HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300002 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-08-23Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201300002
SubApplication Type:
PANTOPS CORNER
Date Completed:08/22/2013
Reviewer:Amelia McCulley Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/25/2013
Reviewer:Francis MacCall Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:QC OK
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/08/2013
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/15/2013
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/19/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:It is difficult to determine the impacts of the proposed rezoning on the Entrance Corridors based on
the limited information provided. However, it appears that the shape and size of the parcel, combined
with the location of the interior road as illustrated, could make it difficult for the applicant to meet the
Entrance Corridor guideline that requires buildings to be aligned parallel with the EC street. Meeting
this guideline will be a requirement, as will the need for all walls of buildings visible from the ECs to
be fully designed elevations.
Division:
Date Completed:03/10/2013
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 2/19/13
No Comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:03/28/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:A traffic study has been provided for the Riverside development proposed across Rt. 20. This study
shows significant failures at the 250/20 intersection. Increasing the intensity of development in this
area is not recommended until the transportation issues are addressed. At the least, lane
improvements are needed on Rt. 20, as this is in the merge area, which could be a safety problem.
Without a more specific plan, no more comments could be provided.
Division:
Date Completed:04/08/2013
Page:1of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:February 03, 2016
Reviewer:Amelia McCulley Zoning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/17/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:A traffic study has not been provided. Studies in this area show significant failures at the 250/20
intersection. Increasing the intensity of development in this area is not recommended until the
transportation issues are addressed. A median on Rt. 250 past this proposed entrance has been
discussed, as well as lane and median improvements on Rt. 20.
Without a more specific plan, no more comments could be provided.
Division:
Date Completed:05/15/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:It is difficult to determine the impacts of the proposed rezoning on the Entrance Corridors based on
the limited information provided. However, it appears that the shape and size of the parcel, combined
with the location of the interior road as illustrated, could make it difficult for the applicant to meet the
Entrance Corridor guideline that requires buildings to be aligned parallel with the EC street. Meeting
this guideline will be a requirement, as will the need for all walls of buildings visible from the ECs to
be fully designed elevations.
Division:
Date Completed:05/29/2013
Reviewer:Amelia McCulley Zoning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/08/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:This traffic study does not provide an analysis of levels of service, entrance turn lane warrants,
physical geometry for possible future improvements, or any other impact information. It contains a
comparison of ITE trip generation rates. This is essentially an argument for allowing development in
small increments. The percentages provided are based on an unknown total from the 250/20
intersection. I am unable to draw any conclusions.
Division:
Date Completed:08/21/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:It is difficult to determine the impacts of the proposed rezoning on the Entrance Corridors based on
the limited information provided. However, it appears that the shape and size of the parcel, combined
with the location of the interior road as illustrated, could make it difficult for the applicant to meet the
Entrance Corridor guideline that requires buildings to be aligned parallel with the EC street. Meeting
this guideline will be a requirement, as will the need for all walls of buildings visible from the ECs to
be fully designed elevations.
Division:
Date Completed:11/12/2013
Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Division:
Page:2of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:February 03, 2016
Reviews Comments:The 2 proposed proffers have been reviewed:
Proffer 1: As a public or private road, the standards do not allow for a series of right-angles without
intersections. Flexibility should be provided for other traffic calming measures if necessary. I
understand the intent is to prevent cut-through traffic.
Proffer 2: The "connection" should be clarified as both Rt. 20 and Rt. 250, with frontage
improvements as required by VDOT on those public roads.
Page:3of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:February 03, 2016