Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-01-27EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" EPRpc 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 MEMORANDUM TO: BILL FRITZ, AICP FROM: JEANIE ALEXANDER, P.E. BRENNEN DUNCAN, P.E. ORGANIZATION: ALBEMARLE COUNTY DATE: MARCH 8, 2017 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: WOOLEN MILLS - RESPONSE TO TIA COMMENTS YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: ❑ URGENT X FOR YOUR USE ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE This memo is in response to the City Traffic Engineer's comments dated January 27, 2017 on the Woolen Mills Traffic Study dated November 2016. 1. Comment: There was no analysis done for the pedestrian trips that this complex will create. It is anticipated that much of this pedestrian traffic will come from the city and the city infrastructure is to facilitate safe travel is lacking from the intersection of Meade and Market down to the development. The city would like to see an effort for pedestrian improvements and analysis for this development. Response: For this type of project and analysis the number of walking trips is difficult to estimate. The traffic analysis was performed conservatively, assuming that all trips are vehicular. Had walking trips been considered the vehicular traffic volumes would be reduced. Regarding pedestrian improvements, depending on which route one takes, the City's facilities are currently limited. However, they currently provide access to Riverview Park. 2. Comment: The current city roadway at the end of Market St. is insufficient to currently facilitate two-way traffic and the addition of this development will compound the issue. Current pavement widths vary with a minimum width of approximately 12 feet after entering the County and several spots within the city where the width is <20 feet. Based on the traffic to be generated, we would require a minimum of 20 feet width where there is currently no on -street parking and 28 feet where there is currently onstreet parking. Response: The width of Market Street entering the site is constrained by topographical features that will prohibit any widening. However, the project owner has decided to restrict the parking lot accessed via Market Street to residents, employees, and disabled parking only. This should minimize the trips down Market Street to the site. EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" EPRpc 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 3. Comment: I think the analysis stating that 15% of traffic will use the Market entrance does not consider the whole picture of the development. Although the parking lot at the end of Market is small (approximately 21 spaces as drawn), it is adjacent to where the high turnover restaurant will be located according to the latest plan that the city has seen. With the restaurant contributing 58% off all of the traffic, and 105 trips in the peak hour, we have severe reservations about the proposed 15% number. Based on general consumer demand for this type of development, they will want to park as close to their destination as possible, even if there is a chance that there will be no parking by the time they get there. Not only will this create more trips down Market that will then have to turn around, but the odds are, those same vehicles will then make a left on Franklin (another pinch point with the railroad) creating more traffic congestion. The city would like to see this smaller parking lot be for employees only, or some other restricted type parking lot to obtain the 15% talked about in the study. This report also does not address traffic or parking for a proposed kayak facility at the end of Market. Response: Limiting the use of the parking lot access via Market Street as noted above should minimize the trips down Market Street to the site. 4. Comment: Although the development will not detrimentally affect the intersections in the City, it will be more than doubling current traffic in some places and will use a considerable amount of traffic capacity for future years. As a mitigation measure, in addition to pedestrian improvement and roadway widening on Market, the City would propose the extension of the turn lanes talked about in the study at the intersections of Meade Avenue and Market Street, and Carlton Avenue and Carlton Road. This seems like a relatively cost effective mitigation measure and one that will help the development as well. Response: The project owner is willing to consider re -marking of the turn lanes, as part of the development project effort. 2 Memorandum Neighborhood Development Services Office of the City Engineer City Hall Annex, 610 East Market St., Charlottesville To: Bill Fritz From: Brennen Duncan Date: January 27, 2017 Subject: Traffic Impact Study — Woolen Mills Please find the review comments for the above referenced study presented by EPR. Note that the below comments are for the current submission only, and future submissions may generate additional comments. There was no analysis done for the pedestrian trips that this complex will create. It is anticipated that much of this pedestrian traffic will come from the city and the city infrastructure is to facilitate safe travel is lacking from the intersection of Meade and Market down to the development. The city would like to see an effort for pedestrian improvements and analysis for this development. 2. The current city roadway at the end of Market St. is insufficient to currently facilitate two-way traffic and the addition of this development will compound the issue. Current pavement widths vary with a minimum width of approximately 12 feet after entering the County and several spots within the city where the width is <20 feet. Based on the traffic to be generated, we would require a minimum of 20 feet width where there is currently no on -street parking and 28 feet where there is currently on - street parking. I think the analysis stating that 15% of traffic will use the Market entrance does not consider the whole picture of the development. Although the parking lot at the end of Market is small (approximately 21 spaces as drawn), it is adjacent to where the high turnover restaurant will be located according to the latest plan that the city has seen. With the restaurant contributing 58% off all of the traffic, and 105 trips in the peak hour, we have severe reservations about the proposed 15% number. Based on general consumer demand for this type of development, they will want to park as close to their destination as possible, even if there is a chance that there will be no parking by the time they get there. Not only will this create more trips down Market that will then have to turn around, but the odds are, those same vehicles will then make a left on Franklin (another pinch point with the railroad) creating more traffic congestion. The city would like to see this smaller parking lot be for employees only, or some other restricted type parking lot to obtain the 15% talked about in the study. This report also does not address traffic or parking for a proposed kayak facility at the end of Market. 4. Although the development will not detrimentally affect the intersections in the City, it will be more than doubling current traffic in some places and will use a considerable amount of traffic capacity for future years. As a mitigation measure, in addition to pedestrian improvement and roadway widening on Market, the City would propose the extension of the turn lanes talked about in the study at the intersections of Meade Avenue and Market Street, and Carlton Avenue and Carlton Road. This seems like a relatively cost effective mitigation measure and one that will help the development as well. Please let me know if you wish to discuss these or have any questions. Thank you, Brennen Duncan, PE City Traffic Engineer 4*7 _ SubAppicahonTypm: Date Completed: 08/18/2016 Reviewer: Francis MacCall Division: CDD Admin Zoning Review Review Status: QC OK Reviews Comments: Date Completed: 08/20/2016 Reviewer: Bill Fritz Division: COO Review Status: RequestedChangea Reviews Comments: Date Completed: 00/20/2016 Reviewer: Bill Fritz Division: CDD Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: ����������������������������������� Date Completed: .......... ������������������������������ 00/07/2016 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Division: CDD Inspections Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Date Completed Review Status: Reviews Comments: The residential buildings will require fire sprinkler systems, and it is likely that the restaurant and ndustrial buildings will also. Verify that adequate public water is available to supply fire sprinkler 00/14/2O16 Margaret Maliszewskii Division: Historic Preservation Requested Changes The applicant has indicated in the "Project Proposal" that the historic Woolen Mills property will be preserved and restored, but there is no detail on how this will be accomplished. The extent of preservation and restoration planned is unclear given the extent of renovation that is also planned to accommodate the variety of proposed uses. The applicant should provide some assurance that the property will maintain its architectural and historical integrity and significance. One possible way to accomplish this, if the applicant will be applying for historic rehabilitation tax credits, is to provide the Virginia Department of Histi Resources approvalsfor the d work. Date Completed: 09/26/2016 Reviewer Robbie Gilmer Division: Fire Rescue Review Status: See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Based on ZMA dated 8/15/16. 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning of the property. However the developer needs to work out Fire Rescue access onthe Market Street side nfthe structure. Atthis time the engineer im working on Fire Rescue access on the Broadway Street side of the property. We believe the access on the Broadway Street side ofth i|| be easilyaddressed. Date Completed: 11/08/2010 Reviewer: Bill Fritz Division: COD Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Isee planning documents for summary of comments from meeting with Monticello representative. Page: 1 of 2 County vfAlbemarle Printed On: July uo.uo17 Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: 12/28/2U16 Adam Moore See Recommendations U1/11/2017 Requested Changes Division: VD0T Division: Historic Preservation 1.Prior hofinal site plan approval, provide acopy ofVDHR'sPart 2certification ofthe proposed rehabilitation work. 2. Provide details outlining how the impacts to archaeological resources from the proposed work will be mitigated. 3. Provide a plan for educating the public about the Woolen Mills cultural resources, including but not limited tomarkers, interpretive exhibits, etc. 01/20/2017 Bill Fritz Pending Division: COD Page 2 of 2 County vfAlbemarle Printed On: July 2O.2O1r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 January 26, 2017 Pete Caramanis 200-C Garret Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Woolen Mills (ZMA 2016-16, ZMA 2016-21, SP 2016-27 and SP 2016-28) Dear Mr. Caramanis The applications for the Woolen Mills property have been reviewed and the following comments have been developed: 1. Parking information is still needed. I understand that you have spoken with the Zoning Administrator and that information will be submitted to address parking. This information has not been received. Therefore, we are unable to find that adequate parking is provided for the proposed uses. Based on the information you submit, the Zoning Administrator may be able to reduce the parking. If the parking requirement is not reduced, you may request that the Board of Supervisors reduce the parking requirement. 2. No definition of "live work" has been provided. That information will be important in analyzing any reduction in the parking standards. 3. Additional information is needed in order to adequately review the floodplain impacts. The County Engineer has spoken with your consultants and additional information is expected. This information has not been received. Therefore, we are unable at this time to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the special use permit for activity in the floodplain. 4. The request to amend the Preserved Slopes on the property has been analyzed. Staff will be able to support the change of Preserved Slopes to Managed Slopes on the property with the exception of those slopes immediately adjacent to Moore's Creek. Staff will recommend that those slopes immediately adjacent to Moore's Creek remain as Preserved Slopes. 5. We have received your information regarding the Historic Resources on the property. Thank you for sending that information. 6. The comments on the traffic study show that East Market Street is to have as little traffic as possible. The current proposed proffer to address access states: "The main entrance to the Project shall be from Broadway St. and not from East Market St." This proffer states an intent but is not something that would be readily enforceable. Another proposed proffer, proffer 5, states that the project will be developed consistent with Attachment D made with the rezoning application. In different meetings alternative plans have been displayed. It is possible that the newest plans would address the issue of directing access away from East Market Street and would eliminate the need for a proffer specific to access. Attached are comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation, County Engineer, Design Planner, Albemarle County Schools, Rivanna Water and Sewer, City of Charlottesville and Fire Rescue. The comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation and the City of Charlottesville both discuss bike and pedestrian access. These comments will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Any comments you have addressing bike and pedestrian access will also be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Design Planner has provided comments on the archaeological and historical resources on site may be protected and what educational opportunities may exists. I know from our previous conversations that protection and documentation of the history of this site is important to the developer. The implementation of protection and documentation may be appropriate for a proffer or special use permit condition. The Fire Rescue comments are a continuation of the previous comments. A proffer or special use permit condition may address those concerns. The other comments are provided for your benefit and information. Unless you request deferral these items will be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission in early March. At this time, we would only be able to support approval for ZMA 2016-21 which is the amendment of the Preserved Slopes. Additional information is necessary to review the other applications (parking and floodplain data). After you respond to these comments I will be able to provide comments on possible proffer amendment changes. I would be happy to meet with you and Brian Roy to discuss these comments or any other issues surrounding the development. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Special Projects From: Rainey, Carrie Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:57 PM To: Creasy, Missy; Duncan, Brennen Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Traffic Study I'll defer to Brennan, but my previous thoughts are below. Perhaps a better summary: 1. Market Street could be considered our most sensitive City street affected by this development, due to right-of-way limitations the lack of pedestrian facilities, and residential nature of the street in immediate proximity to the project. 2. About half of daily trips are attributed to the restaurant, but the study only anticipates 15% of site traffic using Market Street. Depending on the availability of spaces in the proposed lot at the end of Market Street, and the consistency of which return customers secure parking in the lot, this percentage may not realistically indicate the impact to Market Street. 3. The kayak area has not been addressed, but is accessed from Market Street. 4. Analysis of potential pedestrian traffic would be useful, given the services proposed in close proximity to City residential areas. From: Rainey, Carrie Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 1:36 PM To: Creasy, Missy; Duncan, Brennen Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Traffic Study I'm still concerned about Market Street- almost half of the daily trips are for the high -turnover restaurant, but the study only anticipates 15% of the site traffic using Market Street. Depending on the availability of spaces in the proposed lot at the end of Market Street, I could see it being more than 15% on Market Street. Hopefully people will not find Market Street worth the effort (a long way around if you don't get a spot), and start using the Broadway after getting burned a few times. The kayak area is a wild card not addressed either. Would have been nice to see pedestrian traffic addressed- I bet a lot of WM residents will walk Market Street to get to the site. Not that there is really room for many improvements in the ROW unfortunately. Carrie Carrie Rainey, RLA Urban Designer/City Planner Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 rainevc@charlottesville.org 434-970-3453 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 December 29, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: William Fritz Re: Traffic Impact Study — Woolen Mills Review #1 Dear Mr. Wentland: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced study as submitted by EPR, PC, dated November 2016, and offers the following comments: 1. The majority of the traffic impacts will be within the city of Charlottesville. The Department recommends working with city staff to evaluate the development's impacts. 2. The Department concurs with the study's recommendation for the extension of the turn Ianes at several of the intersections in the study area where the storage needs exceed the available space. These improvements in most cases can be provided through elimination of some on -street parking and restriping. 3. Given the type of uses proposed, the improvement of pedestrian and bike accommodation facilities should be considered with the project to both provide and improve access for all travel modes. 4. The Department recommends that consideration be given to a partnership by the County and City in and Bike and Pedestrian only bridge across the Rivanna River. If further information is desired please contact me at (434) 422-9782. Sincerely, dam J. oore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Review Comments for ZMA201600021 F Project Name: Woolen Mills Date Completed: Friday, January 13; 2017 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer Frank Pohl € CDD Engineering No Objection Considering the critical slopes are interior to the site (not along a stream bank), impacting these slopes should have no adverse impacts on the public health, welfare and/or safety. Review Comments for 5P201600028 New Special Use Permit T ProjectName: Woolen Mills Date Completed: Friday, January 13, 2011 DepartmentOlvislonlAgency: Review status: d .. ___ --- -._ Engineering Requested Changes Reviewer 9 _ ___ Reviewer:[.,., Pohl � CDD �n �n._ �... _ . -Applicant is required to submit a Floodplain Development Permit prior to recommendation for approval_ including a CLDMR-F application for fill proposed within the floodplain_ The FDP application is located at the following link: http:llwwww.albemarle_orgluploadlimageslforms center/departments/Community_Dovelopmentlforms/applicationsIFloodplain—Dev elopment Permit_pdf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (4341296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT This form is intended to aid the Department in documenting and characterizing the nature of development proposed in the floodplain. Development includes buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. The form responses will be used to determine whether a floodplain impact plan or special use permit is required. Please check one: ❑ New Submittal with no anticipated floodplain impact (no floodplain impact plan) ❑ New Submittal with an anticipated floodplain impact. Please include a floodplain impact plan. FEE required with submittal: $323 (Code 18-35.1g) ❑ FEMA Letter of Map Change (LOMA, LOMR) Please include a complete copy of all material to be submitted to FEMA. Include any computer models (HEC-RASfiles) on a disc. FEE required with submittal: $161 (topographic info only), or $323 (floodplain modeling) ❑ New Submittal with a Zoning Special Use Permit. Please include a floodplain impact plan. FEE required with submittal: $323 ❑ Resubmittal (Floodplain Development Permit Number _ ) Please include your response form from the original submittal. FEE as above required with each resubmittal. A Floodplain Impact Plan, Special Use Permit, or FEMA Map Change will need to follow Zoning Floodplain Overlay District requirements (County Code 18-30.3), found at http://www,albemarle.or.g/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/County_Attorney/Forms/Albemarle_ County Code_ Chl8 Zoning30 Overlay Districtspdf Section 4 of the Design Standards Manual provides a list of required items to be included in a Floodplain Impact Plan. This can be found at http:l/www.albemarle.org/departinent.asp?department—cdd&relpaae=4447. Owner Name (Print) Address City Tax Map & Parcel Number Project Name (if applicable) State Building Permit or Project Number (if applicable) Home Phone Office / Other Phone Zip Code 11/1/2015 Please describe the nature of the development activity proposed within the floodplain (e.g. new structure, grading for a playing field, driveway stream crossing, installation of a fence, etc.): (Please attach any plans or photos to this application) 1. If a structure is proposed, is the structure accessory to a recreational or agricultural use? 2. Does the proposed activity involve a stream crossing for a pedestrian trail or driveway serving a single family dwelling? 3. Does any proposed fencing cross a stream channel? 4. If any fill is proposed, please approximate the proposed amount of fill in the floodplain Owner / Agent Signature (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Checked By (for resubmittals) Fee Amount $ Date Paid By Receipt # Check # Date Date Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA 11/1/2015 From: Rosalyn Schmitt[mallto:rschmitt@kl2albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:23 AM To: Bill Fritz <BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Project Thank you again, for the opportunity to comment. Based on the fact that it is a multifamily complex with primarily I and 2 bedrooms, we would not anticipate many students. Our current yields for multifamily units in the Cale district would estimate the following: 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student and 3 high schools students. I believe Renee Devall spoke with you, but I want to reemphasize her input. From a transportation standpoint, the second entrance is critical to ensure adequate access of our school busses. Thanks, Rosalyn Schmitt Assistant Director of Facilities Planning Albemarle County Public Schools Strategic Planning & Operations 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 t: (434) 974-8015 Ext: 13415 From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfort@rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:23 PM To: Bill Fritz <BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Alex Morrison<amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Subject: ZMA201600021, SP201600027 & SP201600028 - Woolen Mills RWSA has reviewed applications ZMA201600021, SP201600027 & SP201600028. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications. To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal See Below 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X* Yes No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known * The applicant should provide RWSA with an estimate of projected wastewater flows from the development. If the redevelopment of this property will produce wastewater flows in excess of 40,000 gallons per day, a flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. In addition, RWSA has the following comments, which were provided previously in response to CPA201400003 —Woolen Mills: Proposed connections to existing utilities for water and sewer service are subject to review and approval by RWSA and ACSA. The developer, at their own cost, may be required to install a bi-directional/uni-directional master water meter to be owned and operated by RWSA as part of the RWSA Wholesale Water Metering Program. RWSA has existing access and utility easements on the property. RWSA reserves all existing rights associated with its easements, including but not limited to its rights to access, construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of its facilities within the easements. RWSA must be able to access the Moores Creek Wastewater Facility from the back gate at all times. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 From: Rainey, Carrie Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:57 PM To: Creasy, Missy; Duncan, Brennen Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Traffic Study I'll defer to Brennan, but my previous thoughts are below. Perhaps a better summary: 1. Market Street could be considered our most sensitive City street affected by this development, due to right-of-way limitations the lack of pedestrian facilities, and residential nature of the street in immediate proximity to the project. 2. About half of daily trips are attributed to the restaurant, but the study only anticipates 15% of site traffic using Market Street. Depending on the availability of spaces in the proposed lot at the end of Market Street, and the consistency of which return customers secure parking in the lot, this percentage may not realistically indicate the impact to Market Street. 3. The kayak area has not been addressed, but is accessed from Market Street. 4. Analysis of potential pedestrian traffic would be useful, given the services proposed in close proximity to City residential areas. From: Rainey, Carrie Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 1:36 PM To: Creasy, Missy; Duncan, Brennen Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Traffic Study I'm still concerned about Market Street- almost half of the daily trips are for the high -turnover restaurant, but the study only anticipates 15% of the site traffic using Market Street. Depending on the availability of spaces in the proposed lot at the end of Market Street, I could see it being more than 15% on Market Street. Hopefully people will not find Market Street worth the effort (a long way around if you don't get a spot), and start using the Broadway after getting burned a few times. The kayak area is a wild card not addressed either. Would have been nice to see pedestrian traffic addressed- I bet a lot of WM residents will walk Market Street to get to the site. Not that there is really room for many improvements in the ROW unfortunately. Carrie Carrie Rainey, RLA Urban Designer/City Planner Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 raineyc@charlottesville.org 434-970-3453 Review Comments for ZMA201600021 I E Project Name: Een Mills Wednesday; January 18, 2017 Department/DiAsion/Agency: Review Status: DateCompleted] - —. Reviewer. Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue See Recommendations Based on ZMAdated 12105116_ 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning of the property. However the developer needs to work out Fire Rescue access on the Market Street side of the structure. At this time the engineer is working on Fire Rescue access on the Broadway Street side of the property_ We believe the access an the Broadway Street side of the property will be easily addressed. From: Rosalyn Schmitt[mailto:rschmitt@kl2albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:23 AM To: Bill Fritz <BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Woolen Mills Project Thank you again, for the opportunity to comment. Based on the fact that it is a multifamily complex with primarily 1 and 2 bedrooms, we would not anticipate many students. Our current yields for multifamily units in the Cale district would estimate the following: 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student and 3 high schools students. I believe Renee Devall spoke with you, but I want to reemphasize her input. From a transportation standpoint, the second entrance is critical to ensure adequate access of our school busses. Thanks, Rosalyn Schmitt Assistant Director of Facilities Planning Albemarle County Public Schools Strategic Planning & Operations 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 t: (434) 974-8015 Ext: 13415 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: ZMA 2016-16 Woolen Mills File From: Bill Fritz, AICP Date: November 8, 2016 Subject: Monticello Today I spoke with Liz Russell from Monticello about this project. They have received the information about the project and have no formal comments at this time. They may submit formal comments at a later date. It was expressed that Monticello had no specific concerns about the project due to the existing development on site and the character of the area. The built environment surrounding the site is such that any changes made to the is site, parking, new structures, would blend in with the existing development in the area and be essentially undistinguishable from the other development in the area. Therefore, no negative impacts on Monticello are anticipated. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 September 29, 2016 Pete Caramanis 200-C Garret Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2016-16 Woolen Mills Dear Mr. Caramanis Your application for rezoning from LI, Light Industry to C-1 Commercial has been initially reviewed. Comments from various reviewing agencies are attached. The issues that have been identified for your proposed development are: A Special Use Permit application is required for residential use. No review of the potential impact of residential use has been completed at this time. When you submit your special use permit application clarifying what a "live work" unit is will be necessary. 2. A Special Use Permit application is required for activity in the floodplain. This will need to include the information necessary to address the provisions of the flood hazard overlay district. Without a design for the flood control devices and information on any fill it will not be possible to make the necessary findings for approval. Please contact the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, directly to discuss the scope of information that must be submitted for an adequate review of this special use permit. No review of the impact on the floodplain has occurred at this time. 3. The submitted plan shows disturbance of preserved slopes for the construction of a new building and parking. Preserved slopes may not be disturbed as you have proposed. In order for the development you propose to occur, the steep slopes overlay district would have to be amended. Amendment of the district may only occur thm a rezoning. Without amending the steep slopes overlay district, the development shown on the plan will not be approvable even if the rezoning to C-1 and special use permits are approved. Your options are to amend the project so that no preserved slopes are impacted or to submit a rezoning application to amend the steep slopes overlay district. If you submit a rezoning request your options are to request that the steep slopes overlay district is removed from the property or that the slopes are changed from preserved to managed. I would be happy to speak to you further about these options. No review of the potential impact of a change in the steep slopes overlay district has occurred at this time. 4. A traffic study is required pursuant to the State Code and Virginia Administrative Code (§ 15.2- 2222.1 and 24 VAC 30-155-40). We have met to discuss this and I understand that a study is being prepared. 5. The proposal is critically under parked. Without waivers for parking and loading spaces the project could not be approved for construction even if rezonings and special use permits are granted. A reduction may be requested as provided in Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 4.12.2(c) The Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, has also commented on this. Please contact her directly to coordinate submitting a request for reduction. 6. Provision of fire access to the existing buildings will be difficult. It is my understanding that you have been working directly with Robbie Gilmer with Albemarle County Fire Rescue. Any requirements to achieve adequate fire access to the site should be reflected on the plan so that it can be determined if impacts occur that are best addressed during the legislative review stage or if the impacts should be left to the site plan stage. There may also be impacts that do not require changes on site but impact the immediate area. If those impacts occur they will also have to be addressed. 7. Your proposed use for the new building is not permitted in the C-1, Commercial district but is permitted in the existing LI, Light Industry zoning. It is recommended that you modify your request so that the area of the proposed new building is not rezoned. This will require the submission of a survey to indicate the boundaries of the area to be rezoned to C-1, Commercial and what is to remain as LI, Light Industry. 8. The comments from the Zoning Administrator and Virginia Department of Transportation include requests for changes to the submitted plan. These changes are potentially significant and should be included on the plan. 4. The Livery use that is considered for the site should be further explained or removed from the plan. Depending on how the use will be operated and located a special use permit may be required. 10. Please provide additional intormation to address how the buildings historic value will be retained. Comments from Margaret Maliszewski provide a possible way of doing this. You may want to contact her directly to discuss how best to address this comment. 11. The comment about water supply for the fire sprinkIer system is provided for your benefit. This comment does not have to be addressed at the legislative review stage. However, adequate public water supply must be provided to the site and detailed information on how this will be done will be required during the review of the site plan. 12. The comments from Rivanna Water and Sewer are provided for you benefit. This comment does not have to be addressed at the legislative review stage. However, all of the comments will have to be addressed during the review of the site plan. 13. The property appears to be located within both a State and Federal Dam Break Inundation Zone. This comment does not have to be addressed at the legislative review stage. However, you will be required to submit the necessary documentation during the site plan review stage and address any impacts. 14. The residential development requires that recreation areas be provided. (Reference Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 4.16) These facilities will need to be provided or a modification requested. The provision of the facilities or the modification request does not need to be addressed with the rezoning. It is provided for your information in the event that you intend to request a modification. If that is your intent, the modification may be processed with the rezoning. The Community Meeting for this project is scheduled for October 11. Additional comments may be developed as a result of that meeting. A j oint work session of the City and County Planning Commissions is scheduled for October 25. Additional comments may be developed as a result of that meeting. Following the joint work session I will contact you to determine the submittal and review schedule for ZMA 2016-16. At this time I recommend that all the identified rezoning, special use permit and variation applications be processed at the same time. This will require a delay in the scheduling of ZMA 2016-16 which is the only application we have received so far. If you have any questions about any of these comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Special Projects ra County of Albemarle _Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Bill Fritz, Special Projects Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: September 21, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2016-016 Woolen Mills - Initial Zoning Comments The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application(s). 1. Property and Uses a. Please consider maintaining the Ll industrial zoning on the portion of the property proposed for the new industrial building. This maintains the industrially -zoned inventory consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It also allows much broader industrial use than would be allowed by C1 Commercial zoning. If you decide to only rezone a portion of the property as recommended, please provide a to delineate the two: that remaining as LI and that portion proposed for C1. b. Please address the steep slopes regulations and show them on the plan. If disturbance of steeps slopes is proposed that are not justified by field -run topo, please submit a ZMA to address this. This is not handled through a waiver as noted on the site plan. c. Is the livery use proposed within the FHOD? If yes, it will require a special use permit. If not, which use within C1 is it proposed to fall within? d. Please explain the live/work use proposal? Will it be done within the current home occupation restrictions or will the two uses be independent although related (and therefore stand on their own as residential and commercial)? e. Please explain the intent of the language "without limitation" in reference to by - right uses under C-1 including labstresearch facilities, manufacturing/processing facilities, etc. f. Exhibit C refers to furniture shop with residential! Please explain how this is residential. Zoning Review Comments for ZMA 2016-016 Woolen Mills 2. Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) a. Please provide notes on the plan to explain the floodmap/elevation change and status. Please also clearly depict the new flood elevation (floodway and fringe) on the plan. Show the proposed extent of the new flood wall. 3. Proffers — the submittal narrative refers to attached proffer form? 4. Parking — the proposed plan proposed significantly less parking than required by the Zoning Ordinance. Because this can be a major redesign and/or feasibility issue, we recommend that this be addressed to some degree even at the rezoning stage. If overflow parking is needed, are there any options for where this can be provided? Restaurants are one of the highest parking generators and the proposed restaurant area is large. Please provide both a parking study, any traffic demand measures and any other proposals that justify almost 50% less parking. (See Sections 4.12.8, 4.12.9, 4.12.10 and 4.12.12) 5. Impacts on Public Facilities and Infrastructure — Please address impacts on Market Street. 6. Fire Access — Please work with the Fire/Rescue Department to adequately provide fire access to the structures. 7. Items to be Shown on the Plan a. Trail — show the trail connections on the plan; b. FHOD — show the existing and proposed floodway and fringe elevations; c. DBIZ — show the dam break inundation zone d. Steep slopes — show and note which are preserved and managed steep slopes Bill Fritz From: Mazurowski, Alan (VDH) <Alan.Mazurows ki@vdh.virginia.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 14,2016 12:04 PM To: Bill Fritz Subject: Woolen Mills Redevelopment Plan review, Project #: ZMA2016000016 Mr. Fritz, As requested by your department, I have reviewed the 8-15-16 Woolen Mills Redevelopment Plan for compliance with VDH regulations. The plan does not specify how water and sewer needs will be addressed, however, it does indicate existing water and sewer easements on the property, so I assume all new construction/renovation will be connected to public systems. Recommendation: Approval Conditions: Connection to public water and sewer systems Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, Alan Alan Mazurowski Environmental Health Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-972-4306 office 434-972-4310 fax 1 Project Name: Date Completed: Review Comments ZMA201600016 Joolen Mills Nednesday, September 14, 2016 Reviewer Margaret Maliszewski DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Histori+e Preservation Reviews Comments: _—__. __— E The applicant has indicated in the `Project Proposal' that the historic Woolen Mills property will be preserved and restored, but there is no detail on how this will be accomplished. The extent of preservation and restoration planned is unclear given the extent of renovation that is also planned to accommodate the variety of proposer[ uses. The applicant should provide some assurance that the property will maintain its architectural and historical integrity and significance. One possible way to accomplish this, if the applicant will be applying for historic rehabilitation tax credits, is to provide the Virginia Department of Historic Resources approvals for the proposed work. Review status: Requested Changes f Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 10912712016 Review Comments ZMA201600016 Project Name: doolen Mills Date Completed: , hednesday. September 07 2016 ---� Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer D e partm a ntO lvisi o n/Agency: Inspections Reviews Comments: W The reside ntia[ t}uiIdi"s gill requite fire sPrinlder s sterne and it +s liWy that the restauranT and industrial buildings will also_ Verify that adequate public water is available to st,pOy dire spnnkler systems_ Review Status: Requested Changes Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 09!2712016 Review Comments ZMA201600016 ProjectName: ifoolen Mills pate' Completed: � Monday, September 26, 2016 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer I)epartmenVDivislon/Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments: Based on ZMA dated 8115116. 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning of the property. However the developer needs to work out Fire Rescue access on the Market Street side of the structure_ At this time the engineer is working on Fire Rescue access on the Broadway Street side of the property. We believe the access on the Broadway Street side of the property will be easily addressed_ Review Status: See Recommendations Page: I County of Albemarle Printed On: 09127/2016 Bill Fritz From: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:31 PM To: Bill Fritz Cc: Alex Morrison Subject: ZMA2016000016 Woolen Mills RWSA has reviewed application ZMA201600016 Woolen Mills. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications. To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X Yes No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal See comments below re: water connections 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) See comments below re: water connections In addition, RWSA has the following comments: 1. The applicant should provide RWSA with an estimate of projected wastewater flows from the development. If the redevelopment of this property will produce wastewater flows in excess of 40,000 gallons per day, a flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. 2. Proposed connections to existing utilities for water and sewer service are subject to review and approval by RWSA and ACSA. 3. If there is a need to tie in the City and ACSA systems in order to supply enough water to the site, the developer, at their own cost, may be required to install a bi-directional/uni-directional master water meter to be owned and operated by RWSA as part of the RWSA Wholesale Water Metering Program. 4. RWSA has existing access and utility easements on the property. RWSA reserves all existing rights associated with its easements, including but not limited to its rights to access, construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of its facilities within the easements. RWSA must be able to access the Moores Creek Wastewater Facility from the back gate at all times. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1801 Oran¢a Road Cu4m @r, 4Arpiwa 227o1 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner September 26, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Bill Fritz Re: Woolen Mills Redevelopment Application Plan ZMA-2016-000016 Review #1 Dear Mr. Fritz: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, slated August 15, 2016, and offers the following comments: Land Use 1. All submissions please provide street names, speed limit, and right of way width on all plan sheets, 2. Associated TIA has not been submitted, further continents will be provided upon review of the associated study. 3. Please indicate adequate turn around for vehicles in panting area. 4. Turn lane analysis may be required for Broadway Street. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other requirements. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process Sincerely, N41k- 4� Adam J. M re, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Peter J. Caramanis and Brian Roy From: Bill Fritz, AICP Date: August 29, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2016-16 Woolen Mills I have been able to conduct an initial review of this application and develop some comments. Below is a list of the major issues that have been identified: - Special Use Permit application is required for residential use. - Special Use Permit application is required for activity in the floodplain. This will need to include the information necessary to address the provisions of the flood hazard overlay district. Without a design for the flood control devices and information on any fill it will not be possible to make the necessary findings for approval. The submitted plan shows disturbance of preserved slopes for the construction of a new building and parking. Preserved slopes may not be disturbed as you have proposed. In order for the development you propose to occur, the steep slopes overlay district would have to be amended. Amendment of the district may only occur thru a rezoning. Without amending the steep slopes overlay district, the development shown on the plan will not be approvable even if the rezoning to C-1 and the special use permits are approved. - A traffic study is required pursuant to the State Code and Virginia Administrative Code 015.2-2222.1 and 24 VAC 30-155-40 ) - The proposal is critically under parked. Without waivers for parking and loading spaces the project could not be approved for construction even if the rezonings and special use permits are granted. A reduction may be requested as provided in Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 4.12.2(c) (See below for detailed parking/loading comments.) Provision of fire access to the existing buildings will be difficult. I have met with Robbie Gilmer with Albemarle County Fire Rescue. I recommend you consult with him prior to submitting the special use permit for activity in the floodplain or rezoning for steep slopes as some solutions may potentially require development in the floodplain or disturbance of steep slopes. Disturbance of the Water Protection Area buffers may also be required. Other issues have also been identified. At this time I am not sure if they are major issues but they are issues that will need to be addressed: - The property is in the Dam Break Inundation Zone (both State and Federal). This will require additional evaluation to determine the full impact of this designation. This information is being provided so that you are aware of the issue. At this time the impact of the Inundation Zone requirements is not known. The residential development requires that recreation areas be provided. (Reference Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 4.16) These facilities will need to be provided or a modification requested. The provision of the facilities or the modification request does not need to be addressed with the rezoning. It is provided for your information in the event that you intend to request a modification. If that is your intent, the modification may be processed with the rezoning. - Industrial use is proposed for the new building. If it is truly intended for industrial use it may be appropriate to amend the rezoning application to leave that area as industrial and only rezone the existing building area. (Please note that as proposed the new building and associated parking would disturb preserved slopes, see comments above.) The above are those issues that have been identified at this time. I have received no comments from any other agencies and my review continues. Additional comments may be developed. Without a traffic study neither I nor VDOT will not be able to conduct a complete review. A community meeting will be required for this project. I will be working with the City to develop a list of those to be notified. I don't know when you want to hold the community meeting. I recommend that it be held as soon as feasible. Turning to the next steps in the process; the necessary Special Use Permits, Rezoning and modification applications should be submitted as soon as possible. I anticipate receiving comments from other agencies for ZMA 2016-16 during September. A consolidated set of comments will be prepared by me by September 30. The schedule for receiving comments from other agencies on the additional applications will depend upon the submittal dates of those applications. After the traffic study is submitted, and when comments from VDOT are received, I recommend that this project be scheduled for a work session with the Planning Commission. I have not spoken with the Chair of the Commission yet about this project. However, based on the past history of interest in this site and another rezoning in the Woolen Mills area I believe that the Commission will likely want to hold a joint work session with the City Planning Commission. As you may imagine scheduling a joint session can be complicated so that sooner we start planning for it the better. You do have the right to request that this item proceed directly to public hearing after you receive the comments on September 30. However, based on where the review currently stands, and will likely stand at the end of September I do not recommend that this project proceed directly to public hearing. I believe a work session will be most appropriate to allow the other applications (rezoning special use permits, modifications) to catch up. It will also allow a full vetting of the issues so that the necessary information can be provided to the Planning Commission to allow them to make an informed recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please feel free to contact me to discuss any of these issues.