No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300002 Correspondence 2013-07-16 Claudette Grant Nee From: Claudette Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: 'Justin Shimp'; David Benish Cc: McGowan1950; Planning Commission Subject: RE: Summary of this mornings meeting re: Pantops Corner Dear Planning Commission, We are sending you the below e-mail per the request of Justin Shimp. I will also bring copies of this to the meeting this evening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you and see you in a few hours. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832, Ext. 3250 Fax: (434) 972-4126 From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin©shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:58 AM To: Claudette Grant; David Benish Cc: McGowan1950 Subject: Summary of this mornings meeting re: Pantops Corner Claudette, Thanks for taking the time this morning to go over the staff report. I've summarized the issues below and outlined the changes that we will make to address some of these issues. I am hopeful that this can be passed on the planning commission before the meeting and brought to their attention at the meeting so they are aware that there are not many issues remaining to be discussed. 1) Proffers& Permitted Uses: We understand the technical issue with potentially allowing uses by SP. We will remove that text from the proffer. The uses will be restricted by proffer. In addition to the uses we have already restricted by proffer the following uses will be added to that list: Building Materials Sales, Light Warehousing. We will also proffer that no building footprint on the north side of the access road shall exceed 12,000 SF.That will restrict large buildings on the north side but allow for smaller retail uses (i.e. Rebecca's Natural foods or similar) We will also amend the proffers to clearly state that no development of the subject parcel shall occur without an interparcel connection to route 250. We cannot proffer the exact location of that connection, but can proffer that it will be made prior to development of the subject parcel. 2) Green Space: We will include a proffer to maintain the area within the floodplain or the 50' zoning buffer (whichever is greater) as a greenspace within the development. Disturbance to that area would be limited to only that necessary for road improvements required by VDOT. 3) Neighborhood Model Consideration: As we discussed, we do not have any concrete plans for development of this parcel. As this property is within the Entrance Corridor the ARB will have full review authority over the site.Things like pedestrian connectivity, and landscaping are required on the individual site plans per the zoning 1 ordinance. We understand the neighborhood model principles are art'ys looked at during a review, but since this zoning is so small and the only concrete idea we have is to allow for interparcel connection we believe its most reasonable to let the code (and ARB) deal with the requirements of the neighborhood model once we actually have an idea for development of the parcel. 4) Traffic: Again, since we don't have any idea of what may be the ultimate development of the parcel it's difficult to conduct a study to predict any impacts. We do know that with the interparcel connection as proposed future redevelopment of the corner parcels could occur with better circulation and entrance patterns than without the connection. We also foresee some traffic being alleviated by the cut through potential of the required interparcel connection. So we have some offsetting impacts that will help the traffic situation at the intersection. I think it's also important to consider that the current comp plan designation is high density residential. While the parcel is small, were it to be developed as residential there is a sure generation of trips. In a location like this commercial development is targeting pass by trips, if a new retail store went on this site it would capture trips that would otherwise be going to some other retail store. In theory, the trips would be redirected to our site because it would yield less overall driving time for the customer.This occurrence could alleviate some traffic by putting services closer to the routes of consumers. In general, we find that the theorized commercial trips in traffic studies are often overstated for these reasons. We hope that this clarifies some of the issues that were addressed in the staff report, perhaps it could be clarified to the planning commission that one option would be to recommend approval with the added items as promised in this email a condition of that recommendation. Again,thanks for the time this morning and let me know if anything remains to be cleared up. -Justin Justin M. Shimp, P.E. President Shimp Engineering, P.C. 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville,VA 22902 E:Justin@shimp-engineering.com P: 434-953-6116 (Direct) P:434-207-8086(Office) F:804-302-7997 2 Claudette Grant From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran.Austin @vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:09 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: ZMA-2013-0002 Claudette, Looking at this rezoning request,the applicant needs to provide a couple of things for review: 1. The applicant needs to provide an entrance analysis for each of the connections to a State road. No data was provided for the connection onto Route 250. We need to know if they are proposing to have turn lanes,the impact of the turn lanes,whether the entrances will be full access,sight distance, etc. 2. All connections to the State roads will need to meet Access Management spacing requirements as defined in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development—South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 Troy,VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589-5871 Fax: (434)589-3967 1 NNW asiro Claudette Grant From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 2:23 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: ZMA 2013-00002 Pantops Corner Claudette- Here are my comments to the proffers: 1. Is Road A going to be a public road dedicated to public use, because its ultimate extension will connect Route 20 to Olympia Drive? If so,the proffer needs to provide for that(see numerous previously approved proffers for acceptable language).The last sentence, providing for an agreement between the owner of this site and TMP 78-6 would indicate otherwise because it provides that access to TMP 78-6 will be provided only if the owner of that parcel agrees to share the costs of the road. 2. Recommend that the first clause of the proffer be revised from "No Certificate of Occupancy . . . shall be issued" (which puts a prohibition on the County)to "The Owner shall not request that the County issue a certificate of occupancy for any building on the north side of Road A until . . . " Isn't the minimum design standard for this interparcel connection going to be whatever design standard is required by the Subdivision Ordinance or the Site Plan Ordinance,which is going to be more specific than "safe and convenient access"? If not, can it be specified in the proffers? 3. First sentence: Change "northern most"to "northernmost," delete the word "being," change "FEMA 100 year flood hazard overlay area"to "flood hazard overlay district (Albemarle County Code § 18-30.6," identify the "residential property" by tax map and parcel number, and clarify what is meant by"green space" (i.e., is it "green space" as that term is defined in the Zoning Ordinance?) Second sentence: I'm not sure this sentence establishes any quantifiable standard for revegetation because the WPO does not "prescribe" any particular number or type of trees or shrubs for stream buffer mitigation because I think each mitigation plan reviewed under the WPO is going to be evaluated under the specific circumstances. Nonetheless, Glenn may have some guidelines that he uses for mitigation plans.Third sentence:Change "ROW"to "right-of-way." 4. No comments. 5. The proffer should be revised to use the standard format for this kind of proffer. See the revised Avon Park II proffers(May 27, 2013, proffer 5)for an example. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org 1 Claudette Grant From: Claudette Grant Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:45 PM To: 'McGowan1950'; Justin Shimp Subject: RE: Pantops Corner Hello Mike and Justin, Please find our suggestions and comments regarding the subject project proffers: 1) Claudette: David and I are not as concerned about whether Road "A" is public or private. In this instance, similar to Stonefield,we believe it is easier for this road to be private because, if it is public it could be difficult to meet VDOT road standards. We will work that out with the County Attorney. 2) Claudette: Proffer 1: refers to Exhibit C-1 TMP 78-6.This should also refer to TMP 78-5A. Greg: Does the last sentence of this proffer make the construction of the road contingent on the owners of TMP 78-6 and TMP 78-5A sharing in the cost of the road, or does it make maintenance of the road contingent on the owners of TMP 78-6 and TMP 78-5A sharing in that cost?With respect to the access easement that would be granted to"TMP 78-6, and TMP 78-5A"the proffer should clarify that the easement grants a public right of passage over Road A(any vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, etc.).The proffer should state when the road will be completed and include this sentence: "Construction of Road A shall be deemed complete when the County Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic." Note also that the Exhibit C-1 appears to not show Road A going to TMP 78-6 as stated in the proffer. Claudette: (I think it does show it, but it is difficult to see). 3) Proffer 2:Greg:the proffer should be clear that, as with Proffer 1,the owner(owners)will grant a public right of passage over the road.Greg:The road should be constructed, bonded and completed by the time the CO is requested.The first sentence should state this.As with Proffer 1, if completion of construction, rather than bonding, is needed,the proffer should state that"Construction of the road shall be completed before the Owner requests the first Certificate of Occupancy" and include this sentence: "Construction of the road shall be deemed complete when the County Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic." 4) Proffer 1: Glenn: Language should be added to describe the following:The location and alignment/design of Road "A" as shown on Exhibit C-1 can be adjusted per approval of the County Engineer. So you understand where Glenn is coming from here is his actual comment: 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. 5) Proffer 2: Glenn:The "connection"should be clarified as both Rt. 20 and Rt. 250, with frontage improvements as required by VDOT on those public roads. 6) I know you have discussed with Troy-VDOT and agreed to constructing a 4-lane road section for Route 20 along the frontage of this site to the proposed private street connection. Please provide a proffer that addresses this. Please let me know if you have questions.Yes,the proffers should be in formal form and delivered to us with date and signature on Monday. Thank you Claudette Grant From: McGowan1950 [mailto:mcgowan19500gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 8:35 AM To: Justin Shimp Cc: Claudette Grant Subject: Re: Pantops Corner 1 Claudette, l"" "''` If there are issues we could be addressing, please send us them. If your review leads to dismissing them later,we will understand. Thanks, Mike Sent from my iPad On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:14 PM,Justin Shimp<justin @shimp-engineering.com>wrote: Thanks Claudette, I understand that the proffers need to be in final substantive form by the end of the day Monday is that correct? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 14, 2013,at 5:37 PM, Claudette Grant<cgrant @albemarle.org>wrote: Justin, I have reviewed the comments I have, but need to make sure they are not contradicting each other. I will get what I have to you tomorrow. I am also still waiting on one set of comments. I hope I will have them tomorrow, so I can send you all the comments at the same time.Thank you Claudette From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin(ashimp-engineering.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:43 AM To: Claudette Grant Cc: Michael Subject: Pantops Corner Claudette, I spoke with Glenn last night about pantops corner, it sounds like he is generally OK with the proposal but mentioned that the county attorney had some comments that might be an issue. Could you forward those to me so I can see them? Thanks! Justin M. Shimp, P.E. President Shimp Engineering, P.C. 201 E. Main Street,Suite M Charlottesville,VA 22902 E:Justin@shimp-engineering.com P: 434-953-6116(Direct) P:434-207-8086(Office) F:804-302-7997 2 Nie Claudette Grant From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:07 AM To: Claudette Grant; Glenn Brooks; Amelia McCulley Subject: Pantops Corner ZMA Claudette- Here are my comments to the proffers: 1. Under the Subdivision Ordinance and the Site Plan Ordinance,the County can require Road A to be dedicated to public use, be a public right of way,and be extended to the property line so I'm not certain what this proffq is S 0 achieves,other than that the County knows it will at least get a private road in that general location.1 7w' enabling authority for this requirement is VC 15.2-2241(2)and (4).poes the last sentence of this proffer make I`' the construction of the road contingent on the owner of TMP 78-6 sharing in the cost of the road,or does it make maintenance of the road contingent on the owner of TMP 78-6 sharing in that cost?With respect to the access easement that would be granted to "TMP 78-6,"the proffer should clarify that the easement grants a public right of passage over Road A(any vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, etc.).The proffer should state when the road will be completed and include this sentence: "Construction of Road A shall be deemed complete when the County Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic." Note also that the Exhibit Qvu.. on the back of the proffer statement does not show Road A going to TMP 78-6 as stated in the proffer. j.) �1p/ 1„b' 2. Same comment as in the first two sentences of my comment to Proffer 1. If this is a private road, it will be a private road serving as an interconnection to two public roads,which is not desirable. If it is to be a private road, the proffer should be clear that,as with Proffer 1,the owner(owners)will grant a public right of passage over the road. Is it acceptable for this road merely to be bonded rather than completed by the time the CO is C41 requested?As with Proffer 1, if completion of construction, rather than bonding, is needed,the proffer should state that"Construction of the road shall be completed before the Owner requests the first Certificate of Occupancy" and include this sentence: "Construction of the road shall be deemed complete when the County Engineer determines that the roadway is safe and convenient for traffic." Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org 1 Claudette Grant From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran.Austin @vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:10 AM To: Claudette Grant Subject: ZMA201300002 Pantops Corner Claudette, I have reviewed the revised Proffer Statement for Pantops Corner and offer the following comments: 1. In a meeting with VDOT,the owner and design engineer agreed to constructing a 4-lane road section for Route 20 along the frontage of this site to the proposed private street connection. The exhibit shows this in vague detail,so it may warrant including this in the proffer verbage. If you need additional information concerning this project, please let me know. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development—South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 Troy,VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589-5871 Fax: (434) 589-3967 1