Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2012-02-15-06 ;1-41---j COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 February 15, 2012 Mr. David Mitchell C/O Great Eastern Management Company P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 7-5526 RE: ZMA2010 -00007 — North Pointe Proffer Amendment Dear Mr. Mitchell: Staff has reviewed your re- submittal for proffer amendments dated January 17th.Our comments are consolidated below: Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: • Under Proffer 4.2, the comment "to the extent feasible" has been added. Zoning has no way to administer or enforce this comment and as such it needs to be further defined or explained. • Proffer 5.3.1(a)(xii) puts the onus for improvements on VDOT. This should be revised to Owner. • Proffer 5.3.4 bases development potential on ITE standards, which will be difficult to enforce or administer. Staff suggests that development be tied to number of units, permits or c /o's. Zoning defers all other comments regarding transportation proffer changes to the County Engineer for further review. . Engineering- The traffic study and proffers are currently under review by the County engineer and VDOT. Comments will be sent as soon as they are received. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday — Schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Develo pment/forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.p df (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My e- mail address is cgrant _albemarle.org Sincerely, s Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachments C: Valerie Long 2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or �i��'y Zoning Map Amendment „�,N,P PROJECT NUMBER: Z)yA �0 lb — C7000 �1 PROJECT NAME: /&J�, n-�G, bin �, F6" Cex--Ai he,r, me '47 ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request 0/'Resubmittal Fee is Not Required pp Community Development Project Coordinator S 112— Signature ate 06 -5 Name of Applica t Phone Number Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $.lr, 00 ❑ First resubmission f%� FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 Yc3'� ,li S}C�'0'.'"r";.��..v3'S ''9S4 �' hN r-: r 3,,a 01, Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000' ❑ First resubmission FREE , ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 r a y,:..,..- S '.�,Sr,_w� £1 $ Y' ✓:, .e. ...3 h'::?., a :�..<<".,�. t; x�z,v z Y .�^ 1'+^a�'..5 : _, .. , , ...110., x��, , , ..Y Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map AmendmentrTee of $2,500 s ❑ First resubmission FREE �/ ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 A 4� 'Y. ° 'r °£ #�<'S s.,f�.nlu' 1°=•7K ' , �.t+�� i..jjr' �"* T' , , i - az 1 7 r -:. t e 3 s, t 'vk t ,'i Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE �,� ❑ Each additional resubmissionf $1,750 ��„.H��.fjjt:; L� f &14�,zx .N��flgg44e�rrA E. 5. �^rK' .. S.;[ }S kZ -_ t Y: C 1p.- 'y`�nc }� y,�.+,q.:+Ya✓1 ,!^ �#;N. '3 S: tz �$��'^,b� FI'�. :�` ✓4. 7,�'� _.: >��'�`j',';"r3 �a ❑ Deferral of scheduledyublic hearing at applicant's request —Add'1 notice fees will be required $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actual cost of first -class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publi cations) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 nL &� o �'1RGI1`11P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 18, 2011 Mr. E. Stephen Hopkins, Jr. C/O Great Eastern Management Company P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 -5526 RE: ZMA2010 -00007 — North Pointe Proffer Amendment Dear Mr. Hopkins: Staff has reviewed your re- submittal for proffer amendments dated September 19th and met with Valerie Long and David Mitchell. This letter provides additional details as well as a synopsis of our meeting discussion regarding the next steps. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning As discussed during our meeting on October 17, 2011, we have agreed that the following four items still need to be addressed in the proffers and you plan on working on these issues and will revise your proffers accordingly for your next re- submittal: (1) Your traffic engineers are currently working on a traffic study that will be inclusive of 184 townhouses in the proposed North Pointe North West Residential Area, near the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive. This study will also look at the maximum capacity of additional town house units that could be built in the North Pointe development before additional infrastructure improvements need to occur at the Lewis and Clark Drive intersection. This traffic study will need to be reviewed by VDOT. Once the study is completed and reviewed, there will need to be an agreement regarding the necessary infrastructure improvements. (2) You will revise the proffers to include previous proffer language regarding the south bound improvements to Route 29 (similar language to that used in the UVA Research Park proffers). (3) Clarification regarding road improvements 1,000 feet north and south of the middle entrance to the North Pointe development needs to be added to the proffers that closes any potential gaps that could occur when these road improvements are constructed. (4) Previous proffer language regarding lane improvements near the Walgreens property will be added back into the proffers. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: Staff finds the series of draft proffers reviewed (black -line version from the prior draft to the current proffers and of the original proffers and the proposed proffers) confusing to ascertain which proffers were added along the way. This is especially problematic on all transportation proffers. It would be helpful to note what proffers were added and removed and from what draft. As an example, 5.3.1 a2(v) was added at some point through the drafts, and 5.3.1 a1(xii) was deleted. The library, school and administrative changes to the proffers are acceptable. Current Development Comments from the Current Development staff will be sent to you once we receive them. Engineering See the attached memo for engineering comments provided by Glenn Brooks. Rev. 4 comments are the most recent comments in the memo. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday — Schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Develo pment/forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.p df (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My e- mail address is cgrant(a)albemarle.org Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachments C: Valerie Long 2 �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 25 Oct 2010 Rev. 1: 7 Dec 2010 Rev.2: 4 Feb 2011 Rev.3: 10 Mar 2011 Rev.4: 6 Oct 2011 Subject: North Point amendment (ZMA20100007) Rev. 4 comments; The remaining concerns are still the transportation improvements, as given in revision 3 comments. I am confused about the three different proffer revision documents submitted. I have used the simplest version which I think is relevant, the one dated 19 September with July 20, 2006 struck through. This new set of proffers seems to be moving the highlighted portion of North Point Blvd. from Phase 1 to Phase 3 road improvements. Northwest Passage X11 2ii appeals to fe- proffer (i ji. , a �I 5' nvruc� viu This appears to essentially allow the apartment site plan on Northwest Passage to move forward as an independent development. It does not address all the concerns listed previously, specifically 2 and 3. In addition, should the school site proceed before other development, the new language appears to force school traffic out to the only entrance which would be built, Northwest Passage. It is not certain whether capacity would be available at this one entrance. Rev. 3 comments; The remaining concerns are that the transportation improvements are inadequate primarily in their order and timing. As Mark Graham has discussed with the applicant, there is the possibility that intersections on Rt. 29 will not be adequate to handle traffic from phases of this development. Whether this is a fact with the current zoning and proffers, or not, it is made worse, not better, by the amendment. Below, I have tried Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 to summarize the remaining points with suggested changes, in the simplest way possible, based on our many and detailed meetings and correspondence with the applicant. 1. To address the adequacy of entrances on Rt. 29: With each phase and entrance, regardless of the order of development, all Rt. 29 improvements within 1000' feet of the intersection should be included, as well as any necessary lane transitions. (Alternatively, the applicant must provide an updated traffic study to demonstrate adequacy for other scenarios.) 2. To address continuity and uninterrupted traffic flow on Rt. 29: In addition, to provide smooth traffic flow, any phase which develops adjacent to a previously developed phase must connect all lanes and improvements, even beyond the 1000' indicated above. 3. To address connectivity, alternate routes, and distribution of traffic within the development: With the development of any two phases, the internal loop road (Northwest Passage, etc.) from Proffit Road to each of the two phase's entrances on Rt. 29 should be completed. 4. To address ongoing constructability issues: The rezoning should clarify that all conceptual rezoning plans are subject to final approval by VDOT and the County. Such details as horizontal lane placement, vertical grades, shoulders, signal arm placement, walls, grading, etc. are subject to change with final plans. Rev. 2 comments; The exhibit provided with this revision is an improvement over the previous submissions. However, it is still not itemized or correlated with the proffers, and uses an "alternative" which is unclear. None of the previous comments have been adequately addressed. Most significantly, the application has removed lane improvements on Rt. 29 with phase 3, claiming these were not in original proffers. To this point, the eventuality that phase 3 would be built first was not accounted for, and the traffic study does not address this. Therefore, all Rt. 29 improvements should be included, or the phases must be proffered to occur in order from 1 to 3, or the traffic study must be revised, reviewed and approved to address the desired scenario. Without one of these alternatives, the zoning amendment is recommended for denial, simply because the entrance for phase 3 may not be safe for the amount of development which could occur without further improvements to the intersection on Rt. 29. Other items not addressed are the transitioning of through lanes past intersections to the north and south, the extent of Rt. 29 improvements in order to assure connectivity, and the closing of the main road loops within the site. An ancillary issue raised with this revision; the placement of the through lanes on Rt. 29 within the median, or on the opposite side of the road, should not be dictated by conceptual drawings with the rezoning, and will be subject to VDOT review and approval. Rev. 1 comments; I have reviewed the proffer document dated 15 November 2010, together with the application plan which has been marked with highlighter to show the proffered phases for road improvements. I offer the following comments; The highlighted application plan is not helpful. An accurate itemized exhibit showing and clarifying the proffers as written, and then referenced in the proffered document is needed. To demonstrate, I have taken some time to depict the proffered road improvements by phase. Phase 3 is Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 chnwn helnw- It is evident that item "iii" will require a transition length to the north. Items "2i, 2ii & 2iii" are built only at the county's request for the school, and as such could use a different color. Phase 2 is show below; {x) vii, iv.: vi * l C ix The items in parenthesis are only built to connect to previously built phases. The eventuality of phase 2 occurring before other phases leaves these sections un- built. Again, transitions of item "i" and "x" to either side are a question. Phase 1 is shown below; �!NN+r�il O 5' j GLL O� ". __ APPLICI a PLA nil QM AA, 5 -y `s� viii r q ` Transition of items "i" & "ii" northward and southward, and item "v" northward are questions as with Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 phase 3. Also, note the eastbound Airport Road improvements are no longer shown. The combined picture is shown below; Previous comments of 25 Oct 2010; I have tried to read through the two or three revisions to the proffer document since our last review, however I am having trouble deciphering the legalese regarding the road improvements. It seems to me this is the wrong language to be using to describe these sorts of improvements, and a graphical representation is badly needed. I have tried to do this myself, examining Exhibit B of the original rezoning documents. However, this would not be part of the proffers, and I am afraid of leaving something out. I cannot be sure with the phases possibly developing out of order, that all the various lane and road improvements will connect. Please have the applicant update Exhibit B, or provide a new graphical representation of the road improvements. It is noted that stormwater management plans and road plans are not otherwise connected to ARB review and approval. Engineering review and approval may be a separate approval, independent and in addition to any approvals from other boards or agencies not connected with the Water Protection Ordinance or road standards. file: E10 —ma GEB NorthPoint.doc FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or °`"� Zoning Map Amendment �„� PROJECT NUMBER: A I C�° % PROJECT NAME: / �� C3a111C n L14 y- ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required "esubmittal Fee is Not Required Clakd4c GraJ' 1011dil Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date \k k I On q.!31 - �70 " Actual cost Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee f $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendme fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE 13 Each additional resubmission $12250 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning p Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmissio $1,750 ❑ Deferral of scheduled ublic hearing at applicant's request $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for oning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Boar of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in th newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. .R . Tvr r.Trr, r.rro mV^ nnTTXrry nL' AT ari M A DT V /U A vMFN'r AT rnMMTTNTTV DV..VF.T .nPMF.NT rnTTNTF.R Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200+ actual cost of first -class postage $1.00 for each additional notice + actual Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first -class postage Actual cost Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 4/25/2011 Page 1 of 1 �A_9 ALBS O 9�r U H �RGINl° COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 March 8, 2011 Mr. E. Stephen Hopkins, Jr. C/O Great Eastern Management Company P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 -5526 RE: ZMA2010 -00007 — North Pointe Proffer Amendment Dear Mr. Hopkins: Fax (434) 972 -4176 Staff has reviewed your re- submittal for proffer amendments dated January 18th and met with Valerie Long in order to discuss our concerns. This letter provides additional details as well as our general concerns discussed with Ms. Long. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning As discussed with Ms. Long, there remain concerns regarding entrance permits and maximum possible traffic at intersections such as Route 29 and Lewis and Clark Drive. There is also a need for an updated traffic analysis. Engineering Engineering comments will be provided as soon as we receive them Zonin The following comment related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: Zoning cannot recommend approval of this project until the outstanding road proffers are adequately addressed. ARB The following comment related to entrance corridor matters have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: The new last sentence in proffer 2.2 (January 18, 2010 revision) is acceptable. An application for review of the stormwater facilities was received on January 24, 2011 for review by the ARB on March 7, 2011. The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Greg Kamptner: Proffer 5.3.1(a)(ii)(v): Correct the typo in line 3 — delete one "that." Proffer 5.3.1(b)(1)(i): In subparagraph (b), a reasonable method for determining design and construction costs should be stated; in subparagraph (c), confirm that VDOT is still using levels of service (LOS) as a standard and change "form" to "from" in the last line. As we have discussed with Ms. Long, this project will be on the Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing on April 5, 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. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachments C: Valerie Long Rev. 12 -15 -10 2 L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 December 15, 2010 Mr. E. Stephen Hopkins, Jr. C/O Great Eastern Management Company P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 -5526 RE: ZMA2010 -00007 — North Pointe Proffer Amendment Dear Mr. Hopkins: Staff has reviewed your re- submittal for proffer amendments. Fax (434) 972 -4176 On November 15" we received revised proffers from Valerie Long. Our comments regarding the November 15th re- submittal are consolidated below: Planninq There is a general consensus from staff that the language in Proffer 5.3 is unclear and difficult to follow. I would like to convene a meeting with Ms. Long so we can clarify the Proffer language. Proffer 5.3.1 (c) (vi): This proffer does not seem to be complete. Is something missing? Zoning The following comment related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: Proffer 2.2: As previously stated, you are currently in violation of this proffer. To date, SWM 10 has not been submitted to the ARB when road plans were submitted as is required per the terms of the proffer. The last sentence of this proffer cannot simply be removed without additional detail provided, as it was the intent of the proffer to provide guidance over the appearance of the particular SWM. The following language was suggested in the last comment letter, dated October 5, 2010 (revised): The plan for SWM 10 shall be submitted to the ARB when the first site plan is submitted to the County for Northwest Passage. ARB The following comment related to entrance corridor matters have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: This comment also related to Proffer 2.2 is similar to the concerns mentioned above in the Zoning section. The timing of the plans for the other facilities mentioned in this proffer, facilities 1 and 2 are identified. The timing should also be specified for facility 10. Current Development The following comment related to current development/site plan matters have been provided by Gerald Gatobu: The owner(s) of properties within this development need to be aware of the sequence of development and how this may impact neighboring properties (when it comes to satisfying the proffers). An example of this relates to the North West Residential area development owned by Neighborhood properties. Proffers related to Phase III, especially road improvements were written with the assumption that Phase 1 would be developed first, followed by Phase II, and finally Phase I II. This does not appear to be the case, causing complications during the site plan stage. This may not be of concern if the rest of the development is owned by one person or LLC. The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Greg Kamptner: Proffer 5.3.1(a) (1) (xii): The need for this right turn lane exists only "if warranted based on the volume of the right -hand turning movement ... at the time that road plans" for the other Phase I improvements are submitted. So if Phase I actually was the first being developed, the right turn lane would be required because of existing conditions at the time the road plans are submitted? This proffer also is conditioned on the ROW for the turn lane being provided by VDOT at no cost to the Owner. We have tried to not make these road improvements conditioned on the ROW being available, particularly when the rezoning is creating the need for the improvement." Although this may no longer be a significant issue, please be aware of. On line 2, insert "a" before "right turn lane ". 5.3.1(a) (Completion of the Phase I Road Improvements): The proposed added language should be unnecessary because the same language appears in Section 5.3, which applies to all of the road improvements. However, it does not appear that the new language in Section 5.3 pertaining to the completion of the road improvements matches up with the requirement in this paragraph that the roads be accepted or bonded for acceptance. 5.3.1(b) (1) (i): In subparagraph (c), references are made to LOS C and D, but hasn't VDOT moved away from the letter grades for LOS? 5.3.1(b) (1) (x): Should the fourth line be clarified to state "as may be required by VDOT to tie into 11 5.3.1(b) (Completion of the Phase II Road Improvements): See comments to "5.3.1(a) (Completion of the Phase I Road Improvements)" above. 5.3.1(c) (1) (iv): Begin with "If construction is not already completed ..." if we go with the new "construction is deemed complete" language. What triggers construction if, for example, the first milestone for construction of the road segment passes, for example, the first plat or site plan for TMP 32 -22H or K is approved, but at that time access to the School Lot is not needed, so the road segment is not constructed. Then, as the proffer is currently worded, we would have to wait until residential units exceed 533 or the 5 year anniversary of the first CO milestones are reached. Is it acceptable if access to the School lot is dictated by the proffer? Suggestions regarding the language: In the first sentence, vehicular access would be provided to the public, not just the "County "; the second clause of the second sentence needs to be clarified so that "Northwest Passage shall be used for vehicular access to the School Lot until the construction of North Pointe Boulevard between Northside Drive East and Northwest Passage is completed." We need to make sure the School Division and Parks and Recreation are okay with this? 2 5.3.1(c) (1) (vi): See the comments to 5.3.1(c) (1) (iv) above. Isn't this segment of Northwest Passage needed for "any other area of the Project" since it is shown on the Application Plan and is part of the integrated transportation network? 5.3.1(c) (Completion of the Phase I I Road Improvements): See comments to "5.3.1(a) (Completion of the Phase I Road Improvements)" above. Engineering See the attached memo for engineering comments provided by Glenn Brooks. For your information, the following describes our process: Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, a public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. I will be setting up a meeting with Ms. Long and staff to clarify our concerns regarding the proffers. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Attachments C: Valerie Long Rev.12 -15 -10 *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 25 Oct 2010 Rev. 1: 7 Dec 2010 Subject: North Point amendment (ZMA20100007) Rev. 1 comments; I have reviewed the proffer document dated 15 November 2010, together with the application plan which has been marked with highlighter to show the proffered phases for road improvements. I offer the following comments; The highlighted application plan is not helpful. An accurate itemized exhibit showing and clarifying the proffers as written, and then referenced in the proffered document is needed. To demonstrate, I have taken some time to depict the proffered road improvements by phase. Phase 3 is chn-,vn hAnw- It is evident that item "iii" will require a transition length to the north. Items "2i, 2ii & 2iii" are built only at the county's request for the school, and as such could use a different color. Phase 2 is show below; Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 -. _ 1 hi W. ix The items in parenthesis are only built to connect to previously built phases. The eventuality of phase 2 occurring before other phases leaves these sections un- built. Again, transitions of item "i" and "x" to either side are a question. Phase 1 is shown below; �j 2� M2� 4 ill OOH ossme APPLICI PLh o ae =^ X11 �= 77 4'a Transition of items "i" & "ii" northward and southward, and item "v" northward are questions as with phase 3. Also, note the eastbound Airport Road improvements are no longer shown. The combined picture is shown below; Previous comments of 25 Oct 2010; I have tried to read through the two or three revisions to the proffer document since our last review, however I am having trouble deciphering the legalese regarding the road improvements. It seems to me this is the wrong language to be using to describe these sorts of improvements, and a graphical Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 representation is badly needed. I have tried to do this myself, examining Exhibit B of the original rezoning documents. However, this would not be part of the proffers, and I am afraid of leaving something out. I cannot be sure with the phases possibly developing out of order, that all the various lane and road improvements will connect. Please have the applicant update Exhibit B, or provide a new graphical representation of the road improvements. It is noted that stormwater management plans and road plans are not otherwise connected to ARB review and approval. Engineering review and approval may be a separate approval, independent and in addition to any approvals from other boards or agencies not connected with the Water Protection Ordinance or road standards. file: E10 —ma GEB NorthPoint.doc AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 October 5, 2010 Mr. E. Stephen Hopkins, Jr. C/O Great Eastern Management Company P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 -5526 RE: ZMA2010 -00007 — North Pointe Proffer Amendment Comments revised October 5, 2010 to include an additional comment from Zoning Dear Mr. Hopkins: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for proffer amendments. On September 301h we received revised proffers from Valerie Long. Staff will need time to review and comment on the revised proffers. We are aware that most of these revisions are a result of conversations you have had with VDOT. While we have had conversations with VDOT regarding some of the revisions, we have not received comments from them and will send those to after we receive them. We will review the revised proffers as an October 4th re- submittal and we will contact you after our initial review of the revised proffers around October 20th to let you know the status of the re- submittal. Our comments regarding your August 16th submittal are consolidated below: Planning As discussed with Valerie Long and mentioned below in the Zoning comments, the new added language in Proffer 5.3 is unclear. Ms. Long agreed to add language that would describe completion as determined by the County engineer. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin and Amelia McCulley: As staff has discussed with Valerie Long please keep the original language in Proffer 2.1. If you wish to address that there was a reduction in the buffer due to VDOT it should be stated as an update. Proffer 2.2 addresses that ARB must review SWM 10 at the time road plans are submitted. To date, ARB has not reviewed this plan which is technically a violation. Staff suggests the last sentence in proffer 2.2 not be tied to road plans. Suggested language for this sentence: The plan for SWM 10 shall be submitted to the ARB when the first site plan is submitted to the County for Northwest Passage. Clarify the addition of "road improvements being complete....... as it relates to road completion even when final paving and temporary striping are in place. This language is in multiple places in Proffer 5.3. Consider whether the deadlines that appear in Proffers 8.1, 9.2 should be moved out to later dates considering that the timeframe has changed. Regarding Proffer 9.1, any acceptable date beyond December 31, 2013 to request the school should be at the discretion of the County, not the County and the Applicant. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: As previously mentioned, it is recommended that the wording proposed to be deleted from the end of proffer 2.1 be retained. A 40' landscape buffer should be maintained despite any potential future road work. ACSA The following comments related to sewer issues have been provided by Gary Whelan: As you may already know there is no additional capacity for sewer in the existing Camelot WWTP. Although we know this situation will eventually be mitigated, please be aware of this issue. Also please be aware that a RWSA capacity certification will be required for future development during the site plan stage. RWSA The following comments related to waterline issues have been provided by Justin Weiler: The proffer amendment request is not directly related to the site plans for the North Pointe NW Residential Area and the North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Roadway Improvements; however, in reviewing this site plan, RWSA has had several conversations with VDOT regarding the relocation of the existing 12" RWSA waterline that currently runs along the edge of the median in Rte. 29. It is RWSA's understanding that VDOT is going to require the waterline to be relocated when the proposed road improvements along Rte. 29, that are a part of the North Pointe development plan, are constructed. RWSA is still evaluating this issue, but one possible alignment for the relocated waterline would be to follow the internal roads of the North Pointe development. RWSA requests that the developer (of the NW residential area) set up a meeting with ACSA, RWSA, and VDOT to discuss this issue. VDOT We will provide these comments once we receive them. For your information, the following describes our process: Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) 2 If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, a public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development C: Valerie Long Rev. 6 -1 -10