HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800018 Staff Report 2018-08-14 Justification Report:
Unsignalized Pedestrian Connection across Peter Jefferson Parkway (PJP)
Submitted by:Albemarle County Department of Community Development
(Tim Padalino,AICP,Senior Planner and Kevin McDermott,Principal Planner)
Submitted to:Adam J.Moore,P.E.,Assistant Resident Engineer—Land Use,VDOT(Charlottesville Residency)
Date: August 14,2018
Background:
Riverbend Development(the"developer")has submitted an application for an Initial Site Plan(SDP201800018)
for"Martha Jefferson Hospital Apartments"—a proposed residential development on Tax Map Parcel#78-20-M3
on Pantops,consisting of a total of 250 dwelling units(containing 150 1-bedroom apartments and 100 2-bedroom
or 3-bedroom apartments) located in six(6)total buildings.Figure 1 (below)shows the overall layout of this
proposed development.
re.:71.2.-IFF to ri i R..TafilliF.7.41— 1 i \ \. \ ,\ 0
rsR-at iiis s ` / i ry , _ i
I �,.Lr^ �—,._. .�' 81
/� s i
y d o ii►s=-,01 iji
,to
� � ZC i1i
.---p-' _______..i......„--24,4, 4.4 i,,:---\* i. :\ ,, \ \ 4 ,,.C.
i e
, ;
/ `J' "< 4 Z
\\. ►` \ 2 *v. e ti i is
\ o �� �: � Z s!if
• jjjjj ; .
y - ' Q i
�, I
w ® Y1
ti.s i
i
Figure 1. Initial Site Plan SDP-2018-00018/MJH Apartments—Sheet 3("Overall Layout").
The County's review of this Initial Site Plan resulted in County approval,with conditions that must be addressed
and resolved through the Final Site Plan. One such condition of approval is to address and resolve the following
review comment,which requires the residential development to include a safe,convenient pedestrian connection
across Peter Jefferson Parkway(PJP)to the Martha Jefferson Hospital(MJH):
5. [Z.O.Section 32.7.2.3):
A safe, convenient, direct `pedestrian walkway"or pedestrian connection must be provided to enable access
across Peter Jefferson Parkway between the subject property and the Martha Jefferson Hospital property. This
connection must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design
Page 1 of 8
Standards Manual,provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and
constructed to the standards of VDOT.
The reasons for this requirement are to proactively address the likelihood of frequent unprotected, unsafe
pedestrian crossings of Peter Jefferson Parkway;and to facilitate safe, convenient pedestrian mobility between
places of residence and a major place of employment.
The specific rationale for this requirement is that it can be reasonably anticipated that a relatively large
number of pedestrian trips will occur on a daily basis between the two hundred fifty(250)dwelling units and
Martha Jefferson Hospital. Even factoring in the provision of a new sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway
(as required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 032.7.2.3, and as described above in comment 4), residents of the
proposed apartment complex who want to walk from the apartments to the hospital would have to make the
choice to walk approximately 3,000linear feet on sidewalks, crosswalks, and walking paths in order to safely
access the hospital—and would have to choose not to exit the development, cross Peter Jefferson Parkway
(without any safe pedestrian infrastructure), and access the hospital via a much more direct route
approximately 550 linear feet in length.A diagrammatic exhibit has been prepared and provided with this SRC
review comment letter packet for reference.
UPDATE(5/23): This "pedestrian walkway"or pedestrian connection is subject to VDOT acceptance of a
"justification report"as outlined in comments provided by Mr.Adam J. Moore, P.E. (attached, dated
5/16/2018). This pedestrian connection requires continued coordination with VDOT and with Mr. Kevin
McDermott,Albemarle County Principal Planner(Transportation). Community Development staff remain
available to assist with the coordination of this "pedestrian walkway"at an unsignalized location.
Please see Figure 2 (below)for more information about the location of this pedestrian connection.
"Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Ways" requirements for SDP201800018 [per Z.O. 32.7.2.3]
(see ReviewComments^y #4 and#5 in SRC Comment Letter dated 5/8/2018)
{ y{. _ �/ v JO .,•., . . yEF _'` �.w,.xm ..wn..�.ia.....tue..�
111 4,0��0` "safe" !r. ffRs°,�aP
�{y�y� i
4618,
fP��P pedestrian � N.,fit ` _.'
. .
connection 1
fr , ..10 t
�, - #
_ 7i1-20M4M rtha ffeerson Howl'4_00.,
•
.... 4
`yr Ai ` t , + ''y
"convenient"
Jit. , - : ..,.,, V.- routes:
A - 550'
,--.0 ,,- B = 850'
F.Of .• 4ir ,,; .. . 4 4, b. ..., B .
. . 4
p' 0ittniks ♦ w zr. ♦ // igEe ,• •, 1
♦ a f 0 i►t v /
new sidewalk It' #♦ rif'2'ri1111./►� ' —
required along - �i_i , r _
Peter Jefferson —
Parkway IP Ir, .aM3 ..
a, new crosswalk '
ON
P • •osed required across
781PMf et
1 Peter Jefferson
i Apa rtments Parkway MVO
�.�
_...l`
6t 1 Ime 01.I.P.mism 01*•Mid fr .y...N.c._�MS.1%Wara..!wawa w...1a
Figure 2. Location of Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossing(shown as yellow rectangle).
2
Summary of VDOT guidance:
As noted above,any such unsignalized pedestrian crossing of Peter Jefferson Parkway would require a Justification
Report to be approved by VDOT.County staff have met with Mr.Adam Moore and with the developers to discuss
the justification and specific characteristics of this proposed pedestrian crossing,and to identify important site-
specific evaluation criteria that must be addressed in any Justification Report.
To date,VDOT guidance has included the following:
[Coordination meeting with County, VDOT, and developers on June 29, 2018]:
• Pedestrian connections are typically preferable at intersection locations(as opposed to mid-block locations).
However,three other unsignalized pedestrian crossings across Peter Jefferson Parkway already exist;one of
those is an unsignalized mid-block pedestrian crossing.(See Figure 3 below).
■ Any new pedestrian connection should be designed to be consistent with other existing unsignalized
pedestrian crossings of PJP.
• Pedestrian connections that cross more than two lanes of traffic typically require a mid-crossing refuge.
• Pedestrian connections typically connect to an existing sidewalk or to similar pedestrian infrastructure,
which currently does not exist on the receiving side of this proposed crossing.
1. County note 1: This sidewalk infrastructure does not currently exist on the receiving side of the
proposed crossing despite the expectation that the "Healthcare Campus"portion of the PDMC
District would include the provision of a "Pedestrian Route,"per the approved Application Plan
for ZMA-2001-15, and more specifically as shown in the "Pedestrian Connections&Mass
Transit"exhibit AP-6.
2. County note 2: The developer has recently stated that the property owner on the receiving side
(Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital) is willing to collaborate on the provision of an easement(or
other arrangement)to allow for the construction of a crosswalk landing on the receiving side of
the proposed crossing.
[Formal review comments provided by Mr. Moore on May 16, 2018]:
I have discussed a potential pedestrian crossing with our District Traffic Engineer and have been given the
following comments:
1. The need for a crossing will be required to be shown through a justification report similar to what the
county provided for the Route 250 crossing near Harris Teeter in Crozet.
2. The location should be selected where pedestrians would only have to cross two lanes at a time,being able
to use the median as refuge.
3. Stopping sight distance would need to be verified.
4. Warning signs,high visibility crosswalk striping,and potentially flashing beacons may all be required
(upon review of a plan)
5. Please refer to TE Memorandum 384 which can be found here:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/IlM/TE-
384 Ped_Xing Accommodations_Unsignalized Locs.pdf
3
Peter Jefferson Parkwa : Existin• Unsi,naiized Pedestrian Crossin•s
,yy yps. \
F,� efyuRLE• f, ♦, `r i,.1 • �� T y ^4. /. Z Lwr��d a+o�.r ro.. tea,
•
•
Chrs 7i441^ ti' 4, .• Y Y'FO.�,QP" ,....3.7, SE ti., t, , t-PS MO,) i'�,g......
��\ \ .., � 4 `,�•. 25 ,1 '... �.MU,L�NiP���•�
., .,.• - ,,,r . '� FF Fri '. i,� ....• . •i.::..
44 .. . . ....1 ,it,
,t.
• ,,,,
••,,..„....„,
_ ..., ,
... , ,.. ,,,,,s,..,,,, ,, ,..,:, -- . iit, .•
rI.
0 ,44 .
, ! .,,. ,
I' ` _ Cg. q, ..N,
1/ •T
/I1 ; .� ara0;
447
P ✓ arth a"I ftvo n,14 iiial •+;r ,� . it!
,"" !
1 -H twii R
rtelf) i 4 �: -: . + ri- ••i � .r1 101 .•, � ` Fin..Mg VuUI�t!`■Shot.y Station
A III ,. ��lil��Yl� �,` ><t! T I �{t'
ai
f:`4 ,�, , 4'- ' � taw
Prgp ,�Ali
/a tme is , ,*v % _ ��11
existing "billt proposed - existing existing �-.,
unsignalized unsignalized: unsignalized
unsignalized
m��� mid-block
�y crossing crossing 4 crossing " OM
crossing w........1
.ate ',
J
_sr__r.•....n•..r•.......Or ta,wr.raw.w,A*ovae..r Moms.ri.
Figure 3. Location of Existing Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossings(and proposed unsignalized pedestrian crossing).
Backj'roand Transportation Information and Context:
Peter Jefferson Parkway( )
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
VPD/ADT(Year/Date of Count?) #/hour(AM Peak)
#/hour(PM Peak)
total#/day
Other Information? (Anticipated development/active applications?Comp Plan
goals/recommendations?Other?)
Conceptual Alternatives Considered by County, Developers, and Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital:
Concept A:
Provide a crosswalk from the proposed full-access entrance for the new development directly across PJP to the
existing entrance to MJH(as shown and labeled on Figure 2).
• • (Concept A considerations/questions):
■ The minimum requirement would be for the crosswalk to terminate in a VDOT-approved landing
on the MJH side of PJP; siting this landing within public ROW may not be possible(landing may
require easement from MJH).
4
—County note: The developer has recently stated that the property owner on the receiving side
(MJH) is willing to collaborate on the provision of an easement(or to work out some other
arrangement)to allow for the construction of a crosswalk landing on the receiving side of
the proposed crossing.
• There is no existing sidewalk on the"receiving"side of this possible crosswalk;the ideal solution
would include the provision of some type of new pedestrian infrastructure or pedestrian route on
hospital property to an appropriate hospital entrance.
• (Concept A "Pros'):
1. This would provide the most direct pedestrian connection between, in support of predictable human
behavior(connecting"Point A"the proposed main entrance to the new development and"Point B"
the existing MJH employment center using the most direct,most efficient route possible).
• (Concept A "Cons'):
1. This would require pedestrians to cross two lanes of traffic,and then a turn lane,and then two more
lanes of traffic with no opportunity for a mid-crossing refuge.
2. There is currently no existing pedestrian infrastructure on the receiving(MJH)side of PJP.
Concept B:
Install a sidewalk along the side of PJP extending approximately 250-300' east from the proposed full-access
entrance for the new development(towards the MJH Emergency Room entrance),and provide a crosswalk across
PJP in this vicinity(as referenced by a yellow star on Figure 2).
• (Concept B considerations/questions):
• The minimum requirement would be for the crosswalk to terminate in a VDOT-approved landing
on the MJH side of PJP.
• This location was discussed because it might allow for a mid-crossing refuge to be more feasible,
and because it would be in closer alignment with an existing sidewalk in the MJH parking lot.
• There is no existing sidewalk immediately located on the"receiving"side of this possible
crosswalk—although there is an existing sidewalk located within the MJH parking lot
approximately 70' from edge of the PJP public ROW.
• The turn lane taper for the required left turn lane serving the proposed full-access entrance to MJH
Apartments would need to be constructed in the median at a location that overlaps with the existing
turn lane taper for the existing left turn lane into the MJH Emergency Room entrance—potentially
compromising the opportunity for a mid-crossing refuge.
• (Concept B "Pros'):
1. This would utilize an existing sidewalk on the MJH property(although that existing sidewalk is
located internal to the MJH site,and does not currently extend all the way to the PIP public ROW).
2. This may allow for a mid-crossing refuge,which(if possible)would avoid the need for pedestrians
to cross two travel lanes plus a turn lane at any one time.
• (Concept B "Cons'):
1. This would require(at minimum)additional sidewalk to be built on the apartments side of PJP,and
(ideally)would still require additional pedestrian infrastructure to be constructed on the MJH side
of PJP.
2. The mid-crossing refuge may not be feasible due to the expected overlap of turn lane tapers for left
turn lanes(one existing and one proposed with the new development).
In consideration of the favorable and unfavorable factors for each concept,and in direct consultation with the
developer(and,by extension, indirect consultation with MJH),the County's proposed location for the
unsignalized pedestrian crossing would be as defined in Concept A(a crosswalk from the proposed full-access
entrance for the new development directly across PJP to the existing entrance to MJH).
5
Justification Relative to IIM-TE-384("Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations"):
The following justification is prepared in relation to the information contained in IIM-TE-384.0,Attach.A,
Sections 5 ("When to Install Marked Crosswalks at Unsignalized Intersections")and 5.1 ("General Guidance").
Excerpts from this VDOT"Instructional&Informational Memorandum"are shown in blue italicized typeface.
Albemarle County staff believe an unsignalized pedestrian crossing is justified at the location shown in Figure 2
for the following reasons:
Martha Jefferson Hospital(MJH)is a major employment center, and the proposed Martha Jefferson Hospital
Apartments development will create two hundred fifty(250)new dwelling units(consisting of 1-,2-,and 3-
bedroom apartment types)directly across Peter Jefferson Parkway(PJP)from this hospital.It can be reasonably
anticipated that a relatively large number of pedestrian trips will occur on a daily basis between the 250
dwelling units and MJH.
[IIM-TE-384.0 References]:
"...engineering judgment should be used for determining when installation of a crosswalk is justified. When
considering whether to mark a crosswalk, the land uses adjacent to the roadway provide invaluable information
to help indicate if the crosswalk is needed"—Lines 304-307
"Examples of pedestrian attractors/generators include ... hospitals ... large employment centers ... [and]
residential developments of at least moderate density. Pedestrian attractors/generators should be considered as
a factor if they are within reasonable walking distance of the crossing."—Lines 321-326
The pedestrian-oriented aspects of this proposed residential development(and the notion that the highly
walkable proximity to MJH and the resulting pedestrian-oriented lifestyle would keep apartment vacancy rates
low)were emphasized by representatives of the applicant/developer(Riverbend Development),as well as by
their traffic consultant Mr.Carl Hultgren,P.E.,PTOE(of Ramey Kemp&Associates,Inc.),during the Traffic
Impact Assessment Scoping Meeting for this proposed project(conducted May 24,2017).
To accommodate these anticipated pedestrian trips,the County has required the developer to construct a new
sidewalk segment along PJP(pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §32.7.2.3),to connect to the existing sidewalk at
the intersection of PJP and State Farm Boulevard. From that point,pedestrians could then use the existing
crosswalk and walking paths through the MJH property to access the hospital(or access the State Farm
Operations Center,another major employment center).
However,even after factoring in that required new pedestrian connection,the County remains concerned about
the likelihood of unsafe pedestrian activity in the form of relatively frequent pedestrian crossings of PJP
between the proposed development and MJH. For example,even if/when that new sidewalk segment is
provided(as described above,and as shown and labeled in Figure 2),residents of the proposed apartment
complex who want to safely walk from the apartments to the hospital would have to make the following
transportation choices(after walking uphill for various distances to arrive at the main entrance/exit of the
residential development):
1. Choose to walk approximately 3,000(additional)total linear feet on an indirect route of sidewalks,
crosswalks,and walking paths in order to safely access the hospital;and also...
2. Choose not to take a much more direct,much more efficient route directly across PJP to access the
hospital using an informal route(without any safe pedestrian infrastructure)that only requires
approximately 550(additional)linear feet of walking.
When facing the choice to take a safer(but much more indirect and much longer)route,or taking a direct and
much shorter(but unsafe)route, it can be reasonably anticipated that a substantial number of pedestrians will
choose the most direct,most efficient pedestrian connection—even if that is option is lacking formal(safe)
pedestrian infrastructure.Figure 2 provides a visual comparison of these two routes.
[IIM-TE-384.0 References]:
"Pedestrian-oriented land uses and transit stops will generate pedestrian crossings regardless of whether a
6
marked crosswalk exists or not. "-Lines 307-308
"To the extent possible, marked crosswalks should match pedestrian desire lines by connecting pedestrian
generators and attractors. "-Lines 336-337
In summary, an unsignalized pedestrian crossing is necessary to proactively address the likelihood of frequent
unprotected,unsafe pedestrian crossings of Peter Jefferson Parkway; and to facilitate safe,convenient
pedestrian mobility between places of residence and a major place of employment.
[Engineering Study]:
The following findings were made through the Engineering Study conducted(by , dated ), pursuant to
Section 5.3 ("When to Install Mid-Block Marked Crosswalks or Marked Crosswalks Across Uncontrolled
Approaches"):
Does this proposed crosswalk meet"Condition B"-potential candidate for high-visibility marked crosswalk,
with consideration given to warning signs?
Sight Distances at the proposed full-access entrance for the new development,as shown on the approved Initial
Site Plan SDP201800018,are 395' to the west and 395' to the east.(See Figure 4 below.)These sight distances
appear to comply with the Stopping Sight Distance Requirements identified in Table 1 (Page A6 of Al8—see
below)on this portion of PJP,which has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH.
415 Table 1 — Stopping Sight Distance Requirements Approaching Mid-Block Crosswalks or
416 Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersection Approaches (feet)
Operating Level Downgrades Upgrades
Speed * Grade -3% -6% -9% +3% +6% +9%
25 mph 155 158 165 173 147 143 140
30 mph 200 205 215 227 200 184 179
35 mph 250 257 271 287 237 229 222
40 mph 305 315 333 354 289 _ 278 269
45 mph 360 378 400 427 344 331 320
50 mph 425 446 474 507 405 388 375
55 mph Crosswalks should not be marked across uncontrolled approaches with operating
speed of 55 mph or greater.
417 (Source VDOT Road Design Manual. Chapter ?D This table is provided for convenience and is current
418 as of June 201 b Any subsequent revisions to the Road Design Manual override the values provided in
419 this table )
420
421 *Operating speed cnri refer to actual 85' percentile specd, if speed data is available- Otherwise,
422 operating speed can be estimated as the posted speed Snot plus 7 mph. or based on documented
423 engineering judgment. For operating speeds not in 5 mph increments. users should interpolate from this
424 table to find the mrmmurn SSD requirements
Table I.
7
\ \
\. \ '..----) l ----- ------\
\\ V 6.--.1
0
tea:
../ Ait . .. "\,,0 \\
\ 0
61 ii)
0
• - -0 it
- 11-- -
f ,;:. . . fr'. r -';, -- - ‘,- N-''- t
I JJ Q�
,v 3/4 STORY e!34 C4" ��� i
G\ 42 UNIT$ q`,•` �1.�---'_-_--.._
�.�,
,,, .. .... firi.$4; it. ,--"-----.--./.1 -...-'-'
asrsf
!Zit y/�s,ots" / BUILDING a •\.,
1 . 7�, 3x STORI'SLOG
,e��
F10U.9E 4 I 441.45l.9Q , F,
M62.33 A'.
452.33 \
4I
.tea : \vim. x rt P
Figure 4. Enlarged portion of SDP201800018 Sheet 3 shows the 395'sight distances from the proposed full-access entrance.
8