Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200900014 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2009-05-06�'JRGINLP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 May 5, 2009 Mr. Fred Missel P.O. Box 400218 Charlottesville, VA 22904 -4218 RE: ZMA -07 -013 Fontaine Research Park - Zoning Map Amendment SP2007 -055 Fontaine Research Park - Special Use Permit — Parking structure SP2009 -010 Fontaine Research Park — Special Use Permit - Research & Development SP2009 -011 Fontaine Research Park — Special Use Permit — Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical SP2009 -013 Fontaine Research Park — Hospitals SP2009 -014 Fontaine Research Park — Supporting commercial uses Dear Mr. Missel: Thank you for your recent resubmittal received on April 6th for the above noted projects for Tax Map and Parcels: 76 -17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, and 17B8. This letter contains staff comments relative to your rezoning and special use permit requests. Zoning and VDOT comments will be forthcoming. The letter addresses the "big picture" issues as well as the details necessary to help you meet requirements for the PD -MC (Planned Development Mixed Commercial) District and special use permits for parking structures, research and development, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical, hospitals, and supporting commercial uses and address staff concerns: Resolution of the following issues is essential in order for staff to be able to support the proposal: Transportation: Neither the plan nor the proffers are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for transportation improvements. Language from the Comprehensive Plan is in italics below: Infill and expansion of the Fontaine Research Park may be permitted. The level of expansion permitted on -site should be limited to that which can be supported by the planned road network, and timed with the construction of the planned improvements to the road network which provide an adequate Level of Service to support development in this area. Adequate level of service (LOS) is considered D or better (or the LOS acceptable to VDOT) for network roads in the County and City, including Fontaine Avenue in the County and City, the Fontaine Avenue/U.S. 29 Bypass interchange, Sunset Avenue, Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street. Additional support commercial should be provided on -site in the future to serve the park and the immediate area. Construct the Fontaine /Sunset Avenue Connector Road as recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, specifically Alternative 4, and improve the existing alignment of Sunset Avenue from the new connector road to its intersection with Fifth Street. Consider a possible extension of a multi -modal connection of Stadium Road to the Fontaine Avenue in the area of the Fontaine Research. Study various methods of providing a multi -modal connection, including the provision of various combinations of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and/or vehicle access and the impacts of this connection on the neighborhood and road network The traffic study indicates many impacts that you are not mitigating. (See Transportation comments below.) We recognize that you wish to postpone discussion of this issue until the Board reviews your rezoning proposal; however, this issue is extremely important to the County and to the City. 2. Environmental Impacts: Although your plan shows no construction in the wetlands area shown on the plan adjacent to your proposed stormwater management facilities, there appears to be no way to avoid disturbance. The only solution to this problem is to modify your design. Staff can make some suggestions relative to modifications. We recognize that this may be an issue that you take to the Planning Commission for their weigh -in. 3. Amount of commercial square footage in the park: The proposal does not provide a commitment to construct commercial area and the maximum amount allowed has not changed although the square footage of buildings in the park is proposed to change. Language from the Comprehensive Plan is in italics below: Additional support commercial should be provided on -site in the future to serve the park and the immediate area. The remaining comments relate to the details which should be on the plans in order to meet the requirements for the district: Planning Division Comments: • There are discrepancies regarding the Tax Map and Parcel numbers. 17B1 is missing from Exhibit C4 and 17B4 is missing from the proffers. • Provide information on the application plan indicating the existing size of the ingress and egress to the site. • Provide a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles. • Provide proposed grading /topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals. • Provide typical street cross - sections for the proposed roads /driveways on the site. • Staff is concerned that the entire area for building and parking envelope as shown on the plans could be used. We recognize that we suggested the convention that is being shown; however, we see now that the area implies that it could be covered entirely with parking or parking structures. Please provide some parameters regarding the envelopes, so we have a better sense of how much the parking and building envelopes will be developed. Engineering: The following comments have been given to you over the last two years, and have not been addressed yet. • Stribling Avenue will need to be retained or replaced. It is recommended that the studies done by the University, County and City be followed. • The stormwater management concept does not appear to be adequate to meet the ordinance requirements. It also appears some of the existing infrastructure is not reflected on plans. • Staff recommends that you make a commitment to go above and beyond the Water Protection Ordinance requirements where possible. We can provide you with sample language. • A preliminary grading plan should be provided. Extra provisions for erosion control may be appropriate in some areas. Although the comment has not been adequately addressed, the wetland study expanded the area of wetlands, and grading impacts are likely. It will be very difficult to provide adequate erosion control protection when the site pushed the edges out into these areas. Transportation: • The build out year does not appear realistic. The existing 565,OOOsf appears to have taken 15 -18 years to build. It does not appear likely another 310,000 will be built within the next 4 years, or 725,000 in 9 years. Staff does not think the build -out scenario is realistic. Staff believes it will take longer, and the traffic numbers will subsequently grow larger. • Indicate in the model how the proposed improvements at each stage mitigate the impacts. The resulting levels of service and delays with the proposed improvements would show this, along with the resultant levels of service and delays which may be affected at other locations, or which are unimproved. It is not clear what threshold is being used for LOS and delays as acceptable. The results seem to indicate that intersection movements at 29/64 WB ramp NB LT, Fontaine /29 NB ramp NB LT & TH & EB LT, as well as internal movements to Ray C. Hunt Drive, and movement on 29/64 ramps do not meet LOS D at build -out. This seems to indicate that these failing movements should not be made worse, and are impacted by this development without adequate mitigation. • While the following comment is addressed in the traffic study, it is not clear on the development concept plans: Please complete the graphics to show the proposed garage access and second main entrance and lane improvements proposed. These are not clear. Please clarify this on the concept plans. • The right turn lanes off the ramp onto Fontaine that have no delays or levels of service indicated are in need of clarification. There must be a way to estimate levels of service, queuing, or delays. Although the study indicates these movements are okay, staff is not sure how. Please see the last comment below. • Explain the comments on queuing at the proposed new signal on Fontaine into the development. The levels of service for through movements are okay, but the report indicates queuing may be a problem. Queuing still seems to be an issue. Please see the last comment below. • There are no improvements recommended for some of the ramp and weave movements which operate poorly. Please clarify the percent of site traffic in each location, and justify the recommendation of no mitigation. As mentioned previously, the results seem to indicate that intersection movements at 29/64 WB ramp NB LT, Fontaine /29 NB ramp NB LT & TH & EB LT, as well as internal movements to Ray C. Hunt Drive, and movement on 29/64 ramps do not meet LOS D at build -out. This seems to indicate that these failing movements should not be made worse, and are impacted by this development without adequate mitigation. • Provide an expected delay for the Fontaine corridor. Delay appears to increase significantly on this roadway with the addition of two new signals. Even if it is marginal, it will annoy the public to have new signals so close together in this location. Providing only levels of service for the signals sweeps this fact under the rug to some extent. It may be preferable to the public to limit the green time for the development and keep Fontaine open, with one or two signals, regardless of levels of service for exiting traffic. There should also be a plan for special events at the university, which make use of this entry road. This does not appear to be adequately addressed. Staff could not support the addition of a second traffic signal. It is in such close proximity to the 29 ramps and to the existing signal. • The right of way for the Fontaine /Sunset Connector Road should be reserved. • It is not clear that the mitigating improvements listed on page 69 and 70 will achieve a LOS D. Additionally; the traffic impact analysis (TIA) should note the responsible party for the improvements. • The future use of Stribling Avenue is not clear. Stribling Avenue is partially in the City and should remain open for public use. Proffers: • The proffers should show that traffic impacts will be mitigated. • Staff recommends that you provide a sidewalk on the Fontaine Research Park side of Fontaine Avenue from your property to where the sidewalk ends in the City. • Make sure the proffers refer to the proposed PDMC district. Current Development: Although these comments primarily relate to the site plan process, staff believes it is important for the applicant and the Board of Supervisors to be aware of future issues that may be pertinent to this particular project. • A critical slopes waiver will be required for the development proposed. Typically staff recommends that this waiver be processed with the rezoning application. However, in this case, the information currently submitted lacks enough detail to effectively process the waivers. Please be aware that waivers will be needed, and if the waivers are denied, it will affect the development of the site and may result in a layout other than what is shown on the application plan. You should not assume that approval of the rezoning in any way implies approval of any waivers. • The layout proposed by you may require very complex phasing. The proposed buildings and parking structures will require existing parking to be removed. Staff recommends that you work with Ron Higgins, the Zoning reviewer to discuss this issue now. Staff recommends the inclusion of either a condition or memorandum of understanding between you, the applicant, and County. The pending concern relates to the fact that for some period of time insufficient parking will be available onsite. If development were to start and then cease for any reason (funding, economic conditions, environmental conditions) insufficient parking may exist for an extended period of time. Design Planner for Architectural Review Board (ARB): • The revised proposal includes surface and/or structured parking adjacent to the Fontaine Avenue Entrance Corridor. If existing surface parking is expanded, sufficient planting area must be retained to maintain an appropriate appearance along the EC. Maintaining the existing mature planting is recommended. Structured parking must meet all aspects of the EC Guidelines. • Buildings within the envelope proposed along the northwest side of the property are expected to be visible from the Route 29 Bypass Entrance Corridor. The site plan and architectural designs will be subject to ARB review. The northeastern most building within the envelope at the east side of the property may be visible from the Fontaine Avenue EC. If visible, it will be subject to ARB review. • The grading /retaining wall issue along the east side of the property remains. The plan should include a note indicating that proposed grading and retaining walls will be designed at preliminary and final site plan review to meet the EC Guidelines, and that terracing of the wall and planting will be provided as required by the ARB. After you have reviewed these comments, if you wish to meet with staff on the comments, please let me know and I will set up a meeting. When you are ready to resubmit, please provide that re- submittal on a re- submittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your re- submittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that has not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Additional questions or comments may occur at a future date. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me at 296 -5832 x 3250 or send me an e-mail at cgrant @albemarle.org . Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner