The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200900009 Review Comments 2009-02-19Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Feb 19, 2009 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975 -0224 0 C\ TO:Gerald Gatobu Planning Department L ' RE:Soils Report and Comments for: Rio Rd Apt Complex F A s f i:9?ar *g' 7 2 `°'_39 ' z / 34D •,..„.... u 365C659t. 65B I 88 16 ly, 11;.', 3. 6 2 7D 276 d :w 27C 39 34D 50E >,...,... '''.------'7\ i a 93D cir1illt4t3469E 27C 2711 27C M 34D ' 28 esfm. elan H3 5C y`276 `L / .a.278 39D 276 yip,s 276 83e 4 34C 3 27C39C276 276 fr 34D .J 39D 3. 34D Ai , ,39D 27B 27B 7C27B 88 I 50D 27C 34C 4 34C 27C o 27C Northfields 96B 19C h3G 39D /l li1 4C 0 IA 834077N--- i 566 4 20D 3 28C276l 3 3 B 5 ° ° ( - - -28D3 92 b Idersgate illrop G ` j\,,."/ G Chur 328 0 196 G 39D 40E G 83 L 34C 276 1. t 39D 39C \ 27C e 19Coo 2203 X00 278 20D3 27C 1 39D o 39D`- Holy Comfor - _276 76AI 17 V School 196 2C J MOONS -- D cE - ® 37 kefielc 196 3a 278 7"276 39D 4oD G 39D 27C ti 7 = 28 C 95 566 39D vo 1,' 1 r 39E 83 r= 7. r- 10 k 2 I B l 48D O39DE21C A III 48D 'J rn"1 401 0,, ,.0 vim.... Z 3 C3 20 2B 8 I 21B 3 ad by the U.S.i 5000 Feet 4000 3000 2000 Conservation 1000 Meters 800 600 40 es. Base 1__ roared by Al 4 USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434 - 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Rio Rd Apt Complex Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 27B Elioak loans, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34C Glenelg loan, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loan about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 2/19/09 not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is3e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded.The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surfacelayerisloamabout10inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soilisnotfloodedandisnotponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 95 Wehadkee silt loan Description Category: Virginia FOTG Wehadkee is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeabilityismoderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionallyfloodedandisnotponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 15 inches. The land capabilityclassificationis4w. The Virginia soil management group is MM. This soil is hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not limited slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 95 Wehadkee silt loam Very limited Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 2/19/09 Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 95 Wehadkee silt loam All hydric Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10 /21 /2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 95 Wehadkee silt loam 1.5 Thomas Jetterson S WCD 3 2/19/09 Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 95 Wehadkee silt loam Moderate Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Low percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 95 Wehadkee silt loam High MAR 0 6 2009 Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 2/19/09 ON' AL/3p COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntirc Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: March 2, 2009 Scott Collins, 801 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA, 22902. RE: SDP - 2009 -00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex (Preliminary] Dear Sir, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Cun Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Planner ARB) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Development Area Planner) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) (Pending) Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Continents reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Mondav March 16, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, 10,. Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385 Fax: (434)972 -4126 11 AI.(iF jou County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins From:Gerald Gatohu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date:March 2, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference. which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 4.16.1]Open spaces appropriateness: Minimum Area: The recreation area will require open space appropriateness granted by the Planning Commission [I will look into whether we can approve this administrati vel y]. Cl [4.16.2.1] Substitution of equipment, [Clubhouse, pool tot lot and playing field] Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed. and are appropriate to the needs of the occupants. 4.2] Critical Slopes Waiver: File a written request for a critical slopes waiver in accordance with section 32.3.10.4 addressing each concern in section 4.2. Refer to section 4.2.5.b 21.7.3] Buffer Zone Disturbance: will require planning commission approval [I will look into whether we can approve this administratively]. A two lot subdivision Plat will be required before final site plan approval is granted. The subdivision plat will be a two lot subdivision with a private street in the development areas. The subdivision plat will go before the site review committee. 1 i IiiIII, J "3r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:March 3, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Rio Road Apartment Complex - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for the Rio Road Apartment Complex, submitted on February 9, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: General Site Plan Comments 1. This plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 32.7.2.4 For a development of fftv (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. Requests for modification, waiver, or substitution of the requirements of Section 32.7 may be granted by the Planning Commission [ 1 8- 32.3.10]. 2. Please provide another direct pedestrian link between the buildings and the walking path, possibly near SWM 2. The proposed slopes surrounding Building 5 are greater than 3:1 and are required to be planted with low - maintenance ground cover (no grass). Steep slopes and this type of ground cover are generally not pedestrian friendly. The slopes surrounding SWM 1 are undisturbed and left with natural vegetation that may also not provide for waikability. [18- 32.7.2.8] 3. Please include a detail of the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road. 4. Please provide the travelway width(s) of Putt Putt Place between Rio Road and Mallside Forest Court. 5. Stop signs may be required at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Putt Putt Place. 6. At the dumpster closest to Building 2, will a garbage truck be able to maneuver if the parking lot is full? A dumpster at the T- intersection between Buildings 2 and 4 may be more easily serviced. xil c `x 0. COM MON W, ALTH i tt ' ': NIAiA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER March 3" 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 5 °1 , 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the March 5 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP- 2009 -00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan (Gerald Gatobu) This site will generate 1250 weekday trips and 115 peak hour trips according to ITE Land Use Code 220. This site plan will require a Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study under the requirements of 24VAC 30- 155 -50. A connection to the entrance to Route 631 at Albemarle Square is recommended. SUB - 2008 -00015 Woodbrook Station —Final Plat (Elizabeth Marotta) No comments. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely. Joel DeNunzio. P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -001 1 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 1"1:'7.0-i• 11" Y', Jhr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner FROM:Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner SUBJ:SDP200900009, Rio Road Apartment Complex DATE:February 24, 2009 Here are my comments on this preliminary site plan: 1. This preliminary site plan shows extensive use of retaining walls. The two walls between the parking lot and the biofilter on the west side of the site are clearly labeled on Sheet 4 as being four (4) feet high. However, the height of the wall that runs along the east side of the parking lot on the east side of the site is not indicated, nor is the height of the wall at the turnaround at the southern end of this parking lot. Please indicate the heights. Staff is concerned about the appearance of the site from the apartment complex to the east. 2. The clubhouse. pool, and recreation area are located at the southern end of the site. Residents of buildings at the northern end will have quite a walk to reach these facilities. There are only eight (8) parking spaces located near these facilities and there are no continuous sidewalks shown on the site plan. There should be a network of continuous sidewalks throughout this complex in order to encourage walking to and from buildings and facilities; residents and visitors should not have to drive everywhere. Stretches of sidewalk are shown along the edges of parking lots and in front of buildings, but no pedestrian facilities marked in those areas where walkers will have to cross parking lots, internal streets, or grassy areas. Crosswalks, at least, need to be indicated on the site plan. 3. It is not clear from the site plan where the "10' gravel access road" turns into the "proposed 8 -foot mulched trailway." Will the gravel access road be used only for construction or is it permanent? Application #:SDP200900009 Short Review Corrr nts Project Name:IRio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan IPreliminary - Residential Date Completed:02/13/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments. THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES FOR BOTH ROADS NECESSARY Date Completed.02/17/2009 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: '(This proposal is located on a parcel fronting the Rio Road East Entrance Corridor. Because the parcel,' its contiguous with the Corridor on the 1990 tax map, ARB purview will be for what ever is visible from the Corridor, for the full depth of the parcel. ARB staff attended a Pre - application meeting for this proposal and informed the applicant of the need for an ARB application The applicant was also unformed of the review procedure and the application requirements. Date Completed:02/18/2009 Reviewer.James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Verify adequate fire flow is available. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:02/27/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schiothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments (Based on plans dated February 9, 2009. Each barrier -free parking space must have an adjacent striped access aisle. The access aisle must line up with the curb cut, Provide such access aisles for all of the barrier -free parking spaces. Date Completed:03/02/2009 Reviewer:Judith Wiegand Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: j Page 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 OF AL, „, F I v >RrINP y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: March 2, 2009 Scott Collins, 801 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA, 22902. RE: SDP - 2009 -00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex [Preliminary] Dear Sir, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Planner ARB) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Development Area Planner) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) (Pending) Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11” x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Monday March 16, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, 4VJr' 7 ii/ Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385 Fax: (434)972 -4126 4; County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins From:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date:March 2, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 4.16.1]Open spaces appropriateness: Minimum Area: The recreation area will require open space appropriateness granted by the ,Planning Commission [I will look into whether we can approve this administratively]. We e ao Int 4.16.2.1] Substitution of equipment, [Clubhouse, pool tot lot and playing field] Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed, and are appropriate to the needs of the occupants. VJQ, at,)i s. 4.2] Critical Slopes Waiver: File a written request for a critical slopes waiver in aqcordance with section 32.3.10.4 addressing each concern in section 4.2. Refer to section 4.2.5.b 21.7.3] Buffer Zone Disturbance: will require Nanning commission approval [I will look into whether we can approve this administratively]. Ppslaiz, A two lot subdivision Plat will be required before final site plan approval is granted. The subdivision plat will be a two lot subdivision with a private street in the development areas. The subdivision plat will go before the site review committee. 1 F I III Mj 'y kGZV County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:March 3, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Rio Road Apartment Complex - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for the Rio Road Apartment Complex, submitted on February 9, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: General Site Plan Comments 1. This plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 32.7.2.4 For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided, from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. Requests for modification, waiver, or substitution of the requirements of Section 32.7 may be granted by the Planning Commission [18- 32.3.10]. 2. Please provide another direct pedestrian link between the buildings and the walking path, possibly near SWM 2. The proposed slopes surrounding Building 5 are greater than 3:1 and are required to be planted with low- maintenance ground cover (no grass). Steep slopes and this type of ground cover are generally not pedestrian friendly. The slopes surrounding SWM 1 are undisturbed and left with natural vegetation that may also not provide for walkability. [18- 32.7.2.8] 3. Please include a detail of the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road. 4. Please provide the travelway width(s) of Putt Putt Place between Rio Road and Mallside Forest Court. 5. Stop signs may be required at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Putt Putt Place. 6. At the dumpster closest to Building 2, will a garbage truck be able to maneuver if the parking lot is full? A dumpster at the T- intersection between Buildings 2 and 4 may be more easily serviced. COMMONWEALTH o VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER March 3 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 5` 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the March 5 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2009 - 00009 Rio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan (Gerald Gatobu) This site will generate 1250 weekday trips and 115 peak hour trips according to ITE Land Use Code 220. This site plan will require a Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study under the requirements of 24VAC 30- 155 -50. A connection to the entrance to Route 631 at Albemarle Square is recommended. SUB - 2008 - 00015 Woodbrook Station — Final Plat (Elizabeth Marotta) No comments. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner FROM:Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner SUBJ:SDP200900009, Rio Road Apartment Complex DATE:February 24, 2009 Here are my comments on this preliminary site plan: 1. This preliminary site plan shows extensive use of retaining walls. The two walls between the parking lot and the biofilter on the west side of the site are clearly labeled on Sheet 4 as being four (4) feet high. However, the height of the wall that runs along the east side of the parking lot on the east side of the site is not indicated, nor is the height of the wall at the turnaround at the southern end of this parking lot. Please indicate the heights. Staff is concerned about the appearance of the site from the apartment complex to the east. 2. The clubhouse, pool, and recreation area are located at the southern end of the site. Residents of buildings at the northern end will have quite a walk to reach these facilities. There are only eight (8) parking spaces located near these facilities and there are no continuous sidewalks shown on the site plan. There should be a network of continuous sidewalks throughout this complex in order to encourage walking to and from buildings and facilities; residents and visitors should not have to drive everywhere. Stretches of sidewalk are shown along the edges of parking lots and in front of buildings, but no pedestrian facilities marked in those areas where walkers will have to cross parking lots, internal streets, or grassy areas. Crosswalks, at least, need to be indicated on the site plan. 3. It is not clear from the site plan where the "10' gravel access road" turns into the "proposed 8 -foot mulched trailway." Will the gravel access road be used only for construction or is it permanent? Application #:SDP200900009 ISh®rt Review C®mn:nt$ Project Name: Rio Road Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan 1 Preliminary — Residential Date Completed:02/13/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES FOR BOTH ROADS NECESSARY. Date Completed:02/17/2009 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This proposal is located on a parcel fronting the Rio Road East Entrance Corridor. Because the parcel lis contiguous with the Corridor on the 1990 tax map, ARB purview will be for what ever is visible from the Corridor, for the full depth of the parcel. ARB staff attended a Pre - application meeting for this proposal and informed the applicant of the need for an ARB application. The applicant was also informed of the review procedure and the application requirements. Date Completed:02/18/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: !Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Verify adequate fire flow is available. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:02/27/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated February 9, 2009. Each barrier -free parking space must have an adjacent striped access aisle. The access aisle must line up with the curb cut. Provide such access aisles for all of the barrier free parking spaces. Date Completed:03/02/2009 Reviewer:Judith Wiegand Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 sft , ', I'i , Gyyy J lc . fifoij, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, PrincipalPlanner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:March 3, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Rio Road Apartment Complex - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for the Rio Road Apartment Complex, submitted on February 9, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: General Site Plan Comments 1. This plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 32.7.2.4 For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. Requests for modification, waiver, or substitution of the requirements of Section 32.7 may be granted by the Planning Commission [18- 32.3.10]. 2. Please provide another direct pedestrian link between the buildings and the walking path, possibly near SWM 2. The proposed slopes surrounding Building 5 are greater than 3:1 and are required to be planted with low - maintenance ground cover (no grass). Steep slopes and this type of ground cover are generally not pedestrian friendly. The slopes surrounding SWM 1 are undisturbed and left with natural vegetation that may also not provide for walkability. [18- 32.7.2.8] 3. Please include a detail of the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road. 4. Please provide the travelway width(s) of Putt Putt Place between Rio Road and Mallside Forest Court. 5. Stop signs may be required at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Putt Putt Place. 6. At the dumpster closest to Building 2, will a garbage truck be able to maneuver if the parking lot is full? A dumpster at the T- intersection between Buildings 2 and 4 may be more easily serviced. r'lIIWIIN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:April 30, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Arden Place Apartment Complex — Traffic Impact Analysis The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Arden Place Apartment Complex, submitted on April 20, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Traffic Impact Analysis Comments 1. Without the connection to Albemarle Square (as shown in Access Plan #2), the addition of 206 units increases the delay time of the southbound left turning movement from Putt Putt to Rio by over 12 minutes in the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour scenario. Existing (2009) PM Peak Hour conditions already show this movement at a Level of Service F with a 3.25 minute delay. An analysis of the Background (2015) PM Peak Hour condition increases the delay to 7.33 minutes. Adding the Arden Place development for the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour, the delay becomes 19.62 minutes, and yet, no warrants are met for a signal at this intersection. No analysis was done for a Combined (2009) PM Peak Hour Level of Service. This seems like an unacceptable increase in the delay time. Utilizing the second connection through Albemarle Square actually decreases the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour delay to 5.22 minutes. It is difficult for staff to support a waiver request of the requirement of 18- 32.7.4 for two connections. Staff recommends that the connection to Albemarle Square (or a second connection at another location) and/or the installation of a signal be a condition of site plan approval. 2. This traffic impact analysis does not discuss the reasoning behind the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Arden Lane and Mallside Forest Court. Please provide the peak hour volume of vehicle trips projected for the roundabout, considering both Access Plans. In order for staff to make a recommendation on the request for waiver of the undisturbed buffer, please discuss the advantages of the roundabout (which will disturb more area) as an alternative to a standard 3 -way intersection in this location. 3. Section 3.3, which discusses software inputs and outputs, states that the traffic signal timings were assumed figures. Since these are existing traffic signals, it is recommended that actual timings be utilized for the study. The timing of the Albemarle Square signal may need to be adjusted to accommodate new traffic expected from Access Plan #2. pF ALy Gfll111 7Fh HGIN \ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner, and Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer From:Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date:1 May 2009 Subject: Arden Place, traffic study (SDP200900009) The traffic study for Arden Place on Putt Putt Lane and Mall Drive off of Rio Road has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. The study provides conclusive evidence that the connection to Albemarle Square must be made. It decreases delays for exiting traffic by four times. The only complicating factor is the expected 190ft queue, and whether there is room to accommodate it. 2. The recommended paint striping on Putt Putt Lane does not mitigate the impacts. It does not, for example, improve levels of service or delay. It appears only a signal at this location would do that. A contribution should be made to this signal improvement, and if VDOT permits, the signal should be installed. It can be set to a cautionary blinking light when off peak times. 3. The impacts to already failing intersection movements at Rt. 29 and Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) have not been mitigated. The most direct impact appears to be to the southbound lefts onto Rio, and the westbound rights onto Rt.29. (There is a mistake in the graphic summaries for this failing movement.) Contributing traffic to these already failing movements is not recommended. Further connections to Albemarle Square, a connection to Woodbrook, and/or another free -flow right turn with dedicated receiving lane on Rt. 29 should be provided. This site plan should not go forward at its present density without some mitigating improvement to this situation. OF A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner, and Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer From:Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date:1 May 2009 Subject: Arden Place, traffic study (SDP200900009) The traffic study for Arden Place on Putt Putt Lane and Mall Drive off of Rio Road has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. The study provides conclusive evidence that the connection to Albemarle Square must be made. It decreases delays for exiting traffic by four times. The only complicating factor is the expected 190ft queue, and whether there is room to accommodate it. 2. The recommended paint striping on Putt Putt Lane does not mitigate the impacts. It does not, for example, improve levels of service or delay. It appears only a signal at this location would do that. A contribution should be made to this signal improvement, and if VDOT permits, the signal should be installed. It can be set to a cautionary blinking light when off peak times. 3. The impacts to already failing intersection movements at Rt. 29 and Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) have not been mitigated. The most direct impact appears to be to the southbound lefts onto Rio, and the westbound rights onto Rt.29. (There is a mistake in the graphic summaries for this failing movement.) Contributing traffic to these already failing movements is not recommended. I do not have a recommended mitigation improvements, other than further connections to Albemarle Square, or another free -flow right turn with dedicated receiving lane on Rt. 29. AO 4,17;t41,„,..0 lAL , t County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:March 3, 2009 REV #1: May 1, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Arden Place Apartment Complex - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for the Arden Place Apartment Complex, resubmitted on April 20, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Site Review Comments 1. This plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 32.7.2.4 For a development of fftv (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. Requests for modification, waiver, or substitution of the requirements of Section 32.7 may be granted by the Planning Commission [18- 32.3.10]. REV #1: See comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. REV #1: Comment has been addressed, please see comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis. REV #1: Travelway widths have been added to the plan. Using figures from the Traffic Impact Analysis, the existing ADT on Putt Putt Place is 3970. The Arden Place development will add 1372 daily trips to this street, making the ADT 5342. This exceeds the 4000 maximum ADTfor residential subdivision streets, and therefore, Putt Putt Place should meet VDOT's geometric design standards of an Urban Local street. Pavement depth will also need to meet the criteria of the VDOT Pavement Design Guide for this ADT [18- 21.5.64]. 5. Stop signs may be required at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Putt Putt Place. REV #1: Staff recommends that this intersection becomes a two -way stop situation with stop signs at the approach of Mallside Forest Court to Putt Putt Place and the approach of the nen road to Putt Putt Place. REV #1: Comment has been addressed by a change in the building layout. Revision #1 Comments based on new building layout and size 7. A curb -cut providing access to the commercially zoned portion of the parcel should be shown on the proposed road between Arden Lane and Albemarle Square. 8. Grading fill required for the access road to Albemarle Square creates a low -spot in the commercially zoned portion of the property with no drainage outlet. 9. The increase in size of the buildings and required parking areas has created the need for excessive retaining walls on the site. In the area where the wall abutting Rio Hill Apartments reaches a height of 19 feet, the horizontal footprint of the wall will be greater than the two feet shown on the plan and easements will be necessary from this neighboring property for its construction. It is recommended that the applicant explore (with the owner of Rio Hill) the possibility of grading out the existing knoll that this 19 foot wall will be holding up. Aside from reducing or even eliminating the retaining wall in this area, a flatter area could create usable space that may potentially be a joint recreation area to be shared by the two apartment complexes. 10. The horizontal footprint of the 6 to 13 foot retaining wall abutting the pond will be greater than the two feet shown on the plan. The wall will most likely not fit within the small space allotted for it between the parking and the pond. It is possible that the constructed width of this wall could compromise the volume of the stormwater management pond and critical slopes will be disturbed during construction. Also, a guard rail is required along the parking spaces abutting this wall. Waiver of Second Access Point Comments 11. Please update this waiver request to reflect the new number of 206 units. 12. Please include in this waiver request a discussion regarding the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis. 13. See Traffic Impact Analysis for further comments. Traffic Impact Analysis Comments 14. Without the connection to Albemarle Square (as shown in Access Plan #2), the addition of 206 units increases the delay time of the southbound left turning movement from Putt Putt to Rio by over 12 minutes in the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour scenario. Existing (2009) PM Peak Hour conditions already show this movement at a Level of Service F with a 3.25 minute delay. An analysis of the Background (2015) PM Peak Hour condition increases the delay to 7.33 minutes. Adding the Arden Place development for the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour, the delay becomes 19.62 minutes, and yet, no warrants are met for a signal at this intersection. No analysis was done for a Combined (2009) PM Peak Hour Level of Service. This seems like an unacceptable increase in the delay time. Utilizing the second connection through Albemarle Square actually decreases the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour delay to 5.22 minutes. It is difficult for staff to support a waiver request of the requirement of 18- 32.7.4 for two connections. Staff recommends that the connection to Albemarle Square (or a second connection at another location) and /or the installation of a signal be a condition of site plan approval. 15. This traffic impact analysis does not discuss the reasoning behind the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Arden Lane and Mallside Forest Court. Please provide the peak hour volume of vehicle trips projected for the roundabout, considering both Access Plans. In order for staff to make a recommendation on the request for waiver of the undisturbed buffer, please discuss the advantages of the roundabout (which will disturb more area) as an alternative to a standard 3 -way intersection in this location. 16. Section 3.3, which discusses software inputs and outputs, states that the traffic signal timings were assumed figures. Since these are existing traffic signals, it is recommended that actual timings be utilized for the study. The timing of the Albemarle Square signal may need to be adjusted to accommodate new traffic expected from Access Plan #2. t !!tGl \ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 8, 2009 Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: ARB2009- 00025; Arden Place Tax 61, Parcel 124 Dear Mr. Collins, The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on May 4, 2009, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to construct a six - building, 187 -unit, multi - family residential development. The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. The ARB supports the maintenance of the 50' buffer and supports a road configuration that minimizes the impact on the 50' buffer. 2. Provide a site /building section demonstrating visibility of the proposal as viewed from the Rio Road East Corridor across the Rio Hill Drive right -of -way. Provide a section from Rio Road across the battery shop, the Albemarle Square entrance road, the center line of the connector road, and through the retaining wall, as it is anticipated to be developed. 3. Revise Sheet 6 Site Plan and /or Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations, as needed, to correct the lack of coordination between the design of the building footprint and the building elevations. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations and Sheet 12 Arden Place Exterior Building Elevations to include roof plans of the clubhouse and apartment buildings. 4. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations to show a redesigned entry bay and pediment whose height and width are more proportional with each other and the overall elevation. 5. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations by identifying proposed materials and colors, and configuration of the cupola. 6. Revise the southwest end elevation of Apartment Building 1, to relieve its blank appearance, by adding windows or replacing the vertical siding with the proposed brick. Consider redesigning the center section of the elevation to project inward or outward. 7. Revise Sheet 7 Landscape Plan to show an evergreen species in place of the semi - evergreen Burkwood Viburnum proposed around the perimeter of the ground- mounted HVAC units at each end of the apartment buildings. 8. Revise the site and building layout to more consistently address the requirements of the site grading guidelines listed under "Development Pattern ". 9. Revise the interior parking lot tree count to not include perimeter parking lot trees. Revise the site /parking design to allow for a 10' wide planting strip along the full length of the eastern boundary, free of retaining walls, for perimeter parking lot trees, 40' on center, 2 1 /2" caliper minimum, 10. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan by showing the street trees, 2 1 /2" caliper, 40' on center, on both sides the entry roads and roads extending from them. 11. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan with the addition of 2 large canopy species and 1 understory species with proposed quantities for both categories as near equal as possible. 12. Revise the lighting proposal to include all exterior building lighting. All such lighting in excess of 3,000 lumens shall meet full cut off requirements. Revise Sheet 10 Lighting Details to include the catalog numbers with the cutsheets. These numbers shall be coordinated with the catalog numbers in the Luminaire Schedule. 13. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan and Sheet 6 Site Plan by including the location of all proposed site lighting. Avoid conflicts with proposed plantings or existing and proposed utilities. Revise Sheet 9 Lighting Plan to include the following note: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. 14. Designs for all freestanding signage visible from the Corridor will need to meet ARB Sign Guidelines, with locations free of conflicts with utilities and landscaping. An ARB sign application for freestanding signage is an additional application that can be submitted separately from the ARB site plan application. For building signage visible from the Corridor, provide revised elevations showing the sign location along with details, including materials, colors and dimensions, of the sign design. Wall and freestanding signs will require a sign permit in addition to ARB approval. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarle.orq /planning. Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner cc: Coleway Development LLC 610 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22902 James E Kelley Jr 2555 Temple Trail Winter Park FL 32789 Charlottesville Realty Corporation P. 0. Box 6340 Charlottesville, VA 22906 Gerald Gatobu, Current Development File 4 nF A &, J IRGtNv- County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: REV #2: June 1, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Arden Place Apartment Complex - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for the Arden Place Apartment Complex, resubmitted on June 1, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Site Review Comments REV #2: A connection to the Woodbrook Subdivision has been added to the plan, a waiver of 32.7.2.4 is no longer needed. 4-t° V REV #2: Comment has been addressed, with note added regarding upgrade of Putt Putt Place Sheet 2). 7 ILI -- Li \ 3 5. Stop signs may be required at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Putt Putt Place. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. Revision #1 Comments based on new building layout and size REV #2: Comment has been addressed. REV #2: Comment has been addressed with proposed culvert. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. Grades have been adjusted and heights of retaining walls have been reduced significantly. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. Retaining wall has been terraced to allow more flexibility with horizontal spacing. Waiver of Second Access Point Comments REV #2: A connection to the Woodbrook Subdivision has been added to the plan, a waiver of 32.7.2.4 is no longer needed. Traffic Impact Analysis Comments 14. Without the connection to Albemarle Square (as shown in Access Plan #2), the addition of 206 units increases the delay time of the southbound left turning movement from Putt Putt to Rio by over 12 minutes in the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour scenario. Existing (2009) PM Peak Hour conditions already show this movement at a Level of Service F with a 3.25 minute delay. An analysis of the Background (2015) PM Peak Hour condition increases the delay to 7.33 minutes. Adding the Arden Place development for the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour, the delay becomes 19.62 minutes, and yet, no warrants are met for a signal at this intersection. No analysis was done for a Combined (2009) PM Peak Hour Level of Service. This seems like an unacceptable increase in the delay time. Utilizing the second connection through Albemarle Square actually decreases the Combined (2015) PM Peak Hour delay to 5.22 minutes. It is difficult for staff to support a waiver request of the requirement of 18- 32.7.4 for two connections. Staff recommends that the connection to Albemarle Square (or a second connection at another location) and /or the installation of a signal be a condition of site plan approval. REV #2: Applicant has attempted to reach an agreement with the property owners of Albemarle Square, but it has not happened. A connection is now being proposed into the Woodbrook Subdivision to the north ofArden Place. This connection will help alleviate impacts to the Rio /29 intersection by providing Arden Place residents the ability to reach northbound Rte 29 without having to utilize Rio Road. This connection will not provide relief for the left - turning movement from Putt -Putt Place to Rio Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis shows that no signal warrants are met for the Putt Putt —Rio intersection, therefore, VDOT will not allow the installation of a signal at this time. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. The proposed roundabout has been revised to a standard 3 -wad' intersection. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. Signal timings were discussed with personnel from VDOT who were comfortable with the _figures used. ALti4- rvizo;t COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 - 4126 To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering Review Subject:SDP200900009, Arden Place, Critical Slope Waiver Request Date received:1 June 2009 Date of Comment: 11 June 2009 The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with proposed development on TMP 61 -124 was received on 1 June 2009. The existing critical slopes and proposed grading are shown on the Preliminary Site Plan dated 1 June 2009. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas within TMP 61 -124 contain both natural and presumably manmade critical slope areas. Please the applicant's waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Disturbance to the slopes impacted in the construction of the roads from Putt Putt Place and the Woodbrook Subdivision stub -out to the development are exempt from the requirement of a waiver under Section 18- 4.2.6.c for accessways. The remainder of the critical slopes disturbance is for the construction of the Clubhouse and adjacent parking. This is in the area of the presumable manmade critical slopes. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed: 1. rapid and /or large scale movement of soil and rock": The areas of critical slope disturbance are slim bands of what is presumed to be a fill area from the construction of the mall. Large scale movement of soil and rock is not anticipated to occur as a result of this construction. 2. excessive stormwater run- off ": Conceptual stormwater management, as shown on the preliminary site plan will be refined prior to Current Development engineering approval of the final site plan. Excessive stormwater run -off is not expected to occur. 3. siltation of natural and man -made bodies of The applicant will submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Final Site Plan which will be reviewed for County and State compliance. Proposed E &S measures are anticipated to reduce sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site. Inspection and bonding by the County will monitor maintenance of the erosion control facilities during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will 1 achieve long term stab j. 4. loss of aesthetic resource": The disturbance of the existing critical slopes with this development involves the removal of existing vegetation. 5. septic effluent": The existing subdivision is served by public sewer and there are no septic drainfields within the area of this disturbance. No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 0 J 4 MEMORANDUM TO:Mark Graham, Director, Department of Community Development Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning and Current Development Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer FROM:Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney DATE:June 18, 2009 RE:Arden Place; Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.2 and Related Issues Unfortunately, the staff report for Arden Place was distributed before I had a chance to respond to Bill's question from last Friday regarding staffs analysis of "safe and convenient access" under Zoning Ordinance 32.7.2 and staff's related recommendation for denial of the Arden Place site plan. As you know, we had a preliminary discussion about this issue at a legal meeting a couple of weeks ago and the discussion centered on how Section 32.7.2 applied to Arden Place's anticipated traffic impacts at the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road East. Similarities between the traffic issues for this project and those that arose with the Faulconer, Gazebo Plaza and Rio Truck Repair site plans were noted, and the County's authority tofdeny a site plan based on off -site traffic conditions was briefly discussed.V.:ci F st ` "+-d_ c _ , - - From the staff report, we learn that staff is conce ed not only with the traffic impacts arising from the lack of a signal on Rio Road East at its intersection with utt Putt Place, but also Arden Place's anticipated traffic impacts at the Rio Road — Route 29 intersection. As noted in Bill's email to me last Friday and in the Arden Place staff report, VDOT, which has the primary over the safe design and construction of public streets, has not stated that these intersections are unsafe,-and has stated that warrants are not met for signalization at the Putt Putt Place — Rio Road East intersection. Based on the summary of the law below, our recommendation is that the staff report's analysis of Section 32.7.2 be revised and that a new staff report be circulated to the Planning Commission and the public before the end of the week. 1.The County does not have the authority to deny a site plan based on off -site traffic impacts and conditions Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.2 cannot be interpreted in a way that allows a site plan to be denied because of the condition of or impacts to off -site public streets. The reason is simple — neither the State enabling authority for site plans (Virginia Code §§ 15.2 -2241 and 15.2 -2242, the same as those that apply for subdivision plats) nor the interpretation of those statutes by the Virginia courts (Hylton Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, 220 Va. 435 (1979) among others) authorizes a locality to deny a site plan because of off -site traffic impacts or the need for off -site traffic improvements. Regardless of what any provision of the 1 Zoning Ordinance says, State law simply does not allow a site plan to be denied based upon off -site traffic impacts and conditions. This issue is addressed at length in Chapter 25 of the Land Use Law Handbook, and the issue as it pertains to subdivision plats and site plans is addressed specifically in Sections 25 -320 and 25 -330. Following is a brief summary of some of the key points from Chapter 25: The following passage is from Section 25 -300 of the Land Use Law Handbook: There is no express or implied authority in the enabling legislation authorizing a locality to require off -site road improvements as a condition of subdivision plat or site plan approval. See, Virginia Code § 15.2 -2241, § 15.2 -2242, and ' 15.2 -2243. The case law .. . reflects a consistent theme that zoning decisions, not the subdivision or site plan process, are the place and time at which density and traffic considerations are to be addressed. The following passage is from Section 25 -320 of the Land Use Law Handbook: Virginia Code § 15.2 -2243 authorizes localities to require a developer to pay the pro rata share of the cost of providing reasonable and necessary off -site sewerage, water and drainage facilities if the need for such facilities are required, at least in part, by the development. There is no similar provision for off -site road improvements. Virginia Code 15.2- 2242(4) is the only enabling authority that speaks to off -site road improvements. It authorizes the locality to provide "for the voluntary funding of off -site road improvements and reimbursements of advances by the governing body." The courts have consistently rejected any attempts by localities to expand the authority of localities to require off -site road improvements beyond what the General Assembly has expressly enabled. In Hylton Enterprises. Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, 220 Va. 435 (1979), the Virginia Supreme Court considered whether the county could require a subdivider, as a condition of approval of a subdivision plat, to pay the cost of making certain improvements to widen two secondary roads abutting the property.... The Virginia Supreme Court held that there was no authority in the predecessors to Virginia Code § 15.2 -2241 and 15.2 -2242, either express or necessarily implied, that enabled the county to require a subdivider to construct improvements to existing roads, or to pay a pro rata share of the cost of those improvements... Hylton remains controlling law in Virginia. A locality has no authority to require off -site improvements as a condition of site plan or subdivision plat approval, even if the need for the improvements is substantially generated by the project. Compare with Cupp v. Board of Supervisors ofFairfax County, 227 Va. 580 (1984) (authority to require off -site improvements as a condition of special use permit approval only if the need for the improvements is substantially generated by the project). In Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County, 22 Va. Cir. 82 (1990), the subdividers sought to create a 28 -lot subdivision on a 58.6 acre tract of land. Although the subdivision plat complied with the requirements of the county's subdivision ordinance, the board of supervisors denied the plat because of a staff assessment that traffic on the main road of access to the subdivision "would be increased beyond its safe carrying capacity if 28 lots were approved and developed." ... In holding that the county had no authority to require the subdividers to improve a public road without their agreement, the Culpeper County circuit court stated: The County seeks to control the volume of traffic on a public road until improved by withholding or conditioning subdivision approval. Control of the 2 Now volume of traffic to the extent development of subdivisions increases the volume of traffic is properly achieved under Virginia law by the zoning ordinances which may limit the density to which land may be developed. The subdivision law of Virginia does not address this end. In Rackham v. Vanguard Limited Partnership, 34 Va. Cir 478 (1994), the abutting owners of a 55 -lot subdivision challenged the county's approval of a subdivision plat, claiming that it was approved contrary to law. The subdivision would be accessed via a secondary road, described as "a narrow, unimproved prescriptive easement approximately ten feet in width" that bisected the abutting owners' lands.... The commission ... disapproved the plat on the ground that the off -site road was inadequate to handle the increase in traffic generated by the subdivision.... The court then discussed the other basis upon which the commission had disapproved the subdivision plat — the inadequacy of the off -site road to handle the increase in traffic generated by the subdivision. The court quickly dispensed with this issue, stating that the need for future off -site road improvements was not a relevant consideration to preliminary subdivision plat approval. The following passage is from Section 25 -330 of the Land Use Law Handbook: Although the subdivision cases discussed in section 25 -320 apply to site plans as well, at least one case has considered the authority of a locality to require a developer to make or contribute to off -site road improvements as a condition of site plan approval. In Potomac Green Associates Partnership v. City Council of City ofAlexandria, 761 F. Supp. 416 (E.D. Va. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 6 F.3d 173 (4 Cir. 1993), the city required, as a condition of site plan approval, that the applicant construct two additional lanes on the George Washington Memorial Parkway which was adjacent to the applicant's property. The district court first reviewed the enabling authority for off -site improvements, which is now found in Virginia Code § 15.2 -2243 and which is limited to sewerage, water and drainage facilities, and concluded that there "is no express authorization for a developer of land to make off -site improvements at his expense to the surrounding highways." Then, citing Board of Supervisors of James City County v. Rowe, 216 Va. 128 (1975), Cupp v. Board of Supervisors ofFairfax County, 227 Va. 580 (1984) and Hylton Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, 220 Va. 435 (1979), the court concluded that there was no implied authority to require private landowners to build additional lanes on public roads as a condition of site plan approval. Under State law, there is no authority for the County to deny a site plan because of off -site traffic impacts or conditions. 2.The scope of Section 32.7.2 is more limited than staffs interpretation of that section We have explored the meaning of Section 32.7.2 many times under various factual situations. Our impression is thatfstaff focuses on the phrase "safe and convenient access" found in the section heading, an at phrase appears to have become a standard unto itself with virtually unlimited scope and application.s A. The phrase "safe and convenient access" pertains to ingress to and egress from a site, not the impacts to or conditions of off -site streets The phrase "safe and convenient access" does not appear in the body of Section 32.7.2 itself and the actual language in the regulation reveals that its scope is rather limited. The relevant operative term, in both the section heading and in the body of the regulation, is the word "access." The most relevant definition of "access" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "a landowner's legal right to pass from his land to a highway 3 and to return without being obstructed." In other words, safe and convenient access actually pertains to the ingress to and egress from a site, and nothing more, and in the first paragraph of Section 32.7.2, that is precisely the language used in the first sentence of that paragraph — "safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one 1) or more public roads." Consistent with Section 32.7.2's limited scope, we concluded in Gazebo Plaza that the phrase "safe and convenient access" actually means little more than having an entrance (in VDOT terms, the commercial entrance) to a site that meets VDOT's design and construction requirements. B.The authority granted to the commission and the agent under Section 32.7.2 is limited to issues pertaining to "access points" The second sentence in the first paragraph of Section 32.7.2 is the sole express grant of authority to the planning commission and the agent regarding safe and convenient access, and it reflects the limited scope of Section 32.7.2: To these ends, the commission or the agent in the review of a site plan ma specify the number, e, location and de of access points. to a public street together wit uch measures as may deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such acc po ts. As the only specific grant of authority in the first paragraph of Section 32.7.2, this sentence merely 0 ) 2 grants authority to specify the number, type, location and iign of "access points" — not streets or off -site intersections. Interpreting this language in a manner consistent with the State enabling authority found in I t lik Virginia Code § 15.2- 2241(2) and (4), this sentence means that the County may regulate the location and extent of on -site streets and the points at which they may interconnect with existing or proposed off -site streets. This l authority was at issue in the Belvedere Station Land Trust case, where the County required an on -site street to b extended to the property line to provide an access point when the adjoining parcel developed.k Nothing in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 32.7.2 allows the County to deny a site plan based on the impacts to or the conditions of off -site streets, particularly where there are no concerns or requirements imposed by VDOT. There also is no authority in that provision to deny a site plan because a developer is unable to secure the cooperation of an abutting landowner to allow the access street to connect. It is sufficient for the developer to extend the on -site street to the property line, i.e., to establish an access point. C.Private streets may be considered on -site only in very limited circumstances We note that Section 32.7.2 creates some confusion because of its reference to safe and convenient access to a "public road" and, in many cases, the proposed development takes its immediate access from a private street, as is the case with Arden Place. A literal application of Section 32.7.2 can place a developer in a quandary if the point at which the private street meets the public street is off -site and not under the control of the developer. In some cases it may be appropriate to consider the private street as "on- site" up to the point at which the private street intersects with the public street, such as when VDOT requires an entrance permit or when the existing private street was designed, constructed and approved to a lesser standard and an upgrade is required to be at an appropriate design standard (such as when a private road serving a 3 -5 lot subdivision needs to be upgraded when 6 or more dwellings will be served by it). Neither of those situations ap el Arden Place where VDOT has not identified any need for an d entrance perms a . tsortexpressesnostatedconcernaboutthedesignofPuttPuttPlaceortheabilit 51. of that street to handle traffic from Arden Place. e Background section on page 6 of the staff'report refers to exacerbated traffic on existingstreets Putt Putt Place and Rio Hill Drive], but there are no facts or discussion about those impacts. The only impacts discussed are those at the intersections of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road 4 East and Rio Road East and Route 29. Thus, in this case, for all intents and purposes the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road East should be considered to be off -site in this case. D.Section 32.7.2's subsections are consistent with the limited scope of that section's first paragraph Section 32.7.2's subsections are consistent with the interpretation of Section 32.7.2's first paragraph discussed above. Sections 32.7.2.1 and 32.7.2.2 pertain to "entrances." Section 32.7.2.3 pertains to providing access that is not subject to flooding. Section 32.7.2.4 provides that more than one street "connection" be provided for developments having 50 or more dwelling units. Section 32.7.2.5 authorizes the commission and the agent to provide travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties. Section 32.7.2.6 authorizes land to be dedicated in lieu of providing travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties in particular situations. Section 32.7.2.7 provides for the design and construction of on -site parking and circulation. Section 32.7.2.8 provides for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, including their connection to existing sidewalks and walkways on adjoining developments. None of these subsections pertain to off -site improvements. 3.The staff report acknowledges that the intersections at issue are already failing The staff report states that the two intersections on which staff is basing its recommendation for denial of the site plan are "already failing." Even if this project was a rezoning or a special use permit, the County could require that these off -site impacts be addressed only if the need for the improvements was "substantially generated" by this project. See, Cupp v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 227 Va. 580 (1984). Whether the need for off -site improvements is substantially generated by a development is irrelevant to the question of whether a site plan should be approved or denied because there is no authority to require off -site street improvements. At the site plan stage, it is simply too late in the game to require off -site street improvements. What the courts would say is that the Arden Place property is zoned R -15 and that the County and VDOT have known for years that the property would be developed with hundreds of dwelling units, and it was the responsibility of the County and VDOT to plan for those traffic impacts across all of the years the property sat undeveloped. That failure is a burden that everyone must share, not the developer of Arden Place. 4.The safety concern raised in the staff report is not based on any identified objective criteria The staff report states that the delays at the Putt Putt Place — Rio Road East intersection are unsafe because they would "encourage drivers to attempt to enter traffic without sufficient space" and that this could lead to unsafe situations. This concern, even if relevant at the site plan stage, is not tied to any objective criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance. This kind of approach has been rejected by the courts. The analysis of the court in Mountain Venture Partnership v. Town ofLovettsville Planning Commission, 26 Va. Cir. 50 (1991), discussed at length in Sections 25 -310 and 25 -320 of the Land Use Law Handbook, illustrates the troubles the courts would have with this kind of approach. In Mountain Venture, the planning commission denied a preliminary subdivision plat for a 194 - unit townhouse development on three grounds, one of which was because the subdivision's two access points did not provide safe and convenient access onto the adjoining public road. Absent objective regulatory standards to determine what is required for an access to be safe, and absent any concerns by VDOT, the court found that the planning commission's denial of the plat on this ground was arbitrary and capricious, stating: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), one of the referring agencies, raised no concern about the safety of the street arrangement for the townhouse section of Avonlea. There is no Town ordinance concerning the number of vehicular trips which a subdivision may be 5 NEI yore allowed to generate. There is no ordinance regulating the number of townhouse units per entrance to a public street. There is no ordinance relating design criteria for streets to the number of vehicles passing over a street. VDOT raised no objection to the entrances from the townhouse area of Avonlea onto the public street .. . The court then elaborated on its concerns about the absence of objective standards to control the decision as to whether the access points were safe: With no ordinance to guide the Planning Commission, if this reason were valid, then an applicant with a subdivision such as Avonlea would be at the mercy of the Planning Commission. Its whim could determine whether a preliminary plat is approved or denied. While one of the purposes of a subdivision ordinance is to promote the safety of the public ..., such purpose does not give a planning commission the authority to deny a preliminary plat which conforms to the requirements of the applicable ordinance for the sole reason that in its opinion alone, the subdivision would create a public safety problem. As noted above, neither VDOT nor any other reviewing agency had raised safety concerns with the Town of Lovettsville about the access points. Under the reasoning of Mountain Venture, concerns about safe and convenient access need to be established by the application of objective standards pertaining to traffic volume and design or be supported in a writing from VDOT expressing concerns about traffic volume and/or design. In holding that the commission's disapproval of the subdivision plat was improper, the Mountain Venture court noted that when the land at issue was rezoned to its current density, the rezoning "clearly put the Town and all its officials on notice that Mountain Venture could seek approval for as many as 194 townhouse, units." 5' "t K- r Lc" c vkJa 111 kItr, , cNiti The fatts'ilT Arden Place are at 1 ast one step further removed from those in Mountain Venture because that case involved on- sitetaccess pointi$ sues, not off -site traffic impacts and conditions as is the case with Arden Place. 5.Arden Place abuts a public street and has a right to access it Arden Place would be developed on Tax Map and Parcel Number 61 -124, a parcel that abuts Rio Road East. We assume that Arden Place is taking its access through Putt Putt Place because of VDOT's desire to control the number of entrances off of Rio Road East. Parcels abutting public streets er access those public streets which appear to have been overlooked in this case.ke. The following passage is from Section 24 -300 of the Land Use Law Handbook: Members of the public share a common right to use a public road, and this right cannot be restricted by arbitrary action of the local governing body. See, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930), cited in 1985 -86 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 81. Property owners generally have a private right to use a road that abuts their property when the use of the abutting road is necessary to the enjoyment and value of the property. City of Staunton v. Cash, 220 Va. 742 (1980), cited in 1985 -86 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 81. In other words, abutting landowners have an easement of access to a public street. State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Linsly, 223 Va. 437 (1982). The exercise of that right, however, is subject to the right of the locality to control the streets to promote the public safety and welfare. Linsly, supra; State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Easley, 215 Va. 197 (1974); Wood v. Richmond, 148 Va. 400 (1927) (pre -Byrd Road Act, holding that the city could require the removal of one of two driveways). A restraint upon the use of private property to promote the public welfare is a proper exercise of the police power and is not a taking requiring just compensation. Linsly, supra. For example, entrances and curb cuts may be reasonably regulated in the exercise of the police power. Board of Supervisors of Fabfax 6 County v. Southland Corp., 224 Va. 514 (1982). However, access may not be entirely denied, absent a taking for public use and the resulting constitutional necessity for the payment of just compensation. Southland Corp. supra. This common law right can be restricted only pursuant to specific statutory authority or by the exercise of the county's police power. See, Azalea Corp. v. City of Richmond, 201 Va. 636 (1960), cited in 1985 -86 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 81. Virginia Code § 15.2 -2267 is such statutory authority, enabling a board of supervisors to restrict ingress and egress on publicly used roads not in the secondary system that are used primarily for the inhabitants of a subdivision. The statutory prerequisites must be strictly complied with. 1985 -86 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 81. We have found no statutory authority similar to Virginia Code § 15.2 -2267 that might provide authority 0, to deny a site plan for the reasons stated in the staff report. As far as basing such a decision on the County's general Qo ice on wets_ that authority is trumped by the well - established State enabling authority and case law on this issue discussed in this memorandum. As discussed above, several cases have rejected a locality's safety concerns as grounds to expand a locality's authority over subdivision plats and site plans. Section 24 -310 of the Land Use Law Handbook discusses the applicable law when all direct access to the abutting public street is denied: The complete extinguishment of direct access to an abutting public street is compensable where there is no other direct access. State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Dennison, 231 Va. 239 (1986) (installation of unbroken curbing extinguished direct access to residue and was compensable); State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Linsly, 223 Va. 437 (1982) (extinguishment of direct access and provision of indirect access via a service road was compensable); Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner of Virginia v. Miners Exchange Bank, 33 Va. Cir. 261 (1994) (elimination of two direct access points and replacing them with a dead -end service road providing indirect access was compensable); Smith v. State Highway and Transportation Commissioner, 4 Va. Cir. 223 1984) (25 -foot wide entrance located directly beside restaurant, too close to the highway right - of -way to allow traffic to reasonably enter or exit, was not reasonable; direct access was therefore extinguished and was compensable). Section 24 -330 of the Land Use Law Handbook discusses the applicable law when direct access is reduced or limited: The reduction or limitation of direct access to an abutting property generally is not compensable. State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Lanier Farm, Inc., 233 Va. 506 (1987) (claim that a proposed entrance would have to be relocated to a less advantageous location was not compensable where direct access would be provided); State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Easley, 215 Va. 197 (1974) (curbing installed with two openings to allow direct access to the property was not compensable because there was no evidence that the openings in the curbing would not provide the abutting owner with reasonable access); State Highway and Transportation Commissioner v. Howard, 213 Va. 731 (1973) median strip installed with no opening at the property's entrance resulted in an incidental non - compensable inconvenience); Wood v. City of Richmond, 148 Va. 400 (1927) (reduction of direct access points from two to one for purposes of traffic control and public safety was not compensable); State Highway Commissioner v. 1619 Associates, 6 Va. Cir. 108 (1984) (in ruling on a motion in limine, the court said that the closing of a crossover opposite the driveway of the property was not compensable). The guiding rule in this line of cases reinforces the right of the locality and the State to control access to public streets and, where appropriate, to reduce or limit direct access. The 7 NO/Name Virginia Supreme Court has said that frustration of a landowner's plans for development or future use is not in itself compensable. Lanier Farm, Inc., supra. Thus, as long as some direct access is provided, a compensable taking has not occurred. In this case, that issue would have been avoided by Arden Place having its access by way of Putt Putt Place or the existing public right -of -way abutting the development in Woodbrook. If the site plan is denied, however, Arden Place could be found to have been denied all access to Rio Road East. 6.The findings of a traffic analysis pertaining to off -site street impacts and conditions do not provide a basis to deny a site plan A traffic analysis may be triggered at the subdivision plat or site plan stage under Virginia Code § 15.2 - 2222.1(C), and VDOT is provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subdivision plat or site plan. Under State regulations promulgated after Virginia Code § 15.2- 2222.1 was adopted, VDOT may request a meeting with the locality to discuss potential modifications to the proposal to address any concerns or deficiencies." 24 VAC 30- 155- 50(D). VDOT is also directed to "conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public." 24 VAC 30- 155- 50(D). 24 VAC 30- 155 -70 states in part: "After concluding its review of a proposed comprehensive plan or transportation plan or plan amendment, rezoning, or site or subdivision plan, VDOT shall provide the locality and applicant, if applicable, with a written report detailing its analysis and when appropriate recommending transportation improvements to mitigate any potential adverse impacts on state - controlled highways." At most, this statutory and regulatory scheme allows VDOT to make recommendations pertaining to addressing impacts. It does not authorize a locality to deny a subdivision plat or site plan based on off -site traffic issues and, perhaps most telling, the primary enabling authority for requirements for subdivisions and site plans found in Virginia Code §§ 15.2 -2241 and 15.2 -2242 have not been amended in a relevant way since Virginia Code § 15.2- 2222.1 was adopted. Thus, the County still lacks the authority to require off -site street improvements in conjunction with a site plan, or to deny a site plan because of those off -site street conditions. 7.Conclusion Our recommendation is that the staff report's analysis of Section 32.7.2 be revised and that a new staff report be circulated before the end of the week. 8 Current Development Engineering Discussion of Arden Place Traffic Impacts The proposed Arden Place development met the minimum VDOT thresholds to require a Traffic Impact Analysis. The results of that analysis showed that this development will have significant impacts on the intersection of Rio Road and Putt -Putt Place, as well as impacts to the Rio Road /Rte 29 intersection. Per section 32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, a multi - family development with 50 or more units must have two connection points to public streets. One of these connection points is proposed at Rio Road and Putt -Putt Place. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the 206 unit development is anticipated to significantly increase the delay time of the southbound left turning movement from Putt Putt to Rio. This delay, however, does not result in a signal warrant at this intersection, and therefore VDOT will not allow the installationaf a signal at this time. There are also impacts to already failing intersection movements at Rt. 29 and Rio Road. The most direct impact appears to be to the southbound lefts onto Rio, and the westbound rights onto Rt.29. The significantly impacted movements are shown as red arrows on the Arden Connections Diagram on page 3. To meet the requirements of the ordinance and to mitigate these impacts, three additional connection points have been studied as options for making that second connection. These connections are shown as blue arrows on the Arden Connections Diagram. The first of these options is a connection to the Albemarle Square shopping center in the area near the old Circuit City building. This is the only option that will provide some relief for the left turning movement from Putt -Putt Place onto Rio. It will also allow Arden Place residents to enter heavily travelled Rio Road at a signalized intersection. This connection will do little to mitigate effects at the Rio /29 intersection. However, this connection is desirable in that it will provide direct access for Arden Place and neighboring residential complexes to a shopping center, without the need to use Rio Road. In order to make the connection, peinilssion must be granted by the property owner of Albemarle Square. The applicant has been unable to reach an agreement with this property owner, and therefore, the Albemarle Square connection is unavailable at this time. The applicant has proposed to build as much of it as possible in the hopes that an agreement is reached in the future. The second connection option is through the Woodbrook Subdivision to the north of the proposed development. A platted public right -of -way exists in this location, connecting the Arden Place property to the existing public streets within Woodbrook. The design of a travelway from Arden Place to this platted right -of -way appears to meet the standards of the ordinance for width and slope [per 18- 12.17.a]. The streets in Woodbrook are public streets, approved and maintained by VDOT. This connection will help alleviate impacts to the Rio /29 intersection by providing Arden Place residents the ability to reach northbound Rte 29 and the Woodbrook Elementary School without having to utilize Rio Road. It will not, however, provide relief for the left - turning movement from Putt -Putt Place to Rio Road. Also, it is possible that vehicles from outside of Arden Place (neighboring residential complexes and businesses, and even from Rio Road) may utilize this connection as a "cut- through" to access Rte 29 N. Residents in the Woodbook Subdivision are extremely concerned over the increase in traffic this connection could create within their neighborhood. An alternative to providing full vehicle access at this point and still satisfying Section 32.7.2.4, is to install a gate across the travelway, allowing pedestrians and bicycles, but vehicles only in an emergency situation. The third option being looked at is a connection from Arden Place to the parking lot of the Carmike Cinema, north of the Albemarle Square shopping center. From the Carmike parking lot, the path to Rte 29 passes directly in front of the cinema, then travels north and west on Gardens Blvd where it allows a right- turn-out onto Rte 29 N. A benefit of this connection is that it provides direct access for Arden Place residents to the cinema and shopping center without adding traffic to a public road. Although it will not mitigate problems at the left turn movement at Putt -Putt and Rio, the connection can be expected to relieve some of the traffic impacts at the Rio /29 intersection. It is also expected that Arden Place residents may find it more convenient to use this connection to reach Rte 29 southbound through the Albemarle Square shopping center, rather than from Putt Putt and Rio Road. Due to the elevation difference between Arden Place and the existing parking lot, a steep travelway will be required to make the connection. It's unlikely that this travelway will meet the travelway standard of Section 18- 4.12.17.a of the Ordinance, however, the developer may request a waiver of this criteria from the County Engineer. Furthermore, to reach Rte 29 N, vehicles will travel through the existing Carmike Cinema parking lot on accessways that are adjacent to parking spaces, this can create traffic conflicts. Current Development Engineering concludes that the connection at Albemarle Square, in addition to the Putt Putt Place and Rio Road intersection, best addresses the Arden Place development's traffic impacts realized in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The connection at Albemarle Square should be made to reduce the delay time of the left turning movement from Putt Putt Place onto Rio Road and to allow Arden Place residents the ability to make the left turn onto Rio Road at a signalized intersection. The applicant has diligently pursued this connection with the Albemarle Square property owner, has designed it, and is prepared to construct as much of it as possible until an agreement for full construction can be reached. Both the Carmike and the Woodbrook connections allow vehicles to access 29 N without impacting the 29 /Rio intersection, but the Cainiike connection may also steer some residents seeking southbound 29 away from Rio Road. Current Development recommends making the Caimike connection, and reducing the Woodbrook connection to serve only pedestrians and bicycles. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER June 23, 2009 Mr. Gerald Gatobu Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 RE: Road Access for Arden Place, SDP -2009 -00009 Dear Mr. Gatobu, The traffic impact study review conducted by VDOT for the subject development resulted in VDOT's recommendation that Albemarle County require a vehicular connection be made through the existing Albemarle Square as a condition of the site plan approval. Since the review was completed, we have learned that the only vehicular access for the development will he through Putt Putt Place. Without the Albemarle Square connection, the additional traffic generated by the proposed site will result in excessive delays for the left turning movement from Putt Putt Place to Rio Road which may result in safety issues during the peak hours of operation. Putt Putt Place is currently not a road in the state secondary system of highways and is under a commercial entrance permit to access Rio Road, Route 631. Under the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30- 150 -1680, the tenure of commercial entrances is not infinite and if VDOT determines that significant changes have occurred in the use of the entrance, the department can require the permittee to make changes to the entrance based on recommendations or requirements by VDOT's Traffic Engineering section. Based on the submitted traffic study and recommendations from VDOT's Traffic Engineering section, the permittee of Putt Putt Place may be required to make changes to the entrance of Putt Putt Place to Rio Road in accordance with 24VAC30- 150 -1070 to include converting the entrance to a right in/ right out condition with the left in movement from Rio Road eastbound traffic permitted if adequate channelization can be provided. Prior to the implementation of these changes, the traffic study will need to be revised to reflect this condition with u -turns analyzed at the Fashion Square Mall signal and the Hillsdale intersection needs to be included in the study. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING In addition, the left turn delay from Putt Putt Place to Rio Road needs to be revised to include the signal at Hillsdale Dr to more accurately reflect what delay is to be expected for the left turn movement from Putt Putt Place to Rio Road. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss the above comments if you need further assistance. Si y, iiiiri oel DeNunzio, P.F Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434- 293 -0011 Cc: Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Mr. Andy McGinty WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING o ALyf , trO IRGis County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner, Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner, and Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer From:Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date:1 May 2009 Rev 1: 27 July 2009 Subject: Arden Place, traffic study (SDP200900009) Rev.1: An addendum was added to this report for the first revision. This addendum was intended to address an additional site entrance on Rio Road, and a possible connection to Albemarle Square at the rear of the property. The study was also expanded to include one more intersection on Rio Road to the east. The traffic study for Arden Place on Putt Putt Lane and Mall Drive off of Rio Road has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. The study provides conclusive evidence that the connection to Albemarle Square must be made. It decreases delays for exiting traffic by four times. The only complicating factor is the expected 190ft queue, and whether there is room to accommodate it. Rev.1: The original continent above was written calling for access to the Albemarle Square signal on Rio Road. The addendum to the traffic study is written for a different connection, which is to the signal on Route 29. In either case, a connection appears to be needed. The proposed connection to the rear of Albemarle Square at Caunike Cinemas is not as convenient, and the assumption of 20% of site traffic using this intersection is probably over - estimated. 2. The recommended paint striping on Putt Putt Lane does not mitigate the impacts. It does not, for example, improve levels of service or delay. It appears only a signal at this location would do that. A contribution should be made to this signal improvement, and if VDOT peimits, the signal should be installed. It can be set to a cautionary blinking light when off peak times. Rev.1: This recommendation still stands. The appJiQant has not provided any mitigating improvements to the access(es) on Rio Road, 9rior improvements are necessary_ 3. The impacts to already failing intersection movements at Rt. 29 and Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) have not been mitigated. The most direct impact appears to be to the southbound lefts onto Rio, and the westbound rights onto Rt.29. (There is a mistake in the graphic summaries for this failing movement.) Contributing traffic to these already failing movements is not recommended. Further connections to Albemarle Square, a connection to Woodbrook, and /or another free -flow right turn with dedicated receiving lane on Rt. 29 should be provided. This site plan should not go forward at its present density without some mitigating improvement to this situation. Rev.1: The recommendation is essentially unchanged. This site plan should not go forward without some mitigating improvements to the situation on Rio Road and Rt. 29. The study, through modeling technicalities, appears to shift the delays and queues to other locations, but the overall problem still persists (see comment regarding the model below). There are failin T movements at Albemarle Square I` Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 and Route 29 which this development will make worse. In addition, the new site access scenario proposes to channelize traffic in ways which are not conducive to safety (see traffic safety concerns comment below.) 4. Rev.1: This revision has significantly changed the background traffic scenario, shifting queues from Putt Putt Lane to the signal at Albemarle Square. This does not appear acceptable. Theoretically, gaps in traffic may be introduced into the model by signal timing upstream and downstream, thereby improving site results. However, it is very unclear whether this would correlate to reality in this case, as the left turns at Albemarle and Fashion Square are severely affected. 5. Rev.1: This revision raises some common sense warnings for basic traffic safety. While all parties are working hard to fmd a compromise that allows the site development and still provides acceptable access and connectivity, some compromises can lead to significant future problems. The proposed channelizing of the entrances on Rio Road is problematic in this regard. Channelizing is always a risky proposition, relying mostly on drivers to honor signage and pavement markings. In this case, the incentive for eliminating delays and inconveniences will be great, and there will likely be a significant number of vehicles turning left in spite of the islands and signs in the entrances. This will be a safety concern. Sending a significant amount of traffic through the movie theater parking lot might also affect pedestrians. The u-turn revision required at the Albemarle Square and Rio Road intersection could also be problematic. This is an unusual and often unexpected movement at busy intersections. 6. Rev.1: In the future, the applicant should provide a complete copy of the software and all input files to the county. The county based much of the review and public hearing reports on the previous traffic study results. A key point was the left turning movement from Putt Putt Lane. For this study to change this movement so drastically in the developer's favor gives us considerable pause, and makes us question the validity of the modeling. We have no way to see or verify any of the model, as the county does not have this software or project data, and we fmd the written reports very difficult to sift and decipher on their own. 1 r C'L7 ti a A f E Page 1 of 4 Gerald Gatobu From: Andy McGinty [andy @colewaydevelopment.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:14 PM To:Gerald Gatobu; Amy Pflaum; DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.; Erich Strohhacker; 'Scott Collins'; kirsten @collins - engineering.com; Iloydwood @comcast.net Subject: FW: Putt Putt Place Meeting Notes Please find below my notes summarizing our meeting with VDOT this morning regarding the revised Arden Place traffic study and Putt Putt Place commercial access permit. Regards, Andy From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:02 PM To: Andy McGinty Subject: RE: Putt Putt Place Meeting Notes Andy, One small item, the 150 foot taper would then go to a 200 foot turn lane for the right in. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov From: Andy McGinty [mailto :andy @colewaydevelopment.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:19 AM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Subject: Putt Putt Place Meeting Notes Joel, Thanks for your time this morning — it was helpful to get everyone on the same page. Below are my notes from the meeting. Would you please review and let me know if I am documenting anything incorrectly. I'd like to forward this on to the county to facilitate their review of the Arden plan. Traffic Study The updated traffic study is acceptable, barring any issues found in the detailed review of the Appendix data by the Culpeper team. The updated study provides a more accurate projection of the true traffic conditions than the original 7/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 study because it incorporates the effects of the Old Brook intersection. The original left out wait time projection of 19 minutes was not an accurate representation of the expected traffic conditions on Rio. Putt Putt Place No major upgrades to Putt Putt will be required to maintain the existing Commercial Entrance permit. VDOT would not recommend installation of a traffic signal or other modifications to the Rio /Putt Putt intersection (such as conversion to a left over). VDOT may recommended striping of Putt Putt Place to facilitate traffic flow. Putt Putt would not qualify for acceptance by the State as a public street. Proposed Connector Road (new road parallel to Putt Putt through commercial portion of Arden parcel) The proposed connector road is acceptable as show in the 7/13 site plan. A commercial entrance permit would be granted with site plan approval. Standards would permit a 150' tapper for the right in, followed by a 200' turn lane, and would require no acceleration lane for the right out. It is unlikely that the proposed road would qualify for State acceptance as a public street. There is no need to line the proposed road up with the street across Rio because there will not be a median cut on Rio. The connector could be moved down Rio towards the Albemarle Square entrance if desired. The addition of this connector road reduces the likelihood that warrants would be met for the installation of a traffic signal at the Putt Putt Intersection because it spreads out the traffic flow. Carmike Cinema Connection to Arden VDOT has no issues with a connection between Arden and the Carmike. The Carmike connection is beneficial because it reduces some of the traffic at Rio /29 The Carmike connection is not ideal because it is through a parking lot. Thanks, Andy From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:50 PM To: Andy McGinty Cc: lloydwood@comcast.net Subject: RE: Putt Putt Place Andy, 9AM works. Our address is: 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 See you tomorrow. Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 7/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov From: Andy McGinty [mailto:andy @colewaydevelopment.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:45 PM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Cc: I loydwood @comcast. net Subject: RE: Putt Putt Place Joel, Let's do 9:00 AM if that works for you. Can you send me the address of your office? Thanks, Andy From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ mailto:J oel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:55 AM To: Andy McGinty Cc: I loydwood @comcast. net Subject: RE: Putt Putt Place Andy, I have all day tomorrow open if you would like to meet then. Let me know what time works. Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov From: Andy McGinty [mailto:andy @colewaydevelopment.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:16 AM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Cc: I loydwood @comcast. net Subject: Putt Putt Place Joel, Do you have a few minutes this week to discuss the Putt Putt Place commercial permit? We're working through our options for street connections for the parcels in that area and would appreciate your input. Let us know what your schedule permits. Thanks, Andy 7/29/2009 p@ AL Z''A 1 fAniA 114 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:August 11, 2009 Subject: SDP200900009 Arden Place Apartment Complex - Connections The proposed Arden Place development met the minimum VDOT thresholds to require a Traffic Impact Analysis. The results of that analysis showed that this development will have impacts to the intersection of Rio Road and Putt -Putt Place, as well as impacts to the Rio Road/Rte 29 intersection. Per section 32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, a multi - family development with 50 or more units must have two connection points to public streets. One of these connection points is proposed at Rio Road and Putt - Putt Place. To meet the requirements of the ordinance two additional connection points have been studied as options for making that second connection. These connections include a direct link from the property to Rio Road and a connection to the Carmike Theater parking lot. The Pros and Cons of the two connection point options is as follows: Direct Connection to Rio Road Pros: Can be designed and constructed to meet the standards of the Ordinance for private streets or travelways. Does not have abutting parking. Includes an adjacent sidewalk to facilitate pedestrians. Cons: .Adds another vehicular entrance onto Rio Road, causing potential traffic conflicts. Requires the construction of a road through a currently vacant parcel that may in the future be developed in a manner that requires its realignment. Does not lessen the development's traffic impacts to the Rio /29 intersection. Could encourage mor a -turn movements at the Albemarlele Square/Rio intersection. j .kv C- ,c. \ kr' kz c at 6: « _ Connection to Carmike Theater Parking Lot Pros: Provides direct vehicular connection for the development to the adjacent shopping center without the need to use Rio Road. Will lessen the development's traffic impacts to the Rio /29 intersection. Does not require additional entrances onto state roads. Cons: Requires crossing of an intermittent (non- buffered) stream. « Further impacts to natural critical slopes. A portion of the travelway to the state road has abutting parking. Application #:SDP20090000v- 1Short Review Conrr Gents Project Name: ARDEN PLACE Preliminary — Residential 1 Date Completed:06/15/2009 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Discussion for staff report - 6/23 PC meeting. Date Completed:07/27/2009 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: 1With the addition of the Old Brook Road signal into the computer model, the traffic study shows a much shorter delay time for the south bound left -turn movement from Putt Putt Place onto Rio Road 34 seconds). The new study also models the scenario of limiting the Putt Putt Place movement to eliminate this south bound left -turn movement, thereby funneling all traffic from Putt Putt Place (including the Arden Place development) to the Albemarle Square /Rio Road signal where vehicles seeking to go east on Rio Road would make a U -turn movement. The computer model them optimized this signal and showed that no significant delay or resulting queue would occur for this U -turn movement. Date Completed:03/24/2009 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Site plan & CSW deferred until 527 is done. Date Completed:06/10/2009 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: All engineering comments have been addressed. Pending PC action on connections. Date Completed:05/15/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAMES FOR EACH OF THE AREAS THAT WILL HAVE TO GET A ROAD NAME. 'ARDEN' LANE' AND 'ARDEN COURT' ARE NOT APPROVED ROAD NAMES. Date Completed:03/20/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, July 27, 2009