Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700013 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2010-08-17Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, with proffers. Staff believes that the increased research and laboratory use is appropriate for the site, meeting a public need. No adverse impacts to the park, neighborhood, or general public are anticipated from the increased building size. Zoning and Subdivision History: In June 1992 the property in question was rezoned from PD -SC and R -10 to CO Commercial Office, with proffers and a proffered plan of development. A special use permit for supporting commercial uses, research and development activities, including experimental testing, and medical and pharmaceutical laboratories was also approved in 1992 with the rezoning. Since then, the site has been subdivided to provide individual parcels for each of the institutional uses referenced above. In September 2000 amendments to the original ZMA and SP were approved, allowing an additional 106,000 square feet and bringing total research park square footage to 495,000. Comprehensive Plan: The park is recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood Six of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan. Recommended Office Service uses include the following: • Office parks and mixed -use planned developments emphasizing office uses and regional scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. Limited production activities and marketing of products may be included. • High density residential, commercial, and motel/hotel /conference facilities may be included as a secondary use. • Office Service designation requires a large site size (20+ acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the preliminary findings and recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study, which identifies Fontaine Research Park as an existing Neighborhood Center and acknowledges and supports the potential for additional development within the park, both employment related and supporting commercial Similarly, the applicant's proposal does not conflict with any of the connector road alternatives between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue Extended identified and evaluated by the study. The 1988 JPA/Fontaine Area B Study, predecessor to the current study, stated that these [Research Park] parcels should be considered for rezoning, after completion of feasibility studies by the University. The Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model, an adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, sets forth twelve principles for evaluating development proposals within the Development Area. Neighborhood Model principles are not strongly reflected in this research park, which pre -dated the County's current policy and embodies a more suburban approach to development. Those which are reflected to some degree in this proposal and/or in the park are: Pedestrian Orientation — Although the organization and dimensions of the park do not make it an easy pedestrian environment, there is a sidewalk network linking buildings ,within the park, and linking the park network to Fontaine Avenue. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths — Landscaping and streetscaping make many of the internal streets attractive for pedestrians. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - The applicant is agreeable to staff's suggestion that it construct a bus shelter for transit riders to improve waiting conditions. Currently, the site is served by JAUNT and a hospital van shuttle. Staff explored with the City the need to initiate a proposed bus route serving the park identified in the City's Transit Management Plan, but was informed that demand is not adequate to operate it at this time. The recommended bus shelter would also serve the CTS route when it commences. There is a Transit Demand Management Plan in place for the park that identifies ways in which alternative transportation can be accomplished, but the research park has not required any implementation measures from its tenants so it has had little effect on peak hour congestion conditions. Mixture of Uses — The proposed site and adjacent parcels are characterized by a limited mixture of uses including office, laboratory, clinical /medical and institutional /educational. Because there is very little commercial or other non - office mix, however, in staff s view this is not true mixed - use development. Should the University request additional square footage in the future, staff would expect to see a greater mix of uses within the park. Neighborhood Centers — The park serves as a neighborhood center, and has the potential to become a better center with the addition of supporting commercial uses. It is an important regional employment center. Site Planning that Respects Terrain — Since the applicant is not altering the site plan for this component of park development other than adding floor space, no environmental, open space, etc. impacts are envisioned. Development in the park has been oriented away from sensitive environmental features. Analysis of the Rezoning Request Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing proffers to allow additional office use in a CO Commercial Office district. The purpose and intent of the CO district is to permit development of administrative, business and professional office and supporting accessory uses and facilities. The district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts. The proposal meets the intent of the CO Zoning District. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ROADS No adverse impact to roads is anticipated from this proffer amendment. As noted previously, no increase in occupancy or cars is anticipated due to the lower occupancy associated with the research and laboratory use. WATER AND SEWER Water and sewer are adequate for the proposed use. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater facilities on this site can accommodate the proposed use. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2007 -13 Fontaine Research Park SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Rezone approximately 54 acres from Commercial Office (CO) zoning district to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD -MC) to allow for an increase from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical, research & development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial space permitted in the research park. Three parking garages are proposed. The rezoning request is concurrent with SP2007 -055; SP2009 -010; SP2009 -011; SP2009- 013; and SP2009 -014. No residential units are proposed. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: August 24, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On July 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Fontaine Research Park. While staff did not recommend approval of the re- zoning for several reasons noted in the staff report provided for that public hearing, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA2007 -13 with the amendments to the proffers as discussed. Also, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of five (5) Special use permits, SP2007 -55, SP2009 -10, SP2009 -11, SP2009 -13, and SP2009 -14, as reflected in the staff report, with the conditions as recommended by staff. The Commission also recommended approval of the modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations with changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition. (See Attachment A -1, Action Letter) DISCUSSION: This request is before the Commission because Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9 was not included in the legal ad for the July 27 public hearing. This parcel was subdivided from Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B1 (which was included in the original legal ad) and recorded on September 9, 2009,but staff was unaware of the recordation of the new parcel until the applicant called it to staff's attention after the July 27th public hearing. Due to the absence of Tax Map 76, Parcel 1789 in the legal ad for the July 27th public hearing, the rezoning and SP's need to be re- advertised and a new public hearing held. There are no proposed changes to the rezoning and special use permit requests that were originally heard by the Commission other than the inclusion of this new parcel. (See Attachment B -1, Aerial Map of New Parcel) The applicant is in the process of amending the proffers to reflect the actions of the Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS: As nothing of substance has changed since the Commission's July 27th public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission once again recommend approval of: 1) the rezoning request subject to the amended proffers; 2) the five special use permits subject to the conditions recommended by staff; and 3) modification to the building height regulations with changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A -1: Action Letter ATTAHCMENT B -1: Aerial Tax Map and New Parcel ZMA 2007 -013 PC August 24, 2010 Executive Summary Page 1 �'JRGINLP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 2, 2010 Ms. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 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 Ms. Long: Thank you for your recent re- submittal received on May 3rd, for the above noted project for Tax Map and Parcels: 76 -17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1, 17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, and 17B8. The following concerns remain issues that staff would like to see addressed: Plans: Planning: • Exhibit C4 shows tax map 76, parcel 17 BX as tax map 76, parcel 16 BX. Parcel 16 BX does not appear to exist. This is a minor item that should be corrected to eliminate any confusion. Current Development: The following comment has been provided by Bill Fritz regarding height requirements and setback issues: • The zoning ordinance (section 21.4) restricts maximum building height to 65 feet. However, any structure that exceeds 35 feet must provide additional set back/yard from adjacent rural or residential property or street right of way. The additional setbacks are two feet of setback for each one foot that the structure is over 35 feet. The applicant has stated that the structures on the property will be limited to 6 stories. This limit is not 1 necessary as the maximum height limit is 65 feet. The applicant should be on notice that tall buildings on the perimeter of the property or adjacent to internal streets may not be able to exceed 35 feet in height due to increased setback/yard requirements. (For reference the setbacks and yard requirements may be found in sections 21.4 and 21.7.) Zoning: The following comment has been provided by Ron Higgins regarding zoning concerns: • As mentioned above, the setbacks for buildings taller that 35' may require modification along the adjacent and internal streets. This is shown on the application plan and should be made clear that it is being requested as part of the rezoning. The limit of "six stories in height" must still fall within the 65' overall height limit in the county. Engineering and Water Resources: • Glenn Brooks provided an e-mail to you dated May 20, 2010 that reflects his most recent concerns related to stormwater management. As we have discussed, the concerns mentioned in the e -mail need to be addressed. Architectural Review Board: The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to entrance corridor guidelines: • The new plan shows two potential stormwater facilities located near the Fontaine Entrance Corridor. The one at the northeast corner of the site is particularly close to the street. Such facilities in these locations will require extremely careful design and treatment to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. A severe engineered appearance will not meet the EC Guidelines. The facilities will have to be fully integrated into the site as landscape features. Proffers: VDOP The following comment has been provided by Joel DeNunzio related to VDOT matters. As previously stated, this comment was previously sent and has not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of VDOT with the latest re- submission: • In addition to the proposed and proffered signal at the southbound ramps at Route 29 and Fontaine Ave, VDOT Traffic Engineers believe a signal may be warranted at the northbound ramps on Fontaine Ave to Route 29 due to the traffic from the development. Transportation: VDOP The following comments have been provided by Joel DeNunzio related to VDOT matters. These comments were previously sent and have not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of VDOT with the latest re- submission: • The developer should submit a signal warrant analysis at 75% build out for a signal at the northbound ramps. If the analysis shows that a signal is warranted at the northbound ramps by the development traffic, the developer should fund the design and construction of the signal. 2 • The two options for the intersection configuration at the Fontaine/Route 29 southbound ramp are fine and the design can be determined during the site plan phase. Albemarle County Sewer Authority (ACSA): The following comment has been provided by Gary Whelan related to Service Authority concerns: • The Service Authority's previous comments concerning capacity issues and improvements are still valid. However, these and other technical engineering issues can be addressed during the site plan stages. Current Development: The following comments have been provided by Bill Fritz related to the site plan process: These comments have been previously submitted: • It will be very difficult to provide parking while the site is being developed. However, we know you are aware of this issue. • A critical slopes waiver is required. Zoning: The following comment has been provided by Ron Higgins related zoning issues: As mentioned above, phasing of the parking may be a challenge as construction continues. Each phase will be required to provide adequate parking for the occupied buildings with safe access. Resubmittal or Public Hearing State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. (The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date.) We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER] you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the County, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days are resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. 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. 3 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 have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Planning Division C: Fred Missel GI vIRGIN� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: May 21, 2010 Subject: ZMA 2007 -13 Fontaine Research Park It will be very difficult to provide parking while the site is being developed. The applicant is aware of this issue. - A critical slopes waiver is required. - Height requirements and setback issues. The zoning ordinance (section 21.4) restricts maximum building height to 65 feet. However, any structure that exceeds 35 feet must provide additional set back/yard from adjacent rural or residential property or street right of way. The additional setbacks are two feet of setback for each one foot that the structure is over 35 feet. The applicant has stated that the structures on the property will be limited to 6 stories. This limit is not necessary as the maximum height limit is 65 feet. The applicant should be on notice that tall buildings on the perimeter of the property or adjacent to internal streets may not be able to exceed 35 feet in height due to increased setback/yard requirements. (For reference the setbacks and yard requirements may be found in sections 21.4 and 21.7.) pF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 14, 2010 Ms. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 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 Ms. Long: Thank you for your recent re- submittal received on March 150', for the above noted project for Tax Map and Parcels: 76 -1713, 1713W, 1713X, 17B1, 17132, 17133, 17134, 17135, 17136, 17137, and 17138. We have a few questions and comments which are indicated below: Plans Planning: • Exhibit C2 shows a parking area outside of the property boundary on the north western portion of the plan. This should be corrected. • Tax map 76, parcel 17 BX does not appear to be labeled on Exhibit C4. • Exhibit D 1 notes minimum yard requirements. Please establish detailed setbacks for future clarification. Modifications to setback requirements are currently underway. Staff suggests you refer to the Planning Commission meeting dated March 16, 2010 for the setback report, which may provide you additional guidance. For example, a front setback of 30 feet is recommended for a four lane road. We suggest setbacks be established for buildings located on all sides of the property. • Will the Ray C. Hunt Drive ingress /egress cross section shown on Exhibit C1 be used for Exhibit D1? If so, the sidewalk should be located on the other side of the tree. Engineering and Water Resources: The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to engineering and water resources: • A previous comment related to stormwater management stated "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. It is recommended that the applicant go above and beyond the Water Protection Ordinance requirements where possible. A stormwater narrative and new exhibit D3 have been submitted with this revision and reviewed by staff. Currently, all of the site does not appear to meet the water quality requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. The portion draining north appears untreated. The dry basins on the southeast provide very little water quality. The retention pond on the south side provides water quality, but it is not known if it is adequate for the proposed development. The narrative tentatively proposes to replace all current facilities with possibly six underground facilities of an unspecified type, and possibly two or three smaller above ground facilities of an unspecified type. The intent appears to be to replace current facilities with something equivalent, but more out -of -the -way, and provide treatment to current ordinance standards for new development only. This is essentially the minimum to meet WPO requirements. The potential reductions in impervious area do not appear to be a commitment, as tiered parking is optional. In the case of the retention pond, the proposal is likely a downgrade, as it is usually the case that any underground treatment will be inferior in capture, treatment reliability and quality over the long term. As all of the facilities on the site are proposed to be replaced or modified, it is recommended that all of the site be brought up to current Water Protection Ordinance requirements. It is also recommended that the retention pond be kept and enhanced. These recommendations are not requirements, but are given so the applicant will take another look at the various drainage areas on the site from this perspective. • The preliminary grading plan has been submitted and reviewed. Staff notes that the proposed retaining walls will make any future construction of the connector road along Stribling Avenue even more impractical than it already is. Even at this preliminary stage, the grading appears to push the edges of the site, which will make it difficult to provide perimeter erosion control measures. Architectural Review Board: The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to entrance corridor guidelines: • The revised proposal no longer includes the retaining wall along the east side of the property, the parking envelopes along Fontaine Avenue have been pulled back from the property line and the proffers indicate that the Foundation will "maintain the existing landscape buffer area to screen the project from Fontaine Avenue and residential neighborhoods adjoining the Fontaine Research Park." It would be useful to have that landscape buffer identified on the application plan. • All buildings, including structured parking, that are expected to be visible from Fontaine Avenue Extended or from the Route 29 Bypass must meet all aspects of the EC Guidelines and will be subject to ARB review. ARB approval will be required for the site development and architectural designs prior to site plan approval. Transportation: Engineering and Water Resources: The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to traffic analysis: • An updated traffic analysis should be provided. The issues of a second signal on Fontaine, as well as failing movements at the ramp intersections, and weave movements, still are unresolved. The current proposal is to expand up to the point where these issues would theoretically become critical. The Planning Commission and Board need to be kept aware that these issues remain on the horizon, and without a solution that is acceptable to VDOT for these issues, there is some risk involved in taking this approach. VDOT.- The following comments have been provided by Joel DeNunzio related to VDOT matters: • The developer should submit a signal warrant analysis at 75% build out for a signal at the northbound ramps. If the analysis shows that a signal is warranted at the northbound ramps by the development traffic, the developer should fund the design and construction of the signal. • The two options for the intersection configuration at the Fontaine/ route 29 southbound ramp are fine and the design can be determined during the site plan phase. Planning: • Outstanding issues as previously stated in the last staff comment letter, dated July 2, 2009 regarding the Sunset - Fontaine Connector remain unresolved. Staff believes it is important for the applicant and the Board of Supervisors to be aware of issue. Albemarle County Sewer Authority (ACSA): As noted in the last comment letter dated July 2, 2009 it appears that outstanding issues still remain regarding ACSA and Rivanna Water Sewer Authority (RWSA). The following comments have been provided by Gary Whelan related to ACSA: • RWSA sewer capacity has issues with the Morey Creek line. Staff is waiting on a sewer capacity report. • Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification is required. • Future sanitary sewer upgrades necessary. Proffers Engineering and Water Resources: The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to engineering and water resources: • The proffer document submitted with this revision contains a proposed proffer 8, which refers to the application plan. This proffer does not appear to proffer anything, other than to say it will follow the application plan (I presume exhibit D3, which only shows possible or potential facility locations). It is noted that the two proposed potential facilities adjacent to Fontaine Avenue are not located where the development currently drains. Existing systems pipe water in other directions. In the case of potential facility B, there appears to be an existing underground storage pipe under the parking lot, which was not included. In addition, I could find no off -site facility as mentioned in the narrative. VDOT.- The following comments have been provided by Joel DeNunzio related to VDOT matters: • In addition to the proposed and proffered signal at the southbound ramps at Route 29 and Fontaine Ave, VDOT Traffic Engineers believe a signal may be warranted at the northbound ramps on Fontaine Ave to Route 29 due to the traffic from the development. Planning: • The proffers should be submitted using the proffer form /format. • When will proffer 4 be installed/completed? • Regarding proffer 5 is there any thought to being able to provide more commercial area that could serve the park and the immediate area as stated in the Comprehensive Plan language? 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. Current Development: The following comments have been provided by Bill Fritz related to the site plan process: These comments have been previously submitted; however, 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. Although Exhibit C2 -Slope Analysis has been submitted, 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 LVIR v «� • 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. Resubmittal or Public Hearing State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. (The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date.) We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER] you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the County, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days are resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.or in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. 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 have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Planning Division C: Fred Missel County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Elaine Echols, Principle Planner Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 9 May 2007 Rev.]: 6 Nov 2007 Rev.2: 23 Apr 2009 Rev.3: 31 Mar 2010 Subject: Fontaine Expansion (ZMA200700013) The rezoning plan and code of development have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; 1. Stribling Avenue will need to be retained or replaced. It is recommended that the studies done by the University, County and City be followed. Rev. 1: The applicant's information indicates that they are willing to extend the connector road to the end of their property. This is required by ordinance. This comment has not been satisfactorily addressed. Rev.2: This comment has not been addressed. Rev.3: Comment addressed. Stribling Avenue is being retained, in theory to be realigned in the same general area in the future. 2. 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. It is recommended that the applicant go above and beyond the Water Protection Ordinance requirements where possible. Rev.]: This comment has not been satisfactorily addressed. There has been no new information provided. The applicant indicates they are undertaking a wetlands study. Rev.2: I could not find that this comment had been addressed. Rev.3: The stormwater narrative submitted with this revision, along with new exhibit D3, has been reviewed. Currently, all of the site does not appear to meet the water quality requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. The portion draining north appears untreated. The dry basins on the southeast provide very little water quality. The retention pond on the south side provides water quality, but it is not known if it is adequate for the proposed development. The narrative tentatively proposes to replace all current facilities with possibly six underground facilities of an unspecified type, and possibly two or three smaller above ground facilities of an Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 unspecified type. The intent appears to be to replace current facilities with something equivalent, but more out -of- the -way, and provide treatement to current ordinance standards for new development only. This is essentially the minimum to meet WPO requirements. The potential reductions in impervious area do not appear to be a commitment, as tiered parking is optional. In the case of the retention pond, the proposal is likely a downgrade, as it is usually the case that any underground treatment will be inferior in capture, treatment reliability and quality over the long term. As all of the facilities on the site are proposed to be replaced or modified, it is recommended that all of the site be brought up to current Water Protection Ordinance requirements. It is also recommended that the retention pond be kept and enhanced. These recommendations are not requirements, but are given so the applicant will take another look at the various drainage areas on the site from this perspective. The proffer document submitted with this revision contains a proposed proffer 8, which refers to the application plan. This proffer does not appear to proffer anything, other than to say it will follow the application plan (I presume exhibit D3, which only shows possible or potential facility locations). It is noted that the two proposed potential facilities adjacent to Fontaine Avenue are not located where the development currently drains. Existing systems pipe water in other directions. In the case of potential facility B, there appears to be an existing underground storage pipe under the parking lot, which was not included. In addition, I could find no off -site facility as mentioned in the narrative. 3. A preliminary grading plan should be provided. Extra provisions for erosion control may be appropriate in some areas. Rev.]: This comment was not addressed. Rev.2: 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. Rev.3: This comment has been addressed. I note that the proposed retaining walls will make any future construction of the connector road along Stribling Avenue even more impractical than it already is. Even at this preliminary stage, the grading appears pushes the edges of the site, which will make if difficult to provide perimeter erosion control measures. 4. An updated traffic analysis should be provided. Rev. 1: The traffic analysis signal and lane improvements need to be included in the proposed application plan and proffers. The significant impacts, especially at the 29 Bypass, need to be mitigated. Rev.2: See the separate memorandum provided for the traffic study and impacts. Rev.3: To recap, as I understand it, the issues of a second signal on Fontaine, as well as failing movements at the ramp intersections, and weave movements, are unresolved. The current proposal is to expand up to the point where these issues would theoretically become critical. The Planning Commission and Board should be kept aware that these issues remain on the horizon, and without a solution acceptable to VDOT for these issues, there is some risk involved in this approach. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 Further comments may be required when more detailed information is provided. file: l:4 zma GF13 Fontaine cxpansion.docx �'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 �'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 July 2, 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. Fred: Thank you for your patience in receiving final comments from staff on your submittal of April 6 for the above noted projects. Comments I sent you in May are repeated and augmented here and VDOT's comments are attached to this letter. 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: Transportation: 1. Sunset — Fontaine Connector -- 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 Your proposed approach to leave open the Stribling Avenue road bed and build this portion of the Fontaine - Sunset connector here sometime in the future does not adequately address the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Our County Engineer has indicated that the ultimate alignment of the road needs to be more fully considered in your proposal. The ultimate alignment is necessary in knowing exactly where the Fontaine /Sunset connector will cross the creek and the railroad and end up on the Granger property. If extended from where it is shown on your plan, Stribling will be prone to flooding and too low to raise over the tracks. A preliminary engineering study is needed to pinpoint the appropriate location of the railroad crossing and alignment for the connector road. Alternative 4 from the Area B study does not appear achievable. This issue needs to be addressed with the proposal or otherwise resolved at a higher level. 2. Mitigation of traffic impacts -- The traffic study indicates many impacts that you are not mitigating. (See VDOT comments on the attached page.) Using Stribling as a second entrance to the Park and/or as a separate connector road is problematic because this entrance will require a signal. There is not sufficient spacing for two signals on Fontaine Avenue. Off site, the proposed traffic mitigation includes adding improvements to the ramps of the Rt. 250 Bypass, lanes under the bridge and a signal at the southbound interchange ramp. These improvements won't be enough to manage the additional traffic that will be generated by the development. Ultimately, a future failing condition of E or worse will occur for traffic movements on the Bypass and Fontaine, even without the increase in development at Fontaine Research Park. The increased development in the Research Park will make the situation worse and mitigation offered is minimal and restrictive. There should be a workable alternative provided to deal with increased traffic into the Research Park since adding a second entrance and signal is not workable. A single entrance into the park or two entrances into the park with one being a right -in right -out but not a signalized entrance should be provided. If a single entrance, it should be the beginning of the connector road. A connector road through the research park will cause redesign of the plan and may require modification of existing roadways and/or parking lots. The design is a critical part of the rezoning. In terms of mitigating impacts, the 310,000sf cap proposed by applicant appears to need a better connection to actual traffic generated. For example, the study shows this generates 849 PM peak left outs from Ray C. Hunt Drive at LOS E in 2012 (Figure 7 from the traffic study). Our suggestion would be to use the 849 PM peak or another governing movement as a cap, which we can discuss with your traffic engineer. This gets around concerns about the realistic nature of the build -out year, or the 20% traffic generation reduction, or other model concerns. Staff and VDOT can support a cap of 310,000 square feet or a peak movement cap like left turns from Ray C. Hunt, whichever comes first. The 310,000 square feet or 849 are somewhat arbitrary caps, chosen for convenience. The left - outs are not the only failing movements. There are also the ramps on 29, and the interchange at 64. Required spot improvements to reach this cap are in Figure 12B of the traffic study. Once this cap is reached, however, there is no workable solution. The dual signal setup will require analysis and a waiver from VDOT. Other scenarios discussed are an exclusive ramp, and major reconstruction changes to the intersections. VDOT has suggested study of several alternatives in their letter. At this time, staff and VDOT can only support the caps mentioned above. 3. Environmental Impacts — As we said in our letter of May 5, 2009, environmental impacts need to be mitigated. 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. 4. 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. 17131 is missing from Exhibit C4 and 17134 is missing from the proffers. • 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 parameters regarding the envelopes, so we have a better sense of how much the parking and building envelopes will be developed. Engineering: The County Engineer has said that the following comments have been given to you over the last two years, and have not been addressed yet. • 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. Language used in the Hollymead Town Center (HTC) proffers, which was requested by the Board of Supervisors is as follows for HTC: 9. Critical Slopes, Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. A. Critical Slopes. The Owner shall apply for critical slope waivers for any roads located in critical slopes governed by § 18 -4.2 et seq. of the Albemarle County Code. B. Erosion and Sediment Control. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the County's Program Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate of eighty percent (80 %) for the Property. (As a reference, current regulatory structural measures achieve a 60% optimal removal rate.) C. Revegetation. Within nine (9) months after the start of grading under any erosion and sediment control permit, permanent vegetation shall be installed on all the denuded areas, except for areas the Program Authority determines are otherwise permanently stabilized or are under construction with an approved building permit. A three (3) month extension for the installation of permanent vegetation may be granted by the Program Authority due to special circumstances including but not limited to weather conditions. D. Stormwater. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the County's Program Authority, provide additional stormwater management to achieve a removal rate 20% better than would otherwise be required by the Water Protection Ordinance (Albemarle County Code § 17 -100 et seq.) up to a maximum of an eighty percent (80 %) removal rate for each phase. • 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. ACSA: According to the Service Authority, your consultant, Dewberry & Davis has been working on an extensive sewer capacity report for the rezoning, which both the ACSA and RWSA were reviewing. ACSA has looked at the report twice and given comments to the consultant but have yet to see the final report with the final recommendations. Their last comments were provided to the consultant via email on July 25, 2008. RWSA had issues with one of their lines not being of sufficient size to handle the additional capacity but there were other comments from them as well. The ACSA had capacity issues for a couple of runs of sewer within the research park itself, wherein the existing lines could not handle the peak flow at build -out given the usage projections supplied in the report. RWSA: RWSA has been reviewing and commenting on a report by Dewberry and Davis regarding the projected sewer flows for the rezoning but has not received a revised report based on their latest comments which were sent on 7/18/08. RWSA believes that the applicant will need to, at a minimum, upgrade an offsite portion of existing RWSA 8" sewer so that it can handle the projected sewer flows. RWSA will need to review the final report in order to determine all impacts to our sewer facilities. This project will also require a flow acceptance letter to be issued by RWSA to ACSA for the additional sewer flows. 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. Make sure to put Claudette Grant's 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 3252 or Claudette Grant at x 3250 or send both of us an e-mail. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols Claudette Grant Principal Planner Senior Planner II COMMONWEALTH of VIRC NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER June 25`", 2009 Mr. Juandiego Wade Community Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Fontaine Research Park TIA Comments Dear Mr. Wade: Below are VDOT's comments on the Fontaine research Park TIA: 1. The split phasing of the signal at the SB 29 bypass ramp and Fontaine Ave is not an acceptable solution for mitigation in that location. 2. The degradation of the weave movements on the route 29 bypass between Fontaine Ave and I- 64 in both directions is not addressed with any mitigation or recommendation for improvement in the study. The same is true for some of the weave movements at the I -64 interchange where the delay is increased with no mitigation identified or proposed. 3. The 2017 scenario proposes a second signal and access point. This signal does not meet the spacing requirements under the Access Management Regulations. 4. The full build out in 2017 during the AM and PM peak hour shows areas where volumes of traffic surpass the capacity of the road network which will result in the extension of the peak hour of traffic. 5. Although the applicant showed that they are currently 20% below the ITE projections for traffic, we are concerned that future uses may not generate such a high reduction in trips. We believe that the reduction should be 10 %. 6. We would recommend some other alternatives be explored to mitigate traffic impacts in this area. One alternative could be the slip ramp from the existing Route 29 NB ramp to access directly into the park. Also, there could be an egress ramp that connects at a "Y" at the existing Route 29 SB ramp with a signal. This will enable 60% of trips generated by the site to access Route 29 SB and relieve congestion along a portion of Fontaine Ave. This will also eliminate four weaving conditions. As a part of this alternative, the signal at Fontaine Ave and Ray C. Hunt Dr. could possible be eliminated and the access to the existing intersection could be changed to right in/out and possible left in. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 7. There may be conflicts with additional lanes under the existing Route 29 structure and will need to be addressed with the engineering plans. 8. We recommend that any proposed signals if and when approved are designed and constructed at the developers cost. We recommend that improvements or funds for improvements to the Route 29 / Fontaine interchange and possible a grade separated interchange at the proposed connector road be considered as mitigation to the traffic impacts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �'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 �� OF ALg� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: May 4, 2009 Subject: ZMA 2007 -13 Fontaine Research Park I have reviewed the information submitted in support of the above referenced application and offer the following comments: 1. A critical slopes waiver will be required for the development proposed. Typically I recommend that this waiver be processed with the rezoning application. However, in this case the information submitted lacks enough detail to effectively process the waivers. The applicant, and Board of Supervisors, should be alerted to the fact that critical slope waivers will be needed. If the waivers are denied it will affect the development of the site and may result in a layout other than shown on the application plan. Further, the applicant should not assume that approval of the rezoning in any way implies approval of any waivers. 2. The layout proposed by the applicant may require very complex phasing. The proposed buildings and parking structures will require existing parking to be removed. I recommend that the applicant work with the Zoning reviewer to discuss this issue now. It may be appropriate to include a condition or memorandum of understanding between the applicant and County. The issue is 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. *—&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 15 May 2008 Subject: UREF Fontaine Research Park (ZMA200700013) traffic study The revising rezoning plan and code of development have been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use; The buildout year does not appear realistic. The existing 565,OOOsf appears to have taken 15 -18 years to build. Is does not appear likely another 310,000 will be built within the next 4 years, or 725,000 in 9 years. 2. Future scenarios without the proposed rezoning have not been provided for comparison. 3. I don't fully understand the recommended improvements, as there are many and they are recommended in stages. Please provide a graphical representation of improvements at each stage. 4. Please 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. 5. Please complete the graphics to show the proposed garage access and second main entrance and lane improvements proposed. These are not clear. 6. 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, qeueing, or delays. 7. Please explain the comments on queuing at the proposed new signal on Fontaine into the development. The levels of service for through movements are OK, but the report indicates queuing may be a problem. 8. 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. 9. Please 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. file: El zma GEB FontaineResearchPark.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 December 14, 2007 Mr. Fred Missel UVA Foundation PO Box 400218 Charlottesville, VA 22904 -4218 RE: ZMA 2007 -013 Fontaine Research Park Addition SP 2007 -055 Structured Parking at Fontaine Research Park Dear Mr. Fred: Thank you for your recent submittal of a special use permit application for the Fontaine Research Park structured parking and your participation in the worksession held by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2007. This letter provides a summary of that worksession, as well as staff comments on the parking structure. What level of resource protection is expected with the expansion of the Research Park? The Commission said that the applicant should continue to map the resources on the site and show them in relation to the proposed development and conceptual grading. The Commission said that resource protection should be provided unless the applicant can provide a sufficient reason for the resources to be disturbed. This issue would be revisited after identification of the resources. What level of support commercial use is expected with the expansion of the Research Park? The Commission said that greater opportunities for support commercial uses than are currently requested should be made with the rezoning. There was not a consensus on how provision for commercial uses should occur. The Commission asked the applicant to propose a level of commercial use that the Foundation believes can be supported and mechanisms for how those commercial support uses would actually be provided in the park When should the Sunset - Fontaine connector be built through this property and what characteristics should it have? How should a possible off -ramp from I -64 affect commitments for the Sunset - Fontaine connector? Should Stadium Road be expanded as a part of this rezoning? The Commission said that, until the traffic study was done, they could not provide answers to these questions. They acknowledged that, if an off -ramp from I -64 to substitute for the Sunset - Fontaine connector is viewed by the MPO PACC as most advantageous, the Land Use Plan would need to be amended. At present, the off -ramp proposal has no standing, so decisions would need to be made on the Comprehensive Plan recommendations in place at the time of the rezoning. What level of information is expected at the rezoning vs, the site planning stage? The Commission indicated that more detailed information was necessary at the rezoning stage than had been provided. The Commission acknowledged the applicant's willingness to provide more information; however, it was agreed that providing information on scale and massing of the structures for preliminary Entrance Corridor review was premature. The following comments have been provided by reviewers for the special use permit: 1. If approved by rezoning and then special use permit, the structures will require site plans. 2. All standards for parking facilities will have to be met in accordance with Section 4.12 of the zoning ordinance. 3. The site plan will require that the parking inside the structures meet zoning ordinance requirements for dimensions and site distance. 4. At least one of the garages will involve critical slopes. A waiver will be needed for any disturbance of critical slopes. It is expected that critical slopes waivers will be analyzed in conjunction with the rezoning. 5. As with the initial comments provided with the rezoning, you will need to provide sewer flows for each building at the site plan stage. ACSA will ask RWSA for capacity certification. ACSA says that water pressure "isn't great" at the research park, but there is sufficient flow in the system. The existing buildings have booster pumps for their sprinkler systems. Although the special use permit request came separately from the rezoning, they will be reviewed concurrently. When you resubmit information for the rezoning, please provide any additional information for the special use permit. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact me at (434) 296 -5832, X. 3252 or at eechols @albemarle.org Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner 2