HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000018 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-05-04o �
�IRC;
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 4, 2016
Frank R. Stoner
Milestone Partners
300 2nd Street NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201000018: Crozet Square
Dear Frank:
Thank you for the submittal of April 18, 2016. Staff have reviewed the narrative, the proposed
plan, the proffers and the traffic impact analysis. Our comments are provided below:
The Proposed Plan
In the proposed plan, seen to the right, you
are showing three blocks, 4 parking areas,
a public street to ultimately connect with
Hilltop Drive, and another potential future
connection from High Street.
The level of commitment to this plan is
unclear from the proposed proffers (for
more information, please see comments
on proffers later in this letter). It seems
that, although there are blocks, parking
areas, and connections shown, the only
thing for which a commitment is being
made is the public street system.
As we have discussed previously,
development of a grid is the preferred
pattern for this downtown area. This can
be achieved by making a commitment to provide a private street network, which could include
"parking lot streets" as seen in the dashed lines on the following page:
VDOT has said, "This network has
to provide two functions. It has to
connect the developments to the
east (i.e. Parkside Village, Creekside,
etc.) to Library Ave and onto Crozet
Ave., and provide access to the
development itself. This can be
accomplished in two ways: one is to
provide a continuous facility
through the property; or two is to
build parallel facilities with
connecting roads (a grid) that can
spread out the crossing movements
between the two roadways." While
VDOT has said they would prefer
a single continuous road, they
had said that the grid is also
acceptable.
I know that we talked previously about the need to extend Library Street onto your property if
the adjoining owners to the south won't provide r.o.w. across the northern part of their
properties. However, VDOT sees operational issues with the curvature of the road as shown on
your plan. They believe that it creates a movement that will encourage speed and show
preference to a travel movement that does not honor the grid system. In addition, the curve sets
up an unapprovable offset with High Street.
We would support the network as shown on the image below. If r.o.w. from the adjoining owners
is not available Library Street should be extended across your property in the general location
— ---- below. Again,
according to VDOT,
"For the network
option both roadways
and the connecting
roads (minimum 2)
would be public with
�...�� similar design
features. The roads
within the Phase 1
V area should be shown
and constructed as
` part of that
phase. Parallel
parking can be
included if
desired. The
--- intersection treatment
should also be considered in the design. (Note that if all -way stops are warranted and used,
roundabouts should be considered as the preferred treatment. The desire here is to identify the road
network both public and private and deal with the road attributes at site plan."
You will note that you proposed the configuration below late last year, which we said we could
support (minus the RR crossing). You told us early this year that it would not work because it
couldn't meet the
— - expectations of the
community for a grid
network. VDOT has
x told us that this is an
example of the
continuous facility and
would be acceptable.
When you resubmit, it
will be important to
show the offsite road
network because your
traffic study showed
the need for
modifications to the
current entrance from
Crozet Avenue to the
Square. Specifically,
the traffic study noted
that this connection
needs to be included
as it is being converted to a right -in only or possibly a right in/out. The study identifies this as an
essential improvement and VDOT concurs. As we have discussed previously, this change
cannot be made without working with the business owners along The Square. Have you done
this? If not, you will need to win the support of the community for this change and enlist their
help with the business owners.
VDOT has also said that "The study shows the intersections Library Ave. and Jarmans Gap Rd and
Three Notch Rd. with Crozet Ave., which are impacted by the development, will require improvements
to continue to function acceptably with the development. Based on the study the Phase 1 Build scenario
of the development reduces the Level of Service and increases the Delay in both peak hour periods at
both Three Notch Rd and Library Ave intersections to unacceptable levels ('E' with 47 Sec. of Delay and F
with 204 Sec. of delay respectively), and reduce the EB approach LOS on Jarmans Gap Rd. to an 'E' with
40 sec. of delay. This will require improvements to these intersections. These improvements need to be
designed and included with the Phase 1 scenario site plans.
We note that the traffic study implies that someone other than the applicant will make the
physical improvements at Crozet Avenue and Library Street. At present, the County does not
have money for the improvements nor are they programmed into any CIP. Whether or when
they get on the CIP is not known. VDOT may or may not be willing to fund these physical
improvements. Once thresholds are established, future development will likely need to be
conditioned on those improvements.
The Plan and proffers indicate that you aren't willing to improve High Street to the intersection
with Tabor Street. VDOT has said that partial improvements to High Street will not work. As with
Crozet Avenue and Library Street, the County does not have money for improvements to High
Street nor are they programmed into any CIP. Whether or when they get on the CIP is not
known. The timing for the full improvement to Tabor Street should be established with this
zoning.
In summary, we recommend that you make the following changes and commitments:
1. Make a commitment to build according to the plan.
2. Denote public and private streets or travelways on the plan so that it is clear that a grid
and blocks are being created and that not all streets are expected to be public.
3. Please do not show the location of the parking lots unless you plan to build them at that
location.
4. Show parallel and perpendicular streets/travelways on the plan, rather than the curved
extension of Library Ave. into the site.
5. If you cannot obtain the r.o.w. across lots to the south of the site, Library Street should
be extended across your property.
VDOT's full set of comments are attached. However, we have not had a chance to talk to VDOT
about them to understand what kinds of commitments other than those above might be needed.
A follow-up meeting with all of us at the table is strongly recommended.
Affordable Housing (attached comments from Ron White)
No residential buildings are proposed with this ZMA; however, we note that you have provided
proffers for affordable housing. We commend you for this addition.
Entrance Corridor (from Margaret Maliszewski)
1. Standard Entrance Corridor landscaping will be required and can be reviewed with the site
plan. A landscape strip will be needed along the railroad side of the development, free of
utilities and easements. Allow for utility -free planting area along all streets, parking areas,
cul-de-sacs, hammerheads, etc. Note that the purpose of the Entrance Corridor overlay is to
establish buildings that have an appropriate appearance, and to enhance the development
with landscaping. It is not the intent of the EC overlay to use landscape screening to hide
inappropriately designed development. Approval of the application plan should allow for
shifting of streets, parking and other site improvements to allow for landscaping to satisfy
Entrance Corridor requirements.
2. It is anticipated that the development will be inward oriented. Nevertheless, the elevations of
buildings visible from the Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue Entrance Corridors
should not have a "back of building" appearance. The ARB will expect fully designed
elevations with careful attention to materials, colors, details, proportions and the relative
scale of buildings to each other. The applicant may find that a work session with the ARB
could provide the needed guidance in this regard.
RWSA/ACSA
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Victoria Fort) has provided these comments:
1. The development will require a flow capacity certification from RWSA prior to final site plan
approval.
2. RWSA does not reserve capacity in its system for specific development projects. Substantial
changes in future average daily flow to the RWSA systems, changes in regulations, and
other future factors could result in changes in RWSA's capability to accept additional flow.
3. RWSA will need to review an estimate of wastewater flows from this development in addition
to a projected build -out schedule in order to better determine whether adequate capacity will
exist to serve this development.
In addition to these general comments, on page 4 of 5 of the cover letter resubmittal, the
applicant states that "the applicant's expectation is that the County will invest in the public
facilities and services needed to serve the Barnes Lumber Redevelopment and the DCD in
general". RWSA agrees with ACSA's previous comment that this language regarding
expectations should be removed from the application.
Albemarle County Service Authority (Jeremy Lynn) has provided these comments:
1. Remove language which states "expectations" by the applicant in regards to the ACSA
funding infrastructure improvements for this development.
2. Add language which portrays the following information: The ACSA and RWSA are working
towards a common goal to reduce I&I within the Crozet Wastewater system. In addition to
the ongoing wastewater rehabilitation an FEB study will begin in Fiscal Year 2017. An
RWSA capacity certification will be required during the final site plan stage. The ACSA will
apply for the RWSA capacity certification on the developer's behalf during the final site plan
stage. The developer should submit a draft construction schedule, when available, so the
ACSA can review the projected wastewater flows. Once the wastewater improvements
schedule is determined, the ACSA will review it in conjunction with the Crozet Square
construction schedule and comment accordingly.
3. General Comment: The ACSA and RWSA are unable to provide wastewater capacity
certification for a 10 year build out of the project. Wastewater capacity certification will occur
during the final site plan stage.
4. General Comment: Capacity cannot be reserved and is on a first come first serve basis at
the time of application for service.
5. General Comment: A pre -pay connection fee does not reserve capacity within the water or
wastewater system.
Stormwater Management
1. As you may remember, stormwater management was an issue discussed at the last
Planning Commission meeting. A conceptual plan for stormwater management is needed for
this rezoning. It cannot be postponed to the site plan stage.
Other Engineering Comments — attached from John Anderson
Proffers
• The list of TMPs should include a portion of 056A2-01-00-02500.
The DCD is not a planned district, so Section 8.5.5.3 is not applicable and the plan you
provide cannot be treated as an Application Plan for which variations can be approved. You
may refer to your plan as an Application Plan, but referring to it as a Rezoning Plan is also
possible.
• Please be very clear as to whether you are proffering a plan of development and if so, which
elements are being proffered. It is recommended that you provide a proffered plan rather
than a "concept plan" or "schematic plan".
1. Please see comments about transportation improvements at the beginning of this letter.
2. It will be important to identify who decides on the location for and elements of the civic
space. You may wish to add something to the effect that the location for and elements of the
civic space must be approved by the Director of Community Development or Planning after
consultation with the Crozet Community Advisory Committee.
3. See attachment on Affordable Housing.
As of today, I have not received comments from the Zoning Division; however, I expect them on
Monday and I will send them to you as soon as I get them.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be
found at this address:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Develop
ment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter.
If you choose to go directly to public hearing without addressing these comments, staff will need
to know a minimum of twenty-one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing
so that a legal ad may be placed and notifications to neighbors sent.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email
address is eechols@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Acting Chief of Planning
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
From: John Anderson, Interim VSMP Administrator
Note: Initial, Rev. 1-6 comments by Glenn E. Brooks, PE, County Engineer
Date: 18 Jan 2011
Revision 1: 10 Mar 2011
Rev.2: 10 June 2011
Rev.3: 3 Apr 2012
Rev.4: 22 Jan 2014
Rev.5: 25 Mar 2014
Rev.6: 14 May 2014
Rev.7: 6 May 2016 (J. Anderson)
Subject: Crozet Square (ZMA201000018)
revision 7;
1. Phase 1 should include and show Phase 1 roadway improvements, especially conceptual roadway along
south edge, Phase 1, shown/proposed in Exhibit 4 submitted to the county in January (Image; Also, 7_c.,
below). This road supports block design objective and should be included with ZMA proffered plan.
2.
Conceptual SECONDARY STREET along the south edge of Phase 1 does not meet minimum VDOT
spacing requirements at intersection with High St. (Note closeness of future SECONDARY STREET
connection to High St -Library St intersection.)
Two conceptual alternatives (submitted with previous Applications) are recommended, below:
e11
Engineering Review
Page 2 of 7
As the expectation from the community is for a grid system, Library Street should follow the
southern property line, without a curve, and High Street should be extended northward to intersect
with PRIMARY STREET to create blocks, see below:
b. Alternatively, a configuration similar to what was proposed late last year (minus the pedestrian RR
crossing), see below, could be acceptable:
We understand the configuration above does not set the grid pattern with phase 1, but variations on
what is shown above, with a relocated traffic circle might also be possible.
Engineering Review
Page 3 of 7
This overlay may be helpful:
4. The Phase 1 grid: the proffered plan shows not only 2 (presumed) public streets, but a series of parking
lots with perpendicular parking. We believe that, unless Applicant proffers specific parking areas with
the plan, the plan should show public and private streets and not parking areas. Private streets might be
Neighborhood Model type streets or they may be "parking lot streets", but if a grid is intended, it needs
to be shown. It is suggested that streets in purple, above, be shown on the proffered plan as private
Neighborhood Model -type streets or travelways within parking lots.
5. Discussion during 28-April meeting with VDOT (C. Proctor, Joel DeNunzio) highlights need for a
physical barrier that will prevent southbound traveling left turns from Crozet Ave into the Square.
Right turn ingress only is proposed with TIA. Please provide barrier design with proffered plan.
6. Engineering supports VDOT preference for Library St. -Primary St. through -street design without stop
movement /stop sign, with radius curve meeting VDOT 200' Min.
7. TIA (EPR PC, by Jeanie Alexander, P.E., April 2016):
a. Appendix J includes 2019 signal warrant analysis for a traffic signal at Crozet Ave-Jarmans
Gap Rd, and Crozet Ave -Library Ave (Bill Wuensch; 29-Mar, 2016). TIA, pg. iii, Summary
of Recommendations, Library Ave, states: "Installation of a traffic signal at Library Avenue is
warranted and necessary for efficient access to, from, and within the Barnes Lumber site. Per
the MUTCD Signal Warrants, both the peak hour and four hour warrants are met in 2019 and
2029." Recommend proffers include date of signal installation at Crozet Ave -Library Avenue
be tied to phased development, to threshold commercial space, for example. Thresholds will
need to be established as to when signal or other physical improvements are needed (Also
#5.).
b. Pg. 6, Table 5 shows the Square is proposed to be an un-signalized, right turn ingress only,
under all design scenarios. Recommend Phase 1 Land Use & Transportation Plan, Exhibit A,
d. 02/03/2016 include Crozet Ave design elements; that Phase 1 show plan view design of
intersections at The Square and Crozet Ave, and signal at Library Ave and Crozet Ave.
Engineering Review
Page 4 of 7
c. Recommend TIA include SECONDARY STREET -High St. Intersection analysis, a Phase I
intersection. See Figure 16 -2029 Phase 2 Schematic Plan, Ex. 3, Schematic Site Plan, incl.
with schematics near end of thinner volume: TIA, Barnes Lumber Site, Phase 1, April 2016.
8. Engineering supports Planning view that developer is going to have to work something out with the
businesses on the Square, including timing for when change (right turn ingress only) to the entrance to
The Square (St.) may or will occur.
9. Revise unconventional design (SW corner of Phase 1) where Library St. width narrows as it enters
Phase 1. This design will challenge driving behavior by forcing drivers to cross /swing into path of
vehicles exiting the Library, and heading toward Crozet Ave. Proposed Phase 1 design runs counter to
driver expectation by forcing drivers on Library St. to venture somewhat into westbound lane at a point
near the SW corner of Phase 1, before continuing eastward.
10. Apr-4 2016 Applicant /Milestone letter states "All technical infrastructure and storm water design
issues will be addressed at the preliminary and final site plan levels of the development process."
ZMAs require conceptual stormwater management design and narrative that may take the form of
"County approval of a master stormwater plan obtained prior to the first initial site plan approval."
[Ref. ZMA201500007; Brookhill Subdivision; Alb. County] Recommend Applicant provide SWM master
plan prior to initial site plan for review /approval, and ensure condition is met through proffered plan.
11. Recommend extend improvements to High Street (to accommodate traffic) down to the intersection
with Tabor.
revision 6:
The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use;
1. The traffic study provided with this revision raises some essential questions regarding signals
and improvements on Crozet Avenue (SR810). There appears to be a conflict in that more
signals are recommended, but VDOT will not allow them due to spacing requirements on the
roadway. The off -set between Library Avenue (SR867) and Jarman's Gap Road (SR691) is too
short to allow significant improvement. The Square is also too close to Three Notched Road
(SR240) and Library Ave. It would appear that the county and VDOT need to eliminate or
consolidate one or more of these intersections for impacts to be addressed.
2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this,
the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10.
3. A stormwater concept plan has been provided with this revision. This plan provides fairly
standard stormwater management for individual blocks on the west, and a basin in the buffer
area for blocks on the east. This appears to comply in concept with the WPO. The buffer area
impact may be a problem per comment 2. It should be noted that the approval of buffer impacts
are part of the rezoning approval.
revision S:
The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use;
1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues
resolved, and the accompanying off -site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be
recommended for approval.
2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this,
the buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the
southeast corner of the site cannot be recommended for approval.
3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More
room may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3.
Engineering Review
Page 5 of 7
4. It is not recommended that the county approve dimensions on road sections with a rezoning.
Plans are too preliminary to agree on widths. It is not clear what is meant by a shared travel
lane.
5. Proposed proffer 1 references sections and details which were not found. Each of the phases needs to
build on the other if they are to proceed in order. Library Avenue, the central connecting road, should
be built completely regardless of phases, if it is the intention that phases can be built in any order. This
would apply to any other necessary improvements such as off -site transportation improvements, or
stormwater management.
revision 4:
The revised application plan has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for planning use;
1. The traffic issues are still unresolved, as noted in previous revisions. Without these issues
resolved, and the accompanying off -site impacts and mitigation, no road layout can be recommended for
approval.
2. A stream assessment has not been performed, as noted in revisions 2 and 1. Without this, the
buffer must continue further west, as noted in revision 1 comment 10. The layout in the southeast corner
of the site cannot be recommended for approval.
3. It does not appear that adequate planning for stormwater management has been done. More room
may be needed even to meet current regulations. See revision 1 comment 3.
4. The plan needs to specify which roads are public.
5. The hard right turns for the roads serving the southern blocks, and The Square, do not meet
geometric road requirements. These will not be acceptable.
6. T-turnarounds are not recommended. They end up as parking spaces for nearby units.
7. The 5-road intersection roundabout will require splitter islands and tighter dimensions on the
southern side to maintain flow and lane widths.
8. It is not clear how the road sections apply when no median is shown on the layout.
revision 3;
This revision consisted only of a letter proposing changes to the rezoning and traffic study. The original
traffic study reviewed by VDOT has not incorporated prior comments from VDOT. It is not considered an
acceptable study until the VDOT comments are satisfactorily addressed. When those comments are
resolved, this proposed letter amending the study and rezoning should address the following points;
a. The study should be amended and the full study and results provided for VDOT and County review.
This letter only included a brief table of results. It is not clear what road connections or other assumptions
were used for the partially built phases.
b. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in terms of development areas and blocks
on the application plan.
c. The phases referenced to be developed need to be defined in relation to street and intersection
improvements.
d. The phasing and plans need to be proffered in some manner that is easily enforceable. Using traffic
trip data and future studies is not practical. The phases need to be defined in terms of square footage,
certificates of occupancy, and areas on the plan.
e. Physical improvements need to be in place to mitigate impacts from the development before it occurs.
The letter proposes a scheme whereby improvements are built only after development and studies prove the
impacts are already there.
Engineering Review
Page 6 of 7
revision 2;
The revised conceptual plan has been reviewed. As I understand it, only the conceptual plan counts. The
sheet titled "application plan" is not actually an application plan, but only an exhibit provided for
informational purposes, and irrelevant to zoning enforcement. As such, it has not been reviewed.
The conceptual plan itself appears acceptable, with a few minor concerns;
1. It is not clear the right-of-way would be acceptable with the corner of the railroad property
as shown.
2. The islands in the right -in -right -out entrances are not recommended. Only a median really works
to limit these movements.
3. Roadway parking on the inside of the curve may be a problem.
We await further information before finalizing review. Specifically, the traffic study and possible
mitigating improvements are pending. Also, I have requested a professional assessment of the
intermittent stream on the south side of the property to ascertain the extent of the Water Protection
Ordinance stream buffer.
revision l;
The new concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This plan is much more detailed than the last
concept plan, but I am concerned that we have not yet seen a proffered plan. The substantial time and
effort spent on possible concepts may be time wasted, if none of it is proffered, whenever we finally
receive the real application. Furthermore, it may be misleading to the public and to elected officials, if the
plans they are shown are not to be implemented. So, as with the last submittal, a complete review is not
possible until an actual application plan (not just a concept) is provided with the application.
1. The geometry of Main Street is much improved with this revision, but the number of entrances
may be a difficulty with the VDOT standards, as was indicated by VDOT in preliminary meetings.
2. The road connecting Main Street to The Square should be a public road, as it will connect two
public roads.
3. Rather than the complex notes on sheet 3, it would be more clear to provide a proffer to address
stormwater management. It appears the intent is to provide stormwater quality treatment above the
ordinance requirements, specifically to a 35-50% removal rate on -site. The re -use of water on -site, green
roofs, and pervious pavers are also measures beyond ordinance requirements that could be proffered, but
some quantitative commitment is needed. I think the applicant will find these measures over -ambitious
during final construction plans, so specifying areas or having a proffered plan is essential. Stormwater
detention and the pro -rated fee to Lickinghole Basin are required by ordinance, and should not be confused
with commitments with the rezoning.
4. This concept revision incorporates the railroad property in the development. It would appear that
an interim plan is needed, should the railroad property not be acquired. It is not clear how the circulation
will function without this property, and they are not on the application as I understand it.
5. The circulation loop between buildings 13 to 15 utilizes the public road at one end. This needs
to be revised. Plans should not include public roads in site parking circulation.
6. The drop-offs on the roadways should maintain minimum radii (12.5') so exiting and entering
vehicles can stay within their lane.
Engineering Review
Page 7 of 7
7. It is noted that although the typical street sections show planting strips and street trees, most of the
plan does not allow for them, instead placing sidewalks flush with the parking lane, or removing sidewalks
to run closer to the property lines. Typical sections should be typical.
8. Should the property be subdivided in the future for buildings, or building and parking parcels, it
will be difficult to establish which travelways are private streets for purposes of the subdivision ordinance,
and how standards apply. It would be helpful to plan for any subdivisions or phasing with the
rezoning.
9. The plan should clarify what parts of main -street have already been constructed, and
where the applicant's improvements begin. This is also true to The Square.
10. Upon field inspection, it is evident that the stream and buffer actually continue further west.
While stormwater management is allowed within the buffer according to the conditions of 17 -320B,
this plan appears to replace the stream and buffer with a developed landscape. The intent of the
ordinance is that these facilities can enhance or help in the preservation of the stream, typically being
placed at the edges of the buffer. In the words of the ordinance, "The facilities are designed and
constructed so as to minimize impacts to the functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water
quality." This also holds true for the walking paths and footbridges. The buildings and parking within
the stream buffer which extends further west will need to be moved, or an exception granted according
to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-308.
11. The traffic study is still outstanding. Impacts to the surrounding road network and possible
mitigation improvements are critical. Issues that have been raised in preliminary meetings are the
proximity of signals at The Square and Meeting Street not meeting VDOT standards, and the amount of
traffic to assume from future connections to the east.
12. There is currently an unpermitted stockpile on the site without any erosion control measures. From
the topography, this appears to have happened in the past also. This current stockpile needs to be
removed, or stabilized and permanently seeded.
Original comments of 18 Jan 2011;
The concept plan for Crozet Square has been reviewed. This is the only document received with the
rezoning, so a complete review must wait until more comprehensive documentation is provided with the
application. For purposes of discussion, I have provided below a layout of the plan on county mapping
(omitted with revision 1).
1. The Main Street extension should avoid the hard left and rotation around the green space before
continuing through to Hilltop Street. It is recommended that a design more closely adhering to the Crozet
Master Plan be used, which calls for bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, street trees, a possible
median, fewer access points to parking areas, etc.
2. The documents should clarify which roads are to be public roads.
3. The documents should provide preliminary sizing for stormwater management, and/or indicate
what other measures will be used within the development.
4. A traffic study meeting the VDOT 527 guidelines appears to be required. A scoping meeting
should be scheduled.
ZMA201000018 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment_050616_rev7.docx
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI IA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
May 6, 2016
Ms. Elaine Echols
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Comments on the traffic study and concept plan for the Barnes Lumber Property
Crozet, Va.
Dear Ms. Echols:
I have completed my review of the traffic study done by EPR for the Milestone Partners LLC,
and have the following comments:
The internal network has to provide two functions. It connects the developments to the
east (i.e. Parkside Village, Creekside, etc.) to Library Ave and onto Crozet Ave., and
provides access to the development. This can be accomplished in two ways: one is to
provide a continuous facility through the property; or provide two parallel facilities with
connecting road that can spread out the crossing movements between the two roadways at
several locations. From VDOT's perspective the continuous facility is preferred;
however the network would be acceptable. Note that the concept shown in the traffic
study show one primary facility with a 90 degree intersection in the middle. This concept
has the major turning movement at one location, which is not acceptable. It also shows a
future parallel roadway that connects to High St. adjacent its connection to Library Ave
extended this does not meet spacing standards and is not acceptable.
For the network option both roadways and the connecting roads (minimum 2) would need
to be public with similar design features. The roads within the Phase 1 area should be
shown and constructed as part of that phase. Parallel parking can be included if desired.
The intersection treatment should also be considered in the design. (Note that if all -way
stops are warranted and used, roundabouts should be considered as the preferred
treatment.) The desire here is to identify the road network both public and private and
deal with the road attributes at site plan.
Overall the study adequately represents the affects the development will have on the
existing roadway network;
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Ms. Elaine Echols
May 6, 2016
Page 2 of 3
The study show that the intersections on Crozet Avenue will deteriorate over time, but
remain above acceptable levels. The development will increase that deterioration to
unacceptable levels without improvements. This is due to the lack of connections both to
Route 240 (Three Notch Road) to the north and to Route 250 to the south to relieve some
the traffic that currently and in the future can only ingress and egress the areas using
Crozet Ave. The County needs to persue solutions to address this situation and
ultimately the main issue for the developing areas east of Crozet Avenue;
The study does account for some trips to and from the developments to the east. This
distribution will increase as the developments proceed forward and when the north and
south connections discussed above are completed. The current distribution is the worst
case scenario and therefore shows a greater impact on Crozet Avenue as the study states.
It is imperative however that the connection south to Route 250 and north to Route 240
be built in order to provide another outlet for this and the other development traffic in this
area;
The study shows the intersections Library Ave. and Jarmans Gap Rd and Three Notch
Rd. with Crozet Ave., which are impacted by the development, will require
improvements to continue to function acceptably with the development. Based on the
study the Phase 1 Build scenario of the development reduces the Level of Service and
increases the Delay in both peak hour periods at both Three Notch Rd and Library Ave
intersections to unacceptable levels (`E' with 47 Sec. of Delay and F with 204 Sec. of
Delay respectively), and reduce the EB approach LOS on Jarmans Gap Rd. to an `E' with
40 sec. of delay. This will require improvements to these intersections. These
improvements need to be designed and included with the Phase 1 scenario site plans.
The study call for installing signals at Library Ave and possibly at Jarmans Gap Rd.
These may address the operations but they do not meet the spacing standards and are not
the safest treatment option. It is state policy to consider signalization of intersection as a
last option due to the safety concerns they present. Therefore it is recommended the
intersection be evaluated for roundabouts (The `Mini' roundabout diameters less than 90
feet with fully mountable center islands may work in these locations without major right
of way impacts).
The study did not provide any recommendations for the Three Notch Rd. intersection
with Crozet Ave. The intersection is the center of the Crozet village and due to the
limited/restricted area at the intersection there are very limited options to address the
impacts of growth and future development without impacting the surrounding
properties. The study should investigate options for addressing this intersection
(possibly a Roundabout);
The study recommends reconfiguring the access to The Square to a right in only to
eliminate the conflicts cause by queues backing into the adjacent intersections, and to
reduce cut through traffic. This is preferred by VDOT and would reduce the conflicts on
Crozet Avenue at the connection and should be include and installed as part of the
development improvements;
Ms. Elaine Echols
May 6, 2016
Page 3 of 3
• The bottom line is that until additional connections to Route 240 and Route 250 and the
full network connections are constructed any development east of Crozet Ave will
continue to increases delay and deteriorate the level of service on the corridor because
their access is only to/from Crozet Avenue.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
540-829-7558.
Sincerely,
Charles C. Proctor III
Transportation Planner
Culpeper District
CC: Marshall Barron
Joel DeNunzio