HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100016 Correspondence 2022-08-01 (2)Response to Comments Dated February 9, 2022
To: Bill Fritz, AICP
From: Megan Nedostup, AICP
RE: ZMA 2021-16 North Fork UVA Discovery Park
Date: August 1, 2022
Revision to tax map parcels:
A closer review of the TMPs that were requested as part of the original submittal revealed that additional TMPs
that are part of North Fork were not included that should have been. In addition, the fire station parcel was
dedicated and recorded in 2021 and no longer is a part of the rezoning application. Given this new information,
below is an updated list and chart of the tax map and parcels for this application. The plan, code of
development, and narrative have been updated accordingly.
Parcel
Owner
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation
Acres
03200000001800
UniversitVofVirginia FoLsidation
PD-IP
NMD
11.22
032000000018AO
UniversityofVi inia Foundation
PD-IP
NMD
9.50
032000000006R0 Portion
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
NMD
151.58
032000000006R0 Residue
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
315.94
032000000022131
University of Virginia Foundation
Hf *
PD-IP
4.98
032000000022132
University ofVirginia Foundation
R1
PD-IP
1.90
032000000019DO
UniversitV ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
4.002
032000000019H1
UniversitV ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
0.326
032000000019F1
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
2.53
032000000019GO
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
4.77
032000000019EO
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
7.10
032000000019CO
UniversitV ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
4.86
032000000019F0
I UniversitV ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
6.02
032000000006A2
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
7.11
0320000000119,111
UniversitV ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
4.67
032000000019HO
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
2.60
032000000019JO
University ofVirginia Foundation
PD-IP
PD-IP*
4.33
Total Acres:
543.45
Total NMD Acres:
172.30
*The Application Plan and Proffers are being amended for those parcels that are remaining PD-IP.
** The existing HI Property associated with ZMA 1987-007 is being amended to be rezoned to PD-IP and remove existing
proffers.
Planning Comments:
1. A survey is needed to delineate the area proposed for NMD and PDIP zoning. The boundary
between the twoproposed districts does not follow any existing parcel boundary.
Response: Boundary metes and bounds information has been provided for the proposed zoning
line for NMD.
2. The proposed project disturbs Preserved Steep Slopes. If you proposed to disturb Preserved Steep
Slopes, thereare two review options available to you.
a. Submit a rezoning request to amend the Steep Slopes Overlay District. This request
could be to eitherchange the designation from Preserved to Managed or to remove the
Overlay District entirely.
b. Specifically request approval of the disturbance in this rezoning application in accord
with AlbemarleCounty Code, Chapter 18, Section 30.7.4g
The application plan currently shows grading only on the NMD portion of the proposed
development. In order toreview disturbance of Preserved Slopes on the PDIP portion a grading
plan is necessary. A grading plan on the PDIP portion also has other benefits which are discussed
below. Regardless of which approach is used, any request to disturb preserved slopes should
include information to address the Characteristics of Steep Slopes as contained in Albemarle
County Code, Chapter 18, Section 30.7.3
Response: Request for disturbance of the preserved slopes has been submitted with this
resubmittal.
3. The original project proposed 3.7 million square feet of development. The proposed
development would add 1,400 dwellings plus (Carriage Units/Accessory Apartments) and
commercial spaces. No limit on commercial development within the NMD is proposed although
the parking study states 100,000 sf of office and 50,000 of retail. In order for the traffic study to
be accurate the project must be limited to the levels of development considered by the traffic
study. The method of calculating the impact of dwelling units is complicated by the inclusion in
the study and application plan of only 1,400 residential units. As currently submitted the number
ofresidential units theoretically possible is 2,800 because each unit could have an (Carriage
Units/Accessory Apartments). While this number is not realistically attainable the number of
residential units could exceed 1,400unless limits are put in place. Further, it is acknowledged that
due to the size of the Carriage Units/Accessory Apartments the traffic generated by each of these
units will likely be less than for the primary dwelling.
Response: The Code of Development has been updated to clarify that either a carriage unit or an
accessory apartment can be built on one lot, but not both. In addition, there are regulations
regarding size for the carriage unit within the COD that matches those in the ordinance for
accessory apartment. Since a carriage unit is simply an accessory apartment not contained in the
main structure, the TIA has not been updated to reflect these units. Accessory apartments are by -
right in all residential districts and have historically not been counted towards density or
transportation impacts for by -right or rezoning projects.
4. The term "Green Space' is used in various locations in the application. However, it is unclear what is
meant by thisterm. Is it Open Space, Common Open Space, Pervious Area or some other thing?
Response: As discussed, the term Green Space is used within the NMD area and the term Open
Space is used within the PDIP area as required by the ordinance.
5. In Area D-1 is there a maximum area for commercial office area?
Response: There is no maximum area proposed for commercial office in block D1. The TIA and
proffers have been updated to provide thresholds of when transportation improvements will be
needed based upon trips generated from the development. It is anticipated that with each site plan,
the use will be evaluated as to the number of trips generated.
6. The term Community Service is used in various locations in the application. Is this the Fire Station or
is some otheruse intended?
Response: This is to delineate the Fire Station. Plans have been updated to "Existing Fire Station".
7. On some sheets of the application plan the Trailhead Locations are shown. On some sheets they are
shown aspotential. The intent of providing trailhead locations should be clarified. This clarification
should include a definition of what is provided with a trailhead and that trailheads will be provided.
It is understood that the exactlocation will likely be adjusted during the development of the detailed
site plans/subdivisions.
Response: The application plan has been updated to remove the trailheads as it is unknown at this
time if they will be provided. We anticipate that some signage for the trails will be provided during
the site plan/subdivision process.
8. Table B on sheet 7 of the application plan is there any intent to limit the maximum non-
residential developmentpotential in any individual block? The use of a maximum Floor Area Ratio
may serve to limit overcrowding of anyindividual district while still providing flexibility in use and
design.
Response: The maximum non-residential has been updated to match that which is provided in
the TIA for the NMD.
9. Sheet 7 of the application plan in the notes for Table B it states "** Block acreage may vary up to 15%". Is
there
any intent to adjust the maximum number of dwelling units to reflect changes in block acreage?
Response: The maximum number of units will remain the same even if the block areas adjust. The note
has been revised to clarify this.
10. Sheet 7 of the application plan in the notes for Table B it states "*** The minimum and maximum
number of unitsare not cumulative of the allowable units within the blocks, but indicate the
minimum and maximum permitted units overall within the NMD." The minimum listed for each
block is zero -0-. However, the totals state 200 minimum units will be provided. How will this
minimum be achieved? When will it be achieved? Will it be achieved as a single block, or will it
occur in phases? If a minimum number of residential units is to occur thereshould be a method to
insure the construction, and completion of these units either within a timeframe or in relationship
to other development.
Response: Language has been added to the Code of Development that states that each site plan
will track the non-residential and residential proposed.
11. Sheet 7 of the application plan in the notes for Table D there is a note that states in part "***This
chart and notations supersede requirements of 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance." What is meant by
this? It appears that thisnote is intended to exempt the development from recreational
requirements of the ordinance. The County will require that recreational facilities be provided for
residential development that occurs. The ordinance allows foradministrative approval of a wide
range of alternative recreational features to meet minimum recreational needs.Staff recommends
removal of the note addressing exemption from the requirements of 4.16.
Response: As discussed, the Code of Development is intended to provide the recreational
amenities needed for the development and not be bound to the outdated facilities stated in 4.16.
A note has been added to this section to state: "Programmed facilities will be equivalent to or
exceed those required by Section 4.16 as approved by the Director of Planning".
12. The street designs on sheet 9 of the application plan include bike lanes on some streets. In the
final design of streets, it may be appropriate to relocate the bike lane so that the bike lane is
adjacent to the curb instead of the travelway. This alternative design would place the parking next
to the travelway offering additional protection tocyclist.
Response: The streets outside of Lewis & Clark Drive are intended to be low volume, low speed,
neighborhood streets and mostly internal to the blocks with some interconnections. Given the low
volume and speed, we believe having the bike lane on the outside of the parking will allow for it
to remain clear. Having the bike lane in between, while we agree that it does provide protection,
drivers not used to that condition will end up more often parking in the bike lane when they are
used to parking along the curb.
13. Are any modifications to building height, setbacks or stepbacks proposed?
Response: Building heights, setbacks, and stepbacks for NMD are provided on the Code of
Development sheets within the plan sets. Regulations for the PDIP zoning are provided on sheet 4.
14. The following comments are to the Code of Development as contained on sheets 15 and 16 of
the applicationplan.
a. The history section discusses the approval of various parts of the North Fork project. As
we have discussed this rezoning constitutes an amendment of the previous approval for
the PDIP (ZMA1994-05).One feature of planned developments is that if grading is shown
on the application plan a grading permitmay be issued prior to the approval of a site plan
or subdivision plat. (Reference 8.5.5.4) It is my understanding that the applicant intends to
include grading as part of the PDIP portion of the development. This will need to be
reflected in the application plan and the Code of Development.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. A conceptual grading plan has been added to
the application plan set.
b. The proposal is to rezone a portion of the PDIP to NMD. The entire project could be
rezoned to NMD. This comment is provided neither as a recommendation or request. It is
offered as a comment that may behelpful to the applicant as it allows for a single zoning
designation.
Response: Thank you for the comment, we appreciate it. While we contemplated this
option, given the goals of the County regarding Economic Development we felt that leaving
the majority of the property as PDIP zoning would more easily allow for County and
community support.
c. The Land Use Matrix includes a wide variety of uses. Was any consideration given to
referencing the usesallowed by Section 20A6. If any special uses are proposed those would
then be the only ones specificallylisted and this would address any concerns about re-
establishing the approval of the special use permits approved in 2010 (SP 2008-15, 62 and
63).
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. While we appreciate the offer of maximum
flexibility, we think the best approach to be transparent and for ease of review during site
plan is to provide a list of uses rather than referencing Section 20A6.
d. The Code of Development, Table B has information about minimum and maximum
dwelling units and density. This issue has been discussed in comments above. Any
change will need to be reflected in theCode of Development.
Response: Noted.
15. The Proffers have been reviewed and at this time there are no comments. Additional review will
be necessary once VDOT comments have been received.
Response: Noted. Proffers have been updated based upon the comments received to date.
Architectural Review Board Comments
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Date: 1/21/22
Sheet 10 of the Application Plan includes a character section along Airport Road that shows
a 6-story hotel whose front does not face the EC street next to a restaurant that looks
equivalent to 2 stories in height. The illustrated buildings do not suggest building size,
scale, form or style have been considered in terms of harmonizing the view from the EC
street. Buildings located along Airport Road should have fronts facing Airport Road and
should be designed to provide comfortable transitions in height, form andstyle.
Response: A note has been added to the character sections sheet that states: "Development
along the Entrance Corridor will be designed to meet ARB guidelines."
Comments from Economic Development
Office Received from J.T. Newberry on
1/24/22
The Economic Development Office has reviewed the materials submitted for
ZMA202100016: North Fork, UVa. Discovery Park for consistency with Project ENABLE
and provides the following comments:
Project ENABLE specifically identifies the University of Virginia Foundation as a critical
partner to its future success. The Foundation manages the development and operation
of North Fork, which contains the largest concentration of industrial zoning in the
County. Industrial zoning is required for many of the County's existing primary
businesses as well as its four primary target industries:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Additionally, industrially zoned property that is "site ready" is critical to the mission of
Project ENABLE.Site ready property is defined as having the necessary infrastructure
already in place (or can be delivered within 12-18 months) and all permit issues
identified and quantified.
ii
This application retains over 350 acres of industrial zoning within North Fork; over
200 acres of which have already been certified at a "Tier 4" level of site readiness
under the Commonwealth's Virginia Business Ready Sites Program. The certified Tier 4
acreage within North Fork remains an area of focus for future economic development
activities, but the remaining industrial acreage is important as well. The certified Tier
acreage is delineated in blue in the map below.
The Economic Development Office does not expect the conversion of 172 acres from
PD-IP to NMDzoning to undermine North Fork's ability to attract target industries. In
fact, it may enhance its attractiveness because "workforce" continues to be the top
site selection factor according to corporate real estate executives.
Workforce includes both the availability of skilled labor and the presence of
workforce development initiatives to serve the long-term needs of businesses. The
availability of proximate housing and placemaking elements as proposed in the
NMD area may be especially attractive to certain target industries and provide
North Fork a point of differentiation from other sites. There are examples ofother
research parks that have successfully integrated these elements (see list of research
below).
In responding to recent private sector interest about land within North Fork, EDO
staff found several existing proffers serve as a barrier to economic development
goals. Specifically, proffers with quantified triggers for certain infrastructure
improvements related to water, sewer, and transportation are outdated or do not
align with the latest planning efforts in the area.
Factors Favorable:
We believe the introduction of residential, commercial, and other amenities
proposed under the NMD zoning will complement and enhance the desirability
of the existing and future employment -based uses. The benchmarking below
shows almost all other peer research parks contain commercial activities,
amenities, and some include residential components (but none to our
knowledge include affordable housing).
The proposal does not negatively impact the land set aside for economic
development purposeswhich is certified as Tier 4 site ready under the VBRSP
and may enhance its attractiveness (Goa13, Project ENABLE)
The proposal will provide greater flexibility and certainty for prospective
businesses by updating proffers, updating and simplifying the land use matrix,
7
and integrating new acreage under the overall North Fork zoning (Goal 2, Project
ENABLE)
The proposal plans for future interparcel connectivity with adjacent
industrially zoned properties
Factors Unfavorable:
Economic Development staff believes the applicant should work closely with
RWSA to ensure the conveyance of water for mixed -use and residential
construction within North Fork does notserve as a barrier to the expansion of
existing businesses, nor the establishment of future employment -based uses.
Research links
1.
What Exactly is Workforce
Housing and Why is it Important?
I Community
and Economic Development
- Bloa by UNC School of Government
2.
Research Trian Ig e Park I Where People+ Ideas Converge (rtp.orgZ
3.
2008ResearchParkReoort.odf
(uli.org) (page 8)
4.
University Research Park I CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE PROPERTIES
(no residential)
5.
The UC Irvine Research Park:
Paving the way for innovation
& Technology
(universitylaboartners.org)
commercial and amenities, no
residential... but
surrounded byapartments
6. Amenities I UI Research Park (uiowa.edu) commercial and amenities, no residential
7. Our Vision I Technology Enterprise Park (gatech.edu) has residential too....
8. VA Bio+Tech Park Companies only....
9. Community I Discovery District (umd.edu) Commercial, amenities, no residential
Response: Thank you for your comments. UVA Foundation and RWSA has had ongoing discussions about the
capacity needs and potential issues with the development of North Fork related to RWSA's schedule for
upgrades to address capacity. RWSA has indicated there will be adequate capacity but reserves the right to
confirm at each site plan.
1.1
C�OF ALBS,, 401 McIntire Road,
County of Albemarle North Wing
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Charlottesville, VA
GLBctx�P 22902-4579
Telephone: 434-296-
5832
ZMA Application Plan review WWWALBEMARLE.ORG
(TIA, Proffers)
Project title:
North Fork
Project file
ZMA
number:Plan
ZMA2021000
preparer:
16
Craig Kotarski, PE rrimmons Group,
Applicant:
craig.kotarski@timmons.com608 Preston Ave., Suite
2001 Charlottesville, VA 22903
Primary
University of Virginia Foundation, Chris Schooley
Contact:
cschooley(Cbuvafoundation.com
Plan received
Valerie Long, Esq. Williams Mullen
vlonaPwilliamsmullen.com321E. Main St.,
date: Date of
Charlottesville, VA 22902
comments:
15 Dec 2021
Plan
21 Jan 2022
Coordinator:
Bill Fritz
Reviewer:
John Anderson, PE
Engineering has reviewed ZMA Application (Narrative, TIA, proffer statement) and offers these
review comments.
ZMA202 100016
i. 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 ViewLLC, TMPs 03200-00-00-009CO
and 03200-00-00-01007, respectively. Logistically, may be difficult,
impractical, or impossible. IfVDOT makes no similar recommendation for
block F to Dickerson Roadinter-parcelconnection, then this Engineering
recommendation is withdrawn.
Response: VDOT nor the Transportation Planner made this comment, nor is
this connection shown on the Places29 Master Plan, therefore this
interconnection has not been shown.
F7
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).
Response: The turn lanes are now shown on the street section sheet within the
plan set.
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( I), p. A( I)-77, parallel parking. [
https://www.virainiadot.ora/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/Appenda 1.12dfl
Response: A note has been added.
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.).
Response: Labels have been added to the plan accordingly.
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 ofthis statement. The Application Plan Code of
Development proposes only general parking requirements. Ch. 18-4.12
lists specific safety and convenience -based parking standards, which
should not be superseded by the Application Plan Code of
Development.
Response: Per our email correspondence on March 1, 2022, the note
has been modified to state: the Code of Development supersedes all of
4.12 except the minimum design sections 4.12.15-4.12-19.
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.
Response: Section has been updated accordingly.
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.].
Response: Code of Development has been updated to be consistent with this code
section.
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 -I, 2024. Provide conceptual
graphic depictions of block -centered SWM facilities likely required with
development after Jul -I, 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- I, 2024. Evaluate NMD blocks B-10, B-11, D-1,
D-2, and F, and provide graphic depiction of SWM BMPsfor these areas.
[18-33.4.E. Table /NMD]
Response: Conceptual locations are shown on sheet 17, Exhibit P: Conceptual
Stormwater Management Plan with a note that those areas are conceptual
only and final locations and BMPs will be determined with future site plans.
b. In blocks F and D-2, certain landscape features may be SWM facilities,
aesthetic amenities, or acombination. If features shown in Exhibit D,
NMD-PDIP conceptual master plan are SWM facilities (image below),
please show /label as SWM on the SWM conceptual plan.
Response: See response to comment a. Pond is labeled on sheet 17.
Excerpt image: (ref blue circled features)
11
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.
Response: The areas or decision to designate conserved open space is
unknown at this time and subject to change in the future. If used for
stormwater quality areas will be shown on future WPO/VSMP plans.
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 plan
notwithstanding ZMA depiction of approximate locations. SWM
locations are flexible to meetdesign 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.
Response: See sheet 17. We are currently intending to modify and use the
pond. The pond is labeled, and the strategy is explained in the Channel
Protection narrative. Flood Protection section has been updated to clarify
an adequate channel of pipe system will be provided for the 10-year storm
to the flood plain.
12
e. Last row, Table 18-33.4.E: Please include narrative discussion that
considers this item:'Strategiesfor 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.
Response: We have the narratives explaining general stormwater quantity and
quality on the plan. As we discussed items like phasing are unknown at this point
and we would prefer to keep items less specific when possible to allow future
flexibility and avoid confusion later on.
f. EFF. 7/1/2024: 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. 7/1/24,
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 ul2strearn 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.
Response: Understood. While the Stormwater narratives are kept as generic as
possible to allow flexibility the Channel Protection section mentions using a trunk
line to convey water directly to the pond if needed. This applies before 2024 if the
channels don't have capacity or after to meet energy balance.
7. Narrative, at p. 15, Stormwater 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 -I, 2024, since, at that time, new technical
criteria (11 B / 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- I, 2014, will, Jul -I,
2024, apply to all land developments disturbing areas above specific thresholds,
13
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 storrnwater quality and
quantity control as UVAF North Fork UVA Discovery Park enters constructive
phases on or after Jul- I, 2024.
iliote: Sheet 14 of the Application Plan confirms 'the approval for the pond will
expire in 2024. [And that] For storrnwater quantity for future development, the
pond will be modified to detain the required amount ofwater quantity per the
current regulations.') Note, however, item 6, 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.
Response: The narratives describe the general strategy and the plan to modify the
riser. While we have done background calculations to make sure this is feasible, we
don't want to show that level of detail with the rezoning as it will be fully developed
and shown in future WPO/ VSMP plans.
8. Proffers
a. Transportation, 5.9.C. ref. to Exhibit M does not correspond with Application Plan
Exhibit M.
Please check /revise, as needed.
Response: Proffers and exhibits have been updated to match accordingly.
b. 5.5; 5.6-These proffers tie improvements to approval of dwelling units
(800'\ 1300`h). 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
of8001h or 1300`h unit is reached may lead to prolonged approval delay as
roadway/turn lane improvements commence, arebuilt, and completed. Until
that time, units 80 1 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.
14
Response: The TIA, proffers, and plans have been updated based upon County
Transportation Planning and VDOT comments. Please see updated information
regarding timing of improvements.
15
Comments from Howard Lagomarsino
Dated 1/21/22
Fire Rescue has no objection to the ZMA but below is an example of Fire Rescue concerns
to consider ifthis project moves forward to other phases of the process:
1) Emergency apparatus access per code
2) Adequate water supply for fire suppression per code
3) Disaster prevention and mitigation
4) Impact of 1400 households on response needs - 2020 census shows a 2.42 person per
household average for the hosueholds in this County. Adding 1400 households suggests
a roughly 2400 personincrease in County population - how does this effect response
assets/needs
Response: Noted. Given the proximity of the existing Fire/Rescue station within North Fork, with the
prior dedication of land for the station, we anticipate that adequate Fire/Rescue response is provided.
COUNTY OFALBEMARLE
Parks & Recreation Department
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Telephone (434) 296-5844 1 Fax (434) 293-0299
To: Bill Fritz, AICP, Development Process Manager, Community Development
Department —Lead Reviewer for ZMA202100016 (UVA North Fork Discovery
Center)
From: Tim Padalino, AICP, Chief of Parks Planning, Parks & Recreation
DepartmentDate: January 28, 2022
Subject: ACPR Review Comments for ZMA202100016 — UVA North Fork Discovery
Center(Dated December 13, 2021)
ACPR Review Status: "See Recommendations'
ACPR Review Comments:
1. ACPR staff have reviewed application materials for ZMA202100016, as well as relevant zoning
materials for previously -approved Zoning Map Amendments involving the subject properties
included inZMA202100016 Project Narrative and Application Plan, and request the following
clarifications and information:
[ZMA202100016 Project Narrative]:
A. Please clarify which recreational amenities are currently being providedand which
amenitiesare being voluntarily proffered; and of the amenities to be voluntarily
proffered with ZMA202100016, please provide project details and identify when such
amenities will be developed and dedicated to the County for public use.
Comment #1.A explanation: ACPR recognizes and affirms the Foundation's prior
dedication ofa 100' greenway easement along the North Fork of the Rivanna River from
Dickerson Road to
U.S. 29 (as recorded in Deed Book 3532, Pages 588-598, on December 27, 2007).
However, ACPR is not aware of any dedication or provision of a "greenway trail," "an
extension of the trailover the Route 29 bridge," or "dedicated Sports Field."
The Project Narrative explains that "The portion of North Fork remaining PDIP
includes openspace, trails, cemetery, and a proffered dedicated athletic field" in the
section titled "Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles / Parks, Recreational
17
Amenities and OpenSpace." Similarly, the section titled "Impacts on Public Facilities &
Public Infrastructure" — "Parks' explains that "Included in the previous rezonings,
proffers were provided for the dedication to the County of a greenway and trail along
the Rivanna River and an extensionof the trail over the Route 29 bridge when the
adjacent property develops similar connections, as well as a dedicated Sports Field
within the PDIP area. The recreational amenities continue to be provided, and
together with the additional recreational amenities provided in the NMD area, will
offer a variety of options for recreation for both the public andthe residents of North
Fork."
Response: The plans and proffers have been updated to indicate which are dedicated
to public use, publicly accessible, and which will remain private.
[ZMA202100016 Application Plan]:
B. Please revise Exhibits A, B, C, and D of the Application Plan for ZMA202100016 to accurately
depict and describe the existing 100' greenway easement along the North Fork of the Rivanna
River (as recorded in Deed Book 3532, Pages 588-598, on December 27, 2007).
Response: The Exhibits and Plan have been updated accordingly.
C. Please revise Exhibit D to clarify which Open Space Areas and Recreational Amenities
are existing and which are proposed; and for proposed recreational amenities, please
describe thescope and proposed timing of development (and dedication, as may be
applicable).
Response: A new Exhibit E has been added to indicate the existing amenities, open
space, and potential public amenities including references to proffers.
D. Please clarify if the Green Space area (and trail network within the Green Space)
in theproposed NMD District would be publicly accessible.
Response: Access to the existing and proposed trail system outside of the
dedicated greenway at North Fork will be managed by the UVA Foundation.
E. Please provide more information about the proposed "Trailhead Locations' and
"Potential Trailhead Locations" in the proposed NMD District, including whether or
not those would bepublicly accessible and if they would accommodate vehicular
access or not.
Response: Trailheads have been removed from the plan set, since at the rezoning
stage it is unknown if and where these trailheads would be located and the details
of the facilities that would be included. The Foundation anticipates including
signage at a minimum at appropriate locations for the trails and is open to
discussion on the County's need or request for a future trailhead.
In locations where trails are proposed to cross streets or travelways, please clarify if
those locations would include any safety accommodations, including but not limited to
signage, pavement markings, crosswalks, and/or any other safety enhancements. Please
note that suchenhancements would likely require justification to and approval from
VDOT at locations involving public street ROWs.
Response: A note has been added to the plan that states: "signage and striping will be
provided for crossings subject to VDOT approval at site plan".
18
2. ACPR staff have reviewed application materials for ZMA202100016, as well as relevant zoning
materials for previously -approved Zoning Map Amendments involving the subject properties
included inZMA202100016 Project Narrative and Application Plan, and have also referenced
applicable formally- adopted plans and other relevant studies including the following:
■ Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan —
o Attach. A: "Greenway Plan for the Development Areas' (Figure 3, Page 11.15)
o Attach. B: "Greenway Plan Details" Appendix Item — Future Major Greenway Trails
in theDevelopment Areas' (Page A.11.25)
o Attach. C: "Greenway Plan Details" Appendix Item — River and Stream Crossings'
(PageA.11.26)
■ Places 29 Master Plan —
o Attach. D: "Parks and Green Systems Map North"
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment —
o Attach. E: "Facility Rankings' (Figure 3.3.2, Page 52
■ Virginia Outdoors Plan —
o Attach. F: "North Fork Rivanna River Proposed Water Trail" / Virginia
Outdoors PlanMapper / Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper (arcgis.com)
After this review, ACPR staff anticipate that the proposed residential uses would
contribute to increased use of and impacts to the County's public recreational facilities
and open spaces. Weacknowledge your proposal includes some proposed recreational
amenities which could help tomitigate the reasonably anticipated impacts.
However, with regard to existing and formally planned recreational facilities and open spaces,
ACPRstaff are partially unable to determine that this proposal is consistent with the above -
noted plans andstudies, and are partially unable to determine if this proposal is consistent
with prior ZMA approvals and proffers. Therefore, ACPR recommends the following specific
revisions to ZMA202100016:
A. ACPR recommends that the timing of the development of proposed and proffered
recreationalamenities in ZMA202100016 be expedited to be concurrent with the initial
phase of proposed NMD development. This recommendation is made with the
following important considerations:
i. in order to help mitigate reasonably anticipated impacts on existing County
facilities thatwould be generated by the proposed new residential uses, by
accommodating some of the increased recreational needs on -site;
ii. in anticipation of the proposed future residents' needs for convenient
access torecreational amenities and natural open spaces;
in light of the ongoing gap between demand for and supply of athletic fields; and
iv. in response to the 2018 Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Needs
Assessment,which identifies the County's need for specific types of facilities
and amenities by ranked priority in Figure 3.3.2 "Facility Rankings."
W,
Response: Proffers have been updated to align the timing of the recreational facility
within Dabney Grove with the 201" residential unit. In addition, a proffer has been
offered that includes land dedication for future sports and recreation fields and
facilities. We believe these revised proffers are proportional to the timing and
impact of adding residential to North Fork, given the Neighborhood Model District
has a 20% amenity requirement as well.
B. ACPR recommends that the proposal include development and dedication of a
publicly- accessible greenway trailhead for the "Rivanna Greenbelt," as well as
development and dedication of a greenway trail [built within the existing "Rivanna
Greenbelt" and meeting "ClassB — Type 2" or "Class A — Type 1" standards as identified
in the Albemarle County EngineeringDesign Manual (2015)] to accommodate public
access to and recreational use and enjoyment of the previously -dedicated riverfront
greenway area.
Note: Because the Foundation has previously dedicated a greenway easement along the
NorthFork of the Rivanna River to the County, the County can coordinate with the
Foundation on establishing a construction access easement and/or related easements
that would be necessary to develop a greenway trail within the "Rivanna Greenbelt"
portion of the subject property's Open Space.
Response: Please see revised proffers, new Exhibit E, and included deed for Rivanna
Greenway. The deed for the Greenway includes a provision that states that the County
will build the trail within that dedicated area. A new easement has been offered for
Jacob's Run, as well as a trail connection from Dabney Grove to the Greenways. In
addition, area within the floodplain along Dickerson Rd. has been designated for the
County to develop athletic field and other recreational amenities.
C. ACPR recommends that the proposal include development and dedication of a
publicly- accessible river access point and (non -motorized) boat launch facility near
Dickerson Roadwithin the "Rivanna Greenbelt," to enable public access to and (non -
motorized) recreationaluse and enjoyment of the North Fork of the Rivanna River,
which is currently not publicly accessible.
Note: Because the Foundation has previously dedicated a greenway easement along the
NorthFork of the Rivanna River to the County, the County can coordinate with the
Foundation on establishing a construction access easement and/or related easements
that would be necessary to develop a river access point and boat launch facility within
the "Rivanna Greenbelt" portion of the subject property's Open Space.
Response: The dam on the Rivanna River owned by RWSA is dangerous according to
RWSA. Considering RWSA is slated to decommission the adjacent pump station and
remove the dam on the Rivanna in the next few years, it is recommended by the
Foundation that ACPR coordinate with RWSA to provide river access from RWSA's
publicly held parcel following the decommission of the facility once it is made safer by
the removal of the dam.
K1]
D. ACPR recommends that the proposal include the development and dedication of the
athletic fields complex, including multi -purpose athletic fields, parking, and other
unidentified improvements or amenities, as conceptually shown on ZMA202100016
Application Plan ExhibitD "Conceptual Master Plan."
Note: ZMA199500004 Proffer 6.1 "Developed Recreational Areas" and ZMA200500003 Proffer
6.1 "Developed Recreational Areas" both previously proffered the development and
dedicationof "ball fields" or "sports fields" (respectively) to the County for public use,
but these recreational amenities were not depicted on ZMA202100016 Application Plan
"Exhibit N. - Open Space System Phasing Plan." Those previously -proffered recreational
amenities have not been developed or dedicated; and the need for and benefit of such
facilities has grown since those prior proffered commitments (and would increase
further with the development of proposed residential uses within the subject property).
Response: The proffers have been updated to include a recreational field/area at
Dabney Grove to include a picnic area and restrooms. This recreation area will be
owned and maintained by the Foundation and be generally available to the public. In
addition, a proffer has been added for the dedication of land near the river for future
sports fields to be constructed by the County.
E. ACPR recommends that the proposal include the platting and dedication of a
greenway easement along Jacobs Run, between Dickerson Road and the existing 100'
greenway easement along the North Fork, to accommodate the formally planned
greenway connection between the North Fork of the Rivanna River and Chris Greene
Lake Park.
Response: The Application Plan and proffers have been updated to provide this
connection.
21
MEMORANDUM
To: Applicant
From: Kevin McDermott; Planning Manager
Date: February 24, 2022
Re: ZMA202100016 — North Fork Transportation Comments
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation Planning has
reviewed theabove referenced plan and associated traffic impact analysis as submitted by Timmons Group
(December 2021) and offers the following comments:
Traffic Impact Analysis
Development Trip Generation Numbers contained in the Executive Summary do not match the Trip
GenerationN umbers shown in the table on 8-1
Response: Tables have been updated to reflect the appropriate numbers. The figures and analysis
models match, however, an older table was left within the report.
You list North Fork Research Park as a background development, but since this project is amending
that rezoning itwould be more appropriate to include those numbers as part of this development and
then separate out gross and net numbers. This application doesn't propose to change the approved
uses and square footage, but it could if the applicant determined that the overall development would
be more appropriate at a smaller scale. Further, it would provide a more appropriate evaluation of
impacts to consider the entire development and be more consistent with other development
proposals the County has reviewed.
Response: The TIA has been updated to reflect the overall impact and include only what has been
built in the existing PDIP area as background.
Are the proposed Carriage Units and/or Accessory Apartments allowed by the Code of
Development included inthe total units? Does the ITE Manual have a recommendation as to how
those should be accounted for?
Response: The Code of Development has been updated to clarify that either a carriage unit or an
accessory apartment can be built on one lot, but not both. In addition, there are regulations
regarding size for the carriage unit within the COD that matches those in the ordinance for
accessory apartment. Since a carriage unit is simply an accessory apartment not contained in the
main structure, the TIA has not been updated to reflect these units. Accessory apartments are by -
right in all residential districts and have historically not been counted towards density or
transportation impacts for by -right or rezoning projects.
How does WB Airport Rd see such significant improvements to delay from Future No Build to the
Future Build inall analyzed years?
Response: Signal timings were optimized in build conditions to reflect routine retiming done by
VDOT. This movement was failing under existing/background conditions causing delay to increase
exponentially. Any small improvement will reduce delay by a significant amount. The movement is
over capacity and any small change in signal timing for the WB approach can improve operations
drastically.
In the Principle Findings the statement is made that "Under the 2037 Total conditions no major
capacity or queueing issues are noted outside of those background issues along the signalized US
Route 29 Corridor." The background and Total analyses show that every intersection has failing LOS,
often so bad that the queueing will back up through adjacent intersections. It may be the case that
22
these are not noted simply because it can't get anyworse during the peak hour but the likely outcome
is that the poor operations extend well outside of peak hour. I think the TIA needs to identify the
significantly failing operations and attempt to identify any potential improvements that could be
made to address these issues.
Response: The recommended improvements have been updated to include additional improvements
at specific intersections that are most impacted by the North Fork development. The intersections of
Lewis & Clark Drive and Airport Road are the most impacted along the US Route 29 by site
development and improvements have been recommended at specific trip thresholds to mitigate
operational issues along the corridor. The recommended improvements are in response to specific
failing operations and oriented to provide relief for locations that are most impacted by the
proposed North Fork development.
• Overall, the addition of what is likely well over 13,000 daily trips to a network that already has
significant operational issues is a concern.
Response: It is acknowledged that the background volume growth along the US Route 29 corridor
will create significant operational and capacity issues prior to the development of any portion of the
North Fork site. As North Fork is developed, the recommended improvements will provide some
relief to the overall network and extend its operational capacity. The proposed improvements are
not intended to correct existing or background issues, only those created by additional volume
generated by the North Fork site.
Narrative
• On page 9 applicant discusses the Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities and references the
provision of busstops. They are referenced in the Code of Development also but it remains vague on
the commitment to provide those. Can there be any further references in the application plan
regarding potential locations, number and amenity types?
Response: The plan has been updated to indicate the potential location and number of bus stops.
The Foundation will work with the County and CAT on the details of what is included at the stops
during the site plan and/or subdivision stage.
• On page 11 in the first paragraph the applicant discusses how the residential component will be
added to alreadyapproved PDIP uses but in the second paragraph only discusses the additional trips
added by the new residential rezoning. Shouldn't the total trip impact include both the new and
existing uses, especially if the updated proffersare proposed to replace the existing proffers. A not
insignificant amount of the background trips come from the approved uses.
Response: The narrative has been updated to reflect changes to the TIA.
Proffers
• Proffer 5.9 (C) references an Exhibit M that doesn't appear to be in the Application Plan.
o This proffer specifically references a grade separated interchange. What if VDOT identifies an
alternativerecommendation for this intersection?
• It appears the proposed proffers address the proposed turning movements in and out of the Lewis
and Clark entrance from US 29 but there are no proffers to address the impact of the development
on mainline US 29 or atthe other impaired intersections identified as " 1.", "2.", and "3." in the TIA,
correct?
• The proffers are similar to those already in place associated with the existing development but
appear to removethe previous proffer to add a third lane on US 29 between Lewis and Clark and
Airport Road (Proffer 5A(C). Is thatcorrect?
Response: The proffers have been updated to reflect the recommendations in the updated TIA.
Application Plan
• Exhibit C NMD-PDIP Application Plan: Should proposed roads be shown for Area B?
23
Response: Block B10 and B11 are anticipated to be mostly rental or apartment units with travelways
and not streets, however a travelway or road network has been added to the plans to anticipate
changed in use type.
Exhibit H Street Sections:
o The SUP proposed along Lewis and Clark should have a minimum 8' buffer between the curb
and the SUP.
Response: The section has been updated to include a 8' buffer between the curb and the
path/trail.
o Are all Primary and Secondary Streets proposed to be public streets?
Response: Please see Code of Development Section V for street design. All streets are
proposed to be public unless requested to be private at site plan or subdivision stage.
o Please provide information on the streets proposed in the reconfigured PDIP section of the
development including cross -sections, which are intended to be public roads, private roads, or
travelways, etc. Since thisis replacing the previously approved rezoning and the proposal
significantly reconfigures that section of the development that information will need to be
included in this rezoning.
Response: A note has been added to the plan that states that streets will be built per VDOT
standards.
The Code of Development allows Carriage Units and Accessory Apartments in all residential blocks.
Have thesebeen included in the maximum units that the TIA proposes? The TIA is required to
assess for the absolute maximum of development
Response: As stated above, the Code of Development has been updated to clarify that either a
carriage unit or an accessory apartment can be built on one lot, but not both. In addition, there are
regulations regarding size for the carriage unit within the COD that matches those in the ordinance
for accessory apartment. Since a carriage unit is simply an accessory apartment not contained in
the main structure, the TIA has not been updated to reflect these units. Accessory apartments are
by -right in all residential districts and have historically not been counted towards density or
transportation impacts for by -right or rezoning projects.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to
contact me.
Kevin M. McDermott
Planning
Manager
Albemarle
County 401
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414
kmcdermott@albemarle.org
24
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Bnch, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
January 17, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development401
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902Attn: Kevin
McDermott
Re: North Fork Residences — Rezoning RequestZMA-2021-
00016
Review #1 Dear Mr.
McDermott:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land UseSection, has
reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Timmons Group, dated 13 December 2021, and
offers the following comments:
1. Comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis:
a. Appendix A
i. Can you please provide signed copies of the pre scope of work meeting
documents?
Response: Timmons has coordinated with Adam Moore (VDOT) and Kevin
McDermott (Albemarle County) who attended the scoping meeting on 9/23/2021.
A signed copy has been obtained.
ii. Can you please ensure internal allowance/capture is checked on thescoping
form?
Response: The form has been updated to reflect the oversight of not checking
internal capture.
b. General
i. Is there a reason why Berkmar Dr and Towncenter Dr were not included as study
intersections?
Response: VDOT and Albemarle County agreed on the intersections during the
scoping meeting. This location was not requested.
it. Is there a reason why Connor Dr and Timberwood Blvd were not includedas study
intersections?
Response: VDOT and Albemarle County agreed on the intersections during the
scoping meeting. This location was not requested.
iii. The agency has yet to adopt the 11th edition of the ITE Trip Generation M a nual;
latest approved edition is the 10th edition. All trip generation must use the 10th
25
edition.
Response: The use of the 11th Edition was proposed at the scoping meeting and
agreed upon prior to initiation of the traffic study. The 11th edition is the most
recent and updated version available, as such, it provides a more accurate
representation of trip generation.
iv. The agency has yet to adopt SIDRA 9 and thus SIDRA 8 is the currentlyapproved
version for analysis. All round -a -bout analysis must be compatible with SIDRA 8.
Response: The roundabout analysis has been reformated to SIDRA 8.
c. Page 13 - Towncenter Dr is 35mph between Dickerson Rd and Berkmar Dr and25mph
between Berkmar Dr and Route 29
Response: The text has been updated to utilize the correct speed limit. The Synchro
models utilize the correct speed limit.
d. Page 18 (Figure 2-2) - Briarwood Dr/Boulders Rd/Seminole Trail intersection(intersection
5)
Response: Please clarify this comment, it appears additional information is missing.
e. Is there a reason for the storage lane reductions from the Existing to Totalscenarios?
Response: This was an error in the figures only - storage in existing conditions
carried through to background and total conditions instead of updated. The
storage was entered correctly in all Synchro models. The figure will be updated
appropriately.
f. Page 1-2, Data Collection —was there any adjustment made in the traffic volumedue to
COVID-19 pandemic? Please add a sentence here to inform the readers. (Isaw in the later
part of report, it was clarified that no adjustments were made for pandemic. Still I would
recommend clarifying it in the Executive Summary.)
Response: Per discussion during the scoping meeting with VDOT and Albemarle County, it
was assumed that traffic volumes have returned to appropriate levels not to need a traffic
volume adjustment. The executive summary text will be updated to include the
information.
g. Figure 2-1 — Per Google Earth, SB leg of Lewis and Clark Dr and Quail Run intersection has
two through lanes. However, Figure 2-1 shows only one throughlane on this approach.
Please revise or confirm if there is only one through lane currently in the field.
Response: Field visit in 2022 shows 1 SB thru lane. No changes necessary.
h. Figure 2-1 — Per Google Earth, SB leg of US 29 and Timberwood Blvd intersection seems
inconsistent to Google Earth. Please revise or confirm if thelane configuration shows the
current field condition.
Response: Field visit in 2022 shows 1 SB thru lane. No changes necessary.
i. Update the Synchro Models if there's any changes in lane configuration based onthe
comments on Figure 2-1.
Response: No changes necessary based on above responses.
j. Exiting Condition Synchro Models: All conditions should be analyzed with theprovided
signal timing details; optimized iterations can be recommended as separate mitigation
conditions. This process helps better gauge the extent of impact in comparison with the
submitted alternative
Response: The Synchro models for all existing and background conditions have been
updated to match the existing VDOT signal timings. Only build conditions utilize
optimzed signal timings.
i. US 29 and Towncenter Dr: Per the signal timing plan, Phase 3 (WBTL) has minimum
green of 6 sec. But the model existing condition models currently have 5 sec. Please
26
revise. Yellow and All -Red time in the existing condition models do not match with
the timing plan for all phases.Please revise to make sure all phases have correct
Yellow and All -Red times. Also revise the minimum splits accordingly.
Response: The Synchro models for all existing and background conditions have been
updated to match the existing VDOT signal timings. Only build conditions utilize
optimized signal timings.
ii. US 29 and Timberwood Blvd: Please make sure Yellow and All -Red times in the
existing condition models match with sign plan provided.Revise the minimum
splits accordingly, when applicable.
Response: The Synchro models for all existing and background conditions have
been updated to match the existing VDOT signal timings. Only build conditions
utilize optimized signal timings.
iii. US 29 and Lewis & Clark Dr: Please make sure minimum green, yellow,and All -Red
times in the models matches with the sign plan provided. Revise the minimum splits
accordingly, when applicable.
Response: The Synchro models for all existing and background conditions have
been updated to match the existing VDOT signal timings. Only build conditions
utilize optimized signal timings.
iv. US 29 and Boulders Rd: Please make sure Yellow and All -Red times inthe existing
condition models match with sign plan provided. Revise the minimum splits
accordingly, when applicable.
Response: The Synchro models for all existing and background conditions have been
updated to match the existing VDOT signal timings. Only build conditions utilize
optimized signal timings.
k. Please make sure the models for background and total conditions are also updatedbased on
the above comments on existing condition models.
Response: Acknowledged.
Table 3-3 — Should it be "HCM" 95th percentile queue length instead of "HCS"?(This
comment also applies to Table 5-1, Table 6-1, Table 7-1, Table 9-1, Table 10-1, and Table
11-1).
Response: Tables have been updated to reflect "HCM" rather than "HCS".
m. In many cases, the 95th percentile queue lengths are significantly different than the
simulated maximum queue lengths. Please explain why? Which queue lengthsare more
representative of the existing field conditions, 95th percentile queue lengths or simulated
maximum queue lengths?
Response: Maximum queues are recorded from SimTraffic microsimulation modeling. 95th
Percentile queues are theoretical based on the HCM equations, which allows for the 95th to
be longer than Maximum on occasions. This is a known result from use of Synchro for
modeling. Overall, VDOT tends to use Maximum queues as the standard for whether turn
lanes are adequate.
We are open to removing 95th percentile queue lengths from the report and only
reporting/discussing Maximum queues.
n. The number of trips from the proposed development (when complete) appears tobe
different on Page 1-1 and Page 8-1. Please revise or explain.
Response: Tables will be updated to reflect the appropriate numbers. The figures and
analysis models match, however, an older table was left within the report.
27
o. Page 12-1, Section 12.1, Paragraph 1 states that "The intersections of US Route29 with
Airport Road/Proffit Road and with Boulders Road/Briarwood Drive operate with
significant delay during the PM peak hour and create operational issues for adjacent
intersections." Please clarify how it creates operational issuesto adjacent intersections.
Response: The report will be updated to include additional information on what the
impacts of queuing along US Route 29 from both the Airport Road and the Boulders Road
intersectoins will have on the overall study area.
2. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design ManualAppendices
B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or otherrequirements.
Response: Acknowledged.
Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment responseletter. If
further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land UseSection at
(434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E. Area Land Use
Engineer Charlottesville Residency
K:3
R�VANNA 434.977.2970 It
695 Moores Creek Lane I Charlottesville,• 0• 0434.293.8858 1ki
WATERBSEWER AUTHORITY �I www.rivanna.org
July 14, 2022
Mr. Nat Perkins
University of Virginia Foundation
1 Boars Head Pointe
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Perkins,
The RWSA and ACSA have reviewed the University of Virginia Foundation's (UVAF) Application for Zoning
Map Amendment (ZMA), dated December 13, 2021, along with the Phasing Plan, which was provided on
February 25, 2022, following RWSA's initial comments on the ZMA on January 19, 2022 (see Attachment A).
As you may be aware, RWSA completed an update to its Urban System Water Demand Forecast in 2020, as
well as its Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Model Report in 2016. While growth at the North Fork Research
Park (NFRP) was accounted for based upon discussions with UVA/UVAF staff at the time, the type of
development discussed in the ZMA and Phasing Plan far exceeds any previously understood development
proposed for these parcels. As such, RWSA was required to complete a capacity investigation of both its
water and sanitary sewer systems, in order to make sure that the growth at NFRP could be appropriately
served.
For the water system, RWSA took the Phasing Plan provided by UVAF, and applied applicable unit demands as
determined by the Urban Demand Report and Sewage Collection & Treatment (SCAT) Regulations as
appropriate. Unit demands utilized can be found in the table below:
Table 1 — Unit Demands for Water Capacity Analysis
Use
Unit Demand
Residential
125 gallons per dwelling unit per day
Retail/Commercial
90 gallons per 1000 square feet per
day
Hotel
130 gallons per room per day
PDIP
90 gallons per 1000 square feet per
day
Applying these unit demands to the Phasing Plan yields the following water consumption per phase:
Table 2 — Total Water Demand by Phase
Phase
Water Demand (gallons per day - gpd)
1
165,125
2
120,000
3
82,800
4
45,000
Total
412,925
c]
The North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant (NRWTP) is currently the primary source of water for the Piney
Mountain Pressure Zone, where the UVA NFRP, Charlottesville -Albemarle Regional Airport (CHO), and
National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) all reside. NRWTP currently produces approximately 415,000 gpd
on average. Peak production in 2021 was 620,000 gpd.
RWSA is currently constructing the Airport Road Finished Water Pump Station (APFWPS), which will have a
firm capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD). With the completion of APFWPS, as well as a redundant,
larger diameter watermain crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River, NRWTP will be able to be
decommissioned, and APFWPS will become the primary water source for the Piney Mountain Pressure Zone.
NRWTP decommissioning is tentatively scheduled for 2025 but will not be able to take place until both the
APFWPS and second river crossing are constructed and operational. Previous water system modeling found
that the second river crossing was critical to the operation of APFWPS during heavy pumping scenarios. Any
additional demand that comes online prior to NRWTP Decommissioning will necessitate longer run times of
the treatment plant, or utilization of APFWPS once it is operational.
In order to verify that adequate capacity is available to support the growth at the research park, additional
modeling work was performed by RWSA and its Consultant, Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH). In general, it was
found that as long as the second water line crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River is installed (completion
planned April 2024), adequate suction side pressure at APFWPS was maintained, including fire flow scenarios.
On the discharge side, during max -day conditions, demands started to approach and exceed the firm
capacity of APFWPS in the 2030- 2035 scenarios, making it more difficult to fill Piney Mountain Tank and
provide appropriate fire flow response. It is recommended that a third pump be installed in APFWPS during
the 2030- 2035 time period, or as flows dictate, in order to maintain the appropriate level of service to the
Piney Mountain Pressure Zone.
It is important to note that this analysis only concerned advanced growth at NFRP. All other community
growth in water demand was assumed to proceed at the levels outlined in the Urban System Water Demand
Forecast. Additional large-scale growth in the community desired for the same time period as the growth at
NFRP will necessitate additional analysis and may alter the outcomes discussed in this document.
In summary, adequate drinking water capacity is available for NFRP, under the following conditions:
1. Prior to the completion of the Second South Fork Rivanna River Crossing, RWSA reserves the right to
withhold approval on any site plan if water capacity is unavailable. Site plans for each phase will be
reviewed and approved on a case -by -case basis. Build out in each phase (1-4) should not exceed the
projected water usage outlined in the preliminary phasing plan as shown in Table 2.
2. The proffer requiring County approval for single industrial users over 125,000 gal/day should remain in
effect.
01
3. RWSA will monitor metering data from NRWTP and APFWPS, as well as sewer flow meters (see below)
and NFRP irrigation meters as necessary to help further determine when additional pumping may be
required at APFWPS (or other system improvements as may be required). RWSA reserves the right to
withhold approval on any site plan if water capacity is unavailable.
For the sewer system, RWSA utilized the unit demands from the Urban System Water Demand Forecast
discussed in Tables 1 & 2 above, as well as the unit demands from the SCAT Regulations (see Table 3), to
establish upper and lower bounds for the flow expected from NFRP during the various phases.
Table 3 — SCAT Unit Demands
Use
Unit Demand
Residential
270 gallons per dwelling unit per day
Retail/Commercial
250 gallons per 1000 square feet per
day
Hotel
130 gallons per room per day
PDIP
90 gallons per 1000 square feet per day
These unit demands were applied to the Phasing Plan, and similar to the water analysis, allowing a sewage
flow per phase to be identified:
Table 4 — Sanitary Sewer Demand by Phase
Phase
Sewer Demand (gallons per day - gpd)
1
267,625
2
207,000
3
82,800
4
45,000
Total
602,425
For the purposes of establishing the upper and lower flow bounds, the demands shown in Table 2 were
peaked at 200% to establish the lower bound, and the demands from Table 4 above were peaked at 400% to
establish the upper bound. These bounds were applied to the Flow Management Plan from the 2016
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Model Report for the most upstream reach of the Powell Creek Interceptor
(PCI), PC-5. This can be seen below in Figure 1
31
16
14
12
10
a
E s
3
0
lL 6
4
2
0
2005
Figure 1 - Peak Sewer Flows in RWSA's PCI
PC-5
24-
(SuichyWd)
�•�•
��
-- Pipe
r
I
r
........
2912015)
..euuuuuu uuuuuuuu •uuu..uuu. •
Existing 18' 2-yr De 'pn 5tor(n'
ti 2-yr Storim (9j
uuuuuum
—
2015 2026 2035 2045 2055 2066 2075
� Estimated Average Daily Dry Weather Flow
Years Estimated Peak Wet Weather Flow
t Estimated Peak Wet Weather Flow
.... SCAT -Peaked Sewer values (w/ UVAF NFFft
.... Demand Study Values (w/ UVAF NFRP)
All flow from NFRP traverses through gravity ACSA sewer to ACSA's North Fork Regional Pump Station, where
it is then pumped to RWSA's PCI. At the point of entry at sewer reach PC- 5, PCI is constructed of 18" Vitrified
Clay Piping. For a complete overview of the ACSA and RWSA sewer network downstream of NFRP, please see
Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 - ACSA and RWSA Sewer Network
Woodbrook
Interceptor
ACSA
North Fork PS
Camelot
ACSA
Forcemain ---�w
V—ACSA
Gravity
Sewer
melt Creek
terceptor
--1, PC-2
32
As shown above, RWSA's 2016 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Model Report stated that reach PC-5 of
PCI, as well as the next downstream reach, PC-4, would require upgrades by 2066.
Applying the additional flow from NFRP via the upper and lower bounds from the SCAT Regulations and
Urban Demand Report, respectively, generally accelerated upgrades to PCI from 2066 up to 2037-2048.
Similar to drinking water, adequate sanitary sewer capacity is currently available to support the desired
phasing at NFRP, however, it is likely that upgrades to the Powell Creek Interceptor will need to be
significantly advanced from the original 2066 timeframe from the 2016 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer
Model Report. As additional flow comes online from NFRP, additional flow monitoring will need to be
performed, compared with RWSA's existing flow metering available within PCI, and analyzed to
determine the extent and exact timing of upgrades to PCI and possible downstream sewers.
As a result, RWSA and ACSA will require the following:
• In an effort to monitor existing and future sewer discharges, and to work collaboratively, RWSA
and ACSA request that UVAF fund and support a new permanently installed sanitary sewer flow
meter within the effluent pipe for the Research Park. More specifically, UVAF will reimburse
RWSA to install, read, and maintain a flow meter through its Contract with Frazier Engineering
downstream of NFRP (along Lewis and Clark Drive) to determine baseline sewer flows and
monitor additional sewer flows from new development.
• Data from this flow meter will continue to be monitored as additional flow comes online. RWSA
reserves the right to withhold approval on any site plan if sewer capacity is unavailable. Site plans
for each phase will be reviewed and approved on a case -by -case basis. Build out in each phase (1-
4) should not exceed the projected sewer demand outlined in the preliminary phasing plan as
shown in Table 4.
We hope that this will provide UVAF with further clarity on RWSA's available capacity and limitations in
both the drinking water and sanitary sewer systems around NFRP. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding the conditions and requirements discussed herein, please do not hesitate to contact us.
UVA Foundation Response: We understand RSWA's comments to be a confirmation that they have capacity for
the expansion of North Fork but reserve the right to review that on a site plan by site plan basis.
Sincerely,
Pete Gorham, PE
ACSA Director of Engineering
Jennifer A. Whitaker, PE
RWSA Director of Engineering & Maintenance
(47168377.1)
031
34