HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-3-10BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 10, 2010
6:00 P.M. – LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. To solicit public input on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be
submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for Phase 1 Sewer Project in
the Oak Hill neighborhood. The proposal will include installation of sanitary sewer to approximately 55
houses and laterals to connect the houses to the system.
8. PROJECT: SP-2009-00024. Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary. PROPOSAL: special use permit to renovate existing
barn for wildlife sanctuary; no residential units proposed. Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11 (a)
and (c) requiring solid fencing and that animals be confined in an enclosed building between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: 10.2.2 (47) Animal Shelter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Miller School; 1000 Samuel Miller Loop, Crozet;
access off Dick Woods Road approximately 3500 feet from the intersection of Dick Woods Road and Miller School
Road (Rt. 635). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 07200000003200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
9. PROJECT: ZMA-2005-00003. UVA Research Park (Sign #18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately
30.56 acres (parcels identified below) from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned Development Industrial Park (“PDIP”), which
allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses, for 700,000 square feet of
office and research use and to rezone 534 ± acres (parcels identified below) from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers
and application plan associated with ZMA-1995-04 and subsequent related ZMAs. PROFFERS: Yes. Concurrent
with ZMA-2005-00003, the following proposed special use permits (“SP”) within UVA Research Park PDIP
authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 29.2.2:
9a. SP-2008-00015 Parking structures. PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance §
27.2.2(16), Parking structures.
9b. SP-2008-00062 Laboratories. PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses; reference Zoning Ordinance § 27.2.2(1),
Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
9c. SP-2008-00063 Supporting commercial uses. PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses, not to exceed a
total of 110,000 square feet of floor area, reference Zoning Ordinance § 27.2.2(14), Supporting commercial uses.
9d. SP-2008-00064 Hotels, motels, inns. PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities not to exceed
190,000 square feet of floor area under Zoning Ordinance § 29.2.2(2), Hotels, motels, inns.
The following information applies to all 5 proposals: ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP -
Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use).
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the intersection
of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map Parcels 32-18
and 32-18A (rezone from RA to PDIP with proffers; all SPs); 32-6A, 18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-
19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1 (rezone from PDIP to PDIP with amended
proffers and application plan; all SPs). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
11. Adjourn to March 15, 2010, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2009 and February 10, 2010.
6.2 Authorize County Executive to co-sign an application for a special use permit to locate an off-premises sign for the
Church of Incarnation on County property.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.3 Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Carol Jennings, re: LOD-
2009-008 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 7, Parcel 46 (Property of
Roy & Joyce Jennings) White Hall Magisterial District.
6.4 Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen,
III, re: LOD-2009-012 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6
(Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust) Scottsville Magisterial District.
6.5 Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen,
III, re: LOD-2009-013 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6C
(Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust) Scottsville Magisterial District.
6.6 Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen,
III, re: LOD-2009-014 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6C1
(Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust) Scottsville Magisterial District.
6.7 Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Mary B. Sheridan, Executor,
Phillip L. Sheridan Estate, re: LOD-2009-019 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS –
Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A & 33B (Property of Phillip L. Sheridan Estate) White Hall Magisterial District.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Church of Incarnation sign
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize County Executive to co-sign an application for a
special use permit to locate an off-premises sign for the
Church of Incarnation on County property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and
Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 10, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, the Church of the Incarnation on Hillsdale Drive requested that the County allow it to install an off-premises
sign on County property at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive (TMP 61Z-03-9, see Attachment A).
This property currently contains a stormwater detention pond that in 2008 was scheduled in the CIP for an extensive
upgrade. The requested sign is likely to be in the staging area for the proposed stormwater upgrade project.
However, due to a strong VDOT recommendation for the sign installation at this location, and the County’s deferral of
the stormwater upgrade project, staff can support the sign request, provided that the approval is contingent upon the
future removal of the sign by the Church at the County’s request.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance Quality of Life: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs
DISCUSSION:
During ongoing discussions between the County and the Church, County staff’s main concern was that the proposed
site f or the sign would conflict with planned improvements to a major stormwater facility. The Church is requesting use
of an area 10’ x 10’ for an eleven square foot post mounted sign (see Attachment B). It is anticipated that the County
will need this area for the staging, construction or modification of the stormwater facility. After considering possible
alternative locations for this sign, including in the VDOT right-of -way, the Church’s preference remains to locate the
sign on the County’s property at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive. The principle purpose of the sign
is to redirect the primary entrance of the Church. VDOT staff engineer Joel Denunzio, wrote: “I evaluated both
entrances and have determined that the southernmost entrance has better sight distance and better geometry than
the northern entrance. Promoting the use of the southernmost entrance by placing a sign at that location could
potentially cause fewer conflicts with users of either entrance and will be an overall safer condition. I would
recommend that the County approve this request to move the sign to this location for safety reasons.” Because
County staff agrees that the County property is the best location for the sign when considering the safety of vehicle
travel on this portion of Hillsdale Drive and because the proposed stormwater detention pond project has been
removed from the current five-year CIP, County staff supports the conditional location of the sign.
Before an off-site sign may be erected at this location:
1. The Church and the property owner (in this case, the County) must apply for and receive a special use permit
for an off-premises sign from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); and
2. The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and approve the conveyance of an easement to the
Church to authorize the placement of the sign.
The limited question before this Board at this time is whether to authorize the County Executive to co-sign the special
use permit application on behalf of the County. If this Board so authorizes this SP application, and if the BZA grants a
special use permit for the proposed sign, the request for the approval of the easement would come back before this
Board for separate consideration. This Board need not consider the specific terms of the easement at this time,
however, staff’s recommendation will be that the easement be contingent upon a condition that the sign shall be
removed by the Church at any time it is deemed necessary or convenient by the County. In addition, as required by
law, the Church will have to compensate the County for the fair market value of the easement.
AGENDA TITLE: Church of Incarnation sign
March 10, 2010
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no foreseeable budget impact for granting authorization to the County Executive to co-sign the special use
permit application on behalf of the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Executive to co-sign the application for a
special use permit for an off -premises sign on the County property located at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and
Incarnation Drive.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Survey
B. Sign Design
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing for Proposed Submission of Block Grant
Applications and Approval of Oak Hill Phase I Sewer
Project Application
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mssrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 10, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant program administered by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding
to eligible units of local government (in non-entitlement communities only) for projects which address critical
community needs, including housing, infrastructure, and economic development. Albemarle County has received
numerous grants in previous years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The first public hearing was
held on January 13, 2010, at which time information was provided on eligible activities that may be funded by VCDBG,
the amount of funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with VCDBG funds and the process for
applying for funding. There was no public comment tendered at that hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to
provide information on proposed project applications and to accept public comment on the applications. Applications
are submitted by the County to DHCD; however, the proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies.
Albemarle County can submit one or more applications but is limited to awards totaling no more than $2.5 million.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.2 By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those
who work and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCUSSION:
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) is requesting that the County submit an application for the Oak Hill
Phase 1 Sewer Project. The proposed project will consist of installation of approximately 5,000 feet of 8” diameter
gravity sewer pipe, manholes, and service laterals to 57 housing units (see Attachment A). The amount of the grant
requested is $712,500 which is the maximum amount the County may request based on an average of $12,500 per
unit. ACSA is providing funding totaling $541,500 for acquistion of easements, engineering, and design. In addition,
ACSA has proposed to waive connection fees for all properties. Waiving connection fees for low-to-moderate income
households is required by DHCD when CDBG funds are utilized. A survey of households indicate that 52 percent of
the households are low-to-moderate income (CDBG requires that at least 51 percent of the beneficiaries meet that
income category). In addition to providing sewer services to residents of the Oak Hill neighborhood, the project would
eliminate contamination from failed on-site septic systems which is contributing to the impairment of Biscuit Run
located east of the Oak Hill neighborhood.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded project. Fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000) is included in the application to cover administrative and grant management costs for
the funded activity. Projects applying for VCDBG generally require some level of local financial support whic h will
be provided by ACSA for the proposed project.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program
March 10, 2010
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Upon receiving information on the proposed VCDBG application and taking public comment on the proposal, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the project resolution (Attachment B) approving the County’s submission of the
application for the Oak Hill Phase I Sewer Project. It is further recommended that the Board authorize the County
Executive to execute the application as well as all required certifications and assurances (Attachments C through E).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Oak Hill Sewer Proposal
B. Resolution
C. General Assurances
D. Public Participation
E. Drug-free Workplace
Return to regular agenda
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE REPORT
Part I – Summary Information
Applicant County of Albemarle, Virginia ________
Address 401 McIntire Road ____________
Charlottesville, VA 22902 __________
Contact Person Mr. Ron White_________ ____________
Address Office of Housing
1600 5th Street, Suite B
Charlottesville, VA 22902 __________
Phone Number (434) 296-5839 ext. 3407__ ____________
Project Name Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer Project___________
FIN or SS#
DUNS Number
Are you requesting CDBG funding of $200,000 or more? YES NO
If yes, the remainder of this Applicant Disclosure Report must be completed and the original
must be attached to the original copy of the proposal. Photocopies in other copies.
Part II– Other Governmental Assistance in Project
Source of Assistance
Program /
Use of Funds
Type of Assistance Amount
Albemarle County Service
Authority
Albemarle County Service
Authority
Albemarle County Service
Authority
Easement Acquisition,
Construction
Inspection Services
Connection Fees Waived
Funding
In Kind Services
In Kind Services
$510,500
$31,000
$364,325
X
Part III– Interest Disclosure
Interested Parties Social Security / FIN
Employer ID
Type of
Participation
Financial Interest
In Project ($ and %)
N/A
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
Applicant Disclosure Report is true and accurate.
Chief Administrative Official:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.___________ County Executive______
Name Title
___________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
COMMON PROPOSAL ELEMENTS (draft)
Project Area
The proposed project is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle
County, Virginia and is known as the Oak Hill Subdivision. The site lies generally south
of 5th Street Extended, east of Stagecoach Road, and west of Biscuit Run with proposed
residences to be served located on 5th Street, Stagecoach Road, Oak Hill Drive,
Woodhaven Drive, Pinehurst Court, and Windfield Court. See ATTACHMENT 3 for a
map of the project site.
Project Needs/Opportunities and Demand
One of the major strategies for Albemarle County is promoting the development and
preservation of affordable housing. The County has completed numerous CDBG-funded
projects over the years which addressed both production and renovation of housing for
LMI occupants. The most recent was funding for land development and infrastructure
associated with the renovation of 28 elderly rental units and the construction of an
additional 38 residential rental units. Previous grants were mainly used for housing
renovation and community improvement as well as construction of community service
facilities.
Project needs are determined through consultation with community partners including
nonprofit agencies. The County recognizes that housing, community facilities and
community service facilities are the three highest needs. While housing rehabilitation
projects have previously been considered the highest need, there are limited opportunities
in the County to craft such a project as most of the need is now scattered. Oak Hill Sewer
Phase 1 is a priority at this time due to failing on-site septic systems which are
contributing to the impairment of Biscuit Run that feeds into the Rivanna River.
Installation of a main sewer line and potential connection to approximately 60 residences
will help address this impairment. The receipt of the requested CDBG funding will allow
the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to install the main sewer as well as
laterals to each participating residence. To facilitate the success of the project, ACSA has
agreed to waive connection fees for all residents not just those that are LMI.
In addition to addressing the environmental issues with failing septic systems, CDBG
funding is crucial for this project in order to keep the cost of development low and help
assure that the subdivision remains healthy and vibrant for its mix of low to middle
income households. Many of the original residents have remained in the neighborhood
since its development in the early 1960s and have little or no resources to cover the cost
of alternative waste water systems or to connect to a public system once it is installed.
Albemarle County will continue to work with the private sector to identify needs outside
of this proposed project. The County believes that our nonprofit partners are best suited
to identify and address housing rehabilitation needs. For housing production, the County
will look for future opportunities to work with both for-profit and nonprofit entities.
The need for the project was determined and quantified by anecdotal information and
self-reporting of failing septic systems.
Residents of the project area have been involved by through surveys, questionnaires, and
public meeting over the past nineteen (19) years. This neighborhood is just one of
several areas within the jurisdictional boundaries served by ACSA that does not have
public sewer.
Notices, surveys, etc are located in ATTACHMENT 4.
Project Products
The proposed products from the project include the installation of approximately 5,000
feet of 8-inch gravity sewer, appurtenances, and 8400 feet of laterals to houses.
Project Outcomes
Public sanitary sewer will be made available to sixty (60) existing residential units.
Capacity
The application for CDBG funds is being submitted by the County of Albemarle on
behalf of the Albemarle County Service Authority which will construct, own, and
maintain the project. Ron White, Chief of Housing for Albemarle County, will be
responsible for oversight and administration of the CDBG funding. ACSA will also rely
on the experience of Tom Cox, P.E. with Draper Aden Associates and Peter Gorham,
P.E. of ACSA to design and construct the proposed project.
There are no situations anticipated that would indicate conflict or potential conflict of
interest.
Readiness
ACSA has engaged the engineering firm of Draper Aden Associates to design the project
and obtain necessary applications for permits required for construction. With the
exception of the design for laterals to connect the houses, the project is ready to bid for
construction.
Environmental Review
Albemarle County has started an Environmental Assessment for the proposed project.
Department of Historic Resources archives have been searched. Topographical maps and
maps showing floodplains/wetlands have been printed and reviewed. The County has
requested any studies, reports, and correspondence associated with the design process to
determine if the project will have any impact on floodplains/wetlands so that appropriate
measures can be taken. The project does not appear to have any impact on historical or
archeological structures or districts. The EA will be completed prior to award of the
CDBG funding and public notices will be published after receipt of award.
Relocation
The project will not require permanent or temporary relocation.
LOCAL SIGNATURE:
DHCD APPROVAL DATE:
PROJECT BUDGET
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA/ CIG#
8-Feb-10
TOTAL CDBG NON-CDBG NON-CDBG
LINE ITEM IDIS # BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SOURCE
ADMINISTRATION
Execution of DHCD Contract 50,000.00 50,000.00
Execution of Project Contract(s) 0.00
Contract Monitoring 0.00
Construction Completion 0.00
Compliance Reviews 0.00
Monthly Status Reports 0.00
Administrative Project Closeout 0.00
Subtotal $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00
INTERIM ASSISTANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PERMANENT RELOCATION
Owner-Occupied Households 0.00
Renter-Occupied Households 0.00
Relocation Specialist 0.00
Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ACQUISITION
(Land/Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
but not any easements)
CLEARANCE & DEMOLITION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
HOUSING REHABILITATION
Owner-Occupied Construction 0.00
Renter-Occupied Construction 0.00
Rehabilitation Specialist 0.00
Temporary Relocation 0.00
HMEP 0.00
Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
SUBSTANTIAL
RECONSTRUCTION
Clearance & Demolition 0.00
Owner-Occupied Construction 0.00
Rehabilitation Specialist 0.00
Temporary Relocation 0.00
HMEP 0.00
Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
HOMEOWNERSHIP CREATION
Downpayment Assistance 0.00
Closing Costs 0.00
Principal Write Down 0.00
Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
SEWER/STORM DRAINAGE
Architect/Engineer/Design 98,505.00 98,505.00
Inspection 31,000.00 $31,000.00
Acquisition (Easements Only) 46,100.00 $46,100.00
Permitting 1,535.00 $1,535.00
Acquisition Consultant 159,000.00 $159,000.00
Lateral Design 17,360.00 $17,360.00
Plat Preparation 26,500.00 $26,500.00
Construction/Improvements
Gravity Sewer/MH 698,000.00 536,500.00 $161,500.00
Sewer Laterals 126,000.00 $126,000.00 $0.00
Subtotal 1,204,000.00 $662,500.00 $541,500.00
WATER
Architect/Engineer/Design
Inspection 0.00
Acquisition (Easements Only) 0.00
Temporary Relocation 0.00
Construction/Improvements 0.00
Subtotal 0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
STREETS
Architect/Engineer/Design
Inspection 0.00
Acquisition (Easements Only) 0.00
Temporary Relocation 0.00
Construction/Improvements 0.00
Subtotal 0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FLOOD DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Architect/Engineer/Design
Inspection 0.00
Acquisition (Easements Only) 0.00
Temporary Relocation 0.00
Construction/Improvements 0.00
Subtotal 0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL 1,254,000.00 712,500.00 541,500.00
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, on-site septic systems are failing in the Oak Hill neighborhood, resulting in on-site
contamination and the impairment of Biscuit Run; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to addressing conditions causing
contamination endangering the public’s health and safety or impairing streams and waterways in the
County; and
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings on January 13, 2010 and March 10, 2010, the County
wishes to apply for $712,500 in Virginia Community Development Block Grant (“VCDBG”) funds for
the Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer Project (“Project”) to support the installation of approximately 5,000 feet of
eight-inch sewer line and service laterals in the Oak Hill neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority will provide additional funding of over
$500,000 and waive connection fees for the Project and will undertake the Project responsibilities,
including procurement, providing project management, and providing timely reporting to the County
under a Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, fifty-two percent (52%) of the households in Oak Hill are low- and moderate-
income; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the Project include:
Sewer service availability to 59 housing units including approximately 114 persons;
Eliminating on-site sewage contamination in the Oak Hill neighborhood; and
Reducing the impairment of Moore’s Creek caused by contamination from failing on-site
septic systems in the Oak Hill neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby approves the County’s submission of the VCDBG application for the Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer
Project and authorizes the County Executive to execute the application and required certificates and
assurances and to take any further action required for this application.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
GENERAL ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copy in original proposal; photocopies in other copies)
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that:
(a) It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the proposed program.
(b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion, or
similar action authorizing the filing of the application including all understandings and
assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the
official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to
provide such additional information as may be required.
(c) Its chief executive officer or other officer of applicant who has been approved by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development:
i. Consents to assume the status of a responsible Federal official under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other provisions of Federal law, as
specified at 24 CFR 58.5(a) through (h) which serve to further the purposes of NEPA
insofar as the provisions of such Federal law apply to this Program;
ii. Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself to accept the
jurisdiction of the Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia courts for the purpose of
enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official.
(d) It will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements of the Code of
Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 85), OMB Circular A-128 and Circular A-87 as they
relate to the application, acceptance, and use of Federal funds under this Program; and, as
applicable, all State laws and administrative requirements which may supersede them (by
virtue of being more stringent).
(e) It will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, relating to evaluation of
flood hazards and Executive Order 12088 relating to the prevention, control and
abatement of water pollution.
(f) It will require buildings or facilities designed, constructed, or altered with funds provided
under this Program to comply with the "American Standard Specifications for Making
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the Physically Handicapped,"
Number A-117.1-R 1980, or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) in
accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The applicant will be
responsible for conducting inspections to insure compliance with these specifications by
the contractor.
(g) It will not recover the capital costs for public improvements financed in whole or in part with
CDBG funds through assessments against properties owned and occupied by low- and
moderate-income persons nor will fees or assessments be charged to such persons as a
condition of obtaining access to the public improvements. (Per section 104(b)(5) of Title I of
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended).
(h) It will comply with:
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L 88-352), and the regulations issued
pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 1), which provides that no person in the United States shall
on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial assistance. A recipient, in
determining the types of housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or
other benefits which will be provided under any such program or activity, or the class of
persons to whom, or the situations in which, such housing, accommodations, facilities,
services, financial aid, or other benefits will be provided under any such program or
activity, or the class of persons to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such
program or activity, may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements,
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting persons
to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program or
activity as respect to persons of a particular race, color, or national origin.
The project service area shall not be selected in such a manner as to provide services to a
population in which the proportion of minority and other protected population groups is
substantially lower than the proportion of those groups throughout the jurisdiction of the
locality unless:
the areas of disproportionate concentrations of minority and other protected
population groups has already been served, or
there are definite plans for the imminent provision of similar services to those areas,
or
there is reasonable justification for the provision of services to the selected area
notwithstanding the substantially lower proportion of minority and other protected
population groups.
ii. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-284), as amended, administering
all programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner
to affirmatively further fair housing; and will take action to affirmatively further fair
housing in the sale or rental of housing, the financing of housing, and the provision of
brokerage services.
iii. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the
regulations issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 570.602), which provides that no person
in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or part with funds
provided under this Program. Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age
under Discrimination Act of 1975 or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped
individual as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended shall
also apply to this Program.
iv. Executive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing and nondiscrimination in the sale
or rental of housing built with Federal assistance.
v. Executive Order 11246, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto 41 CFR Chapter 60),
which provides that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex or national origin in all phases of employment during the performance of
Federal or federally assisted construction contracts. Contractors and subcontractors on
Federal and federally assisted construction contracts shall take affirmative action to
insure fair treatment in employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or
recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation and selection for training and apprenticeship.
(i) It will comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as
amended, requiring that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and
employment be given to lower-income residents of the project area and contracts for work in
connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or
owned in substantial part by, persons residing in the area of the project.
(j) It will:
i. In acquiring real property be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by
the land acquisition policies in Sections 301 and 302 of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; and
ii. Pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in Section 303 and
304 of the Uniform Act; and
iii. Comply with the applicable Sections (202 through 205) of Title II (relocation assistance)
of the Uniform Act in providing relocation payments and relocation assistance; and
iii. Comply with DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 in implementing the requirements, it
will:
1) Carry out the policies and procedures of Part 24 in a manner that insures that the
acquisition and relocation processes do not result in different or separate treatment to
persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or source of income;
and
2) Assure that, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable
decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwellings will be available to all displaced
families and individuals and that the range of choices available to such persons will
not vary on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or source of income;
and
3) Inform affected persons of their rights under the policies and procedures set forth
under the regulations in Part 24, including their rights under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended.
(k) It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using positions for a purpose that is or
gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others,
particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties.
(l) It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the political activity of
employees.
(m) It will comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act as amended and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act as determined by the Secretary of Labor. This section
shall apply to rehabilitation of residential property only if such property is designed for
residential use of eight or more families.
(n) It will give the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and the
Comptroller General through any authorized representatives access to and the right to
examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant.
(o) It will insure that facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in
the accomplishment of the program are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the
EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the project is under
consideration for listing by the EPA.
(p) It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102 (a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31,
1973. Section 103 (a) required, on and after March 2, 1974, the purchase of flood insurance
in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any
Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area, that
has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
as an area having special flood hazards. The phrase "Federal financial assistance" includes
any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance
loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance.
(q) It will in connection with its performance of environmental assessments under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), Executive Order 11593, and the Preservation of
Archeological and Historical Data Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1, et. Seq.) by:
i. Consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to identify properties listed in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to
adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the proposed activity, and
ii. Complying with all requirements established by HUD and the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such
properties.
(r) Assure upon funding, it will implement a "residential anti-displacement and relocation
assistance plan," pursuant to Section 570.496a(b).
(s) It will implement all required actions to ensure compliance pursuant to 24 CFR Part 8,
Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs and Activities.
(t) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
i. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee or any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
ii. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee or any agency,
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member
of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure
Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
iii. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the
award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and
contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall
certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
(u) Any survey information submitted with the application is a true representation of the data and
has not been altered or fabricated. The survey was conducted and analyzed in strict
accordance with the methodology stated.
(v) The certification set out below is a material representation upon which reliance is placed by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in awarding the grant. If it is later
determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the
requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, take
action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
Chief Administrative Official:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. _______ County Executive____________
Name Title
_________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
The applicant assures and certifies that it has provided its citizens adequate opportunities to
participate in the development of this proposal by:
Holding at least two public hearings in the locality prior to the submission of the proposal,
the first one for the purpose of obtaining the views of citizens on community development
and housing needs and the second (held at least 7 days after the first) for the purp ose of
informing the public on the proposed CDBG project. Participation by low- and moderate-
income residents and stakeholders in the project or service area and the community at large
was encouraged. The hearings were held at times and locations conveni ent to potential
beneficiaries and with accommodation for the disabled. Public input into the development of
this proposal was obtained at hearings held on:
January 13, 2010_____ AND March 10, 2010______;
(date) (date)
Publishing a notice to advertise the public hearings and availability of proposal information
at least 7 days prior to the dates of the hearings in the non-legal section of a NEWSPAPER of
local general circulation and AT LEAST ONE OTHER TYPE OF ANNOUNCEMENT. The
advertisements ran on:
_January 4, 2010_________ AND February 22, 2010_______;
(date) (date)
Advertisements for the two public hearing must be published separately. Applicants
may not only publish one advertisement that includes information on both public
hearings.
Maintaining files which contain documentary evidence that the hearings were held. These
files must contain proof of publication of the hearing notices, written and/or recorded
minutes of the hearings, and lists of citizens attending the hearings;
Making CDBG program and proposal documentation available to the public for comment
during regular office hours. This documentation should include the range of proposed
activities, the estimated amounts of funding which will benefit low- and moderate-income
persons, the plans to minimize displacement and provide displacement assistance where
applicable, and a summary of the proposed application. This documentation should also
include public information on any other CDBG project undertaken within the last 5 years;
Providing technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low- and moderate-
income that request such assistance in developing proposals for the use of CDBG funds,
with the level and type of assistance determined by the locality;
Providing timely written responses to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working
days where practicable;
Accommodating the needs of non-English speaking residents at public hearings where more
than 5% of the attendees can be reasonably expected not to speak English; and,
Adhering to the CDBG Citizen Participation Plan per the 2010 CDBG Program Design.
Chief Administrative Official
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ______ County Executive ____
Name Title
________________________________ ______________________________
Signature Date
Attach original copies of all newspaper Public Hearing notices. Original notice copies
should be clipped from the appropriate newspapers and attached with clear tape to 8 ½-inch x
11-inch white paper with the date of publication clearly visible. Photocopies should be made for
other proposal copies
In Regional proposals, each participating locality must conduct two public hearings and
the proposal must contain, from each participating locality, a signed copy of this page and
copies of all newspaper advertisements. Again, originals in original copy and photocopies
in other copies.
GENERAL ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copy in original proposal; photocopies in other copies)
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that:
(a) It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the proposed
program.
(b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution,
motion, or similar action authorizing the filing of the application including all
understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing
the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in
connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may
be required.
(c) Its chief executive officer or other officer of applicant who has been approved by
the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development:
i. Consents to assume the status of a responsible Federal official under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other provisions of
Federal law, as specified at 24 CFR 58.5(a) through (h) which serve to further
the purposes of NEPA insofar as the provisions of such Federal law apply to
this Program;
ii. Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself to accept the
jurisdiction of the Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia courts for the
purpose of enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official.
(d) It will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements of the
Code of Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 85), OMB Circular A-128 and Circular
A-87 as they relate to the application, acceptance, and use of Federal funds under
this Program; and, as applicable, all State laws and administrative requirements
which may supersede them (by virtue of being more stringent).
(e) It will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, relating to
evaluation of flood hazards and Executive Order 12088 relating to the prevention,
control and abatement of water pollution.
(f) It will require buildings or facilities designed, constructed, or altered with funds
provided under this Program to comply with the "American Standard
Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by,
the Physically Handicapped," Number A-117.1-R 1980, or Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS) in accordance with the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code. The applicant will be responsible for conducting
inspections to insure compliance with these specifications by the contractor.
(g) It will not recover the capital costs for public improvements financed in whole or in
part with CDBG funds through assessments against properties owned and occupied
by low- and moderate-income persons nor will fees or assessments be charged to such
persons as a condition of obtaining access to the public improvements. (Per section
104(b)(5) of Title I of Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended).
(h) It will comply with:
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L 88-352), and the regulations
issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 1), which provides that no person in the
United States shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives
Federal financial assistance. A recipient, in determining the types of housing,
accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits which will be
provided under any such program or activity, or the class of persons to whom, or
the situations in which, such housing, accommodations, facilities, services,
financial aid, or other benefits will be provided under any such program or
activity, or the class of persons to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any
such program or activity, may not, directly or through contractual or other
arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect
of subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national
origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment
of the objectives of the program or activity as respect to persons of a particular
race, color, or national origin.
The project service area shall not be selected in such a manner as to provide
services to a population in which the proportion of minority and other protected
population groups is substantially lower than the proportion of those groups
throughout the jurisdiction of the locality unless:
the areas of disproportionate concentrations of minority and other protected
population groups has already been served, or
there are definite plans for the imminent provision of similar services to those
areas, or
there is reasonable justification for the provision of services to the selected
area notwithstanding the substantially lower proportion of minority and other
protected population groups.
ii. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-284), as amended,
administering all programs and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing; and will take
action to affirmatively further fair housing in the sale or rental of housing, the
financing of housing, and the provision of brokerage services.
iii. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the
regulations issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 570.602), which provides that no
person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or part with
funds provided under this Program. Any prohibition against discrimination on the
basis of age under Discrimination Act of 1975 or with respect to an otherwise
qualified handicapped individual as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 as amended shall also apply to this Program.
iv. Executive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing and nondiscrimination in
the sale or rental of housing built with Federal assistance.
v. Executive Order 11246, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto 41 CFR
Chapter 60), which provides that no person shall be discriminated against on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in all phases of employment
during the performance of Federal or federally assisted construction contracts.
Contractors and subcontractors on Federal and federally assisted construction
contracts shall take affirmative action to insure fair treatment in employment,
upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training
and apprenticeship.
(i) It will comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as
amended, requiring that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and
employment be given to lower-income residents of the project area and contracts for
work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which
are located in, or owned in substantial part by, persons residing in the area of the
project.
(j) It will:
i. In acquiring real property be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under State
law, by the land acquisition policies in Sections 301 and 302 of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; and
ii. Pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in Section
303 and 304 of the Uniform Act; and
iii. Comply with the applicable Sections (202 through 205) of Title II (relocation
assistance) of the Uniform Act in providing relocation payments and relocation
assistance; and
iii. Comply with DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 in implementing the
requirements, it will:
1) Carry out the policies and procedures of Part 24 in a manner that insures that
the acquisition and relocation processes do not result in different or separate
treatment to persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or
source of income; and
2) Assure that, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement,
comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwellings will be available
to all displaced families and individuals and that the range of choices available
to such persons will not vary on account of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, or source of income; and
3) Inform affected persons of their rights under the policies and procedures set
forth under the regulations in Part 24, including their rights under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as
amended.
(k) It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using positions for a purpose
that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for
themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or
other ties.
(l) It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the political activity
of employees.
(m) It will comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act as amended and the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act as determined by the Secretary of
Labor. This section shall apply to rehabilitation of residential property only if such
property is designed for residential use of eight or more families.
(n) It will give the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and
the Comptroller General through any authorized representatives access to and the
right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant.
(o) It will insure that facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be
utilized in the accomplishment of the program are not listed on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development of the receipt of any
communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating
that a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA.
(p) It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102 (a) of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved
December 31, 1973. Section 103 (a) required, on and after March 2, 1974, the
purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a
condition for the receipt of any Federal financial assistance for construction or
acquisition purposes for use in any area, that has been identified by the Secretary of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having special flood
hazards. The phrase "Federal financial assistance" includes any form of loan, grant,
guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant, or any
other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance.
(q) It will in connection with its performance of environmental assessments under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), Executive Order 11593, and the
Preservation of Archeological and Historical Data Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1, et.
Seq.) by:
i. Consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to identify properties
listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that
are subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the proposed activity,
and
ii. Complying with all requirements established by HUD and the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects upon such properties.
(r) Assure upon funding, it will implement a "residential anti-displacement and
relocation assistance plan," pursuant to Section 570.496a(b).
(s) It will implement all required actions to ensure compliance pursuant to 24 CFR Part
8, Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs and
Activities.
(t) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
i. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of
the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee or any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee
of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the
awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of
any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
ii. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee or
any agency, Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit
Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with
its instructions.
iii. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in
the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts,
subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that
all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was
placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this
certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed
by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required
certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not
more than $100,000 for each such failure.
(u) Any survey information submitted with the application is a true representation of the
data and has not been altered or fabricated. The survey was conducted and analyzed
in strict accordance with the methodology stated.
(v) The certification set out below is a material representation upon which reliance is
placed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in awarding the
grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false
certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in addition to any other
remedies available to the Federal Government, take action authorized under the
Drug-Free Workplace Act.
Chief Administrative Official:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. _______ County Executive____________
Name Title
_________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copies in original proposal; photocopies in other proposal copies.)
The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture,
distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in
the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against
employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;
and
iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations
occurring in the workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the
grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a co ndition
of employment under the grant, the employee will -
i. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
ii. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statue conviction for a violation
occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction;
(e) Notifying the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development within ten days
after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such condition;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under
subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted –
i. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and
including termination; or
ii. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health,
law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through
implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Chief Administrative Official:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. __________ County Executive _____
Name Title
___________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copies in original proposal; photocopies in other proposal copies.)
The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture,
distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in
the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against
employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;
and
iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations
occurring in the workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the
grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition
of employment under the grant, the employee will -
i. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
ii. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statue conviction for a violation
occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction;
(e) Notifying the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development within ten days
after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such condition;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under
subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted –
i. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and
including termination; or
ii. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health,
law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through
implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Chief Administrative Official:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. __________ County Executive _____
Name Title
___________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 3, 2010
Nathou Attinger
8242 Rockfish River Road.
Schuyler, Va 22969
RE: SP200900024 Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
Tax Map Parcel 07200000003200
Dear Mr. Attinger:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 12 2010, recommended approval
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Regarding SP200900024
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of SP-2009-00024, Rockfish Wildlife
Sanctuary subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled “Rockfish
Sanctuary, Inc. Concept Plan,” prepared by Jill Trischman-Marks, Landscape Architect, and dated
August 18, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Concept Plan”) as determined by the Director of Planning and
the zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
– Cages, chambers, and aviary located within the fenced meadow
– Structures limited to the renovated barn and the aviary
– Limit of three parking spaces
as shown on the Concept Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan that do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
3. The hours of operation shall not begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:00 pm
each day, seven days per week.
4. All animals being treated must be kept within the barn or the three- (3-) acre area around the barn
that is leased to the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, as shown in Attachment C.
5. There shall be no more than two (2) employees on the site at any time.
6. There shall be no visitors to the Wildlife Sanctuary.
7. Renovation of the barn shall commence on or before twenty-four (24) months from the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors or this special use permit shall expire.
8. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be verified
by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoni8ng compliance clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding septic systems shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
10. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (c) shall be required.
11. In order to maintain the driveway within the right-of-way on Route 637, the applicant shall obtain a
Land Use Permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Regarding Waivers
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, approved the applicant’s requested waivers from Section
5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal Shelter, as
follows:
(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or
area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less
than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall
be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator.
(b) In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building form 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 10, 2010.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Judith Wiegand
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
P.O. Box 3
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Miller School Of Albemarle The
1000 Samuel Miller Loop
Charlottesville Va 22903
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2009-00024, Rockfish Wildlife
Sanctuary
Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 12, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be determined.
Owner: The Miller School of Albemarle Applicant: Nathou Attinger, owner of the
Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
Acreage: The subject parcel is 1046.98 acres. The
proposed wildlife sanctuary would be located on a
3-acre portion of the subject parcel tha t includes an
old barn. The entire Miller School campus includes
over 1600 acres. (See Attachment A)
Special Use Permit:
Section 10.2.2 (47) Animal Shelter
TMP: 07200-00-00-03200 (Portion)
Location: On the Miller School property with
access off of Dick Woods Road, approximately
3500 feet from the intersection of Dick Woods Road
and Miller School Road.
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: To relocate the Rockfish Wildlife
Sanctuary, which rehabilitates orphaned and injured
wildlife, from a private residence in Nelson County
to the Miller School campus in Albemarle County.
Relocation would include renovating an old, unused
barn located on an approximately 8.6 acre portion of
the campus.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Rolling rural terrain with
some fields and some forested areas.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Properties
surrounding the Miller School campus have
residences, some agricultural buildings, fields, and
forested areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. Rehabilitation of orphaned and injured
wildlife is a needed service in Central Virginia.
2. Since approximately 50 percent of the wildlife
currently cared for at Rockfish Wildlife
Sanctuary is found in Albemarle County,
locating the sanctuary in the County would
bring it closer to the need.
3. Locating the sanctuary in the County would
also bring it closer to the Wildlife Center of
Virginia (located in Waynesboro), which will
benefit more severely injured or ill animals that
require the higher level of veterinary care
provided at the Center.
4. An unused structure, the barn, would be
renovated and maintained.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable
to this application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not Scheduled
SP 2009-00024, Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
Petition
PROJECT: SP200900024 Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
PROPOSED: special use permit to renovate existing barn for wildlife sanctuary; no residential units proposed.
Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11 (a) and (c) requiring solid fencing and that animals be
confined in an enclosed building between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (47) Animal Shelter
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Miller School; 1000 Samuel Miller Loop, Crozet; access off Dick Woods Road approximately
3500 feet from the intersection of Dick Woods Road and Miller School Road (Rt. 635)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 07200000003200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area
The 1600-acre campus of the Miller School, a private coeducational day and boarding school, is in the
County’s Rural Areas. The 1046.98-acre parcel that is the subject of this special use permit application
includes the o ld barn and approximately 3-acre area surrounding the barn where the proposed wildlife
sanctuary would be located. The general area around the proposed sanctuary is the campus and is
characterized by fields and rolling terrain. The barn that would be renovated to house the wildlife sanctuary is
in a separate area from the main campus. The closest adjacent property to the proposed wildlife sanctuary is
approximately 1200 feet to the north and includes a residence. (See Attachment B)
Specifics of the Proposa l
The applicant currently operates the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary at her residence in Nelson County. The
sanctuary treats orphaned and injured wildlife, primarily birds and small mammals, that are native to Central
Virginia (the Sanctuary does not provide care to exotic animals or domestic pets). The sanctuary is staffed by
a federal- and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator. The rapid growth of the sanctuary since it opened in 2004
has led the founder to develop a partnership with The Miller School. The school has agreed to lease an old
barn and three surrounding acres to the Sanctuary for five years, with an option to renew for an additional five
years. The Sanctuary would renovate the barn to accommodate the facility (See Attachments F and G). Over
50 percent of the wild animals now treated at the sanctuary come from Albemarle County and about 75
percent are orphaned or injured birds, according to the applicant. A maximum of two (2) staff would care for
the animals in the barn. Once the animals have reco vered enough and/or are mature enough they would be
moved to cages outside of the barn or to the aviary in order to help them acclimate to a more natural setting.
Staff would be at the facility from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The sanctuary does not have a veterinarian on staff, so
severely injured and ill animals are taken to the Wildlife Center of Virginia, located in Waynesboro, Virginia.
Moving the sanctuary to the Miller School would also bring it much closer to the Wildlife Center. All
rehabilitated animals would be released back into the wild at the site from which they were taken or on farms
whose owners have given permission for animals to be released there. No animals would be released at the
Miller School site.
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
The wildlife sanctuary would not be open to visitors or the general public. The partnership with the Miller
School does involve the students. However, the students would have no direct contact with the animals
because Sanctuary staff does not want the animals to acclimate to humans. Instead, the st udents would work
on education programs for other schools, the website, public relations, grant writing, and so on. None of these
activities would involve students being at the barn or on the site.
The barn would be renovated in a style in keeping with the agricultural character of the area. While the main
campus of the Miller School is on the National Register of Historic Places, the barn is not part of the historic
campus and is not a contributing structure. A photograph of the existing barn is included as F and a concept of
the renovated barn as G.
Planning and Zoning History
The Miller School property is in the Rural Areas and is zoned Rural Areas. Prior to December 1980, the
property was zoned agricultural. The Miller School originally developed this parcel and has occupied it since
the school was founded in 1878.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject propert y as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and
protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options.
Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources is a recognized purpose of the County’s Rural Areas.
Wildlife is one of these natural resources, so providing rehabilitation services for orphaned and injured
wildlife supports a purupose of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The minimum distance from barn that would house the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary to the nearest property
line is 1,229 feet. The orphaned and injured animals would be cared for first inside the barn. Once their
condition improves or they mature, they would be moved outside into cages or an aviary to help them
acclimate to a more natural setting. The healthy, mature animals would not be released on the Miller School
property. No additional services would be needed in the area and the increase in traffic would be very
minimal. No negative impacts to adjacent property, which might include noise or traffic, are anticipated.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The barn would be renovated and its use for wildlife rehabilitation would be in keeping with the agricultural
nature of the surrounding area. There would be a maximum of two staff at the facility at any time and no
visitors are proposed. The well and septic system that would be installed, as well as the electric service, would
enable the barn to be reused and would serve only the barn. Parking would be minimal (three spaces) and the
driveway would remain gravel. Allowing the wildlife sanctuary to operate on the campus would not change
the character of the district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: ―This district
(hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning
map for the following purposes:
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.‖
Reusing the barn for a wildlife sanctuary would help preserve the wildlife in the area, as well as preserving the
barn itself. The proposed well and septic system would serve only the barn, so operation of the Sanctuary
would not create a demand for service delivery to the RA. Permitting the wildlife sanctuary to relocate to this
area is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Rural Areas, particularly the conservation of natural
resources.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
As an animal shelter, the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary would not conflict with the agricultural, forestal, and
residential uses allowed by right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary would be regulated as an ―animal shelter,‖ under Section 5.1.11 Commercial
Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, A nimal Shelter. The applicant has requested
waivers from sections (a) and (c) (discussed later in this report) of this section of the ordinance. The applicant
meets the requirements of (b) and (d):
(b) For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to
any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels;
Staff notes that the barn would not be soundproofed, but it is well beyond the 200 -foot distance. Also, unlike a
more usual animal shelter that handles domestic pets, the birds and small mammals that would be handled at
the sanctuary would be the same as those found in t he wild, so any noise, such as an owl hooting, would be a
natural part of the environment.
(d) In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping
centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare.
To these ends the commission and board may require among other things:
- Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts;
- Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other
means.
Given the fact that this use is clearly out of the vicinity of urban density uses or intense activity, staff has
determined that this regulation is not pertinent and that special requirements are not necessary.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed wildlife sanctuary would be located in an isolated area and only the trained staff would come in
contact with the animals. When staff is notified of an injured or orphaned animal, staff would pick up the
animal; the public would not bring animals to the sanctuary. Animals at the sanctuary would be confined and
would be released offsite only when they are grown and healthy. Therefore, the potential for the spread of
disease to other populations, either wild or human, would be minimal. Only the staff would travel to and from
the proposed sanctuary, so the traffic impacts would be very minimal. Since the sanctuary would be over 1200
feet from the nearest property line, any noise impacts from the animals w ould also be minimal.
A condition requiring approval by the Virginia Department of Health for the well and septic system serving
the barn is included.
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has determined that the sight distance at the existi ng
driveway location is adequate. VDOT has indicated that a permit would be needed for maintenance of the
driveway within the VDOT right -of-way on Route 637 (Dick Woods Road). The minimum standards for the
entrance should be similar to those for an agricultural entrance. The details would be determined at the time a
Land Use Permit is issued by VDOT. A condition requiring the applicant to obtain a Land Use Permit from
VDOT in included.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. Rehabilitation of orphaned and injured wildlife is a needed service in Central Virginia.
2. Since approximately 50 percent of the wildlife currently cared for at Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary is found
in Albemarle County, locating the sanctuary in the County would bring it closer to the need.
3. Locating the sanctuary in the County would also bring it closer to the Wildlife Center of Virginia (located
in Waynesboro), which will benefit more severely injured or ill animals that require the higher level of
veterinary care provided at the Center.
4. An unused structure, the barn, would be renovated and maintained.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit
200900024, Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled, ―Rockfish
Sanctuary, Inc. Concept Plan,‖ prepared by Jill Trischman-Marks, Landscape Architect, and dated
August 18, 2009, (hereinafter, the ―Concept Plan‖) as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
Cages and the aviary located within the fenced meadow
Structures limited to the renovated barn and the aviary
Limit of three parking spaces
as shown on the Concept Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan that do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut -off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
3. The hours of operation shall not begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:00 p.m.
each day, seven days per week.
4. All animals being treated must be kept within the barn or the three- (3-) acre area around the barn
that is leased to the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, as shown in Attachment C.
5. There shall be no more than two (2) employees on the site at any time.
6. There shall be no visitors to the Wildlife Sanctuary.
7. Renovation of the barn shall commence on or before twenty-four (24) months from the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors or this special use permit shall expire.
8. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be verified
by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clear ance and the
commencement of the special use.
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding septic systems shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
10. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (c) shall be required.
11. In order to maintain the driveway within the right -of-way on Route 637, the applicant shall obtain a
Land Use Permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Waiver Requests
The applicant has requested waivers from the following zoning ordinance requirements.
[Section 5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR HOSPITAL,
ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00) Each commercial kennel, veterinary and
animal hospital shall be subject to the following:]
1. Waiver from Section 5.1.11(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned
buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence
not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and
shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator;
Applicant’s Justification: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a solid fence around
the animal confinement for two reasons:
1. The wildlife being rehabilitated is mostly songbirds and small mammals. These are native to Virginia,
so their sounds are part of the normal outdoor soundscape: songbirds sing, raptors call, and squirrels,
possums, and rabbits make faint sounds.
2. For successful rehabilitation and release, the animals need to see wild areas and vistas that are similar
to where they w ill be released. A solid fence or wall would prevent them from seeing an environment
that will be similar to their eventual home. A solid wall would also limit the sounds and smells that
they would be exposed to and to which they must acclimate.
The applicant does propose to fence a meadow area on one side of the barn. The cages and aviary would be
located in this fenced area.
Staff Analysis: The barn that the applicant proposes to renovate will not be soundproofed or air -conditioned.
However, the barn is over 1200 feet from the nearest property line, which would provide more than sufficient
buffering from the sounds of the birds and small mammals.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of Section 5.1.11(a), as
the characteristics of the site would isolate the wildlife sanctuary from surrounding properties and any existing
residences and solid fencing would not be necessary for sound attenuation and would not be in character with
the Rural Areas.
2. Waiver from Section 5.1.11(c) In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from
10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Applicant’s Justification: Some of the animals would be housed in cages or an aviary outside the barn, in
order to acclimate to a more natural setting. Animals that are going to be released successfully must be
acclimated to the night environment: the sounds, smells, sights, varying temperatures, and other weather
conditions. While being prepared for release, the animals need to experience the conditio ns they will face
when they become independent of Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary. Animals who are diurnal (active in daylight
hours) need to know to hide a dusk and not make any sounds that would betray their presence to predators.
SP2009-00024
PC January 12, 2010
Staff Report Page 7
Nocturnal animals need to learn how to move around quietly at night, in the rain, in the moonlight, in the
dark—all the skills they will need in the wild. They need to experience the nighttime environment in order to
learn and practice these skills.
The purpose of this requirement is to protect neighbors from the sounds of animals at night, such as barking
dogs. The animals that would be at Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary are species that are native to Virginia, and
their sounds are already present in the nocturnal landscape (i.e., owls, whippoorwills, and other night birds).
Staff Analysis: As noted above, the barn is over 1200 feet from the nearest property line, so it is unlikely that
sounds produced by the animals being rehabilitated would be heard by adjacent property owners. In t he event
that a noise was audible, it would an naturally occurring noise, such as owl hooting, not the noise of domestic
pets.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of Section 5.1.11(c),
as the location of the w ildlife sanctuary on the property would provide sufficient buffering.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map—Miller School Campus
Attachment B – Aerial Location Map—Miller School Campus
Attachment C—Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary Facilities Plan
Attachment D – Concept Plan—Barn Area
Attachment E – Narrative description of Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
Attachment F – Photograph of barn: current state
Attachment G – Photograph of barn: concept showing renovations
Return to PC actions letter
Attachment A Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 12, 2010
SP-2009-00024 Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
PROPOSED: special use permit to renovate existing barn for wildlife sanctuary; no residential units
proposed. Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11 (a) and (c) requiring solid fencing and that
animals be confined in an enclosed building between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: 10.2.2 (47) Animal Shelter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Miller
School; 1000 Samuel Miller Loop, Crozet; access off Dick Woods Road approximately 3500 feet from the
intersection of Dick Woods Road and Miller School Road (Rt. 635).TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP
07200000003200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
The purpose of this application for a special use permit is to permit the Wildlife Sanctuary, which
currently operates out of a private home in Nelson County, to relocate to a three acre portion of
the Miller School Campus. What the Wildlife Sanctuary does is basically take injured and
orphaned birds and small mammals to rehabilitate them until they can be released into the wild.
They presently find that more than one-half of the animals that they rescue come from Albemarle
County. That is why they have been looking for a location in the County.
Basically, staff from the sanctuary picks up the animal or bird when they are notified and brings it
back to rehabilitate it and eventually it is released. These animals and birds would not be
released on the campus of the Miller School, but either where they were picked up or on private
property where the owner has given permission for the release.
The proposed location is on the Miller School campus, which has approximately 1,047 acres.
The proposed location is an old barn that would be renovated. The existing driveway will be fixed
up, but would remain gravel. The applicant proposes to construct an aviary for the birds and
outdoor cages for the animals in addition to cages in the barn.
Staff found four factors favorable to the application as outlined in the staff report. Staff found no
unfavorable factors. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report. There are two waivers being requested from Sections
5.1.11(a) and (c)
Mr. Zobrist noted as a point of information that they would like to keep the animals in aviaries or
chambers, but not in cages. For some reason people react when someone keeps animals in cages.
Ms. Wiegand said that some of these are larger ones, but the applicant can clarify it.
Mr. Loach asked if they need to add plus emergency hours to the operating hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the normal operating hours are listed. She suggested that he ask the applicant
about the emergency hours.
Mr. Loach asked if the gravel road would be significant enough for fire apparatus to get into there.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes. She noted that VDOT would also approve the entrance from Dick Woods Road.
The applicant has requested two waivers from Section 5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service,
Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal Shelter. The proposed use comes under the supplemental
uses for animal shelter. The waivers requested are as follows:
(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air -conditioned buildings, no structure or
area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. Because this barn is located over 1,200’ from the nearest lot line that
particular part is not a problem. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
2
fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal
confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the
zoning administrator. The applicant has given two reasons that they don’t believe that is
necessary or appropriate, which is noted in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of this
waiver because they don’t believe that this is going to be a problem for any of the neighbors since
it is so far away and it is small animals and birds.
(b) The second requested waiver is regarding, “In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed
building form 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.” The applicant has provided a similar justification for not
having those hours as noted in the staff report. In this case they would like to have the animals
once they are past their initial period of recovery and they are getting ready to release them to be
outside 24 hours a day so to become accustomed to being outdoors and in the natural
environment they will be going back into. They would like to have the animals moved from the
barn to the cages, chambers or aviary outside. The applicant does not feel that there would be
any problem for any of the neighbors because of the distance. Staff a lso recommends approval
of this waiver. The applicant is present and can answer any questions.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked if the applicant has been in contact with Miller School. It seems to be a win/win situation
for the two.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Patty Wallins, a member of the Board of Directors of The Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, said that they have
worked very closely with Miller School to come up with a contract that would clarify what their
responsibilities and relationship with the school would be. She would be glad to answer any questions.
Nathou Attinger, Director of The Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, has laryngitis and could whisper things that
she could pass on if there were questions
Mr. Smith asked when they planned to be in operation.
Ms. Wallins replied that as soon as they can get the special use permit then they can start raising the
money to renovate the barn. Their hope would be that within a year or eighteen months to be ready to
start operation
Mr. Loach asked if they need to be there other than during the normal operating hours for emergencies.
Ms. Wallins replied no, that their staffing hours are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. T hat is the way it would be
operated.
Ms. Monteith asked if there would be any educational relationship between Miller School and the Wildlife
Sanctuary.
Ms. Wallins replied that as things develop there will be. But at this point all they would be doing is
renovating the barn to be able to move into it. They will be coming back with the next phase, which is to
develop an education center. Then they would be working very closely with Miller School, which is their
long term goal.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
brought back before the Planning Commission.
Motion for Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion for approval of SP-2009-00024,
Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report, as amended, to
change the reference to cages to chambers.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
3
1. Development of the use shall be in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled “Rockfish
Sanctuary, Inc. Concept Plan,” prepared by Jill Trischman-Marks, Landscape Architect, and
dated August 18, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Concept Plan”) as determined by the Director of
Planning and the zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept Plan, the development
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
– Cages, chambers, and aviary located within the three-acre site
– Structures limited to the renovated barn and the aviary
– Limit of three parking spaces
As shown on the Concept Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan that do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light awa y from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
3. The hours of operation shall not begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:00 pm
each day, seven days per week.
4. All animals being treated must be kept within the barn or the three - (3-) acre area around the barn
that is leased to the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, as shown in Attachment C.
5. There shall be no more than two (2) employees on the site at any time.
6. There shall be no visitors to the Wildlife Sanctuary.
7. Renovation of the barn shall commence on or before twenty-four (24) months from the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors or this special use permit shall expire.
8. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be verified
by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoni8ng compliance clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding septic systems shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
10. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (c) shall be required.
11. In order to maintain the driveway within the right-of-way on Route 637, the applicant shall obtain a
Land Use Permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Loach suggested that an asterisk be added explaining what chambers means.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion for Two Waivers:
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve the two waivers from Sections 5.1.11(a)
and 5.1.11(c) for SP-2009-00024, Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary as proposed by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00024 Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary would go before the Board of
Supervisors on March 10, 2010 with a recommendation for approval. The two waivers were approved, as
follows:
(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air -conditioned buildings, no structure or
area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less
than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall
be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator.
(b) In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building form 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 1, 2010
Missel, Fred
P.O. Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904
RE: ZMA200500003 UVA Research Park -North Fork
&
SP200800015 Parking Structures; 200800062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical,
Pharmaceutical; 200800063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses;
200800064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns
Dear Mr. Missel:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 16, 2010, recommended
approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors.
Action on ZMA-2005-003:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2005-0003 UVA Research Park -
North Fork with the changes to the proffers for clarity prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
Action on Modification to Setbacks:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved the setback modification to Section 26.6 to allow a
setback reduction to allow for buildings, including those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from 50
feet to 10 feet along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
MOTION ON ALL FOUR SPECIAL USE PERMITS
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of all four special use permits (SP-2008-
00015, SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent
with ZMA-2005-003 subject to the conditions as recorded in the staff report as noted below.
SP-2008-0015-Parking Structure- APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS
Conditions on SP-2008-00062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical:
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the ordinance and a
Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by the Director of
Planning.
Conditions on SP-2008-00063-Supporting Commercial Uses:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area, commercial uses
shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at any time during phased development.
Conditions on SP-2008-00064-Hotels, Motels, Inns:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not
exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be
required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area
of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 10, 2010.
View Proffers
View staff report and attachments
Return to regular agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Ragsdale
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: University Of Virginia Foundation
P O Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale/Elaine Echols
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 9, 2010; rescheduled from February 2,
2010; January 12, 2010;Original Public Hearing
held August 18, 2009; deferred from May 19,
2009 & July 21, 2009
[Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report
are reflected in bold italics]
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
February 10, 2010
Owners: University of Virginia Foundation Ap plicant: University of Virginia Foundation,
represented by Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen
Acreage: 30 acres to be rezoned to PDIP added
to the 525 acre research park
Special Use Permit:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial
Uses SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
TMP: 32 Parcels 18, 18a
Location: North side of Airport Road (Route
649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 Nort h
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); PDIP research/industrial park
with up to 3 million square feet of building area
permitted
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Request to rezone approximately
30.56 acres from RA to PDIP to be added to the
UVA Research Park and allow an additional
700,000 square feet in the park; request to amend
proffers associated with approved Research Park
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Industrial Service
Character of Property: undeveloped, 1920s
house, fires station, research park
Use of Surrounding Properties: undeveloped,
residential, research park
Factor Favorable:
1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial
Service designation of the Land Use Plan.
2. The proposal meets goals and objectives of
the Economic Development Policy plan.
3. The application plan provides for additional
interconnections into the Research Park.
4. The applicant has provided for requested
commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts.
Factor Unfavorable:
Staff has found no unfavorable factors.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 10, 2010
ZMA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
Petition: (Revised to reflect correct list of Tax Map/Parcels)
PROJECT: ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park (North Fork)
PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultur al,
forestal, and fishery uses, and residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no
residential uses), for 700,000 square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from
PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995-04
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited prod uction and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map Parcels 32-18, 32-6A, 32-18A, 32-18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-
19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Characteristics of the Site & Surrounding Area
The property proposed for rezoning consists of two parts, one is the 30.56 acres to be added to the
park zoned RA and the second is the remainder zoned PDIP. The County’s Hollymead Fire
Rescue Station (Building F) is located adjacent to Innovation Drive and the existing PDIP zoned
portion of the Research Park. The Rural Area zoned properties proposed for rezoning contain an
existing house that dates to 1925. The site is relatively flat, with a stream and some wetlands
located along the northern and western boundaries. Surrounding the site to the west is an
undeveloped property zoned Light Industrial and to the east is
the established Airport Acres residential subdivision zoned R1.
The United States Post Office is locate across Airport Road to
the south and is zoned LI, with properties to the east and west
of the Post Office zoned RA. (See Attachments A & B)
Specifics of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to expand
and enlarge the Research Park by approximately 30 acres to
add an additional 700,000 more square feet to the park, which
if approved would allow up to 3,700,000 building square feet
total. The currently proposed application plan shows
development on both a portion of the existing PD-IP zoned land
as well as the additional 30 acres. The bold black line on the
inset to the right shows the zoning line, with property on left
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the attached application plan and proffers.
RA PDIP
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 3
zoned RA and on right PDIP. (Referred to as Area D on Application Plan-Attachment D)
The appearance illustrated on the Overall Concept Plan is one of an “office park”, similar to the
Research Park owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. Buildings, which will likely be multi-
story are proposed and shown as Buildings A-M on the Concept Plan and are referred to as the
Gateway District on Attachment D-Exhibit B. Buildings A and B are oriented towards Airport Road,
Buildings C-F are organized around preserved wetlands and referred to as the Wetland District
(Attachment D-Exhibit C), and Buildings I-M and a parking garage are shown as the Research &
Development District organized around a central green/amenity area. (Attachment D-Exhibit D)
While the Concept Plan implies multi-story buildings and building footprints, the applicant would like
only to be bound by the General Plan which would provide flexibility in final building location, scale,
and massing. So it is possible under the General Plan for larger buildings, possibly one story, to
locate within the areas shown on the General Plan for buildings, with the exception of Buildings A
and B which must be two buildings and a minimum of two stories. (See insets below)
Background: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a
rezoning for the North Fork Research Park on 525 adjacent acres in 1996. (ZMA 1994-05) In
addition to the PD-IP approved uses, three special use permits were granted for laboratories,
supporting commercial uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A copy of the proffers is included within
Attachment C. In 1998, the Board approved an amendment (ZMA 98-27) to the district to allow
setbacks to be ten feet from the internal streets within the development. ZMA 2005-002 for the
amendments related to the fire station rezoning was approved February 2006. The fire station and a
total of eight buildings have been constructed to-date in the UVA Research Park, with building sizes
ranging from 25,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet in size for a total completed development
square footage of 491,000 square feet total.
Work session January 31, 2006: A work session was held in January 2006 for the Commission to
review the overall design and layout of the proposed park design submitted with ZMA 2005-003.The
Commission was asked to provide guidance to both the staff and applicant on changes, if any,
needed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood
Model. Staff questions and Commission discussion are summarized below and how the applicant
has addressed these matters since the work session are noted below and throughout the staff
analysis in this report. The work session staff report and Commission minutes are provided as
Attachment C.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 4
Should the statement below from the Land Use Plan result in a prohibition of expansion of the
UVA Research Park?
Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable
areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now
referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total buildable area
shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to
an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning.
The Commission did not find that this statement precludes additional adjacent areas from being
rezoned consistent with the Industrial Service land use designation.
Is the design appropriate or should it be modified to be more in conformity with the
Neighborhood Model?
The Commission discussed whether the additional area to be rezoned should be more consistent with
the existing Research Park or Neighborhood Model Principles. Some commissioners recommended
that parking should be further relegated or structured parking provided. Overall, the Commission did
not have major issues or direction for changes on layout and design elements of the proposal.
Update: The revised proposal provides for a parking garage and changes have been made to the
layout to further relegate parking; parking will be relegated as show on the General Plan.
Is pedestrian access appropriate? Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both
sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side?
The Commission recommended a sidewalk be provided on one side of Lewis & Clark Drive. An
asphalt path on the other side was viewed as appropriate. Update: Proposed street sections for Area
D provide for a sidewalk on the west side of Lewis & Clark (Innovation) Drive.
Should streets (either public or private) rather than commercial drives with parking lots be
used to, help establish a better design and traffic circulation within the site?
The Commission did not directly answer this question but recommended that interconnections to
adjoining properties be provided as public streets. Update: Interconnections have been provided and
are intended to be public roads.
Should an interconnection (or interconnections) be made to the property to the west?
The Commission recommended that an interconnection be provided. Update: An interconnection to
the property to the west has been provided.
Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 plan be retained or
should buildings front Airport Road?
The Commission had no issues with the proposal for buildings withi n previously approved open
space, provided that the buffer to the east was maintained. Update: The proposed plan maintains the
buffer to the east and buildings fronting Airport Road. The General Plan maintains a building
envelope adjacent to Airport Road with parking relegated behind it.
Should centers be created within the park? Should a center be established along Airport
Road?
The Commission concluded that the focal points provided in the applicants concept provided for
adequate “mini-centers” within this new proposed section of the Research Park. The Commission
also discussed the town center proposed within the approved park and encouraged mixing of
supporting commercial uses in the “mini-centers” to further strengthen them as focal points. Update:
The focal points have been maintained in the applicant’s revised proposal.
Has the applicant appropriately provided for buildings and spaces of human scale?
There was some concern expressed by some commissioners and it was suggested that one way to
mitigate the scale and massing issue was with landscaping. Update: Rather than make commitments
to scale and massing, the applicant wishes to rely on the Design Code established for the Research
Park, which already governs the rest of the Research Park. Given the unique mission of the Research
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 5
Park and public/private partnerships with research functions of the University, flexibility of building
size and scale is needed. A commitment has been made adjacent to the Entrance Corridor to
address scale and massing, where two buildings will be provided a minimum of two stories in height.
Should greater detail and commitments be provided for commercial uses or are the general
special use permit requests sufficient?
The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide for mixed use but did not consider the issue a
major concern to be addressed. The Commission suggested mixed commercial uses would be
appropriate around the focal points of the development such as first floor retail. Some
Commissioner’s also suggested the addition of residential units on the upper floors of buildings.
Update: A special use permit to allow supporting commercial uses is part of this rezoning and if
approved the special uses available in other areas of the Research Park will also be permitted in the
new section.
Following the January 2006 work session, the rezoning was deferred for some time and the
applicant submitted revised plans, an updated Traffic Impact Analysis, and environmental features
information in 2008.
The rezoning request (ZMA 2005-003) was originally scheduled for a Planning Commission public
hearing on May 19, 2009. Due to outstanding issues, the applicant requested a deferral to submit
revisions to address the following outstanding items identified by staff in the May 19 report:
The applicant had not provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts by building the Lewis & Clark Drive connection to Airport Road sooner than
980,000 square feet.
Clarifications concerning improvements to Route 29 had not been provided, including
updated language on ROW acquisition, LOS standards, and clarification that correction
of vertical curvature of the roadway is required.
Flexibility in final building design that might result in larger single-story buildings in Area
D adjacent to the Entrance Corridor.
The applicant submitted revised proffers and Application Plan Exhibit A: Overall Concept Plan to
address these outstanding items. There were no changes related to the special use permits
requested. Based on the resubmittal date and need to allow adequate review time, the public
hearing was deferred a second time by the Commission to August 18, 2009.
August 18, 2009 Public Hearing- The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
rezoning and concurrent special use permits. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning, special use permits, and setback modification, with the following
changes to be made to the proffers for the rezoning:
Modify Proffers 5.4.1 and 5.4.C(3) to specify that the LOS C average for the
intersections with Route 29 is the standard and that individual movements may
be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at those intersections with Route
29.
Proffer 5.3 Phases of Development-Modify Maximum Total Build-out for
General Office in Phase II and Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved
uses.
After the August 18, 2009 public hearing, it was discovered that certain parcels were not
included in the application or advertised and legally another public hearing would be
required for the rezoning and special use permits. There have been no changes to the
application other than to make the proffer changes requested by the Commission on August
18, 2009 and a few other non-substantive corrections requested by the County Attorney’s
office and ownership documentation.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 6
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The properties are located in the Community of Hollymead and designated Industrial Service in the
Land Use Plan, which includes the following recommendations:
Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing, light industry, research, heavy
industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service.
Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use.
Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial Servic e designation if such uses are
compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service
uses.
Care should be taken to insure that the impacts of the
Industrial Service uses, including traffic, noise, odors, and
vibrations will not affect residential uses.
Where residential uses are provided, both vehicular and
pedestrian interconnections are expected to nearby industrial
areas.
Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size (+
5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer
availability, compatibility with adjacent uses.
Rail access may be necessary. Areas for less-intensive
industrial uses may act as transitional areas between
commercial and industrial areas.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with these
recommendations for Industrial Service properties. The mix
of uses proposed includes Flex/Industrial, Light Industrial,
laboratories and office as the primary uses proposed within
the park. Supporting commercial and hotel/conference uses
are proposed as secondary uses within the park. No residential uses are proposed or permitted in
the PDIP zoning district. A buffer is proposed and will be maintained along the eastern property line
to mitigate impacts to Airport Acres. No pedestrian interconnections are provided between the
Research Park and Airport Acres, since Airport Acres was an established subdivision prior to
development of the Research Park. Residential lots adjoin the Research Park and there are no
common areas of open space that might enable such connections adjacent to the Research Park.
Recommendations from Land Use Plan for the Community of Hollymead that apply to this
rezoning:
Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in
suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the
area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total
buildable area shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area
shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development
zoning.
Placement of this statement in the Plan predated the rezoning of the Research Park. The
language was included to stipulate the expected development of the land that at that time that
would be subject to original Research Park rezoning. It was not intended to preclude additional
area from being rezoned to an industrial designation, since the Land Use Plan designates more
land than were subject to the Research Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current
request for expansion of the Research Park is in this additional area of the Comprehensive Plan
designated Industrial Service. The proposed plan provides for preservation of important
environmental features along the northwestern property boundary. This was discussed at the
Commission’s January 2006 and the conclusion was that this rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
S
I
T
E
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 7
Principles of the Neighborhood Model
Staff has analyzed the revised overall design and layout of the park for conformity with the
principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment.
Pedestrian
Orientation
A Pedestrian Circulation Plan (Attachment D-Exhibit F) and Streetscape &
Sidewalk Sections (Attachment D-Exhibit G) have been provided by the
applicant. The Pedestrian Circulation Plan shows a hierarchy of primary
and secondary pedestrian connections. All pedestrian connections will be
concrete sidewalks with the exception of the nature trail around the
preserved wetlands and along Lewis and Clark Drive. The design of Lewis
and Clark Drive was established with the prior rezoning. It is an urban
section with 4 lanes separated by a median with trees. It has been
approved for a six-foot asphalt path on the west side of the street. As
discussed in the Commission’s work session, the Commission and staff
support having pedestrian access along only one side of Innovation/Lewis
and Clark Drive for Area D because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive
abuts a 50 foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential.
(Refer to Section B: Lewis & Clark Drive) There are existing sidewalks
along Airport Road at the front of the property and “Gateway District”.
Staff believes this principle has been met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Streetscape and sidewalk sections have been provided on Exhibit G.
Planting strips are proposed on all road sections between the sidewalk and
roadway. At the time site plans are submitted, more area than shown may
need to be provided to accommodate planting strips. Parallel parking can
also be provided in some sections of the internal road serving the park.
Staff believes this principle has been met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
The proposed plan provides for an interconnection to the west to the
Industrial zoned property owned by Goldleaf Trust, this is shown on Exhibit
A as a Connection to Adjacent Property. Goldleaf Trust has a platted
interconnection approved December 2006 that would interconnect the
Research Park property to the north and impact environmental resources
at the location proposed with the Goldleaf Trust plat. There are no site
development plans under review or approved for development of that
property. At the time the property does come in with development plans,
the County will request that the interconnection now be provided for in the
location shown on the Research Park plans.
In the portion of the park already zoned, proffers have been amended to
provide for an interparcel connection to Northside Drive from the cul-de-sac
street adjacent to Areas B-11 and B-10, depicted on Attachment D-Exhibit
K.
Lewis & Clark Drive is intended to provide an interconnection/parallel road
to from Route 29 to Airport Road. Staff and VDOT recommended that the
connection be provided sooner. The applicant has agreed to limit building
square footage in the new area of the park (Area D) to 180,000 square feet
unless the Lewis & Clark interconnection is made.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 8
This principle has been met.
Parks and Open
Space
Natural Features and Wetland Overlay are shown on Exhibit H. The
original rezoning for the Research Park provided open space at the
entrance to this development as well as along several stream and sloped
areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the east
side of Lewis and Clark Drive from its intersection with Airport Road. There
was no Commission concern at the work session with the open space
along Airport Road converted to building area as the buildings are shown
to establish a face to Airport Road.
The buffer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The
new proposal removes the open space at the entrance to the development
and replaces it with buildings. Open space continues to be shown
surrounding a wetland area and another open space area is provided at
the rear of the development near a stream and stormwater facility.
The proposal provides for two amenity areas including the preserved
wetlands area adjacent to the Hollymead Fire Station and the Village
Green proposed
Staff believes this principle is met.
Neighborhood
Centers
The previously approved Research Park identifies a town center in the
middle of the development. The buildings proposed in the new section
relate somewhat to the town center, although the walking distance for the
closest buildings is approximately a half-mile away. The applicant has said
that “the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the
establishment of “centers” or gathering spots to support the Park and
adjoining neighborhoods and uses.” The proposal for Area D of the
Research park is organized around open space focal points internally, with
the preserved wetlands area in the “Wetlands District” and the open space
green area in the “Research & Development District”.
Staff believes this principle has been met, based on the Commission’s
evaluation at their work session.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
The applicant is proposing the design code for the existing Research Park
to the new area to be added. However, the applicant wishes to preserve
opportunities for building height, scale, and massing that would suit a
variety of uses, as shown on the General Plan. So buildings similar to
those in the Fontaine Research Park may not be built. The applicant has
made a commitment to break up the buildings along Airport Road and
provide a minimum of two story buildings on the Entrance Corridor. No
elevations or perspective drawings have been requested or provided with
this rezoning request because of the commitment to design in accordance
with the Research Park’s design code.
Front setbacks on the Overall Concept Plan appear to be at 12 feet, side
setbacks are proposed at 15 feet on the application plan, and building
heights are limited to 4 stories. Light Industrial buildings are permitted as
one or two story buildings within the building envelopes shown on the
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 9
General Plan and the applicant has provided a note on the application plan
that buildings adjacent to Airport Road will be a minimum of two stories.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the setbacks of Section 26.6
to allow reduced building setbacks along public roads, including Airport
Road and Lewis and Clark Drive, from 50 feet to 10 feet. Places where
setbacks are most important in the proposed project are along Airport
Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. The rest of the setbacks would relate to
internal driveways and parking lots.
Parking lots have also been broken up into this layout and are organized,
along with the buildings, around the proposed focal points within the
development so there is more of a human scale created.
There was no clear direction or concern from the Commission at their work
session regarding this principle. The Overall Concept Plan reflects a more
human scale than the General Plan. Staff recognizes the unique needs of
some of the industrial uses that may locate in the Research Park and
believes meeting this principle along Airport Road is sufficient.
Relegated Parking Generally, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis &
Clark/Innovation Drive. The application plan was revised since the
Commission’s work session to relegate additional parking lots and to
provide for some parking in a parking garage. Parking lots that are
adjacent to Innovation Drive (Lewis & Clark Drive) are screened or located
behind the front setback of buildings.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed rezoning is for PDIP zoning within an area designated
Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan. Commercial uses are
recommended as secondary and these areas are intended to primarily
provide for industrial service uses. The applicant has provided allowance
for commercial uses as is currently allowed in the existing park. The
applicant is requesting supporting commercial uses not to exceed 5% of
total floor area and commercial uses not to exceed more than 10% of floor
area at any time during phased development.
Since the total square footage in the park will increase if this rezoning is
approved, the total supporting commercial will also be increased within the
entire Research Park. The condition of approval with the previously
approved SP for supporting commercial permits up to 5% of total floor area
within the Park and up to 10% of total floor area at any time during phased
development. At the 2006 work session, the Commission did not ask the
applicant to commit to any particular location for mixed use. Staff finds that
this principle is met.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 10
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by-right or by special
use in the PD-IP district.
Redevelopment This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of
undeveloped land; however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed
for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for
the presence of historic architectural and/or archaeological resources,
County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family
dwelling. The applicant has been requested to document the buildings on
TMP 32-18 prior to demolition, which is provided for in the proffers.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best
possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to
achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1
regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise
be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shown to
be impacted, in general, the proposed development respects the terrain.
Based on the information provided on Exhibit I Grading & Utility Plan ,
there is a retaining wall shown around the perimeter of the parking near
Building K. W hile retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be
terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. The applicant
has provided a note on the application plan sheet that no individual
retaining wall shall exceed 6 feet in height and if additional height is
necessary, it must be terraced with each wall not to exceed 6 feet, unless a
modification is granted by the Director of Planning.
This principle has been met.
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This principle is not applicable as the property does not adjoin the Rural
Areas.
Economic Development Policy
The County’s Economic Development Policy is a part of the Comprehensive Plan and was recently
updated in March 2009, referred to herein as “the Plan.” The Plan recognizes the importance of
economic growth and vitality to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural
characteristics of the community, by creating a diversified economy, jobs, and workforce
development opportunities.
The Plan recognizes the University of Virginia and its associated entities as a main economic driver
of economic vitality that can provide important resources for business and industry. The Plan
recommends the County work with the University and associated entities to take advantage of
opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. Supporting further development of the
University’s research park is clearly consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Economic
Development Policy.
The University’s Research Park’s mission is to encourage relationships with the private sector and
the transfer of technology and expertise from research to the business environment. The Park is
designed to support companies in a variety of businesses, from research and development, to light
manufacturing and knowledge-based commerce. The proposal also meets the Economic
Development Policy strategy of “Increasing diversity in business and industry which will
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 11
accommodate a variety of skill/educational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in
particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners.” The Research Park’s
current list of tenants is reaching 20 and is attached for information (Attachment F); there are
approximately 1, 300 employees now associated with existing operations within the Research Park.
Draft Places 29 Master Plan
While conformity with the current Land Use Plan recommendations is the standard to which the
applicant should be held in this rezoning, the pertinent recommendations of the draft Places 29
Master Plan are summarized here for information and provided as Attachment J. The Plan
anticipates that the Research Park will continue to develop as a major employment center. The
draft Places 29 Plan offers opportunity for the Research Park to include more integrated mix of
residential and commercial uses and land use designations are intended to be consistent with the
Research Parks approved Application Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates Area D as Urban
Mixed Use, Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial, and the Hollymead Fire Station site as Institutional.
About one third of Area D is designated as “Uptown”. The draft master plan recognizes that the
“Uptown” is a long-term goal of the plan that would take many years to redevelop as envisioned,
evolving over time as described below.
The draft master plan currently recommends a maximum building footprint size of no greater than
25,000 for the Urban Mixed Use area in Uptown and for Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial uses up to
a 40,000 square foot maximum building footprint size. The UVA Foundation is requesting to add 30
acres to in Area D to the existing Research park PDIP program and apply the design code that is
currently in place for the rest of the park. The Foundation requests the same level of flexibility in
Area D, as the rest of the park, allowing for buildings that support employment opportunities and
research function of the University. The design code allows LI buildings as one-two stories and
there are no restrictions on building footprint size. The applicant is willing to make a commitment to
have two buildings fronting Airport Road which will be a minimum of two stories rather than one
single-story building. This is provided as a note on the application plan.
The transportion component of the rezoning
application is consistent with the Places 29
Transportation Network (inset to right) with
one exception. The proposed road layout
and proffers provide for the Lewis & Clark
interconnection and for a future
interconnection to Northside Drive. The road
shown in green is optional but not essential
to the roadway network. It is not provided by
the applicant as because if built would go
through environmentally sensitive areas
shown for preservation on the rezoning
plan.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 12
Most of the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of Places 29. The portion of
area D designated Urban Mixed Use (Uptown) is not totally in keeping because the suggested mix
of land uses are not provided in the Uptown Area and, as previously indicated, the Foundation
would like to maintain flexibility and allow for the potential for industrial uses to locate on Airport
Road. Because of the uncertainty as to whether this area would ultimately be designated for
Uptown, staff did not request that the applicant commit to mixed use at this location. The future
Small Area plan for this area may revisit where the best location for an Uptown. Nothing precludes
future long term opportunities for a greater mix of uses, as this area could evolve overtime towards
the Uptown idea.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The applicant is requesting PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park zoning. The intent of the
PDIP district as described in the Zoning Ordinance states that the district is intended to: Permit a
variety of industrial uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto, which are compatible with and
do not detract either from each other or from surrounding districts. It is intended that PD-IP districts
may be established in areas in conformity with the comprehensive plan and having all of the
following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such facilities are
reasonably available Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road
improved to standards approved by the county; and Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability
for intended uses with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to surrounding
development. In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of supervisors shall designate
the category of uses which shall be permitted in each parcel, or part thereof, which is the subject of
the application for such amendment.
The proposed PDIP application is consistent with the PDIP District as it is providing for a variety of
uses including general office, flex/industrial, light industrial, laboratories including research and
development, and some supporting commercial and hotel uses. The site is served by public water
and sewer and primary road access with Route 29 and Airport Road.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Environmental- Attachment D-Exhibit H of the Application Plan depicts natural features and wetland
overlay, with preservation and conservation areas of the site shown. Staff and County Engineer
have evaluated the proposed resources and impacts to them with this proposed development,
including a wetlands delineation study. There are linear wetlands at the western boundary and
middle of the parcel associated with a perennial stream, and 50’ stream buffer requirements apply.
The proposed plan disturbs approximately 0.16 acre of palustrine (forested) wetlands to allow
construction of Building J and parking lot improvements. (Attachment D -Exhibit H) All wetland
impacts must be authorized by federal and state regulatory agencies, and ideally the proposed
development would preserve these natural features. Assuming that federal and state agency
approval were obtained, the Natural Resources Planner and County Engineer have found that
impacting this area of wetlands could be reasonable if the wetland system to the southwest, along
the southern property boundary were preserved the applicant has provided for a 100’ stream buffer
and preservation of these wetlands with their current application plan.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 13
Cultural/Historic Resources- As mentioned previously, the applicant will survey the existing building
on the property and provide documentation prior to demolition. At this time the building does not
appear have significant historic value.
Entrance Corridor- Airport Road is an Entrance Corridor and subject to ARB review. The Design
Planner has commented that it appears that the site layout as illustrated in the concept plan could
meet Entrance Corridor guidelines. Detailed building information and review by the ARB for
conformity with Entrance Corridor guidelines will be done at the time of site plan application.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets – Currently, there are two entrances to the existing Research Park. The main entrance
(Lewis & Clark Drive) is located on Route 29 and the back entrance to the park from Dickerson
Road. Innovation Drive has been constructed from Airport Road to serve the Hollymead Fire
Station and the proposed developed of the area under consideration for rezoning to incorporate into
the Research Park. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the initial request
for this rezoning in February 2005. It was revised in March 31, 2008 and again in July 2008 to
address County and VDOT comments. Information from this TIA is provided as Attachment E. The
TIA analyzed impacts of the adding 700,000 square feet to the Research Park, beyond the
3,000,000 square feet already approved. The analysis assumed all proffered roadway
improvements that were identified in the proffers approved with ZMA 1994-005 would be in place.
This included the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road, with the TIA anticipating
that a significant portion of the traffic generated by the Research Park site would use this connector
road and thereby reduce impact to Route 29.
The provision of phasing for road improvements provided on Exhibit M of the Application Plan
(Attachment D) and in the updated proffers (Attachment E) as indicated in the table on page 4 of
the proffers. The original proffers also specified that two-lanes of Lewis & Clark from Route 29 to
Route 649 through the Park shall be provided within six months of the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for a building constructed beyond 980,000 square feet. (Proffer 5.4 (b)1) At
the time ZMA 1994-005 was approved, the Comprehensive Plan did not include text or show on the
Land Use Map a parallel road system along Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated
since that rezoning to provide for the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive from Route 29 to Airport
Road. Rezonings have been approved to the east of the Research Park (North Pointe) and south
that align with Lewis & Clark Drive, to provide for an interconnecting parallel and perpendicular road
system. NGIC has also been developed and expanded since the rezoning for the Research Park
was approved and has created more of an opportunity to provide for local traffic needs between
NGIC/North Pointe/UVA Research Park/Hollymead on an interconnected road system alternative to
Route 29. VDOT has also approved an Access Management Strategy in conjunction with the US 29
North Corridor Transportation Study that shows the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport
Road. Achieving the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive through the Research Park is now a
higher priority than it was at the time of the 1995 rezoning. Staff and VDOT recommended the
interconnection should be provided for sooner in the phasing of road improvements and that at a
minimum, the road should be provided as a 2-Lane Section prior to construction of more than
180,000 square feet in building area. This is approximately the amount of building area that could
be achieved on the already PDIP zoned portion of Area D included with this rezoning. The applicant
has agreed to this recommendation and provided for this in the updated proffers.
Proffer requirements with regard to Route 29 improvements have also been clarified. The 1994
proffers did not specify that corrections to the vertical curvature of Route 29 are necessary to make
the required road improvements. Proffers recently approved with rezonings along Route 29 have
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 14
specified that the correction of the vertical curvature is part of those improvements. The applicant
has updated to specify in the proffers the vertical curvature will be addressed.
Also, VDOT has recommended that the Level of Service (LOS) language in the proffers be updated.
In VDOT’s evaluation, it was recommended that the LOS be changed from “D” to “C.” (Attachment
H) VDOT’s Chapter 527 regulations enacted since the 1994 proffers, govern traffic studies and do
not use the minimum level of service criteria but change in delay. This means that when a study is
reviewed, the increase in delay is looked at for each movement and has to be held unchanged if
possible. Delay does correlate to LOS, and it was previously the policy that in rural areas LOS of
“C” or better is acceptable and in urban area a “D” or better is acceptable. The area around the
research park is still considered rural by VDOT and therefore VDOT has said LOS C should be
used for intersections with Route 29. The County Engineer concurs.
To bring the proffers in line with more current standards, the Commission recommended at
the August 18 public hearing the applicant modify the proffers to specify that LOS C average
for the two intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements
may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at the intersections of Route 29/Airport Road
and Route 29/Lewis & Clark Drive. This is acceptable to VDOT and the County Engineer.
The applicant has provided for all requested proffer additions and clarifications to mitigate
transportation impacts, including the additional LOS update recommended by the
Commission at the August 18, 2009 public hearing.
Schools – There are no residential uses proposed with this project and no impacts to schools
anticipated.
Fire, Rescue, Police- The proposed rezoning will
incorporate the Hollymead Fire Station (Station 12),
application plan and proffers approved with ZMA 2005-002.
The 16,257 square foot fire station has been constructed
(shown on the inset below), and is occupied/ in operation,
providing fire protection and primary emergency medical
response services to Hollymead and surrounding Area. The
property is leased from the UVA Foundation. It is depicted
as Building F on the application plans and depicted on the
inset to the right.
Albemarle County Fifth Street Office Building contains the County’s Police Department, although
police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police services recommends a response time
of five minute or less 85 % of the time in the Development Areas and this is achieved through their
sector/beat system. Police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to help achieve
these desired response times to all police emergency calls and the nearest satellite office to the
Research Park is located at Fashion Square Mall.
Utilities-The Research park is served by the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and
sewer. The proposed project will require the completion of the North Fork Regional Pump Station to
provide sewer capacity, which has an expected completion date of August 2010. Water is available
from an existing 12” RWSA water line running along Airport Road and from a 12” ACSA water line
running along Innovation Drive. (Attachment I)
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 15
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
The area requested for rezoning is located between the existing UVA Research Park and property
zoned Light Industrial to the west so there are no anticipated impacts to surrounding properties with
development of this site. The Application Plan maintains the minimum 50’ open space buffer
between Airport Acres and the east side of Innovation/Lewis & Clark Drive and in some places the
actual buffer that exists is more than 50’.
The proposed interparcel access to the west does not match the platted connection approved with
SUB 2006 – 273 and would result in the need to request that the owner provide for the
interconnection as shown on UVA Research Park application plan. This provides an interconnection
in a location that avoids environmental features. The owner should be notified of these changes, so
that they can plan accordingly when submitting any site plans to the County.
PROFFERS-
This rezoning involves amending proffers approved with ZMA 1995-04 and incorporating the
30 acres proposed for rezoning into a single application plan set. The revised set of proffers
provided as Attachment E also incorporates the proffers associated with ZMA 2005-02 (fire
station amendment). There have also been a number of other technical updates and edits
that have been made to the proffers that are not listed here, including formatting, and
ownership documentation. Substantive proffer changes that have been provided include:
Gross Floor Area to be Developed-
Updated the total build out proffer to reflect the increase in permitted up to
3,700,000 square feet of building area.
Transportation-
Phases of Development-Modified Build-out for General Office in Phase II and
Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved uses
Provision added to allow for a future interconnection to Northside Drive.
Provision to allow dedication of right-of-way for future Dickerson Road
widening and improvements
Clarified required improvements to Route 29 include correcting vertical
curvature
Updated right-of-way acquisition language
Specified the LOS for traffic studies also applies to turning movements at
intersections. Proffers modified to specify that LOS C average for the two
intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements
may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections of Route
29/Airport Road and Route 29/Lewis & Clark Drive
Provision added that development in Area D is limited to 180,000 until Lewis &
Clark interconnection is provided
Recreational Areas and Open Space-
Allow an additional playing field in the recreation proffers, as requested by
Parks & Recreation Department.
Historic Resources-
Provide reconnaisance level documentation of historic structure on property.
ALL PROFFER CHANGES REQUESTED HAVE BEEN MADE AND THERE ARE NO
OUTSTANDING PROFER ISSUES.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 16
SUMMARY
Factors Favorable:
1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial Service designation of the Land Use Plan.
2. The proposal meets goals and objectives of the Economic Development Policy plan.
3. The application plan provides for additional interconnections into the Research Park.
4. The applicant has provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has found no factors unfavorable for this rezoning.
Recommendation:
ZMA 2005-003
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005-003 rezoning and attached proffers.
Modification to Setbacks
Staff recommends approval of the setback modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback
reduction. of to allow for buildings, including those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from
50 feet to 10 feet along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map/Aerial
B. Zoning Map
C. Planning Commission work session staff report & minutes, January 31, 2006
D. Application Plan Exhibits:
A. Overall Concept Plan
A-1. General Plan
B. Gateway District Plan
C. Wetland District Plan
D. Research & Development Plan
E. Vehicular Circulation Plan
F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan
G. Streetscape & Sidewalk Sections
H. Natural Features and Wetland Overlay
I. Grading & Utility Plan
J. Zoning Application Overlay Plan
K. Overall Zoning Application Overlay Plan (K-1 through K-6)
L. Internal Road Network Plan
M. Off-site and Internal Road Phasing Plan
N. Open Space System Phasing Plan
E. Proffers dated December 14, 2009
F. UVA Research Park current tenant list
G. Transportation Impact Analysis Summary Table of Site Trip Generation
H. VDOT comments provided by Joel Denunzio, P.E., via e-mail dated March 4, 2009 and
Charles C. Proctor, III via e-mail dated July 21, 2009
I. ACSA comments provided by Gary Whelan, dated October 9, 2008
J. Summary of Places 29 Information-UVA Research Park
View PC minutes: February 16, 2010; January 12, 2010; August 18, 2009; July 21, 2009;
May 19, 2009
Return to PC actions letter
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 17
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork and Four SP’s
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 16, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and
meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building,
Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane
Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Calvin Morris, Ed Smith, and Thomas Loach, Chairman. Julia
Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; Rob Heide, Zoning Enforcement Manager; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to
rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP
Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial
and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000 square feet of office and
research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and
application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and confe rence
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a
mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of
Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A
requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32 -18B, 19F, 19F1,
19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North
Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development
Industrial Park
AND
2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical
(Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research
Park). PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork and Four SP’s
2
AND
2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with
ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED:
Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total
of 110,000 square feet of floor area.
AND
2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03
UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow
motel, hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed
190,000 square feet of floor area.
(Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Loach noted that the five deferred proposals would be discussed all at once with
separate voting actions.
Rebecca Ragsdale presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff
report. This is an item that was before the Commission in January, Due to inclement
weather the item was postponed and will now go to Board of Supervisors on March 10.
This request was before the Planning Commission in January, 2006 for a work session.
Then a public hearing was held in August, 2009 when the Planning Commission
recommended approval. There were some advertising errors and the public hearing
was scheduled for the February 2 meeting. Due to inclement weather the request was
deferred to this date. Due to inclement weather the item was postponed and now will
go to the Board of Supervisors on March 10.
The requests are for a rezoning and several concurrent special use permits for the UVA
Research Park to add about 30 acres to the existing UVA Research Park. They are
proposing to add some property they own that is zoned Rural Areas to the Planned
Industrial Park Development to bring their grand total of square footage presented up to
3,700,000 with 3,000,000 permitted at this time. It would allow an additional 700,000
square feet of building. The additional area requested to be added to the Research Park
is noted as Area D in the staff report. They are proposing similar uses. Staff would
expect to see typical development that is already in the Research Park. The parcels to
be added contain an existing home and some undeveloped land located along the
Airport Road Corridor and around the existing Hollymead Fire Station. The property is
currently zoned Rural Areas and is adjacent to the existing Research Park, which is
zoned Planned Development Industrial Park. Area D is also adjacent to the west along
Airport Road to parcels zoned Light Industrial. It is designated for Industrial Service in
the Comprehensive Plan so that the rezoning requested is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan.
It would have the extension of Lewis and Clark Drive adja cent to it or through part of
what is referred to as Area D. The portion of it on the Airport Road side is now called
Innovation Drive. It does not connect to Lewis and Clark Drive yet. The entire existing
park is included with this rezoning because proffers are being updated and then there is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork and Four SP’s
3
additional square footage being requested in an area that was previously shown as
open space in Area D. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal updates proffers but does not update the applica tion plan except where
specifically noted in the other areas of the Research Park. So they have a little more
detail with this application plan since it came in recently and the other application plan
was approved in 1995. Staff reviewed the general layout of the buildings. The proffers
are being revised to incorporate this area and the new exhibits of the application plans
all into one set. There will be one set of proffers and application plans that govern the
property. That is an update. The Design S tandards that apply to the rest of the
Research Park with the existing buildings will be applied. There are additional
transportation improvements and other updates to the proffers that the applicant has
worked with that have been requested that are a par t of this rezoning as well. With
transportation they are providing for some additional interconnections and allowing for
road improvements and updating proffer language from the proffers that were approved
in the 90’s. They are providing the Lewis and Clark interconnection through the parcel
from Route 29 to Airport Road sooner than was originally provided for in the phasing
plan. That is one of the more significant transportation proffers that are provided with
this rezoning.
Staff recommends approval as it is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The applicant
has addressed all of the outstanding issues that staff raised to address impacts. There
are a few minor updates or tweaks to the proffers that need to be done before it goes to
Board to reflect ownership changes that have happened in the Research Park recently,
a typo and one minor clarification. But there are no substantive changes, but all
technical changes to the proffers. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the
attachments of the application plan and the proffers. There is also an action associated
with the rezoning to approve a modification to setbacks. Then there are the four special
use permits that accompanied the project to allow parking structures, medical research
facilities, supporting commercial uses and hotels, motels and inns.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the University of Virginia Foundation, offered to answer
questions and to have the opportunity to address any public comments. Otherwise,
they appreciate the Commission’s consideration of their requests and asked for
approval.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion on ZMA-2005-003:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-
2005-0003 UVA Research Park - North Fork with the proffers with additional changes
for clarification prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork and Four SP’s
4
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Modification to Setbacks:
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the setback
modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback reduction to allow buildings, including
those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet along public
roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Special Use Permits (4):
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of all four
special use permits (SP-2008-00015, SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-
00064 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003 subject to the
conditions as recorded in the staff report as noted below.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
SP-2008-0015-Parking Structure- APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS
Conditions on SP-2008-00062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical:
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section
4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter
buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless
modified by the Director of Planning.
Conditions on SP-2008-00063-Supporting Commercial Uses:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floo r
area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at
any time during phased development.
Conditions on SP-2008-00064-Hotels, Motels, Inns:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or
inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual
occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the
hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall
not exceed 190,000 square feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork and Four SP’s
5
Mr. Loach said that the ZMA and four special use permits for UVA Research Park would
go to the Board of Supervisors on March 10 with a recommendation for approval. The
modification to the setbacks was approved by the Planning Commission.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 12, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on
Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach,
Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Items Requesting Deferral/Work session:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery us es;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approxim ately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax
Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research
Park). PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park
AND
2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -
03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in
association with the UVA Research Park.
AND
2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA
Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses
within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area.
AND
2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research
Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities
within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
(Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Loach noted that this item was noted as an item requesting deferral/work session.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that these items were heard several months ago, but there was a problem at the time
because there were parcels included in the applicant’s request that did not actually have the signatures
for them to be included. Staff’s hope was to bring the requests back to the Commission for a new public
hearing. Unfortunately, the parcel information still was not correct in the legal ad. Staff would like to use
this opportunity tonight as a refresher on the project like a work session so that the Commission can
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
2
answer any questions. They can defer this as the Chair’s agenda suggests for an action Februar y 2,
2010 as a public hearing that will be properly advertised. But, tonight the Commission can ask any
questions. It is appropriate tonight for the applicant and public to speak. This will not hold up the hearing
at the Board of Supervisors on February 2. The Commission may be able to take care of things tonight
so to make it very quick on February 2.
Rebecca Ragsdale presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Power-
Point Presentation)
This request was before the Planning Commission in January, 2006 for a work session. Then a public
hearing was held in August, 2009 when the Planning Commission recommend ed approval. There have
been some advertising issues. The requests are for a rezoning and several concurrent special use
permits for the UVA Research Park to add about 30 acres to the existing Research Park. They are
proposing to add some property they own that is zoned Rural Areas to the Planned Industrial Park
Development to bring their grand total of square footage pr esented up to 3,700,000 with 3,000,000
permitted at this time. The additional area requested to be added to the Research Park is noted as Area
D in the staff report. They are proposing similar uses. Staff would expect to see typical development that
is already in the Research Park. The parcels to be added contain an existing home and some
undeveloped land located along the Airport Road Corridor and around the existing Hollymead Fire
Station. The property is currently zoned Rural Areas and is adjacent t o the existing Research Park, which
is zoned Planned Development Industrial Park. Area D is also adjacent to the west along Airport Road to
parcels zoned Light Industrial. It is designated for Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan so that
the rezoning requested is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Staff reviewed the current Research Park and explained the portion to be added. The Research Park is
not connected all the way through for the portion of what will be the future road co nnecting Airport Road
and US 29. The portion of it on the Airport Road side is no w called Innovation Drive. The applicant is
seeking approval for similar uses already in the Research Park with three separate districts around the
existing fire station. Staff reviewed the concept plan for how it meets the Neighborhood Model . Staff
found that it does meet most of those Neighborhood Model principles regarding the building orientation,
pedestrian circulation and the other 12 principles.
This rezoning involves the rest of the Research Park because they are consolidating the previously
approved application plans and updating the whole set of proffers so there will be one application plan
and one guiding set of proffers for what was rezoned in the ‘90’s, what was rezoned when the fire station
came in during recent years and then in this request for Area D to be added.
There are some updates and additional proffers that have been added with regard to references and
technical aspects of things so that this new area is guided by the proffers. It increases the maximum
allowable square footage to 3.7 million. There are additional transportation improvements, which she will
review later. They have provided for an additional playing field and modified the landscaping and
buffering requirements on the plan or the proffers so that interconnections and road improvement projects
can be accomplished. They have added a proffer to document the historic structure , which is older than
50 years and on the existing property.
The new proffers on the transportation improvements provide for interconnections; clarify the
requirements for the US 29 improvements that were approved with the original rezoning; clarify to what
extent is needed with the corrections to the 29 Corridor with the improvements; updated the right-of-way
acquisition language; and updated the proffers to indicate a higher level with the Level of Service
standard for traffic studies where that is applicable in the proffers. One of the limitations in the proffers is
that the new area, Area D, is limited to 180,000 square feet without that Lewis and Clark connector road
all the way through from 29 to Airport Road. Those are the highlights of the new proffer changes.
The Commission reviewed this in August and has been in review with staff. The applicant has met all of
the outstanding issues that have been raised. Staff does not have any unfavorable factors or changes at
this time that staff finds are needed to the application. Staff found the request consistent w ith the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
3
Comprehensive Plan land use designation; that it meets some of the Economic Development Policy
goals; provides for those additional interconnections and transportation improvements.
Staff wanted to provide the Commission the opportunity to ask any questions and the new members to
have the benefit of the overview, but the ultimate action would be to defer it to the February 2 meeting to
allow for correct advertising. Then it is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February
10. Staff recommends approval with the attached proffers. There are a couple other actions that will
need to be taken at the public hearing to approve a modification to allow a setback reduction and then the
approval recommended with the conditions for the special use permits for the parking structure,
laboratories, supporting commercial uses and the hotel/motel/inn uses.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this is typical for the documentation for a project. This seems extensive.
Ms. Ragsdale replied yes.
There being no further questions, Mr. Loach opened the public comment and invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Ms. Valerie Long, representative for the applicant the University of Virginia Foundation, noted that Fred
Missel with the Foundation is here as well this evening. They don’t have a presentation other than to let
the Commission know that they are here and happy to answer questions. She felt that Ms. Ragsdale had
explained everything very well. She indicated that the project was last at the Commission in August. The
Commission at that time granted a unanimous recommendation for approval. There have not been any
issues in the interim. They have worked with staff to correct some of the issues that were outsta nding.
They have completed revisions to the proffers, which have been signed off on by the County Attorney.
They have even obtained all of the signatures of all the owners and submitted those. They are looking
forward to moving forward on this proposal.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being no public comment, the matter was before the Planning
Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for deferral of ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-00015,
SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 to February 2, 2010.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach said that these requests would be heard by the Planning Commission on February 2, 2010.
Ms. Porterfield asked to set a procedure for the year on deferrals that the Commission holds on to the
packet information.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed and asked the Commissioners to save their packet information for the next meeting
on February 2.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 18, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on
Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris,
Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Elizabeth Moratta, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Ron Higgins, Chief
of Zoning; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: The
request is to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 70 0,000 square feet of office
and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers
and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a
mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of
Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A
requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1,
19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in
PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and
service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
2
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical
PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park
- industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED:
Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total
of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP -
Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service
uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial uses (reference
9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel,
hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000
square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned
Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca
Ragsdale)
DEFERRED FROM THE JULY 21, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Ms. Ragsdale presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an item that was deferred from May to July and then to the August
meeting to allow time for the applicant to address some of the issues that were
identified in the staff report. This is a rezoning request that has some concu rrent
special use permits to add about 30 acres to the existing UVA Research Park
and also to amend to what is referred to as “Area D” in the staff report and on
their application plan to amend the existing Planned Development Industrial Park
area to allow buildings. The Research Park is proposing to add and rezone the
Rural Area properties that are in between the existing LI and the already zoned
PD-IP to the west of the fire station. Some of the proffers were amended related
to „Area D” for this rezoning.
It is the area where the County fire station is existing along Airport Road and
what is now Innovation Drive used to access the fire station site. This is a
request for an additional 7,000 square feet in that area to be added to the 3
million square feet that is already permitted in the Research Park. They are at
about 500,000 square feet in terms of the existing building within the Research
Park. Area D is undeveloped except for the fire station. Part of Area D was
shown for open space on the previous plan.
The Research Park rezoning is primarily consistent with the Places29 rezoning
Area D. The majority of the Research Park is designated Office/R&D Flex and
Light Industrial, which are all one category in Places29. A portion of it is within in
Uptown Area. Area D is recommended in the white dashed line shown on the
map for a small area plan. The transportation network is shown as the applicant
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
3
has provided for in terms of some additional interconnections that were not part
of the 1995 original Research Park rezoning.
The original research park was approved in 1996. There is a lot more detail on
Area D because it has to meet the current date Planned Development District
requirements. The whole application plan is included in the packet with the n ew
documents for Area D and the other old ZMA documents.
With regard to the orientation of the buildings there are some additional features
that break up the parking areas and the buildings, which was of concern at the
last work session with the Commission in terms of breaking up the mass of the
buildings. She reviewed the concept of the arrangement of the buildings along
Airport Road and Lewis and Clark. It also provides for preservation of
environmental features, which is a key issue that has been brought up since the
2006 work session. Some of the parking is now provided for in a parking garage.
What is going to regulate and provide the UVA Research Park flexibility is the
general plan, which shows where the building envelopes are, parking areas and
then central features of the plan so that the park has flexibility in terms of
responding to the tenants. Right now the tenants are not known for the future
users. That provides them the flexibility.
Area D is consistent with the application plan. Area D is allowed general office,
LI uses; flex uses, R & D, and supporting commercial and hotel uses. Pretty
much all of the uses they are allowed in the park are allowed in Area D. There is
no restriction on where those uses go in terms of the gateway distric t, wetland
district or R & D District. The applicant has provided a commitment for buildings
A and B located at the corner of Airport Road and Innovation Drive to be a
minimum of two stories in height in two buildings. They would have flexibility in
the rest of the park to respond to building footprints within those envelopes or
provide one-story buildings for LI users if that is desired.
With the additional 700,000 square feet the applicant also submitted the
Transportation Impact Analysis along with th is rezoning. The County Engineer is
present to speak to any of questions related to the analysis or other
environmental, storm water management type questions.
The existing proffers are summarized in the staff report in terms of what they
address. The application plan set the maximum build-out allowed within the
park, provisions for storm water and environmental features, transportation
improvements, recreation areas, open space and green way, landscaping and
buffering, the fire station (already built) and then that the applicant would provide
a progress report over three years outlining development activity in the park. The
revised set of proffers incorporates the proffers from both the 1994 rezoning for
the Research Park and the more recent fire station rezoning. It is now one set of
proffers and application plan for all of the Research Park. That is a feature of the
new proffers.
The Design Standards was another proffer from the originals that has been
completed and will apply to Area D, which is the Design Code that has been
used in the rest of the Research Park. The maximum build -out requested has
been updated to reflect the additional 700,000 square feet requested.
Transportation improvements will be discussed later. The applicant has provided
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
4
for an additional playing field that Parks and Rec is interested in. There is a new
proffer on the Rural Areas zone site that is proposed to be added to the
Research Park. There is a structure that dates 50 years or older. The applicant
has provided a proffer to do a Reconnaissance Survey of that property.
The transportation proffers are provided with the main point being that Phase I, II
and III transportation improvements would be phased by square footage within
the Research Park. In Phase I and III improvements the applicant has the option
instead of doing the numbered improvements in those phases to provide a traffic
study which demonstrates that the Level of Service as it is written in the proffers
now is the Level of Service “D” at key intersections . That is one of the changes
staff recommended to be updated since the last time the Commission reviewed
the proffers to reflect the Level of Service “C” at those key intersections, but to
allow for individual turning movements with some of those to be at the Level of
Service “D” as long as the intersection averages to a Level of Service “C”.
The major improvements would be at the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive
with the provision of Lewis and Clark Drive all the way through from 29 to Airport
Road and then a third southbound lane on 29. It would primarily be turn lane and
intersection improvements at Lewis and Clark Drive and Innovation Drive, which
eventually will be the Lewis and Clark Connector through to Airport Road.
When the rezoning was reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis showed that the
overall trip generation was actually less using updated Land Use Codes in the
TIA. The applicant has provided for some of the improvements that were
requested and came out of VDOT comments and recommendations in the
Places29 Plan for future projects anticipated such as the interconnection to
Northside Drive, the provision for right-of-way dedication for any further
Dickerson Road improvements, and clarifications to the Route 29 proffers to
include that will entail the correction of the vertical curvature on 29. There is
updated right-of-way language for any improvements that the applicant is not
able to obtain the right-of-way. There are the Level of Service provisions in the
proffers as mentioned that have been updated to reflect that it is a Level of
Service “D” for the intersection and each turning movement. Again, staff is
recommending that to be changed to the Level of Service “C” as an average. The
Level of Service “D” allowed for each turning movement.
The Lewis and Clark Connection has been addressed and provided for in terms
of limiting the square footage on Area D to 180,000 square feet unless this
connection was made. It is part of the Phase II improvements. So the applicant
is not able to build beyond 980,000 square feet, 180,000 of which would be
limited in Area D until that interconnection is made.
With regards to the summary and the factors favorable – Staff found that it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the Industrial Service
designation and also the Economic Development Plan. It was providing for those
additional interconnections in transportation proffers requested by staff. Staff is
recommending approval with the addition of two proffer changes, one of which
goes back to the phasing.
Also in the phasing plan are provisions with each phase that limit the square
footage of general office uses, which in proffer 1 staff feels should stay because
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
5
it is related to how much office can access certain roadways. But th at idea was
carried forward in Phase II and Phase III in the proffers in terms of allowing a
maximum square footage of office, which is pretty close to the total maximum
square footage in each phase.
There was a concern that was brought to staff‟s attention from Commissioners
yesterday that prompted us to revisit this. That is a maximum square footage for
just general office, but is not inclusive of the other LI or other R and D uses that
they would expect and want to have in the Industrial Service areas . It was also
relevant to the recent issue that some of the LI zoned land does not end up
actually being true LI uses but goes to office uses. Going back and looking at
that proffer it was something carried forward from the 1996 proffers.
Staff did not see a reason to preserve the maximum build -out for general office in
the proffers. So that is a new recommendation coming forward if the Planning
Commission recommends approval that the proffers also be modified to eliminate
that maximum square footage in Phase II and Phase III of the development as
they relate to the transportation proffers. There is also the recommendation that
the two proffers related to Phases I and III improvements that reference traffic
studies be updated to reflect Level of Service “C” now rather than “D” and then
“D” for each individual turning unit.
There is a request that setbacks be modified, which is permitted in the Planned
Development District to reduce the setbacks along Airport Road and Lewis and
Clark Drive, which is consistent with the setback reduction that was approved
after the ‟95 rezoning to allow buildings closer to the road.
The special use permits being requested are those that are permitted in the
Research Park currently. Then there is one additional for a parking structure.
Staff recommends approval of all of the requests with conditions except for the
parking structure there were no additional conditions with that.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton asked if in the adjusted recommendation staff is recommending to not
mandate a maximum build-out. In earlier discussions there were a lot of concerns
about building out too much of Area D without the interconnection that would allow two
accesses.
Ms. Ragsdale replied no, staff wants to do away with the maximum build-out that is
specific to office. So the total square footage would stay the same. It is only the
general office limitations staff would recommend to be removed.
Ms. Joseph suggested that it may be that general office is redefined, which might help.
If Light Industrial uses, flex, research and development and that stuff is added to the
definition of general office she felt it would help.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that staff considered that and thought that would be a simpler
approach because that would pretty much cover all of the other uses allowed in the park
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
6
except supporting commercial and hotel. There is u ltimate flexibility in the other uses
now. It is just that there is a maximum on general office.
Ms. Joseph suggested that they just have to come up with a name for it.
Ms. Echols noted that it could go either way. The applicant is amendable to it and it
was something they could work out. If it is better to add to the general office the other
uses that is fine or dropping it. It works about the same either way. If the Commission
has a preference, she asked that be expressed to the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton said that Attachment D was the overall concept plan, which shows what
the applicant is envisioning. Then the general plan is on the back, which shows what
they want the rezoning to be tied to. He was having a little trouble and asked what
percentage would be able to be built before they had to make that connection.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that this building represents 700,000 square feet excluding the fire
station. It would be all of what is shown. They would be able to building 180,000
square feet before being required to connect.
Ms. Echols noted that represents the same amount that they had in their original
rezoning for this particular area. That is how staff arrived at the 180,000 square feet.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that it was generally a couple of buildings in this area.
Ms. Joseph said that it was about one -quarter of the buildings they were allowed to do
or 26 percent.
Mr. Edgerton questioned the traffic assessment with what traffic impacts and if there
was any linkage to the square footage before the connection was made.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that it was tied back to what they had building rights to as to how
that link was made. Glenn Brooks is present to answer question on the traffic analysis.
Mr. Edgerton noted that when things get clogged up on Airport Road it would be good to
know when that connection would occur before they reach the build -out that they are
allowed. He asked if staff has looked at it that way.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, replied that staff had looked at that question a lot, but
the answer to the question is no. It is not driven by the traffic.
Mr. Edgerton said from a safety perspective if it gets clogged up and there is only one
way in and out that becomes the issue.
Mr. Loach asked if they are proffering that the average for the two intersections be at a
Level “C”. If it falls to Level “D” does that institute somethin g that would make the
connection required at that time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
7
Mr. Brooks replied not as the proffers are written now.
Mr. Loach asked what would happen it if fell to the Level of Service “D”.
Mr. Brooks asked which intersections they were talking about.
Mr. Loach noted that staff recommends that the proffers be modified that specify that
the Level of Service “C” average for the intersections with 29 is the standard, but the
individual could be a “D”. Then they go to say an average of Level of Service “C” for
the intersection at 29 and Airport Road and 29 and Lewis, which he would assume was
both, to maintain an average “C”. He asked if the traffic falls to a Level of Service “D”
what happens.
Mr. Brooks replied that particular proffer speaks to traffic studies which can be put forth
by UREF in place or in lieu of doing the full improvements on 29. So it would fall back
to doing the improvements that are in the proffer in that case if they could not prove that
the intersections were performing at Level of Service “C”. They would not have that
option to get out of other road improvements.
Mr. Loach said that it would necessitate them to make that connection or do something
within the proffers to get back to a “C” whether it was making the connection or put in
road improvements.
Mr. Brooks said that they were not guaranteed to get back to a Level of Service “C”. If
the traffic on 29 gets so bad that they cannot achieve a Level of Service “C” there is
really no help for that.
Mr. Strucko asked what the proffer would do.
Ms. Ragsdale noted what does trigger the road improvements as outlined in the proffers
is the building square footage within the park. When they reach 980,000 square feet in
Phase I they are suppose to do the road improvements specified in the proffers. There
are two places in the proffers where instead of doing the improvements there are a
couple of “or” scenario” such as in the third phase that instead of providing the third
southbound lane on 29 if the 6 through lanes have already been constructed, then they
don‟t have to satisfy that proffer. Or, if they can demonstrate through these traffic
studies that Level of Service “C” or “D” is being maintained, then they don‟t have to do
the improvements. But those are the only two places they would bring forth a traffic
study. There won‟t be traffic studies that trigger any of these improvements. It is the
building square footage. It is just the option that they have to get to not doing the
improvements that the traffic studies become relevant.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that he did not understand that.
Mr. Loach asked whose responsibility is it to monitor the level of service. How often will
it be done in order to gauge the impact of this development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
8
Mr. Brooks replied that it was VDOT‟s responsibility. These will be public roads. How
often it is done he was not sure. He thought that VDOT has a program to assess its
existing signals. But they take the opportunity with rezonings to have the applicant do it
especially with a triggering mechanism like this where they are deciding if the
improvement is needed or not.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that this particular proffer with regard to the traffic study was
carried forward from the 1996 proffers. They have been sort of retrofitting it. VDOT‟s
regulations have changed and they are no longer using the Level of Service. That is
what some of the emails of today from Chuck Proctor were about. With the 527
regulations they are looking at changing delay. That is some additional information to
consider. They recommended the change to “C” because that is the expected Level of
Service from the federal regulations with any VDOT project for 29. Right now the
intersections on 29 are not “C”. They received information from Mr. Proctor that 29 and
Airport Road is at “F” now. So there is not the constant monitoring that they were
asking about.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that it was not the entire intersection. He was saying that some
of the movements are at “F”. It is a big difference.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a way to look at this is that by the proffers that have been
carried forward from the first rezoning they were obligated to undertake certain road
improvements at a maximum amount of square footage. Up to that point every road in
the area could be at “F” and they aren‟t required to do anything. It is at that point that
they get 980,000 and 1,568,000 and 3,700,000 that they would then be required to do
certain road improvements. But their out was to submit a traffic study that said that their
level of service was not deteriorating. Well if it is already at “F” or “D” it won‟t matter,
they will have to do it. The trigger from which these proffers are being carried forward
is hitting a certain square footage level. The conditions that exist b elow that won‟t have
any bearing on what they can build. That has been the way these proffers were initially
established. The one difference now is that they would proffer the square footage in
this new area to be no more than 1 80,000 before they build Lewis and Clark Drive
through. Once they get beyond 180,000 in the new area it does not matter what the
conditions are anywhere else they have to build Lewis and Clark through.
Mr. Loach noted essentially they are asking that a rezoning be approved on a road that
already is at times in places failing. Essentially there is nothing in this plan or in the
proffers that would essentially alleviate that or even kick in a study to find out more
about how they were failing until there was 180,000 square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said basically that is correct based on the existing proffers.
Mr. Brooks noted that was not entirely correct since the traffic study did try to make a
connection and propose improvements to address impacts. That is where they get the
road improvements. So the impacts that they are directly connected to they have
proposed road improvements to alleviate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
9
Mr. Loach asked in light of the situation as it stands to wait until there is 180,000 square
feet of additional building and traffic before they look again to see if the road should be
improved.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that it was if the road, Lewis and Clark Drive, should be
connected.
Mr. Loach said that whatever has to be done to improve the level of service for the
people who drive on that road now.
Mr. Brooks replied yes, that was looked at and 180,000 square feet is conservative to
keep within acceptable levels of service. One of the assumptions he might be making is
if they make the connection of Lewis and Clark Drive, things will improve. It is not
necessarily true for all movements. They will have through traffic that will probably
make things worse on Airport road as opposed to the high volume road, Route 29 ,
where things may improve.
Ms. Echols noted that one thing to remember is that with that connection they are
getting the parallel road system. Mr. Brooks is correct that there may be impacts to
Airport Road.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the connection itself has more value than just improving
traffic. It made more sense to tie it to building square footage since it a lot simpler.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Fred Missel, Director of Design and Development with the UVA Foundation, made the
following comments.
Fortunately they have been able to accommodate some of staff‟s comments as
found in the responses on page 15. He would like to answer the questions
raised and address the issue of the level of service at “C” just to make the
Commission aware that is recent information from VDOT. They have spent some
time during the past several days studying the implications of that. They were
confused somewhat by VDOT‟s recommendation. VDOT is actually
recommending that the level service of “C” be replacing the level of service “D”.
As you may know the level of service “C” is more of a rural area designation. On
VDOT‟s current maps they actually designated this area as an urban collector
designation. The designation to go to “C” would move them back towards a rura l
designation. The designation of “D” was actually set back in 1996, which was
almost 14 years ago when it was much more rural. VDOT has acknowledged
that they will move towards a different standard with which to test our TIA‟s in the
future. After reviewing the likely outcome of movement to a level of service of “C”
they are amendable to changing that in their proffers, but do remain a little
confused as to why that is being changed to more of a rural designation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
10
That said he would be happy to address questions relating to the phasing. He
thought staff did a good job of helping to clarify that, but he would like to add a
little clarification. First, as mentioned the totals within each of the phases I, II and
III does not change. Those are the same as existed in the original 1995/1996
proffers. Interestingly when they reviewed the original traffic study and reran
numbers the outcome of their study was remarkably the same as the first study.
That showed that the background traffic that was assumed in the first study was
close to what has actually happened.
As mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg the phasing triggers the road improvements. So
as they would move forward with a desire to increase their development into
phase II, as an example, they would be t he ones that would initiate the traffic
study that would test those intersections. He wanted to make that clear since
there was a question as to who would initiate that. There are m any contributing
factors to the potential levels of service at an intersection. They were very
careful to align further requests to the County. The future Lewis and Clark Drive,
which now exists as Innovation Drive that brings them to the fire station, they
actually realigned that to accommodate the future interconnection through
Hollymead Town Center.
Regarding the question regarding R & D and Commercial Office and the balance
on how that will play out, he pointed out that it was not intended with this
rezoning to change the total mix of Commercial Office, Flex and Light In dustrial.
What they were told by VDOT through the process of completing a TIA is that
based on the mix of uses that is currently out there, which is representative of
where it may go, they gave them a designation for which to study the traffic.
They used that designation to arrive at their counts and volumes.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was sensitive to the document that calls out general office
mainly because this Commission has been talking about the fact that they have a lot of
Light Industrial space that goes to just office uses instead of the industrial uses. She
was concerned when she read that in the general document since she wanted other
things in there so it would not be just an office park.
Mr. Missel said the bottom line is to represent the University adequately and their
mission. They want to maintain as much flexibility within that allowable category as they
can.
Ms. Joseph pointed out she was not suggesting that they put down certain percentage
in each of these for those particula r uses. She suggested that there may be a way to
look at how the proffers are presented or even the document itself. She recognized the
act that they have a Land Use Matrix that says that these different uses can occur in
different areas. She was just super sensitive to that general office comment. If there is
some way to fix it that would be great.
Mr. Missel noted that one way was to call it other approved uses or something like that
so that the a total is done at each phase
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
11
Ms. Joseph said that the implication is that they are going to use it for other things. She
asked if they have spoke to their neighbors about connecting, etc.
Mr. Missel replied that they have not. The County has discussed interconnecting
streets with the adjoining property owner. There is currently a discrepancy in where
those two line up. What they had discovered through their study was the connection to
the adjacent parcel as currently shown is actually connecting where there is a wetland.
In their study they decided that it would be more environmentally sensitive to move that
connection down. What they understood from staff was that would be adjusted to align.
Ms. Joseph asked if it would be done if and when a site plan c omes in on the other
property.
Ms. Ragsdale agreed.
Mr. Missel said that they are here seeking approval in order to move the request
forward.
Mr. Edgerton asked for clarification on how that interconnection is going to be made.
The property to the west belongs to Mr. Wood. He asked if Mr. Wood is aware of the
proposed location of the connection.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that what has been platted t o the west is an interconnection as
Mr. Missel said that goes into the environmental features. It is platted here, but staff is
now suggesting that the more appropriate location for that interconnection in further
down. So when this property comes in for a subdivision or site plan staff would have to
work with Mr. Wood to provide for that interconnection. But right now the one that he
has approved that is called Gold Leaf Trust, which the Commission reviewed some time
back, goes into these environmental features that are now shown for protection in the
Research Park.
Mr. Edgerton said that they have no assurances that he will go along with this
suggestion.
Ms. Ragsdale referred the question to Mr. Fritz.
Mr. Fritz noted that was part of a waiver request. The location is pretty specific. Staff
could work with him to try to do it, but staff‟s ability to require him to relocate is going to
be pretty limited. That connection may never be able to be done.
Mr. Edgerton noted that connection may never be done especially if they approve this
rezoning based on preserving these wetlands.
Ms. Joseph noted that in the staff report staff has provided a list of all of the businesses
in the Park. It looks like there are 19 to 20 businesses. Staff gave the build out number
of 491,000 square feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
12
Mr. Missel replied that number sounds within the ballpark.
Ms. Joseph noted that she wanted to get an idea where they were in the process of
building out the Park.
Mr. Missel noted that there was currently one outstanding site plan that they have not
build upon. It is one parcel in Town Center IV. In addition, the 491,000 captures the
total that they have in place today. It is a mix of Light Industrial, Office and Research
and Development.
Mr. Loach questioned if the two buildings mentioned on the plan already exist.
Ms. Ragsdale pointed out that there was a note on the plan that specifies that there will
be two buildings, a minimum of two-stories, when they come in for the site plan for
those.
Mr. Loach asked when they expect these two buildings to start.
Mr. Missel replied that they don‟t know at this point. They have applied for two site
plans within the past two years and Town Center III has been built.
Mr. Strucko invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public
hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph said that staff and the applicant have worked together and put something
together that makes a lot of sense at this point in time. She would love to push forward
and be very forceful and build a connecting road, but at this point it is warranted to wait
until they get more development to occur.
Mr. Morris agreed and complimented staff on an extremely good staff report.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the minutes should indicate that the businesses that will
locate in this park have to have some attachment to the University of Virginia . This
does not necessarily solve the problem that they have had with other entities that want
to come into Albemarle County that are not connected to the University of Virginia and
are looking for Light Industrial property.
Ms. Joseph disagreed with saying that the only thing that can go in there is University
property.
Ms. Porterfield asked the applicant if the tenant had to have some connection with the
University of Virginia to be able to locate there.
Tim Rose, CEO of the UVA Foundation, replied that the mission of the Research Park is
to serve the University of Virginia. As part of their current process any tenant in the
Park is to have a relationship with the University. Having said that, he pointed out that
there are support facilities in the Research Park that may not look like they relate to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
13
University. They are a 501C3 corporation and this project is not a profit making entity.
It is to serve the University‟s needs.
Mr. Loach noted that he had some misgivings that have to do with the transportation.
One of the reasons he asked when they expect the building to begin was if it was
something that he thought in this economy that was going to bring in jobs then it s
economy would have lead him more to support it. But when he hears that they already
have levels of failure on that road already and he could not see this proposal making
anything better that given that they have no transportation money gives him some
misgivings. With that said, he did see in the proffers that they are going from a level of
service “D” to “C” which offsets his objections. He was uncomfortable with said that it
probably won‟t happen, but they could sell the property.
Ms. Joseph noted that the property could be sold in the future.
Mr. Rose replied that they have not proffered, for example, t hat every business in there
has to have a relationship with the University. But, for their IRS status they have to
adhere to their stated mission of why the Research Park is there.
Mr. Strucko invited other comments.
Mr. Loach noted that he had some m isgivings that have to do with the transportation.
One of the reasons he asked when they expect the building to begin was if it was
something that he thought in this economy that was going to bring in jobs, then it would
have lead him more to support it. But when he hears that they already have levels of
failure on that road already and he could not see this proposal making anything better
that given they have no transportation money it gives him some misgivings. With that
said, he did see in the proffers that they are going from a level of service “D” to “C”,
which offsets his objections. He was uncomfortable about the whole thing in light of the
present transportation situation in the County.
Mr. Strucko noted that his understanding was that the 180,000 square foot trigger stays
within the current road capacities. Whatever metrics they use to calculate it is the
additional square footage beyond that in the study‟s best estimate would warrant what
would create a burden that would take the traffic impact beyond its current level. He
asked staff is that was correct.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the trigger is still 980,000, but the amount that can be built in
Area D is limited to 180,000. But, the 180,000 in Area D will not by itself trigger the
interconnection.
Ms. Echols noted that there was one point of clarification and that is she did not believe
the applicant is willing to proffer the Level of Service “C”. She asked if that is correct.
Mr. Missel replied that they are willing to comply with the Level of Service “C” as it is
written in the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
14
Mr. Strucko echoed what Ms. Joseph said that it was a fairly complex proposal that was
well organized in the report. He thanked staff for the good report. At this point it seems
that there is a general agreement with this proposal.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the motion for approval of the rezoning was subject to the
attached proffers with the additional changes made to proffer 5.
Motion on ZMA-2005-003:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park - North Fork with the attached proffers with
additional changes.
Proffers 5.4.A and 5.4.C(3) modified to specify that LOS C average for the
intersections with Route 29 in those proffers is the standard and that the individual
movements may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections
with Route 29.
Proffer 5.3 Phases of Development-Modify or delete Maximum total build-out for
General Office in Phase II and Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved uses
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
SP-2008-0015-Parking Structure- APPROVAL with no conditions
• Staff recommends approval of SP2008-0015-Parking Structure with no
conditions of approval.
Motion on SP-2008-00015:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003 with
conditions.
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section
4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter
buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless
modified by the Director of Planning.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
15
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003
subject to the condition recommended by staff.
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor
area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at
any time during phased development.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003
subject to the recommended conditions.
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or
inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provid ed by individual
occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the
hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall
not exceed 190,000 square feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Modification to Setbacks:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the setback
modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback reduction to allow for buildings, including
those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet along public
roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that the ZMA and four special use permits for UVA Research Park
would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a recommendation
for approval. The modification to the setbacks was approved by the Planning
Commission.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 21, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008- 15, 62, 63 and 64 UVA RESEARCH PARK
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 21, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, July 21,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, Acting Chair.
Absent were Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP,
non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Philip Custer, Engineer; Summer
Frederick, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Eryn
Brennan, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Election of Temporary Chair:
Mr. Cilimberg noted that tonight the Commission needs to elect a temporary Chair for this meeting. He
asked for nominations.
Ms. Joseph nominated Bill Edgerton for temporary Chair.
Mr. Franco seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 3:1. (Edgerton voted nay)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Edgerton was Chair for this meeting.
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP t o PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limit ed production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from th e
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax
Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development
Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 21, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008- 15, 62, 63 and 64 UVA RESEARCH PARK
2
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical PROPOSED: Allow
laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED: Allow supporting
commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor
area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial
and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting
commercial uses (reference 9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or
conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and
ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns
(reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Edgerton noted that the applicant has requested deferral to August 18. He opened the public hearing
and asked for comment from the applicant or the public. There being none, the public hearing was closed
and the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Franco seconded to accept the applicant’s request for deferral of
ZMA-0005-003, SP-2008-00015, SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 to August 18,
2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Edgerton noted that list applications were deferred to August 18, 2009.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 19, 2009
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: The request is to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development
Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical PROPOSED: Allow
laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service
uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED: Allow supporting
commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor
area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park -
industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14)
Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or
conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial
and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns
(reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Strucko asked if the applicant was requesting deferral.
Mr. Benish applicant is requesting deferral to June 23. Ms. Echols provided an email to the Commission
to provide some advance background. June 23 would be out of sequence of our new deferral process. So
staff had advised of some other alternative times for that, but the applicant has requested June 23. The
applicant wants to speak to the reason for the deferral.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
2
Fred Missel, representative for the UVA Foundation, noted that the reason for the deferral is relatively
simple. They got some clarification from staff last Wednesday regarding several of the factors that are
listed as unfavorable in the staff report and they simply have not had a chance to understand the
implications or the issues that might arise from agreeing to those. Therefore, they just need a little more
time to study that and better understand it. Their preference would be to move to the June 23 date at
which point they would hopefully be able to address those issues more specifically.
Ms. Joseph noted that there was an indication in Ms. Echol’s email that the applicant was going to submit
additional information and staff was concerned that they would not have enough time to review the new
information before it comes back to the Commission.
Mr. Missel noted that he could address that. He spoke with Ms. Echols a couple hours ago and he thought
that it was not clear to her what level of information they would be coming back with. When he
explained to her the fact that they would be coming back specifically addressing essentially those three
items that are listed as unfavorable in various sequent form he thought that she was in agreement. They
understand that there is a potential that when they come back on June 23rd that the Commission may want
staff to review it and they may have to come back at a later date. Honestly, they thought that it was
relatively simple the issues that needed to be addressed. So they hope that when they come back on the
23rd there can be a recommendation for approval on the Commission’s part to the Board of Supervisors at
which point they can finalize any tweaking that they need to do with the language. That is their desire.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that there was concern about the timing of the deferral.
Mr. Benish said that based the 23rd date the Commission would not have a revised staff report or
recommendation from staff. Based on the review process staff would not have the ability to do that. So
the Commission would basically be receiving that information from the applicant at that time. He did not
think the applicant was planning to change any proffers that would be subject to review. Staff’s
recommendation would stand for that June 23rd meeting. The issue is whether the Commission wants any
staff feedback on the clarifications being made by the applicant or new information that is being proposed
and how it addresses the issues raised by the staff.
Mr. Strucko said that there are two other dates proposed, one later in July and the other in early August.
Mr. Missel pointed out it was June 21 and August 24.
Mr. Benish said that the August 24 date is a date that would allow for an additional round under our
review process for staff to provide feedback back to the applicant. But if the applicant submitted
information on June 1 staff would have time to evaluate it and provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission and receive its comments from all of the other reviewing staff that they have to consider and
provide that to the Commission by the late July date. Those are two dates that are available.
Mr. Strucko asked Mr. Missel if he had concerns about pushing this further along in the calendar.
Mr. Missel replied that their preference would be to not delay it two more months just on what they think
will be a relatively simple conversation. So their desire would be to not have that delay. It ends up being
about a month and half if they go from June 23 to August 4.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they were only dealing with negatives in the staff report is it possible for staff to
do just a very short white paper on their reaction to what Mr. Missel brings in.
Mr. Benish said that one of the things staff was trying to get away from in changing the deferral process
was not to do responses on the fly to basically give the other reviewing agencies two weeks to review
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
3
requests, for Planning staff to evaluate and assess those and put forth a recommendation to the
Commission on how to act on the proposal before them. To do that in an effective time for all of the
parties involved staff has tried to avoid the last minute type of white paper response type of thing. Staff
tries to keep things within a process that is predictable for all of the reviewing agencies. He believed the
other issue is that there still may be concern whether the applicant has sufficiently addressed the issues
raised in terms of the proffer changes. But he di d not believe the applicant is proposing any proffer
changes. He believed that the applicant was looking for an affirmative action with conditions to the
Board that proffers would be modified to address those issues. He believed that has not been the Planning
Commission’s preferred approach here recently. The Commission has wanted to see those proposed
proffers and not take an action indicating that future proffers would be provided between the
Commission’s review and the Board’s review.
Mr. Missel agreed that was a good summary. They would prefer to be able to leave the June 23rd meeting
with direction that they could then translate into proffers and an affirmative action on the Commission’s
part to the Board of Supervisors. If that is uncomfortable for anyone and if there is the potential for the
June 23rd meeting to result in no action, then they would prefer to go through the process with the staff
and come to the Commission with those issues resolved.
Ms. Joseph suggested that if the applicant did not have all of the information on June 23rd the
Commission could treat it as a work session.
Mr. Morris noted that it would be his preference to have the applicant come before the Commission and
have enough information to take action on with all of the knowledge that staff and the applicant normally
provides without actually going through and doing the staff work while they sit here. That is frustrating
to everyone. So he would love to have the hearing on June 23rd if everything is ready and the
Commission has all of the information. But if not, then he wanted to wait until all of the information was
ready.
Ms. Porterfield supported Ms. Joseph’s comments.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Morris that the Commission needs to have all of the information before
setting the public hearing or if not set up a work session.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Benish noted that the earliest option that Ms. Echols laid out as a possibility was July 21.
Mr. Herrick noted that a deferral to a date certain prevents the need to readvertise assuming that the
proffers don’t change materially.
Mr. Benish noted that the request may have to be readvertised anyway.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if they are deferring the request to the right date because Ms. Echols’ email
said that if they wanted comments before the hearing then the hearing date would be August 4. If they
wanted to go straight to a public hearing without receiving additional comments then it could be
tentatively scheduled on July 21.
Mr. Benish agreed that there were two options. The longest one that allows for a second round of
comments back to the applicant would be August 4. He presumed in trying to balance expediency but
keep it on an acceptable schedule would be July 21. He checked with Ms. Echols and the earlier date was
doable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
4
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approve the applicant’s request for deferral
of SP-2008-62, SP-2008-63, SP-2008-64, SP-2008-15 and ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North
Fork to July 21, 2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that this item is being deferred and will be brought back to the Planning Commission on
July 21, 2009.
Mr. Benish asked the Commission to keep the attachments to the staff report for further review. Staff will
provide new staff reports.
Return to staff report
STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 10, 2010
ZMA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK SPECIAL USE PERMITS:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
PETITIONS
PROJECT: SP2008-0015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research
Park) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION:
North side of Airport Road (Route 649) , west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with ZMA
05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in
association with the UVA Research Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned
Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial
Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and reside ntial
(6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of
Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX
MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03
UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses
within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial use s (reference
9.0) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile
from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA
Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities
within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use) SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lod ging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport
Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road
and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
Concurrent special use permit application have been submitted to allow for a parking garage, uses
approved within the existing park for supporting commercial, laboratories, and hotel/conference facility.
The applicant has flexibility as to where the uses would be allowed in the park and land uses are
governed by the Land Use Matrix of the Application Plan. Supporting commercial uses, hotel uses, and
laboratories were approved along with ZMA 1994-05 and are requested now for Area D.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to
each of the four special use permits requested:
such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
There are no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties anticipated with these uses. Provisions of the
ordinance will address parking structure design and it is located internal to the research park. Buffers
are provided on the application plan for any residential areas adjoining the Park and an additional buffer
requirement was imposed on labs with the special use permits for the park approved in 1995 and are
also recommended here, with the ability for a reduction if requested to avoid excessive buffer
requirements. A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance
are met to address light, noise, radioactivity, and vibration.
and that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The request is to allow these land uses within a planned research/industrial park. Considering the uses
and plan of development, staff believes that the parking structure will have minimal impacts and would
not change the character of the district and would provide for more of an urban character in Areas D,
rather than suburban character in the rest of the Research Park. The supporting commercial,
laboratories, and hotel uses are secondary to the primary uses in the park and would be consistent with
the character of the district. Staff believes that the parking garage will improve the character of the
district and provides an alternative to a “sea” parking that could result from a surface parking lot.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed all four requests for special use permits for compliance with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and has not identified that any conflicts would result from approval of these
special use permits.
with uses permitted by-right in the district,
A variety of LI industrial uses and office use are allowed by-right in the Category I uses of the PDIP
district. Secondary supporting uses within a PDIP are encouraged. The requested special use permits
are supportive and complimentary to the land uses permitted in the Research Park.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance
The additional regulations are identified below. Staff sees no issues which would prevent the
regulations from being met.
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES A site plan shall be required for each parking
lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in the ordinance. Section
32.7.2A of the Zoning Ordinance also provides for the following requirements for parking structures:
a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The
elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan.
b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed
parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses.
c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from
public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with
materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view.
d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential
development.
e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will
not routinely shine directly outside the structure.
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to
address light, noise, and vibration to ensure compliance with Section 4.14. will be required with lab
uses within the park.
There are no additional regulations in the ordinance for supporting commercial (SP200800063) or
Hotels, Motels, Inns (SP200800064) uses.
And with the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community
The public health safety and general welfare of the community is protected through the special user
permit process, which assures that proposed uses are in the appropriate location and any impacts can
be mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
Staff recommends approval of SP2008-0015-Parking Structure with no conditions of approval.
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer
areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by
the Director of Planning.
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area,
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at any time
during phased development.
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall
not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall
not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total
gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square
feet.
Return to regular agenda