Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2010-06-04 (3)From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 201111:47 AM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00003 Morey Creek Professional Center Application Plan and Proffers Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ZMA- 2010 -00003 Morey Creek Professional Center Application Plan and Proffers Judy, I have reviewed the referenced plan and proffers and have the following comments: Proffers: 1. It appears that the proffered improvements to Fontaine Ave. and the Route 29 ramps address VDOT concerns as stated in the Chapter 527 TIA reply to the county. We also recommended that the applicant submit the traffic signal warrants analysis for both the north and south bound Route 29 ramps to Fontaine Ave. as previously requested to be reviewed by VDOT prior to the approval of this request. Plan: 2. Route 702 has a posted speed of 45 mph. The minimum taper is 200 feet and the minimum deceleration allowing a reduction of 10 mph in the through and taper lane is 225 feet in accordance with AA5HTO deceleration lengths. 3. Curb and gutter on the main entrance should not taper back to the edge of the road on a shoulder designed road. It needs to end at the taper and a ditch section needs to be outside of the taper.- Please see figure 4 -9 on page F -99 of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 4. Please provide a right turn treatment type warrant analysis for the right in only. The design of the right in only needs to have offset curb as shown in figure 4 -9 of the VDOT Road Design Manual and should be similar in design to drawings on page F -91 of the Road Design Manual. 5. Trees must be located outside of the clear zone of the roadway. Please identify the clear zone on the plan typical sections or plan view of the road improvement. 6. It's recommended that the curb and gutter between the two proposed entrances be connected and the face of curb be located 13 feet consistently from the existing edge of pavement, then planting strip and then sidewalk. Trees between the road and road ditch are a clear zone violation and will not be permitted. The clear zone looks like it will be 16 to 18 feet in width from the travel lane. The horizontal curve in the road may be a factor in the clear zone requirement. 7. Use CG -7 curb and gutter. 8. The VDOT WP -2 standard will be a requirement for pavement widening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel. den unzio@vdot.vi rginia.00v ATTACHMENT E - � 9 �'IRGII�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 January 5, 2011 Samuel E. Saunders Principal in Charge Timmons Group 919 2nd Street, S.E. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center Dear Mr. Saunders: Staff has reviewed the December 6, 2010 resubmittal for the Morey Creek Professional Center zoning map amendment. We have a few comments about the resubmittal. After each comment, staff has offered a recommendation for the applicant's consideration. County staff, including the County Engineer, and VDOT staff believe that all of the road improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park, as well as the two improvements now proffered by Morey Creek, will be necessary at the time Morey Creek Professional Center opens. Some of these improvements are intended to address existing circumstances, as well as traffic increases due to additional space at the Research Park. Further, shifting employees from Fontaine Research Park to the Morey Creek site will have an impact on traffic patterns and volumes. As explained by VDOT staff: VDOT's concern is that Morey Creek will be developed prior to the identified funded improvements to this intersection by Fontaine Research Park and there will be functional and safety issues much greater than those expected by the background traffic alone at the southbound ramp intersection at Fontaine Avenue. This is the reason VDOT recommends that the county ensure the improvements identified in the Key Findings document are in place prior to this development. The traffic improvements needed prior to the opening of Morey Creek are the four listed in VDOT's KEY FINDINGS comments: A westbound right turn lane on Fontaine Avenue Extended at the southbound route 29 bypass ramp. This turn lane should be in accordance with the requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual. A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass southbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, Samuel Saunders, Comment Letter, January 5, 2011 A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass northbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. Development and installation of a coordinated signal timing plan to include the proposed and existing signals at the intersections of the north and southbound ramp intersections of the Route 29 bypass with Fontaine Avenue, Fontaine Avenue and Ray C Hunt Drive, and Fontaine Avenue with Jefferson Park Avenue to create a signalized corridor. The coordinated timing plans for these intersections will consist of seven Monday through Friday signal timing plans and four Saturday and Sunday corridor timing plans for a typical week. Staff will be unable to recommend approval of this rezoning unless either the above improvements are proffered by Morey Creek or the applicant can substantiate that some or all of these improvements will not be needed at the time Morey Creek opens. 2. The County understands that Morey Creek is working with VDOT on the signal warrants and that the warrants may not be met until after this rezoning is approved. Our suggested changes to the proffer are included in the attached copy of the proffer. 3. The County Attorney has reviewed the proffers submitted and has several questions and suggested revisions. These are shown in "track changes" on the attached copy of the proffers. The questions are asked primarily to make sure staff can clarify for the Commission and Board exactly what is being proffered. 4. On the application plan, the playground area around the daycare facility extends onto the adjacent parcel that they do not own and is not properly zoned for a daycare. This parcel has not been included in the rezoning. Either the playground needs to be shown only on the current parcel or the rezoning application needs to be amended. If you choose to amend the application to add the second parcel, please contact me for information about the requirements for adding the parcel. 5. The building height exceeds 35 feet. Modification of the setback has been requested. The PD- MC district is subject to the requirements of Section 21.0 of the County's Zoning Ordinance. That section establishes a 30 -foot setback adjacent to public streets, and for buildings in excess of 35 feet the setback is increased a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty -five (35) feet. This requirement may be modified in accord with Section 8.2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. A waiver of 20 -foot undisturbed buffer is requested in the area adjacent to the daycare. The applicant may seek a waiver of this requirement in accord with the provision of Section 21.7(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Two waiver options exist: Section 21.7(C)(1) allows the Planning Commission to grant the modification if certain findings are met. Section 21.7(C)(2) allows the agent to grant the modification if certain findings are met. The findings that have to be met in order to allow the agent to approve the request are more restrictive. If the applicant wishes to seek a modification under the provision of 21.7(C)(1), they should submit information addressing the findings of that section. If the applicant wishes to seek a modification under the provision of 21.7(C)(2), they must submit the information required by Section 2.5 and address the findings contained in Section 21.7(C)(2). ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, Samuel Saunders, Comment Letter, January 5, 2011 7. On page 3 of your December 6, 2010 letter, you requested a waiver of the 6 -foot planting strip requirement throughout the site. We are unsure what waiver is being requested. Please provide the ordinance provision for which you are requesting the waiver. 8. Staff will provide additional comment on your request for a waiver of the 100 -foot sight distance within the parking structure. Recommendations Staff recommends that the applicant address each of the points above and resubmit the plan and proffers. Staff will be pleased to meet with you to discuss these comments and recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand Senior Planner Attachments: VDOT Comments, dated December 21, 2010 County Attorney's proposed revisions to the Proffers Cc: Gary Lowe Senior Project Manager Facilities Planning & Capital Development University of Virginia Health System P.O. Box 800799 Charlottesville, VA 22908 -0799 Bill Daggett Daggett + Grigg Architects 100 10th Street NE, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Greg Kamptner, County Attorney Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Bill Fritz, Current Development Sarah Baldwin, Zoning ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, Samuel Saunders, Comment Letter, January 5, 2011 From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:31 PM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: ZMA- 2010 -00003 Morey Creek Professional Center Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ZMA- 2010 -00003 Morey Creek Professional Center Judy, I have reviewed the December 6t" letter from Timmons Group in reference to the above rezoning and have the following comments on the Traffic Impacts Analysis section of the letter: 1. VDOT agrees that the scope of the study and analysis is adequate as indicated in the Key Findings of the TIA sent to the county by VDOT with the addition of traffic signal warrants. 2. The study shows impacts but does not identify proposed mitigation to the southbound ramp intersection of route 29 by -pass with route 29 Business (Fontaine Ave) without the adjacent site volumes or funded improvements. For example, the TIA shows that the existing 2010 Fontaine Ave. Extended at US 29 BYP SB Ramps queue in the AM peak hour is 471 feet with a ramp capacity of 1550 feet and delay of 118 seconds. The same intersection background growth in 2018 queue is 645 feet with a capacity of 1550 feet with delay of 191 seconds. The PM peak hour queue and delay cannot be measured because it is failing. When the Morey Creek site traffic is added to this intersection in the AM peak hour, the queue on the ramp is 1152 feet with a capacity of 1550 feet and a delay of 530 seconds. The impact in the AM peak hour for Morey Creek is an additional 507 feet of queue and 339 seconds of delay. Again, the PM peak hour impacts cannot be calculated. Although the intersection with background growth is failing in the build out year, the addition of Morey Creek Professional Center traffic will greatly increase the impact to the intersection. This will lead to an increase in the duration of failing queues and delay and will likely cause traffic to queue on Route 29 BYP through lanes for a longer part of the day which will decrease the safety of the road and the intersection and possibly increase the rate of crashes. 3. VDOT's concern is that Morey Creek will be developed prior to the identified funded improvements to this intersection by Fontaine Research Park and there will be functional and safety issues much greater than those expected by the background traffic alone at the southbound ramp intersection at Fontaine Ave. This is the reason VDOT recommends that the county ensure the improvements identified in the Key Findings document are in place prior to this development. 4. VDOT has been in ongoing discussions with the development engineer's to address the traffic signal warrants as recommended in the Key Findings document. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov *—&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 20 Dec 2010 Subject: Morey Creek Professional Center (ZMA201000003) The intersection analysis for Buckingham Circle, revised plan for rezoning, and response letter has been reviewed. The following comments are offered for your use in the staff report to the planning commission and board of supervisors; 1. While left turns out of Buckingham Circle will be delayed during peak hours at build -out, the delays are not significant enough to warrant traffic control beyond the stop sign currently in place. 2. There will be unmitigated impacts to the US Route 29 Bypass. This development and any others on Fontaine Avenue contribute traffic to failing weave movements northbound and southbound between this interchange and the Route 64 interchange. The commission and board should be aware that any development approved in this area will further exacerbate this problem, and there is no solution currently planned. 3. There will be unmitigated impacts to the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Maury Avenue in the city. Queue lengths are expected to exceed available lanes. The commission and board should be aware that any development approved in this area will further exacerbate this problem, and there is no solution currently planned. 4. If the improvements proffered by the UREF Fontaine Research Park do not occur before this project is built, the traffic study predicts unacceptable queues on the 29 Bypass ramp southbound. These queues are predicted to back up onto the bypass. The current proffers provide a signal on Fontaine at the northbound ramp, and a right -turn lane on Fontaine at the southbound ramp. Without a signal at the southbound ramp also, failing movements will occur. The signal and left turn lane improvements should be proffered, or this development should wait on the UREF Fontaine project to install them. 5. It is noted that the only way to effectively enforce a right -in only lane is to provide a median in the roadway that is long enough to prevent it. 6. The parallel parking in the eastern entrance will likely need to be removed with the site plan review. Cars maneuvering to parallel park will block entering traffic, which is not safe and convenient circulation. (18- 32.7.2) 7. The critical slope analysis letter from the applicant dated 19 April 2010 is recommended for approval. The disturbances along Morety Creek for the trails and utilities are exempt, as there appear to be no reasonable alternatives. The other disturbances appear necessary to develop the site as proposed, and some disturbance has already taken place for a stockpile area on the upper end of the site. Please see the applicant's letter for details regarding acreage and dimensions. file: E3_ zma_ GEB_ MoreyCreekProfessionalCenter .doc �� OF ALg� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Judy Wiegand From: Bill Fritz Division: Current Development Date: December 15, 2010 Subject: ZMA 2010 — 03 Morey Creek Professional Center I have reviewed the revised information submitted December 6, 2010 and offer the following comments: - The applicant is showing the playground area for the day care partially on an adjacent property which they do not own and is not properly zoned for a day care. I would also like to restate my comment made on June 4, 2010 that off -site activity is proposed. I continue to be concerned that those properties may need to be part of this rezoning application because the application plan is showing activity on a separate parcel. If the easements cannot be obtained then development in accord with the application plan cannot occur. - The applicant has requested waiver of the 6' planning requirement throughout the site. (page 3 of 12/6/10 letter). I am unsure what waiver is being requested. I can find no ordinance provision and none is referenced. - Waiver of 20' undisturbed buffer is requested in the area adjacent to the day care. The applicant may seek a waiver of this requirement in accord with the provisions of 21.7(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Two waiver options exist. 21.7(C) (1) allows the planning commission to grant the modification if certain findings are met. 21.7(C) (2) allows the agent to grant the modification if certain findings are met. The findings that have to be met in order to allow the agent to approve the request are more restrictive. If the applicant wishes to seek a modification under the provisions of 21.7(C) (1) they should submit information addressing the findings of that section. If the applicant wishes to seek a modification under the provisions of 21.7(C)(2) they must submit the information required by Section 2.5 and address the findings contained in section 21.7(C)(2). - Building height exceeds 35 feet. Modification of setback has been requested. The PDMC district is subject to the requirements of Section 21.0. That section establishes a 30 foot setback adjacent to public streets and for buildings in excess of 35 the setback is increased a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty -five (35) feet. This requirement may be modified in accord with Section 8.2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. - Waiver of 100' sight distance within parking structure. (Applicant states no other waivers are needed for the parking structure.) Staff will provide additional comment on this waiver. No additional information is needed from the applicant at this time. - The applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver. For that waiver to be processed the applicant must In order for a critical slopes waiver to be reviewed the applicant must: - Make a written request (This request should clearly indicate what critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed and what type of disturbance will occur. In order for the waiver request to receive adequate review a plan of sufficient detail will be necessary.) - State reasons and justifications for the request - Describe any alternatives they are proposing to address the provisions of the ordinance - Address each of the findings contained in 4.2.5(a)(3) - � 9 �'IRGII�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 November 5, 2010 Samuel E. Saunders Principal in Charge Timmons Group 919 2nd Street, S.E. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center Dear Mr. Saunders: Staff has reviewed the Morey Creek Professional Center Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the Virginia Dept. of Transportation's (VDOT) comments, "Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Morey Creek Professional Center," dated October 15, 2010. We have a number of comments in response to the TIA and VDOT's comments. After these comments, we have offered a series of recommendations for the applicant's consideration. First, the TIA is based on the assumption that the road improvements proffered as part of the Fontaine Research Park rezoning (ZMA 2007 - 00013) would be in place by the time Morey Creek opened for business. However, staff understands that, if the Morey Creek rezoning is approved, it would probably be built before any construction took place in the Fontaine Research Park that would trigger the road improvements proffered by Fontaine. As noted by VDOT, "[t]he Morey Creek Professional Center will have unacceptable impacts to the road system if these improvements [those proffered by Fontaine] are not in place." Staff notes that, once all of the improvements proffered by the Fontaine Research Park and those identified in the Morey Creek TIA are in place, traffic impacts to the local road network (Fontaine Avenue, Fontaine Avenue Extended, and related streets) will be mitigated. The basic issue is the timing of the provision of these improvements. The traffic improvements needed prior to the opening of Morey Creek are the four listed in VDOT's comments: A westbound right turn lane on Fontaine Avenue Extended at the southbound route 29 bypass ramp. This turn lane should be in accordance with the requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual. A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass southbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass northbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, Samuel Saunders, Comment Letter, November 5, 2010 Development and installation of a coordinated signal timing plan to include the proposed and existing signals at the intersections of the north and southbound ramp intersections of the Route 29 bypass with Fontaine Avenue, Fontaine Avenue and Ray C Hunt Drive, and Fontaine Avenue with Jefferson Park Avenue to create a signalized corridor. The coordinated timing plans for these intersections will consist of seven Monday through Friday signal timing plans and four Saturday and Sunday corridor timing plans for a typical week. At the regional traffic level, approval of the Morey Creek Professional Center will result in additional impacts to the interchange ramps (at the 250 /US 29 Bypass) and the weave movements to and from 1 -64. These interchanges need additional analysis and improvements that are beyond the scope of the TIA and are not something for which we expect the applicant to proffer improvement(s). However, we will need to explain these impacts to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors so they can make an informed decision on the proposed rezoning. These impacts relate to the scale issue raised in the County's first comment letter on the Morey Creek rezoning (from Rebecca Ragsdale, dated June 4, 2010). In that letter, staff expressed concern about the project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because the scale of the proposed Professional Center is significantly greater than what is contemplated in the Comp Plan. Staff will be including this information in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission and may recommend a worksession with the Commission to address compliance with the Comp Plan. Part of this discussion would focus on the scale of the Professional Center. Recommendations Staff recommends that the applicant: 1. Provide information on the traffic impacts of the Morey Creek Professional Center without the improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park. County staff needs to know: 1) when the traffic signals need to go in, and 2) when the other road improvements will be needed, with and without the additional square footage approved for Fontaine. 2. With the Fontaine Research Park owners, work out the timing for provision of all of the road improvements that have been proffered either by the Research Park or will be proffered by Morey Creek so that the improvements would be in place at the time they are needed. Draft proffers to address the improvements and their timing. 3. Inform County staff whether the Professional Center would be feasible at any size smaller than 100,000 square feet. 4. Address VDOT's recommendation ...that the county require the applicant to submit Traffic Signal Warrants analysis for the route 29 bypass north and southbound ramp intersections with Fontaine Avenue. The warrants analysis should include both recommended signal locations with and without the adjacent site development traffic associated with the Fontaine Research Park. Staff notes VDOT "s comment (first bullet) that "[t]raffic signals are only permitted when one or more MUTCD warrants are met and need to be included in the study to ensure that adequate mitigation can be constructed." 5. Be prepared to include the pedestrian /bicycle improvements proffered by the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes. Even though, if Morey Creek is approved, both Morey Creek and Fontaine will be nonresidential uses, there are still a significant number of walkers and bikers in the area. There ZMA 2010 - 00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, Samuel Saunders, Comment Letter, November 5, 2010 are also trails in the area that will be more accessible to walkers and bikers with the ped /bike improvements. Staff will be pleased to meet with you to discuss these comments and recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Judith C. Wiegand Senior Planner Cc: Gary Lowe Senior Project Manager Facilities Planning & Capital Development University of Virginia Health System P.O. Box 800799 Charlottesville, VA 22908 -0799 Bill Daggett Daggett + Grigg Architects 100 10th Street NE, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Bill Fritz, Current Development Sarah Baldwin, Zoning Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Morey Creek Professional Center Albemarle County, VA Project ID: ZMA- 2010 -00003 Prepared by Timmons Group for University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions • The improvements recommended in the study, either due to this development or the adjacent site includes traffic signals at both the Route 29 bypass northbound and southbound ramp intersections with Fontaine Avenue. Traffic signals are only permitted when one or more MUTCD warrants are met and need to be included in the study to ensure that adequate mitigation can be constructed. Summary of Data • This study with the addition of the signal warrants listed above generally meets the requirements of the Chapter 527 Regulation. • The study assumes and analyzes certain improvements associated with proffers from an adjacent site to be in place and utilized by this development. The Morey Creek Professional Center will have unacceptable impacts to the road system if these improvements are not in place. • Traffic signals are needed at both the northbound and southbound Route 29 bypass ramps to Fontaine Avenue along with lane improvements at the traffic signals to mitigate the impacts of this development. • The weave analysis included in the study for traffic on the Route 29 bypass between the 1 -64 and Fontaine interchanges and traffic on 1 -64 eastbound between the Route 29 bypass loops are performing below acceptable levels of service and will continue to degrade with additional background and site traffic. The study does not provide any recommendations to improve these maneuvers. These interchanges need additional analysis and improvements that are beyond the scope of this study. Study Recommendation • Prior to the approval of The Morey Creek Professional Center rezoning request, VDOT recommends that the county require the applicant to submit Traffic Signal Warrants analysis for the route 29 bypass north and southbound ramp intersections with Fontaine Avenue. The warrants analysis should include both recommended signal locations with and without the adjacent site development traffic associated with the Fontaine Research Park. • Prior to the opening of The Morey Creek Professional Center, VDOT recommends that Albemarle County ensure the following road improvements are in place: • A westbound right turn lane on Fontaine Avenue Extended at the southbound route 29 bypass ramp. This turn lane should be in accordance with the requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual. • A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass southbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. • A traffic signal at the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass northbound ramps and necessary lane improvements to reach acceptable levels of service at the intersection. • Development and installation of a coordinated signal timing plan to include the proposed and existing signals at the intersections of the north and southbound ramp intersections of the Route 29 bypass with Fontaine Avenue, Fontaine Avenue and Ray C Hunt Drive, and Fontaine Avenue with Jefferson Park Avenue to create a signalized corridor. The coordinated timing plans for these intersections will consist of seven Monday through Friday signal timing plans and four Saturday and Sunday corridor timing plans for a typical week. Other Items • This study does not address discussions and coordination with Albemarle County staff on extending the pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Fontaine Avenue to this development. This will need to be addressed at site plan phase of the project. • Any proposed improvements to the State Maintained System of Highways in association with impacts from this development shall be in accordance with the most current edition of the VDOT Road Design Manual and all additional VDOT adopted publications. All proposed road improvements shall be approved by VDOT and permitted prior to construction. �� OF ALg� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: 6/4/10 Subject: SP 2010 -9 and ZMA 2010 -3 Morey Creek Professional Center I have reviewed the submitted information and offer the following comments. 1. Typically strutted parking requires numerous waivers from the design requirements of section 4.12. The most common waivers are for slope of travel ways, slope of parking spaces and sight distance. 2. With the information submitted I am not able to determine if the design requirements of section 32.7.2a are being met. This section requires that the structure be designed so that headlights and light fixtures will not routinely shine outside of the structure. Also, this section establishes standards for mechanical equipment and air handlers. Please insure that the applicant is aware of these requirements. If waivers are to be sought I recommend they be processed with the special use permit. 3. By separate email I will forward to you the standard report format for the evaluation of the critical slopes waiver. I am happy to discuss this waiver with you at any time. 4. This proposal requires off -site easements. I question of those properties should be part of the rezoning application as the application plan contemplates activity on this property. At a minimum it should be verified that the necessary easements can be obtained. • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 4, 2010 Mr. Samuel E. Saunders, III Timmons Group 9192 nd Street SE Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 Parking Structure 1 st Review Comment Letter - Rezoning submittal date April 19, 2010 Dear Sam: Thank you for the recent submittal of a rezoning to rezone 12.6 acres of PRD Planned Residential Development to PD -MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial. The proposal is for a 100,000 office building (3 -story with underground parking level), a 15,000 square feet day care center, and associated parking. A proposed parking structure would provide 435 spaces; 15 surface parking spaces are also proposed. Staff has reviewed the following items submitted: • Application Plan • Proffers • Critical Slopes Waiver • Illustration Booklet • Parking Garage plans Staff has analyzed the proposed rezoning for consistency with the Land Use Plan, specifically the recommendations for Neighborhood 6 and the Neighborhood Service classification, Open Space Plan, Neighborhood Model, Zoning Ordinance, Water Protection Ordinance, and impacts to water and sewer utilities. Detailed comments are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if a plan or requested items are provided. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6. The list of all recommendations for Neighborhood 6 from the Land Use Plan is attached. Those applicable to this proposal are discussed below. • Limit the Neighborhood Service designation on Fontaine Avenue west of the Bypass (Old Route 29 South) to existing zoned land. "A mixed Use development may be permitted. The gross density of the mixed use development should be consistent with Neighborhood Density Residential and Neighborhood Service designations as shown in the Land Use Plan." Uses allowed in Neighborhood Service areas are expected to include neighborhood -scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and /or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, Community, or Village. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service typically comprise (1 -5 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service should have a specific relationship to nearby and surrounding residential uses and, to the greatest extent possible, be connected to those uses through a system of sidewalks or pedestrian paths. A mixture of Urban Density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses is encouraged within this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas, green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities should occupy at least 20% of the area. The proposed daycare and office uses are acceptable uses within the Neighborhood Service designation. The Land Use Plan suggests more of a mix of uses and a relationship to and support /convenience for surrounding residential areas. In this case, the majority of the development with the exception of the daycare would be a single office use /major employer. The inclusion of the daycare center brings the proposal closer to the intent of the Neighborhood Service designation. The scale of the development in terms of the square footage proposed for the office building is more problematic. The Land Use Plan suggests roughly up to 40,000 square feet of building area for Neighborhood Service areas of 1 -5 acres. However, staff recognizes that this site is unique and the area designated Neighborhood Service is 12.6 acres. This site also has a history of commercial use and was previously zoned Highway Commercial. The site also contains a significant amount of floodplain and reconstructed wetland. The physical scale of the development may possibly be mitigated with architectural features. The transportation impacts may be harder to overcome. Staff recognizes that the transportation study, when completed, will help identify these impacts. Staff believes the Board will require that the level of development on -site 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. Transportation improvements recommended for Neighborhood 6 include: • Provide a greenway corridor along Moore's Creek in the southern portion of Neighborhood Six. • This greenway should connect to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. • Provide pedestrian connections from the residential areas in the Neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. • Consider the transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study. • Evaluate the need for transit service to the Neighborhood as the area continues to develop. • Consider the transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study. • Provide transit service to Fontaine Avenue corridor including the Fontaine Research Park. Staff believes the proposal adequately addresses the greenway and pedestrian recommendations, with a few details related to proffers and design that need to be addressed and are listed below. The project does not address the recommendations for transit and the site should be designed to accommodate CTS /JAUNT vehicles through the site. JAUNT has made detailed comments which are attached. Staff believes the on- street parking spaces adjacent to 2 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure Isc County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 the entrance of the site might accommodate a bus stop pull off area. Staff does not recommend on- street parking at this location. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan The site contains floodplain, a perennial stream, wetlands, and some steep slopes. The Open Space Plan shows a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley and Adjacent Critical Slope around Morey Creek, and identifies Morey Creek as a perennial stream with non -tidal wetlands, wooded areas and floodplain. The wetlands associated with Morey Creek have been significantly altered in this location, but remain in a relatively natural state upstream. The Open Space Plan states, "When wetlands are to be disturbed on a development site, require the developer to provide evidence of compliance with State and Federal wetlands regulations prior to County approvals." Most of this work was completed when the wetlands were recreated with a pond mitigation plan. The proposed plan protects these areas to the greatest extent possible. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be adhered to in new development proposals. The application plan and other illustrations provided have been evaluated as to how the proposal addresses the Neighborhood Model. Staff believes the rezoning should better address Pedestrian Orientation, Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths, Interconnections, and Building and Spaces of Human Scale, and Site Planning that Respects Terrain. Pedestrian The plan includes sidewalks throughout the development, through the park Orientation area, along Fontaine Avenue, connecting to a potential future greenway and across Fontaine Avenue. However, in some locations the sidewalk is not continuous or provided on both sides of the main travel aisle into the site. Neighborhood The proposed sidewalks /pedestrian paths are proposed at the back of curb Friendly Streets in some locations for both on -site and off -site pedestrian improvements. A and Paths 6' planting strip with street trees are recommended for streets, however staff recognizes that there are ROW and other design constraints. Please revise the plans where possible to provide for some planting /green strips between the sidewalks /paths and curb. Interconnected Staff has determined that this is not the best location for a public street Streets and interconnection and that it will be very difficult to develop the project with Transportation public roads. The proposed internal travelway running north /south could be Networks extended if conditions warrant a connection in the future. The previous approved application plan showed a construction and access easement for the benefit of the property to the north for this potential connection. The application plan for this rezoning should also provide for this. Parks and Open More than half the site remains (66.7 %/8.41 of the 12.6 acre site) Space undeveloped with this proposal. The plan provides for preservation areas as well as amenity areas. More detail is requested on expectations for these areas. See zoning comments below. Neighborhood If developed, the site could become an employment center. Centers 3 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure 1 s` County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 Buildings and Heights, setbacks, spatial enclosure, front and side yards, architecture, Spaces of Human and relationships of building heights to widths all play into the scale of Scale development. Staff is concerned about the scale and massing of the buildings on the site. The images provided appear to begin to address this issue for the northern side of the office building as viewed from Buckingham Circle with plane changes, building materials /architecture, and the use of stepbacks. This issue appears to be addressed on the Fontaine Avenue side of the building with varied architectural elements on the fagade of the building. It does not appear to be adequately addressed for the Fontaine Avenue side of the building where the building is almost 400' in length with no place changes or setbacks. This principle can be addressed through proffers. Please consider these standards in responding to this staff comment. • Building facades facing a street shall not extend for more than 100 feet without a change in plane. • The minimum change in plane shall be 6 feet and the cumulative total length of the change in plane shall extend for no less than 20% of the length of the building fagade. • Floors shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet from the second story. Relegated Parking Most parking is provided in the garage for the office building. Some surface parking is provided for convenience in front of the daycare building and is not relegated. Mixture of Uses The project provides two types of commercial uses, office and daycare; however, residential uses, private schools, a church and a large employer are within close proximity. Mixture of Housing This principle is not applicable as no residential uses are proposed. Types and Affordability Redevelopment There are no longer any structures on the site as they have been recently demolished. Site Planning that About 1.77 acres of the site are in critical slopes and .59 acres of those Respects Terrain critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Since important resources on the Open Space Plan are not impacted and there are no engineering concerns, there is no objection to the waiver. However, the application plan shows retaining walls that staff is concerned about given that some are proposed as tall as 10.5 feet. Small retaining walls, 6 feet or less, on stepped terraces are preferable to unnaturally steep slopes or high retaining walls. Where retaining walls are used, generally they should be small and benched rather than large and imposing. Clear Boundaries Not Applicable. with the Rural Areas 4 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure I" County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 COMMENTS FROM ZONING /CURRENT DEVELOPMENT This section provides comments on Zoning Ordinance requirements that staff believes should be addressed with the rezoning and special use permit. The Zoning Ordinance sections referenced below can be found on -line at the County Attorney's website: http: / /www.albemarle.org/ department. asp ?department= ctyatty &relpage =2784 Buffer- The plan shows that the northern and western boundaries of the parcel will be disturbed during construction. A modification of the required 20' buffer will be needed in the western area adjacent to the proposed daycare due to critical slope disturbance in accordance with Section 21.7c. Additionally, a waiver may be needed in the western area adjacent to parcel 76 -16 and the proposed travel way. It appears from the plan they are extremely close to the 20' buffer and any disturbance may go into the buffer area. Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9 -9 -92) Please request a modification if you wish to retain the disturbance and provide information on whether replanting will be provided and how replanting will take place in these areas. Amenity Areas - Further describe the various "amenity and outdoor amenity areas" located on the plan. Building Height and Setbacks -It appears that some of the building is above the allowed height of 35' (38.4' per the general notes), which would require an increase in the front setback. Please request a modification to the setback with a justification. Please use the definition of the height of the building as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. 21.4 HEIGHT REGULATIONS Except as otherwise provided in section 4. 10, structures may be erected to a height not to exceed sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set back from any street right -of -way or single - family residential or agricultural district; in addition to minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty -five (35) feet. (Amended 9- 9 -92) Building, Height of. The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building. Uses in the Floodplain -There appear to be 2 sets of benches in the floodway area adjacent to Buckingham and at the corner of Buckingham and Fontaine that will need to be removed unless it is proven they are located in the fringe and therefore allowed. Preservation Areas- Please show clearly on application plan preservation areas and conservation areas. Provide further elaboration on the tree preservation area and if needed, provide a proffer regarding this area. Please keep in mind ordinance definitions in defining these areas on the plan: Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, 5 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure 1st County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. Parkinq Garage -It is difficult to determine the garage specifics from the plan submitted. Sections 4.12 and 32.7.a of the zoning ordinance are applicable and it cannot be determined from the plans provided if these requirements are being met. Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for regulations and standards for parking lots and structures. Typically, structured parking requires numerous waivers from the design requirements of section 4.12. The most common waivers are for slope of travel ways, slope of parking spaces and sight distance. Please be aware of the requirements of these sections and if waivers are sought they should be processed with the special use permit. 32.7.2A PARKING STRUCTURES In addition to all other requirements, each parking structure shall be subject to the following: a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan. b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses. c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view. d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential development. e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will not routinely shine directly outside the structure. Off -site grading -The application plan shows that off -site grading permission will be needed in the northern area adjacent to the playground due to grading on the adjacent parcel (76 -12D, UVA Real Estate Foundation). At a minimum, it should be verified that the necessary easements can be obtained. ENGINEERING The application plan has been reviewed. It is expected that the main issues will involve traffic, and we await the results of the traffic study to discuss these further. The proposed site plan appears as though it would adequately meet all water protection ordinance requirements. Critical Slopes The critical slopes waiver is recommended for approval. The disturbances along Morey Creek for the trails and utilities are exempt, as there appear to be no reasonable alternatives. The other disturbances appear necessary to develop the site as proposed, and disturbance has already taken place for a stockpile area on the upper end of the site. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR It is anticipated that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment based on those guidelines. 6 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure Isc County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 TRANSPORTATION Comments will be provided once the traffic study is submitted to VDOT, the County, and the City for review. PROFFERS Staff has reviewed the draft proffers you provided with the rezoning submittal as well as the proffers approved with ZMA 04 -02 and has the following comments: Please provide a proffer to construct the greenway that is shown on the application plan and previously proffered. Although it has been dedicated; it has not been constructed as was previously proffered. Please remove the "to be constructed by County" from the plan. Additional proffers should be provided as needed to address transportation impacts. Proffers may also be provided to address building and spaces of human scale and any illustrations offered should be referenced in proffers. FIRE RESCUE The proposal must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. ACSA (Albemarle County Service Authority) & RWSA (Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority) Please see attached comments from ACSA and RWSA. There do not appear to be capacity issues with water and sewer service for this project and a capacity certification is not required. RWSA has indicated: There is currently an RWSA sewer interceptor that runs through the proposed site. It is anticipated that in the future (most likely after 2020) this interceptor will need to be upgraded. In anticipation of upgrading the interceptor, RWSA would like an additional 10' in width of easement adjacent to the existing 30' wide easement for the interceptor. It is believed that a 40' wide easement will be needed to upgrade the interceptor. Also, the retaining walls along the existing RWSA easement will need to be designed so that RWSA can excavate at the edge of its easements without compromising the retaining walls. These issues can be resolved at the site plan stage, but RWSA wanted to make the applicant aware of them at this time. Staff believes that your application plan for the rezoning should be revised to address this issue, providing for the easement requested by the RWSA on the application plan and making any other revisions to the plan that are necessary because of this change. Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as 7 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure I" County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, 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, a 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 at (434) 296- 5832 ext.3439 or ragsdale@albemarle.org Sincerely, 4" Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner 1(�YdAb 8 IZMA 10 -02 Morey Creek Professional Center with SP 10 -09 for Parking Structure V County Review Comment Letter dated June 4, 2010 �IRGINZP County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner Division: Zoning Date: May 28, 2010 Subject: ZMA2010 -2, Morey Creek Professional Center The following comments are in response to the Applicant's rezoning submittal. 1. The Applicant will need a modification of the 20' buffer in the western area adjacent to the proposed daycare due to critical slope disturbance in accordance with Section 21.7c. Additionally, the Applicant may need a waiver in the western area adjacent to parcel 76 -16 and the proposed travel way. It appears from the plan they are extremely close to the 20' buffer and any disturbance may go into the buffer area. 2. The Applicant will need off -site grading permission in the northern area adjacent to the playground due to grading on the adjacent parcel (76 -12D, UVA Real Estate Foundation). 3. The Applicant should further describe the various "amenity and outdoor amenity areas" located on the plan. Additionally, and if feasible, the Applicant may want to provide trails between the structure and the stream mitigation as an amenity. 4. It appears that some of the building is above the allowed height of 35' (38.4' per the general notes), which would require an increase in the front setback. Please either increase the setback or provide further information on the height versus front setback. Please use the definition of the height of the building as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. There appear to be 2 sets of benches in the floodway area adjacent to Buckingham and at the corner of Buckingham and Fontaine that will need to be removed unless the Applicant can prove they are located in the fringe and therefore allowed. 6. The Applicant should consider providing further elaboration on the tree preservation area. It is also recommended that the Applicant provide a proffer regarding this area. 7. The Applicant should provide a proffer to construct the greenway. Although it has been dedicated; it has not been constructed as was previously proffered. Please remove the "to be constructed by County" from the plan. 8. The Applicant may want to provide a proffer to phase square footage/build out with potential road improvements to mitigate traffic impacts prior to road upgrades being in place. From: Justin Weiler Oweiler @rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:31 AM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Jennifer Whitaker; Michelle S. Simpson, PE; 'Gary Whelan' Subject: ZMA20100003 Morey Creek Professional Center Rebecca, RWSA has reviewed the application for ZMA20100003 Morey Creek Professional Center. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for ZMA applications. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Justin To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: RWSA does not believe that, at this time, there are any capacity issues in the RWSA collection system that will affect this development. RWSA believes that the Morey Creek Interceptor has adequate capacity to serve this development. 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes _X_ No Based on the information that has been provided to date, RWSA does not believe that - this development will require a capacity certification (it appears that the proposed development will not generate over 40,000 gpd of sewer), but it is up to ACSA to determine the amount of sewer that the site will generate and request a capacity certification if needed. 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) There is currently an RWSA sewer interceptor that runs through the proposed site. It is anticipated that in the future (most likely after 2020) this interceptor will need to be upgraded. In anticipation of upgrading the interceptor, RWSA would like an additional 10' in width of easement adjacent to the existing 30' wide easement for the interceptor. It is believed that a 40' wide easement will be needed to upgrade the interceptor. Also, the retaining walls along the existing RWSA easement will need to be designed so that RWSA can excavate at the edge of its easements without compromising the retaining walls. These issues can be resolved at the site plan stage, but RWSA wanted to make the applicant aware of them at this time. Justin Weiler, E.I.T. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434.977.2970 ext.206 Fax: 434.295.1146 ATTACHMENT G