Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2011-04-01r� Ot'AL p�r � IRGS?at� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: April 1, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -01 Pantops Ridge — 4th Zoning comments I have reviewed the fourth submittal (revised proffers) and have the following comments and questions: 1. Proffer 1 e: Landscaping — Previous comment: The offer of landscaping post- construction based on $5,000 per lot, does not have any particular relevance as to what it achieves. It would be helpful to know that this amount not only restores what the individual homeowners have lost, but provides screening for them from the new road. The latest revision allowing the owners to select the plant species is helpful; although, the applicant has not addressed how $5, 000 of landscaping per lot will achieve the intended purpose. 2. Proffer 3: Housing Type Mix — Previous comment: While the revision addresses the mix, it does not address the allocation or phasing, if that is important. So for example, they could build all the single family attached (or detached) at first The latest revision specifying full build -out mix does not address this prior comment. 3. Proffer 4: Architectural Standards — Previous comment: I understood that we were trying to move away from proffers about architectural standards, so I'm not sure why this is appropriate. This proffer does not explain if or who will review or enforce this for the County. In addition, the language (from my perspective) is overly broad and would be difficult from me to enforce. It will be important to confirm that Margaret could assist in interpreting this. No revision and no further comment. 4. Proffer 5: Trail Easement — Previous comment: Using the 275`h unit as one of the end -point triggers is significantly later than the Ordinance or policy would require or suggest for installation (see below). The Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16.3.3 requires completion of recreational facilities no later than when 50% of the units have received a certificate of occupancy. This requirement would still apply and is not being requested for waiver /modification. I suggest revising the proffer to refer to this Ordinance section (as completion no later than). 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. While this has been moved up to the 201" dwelling unit, this is still later than 1 recommend based on the preceding. 5. Proffer 7: Green Space — Previous comment: This reference is not applicable for a conventional R15 rezoning. In addition, assuming they will be doing cluster development— the minimum requirement will be for 25% open space, not 15 %. I'm not sure we are gaining anything more than the Ordinance can otherwise require by this proffer. The revision does not address my comments. No additional comments. 6. Proffer 11: Consent of Neighborhood Investments, LLC — Previous comment: This is unusual and I'm not sure why it's being done this way as opposed to including that property in the rezoning. No revision has addressed this. IRG11a COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 March 9, 2011 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 4th Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received February 7, 2011 Dear Valerie: Staff has reviewed your submittal of revised proffers for Pantops Ridge. This letter provides additional details as well as our general concerns. Our comments are consolidated below: Planninq While the applicant has made revisions to the proffers, in general staff feels that the substantive and technical outstanding issues described in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated January 11, 2011 still remain. Proffer 1.a. — Define reasonable. In other words, what is considered reasonable? Proffer 2 — Although the density of the project has been lowered to 399 dwelling units, it is still inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan recommendation, which suggests approximately 300 units should be built on the areas designated as urban density and neighborhood density. Proffer 3 — This proffer has been revised. However, the mixture of housing types does not necessarily provide single family dwellings as the predominant unit type nor does it provide commitments to locate multifamily units in the area shown for urban density on the Pantops Master Plan. No proffer has been made for affordable housing. Engineering The following comment related to engineering matters has been provided by Glenn Brooks: In general, the previous comments have not been addressed in a manner that would change the previous recommendations. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. Proffer 1 e: Landscaping — The offer of landscaping post- construction based on $5,000 per lot, does not have any particular relevance as to what it achieves. It would be helpful to know that this amount not only restores what the individual homeowners have lost, but provides screening for them from the new road. 2. Proffer 3: Housing Type Mix — While the revision addresses the mix, it does not address the allocation or phasing. For example, all the single family attached (or detached) units could be built first. 3. Proffer 4: Architectural Standards — This proffer does not explain if or who will review or enforce this for the County. In addition, the language is overly broad and would be difficult to enforce. 4. Proffer 5: Trail Easement — Using the 275th unit as one of the end -point triggers is significantly later than the Ordinance or policy would require or suggest for installation (see below). The Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16.3.3 requires completion of recreational facilities no later than when 50% of the units have received a certificate of occupancy. This requirement would still apply and is not being requested for waiver /modification. We suggest revising the proffer to refer to this Ordinance section (as completion no later than). "4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy." 5. Proffer 6: Setback from Culpeper Branch — please insert "from edge of Culpeper Branch. 6. Proffer 7: Green Space — This reference is not applicable for a conventional R -15 rezoning. In addition, assuming this will be a cluster development — the minimum requirement will be for 25% open space, not 15 %. What is being gained by this proffer that the Ordinance does not otherwise require? 7. Proffer 8: Height Limitation — We suggest using a building height rather than a number of stories. Stories are not referenced in conventional zoning such as this. If stories stay in the proffer, the R -15 building height still remains. It would be good to have a definition or explanation of how this proffer would be implemented. Is it the number of stories as seen from the front of the building? 8. Proffer 9: Bus Stop Turnoff — All other proffers for public transit also provide for installation of benches at a stop. This proffer does not. We suggest this proffer be revised to include this provision. 9. Proffer 10: Approved Site Plan — Staff feels this proffer really keeps the site plan alive until much later than may be desirable for the County. If we accept this timeline, the proffer should also state "or until the site plan approval has expired." We don't want the proffer to keep the site plan alive longer than the Ordinance otherwise would. 10. Proffer 11: Consent of Neighborhood Investments, LLC — This is unusual. Why is this being done this way? ARB The following comment related to entrance corridor matters have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: As previously stated, it is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. VDOT See attached comments relating to VDOT concerns from Joel DeNunzio. As we have discussed, this project will be on the Board of Supervisors agenda for a public hearing on April 20, 2011. 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. 2 Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, rr� Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachment Rev. 12 -15 -10 3 �� OF ALg� .1 �IRGINI�r.. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: March 2, 2011 Subject: ZMA 2010 -01 Pantops Ridge — 3rd Zoning comments I have reviewed the third submittal (revised proffers) and have the following comments and questions: 1. Proffer 1 e: Landscaping — The offer of landscaping post- construction based on $5,000 per lot, does not have any particular relevance as to what it achieves. It would be helpful to know that this amount not only restores what the individual homeowners have lost, but provides screening for them from the new road. 2. Proffer 3: Housing Type Mix — While the revision addresses the mix, it does not address the allocation or phasing, if that is important. So for example, they could building all the single family attached (or detached) at first. 3. Proffer 4: Architectural Standards — I understood that we were trying to move away from proffers about architectural standards, so I'm not sure why this is appropriate. This proffer does not explain if or who will review or enforce this for the County. In addition, the language (from my perspective) is overly broad and would be difficult from me to enforce. It will be important to confirm that Margaret could assist in interpreting this. 4. Proffer 5: Trail Easement — Using the 275th unit as one of the end -point triggers is significantly later than the Ordinance or policy would require or suggest for installation (see below). The Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16.3.3 requires completion of recreational facilities no later than when 50% of the units have received a certificate of occupancy. This requirement would still apply and is not being requested for waiver /modification. I suggest revising the proffer to refer to this Ordinance section (as completion no later than). 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. 5. Proffer 6: Setback from Culpeper Branch — please insert "from edge of Culpeper Branch. 6. Proffer 7: Green Space — This reference is not applicable for a conventional R15 rezoning. In addition, assuming they will be doing cluster development — the minimum requirement will be for 25% open space, not 15 %. I'm not sure we are gaining anything more than the Ordinance can otherwise require by this proffer. 7. Proffer 8: Height Limitation — I suggest using a building height rather than a number of stories. Stories are not referenced in conventional zoning such as this. If stories stay in the proffer, the R15 building height still remains and it would be good to have a definition or explanation of how this proffer would be implemented. Is it the number of stories as seen from the front of the building? 8. Proffer 9: Bus Stop Turnoff — All other proffers for public transit also provide for installation of benches at a stop and this proffer does not. I suggest that it be revised to include that or it will become an additional public cost. 9. Proffer 10: Approved Site Plan — While I recognize the applicant's desire to keep his options open, this really keeps the site plan alive until much later than may be desirable for the County. If we accept this timeline, the proffer should also state "or until the site plan approval has expired." We don't want the proffer to keep the site plan alive longer than the Ordinance otherwise would. 10. Proffer 11: Consent of Neighborhood Investments, LLC — This is unusual and I'm not sure why it's being done this way as opposed to including that property in the rezoning. Claudette Grant From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:14 PM To: Claudette Grant Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge Claudette, I have reviewed the referenced re- zoning request and have the following comments: 1. According to the proposed use and ITE trip generation, this site will generate 3,290 vehicles per day (VPD) and 319 vehicles per hour (VPH) for the peak hour of the day. These projections meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA study as required by Virginia Administrative Code 24 VAC 30 -155. The previous traffic study submitted by Draper Aden Associates dated May 18, 2006 does not meet the minimum requirements of the code for the reasons listed in the VDOT comments sent to Albemarle County from VDOT by e -mail dated April 21, 2010. Section 15.2- 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia requires localities to submit traffic impact statements to VDOT that will substantially affect transportation on state - controlled highways with rezoning requests. Section 24 VAC 30- 155 -40 of the Virginia Administrative code lists the thresholds for rezoning requests that are considered to substantially affect transportation of state - controlled highways. The request for a traffic impact study was requested by VDOT in a previous letter to Albemarle County in response to the February 2010 rezoning requests. 2. VDOT should be removed as an agent for acquiring right of way for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road as stated in section 1a of the proffers. VDOT can only acquire right of way associated with a secondary road project that would need to be added to the county Secondary Six Year Plan. There currently is not a project in the SSYP for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. 3. Section 1f of the proffers needs to be revised. The submitted exhibit A with the proffer revisions is not a road plan and lacks engineering drawings or analysis that are needed to determine that the proposed improvements are adequate. These concerns were sent to Mr. Richard Spurzem by e -mail dated June 24, 2008 and later sent to Albemarle County on April 21, 2010. Items that may be necessary for the plan that are excluded or unclear from exhibit A are the following: There is no vertical alignment or limits of construction for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. b. A capacity and LOS analysis of the intersection at Glenorchy Dr. and Route 250 has not been submitted. The layout of proposed Glenorchy Dr. cannot be adequately reviewed for capacity of lane storage. Left, through or right turn lane storage lengths may need to be increased based on capacity needs. C. The proposed third westbound through lane on Route 250 needs to show a typical section in accordance with the standards of an urban principal arterial road typical section. The drawing exhibit should also reflect the limits that the additional lane will be constructed and whether it will go all the way to Pantops Mountain Road or taper back down to two lanes at some point. Also, will the third lane be constructed to the existing Hansen Mountain Road or go through to the interchange? d. The proposed right turn lane from Route 250 west into Glenorchy should show the limits of construction to ensure the improvement can be made within the right of way. The addition of the third through lane and the right turn lane may be difficult to construct without additional right of way. e. The proposed additional left turn lane from Route 250 eastbound to Glenorchy does not have any dimensions shown and its storage and deceleration lengths need to be determined by an intersection analysis. The addition of the lane into the median will require a modification to the existing graded median and the existing ditch. f. The proposed right turn lane from route 250 eastbound to Peter Jefferson Parkway needs to show dimensions. Also, the curb and gutter should be shown on the outside of the turn lane. The proposed 350 foot acceleration lane on Route 250 west will need additional right of way. h. Glenorchy Dr. and Route 250 eastbound need to show some additional width to receive dual left turn lanes. These dimensions and tapers can be found in the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F. i. Traffic signal modifications will be necessary to accommodate the additional lanes. These improvements are not addressed in Exhibit A or in the proposed proffers. The proposed widening to Route 250 may require signal poles to be relocated and mast arms to be lengthened. Also, additional signal heads will be necessary with the widening of Route 250 and Glenorchy Dr. j. There is an existing waterline where the applicant is proposing the third westbound Route 250 through lane. The waterline should be addressed in the proffers. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel 3oel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 Joel .denunziopvdot.viroinia.gov *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Feb 2011 Subject: Pantops Ridge (ZMA20100001) Revision 4, comments of 5 Apr 2011 Revision 4 added proffer Lf to address the need for an updated traffic study (item 4 below). This is not a substitute for the analysis and assessment of impacts for the commission and board, which happens with a traffic study during the rezoning review. The study may identify issues or impacts not addressed by the list of items, and may contain information which the commission and board should weigh in making a decision. Furthermore, it is written to leave the determination of impacts and improvements up to a "study ", or in other words, a consultant for the applicant. Determinations need to be left up to the board. It does not contemplate a phasing of the development, or possible revisions to the development or the study, which are likely. Lastly, it references the same terms for possible off -site improvements as the Hansens Mountain road relocation, which staff does not recommend. Revision 3, comments of 18 Feb 2011 I could not find that any of the previous comments were addressed such that I would change my recommendations. See items 1 -4 below. Revision 2, comments of 26 Oct 2010 1. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. 2. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viemont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See item 3 for mitigation. 3. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. While VDOT may see fit to grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. 4. A traffic study is recommended to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Revision 1, comments of 15 Apr 2010; The letter and revised proffers have been reviewed. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. In addition, with other rezonings bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvement in place at the time of occupancy. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy for half the units. Plans for the Hansens Mountain road relocation should be modified to include removal of the existing road portion, right -of -way vacations, removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy/PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. Original comments of 17 Feb 2010; I have emailed VDOT and Rebecca about the possibility of a traffic study, and clarifying the proffered road alignment and necessary work on Rt. 250 as well as right -of -way acquisitions necessary to build this road. The application itself contains no plan, and so there is nothing further for engineering to review. file: E6_zma_GEB PantopsRidge *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 18 Feb 2011 Subject: Pantops Ridge (ZMA20100001) Revision 3; I could not find that any of the previous comments were addressed such that I would change my recommendations. See items 1 -4 below. Revision 2, comments of 26 Oct 2010 1. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. 2. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viemont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See item 3 for mitigation. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. While VDOT may see fit to grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. 4. A traffic study is recommended to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Revision 1, comments of 15 Apr 2010; The letter and revised proffers have been reviewed. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. In addition, with other rezonings bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvement in place at the time of occupancy. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy for half the units. Plans for the Hansens Mountain road relocation should be modified to Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 include removal of the existing road portion, right -of -way vacations, removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy/PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. Original comments of 17 Feb 2010; I have emailed VDOT and Rebecca about the possibility of a traffic study, and clarifying the proffered road alignment and necessary work on Rt. 250 as well as right -of -way acquisitions necessary to build this road. The application itself contains no plan, and so there is nothing further for engineering to review. file: E4_zma_GEB_PantopsRidge COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 17, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 3rd Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received October 18, 2010 Dear Valerie: Thank you for the recent submittal of additional information in response to comments sent to you in May. The County provided you initial review comments for this project on March 5, 2010 in response to the Pantops Ridge rezoning submitted in January. The resubmittal received by the County on October 18 included the response letter, revised proffers, and road alignment exhibit, which have been reviewed. No concept /application plan has been provided. The latest information reviewed provides a response to some of the issues raised in the last review comment letter, including the additional provisions for Hansen Mountain Road relocation, mix of housing types, Monticello viewshed protection, and the greenway trail. You will see in the comments provided below that staff continues to believe that the proposed density is inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan and additional information and evaluation of impacts of the proposal are needed along with revisions to proffers. Also needed and as previously requested are transportation impact analysis, assurances that the Hansen Mountain Road relocation can be accomplished, and other recommendations of the master plan and County policy. Detailed Comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided, ENSIVE P PANTOPS MASTER PLAN Density The Pantops Master Plan recommends a total of approximately 305 units. This equates to roughly 8 units per acre on the property. A more liberal application of the Pantops Master Plan could allow for approximately 395 units or 10 dwellings per acre. As a result staff cannot recommend approval for density of 15 units per acre. Mix of Housing Types Thank you for the proffer submitted to provide a mix of housing types to include single family detached, townhouses /single family attached, and apartments. This proffer, however, has no mechanism for enforcement. Also there is no commitment for single family dwellings as the predominant unit type, nor a commitment to locate the townhouses and multifamily units in the area shown for urban density on the Pantops Master Plan. Please see additional comments in the proffer section. Greenspace and Trail The master plan designates portions of the property as Greenspace and recommends Greenspace along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Measures for protection have not been provided. Additionally it has been brought to my attention that there has already been some disturbance in this area of the property and that a WPO has been approved for this portion of the site. While a proffer has been made for a "buffer ", clarity is needed in terms of what you are actually proposing. • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. Monticello Viewshed Staff appreciates your willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the master plan. Staff has asked Monticello for any additional comments on the most recent proffers you have submitted and will send this information to you when we receive it. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis While staff sees that the applicant does not wish to provide a traffic study, staff still recommends that one be completed to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Hansen Mountain Road Relocation Although the applicant has provided additional information, there are still outstanding issues related to the widening of Glenorchy Drive and the extension of Viewmont Court which becomes a relocated Hansen Mountain Road. First, the proffers indicate that the owner expects the County to acquire property and easements necessary to make the road improvements. This is an. unrealistic expectation given the need for the road improvement is largely generated by the developer. At a minimum, the applicant should proffer to acquire the easements and r.o.w. for the improvements. He may want to proffer that if he is not successful in acquiring the easements and r.o.w., he will ask the County to acquire the r.o.w. and easements. Such a proffer for the County to acquire the r.o.w. and easements may or may not be successful with the Board of Supervisors. As you know, Proffer 1(b): The cash contribution to acquire any needed right -of -way is based on the Albemarle Place proffers, and used in subsequent rezoning as well. The difference between this project and the other projects where this language was used is that right -of -way for those other projects was in commercial areas and, in most cases, 2 was a strip of land along Route 29 (with the exception being the 7 -11 parcel for Albemarle Place improvements. The right -of -way to be acquired in this case would be through a residential area. The Board has not accepted any proffers indicating a willingness to acquire land for a residential development. More comments relative to the proffers are found in the "Proffers" section below. Specific comments related to the relocation of the road are provided by the County Engineer: The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viewmont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See the following bulleted item for mitigation. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. Although VDOT may grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. Transit The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: • Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. • Ensure new development is transit ready. This issue remains unaddressed. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the revised proffers submitted and comments are provided below for Proffers 1 -6 and there are no comments on Proffer 7. Additional proffers could address some issues raised or impacts of the development. • Proffer 1- Hansen Mountain Road relocation - Proffer 1c should contain a provision that if bonded, the road will be constructed to a certain point. The timing of road construction proposed in the proffers is not recommended. With other rezonings, bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvements in place at the time of occupancy of residential units. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy. This proffer needs to address when the road must be submitted for acceptance into the state highway system. The following proffer was made in a prior rezoning which indicates the County's preference for timing of the road relocation: Unless sooner required by VDOT as a condition of site plan approval, the Avon Street Improvements shall be constructed, bonded and ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for acceptance into the public system, and the County Engineer shall have determined that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic as a condition of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Property. • Proffer 2- Density of Project -This proffer cannot be accepted because at R -15 density no more than 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. A proffer that just limits the maximum number of units could be acceptable. • Proffer 3- Mixture of Housing Types- This proffer must include a specific percentage or number of unit types by housing type proposed within the development if it is to have value. • Proffer 4- Architectural Standards - Staff appreciates your offer to be sensitive to the Monticello viewshed. The architectural proffers however, need better clarity for actual enforcement. Two proffers which have been accepted by the County are attached. At a minimum, the following changes are needed. 1. Roof Color - This proffer must contain more description for the roof color -other than "dark." 2. Clarify what is meant by neutral colors. 3. Architectural proffers should relate to external building surfaces. 4. Clarify what is meant by white materials will be minimized. Provide more details. 5. Clarify the intent of the lighting proffer. Is all lighting to be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? If this refers to the lighting standards then it does not appear to be necessary. Proffer 5- Trail Easement- Staff suggests that Proffer 5 provide for the trail to be dedicated in fee simple in conjunction with an adjacent plan; not at request of the County. If done separate from another plan, the Applicant should be responsible for all fees associated with dedication. Additionally, the Applicant should construct the trail. Proffer 6 does not offer any standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. Further the area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. Does this serve a public purpose? This appears to rely on off -site grading, therefore, we advise that letters of intent from the relevant property owners be provided. Define more clearly the trail location. It is difficult to understand what is meant by closest to the power line? • Proffer 6 —What is actually proposed? Are you really offering a setback rather than a buffer? • Please label all Exhibits. Previous comments not addressed in proffers: The following items remain unaddressed. Staff recognizes that we may need to agree to disagree on these items, however, they relate to County policies and must be acknowledged. Affordable Housing The County's Affordable Housi recommends that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Sample proffer language can be provided. Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; Single Family Attached/Townhouse (SFA/TH) _ $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) _ $13,200.00. Sample proffer language can be provided. It is possible that the Board may attribute monetary value to your acquisition of r.o.w. and construction of the relocated road entrance. If so, the Board may decide that a lower cash proffer amount is acceptable. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ZONING • Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. COMMENTS FROM CURRENT DEVELOPMENT • No plan is associated with this application; therefore, it is difficult to determine what issues may come up during the site plan review. • Concerns remain regarding the whether the road relocation will occur. NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL As discussed in the previous comment letter, since no plan has been provided, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with all 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model. Based on the information that has been provided, we previously listed several Neighborhood Model principles that should be addressed. The following comments still have not been adequately addressed: • Pedestrian Orientation - Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. • Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Provision for the "optional roadway" shown on the master plan should be made. • Site Planning that Respects Terrain -No information has been provided on proposed grading. • Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas- Recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan regarding treatment of the RA boundary should be incorporated into this development proposal. No information on special treatment of this boundary has been provided. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR Previous comments still apply: It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) & Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) The following previous comments from ACSA still remain: With the data that we have in hand, there are capacity issues for several runs of sewer pipes downstream from this project. They will have to be upgraded to accept the projected flows from the proposed 562 units. RESUBMITTAL OR PUBLIC HEARING State law and County ordinance direct that action on a rezoning be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. The date that the. application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date. We request that, within 30 days from the date of this letter you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule, OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. 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, the 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. You have indicated that you are ready to go to public hearing. With the holidays fast approaching, we will contact you regarding a date for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3250 or cqrant _albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner �� OF ALg� .1 �IRGINI�r.. County of Albemarle rtment of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: November 10, 2010 Subject: ZMA 2010 -01 Pantops Ridge — 2nd Zoning comments I have reviewed the second submittal and have the following comments and questions: 1. [My first comment from my prior review is still not addressedl Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. 2. fMy fourth comment from my prior review is still not addressed. The proffer would have the County obtain this approval. This action would be unusual and would need to serve a public purpose (see 3rd comment.) Because it appears that this proposal relies on off -site grading, we advise that letters of intent from the relevant property owners be provided. 3. fA portion of my seventh comment from my prior review is still not addressed.) The proffer relating to Hansen's Mountain Road relocation ( #1) needs to be rewritten to better address when the road must be submitted for acceptance into the state highway system. The current proffer relies on the County of VDOT obtaining required r -w and allows issuance of a building permit before this is done. In addition, while the proffer addresses construction, it does not address when it must be submitted for acceptance into the state system. 4. Proffer #2 needs to correct the number of dwelling units to 566 or change the number in other documents. 5. Proffer #3 does not provide any number or mix for the different types of dwellings. 6. Proffer #4 uses vague language ( "minimized," "predominate ") which will be difficult to administer, but I defer to the Design Planner. It also does not address colors, just materials. 7. Proffer #5 does not appear to use the proper trail width. Please check with Parks and Recreation to see if we want this trail to be dedicated to public use. 8. Proffer #6 appears to be incorrectly worded (buffer rather than setback) and talks only about setback. Is it consistent with the WPO? What about setbacks for parking? Is there an intent to limit disturbance or require new plantings? *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 26 Oct 2010 Subject: Pantops Ridge (ZMA20100001) Revision 2; 1. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. 2. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viemont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See item 3 for mitigation. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. While VDOT may see fit to grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. 4. A traffic study is recommended to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Revision 1, comments of 15 Apr 2010; The letter and revised proffers have been reviewed. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. In addition, with other rezonings bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvement in place at the time of occupancy. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy for half the units. Plans for the Hansens Mountain road relocation should be modified to include removal of the existing road portion, right -of -way vacations, removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy/PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Original comments of 17 Feb 2010; I have emailed VDOT and Rebecca about the possibility of a traffic study, and clarifying the proffered road alignment and necessary work on Rt. 250 as well as right -of -way acquisitions necessary to build this road. The application itself contains no plan, and so there is nothing further for engineering to review. file: E3_zma_GEB_PantopsRidge.doc vIRGIN� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: April 21, 2010 Subject: ZMA 2010 — 01 Pantops Ridge I have reviewed the submitted information and offer the following comments: The proposed road realignment exhibit indicates the need for easements or even right of way from other parties. This alignment is similar to that discussed during the review of the Gazebo Plaza development. In light of past concerns stated by individuals in the Glenorchy development I believe it would be unwise to proceed with this proposed road without input from those affected property owners. Without the proposed road the transportation impacts do not appear to be addressed. Without verification that the necessary easements and right of way can be obtained I would not recommend approval of this rezoning. The design of the relocated road is not clear. For example is this a rural or urban cross section? Are sidewalks and street trees proposed? Proffer 2 cannot be accepted. The proposed rezoning is R -15 and density cannot be exceeded. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. Proffer 5 needs clarification. Is the intent that all lighting be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? Proffer 6 does not offer any standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. Further the area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. It is likely that a critical slopes waiver will be required in order to develop this property. Without a plan to review I am unable to provide any detailed comments. ZMA 2010 -00001 — Pantops Ridge Board of Supervisors Public Hearing April 20, 2011 Summary of Changes -Proffer 1 (e): Landscaping -The latest revision allowing the owners to select the plant species is helpful; although, the applicant has not addressed how $5,000 of landscaping per lot will achieve the intended purpose. -Proffer 1(f): We recommend that the proffer identify the minimum standards and scope that would apply to the traffic study, i.e., whether it will be a TIA that meets the VDOT requirements for a TIA at the site plan /subdivision plat stage or something else. The first sentence of Proffer 1(f) states that the TIA will be conducted "for such plat or plan." This is somewhat confusing. Does this mean that the TIA will analyze only the impacts from that plat or plan? However, the proffer later states that the TIA would determine which improvements are "necessitated by the construction of the Relocated Road and /or the development of the Project," the "for such plat or plan" clause appears to define the scope of the TIA and therefore, arguably, creates an ambiguity. According to the proposed use and ITE trip generation, this site will generate 3,290 vehicles per day (VPD) and 319 vehicles per hour (VPH) for the peak hour of the day. These projections meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA study as required by Virginia Administrative Code 24 VAC 30 -155. The previous traffic study submitted by Draper Aden Associates dated May 18, 2006 does not meet the minimum requirements of the code for the reasons listed in the VDOT comments sent to Albemarle County from VDOT by e -mail dated April 21, 2010. Section 15.2- 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia requires localities to submit traffic impact statements to VDOT that will substantially affect transportation on state - controlled highways with rezoning requests. Section 24 VAC 30- 155 -40 of the Virginia Administrative code lists the thresholds for rezoning requests that are considered to substantially affect transportation of state - controlled highways. The request for a traffic impact study was requested by VDOT in a previous letter to Albemarle County in response to the February 2010 rezoning requests. The submitted exhibit A with the proffer revisions is not a road plan and lacks engineering drawings or analysis that are needed to determine that the proposed improvements are adequate. These concerns were sent to Mr. Richard Spurzem by e-mail dated June 24, 2008 and later sent to Albemarle County on April 21, 2010. Items that may be necessary for the plan that are excluded or unclear from exhibit A are the following: a. There is no vertical alignment or limits of construction for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. A capacity and LOS analysis of the intersection at Glenorchy Dr. and Route 250 has not been submitted. The layout of proposed Glenorchy Dr. cannot be adequately reviewed for capacity of lane storage. Left, through or right turn lane storage lengths may need to be increased based on capacity needs. c. The proposed right turn lane from Route 250 west into Glenorchy should show the limits of construction to ensure the improvement can be made within the right of way. d. The proposed additional left turn lane from Route 250 eastbound to Glenorchy does not have any dimensions shown and its storage and deceleration lengths need to be determined by an intersection analysis. The addition of the lane into the median will require a modification to the existing graded median and the existing ditch. e. The proposed 350 foot acceleration lane on Route 250 west will need additional right of way. Traffic signal modifications will be necessary to accommodate the additional lanes. These improvements are not addressed in Exhibit A or in the proposed proffers. Also, additional signal heads will be necessary with the widening of Route 250 and Glenorchy Dr. In addition, proffer 1(f) does not contemplate a phasing of the development, or possible revisions to the development or the study, which are likely. Lastly, it references the same terms for possible off -site improvements as the Hansens Mountain road relocation, which staff does not recommend. -Proffer 1(g): This comment is related to the last comment to Proffer 1(f) above — It is possible that VDOT could determine some other off -site road or traffic improvement that is needed to get an entrance permit? For example, if VDOT required, for example, that a slope be shaved, however slightly, to address a sight distance issue for the entrance permit, the obligation to construct the Relocated Road would disappear. -Proffer 3: What is "full build out "? Is full build -out when building permits for 399 dwelling units have been issued or when site plans or subdivision plats covering the entire developable portion of the project have been approved? For example, if it's the former, then the proffer doesn't apply if only 398 building permits are obtained /units are built on the site. Also, while the revision addresses the mix, it does not address the allocation or phasing, if that is important. So for example, the applicant could build all the single family attached (or detached) at first. -Proffer 4: Architectural Standards —This proffer does not explain if or who will review or enforce this for the County. In addition, the language is overly broad and would be difficult to enforce. -Proffer 5: Trail Easement — Using the revised 201 t" unit as one of the end -point triggers is significantly later than staff recommends. Even though the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16.3.3 requires completion of recreational facilities no later than when 50% of the units have received a certificate of occupancy, this requirement would still apply and is not being requested for waiver /modification. We suggest revising the proffer to refer to this Ordinance section (as completion no later than). Section 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. -Proffer 7: Green Space —This reference is not applicable for a conventional R15 rezoning. In addition, assuming the applicant will be doing cluster development — the minimum requirement will be for 25% open space, not 15 %. OF A� `�RGIN�P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 26 Oct 2010 Subject: Pantops Ridge (ZMA20100001) Revision 2; 1. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. 2. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viemont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See item 3 for mitigation. 3. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. While VDOT may see fit to grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. 4. A traffic study is recommended to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Revision 1, comments of 15 Apr 2010; The letter and revised proffers have been reviewed. In regard to the proposed Hansens Mountain road relocation, it is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. In addition, with other rezonings bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvement in place at the time of occupancy. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy for half the units. Plans for the Hansens.Mountain road relocation should be modified to include removal of the existing road portion, right -of -way vacations, removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy/PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. Attachment H Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Original comments of 17 Feb 2010; I have emailed VDOT and Rebecca about the possibility of a traffic study, and clarifying the proffered road alignment and necessary work on Rt. 250 as well as right -of -way acquisitions necessary to build this road. The application itself contains no plan, and so there is nothing further for engineering to review. ZMA 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge — Technical and Substantive Proffer Changes Needed Proffer 1- Hansen Mountain Road relocation - Proffer 1c should contain a provision that if bonded, the road will be constructed to a certain point. The timing of road construction proposed in the proffers is not recommended. With other rezonings, bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvements in place at the time of occupancy of residential units. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy. This proffer needs to address when the road must be submitted for acceptance into the state highway system. The following proffer was made in a prior rezoning which indicates the County's preference for timing of the road relocation: Unless sooner required by VDOT as a condition of site plan approval, the Avon Street Improvements shall be constructed, bonded and ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for acceptance into the public system, and the County Engineer shall have determined that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic as a condition of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Property. - Proffer 2- Density of Project -This proffer cannot be accepted because at R -15 density no more than 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. A proffer that just limits the maximum number of units could be acceptable. - Proffer 3- Mixture of Housing Types- This proffer must include a specific percentage or number of unit types by housing type proposed within the development if it is to have value. - Proffer 4- Architectural Standards - The architectural proffers need better clarity for actual enforcement. At a minimum, the following changes are needed. 1. Roof Color - This proffer must contain more description for the roof color -other than "dark." 2. Clarify what is meant by neutral colors. 3. Architectural proffers should relate to external building surfaces. 4. Clarify what is meant by white materials will be minimized. Provide more details. 5. Clarify the intent of the lighting proffer. Is all lighting to be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? If this refers to the lighting standards then it does not appear to be necessary. - Proffer 5 -Trail Easement- Staff suggests that Proffer 5 provide for the trail to be dedicated in fee simple in conjunction with an adjacent plan; not at request of the County. If done separate from another plan, the Applicant should be responsible for all fees associated with dedication. Additionally, the Applicant should construct the trail. Clarify the standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. The area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. Define more clearly the trail location. It is difficult to understand what is meant by closest to the power line? There may be a need for off -site grading and there is no plan or commitment regarding how permission would be acquired from the off - site property owners. Letters of intent from the relevant property owners need to be provided. Will the trail serve a public purpose? - Proffer 6- Buffer Along Culpeper Branch - What is actually proposed? Is this a setback rather than a buffer? - All Exhibits need to be labeled. Attachment J COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 17, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 3rd Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received October 18, 2010 Dear Valerie: Thank you for the recent submittal of additional information in response to comments sent to you in May. The County provided you initial review comments for this project on March 5, 2010 in response to the Pantops Ridge rezoning submitted in January. The resubmittal received by the County on October 18 included the response letter, revised proffers, and road alignment exhibit, which have been reviewed. No concept /application plan has been provided. The latest information reviewed provides a response to some of the issues raised in the last review comment letter, including the additional provisions for Hansen Mountain Road relocation, mix of housing types, Monticello viewshed protection, and the greenway trail. You will see in the comments provided below that staff continues to believe that the proposed density is inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan and additional information and evaluation of impacts of the proposal are needed along with revisions to proffers. Also needed and as previously requested are transportation impact analysis, assurances that the Hansen Mountain Road relocation can be accomplished, and other recommendations of the master plan and County policy. Detailed Comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided, ENSIVE P PANTOPS MASTER PLAN Density The Pantops Master Plan recommends a total of approximately 305 units. This equates to roughly 8 units per acre on the property. A more liberal application of the Pantops Master Plan could allow for approximately 395 units or 10 dwellings per acre. As a result staff cannot recommend approval for density of 15 units per acre. Mix of Housing Types Thank you for the proffer submitted to provide a mix of housing types to include single family detached, townhouses /single family attached, and apartments. This proffer, however, has no mechanism for enforcement. Also there is no commitment for single family dwellings as the predominant unit type, nor a commitment to locate the townhouses and multifamily units in the area shown for urban density on the Pantops Master Plan. Please see additional comments in the proffer section. Greenspace and Trail The master plan designates portions of the property as Greenspace and recommends Greenspace along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Measures for protection have not been provided. Additionally it has been brought to my attention that there has already been some disturbance in this area of the property and that a WPO has been approved for this portion of the site. While a proffer has been made for a "buffer ", clarity is needed in terms of what you are actually proposing. • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. Monticello Viewshed Staff appreciates your willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the master plan. Staff has asked Monticello for any additional comments on the most recent proffers you have submitted and will send this information to you when we receive it. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis While staff sees that the applicant does not wish to provide a traffic study, staff still recommends that one be completed to ascertain the lane improvements necessary on all sides of the traffic signal with the proposed development and road relocation. All necessary improvements should be provided. Hansen Mountain Road Relocation Although the applicant has provided additional information, there are still outstanding issues related to the widening of Glenorchy Drive and the extension of Viewmont Court which becomes a relocated Hansen Mountain Road. First, the proffers indicate that the owner expects the County to acquire property and easements necessary to make the road improvements. This is an. unrealistic expectation given the need for the road improvement is largely generated by the developer. At a minimum, the applicant should proffer to acquire the easements and r.o.w. for the improvements. He may want to proffer that if he is not successful in acquiring the easements and r.o.w., he will ask the County to acquire the r.o.w. and easements. Such a proffer for the County to acquire the r.o.w. and easements may or may not be successful with the Board of Supervisors. As you know, Proffer 1(b): The cash contribution to acquire any needed right -of -way is based on the Albemarle Place proffers, and used in subsequent rezoning as well. The difference between this project and the other projects where this language was used is that right -of -way for those other projects was in commercial areas and, in most cases, 2 was a strip of land along Route 29 (with the exception being the 7 -11 parcel for Albemarle Place improvements. The right -of -way to be acquired in this case would be through a residential area. The Board has not accepted any proffers indicating a willingness to acquire land for a residential development. More comments relative to the proffers are found in the "Proffers" section below. Specific comments related to the relocation of the road are provided by the County Engineer: The plan shows that right -of -way acquisition is necessary for a bend in Viewmont Court and on either side of Glenorchy Drive. It is expected that further easements will be required for drainage improvements not shown on the exhibit provided, as well as temporary easements for construction. Changing Glenorchy Drive and Viewmont Court from rural dead -end neighborhood roads into a minor or major collector road will have a significant impact which may not necessarily be reflected in the current traffic counts and road centerline design information. This impact may be significant with future growth on the collector road. See the following bulleted item for mitigation. It is also noted that this road makes a long straight -away, terminating in a series of tight curves. Although VDOT may grant a waiver for this curvature, it is not an inherently safe situation, as evidenced by the fact that VDOT is asking for traffic calming measures before the series of curves. This and item 2 may be mitigated by smoothing out the curves and intersection at Glenorchy Drive, making this the primary route (no left turn at Glenorchy to get to Rt. 250), which would create the need for more right -of -way for those lots adversely impacted. Transit The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: • Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. • Ensure new development is transit ready. This issue remains unaddressed. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the revised proffers submitted and comments are provided below for Proffers 1 -6 and there are no comments on Proffer 7. Additional proffers could address some issues raised or impacts of the development. • Proffer 1- Hansen Mountain Road relocation - Proffer 1c should contain a provision that if bonded, the road will be constructed to a certain point. The timing of road construction proposed in the proffers is not recommended. With other rezonings, bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvements in place at the time of occupancy of residential units. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy. This proffer needs to address when the road must be submitted for acceptance into the state highway system. The following proffer was made in a prior rezoning which indicates the County's preference for timing of the road relocation: Unless sooner required by VDOT as a condition of site plan approval, the Avon Street Improvements shall be constructed, bonded and ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for acceptance into the public system, and the County Engineer shall have determined that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic as a condition of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Property. • Proffer 2- Density of Project -This proffer cannot be accepted because at R -15 density no more than 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. A proffer that just limits the maximum number of units could be acceptable. • Proffer 3- Mixture of Housing Types- This proffer must include a specific percentage or number of unit types by housing type proposed within the development if it is to have value. • Proffer 4- Architectural Standards - Staff appreciates your offer to be sensitive to the Monticello viewshed. The architectural proffers however, need better clarity for actual enforcement. Two proffers which have been accepted by the County are attached. At a minimum, the following changes are needed. 1. Roof Color - This proffer must contain more description for the roof color -other than "dark." 2. Clarify what is meant by neutral colors. 3. Architectural proffers should relate to external building surfaces. 4. Clarify what is meant by white materials will be minimized. Provide more details. 5. Clarify the intent of the lighting proffer. Is all lighting to be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? If this refers to the lighting standards then it does not appear to be necessary. Proffer 5- Trail Easement- Staff suggests that Proffer 5 provide for the trail to be dedicated in fee simple in conjunction with an adjacent plan; not at request of the County. If done separate from another plan, the Applicant should be responsible for all fees associated with dedication. Additionally, the Applicant should construct the trail. Proffer 6 does not offer any standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. Further the area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. Does this serve a public purpose? This appears to rely on off -site grading, therefore, we advise that letters of intent from the relevant property owners be provided. Define more clearly the trail location. It is difficult to understand what is meant by closest to the power line? • Proffer 6 —What is actually proposed? Are you really offering a setback rather than a buffer? • Please label all Exhibits. Previous comments not addressed in proffers: The following items remain unaddressed. Staff recognizes that we may need to agree to disagree on these items, however, they relate to County policies and must be acknowledged. Affordable Housing The County's Affordable Housi recommends that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Sample proffer language can be provided. Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; Single Family Attached/Townhouse (SFA/TH) _ $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) _ $13,200.00. Sample proffer language can be provided. It is possible that the Board may attribute monetary value to your acquisition of r.o.w. and construction of the relocated road entrance. If so, the Board may decide that a lower cash proffer amount is acceptable. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ZONING • Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. COMMENTS FROM CURRENT DEVELOPMENT • No plan is associated with this application; therefore, it is difficult to determine what issues may come up during the site plan review. • Concerns remain regarding the whether the road relocation will occur. NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL As discussed in the previous comment letter, since no plan has been provided, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with all 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model. Based on the information that has been provided, we previously listed several Neighborhood Model principles that should be addressed. The following comments still have not been adequately addressed: • Pedestrian Orientation - Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. • Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Provision for the "optional roadway" shown on the master plan should be made. • Site Planning that Respects Terrain -No information has been provided on proposed grading. • Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas- Recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan regarding treatment of the RA boundary should be incorporated into this development proposal. No information on special treatment of this boundary has been provided. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR Previous comments still apply: It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) & Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) The following previous comments from ACSA still remain: With the data that we have in hand, there are capacity issues for several runs of sewer pipes downstream from this project. They will have to be upgraded to accept the projected flows from the proposed 562 units. RESUBMITTAL OR PUBLIC HEARING State law and County ordinance direct that action on a rezoning be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. The date that the. application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date. We request that, within 30 days from the date of this letter you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule, OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. 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, the 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. You have indicated that you are ready to go to public hearing. With the holidays fast approaching, we will contact you regarding a date for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3250 or cqrant _albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner vIRG��� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 5, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 2nd Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received April 5, 2010 (sent via e -mail April 3, 2010) Dear Valerie: The County provided you initial review comments for this project on March 5, 2010 in response to the Pantops Ridge rezoning submitted in January. Thank you for the recent submittal of additional information in response to comments sent to you in March. The response letter, revised proffers, and road alignment exhibit have been reviewed. No concept /application plan has been provided. The latest information reviewed provides a response to some of the issues raised in the last review comment letter, including the additional provisions for Hansen Mountain Road relocation, mix of housing types, Monticello viewshed protection, and the greenway trail. However, staff believes that the proposed density is still inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan and additional information and evaluation of impacts of the proposal are needed or revisions to proffers provided. This includes transportation impact analysis, assurances that the Hansen Mountain Road relocation can be accomplished, and other recommendations of the master plan and County policy. Detailed Comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PANTOPS MASTER PLAN Density Staff believes the proposed rezoning would result in a higher density than is suggested by the Pantops Master Plan with the proposed 15 units per acre and maximum of 566 units proposed. The master plan suggests that up to approximately 305 residential units, which would be about a maximum gross density for the site of 8 units per acre, would be appropriate for this property with a mix of housing types, including predominantly single family unit /lot types. This maximum number of suggested units is based on netting out the areas designated Greenspace and using acreage left shown for Urban Density and acreage left shown for Neighborhood Density. Based on your comment letter, calculations have also been done for the maximum number of units suggested under the master plan based on a gross approach. Greenspace areas were not netted out Cl" d a gross density approach is used for the remainder of the property at Neighborhood Density Residential. This results in a maximum number of units of about 395 or a density of up to about 10 units per acre. Staff still believes that the maximum number of units should be more in keeping with the recommendations of the master plan and limited to fewer than 566 units. Mix of Housing Types Thank you for the proffer submitted to provide a mix of housing types to include single family detached, townhouses /single family attached, and apartments. This master plan recommends a mix of housing types, with single family recommended as the predominant unit type. Please see comments regarding the need to be more specific in the proffer provided. Greenspace and Trail The master plan designates portions of the property as Greenspace and recommends Greenspace along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, important wooded areas identified on the Open Space Plan, and Culpeper Branch. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features by making commitments to provide a buffer along the eastern property line and avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the powerline easement. The following definitions from the Zoning Ordinance may be helpful in providing a plan or proffered description of areas of the site to avoid with development based on the Greenspace recommendations of the master plan: Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. (Added 3- 19 -03) Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. (Added 3- 19 -03) • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. 2 n L L{ N , N L OL k eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, important wooded areas identified on the Open Space Plan, and Culpeper Branch. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features by making commitments to provide a buffer along the eastern property line and avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the powerline easement. The following definitions from the Zoning Ordinance may be helpful in providing a plan or proffered description of areas of the site to avoid with development based on the Greenspace recommendations of the master plan: Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. (Added 3- 19 -03) Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. (Added 3- 19 -03) • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. 2 Monticello Viewshed Staff appreciates your willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the master plan. Staff has asked for comments on the most recent proffers you have submitted. Also, for your reference, I have included the proffer provided with ZMA 01 -15 Martha Jefferson Hospital: . TIP- Owner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Thomas Je$'erson Founds ior, Inc_ incorporating guidelines for development of the Property within the Monticello vie shed (as such memorandum may be amended from time to time upon mutual consent of the parties thereto) (the ' U"). Prior to granting final site plan approval for any proposed building on the Property w thin the Mon iceRo viewsl> d (other than %ite plan applications for minor amendments not material to the objectives of the Ivy , and prodded that the M U remains to effect between the parties thereto, the Director of Planning and Community Developmcrrt shall request confiIuxation from -`hones Jc rwn Foundation, Inc. that the site plan application is consistent with the terms of the MOU. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis VDOT has reviewed the zoning application and has provided e-mail comments dated April 21, 2010, which are attached. Previous comments from VDOT have not been addressed and the applicant is urged to contact staff to set up the pre- scoping meeting for a traffic study. Hansen Mountain Road Relocation The proposed road realignment exhibit indicates the need for easements or right of way from other properties. This alignment is similar to that discussed during the review of the Gazebo Plaza development. In light of past concerns stated by individuals in the Glenorchy development staff believes proceeding with the proposed road without input /cooperation from the affected property owners will be problematic. Without the proposed road the transportation impacts do not appear to be addressed. Staff believes that verification that the necessary easements and right of way can be obtained for the road relocation is needed before this rezoning could be recommended for approval. It is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. Plans for the Hansens Mountain Road relocation should be modified to include the following details following review and any additional recommendations of a traffic study: • Removal of the existing road portion • Right -of -way vacations • Removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy /PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. • Standards of construction for the road connection and upgrades to Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive. The design of the relocated road is not clear. The proposed cross - section for the road must be provided and should accommodate pedestrians. Pavement widening and overlays on Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive, along with any necessary right -of -way and drainage improvements. (The vertical alignment will need to be checked also.) Removal of the remaining cul -de -sac, and /or abandoning of the right -of -way. Removal of Hansens Mountain Road from Rt. 250 to the new road location, and abandoning of the right -of -way. Transit The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: • Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. • Ensure new development is transit ready. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the revised proffers submitted and comments are provided below for Proffers 1 -6 and there are no comments on Proffer 7. Additional proffers could address some issues raised or impacts of the development. Proffer 1- Hansen Mountain Road relocation- Proffer 1c should contain a provision that if bonded, the road will be constructed to a certain point. The timing of road construction proposed in the proffers is not recommended. With other rezoning, bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvements in place at the time of occupancy of residential units. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy. • Proffer 2- Density of Project -This proffer cannot be accepted. The proposed rezoning is R -15 and density cannot be exceeded. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. A proffer that limits the maximum number of units could be acceptable. • Proffer 3- Mixture of Housing Types- This proffer must include a specific percentage or number of unit types by housing type proposed within the development. • Proffer 4 -Roof colors- This proffer must contain more description for the roof color -other than "dark." It is suggested that the Applicant review the Martha Jefferson Proffers for guidance. • Proffer 5- Lighting -This proffer needs clarification. Is the intent that all lighting be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? Please refer to Martha Jefferson Hospital Proffer regarding Monticello View shed. (Attached) • Proffer 6- Trail Easement- Zoning suggests that Proffer 6 provide for the trail to be dedicated fee simple in conjunction with an adjacent plan; not at request of the County. If done separate from another plan, the Applicant should be responsible for all fees associated with dedication. Additionally, the Applicant should construct the trail. Proffer 6 does not offer any standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. Further the area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. • Please label all Exhibits. 4 Previous comments not addressed in proffers: Affordable Housing The County's Affordable Housing policy recommends that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Sample proffer language can be provided. Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; Single Family Attached /Townhouse (SFA /TH) _ $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) _ $13,200.00. Sample proffer language can be provided COMMENTS FROM ZONING /CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Previous comment still applicable: Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL As discussed in our previous comment letter, since no plan has been provided, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with all 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model. Based on the information that has been provided, we did list in our last letter several Neighborhood Model principles that should be addressed. The following comments still have not been adequately addressed: • Pedestrian Orientation - Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. • Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Future possible optional roadway discussed as a master plan recommendation should also be provided for. • Site Planning that Respects Terrain -No information has been provided on proposed grading. • Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas- Recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan regarding treatment of the RA boundary should be incorporated into this development proposal. No information on special treatment of this boundary has been provided. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR Previous comments still apply: It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) & Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) The most recent comments from ACSA, dated March 30, 2010 and sent via e-mail are below. If we receive any additional comments from ACSA we will forward them to you promptly. With the data that we have in hand, there are capacity issues for several runs of sewer pipes downstream from this project. They will have to be upgraded to accept the projected flows from the proposed 566 units. RESUBMITTAL OR PUBLIC HEARING State law and County ordinance direct that action on a rezoning be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date. We request that, within 30 days from the date of this letter you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule, OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. 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, the 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 at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3439 or rraasdale(@albemarle.ora Sincerely, 4 U4 Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner M From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ mailto:J oel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:11 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge Rebecca, I have reviewed the above subject rezoning and have the following comments: Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study: • The study submitted for the proposed Gazebo Plaza does not meet the requirements established by 24 VAC 30 -155 and a Chapter 527 study should be submitted for this proposed site. A supplemental traffic study as described in 24VAC30- 155 -50, section C is not acceptable because the original study does not meet the minimum requirements of the Chapter 527 Regulations. The following list describe the deficiencies of the original study from the requirements of a 527 study: o Assumptions made for the build out year in the original study indicated that additional lanes would be constructed on Route 250. The lanes have not been constructed and there is no plan to do so. o The study is over two years old. o The impacted intersections in the original study did not meet the scope of the current regulations. Proffers: • The relocation of Hansens Mountain Road may mitigate some of the impacts associated with this proposed site. The level of mitigation will be identified in the traffic study. • Proffer #1 states that Hansens Mountain Road will be relocated in general accord with the attached drawings. The drawings that were submitted do not meet the minimum standards of the VDOT Road Design Manual and the road cannot be built as drawn. I reviewed this plan and provided an e-mail to Mr. Spurzem stating some of the deficiencies in the design on 6/24/2008 stating the following: Relocation of Hansens Mountain Road proposed with Gazebo Plaza Mr. Spurzem, 1 have reviewed the plan proposing to relocate Hansens Mountain Road through Glenorchy to intersect at the existing signal at Glenorchy and Route 250 and have the following comments: • The current functional classification on Hansens Mountain Road is an Urban Local Road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. • The 2006 ADT on Hansens Mountain Road is 1400 VPD and the 2006 ADT on Glenorchy is 190 VPD. The trip generation for the proposed development estimates an additional 13,252 VPD on Hansen Mountain Road. • The proposed design speed for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road is 35 mph. The design speed determines the geometrical features of the road and according to the proposed design speed the minimum proposed radii need to be 510 feet for a design with no superelevation, 408 feet for an urban low speed design with a maximum 2% superelevation, and 371 feet for an urban design with a maximum of 4% superelevation. The current design does not propose superelevation to any curves; therefore the minimum horizontal radius needs to be a minimum of 510 feet. The curves at stations 4 +00, 8 +00 and 23 +50 do not meet the minimum horizontal criteria. The application of superelevation to reduce the minimum radius will likely increase the limits of construction on the road. o The intersection at Route 250 will need a capacity analysis including queue length analysis to determine its adequacy of turn lane lengths. The configuration on the plan is in accordance with the TIA submitted for the development but does not include details for the capacity or timing of the intersection. Also, the dual ingress lanes on Glenorchy need to have adequate length for the merging movement and a minimum 245 foot length for the pavement shift. o The intersection at Glenorchy and Route 250 needs to have a proposed vertical alignment in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix C -4. The first grade break from the edge of the right turn lane cannot exceed 4% and should continue for a minimum 50 foot landing. The existing cross slope of the road should be -2% and the connection grade can be +2% with a 10 foot vertical curve. The +2% should extend for 50 feet before another break in the grade. Glenorchy will be the through movement at the intersection at Viewmont and should have a smooth vertical alignment through the intersection. o The channelized right turn movement from Glenorchy to Route 250 west appears to be 12 feet in width. The width needs to accommodate the design vehicle and should probably be closer to 20 feet in width. Either templates or Autoturn should be used to determine the width. o Drainage and pavement designs will be required with a final plan. o All commercial entrances will need to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, The Road and Bridge Standards, and The Road Design Manual. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Joel I think the first step in getting this rezoning approved is the traffic study. I believe a scoping meeting with VDOT and the County is necessary for this project. I also think an adequate design needs to be drawn prior to proffering a road that VDOT will not accept is necessary for this rezoning request. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov U� WILLIAMS MULLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williara mullen.com April 3, 2010 Via email: rragsdalekalbemarle.org Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA 2010 -01 Pantops Ridge Dear Rebecca Thank you for your comments to the Pantops Ridge rezoning application. We have reviewed your letter carefully and considered all issues in detail. Our comments on some of the issues your letter raised are included below. Densi : The applicant continues to feel that the proposed level of density is appropriate under the circumstances, especially in light of the intensity of development that is currently permitted on the property. We have added a proffer addressing the proposed average density of 15 dwelling units per acre. I understand from our conversation that you arrived at the 305 unit count by "netting out" the areas shown as greenspace on the Pantops Master Plan. However, given that the Comprehensive Plan is intended by the Virginia Code enabling legislation to be "general in nature" we respectfully question whether this level of detail in recommending precise numbers of units for a particular parcel is appropriate. Regardless, the proposed density for the Project will in any event be a far less intensive use and scale than is currently permitted, and will be more harmonious with nearby developments. Mixture of Housing Types: The applicant has always planned to develop the property with a mixture of housing types, including single family detached, townhouses and apartments. As you will see from the revised proffers that are enclosed with this letter, the applicant is willing to proffer this mixture. Proposed Relocation of Hanson's Mountain Road: We are hopeful that the proposed road plans we submitted in early March were able to address your comments relative to this issue since the plans demonstrate that the road connection avoids significant negative impacts to occupied dwelling units in the Glenorchy neighborhood. As you may have noted on the exhibits, we will need temporary construction easements from the residents to improve the road, but their NORTH CAROLINA • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON 321 Fast Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 Tel: 434.951.5700 Fax: 804.783.6507 or 434.817.0977 -- illi— noullen.com U� WILLIAMS MULLEN April 3, 2010 Page 2 lots will continue to front on a fifty -foot right -of -way. The applicant is also willing to work with the Glenorchy landowners to install landscaping along the improved road in exchange for cooperation with the temporary construction easements. We have also revised the proffer about the road connection to address the comment about when the road must be constructed and submitted for acceptance into the state system. Finally, it is my understanding that a legal review of the Glenorchy covenants and restrictions reveal that they have expired. Monticello Viewshed Guidelines: We appreciate the comments from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, and the applicant has met with the Foundation representatives to discuss the proposal. As you will note from the revised proffers, we have included several specific proffers to incorporate the guidelines, including a requirement that dark roofs be used within the Project, and that the entire Project be subject to the County lighting ordinance (to the extent it would not otherwise be subject to it). The proposed residential development will meet the viewshed guideline about building facades, in that the residences will necessarily not be monolithic like the approved shopping center building would be. In addition, the parking areas for the residential units will be smaller and broken up with plantings, whereas the large parking area for the shopping center would not be at all concealed from the viewshed and would not be broken up by plantings. Transportation: As we may have noted previously, the vehicle trips associated with the Project will be substantially reduced over what is predicted for the approved by -right shopping center. The staff report from the July, 2003 Planning Commission work session on ZMA 02 -011 (the original Pantops Ridge ZMA that proposed 800 -900 dwelling units plus up to 50,000 square feet of commercial space) noted that the Gazebo Plaza Shopping Center would generate 9,400 vehicle trips per day, and that ZMA 02 -011 would generate between 5,300 and 5,800 vehicle trips per day. The current proposal for approximately 562 units will generate even fewer vehicle trips than proposed by ZMA 02 -011. Given this substantial reduction in vehicle trips over what is currently permitted, the applicant believes that the relocation of Hanson's Mountain Road and the construction of a safe and convenient point of access to U.S. Route 250 for residents of the Project and those of Ashcroft, Shadwell Estates and other residents who utilize Hanson's Mountain Road will contribute greatly the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Based on these circumstances, the applicant does not believe that a new traffic study is necessary for the proposed down- zoning. Current Approved Site Plan: The revised proffers provide that the approved site plan for the Gazebo Plaza shopping center would be abandoned upon approval of the rezoning. Existing Residence on the Property: Although the existing residence on the Property is not contemplated to be incorporated into the new development, the Owner is willing to allow the County staff or others access to the residence to photograph and document it if desired. U[AA I WILLIAMS MULLEN April 3, 2010 Page 3 Trail Within or Near Power Line Easement: The Applicant is willing to grant a trail easement to permit a trail to be constructed either within or parallel to the existing power line easement area, subject to the rights of the easement holder and any required consents. Benefits of the Residential Development: I would also like to take the opportunity to point out a number of other advantages of this proposal over the current approved shopping center project that have not already been mentioned in this letter: • The proposed residential development will involve far less grading than would the shopping center. The shopping center essentially requires the site to be flattened, while the residential development can work well with the natural topography. In addition, the approved shopping center would require extremely tall retaining walls (up to 60 feet in some areas) that are not required for the residential development. • The proposal to relocate Hanson's Mountain Road is an opportunity to provide a long -term safe and convenient solution to the transportation network for the residents of this area. No other landowners or entities (including the nearby Homeowner's Associations, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation) are in a position to solve this transportation challenge. The applicant is willing to construct this important road connection at its expense at a cost of approximately $3.0 million. The value of the road for purposes of solving the significant transportation access issues in the area is arguably immeasurable. • The proposed road connection will be safer for the nearby residents as well as for school buses, rescue squad and other emergency response vehicles. • The proposed rezoning permanently eliminates the so- called "stale zoning" affecting the Property. • The residential development will be far more compatible with the surrounding development and neighborhoods than would the approved shopping center. Based upon all of these issues, we respectfully request that the application be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. We would suggest a date of May I lth, which would provide you with the standard four weeks for staff review of the revised proffers that are enclosed. WILLIAMS MULLEN April 3, 2010 Page 4 Thank you again for your assistance with this project. Should you have any questions or require any information, please contact me at 951 -5709 or vlong awilliamsmullen.com. Sincerely, U k� WI1� Valerie W. Long ]5]00]9_1 DOC vIRG��� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 5, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 2nd Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received April 5, 2010 (sent via e -mail April 3, 2010) Dear Valerie: The County provided you initial review comments for this project on March 5, 2010 in response to the Pantops Ridge rezoning submitted in January. Thank you for the recent submittal of additional information in response to comments sent to you in March. The response letter, revised proffers, and road alignment exhibit have been reviewed. No concept /application plan has been provided. The latest information reviewed provides a response to some of the issues raised in the last review comment letter, including the additional provisions for Hansen Mountain Road relocation, mix of housing types, Monticello viewshed protection, and the greenway trail. However, staff believes that the proposed density is still inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan and additional information and evaluation of impacts of the proposal are needed or revisions to proffers provided. This includes transportation impact analysis, assurances that the Hansen Mountain Road relocation can be accomplished, and other recommendations of the master plan and County policy. Detailed Comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PANTOPS MASTER PLAN Density Staff believes the proposed rezoning would result in a higher density than is suggested by the Pantops Master Plan with the proposed 15 units per acre and maximum of 566 units proposed. The master plan suggests that up to approximately 305 residential units, which would be about a maximum gross density for the site of 8 units per acre, would be appropriate for this property with a mix of housing types, including predominantly single family unit /lot types. This maximum number of suggested units is based on netting out the areas designated Greenspace and using acreage left shown for Urban Density and acreage left shown for Neighborhood Density. Based on your comment letter, calculations have also been done for the maximum number of units suggested under the master plan based on a gross approach. Greenspace areas were not netted out Cl" d a gross density approach is used for the remainder of the property at Neighborhood Density Residential. This results in a maximum number of units of about 395 or a density of up to about 10 units per acre. Staff still believes that the maximum number of units should be more in keeping with the recommendations of the master plan and limited to fewer than 566 units. Mix of Housing Types Thank you for the proffer submitted to provide a mix of housing types to include single family detached, townhouses /single family attached, and apartments. This master plan recommends a mix of housing types, with single family recommended as the predominant unit type. Please see comments regarding the need to be more specific in the proffer provided. Greenspace and Trail The master plan designates portions of the property as Greenspace and recommends Greenspace along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, important wooded areas identified on the Open Space Plan, and Culpeper Branch. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features by making commitments to provide a buffer along the eastern property line and avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the powerline easement. The following definitions from the Zoning Ordinance may be helpful in providing a plan or proffered description of areas of the site to avoid with development based on the Greenspace recommendations of the master plan: Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. (Added 3- 19 -03) Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. (Added 3- 19 -03) • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. 2 n L L{ N , N L OL k eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, important wooded areas identified on the Open Space Plan, and Culpeper Branch. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features by making commitments to provide a buffer along the eastern property line and avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the powerline easement. The following definitions from the Zoning Ordinance may be helpful in providing a plan or proffered description of areas of the site to avoid with development based on the Greenspace recommendations of the master plan: Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. (Added 3- 19 -03) Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. (Added 3- 19 -03) • A central greenspace focal point is shown on the Pantops Master Plan central to this site which has also not been addressed with this project. • Comments regarding the trail are included in the Proffer comments section of this letter. 2 Monticello Viewshed Staff appreciates your willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the master plan. Staff has asked for comments on the most recent proffers you have submitted. Also, for your reference, I have included the proffer provided with ZMA 01 -15 Martha Jefferson Hospital: . TIP- Owner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Thomas Je$'erson Founds ior, Inc_ incorporating guidelines for development of the Property within the Monticello vie shed (as such memorandum may be amended from time to time upon mutual consent of the parties thereto) (the ' U"). Prior to granting final site plan approval for any proposed building on the Property w thin the Mon iceRo viewsl> d (other than %ite plan applications for minor amendments not material to the objectives of the Ivy , and prodded that the M U remains to effect between the parties thereto, the Director of Planning and Community Developmcrrt shall request confiIuxation from -`hones Jc rwn Foundation, Inc. that the site plan application is consistent with the terms of the MOU. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis VDOT has reviewed the zoning application and has provided e-mail comments dated April 21, 2010, which are attached. Previous comments from VDOT have not been addressed and the applicant is urged to contact staff to set up the pre- scoping meeting for a traffic study. Hansen Mountain Road Relocation The proposed road realignment exhibit indicates the need for easements or right of way from other properties. This alignment is similar to that discussed during the review of the Gazebo Plaza development. In light of past concerns stated by individuals in the Glenorchy development staff believes the proposed road without input from those affected property owners. Without the proposed road the transportation impacts do not appear to be addressed. Staff believes that verification that the necessary easements and right of way can be obtained for the road relocation is needed before this rezoning could be recommended for approval. It is not recommended that the County be placed in the position of obtaining right -of -way and easements for this project. Plans for the Hansens Mountain Road relocation should be modified to include the following details following review and any additional recommendations of a traffic study: • Removal of the existing road portion • Right -of -way vacations • Removal of the median opening and turn lanes on Rt. 250, and the addition of lanes through the intersection of Glenorchy /PeterJeffersonWay /250 as called for in the previous traffic studies. • Standards of construction for the road connection and upgrades to Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive. The design of the relocated road is not clear. The proposed cross - section for the road must be provided and should accommodate pedestrians. Pavement widening and overlays on Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive, along with any necessary right -of -way and drainage improvements. (The vertical alignment will need to be checked also.) Removal of the remaining cul -de -sac, and /or abandoning of the right -of -way. Removal of Hansens Mountain Road from Rt. 250 to the new road location, and abandoning of the right -of -way. Transit The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: • Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. • Ensure new development is transit ready. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the revised proffers submitted and comments are provided below for Proffers 1 -6 and there are no comments on Proffer 7. Additional proffers could address some issues raised or impacts of the development. Proffer 1- Hansen Mountain Road relocation- Proffer 1c should contain a provision that if bonded, the road will be constructed to a certain point. The timing of road construction proposed in the proffers is not recommended. With other rezoning, bonding of road improvements has not been a successful method of having improvements in place at the time of occupancy of residential units. It is recommended that all right -of -way and easements be obtained by the developer prior to plan approvals, and all necessary infrastructure be completed prior to certificates of occupancy. • Proffer 2- Density of Project -This proffer cannot be accepted. The proposed rezoning is R -15 and density cannot be exceeded. Proffers cannot modify ordinance requirements. A proffer that limits the maximum number of units could be acceptable. • Proffer 3- Mixture of Housing Types- This proffer must include a specific percentage or number of unit types by housing type proposed within the development. • Proffer 4 -Roof colors- This proffer must contain more description for the roof color -other than "dark." It is suggested that the Applicant review the Martha Jefferson Proffers for guidance. • Proffer 5- Lighting -This proffer needs clarification. Is the intent that all lighting be subject to the lighting standards? Is only lighting over 3,000 lumens subject to the proffer? Please refer to Martha Jefferson Hospital Proffer regarding Monticello View shed. (Attached) • Proffer 6- Trail Easement- Zoning suggests that Proffer 6 provide for the trail to be dedicated fee simple in conjunction with an adjacent plan; not at request of the County. If done separate from another plan, the Applicant should be responsible for all fees associated with dedication. Additionally, the Applicant should construct the trail. Proffer 6 does not offer any standard for the trail easement. No dimension is proposed. Further the area is very steep and offers limited functionality for a trail. • Please label all Exhibits. 4 Previous comments not addressed in proffers: Affordable Housing The County's Affordable Housing policy recommends that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Sample proffer language can be provided. Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; Single Family Attached /Townhouse (SFA /TH) _ $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) _ $13,200.00. Sample proffer language can be provided COMMENTS FROM ZONING /CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Previous comment still applicable: Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL As discussed in our previous comment letter, since no plan has been provided, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with all 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model. Based on the information that has been provided, we did list in our last letter several Neighborhood Model principles that should be addressed. The following comments still have not been adequately addressed: • Pedestrian Orientation - Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. • Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Future possible optional roadway discussed as a master plan recommendation should also be provided for. • Site Planning that Respects Terrain -No information has been provided on proposed grading. • Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas- Recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan regarding treatment of the RA boundary should be incorporated into this development proposal. No information on special treatment of this boundary has been provided. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR Previous comments still apply: It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) & Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) The most recent comments from ACSA, dated March 30, 2010 and sent via e-mail are below. If we receive any additional comments from ACSA we will forward them to you promptly. With the data that we have in hand, there are capacity issues for several runs of sewer pipes downstream from this project. They will have to be upgraded to accept the projected flows from the proposed 566 units. RESUBMITTAL OR PUBLIC HEARING State law and County ordinance direct that action on a rezoning be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date. We request that, within 30 days from the date of this letter you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule, OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. 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, the 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 at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3439 or rraasdale(@albemarle.ora Sincerely, 4 U4 Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner M From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ mailto:J oel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:11 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge ZMA- 2010 -00001 Pantops Ridge Rebecca, I have reviewed the above subject rezoning and have the following comments: Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study: • The study submitted for the proposed Gazebo Plaza does not meet the requirements established by 24 VAC 30 -155 and a Chapter 527 study should be submitted for this proposed site. A supplemental traffic study as described in 24VAC30- 155 -50, section C is not acceptable because the original study does not meet the minimum requirements of the Chapter 527 Regulations. The following list describe the deficiencies of the original study from the requirements of a 527 study: o Assumptions made for the build out year in the original study indicated that additional lanes would be constructed on Route 250. The lanes have not been constructed and there is no plan to do so. o The study is over two years old. o The impacted intersections in the original study did not meet the scope of the current regulations. Proffers: • The relocation of Hansens Mountain Road may mitigate some of the impacts associated with this proposed site. The level of mitigation will be identified in the traffic study. • Proffer #1 states that Hansens Mountain Road will be relocated in general accord with the attached drawings. The drawings that were submitted do not meet the minimum standards of the VDOT Road Design Manual and the road cannot be built as drawn. I reviewed this plan and provided an e-mail to Mr. Spurzem stating some of the deficiencies in the design on 6/24/2008 stating the following: Relocation of Hansens Mountain Road proposed with Gazebo Plaza Mr. Spurzem, 1 have reviewed the plan proposing to relocate Hansens Mountain Road through Glenorchy to intersect at the existing signal at Glenorchy and Route 250 and have the following comments: • The current functional classification on Hansens Mountain Road is an Urban Local Road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. • The 2006 ADT on Hansens Mountain Road is 1400 VPD and the 2006 ADT on Glenorchy is 190 VPD. The trip generation for the proposed development estimates an additional 13,252 VPD on Hansen Mountain Road. • The proposed design speed for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road is 35 mph. The design speed determines the geometrical features of the road and according to the proposed design speed the minimum proposed radii need to be 510 feet for a design with no superelevation, 408 feet for an urban low speed design with a maximum 2% superelevation, and 371 feet for an urban design with a maximum of 4% superelevation. The current design does not propose superelevation to any curves; therefore the minimum horizontal radius needs to be a minimum of 510 feet. The curves at stations 4 +00, 8 +00 and 23 +50 do not meet the minimum horizontal criteria. The application of superelevation to reduce the minimum radius will likely increase the limits of construction on the road. o The intersection at Route 250 will need a capacity analysis including queue length analysis to determine its adequacy of turn lane lengths. The configuration on the plan is in accordance with the TIA submitted for the development but does not include details for the capacity or timing of the intersection. Also, the dual ingress lanes on Glenorchy need to have adequate length for the merging movement and a minimum 245 foot length for the pavement shift. o The intersection at Glenorchy and Route 250 needs to have a proposed vertical alignment in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix C -4. The first grade break from the edge of the right turn lane cannot exceed 4% and should continue for a minimum 50 foot landing. The existing cross slope of the road should be -2% and the connection grade can be +2% with a 10 foot vertical curve. The +2% should extend for 50 feet before another break in the grade. Glenorchy will be the through movement at the intersection at Viewmont and should have a smooth vertical alignment through the intersection. o The channelized right turn movement from Glenorchy to Route 250 west appears to be 12 feet in width. The width needs to accommodate the design vehicle and should probably be closer to 20 feet in width. Either templates or Autoturn should be used to determine the width. o Drainage and pavement designs will be required with a final plan. o All commercial entrances will need to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, The Road and Bridge Standards, and The Road Design Manual. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Joel I think the first step in getting this rezoning approved is the traffic study. I believe a scoping meeting with VDOT and the County is necessary for this project. I also think an adequate design needs to be drawn prior to proffering a road that VDOT will not accept is necessary for this rezoning request. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov �I- ''illy 11111• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 5, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -01 Pantops Ridge 1St Review Comment Letter on rezoning submittal received January 19, 2010 Dear Valerie: Thank you for the recent submittal of a rezoning on behalf of your client, Richard Spurzem. This proposal is for a rezoning from PDSC Planned District Shopping Center, which allows development of the site into an 183,000 square foot shopping center, to R15 Residential which could permit up to 566 residential units on the property. Staff has reviewed the narrative attachment and proffers to the application. No concept/application plan was provided with this proposed rezoning. The narrative suggests this proposal would be a downzoning of the property. It is described in your proposal as less intensive use of the site than the approved shopping center, generating fewer vehicle trips, having little impact on the Monticello viewshed, and requiring less grading of the site. The application also describes relocation of Hansen's Mountain Road through the property to Viewmont Court to provide access to Route 250 at the signalized intersection of Route 250 and Glenorchy Drive. Thank you for providing the road alignment exhibits you sent via e-mail today and dated 2/25/10. Since they were just received today, comments below do not reflect review of those exhibits. While in concept, this proposal is more consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of general land use and transportation, staff believes that additional information and evaluation of impacts of the proposal are needed. This includes transportation impact analysis, assurances that the Hansen Mountain Road relocation can be accomplished, and information as to how relevant comprehensive plan recommendations and impacts will be addressed. We understand that the owner does not wish to provide a plan with this rezoning or additional commitments. The comments below identify issues we believe should be addressed prior to requesting a public hearing. Detailed Comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PANTOPS MASTER PLAN The Pantops Master Plan does not recommend a shopping center at this location as it is currently zoned. Instead, it designates the property as Urban Density Residential around Greenspace central to the property, Neighborhood Density Residential adjacent to the existing Glenorchy subdivistion and Greenspace along the eastern property line. (See inset below) Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. Neighborhood Density areas are intended to have a density between 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. However, development densities should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. The property is located within a Residential Neighborhood as described in the master plan, which are located on the edges of the Pantops Development Area where there are existing single family developments. The Pantops Master Plan recommends maintaining the residential character in these areas while providing appropriately scaled goods and services within walking distance and more natural greenspace. The Pantops Master Plan also provides the following specific recommends for the Pantops Ridge site: • The dwelling and accessory structures on the Gazebo Plaza property appear to be fifty years old or older and may be considered historic and should be evaluated and documented. • When development occurs on the undeveloped property (Gazebo Plaza site) provide a Civic Green Center surrounded by Urban Density Residential in the general area shown on the Framework Plan. • Develop public or semi public park/green space on the northern half of the Gazebo Plaza site and provide trail connections. • Respect the Monticello view shed by retaining land in open space. • Replant trees that have been removed during grading to help create a wooded canopy, as part of viewshed protection for Monticello. • Connect this neighborhood to the more intensive land use centers to the west with a multi - purpose path that leads into the planned sidewalk system. • Create and preserve a vegetated buffer along Route 250 East through this neighborhood and at the Rural Area bou r ell !r -r C 1 ndary to this neighborhood to help retain a residential and rural character in this part of Pantops. 2 Master Plan Land Use recommendations: Staff believes the rezoning could result in a higher density than is suggested by the Pantops Master Plan. The master plan suggests that up to approximately 305 residential units would be appropriate for this property with a mix of housing types, including predominantly single family unit/lot types. Staff believes that the maximum number of units should be more in keeping with the recommendations of the master plan and limited to fewer than 566 units. Staff believes that the proposal should also provide for a mix of housing types, which includes some multi - family or townhouses centrally located around a greenspace amenity. The predominant unit type should be single family located adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood to the west. The master plan recommends greenspace along the eastern property line shown on the master plan to protect environmental features of the site and to provide a buffer between the development area and rural area boundary. Environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, important wooded areas identified on the Open Space Plan, and Culpeper Branch. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features by making commitments to provide a buffer along the eastern property line and avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the powerline easement. The master plan recommends that developers be cognizant of the need to protect the Monticello viewshed when rezoning and developing site plans. Guidelines included in the master plan were provided by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and address priority view protection areas, parking lots, colors, facades, roofs, and landscaping. In addition to the guidelines below, the master plan recommends that height limits also be considered. Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers 1. Monticello is renowned for its vistas. Those from three areas are paramount: a. From the northwest terrace (elevation 871 feet). This promenade is where visitors exit from the house tour and begin to explore the landscape. b. From the shuttle bus stop northeast of the house. c. From the "First Roundabout," the uppermost road that encircles the house. This primary pedestrian road is approximately a half -mile in circumference. 2. Parking lots are best concealed when located on the far side of the building (as viewed from Monticello) and the area broken up by plantings. 3. Building facades are less intrusive if articulated and not monolithic. 4. Earth -tone colors such as reddish -brown brick help to soften the visual impact of a building. If not adopted for the street side, consider it for the back of the building if it faces Monticello. 5. Dark roofs (black, gray) are preferred. Expansive flat roofs can be camouflaged by mottled patches of light and dark stone. 6. Screening by a long narrow border of trees of a single species should be avoided. 7. Consider a canopy of lofty trees (such as tulip poplars) to screen out development if the vista from Monticello is angled down on the site. The lower limbs of the trees can be pruned to open ground -level views while protecting the vista from Monticello. 8. The lighting of buildings and parking areas should be shielded to eliminate glare. To address the Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the master plan, staff has asked Monticello to comment on any anticipated impacts to their viewshed this proposal would have. Comments have not yet been received but will be forwarded to you as soon as they are available. Master Plan Transportation Recommendations: The Pantops Master Plan recommends that the local street grid internal to Pantops be improved and local connections are recommended. Specific recommendations regarding the Hansen Mountain Road /1 -64 Interchange are included in the plan: • Improve the Level of Service of the 1 -64 /Route 250 Interchange, including double left turn lanes on the east bound off ramp. Other traffic management and signal improvements should be considered. • Relocate Hansens Mountain Road from its current intersection with Route 250 to a new location that would ultilize the Glenorchy Drive /Peter Jefferson Parkway crossover at Route 250 in a manner that avoids significant negative impacts to occupied dwelling units in the Glenorchy neighborhood • Hansen Mountain Road /Route 250 safety improvements are needed. In the short term, the crossover of Hansens Mountain Road on Rt. 250 should be closed. In the long term, the Hansen Mountain Road should be relocated so that traffic is rerouted, likely to Glenorchy Drive. The relocation of Hansen's Mountain Road to Viewmont Court is generally supported by the Pantops Master Plan. However, since no traffic analysis has been provided, or information on how the connection can be made, it is not possible for staff to evaluate whether it avoids significant negative impacts to the Glenorchy neighborhood. It has not been demonstrated that the road connection can be made without impacting adjoining property owners in Glenorchy. The traffic impact analysis may also identify whether additional improvements would be needed to support the proposed development of the Pantops Ridge site, such as on Route 250. The master plan also shows an interconnection on the northern portion of the Pantops Ridge site, referred to as "Possible Optional Roadway Network (beyond 2025)" that the proposed development of the site should also allow for. Staff believes that a road plan that shows the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road to Glenorchy is needed and should address the following [Information received 315110 has not yet been reviewed.]: • Any future VDOT /County recommendations made following submittal and review of a TIA (see VDOT comments below) • Existing right -of -way and whether it is sufficient without additional right -of -way or easements • Information regarding any covenants /restrictions in the Glenorchy subdivision that prohibit interconnections. • Standards of construction for the road connection and upgrades to Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive. • Pavement widening and overlays on Viewmont Court and Glenorchy Drive, along with any necessary right -of -way and drainage improvements. (The vertical alignment will need to be checked also.) • Removal of the remaining cul -de -sac, and /or abandoning of the right -of -way. • Removal of the median and turn lanes in the median on Rt. 250 for Hansens Mountain Road. • Removal of Hansens Mountain Road from Rt. 250 to the new road location, and abandoning of the right -of -way. Master Plan Transit Recommendations: The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: • Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. • Ensure new development is transit ready. Master Plan Parks & Green Systems: 4 The Pantops Master Plan recommends a proposed trail along the northern portion of the site parallel /within the existing power line easement. Staff believes development of this site should accommodate the recommended trail. NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be adhered to in new development proposals. (listed below) Given that no concept/application plan has been provided, it is not possible for staff to evaluate how the proposal would address some of these principles. Pedestrian Orientation and Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed. Also, the Pantops Master Plan recommends a central greenspace focal point within the development. Commitments have not been provided for either of these. Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets- Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. This principle could be met with the proposed relocation of Hansen Mountain Road to Viewmont Court, as recommended by the Pantops Master Plan. Given site constraints, there are no additional interconnection opportunities from this site to adjoining properties to the east. The future possible optional roadway discussed as a master plan recommendation should also be provided for. Parks and Open Space- Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. The Pantops Master Plan recommends how this principle should be addressed, through provision of a central amenity /greenspace for the residential development of the site and preservation of environmental features along the eastern property line. A commitment would be needed to assure this principle is met. Mixed Uses- Contains a mixture of residential and non - residential uses so residents have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment. This site is not recommended for mixed use in the master plan. Affordability and Mixture of Housing types- Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. The proposal does not indicate a mixture of housing types. Also, the County's Affordable Housing policy directs that 15% of the total number of units be affordable. Site Planning that respects terrain- Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved. The Pantops Master Plan recommends that the natural topography of the site be preserved with the designated Greenspace on the master plan. (See comments above) No information has been provided on proposed grading. 5 Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas- Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas. Recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan regarding treatment of the RA boundary should be incorporated into this development proposal. No information on special treatment of this boundary has been provided. Neighborhood Centers- Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood. This principle is met with nearby centers. Redevelopment- Emphasizes re -use of sites. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is not applicable since the proposal is for new development. However, please indicate whether the existing house on the property will remain or be torn down with the proposed rezoning. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian — friendly. Relegated Parking- Moves off - street parking out of sight and encourages on- street parking. Since no plan was provided, staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with these two principles of the Neighborhood Model. COMMENTS FROM ZONING /CURRENT DEVELOPMENT SDP 2006 -030- The applicant should clarify whether the current site plan approval will be abandoned if this rezoning is approved. For the purpose of clarity, we suggest that this be addressed with a proffer. No information was submitted for review. Without further information as to the location of improvements and critical slopes, it is not possible to conduct a critical slopes analysis and recommendation at this time. In addition, the WPO buffers will impact the area for development. Therefore, the applicant may not be able to achieve the full anticipated density. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. TRANSPORTATION VDOT has reviewed the zoning application and has provided e-mail comments dated February 2, 2010: Rebecca, I have reviewed the zoning application and a Traffic Impact Study dated May 18, 2006 which analyzes the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road to Glenorchy. The build -out year is 2011 in the study. The re- zoning proposes 560 residential units and generates over 3,200 VPD. This application meets the threshold for a Chapter 527 Study. The existing study lacks some elements of the Chapter 527 study. The biggest difference I can see now is that the scope of work for the analyzed intersections does not include intersections to 10% of the trip distribution as 6 required by the 527 Regulations. Also, the build -out year will need to be updated. Also, any assumptions made for future development may no longer be valid and this section of the report needs to be updated. Although not required by the regulation, I recommend that the County and VDOT meet with the applicant to scope the requirements of the study. Chuck Proctor, Rick Perry and I should be at the scoping meeting and the applicant should provide the attached pre -scope of work form at least three days prior to the meeting. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel. den unzio0vdot.virginia.4ov The applicant is urged to contact staff to set up the pre - scoping meeting. The referenced form is attached. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the two proffers submitted. Additional proffers could address some of the issues raised above or impacts of the development. Specific comments regarding the proffers dated 1119/10 submitted: 1. The proffer relating to the ARB approval ( #2) is unnecessary because it otherwise is an ordinance requirement. 2. The proffer relating to Hansen's Mountain Road relocation ( #1) needs to be rewritten to better address a) when the road must be constructed and b) when the road must be submitted for acceptance into the state highway system. The current proffer only addresses timing related to a subdivision plat. It does not address what is typically done with this type of use — a site plan and building permits. Affordable Housing The County's Affordable Housing policy recommends that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Sample proffer language can be provided. Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) = $18,700.00; Single Family Attached/Townhouse (SFA/TH) = $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) = $13,200.00. Sample proffer language can be provided. 7 Fire Rescue The proposal must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) & Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) We have not yet received final comments from service providers and will send those to you when they are available next week. RESUBMITTAL OR PUBLIC HEARING State law and County ordinance direct that action on a rezoning be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date. We request that, within 30 days from the date of this letter you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule, OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. 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, the 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 at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3439 or rragsdale(@-albemarle.org Sincerely, I<" JKrdAb Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner 8 Virginia Department DOT cif Transportation "PRE-SCOPE .. ;OF WOR,K MEETING FORM Information on 'the Project Traffic 'Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting -the form to VDOT -and -the locality no less than -three (3) business days prior -to the meeting. If a -form is -not received by this deadline, -the scope of work meeting may be postponed. .:Consultant; Name: 7ele: 'Developer/Owner Name: 7ele: E=mail: Project lit 'Name: y/Count ..Location: ;(Attach regionak-and-!s1te !specificlocation.::rnap) ❑ Site -Plan ❑ Subd Plat bmlssion7i 'Rezoning u Type Comp Plan ❑ pProject :Description : (Including::.details:ontz:the::Iand Use,-acreage,:, phasi n g ;;access ::location, .etc:.: 4tta ch.:.additional -sheetwif necessary) ;Proposed:..Use(s):: 'Residential Commercial F1 Mixed Use ❑ Other ❑ :.,(Check!�a,ll!tha.t:apply;::attach :additiona k pages iiasnecessarV.) Residential -Uses(s) 'Number of Units: ,ITE_LU Code(s): -Other.Use(s) TFE LU Code(s) : o 'Cornrnercial Use(s) TrE LU Code(s): :Independent Variable(s): Square Ft or Other Variable: Total iPeak]Hour'T6p:. Less than 100 ❑ 100 - 499 ❑ 500-999 ❑ 1,000 or more ❑ It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Tra'ficLmpact4�na`lysis surnkpions .:Study Period Existing Year: Build -out Year: Design Year: North: South: Study Area''Boundaries (Attach:rnap) East: West: iExternal FFactors That :Could Affect;Project (Planned!1road , improvements, other:nearby developments) :consistency 1Nith :Compre'hensive :Plan Availz le Traffic "Data (Historical, `forecasts) Tri Distribution Road Name: Road Name: P (Attach - :sketch) Road Name: Road Name: Reak Period for Study ❑ AM El Pm ❑ SAT Annual VehicleTrlp (heck althat apply) :..Growth Rate: 'Peak Hour of:theGenerator 1. 6. :Study: Intersections 2' 7' :and %or Road 5e,grnents 3 8 ;;(Attach :additional sheets °as .necessary) .4. 9. Internal :allowance: ❑ Yes _❑ `No =Pass =by allowance: Yes ❑ No Trip;Adjustment Factors o 0 'Reduction: /o trips Reduction: /o trips 5ofitware Methodology: ❑ Synchro ❑ HCS (v:2000 / +) ❑ aaSIDRA .❑ CORSIM ❑Other Ignal Proposed e It is.important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Impr..overnent(s) :Assumed :Or to be �Gonsidered Background'Traffic :Studies .Considered iP a n'Submission ❑ Master Development Plan (MDP) ❑ Generalized :Development 'Plan (GDP) ❑ Preliminary/Sketch Plan ❑ Other Plan type (Final site, subd. Plan) :Additional Issuesto_be ❑Queuing analysis ❑ Actuation /Coordination ❑ Weaving analysis Addressed ❑ Merge analysis ❑ Bike /Ped Accommodations ❑ Intersection(s) ❑ TDM Measures ❑ Other NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: SIGNED: PRINT NAME: Applicant or Consultant Applicant or Consultant 'DATE: It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. 2010 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing * Legal Ad Deadline and Decision for Public Hearing ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday an 1,9 Feb 17 Feb 22 Mar 16 Feb 1 Mar 3 Mar 15 Apr 6 `` > e, e , Mar 17 Mar 29 Apr 20 Mar 1 Mar 31 Apr 12 May 4 Mar 15 Apr 14 Apr 26 May 18 Apr 5 May 5 May 17 Jun 8 Apr 19 May 19 May 31 Jun 22 May 3 Jun 2 Jun 21 Jul 13 May 17 Jun 16 Jul 5 Jul 27 Jun 7 Jul 7 Jul 19 Aug 10 Jun 21 Jul 21 Aug 2 Aug 24 Jul 5 Aug 4 Aug 16 Sep 7 Jul 19 Aug 18 Aug 30 Sep 21 Aug 2 Sep 1 Sep 13 Oct 5 Aug 16 Sep 15 Sep 27 Oct 19 Sep 7 _ ` Oct 6 Oct 18 Nov 9 Sep 20 Oct 20 Oct 25 Nov 16 Oct 4 Nov 3 Nov 15 Dec 7 Oct 18 Nov 17 Nov 29 Dec 21 Nov 1 Dec 1 Dec 20 ki Jan1 -1 2011 Nov 15 Dec 15 ..Jan 3.2011., 'Jang25 2011 Dec 6 s Jarr5,201,ti, : „Tu'e Jan " "18 2011; 2011,,.,s' �x Dec 20 Jan �. ;.� , T,u`eFeb F,,eb22 2011 "r ,, w `Feb:2 20 1�;1 �� �> �'.r�Feb .7 2:011 ; Mar Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in 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.