Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200900016 Review Comments Zoning Text Amendment 2010-11-17aLg�� ti 7 vrxG1Ni� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 November 17, 2010 Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 West Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZTA 2009 -16 Monticello Historic District Dear Valerie: Fax (434) 972 -4176 We have reviewed the revised application to amend the Monticello Historic District. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning 1. Describe how circulation through the Monticello parking lot bus parking area can be accomplished when Monticello traffic is using the same route and exit. 2. Describe how traffic will exit during the hours Monticello is closed (and the route is gated). 3. The Planning Commission requested that the levels of activity be linked with traffic /safety measures. The traffic management plan does not indicate how the level of activity and the improvement measures have been accomplished. 4. The approved site plan does not show 74 parking spaces in paved lot. The plan depicts 46 standard spaces, 3 handicapped, and 19 in a stabilized turf area. Please show where these additional spaces are located and show that the overflow parking will accommodate 926 vehicles. 5. How will the overflow parking area be maintained with the level of use not anticipated with the 2006 plan? • There is no indication regarding parking accommodations when the ground is wet, muddy, or in snow /ice conditions. 6. Will additional lighting be required? If so, it must meet the proffer and be approved. 7. The text amendment would affect all properties in the MHD, which includes Monticello. Is it intended that all of the proposed uses would be allowed (transient lodging, weddings, parties, etc.) at Monticello or only at Montalto? 7. In 2007, it was deemed important to allow additional uses at Montalto in order to protect Monticello from some of the events that had been taking place on -site. Additionally, in correspondence that was later attached to the staff report, the Foundation explained that the uses [proposed with the inclusion of Montalto into the MHD] would be consistent with the MHD intent stating, "The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of permitting "education programs, research and business activities" related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site. The seminars, conferences, lectures and other special programs will all be about Jefferson, Monticello, Jefferson's other land holdings, the political landscape during Jefferson's time or similar issues." Further, "These temporary events relate to and are supportive of the historic, education and civic significance of Monticello because they will be addressing issues about Jefferson, Monticello and the life and times of Jefferson." How would the additional uses continue to protect Monticello? As stated, the Intent of the MHD and the uses approved in 2007 had a strong link to the preservation and education goals of the Foundation. The proposed uses have a broader perspective and the Intent section of the MHD should be revised accordingly. 8. Are there any internal or external alterations needed to accommodate the proposed uses? 9. Are there any plans to convert the catering kitchen into a kitchen for the preparation of food? 10. How will the number of vehicles be controlled, especially for events such as the Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, and music festivals? Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. The addition of "support activities" to the statement of intent is somewhat unclear to me. It would be helpful if the purpose is to allow the inclusion of these special events and lodging, to either use a more specific word or further expand on what it means within the intent language. 2. I'm also unclear as to what constitutes a "stewardship event" [11.3.1 (1 e)]. Is there a more specific word or a way to further expand on what it means? 3. 1 suggest that 11.3.1 (17) tourist lodging be deleted as a freestanding use within the MHD. Transient lodging is more appropriately allowed under the revised use category [11.3.1 (24)] for the scholar's residences. 4. Please revise the farm winery references to be consistent with recent revisions to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The farm winery uses should be revised as follows: Byright - Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(a) and (b). By SP - Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c). 5. The new use category for special events [Section 11.3.1(26)] should be revised to omit performance standards such as the traffic management plan. I suggest that the language after "notwithstanding the foregoing..." be moved to new Section 11.5 "Regulations applicable to special events [Ref Section 11.3.2 (27)]. It is important that everyone understand that we will expect this standard to be self- enforcing because we cannot readily or practically enforce it. Current Development Comments from current development will be forwarded when they are received. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks: Current Comments; The road improvement plan, revised code, traffic management plan, and response letter have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your review; 1. It is recommended that approval be conditioned upon clearing and grading for sight distance at the main entrance. If it is a hardship, a reasonable timeline could be part of the condition. 2. The road plan proposes grading, widening and installing run -outs at the curves on Montalto Loop Road which will improve safety at the turns. Some other improvements which would also ZTA2009 -16 MHD Resubmittal Comments Page 2 improve safety are, for example, shoulder, and guardrail or a parapet wall along the entire road, a centerline stripe with warning, speed limit, and no passing signs, and directional reflective signage and maximum safe speed warnings at the curves. 3. It is recommended that the code not contain the "soft- start" and "hard- start" terminology, or specific traffic generation numbers. Where the code currently proposes the language; "Notwithstanding the foregoing, special events at Montalto that meet the following criteria shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the Department of Community Development; (a) "soft- start" special events that generate more than 1,576 total vehicle trips (788 entering and 788 existing); (b) "hard- start" events that generate more than 388 total vehicle trips (194 entering and 194 exiting)." It is recommended this be replaced with; "All special events at Montalto shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the Department of Community Development, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator or County Engineer, or the request of the owner." This would allow much more flexibility. This traffic management plan can apply certain requirement, or none, on a graduated scale based on the type of event or expected traffic generation. 4. The traffic management plan strikes me as more of a conceptual scope. I would expect any such document, which could be reviewed and approved subsequent to this ZTA, to lay out the placement of cones to direct traffic or block off exit or entry lanes, the placement of warning and directional signs on Rt. 53 to both sides per MUTCD standards, as well as on -site directional signs or lane closures, such as at the un -used exits or within the parking areas. (This would be much like a temporary traffic plan for a road construction project.) It should pinpoint the placement of personnel to direct traffic and parking, and the training, equipment or qualifications necessary if any, such as with the police officer on Rt. 53 directing traffic at certain times. The plan would note the start and end times of all traffic measures and manned stations, with respect to the event start and end times. It would re- direct traffic when parking is full. As mentioned above, many measures could be based on the size or timing of an event. Comments to Traffic Engineer of 28 Jun 2010; Regarding the May traffic impact analysis for Montalto phase 1, could you provide the specifics of a Traffic Management Plan? A majority of the results seem to hinge on this aspect, and it is not clear what will be done and what the mitigating affect will be. The analysis also places some weight on a "soft start event" where traffic does not arrive in one peak hour, and it would be nice to have more data on that if available. Comments of 13 Oct 2009; The only item of concern would be the steep incline of the roadway and the severe turns. These were issues during the previous application process, but were approved after consultation with the fire official. This road is built similar to what might be allowed for a driveway or a rural road meeting the 3 -5 lot standard in the subdivision ordinance. With that in mind, a count of 420 vehicle trips per week might be a reasonable target. In order to increase the capacity and safety of this road, it would be advisable to increase the radius of the turns and decrease the grades, as well as provide shoulders, guardrail and /or other safety features, which would involve some realignment and reconstruction. file: E3 zma GEB Montalto.doc Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: Comment on 1110912010 It would be useful to have a plan that shows the 74 -space paved parking lot and the overflow parking area. ZTA2009 -16 MHD Resubmittal Comments Page 3 Comments on 9/24/2010; have reviewed the Montalto zoning text amendment submittal (ZTA- 2009 -16) dated September 8, 2009 and I have the following comments. The downward trend of attendance at historic sites and the need to accommodate activities that will help fund renovation, operations, programming, etc. is understood. Many historic properties accommodate events like weddings, conferences, parties and dinners, and it seems reasonable to believe that such events could be accommodated at Montalto without detriment to the historic property, with certain precautions. The MHD section of the zoning ordinance appears to place no limits on number of events or on number of attendees. The applicant's current submittal states that the approved application plan accounted for the infrastructure and logistical needs of events for 250 or more attendees. It is not clear what maximum number of attendees can be accommodated at the site. There is a concern that repeated large -scale events could negatively impact the historic property — both the building and the grounds. In particular, impacts from vehicle traffic and spillover parking could have negative physical and visual impacts. As with the original Monticello /Montalto rezonings, the impacts from lighting are also a concern. It is recommended that the applicant consider whether there will be a need for additional lighting to accommodate the proposed activities and, if so, it is recommended that the applicant address methods for mitigating the impacts of such lighting. VDOT Comments from VDOT will be forthcoming when they are received. However, Joel DeNunzio stated in a phone conversation on 11/16/2010 that VDOT is in accord with the comments submitted by the County Engineer. Proffers Two proffers were approved with ZMA 2007 -23 Montalto: 1. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting properties. 2. Vehicular access to the Property shall be controlled during peak events that require off -site parking. Explain how the proposed plans will be in accord with these proffers. Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.orq in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your ZTA2009 -16 MHD Resubmittal Comments Page 4 application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, a public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner, Rural Areas Cc: Michael Matthews Matthews Development Company One Boar's Head Pointe, Suite 131 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ZTA2009 -16 MHD Resubmittal Comments Page 5