Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100016 Correspondence 2023-02-17 (2)Response to Comments Dated September 30, 2022 To: Bill Fritz, AICP From: Megan Nedostup, AICP RE: ZMA 2021-16 North Fork UVA Discovery Park Date: February 17, 2023 Planning Comments: 1. Your request for the disturbance of Steep Slopes — Preserved has been reviewed and can generally be supported. The proposed areas of disturbance generally appear to be in areas that are fragmented, have been previously disturbed or can reasonably be considered for disturbance by prior actions. However, one area does not appear to meet these criteria. The area is highlighted below. At this time staff cannot support disturbance of this area. Response: Preserved slopes exhibit has been revised to no longer show disturbance of this area. B-9 1� n =ram UWF -JUJ:S 2. The prior proffers for ZMA 2005-03 include proffer 6.1. This proffer included recreational improvements and dedication of land. Staff cannot support the elimination of this proffer with the current rezoning application. The need for these recreational areas is only increased with the additional of residential development within the project. Response: Proffers have been updated to include dedication of Dabney Grove. 3. Dickerson dedication. The existing proffer states E. The one hundred fifty (150) foot buffer adjacent to Dickerson Road and shown as "150' Buffer Area' on Exhibit K, maybe reduced by up to fifty (50) feet if the dedication of right of way is required for the widening of Dickerson road by VDOT. If the dedication of right of way is required for the widening of Dickerson Road, the Applicant shall dedicate, without monetary consideration, the right of way upon written request by the County. The right of way shall be conveyed within six (6) months following the Applicant's receipt of the written request. If the right of way is dedicated by one or more subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the right of way and bear a notation that the right of way is dedicated for public use. If the right of way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the applicant shall pay the costs of surveying the right of way to be dedicated, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one or more deeds of dedication, which shall convey the right of way to the County in fee simple and shall be in the form of a general warranty deed. The proposed proffer does not include provision for dedication of right of way. Response: The proffer has been updated to include dedication of right of way. (Proffer 5) 4. Exhibit C and Exhibit D do not match each other in the highlighted area. Exhibit C shows the area as Open Space and Exhibit D shows the area as parking. The various sheets should not conflict. Response: Exhibit D has been updated to show the area as Open Space. \ " tsioct GrH1.A1eEA1TY ❑ Gree ❑ Presl Prop ^2 8 OLLYq Dickerson Road J SWLLIXG. ASHLEY � M q [XR6T0VEN L MGLEAM uffer le _ l I _ J/j/� i� /� / 41 Development Blocks ZMA Acre 5. Parks and Rec have provided comments. It is my understanding that you will be speaking with them directly to address the comments. Response: The Foundation met with Parks and Recreation on December 2, 2022 to discuss their comments and the proffers and plans have been updated accordingly to reflect the meeting's conversation. See response to Parks and Recreation comments below. 6. VDOT has provided comments. It is my understanding that you will be speaking with Kevin McDermott directly to address the transportation comments. Response: The Foundation met with Kevin McDermott on December 21, 2022 to discuss the transportation comments and the proffers and plans have been updated accordingly to reflect the meeting's conversation. See response to Transportation Planning and VDOT comments below. RWSA Comments: Water RWSA is currently working on several relevant projects, including the Airport Road Finished Water Pump Station (APFWPS) and a second watermain crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River. APFWPS will ultimately become the primary water source of the Piney Mountain Pressure Zone (serves NFRP), and will ultimately allow the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant (NRWTP) to be decommissioned, once the second crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River is in place, scheduled tentatively for 2025. Response: Noted. 2. 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 the table below. This table was formulated using buildout densities by phase from the applicant, as well as unit demands from RWSA's 2020 Urban Water Demand Study. Phase Water Demand (gallons per day - gpd) 1 (2023-2025) 165,125 2 (2026-2028) 120,000 3(2029-2031) 82,800 4 (2032-2034) 45,000 Total 41 Z925 Response: Noted. 3. The proffer requiring County approval for single industrial users over 125,000 gal/day should remain in effect. Response: This proffer continues to be included. 4. 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. Response: Noted. 5. Adequate drinking water capacity is currently available for this proposal, so as long as the conditions discussed above are followed. Response: Noted. Sanitary Sewer 1. 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. Response: Noted. 2. As a result, RWSA and ACSA will require 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 (now CHA Consulting) downstream of NFRP (along Lewis and Clark Drive) to determine baseline sewer flows and monitor additional sewer flows from new development. Response: Noted. The Foundation understands that the determination of baseline sewer flows will occur during the site plan. 3. Data from this flow meter will continue to be monitored as additional flow comes online, and will be utilized to better determine the updated timeline for upgrades to the Powell Creek Interceptor and downstream sewers as appropriate. 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 the table below. This table was formulated using buildout densities by phase from the applicant, as well as unit demands from the SCAT Regulations. Please note that this is average daily flow and does not include peaking factors for wet -weather events caused by I&I. Phase Sewer Demand (gallons per day - gpd) 1 (2023-2025) 267,625 2 (2026-2028) 207,000 3(2029-2031) 82,800 4 (2032-2034) 45,000 Total 60Z425 Response: Noted. Parks and Recreation Comments: Proffer 6. Recreational Areas, Trails, and Open Space. 6.A: "Dabney Grove Recreation Area" Proffer 6.A — Recommendations.' 1. ACPR recommends thatthe applicants provide clarifying details for their intentions relating to the proposed Dabney Grove Recreation Area being "generally available" for public use, including clarifying if the proposed picnic area and restrooms would be publicly accessible; 2. ACPR recommends that the "Dabney Grove Recreation Area" proffer meet or exceed existing commitments at Dabney Grove from ZMA200500003 (including, in particular, the dedication of the "Sports Fields" / "Sports Fields parcel" to the County for public use); 3. ACPR recommends thatthe applicants provide some amount of publicly -available parking at Dabney Grove Recreation Area to (partially) facilitate public use of the field, the picnic area, and the proffered Trail Connection(s) to the planned greenway trail along the North Fork Rivanna River; and 4. ACPR recommends that the applicants expedite the timing of the development and dedication of the proposed Dabney Grove Recreation Area amenities, in order to more closely coincide with the commencement of the initial residential uses at the UVA North Fork Discovery Center subject properties. Proffer 6. Recreational Areas, Trails, and Open Space. 6.B: "Sports Field/Active Recreation Area Land Dedication" Proffer 6.8 —Recommendations: 1. ACPR recommends that the applicants reconsider what types of recreational proffers would best be able to offset reasonably anticipated impacts to existing recreation areas, and to best accommodate increases in recreational demands, in ways that are more highly suitable and feasible at the UVA North Fork Discovery Center subject properties. 2. Please seethe following ACPR recommendations pertaining to proposed Proffers 6.C.a, 6.C.b, 6.D, and Application Plan (below) for more specific examples of recommended modifications, which are geared more specifically towards the recommended development and dedication of a publicly -accessible network of greenway trails with public parking opportunities at appropriate trailhead locations. Proffer 6. Recreational Areas, Trails, and Open Space. 6.C: Pedestrian Trails - 6.C.a. "Trail Connecting Dabney Grove Park Parcel to a Greenway Trail" Proffer 6. C. a —Recommendations: 1. In order to maximize the recreational capacity and value of the Connection Trail(s) and the recreational amenities they would connect with, ACPR recommends that the applicants construct a minimum of two of the three potential Connection Trails shown on Exhibit E. 2. In order to better accommodate relatively high levels of recreational use on the Connection Trails and the recreational amenities they would connect with, ACPR recommends that the Connection Trails be designed and built as Class B Type 2 trails (with minimum 5' trail surface width, compacted stone dust surface material, and complying with maximum grades and maximum cross -slopes). ACPR does not recommend Class B Type 1 primitive trails for these Connection Trails. 3. In order to accommodate the planned and proffered trails along the North Fork Rivanna River, ACPR recommends an amended (enlarged) greenway easement area that provides sufficient suitable land for construction of a greenway trail along the North Fork Rivanna River (but outside of the floodway), and which accommodates the siting and construction of a bike/ped bridge at a suitable, feasible location across Jacob's Run. 4. In order to ensure that these proposed proffered recreation amenities are implemented and available for public and private uses, ACPR recommends that the applicants construct the Rivanna River Greenway Trail along the North Fork Rivanna River, from Dickerson Road to US-29 ROW (designed and built as Class B Type 2 trails with minimum 5' trail surface width, compacted stone dust surface material, and complying with maximum grades and maximum cross -slopes). 5. ACPR also recommends that the applicants expedite the timing of the development and dedication of these proposed recreation amenities, in order to more closely coincide with the commencement of the initial residential uses at the UVA North Fork Discovery Center subject properties. Proffer 6. Recreational Areas. Trails, and Open Space. 6.C: Pedestrian Trail" - 6.C.b. "Public Pedestrian Trail within Jacob's Run Greenway" Proffer #6. C. b —Recommendations.' 1. ACPR requests more detailed information about the"existing license with the U.S. Department of Forestry," including an opportunity to review a copy of that license if appropriate. 2. In order to enable a bike/ped bridge to be built across Jacob's Run in the most feasible and suitable location, ACPR recommends greenway easement area(s) be included along both sides of the "lower" or downstream portions of Jacob's Run. 3. In order to accommodate the planned and proffered trails along the North Fork Rivanna River, ACPR recommends an amended (enlarged) greenway easement area that provides sufficient suitable land for construction of a greenway trail along the North Fork Rivanna River (but outside of the floodway), and which accommodates the siting and construction of a bike/ped bridge at suitable, feasible location across Jacob's Run. 4. In order to better accommodate relatively high levels of recreational use, ACPR recommends that the Jacob's Run Greenway Trail and "Rivanna River Greenway Trail" be designed and built as Class B Type 2 trails (with minimum 5' trail surface width, compacted stone dust surface material, and complying with maximum grades and maximum cross -slopes). ACPR does not recommend Class B Type 1 primitive trails in these proposed locations. 5. In order to ensure that these proposed proffered recreation amenities are implemented and available for public and private uses, ACPR recommends that the applicants construct the Jacob's Run Greenway Trail and the Rivanna River Greenway Trail along the North Fork Rivanna River, from Dickerson Road to US-29 ROW (designed and built as Class B Type 2 trails with minimum 5' trail surface width, compacted stone dust surface material, and complying with maximum grades and maximum cross -slopes). 6. Similarly, because a bike/ped bridge across Jacob's Run is a required improvement within this network of planned and proffered trails, ACPR further recommends that the applicants design, permit, and construct the bike/ped bridge across Jacob's Run at a suitable location (or provide the County with funds to conduct a feasibility study and prepare design and construction documents for such a bike/ped bridge across Jacob's Run, in order to catalyze the public funding and implementation of such a bike/ped bridge). 7. Finally, ACPR also recommends that the applicants expedite the timing of the development and dedication of these proposed recreation amenities, in order to more closely coincide with the commencement of the initial residential uses at the UVA North Fork Discovery Center subject properties. Proffer 6. Recreational Areas. Trails, and Open Space. 6.D: "Trailhead Parking Area" Proffer #6.D —Recommendations: 1. ACPR recommends that the applicants provide a larger aggregate number of publicly -available parking spaces, including the designation of multiple disparate trailhead parking sites around the outer perimeters of existing surface parking lots, and/or at Dabney Grove Recreation Area. 2. ACPR recommends that the applicants provide, as may be appropriate, additional new sidewalks, shared use paths, and/or crosswalks in orderto provide safe, convenient bike/ped connections between proffered and recommended trailhead public parking spaces and proffered recreational amenities (such as Dabney Grove Recreation Area and Connection Trails). 3. Finally, ACPR also recommends that the applicants expedite the timing of the development and dedication of these proposed recreation amenities, in order to more closely coincide with the commencement of the initial residential uses at the UVA North Fork Discovery Center subject properties. Application Plan: ACPR recommends including a publicly -accessible sidewalk or shared -use path generally parallel to SB US-29, between Lewis & Clark Drive and the planned greenway trail alongside the North Fork Rivanna River. Alternately, ACPR recommends providing an easement to the County for the future public construction of such an improvement across UVA Foundation property generally alongside SB US-29. 2. ACPR recommends that the applicants develop sidewalks, shared use paths, and/or crosswalks to provide safe, convenient bike/ped connections between proffered and recommended trailhead public parking spaces and proffered recreational amenities (such as Dabney Grove Recreation Area and Connection Trails). Response: The proffers and application plan have been updated based upon the meeting with Parks and Recreation on December 2, 2022. Transportation Planning Comments: Traffic Impact Analysis 1. Understanding that Carriage Units and/or Accessory Apartments are allowed in the districts, it still seems like this is a point where the TIA is likely undercounting the total number of trips that would be generated by the development. I do not know how to address this but in considering impacts it will be noted that actual impacts would likely be on the higher side of any assumptions. Response: Based on the meeting on December 21, 2022 with Kevin McDermott, we understand that this is no longer a concern given there will be a small number of carriage units within the development. 2. By optimizing signals in the Build alternative and not the No Build it ends up creating the appearance of improved conditions when it's very likely that signals will be optimized as conditions warrant it with or without the development. I recommend either not optimizing or optimizing in both the Build and No Build in order to display an accurate comparison. Response: The No Build conditions models have been updated so that the signal timings are also optimized to account for the growth and change within the study area and provide an appropriate comparison for the proposed Build conditions. See updated TIA. s. Staff recognizes that there are only a few specific movements that change between the Build and No Build. However, many of the movements that are already failing appearto fail significantly worse. For example, the WB thru and left movements from Boulders Rd in the PM increase by almost 2 minutes. Several movements at the Proffit Rd/Airport Rd intersection also see significantly worse delay under the Build scenario. Response: The recommended solution for the intersection of US Route 29 at Airport Road/Proffit Road is a Median U-Turn intersection. This is an alternative style intersection that requires vehicles from the mainline wishing to make a left turn to utilize a U-turn movement downstream to reach their destination. The side street manuevers maintain the ability to make a left or through movement. The U-turn locations are located north and south along US Route 29. This recommendation can be discussed further as the site and area develops, as there are opportunities for a traditional RCUT (with U-turns for side street traffic or other alternatives are available. This proposed solution is in accordance with other RCUT solutions along the US Route 29 corridor proposed by VDOT. a. The recommended improvement plan doesn't appear to actually address the transportation issues. The proffers seem to be based on these recommendations, but I don't expect that those proffers would be implemented if they don't actually result in any improvements. Even if other options are not proffered, were any recommendations identified that could provide actual improve operations at the failing intersections? For example, was a grade separated interchange considered? What if VDOT identifies an alternative recommendation for failing intersections? Response: The recommended solutions provided are shown to provide improvements to the operations back to the baseline of background conditions and are not intended to improve intersections that have failing operations under existing conditions. We understand that the proposed improvements are based on the assumptions of the traffic study and that shifts in development patterns and other unknowns could create different operational issues in the future. The revised proffers have provided a commitment for a cash -in -lieu option that will allow the County to receive funding in -lieu of a specific project if a future VDOT/County study determines a better solution. Proffers 5. Proffers all state that they are triggered by approval of site plans that cause a turning movement to exceed a specific number resulting from that site plan. Does the applicant intend to recount the intersection prior to a site plan submittal and then use the directional split of the traffic generated by a development to determine that? Typically, when we see a proffer triggered by a traffic count it is just based on a total number of trips that the overall development generates. For example, when an SDP is approved that causes the total number of trips generated by the development to exceed a certain amount for that development a proffer could be triggered. Response: The development team will provide the calculation for the specific turning movements and the trigger point for each phase that will align with the total number of trips. The proffer language has been updated to account for the percent of traffic from the total that will utilize the trigger location. s. 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. The proffers appear unchanged between the existing zoning and the requested rezoning. Is this correct? Response: The existing proffers to connect Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road were completed prior to the long-range plan updates for the County to create Berkmar Drive as a US Route 29 bypass option. The bypass option created by the extension of Lewis & Clark is an added benefit that UVAF has provided to the County that was not realized under the original proffer agreement. 7. Regarding the proffer to widen Lewis and Clark to four lanes, was there an analysis done to determine that is necessary? It may be more efficient to consider turn lanes and or alternative intersections which would reduce cost and levels of impervious surface while addressing the operational needs and providing traffic calming throughout the development. Response: 4-lane roadways are typically warranted when traffic volumes along a corridor exceed 15,000 vpd. The proposed development is expected to generate more than 13,000 vpd and the expected nature of the Lewis & Clark / Berkmar Drive corridor as a bypass to the congestion on US Route 29 will likely exceed 2,000 vpd. Given the expected volumes on the roadway and the potential for the corridor to be utilized as a heavy bypass route, it is likely that additional improvements will be necessary along Lewis & Clark. We are in agreement that a 4-lane section may not be necessary as long as appropriate turn lanes and intersection treatments can accomodate development. The amount of bypass traffic will likely determine the need for the ultimate 4-lane section. Application Plan s. Please add a note that describes what would be included in a potential bus stop. For example, a shelter and bench. Response: A note has been added to the plan that states that at a minimum a shelter and bench will be provided and that the stop and details will be coordinated with CAT and the County. 9. The proposed Sports Field/Active Recreation Area the applicant is proposing in the northern portion of the site may be infeasible to develop because of the transportation constraints of Dickerson Rd. Would there be any vehicular access to this amenity from within the development? Response: Based upon feedback from Parks and Recreation, the Sports Field/Active Recreation Area has been removed from the plans and proffers. VDOT Comments: 1. Page 17 It was assumed that VDOT will retime the traffic signals along US Route 29 periodically due to expected background development and overall growth in the study area. To reflect this, the traffic signal timings and offsets were optimized for all total future conditions ( 2026, 2031, and 2037). To better gauge the impact extent, the Background condition signal timing data should match the Future condition under discussion. A separate Mitigation condition can then be developed with the proposed modified signal timing data Response: The background conditions models have been updated so that the signal timings are also optimized to account for the growth and change within the study area. See revised TIA. 2. Page 11 Per our Road Design Manual (RDM), Double (dual) left -turn lanes (DLTLs) shall be considered where peak left -turn movements exceed 350 vph. Please reference the appropriate phases when the necessary conditions are met and ensure all requirements in our RDM can be accommodated for the DLTLs. Response: The report text has been updated to appropriately document when the conditions are met for the introduction of dual left turn lanes. 3. Pages 11, 87, 93 (Table 11-3), 98 Please explain why the proposed Median U-turn (MUT) mitigation was not modeled to better explore the innovative intersection improvement at US Route 29/Airport Rd? A model would help evaluate the possible impact on the intersection and U-turn locations. Page 93 shows results from a model but the Synchro files could not be located with the submission. It would also be prudent to model all the other scenarios and conditions to better gauge the interactions at the possible U-turn locations Response: The MUT option was modeled in SYNCHRO and will be reshared with VDOT staff for review. 4. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards regulations or other requirements. Response: Noted.