Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Staff Report 1996-02-21 STAFF: RONALD KEELER REVISED: FEBRUARY 7, 1996 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) owns 525 acres of land, known as North Fork, which is bounded on the north by the North Fork of the Rivanna River, on the east by Route 29, on the south by Route 649 and on the west by Route 606. This property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District of Albemarle County and is part of the Hollymead Growth Area as defined in Albemarle County's 1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Of the 525 acres, the southern 225 acres is currently zoned PD-IP with a small portion zoned LI; and the northern 300 acres is zoned RA. The property has access to Routes 29, 649, and 606 and is currently served by public water and sewer service. All other essential utilities required to develop this parcel are easily accessible. UREF requests rezoning from RA to PD-IP (Category 1) for the northern 300 acres of the North Fork property and to bring the entire 525 acres under new proffers which would replace prior zoning approvals. Previously, UREF requested that there be a text amendment to PD-IP Category 1 uses to allow "hotel/conference centers" as a special use permit use (ZTA-95-02 UREF). This request was approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1995 and the Board of Supervisors on June 28, 1995. UREF also request special use permit approval for hoteUconference center, supporting commercial uses and laboratories (medical and pharmaceutical). PETITION: Petition to rezone approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-41 Supporting commercial uses (27.2.2.14, 29.2.2.1); SP-95-42 - Hotels, motels, inns (29.2.2.2). Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A, 19, and 19C, is located south of the North Fork Rivanna River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Hollymead. ZONING APPLICATION PLAN: The proffered zoning Application Plan proposes a maximum gross floor area of 3,000,000 square feet of building area accommodated on 20 sites. These sites, ranging in area from 5.65 acres to 35.19 acres, may be developed with multiple buildings. Sites A, B-1, and B-4 situated along Rte. 606 would be restricted to general office development while all other sites would have two to six categories of use available. (See Land Use Matrix on Application Plan. See also UREF, Vol 1, Section IX). All development sites would be served by an internal road system except Site F 1 A which would have direct access to Rte. 606 and no internal access to North Fork Park. This in response to concern as to a variety of employment varieties and opportunities: • TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT USE TOTAL FLOOR AREA General Office 2,300,000 square feet (maximum) Support Commercial 110,000 square feet (maximum)' Hotel/Conference 190,000 square feet Light Industrial 400,000 square feet TOTAL 3,000,000 SQUARE FEET TABLE II LAND USE ACREAGE % OF SITE AREA Development Sites 275 acres 52.4% Road right-of-way 33 acres 6.2% Open Space 217 acres 41.4% TOTAL 525 ACRES 100% 'UREF reserves right for 5% of total 3.0 million square feet less area devoted to hotel/motel. I-2 Open space is not required in the PD-IP designation, however, over 40 %of the site is proposed as open space area(See also staff discussion under"Physical Characteristics" of the Land). Roadways, as a percentage of total development,have been reduced by most sites fronting on the three major internal roads. I-3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This section of the report will summarize analyses and opinion provided under other sections of this report. Extensive analysis was provided at time of Comprehensive Plan amendment and, if staff conclusion/opinion differs from CPA recommendation, it is due to availability of more current or detailed information as well as application of specific rezoning criteria. Part I. Petition: Application Plan 1. The proposed schedule of land use is consistent with representations made during review of CPA-94-01. 2. The seven bus stops shown on the Application Plan should be viewed as general locations only. Bus stops should be provided in locations adequate to provide access to the majority of employees. 3. The Application Plan provides adequate distance buffering from adjoining properties. Separation of Site B-5 from Rte. 29N right-of-way (an Entrance Corridor roadway) is 100 feet. Part III. PD-IP Zoning: History 1. About 2.5 million square feet of building area could be established under existing zoning compared to a proffered limit of 3.0 million square feet under this rezoning proposal. (NOTE: 300,000 square feet would be devoted to support commercial/hotel and conference center, features not provided in the current zoning). 2. No heavy industrial designation is proposed under the current request, while 24 developable aces were approved under existing zoning. The County has very little land zoned for heavy industrial usage and staff is concerned that new heavy industrial designations may be difficult. 3. Condition#7 of original rezoning which required a master street plan has been met. Unless an equivalent or superior plan is presented, staff recommends that the approved master plan be carried over to this petition. II-1 Part IV. Planning Commission Recommendation to Board of Supervisors 1. Generally, UREF's proposal has satisfactorily addressed specific recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as contained in CPA-94-01. 2. The project has been carefully designed to respect the physical features of the site. 3. Effort has been made by UREF to address concerns of property owners in the area. 4. Public water and sewage facilities will be upgraded in the Hollymead area to meet growth demand. 5. Dedication of a site for fire/rescue purposes is proffered by the applicant. Dedication of a greenway area along the North Fork Rivanna River is also proposed. 6. Internal roads would be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)standards and dedicated to public use. 7. This development alone does not warrant a grade separated interchange at U. S. Rte 29N. However, roadway improvement proffers provide for dedication of right-of-way together with capital contribution should other development in the area warrant reconsideration of treatment at this intersection. Other improvements include contribution to improvement of the Rte. 29N/Rte. 649 intersection. VDOT has reviewed these proffers and stated that the extent of the contributions appear reasonable. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION In its report to the Planning Commission, staff outlined five unresolved issues and noted language/ editorial problems with the proffers. By Commission meeting time, only one issue remained for the Commission to address- water consumption The Commission was generally satisfied with resolution of all other issues. As to problematic language of the proffers, the Commission relied on the County Attorney's office and other staff for satisfactory resolution prior to scheduling of Board public hearing. UREF submitted revised proffers in a timely manner, however, for numerous reasons County review is not complete at this writing. Therefore, proffers submitted for review at the February 7, 1996 work session may not be the language submitted for review at the scheduled February 21, 1996 public hearing. On December 19, 1995, by a vote of 5-2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-95-04 subject to the following actions (See also attachments to Letter of Transmittal): This recommendation for approval is as presented in the staff report with the acceptance of the applicant's proffers and with the understanding that any changes to the proffers will be editorial in II-2 nature, and if any more substantive changes are made prior to the Board's hearing, those items will be made clear to the Board. The motion supported the following: --- The requirement for a.special use permit for any use whose water consumption is in excess of 125.000 gallons per day : Water consumption limitation as proposed by UREF was an average daily consumption. Staff recommended proffer language which clarified that special use permit review was limited to issues of water consumption (an approach similar to uses involving drive- thru windows). ---The acceptance of the Application Plan. Road Phasing flan. Open,Space Plan and its related Phasing flan. and the Stormwater Management Plan: These plans have been initialled by staff for identification in th record. --- The two additional "errata"pages. one defining `support commercial"and the other discouraging traffic on Rte. 606 in response to the Lake Acres residents concerns: Staff is reviewing these changes to determine the most appropriate location (i.e.-text or proffer) to satisfy the Commissions intent. ---Sta ff's four recommended modifications: The planned development provisions permit the Board's action to "include specific modifications of PD [Planned Development] or general regulations as providedin section 8.5.4 as recommended by the commission" (Section 8.5.5). In this case, the Planning Commission recommended the following modifications: 1. Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined in.the proffers of this,petition and shall not be governed by section 4.7 of the zoning ordinance. 2. So long as this zoning petition remains in force, SP-95-40, SP-95-41, and SP-95-42 shall not be subject to abandonment under section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. Nothing contained in the foregoing statement shall preclude the Board from revocation of any special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. 3. As to special use permit approval as may be required under Proffer 4.4, such review and any conditions imposed thereunder shall be limited soley to issues of water usage. 4. The terms General Office, Light Industrial, and Flex/Industrial as setforth in UREF, Volume 1, Part IX shall, in addition to zoning ordinance definitions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict, the UREF descriptions shall apply. In such case in which more than fifty (50 %)percent of the floor area for a Flex/ Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be General Office. In such case in which less than fifty (50 %) percent of the floor area for a Flex/Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. 11-3 The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the following special use permit requests, subject to conditions: SP-95-40 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical- Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with § 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Building separation shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties. SP--95-41 Supporting Commercial uses - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area(exclusive of hotel/conference use), total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) of total floor area at any time during phased development. SP-95-42 Hotel, motel, inn - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall he permitted not to exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms. 2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. II-4 INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE SERVICE AREAS This section of the report will address the general appropriateness of the site for Industrial/Office Service Areas designation under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted in December, 1994. The Comprehensive Plan provides guideline for establishment of Industrial Service Areas and Office Service Areas, but no guidelines exist for combination of Industrial/Office Service Areas as was provided under CPA-94-01. (Detailed guidelines adopted under CPA-94-01 will be addressed later in this report). During review of ZTA-95-02 (to allow hotels, motels, and inns within PD-IP by special use permit), some concern was expressed concern as to whether or not this represented departure from CPA-94-01. Staff quotes from the Board of Supervisors minutes of December 7, 1994 for CPA-94-01: UREF "told the Planning staff that about 2.3 million square feet would be categorized as office, 400,000 square feet would be categorized as light industrial, and 300,000 square feet would be in support/retail with one-half of that possibly being a hotel." Staff opinion is that the current rezoning proposal is in general consistency with representations made by the applicant during Board of Supervisors review of CPA-94-01. EXISTING PD-IP ZONING OF PROPERTY In early 1978, the Board entertained a rezoning petition (MA-78-03) for about 293 acres from a rural (A-1) to a light industrial (M-1) designation. While zoning analysis was favorable to industrial usage, staff commented that such significant acreage should be addressed through a planned development approach. The Board upon request of the applicant rezoned about 42 acres to M-1 (light industrial)to accommodate two immediate users. Action on the remaining 251 acres was tabled and staff was directed to develop a planned district for industrial uses (PID). Later in the year, the PID regulations were adopted and the applicant successfully obtained PID zoning on about 217 acres (A free standing parcel of about 34 acres was not recommended for rezoning by staff as it bore no cohesive relation to the remainder of the property). While the PID zone contained no open space requirement, about 93.5 acres of open space were shown: II1-1 TABLE III LAND USE ACREAGE Light Industrial 85 acres Heavy Industrial 24 acres Roads 15 acres Open Space 98.5 acres TOTAL 217.5 acres In 1987, UREF acquired the entire tract which contained the PD-IP zoning and rural zoning as well as some of the property initially zoned Light Industrial. In 1989, UREF pursued a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate all holdings into the Hollymead Community within a proposed build out of up to 4,000,000 square feet. In 1994, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to expand Hollymead. Comparing existing to proposed zoning: • About 2.5 million square feet of building area could be established under existing zoning compared to a proffered limit of 3.0 million square feet under this rezoning proposal. (NOTE: 300,000 square feet would be devoted to support commercial/hotel, features not provided in the current zoning). • No heavy industrial designation is proposed under the current request, while 24 developable acres were approved under existing zoning. The County has very little land zoned for heavy industrial usage and staff is concerned that new heavy industrial designations may be difficult. • Condition #7 of original approval which required a master street tree plan has been met in order to accommodate the MicroAire development under existing zoning (Attachment III). Staff recommends that unless an equivalent or superior plan is presented, the approved master street tree plan be carried over to this petition. III-2 ATTACHMENT III-1 ‘3‘A,t.t OF ALB -A,,9 CP f '_ y r l..; ^lti l�v,h Planning Department • 804/296-5823 414 EAST MARKET STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. RONALD S. KEELER DIRECTOR OP PLANNING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING November 17, 1978 DONALD A. GASTON SENIOR PLANNER N. MASON CAPERTON Wendell W. Wood PLANNER North Rivanna 1st, 2nd and 3rd Land Trust Post Office Box 5548 . Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Re: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION ZMA-78-15 Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting November 15, 1978, approved your request for ZMA-78-15 with the following conditions: 1. Delete Parcel M; 2. Approval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individual uses ( exclusive of accessory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities ) ; 3. Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L with appurtenant open space; 4. Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category I; Paroles 1 and J are to be Category II; 5. Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the proposed taxiway on Parcels A, I, and J; 6. Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning Commission at the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of specific uses; 7. No final plan approval shall be given until a master street-tree plan has been approved by the Planning Commission; 8. Buffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than 50 feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the Synthesis of Environmental Factors map. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do not provide adequate buffering, additional plantings shall be required by the staff. Such plantings shall consist of 6'-8' white pines 15' on-center; provided the applicant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent or better; 9. On Parcel F, no more than 25% of the land area in slopes of 15% or greater shall be graded ( This area is identified as "sensitive slope- areas" on the Synthesis of Environmental Factors mae ) ; public roads are not included in this condition; ATTACHMENT III-2 Mr. Wendell W. Wood Page 2 November 17, 1978 10. All uses are to be served by public water and public sewer; 11. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than 400' from a major structure. No waterline serving a fire hydrant shall be of less than 8" diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be provided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state or local fire officials; 12. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority; 13. County Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for parking areas; 14. Grading permit approval; 15. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval, of entrances to existing roads to include improved sight distance, full channelization for right turn deceleration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necessary; 16. Virginia Department of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads; internal roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength; • 17. Full frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60' right-of-way and improvement of the existing road to 24' of pavement width with adequate shoulders; 18. Building coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive areas as outlined in the Airport Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F; 19. Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, height, and performance standards by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle Coun Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. Sincerely, Jane Gloeckner Planning Department 3g/ cc: File PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Section 8.5.3 of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY requires an applicant"to meet with the planning staff and other qualified officials to review the Application Plan and original proposal prior to submittal" in order to"assist in bringing the application" into conformity with various planning and zoning regulations and policies. The ordinance also provides that"at such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request of the applicant,the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of supervisors." At this time, under section 8.5.4 of the zoning ordinance,the UREF North Fork Business Park petition is forwarded to the Planning Commission which"shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of supervisors,"and"specifically, recommendations of the commission shall include finding as to (NOTE: These criteria are also addressed in UREF, Vol 1, Part VI): a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area; b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; c. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public purposes or PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Based on such findings,the commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval." RELATION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Board of Supervisors, on December 14, 1994,approved CPA-94-1, adding the northern 300 acres of the UREF property to the Hollymead Community with a designation of Industrial Service. This section of the report will analyze the proposed rezoning for compliance with specific provisions of the Comprehensive Plan text for Hollymead(for adopted amendment, see UREF Volume 2, Appendix B). IV-1 *Hollymead's purpose is to provide a mixed use community that allows people to live in close proximity to their work place and shopping and service areas, A wide variety of housing types. services and jobs are anticipated. Community-wide automobile dependence should be reduced by encouraging transit-oriented development and providing a full range of pedestrian/bicycle community elements such as walkways and • bikepaths that connect residential areas to transit nodes and to employment shopping/service areas. *Provide linkages between neighborhoods within the Hollymead Community (including non-residential areas)through the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, linear parks, roads and transit alternatives. The emphasis is on linkage between development areas, not just within each development. *Development of alternative modes of transportation to serve the Hollymead Community, • particularly large employment generating areas. This may be accomplished through partnership between developers of large employment generating areas and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Comment: Internal support commercial uses are proposed which are intended to provide convenience/service to employees and reduce workday traffic from leaving the property. No residential development is proposed (residential development of this area was not called for in the Comprehensive Plan amendment), however, residential areas are designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Hollymead to the east of this area. A system of pedestrian ways adjacent to roadways and hiking/bike trails remote from roadways and along the North Fork Rivanna River with possible external connections are provided. Internal bus stops will be included in the road plans. The University of Virginia is a member of the MPO Technical Committee and it is recommended that UREF's participation be through the University. 2. *Phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which increases traffic on Route 649 (Airport Road), Route 606 (Dickerson Road) and Route 29, This will include the construction of interchanges at Route 29 and Route 649 and Route 29 and the northern most access point to the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park and development east of Route 29. Necessary improvements should be accomplished by fair share contributions from new development. *Limitation of access points on Route 29 North to joint entrances, frontage roads, and side streets. *Incorporating into the design of area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park project a possible connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway if Alternative "Wl" is selected as the preferred alignment. *Reservation of adequate and useable right-of-way for the location of the Meadow Creek parkway and/or associated collector roads in areas of new development, UREF has based its phasing plan of development on issues of road improvement. This will be addressed in more depth later in this report, however, UREF has made financial agreement to off-site improvements. As to limitation of access, only one point of access is proposed to U.S. Rte. 29N. Regarding Alternative "W l" of the Meadow Creek Parkway, no decisions have been made since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in December, 1994. UREF has limited frontage on Rte. 649. *Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park. limit development of the area to 525 acres (297 acres added as a 1994 amendment). Total buildable area shall not exceed 3.000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall he pursuant to an overall plan of development under the appropriate planned development zoning. As is discussed elsewhere this report,these recommendations have been satisfactorily addressed. 4. *All industrial/office areas should be substantially buffered from residential areas. This is accomplished through the planting of new vegetation and preservation of existing vegetation. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park. provide a 50' buffer around the perimeter. *Provide new landscaping with development song Route 29 North, *Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its status as an entry corridor to the Community and the Urban Area. Buffering along Rte. 606 has been increased to 150 feet with a 50 foot buffer elsewhere adjacent to rural or residential zoning. Conceptual plans for entrance enhancement at Rte. 29N are included in the applicant's proposal. Except for entry improvements land within 100 feet of Rte. 29 right-of-way is shown as open space. 5. *Ensure evaluation of future land use proposals under the fiscal impact model prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning phasing of the development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be encouraged, On May 11, 1995, the Fiscal Impact Committee suggested that recommendation be made to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that the North Fork project not be subjected to the fiscal impact model in the rezoning process. No other recommendation has been received from the committee since that date (See AttachmentlV-1). IV-3 6. *Preserve the stream valleys and their tributary drainage way, plus adjacent areas of steeply sloping terrain, as an open space network. This network is designed to tie into future residential development areas in Hollymead. The stream valley along the North Fork Rivanna forms a northern boundary of the Community, and should be developed as a greenway for passive recreation. *Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake area by prohibiting any development or creation of impervious surfaces within this area which endangers water quantity and quality. • *Provide a plan to address historic features located in the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park to retain historic context and continuity. As will be seen under comments on Physical Characteristics of the Site which follow and comments from the County Engineering Department, these matters have been adequately addressed. 7. *Encourage a full range of housing types and costs within the Hollymead Community. Large employers should work with the Albemarle County Housing Committee to determine what employee housing assistance programs can be implemented. Target opportunities for employees at the lower income level and employees hired locally UREF has stated a commitment "to acting as a liaison between employers at North Fork, the Virginia Housing Authority (VHA)and the Albemarle Housing Committee to facilitate ways in which the various parties can work together to make housing more affordable for the employees of North Fork," (See UREF Volume 1, Section XIX). In general, actions of the University of Virginia and UREF can have dramatic effect upon housing issues. The University has membership on the Albemarle County Housing Committee. As with issues related to the MPO, UREF participation on the Albemarle Housing Committee through current UVA representation is strongly encouraged. • IV-4 Staff opinion is that North Fork rezoning proposal substantially complies with the detailed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan under CPA-94-1. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, this project is subject to several other plans and regulatory measures. North Fork substantially complies with the following plans and individual site development plans will comply with the following regulations: PLANS/POLICIES -Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan -Albemarle County Open Space Plan -Albemarle County Pedestrian Obstacle Study -Charlottesville-Albemarle Bicycle Plan -Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport-Master Plan -U.S. Rte. 29N Corridor Study (1979) -Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan REGULATIONS -EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District -FH Flood Hazard Overlay District -AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District -Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance -Wetlands Requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) -Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance -Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance -Critical Slopes -Stormwater Management -Tree Canopy/Landscaping/Buffering -4.14 Performance Standards THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND FOR PD-IP DESIGNATION Throughout the CPA process, the applicant maintained that the increased acreage would allow more sensitive development of the property. Under current zoning, a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.26 is achievable while an FAR of 0.13 is proposed. (NOTE: Building foot print is likely to be less). PD-IP regulations permit an FAR of 0.70. In approaching the physical design of North Fork Business Park areas to be incorporated into open space were identified first by mapping of such factors as: floodplain; critical slope; soils IV-5 suitability; wetlands; surface hydrology; existing vegetation; historic structures; and site elevations. External constraints to development were integrated into the mapping process :protection of adjoining properties; Entrance Corridor Overlay District; transportation; and airport impact. For visual review, please see maps in UREF Volume 1 entitled: -Elevations -Vegetation -Surface Drainage -View Analysis -Soils -Constraints -Slope -Building Suitability In addition a preliminary wetlands assessment was conducted by the applicant and the following state/federal agencies were contacted regarding threatened/endangered species and other environmental concerns (UREF, Volume 2-E & G): -Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries -Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services -Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Natural Heritage -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The University of Virginia School of Architecture performed site investigations of a cemetery and building ruins (UREF Volume 2-F). These features are incorporated into a 6+acre area of open space adjacent to Rte. 606. The applicant's proffers include provision to complete a preservation plan within one year and to submit the plan to accompany the proffers (Proffer 6.4). To summarize issues related to the physical characteristics of the site: • The increased acreage combined with proffered maximum floor area result n over 40%of the site in open space. The applicants proposed design guidelines would require 3%of each development site to be in open space. The result would be a total of 300 acres or 57% of the project in open space. • Open space is not required under PD-IP zoning regulation. Some open space would be "managed" by removal of undesirable vegetation and other practices. These areas have been distinguished from other areas of limited disturbance (i.e.-buffers, flood plain) in the plans and written proffers. • Environmentally sensitive areas are restricted from development except for roads, utilities, open space amenities and the like. Less than 1/4 acre of wetlands would be disturbed due to road construction. • Historic features would be incorporated into the open space. "It is UREF's intention to work with the university of Virginia's Department of Architecture to create a preservation plan that respects the cemetery and restores key components of the homestead where IV-6 feasible" (UREF, Volume 1, Section IX). As stated earlier, the proffers address this matter (Proffer 6.4). CONCERNS OF LAKE ACRES RESIDENTS (A/K/A RTE. 606 NEIGHBORS) During public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, residents in the Rte. 606 area expressed many concerns about the proposed North Fork Business Park. In January, 1995 staff received copy of a letter from Lake Acres to UREF which proposed inclusion of agreements between Lake Acres and UREF as "specific provisions in the final rezoning agreement between the County of Albemarle and the University's Foundation" (Attachment IV-13-14). The original Lake Acres proposal contained 12 items. During the intervening time, UREF has had continued interaction with the Lake Acres residents (Attachment IV-4-12). Staff has endeavored to address Lake Acres concerns with UREF and VDOT through physical design measures: 1. UREF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along its entire frontage on Rte. 606. This is a modification of the Application Plan which shows a 50 foot buffer for Sites B-8 and F-l A. 2. Sites A, B-1, and B-4 would be limited to general office uses. Site B-7 would be limited to general office and flex/industrial uses, while Sites B-8 and F-1 A are proposed for general office, flex/industrial, industrial, and laboratory uses. 3. Regarding stormwater and erosion concerns, in addition to applicable County regulation, UREF has developed a master stormwater management plan, proffered to be implemented in phases. 4. UREF has agreed to amend its proffers to include prohibition of lighting of the recreation area/playing fields in the open space area between sites B-4 and B-7 (Staff recommends that this not be deemed to be a prohibition to appropriate security and street lighting). 5. VDOT has agreed to staff recommendation that bridge weight limitation signage be placed at the Quail Run/Rte. 606 intersection. While this would not prohibit truck traffic on Rte. 606 north of Quail Run, it would be a forewarning to responsible truck drivers. 6. VDOT has agreed to delete recommendation that a dedicated right turn lane be constructed from Quail Run onto Rte. 606. Such a feature could entreat general traffic to travel north on Rte. 606. 7. UREF has changed its plan to delete direct access from Site F-lA to Rte., 606. All development sites will be accessed only by the internal road system with no direct access I I/ 7 to external roadways RELATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES An issue which received significant attention during review of this and some other Comprehensive Plan amendments in this area was the adequacy of public water and public sewerage systems to support the proposed development. At that time, it was established that neither the North Fork water supply nor the Camelot wastewater treatment plant have available capacity to service anticipated build-out of the northern Hollymead Community and Piney Mountain Village. This is the case regardless of the outcome of this rezoning petition. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has stated that "utility upgrades in the northern urban area will be provided to meet the demands of the growth area." Additionally, ACSA has stated in regard to this rezoning petition that"In general,the availability of public utilities is not a limiting factor in this proposal." (Attachment IV-16). The northern portion of the property is not within ACSA jurisdictional area for public water and sewer service. In June, 1995 the Board of Supervisors agreed to hold public hearing for expansion of ACSA jurisdictional area simultaneously with review of this rezoning petition (Attachment IV-17). No recommendation as to jurisdictional area amendment is required from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC WATER Water service is available from a 14 inch line located on-site. Based on redesign of roadway location and building sites, this line would be relocated in certain areas. Water line relocation would be UREF's expense. Water treatment is provided at the North Fork Rivanna River water treatment plant with storage facilities on Piney Mountain. While the treatment plant has a rated capacity of 2.0 MGD, only about 0.8 MGD can be withdrawn from the North Fork Rivanna River. Available capacity without system modification is inadequate to serve the Northern Hollymead Community and Piney Mountain Village regardless of the outcome of this petition. The ACSA has stated that additional supply to the service area"can be provided either by utilizing Chris Greene Lake as a raw water source or by subsidizing the northern Hollymead area from the South Rivanna plant" (Attachment IV-16). Of concern during CPA review was whether or not Chris Greene Lake would need to be abandoned as a recreational facility if employed as a supplementary water supply. From various study and correspondence, Chris Greene would not need to be abandoned as a swimming/recreation facility to be utilized as a water supply impoundment (Attachment IV-21-27). An issue which arose during CPA review, but not included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan text was limiting or excluding "heavy water users." UREF has commented that "it would be IV-8 imprudent to set, arbitrarily, a threshold for water usage by tenants of North Fork and thereby reduce potential tenants of the Park" (UREF, Vol 1, Section XIII D.) UREF argues that the proposed rezoning would eliminate PD-IP Category II uses (i.e. - HI, Heavy Industrial uses) and that action would adequately address the issue. Staff agrees that there are several HI uses which utilize significant water volumes, however, there are also Category I (i.e. - LI, Light Industrial uses) which can consume significant amounts of water. Regarding the issue of heavy water usage, staff offers the following: 1. UREF has provided water consumption estimates and the ACSA has stated that"we have no reason to take exception to {UREF's} buildout projection of 500,000 - 700,000 gpd water demand" (Attachment IV-16). 2. If the UREF estimate is accurate, then by Virginia Department of I-Iealth standards, development of the property as proposed would be comparable to development under a low-density residential scenario (i.e - less than 3 dwellings per acre - 3 bedroom). 3. Under existing zoning, about 550,000 square feet of building area could be devoted to I-II use, many of which could be termed heavy water users. The rezoning petition would extinguish heavy industrial uses and increase total floor area by 500,000 square feet(of which 300,000 square feet could be devoted to hotel/conference and support commercial uses). The majority of floor area is proposed to be devoted to general office uses, requiring domestic water service. 4. Staff commented to the Planning Commission that"due to the deletion of Category II combined with general office as predominant use, UREF's overall proposal substantially addresses the issue of extensive water consumption. This does not mean that individual `IIeavy water users' have been excluded from the development (Attachment IV-20)." In response to the concern of individual water users, UREF proposed a water usage limitation which was acceptable to the Planning Commission (Proffer 4.4). PUBLIC SEWER Sewerage service is available through an on-site sewer line and pump station to the Camelot wastewater treatment plant. Available capacity at the Camelot plant is about 250,000 gpd which is inadequate to serve the northern Ilollymead Community and Piney Mountain Village, regardless of the outcome of this petition. The Albemarle County Service Authority is under contractual agreement with UREF and others to provide increased capacity. That agreement aside, the Service Authority has stated that "When plant capacity is reached we anticipate providing pumping and gravity sewer system improvements to meet the demand of this growing urban area. Theses off-site improvements would become an Authority expense. All on-site utility work will be UREF's project expense" (Attachment IV-16). IV-9 Among other things, on-site improvements would include any industrial pretreatment necessary to protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and treatment capacity. The Albemarle County Service Authority/ Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will require an industrial discharge permit for any use involving non-domestic discharge during review of individual site development plans. RELATION TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Police - The UREF proposal lies within the Police Department Sector C response area. Sixty-three percent of all police calls originate from the Route 29 North Corridor. It is expected that a new police sector will be created along the Roue 29 North corridor over the next couple of years due to the volume of calls. This will result in the needed hiring of additional officers to patrol the sector. Fire and Rescue - The UREF site would be primarily served by the Earlysville station with secondary service provided by the Seminole Trail Fire Department. The Charlottesville Fire Department would respond one engine company from the Route 250 By-Pass Company with a minimum of three fire fighters. Response from the Earlysville station and City station would be in excess of the 5 minute response recommended in the Community Facilities plan. Currently, aerial truck service is provided only by the City if the required staffing is available and the truck is not needed in the City. The City aerial truck or other specialized city equipment such as the HAZMAT would respond from the Charlottesville station on Ridge Street only after City personnel have arrived on the scene and determine that this special equipment was needed on scene. The Crozet fire station houses an aerial truck; however, response time for this aerial is in excess of 30 minutes. The Community Facilities Plan recommends the location of new fire station in the Hollymead area. Also, the Community Facilities Plan states that with construction of multi-story buildings, large commercial complexes, residential development and industrial parks, an additional County aerial truck service may be warranted. The County is currently setting aside funds in the Capital Improvements Program for the construction of a new fire station and purchase of an aerial truck. In response to issues related to provision of emergency services (police, fire, rescue), UREF has proffered a site for a fire and emergency response facility together with contribution to a personnel training program in hazardous materials (Proffer VIII). Recreation: UREF proposes to develop recreational facilities in open space areas, primarily for usage of Park employees., but also to provide pathway/ bike trail integration to the greater Community. The 6+acre open space site adjacent to Rte. 606 would be developed with ballfields. UREF has proffered to convey those facilities to the County upon request and upon terms acceptable to the County (Proffer 6.1). UREF has also proposed to gift area along the North Fork Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenbelt(proffer 6.3). IV-10 RELATION TO EXISTING PUBLIC ROADS Background: From the outset staff anticipated that traffic issues would be among the more difficult issues to resolve. Upon staff recommendation, UREF submitted Traffic Impact Study prior to rezoning petition. Since that time, VDOT, UREF and staff have had several meetings to discuss various scenarios. Basically, the objective was to ensure a development schedule which would not unduly overburden the road network at any time. To address this matter UREF has designed its phasing of development directly and solely upon transportation considerations. UREF has proffered this development phasing plan together with proffers for financial participation to off-site road improvements. However, UREF believes it unwise to limit development schedule based upon schedule of VDOT improvements due to uncertainties of funding, priority changes, and other factors beyond UREF's control which could literally idle the project for an unspecified period of time. Likewise, financial contribution aside, VDOT remains concerned that development may precede actual road improvement (Attachment IV 26-27). Traffic Generation: VDOT has accepted the revised Traffic Impact Study dated June 7, 1995. Written verification from VDOT together with entering of the study into the County record would be appropriate for future reference. The executive summary is included as Attachment IV-28-31. While total floor area under the proposed rezoning would increase by twenty (20%) percent, the Traffic Impact Study shows a sixty-six (66%) percent increase in external traffic volume. This is because the UREF Traffic Impact Study does not propose any traffic "discount" to external roadways from the hotel/conference or support commercial uses which account for vast majority of increased traffic. That is to say, the study assumes that all patronage to the hotel/conference and support commercial areas is external from the development. The UREF Traffic Impact Study also assumes a 20 year build-out and should be considered as a "worst case" scenario. Points of Access: The Application Plan proposes the entire development to be served by an internal road network with three connections to existing public roads. Each of these intersections are characterized by differing problems which UREF, VDOT and staff has attempted to address. A capsule summary follows: • Quail Run at Rte. 606: A major concern of Lake Acres residents is increased traffic on Rte. 606 north of Quail Run Road. The Lake Acres residents recognize that the gravel portion of Rte. 606 will likely be paved/realigned at some future date, but do not want that eventuality accelerated by traffic from North Fork Business Park. The following comments are offered: 1. In April 1995, staff met with VDOT to develop reasonable traffic figures for Rte. 1V-11 606 north of Qual Run. It was determined that the MINUTP model is not appropriate to site specific application. Historical traffic counts were reviewed and practical assumptions were made. 2. Traffic counts on this section of Rte. 606 in 1974 were 78 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) increasing to 170 vtpd in 1994. During that period the County approved General Electric,North Pines subdivision and Briarwood PRD, all of which have direct access to Rte. 606. An annual "background" traffic increase of 2-3%was recommended. 3. The UREF Traffic Impact Study assigns one (1%) percent of total traffic to Rte. 606 north of Quail Run. At time of build-out (2015) traffic on Rte. 606 would be about 530 vtpd under proposed zoning compared to 420 vtpd under existing zoning. 4. Measures to deter traffic from North Fork Park are discussed earlier under Concerns of Lake Acres Residents (pp. IV-7). • Rte. 649 Entrance would further burden Airport Road which as been scheduled for improvement (completion September 2001). UREF and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport are investigating options to accelerate design/construction of this improvement (Attachment IV-32). Access to Rte. 649 would also exacerbate the need to improve the Rte. 29/649 intersection . (Rte. 29 from South Fork Rivanna River to Rte. 649 programmed for six-lane completion by August, 2001). • Rte. 29 Entrance would accommodate traffic volumes which, at ultimate build-out, may or may not occasion the need for a graded separated interchange. If the Towers property on the east of Rte. 29 developers to its full potential and has access by this same crossover, there is no dispute that a grade separated interchange will be justified. Regarding UREF traffic (and not Towers) the controlling factor is left turn volume from Rte. 29 NBL into the property during the a.m. peak hour. UREF projects an a.m. peak hour volume of 988 left turns, whereas, VDOT stated a volume of 1,000 left turns would drop the Rte. 29 preferred movement below LOS D and require grade separation. That is to say,the red signal time for Rte. 29 traffic to accommodate left turning movements would exceed acceptable levels as established by VDOT. Initially UREF proposed a "continuous flow intersection" which would establish two signalized intersections intended to segregate various turning movements, allow several movements to occur simultaneously and thereby reduce signal phasing and red signal time to Rte. 29N traffic. One such intersection exists in the U.S. and has promise for "T" intersection application. However, utility for a four-legged intersection is unknown and the design was considered experimental (Cost $1.1 million excluding right-of-way acquisition/utility relocation). IV-12 UREF also submitted design for a Rte. 29 NBL grade-separated ramp to accommodate left turning movements in a continuous manner. This feature would also reduce signal phasing and red signal time to Rte. 29 traffic (Cost over$2 million excluding right-of- way acquisition/utility relocation). In summary comment on this petition VDOT has stated that (Attachment IV-27A): "The developer is not responsible for constructing a grade separated intersection. However, the North Fork development will eventually generate enough traffic to warrant the construction of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 form Road A's entrance to Rte. 649. Consequently, the developer will be responsible for the cost of this improvement... Also, it is understood that under the direction of the VDOT and the county, these funds may be applied to the construction of an interchange." UREF's proffers reflect these comments from VDOT (Proffer 5.4 (c) & (d)]. PROPOSED USES ALLOWABLE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT UREF has requested three categories of uses by special use permit, all of which are intended to be provided under appropriate circumstance within areas shown for combination of Industrial Service Area and Office Service Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Under § 29.2.2 of the PD-IP provisions"no separate [special use permit] application shall be required for any use included on the approved application plan." SP-95-40 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1) are appropriate uses within Industrial/Office Service Areas and integral to UREF's intent to accommodate uses related to and supportive of major efforts of the University of Virginia as exemplified by the MicroAire facility. UREF has stated that"this use will allow for advanced laboratory based research and development to occur in the Park and will be consistent with the correlating definitions found in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.0, page 15.1" (See UREF Vol. 1, p. 15). Review of Anderson's American Law of Zoning(3rd, 1986) shows a change in treatment for "research laboratories:" Research laboratories have been seeking space in the suburbs. While these establishments usually are related to a profit-making corporation and are commercial uses, many of them present few problems to their neighbors. They generate a volume of traffic which varies in relation to their staffs and their need to receive deliveries of materials, and they require parking space, but commonly they produce little of the noise, litter, dust, or glare which are usually associated with commercial and industrial uses. Research laboratories cannot always operate in industrial neighborhoods, and commercial IV-13 surroundings may interfere with their activities. Thus, one kind of research may require the use of precision instruments which cannot be used in a place subject to excessive vibration. Another type may be adversely affected by noise and air pollution. Anderson continues to state that "an increasing number of municipalities are anticipating the need for space to accommodate research laboratories, and are meeting it with a `floating zone' for planned research office districts." Under County definition, neither medical nor pharmaceutical laboratory are confined purely to scientific investigation as may be anticipated by the term "research laboratory." Laboratory, Medical: A building or part thereof devoted to bacteriological, biological, x-ray, pathological and similar analytical or diagnostic services to medical doctors or dentists including incidental pharmaceutics; and production, fitting, and or/sale of optical or prosthetic appliances. Laboratory, Pharmaceutical: A building or part thereof devoted to the testing, analysis and/or compounding of drugs and chemicals for ethical medicine or surgery, not involving sale directly to the public. UREF proposes that all sites except A, B-1, B-4, and B-7 be made available for potential laboratory location. Given buffers from adjoining properties together with additional setbacks imposed by UREF's Design Guidelines, staff recommends this special use permit is approvable subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with § 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Building separation shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties. SP-95-42 Hotel, motel, inn (29.2.2.2) is intended to be allowed in Office Service and, as result of recent amendment, Industrial Service areas of adequate scale to support such use. UREF has stated that"a hotel/conference facility is planned for North Fork to support the lodging and meeting/conference needs primarily of the tenants of the Park" (UREF, Vol 1, p15). Staff opinion is that North Fork Business Park is such scale that detailed justification is unwarranted. UREF proposes that all sites except Sites A, B-1, B-4, B-7, B-8, and FIA, be made available for hotel location. At time of zoning text amendment, concern was expressed as to location adjacent to U.S. Route 29 N. Staff would note that site B-5 is proposed to be separated from Route 29 by a 150 foot open space buffer and access to the site is,proposed over 1000 feet from Route 29. Staff recommends this special use permit is approvable subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted not to exceed two hundred fifty IV-14 (250) lodging rooms. 2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. SP-95-41 Supporting Commercial uses are described by the applicant to possibly include uses such as but not limited to: day care, branch bank, copy center, & dry cleaner. Staff opinion is that other likely uses may include newsstand, restaurant, health club, and drug store. Uses permitted as supporting commercial uses would include uses permitted by right under the C-1 Commercial zone, as modified by §9.4.3 of the zoning ordinance. UREF proposes that except for sites A, B-1, B-4, B-7, B-8, F-lA and B-5, supporting commercial uses be made available to all sites within North Fork Business Park. Staff recommends this special use permit approvable subject to the following: 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area (exclusive of hotel/conference use), total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) of total floor area at any time during phased development. IV-15 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT IV-1 ,,.t`� RECEIVED (J4ia u ©t s` MAY 1 61995 MEMORANDUM Pl?C�!^tl11�7 apt. • TO: Fiscal Impact Committee FROM: Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Executiv\ DATE: May 15, 1995 RE: Fiscal Impact Update/Next Meeting Attached for your information are brief minutes of the last Fiscal Impact Committee meeting on May 11. The next committee meeting has been set for Thursday, June 1 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the 4th floor conference room, at which time the committee will again be able to see the model demonstrated using their own development scenarios. You will see in the notes that the members who were present at the meeting were concerned with using the North Fork project to initiate and validate the fiscal impact model, particularly since the committee itself does not feel comfortable with the model at this time. From this discussion, the group suggested that the Fiscal Impact Committee make a recommendation to both the Planning Commision and the Board of Supervisors that the North Fork project not be required to use the fiscal impact model in its approval process. If any members are strongly opposed to the committee taking this action, please let me know. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions on either the previous or the upcoming meeting. • RWW/rww ATTACHMENT IV-2 FISCAL IMPACT COMMITTEE May 11, 1995 Notes from May 11 Meeting Attending: Charlotte Humphris, Tim Lindstrom, Chuck Rotgin, Michael Semanik, Dennis Rooker Absent: Peter Hallock, Forrest Marshall, Ellen Anderson, Bill Nichtman, Bruce Dotson, Jay McNeeley, Bob Tucker Staff: Roxanne White, Wayne Cilimberg, Anne Gulati, Bill Fritz Guests: Joe Ullman, Dean Cinkala The meeting opened with a discussion of the material submitted by Wayne Cilimberg and Linda Hollis on the derivation of the enrollment projections used in the model. Wayne Cilimberg noted that a new Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service report indicated an 8% private school enrollment projection for Albemarle for grades 1-8. Chuck Rotgin also stated that he had talked to the major private schools and confirmed that total enrollment for Albemarle children was approximately 800 students. From these numbers, the committee expressed satisfaction with using 10%of total enrollment for the private school enrollment factor. Related to the school enrollment, Tim Lindstrom expressed concern that the model's pupil generation factor is lower than the average student generation rate that is derived by taking the average of the other county rates in the survey, and that the impact of this difference is significant when calculating the fiscal impact of school growth over 10 or 20 years. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he was not uncomfortable with the model's generation factor at this point, but that it is important to recognize the magnitude of the impact from even slight changes in the pupil generation factors. Mr. Lindstrom also indicated that he would like to revisit the school multipliers after further study of the material. The second major concern from committee members was using the North Fork project for the initial demonstration and validation of the fiscal impact model. The consensus of the group was that the North Fork project is too controversial and emotionally charged and that using it to introduce the fiscal impact model to the community would be destructive to the credibility of the model itself. The committee felt that the model needs to be tried out on other development scenarios and smaller projects in order to validate its results and to understand the important impact factors through sensitivity analyses of the data. For these reasons, it was suggested that the Fiscal Impact Committee recommend to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the North Fork project not be required to use the fiscal impact model for its review. Other members of the committee will be notified of the group's recommendation and asked for their comments. The next issue of discussion centered around several questions on Ms. Hollis's April 28 letter, which was sent out to the committee in the last packet. The questions related to her statements on the lower cumulative costs for the middle schools when debt financed, the operating costs incurred in year 1 in the Average Cost model and the breakdown of the elements included in the ATTACHMENT IV-3 pay-as-you go category for school capital projects. Ms. White was asked to clarify these issues with Linda Hollis. Following these discussions, the committee saw a demonstration of the model based on a "made-up" residential development scenario. Committee members agreed that for future demonstrations, they would like to see a development scenario that more closely reflected the current reality in Albemarle County,and more specifically one that would take the actual development mix for 1994-95 and replicate it for the first year development scenario. • After viewing the model, the committee agreed that one of the model's major uses will be to do sensitivity analyses of the projects to determine the important factors, or combination of factors, that need to be considered in development projects. Chuck Rotgin stated that he felt that the model was going to be more beneficial for long term trend analysis and budgeting rather than for determining the impact of a particular development project. Mr. Lindstrom felt that the model will also be effective in analyzing specific projects, since the indicators and multipliers can be adjusted to reflect the characteristics of similar projects done in the past, i.e. changing enrollment multipliers for the specific type of residential development. At the conclusion of the meeting, the committee decided the following: • The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 1 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the 4th floor conference room; • Ms. White will solicit the full committee's opinion on using the North Fork project for the initial fiscal impact model test; • Ms. White will clarify questions on Ms. Hollis's letter; • Staff will address questions raised by the committee during the demonstration that concerned specific model calculations; • Staff will send a blank input sheet out to committee members prior to the next meeting for developing their own parameters, multipliers and development scenarios for the model. ATTACHMENT IV-4 • 4392 Dickerson Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 October 23, 1995 Mr. Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer University of Virginia Foundation Charlottesville, VA 22906 Dear Mr. Rose: Thank you for your letter of October 12, 1995 regarding remaining concerns involving the North Fork Park as expressed in our letter of July 19, 1995. With the inclusion of the additional changes to your May 20, 1995 Draft that you ,are now offering, we feel that the Foundation has expressed a spirit of cooperation 'and is taking positive action to fulfill the needs and desires of Lake Acres residents to .maintain the area's rural atmosphere and natural environment. There appears to be just one major disagreement which we must still acknowledge but which should not preclude our acceptance of your letter. Regarding Lot F1A, we are still opposed to allowing any exception to your original plan which shows just three roadways into the Park: one from Route 29; one from Airport Road; and the existing Quail Run Road from Route 606. As you know, our most fundamental concern in originally opposing the development of an industrial park on the rurally-zoned north half of the University property was to protect the privacy and rural character of our neighborhood. We have been adamant that no other roadways should be allowed from Route 606 except as described above. Therefore, we are unable to accept any of your alternative options listed in your October 12 letter if, as it appears, each of them would require an additional roadway from Route 606. We understand that your letter of agreement will mean that the University Foundation will expect to maintain an active, long-term mutually-beneficial association with its Lake Acre neighbors during the upcoming years of active development of the North Fork Park. Tim, we wish to commend you for your direct, in-depth, cooperative approach over the last ten or eleven months during which we have exchanged views and communicated -- by letter, telephone and in person. Thank you for your respectful, open-minded and intel- ligent approach to our concerns. We look forward to receiving the Foundation's letter of agreement and to an ongoing mutually-agreeable relationship in the coming years. '" " '� •� '�= . ; '.; Sincerely y urs, n Q ^ UC 1 2 4 1995 n^y� �o y (UJ vv 44, Steering Committee L0-20\ja.c t Lake Acre eighbors ✓Copy: Ron Keeler Planning Department Albemarle County ATTACHMENT IV-5 uu 251995 OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAP ROAD P. O. Box 9023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 • (804) 982-4848 • FAX (804) 982-4852 October 20, 1995 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ron: I have shared a proposed letter with the Route 606 neighborhood regarding North Fork. We want to ensure that we are covering the areas which they think are important. Since this letter is not being requested by the County, nor is it a requisite component of the rezoning process, we presume that the review of our package is not being held up until you receive the letter. Should our understanding on this issue not be correct, please let us know immediately. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer TRR:Ip cc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg/ Mr. Dean M. Cinkala L/ Mr. Bruce B. Stouffer ATTACHMENT IV-6 STONEBRLDGE VIA FACSIMILE& HARD COPY TO FOLLOW June 20, 1995 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Albemarle County Dept. of Planning &Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Enclosed please find two studies which we performed for the Rte. 606 Neighborhood group. The first study is a Solar Study showing the potential shade impact of development along Rte. 606 and the second is an Access Study for Lot FIA onto Rte. 606. Please feel free to check with the neighbors, but I believe that both of these studies served to alleviate the neighbors' concerns about the potential "shade impact"of development and Lot F1A access onto Rte. 606. On a separate issue, based on your questions regarding certain proposed use locations reflected in the Use Chart which I forwarded to you several weeks ago, I offer the following. Regarding light industrial (LI) uses on F1A and B8,to my knowledge the Rte. 606 neighbors have never raised this as a concern to us. In fact, use location has never been the focus of discussion with the neighbors. Rather,the focus has been on development buffers, access to Rte. 606,traffic,etc. Further, I believe LI makes sense on these lots given their proximity to existing LI uses on Quail Run. Regarding our desires to have the right to put a hotel on B5, we want to emphasize that this site is only one of several sites where the hotel ultimately could be accommodated. While a hotel may be developed on B5, it would not have direct access to Rte. 29 and would not be developed directly adjacent to Rte. 29 given the existing vegetation and the fifty foot buffer at the front of the site. We believe that B5 is a unique site for a hotel because it offers us the opportunity to inwardly focus the hotel toward Park users while also giving it visibility to Rte. 29 which any significant hotel operator will likely demand. Thank you for your consideration of these issues and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Best Regards, Dean M. Cinkala Attachments • cc: Tim Rose, UVAF Ellen Miller, SAI Robert McKee, M/C Steve Blaine,MWBB STUN EI3H I I (.1 ASSOCIATES, INC. $401.A1nn1vourtvP I am, ', ,te II,'ILe,.I,/ 1 la/ oS,1 ATTACHMENT IV-7 NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK . . Albemarle County, Virginia `may' SOLAR STUDY t ' . - ; �' r 1 ♦ ✓'•� t� It�tD tr1tr� ;:�Ir'.1 J rr�� ' t —— !=''• ;�`%.k _ Y NO r00 ••','r1.a:0• t!‘ , Ite anal lor: '�� .., •ier ;:\\' ♦ F� t University of Virginia 4� Real Estate Foundation �•�{^r j�/ •7 ••� \� ` Charlottesville,Virginia • 4, C I�� r1 `�' i� Prepared by: ,, ' - -,� `► �,`� i b McKee/Carson '' .'`: .. .iA_•.I... \hi ',.. Environmental Planners•Landscape Architects•Engineers ( '4' . •-s►w;V.. • p ♦ Charlottesville,Virginia a.• -'• r F. �►\j. ..I: May IY1a_ • \\ • '.i'r. ♦• � V'd.N \ This e.Mibrt la an enhancement d nti density J ' 'gVidk '�'t� r `\ •n•lysn scud),prepared for the subtle.prnpeny )J ` �• ` Shadow hauls re to sre scbem•nc in nuwe e•�•..L T tt{��•'''��, ��� ^ � Shadow Iim.0 npresenr arose receirmg shade se r r4O h w a some pomp during the year SNJnws Irum hem .'•� � ......7. riNin the ISO'Muller along S•sie Rome 606 lure ( T • 1 . .. . 4 t ', .. r \ - not Men reflected on Mb plan. C- \ 1 ,,1 * i 1r r::•, r seamy I •. ')' ----.\- t--:-:..-,•.r•-.•4yo2r. %i V.,\.a"411Fri 4.!„s!*i.t.;':,...°. 6,..i. 3 r Vg�trd! ......."1‘0 1 1 .. .,,, ,; \It.{ 4.Abr..4 vi,„;;,....+NeitisA •\ . . i A 1..1 L.4 izii.:,...b„;41,04"--.0...14V - -'.\- ' V I ws.,:c1F.0, ...A --- •\:., „ t ,it_ , \. , , Al'''''s'A „4 lei ,04, AiviTiti.. ' .0 , - ... _______4_ , . . •k lig ' ‘ .illit,:.: ,,,p it.114_„. tregraggl ' —— / • i ;may,!. f• , •, . ... 4 r'" r%. . C ii 1'41. i \ ATTACHMENT IV 8 NORTH F . • 9USINESS PARK • �. Albemarle County, Virginia >; Eff) / ' 35.1 • PARCEL F-1A ACCESS ;, f. . Scale:1-m200' Contour Interval-l0' /•. • 0 200�I J /• ,800 /, 1 /' ` ,/, ,' . ,' Prepared for: 1J\'/ e� 1 . • University of Virginia � `'' •/ Real Estate Foundation �_� Charlottesville,Virginia -, / `,\ ' Prepared by: 1 . B 4— `4 1 1 '4cKee/Carson �� 'vironmental Planners•Landscape Architects•Engineers 1 1 • J ' � :Iottesville,Virginia p g /y ` 8.48 acres'-.— cres /— .. '� 7.18 acres •1 n c;. V ,--11--; '' c'7',.. ,,,„.r. 1.-ic---.. \ Os ' geti I - --try o ri .65 4crs-,:- ''— ��Q gcQ 5 , • E1)FFEIt alt., ' /' \� 1 - '\ 1 j/ t"06 %. \ ,•QIGoff 30SIDEY. 8 /i \ - S 7 • CK <- • 1 \ 1.07-au es- I '''-' \- — jil , , ...14p ........„ i it ,_.. (-‘ , ' + •� \✓�� , , , \ 33.26 acres I c Cit.: � ,✓ 30 ID Y '• ' \ J ' ' -'• .rio / 6 PIA ' Op . - - ., • ,,,,, / 6d3T acres �1. / --��.=_y ATTACHMENT IV-9 STONEBIQDGE VIA FACSIMILE May 19, 1995 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Dept. of Planning and Community County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road • Charlottesville,VA 22902 • Re: North Fork Rezoning Application -Various Issues Dear Ron: • Enclosed please find the following: • a copy of the draft letter to the Route 606 neighbors; and • a masterplan for North Fork reflecting how we propose use designations be applied to the Zoning Application Plan pursuant to our discussions and mutual understanding Of acceptable uses on various sites. While these are provided for your information, they are also provided for your review to assure that our understanding of the direction we are moving in is consistent with the Planning Staff's. Regarding the letter to the Route 606 neighbors, we will present this draft to members of the neighborhood group on May 23, 1995. From our perspective, this letter represents UREF's intentions vis a vis the various issues with which the neighbors are concerned. Once you are prepared to present your staff report to the planning commission, the final version of this letter could be submitted as an exhibit to the Planning Staff s report. Regarding the conceptual land use plan and use chart, we submit this as our understanding of the various uses which would be appropriate or acceptable on the various lots within the North Fork development. Given the County's approach of modifying the LI zoning text to include Hotel as a special permit use, we understand that we will need to show special permit uses specifically on' our Zoning Application Plan. In addition, we understand that there are areas of concern to the County where certain use restrictions are desired (e.g. no support commercial along Rte. 606 or Rte. 29) and this plan should reflect those concerns. I do want to make clear though that while • we are committing to certain primary uses on sites, we are retaining our right to put secondary uses on those sites as the ordinance allows. Please review this and make sure it is compatible STONEURIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC. 'me•Sutte 8'5 Bethesda.A lar,•laad 2 0,4-5332 ATTACHMENT IV-10 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler May 19, 1995 Page 2 with our discussions. Please also note that we understand that there still is the necessary task of coming up with a methodology to create mutually acceptable definitions for these various uses which we will undertake once we gain your concurrence on this "Use Plan". • Please call me with your thoughts on these materials. Best Regards, 9100 • Dean M. Cinkala cc: Tim R. Rose V. Wayne Cilimberg Steven W. Blaine Ellen G. Miller ATTACHMENT IV-11 STONEB �DGE May XX, 1995 A A n Route 606 Neighbors (� U Albemarle County, Virginia • Dear Neighbors (List all neighbors): Over the last several months, we have attempted to work closely with you to understand your concerns regarding the development of the North Fork Business Park and, in fact, have attempted to address as many of those concerns as possible in the Rezoning Application. We are in receipt of your January 25, 1995 correspondence outlining these concerns and have met with you twice to discuss these concerns and our plans for the Park. As you have requested, the purpose of this letter is to discuss how we intend to address the various concerns you have presented. Following is a summary of the University of Virginia Foundation's (UVAF) intentions vis-a-vis the concerns listed in your January 25, 1995 letter to us and those raised in our subsequent meetings: • UVAF Role: UVAF agrees to act as a facilitator to aid in the resolution of any grievances or problems related to the development of North Fork Business Park, which the above listed neighbors may raise. • Site Access from Rte. 606: The Zoning Application Plan, in the Rezoning Application, proposes an internal road network to access lots along Rte. 606. The only exception to this is Lot F 1 A which will be accessed directly from Rte. 606. If Rte. 606 is upgraded from its current status then this access issue will be re-addressed. • Construction / Truck Traffic: UVAF will modify its Design Guidelines for the Park to require construction traffic to access the site from Rte. 649 to Rte. 606. UVAF requests the neighbor's cooperation and aid in enforcing this requirement. UVAF will also support any request the neighbors wish to make to VDOT to prohibit truck traffic from making a right turn from Quail Run Road onto Rte. 606 as long as Rte. 606 remains in its existing condition (i.e. a two-lane, unpaved road). • Rte. 606 Paving: UVAF will not initiate a request for Rte. 606 to be paved. • Buffer Along Rte. 606: UVAF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along the entire extent of its property along Rte. 606. This includes Lot F IA which had only a 50 foot buffer in the Rezoning Application. UVAF will not clear cut durable trees in the buffer but will be allowed to maintain the buffer area (i.e. clearing underbrush and weed growth) to establish and maintain a visually appealing buffer area. • Use Locations: The Zoning Application•Plan addresses the location of uses within the Park. • Sediment & Erosion Control, Stormwater Management and the Raw Water Intake: County regulations regarding erosion and sediment control regulate required practices during construction. The Rezoning Application includes a master stormwater management S r O N E H II I D L E ASSOCIATES. I N C. 4800 Montgomery I.ant Suite 875•Bethesda,Maryland 20814-5.332 ATTACHMENT IV-12 Route 606 Neighbors LA May XX, 1995 O Page Two plan for the entire Park which is above and beyond current applicable regulations for post- construction stormwater runoff and also addresses the Raw Water Intake drainage area.. Also the Rezoning Application addresses proposed use restrictions for the Park to protect the Raw Water intake. • North Fork Business Park Design Guidelines: The Rezoning Application, via the North Fork Business Park Design Guidelines, address street lighting, waste area screening and other similar issues. The proposed use restrictions in the Rezoning Application address noise concerns by the elimination of most Heavy Industrial uses. • Playing Fields: The recreation area/playing fields will not be lit. •) Rte. 606 Right of Way: If Rte. 606 is required to be widened due to traffic caused by North Fork Business Park then UVAF will dedicate right of way along Rte. 606 for such widening provided the lots are still undeveloped and that the 150 foot setback will not be reset off of the new property line. • Utility Installation: UVAF will provide appropriate ground cover over areas where new utility installation has occurred. We believe that this letter, and the Rezoning Application, represent UVAF's good faith efforts to address the concerns of the Rte. 606 neighbors. We hope that this letter meets with your satisfaction. Best Regards, Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Mr. Steven W. Blaine • ATTACHMENT IV-13 4392 Dickerson Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 January 25, 1995 University of Virginia Foundation 108 Cresap Road Charlottesville, VA 22906 Attention: Mr. Tim R. Rose, Chief Operating Officer Dear Tim: We wish to express our apprito1on hearoof you yourand cDrrentean 1plans for the meeting lndustrh 1 tr standing usu lastne week.Pa ItW was helpful ossible to arrive at a mutual Business Park. We believe that it may be p regarding the University's goals and our desires as property owners in this essentially rural' area. We were heartened to learn that University theand rark's its oneighboringtresidents to oandtJ a basic "good neighbor" policy with regard to its surrounding environment. To this end, we are requesting that: (a) The following et leentth specific ofprovisions Albemarleband included University's final Foundati Foundation. rezoning agreement between the County contracts, leases, (b) These provisions be included in all written agreements,evelopmentand management companies deeds, etc. , between the University, purchasers in establishing and the Park's tenants, lessees and/or parcel usage of the North Fork property. (c) The University and its Foundation maintain purview over these "good neighbor" provisions and the Foundation be the officially-designated representative for receiving and resolving any problems or grievances which residential neighbors may have concerning the Park. REQUESTED PROVISIONS FOR NORTH FORK PROPERTY REZONING AGREEMENT: 1. That there be no other access or roadway allowed on the 606 boundary of the Park property other than the planned Quail Run Road entrance. 2. That no semi trucks, manufacturer's trucks, transport trucks, construction vehicles or heavy vehicles of any kind be allowed to travel north or south on 606 between Quail Run Road and the north end of the Industrial Business Park. 3. That no paving of the gravel portion of Route 606 be allowed. 4. That there be a 150-foot buffer zone along the 606 boundary of the Part:. Where there are existing trees, they shall be left standing with no clear-cutting allowed. Where there are no trees, durable trees shall be planted in a pleasing landscape. parcel (C) be relocated to an interior space. 5. That the "Support Commercial"This adjustment will avoid conflict with residential property owners, will alleviate burdensome additional traffic on 606 and will better serve those using the Park. 6. That constructiont anti-Pollution measures for clean water, air and land be built into str ct land wellth as long-term a;reements with and/ortenriVsrsand streams s purchasersto phase astaat 2lluticn of ground end well waters, doesnotu insure her ,end irritaats from manufacturing and r;,� ul air ?olli�ti�:1 does not occur; twat h� or other usa;;es inside or laboratory processes, vbiculat emissions , burning ATTACHMENT IV-14 University of Virginia Foundation 2 2 outside the buildings does not occur; that harmful run-offs from hard-Surfacing for buildings and parking lots does not happen; that no construction be allowed which would adversely affect the Rivanna intake-Impact Area which runs north and south along the Western Ridge; that no activity be allowed which would endanger the health or well-being of humans, birds and wildlife, trees, etc. 7. That night lighting shall be of a recessed, shielded and diffused nature to avoid discomfort and disturbance to property owners. Other provisions shall include: regulation of noise levels; containment of equipment, vehicles and factory supplies in maintenance buildings; containment of trash, waste and other unsightly materials in appropriate receptacles. Playing fields shall not be equipped with night lighting. 8. That the construction of buildings should be below road grade as in the recently- built Hollymead Middle School. 9. That during any of the construction phases of the Park, no construction vehicles or support vehicles be allowed usage of Route 606 between Quail Run Road and the north end of the Park. 10. if it is absolutely essential that Route- 606 be widened for safety purposes, that the additional required footage shall all be taken from the North Fork Park property. Buffer footage would begin at the point of the revised Park boundary. • 11 . That proper drainage, grading and sewers be installed during construction to insure 606 property owners against flooding damage during heavy rainstorms. 12. That advance underground placement of sewer lines, utilities, etc. , be immediately covered with sod or appropriate ground cover. Tim, we would appreciate your careful perusal of these Requested Provisions. Will you please route them around to the appropriate Foundation and University officials. We firmly believe that in agreeing to carry out these provisions, the University will not only signify their intentions that the North Fork Park will be a "good neighbor," but will be joining with us in a common goal of protecting and preserving our naturally beautiful rural environment so cherished by all Charlottesville and Albemarle citizens. • Sincerely yours, ALBEMARLE COUNTY NEIGHBORS & RESIDENTS Copy: c v.,--Albemarle County Planning Commission t �� Albemarle County Board of Supervisors o Q Albemarle County Planning Department Calto--6. k...71LAtk-J . 61J — ice'[/L// . )/.) /6., -'73:', - r\--7-72---).-;721-,.,....c.vi....*_, , , / )7r67' V' 1:::,..„.46sit\N\11.,,-„r i --rmJrCIA Thro Iv ___________r_ __Ii-v ,_______:_ , 4. , 1 \- ,. c ,. L://v1., -evtl - -----) , ., , . . .____ __... ----.--,?0 -e)-r, ‘ ----tr-------4--q-c--n-s- _ , c_ - .. ......'•! ri* . . .____ ,._..._:.,._,,„,.r.7,_ )3..„ r,_773 i —',, -eit,\D--4--1, J---Fl-p)ov .--51,Qi-?- x-6 ."2-71 , .0 ----7;7- -1/)--,'N' °Y717 7 >2'' -/19//:1/7•11 );"*1/ • / , )1 ' /- CIAVY/77 '43 "YrirT4 _______e--7 ,( .2 ...IT e 1 27 ,7, / I y M1/9414)( 97)7N, S -AI 1N3INH3Yl1V ATTACHMENT IV-16 AL3EIVARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY P 0 Box 1009 168 SPOTNAP RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 • (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698 April 17, 1995 Mr. Ron Keeler RECEIVED Planning Department Albemarle County Office Building APR i 71995 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Planning Dept. Re: Rezoning Application - North Fork Business Park Dear Ron: We have reviewed the rezoning application from the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation for the North Fork property. In f general, the availability of public utilities is not a limiting factor in this proposal. We have no reason to take exception to their buildout projection of 500, 000-700, 000 gpd water demand. Supply can be provided either by utilizing Chris Greene Lake as a raw water source or by subsidizing the northern Hollymead area from the South Rivanna plant. We treat the combination of the North and South Rivanna systems as a single urban supply. South Rivanna currently serves the urban area to Airport Road and North Rivanna serves properties north to G.E. and Piney Mountain. A pumping station on the South Rivanna system would be necessary to supplement the North Rivanna system when its raw water supply becomes limited. This upgrade, as well as any treatment plant improvements, would be an Authority expense. All onsite water system improvements will be entirely UREF's expense. There is approximately 250, 000 gpd still available in the Camelot wastewater treatment plant. This will be used on a first come - first served basis. When plant capacity is reached we anticipate providing pumping and gravity sewer system improvements to meet the demand of this growing urban area. These offsite improvements would become an Authority expense. All onsite utility work will be UREF's project expense. Utility upgrades in the northern urban area will be provided to meet the demands of the growth area. The UREF property, if approved, will become a component of a larger study as the water and sewer systems approach their respective capacity. If you have any additional questions, feel free to call. If you want our attendance at the Commission meeting let me know. Sincerel q:::;> a,. , (1(3 d/1(2 Paul A.( , P.E. Director of Engineering PAS:dmg ATTACHMENT IV-17 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Amend Albemarle County Service Authority(ACSA) June 7, 1995 Jurisdiction to include all land of the proposed North Fork Business Park. ACTION: INFORMATION: • SUBJECT/PROPOSAIJREOUEST: CONSENT AGENDA: UREF request expansion of water and sewer jurisdictional area ACTION: X INFORMATION: to include land added to Hollymead Community under CPA-94- 1. ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: Messrs. Cilimberg,Keeler BACKGROUND: In December 1994, about 300 acres were added to the Hollymead Community with a designation for industrial/office service development UREF subsequently filed rezoning petition from RA,Rural Area to PD-IP,Planned Development-Industrial Park for these 300 acres. DISCUSSION: Public water and sewer services are appropriate within designated Growth Areas. Of UREF's 525 acre property,water and sewer service from ACSA is currently limited to about 225 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set public hearing on this request for the same date and following action on the rezoning petition. There is currently no Board date set for the rezoning petition's review,therefore the date for public hearing of this jurisdictional area request will need to be set later. RECEIVED UREF-ACS.SUM JUN 51995 95.089 �I a-^n g De )t. ATTACHMENT IV-18 �l o\ OFFICE OF THE I1II"I UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAP ROAD `(� P. O. Box 9023 ( ,')i. �� 15 0 W, lS l ' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 • (804) 982-4848 ' i • FAX (804) 982-4852 May 22, 1995 l; MAY. L 3 1J94 i - I .1D OF SUPERV!c:—.-, The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Revision to the Albemarle County Service Authority Service Jurisdiction Ladies and Gentlemen: On February 27, 1995, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) submitted a rezoning application for the northern 300 acres of its 525 acres North Fork property. This application requested that this 300 acre parcel be rezoned from RA to PD-IP so that it is consistent with the southern 225 acres which is already zoned PD-IP. As is described in detail in the rezoning application, it is UREF's goal to develop the North Fork Business Park on its North Fork property. This Park will create an environment where private industry and various University entities can create mutually beneficial partnerships to advance research and development efforts to the benefit of both parties. In order for the North Fork Business Park to be viable, the entire 525 acres must be included into the Albemarle County Service Authority's (ACSA's) service jurisdiction for water and sewer service. Currently, only the southern 225 acres is included in the ACSA's service jurisdiction. Please consider this letter UREF's formal request that the ACSA service jurisdiction be modified to include UREF's entire 525 acre North Fork property. We would like this request to be considered concurrently with the rezoning application for the North Fork Business Park. As you consider this request please consider the following: • ♦ the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recent modification to the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan which now includes the northern 300 acres in the Hollymead Growth Area as industrial service land; ATTACHMENT IV-19 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors May 22, 1995 Page 2 • ♦ UREF has created a define masterplan for the property delineating a mix of proposed uses; and, ♦ the entire 525 acres can easily be served by extensions of existing ACSA water and sewer lines that run through the property. As you review this request, we would be pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it in detail with you. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions Sincerely, 72, c-pc) Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer TRR:ov cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Mr. William T. Brent Mr. Steven W. Blaine Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Ms. Ellen G. Miller Mr. Robert B. McKee • ATTACHMENT IV-20 AL3EVARLE COU \TY SRVCATIIORITY V FVo RECHVED TO: Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning M*R 2 9 1995ep FROM : Peter C. Gorham, Civil Engineer II PIarl�lln +. C DATE : March 29 , 1995 �E ZMA-9504 & ZTA 95-02 - The Univ. of Va. Real Estate Foundation We have reviewed the rezoning application for UREF's North Fork property and offer the following comments: (1) Water Capacity - Appendix I of the rezoning application summarizes water and sewer availability correspondence from 1994 . Water service is available through a 14" waterline located onsite. If demand in the Hollymead growth area approaches the North Rivanna plant capacity, additional supply from Chris Greene Lake or the South Rivanna plant will be required. (2) Water Pressure - We have no basis for evaluating the prediction of a pressure problem in the North Fork property. There are currently no pressure problems with any of our existing customers on the North Rivanna system. If an in- depth evaluation of the development's infrastructure reveals a problem exists, it will need to be corrected with onsite facilities. (3) Sanitary Sewerage - Sewer service is available through an onsite sewer line and pump station. Pumping and treatment capacities may be exceeded at project buildout. Onsite sewer improvements shall be provided by the project. Treatment capacity can be provided by offsite infrastructure improvements. The Service Authority has an agreement with UREF and others addressing the issue of future sewer capacity for this project. The Service Authority is not prepared at this time to state any preference for any alternative to increase sewerage treatment capacity for the Hollymead growth area. (4) Restrictions on Large Water Users - Although most heavy industrial uses have been eliminated from the park, the definition for the proposed Category III uses still contains some "large water users. " PCG:dmg ATTACHMENT IV-21 t0. b St N,f4 2r tc RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY j1 P. 0. BOX 18 • CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 2 2 002-00 18 • (804) 077-2070 Jr �iOfiE5v�1�E� TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: EUGENE K. PO1"1'LR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cd)Okr SUBJECT: UPDATE OF URBAN RAW WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: JULY 18, 1995 Attached are several items relative to the use of Chris Greene Lake for supplemental releases to support a 2.0 MGD capacity at the North Fork Rivanna WTP:. The chemical analysis indicates that with the exception of four metals,all currently regulated drinking water parameters are below method detection limits. Further, all other tested organic compounds were below method detection levels. Of the four metals detected, two were at the lowest detection levels and two were well below current standards. There is no evidence based on these findings to question the quality of Chris Greene Lake water relative to water supply needs. The other enclosure accounts for the full capacity of the North Fork Rivanna WTP on the project schedule. The anticipated seven year extension is not fully realized because of on- going loss of capacity in South Rivanna Reservoir. A more realistic projection is 3 - 5 years. Black & Veatch is in the process of amending the report language to incorporate the use of Chris Greene Lake, but I do not anticipate any significant changes in the recommended project schedule. EKP/ldb • " ATTACHMENT IV-22 • • y BLACK & VEATCH 1831C Monigornery VIllcce Aven c, Su le SCC,Gcdhersburg, �',c:r:onc 20E79,(301) 6 0.1123,For(301;921.2i:,;.2 • Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority B&V Project 24972 Urban Raw Water Management Plan B&V File C June 22, 1995 Mr. Eugene K. Potter, Acting Executive Director Rivanna Water Sc Sewer Authority P.O. Box 18 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0018 - Subject: Chris Greene Lake Drawdown Dear Mr. Potter: Our evaluation of the North Fork Rivanna water system and river flows concluded that upstream releases from Chris Greene Lake could increase the safe yield of the system above the 1 mgd recognized by the state. Since Chris Greene Lake is a multipurpose reservoir that provides recreational benefits to the region, you requested us to examine the ex-tent of reservoir pool drawdown that could be expected from water supply augmentation. Since the maximum design capacity of the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant is 2 mgd, we set 2 mgd as the target withdrawal from the river. The river flow record created from USGS data (1943 to 1991) is used to predict the need for releases from Chris Greene Lake. We find that the model is able to predict reservoir drawdown which correlates to a 2.1 mgd yield with no minimum instream flowby requirements. For the drought experienced from August through November 1977, which includes the lowest flows recorded on the North Fork Rivanna River, the model predicts the Chris Greene Lake pool to drop by a maximum of one foot. The data indicate that a drawdown of less than one foot would have been experienced during October 1953, October 1954, and September 1966 had a 2,1mgd river withdrawal been required. Monthly data for the remainder of the period, from January 1943 to January 1991, show Chris Greene Lake at its full pool elevation of 423 ft. ATTACHMENT IV-23 Mr. Eugene Potter, Acting Executive Director Page 2 B&V Project 24972 The computer model can compute drawdowns and river flows much more precisely than can be reasonably expected under real operating conditions. However, we predict that the recreational use of Chris Greene Lake would not be measurably affected by water supply releases needed for a 2 mgd withdrawal at the North Rivanna intake. Please advise if we can provide any further information relative to this issue. We arc pleased to be able to assist the Authority with these issues. Very truly yours, BLACK & VEATCH Pamela P. Kenel, P.E. Project Manager UN - 2 :5 - 95 F Ft I 1 2 - 22 O W P — l_ EX I NG1- 01-4 1- u ATTACHMENT IV-24 v COMMONWEALTH EALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER WALKER STREET AON2 SID R. STERN. M.D., M P.H. �p(INGTON,131 WA In RdSTRE T Acting Stage Hr-�itn Commissioner Office of Water Programs PHONE (T�1 a50- 431 Environmental Engineering Field Office FAx (T03) 4 2 ' i June 23, 1995 . • SUBJECT: Albemarle County Water - North Rivanna WTP Mr. Eugene K. Potter, P.E. Acting Executive Director • Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority P.O. Box 18 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-0018 Dear Mr. Potter: This is in response to your letter dated June 8, 1995 concerning continued esupplemental releases to recreational use of Chris in the North ne ForkRivanna River.ofYouretteralso transmitted augment low stream flow ild Evaluation of the a safe yield analysis titled "Technical Memorandum for ats e Safe r Yield Black & Veatch. North Fork Rivanna Water System" dated May 199 P S city The North Rivanna WTP is currently permitted for a maximumm d as design capa the of 1 .0 MGD limited by the 1Q30 safe yield of the North Fork permitted and operated, is capable of treating a location. The WTP, as currently filtration rate. The technical maximum of 2.0 MGD limited by the 4.0 gpm\ft2 that e n memorandum prepared by Black & Veatch indicateds from Ch 1s the abl esafene yieyieldakerof the North Fork Rivanna River with supplementalrelease from 1 .9 MGD to 4.5 MGD depending upon umed su plemental releases willminimum flovvy and rawdown allow the pool elevation in Chris Greene Lake. As such, P North Rivanna WTP to be operated at or near its treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD. Based upon the fact that there is no direct intake in 1 stren am tis Gravel before reene Lake aeaching the nd that any supplemental release will have nearly a mile o WTP intake, this Department has no objection to the continul rases.use of Chris This reenn ne Lake for recreational purposes during the needed supplemental to will require an amendment to your current Waterworks Operation and Permit th Incimum the permitted design capacity. The issues of minimumin drawdown pool elevation within Chris Greene Lake should lbeadidn eo the permit order that a now safe yield of the river - lake system can be incorporated J N - 2 3 - 9 5 F R I 1 2 : 2 5 O W Z N G T O N ATTACHMENT IVi 25 2 June 23, 1995 Mr. Eugene K. Pottet SUBJECT: Albemarle County Water - North Rivanna WTP If ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Y Very truly yours, l � James W. Moore, III, P.E. District Engineer JWM/bt cc Albemarle County Executive -office Mr.- Ro ertDa Tuckerid an Albemarle County Engineer's Albemarle County Health Department - Attn: Dr. Susan McLeod VDH - Richmond Central 1 ATTACHMENT IV-2E sy a totil ''•••.:mob t)C f 1 7 1995 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA--i'2 'tU i�_� .)-1— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O.BOX 671 RAY D. PETHTEL CULPEPER,22701 DONALD R. ASKEW COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald S. Keeler, Albemarle County FROM: Wanda Moore, VDOT /gyp DATE: October 10, 1995 SUBJECT: North Fork Business Park, Albemarle County VDOT has reviewed the proposed road improvements for North Fork Business Park and offers the following: Phase I: VDOT will agree to the development and infrastructure improvements associated with access off of Route 29 . Traffic will dictate that Road A be four-laned when volumes reach approximately 8 , 000 ADT. The Route 649/ Route 29 intersection is still a major concern. It is not desirable for the operation of this intersection to break down before improvements are made. When construction does occur, the fair share cost of improvements to ,this intersection offered by the applicant is acceptable. VDOT is agreeable to allowing additional development beyond this phase providing a traffic impact study is presented demonstrating that the road network functions at acceptable levels of service. Phase 2 : VDOT strongly recommends that Phase 2 does not proceed until Route 649 is widened and improvements to the Route 649/ Route 29 intersection are complete. As noted earlier, when traffic volumes reach 8 , 000 ADT on an internal road, a four- lane facility is recommended. Based on the submitted traffic impact study, it is anticipated that the internal connection between Route 29 and Route 649 will require a four-lane divided facility at the beginning of this Phase. ATTACHMENT IV-27 Page 2 October 10, 1995 Phase 3: The submitted traffic impact study shows that an additional southbound through lane on Route 29 will accommodate future volumes resulting from North Fork development. While this development alone does not warrant an interchange, a grade separated intersection at Road A and Route 29 will better serve the overall future transportation network of the County and will be warranted as various sites build-out. Now is the time for Albemarle County, VDOT, and area developers to work cooperatively to provide for this future need. A start will be for the County and VDOT to begin including a grade separated intersection in all long- range plans for this area and requesting right-of-way reservations from affected developers. Since the latest Traffic Impact Study submitted by Wilbur Smith and Associates will serve as an overall guide for development and will be referred to in subsequent reviews, VDOT may request additional traffic studies if development proceeds significantly different than planned (i. e. developing beyond Phase 1 or Phase 2 densities) . As a final note, whenever possible, future plans for this development should incorporate recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Study. cc: Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Bill Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer Irma Von Kutzleben, Assistant Traffic Engineer Bill Guiher, Transportation Planning Engineer ATTACHMENT IV-27 A ?. cr exvor 4* 4 COMMONWEALTH of V RG1NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.0.BOX 671 RAY D. PETHTEL CULPEPER,22701 DONALD R. ASKEW COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald Keeler, Albemarle County FROM: Wanda Moore, VDOT A- ‘ " DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: North Fork Business Park, Albemarle County Follow- Up to October 10, 1995 Memorandum In order to clarify my October 10, 1995 Memorandum, the following is offered: 1. The "latest traffic study" mentioned in the last paragraph of the memo refers to the June 7, 1995, revised Traffic Impact Study- North Fork Business Park prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. This document will serve as the approved study. 2 . The developer is not responsible for constructing a grade separated intersection. However, the North Fork development will eventually generate enough traffic to warrant the construction of a third southbound through lane on U. S. 29 from Road A's entrance to Route 649 . Consequently, the developer will be responsible for the cost of this improvement. The estimated cost of construction excluding costs for design, utilities, and right-of-way is $2 , 025, 000. (This figure is derived based on a distance of 1. 5 miles from Road A to Route 649) . Please be advise that this is only a preliminary estimate and is subject to change upon final design. Also, it is understood that under the direction of VDOT and the county, these funds may be applied to the construction of an interchange. I hope this information clears up any lingering issues regarding this development. Should you have further questions, please call. cc: Angela Tucker Bill Mills Irma Von Kutzleben TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ATTACHMENT IV-28 Traffic Impact Study North Fork Business Park lit Albemarle County, Virginia fig Prepared for: rw< The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation Prepared by: ///\\� t/111\11 \A616‘ • ::. wI eut err}+ 53OO.A ES June 7, 1995 .?.ra.�:•.•::•:y>:;?......;.?,:;...y,..;.?cis::::'::::::;:;::::::;::::,`;::i:::;.;;.:;::�::>;:.;:: ATTACHMENT IV-29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY North Fork Business Park, owned by the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, is currently being planned in Albemarle County, Virginia. The property is located in the northwest quadrant of the Rt. 29/Rt. 649 intersection, between Rt. 606 and the Rt 29 corridor. North Fork will consist of general office, light industrial, research and development, support commercial and hotel land uses. In working with Albemarle County and VDOT (Culpeper District), it was agreed that the year 2015 should be used for the full buildout year for purposes of this traffic analysis. To determine Smith the impact of North Fork at full development on the adjacent roadway network, Wilbur Associates performed this traffic impact study. The report includes recommended roadway improvements necessary to accommodate the normal traffic growth in the area, as well as the projected traffic that will be generated by North Fork at certain years of the phased development. At the request of the VDOT Culpeper District, the projected local background traffic was analyzed with the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway - Western Alignment. Site and Planned Development Characteristics It is anticipated that North Fork, at full development, will have three direct access locations - at Rt. 29 to the east, Rt. 649 to the south and Rt. 606 to the west. The internal site circulation is via three interconnected roads: 1. An extension of Quail Run from Rt. 606 to a "T" intersection; 2. Road A which runs from Rt. 29 to the extension of Quail Run; and 3. Road B which runs from the extension of Quail Run to Rt. 649. At full development, North Fork will consist of 2,300,000 square feet of general office, 400,000 square feet of light-industrial and support commercial land uses consisting of 110,000 square feet of support retail and a 250-room hotel. Based on the North Fork Master Plan, it is anticipated that at full development, North Fork will generate 27,545 vehicle trips per day. Based on population census data from the Charlottesville Transportation Study, the majority of this traffic was distributed to the south on Rt. 29 (67%). The remainder of the site traffic was distributed as follows: 1 percent from d 6 the north r fromn the southon Rt. 606 percent the north on Rt. 29, 5 percent from the east on Rt. 649 percent Based on the above distribution, the anticipated site traffic was derived to determine the impact of North Fork on the existing roadway network at various phases of development: 2005, 2010 and 2015. It is assumed that the following features will be in place by 2005: 1. Rt. 649 is planned as a 4-lane facility, consistent with the County and areawide plans to upgrade access between Charlottesville Airport and Rt. 29. ATTACHMENT IV-30 2. Rt. 29 is planned as a 6-lane facility between Rt. Rt9 and9 theio South s Rivanna quality consistent with ongoing regional plans transportation corridor. Its intersection with Rt. 649 is assumed to have dual left-turn lanes on all four approaches. 3. At the County's direction, it is assumed that the Meadowcreek Parkway (western alignment) will not align with the NreBhe Meadowcreek Parkway traffic.rk entrance at Rt. 649. The future background volumes on Rt. 649 do, however, flect veloped 4. Volumes are shown for a 21.7 acre parcel on of�hisll Run assumed to be traffic is assumed to useeRt 1606 and light industrial by 2005. Seventy-nine percent the remaining 21% is assumed to use North ffcork's fromlChrsal Greeae Laker st�otCncSuded s Rt. 29 to the north. Projected "cut through bythe since daily volumes will be less than 10 vehicles based upon data provided County. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that: 1. Phase I development will occur along Road "A" and Quail Run; both "cul-de-sacs" with no connection to each; 2. Phase II will include a roadway connection Routeso29 and "A" and and Quail Run, thereby permitting travel through the site between 3. Phase Ill (and full development) will include the and letiionsoo aoy ofB" to eoute 649, thereby permitting circulation throughout the site Routes 29, 649 and 606. Local background traffic (annual average daily traffic volumes) and year 2015 with the Meadowcreek Parkway was obtained from the VDO Culpeper District t i t and Albte temarle Ctraff c respectively. Site plus local background traffic were (provided by VDOT) and demand. It should be noted thatrecently havedresudlted in'ng traffic backgroudat ndtraffic projections different further refinement of traffic assun p from the previously submitted traffic study (December 14, 1994). Recommended RoadwayIm rovements To accommodate future background traffic and North Forth site traffic, it is apparent that major access at several key locations is essential. The following table is a summary of the 1 posed buildout roadway improvements at critical locations. These are more fully explaine Prod in the report. ii ATTACHMENT IV-31 RECOMMENDED ROAD GEOMETRICS AT FULL BUILDOUT WI MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY-Western Alignment Intersection Required to Support Background (Figure 8) Required to Support Background&Slte(Figure 8) Rt. 649/Rt. 29 o 4-lane, Rt. 649 o 4-lane, Rt. 649 o 6-lane, Rt 29 o 6-lane, Rt. 29 o Dual left-turn, o Dual left-turn, all approaches all approaches o Channelized o Channelized nght-tum, SB Rt. 29 nght-tum, SB Rt. 29 & EB Rt. 649 & EB Rt. 649 o Upgrade Signal o Upgrade Signal o An upgraded intersection to accommodate full site development in 2015. Rt. 649/Rd. B o Not Applicable o 4-lane, Rt. 649 (Year 2015 Only) o Dual left-turn, SB Rd. B o Channelized nght-tum,WB Rt. 649 o Right-turn lane, SB Rd. B o Left-turn lane, EB Rt. 649 o Add Signal 649/Rt 606 o Dual left-turn,WB Rt. 649 o Dual left-turn,WB Rt. 649 o Single lane for left,through&right-turns, o Single lane for left, through&nght-turns, EB Rt 649 EB Rt.649 o Right-turn lane, NB Rt. 606 o Right-turn lane, NB Rt. 606 &WB Rt. 649 &WB Rt 649 o Add Signal o Add Signal Quail Run/Rt. 606 o Single lane for through&right-turns, o Single lane for through&right-turns, NB Rt 606 NB Rt 606 o Single lane for throught&left-turns, o Single lane for throught&left-turns, SB Rt 606 SB Rt 606 o Right-turn lane,WB Quail Run o Left-turn lane,WB Quail Run Road A/Rt. 29 o Not Applicable o 2-lane NB Rt 29&3-lane SB Rt 29. o Channelized • right-turn, SB Rt. 29 o Dual left-turn, EB Rd.A &NB Rt. 29 o Dual right-turn, EB Rd. A CHRRL/ALB AIRPORT TEL No .804-974-7476 Sep 2471.4644e 471.46 4e c1,2i. 2 Post-It•Fax Note 7671 Dale p1_ �.t or► i To w y,_-�„� From B .I l ' Co./Dept. �i{/(,]� Co. I Phone 1 Phone if till Fax Y Fax 1Y AIRPORT Charlottesville/Albemarle ��� to 41`''1'! VIA FACSIMILE ,� MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development FROM; Bryan O. Elliott, Executive Direct DATE: September 21, 1995 RE: Route 649 Thank you for agreeing to meet tomorrow to review the proposed modifications to VDOT's Industrial/Airport Access Road Fund Programs. Steve McNeely will be in town for a meeting on an airport project and has agreed to brief us on the proposed changes in both funding programs. As you know, these changes are slated to be considered by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in October. Since Steve has served on the VDOT task force studying these programs, I believe he can provide a great deal of insight on the proposed changes and eligibility of Route 649, Please note that I have also invited Bruce Stouffer of the University of Virginia Foundation (UVAF). Given the proximity of the North Fork Research Park to 649, I believe UVAF would benefit from this briefing as well. Again, I appreciate your willingness to meet on this matter and we look forward to seeing you tomorrow afternoon in your office between 3:30 and 3:45 pm. DISTRIDU1'IQN LIST: Steve McNeely, Virginia Department of Aviation Bruce Stouffer, University of Virginia Foundation • - - 09-18-1995 09:02H11 FROM SIUME8RI1)GE HSSULIHIES I U 11:3U4972,4US5--•3' I'.1_11 ;' • 1 ' i ATTACHMENT IV-33 . . • -•. : ,i . . , • • • 1.:- • •• . ; f STONEBkDGE •! . •. i . • .. . .. (.7 5 . . . i • •Fax pOv6r: .Sliteet . . • ! . •, , . .• • ; : • , : : . . . .• . • 11 : i• I , • . , :• , •. . • . •. ; . ., 1 1 . DATE:! ;September 18, 1995 TIME: 8:27 AM . • • TO: , Ronald Si Keeler, ACPD go`f 972 . *Ss 1 . • • •' FROI* , Dean M. ..inkala PHONE: 301.913:9610; . !! ' Stonebridge Associates, Inc. FAX: 301.913.9615 • • No'rth Fc:Irk • ii : . • ! . . CC: 's Number of p4ges including cover sheet: 2 i . • . . i Message:: • iPlease see attached cost estimate of adding dual left:turn lanes on all apf*oaches ;i • i 1 Id the Rtes. 29 / 649 intersection. Please note this includes only design. and . I ' . . construction costs and is a conceptual estimate which is subject to change given 'final engineering plans for said improvements. . i . . . i . ,. . . • •. . • . . . . Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages . : • • To V)(1()(4/1 4 iff)t. Fil)-11 ..iie•_:.:. : • Co. Co.U Lo—r-- i\-\kr"..)e. 6-)- . . ii . Dept. Phone/ft/ • ./5 (c; Fax#9.2. . I! . . . •; . • • • ii ' I • . . . i . , I: •• i . • , • 1: ::, ' I . . . : I - - •• THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL AND IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED t. • , il • ' I. . !! .1 1 I, ilt co n mom TABLE I . Z �, W Preliminary Estimate:for-.Adding-Dual:left.-Turns.at all-Appraaches-of-the_Rtes.19-/--.649-Intersection M V ITEM# DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT (SI T Q I Construction Surveying LS. LS. LS. $5,600 ~ • ' 2 Clearing &Grubbing A.C. 0A $2,500 $1,400 _ -4 Q 3 Regular Excavation C.Y. 1,000 $5 $7,000 4 Asphalt-.Pavement (I2' Lane) TONS 1,000 $30 $42,000 5 Asphalt Shoulder (3'Shoulder) TONS -40 $35 $19,600 , 6 Stone(Agg. Base Course) TONS 2,000 $10 $28,000 - 7 Drainage, Inlets, Culverts,U.D. LS. LS. LS. $4,200 8 Incidentals, CG-7, GR, Etc. L.S. LS. LS. $1,400 9 SWM and Erosion&Sediment Control . LS. LS. LS. $14,000 n 10 Roadside Development LS. LS. LS. $2,800 II Maintenance of Traffic LS. LS. LS. $7,000 • - 12 Traffic Signal Modification LS. LS. LS. $70,000 13 Signs &Pavement Markings LS. LS. LS. $2.69.4 I Subtotal . . _ . $205,800 E 14 Mobilization at 10% of Total $20,580 15 Des. & Engineering at 15% of Total $30,870 s, 16 Contingencies at 20% of Total $51.45Q t TOTAL: .. $308,700 -' 0 Estimate prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. . Please note that this estimate is preliminary and subject to change given final design and engineering plans. 3 Y U. ..... M —.... 9 - - _ 0 .. .. _ _� —� —.. T - --.- —..-- _ _— ... _ --- - -• --.-_-__---...._ ^-----_ I - D I - T M ATTACHMENT IV-35 STONEBRJDGE May 16, 1995 Ms. Wanda Moore Transportation Planner Virginia Dept. of Transportation P.O. Box 671 Culpeper, VA 22701 Dear Wanda: Enclosed please find two sets of plans showing the schematic layouts of both a Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) and Grade Separated Intersection (GSI) at the entrance to the proposed North Fork Business Park. We commissioned Wilbur-Smith Associates to study these two alternatives to better understand both right of way and construction cost implications of each option. As you know, Wilbur-Smith analyzed, in its traffic analysis of the North Fork Business Park, traffic conditions with a CFI and also with a GSI. The results of Wilbur-Smith's efforts to date are very clear. Namely, a CFI is a much more desirable alternative to a GSI because it requires less right of way, is less costly from a construction cost perspective and provides acceptable levels of service at buildout for the entrance to the North Fork Business Park. Specifically, as you an see on the attached illustrations, a CFI requires approximately 3.5 acres of additional right of way while a .iSI would require 11.3 acres of right of way and a CFI costs approximately $1.1 million while a GSI would cost over $2.0 million (not including right of way acquisition costs). We believe that these are very good reasons to consider and ultimately accept a CFI for the entrance to the North Fork Business Park. While we understand that the CFI has not been used by VDOT to date, it is a concept that is gaining wider and wider acceptance. Specifically, as Tom Flynn of Wilbur-Smith noted in our phone conversation, CFI's are being used in the Northeast in urban areas and are functioning effectively at similar intersections. Tom is attempting to gather more information about existing CFI's and will forward it to you for VDOT's consideration. We thank you for your consideration of this option and would be pleased to discuss this in more detail with you if you wish. Best regards, Dean M. Cinkala Enclosures -c: Ron Keeler / Tom Flynn(w/out encl.) Juan Wade ✓ Steve Blaine (w/out encl.) Tim Rose (w/out encl.) Bob McKee (w/out encl.) STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC. U0 ASSUMPTIONS - - ATTACHMENT I' M 1. ASSUMES THAT V.D.O.T. WILL EVENTUALLY WIDEN RTE. 29 TO THE OUTSIDE RATHER THAN IN THE MEDIAN AND WILL ZREQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO BUY THIS R.O.W. ALONG LENGTH OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Wgyp.....:.•."L'::'.••:.i.,`�) K:��kr• :. — ..r.:k � 2 -2. ;;UTIUITIES,�NOT:CONSIDERED. ..:Irt'THIS ESTIMA 'Tiitt,''0-;L.f .i-T .%. _• ........r:•r.,,Y Lr' ..r:,.t>- -r.1: r�r,.w,,-.*,v a„:'!,w ,,r-o.•s._ ✓ : _ S R 3.;''ESTIMATEE BASED'O COT SAC rIMIT ONLY'. 111 I . Q ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST (AS COLORED) BRIDGE _ $ 925,440 WALLS = 40,000 GRADING = 130,000 DRAINAGE = 39,000 PAVING = 225,650 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC = 123,750 _ STRIPING-PERM- SIGNS = 30,000 /__ •SIGNALS = =660,0Ot i i (' - INCIDENTALS (G.R., ER. CONT. SEED, ETC.) _ • 95,760 SUB-TOTAL = $ 1,669,600 20% CONT. = 333,920 TOTAL-ESTIMATED = $ 2,003,520 APPROX. ADDITIONAL R.O.W. REQ'D - RTE. 29 RIGHT-OF WAY (OFF-SITE) = 7.3 ACRES RIGHT-OF-WAY (ON-SITE) = 4.0 ACRES TOTAL = 11.3 ACRES NOTE: RIGHT-OF-WAY AREAS DO NOT REFLECT THE LOSS OF ACCESS OR AREAS OF IMPAIRED ACCESS. THE CROSS OVER TO THESOUTH ON RTE. 29 WILL BE IMPACTED.