The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA202100016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-01-21�q off nig 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 County of Albemarle Telephone: 434-296-5832 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG ��BGIN�Q' ZMA Application Plan review (TIA, Proffers) Project title: North Fork ZMA Project file number: ZMA202100016 Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, PE /Timmons Group, craig.kotarski(a),timmons.com 608 Preston Ave., Suite 200 / Charlottesville, VA 22903 Applicant: University of Virginia Foundation, Chris Schooley cschoolgy@uvafoundation.com Primary Contact: Valerie Long, Esq. Williams Mullen vlongka williamsmullen.com 321 E. Main St., Charlottesville, VA 22902 Plan received date: 15 Dec 2021 Date of comments: 21 Jan 2022 Plan Coordinator: Bill Fritz Reviewer: John Anderson, PE Engineering has reviewed ZMA Application (Narrative, TIA, proffer statement) and offers these review comments. ZMA202100016 1. Sheet 5, Exhibit D: Engineering recommends inter -parcel future connection between block F and Dickerson Road, SR 606, along N parcel boundaries of Crutchfield Corporation and Hawk's Eye View LLC, TMPs 03200-00-00-009CO and 03200-00-00-01007, respectively. Logistically, may be difficult, impractical, or impossible. If VDOT makes no similar recommendation for block F to Dickerson Road inter -parcel connection, then this Engineering recommendation is withdrawn. 2. Sheet 8, Exhibit G, does not display Rt. 29 improvements recommended by TIA. Application plan should (in our view) display graphic information for TIA Rt. 29 /Lewis and Clark Drive turn -lane improvement recommendations (improvements listed at Proffer V. Transportation). 3. Sheet 9, Street Sections: Please note that 7.5' on -street parallel parking (space) width is only appropriate for `roadways functionally classified as collectors or locals where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or less.' See VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix A(1), p. A(1)-77, parallel parking. [ https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/Appendal.pddf ] 4. Sheet 12, Exhibit K, Conceptual Grading Plan: Cannot be evaluated without legible contour elevation labels; please provide proposed contour labels (560' 550' 540', etc.). 5. Code of Development, sheets 15, 16, Application Plan a. Engineering is unclear of implications of this statement: `Parking: The parking requirements contained in this Code of Development supersedes those parking requirements stated in Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.' Engineering recommends CDD request removal or disapproval of this statement. The Application Plan Code of Development proposes only general parking requirements. Ch. 184.12 lists specific safety and convenience -based parking standards, which should not be superseded by the Application Plan Code of Development. b. Engineering recommends sheet 15 Primitive Trail section typical include these descriptors: `Earth, mulch or stone dust surface', `width necessary to mark trail location', `20% maximum grade', and `trail breaks to prevent erosion, with foot bridges over major obstacles' with leader lines identifying corresponding schematic elements of typical section. c. Revise sheet 15 statement/s relative to maximum wall height, consistent with 18-4.3.3, which specifies that the maximum height for a single retaining wall shall be ten feet. [18-4.3.3A.1.]. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 6. Sheet 14, Exhibit M, Conceptual Storm Water Plan provides no graphic depiction of currently non-existent (future) SWM facilities. An existing (SWM) pond is shown, and text mentions adjusting the pond's outfall structure. a. The pond alone appears insufficient to meet SWM quantity or quality requirements likely in effect on /after Jul-1, 2024. Provide conceptual graphic depictions of block -centered SWM facilities likely required with development after Jul-1, 2024, consistent with (Water Quality) ZMA text which reads: `For the development of the rezoned neighborhood model district area, stormwater BMPs will be designed and constructed to treat the developed areas per the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulation and the Virginia Runoff Reduction Spreadsheet Requirements. Treatment will be provided during the buildout of the rezoned area through BMPs and practices from the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse. Practices used will likely include bioretention, permeable pavers, dry swales, conserved open space as well as other approved measures.' None of these SWM practices are shown, graphically /conceptually. No graphic concept is presented —please revise ZMA to provide conceptual SWM for water quality requirements that will drive both placement and type of required facilities after Jul-1, 2024. Evaluate NMD blocks 13-10, 13-11, D-1, D-2, and F, and provide graphic depiction of SWM BMPs for these areas. [18-33.4.E. Table /NIv1D ] b. In blocks F and D-2, certain landscape features may be SWM facilities, aesthetic amenities, or a combination. If features shown in Exhibit D, NMD-PDIP conceptual master plan are SWM facilities (image below), please show Aabel as SWM on the SWM conceptual plan. C. Water Quality mentions conserved open space. Table 18-33.4.E requires that the Application Plan show `any areas to be designated as conservation and/or preservation areas.' Revise the Application Plan to show conserved open space. d. Table 18-33.4.E requires the application plan show `any conceptual on -site stormwater detention facility locations.' Engineering requests approximate location/s (best estimate) of detention facilities be shown. Locations may be labeled approximate or notes or labels may state `Final location of detention facilities is provided with future site, WPO, or subdivision plans, Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 notwithstanding ZMA depiction of approximate locations. SWM locations are flexible to meet design objectives or regulatory criteria/requirements.' Words to that effect. The goal is not precise location, but to indicate certain physical space set -asides for detention facilities. e. Last row, Table 18-33.4.E: Please include narrative discussion that considers this item: `Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off -site stormwater management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities' if phasing is proposed with UVAF North Fork ZMA. f. EFF. 7/l/2024: Energy balance must be met if block development internal to the overall ZMA- NMD boundary discharges to natural stormwater conveyance (a natural channel) upstream of the existing SWM pond that detains runoff from developed sections of UVA Research Park. That is, while prior development /WPO plan review may have evaluated capacity of natural channels to resist erosion and convey the 10-yr storm event, eff. 7/l/24, similar channels receiving concentrated storm runoff will be required to meet energy balance requirements at point the block discharges to the channel, at a point that may be upstream of the existing SWM pond. This means if EB is met, no further downstream analysis is required for channel protection, and that, at least with respect to that discharge, the pond is irrelevant from a channel protection standpoint, though the pond will likely continue to provide useful flood protection for multiple points of concentrated runoff releasing to natural or manmade conveyance for areas developed now, or in the future. Please revise Conceptual SWM Plan to note applicability of EB requirements to points that release concentrated storm runoff to a natural stormwater conveyance. 7. Narrative, at p. 15, Storrnwater Management states `North Fork's original Master Plan considered a regional pond to serve the majority of the site to provide water quality and quantity.' Engineering notes that reliance on the original Master Plan regional pond may be obsolete without alteration for blocks or phases not under construction on Jul-1, 2024, since, at that time, new technical criteria (IIB / SWM design) apply to all developments, whether master -planned, grandfathered, currently -permitted under criteria IIC, or not. In other words, regulations that applied to many new developments on Jul-1, 2014, will, Jul-1, 2024, apply to all land developments disturbing areas above specific thresholds, including UVAF North Fork. Engineering is encouraged by statements that immediately follow: `Moving forward, the pond will be upgraded, allowing it to continue to serve the majority of North Fork for water quantity purposes. This will be achieved by adjusting the outfall structure and a new analysis of the hydrology'. Engineering accepts these are requisite, minimum steps should UVA North Fork intend to rely on the regional pond for stormwater quality and quantity control as UVAF North Fork UVA Discovery Park enters constructive phases on or after Jul-1, 2024. (Mote. Sheet 14 of the Application Plan confirms `the approval for the pond will expire in 2024. [And that] For stormwater quantity for future development, the pond will be modified to detain the required amount of water quantity per the current regulations.') Note, however, item above: Engineering requests ZMA be modified to present a reasonable graphic conceptual plan with summary SWM facility detail required to develop specific sections of UVA North Fork, at different points in time. 8. Proffers a. Transportation, 5.9.C. ref. to Exhibit M does not correspond with Application Plan Exhibit M. Please check /revise, as needed. b. 5.5; 5.6—These proffers tie improvements to approval of dwelling units (800'", 1300"'). Planning may want to discuss option of earlier commencement of roadway improvements, so that when counts reach 800 or 1300 thresholds, approvals are not delayed, unnecessarily. Required roadway improvement construction timelines are unpredictable, made worse by the pandemic. Supply chain or labor issues may further imperil construction timelines. Waiting to begin construction of improvements to U.S. Rt. 29 or Lewis and Clark Drive until approval of 8001" or 1300"' unit is reached may lead to prolonged approval delay as roadway /turn lane improvements commence, are built, and completed. Until that time, units 801 and 1301 may not be approved. Proffer statement does not necessarily need to be revised, but nor should it prevent commencing roadway improvements early to help minimize site plan or subdivision plat approval delay, or delay the process of eventual sale of lots, or unit construction. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 ( ianderson2galbemarle.org ). Thank you J. Anderson ZMA202100016_North Fork UVA Discovery Park_012122.doc