HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199200013 Action Letter
\
(\_' +,"
Vj\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planmng & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville Virgima 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
June 18, 1992
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
ATTN David Westby
1709 University Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE SP-S2 13 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
Dear Mr Westby
The AlbemaJ~le County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 10,
1992, approved the above-noted request to allow supporting commercial
uses, re~iearch development activities and medical and pharmaceutical
laboratorif~s on 53 52 acres to be rezoned under ZMA-92-03 Please note
that thin approval is for the following uses
23 ') 211 Supporting commercial uses (reference 9 0),
23 ,) 2 12 Research and development activities including
expf~rimental testing and
23 2 2 13 Laboratories-Medical and Pharmaceutical subject to
1 Compliance with Section 4 14 Performance Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted
action, please do not hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
() We,
V wayne~ilimberg
Director cf Planning
Development
VWC/jcw
cc
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
~.
~II
---:::I :~ '--
----.~ ~\f
!...
:G!
~~
~l
~~
~~
~Q
~~
~\A)
10'2
~i
JZv
I
I
I
I
~~
I I
I
I
I ....
,
\ I
.~~:4
'Su
...l
-e.-
~::: ~~~
c : :V;~
Cl..
~t\(
\.V
i I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I '
U I IcJ
'Sa I~
..ll l..l
: ~ :
I I
I
I
::,
J~,;../ 1\ "-
J "'_, ~
5'"' ~.....-
l,~ir
I
I
~
~,
I
I
J~~ ..
~~ ~Q -----
- t~\ -
V
CD A,.
2.~
~~
.l~
_ a:t.
~t
~~
~~
tI
It-
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.B. 41, Pg. 228
Marshall said he was trying to relate this to things that are already done at
the University. He asked if these would mainly be used in the Hospital. Mr.
Westby said Wnot necessarilyw. This might be for other companies not directly
related to the University who are interested in the types of research going on
at the University, but not necessarily hospital-related.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned at 9:10 p.m.)
with no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Ii
~ioD was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve ZTA-92-06, by adopting the following Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 3 and 23.2.2. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN SECTIONS 3 AND 23.2.2
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 3, Definitions, and Section 23,
commercial Office, are hereby amended and reenacted by the addi-
tion of the following words:
Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add the following definition:
Laboratorv. Medical: A building or part thereof devoted
to bacteriological, biological, x-ray, pathological and
similar analytical or diagnostic services to medical
doctors or dentists including incidental pharmaceutics,
and production, fitting and/or sale of optical or pros-
thetic appliances.
~
, I
I '
Laboratorv. Pharmaceutical: A building or part thereof
devoted to the testing, analysis and/or compounding of
drugs and chemicals for ethical medicine or surgery, not
involving sale directly to the public.
Section 23.0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CO, add the following use:
23.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PE~IT
13. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
(Note: The following two petitions were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-92-03. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 53.52 ac from PD-SC & R-10
to CO. Property on S side of Fontaine Ave E of & adjacent to Rt 29 Bypass.
Site located in Neighborhood 6 is recommended for office service in the
Comprehensive Plan. TM76,P17B&17B1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
r-"
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-92-13. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to allow supporting commercial uses,
research development activities & medical and pharmaceutical laboratories on
53.52 ac to be rezoned under ZMA-92-03 (see description above). (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report which follows:
npB'.rI~IOR: The University Real Estate Foundation petitions the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 53.53 acres from Planned Develop-
ment-Shopping Center (25 acres) and R-10, Residential (29 acres),
to CO, Commercial Office (PrOffered). This rezoning is sought
under Section 9.0, Guidelines for Establishment of Comprehensive
Plan, in order to allow for unified development of the site and to
establish an Office Service Area as described by the Comprehensive
Plan, together with special use permit petition for: supporting
commercial uses (23.2.2.11), research and development activities
(23.2.2.12), and medical and pharmaceutical laboratories
(23.2.2.13).
ZORrNG APPLICA~ION PLAN: The proffered zoning Application Plan
proposes a maximum gross floor area of 389,000 square feet housed
in seven buildings. Five perCent of the floor area (19,450 square
feet) would be devoted to supporting commercial uses. Private
roads would be provided internal to the development.
..UU._C 'If-- .-,..--,-
-----n-
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 41, Pg. 229
A summary of land uses follows:
Building Envelopes
Parking/Driveways/Roads
Landscaped/OPen space
Site
Acreaoe
2.93
13.75
36.84
53.52
Percentaoe
5'
26'
69'
acres 100\
r
!
The buildings would be three to four stories resulting in a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0.16 (i.e. - floor area is equivalent to 16
percent of the site while building coverage is about five percent
of the site). This relatively conservative development schedule
is, in part, reflective of site constraints to development.
SUIIIIlUlY JlJID RIlCOllllBllDATIONS:
University Research Park is consistent with the guidelines set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan for Office Service Areas. As the
first petition subject to Section 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant has been most cooperative, the process has worked
smoothly, and the result is a project proposal clearly superior to
past development proposals for this site.
The applicant has substantially addressed cOllll1\Bnts by the City.
The project would not adversely affect residential areas in the
City. University Research Park Substantially complies with
detailed recommendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue Area nB- Study. It also substantially complies with the
following plans and individual site development plans will comply
with the following regulations:
Plans
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area nB- study
Albemarle County Open Space Plan (unadopted)
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle Plan
Albemarle Pedestrian Obstacle Study
Reoulations
-
I
!
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
PH, Flood Hazard Overlay District
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance
Wetlands requirements (U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers)
Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Critical Slopes
Urban Stormwater Management
Tree canopy/Landscaping/BUffering
4.14, Performance Standards
Private Roads
In revision of the University Research Park plan, effort has been
made to provide formal building organization and open spaces while
ensuring a respect for the natural features and environmental
sensitivity of the site.
The Virginia Department of Forestry and UREF have been cooperative
in planning fora single access to Fontaine Avenue. This access
will serve all property to the south of Fontaine Avenue in the
County. Staff requests maximum discretion in issuance of grading
permits in order to accommodate forestry and initial research park
occupant.
UREF has proffered to upgrade and extend public utilities and
serve the site as well as relocate and IIIOdernize the antiquated
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) eighteen-inch raw water
line which traverses the property, the cost of all improvements to
be borne by UREF.
,.....
I '
I
UREF, through proffers, has proposed adequate measures to provide
public utilities to the site while upgrading the RWSA system at no
cost to the public. On-site convenience services would be provid-
ed to employees.
VDoT and staff recommend that proffer #1 adequately addresses road
improvement needs as may be occasioned by the proposed UREF/Fore-
stry development.
SP 92-13. Uses bv Special Use Permit: Provision of supporting
commercial uses would not only be a convenience to employees, but
would also reduce off-site traffic, consistent with traffic
reduction efforts.
23.2.2.11. SUJ:lDOrtinQ Commercial Uses: '. Staff recommends approval
of this special use permit subject to the following condition:
1. In addition to limitation under Proffer #6, total floor area
devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed ten
II
-...__._._-~
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 41, Pg. 230
(10) percent of total floor area at any time during phased
development.
23.2.2.12. Research and Develocment Act~v~tie~tn~iu~ino Exoeri-
mental Testinar and 23.2.2.13. Laborato_i_s-M___c__ _nd Pharmaceu-
~ are appropriate within an office service area and would not
be objectionable to this site. staff recommends approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. COmpliance with Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
r
In order to provide accomplishment of the phasing plan as proposed
as well as to allow variations in the development schedule, staff
should be granted authority over approval of all phases of devel-
opment as well,.as administrative approval of all site development
plans and subdivision plats, if any.
St;aff rec~ds acaept;ilDce of the applicant;' s proffers t;ogether
with the proffered rellOlJi.ng applicat;ion plan. In the splI1.t; of
Seat;iOl1 8.5.6.3, the Direct;or of Plannmg and C~t;y Develop-
_t; tllJould be authori1l8d di.scret;i0l1 over re_Ol1abLe variat;iOl1B
f~ the 1IOI11.ng AppLicat;ion PLan.
OFFICB S~CB ABBASr This section of the report will discuss the
appropriateness of this site for CO, Commercial Office, zoning in
relation to recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
An Office Service area as described in the Comprehensive Plan
would require a site area in excess of 20 acres to accOlDllOdate a
building floor area of 150,000 square feet or more. The site
should be situated adjacent to a major collector or arterial road
and be provided with adequate internal circulation. The purpose
of an Office Service Area is to provide major employment center
with limited production activities and marketing of products.
Primary uses include corporate/major office parks, research/
development activities, and information systems as well as pro-
fessional uses providing services to the County and the region in
general. Secondary uses may include residential development,
supporting commercial uses, and hotel/motel/conference center.
~
Rather than adding several hybrid districts to the zoning ordi-
nance, staff developed measures intended to implement the various
service area proposals of the COmprehensive Plan through existing
conventional and planned districts. Section 9.0, Guidelines for
Comprehensive Plan Service Areas, provides strategies and regula-
tory provisions for implementation of service areas. Simulta-
neously, with adoption of Section 9.0, various zoning districts
were amended to incorporate uses envisioned in these service areas
(all service areas are mixed use in nature with major distinction
being the primary intended uses).
Section 9.3, Relation of COmprehensive Plan Service Areas to
Zoning District Regulations, suggests three zoning districts as
appropriate to establishment of an Office Service area:
23.0, 00, Commercial Office
27.0, LI, Light Industry
29.0, PD-IP, Planned Development-Industrial Park
r-
In September, 1990, UREF submitted a rezoning petition for Planned
Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP). In June, 1991, the zoning
ordinance was amended to provide for the various service areas of
the Comprehensive Plan. The PO-If zoning was abandoned in favor
of a CO, Commercial Office, designation as being more in keeping
with UREF's intent for the development.
Employing the guidelines set forth in Section 9.0, UREF has peti-
tioned for COmmercial Office zoning accompanied by three special
use ~ermit requests inClUding support uses as envisioned by
Section 9.4. The rezoning petition is accompanied by a set of
proffers pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
petition is also accompanied by a proffered Application Plan and
other supporting plans which have been reviewed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures set forth in Section 8.0, Planned
Developrnent--Generally. (While this is a proffered rezoning, the
applicant has submitted the petition for review as for a planned
development. Staff analysis and recommendations will be as
required for a planned development.)
St:aff opinion is that: the proposed UZJ1.versit:y Research Parle is
cOZJsist:8ZJt: with the guideLine. Bet: forth in the CCBpreheZJBive PLan
for Office Service are_.
PLA1QfING CONlIISSION RIlCOJlllBllDHIONS !I!O !rim BOARD OF SUPBRVIBORS r
Prior sections of this report have provided background as to the
development of Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this site
and general area and selection of zoning approach. Section 8.5.3
-,- -Ir
. -,r-
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 41, Pg. 231
n
of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS-GENERALLY requires an applicant
'to meet with the planning staff and other qualified officials to
review the Application Plan and original proposal prior to submit-
tal' in order to 'assist in bringing the application' into confor-
mity with various planning and zoning regulations and policies.
This process, informally and formally, has involved four years and
has included multiple meetings with various agencies of the Site
Review Committee as well as other agencies. The applicant has
endeavored to address all issues raised by various agencies as
well as adjusting plans to accommodate regulatory measures adopted
during this time period.
At this time, under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
University Research Park petition is forwarded to the Planning
Commission which 'shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors,' and, specifically, 'recommendations of
the Commission shall include findings as to:
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of
PD district proposed, in terms of: relation to the
comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the
land, and its relation to surrounding area;
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities
and services;
c. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitabil-
ity of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed re-
strictions, sureties, dedications, contributions,
guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for
such instruments or for amendments in those proposed;
and
d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations
as applied to the particular case, based on determi-
nation that such modifications are necessary or jus-
tified by demonstration that the public purposes of
PD or general regulations as applied would be satis-
fied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifi-
cations.
r-
Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of
the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated
modifications, or disapproval.'
While this petition is for a conventional zoning district, the
applicant has voluntarily postUred the petition under 8.0, Planned
Development--Generally. In that respect, staff has viewed the
proffers as proposed agreements as specified by 8.5.4.c. above.
Staff has attempted to ensure that this development will be
compatible to the area in which it is to be located and that the
development will provide its 'fair share' to infrastructure
improvements. That is to say that the proffers reflect the
'rational nexus' test and are not inadequate nor excessive.
The remainder of this report will address these various considera-
tions. Items a. and b. will be discussed in the context of the
Comprehensive Plan. Item c. is addressed by the applicant's
proffers and phasing plans (Subsequent assurances such as bonds
may be required at time of site plan approvals). Item d. will be
specifically addressed under 'Staff Recommendation.'
crn OP CDRLOTTRSVTU.. RIlCOIIIIBIIDJ~IORS I Charlottesville has made
seven specific recommendations relative to this project. (These
recommendations are provided by City staff). These recommenda-
tions are separate from and do not carry endorsement from the
Planning and Coordination Committee (PACC) Technical Committee.
I
I. Fontaine Avenue DeveloDment: The aDDlicant should be re-
auired. at this time. to Drovide a four-Ian; road with
divided medians as DroDOsed i: t~eJPA StUd; ~~~ b: the
Citvl Countv/Universitv. Thi_ i_ not so di s ~ ~ a_
reauirement from Drevious Droffer in this ~;~~t; for four-
lanino of Fontaine Avenue. Proffers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in staff
opinion adequately address this issue (see Fontaine Avenue
Improvements in this report).'
2.
Sidewalk: Sidewalks should be :~~~ss a;~~e f~~nt:~. of
this Dronertv and not onlv the as . .,w ~O;l:C-
tion from the DubUc heari~~ in the County ~~ the i~:~dV
was that many DBoDle use t s area for walkin~ and o.
The sidewalk as proposed would provide pedestrian access from
the City to UniVersity Research park. Staff would not recom-
mend encouraging walking/jogging in vicinity of the inter-
change until signalization controls are provided.
If'
If
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
n
I. ,.
n
-
M.B. 41, Pg. 232
3.
Bike Lane: This is _ desianated bike l~e in t~e c~t;~~~;v
iointlv adooted olano Thus. the aooli~ t shou d b d
to orovide imoroved bicvcle lanes frontaae. The applicant
proposes a bikeway along the full frontage of the property.
Location and design would be reviewed by Community Develop-
ment staff.
4.
Landscaoina/Buildina: Landscaoina ShO~;~b: a~~ro~r~:t~ in
keeoina with the entrance corridor con ___ _cc_ te b' ~he
Citv/Countv/Universitv. The nature a~d locatio~ ~f ;Uildinas
should resDBct the character of buildinas in the Cit_ and its
urban settina. This property is subject to Architectural
Review Board (ARB) review under the BC overlay district. One
member of the ARB is familiar with the project, which has
also been reviewed by the ARB's Design Planner. City com-
ments will be forwarded to the ARB for consideration. Prof-
fer #11 states that 'strict architectural and landscape
architectural guidelines and restrictions will be adopted
which shall govern the design 40d construction of all build-
ings and parcel specific site development.'
5.
Drainaae: Due to extensive surface nark~na an~severe
sloDBs. we want to be assured that this _evelo__ent adeauate-
Iv handles its drainaae: This site is subject to urban
stormwater management reqqirements and on-site detention will
be required.
JPA/Maurv Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Inte~sec;~o~: The ~~u::
should m,ke a sDBcial.effort to assuL tL _his dev__o----'_nt
does not adverselv affect the above interse~ii~~:nd that
aonronriate remedial measures are nrovided __ __c_ssarv.
This intersection is signalized and if traffic flow problems
are encountered, the phasing of signals could be changed (see
Fontaine Avenue Improvements in this report).
6.
7.
Future Road: The JPA Studv adonted bv ;~~~tv~C:~~:iUni-
versitv indicates a road throuah this n v 0 _na to
Sunset Avenue to take care of future develooment with~ut
adverse imoact on the Citv streets. We understand th:i ~~:
aUanment shown in this studv is ~ot ~:a;i:;. W: :~t; ~~ t
the aoolicant should be resDOnsib e f su est in __r-
tives which are feasible. This is the second t~ i~ th;
Countv review of deve100ments when nroDOsed ali_ ents west
of the Citv have been deemed unfeaslbf: :ith~~t n~~v~;~o~s
for a.lternate routes. This can onlv a to futu b ems
unless confronted now. Due to the requested zoning change on
this property (which would significantly reduce traffic
generation in volume) and the City's closure of Sunset Ave-
nue, the need for any new roadway should be reassessed by the
County. The applicant previously provided an assessment of
the feasibility of the Fontaine/Sunset connector, which has
been determined as unfeasible to build by PACC and the County
Board of Supervisors. No alternative connection seems to
exist. However, it is proposed that emergency access be
retained over Route 782 to residential areas south of the
railroad if Route 782 is abandoned by the Board of Supervi-
sors.
While not mentioned in the City's comments, this project is
adjacent to a smail residential development in the City. Due to
intervening Route 782 and a stream, the closest dwelling is about
250 feet from a parking area and 400 feet from a building. UREF
proposes landscaping to further buffer this residential area.
Proffer #10 states that 'UREF will design and install landscape
buffer area as shown on the plan to screen the project from
Fontaine Avenue and residential neighborhoods adjoining the
Research Park.'
S~aLf opinion is tha~ the appliclU1~ has subs~lU1t1ally addressed
c~~s by the Ci~y. 2'lJe project; would lJO~ adversely aLfec~
residBl1t1al areas in the Ci~y.
COMPRBBBNSIVB PLAN--SPBCIPIC RBCOMNBNDA~IORS: The July, 1989
Comprehensive Plan was substantially amended in OctOber, 1989 to
incorporate reeomrnendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue 'Area B' study as stipulated in the Three-Party Agreement
among the University, City and County. This section of the staff
report will address recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as
identified by the Community Development Division as applieable to
this petition.
I.
To the extent feasible. traffic reduction measures should be
encouraaed. SDBcificallv. Sidewalk: S~OUldbe ~rovided to.
and on the site. CTS and Universit T ansit Service should
be encouraaed to serve the site. Proffer #3 stipulates that
'UREF will construct at its expense sidewalk improvements
along the south side of Fontaine Avenue from the proposed
entrance to the Research Park to the eastern most entrance of
II --
'-1--__~._ __
'---"
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
r-
~
i I
~
I I
M.B. 41, Pg. 233
the property.' Off-road walkways are proposed to add to a
park-like atmosphere within the development. Proffer #3
states that 'UREF will encourage traffic reduction measures
within the Research Park through the provision of CTS and OVA
bus drop off points and on-site (supporting) commercial
uses.'
2.
The Pedestrian Obstacl~ StUd~ a~~ J:A:Fo~~{~:e ~venu~ ~~a
. B' Studv recommends sidewal s __on . ;~~~ ~enue i.1.de-
walks should be Drovided ~~ ~~ so~~: uu.. ~~a:.;n~:i~e venue
from the UREF entrance ea w _ al .': the l__________he
proiect imDrovement relat;d t~ thi; ite. As stated in #1
above, the applicant has complied with this recommendation
under proffer #3.
The Citv-Countv Bicvcle ~1:: rec~:n~~ a bikew~: alon~
Fontaine Avenue. These ~ rovemei __ou1d be ~:~~~at:d
as a Dart of road imDrove:n~:' T~. desia:a:~~ f he
Bicvcle Plan call for a s____ted _icvcle _____ Proffer #2
stipulates that 'UREF will construct at its expense, full
frontage bikeway improvements to be incorporated along the
eastbound travel way of Fontaine Avenue. The bikeway shall
extend from the northbound Off-ramp of the U. S. 29 Bypass to
the eastern most corner of the Research Park.'
3.
4.
The Communitv Facilities Plan indi~:;e~ fire service to this
aeneral area of the Countv mav be u f cient. Under coop-
erative agreement, the City Fire Department would be the
first company to respond to this site. The applicant has
stated an unwillingness to provide site area for a fire
company due to lack of available area.
5.
staff recommends the closure and abandonme~~f RO~:: 782
from Fontaine Avenue to the railroad as a ~=c ~~a. The
road aliClllll&nt should remaini h;;;;ver; :~~ ;';h~:ncv ;~cess
to this area. The COunty wi I be add e _ n~ t=~~ iss~ with
the citv and VDoT. The existina D~offe; ;;~ ~:; ~o:~~v to
improve Route 782 is no lonaer considered ne s thi~
develooment. Historically, the Board of Supervisors has
dealt with public road abandonrnents and right-of-way vaca-
tions without input from the Planning Commission. This
matter will be presented to the Board of Supervisors.
6.
Consider the recommendations of the JPA/Fon~~~:: :~i~:orhood
Studv. Particular consideration ShO~ld be ;~t-; ;u ~~..:
recommendations concernina road desi_n char___e_i_ti__ __d
frontaae improvements. The applicant has made these design
plans available to the PACC Tech Committee, City Planning and
University Architect (also a member of the County ARB).
Negotiations as to visual design aspects will be addressed
during site development plan review.
Staff op.inion is t:llat University ReseardJ Parle substant:ial.ly
ca-,plies wit:ll detailed rec_dations of t:lle Jefferson Parle
Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Area 'B' s1;udl' and ot:ller CClllJlre1I8Dsi_ Plan
dCJC'tmelJts.
~R PLANS AND RBGULATIONSI This project is subject to several
plans and regulatory measures. previous sections have outlined a
few of these documents. The University Research Park substantial-
ly complies with the following plans and individual site develop-
ment plans will comply with the following regulations:
~:
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area 'B' Study
Albemarle County Open Space Plan (unadopted)
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle Plan
Albemarle Pedestrian Obstacle Study
Reaulations:
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
FH, Flood Hazard Overlay District
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance
Wetlands requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Critical Slopes
Urban Storrnwater Management
Tree canOPY/Landscaping/Buffering
4.14 Performance Standards
Private Roads
PHYSICAL CJIARA~RIftICS OF ~ SID: ."".""'ION TO SURROUNDING
ABIAII In approaChing physical redesign of the University
Research Park plan, a primary focus of MCKee/Carson and other
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Xeeting)
(Page 29)
M.B. 41, Pg. 234
consultants was to define the physical and environmental con-
straints to development and to respect these constraints in the
development proposal. Additional considerations were access/
circulation conSiderations, desire to maximize usage of existing
site features to produce a formal building layout, and to capital-
ize on mountain views. The plan Significantly down scales devel-
opment from the 880,000 square feet proposed in 1990 to the
current proposal for 389,000 square feet of floor area. As
described in the applicant'S textual narrative, the following site
characteristics were investigated (mapping also provided):
r
I
I
Site Characteristics:
- Soile and Geology
- Slope and Terrain
- Surface Drainage and Wetlands
- Vegetation
Depth to bedrock is four to five feet. An area of unconsolidated
spoil would be reworked. (Staff recommends the spoil area not be
subjected to 4.2 Critical Slopes.) Soils on the site are very
erosive. Proffer #12 states that 'Best Management Practices will
be implemented in all areas of earth-disturbing activity. No
earth-disturbing activity shall be permitted within the limits of
the flood plain.'
In revision of the Universit.y Resea.rc:1J Park Pllln, effort; has been
_de t.o provide fo~ build1rJg o~anizat.iDn and opel1 spaces while
ensuring a respect. for the nat.ural feat.ures and env~t.al
sensit.ivit.y of the sit.e.
r--:
Initial development of this site will be construction of a major
office building complex on the adjoining Virginia Department of
Forestry site (this is the same project originally proposed along
Route 53 and subsequently on the Hillcrest tract between Routes 20
and 742). Several years ago, staff rec~nded that the Forestry
Department be provided access through the UREF site. Forestry is
agreeable to this recommendation and, therefore, construction of
the access to the University Research Park site may precede
development within the site itself. Also, an initial occupant for
the research park may submit site plan prior to Board action on
this rezoning request. Due to the time demand on this user, staff
will process the site plan as though requested zoning were in
place. The Virginia Dep~t. of 'ores#;ry and rnua 1Ja_ been
cooperat.ive in planning for a single access t.o 'onf:4ine Avenue.
This aacess will serve all property t.o the south of 'onf:4ine
Avenue in the Count.y. St.aff requests "'>11.__ ducret.ion in
iSBrlllnafl of grading pend.t.s in order t.o aCC~at.e 'ores#;ry IInd
initial research park ocaupllDt..
PUBLIC UTILI~IBSI An eighteen-inch raw water line located in a
thirty-foot easement traverses the site parallel to and about 700
feet from Fontaine Avenue. This is an old cast iron line with
leaded joints and unknown bedding susceptible to leaks and fragile
to development activity. UREF is negotiating with the RWSA to
relocate/reconstruct this line. The line should be field located
and surveyed and method of relocation approved by RWSA prior to
review of any final site plan or grading activity. Proffer #8
states that 'UREF will relocate the existing eighteen-inch raw
water line in a manner acceptable to and in accordance with the
standards of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.'
A twenty-inCh finished water line is in prOximity to the site. A
new eight-inCh sewer line is under construction adjacent to the
site. Proffer #9 states that 'UREF will design and construct at
its own expense all improvements and upgrades of utilities which
are occasioned by the development of the Research Park.'
Consistent with County policy, URBF hIlS proffered t.o upgrade and
ezt.end public ut.ilities t.o serve the sit.e as _11 as relocat.e IInd
""emi..e the antiquat.ed RflSA eight.een-inch raw wat.er line which
t:raverses the propert:y, the cost. of all illprov_t.s t.o be boZ'lJe
by URBF.
r
I
PUBLIC FACILITIBB/SBRVICBS: As stated previously in this report,
UREF has proffered provision of sidewalk and bikeway consistent
with recommendation of the Community Development Division, but is
unwilling to provide a site for a volunteer fire company. A park-
like atmosphere would be provided on the site to provide employee
open space amenity. In addition, a maximum of 19,450 square fret
of building area would be devoted to employee convenience uses
such as" but not limited to: day care center, post office, banks,
drug store, newsstand, dry Cleaning/laundry, health club, and
restaurants. Each use would be reviewed for consistency with Co,
Commercial Office, subordinate uses and uses envisioned under
Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
II
- . ----rr-
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
M.B. 41, Pg. 235
-
,
UREF, through proffers, has proposed adequat;e -_vres t;o provide
public ut:.ilit;ies t;o t;lJe site while upgrading t;lJe RflSA s78t;_ at; no
cost; to t;lJe public. On-site convBlJience services would be provid-
ed t;o e.ployees.
PUBLIC llOJU)8:
1"OJr.l'AIn AVBImB DlPROVRM1nI'P8: Under existing PD-SC, Planned
Development-shopping Center, and R-lO Residential zoning, poten-
tial traffic generation would be about 13,900 vehicle trips per
day from the UREF site only; Under proposed zoning for the UREF
site and traffic from the Forestry property, anticipated traffic
would b. about 4400 vehicle trips per day. While total traffic
under proposed zoning would be about one-third of traffic levels
under existing zoning, differences in dynamics became the focus
and peak-hour traffic became the concern. The UREP site is
situated in proximity to the U. S. Route 250/Route 29 South
interchange and peak-hour capacity of the interchange as well as
level of service of Fontaine Avenue was investigated and projected
(staff had informally observed that during the a.m. peak, the
northbound bypass Off-ramp appears to be approaching capacity).
The applicant's traffic consultant (Wilbur Smith & Associates) and
VDOT ran separate capacity analysis studies of Fontaine Avenue and
the U. S. Route 250/Route 29 South interchange, which provided
staff with the following condensed review context:
1. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS)
shows a U4 (Urban 4-lane) typical section for the proposed
improvement. Fontaine Avenue is a Phase IV (final phase)
improvement. The CATS projected an ADT of 10,700 for the
year 2000. The 1990 ADT was 12,900.
2. VDOT and Wilbur Smith agreed to an annual background traffic
increase of 2.7 percent to apply to all studied areas.
,...,
3. UREF anticipates a 15 to 20 year build-out and, therefore,
projection year is 2011.
4. VDOT agrees that the interchange would be in failure in year
2011 due to increase in background traffic but also states
that the UREP development would accelerate that condition.
5.
VDoT stated that background traffic will make Fontaine Avenue
operate at Level of Service (LOS) 'E' in 2011 and with addi-
tion of site generated traffic, LOS will drop to 'F'.
r
!
6. Regarding interchange ramp failure, VDOT agreed with the
staff assessment that the northbound off-ramp would fail
initially.
7. VDOT stated that 'eventually (by the year 2011 for the traf-
fic analysis submitted) the ramps for the Route 29 inter-
change will need to be signalized and upgraded due to the
anticipated normal (background) traffic increases. This
development would hasten (in about eight to ten years, de-
pending on the amount of time for build-out) these needs.'
Staff approached these issues from the following perspective:
1. What improvements to the bypass interChange and Fontaine
Avenue were necessary to avoid accelerated failure of these
facilities due to intrOduction/conflicts of UREF traffic?
That is to say, what improvements could be directly attribut-
able to the UREF development?
2. Are these improvements (proportionately) equivalent to or
superior to existing proffered improvements? In other words,
would the proposed zoning compared to existing zoning equally
or better serve the public interest regarding transportation
improvements?
Following multiple meetings involving people frOlll UREF, VDOT, the
PAce Tech Committee, and/or staff concerning various road improve-
ments/contributions on behalf of UREF, VDOr and st;aff rec~d
proffer #1 adequately addre"_,, road .z.pro~t needs as -7 be
occasioned b7 t;lJe proposed URBF/Forestry deve.Iop.eat. While staff
has calculated UREF traffic to represent 16 to 19 percent of the
improvement need, UREP construction costs for improvements would
represent 24 to 26 percent of the total costs to improve Fontaine
Avenue to a U4 typical section in the City and County (i.e. _ from
Jefferson park Avenue (JPA) to the Route 250/Route 29 Bypass) as
recommended by CATS.
Lastly, the City staff has stated about the JPA/Maury Avenue/
Fontaine Avenue Intersection, that 'The County should make a
special effort to assure that this development does not adversely
affect the above intersection and that appropriate remedial
measures are provided if necessary.' Wilbur Smith Associates
-
~
I
r-
r
I
I
'I
r.._._..L-.
".rr-
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
M.B. 41, Pg. 236
assigned 30 percent of site traffic to arrive from the City by
Fontaine Avenue and 70 percent to arrive from'the bypass. VDOT
accepted this distribution. This would represent a daily increase
of 1320 vehicles through this intersection. Fontaine Avenue, at
this intersection, provides three lanes eastbound (exclusive left,
through, and right). Maury Avenue, approaching this intersection,
provides thr8$ lanes southbound (right slip, through, left). JPA,
approaching this intersection, provides three lanes (right slip,
through, left), and, JPA westbound provides two lanes (right/
through, left). It would appear that any additional lanes would
negatively affect existing development in the intersection quad-
rants (staff is unaware of the extent of road right-of-way in this
intersection. UREF does not have the right of eminent domain).
SP-92-13. VSHS BY SPBCIAL USH PBRIII~, UREF has requested three
categories of uses by special use permit, all of which are intend-
ed to be provided under appropriate circumstance, within areas
shown for Office Service Area in the Comprehensive Plan. As
stated earlier in the report, the closest dwelling is about 400
feet from the closest proposed building in the development and,
therefore, the proposed uses, regardless of location, should not
be obtrusive to the area (i.e. - the minimum setback for a heavy
industrial use from an adjoining residential property is 100
feet). Special use permit requests include the fOllowing:
23.2.2.11. Supporting commercial uses are described by
the applicant to possibly include uses such as: day care
center, post office, branch bank, drug store, newsstand,
dry cleaning establiShment, small health club and restau-
rants. Uses permitted as supporting commercial uses would
include uses permitted by right under the C-1 zone, as
modified by Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has proffered not to exceed the total floor area
limit established by 9.4.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance
(i.e. - SO percent). Provision of supporting commercial
uses would not only be a convenience to employees, but
would also reduce off-site traffic, consistent with traf-
fic reduction efforts.
23.2.2.11, Bupporti.ag C~ia.Z Uses: St;aff re~ds approva.Z
of t:1Jis specia.Z use penUt; subject; t;o t;lJe fo~~owi.ag condit;ion:
1.
In addition t;o ~ilUt;at;iOl1 lU1der Proffer #6, t;ot;a~ f~oor area
devot;ed t;o supporti.ag c~ial uses Bha1.~ not; exceed t;en
(10) percent; of t;ot;a.l f~oor area at any t;iJM! duri.ag phased
de_~ol88lJt;. .
23.2.2.12. Research and develooment a~~vit~e; i~cludinq
eXDerimental testina and, 23.2.2.13. ___or!-o_ie_ _
medical and Pharmaceutical are appropriate uses within
Office Service Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated
earlier, the closest dwelling to a proposed building is
about 400 feet distant and these uses should therefore not
be objectionable to the area (As a comparison, minimum
building setback in the Heavy Industrial district from an
adjoining residential area is 100 feet). An additional
assurance, these uses should be subject to the County's
performance standards for industrial uses.
23.2.2.12, ResearalJ and deve~ol88lJt; activit;ies inc~uding t;est;ing;
23.2.2.13, Laboratorie. - -.dical and ph~ceutica.Z are appropri-
at;e vit:hin an office service area and vou~d not: be object;ionabl.e
0l.I t:1Ji. site. Staff reca.ends approva.Z subject: t;o the fol~oving
condition:
1 . COBIp~iance vit;IJ Sect;ion 4.14, Perforrunce Standard. of t;lJe
Zoning Ordinance.
PKOJBcr PRlSING: Three phases of development are proposed with
the first phase being most extensive in terms of site preparation.
As described earlier in this report and in the UREP textual sub-
mittal as well as plan maps, a substantial volume of unconsoli-
dated fill needs to be removed and reworked (this is the only area
of significant intrusion into steep slope, which are in this case,
man-made). Mass grading would also occur during Phase I develop-
ment, as would all Fontaine Avenue improvements. Substantial
deSign/economic consideration has been devoted to the phasing
schedule which would provide basic infrastructure together with
public road improvements in the initial phase. In order t;o
provide aCCOBlplislwent: of t;lJe phasing p~an as proposed, as _~~ as
t;o a.Z~ow variations i.a t;lJe develol88lJt; schedule, st;aff Bhou~d be
grant;ed authorit;y over approva.Z of a.Z~ phases of develol88lJt; as
ve.U as atbUn:Lst:rat:ive approva.Z of all sit;. deve~ol88Dt: P~IUUI (and
subdivision p~at;s, if any).
PROPPBRS.: Thirteen written proffers, as well as the proffered
Zoning Application Plan, accompany this petition. Most of these
proffers have been discussed in the text of this report. St;aff
II
I
-1]-'
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
M.B. 41, Pg. 237
rec~s ac:cep~ce o:f t:lJe appllclUl~'s pro:ffers ~oget:lJer .,it:lJ
t:lJe proffered reIrOning applica~on pllUl. ZlJ t:lJ. sp1rl~ of Section
8.5.6.3, t:lJe Director of PliUUJing lUld ea.ruu~7 De_lo~~ should
be aut:lJori.ed d1scre~ion over reasonable varia~OlJS frtJla t:lJe
.oJJiJJg AJlplica~on P llUl. .
r'""i'
I 'I
I
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZM&-92-03, subject to Proffers 1 _
13 as outlined in letter from Robert B. McKee addressed to Ron Keeler, dated
May 15, 1992 (on file).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, also unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-13, subject to the
following conditions (They did not include a recommendation in the staff's
report to limit under Proffer #6, total floor area devoted to Supporting
commercial uses ....):
23.2.2.11 Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0),
23.2.2.12 Research and development activities including experimental
testing, and
23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical, subject to:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, of
the Zoning Ordinance.
r:
I
Mr. Bain asked about Proffer #5, dedicate sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate all roadway improvements along its property frontage, and if this
includes all additional laning that is on UREF's side of the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes". Because of the level of improvement on Fontaine, they
will utilize that right-of-way along most of the frontage of the property.
Hr. Bain asked about buildings being limited to four stories in height,
but not mentioning the actual height requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said the
ordinance sets a maximum of 65 feet. They will not need more than that height
to accommodate the buildings they anticipate bUilding.
Mr. Bain asked about #1, construction improvements contingent upon the
City allowing the necessary transitions. He asked the status of this state-
ment. Mr. Cilimberg said he would allow the applicant to speak to this
question. Mr. Bain said the County is accepting a proffer which is a contin-
gency. What happens if the applicant does not get it Mr. Cilimberg said the
contingency was to define how the proffer would be exercised. If, for SOllIe
reason they cannot exercise the proffer under the contingency, that would come
back to the Board. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roosevelt has indicated that the
Highway Department will accept the tapering back as the road enters the City.
Mr. TuCker, Mr. Sandridge and Mr. Hendrix are working with the Highway
Department to get some increase in funding for that section of the roadway in
the City so all of Fontaine can be improved at the same time.
Mr. Bain then asked if #13 concerning traffic reduction measures is as
specific as the language will get. Hr. Ci1imberg said it is as specific as it
can get. UREF is also aCCommodating bike lanes in the site, as well as side-
walks for pedestrian access. Staff has indicated that it will be lOOking for
the accommodation of bus circulation on the site.
r-
i
Mr. Bain asked about parking requirements. Mr. Cilirnberg said staff has
not addressed that issue speCifically. The Board may feel that parking
requirements should be authorized under a traffic reduction approach. The
applicant has not asked for any reduction of parking area requirements. To
market their property, they do need to provide the parking necessary for
marketing purposes.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Westby said he had nothing to add to staff's report. Mr.
MCKee, the architect, is also present tonight.
Hr. Bain asked for an answer to his question concerning access. Mr.
Westby said he had nothing to add to Mr. Tucker's statement. It is being
worked on, and the City is also anxious to get this done.
Mr. St. John said the Plan goes with the zoning request and not with the
special use permit. The last staff recommendation is to authorize discretion
over reasonable variations. He asked if one of the proffers says the appli-
cant will adhere to the Application Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
normally done that. Because thia uses Section 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance,
staff basically made reference to an Application Plan. He does not think the
applicant would have a problem with inClUding that as a fourteenth proffer.
Mr. st. John asked if staff would feel better if this were spelled out. Also,
the enforcement stat~te speaks to the enforcement of prOffers, so he would
feel better if that were included. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a good point.
Mr. Westby said the applicant voluntarily agrees to a fourteenth proffer as
just mentioned by Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John said the record is clear that
lr
il
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
M.B. 41, Pg. 238
--r
the proffer is that "The development will substantially adhere to the Plan
which was submitted with the zoning application, subject to this last para-
graph of the staff's recommendation."
Ms. Alicia Kyser, JPA NeighborhoOd ASSOCiation, said they have come
before City Council several times about traffic in the area. The only comment
about this plan is the generation of increased traffic in the neighborhood.
It is obvious that the University needs its research, but they do have
neighborhoods all the way up to the University that will be accessed by
traffic going in and out of this research park. She recommended pushing the
City to expand their part of Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he was present to support the entire project. He
works at the University for a researcher who is on the cutting edge of
unraveling the mysteries of dNA. He knows that others there are developing
some amazing new products. These things will have a profound impact on the
global environment and the local environment. He feels there are a lot of
businesses and industries that will want to locate near this "hot bed- of
research. There has been a problem keeping people at the University because
their spouses could not find work in the area to pay them what they were
worth. He hopes this Board will work with UREF to get this project up and
going, and also on the larger project at the Airport, so the University can
continue to provide the contribution it provides to all of us.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain said there was nothing in the report to indicate that the
Highway Department is committing to doing anything about traffic. He asked
the sequencing of this. Mr. Cilimberg said initially there was a lot of
discussion as to where traffic improvements should be concentrated. It was
VDoT's position that when traffic warrants it they can deal with the ramps and
Signalization. They felt the best use of funds from UREF would be in the
actual upgrade of Fontaine Avenue. What has been proposed is a four-lane
divided facility. In actuality, that is a greater contribution by UREF than
what their traffic justifies, but there is a public benefit involved. That
means that any additions to lanes, or ramps, or Signalization, will be at the
discretion of VDoT.
1'-'
Mr. Bain asked if VDoT has committed that any upgrading of those lanes
would be under primary arterial funds, or is it coming out of the secondary
allocation. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be from primary funds. They did not
get into the specifics of funding sources since they will be Changing shortly
with the new Federal monies available. Mr. Bain said he feels it will have to
be addressed very soon. Mr. Cilimberg then sho~d to the Board a drawing of
proposed road improvements and explained each. i
Mr. Bain said there is no question but that there has been a thorough
study and examination of the development of this property. An enormous amount
of time has been spent planning the project as well, and most of it was proba-
bly well-spent. Nation was then offered by Mr. Bain to approve ZMA-92-03 with
the thirteen proffers, all as outlined in a letter from Robert McKee dated May
15, 1992, and a fourteenth added tonight reading: -Development shall substan-
tially adhere to the Proffered Rezoning Application Plan submitted with this
petition. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and
Community Development is authorized discretion over reasonable variations from
the Zoning Application Plan.-
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.
UREF will construct at its expense along its property front-
age improvements to Fontaine Avenue as recommended in the
City Urban Design Plan and which are further described in the
JPA/Fontaine Avenue NeighborhOOd Study. Generally these
improvements will consist of a four-lane, landscaped median
divided roadway which shall be designed to VDOT Collector
Road standards. Based on traffic studies prepared for the
project, these improvements are considered more than adequate
to accommodate the additional traffic occasioned by the
development of the University Research Park. Specifically,
these improvements will consist of:
!-
(a) an additional full frontage eastbound lane extending
from the existing northbound exit ramp of U.S. 29/250
Bypass to the eastern most corner of the property,
(b) upgrade of the existing eastbound lane,
(C) provision of a 100-foot taper plus 100-foot right turn
lane adjacent to the new eastbound lane,
-
, ---"
i
II
,I
I
il
r-
~
I
Tm-
-1__ ___
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
M.B. 41, Pg. 239
(d) median improvements consisting of curbed landscape
median extending from the project entrance west to the
Bypass,
(e) median improvements consisting of curbed landscape
median to accommodate the necessary left turn movements
into the park from westbound Fontaine Avenue,
(.f) left turn lane into the project, and
(g) two westbound through lanes from the eastern most prop-
erty line to the northbound on ramp of the Bypass.
Specific design standards and specifications for all turn
lanes and construction necessary for the widening of Fontaine
Avenue shall be determined upon further diSCUSSion with
County Staff and VDOT. Construction of these improvements is
contingent upon acceptance by the City of Charlottesville in
allowing necessary transitions into and within the City
limits. Construction of these improvements is also subject
to the successful acquisition of additional right-of-way
and/or easements necessary for construction with the City
limits.
2. UREF will construct at its expense full frontage bikeway
improvements to be incorporated behind the curb along F-
ontaine Avenue. The bikeway shall extend from the northbound
off ramp of the U.S. 29 Bypass to the eastern most corner of
the Research Park.
3. UREF will construct at its expense sidewalk improvements
along the south side of Fontaine Avenue from the proposed
entrance to the Research Park to the eastern most corner of
the property.
4. All frontage improvements outlined in items 1-3 above will be
undertaken in a manner which will allow further extension of
the ultimate road section into the City.
5. UREF will dedicate sufficient right-of-way to aCcommodate all
roadway improvements along its property frontage.
6.
UREF will limit total development on the site to 389,000
square feet of gross building area. Support commercial uses
shall be limited in building area to 19,450 square feet.
7. All buildings will be limited to four stories in height.
8. UREF will relocate the existing 18-inch raw water line in a
manner acceptable to and in accordance with the standards of
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
9. UREF will design and construct at its expense all improve-
ments and upgrades of utilities which are occasioned by the
development of the Research Park.
10. UREF will design and install landscape buffer area as shown
on the plan to screen the project from Fontaine Avenue and
residential neighborhoods adjoining the Research Park.
11. Strict architectural and landscape architectural guidelines
and restrictions will be adopted which shall govern the
design and construction of all buildings and parcel specific
site development.
12. Best Management Practices will be implemented in all areas of
earth disturbing activity. No earth disturbing activity
shall be permitted within the limits of the flood plain.
13. UREF will encourage traffic reduction measures within the
Research Park through the provision of CTS and OVA bus drop
off points and on-site Support commercial uses.
14. Development shall Substantially adhere to the Proffered
Rezoning Application Plan submitted with this petition. In
the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and
Community Development is authorized discretion over reason-
able variations from the Zoning Application Plan.
MOtion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve SP-92-13, with uses and condition as follows:
23.2.2.11 Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0) (without the liait
of ten percent a. shown in the staff's report),
23.2.2.12 Research and development activities inClUding experimental
testing, and
-
.
---nrr-"
w
.
~-------. ------- ..
~
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
M.B. 41, Pg. 240
23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical, subject to:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, of the Zoning
Ordinance.
r-r
I
! i;
'- ,
In order to accomplish phasing of the plan as proposed, as well as to
allow variations in the development schedUle, staff was granted authority
over approval of all phases of development, a. well as administrative
approval of all site development plans (and subdivisions plats), if any.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYEs: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Hartin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: At 9:44 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-92-16. Scott W. Campbell (applicant), George A.
Ragsdale (owner). Public Hearing on a request to establish auto sales &
rental on 1.6 acs zoned C-1. Property at end of & on the N of Rt 650 just B
of Rt 631 (Rio Rd). TM61,P148. Charlottesville Dist. (This property lies in
a growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
1992. )
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site is the former location of a
tire store. The Southern Railway tracks are located adjacent to
the east. Petroleum storage tanks are adjacent to the south. A
gas station is adjacent to the west. Two dwellings are located
beyond this site on Route 650 on the opposite side of the Rail-
road. This site is substantially lower than Rio Road. The area
proposed for storage of the automobiles is level and open.
n
! I
l i
Aoclicant's prooosal: The applicant proposes to operate a car
sales and rental operation in connection with the repair service
provided in the existing structure. The area proposed for the
storage of autos is shown in Attachment C (on file). The proposed
storage area is anticipated to be adequate to store 35 automo-
biles.
Comcrehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Neighborhood
Service in Neighborhood 2.
Staff Comment: Staff refers the Board to Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance were the board of supervisors reserved unto
itself the right to issue all special use permits, etc.
Staff reviewed this request for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Ordinance and offers the following comments and observa-
tions. This use will not be detrimental to adjacent properties
nor will it change the character of the district due to the
commercial activity in the adjacent properties. The nearby
residential development i. separated from this site by the South-
ern Railway and staff will reCommend conditions to minimize the
impact of this activity on those residential properties. (Those
conditions include staff approval of a lighting plan and prohibi-
tion of loudspeakers.) This use will have minimal visual impact
on Rio Road due to the lower elevation of this site and the
existence of other commercial activity between this site and Rio,
Road. Route 650 is a low volume, dead-end road; the 1990 trip
count indicated 30 vehicle trips per day. Staff notes that this
type of use, auto sales and rental, does not generate more vehicle
trips than other uses which are permitted by-right. The Depart-
ment of Transportation has provided comment regarding this re-
quest. Staff recommends a condition to ensure that an adequate
entrance is constructed to serve the site.
'!
Sumrnarv: Due to the existing adjacent commercial development, the
position of this site at a lower grade than Rio Road and the'
separation of this site from adjacent residential development,
staff opinion is that this use will have minimal impact. With
appropriate conditions, staff opinion is that the potential nega-
tive impact of this site can be mitigated. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Accroval:
1. Staff approval of lighting plan and landscape plan;
2. No loudspeakers;
3. There shall be no flags, pennants, banners, streamers or
strings of lights; ,
4. Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or rent
shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment C, ini-
tialled "WDF" 4/10/92;
-