LAND USE ITE CODE UNITS 24-HOUR ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Office/Industrial Park: Industrial Park 130 70,000 Square Feet 1,095 66 15 16 61 General Office 710 150,000 Square Feet 1,812 227 31 42 205 -5%Office Internal Capture 91 11 2 2 10 General Office Subtotal: 1,721 215 29 40 195 Office/Industnal Park Total. 2,817 282 44 56 256 Shopping Center 820 425,000 Square Feet 17,283 231 148 783 8 -15%Shopping Center Internal Capture 2,592 35 22 117 127 Shopping Center Total 14,691 196 125 666 721 Out Parcels: Hotel 310 250 Occupied Rooms 2,230 96 70 280 291 Convenience Market w/Gas Pumps 853 3,200 Square Feet 2,706 73 73 97 97 Drive-In Bank 912 3,600 Square Feet 1,014 25 20 99 99 Fast Food w/Drive-Through Window 834 3,200 Square Feet 1,588 81 78 56 51 Drugstore with Drive-Through Window 881 10,000 Square Feet 882 15 11 51 53 Out Parcels Subtotal(w/out Hotel) 6,189 195 183 302 300 -25%Pass-By Traffic w/out Hotel 1,547 49 46 76 75 Out Parcels Subtotal(w/out Hotel): 4,642 146 137 227 225 Out Parcels Total(with Hotel): 6,872 242 207 506 516 Residential: Single-Family Detached Housing 210 390 Dwelling Units 3,626 71 212 234 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 60 Dwelling Units 422 6 28 27 13 Apartments(50 units North Point,200 units Dr Hurt Property) 220 250 Dwelling Units 1,633 20 107 103 51 Retirement Community(Empty Nesters)* 250 90 Dwelling Units 248 7 8 12 10 Residential Total: 5,929 104 356 376 205 -15%Residential Internal Capture 889 16 53 56 31 Residential Total: 5,039 88 302 320 175 GRAND TOTAL: 29,418 808 678 1,548 1,668 SOURCE:"Trip Generation Handbook,6th ed,"Institute of Transportation Engineers NOTE:(*)Because weekday is not available,used Saturday for 24 hour average daily trip. Elaine Echols From: Mark Graham Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:46 PM To: Matthew Grimes Cc: Elaine Echols Subject: North Pointe Matt, I'm following up our discussion on this ZMA this morning and the other day. As I understand, you've discussed this with the district administrator in Culpeper and the residency and district office are in agreement on these recommendations. I need to relay this information to the applicant as soon as possible and I'd appreciate you letting me know if you believe I have anything wrong by Thursday PM, if possible. North Pointe Boulevard: VDOT wants to see this as a 4 lane divided street between Proffit Road and Northwest Passage. Leake Road and North Pointe Boulevard as shown on the internal road sections would need to be changed to reflect this. As I understand, VDOT sees this as part of a parallel road system that provides relief for 29 and VDOT considers the 4 lane section appropriate given the potential impact on Rt. 29. Leake Road: As noted above, VDOT would like to see a 4 lane section carried all the way to Proffit Road. Also, you are concerned that neither the roundabout or traffic signal will work in the location currently shown. Therefore, you would like to see the entrance onto Proffit Road moved west to provide a minimum of 1/4 mile separation between this entrance and Rt. 29. Alternatively, it would be acceptable to VDOT to limit this entrance to a right in - right out. In my opinion, a right in - right out doesn't meet the County's long-term interest for this intersection. Also, I'm not sure how we justify a 4 lane section for North Pointe Boulevard if this is just a right in -right out. Northwest Passage: VDOT wants to see this street designed to ultimately be a 4 lane divided road. It would be acceptable to VDOT if the applicant dedicated the right of way for the ultimate 4 lane section and built a 2 lane section. Basically, we'd have the applicant build 1/2 of the road and the rest of the road could be completed in the future. After thinking about this, I'm starting to have my doubts about the wisdom of that from the County perspective. Given the current state of the 6 year secondary road funding, I'd hate to see us create a new project that competes for that funding. I'm going to think about this a little more. If you have any other thoughts, I'd like to hear them. Thanks for your help on this. Please let me know ASAP if I misunderstood you on anything. 1 Ilp Elaine Echols From: Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew.Gnmes@VirginiaDOT.org] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:51 AM To: Elaine Echols (E-mail) Subject: ftp site Elaine, It will take you forever to download all the material from the FTP site using a web browser, and then you have to figue out what you do and don't need. I am using an old style unix ftp client, and can download all the stuff automatically. I will send you relevant information (some files are for the aaSIDRA roundabout software, which Alb Co does not have.) Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt 11,1 ;P n, Elaine Echols From: Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew.Grimes@VirginiaDOT.org] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:27 AM To: Elaine Echols (E-mail) Subject: FW: Roundabout Analysis Files for North Pointe Development Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt Original Message From: Jennifer Devaughn [mailto:jdevaughn@wilbursmith.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:37 AM To: Matthew.Grimes@VirginiaDOT.org Cc: Charles Rotgin Jr.; 'Joe Wallace' Subject: Roundabout Analysis Files for North Pointe Development Mr Grimes, Joe asked me to put the aaSlDRA files for the roundabout analysis completed for the North Pointe development on our FTP site. I have places the aaSIDRA files on the FTP site and you can access the files using the following link: ftp//ftp.wilbursmith com/Richmond/MattGnmes/North%20Pomte%20SIDRA%20Files/ There are sixteen analyses and then one Excel file that summarized the LOS. The roundabouts were analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hours using the interim traffic volume for Phase 1 and then the Total volume 1. AM_PhaseLC —AM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ Lewis & Clark 2. PM_PhaseLC — PM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ Lewis & Clark 3. AM_TotaILC —AM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ Lewis & Clark 4 PM_TotalLC — PM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ Lewis & Clark 5 AM_PhaseEl —AM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ El Road (Airport Acres North —Commercial Entrance) 6 PM PhaseEl — PM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ El Road (Airport Acres North —Commercial Entrance) 7 AM TotalEl —AM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ El Road (Airport Acres North —Commercial Entrance) 8 PM_TotalEl — PM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ El Road (Airport Acres North —Commercial Entrance) 1 1 1 -,1l1l 1\V Ulluu Vv u> >aa a. a aa...a - - ------ - 9. AM_PhaseE3 —AM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ E3 Road (Northside Business Entrance) 10. PM_PhaseE3 — PM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Leake @ E3 Road (Northside Drive — Business Entrance) 11. AM_TotalE3 —AM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ E3 Road (Northside Drive — Business Entrance) 12. PM_TotalE3 — PM peak hour Total volume for Leake @ E3 Road (Northside Drive — Business Entrance) 13. AM_PhasePW—AM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Proffit @ Worth Crossing/Leake 14. PM_PhasePW— PM peak hour Phase 1 volume for Proffit © Worth Crossing/Leake 15. AM_TotalPW—AM peak hour Total volume for Proffit @ Worth Crossing/Leake 16. PM_TotalPW— PM peak hour Total volume for Proffit @ Worth Crossing/Leake 17. SIDRA LOS Summary.xls — Excel spreadsheet summarizing the LOS from the 16 SIDRA analyses The Excel files containing the volume calculations for Phase 1 and the Total volume are still on the FTP site at: ftp.//ftp.wilbursmith com/Richmond/MattGrimes/ Please download these files at your earliest possible convenience as the data is purged from the FTP site on a regular basis. Let me know if you have any difficultly downloading or opening these files. Jennifer D. De Vaughn, E.I.T. Wilbur Smith Associates 2108 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 210 Richmond, VA 23227-4300 (ph) 804-377-2297 (fax) 804-377-2301 jdevaughn@wilbursmith.com L VY. Lava ua rvuuv t..v..... Elaine Echols From: Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew.Gnmes@VirginiaDOT.org] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:59 AM To: Elaine Echols (E-mail) Subject: FW: north pointe proffer comments Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt Onginal Message From: Grimes, Matthew C. Sent: Tuesday, September 30,2003 3:44 PM To: 'Elaine Echols' Subject: RE: north pointe proffer comments Please understand, my letter dated 2003-09-28 was not intended to rescind any comments made previously on the application plan. The intent was only to comment on the 2003-09-16 revision to the proffers. It seems that the application plan and proffers contain numerous notes and clauses "subject to VDOT approval" which I thought gave us the flexibility to get what is needed, when it is needed. It is very important that the parallel road function properly, and that its intersections be designed well and properly situated. To date,the applicants have not submitted details of these designs,or analyses that mitigate our concerns about the internal intersections proximity to US 29. It was my understanding, from reading the proffers,that this location and design review would occur after the ZMA is approved. I understand that the applicants may be exposing themselves to a certain amount of risk by not confirming the location& design at this stage, however, I believe that public is not at risk of having to accept inadequate facilities as a result of the ZMA approval. Please correct me if I misunderstand the proffers, and their clauses which subject the road alignment and design to VDOT approval. Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 43-1 293 0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." r VV. Ilvl UI 1Jvu1H. FL'JL .., - --Theodore Roosevelt Onginal Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto_EECHOLS®albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 30,2003 3:20 PM To: Matthew Grimes Subject: RE: north pointe proffer comments Well...if the roundabouts aren't far enough back from the intersection with Rt.29 inside of the development, it means they will need to redesign. That's important to us for the rezoning. It's something you said repeatedly. If the roundabout on Proffitt Road requires widening Proffitt to 10 lanes, we need to know that now. We don't know if they can acquire the r.o.w.to even make it work even if we wanted 10 lanes! It is very important to us for the rezoning. I'd think they would want to know,too! Y'all have said they can't do a traffic signal and they have only proffered a roundabout as an alternative. The only other option would be for them to allow for a reconfiguring of North Pointe Blvd. after y'all do the Proffitt Road project. If you don't need to know these things now,that's ok. But,we sure need to know and will say so. We just thought this was one of those things both VDOT and the County wanted to know before proceeding. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org Original Message From: Grimes, Matthew C. [mailto•Matthew Grimes4WirginraDOT org] Sent: Tuesday. September 30,2003 3:07 PM To: 'Elaine Echols' Subject. RE north pointe proffer comments PLEASE correct me if I misinterpreted the proffers. but I believe that they have proffered to construct them subject to our approval. That obligates them to any engineering work necessary to design the facilities such that they are safe and adequate r w: norm puuu.c piuuc, bVllllll� Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt ----Original Message--- From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org <mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 30,2003 2:56 PM To: Matthew Grimes Subject: RE: north pointe proffer comments Hi Matt-- Why didn't you comment on the roundabouts and lack of traffic information to substantiate that they will work? Elaine Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept.of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www albemarle.org Original Message From: Grimes, Matthew C. [mailto:Matthew.Grimes(WirginiaDOT.org <mailto:Matthew.Grimes@VirginiaDOT.org>] Sent:Tuesday,September 30,2003 9:23 AM To: Elaine Echols(E-mail) Cc: 'mgraham@albemarle.org'; Barron, Marshall Subject: north potnte proffer comments <<2003-09-16.proffer-response0.pdfl> Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt 1 1ii�nnn: Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:42 PM To: 'jwallace@wilbursmith.com'; Matthew Grimes Cc: james.bryan@virginiadot.org;jdavies@dbwle.com; steve.black@virginiadot.org; marshall.barron@virginiadot.org; Elaine Echols; djwmrw@earthlink.net; GEMC5@aol.com; jdevaughn@wilbursmith.com; Wayne Cilimberg; Mark Graham; William Rieley Subject: RE: North Pointe Dear Joe, Thank you for copying Albemarle County on your email. I'm glad you are going to be providing additional information for VDOT review; however, our deadline for new information to be used for the public hearing was September 16, which Wayne explained to Chuck at the end of the first week in September. As I have explained to Matt, even if he were able to complete his analysis within a week of receiving your information, it would be too late for the County to accept for inclusion in our report for the public hearing. You are welcome to provide the information to the Commission as part of Chuck's presentation or you may provide the information to the Commission in writing prior to the meeting. As a rule, the Commission prefers that staff review information relevant to a rezoning, prior to the public hearing. I know we would be interested in VDOT's comments on this analysis prior to giving our analysis to the Commission. I'm very sorry that this information is being offered so late in this process since it has such a strong relationship to the transportation component of the rezoning. Elaine Echols Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434/296-5823 Y 3252 www.albemarle.org Original Message From: Joe Wallace [mailto:Jwallace@wilbursmith.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01. 2003 2:43 PM To: matthew.grimes@virginiadot.org Cc:James bryan@virgmiadot.org.Jdavies@dbwle.com; steve.black@virginiadot.org; marshall.barron@virgintadot.org: eechols(2albemarle.org;djwmrw@earthlink.net; GEMC5 @ aol.com. jdevaughn@wilbursmith.com i - -1nn1 Subject: North Pointe Matt, As a follow up to our telephone conversation of 26 September 03, this email will confirm your acknowledgement that the VDOT L&D section of the Culpeper District has approved our Profitt Road design scope of services as submitted by Great Eastern Management. On another issue from our 29 August 03 meeting, there is a sizable cost difference between 50 and 60 mph design speed for the vertical curve improvement on Rte. 29 southbound. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Hollymeade Town Center area was granted 50 MPH design speed approval for Rte. 29 improvements. With North Pointe having proffered several million dollars worth of road improvements to the Rte. 29 corridor, and there being a general recognition that this is either now or shortly will be classified as an urban section, we hope that the Department will appropriately consider these facts in making a final determination as to the design speed. The North Pointe applicant has seen and oked the distributions from the proposed Phase I land uses. I will be providing you early next week this distribution info together with the SIDRA analyses for the internal middle and commercial as well as the Proffit Rd roundabouts. I trust this will allow you sufficient time for at least preliminary review prior to the scheduled 10/14/03 Planning Commission public hearing. If you have any questions please give me a call at (804) 377-2294 Joe 11/11'100.; Elaine Echols Subject: FW: north pointe proffer comments Original Message From: Grimes, Matthew C. Sent: Tuesday, September 30,2003 3:44 PM To: 'Elaine Echols' Subject: RE: north pointe proffer comments Please understand,my letter dated 2003-09-28 was not intended to rescind any comments made previously on the application plan. The intent was only to comment on the 2003-09-16 revision to the proffers. It seems that the application plan and proffers contain numerous notes and clauses "subject to VDOT approval"which I thought gave us the flexibility to get what is needed,when it is needed. It is very important that the parallel road function properly, and that its intersections be designed well and properly situated. To date,the applicants have not submitted details of these designs,or analyses that mitigate our concerns about the internal intersections proximity to US 29. It was my understanding, from reading the proffers, that this location and design review would occur after the ZMA is approved. I understand that the applicants may be exposing themselves to a certain amount of risk by not confirming the location& design at this stage, however, I believe that public is not at risk of having to accept inadequate facilities as a result of the ZMA approval. Please correct me if I misunderstand the proffers,and their clauses which subject the road alignment and design to VDOT approval. Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 I0i9i2003 • ,—r COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY Philip A Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGNEER September 29, 2003 Elaine Echols Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject:North Pointe Proffers (2003-09-16 revision) Dear l-Etfiolsl4`t` The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the revised proffers submitted for the North Pointe development proposal (ZMA-2000-072). Proffer 5.2 (a) Internal Roads The cross sections for North Pointe Blvd and North-West Passage should be modified to provide four travel lanes between the southern development boundary and US 29 at Lewis and Clarke Drive. Service lanes and angled parking should be shown outside the limits of proposed VDOT right-of-way. Detailed comments on the design of these roads will be provided upon submittal of road plans. Proffer 5.3 External Road Improvements and Phasing The reference to the design speed of external road improvements should be changed to 60 mph, with 55 mph speed limit, or deleted altogether. The plans for any road improvements must be approved by VDOT staff prior to the issuance of permit, and the plans must therefore be based on the design speed specified by VDOT staff. Proffer 5.3 (a) (1)—(3) Phasing of Public Improvements All references to a'`continuous right turn lane" should be changed to "through lane" and the phase "including transition zones as determined by VDOT staff' should be added. A statement that a right turn lane shall be constructed, the geometrics of which will be determined by VDOT staff should be added to the lists of improvements for each entrance. The length of this turn lane shall not exceed a continuous right turn lane across the North Pointe frontage. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 215r CENTURY October,2003 Page 2 of 2 Proffer 5.3 (a) (6) byin connection with The phrase "to the extent they have not been p VDOTlstaff will determine the(e.g.,tent to which network Hollymead Town Center)" should be deleted. timing plans submitted for the Hollymead Town Center are applicable to the timing plans submitted in support of North Pointe signals. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes,EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc via email Mark Graham Elaine Echols From: Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew.Grimes@VirginiaDOT.org] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:00 PM To: Elaine Echols (E-mail) Cc: Michael Barnes (E-mail); Kim Cameron (E-mail); Glenn Brooks (E-mail) Subject: bonds for US 29 improvements During a meeting on North Pointe, the applicants asked about the amount of money that would be required for the bonds on improvements done under permit. The answer is that the permittee must post a bond for the full cost of the improvements. Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." --Theodore Roosevelt 922/2003 3 7°%owcd-,-1 F/7,,,VC 3 Comments on Proffers: Proffer 5.1: Internal Road Plan Previous studies of the US 29 corridor in Albemarle County have indicated that parallel roads are needed to allow local traffic to circulate through the development areas without using US 29. These findings are confirmed by the operational success of the SR 1403 (Berkmar Dr.), which serves exactly this purpose. At locations where one of these parallel roads intersects with a major secondary road, such as Berkmar Drive and SR 631 (Rio Rd)it is necessary to install a traffic signal. In order for these signals to function properly,they must be located at least 800'from US 29, with 1000'being the recommended minimum spacing. In order for the proposed North Pointe Blvd. to function as an effective alternative to US 29 for trips between the residential areas south of SR 649 (Proffitt Rd.), North Pointe, and J the North Fork Research Park, the alignment of North Pointe Blvd. must be shifted such "IM that its intersection with SR 649 is located 800'— 1000'east of US 29. Currently, the plan indicates that North Pointe Blvd. will connect to Leake Road. a private road situated approximately 540'from US 29. VDOT staff recommends that an inter-parcel connection between North Pointe Blvd. and Leake Rd. be maintained, but that the centerline of North Pointe Blvd. be shifted eastward such that it is constructed to the boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 2. VDOT staff believes that the commercial entrance road, between US 29, and North Pointe Blvd. is unsafe, and operationally inefficient, due the inadequate merging distance in the eastbound approach to the proposed roundabout. In order to provide safe and convenient access, the four lane section should be continued to the roundabout. It may also be necessary to shift this intersection eastward to ensure that queues do not extend to US 29. The design of the roundabout must be based on current FHWA guidelines. Roundabouts should be installed at the intersections of North Pointe Blvd. with Northside Dr. Extended, and Northwest Passage. Roundabouts will cause fewer delays than stop control intersections, while increasing pedestrian safety and contributing the use of the road as a community facility rather than a commuter comdor These roundabouts must be based on current FHWA guidelines. Additional roundabouts or other comments about the minor intersections and entrances along North Pointe Blvd will be provided when the road plans are reviewed. The angled parking shown on North Pointe Blvd. is not consistent with current VDOT design standards. Parallel parking will be allowed, if designed to meet current VDOT standards. The access easement to Tax Map 32. parcel 22E should be constructed to the property line, so as to ensure that access to this parcel is provided. An easement or reservation connecting one of the residential streets to SR 785 (Pritchett Lane) is strongly recommended. Proffer 5.2: Road Construction Standards Roads within the North Pointe Development that are intended to be public must be f - A r:1 • constructed to the appropriate VDOT standards. The Urban Collector(GS-7) standard for a 40 mph design should be applied to North Pointe Blvd. and North West Passage. The Urban Local Standard (GS-8) may be applied for the residential streets. Detailed road design plans,including drainage computations must be submitted to VDOT for review. Proffers 5.3 a(1)—a(7),a(10),a(12)Phasing of Improvements to US 29 The transportation improvements mentioned in these proffers, and the phasing of construction will be based on the requirements detailed in Attachment A. Proffer 5.3 a(8): SR 1570 to Cypress Dr.Frontage Rd. The applicants will be required to construct this frontage Rd., in order to close the existing crossover at Cypress Dr. Proffer 5.3 a(9): Closure of Existing Crossover at Cypress Dr. The closure of this proffer will be required in order to install the proposed signal at SR 1570 (Northside Dr). Proffer 5.3 b(1): Widening of US 29 northbound, from SR 649 to North Pointe boundary. VDOT staff recommends that the wording of this proffer be changed to reflect the applicant constructing this improvement, rather than supplying funds to do so. We also recommend that phasing of this proffer be changed such that the proffer is executed prior to the issuance of any non-residential Certificates of Occupancy. Proffer 5.3 b(2): Traffic Signal at SR 649 and SR 1722. A signal will be not be approved at this location, due to inadequate spacing from the signal on US 29 at SR 649 (Proffitt Rd. /Airport Rd.). VDOT staff recommends that the wording of this proffer be changed to allow these funds to be used to construct a signalized intersection on SR 649 800'— 1000'east of the intersection with US 29. This intersection would be installed at such time as the North Pointe Blvd. could be extended to SR 649 at this location. Proffer 5.3 b(3): Funds for the correction of vertical curvature. This improvement is addressed in Attachment A, in that plans for improvements must be based on current 60 mph design standards. Proffer 5.3 b(4) Funds for a transportation study. VDOT staff recommends that the wording of this proffer be altered to allow the funds to be spend on a master plan transportation study for the Hollymead Community. Recommendations for additional improvements. En order to create a successful, multi-tiered transportation network throughout the Hollymead Community. a network of roads should be provided that obviates the need for drivers to use US 29 for local tnps within the neighborhood. In order for the roads parallel to US 29 to function effectively. their intersections with SR 649 (Proffitt Rd./ Airport Rd.) must be situated approximately 1000' from US 29. Therefore, in addition to the North Pointe Blvd. alignment shift mentioned above, we recommend that the applicants proffer to financially assist with following elements of the Hollymead Community transportation infrastructure. • An extension of North Pointe Blvd. across Tax Map 32, Parcel 2, and a signal at the intersection with SR 649 (Proffitt Rd). • The SR 649 (Proffitt Rd.) improvement project currently in Albemarle County's secondary six year program. Since the proposed development will increase traffic on SR 649, funding to advance the schedule of this VDOT project will help ensure that the necessary infrastructure is constructed concurrently with the North Pointe Development. t'5 fl ^ i,. 4r77/-C /A Itiri r"' I 1. ''.'' Improvements Rq '' d for and US 29 Signal Approval. The following' ., ate requiired to ensure a safe and adequate conditions at the proposed si us . _. .', _7" bit of US 29 and the North Pointe entrance roads. These improvements •:• cbisidered minimum requirements for signal approval and will not mitigate+, f,, ,,.} .'' . to areas beyond the geographic scope of these requiremenks" -• . All plans- r. dements must be submitted for VDOT review and approval prior to the issuan= '-.'-:`perriiit to work in the Right-of-Way. These plans should be based on a design speed of 60 mph. The plans may show the use of the existing median for improvements,provided that an ultimate 8 lane cross-section is not precluded by slopes, structures,or utilities. Urban or rural design standards may be used for either edge of roadway. It is expected that the southbound lanes of US 29 will require significant reconstruction in order to attain current design standards for sight distance and vertical alignement. In order to achieve VDOT standards for new signal installations, additional through lanes are needed on US 29, both northbound and southbound. These additional lanes must extend for 1000' north and south of each new signalized intersection. Each through lane must also have a return transition of approximately 600'—720',the exact distance to be determined by VDOT staff based on a review of the preliminary road plans for these improvements. VDOT staff will consider a phased construction plan, if a traffic analysis indicates that Level of Service C can be achieved in each phase of the construction. Any plan for the phasing of improvements must be based on a development phasing plan that is approved by VDOT and Albemarle County staff. Two lanes of northbound and southbound traffic must be maintained at all times during construction. The turn lanes and their storage and taper lengths at the intersections shall be as follows, unless the applicants document that they should be otherwise through an approved traffic study: US 29 and Main Commercial Entrance • US 29 SB: 500' dual left turn lanes, with 200' of taper • US 29 SB: a 200' right turn lane with 150' taper. • US 29 NB: a right turn lane, continuous across the North Pointe frontage, with 150' of taper. • US 29 NB: a 200' left turn lane with 150'of taper • SR 1515 EB: a 150' left turn lane with 150' of taper • North Pointe Entrance Rd. WB: the lane configurations must be developed in consultation with VDOT and Albemarle County staff once the comments on the internal road plan have been addressed. The lane configurations must accommodate an 8 phase signal timing plan. • The crossover on US 29 at SR 1516 (Airport Acres Pl) must be closed. US 29 and SR 1570(Northside Dr). to „._ • US 29 SB. rr� , . ;T with 200' of taper • US 29 SB- a with 150' taper. • US 29 NB: ;,; ; e continuous across the North Pointe frontage • US 29 :I , , , lane with 150'of taper • SR 157 f — jrf separate left, through, and right turn movements, details of which ,I,‘ ;;,r •y VDOT staff in the course of intersection design plan reviews • North • • cc Rd. WB: the lane configurations must be developed in coastiltatt• , , di VDOT and Albemarle County staff once the comments on the internal • plan have been addressed. The lane configurations must accommodate an 8 phase signal timing plan. • Closure of existing crossover at Cypress Dr. • Construction of frontage Rd. from Cypress Dr. to SR 1570 (Northside Dr.). US 29 and Northwest Passage • US 29 SB: 300' dual left turn lanes, with 200' of taper • US 29 NB: a right turn lane, continuous across the North Pointe frontage, with 150' of striped taper. • North West Passage WB: the lane configurations must be developed in consultation with VDOT and Albemarle County staff once the comments on the internal road . plan have been addressed. The lane configurations must accommodate an 8 phase signal timing plan. VDOT staff will consider phased alternatives to the aforementioned storage lengths of the turn lanes if a traffic impact analysis justifies to VDOT staff satisfaction that such a phasing plan is appropriate. Conduit and interconnect cable must be provided so as to integrate the intersections on the US 29 corridor from Airport Rd. to Northwest Passage/SR 1571 (Lewis and Clark Dr.). The installation may be performed under permit by the applicant, or funded on an accounts receivable basis in conjunction with the improvements to the proposed signals, / with costs of the trenching, conduit and interconnect cable not to exceed five dollars per linear foot, as determined by VDOT staff. A signal plan must be submitted for VDOT approval. All signal equipment at the proposed intersection must be in compliance with Culpeper District Traffic Engineering standards. A set of network timing plans for the US 29 corridor, from SR 1670 (Ashwood Blvd.)to each successive proposed signal, inclusive, must be submitted for VDOT approval. These timing plans should be for Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Saturday Mid-Day. and Off Peak periods. The necessity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along US 29 shall be determined based on the recommendations of the Albemarle County Dept. of Engineering and Public Works. In addition, a highway permit will be required prior to any activity on VDOT right-of- way, including the necessary bonding for proffered construction improvements. I ASV' �. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY Philip A.Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER April 14,2003 David Benish Dept. of Planning &Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: North Pointe Proffers Dear Mr. Benish, The purpose of this letter is share our assessment of the North Pointe proffers dated March 31, 2003, and to suggest an approach for developing more meaningful proffers in the future. The submission of road plans for the site (Proffer 5.1) which adhere to VDOT road construction standards (Proffer 5.2), and the provision of adequate sight distance at proposed new signals (Proffer 5.3-(b), 3) are within the scope of applicable regulations governing the development proposal and will be required. According to VDOT policy, new traffic signals at entrances to developments must operate at a tolerable level of service. The most recent submission of traffic analyses for North Pointe included the physical improvements proposed in the phasing proffer statements (Proffers 5.3-(a). 1-12). These analyses indicate that the improvements listed in the proffer statements will result in Level of Service F at all of the signalized North Pointe entrances to US 29. According to VDOT policy. it is incumbent upon the developer to improve conditions to an acceptable Level of Service in order to receive approval for a signalized entrance. In addition. the proffers do not provide for the mitigation of North Pointe's traffic impacts to transportation infrastructure throughout the Hollymead Community, most notably at the intersection of US 29 and Route 649. The study indicates that traffic from North Pointe will significantly increase delays at this intersection. yet no improvements to this intersection are proffered. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21'T CENTURY North Pointe Proffer Comments April 14,2003 Page 2 of 2 Ideally, the proffers should help provide the necessary public infrastructure necessary to support the proposed development. Because the transportation infrastructure throughout the Hollymead Community is inadequate for the development proposals currently under review, we recommend that the transportation and land use in the community be studied using procedures similar to those used in the County's community master planning process.. Once the location and scale of necessary transportation facilities are thus identified, financial responsibility for individual components can be assessed. Any improvements which are not clearly the responsibility of a developer can then be publicly funded or proffered by applicants for Zoning Map Amendments. Our staff stands ready to assist you in the process of planning the transportation infrastructure of the Hollymead Community. Sincerely, , ems Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc via email Juandiego Wade Elaine Echols Kim Cameron Tarpeley Gillespie Michael Barnes Glenn Brooks i V• COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY Philip A.Schucet CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER • November 14,2002 North Pointe Proffers Juandiego Wade Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Mr Wade, The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Residency's comments on the document entitled "Draft List of North Pointe Highway Proffers", dated August 23, 2002, which was submitted by Great Eastern Management in support of their rezoning application for the North Pointe development proposal. Most of the improvements "proffered" in that list will be required by VDOT. since the need for these improvements is generated by the proposed development as documented in the applicant's traffic impact analysis. In addition, the traffic analyses conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates reveal that additional improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. The attached table details the improvements that the Department will require the applicant to provide along the public roads adjacent to their property. Because the traffic study for the North Pointe development predicts that 46% percent of the site traffic will impact US 29 south of its intersection with Route 649 (Airport/ Proffitt Rd.). the Residency also recommends that the traffic impacts of this and other proposed developments be evaluated together. Based on the travel demand identified in the combined analysis. a network of parallel and interconnected roads should be developed, in conjunction with widening of US 29, from Route 643 (Polo Grounds Rd.) to Route 1571 (Lewis and Clark Dr.). If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me Sincerely, i o f L- Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer attachment: detailed assessment of required improvements TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21"CENTURY 58 ,,ointe Traffic Impact Study Comments de2of4 Detailed Assessment of Required Improvements General Comments All turn lane storage and taper lengths will be determined by the Virginia Department of Transportation, as dictated by traffic operations, safety and geometric analyses. Required Improvements 1 Proposed by Applicant US 29, from Route 649 (Proffitt Rd) to Route 1571 (Lewis and Clark Drive). Third lane northbound. Preliminary assessments of US 29 ROW conducted by Residency staff indicate that it is possible Unknown. to construct this within the existing ROW. US 29 and 649 (Proffitt Rd) WB Approach: sufficient funds to construct a left turn lane. This left turn lane will be constructed by the Department in I No addition the left turn lane shown on the plans for the Proffit I Road project. Route 649 (Proffitt Rd) and 1722 (Worth Crossing) All improvements at this intersection should fully funded by the applicant. to be constructed by VDOT in conjunction with the Route 649 (Proffitt Rd) project. Signalization Yes Eastbound Approach: dual left turn lanes. Only to extent ROW is available. Westbound Approach: one right turn lane. Only to extent ROW is available. Southbound Approach: one left turn lane. one through lane, Only two lanes, of unspecified one right turn lane. configuration This entrance road must be improved to a four lane divided Limited to two lane section i typical section. 59 ATTACHmtnr` Northpointe Traffic Impact Study Comments Page 3 of 4 Required Improvements I Proposed by Applicant US 29 and Main Commercial Entrance All improvements listed for this intersection should be provided by the applicant. Signalization Yes Correct unsafe vertical geometrics at this location. Unknown. Northbound Approach: one right turn lane. Yes Southbound Approach: dual left turn lanes. Yes Westbound Approach: dual left turn lanes, and one through-right Only two lanes of unspecified lane, with sufficient Right of Way to allow addition of fourth lane configuration, with sufficient ROW out of development, to be constructed by applicant if needed on or to allow addition of third lane. if, before 1/1/2022. needed on or before 1/1/2022. j US 29 and Center Entrance/Northside Drive All improvements listed for this intersection should be provided by the applicant. Signalization Yes Correct unsafe vertical geometries at this location. Unknown Northbound Approach: one right turn lane. Yes Southbound Approach: dual left turn lanes. j Yes I Eastbound Approach: one right turn lane. No Westbound Approach: dual left turn lanes, and one through-right Only two lanes of unspecified lane with sufficient Right of Way to allow addition of fourth lane configuration, with sufficient out of development, to be constructed at applicants expense if ROW to allow addition of-third needed on or before 1/1/2022. I lane, if needed on or before 1/1/2022. A frontage road must be constructed by the applicant from State Only if ROW is dedicated by Route 1570 (Northside Drive) to Cypress Drive in order to others. relocate the existing crossover on US 29. 1570 (Northside Drive) and Proposed Frontage Road All listed improvements for this intersection should be provided by the applicant. WB Approach: one continuous right turn lane from this No intersection to the intersection of US 29 and Northside Drive. 60 Pointe Traffic Impact Study Comments 4e 4 of 4 Required Improvements j Proposed by Applicant US 29 and State Route 1571 (Lewis and Clark Drive) All listed improvements for this intersection should be provided by the applicant. Westbound Approach: signalization for this approach; one left turn lane, and one through-right lane with sufficient Right-of-Way No to allow addition of third lane out of development. Northbound Approach: one right turn lane. Only at the time of the development of Tax Map 32 Parcel 22K Southbound Approach: an additional left turn lane to be provided No by applicant if needed on or before 1/1/2022. 61 �r 1 4oti a/.II 'tt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner(to be in SPIN) FROM: Kim Cameron, Senior Engineer DATE: November 6, 2002 RE: North Pointe PUD (formerly Towers Project), Zoning Map Amendment Request ZMA-2000-009 (Sign# 97, 98,99) The ZMA request for North Point PUD (formerly Towers Land Trust/Violet Hill) received on October 7, 2002 has been reviewed. The Engineering Department offers the following comments: General Plan Comments: The plans submitted on September 7, 2000 (previous plans) were more comprehensive and legible than the plans currently being reviewed. Although those plans were also at a 200 scale, four separate plan sheets were provided which allowed showing more legible information. Plan review of the previous plans produced numerous comments, most of which appear to not have not been addressed with the current plan. Therefore, many of the previous comments are repeated in this memo due to there being insufficient information to determine whether they have been addressed at this time. Please reference the list compiled by the Planning Commission entitled, "Planning Commission Request for Information to be Submitted with Re-zoning Applications (7 March 2000)." 1. Please provide a site map at a more readable scale (minimum 1:50) so that all pertinent information is legible. 2. Please provide a key for any plans submitted. 3. All existing streams and floodplains, and any applicable stream buffer requirements shall be depicted on the plans. 4. Existing property lines, right-of-ways, parcel numbers, and current zoning of adjacent parcels shall be shown on the plans. 5. The critical slopes on this plan do not include all of the critical slopes shown on the previous plans. Please show all critical slopes. 6. Please show the locations of all proposed public road improvements (traffic signals, median crossovers, etc.) i North Pointe PUD (form Towers Project) 1'` ZMA-2000-009 Page 2 i Transportation Infrastructure Comments: As discussed in meetings between the County and VDOT, the transportation infrastructure needed to support this ZMA is a major concern. Currently the property is zoned RA with the potential to develop 51 units on 263 acres (using development rights.) In discussions with VDOT, we concur that the 510 VPD traffic generated by the"by right"development would not significantly affect the current transportation infrastructure. Current ADT on this section of Route 29 is 33,000 VPD. Therefore, the 510 VPD would represent 1.5% of the total existing traffic. For by right development, VDOT would only recommend improvements at entrances, where sight distances would have to be evaluated and right turn lanes might have to be provided if the development was clustered. In the September 11, 2001 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) submitted by the developer, the total daily site generated traffic at full development is estimated to be 29,418 VPD. Based on the 4% growth factor listed in Table 2 of this TIS, if this site-generated traffic uses Route 29 as the primary travelway, the traffic on Route 29 could be increased by 65% upon full development of this site. Therefore, traffic on Route 29 in this area has the potential to increase from 1.5% to 65% based on approval of this ZMA. Based on this traffic study and the October 10, 2002 amendment, existing background traffic on Route 29 causes some signals to be at or near failure currently. Therefore, the existing capacity of Route 29 does not currently allow for such an increase in volume without warranting improvements. The County staff believes and VDOT staff concurs that this ZMA should be approved only if there are no adverse affects on the present infrastructure. The developer needs to concentrate on the existing Route 29 intersections as well as the North Pointe intersections. Although some of these intersections may already be failing at peak hours, we do not feel that is justification for making them even worse, or increasing their delay times. In an effort to alleviate some traffic on the existing infrastructure, the County staff and VDOT staff have agreed to collaborate in the planning of ultimate cross-sections, parallel roads, and parkways, etc. as part of improving and maintaining the transportation network within the County. As it relates to this site, we encourage parallel connectors or"spine" roads as well as interconnections to proposed and existing developments. The parallel connector included on this site should extend the public road to Proffit Road. Improvements shall also include a third through lane on Route 29 from Airport Road to Lewis and Clark Drive, both northbound and southbound. The Route 29 improvements should also include turning lanes necessary for turning movements into and out of their site. Signals should be provide at all three entrances and possibly at the Proffit Road entrance. Many of the subsequent comments are conveyed with this philosophy in mind. 7. Although the comprehensive plan indicated that access to Pritchett Lane would not be an alternative for access to this site, it should be evaluated. Circumstances have changed since the plan was originally created and might warrant re-evaluating this road as a means to access this site. North Pointe PUD (forrr Towers Project) r ZMA-2000-009 Page 3 8. It appears that the proposed roadways between the proposed apartments and the town center will need to be widened to accommodate a larger traffic capacity. These travelways will most likely be used as a connector road from the UREF North Fork development and Proffit Road(Route 649). The issue of roadside parking and the roundabout will also need to be addressed. These are not desirable components of a connector road. 9. The street cross-sections and the proposed stormsewer plan(previous plans) suggest a curb and gutter design with a closed drainage system. With this in mind, and natural drainage occurring within steep slopes at this site, the Engineering Department strongly recommends urban cross-sections (curb and gutter) for streets with a closed drainage system. 10. VDOT has made the Engineering Department aware that the County must be responsible for assuring the maintenance of dams which have public roads constructed on them. The Engineering Department recommends that no public roadways be placed on dams unless there is a public benefit. 11. It is suggested that right-of-ways be reserved on lots 4, 13 and for future interparcel connector streets to Route 785. 12. It is suggested that right-of-ways be reserved for access to the spine road from Tax map 32 Parcel 22K1. 13. The southern most egress from this site onto Proffit Road (Route 649) is shown intruding on Tax map parcel 32A-02-1B and terminates at a roadway not designed to handle the possible traffic volume. It is recommended that this roadway be upgraded to a public road with standard right-of-ways. This connection to Proffit Road is highly desirable. 14. The access roads serving the proposed hotels should be connected to accommodate interparcel travel. The Engineering Department would like to see this in addition to the proposed pedestrian connection. Environmental Comments: David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, organized a stream assessment study within the County this past year. As part of this study, the streams within the North Pointe site were assessed. David's narrative concerning the streams on this site is provided below: The North Pointe property is somewhat unique in that it is large enough to contain almost the entire drainage area of the main stem of Flat Branch (not counting the western stem that goes through the North Fork Research Park) plus a smaller tributary to the North Fork Rivanna to the east. In this regard, the development design for the property will • North Pointe PUD (former owers Project) ZMA-2000-009 Page 4 _ , dictate the degree to which the stream valley will be impacted, restored, and/or protected. It is likely that some degree of impact can be traded off for other areas of restoration and protection. Preliminary results from the County's stream assessment indicate that the main stem of Flat Branch rates as fair or poor when compared to other streams within the Development Areas. This is based on habitat assessment, and also rating based on natural aesthetic. The reason that the stream rates as fair or poor is that some areas are channelized along Route 29, some are severely impacted by existing development (especially near the top of the drainage), and others are characterized by existing stream erosion and one large tire dump. Almost all of the stream valley is wooded, mostly in early or middle successional woodlands. The existing condition of the stream valley presents several opportunities for restoration projects. In contrast, the smaller stream to the east rates as good for habitat and natural aesthetic. This small stream valley is an environmental resource worthy of protection, as is the frontage along the North Fork Rivanna, characterized by extreme slopes and mature woodlands. While the Stormwater Master Plan is not yet complete, the following comments can be offered on the rezoning application based on stream assessment results. When complete, the Stormwater Master Plan will provide a list of protection and restoration projects for each drainage area within the Development Areas. Stream Impacts • The concept plan indicates piping/filling of 6 streams or stream reaches. Permit issues through the Army Corps and DEQ could be substantial. • Two stream reaches will be flooded by the lake. The lake will also require permitting. • Two stream reaches will be highly impacted by crossings and other development encroachments. • Al streams should be shown clearly on the plan. Proposed Lake • The location of the proposed lake impacts the highest scoring stream reaches along the main stem of Flat Branch. Either upstream or downstream reaches rate poor instead of fair. Of note is the existing breached dam downstream from the proposed lake. The stream through the old pond bed is characterized by severe erosion and a very silty streambed. It may be worthy to consider restoring the pond at this location. Protected Areas • The following areas would be good candidates for protected areas within the property: slopes along the North Fork Rivanna, the stream valley to the east of Flat Branch, and some section along the main stem of Flat Branch that can be restored to a moderately healthy condition. North Pointe PUD (former owers Project) ZMA-2000-009 Page 5 Environmental Infrastructure Improvements The stream assessment identified several areas where existing problems could be rectified, as follows: • Clean up two dump sites, including one substantial tire dump • Repair areas of streambank erosion, eroding stream crossings, and eroding ditches (5 total) • Restore one small area of inadequate stream buffer. Copies of maps, which show the existing streams and their assessment ratings, are provided as attachments to this memo. The subsequent comments summarize some of David's narrative as it pertains to the plans, as well as other environmental issues. 15. Treatment of the North Fork Rivanna River corridor(river, flood plain, and adjacent critical slopes) should be given more consideration. This is the chief prominent environmental feature on the property. The proposed plan would involve many encroachments into this corridor. Protection of the corridor should be considered a design objective for this development. 16. While none of the stormwater treatment areas on Sheet 4 (previous plans) have been designed, most of them encroach onto critical slopes, live streams, individual lots, and/or flood plain. A master stormwater plan should be considered for this project, due to its scale and variety of land use types. The A master plan should consider stormwater solutions that respect the site's environmental features to the extent possible, non-structural measures, maintenance and access issues, and compatibility with the site's built features and infrastructure. The proposed large lake may be a suitable feature to treat stormwater from the southern end of the property, and could be incorporated as part of the master plan. As a general rule, stormwater practices should be incorporated into common or open space, and not be located on individual lots. It would be helpful to have the drainage features on Sheet 4 (previous plans) to be shown graphically with the site layout on Sheet 2(previous plans). Also, please provide conceptual stormwater management. This should include outlining the proposed drainage areas, providing the Short Version BMP Computations worksheets for each drainage area, and using the removal rates required to select the type of BMP used. The plans should indicate the areas to be used for storm water detention and/or BMPs. Miscellaneous Comments: 17. Army Corps of Engineers and DEQ permits will be required for any stream crossings or impacts to wetlands. V North Pointe PUD (former owers Project) ZMA-2000-009 • Page 6 18. Special Use Permits will be required for the proposed wastewater and the northernmost access roadway shown within the floodplain. Please show the existing FEMA floodplain on the Flat Branch waterway as well as any stream buffer requirements. County staff do believe this crossing is desirable and necessary for the parallel road system. Therefore, we request that the developer request a Special Use permit when details of the crossing are available. 19. Please address all VDOT comments. 20. Further comments will be forthcoming when more information is provided. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Attachments: Stream Assessment Maps Copy: file 2165 /in\\ 1\c1\i us main pl_\\\I Rs \!111111// I CO\o\ihl5 Wilbur Smith Associates October 10, 2002 10 East Franklin Street Richmond.\'A _i219-2131 (SO4) 643-6651 (SO4) 644-2709 fax tt tswtt•tlbursmrth corn Mr. Chuck Proctor Assistant Resident Engineer VDOT- Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Re: North Pointe 10-21 -1 7A0 : -P6722 Dear Mr. Proctor: As a follow up to our 11 September meeting, we have analyzed the U.S. Route 29 North Pointe entrances (intersections), as well as the intersections of Rt. 29 and Airport Road/Profitt Road and US 29 and Lewis & Clark Drive. As instructed in the meeting, North Pointe cannot be held responsible for the existing, background or the total buildout conditions at the US 29 & Proffit Road signalized intersection. It is recognized that the existing intersections are either at failure or close to failure during certain times of the day; in particular, the peak periods. In that regard, we have conducted a series of analyses that are summarized on the attached spreadsheet. The analyses are as follows: • The top portion of the sheet illustrates 2010 background volumes with no North Pointe development traffic. It assumes US 29 is two through lanes north and south. ▪ The CORSIM output details the level of service at the signalized intersection. Presently US 29 and Airport/Proffit Road is the only existing signalized intersection. US 29 and Lewis and Clark, under the development agreement, will be signalized by 2010. • Proffit Road and Worth Crossing also will most likely be signalized by 2010 based on growth in the area and the need for platooning and gaps which will allow for acceptable traffic operations and movement. As shown in the chart, presently US 29 and Airport/Proffit Road in the A.M. peak has an intersection LOS of an E and the P.M. peak an F. • If US 29 and Lewis and Clark are signalized, by 2010 as they should be, you will note that the LOS for the A.M. peak is at a D and the P.M. Peak is also at a D. • Proffit Road and Worth Crossing, LOS C for the A.M. Peak and LOS C for P.M. Peak. Our second analyses of 2010 total volumes includes North Pointe development traffic. Assuming US 29 is three through lanes northbound, southbound, with background and North Pointe intersections. We analyzed the North Pointe intersections, not focusing on the already failing US 29 and Airport Drive intersection. As mentioned in our meeting, the failing intersections will adversely affect the levels of service that we obtain at our intersections. We cannot be held responsible for the failure today, nor in the future. Vbutt \\ \.t+6tun C..\ \•Ilm t(.\ ti,,ittnutr \ll) liut,l.•k \-1 C,h.ulc+t•;I SC.C:ltlrlc.;un \\\ (!u.•_+ II ( um:.c:;i(II! C"ttcInttl t'll l.'hu•tbt+�l• l dutbt'igI I) Iii• I\ I\tirut \I I di,t hunit\\ ( ru•ntih•.(, Ih'te1%, ILd\pntt� \IC Ihnntinl I\.ist'aI\l I�,m••l:t \ittlatt'\ •IL I\ I.tm•n�\II I4.tni,,nt Ll 1_k II I. h•I t \liht rll.t \\I \An,d'n I ,,,I` \I rth Ilit.+.li�(.t\\ttI I Lltcn C i Illltllrnit,I'I i'!ni.ul.t{tI\/'In,t,b 1II\II i`\ ')'1.11cl\ii - 1„ \l I:,4 _ \: ., ,\ \ ' , i. . ( , t I 1 I'ntn1ut rt-()ttimti(:oln)n.11)t , The review of the analyses for 2010 total traffic, three through lanes northbound southbound, we find that the intersections of US 29 and Airport Acres/Road E-1 and US 29 and Northside Drive/Road E-3 both operate at acceptable levels of service with only the PM peak of US 29 and Airport Acres/Road E-1 experiencing Level of Service D, which is an issue for the County to undertake relative to the acceptance of a LOS "D" contrary to • VDOT's rural policy tof a level of service he threshold should be a level of serve contend ice D s is an urban area and an urban corridor, and The last analyses of 2010, total volume, including North Pointe Development traffic, US 29 is four through lanes northbound and three through lanes southbound, atheyzing Northf service Pointe intersections only. Again, at US 29 and Airport Acres/Road E-1, in A.M. Peak improved negligibly and the P.M. Peak improved to a level of service "C" and US 29 and northside/Road E-3, the levels of service in the A.M. Peak improved negligibly but in the P.M. Peak improved to the extent of about a 33% decrease in the overall intersection delay. Therefore the expenditure of funds to construct a fourth through lane northbound is not outweighed by the improved traffic operations as illustrated in the chart. In conclusion, based on a CORSIM analyses of the corridor, and taking into account the fact that US 29 and Airport/Proffit Road is at failure level of service today and that Lewis and Clark and 29, upon signalization before 2010 with background traffic will also result in unacceptable levels of service. We are providing you with the acceptable lesthat l indicates diilsof service. that toour intersections with total traffic as shown in the report, operateat Upon review of this Table, if you wish to be provided with the actual CORSIM input and output data, we would be more than happy to e-mail that information to a designated person for his/her review and look forward to working with him/her in the review of the input and output data. I look forward to your favorable response. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me (804-643-6651). Best regards, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES s . allace roject Manager Attachments c: Elaine Echols, AICP Kim Cameron, PE Don Wagner o h Pointe Development aff 2010 Background Volui nWNhout North Pointe Access orr �.^, rraffic ' US 29 - 2 Through Lanes NB & SB, CORSIM Output - LOS at Signalized Intersections AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR •pproacn ntersection ntersection •pproacn ntersection Intersection IHM Approach NEEM LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay © 404 4 F 59 9 US 29 Cd1 NB 57 5 E 188.0 m 75.8 E E Airport Dr D 107 4 F EMI EB Airport Drive 41.0 84 6 F NMWB Profit Dnve 108 3 F 48 7 D 30 3 C 51 4 D US29a113M111111111 E 536 D 335 C 72.9 Lewis&Clarklinlingt 41 7 D 64 6 E NMEB Lewis and Clark 22 2 E Profit Dr MEI NB Worth 21 3 C B 32.8 C iimm 28 4 C SB Worth 18 4 27 5 C C Worth Crossing B 26.6 NM EB Proffitt Drive 16.0 33 2 NM WB Proffit Dnve 34 9 v ME evelopment Traffic) 2010 Total Volume (include North Pointe SB, North PointeD Intersections Only US 29 - 3 Through Lanes NB CORSIM Output - LOS at Signalized Intersections AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Hpproacn intersection ntersection Hpproacn Intersection intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Arterial Name Delay C Intersection Approach NM 34 7 108 US 2911113:111121 44.4 39.5 D • 153 a 140 B Airport Acres(El) 111131111310 NM 30.5 C NM EB Airport Acres(E1) 32.2 42.7 D WB WB Airport Acres(El) 31 7 ME 45 5 D US29� INEEN 910 A B Northside(E3) INEMEENEMOMIll 0 Illral EB EB Northside(E3) 34 8 C En D WB WB Northside iE3) 35 1 D 2010 Total Volume (includes North Pointe S6, North Pointe Inters Only c) US 29 -4 Through Lanes NB & 3 Through Lanes CORSIM Output - LOS at Signalized Intersections AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR HpprcaCn intersection intersection Hpproacn intersection interse LOSction Intersection i Delay LOS LOS Delay v Apprcacn Arterial Name LOS Delay US 29 @ NB (NB US 29 ® B 29 4 ArportAcres(E1) IIKEICIEMINIMC 317 C 1111111 EB Airport Acres(El) 33 2 36 1 D WB WB Airport Acres iEt) 30 5 C m 11111 22 9 C A B US 29 © 142 10 8 10 8 E Northside(E3) 11121112"11111111 75 5 E3126 8 C �� WB EB No Northside(E3) a WB �WB 34 0 CORS{M Analysis LOS 358290- North Pointe ✓i iU ''�i COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804)296 - 5823 Fax(804)972-4012 To Elaine Echols; Principal Planner Front Juandiego R.Wade;Transportation Planner Data: October 5, 2000 Re: Tower Site The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development will not accept the CORSIM transportation model as the primary means of forecasting traffic. The Planning Department prefers the use of the Highway Capacity Software(HCS). I have included the following data from the Traffic Impact Study-Northfork Business Park-June 7, 1995: • Anticipated 2005 Site Directional Distribution (RD A/RT 29 Access) • Anticipated 2005 Site Directional Distribution (Quail Run/RT 606 Access) • Anticipated 2010 Site Directional Distribution • Anticipated 2015 Site Directional Distribution • Anticipated 2005 Site Traffic Volumes • Anticipated 2010 Site Traffic Volumes • Anticipated 2015 Site Traffic Volumes • Anticipated 2005 Site& Background Volumes • Anticipated 2010 Site& Background Volumes • Anticipated 2015 Site& Background Volumes • Recommended Roadway Geometncs (Meadowcreek Parkway-Western Alignment) Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. J RW/mdg cc: wl Attachment Steven Snell Bob Ball • Page 1 ca 0 ca CC CC ROq� .. .. 21% (21%) — I .41 (79%) —' 79% SITE QUAIL RUN o o ti o 1% v T (1%) - (6%) J w L 5% RT 649 7% .___T 4 , 6% 67% SEND: - ENTERING SITE TRAFFIC ;)- EXITING SITE TRAFFIC 4/%4 (RD A/RT 29 ACCESS) ;S;;;', ANTICIPATED SITE DIRECTIONAL '\I/f/ \ARADISTRIBUTION YEAR 2005 PHASE I FIGURE 5A ! A 1 cD I C CO CC CC R040 .•,4.. SITE 1% 0,0) (99%) QUAIL RUN 99% if c_o c, 21% 930� ,' 'io PT 649 (21%) (5%) —� 6% Jo) —1. 67% _EGENC. 00 - ENTERING SITE TRAFFIC 00)- EXITING SITE TRAFFIC iie►�� (QUAIL RUN/RT 606 ACCESS) mass SIRIUS ANTICIPATED SITE DIRECTIONAL \A/SL\ DISTRIBUTION YEAR 2005 - PHASE I =IGUr^= 5 B a - � � I O, 14; co H CC CC ROAD 21% (21%)---� ! (57%) — • SITE 1% ,L_ (1%) (29%' QUAIL RUN ` r 29% o � 0 o I cc, -- 3% y L - 15% y <-- 2.of0 RT 64g (2%) (13%) — ° T g 6% cr) LU LEGEND: 00 - ANT=RING SITE TRAFFIC (00)- EXITING SITE TRAFFIC MMUS ANTICIPATED SITE DIRECTIONAL \ �v►in DISTRIBUTION YEAR 2010 �, A O CV CD CC F- ~ Q p„ 21% J (21%)- 2 .41 (40%) ---4 40% f SITE (1%) QUAIL RUN m 2% vz 0 (2%) (4%) (32%) (40%)I ! L 32% V I I 5 ° a RT �9 � 49/0-1 (5%) (27%) 1.‘ 2% 4% 27% 40% .EGEND: JO - ENTERING SITE TRAFFIC J0)- EXITING SITE TRAFFIC SUM ANTICIPATED SITE DIRECTIONAL \A/SA DISTRIBUTION YEAR 2015 r c 5D (GuR�. O N c0 H R040 ..q.. 30(207) 139(916) SITE 117 m 1(4) w 75(417) QUAIL RUN m rn � CI NN E.CD tN CO 9 340(186) L 54(24) 11(70) L t 18(9) E- o r* 92(121) E- A. 4(21) --a 0. co51 (282) —Z N N _ N CO N N t� LEGEND: 00 - AM PEAK HOUR (00)- PM PEAK HOUR 11\ I 5ao,» id//1/ ` �rir ANTICIPATED 2005 SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PEAK HOUR Phase 1 �-,H r`G — 6A � �'I R ` r i 0 0 N CC X cc)7 I Zr— I i j 60(299) --S 1 164(812) — SITE co cn Tr t_ 3(14) 60(299) QUAIL RUN rr cn r N 1 I O 0 r f� co N V Is. Cn LC-) Q inj 42(19) 1 '' 210(97) y 1 `, - 28(1 3) f A 3 l(29 i ) E l I 37(185) 1 w 1 cn a r CO i CO - AM PEAK HOUR 100)- PM PEAK HOUR I //.!1.1N.. y VII■1i I • O MO -` .IMP ANTICIPATED 2010 SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PEAK HOUR 1 I A '1 cD G7 N Q ROAD A.. 518(171) 91(493)-J 174 (940) 988 SITE (326) 25(8) �—4(23) 9(47) QUAIL RUN 49(16) Q ' 0 c (940)I 17 139 9(47) 7 (94)(752) 1 J,4 W— 17(94) 01. ly 90(261) `' F 123(41) RT 6Y9 99(33)J 22(117) — F- A, I 117(634) --y 49 go 666 988 (16) (33) (220)(326) LEGEND: 00 -AM PEAK HOUR (00)- PM PEAK HOUR Sif/i•li mp ANTICIPATED 2015 SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PEAK HOUR \J VJ'A 6 C ., r. :.�.�., Phase III_ F V IGUR_ r W - i ca N C }_ ca O co ....N_ , v Cr) Cil V' r r N DAD •• -- y 30(207) 1 139(916) _—, w -m SITE � ° N -Co" CO CO i • .-. I CD O r CO m 19(85) �r L 98(540) QUAIL RUN 1* r --'" !11 UNDEVELOPED I m AREA 6 (NI r Q) O CO { ti � � r �CI Z-6 I � Q 75 I i CD � � CQC � { Cy) Tr N N r o t 140(215) I N � ' } r * 1 113(138) 33 ' 529( ) I v 307(409) `� y 296(158) - 5-.. 9(25) 192(289) • �► I 26(8) j I 46(89) _ , I 211 (499) ' 4(22) ' �.( V ca —� cn o cO It to N N _ Cam �c-; � N LEGEND: ' 00 - AM PEAK HOUR (00)- PM PEAK HOUR Y I i 46/4 1.1\Will V12 NI„� ANTICIPATED 2005 SITE & BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ` A Q A - PEAKHOUR 1 J v,. 7 A ..; ' ''k c) Ir A . N O ~ X I CC N , 1 a c., . 67(335) _t 1 1- 164(812) — 1 SITE H CO l- (D r CD t 1 � 14(60)L , 83(422) QUAIL RUN I 1 I UNDEVELOPED AREA 1 F r m N 0 a^D COc r Q _ r O N r N N i 1 In(D A 164(289) , `n CO T 415(255) I 1 4 163(195) 321(368) 4 =i. - 419(223) - 9(25) 108(182) 4-1 A. 26(8) — T ; 52(103) 1 1 4(22) —Fr-) 211 (421) m Cr) r (D (� N N . 1 N N N G7 I� '7 G7 N r LEGEND: 00 - AM PEAK HOUR (00)- PM PEAK HOUR Y l�,Oh\ Sill Mk SIN N ANTICIPATED 2010 SITE & BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES \ \/3 \ - PEAK HOUR -4. A.�y co cc Q I N „:,_, c.. N a N ti ROAD NA.. t: N r-- F Y 98(529) ___ ± `'( f 174(940) —.+ SITE 3K • �f 15(69) J., L 32(170) QUAIL RUN i r m UNDEVELOPED AREA p a Q m r rn No v N&i N N — 57(350) I1. 221(170) 790(261) 298(27) c-- 363(491) .:J Le. 4— 573(667) `if Li. 4 542(238) 4T 649 1 j I 9(25) i, 99(33) 116(196) A t A. rn. I 25(8) —N. 352(529) 71(196) —' ' 1 4(22) 304( ) s� CV CI M CO C.C7 N , :.. LEGEND: 00 - AM PEAK HOUR j (00)- PM PEAK HOUR i f /Jd11\ aaosas ANTICIPATED 2015 SITE & BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES `wr. - PEAK HOUR 1 FIGUr-_ I c �i e..-,- "' 'L7�j, - 'ry z mil/i - /"j//YI -/'i r1/"�i ' i �"� p, v r /7 /j/ / /7i. • .n /' -- !-� 4 / L 1 1 4%-r, - '4-ylj,1-,e, . L... "._,..,-• /7-Jy7��= -‘-'2'2.s O/.s' 'j./ ,/797-'�� 's, ?� to/fSicc I, r .,-- -jam ' - - -jai' Q2/ / , t- _- _�// -_ o7r7/2"'� /✓ s�. - - r2�•• %v'/ w QN. / -_ 1 / �-, /"27 '/i/ .•i�•�'�I� mow✓.// i•���'������� � //1 /1���•'��//.•� // 0 f�. "P7S' -;-- 4' ..) _77/7eF."777162V'1, 7,V--.-Z"-#Q -)."-rev72Z77 ' t:,J"-X i- 770"7- 79,..,-- Pr k J5'- 2. -7 P Z cY _ fr4?7Y/V liavi r 1 t /.fir 07)74-/)-1 i2).. 427-7A4',Pw-j4D' - . 0 7]?2 2 i iM2' ( '41/X-,792-r- 477( t,-%--9!)41"--° - 4712-2?-1-71 4 it-frsze 0 _t--,--)--,-/2-. , ,,,,,a- ---._y7), .... --,_, -,,,- , -9,27 _,,,, /% cd- rs Lc2.44,46 � rc`E lr /00 ..-. -- -- J 0 c__ a, 1 - -------- U ?C _ — 2,93 - oC l ( -_ ... _. _ — C.1"` fG S -----ia,_L t-„ .1 a_ - "ve.a.- C.a s ,4 rncr, -Co 4 2,9 6 - el- ( 4-( - -- — Q 11 :ylve,fr- - --- /9_t--o_4 E v-- 40^J ' J i- 0--/ ./3 5 / - - - i/arc 8cLo _ --- - .11/2//_ndriG�'�__ 21-5123 -f-3-Z.5�, _ ---- -- _lac iv 4 L G4 C� -- - -- - ),4/3L ,t 5M,TM�SSOI �Ba1) �Y 3- �_ _ _ ----- - S wlr-- - -- — — — - -- --- ---------- le C J cr �" L � � 4 ) 7 � `-4 n COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA COMMU',l- -PmENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLES NOTTINGHAM CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 A. G.TUCKER COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER September 20,2000 Route 29N,ZMA-00-009 Towers Land Trust PUD Preliminary Comments Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: We offer the following initial comments for the above referenced plan dated September 8, 2000: • The applicant must provide a traffic study for impacts to the adjacent roadway network and external entrance locations. We recommend the applicant meet with County staff and VDOT before the study to discuss assumptions, scope, issues, growth rates, phasing, target years, etc. • The applicant must provide a traffic study for the internal roadway network if internal roads are proposed to be dedicated to public roadway system. The study should address cross sections. turn lanes, signalization, design standards, etc. Again, we recommend the applicant meet with County staff and VDOT before the study is performed to discuss scope. assumptions and issues. • VDOT will provide comments for this rezoning application after review of traffic studies. We would like to mention some initial questions/ issues; further comments will be made during this rezoning review process after traffic studies are have been completed and reviewed: • Where are proposed bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, paths, etc. ? • Which internal roads are proposed for public dedication, and what are design speeds and standards—horizontal, vertical and pavement? The main internal roadway between south end of site(near Proffitt Road) and UREF North Fork crossover must be adequate for anticipated traffic, should be designed as a through roadway, should not have private residential driveways, and u-turns should not be created with right in/ right out entrances. • Will existing private road between site and Proffitt Road also be dedicated to public use? If not, does applicant have ability to utilize and provide necessary improvements to this private road? If this roadway section remains private, where will internal public roadway system end, will VDOT service requirements for acceptance into secondary roadway system be satisfied. and will adequate turnaround be provided ? • Mr. David Benish Page 2 Route 29N,ZMA-00-009 September 20,2000 Towers Land Trust PUD Preliminary Comments • Is adequate distance between internal roadway intersections and US 29 being provided? It appears that internal intersections at the middle and northern US 29 crossovers will interfere with operation of these signalized entrances as shown. Access to parcel 32-22K-A(Korean Church parcel) should be provided away from US 29, not at property line which is about 150' from US 29. • Will access to Pritchett Lane(Route 785)occur, and at what location(s) ? Will this impact internal roadway network and it's design? • Can all nearby parcels on both sides of US 29 get access to proposed relocated crossover? All parcels currently served by, or adjacent to,existing crossover should be satisfactorily served by relocated crossover. • Is there a reasonable alternative to building a public internal road across a dam at the middle crossover site entrance ? VDOT will only maintain the roadway surface with maintenance easement; ownership and maintenance of the dam itself shall be the responsibility of others. • Future signals at entrances or internal intersections should be installed by applicant. • Adequate sight distance is required at all entrances and along internal roadway system. • Plans should indicate proposed entrance and frontage improvements. Please advise if you have any questions prior to releasing to the applicant. Sincerely, R.P. Ball Transportation Planner cc—Karen Kilby, Marshall Barron, J.H. Kesterson