HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500153 Correspondence 2016-03-11 „my.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SHIMP CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
)
March 11, 2016
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding: ZMA 201500008—Adelaide R6 Zoning Request
Dear Ms. Maliszewski,
Thank you for your review of the application plan for Adelaide. We have reviewed and revised the
plan per your most recent comments dated 01/6/16. See below for detailed responses to each of your
comments.
1. The plan notes that no historical features have been located on the site. It is Historic Preservation
Committee policy to obtain a photographic record of all buildings to be demolished prior to demolition.
It is recommended that the applicant provide labeled photographs of each building that is to be
demolished for the development. The Applicant will provide labeled photographs of each
building that is to be demolished.
j"�2. The color conceptual plan shows trees along the EC frontage. Are these intended to be new trees,
V existing trees, or a combination of new and existing? These are meant to be a combination of new
and existing trees. Please see the revised conceptual frontage layout, dated March 10,
attached herein.
a;. 3. With the layout shown, there appears to be no planting area available along the Rt. 250 Entrance
Corridor. The application plan shows a potential stormwater facility extending nearly the full frontage
of the corridor. A path and underground utilities (fiber optic and copper telecommunication) are
located between the facility and the street, and a sewer line is shown on the Adelaide side of the
facility. (A 12”waterline is also located along the frontage, closer to the road.) Where will the EC
frontage landscaping be located?Clarify how the frontage landscaping requirements will be met
while avoiding utility conflicts and maintain the frontage plans outside of individual homeowners' lots.
The revised conceptual frontage layout, dated March 10,provides several answers to this
item: a) The center portion of the open space buffer has been increased from 30'to 40'depth;
b) The east and west portions of the open space buffer have been increased from 30'to 75'in
depth;c)Existing trees, located between the 12'waterline and the approximate location of the
fiber optic line, are shown as preserved in the revised layout;d) The proposed 10'public path.,_..
can___ �... ___ general the fiber optic and underground_telephone utilities,
,1 Pfollow the location of
_i preserving e) sting trees on either side;a stormwater management facilities and the
Ts
5111
proposed sanitary sewer line have been relocated away from the entrance corridor to provide
additional area for plantings.
4. The ARB will require stormwater facilities visible from the EC look like fully integrated landscape
elements. Engineered site features unrelated to the surroundings will not meet the EC guidelines.
--_7 Should any stormwater facilities be visible from the EC, they will look like fully integrated
landscape elements.
5. There is a big size discrepancy between the EC-fronting stormwater facilities shown on the ARB
concept plan and those shown on the rezoning application plan. It is anticipated that it will not be
possible to fully and appropriately integrate a facility extending the full length of the frontage into the
landscape. The rezoning application plan shows potential areas that might provide
stormwater management facilities. The revised application plan and the attached revised
conceptual frontage layout no longer show stormwater management facilities located
between the development and Route 250. (1 , `
6. Moving the path into the right-of-way may help acquire some space for on-site frontage landscaping.
Locating the path to generally follow the underground utilities will allow the existing trees
located within the right-of-way to be preserved as shown in the attached revised layout.
7. It is recommended that a creative, holistic approach to the treatment of the EC frontage be devised,
to fully integrate stormwater, landscape, streetscape and path requirements, resulting in a treatment
that meets the EC Guidelines and maintains a rural scenic character that is consistent with the status
of Rt. 250 West as a scenic byway. We believe that we have achieved this approach by
relocating the proposed buildings and property lines further from the EC, relocating proposed
stormwater and utilities away from the EC,preserving an existing mixture of indigenous
mature hardwoods and evergreens, and infilling additional indigenous hardwoods and
evergreens.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at
(434) 227-5140 and we can discuss any questions that you may have in further detail.
Best Regards,
Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
OAF AL
�RctN��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO
Date: May 2, 2016
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Chair: Present
Bruce Wardell, Vice Chair: Present
Stan Binsted: Present
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
Patty Saternye: Present
Sharon Taylor: Present
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Missel called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
DISCLOSURES
Mr. Missel invited disclosures. He disclosed that a coworker who is also a resident of Cory Farm
spoke to him a couple of times about some of the concerns that the Crozet/Cory Farm
community has with the Adelaide project. He wanted folks to be aware that he has shared public
information with him. He noted that staff received two comments about the Adelaide project
from the community in Crozet.
The meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.
PUBLIC COMMENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-PAGE 1
MAY 2,2016
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Mr. Missel invited public comment on items not related to regular review items, which would
include the two email comments the ARB received on the Adelaide project. There being no
other public comment, he read the two emails into the record from Guanyi Lu and Jay Reeves
(see minutes for details) that stated concerns and opposition to the proposed Adelaide rezoning.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
a. ARB-2016-38: Gropen Design & Fabrication Facility - First review of a Site Development
Plan, including architecture—(TM/Parcel 090000000035V0)
Proposal: To construct an addition to house offices and a fabrication shop, with associated site
improvements.
Location: On the west side of Rt. 20 approximately 700' south of Somerset Farm Drive
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2016-38: Gropen
Design & Fabrication Facility - First review of a Site Development Plan, including architecture,
pending staff administrative approval of the conditions listed in the staff report, amended as
follows.
1. Key proposed materials to the elevations and include a material/color legend on the elevation
sheets.
2. Indicate on the plans the VLT and VLR for the proposed window glass. Add the standard
window glass note to the drawings: Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet the
following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light
reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
3. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the plan: Visibility of all mechanical
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
4. Adjust the lighting design to eliminate spillover in excess of.5 fc at the property line along
the EC.
5. Provide the cut sheets for the light fixtures on one of the site plan sheets. Note on the plan all
options chosen for the fixtures. Ensure that all fixtures emitting 3,000 lumens or more are full
cutoff fixtures.
6. If exterior building-mounted lights are proposed, include complete information on the plan.
7. Revise the light fixtures to have a consistent lamp type.
8. Confirm that no previously existing lighting is to remain. If there is existing site lighting to
remain, include all relevant information on the lighting plan (locations, lamp type, fc levels).
9. Revise the lighting plan to identify the pole and fixture color.
10. Indicate on the lighting plan if bases are proposed for the light poles. If they are, adjust the
design so that maximum pole height is 20', including the height of the base. Add a note to the
plan confirming this.
11. Add the standard lighting note to the plans. "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged
or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-PAGE 2
MAY 2,2016
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Megan Yaniglos
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:14 PM
To: Ann Mallek; Brad Grant; David Stoner; Gary Koenig; Jared Ide; Jennie More; Kenneth
Prevete; Roger Abounader; Ron Pantuck; S. Walsworth
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: Architectural Review Board Public Comment-Adelaide
Good Evening,
The Architectural Review Board is very interested in hearing the public's concerns on Entrance Corridor issues
for the Adelaide project, and wanted to give the community the opportunity to do so at the May 2nd meeting
under "Public Comment" at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting starts at 1:00pm in Room 241 of the
County Office Building at McIntire Road.
Thank you,
Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
1
*9pr 1
Margaret Maliszewski
From: guanyi lu <guanyilu@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Margaret Maliszewski
Cc: kprevete@yahoo.com
Subject: Concerns regarding Adelaide rezoning
Dear Albemarle County Architectural Review Board:
In Adelaide's revised plan, on page 5, the developer stated "Various meetings have been held with Crozet
community leaders to identify potential issues for the development. No formal opposition has been
identified." This is simple not true. The fact is that all the local residents were strongly against "Adelaide"s
high density rezoing proposal at CCAC meetings, and the CCAC were having problem with it,too.
Here are the major concerns regarding the Entrance Corridor Issues only:
1. Route 250 is the "major artery" in the area, but the traffic condition between the shopping center and
Western Albemarle High School has become so dangerous that it gains a nickname " the suicidal lane". Traffic
accidents happen almost every month. Several people already lost their life in the past few years. The
proposed entrance locates right on the bottle neck of the current problematic section. Without extensive road
improvement in advance, the result will be disastrous.
2. The proposed "Emergency Entrance" locates behind a blind spot of the slop road, the left turn vehicles can
not see the on-coming westbound traffic. It would create hazardous situations, especially during an
emergency. The proposed "Emergency Entrance" locates on the east side of Adelaide. Considering most of the
traffic form Adelaide would be eastbound toward Charlottesville or the shopping center, how could the
developer guarantee that the residents will not use it in non-emergency in the future.
We look forward to talk about other concerns regarding the Adelaide rezoing on public hearing.
Thank you very much for your time and efforts to build a better community!
Guanyi Lu
Cory Farm Resident
� M
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Jay Reeves <reeves2271 @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: Adelaide project
Ms. Maliszewski:
I am a resident in Cory Farm, near the proposed Adelaide project, and I am writing to express concerns about
the proposed density and ask that they be shared at the ARB meeting on May 2nd.
I am very concerned about the increased vehicular traffic and related safety concerns that will result from R6
zoning for the proposed project. I would only support much lower density, and certainly nothing greater than
R3 at this location. Especially during prime commuting hours, there is already significant congestion and a
high rate of car accidents along Rt. 250 between the Blue Ridge Shopping Center and I-64. Two deaths from
cars hitting pedestrians have occurred within a half mile of the shopping center.
I believe many in this area share the believe that any further development along this Entrance Corridor and
Scenic Byway should be low density, preferably RI or R2. I believe higher density developments are better
placed along Rt. 240 and closer to downtown Crozet.
Thank you,
Jay Reeves