Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200500003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2009-07-24*-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Jake Kelsey, County Engineer Rev. 1-5: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 15 April 2005 Rev. 1: 28 Feb 2008 Rev.2: 16 May 2008 Rev.3: 7 Aug 2008 Rev.4: 22 Sep 2008 (graphic added 16 Oct 2008) Rev.5: 23 Jul 2009 Subject: UREF North Fork Research Park (ZMA200500003) Rev. 1: The first revision to these comments is provided under the original comments where possible. Rev.5: For the fifth revision I received a copy of proffers dated June 24, 2009, and a copy of Exhibit A, the overall concept plan. With regard to engineering, the new exhibit A appears the same as the last one to me. The 16 page proffer document has changed only in section 5.3, and comments are provided below. Other than these items, I will have to refer to the previous comments below. I have tried to give an update on each item. I have read through your comments dated 12 March 2005 and feel you adequately covered the general street network, site circulation, and other transportation concerns for which I provided verbal comments. In addition, I have summarized below my comments regarding stormwater management and stream impacts. The intent of the plan layout is to preserve the existing pond/wetland area. However, the conceptual grading limits for the fire station appear to encroach into the wetland area. To prevent adverse impacts to this environmentally sensitive area from permanent improvements, as well as temporary construction measures /activities, the fire station should be moved further north. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. The fire station is under construction. Rev.5: issue resolved. 2. The plan (Exhibit E) provides for three conceptual stormwater facilities. One located at the south end of the property adjacent to Airport Road, another near the midpoint of the western property line, and the last located at the northern end. The stormwater concepts are further described in the Rezoning Application on page 18 and in the "Conceptual Stormwater Narrative ". These facilities in concert with the regional facilities for the Park may be able to address the stormwater needs. However, the final stormwater management plans will need to address concerns for the immediate downstream impacts of pollutants Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 6 generated from the impervious surfaces and the frequency and duration of stream bank full flows generated by the 2 -year storms. Therefore, the stormwater strategy should include stormwater treatment through non - structural measures aimed to reduce development impacts. For example designing the site to reduce and/or disconnect impervious surfaces. The strategy should also include the capture and treatment of runoff close to the source, such as in parking islands /strips and "pocket" stormwater BMP's in green spaces. Lastly, the narrative should incorporate a statement that site specific stormwater managementBMP's will be designed in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance and County requirements at the time of final plan submittal to supplement and/or replace the conceptual measures shown on this plan. Rev. 1: The plan proposes a fairly traditional end -of -pipe stormwater approach. It seems from the comment above that Jack was looking for something more, perhaps with runoff reduction practices. The applicant is referred to proffers provided with recently approved rezonings of comparable size and type. Rev.2: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. Rev.4: The stormwater plan is substantially the same. It will meet ordinance requirements, but probably not provide anything extra. There is not room enough for above ground facilities at the perimeter, so these areas will have to be underground. Rev.5: issue unchanged since rev.4. 3. Based on the topography there are two swales or streams that converge on the west side of the property. Although these are not depicted as intermittent streams on USGS maps, their status needs to be field verified. Stream "A" approximately bisects the property and crosses from east to west. Stream "B" generally follows the western property line and runs south to north. The development concept sacrifices stream "A" to achieve the proposed density. A stormwater facility is proposed near the upper reach of stream `B ", but the lower portion will be reconstructed as an engineered channel due to the large (up to 20 feet high) retaining wall proposed along the western property line. By using site planning and grading schemes that have more respect for the terrain, the impacts to stream `B" may be minimized or preferably eliminated. Rev. 1: The stream and buffer issues have been commented on by Tamara Ambler. Rev.2: Stream and buffer issues appear to be outstanding. Our recent discussion at the county indicate an acceptable plan might be to preserve the stream and buffer for the stream Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 6 running along the western property line, and allow development of the portion which runs toward the middle of the site. In any case, it would appear to require some changes in the overall layout. The response letter from the applicant says this will be addressed with site plans, but this is not possible with the current concept. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. Rev.4: The plan has been revised to protect 50' of stream buffer along the western property line. This is acceptable, but will require mitigation. The 100' stream buffer, and 50' of disturbance should be shown properly, and disturbance for erosion control measures should be accounted for (as shown in the attached graphic provided to illustrate). A mitigation plan will be required prior to final plan approvals. Rev.5: I have been shown revised exhibit sheets in meetings that addressed this comment, so I trust you have official copies. 4. At the northern end of the property the horizontal curvature of the conceptual Lewis & Clark Drive extension aligns the street centerline with an existing intermittent stream. Such an alignment will eliminate a significant portion of this stream. The application plan for the rezoning showed this street aligned parallel to and on the north side of the stream. The street needs to be realigned to be consistent with the application plan and minimize impacts to the stream. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. As with comment 1, the road alignment is substantially set by previous approvals, and the initial sections to the fire station have been graded and partially constructed. Rev.5: issue resolved. 5. Rev. 1: Adequate channel issues directly downstream to the east in the existing subdivision are an issue. They do not appear to have been adequately addressed by previous plans. It appears the intent of designers has been to address this issue solely on -site. This may not be possible in this case, and the applicant is referred to DCR Technical Bulletin No. 1. Rev.2: This comment has not been addressed. It appears some downstream measures will be necessary. This is off -site work that will require cooperation from the neighbors, and commitments with the rezoning. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. It is also noted that much of the "preservation area" shown on Exhibit J next to the roadway has already been disturbed with road construction. Rev.4: This issue is still outstanding. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 6 Rev.5: I understand this issue is ongoing with DCR and the County's general services division. Any remaining issues can be resolved with site plans. 6. Rev. 1: Regarding the traffic study received with this revision: a. Please clarify what necessary improvements are proffered. A scenario in the traffic study must reflect what is proposed to be built by this development (even if other developments fail to materialize.) Rev.5: This is very complex in the proffers, but I believed resolved through the attorneys. I would prefer something a lot simpler. b. Please indicate how the projected site directional distributions were obtained. The 5% exiting right on Rt.649 seems low. Please provide any surveys of existing employees, or other empirical data used to generate these numbers. Rev.5: It appears this issue has been resolved. c. It appears that data was obtained but the Rt. 649 and Rt. 29 intersection was not studied for necessary improvements or additional delays. It is unclear why not, as it seems this intersection would be impacted. Rev.5: The proffers seem to refer to future studies in subsequent phases to address this. d. The study calls for additional through lanes on Rt. 29. Unless these are proffered this seems unlikely. The lanes should not be assumed to go through the intersections, unless proffers are made to continue the lanes through for a sufficient merge distance to be out of the operational area of the intersections. I understand UREF is to build one NB lane, and North Point one SB lane. If North Point is not built, this project will need to build the NB lane. Rev.5: From the responses, I understand UREF does not agree with the last sentence. Rev.2: Comments regarding the traffic study have been coordinated with Juandiego Wade. Please refer to those comments. Rev.3: There are some substantial off -site improvements called for in the traffic study that do not appear to be carried through in the rezoning documents. Comments on the traffic study will be coordinated through Juandiego Wade. Rev.4: Traffic information or proffers of plans related to previous information were not received with this revision. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 5 of 6 Rev. 4: A comparison of Exhibits H and I has been provided to illustrate the expected disturbances and preservation areas, and to show the stream buffer and likely erosion control concepts. 7. Rev.5: The change to proffer 5.3, which requires the county to take land to facilitate private development, is recommended to be changed. Right -of -way acquisition should be the sole responsibility of the applicant. 8. Rev.5: the change to proffer 5.3A, which specifies a level of service D, should be evaluated by VDOT and the county on a policy level. It does not seem appropriate to design new public improvements for such a low level of service. Please call me if you have any questions. file: E6 zma GEB UREF North Fork.doc a a 9 9-1 Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 6 of 6 Perinneal Stre ® Jurisdietionat --dare in a entr runoff location Ex it H: Natural Features and Wetland Ovf IM ift The University of Virginia Research Parkl This planand /or drawing is tarlllustra[ivepurposes UNIVERS=gfVIRG B[JJGN Albemarle County, Virginia only and Issub,ectmrhan,.Date4,15,08 FOUNDATION Comapring these two plans shows that the preservation areas are unrealistic. Sanitary Sewer Llnc (TypleW) Water Line- i rtr�` /T /Cf y S1 rm t ` - /� ( '` Open Sp Pres etl Wetlands Open Space circled areas appear necessary for temporary or permanentExhibit 1: Grading & Utility? sediment and runoff control ® ift The University of Virginia Research Park rnis lanand,ardea In fe,il1 -etwe UvIVERS=gfVIRG E � � G N Albemarle County Virginia 91e purpose onyand is subjearochange. oaxe 9nsioe FOUNDATION �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Jake Kelsey, County Engineer Rev. 1,2: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 15 April 2005 Rev. 1: 28 Feb 2008 Rev.2: 16 May 2008 Rev.3: 7 Aug 2008 Subject: UREF North Fork Research Park (ZMA200500003) Rev. 1: The first revision to these comments is provided under the original comments where possible. I have read through your comments dated 12 March 2005 and feel you adequately covered the general street network, site circulation, and other transportation concerns for which I provided verbal comments. In addition, I have summarized below my comments regarding stormwater management and stream impacts. 1. The intent of the plan layout is to preserve the existing pond/wetland area. However, the conceptual grading limits for the fire station appear to encroach into the wetland area. To prevent adverse impacts to this environmentally sensitive area from permanent improvements, as well as temporary construction measures /activities, the fire station should be moved further north. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. The fire station is under construction. 2. The plan (Exhibit E) provides for three conceptual stormwater facilities. One located at the south end of the property adjacent to Airport Road, another near the midpoint of the western property line, and the last located at the northern end. The stormwater concepts are further described in the Rezoning Application on page 18 and in the "Conceptual Stormwater Narrative ". These facilities in concert with the regional facilities for the Park may be able to address the stormwater needs. However, the final stormwater management plans will need to address concerns for the immediate downstream impacts of pollutants generated from the impervious surfaces and the frequency and duration of stream bank full flows generated by the 2 -year storms. Therefore, the stormwater strategy should include stormwater treatment through non - structural measures aimed to reduce development impacts. For example designing the site to reduce and/or disconnect impervious surfaces. The strategy should also include the capture and treatment of runoff close to the source, such as in parking islands /strips and "pocket" stormwater BMP's in green spaces. Lastly, the narrative should incorporate a statement that site specific stormwater managementBMP's will be designed in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance and Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 County requirements at the time of final plan submittal to supplement and /or replace the conceptual measures shown on this plan. Rev. 1: The plan proposes a fairly traditional end -of -pipe stormwater approach. It seems from the comment above that Jack was looking for something more, perhaps with runoff reduction practices. The applicant is referred to proffers provided with recently approved rezonings of comparable size and type. Rev.2: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. 3. Based on the topography there are two swales or streams that converge on the west side of the property. Although these are not depicted as intermittent streams on USGS maps, their status needs to be field verified. Stream "A" approximately bisects the property and crosses from east to west. Stream `B" generally follows the western property line and runs south to north. The development concept sacrifices stream "A" to achieve the proposed density. A stormwater facility is proposed near the upper reach of stream `B ", but the lower portion will be reconstructed as an engineered channel due to the large (up to 20 feet high) retaining wall proposed along the western property line. By using site planning and grading schemes that have more respect for the terrain, the impacts to stream `B" may be minimized or preferably eliminated. Rev. 1: The stream and buffer issues have been commented on by Tamara Ambler. Rev.2: Stream and buffer issues appear to be outstanding. Our recent discussion at the county indicate an acceptable plan might be to preserve the stream and buffer for the stream running along the western property line, and allow development of the portion which runs toward the middle of the site. In any case, it would appear to require some changes in the overall layout. The response letter from the applicant says this will be addressed with site plans, but this is not possible with the current concept. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. 4. At the northern end of the property the horizontal curvature of the conceptual Lewis & Clark Drive extension aligns the street centerline with an existing intermittent stream. Such an alignment will eliminate a significant portion of this stream. The application plan for the rezoning showed this street aligned parallel to and on the north side of the stream. The street needs to be realigned to be consistent with the application plan and minimize impacts to the stream. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. As with comment 1, the road alignment is substantially set by previous approvals, and the initial sections to the fire station have been Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 graded and partially constructed. 5. Rev. 1: Adequate channel issues directly downstream to the east in the existing subdivision are an issue. They do not appear to have been adequately addressed by previous plans. It appears the intent of designers has been to address this issue solely on -site. This may not be possible in this case, and the applicant is referred to DCR Technical Bulletin No. 1. Rev.2: This comment has not been addressed. It appears some downstream measures will be necessary. This is off -site work that will require cooperation from the neighbors, and commitments with the rezoning. Rev.3: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. It is also noted that much of the "preservation area" shown on Exhibit J next to the roadway has already been disturbed with road construction. 6. Rev. 1: Regarding the traffic study received with this revision: a. Please clarify what necessary improvements are proffered. A scenario in the traffic study must reflect what is proposed to be built by this development (even if other developments fail to materialize.) b. Please indicate how the projected site directional distributions were obtained. The 5% exiting right on Rt.649 seems low. Please provide any surveys of existing employees, or other empirical data used to generate these numbers. c. It appears that data was obtained but the Rt. 649 and Rt. 29 intersection was not studied for necessary improvements or additional delays. It is unclear why not, as it seems this intersection would be impacted. d. The study calls for additional through lanes on Rt. 29. Unless these are proffered this seems unlikely. The lanes should not be assumed to go through the intersections, unless proffers are made to continue the lanes through for a sufficient merge distance to be out of the operational area of the intersections. I understand UREF is to build one NB lane, and North Point one SB lane. If North Point, this project will need to build the NB lane. Rev.2: Comments regarding the traffic study have been coordinated with Juandiego Wade. Please refer to those comments. Rev.3: There are some substantial off -site improvements called for in the traffic study that do not appear to be carried through in the rezoning documents. Comments on the traffic study will be coordinated through Juandiego Wade. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 Please call me if you have any questions. file: E4 zma GEB UREF North Fork.doc OF AL$�,�'P �'IRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 21, 2008 Mr. Fred Missel University of Virginia Foundation P.O. Box 400218 Charlottesville, VA 22904 -4218 RE: ZMA -05 -03 The University of Virginia Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PDIP Rezoning Application Submission #3 April 21, 2008 and Traffic Impact Analysis last revised March 31, 2008 Dear Fred: Staff has reviewed the information you submitted on April 21, 2008 that provided responses to our review comment letter(s) for your rezoning application to add 30 additional acres to the University of Virginia Research Park. While you have provided a positive response to some of the staff comments there are still a number of questions and comments that should be resolved before proceeding to a public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you on these issues to discuss them. Staff suggests that it would be beneficial to have another work session with the Commission prior to public hearing on the rezoning and special use permit for the parking structure. Comments are consolidated below: • Staff had requested, based on comments in the Planning Commission's last work session on the proposal, that greater detail and commitments should be provided for commercial uses. In your response letter you have noted that you would like the same proffer to apply to this portion of the park that was approved with ZMA 95 -004. This would be an appropriate item to discuss in a work session, since this was an item of concern to the Commission previously. • The application plan includes property which was previously zoned for PDIP and for which no amendment to the original rezoning is included. In addition, there is no plan which incorporates this proposed section of the research park into the overall development approved with the application plan for ZMA 95 -004. A survey of the area to be included with your current proposal, previously shown as open space, has not been provided. The exhibit you provided that shows this area in relation to the existing park was helpful though. • In our previous comment letter, we asked that environmental features be more clearly shown on both existing conditions sheets and sheets depicting proposed development and impacts to streams should be avoided. We appreciate you providing the exhibit that shows the wetlands /streams in relation to proposed development and comments have been made below. o The Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) Historic has not surveyed the subject parcels for the presence of historic architectural and/or archaeological resources. However, County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family dwelling located on Tax Map 32, Parcel 18. Please plan to document the buildings on TMP 32 -18 prior to demolition. Also, if you find anything that you question pertaining to historical significance within the project area, please let Julie Mahon, the County's Historic Preservation Planner, know. You have commented that this would be handled at the site plan stage, however, the expectation is that commitments would be made, to ensure proper documentation of resources, with the rezoning. Application Plan As requested in our last comment letter, we asked that you should follow the Planned District Checklist. Although you may have provided plan sheets that address items on the checklist, they do not accurately depict current conditions or recent subdivision approvals. Also, there is information provided on various plan sheets, which makes review difficult. A copy of the Planned Development rezoning application plan checklist was provided for your reference. It is easier for reviewers and for approvals, if all the information that is approved with the rezoning is included in one plan set. For example, all the existing conditions information, including wetlands, streams, topo, current property line boundaries for the subject parcel and adjoining parcels, etc. should be on one existing conditions plan sheet. Examples will be provided to you for your reference in resubmitting. Please use a scale of 1:100. I understand that you would like to maintain some flexibility when submitting site plans and final building designs. However, this is a request for a planned district rezoning and at the rezoning stage is when the County seeks commitments to protecting important environmental features. Please refer to Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance for what application plan items can be varied. Water Resources Your consultant has advised that perennial stream determination information will be provided to the County. In the meanwhile, it is assumed that the linear wetlands at the western boundary and middle of the parcel are associated with a perennial stream, and that the stream buffer requirements would apply. It appears from the revised Exhibit H1 (4/12/08) that 0.16 acre of palustrine forested wetlands will be impacted by construction of parking lots, a parking structure, stormwater management facilities, and Building J. It also appears that a segment of a perennial stream reach may be piped to accommodate the multi level parking garage. All wetland impacts must be authorized by federal and state regulatory agencies, and ideally the proposed development would preserve these natural features. The presence of the wetland system in the middle of the parcel, where Building J and the multi level parking structure are shown, does present significant site constraints. Assuming that federal and state agency approval were obtained, impacting this area of wetlands could be reasonable if the wetland system to the southwest, along the southern property boundary were preserved by shifting the layout of the parking lot adjacent to Building E and moving the proposed stormwater management facility off -line. County Engineer 1. The plan (Exhibit E) provides for three conceptual stormwater facilities. One located at the south end of the property adjacent to Airport Road, another near the midpoint of the western property line, and the last located at the northern end. The stormwater concepts are further described in the Rezoning Application on page 18 and in the "Conceptual Stormwater Narrative ". These facilities in concert with the regional facilities for the Park may be able to address the stormwater needs. However, the final stormwater management plans will need to address concerns for the immediate downstream impacts of pollutants generated from the impervious surfaces and the frequency and duration of stream bank full flows generated by the 2 -year storms. Therefore, the stormwater May 21, 2008, 2008 - Missel 2 ZMA 05 -05 The UVA Research Park Review Comments, 4/21/08 submittal strategy should include stormwater treatment through non - structural measures aimed to reduce development impacts. For example designing the site to reduce and/or disconnect impervious surfaces. The strategy should also include the capture and treatment of runoff close to the source, such as in parking islands /strips and "pocket" stormwater BMP's in green spaces. Lastly, the narrative should incorporate a statement that site specific stormwater management/BMP's will be designed in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance and County requirements at the time of final plan submittal to supplement and/or replace the conceptual measures shown on this plan. Rev. 1: The plan proposes a fairly traditional end -of -pipe stormwater approach. It seems from the comment above that Jack Kelsey was looking for something more, perhaps with runoff reduction practices. The applicant is referred to proffers provided with recently approved rezonings of comparable size and type. Rev.2: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. However, we note in your response letter your willingness to commit to enhanced stormwater management, based on the sample proffer language we sent you. 2. Based on the topography there are two swales or streams that converge on the west side of the property. Although these are not depicted as intermittent streams on USGS maps, their status needs to be field verified. Stream "A" approximately bisects the property and crosses from east to west. Stream `B" generally follows the western property line and runs south to north. The development concept sacrifices stream "A" to achieve the proposed density. A stormwater facility is proposed near the upper reach of stream `B ", but the lower portion will be reconstructed as an engineered channel due to the large (up to 20 feet high) retaining wall proposed along the western property line. By using site planning and grading schemes that have more respect for the terrain, the impacts to stream "B" may be minimized or preferably eliminated. Rev. 1: The stream and buffer issues have been commented on by Tamara Ambler. Rev.2: Stream and buffer issues appear to be outstanding. Our recent discussion at the county indicates an acceptable plan might be to preserve the stream and buffer for the stream running along the eastern property line, and allow development of the portion which runs toward the middle of the site. In any case, it would appear to require some changes in the overall layout. The response letter from the applicant says this will be addressed with site plans, but this is not possible with the current concept. Please see further information under Water Resources comments. 5. Rev. 1: Adequate channel issues directly downstream to the east in the existing subdivision are an issue. They do not appear to have been adequately addressed by previous plans. It appears the intent of designers has been to address this issue solely on -site. This may not be possible in this case, and the applicant is referred to DCR Technical Bulletin No. 1. Rev.2: This comment has not been addressed. It appears some downstream measures will be necessary. This is off -site work that will require cooperation from the neighbors, and commitments with the rezoning. 6.Rev.2: Comments regarding the traffic study have been coordinated with Juandiego Wade. Please refer to those comments, which are attached. May 21, 2008, 2008 - Missel ZMA 05 -05 The UVA Research Park Review Comments, 4/21/08 submittal Zoning and Current Development o The application proposes an alternative parking standard. This should be discussed during the rezoning. If the parking standard is not approved it may generate complications in the review process of individual site plans. o Some areas of critical slopes are being disturbed. A critical slopes waiver should be processed with the rezoning request. o The issue of access to the adjacent property should be brought to the attention of the PC and BOS during the rezoning review, since it does not correspond to the location of the interconnection approved with SUB 2006 -273. ARB This property lies within an Entrance Corridor. Consequently, the Design Planner has provided advisory comments on behalf of the ARB. It appears that the site layout as illustrated in the concept plan could meet EC guidelines. There is insufficient information available at this time to determine if the building design meets the guidelines. The proposed parking garage would be located over 1000' from the Airport Road Entrance Corridor. Minimal visibility of the structure is anticipated; however, overall building height and existing and proposed landscaping between the building and the EC could affect visibility. The portions of the structure that are visible from Airport Road will be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board and those portions of the parking garage that are subject to review will have to meet the EC Guidelines. Appropriate materials and architectural detailing could be the focus of review. It is anticipated that lighting will be proposed on the roof of the parking garage. Lighting will be reviewed with the site plan, but it is important to note at this point in the review the potential impacts of this type of lighting in this location. Lights on the roof could produce illumination that is noticeable from distances on the Entrance Corridor and elsewhere throughout the area. Any "glow" perceived from distances would be inappropriate, just as over - illumination at the site would be inappropriate. Limiting the height of rooftop pole lights and limiting the overall illumination levels produced by these fixtures could help reduce the potential negative impacts from this lighting. Traffic Impact Analysis See attached memo from Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner. Proffers After your TIA has been approved, the previous proffers approved with ZMA 95 -004 may need to be revised, particularity in relation to Route 29 North. We won't know any details until the traffic impact analysis is completed and recommendations are made. Also, off -site improvements to address downstream drainage issues, enhanced stormwater management, and documentation of historic resources would be made in the form of proffers. May 21, 2008, 2008 - Missel 4 ZMA 05 -05 The UVA Research Park Review Comments, 4/21/08 submittal �1RCtN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Jake Kelsey, County Engineer Rev. 1,2: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 15 April 2005 Rev. 1: 28 Feb 2008 Rev.2: 16 May 2008 Subject: UREF North Fork Research Park (ZMA200500003) Rev. 1: The first revision to these comments is provided under the original comments where possible. I have read through your comments dated 12 March 2005 and feel you adequately covered the general street network, site circulation, and other transportation concerns for which I provided verbal comments. In addition, I have summarized below my comments regarding stormwater management and stream impacts. 1. The intent of the plan layout is to preserve the existing pond/wetland area. However, the conceptual grading limits for the fire station appear to encroach into the wetland area. To prevent adverse impacts to this environmentally sensitive area from permanent improvements, as well as temporary construction measures /activities, the fire station should be moved further north. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. The fire station is under construction. 2. The plan (Exhibit E) provides for three conceptual stormwater facilities. One located at the south end of the property adjacent to Airport Road, another near the midpoint of the western property line, and the last located at the northern end. The stormwater concepts are further described in the Rezoning Application on page 18 and in the "Conceptual Stormwater Narrative ". These facilities in concert with the regional facilities for the Park may be able to address the stormwater needs. However, the final stormwater management plans will need to address concerns for the immediate downstream impacts of pollutants generated from the impervious surfaces and the frequency and duration of stream bank full flows generated by the 2 -year storms. Therefore, the stormwater strategy should include stormwater treatment through non - structural measures aimed to reduce development impacts. For example designing the site to reduce and/or disconnect impervious surfaces. The strategy should also include the capture and treatment of runoff close to the source, such as in parking islands /strips and "pocket" stormwater BMP's in green spaces. Lastly, the narrative should incorporate a statement that site specific stormwater management/BMP's will be designed in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance and County requirements at the time of final plan submittal to supplement and/or replace the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 conceptual measures shown on this plan. Rev. 1: The plan proposes a fairly traditional end -of -pipe stormwater approach. It seems from the comment above that Jack was looking for something more, perhaps with runoff reduction practices. The applicant is referred to proffers provided with recently approved rezonings of comparable size and type. Rev.2: This was not addressed. The plan appears to be the same in this regard. 3. Based on the topography there are two swales or streams that converge on the west side of the property. Although these are not depicted as intermittent streams on USGS maps, their status needs to be field verified. Stream "A" approximately bisects the property and crosses from east to west. Stream `B" generally follows the western property line and runs south to north. The development concept sacrifices stream "A" to achieve the proposed density. A stormwater facility is proposed near the upper reach of stream `B ", but the lower portion will be reconstructed as an engineered channel due to the large (up to 20 feet high) retaining wall proposed along the western property line. By using site planning and grading schemes that have more respect for the terrain, the impacts to stream `B" may be minimized or preferably eliminated. Rev. 1: The stream and buffer issues have been commented on by Tamara Ambler. Rev.2: Stream and buffer issues appear to be outstanding. Our recent discussion at the county indicate an acceptable plan might be to preserve the stream and buffer for the stream running along the western property line, and allow development of the portion which runs toward the middle of the site. In any case, it would appear to require some changes in the overall layout. The response letter from the applicant says this will be addressed with site plans, but this is not possible with the current concept. 4. At the northern end of the property the horizontal curvature of the conceptual Lewis & Clark Drive extension aligns the street centerline with an existing intermittent stream. Such an alignment will eliminate a significant portion of this stream. The application plan for the rezoning showed this street aligned parallel to and on the north side of the stream. The street needs to be realigned to be consistent with the application plan and minimize impacts to the stream. Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed. As with comment 1, the road alignment is substantially set by previous approvals, and the initial sections to the fire station have been graded and partially constructed. 5. Rev. 1: Adequate channel issues directly downstream to the east in the existing subdivision are an issue. They do not appear to have been adequately addressed by previous plans. It appears the intent of designers has been to address this issue solely on -site. This may not Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 be possible in this case, and the applicant is referred to DCR Technical Bulletin No. 1. Rev.2: This comment has not been addressed. It appears some downstream measures will be necessary. This is off -site work that will require cooperation from the neighbors, and commitments with the rezoning. 6. Rev. 1: Regarding the traffic study received with this revision: a. Please clarify what necessary improvements are proffered. A scenario in the traffic study must reflect what is proposed to be built by this development (even if other developments fail to materialize.) b. Please indicate how the projected site directional distributions were obtained. The 5% exiting right on Rt.649 seems low. Please provide any surveys of existing employees, or other empirical data used to generate these numbers. c. It appears that data was obtained but the Rt. 649 and Rt. 29 intersection was not studied for necessary improvements or additional delays. It is unclear why not, as it seems this intersection would be impacted. d. The study calls for additional through lanes on Rt. 29. Unless these are proffered this seems unlikely. The lanes should not be assumed to go through the intersections, unless proffers are made to continue the lanes through for a sufficient merge distance to be out of the operational area of the intersections. I understand UREF is to build one NB lane, and North Point one SB lane. If North Point, this project will need to build the NB lane. Rev.2: Comments regarding the traffic study have been coordinated with Juandiego Wade. Please refer to those comments. Please call me if you have any questions. file: E3a zma GEB UREF North Fork.doc After you resubmit and staff has reviewed your proposal, we will provide another set of written comments. At that time, a public hearing date for the Planning Commission may be determined. Staff would suggest that prior to public hearing, it would be beneficial to have another work session with the Planning Commission. Please resubmit 10 copies on a resubmittal Monday, according to the attached resubmittal schedule. Please make sure to put my name on your resubmittal cover. I think it would be beneficial for us to meet again to go over these comments and provide examples to you, prior to your next submittal. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at (434) 296 -5832 ext.3439 or Ragsdale @albemarle.org. Sincerely, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner May 21, 2008, 2008 - Missel ZMA 05 -05 The UVA Research Park Review Comments, 4/21/08 submittal 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 x3368 Fax (434) 972 -4126 TO: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner f' , FROM: Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planne t� F . e 1'�. REF: University of Virginia Research Park Traffic Impact Analysis DATE: May 14, 2008 I have had the opportunity to review with above TIA with Community Development staff and VDOT and offer the following comments: • The project has built about 15% of its square footage in 14 years. The buildout year of 2015 assumes the other 85% will be constructed within the next 7 years. This does not appear reasonable. • On page 13, the Current Zoning 2015 Combine 3.OM s.f., Proposed Zoning 2015 Comb 37M s.f. level of service information for the Route 29/649 intersection is missing, The background information in the appendices for this intersection is also missing. • The methodology for the distribution is not provided. Some distribution does not appear logical. Please provide your methodology for arriving at the distribution percentages. • Please identify the responsible party for the Route 29 third south bound lane. Please identify all improvements to be built by the applicant, or to be built by another project. (The HCS data does not appear to match the figures in lane geometry in the study.) • The TIA does not appear to account for North Pointe traffic that would utilize Lewis Clark Road. The future conditions should consider a fourth leg on this Rt. 29 intersection, and the traffic study for North Point should be referenced. • The TIA does not appear to accurately include the Hollymead Towncenter external traffic. The figures in the appendix appear only to give internal site intersection traffic numbers. • Please explain the 20% "other destinations" noted in Table 7. Please also indicate the justification for the 15% pass - through traffic reduction. • Please provide tabulated results by LOS and delay at each movement at each intersection. These are useful in pinpointing problems and potential fixes. Please do not give averaged overall results, which are not useful, and sometimes misleading. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cc: Glenn Brooks Joel Denunzio