Loading...
ZMA202100016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-02-11�� pF AL8 County of Albemarle Community Development Department - Department ��RGINle' To: Megan Nedostup, AICP From: Bill Fritz, AICP RE: ZMA 2021-16 North Fork Date: February 9, 2022 William D. Fritz, AICP bfritz@albemarle.org Telephone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3242 The information submitted for this application has been reviewed. Comments have been received from various reviewing agencies. Those comments are attached for ease of reference. It is my understanding that there have already been discussions to address the comments from RWSA. To date, no comments have been received from the Virginia Department of Transportation. I have reviewed the application and can offer the following comments at this time: 1. A survey is needed to delineate the area proposed for NMD and PDIP zoning. The boundary between the two proposed districts does not follow any existing parcel boundary. 2. The proposed project disturbs Preserved Steep Slopes. If you proposed to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes, there are two review options available to you. a. Submit a rezoning request to amend the Steep Slopes Overlay District. This request could be to either change 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 Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section 30.7.4g The application plan currently shows grading only on the NMD portion of the proposed development. In order to review 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 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 of residential 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 1,400 unless 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. 4. The term "Green Space' is used in various locations in the application. However, it is unclear what is meant by this term. Is it Open Space, Common Open Space, Pervious Area or some other thing? 5. In Area D-1 is there a maximum area for commercial office area? 6. The term Community Service is used in various locations in the application. Is this the Fire Station or is some other use intended? 7. On some sheets of the application plan the Trailhead Locations are shown. On some sheets they are shown as potential. The intent of providing trailhead locations should be clarified. This clarification should include a WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, North Wing, I Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 definition of what is provided with a trailhead and that trailheads will be provided. It is understood that the exact location will likely be adjusted during the development of the detailed site plans/subdivisions. 8. Table B on sheet 7 of the application plan is there any intent to limit the maximum non-residential development potential in any individual block? The use of a maximum Floor Area Ratio may serve to limit overcrowding of any individual district while still providing flexibility in use and design. 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? 10. Sheet 7 of the application plan in the notes for Table B it states "*** The minimum and maximum number of units are 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 there should be a method to insure the construction, and completion of these units either within a timeframe or in relationship to other development. 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 this note 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 for administrative 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. 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 to cyclist. 13. Are any modifications to building height, setbacks or stepbacks proposed? 14. The following comments are to the Code of Development as contained on sheets 15 and 16 of the application plan. 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 permit may 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. 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 be helpful to the applicant as it allows for a single zoning designation. c. The land Use Matrix includes a wide variety of uses. Was any consideration given to referencing the uses allowed by Section 20A6. If any special uses are proposed those would then be the only ones specifically listed 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). 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 the Code of Development. 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. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, North Wing, I Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 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 and style. 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. 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 4 acreage is delineated in blue in the map below. Map from the Due Diligence and Conceptual Planning Report. Completed by Dewberry, April 2018. The Economic Development Office does not expect the conversion of 172 acres from PD-IP to NMD zoning 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 of other 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 purposes which is certified as Tier 4 site ready under the VBRSP and may enhance its attractiveness (Goal 3, Project ENABLE) • The proposal will provide greater flexibility and certainty for prospective businesses by updating proffers, updating and simplifying the land use matrix, 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 not serve 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 - Blog by UNC School of Government 2. Research Triangle Park I Where People + Ideas Converge (rtp.org) 3. 2008ResearchParkReport.pdf (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 (universitylabpartners.org) commercial and amenities, no residential... but surrounded by apartments 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 �q of nig 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 County of Albemarle Telephone: 434-296-5832 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW,ALBEMARLE.ORG Z1NA Application Plan review (TIA, Proffers) Project title: North Fork ZMA Project file number: ZMA202100016 Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, PE /Timmons Group, craig.kotarskiAtimmons.com 608 Preston Ave., Suite 200 / Charlottesville, VA 22903 Applicant: University of Virginia Foundation, Chris Schooley eschooley@uvafoundation.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 Date of comments: 21 Jan 2022 Plan Coordinator: Bill Fritz Reviewer: John Anderson, PE Engineering has reviewed ZMA Application (Narrative, TIA, proffer statement) and offers these review comments. ZMA202100016 1. Sheet 5, Exhibit D: Engineering recommends inter -parcel future connection between block F and Dickerson Road, SR 606, along N parcel boundaries of Crutchfield Corporation and Hawk's Eye View LLC, TMPs 03200-00-00-009CO and 03200-00-00-01007, respectively. Logistically, may be difficult, impractical, or impossible. If VDOT makes no similar recommendation for block F to Dickerson Road inter -parcel connection, then this Engineering recommendation is withdrawn. 2. Sheet 8, Exhibit G, does not display Rt. 29 improvements recommended by TIA. Application plan should (in our view) display graphic information for TIA Rt. 29 /Lewis and Clark Drive tum-lane improvement recommendations (improvements listed at Proffer V. Transportation). 3. Sheet 9, Street Sections: Please note that 7.5' on -street parallel parking (space) width is only appropriate for `roadways functionally classified as collectors or locals where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or less.' See VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix A(I), p. A(1)-77, parallel parking. [ https://www.virginiadot.org/business/tesources/LocDes/RDM/Appendal.pddf ] 4. Sheet 12, Exhibit K, Conceptual Grading Plan: Cannot be evaluated without legible contour elevation labels; please provide proposed contour labels (560' 550' 540', etc.). 5. Code of Development, sheets 15, 16, Application Plan a. Engineering is unclear of implications of this statement: `Parking: The parking requirements contained in this Code of Development supersedes those parking requirements stated in Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.' Engineering recommends CDD request removal or disapproval of this statement. The Application Plan Code of Development proposes only general parking requirements. Ch. 184.12 lists specific safety and convenience -based parking standards, which should not be superseded by the Application Plan Code of Development. b. Engineering recommends sheet 15 Primitive Trail section typical include these descriptors: `Earth, mulch or stone dust surface', `width necessary to mark trail location', `20% maximum grade', and `trail breaks to prevent erosion, with foot bridges over major obstacles' with leader lines identifying corresponding schematic elements of typical section. c. Revise sheet 15 statement/s relative to maximum wall height, consistent with 18-4.3.3, which specifies that the maximum height for a single retaining wall shall be ten feet. [ 18-4.3.3A.1.]. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 6. Sheet 14, Exhibit M, Conceptual Storm Water Plan provides no graphic depiction of currently non-existent (future) SWM facilities. An existing (SWM) pond is shown, and text mentions adjusting the pond's outfall structure. a. The pond alone appears insufficient to meet SWM quantity or quality requirements likely in effect on /after Jul-1, 2024. Provide conceptual graphic depictions of block -centered SWM facilities likely required with development after Jul-1, 2024, consistent with (Water Quality) ZMA text which reads: `For the development of the rezoned neighborhood model district area, stormwater BMPs will be designed and constructed to treat the developed areas per the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulation and the Virginia Runoff Reduction Spreadsheet Requirements. Treatment will be provided during the buildout of the rezoned area through BMPs and practices from the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse. Practices used will likely include bioretention, permeable pavers, dry swales, conserved open space as well as other approved measures.' None of these SWM practices are shown, graphically /conceptually. No graphic concept is presented —please revise ZMA to provide conceptual SWM for water quality requirements that will drive both placement and type of required facilities after Jul-1, 2024. Evaluate NMD blocks 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 ] 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. C. Water Quality mentions conserved open space. Table 18-33.4.E requires that the Application Plan show `any areas to be designated as conservation and/or preservation areas.' Revise the Application Plan to show conserved open space. d. Table 18-33.4.E requires the application plan show `any conceptual on -site stormwater detention facility locations.' Engineering requests approximate location/s (best estimate) of detention facilities be shown. Locations may be labeled approximate or notes or labels may state `Final location of detention facilities is provided with future site, WPO, or subdivision plans, Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 notwithstanding ZMA depiction of approximate locations. SWM locations are flexible to meet design objectives or regulatory criteria/requirements.' Words to that effect. The goal is not precise location, but to indicate certain physical space set -asides for detention facilities. e. Last row, Table 18-33.4.E: Please include narrative discussion that considers this item: `Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off -site stormwater management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities' if phasing is proposed with UVAF North Fork ZMA. f. EFT. 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 ofEB requirements to points that release concentrated storm runoff to a natural stormwater conveyance. 7. Narrative, at p. 15, Storrnwater Management states `North Fork's original Master Plan considered a regional pond to serve the majority of the site to provide water quality and quantity.' Engineering notes that reliance on the original Master Plan regional pond may be obsolete without alteration for blocks or phases not under construction on Jul-1, 2024, since, at that time, new technical criteria (IIB / SWM design) apply to all developments, whether master -planned, grandfathered, currently -permitted under criteria IIC, or not. In other words, regulations that applied to many new developments on Jul-1, 2014, will, Jul-1, 2024, apply to all land developments disturbing areas above specific thresholds, including UVAF North Fork. Engineering is encouraged by statements that immediately follow: `Moving forward, the pond will be upgraded, allowing it to continue to serve the majority of North Fork for water quantity purposes. This will be achieved by adjusting the outfall structure and a new analysis of the hydrology'. Engineering accepts these are requisite, minimum steps should UVA North Fork intend to rely on the regional pond for stormwater quality and quantity control as UVAF North Fork UVA Discovery Park enters constructive phases on or after Jul-1, 2024. (Mote. Sheet 14 of the Application Plan confirms `the approval for the pond will expire in 2024. [And that] For stormwater quantity for future development, the pond will be modified to detain the required amount of water quantity per the current regulations.') Note, however, item above: Engineering requests ZMA be modified to present a reasonable graphic conceptual plan with summary SWM facility detail required to develop specific sections of UVA North Fork, at different points in time. 8. Proffers a. Transportation, 5.9.C. ref. to Exhibit M does not correspond with Application Plan Exhibit M. Please check /revise, as needed. b. 5.5; 5.6—These proffers tie improvements to approval of dwelling units (800', 1300t'). 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 800u or 1300" unit is reached may lead to prolonged approval delay as roadway /turn lane improvements commence, are built, and completed. Until that time, units 801 and 1301 may not be approved. Proffer statement does not necessarily need to be revised, but nor should it prevent commencing roadway improvements early to help minimize site plan or subdivision plat approval delay, or delay the process of eventual sale of lots, or unit construction. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 ( ianderson2galbemarle.org ). Thank you I Anderson ZMA202100016_North Fork UVA Discovery Park_012122.doc 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 if this 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 person increase in County population - how does this effect response assets/needs COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 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 Department Date: 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: 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 in ZMA202100016 Project Narrative and Application Plan, and request the following clarifications and information: [ZMA202100016 Project Narrative]: A. Please clarify which recreational amenities are currently being provided, and which amenities are 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 of a 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 trail over the Route 29 bridge," or "dedicated Sports Field." The Project Narrative explains that "The portion of North Fork remaining PDIP includes open space, trails, cemetery, and a proffered dedicated athletic field" in the section titled "Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles / Parks, Recreational Amenities and Open Space." 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 extension of 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 and the residents of North Fork." [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). 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 the scope and proposed timing of development (and dedication, as may be applicable). D. Please clarify if the Green Space area (and trail network within the Green Space) in the proposed NMD District would be publicly accessible. 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 be publicly accessible and if they would accommodate vehicular access or not. 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 such enhancements would likely require justification to and approval from VDOT at locations involving public street ROWs. 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 in ZMA202100016 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 the Development Areas" (Page A.11.25) o Attach. C: "Greenway Plan Details" Appendix Item — River and Stream Crossings' (Page A.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) Page 2 of 8 Virginia Outdoors Plan — o Attach. F: "North Fork Rivanna River Proposed Water Trail" / Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper / Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper (arogis.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. We acknowledge your proposal includes some proposed recreational amenities which could help to mitigate the reasonably anticipated impacts. However, with regard to existing and formally planned recreational facilities and open spaces, ACPR staff are partially unable to determine that this proposal is consistent with the above -noted plans and studies, 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 recreational amenities in ZMA202100016 be expedited to be concurrent with the initial phase of proposed NMD development. This recommendation is made with the following important considerations: in order to help mitigate reasonably anticipated impacts on existing County facilities that would 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 to recreational amenities and natural open spaces; iii. 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." 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 "Class B — Type 2" or "Class A — Type 1" standards as identified in the Albemarle County Engineering Design 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 North Fork 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. Page 3 of 8 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 Road within the "Rivanna Greenbelt," to enable public access to and (non -motorized) recreational use 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 North Fork 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. 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 Exhibit D "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 dedication of "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). 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. Page 4 of 8 wpiwj 11 Figure 3: Oreenw y Plan For Me O Iopnneni Awn -�. e¢xx wimww. .: welmuawruee wp snens • a vs. �wisw+.wn w.a ,y:,yynmubwmA. ed Km.W rra� ^�. �•��=r/aw.rmmr / o.rvmw+ww� i m=P ®.emw � c �«. .�... ..r�r. .m® 1.raenna�v.wO,Mw+roerti Mnnraa� . ��am+mw.aimw..c+.v �Mw�+�:: �00...�«rr,n � rw ti smxo.ras. • e..i�mmrMn c i r .mm Attach. A: Comprehensive Plan / Greenway Plan for the Development Areas (Fig. 3, Page 11.15) Attach. A: Coml Note "Greenway Trail" along Rivanna River and Jacobs Run, and "G3 Access" Point in vicinity Page 11.15) (enlarged) Page 5 of 8 Greenway Plan Details The Greenway Plan is described and shown in Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan. Areas for greenways should be viewed as providing the main components of an overall greenway system. This Appendix provides information on the general location for the greenway network along rivers and streams in the Rural Area. The greenway network for the Development Areas is shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plans in each Development Area Master Plan. The location and types of trails are intended to be conceptual in nature and do not address details. Instead, these maps are intended to provide a framework for the implementation of the greenway system, and are not intended to preclude future opportunities for greenways not shown here. It is assumed that exact locations of trails will be determined in cooperation with communities and property owners of the area. Future Major Greenway Trails in the Development Areas The following trails are major trails in the system of connecting greenways. Other trails in the Development Areas can be found in the Development Area Master Plans on the Parks and Green Systems Plan. Places29 �• North Fork Rivanna River - Jacob's Run from Chris Greene Lake to Yn mile east of Development Area Boundary • Powell Creek — From Forest Lakes North to South Fork of Rivanna River • Rivanna Upper River Greenway from Rivanna Reservoir to Pantops • Meadow Creek Trail —from Brookmill neighborhood near Pepsi Place through City of Charlottesville to confluence with the Rivanna River Attach. B: Comprehensive Plan / "Greenway Plan Details" Appendix Item ("Future Major Greenway Trails in the Development Areas," Page A.11.25) River and Stream Crossings Due to the high costs associated with construction of pedestrian bridges, in all cases crossing of major water bodies will utilize existing bridges. Steps or ramps should be constructed to allow access from the greenway to the bridge. Bridge design (i.e. striping or pedestrian barrier) may have to be altered to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing. Use of the following bridges is recommended to facilitate the crossing of a water course • North Fork Rivanna River - Route 29 Bridge (Seminole Trail) • South Fork Rivanna River - Route 29 Bridge (Seminole Trail) • Rivanna River - Route 250 East (Free Bridge) (Richmond Road) • Rivanna River - Route 729 Bridge (North Milton Road) • Moore's Creek — Route 742 Bridge (Avon Street Extended) • Moore's Creek - Route 781 Bridge (Sunset Avenue) • Moore's Creek - Route 780 Bridge (Old Lynchburg Road) • Moore's Creek - Route 20 South Bridge (Scottsville Road) It may be advantageous to construct a bicycle bridge over a water course; however, alternatives to a bridge crossing must be thoroughly explored. It is much more desirable to utilize existing bridges for connections when they are in close proximity to proposed river and stream crossings. However, free - Attach. C: Comprehensive Plan / "Greenway Plan Details" Appendix Item ("River and Stream Crossings," Page A.11.26) Page 6 of 8 'ZW, ,w 3.3.2 FACILITY RANKINGS FacilitylAmeni Walking, Hiking and Biking Trails Priority 09h Youth Athletic Fields - Diamond and Multi -Purpose Open Space/Conservation Parks Small Neighborhood Parks Large Community Parks Aquatic Facilities Otr Leash Dog Parks River Access/Boat Launches Pavilions and Picnic Shelters Indoor Recreation Spaces Medium Playgrounds Athletic Fields for Adults Outdoor Tennis Courts Facilties/Amenities for Special Needs Gymnastic Facilities LOW Competitive Swimming Facilities Pickleball Courts Outdoor Basketball Courts Disc Golf Indoor Soccer Facilities Outdoor Sand Volleyball Courts Skateparks Attach. E: 2018 Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment "Facility Rankings" (Figure 3.3.2, Page 52) Attach. F: "North Fork Rivanna River Proposed Water Trail' — Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper (arogis.com) Page 8 of 8 From: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:18 PM To: Bill Fritz <BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Austin Marrs <amarrs@rivanna.org>; Dyon Vega <DVega@rivanna.org>; devreview@rivanna.org; Jennifer Whitaker <jwhitaker@rivanna.org>; Scott Schiller <sschiller@rivanna.org>; Richard Nelson <rnelson @servicea uthority.org> Subject: ZMA202100016 - North Fork UVA Discovery Park - RWSA Comments CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. M1 RWSA staff has reviewed application ZMA202100016 - North Fork UVA Discovery Park. Please see below for the completed copy of the form that was provided to RWSA by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications: To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP s 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal Yes 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal Yes 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) Yes RWSA has the following capacity concerns for both water and sanitary sewer that may affect this proposal: • Per the presentation RWSA's Executive Director made to the LUEPC on December 17, 2021 (link here), as well as the attached presentation that was made to the RWSA Board of Directors (which includes City Utilities and ACSA Staff, as well as City and County elected officials) on December 14, 2021, significant increases in water demand may necessitate acceleration of several important projects, most notably, the South Rivanna Reservoir (SRR) to Ragged Mountain Reservoir (RMR) Transfer System. This information was also relayed to County Economic Development Staff on October 14, 2021, when discussions on RWSA's existing water capacities and proffers related to the North Fork Research Park were taking place. • RWSA's Piney Mountain Pressure Band (North Zone) historically consumes about 500,000 gallons of water per day (gpd). While RWSA did account for growth in this area in a recent Urban Water Demand Study, this rezoning proposal far exceeds the anticipated growth in this area. The study estimated 42,000 gpd of additional demand from the North Fork Research Park through 2030, and an additional 172,000 gpd through 2070. This proposal has the potential to add over 500,000 gpd of additional demand to the North Zone, assuming maximum build -out (estimated 270 gpd per DU and 90 gpd/ksf of commercial office space based on ACSA Design Standards). The Narrative correctly mentions that RWSA is currently constructing a new finished water pump station to better support the Piney Mountain Pressure Band. However, as indicated in the RWSA Board Presentation attached (slide 6), this pump station is just one of nine projects in RWSA's Capital Improvement Plan that will be required to support large water demand increases in this area, at a total cost of around $213 M. In addition, since this pump station utilizes water from RWSA's Urban Pressure Band to serve the Piney Mountain Pressure Band, the raw water demands from an expanded North Fork Research Park may also necessitate acceleration of improvements to the SRR to RMR Transfer System ahead of its planned FY27 — FY33 timeframe, depending on the buildout schedule. • For Sanitary Sewer, all sewage flows from this development flow through the RWSA Powell Creek Interceptor (PCI). Based upon our latest Comprehensive Sewer Study (2016) and recent flow metering data, the stretch of PCI that receives the flow from the Research Park sees about 0.7 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage flow. Based upon our previous modeling efforts, upgrades were anticipated in the upper 18" and 21" reaches of PCI around 2066, at an approximate cost of $16M (present-day dollars). Assuming the maximum buildout proposed by this rezoning, the potential post -development flows in PCI could be several decades ahead of schedule, and RWSA would need to perform a full evaluation once the flows are better understood in order to determine the necessary upgrades to PCI, as well as possible upgrades in downstream sewer reaches. • In summary, RWSA does not concur with the Utilities Section on page 14 of the Application Narrative, and believes that there could be some water and sanitary sewer capacity limitations, depending upon the final buildout scope and schedule. In order to more appropriately evaluate this Rezoning Application, RWSA needs the following information: o More precise buildout magnitude (number of units, type of units, etc.) o Anticipated buildout schedule (what units are being built at what time) o Any further projected water and sewer demand information for North Fork that may be available Please let us know if you'd like to discuss in more detail prior to sending comments to the applicant. Best, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (0): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146