HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-08-18�q off pig 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, Frank Hancock
fhancockguvafoundation. com
Primary Contact:
Valerie Long, Esq. Williams Mullen vlong(a williamsmullen.com
321 E. Main St., Charlottesville, VA 22902
Plan received date:
15 Dec 2021
(Rev. 1)
5 Aug 2022
Date of comments:
21 Jan 2022
(Rev. 1)
18 Aug 2022 —No objection
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inter -parcel connection, then this Engineering recommendation is withdrawn. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn.
Applicant response (34-p. Memo d. Aug-1, 2022 /M. Nedostup to B. Fritz): `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.'
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). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`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(1), p. A(1)-77, parallel parking. [
htti)s://www.virginiadot.orgibusiness/resources/LocDes/RDM/Appendal.i)df ] (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant: `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.). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`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 of
this 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
should not be superseded by the Application Plan Code of Development. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant: `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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`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.].
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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-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 B-10, B-11, D-1, D-2, and F, and provide graphic depiction of SWM BMPs
for these areas. [18-33.4.E. Table /NMD ] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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 a
combination. 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.
Excerpt image: (ref blue circled features) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `See response to
comment a. Pond is labeled on sheet IT'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `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 plans,
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. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: `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 floodplain.'
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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/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 cone\ c (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`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.'
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-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
storrwater quality and quantity control as UVAF North Fork UVA Discovery Park enters constructive
phases on or after Jul-1, 2024.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
(Note: 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 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`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 WPONSMP 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. (Rev.1) Addressed.
b. 5.5; 5.6—These proffers tie improvements to approval of dwelling units (80011, 13001"). 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 800' or 1300t' 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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `The TIA,
proffers, and plans have been updated based upon County Transportation Planning and VDOT
comments. Please see updated information regarding timing of improvements.' Engineering
defers to County Transportation Planning and VDOT.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 ( ianderson2&albemarle.org ).
Thank you
I Anderson
ZMA202100016 North Fork UVA Discovery Park_081822revl.doc