Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-7-13Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F I N A L JULY 13, 2011 6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 7. Update: Use Value Tax - Revalidation. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. PROJECT: ZMA 2010-03 Morey Creek Professional Center (Concurrent with SP-2010-09 for a parking structure). PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.606 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space and a parking structure. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. Concurrent with ZMA2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): PROJECT: SP-2010- 09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03). PROPOSAL: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures. (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 2010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76- 12G is not within the EC. LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to the west of Buckingham Circle. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: 076000000012A0 & 076000000012G0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. 9. 7:00 p.m. - Route 29 Western Bypass. Public comment on Albemarle County’s position to support the proposed construction of a Route 29 Western Bypass. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 11. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110713/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/7/2020 4:37:35 PM] Tentative 6.1 Approval of Minutes: January 5 and February 2, 2011. 6.2. Long Term Care Insurance Coverage for County Employees. FOR APPROVAL: 6.3 Letter dated June 28, 2011 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to J. Walker Richmond, re: LOD-2011- 0003 - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 25, Parcel 27 (property of Ronald I or Tamara M. Goughnour) White Hall Magisterial District. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110713/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/7/2020 4:37:35 PM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Long Term Care Insurance Coverage for County Employees SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Employer Agreement with the Virginia Retirement System to offer employees long term care insurance coverage STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Ms. Gerome, and Mr. Gray LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: July 13, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Virginia Retirement System (“VRS”) offers eligible full and part-time employees of VRS participating employers the opportunity to participate in coverage under the Commonwealth of Virginia (COV) Voluntary Group Long Term Care (“LTC”) Insurance Program. LTC insurance provides coverage for needed medical, rehabilitative and personal care services delivered at home, in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, and in oth er non-acute care settings. In order for County employees to be eligible for the LTC Insurance Program’s upcoming Fall special enrollment period, the Board must elect to participate in the program by July 15, 2011. DISCUSSION: The County does not currently offer LTC insurance coverage as part of its employee benefits options. LTC coverage is often requested by employees contacting the Human Resources Department. In the most recent Employee Benefits survey (November 2010), employees of both the School and Local Government divisions listed LTC coverage among the top three optional benefits that they would like to see offered by the County. Participation in this program is voluntary and LTC insurance is paid for entirely by the participating employees. There is no cost to the County to participate in this program. Genworth Life (which is underwriting the COV Voluntary LTC Insurance Program) will be solely responsible for communicating the offer to eligible staff, processing enrollments, and billing the employees directly. Participation would be open to eligible full and part -time employees and select family members. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the Employer Adoption Agreement (Attachment A) and a summary of the Terms and Conditions for the plan and has not identified any legal issues of concern. In accordance with the County’s Personnel Policy P-08 regarding Commonality in Personnel Practices, the School Board is expected to consider approval of LTC insurance coverage for its employees on July 14. VRS recommends that employers mail the executed Agreements to them by July 15, 2011. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no anticipated budget impact. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the County’s participation in the Voluntary Group Long Term Care Insurance Program and authorize the County Executive to execute the Employer Adoption Agreement on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS A – Employer Adoption Agreement Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels TAX MAP 25 PARCEL 27 (June 2011) Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 28, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1400 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources April 20, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1400 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources April 20, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1400 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources April 20, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1400 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels TAX MAP 25 PARCEL 27 (June 2011) Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 28, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1400 ft COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Land Use Value Tax - Revalidation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on 2010-2011 revalidation and key dates for the 2012-2013 revalidation cycle STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Willingham; and Ms. Burrell LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: July 13, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Albemarle County offers reduced use value assessments for qualifying property in documented agricultural, horticultural, forestal, and open-space uses. In 2008, the Board elected to require owners to revalidate (or document) their qualifying uses on a biennial basis. At its June 8 meeting, the Board requested an update on the status of the first revalidation cycle, as well as the revalidation process going forward. DISCUSSION: Virginia Code § 58.1-3234 authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to require property owners receiving use value assessments to revalidate any previously approved application. Revalidation requires participating property owners to confirm and provide documentation that the property continues to meet use requirements. 2010 Revalidation Process In July 2009, 4,927 revalidation forms were mailed to property owners receiving use value assessments. Approximately 95% of all revalidations were returned by the late filing deadline. The large response was due to an aggressive information campaign that included press releases, newspaper advertisements, second notice mailings and final notice mailings by certified mail. Additionally, individual Board members participated in four public question and answer sessions and made calls to constituents prior to the filing deadline. Of the 4,927 revalidation submissions, 3,072 have been reviewed to date. 2,512 of those reviewed have been approved for revalidation; 379 parcels are pending additional information, and 181 parcels have been issued roll back taxes totaling $2,076,407, most of which (91%) have been collected to date. The remaining field reviews of the current (2010) revalidation cycle (approximately 1,855) will be completed prior to the second revalidation cycle, which begins September 1, 2011. Site inspections tend to occur during summer months to coincide with the growing season. A primary focus in the first revalidation cycle was to educate participants on qualifying standards, to move marginal properties to the correct qualifying category and to improve the database by remapping parcels that had changed qualifying categories since their initial qualification for land use value taxation. 2012 Revalidations Revalidation forms for the 2012 cycle are scheduled to be mailed on July 15, 2011, which will allow participating property owners six weeks to return their completed forms. Completed forms must be submitted by the September 1, 2011 deadline to avoid any late filing fee. Late filing of a revalidation form may be made until December 5, 2011 upon payment of a late filing fee of $125 per parcel. No forms can be accepted after December 5, 2011. As with the 2010 revalidation cycle, during the 2012 revalidation process: 1) Assessment staff will be available to answer questions regarding revalidations during normal business hours; 2) Assessment staff will be available to speak to public or civic associations on the revalidation process; 3) An insert with answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) will be included with the revalidation forms mailing; 4) Forms will be mailed in a large envelope marked “Important Revalidation Information”; 5) Press and news releases will be issued to remind the public of deadlines for the revalidation. AGENDA TITLE: Land Use Value Tax – Revalidation July 13, 2011 Page 2 Submitted forms will be reviewed as they are received. Follow-up requests for required data will be made on filings lacking required information. Field reviews for the 2012 revalidations will begin in the Spring of 2012 and will follow the same pattern as the prior revalidation. Each parcel receiving use value assessments is scheduled to be revalidated and reviewed on this two-year cycle. BUDGET IMPACT: Normal mailing and office supply expenses are anticipated. It is difficult to estimate the amount of roll back taxes that ma y be generated by the 2012 revalidations due to the uncertainty of how many parcels may fail to qualify. RECOMMENDATIONS: This executive summary is intended for information purposes and to address the Board’s questions. No action by the Board is required. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center SP 2010-00009, Morey Creek Parking Structure Critical Slopes Waiver SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing for and the approval of the zoning, special permit and critical slopes waiver for a 100,000 square foot office building and parking garage on a site located on Fontaine Avenue Extended. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, and Ms. Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: July 13, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On May 11, 2011, the Board held a public hearing on ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, the accompanying SP application for a parking structure, and the request for a critical slopes waiver. Following the public hearing, the Board deferred action to allow the applicant to remove the proposed daycare facility in order to eliminate almost one-half of the average daily traffic to the site and proffer the architectural renderings that had been shown to the neighbors and the Board. An additional public hearing is required prior to approval of the rezoning with the amended proffers. DISCUSSION: Since the Board meeting, the applicant has revised the application plan to remove the daycare center (Attachment I) and has revised the proffers in accordance with the Board’s expectations (Attachment II). The two new proffers address the architectural renderings (Proffer 5) and remove the “day care, child care or nursery facility” use from the by-right uses that would be allowed on the site with the rezoning (Proffer 6). BUDGET IMPACT: Staff anticipates no budget impact. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve: 1) ZMA-2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, including the proffers dated June 17, 2011; 2) SP-2010-00009, for the parking structure (no conditions); and 3) the Critical Slopes Waiver (no conditions). ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I - Revised Application Plan, revised May 16, 2011 ATTACHMENT II - Signed revised proffers, dated June 17, 2011 View PC actions letter and staff report View PC minutes Return to regular agenda Construct additional through laneRestripe right-turn lane to ll th h tConstruct right-turn lane at site entranceConstruct Install traffic signalallow through movementInstall traffic signalExtend outside through lane 350’right-turn lane at rampConstruct second left-turn lane in medianConstruct additional lane on ramp Extend right-turn lane on Ray C. Hunt Driveto receive dual left-turnsRestripe existing through lane as left lane must turn leftLEGEND:Morey Creek Proposed ImprovementMorey Creek Proposed Traffic SignalFontaine Research Park Proffered ImprovementFontaine Research Park Proffered Traffic SignalFigure1Morey Creek Professional Center and Fontaine Research ParkProposed Improvements To Traffic Lanes & Controls MOREY CREEK PROFESSIONAL CENTERView From Buckingham Circle w/ Morey Creek PC Model MOREY CREEK PROFESSIONAL CENTERRevised Elevation at Fontaine Ave. –6’ Offsets w/ Continuous Fascia 23.2 PERMITTED USES 23.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in the CO district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: 1. Administrative and business offices. 2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical. 3. Financial institutions. 4. Churches, cemeteries. 5. Libraries, museums. 6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. The aggregate of all accessory uses shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: -Eating establishments; -Newsstands; -Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; -Data processing services; -Central reproduction and mailing services and the like; -Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices; -(Repealed 3-17-82) -Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel; (Added 12-3-86) -Barber shops; (Added 8-5-09) -Beauty shops. (Added 8-5-09) 7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82) 11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) 13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-01) 14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) 15. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10) (§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 09-18(6), 8-5-09; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10) 25A.2 PERMITTED USES 25A.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PD-MC district: 1. Uses permitted by right in the C-1, CO and HC districts, except for storage yards. Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate visual screening. (Amended 11-12-08) 2. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-12-93) 3. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 4. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). (§ 20-25A.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; § 18-25A.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-08) ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 22, 2011 Samuel E. Saunders III / Timmons Group 919 2nd Street Se Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA201000003 & SP201000009 Morey Creek Professional Center TMP 07600-00-00-012A0 & 07600-00-00-012G0 Dear Mr. Saunders: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2011, took the following actions on the above noted projects and made recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of ZMA-2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, by a vote of 7:0. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SP-2010-00009, by a vote of 7:0 as recommended by staff. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, by a vote 7:0, for Morey Creek Critical Slopes Waiver, as recommended by staff. (Concurrent with SP and ZMA) Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 11, 2011. View staff report with attachments Return to exec summary If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Judith Wiegand Senior Planner Planning Division CC: University Of Virginia Health Services Foundation P O Box 800504 Charlottesville Va 22903 ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure Staff: Judith C. Wiegand Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 5, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not yet scheduled Owner(s): University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Applicant: Owner, represented by Samuel E. Saunders, with Timmons Group Acreage: 12.606 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential Development (PRD) which allows residential (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre). No residential units are proposed. TMP: TM, Parcel 076000000012A0 and 076000000012G0 Location: on the north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended between the intersections of Reservoir Road and Buckingham Circle (Attachment A). By-right use: residential including single-family detached, semi-detached and attached single- family, and multifamily dwellings at a density of 6.01 – 34 units per acre. The current PRD is approved for 61 units. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 100,000 SF office building, a parking garage, and a 15,000 SF daycare facility.(Attachment B) Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Development Area: Neighborhood 6. Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. Character of Property: The property is currently vacant, with a floodplain area, a perennial stream, wetlands, and some steep slopes. Use of Surrounding Properties: The site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property, known as Foxhaven, on the north by vacant land owned by the University of Virginia, on the east by the Buckingham Circle subdivision and across the street to the south by the Virginia Dept. of Forestry. Trinity Presbyterian Church, which has a large congregation, is to the west. The Fontaine Research Park, which serves as a major employer in the immediate area, is about one-half mile to the east. Two major highways are also within close proximity, the US Route 29 Bypass and I-64. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby Factors Unfavorable: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the local street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-00009. Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 3 STAFF PERSON: Judith C. Wiegand PLANNING COMMISSION: April 5, 2011 ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure Critical Slopes Waiver PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 2010-03 Morey Creek Professional Center (Concurrent with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure) PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.009 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 day care center, and parking structure. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes Concurrent with ZMA2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): PROJECT: SP 2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03) PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures. (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 1010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to the west of Buckingham Circle TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-12A & 12G MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller CHARACTER OF THE AREA The site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property, known as Foxhaven. There are several residences in this area. The University of Virginia owns a large vacant parcel to the north. The Buckingham Circle neighborhood is located to the east and contains approximately 50 homes. The Virginia Forestry Department is located across Fontaine Avenue Extended to the south. Trinity Presbyterian Church, which has a large congregation, is to the west. The Fontaine Research Park, which serves as a major employer in the immediate area, is about one-half mile to the east. Two major highways are also within close proximity, the 250 Bypass and I-64. The subject property is currently vacant; a few structures once located on it have been removed. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Health Sciences Foundation (HSF), would like to construct an office facility for UVA Medical Center support workers. The proposal includes a 100,000 square foot office building, a parking structure, and a 15,000 square foot daycare center to serve UVA Medical Center staff. The office building is being sized to allow for future staff growth. A large portion of the property is being preserved to protect a stream, stream buffer, floodplain, and wetland area. The development would be served by an access road located to the west of Buckingham Circle. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 4 APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has indicated that the proposed office building will house support staff for the UVA Medical Center. Locating all of these support workers in the same facility will increase efficiency and bring them closer to the Medical Center. The daycare has been included in the proposal because the University would like to provide daycare for its workers near their place of work. Structuring the parking means that less of the site would have to be developed and that the parking spaces will be closer to the office building. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Prior to 1980, the property was zoned Commercial Office. With the comprehensive rezoning in December 1980, the property was zoned Highway Commercial. ZMA 2004-00002, approved September 14, 2005: the property was rezoned to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow construction of the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes, with 61 units proposed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6. The recommendations from the Land Use Plan for Neighborhood 6 that are applicable to this proposal are discussed below. Limit the Neighborhood Service designation on Fontaine Avenue west of the Bypass (Old Route 29 South) to existing zoned land. A mixed use development may be permitted. The gross density of the mixed use development should be consistent with Neighborhood Density Residential and Neighborhood Service designations as shown in the Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in Neighborhood Service areas are expected to include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, Community, or Village. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service are typically 1-5 acres in size, are accessible from a collector road, have water and sewer available, and are compatible with adjacent land uses. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service should have a specific relationship to nearby and surrounding residential uses and, to the greatest extent possible, be connected to those uses through a system of sidewalks or pedestrian paths. A mixture of Urban Density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses is encouraged within this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas, green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities should occupy at least 20% of the area. The proposed daycare and office uses are acceptable uses within the Neighborhood Service designation. The Land Use Plan suggests more of a mix of uses and a relationship to and support/convenience for surrounding residential areas. In this case, the majority of the development with the exception of the daycare would be a single office use/major employer. The inclusion of the daycare center brings the proposal closer to the intent of the Neighborhood Service designation. The relative isolation of the site from many other uses also limits its potential as place for support/ convenience uses. The scale of the development does not technically meet the limitations described in the Land Use Plan for building square footage in a Neighborhood Services area. The Land Use Plan suggests approximately 40,000 square feet (SF) of building area for Neighborhood Service areas of 1-5 ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 5 acres. However, the site is unique; it is significantly larger at 12.6 acres, it has been designated commercial in all of the land use plans since 1970, and it was previously zoned Highway Commercial. It has a large area of floodplain and a protected wetland. Because of its history, staff believes the physical scale of the proposed development respects the environmental features and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Proposed elevations for the 100,000 SF office building prepared by the applicant show a lower-scale, three-story building that is located on the site to avoid the environmental features and at the greatest possible distance from the Buckingham Circle neighborhood. The environmental features separate the office building, garage, and daycare facility from the neighborhood. Providing structured parking means that less of the site would be used for parking than it would be if all of the parking was surface parking. The daycare facility is in a separate building located in the northwest corner of the site, and at two stories, would be compatible with other structures on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation improvements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood 6 that are relevant to this proposed rezoning include: Provide pedestrian connections from the residential areas in the Neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. Consider the transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study. Provide transit service to Fontaine Avenue corridor including the Fontaine Research Park. Staff believes the proposal adequately addresses the pedestrian and transit recommendations. The applicant has proffered to: Provide an offsite paved pedestrian path that will connect with the Fontaine Research Park (Proffer #1). Staff requested that this path, which was proffered as a part of the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes rezoning, also be proffered by the applicant in order to assure that workers at the Professional Center could walk to Fontaine Research Park. Provide a loading space for the JAUNT bus (Proffer #3). Staff notes that at the time a CAT bus route serves the Morey Creek Professional Center, the buses would stop on Fontaine Avenue Extended, not go into the facility, so a stop would likely be located on Fontaine Avenue Extended. The Southern Urban Area B Study does not include any “transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations” that are specific to this property. The Study does include a recommendation that a park be located along the “Duck Pond, West of Buckingham Circle.” On private property, the providing a “greenway amenity area,” a trail connection, and benches is an appropriate passive use on the parcel. The transportation impacts have been analyzed with a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The results of and recommendations from the TIA are summarized below under Staff Comment. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan The site contains floodplain, a perennial stream, wetlands, and some steep slopes. The Open Space Plan shows a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley and Adjacent Critical Slope around Morey Creek, and identifies Morey Creek as a perennial stream with non-tidal wetlands, wooded areas and floodplain. The wetlands associated with Morey Creek have been significantly altered in this location, but remain in a relatively natural state upstream. The Open Space Plan states, “When wetlands are to be disturbed on a development site, require the developer to provide evidence of compliance with State and Federal wetlands regulations prior to County approvals.” Most of this ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 6 work was completed when the wetlands were recreated with a pond mitigation plan. The proposed plan protects these areas to the greatest extent possible. The applicant is requesting a Critical Slopes Waiver, which is discussed at the end of this staff report. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes 12 Principles for Development to which new development proposals should adhere. The application plan and other illustrations provided with this application have been evaluated to determine how well the proposal fulfills the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Staff believes that the current application plan addresses ten of the principles well, the remaining two are not relevant to the project. Pedestrian Orientation The plan includes sidewalks throughout the development, to the environmental area, along Fontaine Avenue, and connecting to a potential future greenway. The applicant does not show a sidewalk on both sides of the main travel aisle as it enters the site; a sidewalk is shown only on the east side of the street adjacent to the office building, parking garage, and daycare. However, there is nothing on the west side of the street for which pedestrian access is needed and, due to the slope on that side of the street, there is no way to connect the sidewalk to anything. As the travel aisle approaches the daycare facility, a sidewalk is available on both sides. Staff notes that there is no entrance to the proposed office building from Fontaine Avenue Extended. Under normal circumstances, an entrance would be expected. However, this facility is unique for several reasons. First, the applicant has indicated that the building must be a secure facility due to the presence of medical records, so only one entrance that is monitored is appropriate. Since most of the employees will park in the garage, the main entrance is accessed from the garage. Any employees who walk over from Fontaine Research Park will be able to follow the sidewalk around to the entrance. Also, the uses in the surrounding area (residential, primarily) do not relate to the building; no pedestrian traffic from the west is expected. This principle is met. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths Wherever possible, a 6’ (minimum) planting strip with street trees separates the proposed sidewalks/pedestrian paths from the street or travel aisle. Staff recognizes that there are ROW and other design constraints that prevent a planting strip in all areas. This principle is met. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks Staff has determined that this is not the best location for public street interconnections and that it would be very difficult to develop the project with public roads. The proposed internal travelway running north/south could be extended if conditions warrant a connection in the future; an access easement for the benefit of the property to the north has been included on the application plan to allow for this potential connection. This principle is met. Parks and Open Space More than half of the site remains undeveloped (66.7 % or 8.41 of the 12.6 acre site) with this proposal. The plan provides for preservation areas as well as amenity areas. This principle is met. Neighborhood Centers If developed as proposed, the site could become an employment center. It is surrounded by residential areas and is near other employment uses. This principle is met. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale Heights, setbacks, spatial enclosure, front and side yards, architecture, and relationships of building heights to widths all play a role in the scale of development. The images provided with the application plan and shown during the neighborhood meeting show that the proposal respects the adjacent Buckingham Circle neighborhood with plane changes, building materials/architecture, and the use of stepbacks. The proposed office building, garage, and daycare facility are generally lower in height than the previously proposed townhomes would have been. This principle also appears to be addressed on the Fontaine Avenue side of the building with varied architectural elements and plane changes along the façade of the building. The third floor of the office building has been stepped back a minimum of 15 feet from the second story. Staff believes that once a commitment is made to ensure that these images guide the ultimate design of the development, this principle will be met. Specifically, staff is working with the applicant on a commitment to the following: architectural elevations, lighting levels to be used in the parking structure, and landscaping between the office building/parking structure and Buckingham Circle. Relegated Parking Most parking for the office building is provided in the garage, which is located behind the office building from Fontaine Avenue Extended. A small amount of surface parking is provided for convenience in front of the daycare building and is not relegated. This principle is met. Mixture of Uses The project provides two types of commercial uses, office and daycare. Residential uses, private schools, a church and a large employer are within close proximity. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability This principle is not applicable as no residential uses are proposed. Redevelopment This is a redevelopment project, but there are no longer any structures on the site as they have been demolished. This principle is met. Site Planning that Respects Terrain About 1.77 acres of the site are in critical slopes and 0.59 acres of those critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Since important resources on the Open Space Plan are not impacted and there are no engineering concerns, staff has no objection to the critical slopes waiver. The application plan shows retaining walls with a maximum height of 8 feet between the building and the environmental features. Small retaining walls, 6 feet or less, on stepped terraces are preferable to unnaturally steep slopes or high retaining walls. However, in this location, the walls are between a sewer easement and the building, so creating terraces would conflict with the easement. Since only two short stretches of the walls are higher than 6 feet, staff believes this is the best solution. On the west side of the property across the travel aisle from the parking garage and near the daycare center, potentially higher retaining walls have been stepped. This principle is met. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas This principle is not applicable since the project is not adjacent to a Development Area boundary. Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 8 Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The Health Sciences Foundation is an existing local business currently located in the Fontaine Research Park. The proposed new facility will expand the tax base. At the outset, the new facility will house employees that are now working at the Research Park. However, the new building has been planned to accommodate projected increases in the staff; additional employees are expected to be necessary in the future. The need for space to house the additional employees is one reason why the new facility is planned. One of the objectives under this goal is: Objective III. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, strategically work with UVA, UVA Real Estate Foundation and private and non-profit sector employers that provide or will provide a diverse array of quality career ladder employment opportunities for our resident workforce, with a particular focus on supporting existing local enterprises while not excluding new entrepreneurs and enterprises. The Heath Services Foundation is another private, nonprofit employer that provides a number of professional level jobs that are available to residents. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality Action Plan. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: According to the Zoning Ordinance, the PD-MC zoning district is intended to: Permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. Be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. Discourage multiple access points to existing public roads and provide access oriented toward an internal road system that has carefully planned intersections with existing public roads. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the PD-MC district. Morey Creek Professional Center would have two commercial uses that would be under a single management (the daycare center will be under contract to HSF). The Professional Center would be located within a Development Area and with a main entrance directly onto the existing public road (Fontaine Avenue Extended), as well as a secondary, right-in only entrance from Fontaine Avenue Extended directly into the parking garage. Public need and justification for the change: Until it was rezoned as a PRD, this property was designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and had been zoned commercial for decades. An office building and a daycare facility are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 9 will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. According to the applicant, there is a significant need for additional daycare facilities to serve HSF and UVAF employees. Because this daycare center is adjacent to the Professional Center and in close proximity to Fontaine Research Park, it will serve employees at both locations. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: The applicant has agreed to protect the significant environmental features on the site. They are shown on the application plan as preservation areas. Buildings and roadways have been laid out around these features. There are no known cultural or historic resources on the site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: At VDOT’s request, the applicant prepared a TIA to meet the requirements of Virginia Chapter 527. The purpose of the study was to determine the impacts of the Morey Creek Professional Center and to recommend improvements to lessen the transportation impacts of the development. The study area extended along Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue from the intersection of the US Route 29 Bypass southbound ramps to Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue (in the City of Charlottesville). The ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges were also included in the study area. The study included the following intersections, which are shown on an aerial map in Attachment C: Fontaine Avenue Extended at the US Route 29 Bypass southbound ramps Fontaine Avenue at US Route 29 Bypass northbound ramps Fontaine Avenue at Ray C. Hunt Drive Fontaine Avenue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue Following completion of the main TIA, the traffic consultants also analyzed the intersection of Buckingham Circle and Fontaine Avenue Extended. The study noted that: The addition of the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center creates a somewhat different set of hurdles at the interchange of US Route 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue. Given the directional traffic characteristics associated with office development and the proposed building’s location west of the interchange, new deficiencies are noted that are not directly addressed by the improvements proposed in conjunction with the Fontaine Research Park expansion to the east. The proposed Morey Creek Professional Center generates directional traffic flows opposite of what exist today. The applicant has proffered all of the improvements recommended in the TIA to address traffic issues, so the traffic impacts on local streets have been addressed. In particular, the residents of Buckingham Circle should find it easier to enter/leave their development once the traffic signals and turn lanes are in place. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 10 Staff notes, though, that these proffered improvements do not address the problems with the weaving movements on the US Route 29 Bypass northbound and southbound. As VDOT states in its evaluation: The weave analysis included in the study for traffic on the Route 29 Bypass between the I-64 and Fontaine interchanges and traffic on I-64 eastbound between the Route 29 Bypass loops are performing below acceptable levels of service and will continue to degrade with additional background and site traffic. The study does not provide any recommendations to improve these maneuvers. These interchanges need additional analysis and improvements that are beyond the scope of this study. VDOT notes that improvements to this segment of the regional road system will require further study and are beyond what is usually required of a single development project. A summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) results is provided in Attachment D. VDOT Comments are included in Attachment E. As noted in the comments, the proffers (Attachment F) address VDOT’s request that all of the improvements needed to handle the additional traffic from the Fontaine Research Park rezoning and the Morey Creek Professional Center have been proffered by the Health Services Foundation (HSF). Each of the improvements are expected to be in place in time to serve traffic from either institution. VDOT has assured staff that all of the other comments listed under “Plan” (numbers 2 – 8) can be dealt with at the time of site plan approval. Schools: The proposed development is not residential, so there will be no impact on County schools. Fire and Rescue: The closest County fire rescue station is Monticello off of Avon Street Extended (near Monticello High School). There is a closer station in the City of Charlottesville. Utilities: Water and sewer are available to the site. The applicant has provided the 40-foot sewer easement requested by RWSA; it is shown on the application plan. RWSA and ACSA comments are included in Attachments G and H, respectively. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The proposed Morey Creek Professional Center will be developed on property that is currently vacant. The impact of the proposed Professional Center on the nearest neighbors, the residents of Buckingham Circle, would be primarily from traffic, noise, and lighting. The potential traffic impacts have been addressed as noted above. The Professional Center, including the daycare facility, will be open during typical business hours on weekdays. Thus, there would be little, if any, noise in the evenings and on weekends. Also, the applicant has represented that the lighting in the office building and garage will be minimal outside of office hours. The applicant has offered to increase the amount of landscaping in the area between the office building/parking garage and Buckingham Circle. These impacts are expected to be less than the impacts from the previous proposal, the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes. Further, the stream/stream buffer/floodplain/wetland area will provide a buffer between the Professional Center and the residential area. Staff notes that this area is significantly larger than the buffer that would normally be required between a commercial area and a residential area. Also, Professional Center employees will have their own entrance off of Fontaine Avenue Extended; they will not be using Buckingham Circle. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 11 The applicant has met several times with the residents of Buckingham Circle to explain the project and explain how the proposed development would address residents’ concerns. The primary concern expressed by the residents is their difficult entering and leaving their neighborhood through the intersection at Bucking ham Circle and Fontaine Avenue Extended. Staff believes that the road improvements identified in the TIA (see below) and proffered by the applicant will address the traffic issues at this intersection, as well as on other local streets. PROFFERS Attachment F contains the signed proffers, as reviewed by the County Attorney. Staff believes these proffers address the matters that need to be addressed, and that each proffer will be fulfilled at the appropriate time in the development process. Each proffer is described below: Proffer 1: the Owner has agreed to construct an off-site asphalt-paved pedestrian walkway from the southeast corner of the site to the Fontaine Business Park with the route running along the north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended. This is the same pedestrian path that was proffered by the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes. Proffer 2: the Owner has agreed to design and construct a pedestrian bridge over the stream/stream buffer/floodplain area at the southeast corner of the site. This bridge will enable Professional Center employees to reach the greenway amenity area and to reach the pedestrian path (Proffer #1). The pedestrian bridge was proffered by the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes project. Proffer 3: the Owner has agreed to provide a loading space for JAUNT buses to drop off employees at the office building. During discussions with the applicant, staff determined that, should a regular CAT bus route be extended to serve the Professional Center, a CAT bus stop would most likely be located on Fontaine Avenue Extended, so no stop needs to be located within the site. Proffer 4: the Owner has agreed to design, bond, and construct the following transportation improvements: A traffic signal at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 northbound ramp intersection. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) showed that this signal would be necessary due to the additional traffic from the Morey Creek Professional Center. An eastbound right turn lane on Fontaine Avenue at the US 29 southbound ramp intersection. This improvement is also necessary due to the traffic from the Morey Creek Professional Center. A traffic signal and additional lanes at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 Bypass southbound ramps intersection, using one of the two options described in the proffer. These improvements have also been proffered as part of the most recent rezoning for the Fontaine Research Park and are included here so that they are available as soon as they are needed. Staff notes that additional proffer(s) and/or additions to the application plan will be needed to indicate the applicant’s commitment to the building elevations, parking garage lighting, and landscaping that have been shown to nearby residents and staff. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP 2010-00006, Parking Structure. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff notes the following: The applicant proposed structured parking after early designs for the Professional Center showed that the required number of parking spaces, if provided as surface parking, would take up too much of the site and the spaces furthest from the office building would be too far away to be walked ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 12 comfortably. The proposed parking structure will have three levels, with each level accessed from a different point. The applicant has indicated that the structure, when not in use, will have very low light levels. 31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Staff does not believe that the proposed parking garage would be of substantial detriment to the Buckingham Circle neighborhood or other nearby uses because the parking structure would be used primarily during weekday business hours. Also, a large area with significant environmental features would serve as a buffer between the parking structure and the nearby residential uses. Staff believes that the impacts of the parking structure would be significantly less than those from the parking associated with the previously proposed townhome development. With the townhomes, people would have been parking at all times of the day and night, and, because the parking would have been spread throughout the site, it would have been much more difficult to minimize the impacts of parking lot lighting and vehicle headlights. The proposed parking garage has a separate entrance; it is not accessed from Buckingham Circle. Potential local traffic impacts have been addressed through proffers, as recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, A parking garage is an expected use within a commercial office development, so having one as part of the Professional Center will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, A parking structure is permitted in a PD-MC by special use permit because it is permitted in the C-1, CO, and HC districts. Providing a parking garage for most of the parking, rather than relying solely on surface parking is in keeping with the intent of planned development districts generally (Section 8.1); they “promote economical and efficient land use through unified development.” with the uses permitted by right in the district, Uses permitted by right in a PD-MC district are those permitted by right in C-1, CO, and HC districts. Parking is a requirement for commercial uses and is compatible with commercial uses. with additional regulations provided in section 5, Section 5.1.41 Parking Lots and Parking Structures requires that a site plan be prepared for each parking lot and parking structure. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the proposed Professional Center would provide a needed facility for the applicant and would provide jobs in Albemarle County. The site is well-located for a commercial office use as it is served by a major road and is in close proximity to other commercial uses and residential areas. WAIVERS—CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION Staff notes that this same waiver was requested and approved as part of ZMA2004-00002, Fontaine Avenue Townhomes (approved January 24, 2006). ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 13 I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by the Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment I)], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be both natural and manmade. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “Critical Slopes.” These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slopes areas on the west end of the site are small isolated areas and areas which have been disturbed with a permit for a stockpile (WPO200800044). They do not form a part of a larger system of critical slopes. These areas will be disturbed for buildings and parking. The areas of critical slopes on the east side of the site border the stream and pond. These areas form part of a larger system of critical slopes. The applicant is disturbing these areas for utility crossings and for the edge of the travelway into the parking structure. The numerical breakdown of disturbances as provided by the applicant is given below: Areas Acres Total site area 12.6 Area of critical slopes (man-made & natural) 1.77 14% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.59 33% of critical slopes Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas contain both natural and manmade critical slopes. Please see the applicant’s waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed below: 1. “rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock”: Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent excessive movement of soil. It is noted that the site has an open permit for a stockpile (WPO200800044) on the west side, which could be removed now without a waiver. The applicant asked for this permit to be extended in anticipation of moving or eliminating the stockpile with this project. 2. “excessive stormwater run-off”: Stormwater runoff will be treated and directed into the adjacent stream and pond. It is noted that the pond has an open permit for repair of the dam (W PO201000021), which was breached. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 14 3. “siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water”: Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation is mitigated during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. “loss of aesthetic resource”: This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. Some of the slopes were created as part of a soil stockpile, and having an open permit, could be disturbed now, as discussed above. The open space plan, prepared in 1992, shows portions of this site as included in “Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes”. It appears that some modification of the slopes has occurred in the nearly 20 years since the preparation of the Open Space Plan. The slopes are wooded and do provide a natural setting within the Development Area. 5. “septic effluent”: This site is serviced by public sewer. A portion of this site plan is located inside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. The critical slopes to be disturbed are not within the 100-year flood plain area, with the exception of the utility crossings, and the existing permit for repair of the dam. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of Section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; The areas proposed for development are relatively small and isolated. Denial of a waiver to disturb the smallest areas would significantly reduce the development potential of the site as these small areas are centrally located. The larger areas of disturbance are at the rear of the site. If a waiver to disturb these slopes is not approved, the total development potential of the site will be reduced. Authorizing disturbance of the larger area of critical slopes is a balance between protection of resources and efficient utilization of the County’s urban land. Approval of the waiver can be supportive of the County’s effort to focus development in the Development Areas. B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; No proposed alternatives satisfy the intent and purpose to an equivalent degree. C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 15 Denial of this waiver for the two small areas of critical slopes near Fontaine Avenue would have a significant impact on the development potential of the site. Denial of a waiver to disturb the critical slopes at the rear of the site would reduce the developable land on site by a significant amount. However, staff does not believe that denial of the waiver for disturbance of the slopes at the rear of the site would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. As stated previously, approving this waiver would permit efficient use of land located in the development areas. The disturbance of these slopes is associated with a rezoning request and the disturbance of these slopes is a factor in considering the impact of the rezoning. If the rezoning is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and sound planning principles then granting the waiver should be considered as an action necessary and appropriate to forward the public purpose because it allows for the development to occur. Staff review of the request for a Critical Slopes Waiver indicates that the application meets the minimum engineering criteria for a waiver. While development of the site could occur without a waiver, approval allows for more efficient use of the land in the County’s Development Areas. Staff recommends approval of this waiver. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the local street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. Staff has found the following factor unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-00009 Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, subject to the proffers provided and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP2010-00009, Parking Structure. (No conditions) B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit: Move to recommend denial of SP2010-00009, Parking Structure. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for Critical Slopes Waiver: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this critical slopes waiver: Move to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center, as recommended by staff. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this critical slopes waiver: Move to recommend denial of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Application Plan, Dated January 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT C: Map of Area Included in the Traffic Impact Analysis ATTACHMENT D: Staff summary of TIA Results ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comments, dated February 10, 2011 ATTACHMENT F: Proffers, dated February 17, 2011 ATTACHMENT G: RWSA Comments, dated May 19, 2010 ATTACHMENT H: ACSA Comments ATTACHMENT I: Critical Slopes Waiver Request Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 5, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items: ZMA-2010-00003 Morey Creek (Concurrent with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure) PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.009 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 day care center, and parking structure . No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes Concurrent with ZMA-2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): AND SP-2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03) PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures . (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 1010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood- scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to and west of Buckingham Circle TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-12A & 12G MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Judith Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint Presentation and summarized the staff report. This request is for Morey Creek Professional Center, which is a zoning map amendme nt, ZMA-2010-00003. There is also a special use permit for a parking structure to accompany that professional center and a critical slopes waiver. The purpose of the rezoning is to obtain approval to construct a new 100,000 SF office building with a par king structure and a 15,000 SF daycare center in a location along major commuter access routes and in close proximity to the UVA Medical Center. Location: • On Fontaine Avenue Extended • Near US 29 Bypass and I-64 • Near Fontaine Research Park • Adjacent to Buckingham Circle neighborhood ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 2 As noted in the staff report—the Comp Plan expects Neighborhood Service areas to be 1 – 5 acres in size and to have a maximum of approximately 40,000 SF of office, commercial, and services. This site, however, is significantly larger at 12.6 acres, with approximately two-thirds of the site covered by the stream, stream buffer, wetlands, and related environmental features. Staff believes since the site is larger and the environmental features provide a good buffer that a 100,000 SF building, with a parking garage, and 15,000 SF daycare facility is appropriate. The zoning for this property has been commercial since the County’s comprehensive rezoning in 1980 . However, in 2005, it was rezoned to PRD with a plan to construct 61 To wnhomes. The applicant wishes to rezone to Planned Development—Mixed Commercial. The application plan: • Fontaine Avenue Extended • Buckingham Circle • Stream/wetlands/slopes are—environmental area • Proposed office building—fronts on Fontaine Avenue. As noted in the staff report, there will be an entrance in the back. It needs to be a secure facility due to the medical records used and stored inside. The entrance will be monitored and accessed from the garage. Anyone walking over from Fontaine Research Park would follow the path around to the entrance. Because of the location and surrounding uses there will be little, if any, pedestrian traffic expected from the west. • Proposed parking structure—three floors • Daycare facility, with drop off and nearby parking. • Amenities will include a pedestrian path to Fontaine Research Park, a bridge over the wetlands/stream area, and loading space for the JAUNT bus. Neighborhood Concerns: 1. Size and scale of use/buildings; need for daycare 2. Traffic impacts of proposed development 3. Lighting on the site 4. Impacts of construction on wetlands and other environmental features 5. Transit, bicycle, pedestrian issues 6. Screening between buildings and neighborhood (Buckingham Circle Neighborhood) Two major concerns with the Morey Creek proposal are the size of the use and the potential traffic impacts. This list of concerns staff was compiled from the comments made and questions asked at a neighborhood meeting held last November. As noted earlier, staff believes that the size of this propert y and the presence of the environmental features mean that a 100,000 SF office building with the parking structure and the proposed 15,000 SF daycare facility can be located on the site without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding properties. The applicant has paid special attention to the potential impacts on the Buckingham Circle neighborhood and has met with the neighbors to describe the project, listen to the neighbors’ concerns, and answer their questions. During their presentation, the applicant will compare the relative sizes and layouts of the proposed Professional Center and the previously approved townhome project , and will show renderings of night views so the Commission can see how these concerns have been addressed. Size and scale of the building - The residents also asked why the applicant needed 100,000 SF. The applicant is trying to co-locate more than one group of support workers to increase efficiency. They will also have some space for growth. [During the applicant’s pre sentation, they will give more details]. The daycare is being included to fulfill a UVA policy to provide daycare near workers. Lighting on the site - The applicant has agreed to minimize the lighting in the building and parking garage after business hours. Some workers may be in the offices on Saturday mornings (2/month), but otherwise the workers will be there Monday through Friday during regular business hours. Staff believes that the county ordinance relating to lighting will be sufficient. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 3 Impacts of construction on the environmental areas—The County has regulations to protect these areas. Specific techniques will be addressed during site plan preparation. In addition, federal and state regulations regarding wetlands will address that. Availability of transit—The neighbors asked if workers could be bused from Fontaine Research Park to the site. It is not feasible, but a drop off space for the JAUNT bus will be included (proffered) and a regular CATS bus stop could be located in front of the building. The applicant has proffered to construct the same pedestrian path to Fontaine Research Park that was proffered by the townhome proposal. There is a sidewalk along the street or Fontaine Avenue Extended. There is a path that goes over to Fontaine Research Park. The bicycles could use those pedestrian paths as well. Additional screening—The applicant will provide detailed information about the views and landscaping during their presentation. They will comply with county ordinances for landscaping and screening. Ms. Wiegand presented one rendering that the applicant provided to show the view from Buckingham Circle looking back. She pointed out the proposed building and proposed landscaping. Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffic impacts—These were addressed by the TIA, including an analysis of the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection. If all of the road improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park and the two improvements necessitated by the Morey Creek proposal were built, t raffic on the local streets would be able to handle the traffic. The two improvements necessitated by Morey Creek are the signal at the northbound ramps and a right turn lane at the southbound ramp. In fact, it would be easier for Buckingham Circle residents to get out of their development during peak traffic times with these improvements. Here are the TIA results. • Study included the impacts of and improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park • Traffic signals would be required at both the northbound a nd southbound US 29 Bypass ramps to Fontaine Avenue • Several other lane improvements are also necessary. • Once these signals and improvements are in place, impacts of Morey Creek traffic on the local streets would be addressed. It was mentioned that Trinity Church gets so busy on Sunday mornings that the residents have trouble getting out of their neighborhood because there is so much Church traffic. Staff pointed out the Morey Professional Center is not expecting to be open on Sunday. Therefore, there sho uld not be a conflict between those two uses. Staff noted that Glenn Brooks and Joel DeNunzio are present for questions. The proffered road improvements include the following: Proffer 1 – Pedestrian Walkway This is the proffer for a pedestrian walkway from the Morey Creek Professional Center to Fontaine Research Park. This proffer was included in the prior townhome proposal. The Owner shall construct, at its expense, an off-site asphalt-paved pedestrian walkway and other improvements in accordance with standards for such walkways of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), as specified in the VDOT Road Design Manual, from the southeast corner of the site within the existing public right -of-way along the north side of Fontaine Avenue to the Fontaine Business Park intersection as shown on Sheet C2.0 Pedestrian Pathway and Offsite Waterline of the Application Plan. The walkway and other improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. Proffer 2—Morey Creek Bridge This proffer is to design and construct a bridge over Morey Creek. The Owner shall design and construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing Morey Creek, as shown on the Application Plan, to a standard ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 4 approved by the County Engineer, and it is to be a fully engineered clear span bridge, similar to the ―Connector‖ bridge as manufactured by the Steadfast Bridge Company (1-800-749-7515) or an equivalent bridge approved by the County Engineer. The bridge shall be designed and co nstructed above the 100- year flood plain. The bridge shall be completed, as reasonably determined by the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. Proffer 3—JAUNT Bus Loading Space The Owner shall provide a loading space for the JAUNT bus to a standard approved by the County Engineer, in consultation with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), JAUNT, and/or VDOT . Space may be provided on the main entrance road or on the parking deck as determined by the owner at the time of site plan approval. The JAUNT loading space shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. Proffer 4—Traffic Improvements Staff has not included all of the wording from this fourth proffer. Each includes a reference to the standards to be followed and the timing for providing the improvement. The complete language, as signed by the applicant, is included in the staff report at Attachment F. In order to be certain that the necessary traffic improvements will be in place at the time they are needed, Morey Creek has proffered all of the improvements that were proffered by the Fontaine Research Park applicant during the most recent rezoning. The Owner at its expense shall design, bond and construct the following transportation improvements: A. A traffic signal at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 Northbound Ramp intersection…. B. An eastbound right turn lane within the public right-of-way on Fontaine Avenue at the US 29 Southbound Ramp intersection…. C. A traffic signal and additional lanes at the Fontaine Avenue/US route 29 Bypass Southbound Ramps intersection…according to one of two options…. In the staff report, staff noted there were three areas still under discussion with the applicant. Two of them, the site lighting and landscaping, will be addressed through compliance with County ordinances . Staff believes they are no longer a concern. However, the third area is compliance with the Neighborhood Model’s request that ―building facades facin g a street shall not extend for more than 100 feet without a change in the plane. The minimum change in plane is 6 feet and the cumulative total length of the change in plane shall extend for no less than 20% of the length of the building façade.‖ Floors shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet from the second story. The applicant has shown the appropriate step back for the third floor of the office building. Staff is fine with this. However, this is the first illustration provided with the initial application. Staff notified the applicant in the first comment letter that this design did not comply with the Neighborhood Model. Since then, staff has seen two different treatments of this façade. The problem is that the side of the building faces south, which will get a lot of sun. The applicant has come back with a revision to it, which uses the continuous fascia that runs all across the front of the building as a sunshade. There is still some staggering with the windows inside, but not any variatio n in the continuous fascia. The applicant will explain what they want to do a little further. Staff asks for the Planning Commission’s comments on that. Special Use Permit—Parking Structure Staff indicated there was a special use permit as a part of this proposal for the parking structure. • A three-level parking structure is more efficient • Many of the spaces are closer to the building than they would be if surface parking were used. Staff thinks the parking structure is a good idea. Critical Slopes Waiver ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 5 There will need to be a critical slopes waiver. There are two types of Critical Slopes on the site: 1. There are small, isolated areas, disturbed for a stockpile that do not form parts of a larger system. These would be disturbed for buildings and parking. 2. There are areas on the east side of the site that border the stream and the pond . These slopes are part of a system and would be disturbed for crossings and the edge of the travel way into the parking garage. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located ne ar major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the local street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. Factor Unfavorable: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and including the Commission’s direction on the building elevations. • Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00009 • Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Loach asked how many children the daycare would have. Ms. Wiegand replied that she thought it was 200 children, but the applicant would be able to address it. Mr. Loach asked if the daycare center would be serving the entire University and Heath Center. Ms. Wiegand replied yes. Mr. Loach said essentially they would be putting additional traffic coming from almost every direction and then the afternoon most of it from the University and hospital would be coming back down JPA and Fontaine. Ms. Monteith asked to clarify that because she made some phone calls on this today. As she understands it, the daycare facility is for use of people in this building or people for the medical center, but not for the University at large. They have two separate systems. The system for the daycare for University people is a completely separate system. This has been set up only to address medical center people. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 6 Mr. Loach pointed out they mentioned with caution the interchanges on I-64 from both the east and west since it would be drawing people to drop their children off and then go back up Fontaine to the Health Science Center. Ms. Wiegand agreed that could happen. Mr. Loach said in the afternoon it would be more practical to come down Fontaine and JPA to pick up children if they were going east and west and to get back on 29 and go back that way. He suggested that they wait to see the traffic study. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Wiegand indicated that they factored all of those trips in the traffic study. Ms. Wiegand noted this shows that the daycare center at 15,000 square feet at this number of average daily trips that would be attributable to the daycare and then the number attributed to the office building. Almost one-half of the daily trips are to/from the daycare center. This calculation, as shown below, was made using a very conservative assumption—that none of the people in the office building would be dropping off their children at the daycare—and that all of the children would be dropped off by parents working at other UVA/HSF workplaces. Therefore, since it is likely that some of the children will be dropped off by parents working in the office building, the ADT for the daycare facility and the Total ADT are likely to be lower. Day Care Center 15,000 SF 1,189 ADT General Office 100,000 SF 1,334 ADT TOTAL 2,523 ADT Source: ―Trip Generation Handbook, 8th ed.,‖ Institute of Transportation Engineers Ms. Porterfield asked what was the hours of operation for the daycare. Ms. Wiegand replied that it was the same as the office building. The office building will be opened Monday through Friday during normal business hours. She was also told there might be staff working on a couple of Saturday mornings a month in the office building because they have some reports and things that they have to get out. That would not happen every weekend and the daycare would not be open at that time. Ms. Porterfield said even though it is catering to the medical center it is only going to be Monday through Friday. She asked if the hours were going to be basically 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Ms. Wiegand replied that she did not get specific hours, but that is what she would imagine. The applicant will provide any further information. Ms. Porterfield said the Commission got a letter from a nearby resident that indicated there was a presentation by the applicant that 40% to 60% of the actual building will be needed by the applicant and the rest will be rented or leased. She asked if that would be the ancillary companies that she was talking about. Ms. Wiegand replied she understood the tenants in the building would all be part of the support staff for HSF. The applicant can clarify that further. She thought they have about 40,000 to 60,000 square feet in the research park right now. However, they are talking about bringing in some slightly different groups of people into the proposed 100,000 SF so there would be more people in there. They are also talking about having room to expand if they have additional growth in the future. Ms. Porterfield said when she was looking at this she was not expecting them to rent to other businesses in the community. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 7 Ms. Wiegand agreed since she did not expect that. She did not know exactly what the leasing arrangements between the different people would be. She understood it was going to be Health Sciences support staff. The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Bill Daggett, with Daggett and Grigg Architects, represented Health Services Foundation with the Morey Creek Professional Center. He thanked Ms. Wiegand for her efforts in trying to work out the details . He also thanked the Buckingham Circle neighborhood. They attended two meetings and brought up excellent questions. They have tried to address their concerns. He presented a PowerPoint presentation, as follows. There are four issues he wanted to cover in a little more depth. Building Sizing & Scale of Development Basis for Building Size Consolidation via Terraced Parking Approach Comparison to Approved Townhouse Development Night Lighting Winter Working Hours & Overnight Impacts Fontaine Avenue Elevation Response to Façade Setbacks Requirement Traffic Mitigation Recommended Improvements at Fontaine Ave. - On March 16, 2010, an analysis was done for the Health Services Foundation to determine how many square feet they actually would need, including reserve space for some expansion . They came up with a gross square footage of about 63,000 square feet. In 2008, an analysis was done for another department associated with the Medical Center that also is engaged in financial assistance to patients. In that case the Health Services Foundation does all of the billing for physicians. Therefore, this is a combined service. When the Health Services Foundation determined it needed to move so that the building they occupy now could be used for medical use at Fontaine it made sense to combine these. That is exactly what they are looking to do . With the two, it adds up to about 95,000 square feet. Because of the composition of the multi-story building, they have to add some square footage for common travel way up and down the inside of the building and so forth. Therefore, they come up to about 100,000 square feet. This is how this proposal came to be. - When they first started, they wanted to see if they could use surface parking to service this building. In order to service the building with required parking they had to look at obtaining this piece of property. They worked with the University Foundation to obtain the other piece of property for the daycare center. This is all done as a surface parking lot, which required multiple rezoning, which was problematic. It was an excessive walking distance since they were 750’ from the parking space to the building. There was massive site grading. He pointed out the two dark lines were two 10’ tall walls with one on top of the other. It was much like what was seen at Lowe’s. The retaining wall would continue all around. There is another 10’ wall at the top of the site. This is to maintain the 5 percent grade for parking. They are going to have to cut deeply into the site and then level it out. On top of that, they could not fit everything because it was all taken up by parking. Therefore, they ended up having to pick up the small parcel of 3.5 acres to handle the daycare center, which the University asked if they could include. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 8 - What they did is abandon that concept and came up with the idea of building the 100,000 square foot office building in this location, but creating a terracing parking structure that was associated with it that benched into the site. That enabled them to take all of the retaining walls and put it at the back side of the parking structure and to step it so they did the least amount of site grading. The daycare center could locate conveniently in this location. It takes care of it so they are only rezoning the one piece of property, which is designated for this use. They now have a reasonable parking distance. Actually two floors of it are under cover, which is great for the folks working in the building. The site grading is greatly reduced and they have consolidated. - The next thing he wanted to discuss was the townhouse plan for 61 units. There are some units included for low income/worker housing. This occupies about the same part of the site that they do, which is the only part of the site that can be built on. He noted the wetlands and other area s. He reviewed the proposed plan. The proposal would step back the office building both horizontally and vertically so that they are eroding the building and presenting as small a front to the neighborhood as possible. He pointed out the parking structure, which was being tied into the building so it looks like an extension of the building. It is not going to look like a parking structure at all. The daycare is so far back and hidden away the folks in this neighborhood will not even see it. The only place it will be seen is from the Foundation’s property. - He compared the proposal to the previous approved townhouse plan. He noted the townhouse plan added almost 175,000 square feet of living space. This plan proposes 115,000 square foot. They are not increasing the amount of built area in terms of useful sp ace. The upper section shown was of the townhouses, which was a little closer to the neighborhood. He noted that the retaining wall went from 0’ to about 17’. The townhouses are three stories with two stories and a half basement and roof. However, the parking structure is two stories. - They tried to look at this with some models so they could see the imposition of both of these projects from the vantage point of the Buckingham Circle Neighborhood. He displayed a rendering of what it looks like today or actually last March. This is approximately what it would look like with the townhouses and retaining walls. The slide showed their proposal with the same water feature, their building eroding so it showed the least amount of square footage towards the neighborhood, and their two-story parking structure that is integrated into the façade. The next slide showed one imposed on the other. They are slightly higher at the back of the building towards their entrance and Fontaine, which is only about 5’. Right at the base of the windows is the top of the parking garage. Therefore, there is a great deal more exposure of the townhouses as a wall of buildings towards the neighborhood than what they are presenting with the parking structure. - He presented a slide of the night view in December when people are working. Then he showed a slide of what the building would look like after dark. The building would become completely dark . All of the corridors inside the building will be at the interior. Offices will be equipped with occupancy sensors so lights will automatically go out as people are living the building. - He reviewed the three elevations. Their rendition actually steps back as proposed by staff at 30’ and then a 30’ indentation that is 6’ back. Then it was 60’ and another 30’ and so on down the building. They also stepped back the third floor at 15’. Therefore, that is now stepped back further. When they looked at this, they felt it did not have as much impact being on the south elevation as it would if they continued the fascia and created deeper shadow lines. The next slide shows they are creating a much deeper shadow line, which is going to accentuate the fact that they have recessed the 30’ bays. It is their feeling that is a more positive building image, which is going to create a more pronounced depth. They would certainly hope the Commission would agree. - Regarding traffic, the Health Services Foundation and the University Foundation have agreed that whoever goes first that all of these improvements are going to be made so that any new building will be occupied only after they are in place. They have worked with each other and have proffered it. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 9 Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Smith asked what was the total number of parking spaces in the structure. Mr. Daggett replied that it was roughly 450 parking spaces altogether. Some parking spaces are under the building. Therefore, the combination of the parking structure and under the building is between 425 and 450 parking spaces. Mr. Smith asked how many employees would there be. Mr. Daggett replied that it was 235 plus the employees for the other medical finance group. All of the parking meets the ordinance regulations. Mr. Lafferty asked if the pedestrian bridge would be wide enough to accommodate a bicycle and pedestrians. Mr. Daggett replied that, as he understands that bridge has to be built in accordance with Mr. Brooks’s agreement. Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be ADA compliant so that wheelchairs could be used. Mr. Daggett replied yes. Ms. Porterfield asked to go back to the letter from the adjacent neighbor, which brought up a couple things she was curious about. T here is no on-site dining or any kind of a restaurant even though they have many people there. Mr. Daggett replied that the finalized program has not been accepted formally. Within this program there is dining available for the folks in this building with a cafeteria. They are including areas outside where they can take snacks and lunches and eat in good weather. It is intended to serve the folks in the building. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is going to be a shuttle bus that would go back and forth from the Fontaine Campus so that people don’t have to move their cars. Mr. Daggett replied that he could not answer that question. Ms. Porterfield questioned if this building was not to be rented to any unrelated businesses. Mr. Daggett replied no, the idea is that this building is to be used by integral financial groups that are supporting the medical center. There is a certain level of security required. Therefore, this benefits both of them to provide better efficiency and security because they handle a lot of money. Ms. Porterfield asked if they are all related to the University of Virginia Medical. Mr. Daggett replied the building was not intended to be rented to anybody other than departments of the University servicing the Medical Center. Ms. Porterfield asked if the daycare center would be operated only from Monday through Friday. Mr. Daggett replied as he understood, that is the plan. Mr. Loach asked if the day care hours would be longer. Mr. Daggett replied the daycare center was supposed to operate during normal working hours and somewhat beyond so that if someone is leaving at 5 p.m. they will have time to pick their child up. He ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 10 would say 6:30 p.m. or so. He did not know what the precise hours are, but it was not suppose d to operate on all night. The daycare is intended to service folks that are coming and going during the day. Mr. Zobrist clarified that Mr. Loach was thinking that people from the University Hospital would be coming to this site. This is just for the Fontaine and the day workers. Mr. Daggett noted that the folks at night are probably going to have their children at home. Mr. Loach said that if, in fact, the daycare is going to serve nurses and physicians at the hospital that many of the nurses’ shifts are 12 hour shifts, like 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. They have these v arying shifts at the hospitals. Mr. Daggett said that he could not answer that question. Mr. Loach asked if he was telling him that the daycare is j ust serving this facility on Fontaine, then he did not see a problem. Mr. Daggett said it can serve for others at the University, but its hours are intended for day workers. Ms. Porterfield said that it makes a huge difference as to what the hours of the daycare are. Daycare operations the Commission has looked at have had specific hours and that sort of thing. Mr. Daggett referred the question to Gary Lowe. Gary Lowe, Project Manager for Health Services Foundation, said the University is looking at numerous sites in and around the Charlottesville area for daycare centers. The ideal setting is for a 15,000 to 20,000 square foot building to accommodate 200 to 250 children. If it gets too much bigger, it becomes unmanageable. According to the folks they have talked to, they are expected to manage these. This is all being discussed and he was not 100 percent sure. However, they do have daycare centers close to the hospital as well. He would assume night time employees would drop the children off at the more convenient place right next to the hospital where they have an existing daycare. The need is certainly during the daytime. That is why they are looking at multiple sites in and around Charlottesville to accommodate the workers of children during those hours. He would not anticipate having that particular facility open after normal working hours due to the fact they already have a daycare center right off of Cherry Avenue in the Eleventh Street area in existence that would be more convenient for the employees to use. Ms. Porterfield said the normal working hours of the Fontaine and this area would be what everyone would consider sometime between 6 am and 6 pm as opposed to the shift that medicine sees. Mr. Lowe replied that is correct. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Donal Day said that he had been a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle for the last 32 years, which was the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed center. He was appearing today to express in the strongest possible way his objections to this application. He felt the staff report or the written document erroneously suggests that the major concerns of their neighborhood had to do with exiting Buckingham Circle during these peak traffic hours. This could not be further from the truth. At both of the meetings they had with the developer and his agent, where more than 30 people each time appeared, a wide range of concerns were presented. Their list of concerns were traffic, massing of the buildings, the visual and environmental impacts, runoff, and lighting all derived from a single source. It is the density and intensity of this proposed development. The creation of this dense monolith of glass and brick as presented adjacent to this rural housing development creates a contrast that will startle the observer. He will see this everyday as he drives out of Buckingham Circle. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 11 To get a sense of this disparity consider that there is more square footage proposed here on the 5 acres or so that Mr. Daggett says is the only part available to be built on. He was glad he said that because it is a 12 acre parcel, but only 5 acres can be built on. There is more proposed square footage there than there are in all of Buckingham Circle consisting of 50 homes. They have 30 acres. Therefore, they go from a very quiet nearly rural established residential neighborhood complete with chickens, bee hives, and back yard gardens to something more like a space ship with hundreds of cars zooming in and out during peak hours with night time artificial lighting that can never be escaped. No number of County ordinances can dissipate what is basically the light from an infinitely sized large building. This proposed structure is, in fact, a violation of the Land Use Plan, which states that the building’s square footage limits it to a 5 acre parcel of 40,000 square feet . The staff report circumvents this by suggesting that, in fact, it is a 12 acre site. No one is proposing to build on the wetlands in the riparian area. Mr. Daggett said so himself. Speaking of which, not long ago the County came to his neighbors and proposed to share the cost of planting a riparian buffer to protect and purify the stream. However, now the creek and the wetlands will be used as a dumping ground for all of the pollutants streaming off the parking spaces and the roofs. To make matters worse, staff supports a waiver for disturbance of the critical slopes. The daycare center would be serving mostly people outside this development. It is true they met with the applicant on two occasions. They presented their concerns, which were heard the first time. When they came back, he told them exactly the same thing. Instead of a give and take, they got the brush off. This project takes property off the County tax rolls . Since the Health Services Foundation is a charitable non-profit organization that purchased this land, no property tax will be paid and none will be paid on this building development. His 1,500 square foot house on Buckingham Circle will provide more to the County than this entire project. The taxpayers of the County would be much better off if this property returned to a private profit and taxable organization. Linda Day, resident of Buckingham Circle, agreed with her husband. She reiterated that the project is too big and disproportionately large for their neighborhood. It is will look like a space ship enterprise, which will be seen when they drive out of Buckingham Circle. She questioned the parking garage since nobody has said how many square feet it will be. That is never mentioned. She questioned why this project is not being constructed with the idea of parking off site, such as Scott Stadium, with shuttle buses. There is also a new parking garage proposed in the new Fontaine Research Park. She asked why people wouldn’t be parking there. She asked why they needed to add this huge new footprint to what they have already proposed here for the office complex. She suggested they go back to the 40,000 square feet and use shrubbery to hide it from their neighborhood. The Health Services Foundation needs to have a secure building particularly for those people that have some anger managem ent issues due to declined insurance claims. She questioned that it m ight not be an appropriate location for a day care center in an area where they want to have a secure situation. She suggested a day care center might be better sited in the Fontaine Research Park itself. She asked why add to more traffic problems by having pick-up and delivery of children throughout peak morning and evening hours. In the staff report, it says the site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property known as Fox Haven. On the west, it is bordered by the Bias property. Furthermore, the Planning Commission should know that Fox Haven upon the death of Jane Heyward would revert to the University of Virginia. There is plenty of land out there to create something that is not going to be such an eyesore for their community. She suggested that they hold off for a few years. That is not in any disrespect to Jane Heyward who is an incredibly wonderful person. This is a big mistake in that the west is not owned by Fox Haven Farm. Brier Gertler, resident of 141 Buckingham Circle, noted that Eric Bloomfield had to leave at 9:30 p.m. She has lived here for six years and Buckingham Circle has existed in splendid isolation. Donal Day gave the statistics about the number of houses and the square footage. The square footage of all the houses in 30 acres of Buckingham Circle is less than one-half of the proposed square footage for this project. It absolutely is going to be enormous and will not fit Buckingham Circle. Buckingham Circle is a quiet neighborhood with lots of wildlife. Her neighbor had a black bear on his front porch last year. She cannot imagine a less appropriate site for a massive 115,000 square foot building with massive parking with 450 parking spaces. There will be thousands of car trips every day right by the only entrance and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 12 exit to Buckingham Circle, which is a dead end. Everybody comes and goes at the same time through that little intersection. The traffic is an unfavorable factor. There is more than one factor unfavorable. There is the traffic, lighting, noise, and the disruption of their beautiful life . She just wants to live in the country. However, it has to be balanced against the factors favorable. It seems that going through the list of factors favorable that every one of those factors is favorable to the Health Services Foundation. She honestly cannot see a single factor favorable to Albemarle County. The one thing mentioned as a favorable factor to the County is the extended tax base. They were just told that this number of employees already works in the County. Therefore, the idea is not that they are going to have new people coming in from outside the County. They won’t pay any property taxes. Therefore, she did not see how the County would get one penny of increased taxes. If the factors unfavorable were outweighed by the factors favorable, then yes by all means they should do it. The weight is only in one direction here and at the very least, she would ask that they cut this project in half. The project is too large. Robert Miller, resident of 143 Buckingham Circle, pointed out he was in complete agreement with everything that had been said so far. He noticed that their whole neighborhood was in full bloom right now except for the wetlands. It looks like someone came through and defoliated the place. Last fall there was foliage there. It is just a big brown pit this year. Usually this time of year the frogs are almost deafening, and there are no frogs. He did not k now what happened there. It seems like someone has already started this project. Jane Bielefeld, homeowner at Buckingham Circle, noted that everyone knows each other in the neighborhood. It is a real neighborhood where they get out and walk on the Circle. She was deathly afraid that this will change their quality of life. She asked the Commission to say no to the request. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, pointed out Free Enterprise Forum has no position with regard to this application. They have a process question. This is a ZMA and he questioned the purpose of the ZMA. He questioned whether there is a real desire for this Commission to move forward dictating whether they will lease out space to anyone else or if it will be all employees of the applicant. He was concerned in so much as the restriction of trade and the idea that Albemarle County realized not so long ago that outsourcing cleaning services seem ed to be a more economical solution. If they put such a restriction into a ZMA, they would be prohibited from having anyone handling such outsourced cleaning services. It seems like a misplaced discussion point. Ms. Porterfield pointed out she just wanted to know whether the letter was accurate in regards to the size of the building. It sounded like they were building part of the building to have rental space for businesses in Albemarle County. She wanted to clarify it and thought it has been clarified. Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Daggett said he would like to address one issue, which is the Health Services Foundation pays real estate taxes. This building and property generates somewhere, if their numbers are correct in what it is going to cost, between $150,000 and $160,000 annually. That is a fact. Mr. Loach asked why they did not utilize the buses like they do for the University Hospital. In other words, have people park at the stadium and bus them down rather than having a large parking lot. Mr. Daggett replied that the County Ordinance dictates the parking. He questioned if it is something that is negotiable. Mr. Cilimberg said that the parking can be reduced, but it can’t be removed. Mr. Daggett said they have to have property within a certain distance to replace it. The Jaunt Bus can come to the site. When the University extends its service, it certainly can service this building and help with that. However, the number of spaces is dictated by the County Ordinance. Mr. Loach said it would be a consideration on the part of the University if it could be negotiated and essentially reduced so that they would be generating less traffic and less parking. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 13 Mr. Daggett replied that his sense was there certainly was going to be more spaces than necessary to service this building. If that were negotiable, he would think they would be willing to do that. It would mean they could build less parking structure. They have to service the folks who are coming to the building. There has not been any discussion about reducing parking on behalf of the County. Ms. Porterfield noted that comments were made about the building being really big with a lot of square footage. She asked if the building has to be that big. Mr. Daggett replied that as he pointed out at the beginning, this building was sized to put these groups together in the same space and 100,000 square feet is what they need. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was no other way to achieve that. Mr. Daggett replied if they want to put these groups together from the standpoint of efficiency of opera tion to service the Medical Center, there is no way to do it other than in the same building. Ms. Porterfield asked if they want to do it here as opposed to at Fontaine. Mr. Daggett replied that Fontaine is a completely different thing. The Health Services Foundation would remain there except that the medical center needs to expand the medical services to reduce the congestion at the hospital and to provide folks with easier access to medical services. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was any thought about hiding the building more by having the smaller item or daycare out in front so to be more accessible. That is just a thought. Mr. Daggett said they have tried very hard to mitigate the impact of this large building by stepping it back as best they can. Most of its bulk will not be visible from the neighborhood. They have offered to plant in front so the neighbors had less view of it. That is something that they are still willing to discuss. Mr. Zobrist invited other questions. He thanked the applic ant for his comments. The public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said if he lived in Buckingham Circle, he would not want this big building over there either. However, he believed he would prefer this proposal as to having apartments and townhouses. That is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and this request is not. He would hope that the traffic problems would be mitigated. Mr. Morris said when the Planning Commission heard the rezoning of this property in 2004/2005 virtually the same concerns were raised by the residents of the Circle. They were valid concerns. He thought the applicant’s presentation showed that they are probably going to be less affected by the profile of what is now being proposed than what was proposed and approved in 2005. Unfortunately, it is going to affect their community no matter what. Mr. Franco asked if this is a proffered site plan at this point. Ms. Wiegand replied that it is a Planned District. Therefore, they don’t have to proffer the application plan since it is automatic. The application plan is not proffered. Mr. Franco asked if there is an ability to reduce the amount of parking. Ms. Wiegand replied yes, that she is going to talk with Ms. McCulley to see if they could reduce some of the parking. That could be done at the site plan. If the Commission should recommend approval when they get to the site plan, they just might have a slightly smaller building. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ordinance actually has provisions for a study that would be submitted for a reduction in parking. That can happen at the site plan stage. It has not happened at this point. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 14 Mr. Franco said approving this with this application plan does not prohibit that from occurring. Mr. Cilimberg replied no. The footprint could be reduced and if parking was reduced that is not an issue. Mr. Zobrist asked if staff has a proposed resolution. Ms. Wiegand noted that there were three separate motions that needed to be made. This is the first item. She asked if the Commission has any guidance for staff and the applicant about the elevations shown on Fontaine Avenue. Mr. Zobrist replied that he did not. He thought the architects could do it better than he. He liked the way they had done it. Mr. Loach reiterated that the early planning should have been with transportation in mind. It should not have been about how to mitigate the traffic and put in another big parking lot. It should be how they can start to weave this proposal into the fabric of the neighborhood. He would have thought the University would have started to take this concern into consideration rather than push everybody down to those 29 exits, which was the one place they said there was going to be a problem. They should look to do anything that can be done about that. He agreed with Mr. Smith to prefer this use on a 9 am to 5 pm basis five days a week, particularly knowing the University is going to be maintaining it. He noted Fontaine Park is a very nice place. Mr. Lafferty suggested being careful about saying the University versus the Health Service Foundation since they are entirely separate. Mr. Smith disagreed with reducing the parking area. If they take 50’ to 75’ off the parking decks, they still have 3 elevations. They could never have too much parking. He was not saying cover the whole site with parking, but he felt it looks like the parking fits. Ms. Porterfield agreed that they should not lower the parking since it was one thing that the University Medical needs. Mr. Loach noted he was not saying the parking should be reduced , but they should be looking at incorporating mass transit with it. Not everybody is going to be coming from one spot into there. Ms. Porterfield noted even if they end up with extra parking and they run a shuttle bus they have people that need to park off-site that are parking off-site now down at the hospital due to the lack of parking. Mr. Monteith noted that there is enough parking. People are making choices and there is plenty of parking. Ms. Porterfield said they would discuss that later. She requested to talk about the daycare. She questioned if they need to put parameters on the daycare since they always have on any other day care that comes in. If it is truly a Monday through Friday daycare, it needs to be that. If it needs to have the basic real working hours and not shifts, then it needs to be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that would have to be a proffer as to the operation of daycare. This is a commercial use. Mr. Kamptner pointed out it is a by-right use in the PD-MC District. Mr. Cilimberg said this is not a rural area or residential zoning, but is Planned Development Mixed Commercial. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 15 Ms. Porterfield said that it is big and she understood what it is needed for. However, they need to try to keep as much activity away on the weekends and the holidays. In other words, not Saturday, Sunday or holidays so at least the people living nearby could have some peace at that point. Mr. Kamptner noted the Commission could make a suggestion for a proposed proffer that the applicant can consider when this goes to the Board. Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, as it stands subject to the proffers provided and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. Mr. Franco pointed out with respect to the day care, the existing use that is allowed there is 24/7. He did not see that this daycare would be a greater impact than the 61 residential units that were proposed. Even if it was on Saturdays, he did not think it was appropriate for the Commission to be restricting it. Ms. Monteith added if it is appropriate for the applicant and the County to work together, they certainly have used transportation land management to reduce the parking ratios at Fontaine. There is no reason why that couldn’t be applied as a formula here. Mr. Franco said absolutely. He thought that if it was a choice of the applicant to work with the County to reduce the traffic that is a choice they are making and he was comfortable with that. He did not want to force it on them, but would support that. Mr. Cilimberg said that would actually be necessary as part of a parking study to reduce spaces. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that the motion carried. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00009, Morey Creek Professional Center - Parking Structure as recommended with no conditions. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver: Mr. Kamptner noted that this was an action to approve. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission would be taking the action and not the Board. The Commi ssion would actually be approving the waiver. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00003 Morey Creek and SP-2010-00009 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure would go to the Board on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. The critical slopes waiver was approved. Old Business Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any old business. Mr. Kamptner pointed out under the Morey Creek critical slopes waiver that Ms. Wiegand had the condition stated correctly since the Planned Development regulations were changed over a year ago. Under the current regulations, the Planning Commission makes recommendations on all of these types of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZMA-2010-3 Morey Creek and SP-2010-9 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure 16 waivers and modifications. If it were not part of a Planned Development, the Commission would be taking final action. However, they changed the regulations to make sure that all of these waivers and modifications that are associated with a Planned Development go to the Board so the Board can look at everything better. Mr. Zobrist asked if the motion needed to be changed. Mr. Kamptner replied just to be perfect he asked for a motion to reconsider. That would be followed by a revised motion itself. Motion for Reconsideration: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to reconsider Morey Creek Critical Slope Waiver. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver for Morey Creek with the conditions as recommended by staff. (Concurrent with ZMA-2010-00003 and SP-2010-00009). The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Franco requested staff for an update on the status of the critical slope ordinance since it might be helpful to hear where they might be heading. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the critical slope ordinance update had been put on hold due to the staffing situatio n. Return to exec summary