HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100014 Correspondence 2022-02-07SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
February 7, 2022
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia22902
RE: Response Letter #1 for ZMA2021-00014 Albemarle Business Campus Amendment
Dear Andy,
Thank you for your review of the zoning map amendment request for Albemarle Business Campus. This
letter contains responses to County comments dated January 24, 2022.Our responses are as follows:
Planning — General ZMA Comments (ZMA2021-00014)
1. Update the project narrative, code of development, and application plan with the assigned project
number, ZMA2021-00014.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The County project number has been updated with the
submission materials.
2. Structured parking is proposed to become a permitted use by -right within Block 3. Structured
parking would not be an appropriate use along the 5th Street frontage of this block and is not in
conformance with the guidelines of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Such structures
should be relegated or integrated with the building.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Following consideration of Planning and ARB comments, the
by -right structured parking use in Block 3 has been removed from the allowable uses in Block 3.
Additional regulations for structured parking in Block 2 have been added to the COD; specifically
these regulations require structured to be relegated behind the primary structure, and to not
exceed the height of the associated building. Please see further discussion below.
3. In consideration of building heights, it would not be appropriate for a parking structure to be
taller than the associated building. Are there any limitations on the height and size/massing of the
potential parking structures?
RESPONSE: To provide guidelines to the appearance of the structured parking, additional
information has been added to the Code of Development (under the Parking Areas section). We
agree that parking taller than the associated building would not be appropriate; within the
structured parking standards, structured parking in Block 2 would be limited to the height of the
associated building. Additionally, the parking garage must be relegated behind the associated
structure in Block 2, to mitigate visual impacts.
4. In Table B of the Code of Development is the total max non-residential square footage proposed
to be increased by 25,000 sq. ft. as well, to 426,000 sq. ft., or will it remain at 401,000 sq. ft.,
with the recognition that each block would not necessarily be able to utilize its full square footage
potential?
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The total maximum non-residential
square footage had been increased to 426,000 SF for the first submission, but had not been rev.
clouded.
5. Why is the proposed size of the dedicated right-of-way decreased from ZMA2019-00003 to
ZMA2021-00014? See sheet 12 of the Application Plan, where the two -feet of dedication along
Old Lynchburg Road in Block is no longer shown, and the dedication of ROW along 5`h Street
has decreased from 0.22 to 0.08 acres.
RESPONSE: The revised ROW dedication along 5 h Street accounts for more accurate survey
information of the existing street conditions and ROW on 5`h Street that was obtained during the
preparation of the initial site plan for the entirety of ABC and the preparation of the site
development plans for Blocks 1 and 5. The 2019 ZMA application was prepared using a
boundary survey and GIS information however; physical improvements such as the edge of
pavement, guardrail locations, etc. were not surveyed until after the approval of the 2019 ZMA.
During the site plan design kphase when additional survey information was obtained, we found
that the existing ROW on 5 Street is wide enough to accommodate many of the proposed
improvements including the proposed curb and gutter, planting strip, and a portion of the multi-
use path. It's not problematic to maintain the same ROW reservation as the 2019 ZMA however,
given the additional information that is now available, we felt the reservation could be updated to
reflect this additional information.
The ROW reservation along Old Lynchburg road remains at the northwestern portion of the
property however; the reservation area at the proposed entrance has been removed. This is due to
the entrance improvements for Vision Lane which requires a much larger commercial entrance
than was conceptually shown in the rezoning plan (the entrance is to be constructed per approved
SDP 2021-22). The width of the proposed entrance occupies the area that was previously slated
for ROW reservation.
6. The path through the Central Park should connect to the other trails and paths in the development
to promote a cohesive, inter -connected network. Currently, it appears that the pathway terminates
at a drive aisle on its north end, with parking spaces opposite, and does not connect with the paths
along the northern parking line, which is particularly important for providing access to the
proposed dog park.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In the Green & Amenity Space sheet,
we have included a crosswalk through the parking area and have called this out as a key element
within the plan to ensure that pedestrian connectivity is maintained from the Central Park to the
pedestrian path, up towards the dog park.
The Central Park was identified as an important amenity space within the original layout of the
site. With the proposed reduction in its size, what will the impact on the provided amenities be?
And what amenities/features are proposed to move to the ABC Park to the south? It would be
helpful to provide square footage estimates of these green and amenity spaces.
RESPONSE: A greenspace/amenity comparison exhibit has been included with this
resubmission. While the original central park allowed for an internal central gathering area within
the NMD, the enlargement of ABC Park presents a more welcoming presence on the Entrance
Corridor, immediately adjacent to the new multi -use path. While both the original ZMA and the
new ZMA amendment propose a linear greenway and ABC Park along the multi -use path, the
larger park area could encourage more active transportation along the multi -use path, as
pedestrians and cyclists would be attracted by community activity, landscaping, and smaller
parking footprint next to the new path infrastructure. The increased area of ABC park minimizes
the impervious parking area of Block 4, and would complement the proposed office structure in
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Block 3. The substantial office area in Block 3 will serve as a significant node in the NMD, and
the robust park space of ABC Park would be major amenity for possible tenants. While `Central
Park' is now a `Pocket Park,' the decreased size would not necessarily detract from the
greenspace network of Albemarle Business Campus. The Pocket Park serves a similar purpose of
the previous Central Park, in providing relief and ample landscaping between Blocks 2 and 5.
While the Pocket Park may not attract community gathering, as the Central Park may have, the
Pocket Park would still provide passive and active recreational opportunities and provide
significant landscaped area in the internal portion of ABC, and provide a connection to the dog
park in the rear. The larger community gathering that may have taken place in the prior Central
Park are now more likely to be organized within ABC Park, which would activate the 5th Street
streetscape.
8. With the requested increase in height, is there any consideration of minimum setback
requirements from the residential property to the east and/or the use of screening landscaping to
help buffer the proposed commercial development from the existing residences?
RESPONSE: A minimum side setback for Block 2 is not proposed at this time. From Vision
Lane, the internal private street through ABC, a shared accessway is proposed with Block 5 and
another entrance would be necessary for Block 2, which is proposed to the eastern portion of the
property. With the eastern entrance, there would be a travelway, parking, planting strip, and
sidewalk proposed along the eastern boundary and the proposed building would be located
beyond these improvements, towards the central area of the site. To mitigate impacts to the
residential property to the east, a 20' buffer is proposed along this eastern property, along the
length of any future non-residential or mixed -use building; the 20' buffer permits a sidewalk, to
allow for pedestrian connections to amenity space in the rear.
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE: In addition to the revisions identified in this response letter, please
note the addition of Note 4 to Table A which states, "'Office/R&D/Flex'expressly permits
`Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing"'. This note was added to clarify
that Laborities/Research and Development/Experimental Testing are by -right uses permitted
under the "Office/R&D/Flex designation.
Also please note the revisions to Note 2 to Table A which recognize the approval of the special
exception waiving the requirement for two housing types. This special exception was approved
with ZMA2019-03.
Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski
The increase in building height will increase visual impacts of the Block 2 building on the EC street. The
impacts of increased height and reduced setback will need to be mitigated through architectural design
and landscaping. Reducing the minimum setback and eliminating the stepback reduce the available
techniques and treatments for mitigating impacts of building height, mass and scale. Note that the design
illustrated in the narrative has not been reviewed or approved by the ARB.
RESPONSE: Thank you for these comments and it is noted that the design illustrated in the narrative has
not been reviewed or approved by the ARB. The increased height of the building will increase visibility
from the Entrance Corridor however, the existing grade of the site works to mitigate that height increase
as the proposed finish floor elevation will be approximately 10' lower than the grade of 5th St. opposite
this site. When completed, the proposed office building in Block 3 and affiliated landscaping will also
work to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed building in Block 4.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Although not yet approved or reviewed by the ARB, the architect's rendering of the proposed building
does encompass several elements often viewed favorably by the ARB such as the fagade articulation
which breaks up the mass while clearly defining the building elements that contribute to the cohesive
whole. The proposed building echoes similar features to other buildings in ABC that have been reviewed
and approved by the ARB.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Doug McAvoy, Jr.
Ensure the Developer and the Design Engineer continue to coordinate with VDOT Location and Design
Division and Culpeper District Location and Design to deconflict drainage and laydown issues between
this project and the proposed roundabout at Routs 631 (51h St/Old Lynchburg Rd) and 780 (Old
Lynchburg Rd).
RESPONSE: Thanks for this comment; it is unlikely construction will move forward in Block 4 (the
portion of the property nearest the roundabout) until after the construction of the roundabout is completed.
This construction sequence would limit conflicts between this project and a potential laydown area for the
construction of the roundabout. The developer will continue to coordinate with VDOT throughout the
design and development of the 5 h St./Old Lynchburg Road roundabout.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
kelsa shimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Kelsey Schlein
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com