Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Staff Report 1995-12-19 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning DATE: December 19, 1995 RE: ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK This serves as cover to several documents that relate to the North Fork Business Park rezoning petition. Subsequent to the November 28, 1995, staff from Zoning, County Attorney's Office and Planning met with UREF for some three hours to discuss issues raised at that meeting. The proffers were amended and additional documents were submitted. Two sections of the staff report have been revised, however at this writing, nott all comments have been received from other staff and therefore additional comment may be provided at the December 19 meeting. , Attached please find: • --- Revised Part II Summary and Recommendation of the staff report; • --- Revsied Part V. Proffers of the staff report (includes County Attorney preliminary comment); --- Applicant's explanation of revised proffers and revised Proffer Statement for ZMA-95-04; --- Correspondence between Lake Acres residents and UREF (includes staff comment as cover memo); --- Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) statement of November 28, 1995 and Applicant's response to PEC statement; --- Revised Stormwater Management Plan _ _ --- Revised Open Space Plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This section of the report will summarize analyses and opinion provided under other sections of this report. Extensive analysis was provided at time of Comprehensive Plan amendment and, if staff conclusion/opinion differs from CPA recommendation, it is due to availability of more current or detailed information as well as application of specific rezoning criteria. Part I. Petition: Application Plan 1. The proposed schedule of land use is consistent with representations made during review of CPA-94-01. 2. "Notes" on the Application Plan are intended as proffers and should be revised. Note 1 should be changed to clarify that use locations shall comply with the "Land Use" chart on the plan. As currently stated, it could be argued that the "Land Use"chart is conceptual and non- binding. Note 11 should be deleted and replaced by the recommended condition of SP-95-41, if approved. Note 12 should be deleted and replaced with wording approved by the Board as to modification as permitted under sections 8.5.4 and 8.5.5 of the zoning ordinance. Note 14 should be added consistent with textual proffers that all access shall be restricted to the internal road system and no direct access to external roads shall be permitted from any development site. 3. The seven bus stops shown on the Application Plan should be viewed as general locations only. Bus stops should be provided in location adequate to provide convenience to the majority of employees. Part III. P.D.-IP Zoning: Zoning History 1. About 2.5 million square feet of building area could be established under existing zoning compared to a proffered limit of 3.0 million square feet under this rezoning petition(Note: 300,00 square feet would be devoted to support commercial and hotel/conference center, features not provided in the current zoning). - - 2. No heavy industrial designation is proposed under the current request, while 24 develop able acres were approved under existing zoning. The County has very little land zoned for heavy industrial usage and staff is concerned that new heavy industrial designations may be difficult. 3. Condition 7 of original rezoning which required a master street plan has been met. Unless an equivalent or superior plan is presented, staff recommends that the approved master plan be carried over to this petition. Part IV. Planning Commission Recommendation to Board of Supervisors 1. Generally, UREF's proposal has satisfactorily addressed specific recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as contained in CPA-94-01. 2. The project has been carefully designed to respect the physical features of the site. 3. Effort has been made by UREF to address concerns of property owners in the area. 4. Public water and sewage facilities will be upgraded in the Hollymead area to meet growth demand. Part V. Proffers - 1. UREF has submitted textual proffers together with three proffered plans which are under additional review. The County Attorney, Zoning Administrator and others may have additional comment to that found in Part V. 2. Proffer 1 should list which plans are proffered. The term "in general accordance" has caused problems in the past. 3. Language in proffer II prohibits County enforcement of the Declaration. Proffer 2.2 (c), which deals with disposal of hazardous waste, is therefore not enforceable by the County. 4. The County Attorney and staff recommend that language in Proffer III be clarified. 5. Proffer IV attempts to address the issue of water consumption. Staff will attempt to obtain comment on the practicality of the approach. 6. Generally, Proffer V. TRANSPORTATION has been changed to be more concise, direct, and definitive. Proffer 5.3, intended to address Commission concern as to variations in use mix • and the effects on roads, may result in future confusion as currently written. Proffer 5.4, dealing with dedication of land for.an interchange is in staff opinion, conditional and ineffective. 7. Proffer VI. RECREATIONAL.AREAS AND OPEN.SPACE has been significantly " \. amended to reflect Commission concerns as to possible reduction of open space area, activity in the flood plain, and disposition of open space areas in general. Stadium lighting of the recreation area is prohibited in response to Lake Acres residents. A definitive preservation plan for the homestead, ice pit and Birckhead cemetery will be provided. The County Attorney has suggested the term "convey" be clarified as whether it means "gift" or some other method of conveyance.• - 8. Proffer VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING should be changed to clarify that the County may require supplemental plantings in the buffer areas as well as well as maintenance of desirable vegetation. The proffer currently contains the language "at the Applicant's option. 9. Proffer VIII. provides for dedication of a fire/emergency response site either within the site or at an alternate location acceptable to the County. The proffer also provides for contribution for hazardous materials training. -A caution from both the County Attorney and staff is the condition of compliance with the Project"s Design Guidelines which may make the site undesirable. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff opinion is that unresolved issues exist with the proffers. If these issues are satisfactorily resolved to address concerns raised in"staff comment" sections staff would recommend approval of this petition. Part V. of the staff report outlines staff concerns with the proffers and the County Attorney's preliminary comments have been included for your review. Many of the comments related to the proffers are of editorial nature and can be addressed wh the applicant prior to Board hearing. In addition to issues you may have, staff believes that the Commission should make definitive recommendation to the Board as to the adequacy of the applicant's proffers to address issues of public concern: --- Disposal of hazardous wastes [Proffer 2.2 (c)]; --- Water usage [Proffer 4.4]; --- Right-of-way dedication for grade separated interchange [Proffer 5.4]; --- Dedication of fire station site v. Compliance with design guidelines; --- The meaning of"convey" as questioned by the County Attorney. RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Regardless of Planning.Commission recommendation for approval or-disapproval, staff recommends that the Commission offer recommendation to the Board as to modifications and clarifications to guide future decision and development should the Board approve this petition. 1. Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined in.the proffers of this,petition and shall not be governed by section 4.7 of the zoning ordinance. 2. So long as this zoning petition remains in force, SP-95-40, SP-95-41, and SP-95-42 shall not be subject to abandonment under section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. Nothing contained in the foregoing statement shall preclude the Board from revocation of any special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. 3. As to special use permit approval as may be required under Proffer 4.4, such review and any conditions imposed thereunder shall be limited soley to issues of water usage. 4. The terms General Office, Light Industrial, and Flex/Industrial Csetforth m UREF, Volume 1, Part IX shall, in addition to zoning ordinance definitions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict, the UREF descriptions shall apply. In such case in which more than fifty (50 %)percent of the floor area for a Flex/ Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be General Office. In such case in which less than fifty (50 %)percent of the floor area for a Flex/Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Ron Keeler, Director of Planning FROM: Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney DATE: December 11, 1995 RE: Preliminary Comments on UREF Proffers Please accept the following as this office's preliminary comments to the UREF proffers dated December 7, 1995. Because of the short period of time available to review the proffers, these are not our final comments. We will try to get those to you as soon as possible, and prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on the application. 1: Sections 3.1 and 5.3: In-reference to the 3,000,000-square feet of developed floor space, section 3.1 refers to "total gross floor area," section 5.3 refers to gross square footage." The applicant should use a single term, with a recognized method of calculation. 2. Section 4.4: Note that this proffer will establish a monthly consumption limit before a special use permit is required. Note that the proffer does not address the cumulative impacts of multiple water users of the Project that could be, for example, just below the monthly limit. 3. Section 5.4(d): Note that the dedication of an area for construction of a grade separated interchange is "conditioned upon other adjoining landowners (with land that is necessary for such interchange) contributing their prorata share of land for such interchange, as needed." Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Ron Keeler, Director of Planning December 11, 1995 Page 2 The applicant should clarify whether this means that all other adjoining landowners must contribute. The applicant should also clarify what it means to contribute a prorata share. Specifically, the applicant should clarify whether this language means that if any adjoining landowner does not "contribute" the land, but sells it, or fails to contribute a "prorata share," that the proffer is a nullity. Finally, the applicant should explain the criteria that will be used to determine a "prorata share." If a separated grade interchange is required, the amount of land VDOT will acquire from a particular landowner will depend on the location of the interchange. Note also that the November 14, 1995 proffers reserved an amount of land for twenty years for a grade separated interchange. This reservation is no longer proffered. 4. Sections 6.1 and 6.3: These sections provide in part that, at the request of the County, the applicant will "convey" the developed recreational areas and the Green Belt, respectively. The applicant should clarify whether "convey" means a gift, or a conveyance upon payment of full market value of the property, or • something in between. 5. Section 8.1: Note that the proffer to dedicate land for the fire station on the Project site is conditioned upon the design of the fire station meeting the Project's Design Guidelines. • GK:res UREFPROF COM PART V PROFFERS Proffers are a method for an applicant to provide public or other improvements as may be necessitated by the scale or other aspects of the proposal which are directly attributable to the proposal and to otherwise offset adverse effects of a proposal in a given circumstance . Proffers allow an applicant to improve the posture of a rezoning petition in the context of the Comprehensive Plan and other local policies as well as specific rezoning criteria as contained in the Code of Virginia, as compared to conventional rezoning. Likewise, the construction of the Planned Development districts as outlined in Section 8.0 of the zoning ordinance allows the County to modify, vary or waive certain ordinance provisions in a particular case in order to accommodate creative design and concept not normally achievable through conventional rezoning. These two approaches combined provide for individualized opportunity to create agreement as to development of larger tracts which may affect the general pattern of an area. The intent of the planned development provisions is to provide for (comparatively) large scale and long term development superior to that achievable thorough conventional development. This section of the report will analyze the applicant's proffers as to adequacy to address the various issues outlined earlier. Proffers are to be voluntary on behalf of the applicant as to substance and, therefore, any suggested language change made by staff should be viewed as editorial clarification/simplification as opposed to substantive (The applicant is requested to object to any language change viewed as substantive).. • • V-1 PROFFER STATEMENT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-95-04 Last Revised: ' ber- December 7, 1995 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation(the "Applicant"), the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application#ZMA-95-04 (Tax Map Reference 32, Parcels 4B, 6A, 6, 18 and 19)a ll as and MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc., the fee simple owner of Parcel F-2 and more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1.1 (collectively, the "Property")hereby voluntarily proffer that in-the-event if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board")to the Planned Development Industrial Park("PD-IP") in substantial accordance with the Applicant's Rezoning Application,the development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.1-491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by Applicant, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these conditions are offered voluntarily offcrcd pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. These The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards? or(ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance, except as permitted in the PD-IP Zoning District. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-79-01 78-15. - STAFF COMMENT: Changes are-responsive to staff concerns. Proffered language is recommended for acceptance. • Page 1 of 23 I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant has presented, as part of its Rezoning Application, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning action which it seeks, and to illustrate the process through which the Applicant developed its proposal. Proffers;A. •licant's development of the Property (also referred to herein as the "Project") shall be in general accordance with,Applicant's Zoning Application Plan (the "Zoning Application Plan"), as provided in the Ordinance. Unless specifically referenced in these Prefers proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers as-such... Plans or exhibits, if referenced herein, are limited to the purpose for which they are submitted. 1.2 Site Plans. The Project shall be developed threttet in phases, consistent with applicable zoning and these Proffers,tlrrettgh by the submission of site development plans ("Site Plans") as provided in the Ordinance. Staff Comment: Staff is unable to find the terms "in general accordance" in 8.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY. Prior language (i.e. - "shall conform to") was acceptable. Section 8.3 contains the language "in accordance with the approved application plans" and§8.5.6.3 sets forth the limits of administrative discretion as to variations from approved application plans. Due to confusion, it may be appropriate.to add a sentence specifically listing of what plans are proffered as opposed to the language "unless specifically referenced in these proffers. " Section 8.5.6.2 provides option for the applicant to comply with site plan/subdivision regulations at time of rezoning approval or such regulations in effect at time of individual site plan/subdivision approval. This . provision does not apply to any other zoning or County Code provision. Certified copies-of the site development plan.regulations and subdivision ordinance'should be included-as a part of the record of this rezoning petition. - • Page, 2 of 23 II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration") providing for the coordinated development of the Property in accord accordance with the design and architectural guidelines incorporated by reference in the Declaration. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by owners and-tenants within the Project enly. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any variance from state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed in the PD-IP Zoning District. 2.2 Minimum Requirements/Design Standards. At a minimumA the Declaration shall provide for: (a) Geeretirratet1 For coordinated development of the Property; -end (b) Design and architectural guidelines for each development area within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious, well-balanced business community, and © That no hazardous materials, including medical wastes will be disposed within the Project.: 2.3 Fixed Standards. _(a) The following elements of the.Design-Guidelines shall be set forth in the_ Declaration: (i) Types of materials utilized to be used in construction of buildings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Project, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be utilized used and standards for landscaping. 2.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Page 3 of 23 (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee on which the Applicant shall have a permanent seat unless or until the University of Virginia occupies at least one seat. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committer; the. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); and © Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project. 2.5 Maintenance of Common Areas. All common areas within the Project shall be established and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The Applicant shall either: i) organize a North Fork Owners Association or such other private, area or business associations as may be necessary to address specific area or business concerns of the Project (the "Organization(s)") as nonprofit non- stock organizations under the laws of Virginia for the ownership, care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such associations (the "Common Areas"); or ii) directly control such ownership, care and maintenance of Common Areas. (b) The Organization(s), if formed,shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall ix responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas, including lands, uses and facilities located therein. © The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location; size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for-the • maintenance of such Common Areas. These restrictive covenants shall be Written ..s to ru with the l,.t.] ..._a ..hall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner hereinafter set forth. (d) If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Organization(s) shall not be dissolved nor shall such Organization(s) dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s)to own and maintain the Common Areas. Nothing herein shall prevent the Organization(s) from applying for an amendment to the approved Project, or to change the status of open space from common to limited common areas as provided herein. Page 4 of 23 Staff Comment: This should be viewed as a "good faith"statement as none of this section is intended to be enforceable by the County. The Applicant has clarified the differences and superior authority of County regulation. Proffer 2.1 states that the County shall have "no rights or obligations to enforce" the Declaration. Therefore, Proffer 2.2(c), dealing with hazardous, waste disposal, is unenforceable by the County. • • Page 5 of 23 III. DENSITY 3.1 Total Buildout. Total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet, excluding recycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), temporary office trailers and modular buildings, small storage buildings (not to exceed 1500 square feet), and structures included as amenities within Common Areas. it-is-the petentittl. Staff Comment: The language addressing "excluded"floor area should be endorsed in order to avoid future confusions (staff had recommended inclusion of"excluded"floor area language for just such purpose). "Temporary non-residential mobile homes"are addressed under§5.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be determined as to what listed structures are intended to be subject to the modifer term "temporary"for purposes of future zoning interpretation (i.e. - if temporary" is to apply only to "office trailers and modular buildings" then these uses should be listed last). Prior staff comment included the following: Staff suggested that the applicant distinguish between structures and other improvements which may be located in open space as amenities together with temporary structures from the proffered 3,000,000 square feet of floor area. The intent of the floor area limitation is to control intensity of development and its subsequent impacts such as traffic generation. A development of this scale will require some central services which will be supported only by the development and have no external customers, such as landscaping/groundskeeping and recycling facilities which may be appropriately located in suitable open space area. and should not count towards total floor area. Likewise, individual sites may have need for small storage buildings, required by regulation to be separated from occupied buildings. Through experience, some businesses may have need for expanded, temporary floor area (usually modular buildings) which should not be counted toward permanent building area limitation. Finally, the last sentence of proffer 3.1 which staff had previously identified as inappropriate has been deleted. The County's Attorneys office has commented that "In reference to 3,000,000 square feet of developed floor space, Section 3.1 refers to total gross floor area, Section 5.3 refers to gross square footage. The applicant should use a single term, with a recognized method of calculation." Page 6 of 23 IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER CONSERVATION 4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain undisturbed except for road crossings,public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and riding trails, subject to County regulations. 4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Applicant shall implement in phases an overall stormwater management plan for the Project, incorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the Property. eeetx 4.4 in general accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan attached as Exhibit 4.2. subject to final design and engineering. 4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as presently defined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Vegetated Wetlands, shall not be disturbed in the development of the Project except for the installation of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking trails, or any other uses approved by the County after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local permits and approvals. 4.5 4.4 Water Conservation. No single facility within the Project shall consume more than 125,000 gallons per day of potable water without obtaining a special use permit. The Design Guidelines' design review process shall include recpmmendationsto users'for water'conservation techniques (such as low flow showers and toilets-,water-conserving landscaping techniques, water reclamation}and reuse water reuse). STAFF COMMENT: This proffer has been changed to include language to clarify that activity in the floodplain would comply with County regulation and to further define "wetlands." Implementation of the master Stormwater Management Plan would be subject to a specific phasing plan (Exhibit 4.2). Proffer 4.4 has been amended to address the issue of heavy water user. The consumption figure was derived through information obtained from the Albemarle County Service Authority and reflects current usage of major industrial sites in the County. The County Attorney's Office notes "that this proffer will establish a monthly consumption limit before a special use permit is required. Note that the proffer does not address the cumulative impacts of multiple water users of the Project that could be,for example,just below the monthly limit. " Page 7 of 23 V. TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Internal Road Network. The Applicant shall provide vehicular access within the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 5.1, ("Internal Road Network"). , elesignr eenstruetion7signage Applicant shall design, construct, and install signs and signalization for the Internal Road Network a in accordance with minimum; eon standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation("VDOT")-Tee unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the necessary modifications to previously constructed intersections to the extent that subsequent development of areas within the Project impacts such previously constructed intersections,requiring including modification of the Internal Road Network design and signalization for such intersections, The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit 5.1 shall be subject to adjustment during final the subdivision plat/site plan approval process. " 5.2 Road Construction Standards. (a) All internal roads which service serve an area submitted to the County for site plan approval,Land other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and the County reasonably determines determine are necessary for safe and efficient access to such areal shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated the Cry for public use,for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final subdivision plat recordation for each applicable area. (b) The Applicant shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to Exhibit 5.3. Applicant shall construct to VDOT standards a relevant portion of a road phase within six (6) months of the issuance of certificates of occupancy for three (3) users along such segment relevant portion of a road phase. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, _the proffer to construct roads to VDOT standards shall not require completion of construction of such roads prior-to before the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy t for a building served by that relevant portion of road so long as adequate bonds are in place. Prier-to Before issuance of certificates of occupancy, however Applicant shall complete a relevant road phase with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix asphalt. The final layer of plant mix asphalt will be withheld until all sewer lines, water lines and other conduits have been placed under the pavement but will be completed to an approved • Page 8 of 23 VDOT pavement depth and design-prier-to before the request for VDOT acceptance of the road. The Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the roads within the Internal Road Network until they have been accepted into the state system for maintenance. 5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determining the timing of road improvements set forth in 5.4 below, PIIASE I Land Usc ITE Codc(2)Density (1) e lt_rn ti_ l Orr_ n nnn �rro`e`fTelleYSrvrrree�JJv;vv� 3q. ft. 85,000 sq. ft. • Gee T_ in_1ude r.,t more than 2G fnnn • Page 9 of 23 PHASE I Land Use (1) ITE Code (2) Cumulative Density (3) Maximum Density to be accessed by Road A (all uses): 635,000 General Office limited to 550,000 (3) 710 Support Commercial to 85,000 810 Maximum Density to be accessed by Rt. 606 (all uses): 345,000 General Office limited to: 120,000 710 Support Commercial limited to: 25,000 810 Maximum Total Density through Phase I 980,000(4) PHASE II Maximum Cumulative ITE Code (2) Density gurritilttfive Land Use (1) General Office: 710 1,068,000 Support Commercial_ 820 110,000 Hotel: 310 190,000, Light Industrial ( 110 -0- Maximum 24447990 1,568,000(4) Total 1,568,000 Density through Phase II Page 10 of 23 PHASE III Maximum Cumulative ITE Code (2) Density (31H+ Land Use (1) General Office: 710 2,300,000 Support Commercial: 820 110,000 Hotel: 310 190,000 Light Industrial 110 -0- Maximum -4007909 3,000,000(4) Total : 3,000,000 Density through Phase III (1) Note: The use categories above shall have the following definitions for the purposes of this Article V: "General Office" shall mean business and professional office uses as contemplated in the Zoning Application Plan. "Support Commercial" shall mean primary commercial uses recommended by the Ordinance for village and neighborhood service areas and which provide convenience to occupants within the Project. Support Commercial shall include but not be limited to: day care centers, convenience centers, bank branches, cop_` centers and dry cleaners. Any commercial use not included in any of the • other defined categories shall be included in the Support Commercial category. "Hotel" shall have the definition set forth in the Ordinance. "Light Industrial" shall mean all those uses permitted by right in the LI Zoning District, excluding: i) those LI uses contained in the definitions of the foregoing categories, and ii) fire and rescue stations. (2) Note: The land use category definitions are intended to correspond to definitions contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 5th Edition, wherever possible. The code references above relate to the categories from the Handbook. Page 11 of 23 3a Note: Gross square footagc(2)Note: Source: ITE Trip Generation eit Note: The land use classifications listed above are provided for the purpose of projecting vehicle trip generation as relates to Project development. Nothing contained herein shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of land use types within any Phase of development in accordance with the Project Zoning " • Application Plan; however that-in-fie-event-will the total density of General Office or Support Commercial use for any given Phase shall not exceed the amounts shown above. 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements. , Applicant shall design and construct offsite road improvements in phases. Offsite road improvement proffers shall not include dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VDOT obtaining required right-of-way, (if such right-of-way is not owned in fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers, even though the necessary right-of-way is not available, Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density levels under the applicable zoning. Read Unless an earlier time is required below, road improvements for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded, or contributed for(as set forth below),prier-te before issuance of certificates of occupancy for the building densities ceilings set forth in 5.3 above. (a) The Applicant shall construct the following Phase I road improvements 3 be constructedprior to before achieving the total Phase I Density (as defined in 5.3 above) or earlier if i s ecified below or i' a need is created by.such - development and is demonstrated by a traffic analysis approved by VDOT. In general, the Phase I road improvements shall be as described on Exhibit 5.3 attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be permitted to develop beyond the total Phase I Density in advance of completing construction of the Phase I road improvements, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that the , following intersections will function,with the proposed additional densities,at a Level of Service "D" (LOS D) or better : (i) Route 649 and Road A, (ii) Route 606 and Quail Run, (iii Route 606 and Route 649, and (iv Road A and U.S. 29. Page 12 of 23 1 Applicant shall design and construct a northbound turn lane from Route 606 onto Quail Run for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection. 2 A licant shall ac uire if necessa ) right of way for,design and-construct two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29 at the intersection of Road A(North Fork Entrance)and U.S. 29. A nlicant shall acquire right of way for, desi.n and construct a channelized southbound right turn lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound right turn lanes. The entrance at Road A also shall include dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes. (3) Ali Applicant shall install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the improved intersection at U.S. 29 and Road A no later than completion of the two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29. If an additional road is added to such intersection to satisfy needs of other development in the County however, Annlicant's sii realization requirement shall not include improvements serving such additional road. (4) Provided that the work is completed within 10 years from the date of final approval of this Application, Applicant shall contribute upon completion (i) a Prorata Contribution (as hereinafter defined)to the cost of design and construction of two left turn lanes in each direction at the intersection of U.S. 29 and Route 649, including signalization, or(ii) 100,000.00, whichever sum is less. A Applicant shall conduct a traffic count on-U.S. 29 • VDOT}at the intersection of Route 649 within 90 days of request for its Prorata Contribution. The Applicant's Prorata Contribution shall be determined by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the vehicle trips per day through the intersection and attributable to the North Fork project (North Fork Traffic) and the denominator of which is the total vehicle trips per day through the intersection multiplied times the total of design and construction costs, as follows: North Fork Traffic Design and _ Prorata Total Traffic X Construction Cost Contribution Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant's Pro-Rate Prorata Contribution may be used, at the County's discretion, to fund a portion of the design and engineering costs in order to expedite the widening of Route 649 from two lanes Page 13 of 23 to four lanes so long as Applicant is afforded the opportunity to participate in such design and engineering process. (b) The Applicant shall design and construct the following Phase II roadway improvements before achieving the total Phase II Density (but not before achieving the total Phase I Density as set forth in 5.3 above) or earlier if • i specified below or ii a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by VDOT based upon accepted traffic analyses: a traffic analysis approved by VDOT: (1)AW Applicant shall design, dedicate. and construct within the Protect a two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the North Fork Project within six months of the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any building density within Phase II. ' , Applicant shall dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to 649 shallbe dedicated a_a __idea f.._ lam when traffic volumes create the need for such widening. include al Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649 entrance: two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, one southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through lanes on Road A. (3) The Applicant shall construct at the intersection at Road A and Route 649 shall be _____..`_...`_a i_eittel _one westbound right turn lane on Route 649, and one eastbound left turn lane on'Route 649. (4) MI Applicant shall design and install all faffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved within the Phase II , Density, but no later than when a need is created by Applicant's development, as demonstrated by a traffic analysis approved by VDOT. Applicant may develop the Project through the total Phase III Density described defined in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have occurred (but nst such conditions shall not be viewed as conditions for achieving Phases I and II Densities): • Page 14 of 23 (1) Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way)the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDQT requires, and at the County's direction,Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and construction costs which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29at-the-Getnityls dir co_st_.ctio_ for the purpose of constructing of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Route 29 and the entrance to North Fork at Rettel • A. Nothing contained herein however shall be deemed to'be a proffer la Applicant to construct such a grade separated interchange by-the-Appt. (2) Prior to Before the issuance of the first occupancy permit for development beyond the total Phase II Density, VDOT shall have approved funding for the design and construction of the widening of U.S. 29 to six through lanes between the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. (3) Applicant may nevertheless continue development beyond the total Phase II Density (but in no event beyond the limitation contained in 3.1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in (1) and (2) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies that acceptable levels of service (LOS "D", or better for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection) can be maintained with existing, or alternative improvements. (d) Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated on Exhibit 5.3 as "Future Right of Way Area for Grade Separated Interchange." Applicant shall dedicate such area when the interchange is to be constructed; provided however, that Applicant's obli'ation t i dedicate all be - conditioned upon other adjoinin' landowners with lan s that is necessa for such interchange) contributing their prorata share of land for such interchan'e as needed. STAFF COMMENT: Wording throughout has been changed to be more concise, direct, and definitive. Proffer 5.1 has been amended to clarify that improvements to the internal road network would be made by the applicant whether or not such roads have been accepted by VDOT. Nothing contained in Proffer 5.2 (or elsewhere) shall be deemed as a constraint to the Zoning Administrator authority to withhold any certificate of occupancy in accordance with§31.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has revised Proffer 5.3 to address Commission concern as to the effects of altering land use mix on the transportation network. Since general office is a higher generator than light industrial, the applicant has shown light industrial maximum square footage as -0-. "Zeroing"light industrial in the tables may be onfusing to future zoning interpretation. Staff would recommend that each table be revised to show (a) maximum general office square footage; and(b) maximum combined general office/light industrial square Page 15 of 23 rootage as two figures in one row. ITE Code 710 would be applied to both figures to provide a "worst case" cenario. The 2.3 million square footage cap would still apply to actual general office development. The County should provide for adjustment of traffic figures based upon traffic counts during phased development. Proffer 5.4 has been revised to be more direct and definitive as to the applicant's responsibilities versus those of VDOT and the County in response to staff concern. Language in Proffer 5.4(a)(4) is internally inconsistent. The first sentence provides for contribution offunds "upon completion, " however, later provision would allow application offunds to "design and engineering costs. " The final proffer under[5.4(d)]is conditional as to dedication of right-of-way for a possible future interchange. The County may not have opportunity through rezoning review to obtain pro-rata contribution from other properties as may be involved in grade separated interchange right-of-way. Such circumstance would negate the effect of this proffer and, therefore, require condemnation of right-of-way from the UREF project. Staff would recommend that this proffer is ineffective as stated, since it relies upon events not controllable by the County. The County's Attorney's Office states that the dedication of an area for construction of a grade separated interchange is "conditioned upon other adjoining landowners (with land that is necessary for such interchange) contributing their prorata share of land for such interchange as needed. " The applicant should clarify whether this means that all other adjoining landowners must contribute. The applicant should also clarify what it means to contribute a prorata share. Specifically, the applicant should clarify whether this language means that if any adjoining landowner does not "contribute" the land, but sells it, )r fails to contribute a `prorata share, " that the proffer is a nullity. Finally, the applicant should explain the •riteria that will be used to determine a `prorata share. " If a separated grade interchange is required, the amount of land VDOT will acquire from a particular landowners will depend on the location of the interchange. Note also that the November 14, 1995 proffers reserved an amount of land for twenty years for a grade separated interchange. This reservation is no longer proffered. • Page 16 of 23 VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE. 6.1 Developed Recreational Areas. e Applicant shall develop active recreation and picnic areas as indicated on the attached Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1). Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shall follow the phasing schedule of offsite road improvements as set forth in 5.3 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase 1 on Exhibit 6.1 shall be completed prior to before achieving Phase I Density as set forth in 5.3. Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to the County,shall be maintained by the Applicant or the ,,l- rtit-Frk---44.eerters--Asseeitttiett an appropriate Organization for use by users within the Project ' + widen. ( r ' i its). ro_ ide however tL.as 1 uiiu �..,......� ..,, �.� vuf.uva�� Y... �iiw�� Yivviu�,u, itvvv�,vt,i, uia mar . At the request of the County, Applicant shall convey in fee simple to the County the ball fields depicted on Exhibit 6.1. If conve ed, the ball fields shall be placed under the jurisdiction and eare maintenance of the County Department of Parks and Recreation so long as no capital outlay for such dedication conveyance is required). Active recreation areas will not be lighted with stadium lighting without County approval. 6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development , of areas not • shown as development parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to development parcel boundary adjustment during the Project buildout. Such areas for protection of the environment, these In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Green Belt (defined below), Buffer areas (defined below), and recreation areas described in these Proffers be less than a total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project ram, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the North Fork Owners Association or to an appropriate Organization. No structural improvements other than those later approved by the Applicant, or office-use structures utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Maintenance of Open Space. The Open Spaee System, as shown on Exhibit 6.1 or as modified _ 6.4 6_3 Rivanna Green Belt. Applicant shall reserve a 100 foot wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River "Green Belt")_ No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails, and utilities) shall be Page 17 of 23 constructed, or erected within the greenbelt Green Belt without the consent of the County , _Applicant may grant across the green-belt Green Belt utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for the users within the Project and their guests, and may bum-at its option, build pedestrian and riding trails or make other similar uses of the area. The Green Belt shall remain in its natural state except for pedestrian and riding trails and to the extent necessary to accommodate utilities crossings. At Ors such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park, , and upon a request by the County,Applicant shall convey the Green Belt to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities, net-eases-to-the-river; and pedestrian and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of-gift. The green-belt Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the owner of the property,-min. In the absence of such maintenance}the County at its option may maintain the Green Belt. 6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shall not disturb the existing family cemetery located a'proximatel in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Ap s licant shall develop within one year, a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. The preservation plan shall memorialize the historical significance of this site, consistent with the wishes of the family of those interred in the cemetery. The plan shall be implemented as the area surrounding the site is developed. STAFF COMMENT: Proffer 6.1 has been amended to clarify that the active recreation area would be conveyed to the County upon request. This proffer also prohibits stadium lighting of the recreation area consistent with the desires of the Lake Acres residents. Additional sidewalk would be provided as recommended by staff. Proffer 6.2 has been amended to address Commission concerns as to possible reduction of open space area. This proffer, combined with Proffers 6.3 and 6.4, clarifies the disposition of open space areas in relation to§4.7.3 of the zoning ordinance which contains regulations governing-open space. "Organization"-is defined under Proffer 2.5. In response to Commission concern, Proffer 6.3 has been revised to provide (with reasonable exceptions) that the Green Belt would remain in its natural state. This proffer also provides conveyance of the Green Belt to the County upon County request. The County Attorney's office states that these sections provide in part that, at the request of the County, the applicant will "convey" the developed recreational areas and the Green Belt, respectively. The applicant should clarify whether "convey" means a gift, or a conveyance upon payment of full market value of the property, or something in between. As recommended by staff, Proffer 6.4 provides for a definitive preservation plan for the homestead, ice house, and cemetery. The final sentence of Proffer 6.4 should be changed to provide for interim preservation measures for the Birckhead cemetery. Page 18 of 23 VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING 7.1 Landscaping. The Applicant shall landscape the streets in accordance with the standards contained in the "Street Tree Master Plan" for Phase I, dated . Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root interference with such utilities. 7.2 Buffer Areas. , Applicant shall not disturb the Buffer Areas as depicted on the Zoning Application Plano other than to: i) construct signage, fences or walls, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping for additional screening, at Applicant's option. STAFF COMMENT: Proffer 7.2 has been amended to clarify activities permissable in the buffer areas. The proposed language of 7.2 (iii) is unacceptable since it could be construed contrary to zoning regulation. Staff believes that removal of undesirable underbrush should be permitted "at Applicant's option"so long as remaining vegetation (or supplemental plantings)provide adequate buffering to adjoining properties dependent upon their use. It should be clarified that the County may require supplemental landscape plantings for additional screening purposes. • • • • Page 19 of 23 VIII. FIRE STATION 8.1 within the Project, not to exceed five acres, for the purpose of dedicating by Applicant, and for Fire Station. Applicant shall dedicate at County's request, up to a maximum of five acres for the purpose of construction by the County of a fire and emergency response facility. The five acre parcel shall be located on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating an alternative parcel of land located offsite that is acceptable to the County. Applicant's proffer to dedicate a site for the County's fire station is conditioned upon the design of the fire station meeting the Project's Design Guidelines. Applicant shall contribute funds for hazardous materials training for County fire personnel. Applicant's contribution of funds shall be limited to funding for up to 2 sessions a year for 3 years, beginning with the completion of the County's fire station. STAFF COMMENT: This proffer has been amended to reflect staffs comments. The applicant expressed concern that 5 acres may be excessive for the intended uses. Subsequent to the drafting of this proffer, staff has further reviewed the issue in relation to the recommendations of the Community Facilities Plan. Staff can support language which would provide for a minimum site area of 3.5 usable acres (i.e. - unencumbered by setback, steep slope, or other area restricted to development by zoning or other County regulation) of reasonable dimensions and configuration. A caution from both the County Attorney's office and Planning is that the proffer requires the County to comply with the applicant's Project Design Guidelines, which are intended as more restrictive than County regulation. Should compliance result in unacceptable project cost, the County may decline acceptance of the site. It is assumed, though not clear in the proffer language, that this provision would operate only if the site were located internal to the development. In closing,staff wishes to clarify that fire and emergency response are the primary and immediately envisioned uses for the site. Subordinate or temporary uses/activities may also be located-on the site. Page 20 of 23 IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 9.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the County Planning Office every 3.v ear c The report shall outline the development activity in the Project over the applicable period. STAFF COMMENT: This proffer has been added in response to Commission concern. This proffer is intended to provide monitoring of the project development only. • Page 21 of 23 X. SIGNATORY 10.1- IX. SIGNATORY 9.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that it they are the only legal title owners of record of the Property which is the subject of this application. 9.2 10. The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. • UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION By: Title: MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. • By: Title: • Page 22 of 23 STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by. of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. My commission expires: [SEAL] Notary Public STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by , on behalf of MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc. My commission expires: [SEAL] Notary Public C.\WP51\RPT\UREFPROF RPT Page 23 of 23 MCGUIREWOODS BATTLE&BOOTIE LLP Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TDD(804)977-2500 • Fax(804)980-2222 Steven W.Blaine Writer's Direct Dial (804)977-2588 December 7, 1995 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Hand Delivery ZTA-95-04 University Real Estate Foundation; North Fork Proffers Dear Ron: Enclosed please find the revised set of proffers for UREF. Also enclosed is a CompareWrite version reflecting changes from the November 14, 1995 version. We have attempted to respond to all comments from Planning Commission Members, your staff, VDOT and other county officials. The attached reflects UREF's approach to issues raised with respect to the proffers. We wish to point out that there is a blank in the proffer which limits water consumption by any single facility within the park. As soon as we have concluded our research on this issue, we will supplement these proffers with the information called for in the proffer. - - Ron, please feel free to contact me over the weekend if you have any questions. My home number is (804) 977-6672. Very Tru yours, OP/ Stevo n W. Blaine SWB:cg cc: Mr. Tim R. Rose (w/encl.) Mr. Dean Cinkala (w/encl.) Ms. Ellen Miller (w/encl.) Mr. Bob McKee (w/encl.) U 25M UREPKEELER.LTR ALEXANDRIA • BALTIMORE • BRUSSELS • CHARLOTTESVILLE • JACKSONVILLE • NORFOLK • RICHMOND • TYSONS CORNER • WASHINGTON, DC • ZURICH STONEBRLDGE 2195 Via Facsimile& Federal Express Priority December 9, 1995 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief Of Planning • Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: North Fork Business Park Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Keeler: We have been working diligently on revising our application and proffers based on comments made at the public hearing on November 28, 1995 and our meeting held with you and other Planning Staff members on Monday, December 4, 1995. I understand that Steve Blaine forwarded you a copy of the revised proffers last night and that John Fennell of McKee/ Carson forwarded you, this morning, a revised Zoning Application Plan and revised Conceptual Land Use Plan. Regarding the proffers, we have made every attempt to address the issues raised and also to work on the drafting of the proffers to make them simpler and easier to read and understand. As Of last night, the only issue which we were not able to resolve was a definition for large water user that would require the applicant to come back to the County for a special use permit. As you know, we have been working diligently trying to define what a reasonable measure would be and did not have enough information by day's end yesterday to finalize this issue. We will continue to work on this over the next several days and communicate our conclusions on this issue to you as soon as possible. Regarding the Zoning Application Plan (ZAP), we have made the following changes / corrections: • Deleted the last sentence in Note #1 because it was irrelevant. • Modified Note #6 to make clear that internal justification of a hotel would be determined by the County and adjusted SF limitation to 500,000 SF. • Eliminated old Note #12 which spoke to section 29.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC -1800 Montgomery Lane•Suite 875 Bethesda,Maryland 20814-5332 Telephone 3o1.9t3.96io Fax. 3o1.913 9615 Mr. Ronald S.Keeler 12/9/95 Page 2 • Added a new Note #13 which addressed concerns about the timing of free- standing support commercial. • Corrected the Land Use Matrix to make use headings consistent with language in application. • Modified Note * to the Land Use Matrix so that definition of General Office clearly followed language in application. • Clarified 150' buffer along Rte. 606 frontage of lot F 1 A. Regarding the Conceptual Land Use Plan, we have modified it to show all six uses described in "Section IX, Proposed Uses" of the Rezoning Application and shown on the Land Use Matrix of the Zoning Application Plan. While this is only a conceptual plan and not meant to replace the Land Use Matrix, we understand the confusion created by not showing all six uses and hope that this change clarifies this confusion. I am also attaching to this letter two additional documents for your distribution to the Planning Commission next Tuesday. They are: • Summary of Proffers /Zoning Application Plan: This highly summary document is intended to be a tool to help Planning Commission members easily understand the commitments reflected in the proffers and the Zoning Application Plan. • Response to the Piedmont Environmental Council Letter dated November 28, 1995. Hopefully this additional information will be helpful to your staff and the Planning Commission members as you consider this application. Please feel free to call me if you have any other questions. Best Regards, _ - l�G � Dean M. Cinkala cc: Tim Rose, UVAF Ellen Miller, SAI Steve Blaine, MWBB Bob McKee, McKee/Carson UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan DEMONSTRATION OF LONG TERM COMMITMENT • Proffered Covenants & Restrictions governing quality& use that run with the land. • Proffered that UREF maintains seat on Design Review Committee. • Proffered Maintenance of Common Areas by UREF or a duly authorized organization, like a homeowner's association. • Proffered progress report to Planning Commission every three years DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL • Total Area: 525 Acres • Total Square Feet 3,000,000 Proffered *Proffered Maximum Support Commercial 110,000 SF Proffered Maximum General Office 2,300,000 SF *Proffered Maximum (1) Hotel *Note: 500,000 SF must be developed before hotel or free standing commercial may be in service,unless County approves earlier development for hotel. All land use locations governed by Land Use Matrix on Zoning Application Plan. UNDEVELOPED AREAS Proffered 200 acre minimum described below: Rivanna Greenbelt: _ • Natural state but for trails and necessary utility connections. Includes connections to property edges to connect with adjacent tracts. - • Conveyed to County for public use at County's option. Buffers At Property Edge: • May clear brush, supplement landscaping and provide project signage, walls, etc. at park entrances Other Common Areas: • Pathways for tenant use developed in three phases. Developed Recreational Areas: • Active recreation areas available to park residents unless conveyed to County at no cost for acquisition. CEMETERY/ICE PIT PROFFER: Develop and implement a preservation plan for these facilities. FIRE STATION SITE PROFFER: Up to 5 acres of northern portion of Lot D or some other mutually satisfactory site. Available to County at its option. HAZMAT TRAINING PROFFER: Provide Hazmat Training for up to 3 years, with training sessions offered twice each year. STORMWATER Regional Plan which includes development of MANAGEMENT PROFFER: regional facilities and BMPs. WATER CONSERVATION Limited facility use to (TBD) gallons per month PROFFER: without special exception permit from County. DEVELOPMENT PHASING PROFFERS: Phase I Development Limitations: Access by Road A at Rte. 29 and Route 606 • Maximum SF(Road A Access): 635,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to 65,000 SF. Maximum SF(Route 606 Access): 345,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to 25,000 SF; Office limited to 120,000 SF. Traffic Proffers: All complete by end of Phase although VDOT can accelerate if need shown by traffic study. Similarly, Applicant can postpone improvements if VDOT is satisfied that expected need is not present. These principles apply to all traffic proffers in each phase. Traffic Improvements: • Northbound turn lane on 'Route 606 to Quail Run. - • Signalization of Route 29/Road A intersection • Intersection improvements to Rte. 29 and Road A. • Improve Rtes. 29 / 649 intersection through construction or $100,000 contribution whichever is less. At County's option can redeploy resources to expedite funding of widening Route 649. Phase II Development Limitations: Access via Route 29; Route 649 and Route 606. Maximum Cumulative Total SF: 1,568,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to 110,000 SF; Office limited to 1,068,000 SF. Traffic Proffers: Same note in Phase I applies. Traffic Improvements: • Make connection of Road A to Rte. 649 with 4 lanes by end of Phase. • Improve Rte. 649 / Road A intersection and signalize as warranted. Phase III Development Limitations: All access points already operational Maximum Cumulative Total SF: 3,000,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to 110,000 SF; Office limited to 2,300,000 SF. Traffic Proffers and Improvements: Design and construct third southbound lane on Route 29,-or at County's option use funds to support grade separation at Road A/Route 29 entrance. Applicant will also contribute right of way if other landowners served by an interchange contribute land too. In all events Applicant will reserve the right of way. PROFFER STATEMENT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION Date: February 28, 1995 Last Revised: December 7, 1995 PROFFER STATEMENT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION REZONING APPLICATION:. #ZMA-95-04 Last Revised: December 7, 1995 • University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-95-04 (Tax Map Reference 32, Parcels 4B, 6A, 6, 18 and 19) and MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc., the fee simple owner of Parcel F-2, and more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1.1 (collectively, the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the Planned Development Industrial Park ("PD-IP") in substantial accordance with the Applicant's Rezoning Application, the development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.1-491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by Applicant, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these conditions are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance, except as permitted in the PD-IP Zoning District. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-78-15. I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant has presented, as part of its Rezoning Application, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide _ justification for the rezoning action which it seeks, and to illustrate the process through which the Applicant developed its proposal. Applicant's development of the Property (also referred to herein as the "Project") shall be in general accordance with Applicant's Zoning Application Plan (the "Zoning Application Plan"), as provided in the Ordinance. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. Plans or exhibits, if referenced herein, are limited to the purpose for which they are submitted. 1.2 Site Plans. The Project shall be developed in phases, consistent with applicable zoning and these Proffers, by the submission of site development plans ("Site Plans") as provided in the Ordinance. Page 1 of 13 II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration") providing for the coordinated development of the Property in accordance with design and architectural guidelines incorporated by reference in the Declaration. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by owners within the Project. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any variance from state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed in the PD-IP Zoning District. 2.2 Minimum Requirements/Design Standards. At a minimum, the Declaration shall. provide: (a) For coordinated development of the Property; (b) Design and architectural guidelines for each development area within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious, well-balanced business community, and (c) That no hazardous materials, including medical wastes will be disposed within the Project. 2.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be set forth in the Declaration: (i) Types of-materials-to be-used in construction of buildings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Project, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 2.4 Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Page 2 of 13 (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee on which the Applicant shall have a permanent seat unless or until the University of Virginia occupies at least one seat. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); and (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project. 2.5 Maintenance of Common Areas. All common areas within the Project shall be established and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The Applicant shall either: i) organize a North Fork Owners Association or such other private, area or business associations as may be necessary to address specific area or business concerns of the Project (the "Organization(s)") as non-stock organizations under the laws of Virginia for the ownership, care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such associations (the "Common Areas"); or ii) directly control such ownership, care and maintenance of Common Areas. • (b) The Organization(s), if formed, shall be bound, by the Declaration's covenants and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas, including lands, uses and facilities located therein. (c) The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method 'of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. These restrictive covenants shall be in full -force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods'of twenty-five (25) years' unless terminated in a manner hereinafter set forth. (d) If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Organization(s) shall not be dissolved nor shall such Organization(s) dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and maintain the Common Areas. Nothing herein shall prevent the Organization(s) from applying for an amendment to the approved Project, or to change the status of open space from common to limited common areas as provided herein. Page 3 of 13 III. DENSITY 3.1 Total Buildout. Total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet, excluding recycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), temporary office trailers and modular buildings, small storage buildings (not to exceed 1500 square feet), and structures included as amenities within Common Areas. IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER CONSERVATION 4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and riding trails, subject to County regulations. 4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Applicant shall implement in phases an overall stormwater management plan for the Project, incorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the Property in general accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan, attached as Exhibit 4.2, subject to final design and engineering. 4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as presently defined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Vegetated Wetlands, shall not be disturbed in the development of the Project except for the installation of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking trails, or any other uses approved by the County after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local permits and approvals. 4.4 Water Conservation. No single facility within the Project shall consume more than million gallons per month of potable water without obtaining a special use permit. The Design Guidelines' design review process shall include recommendations to users for water conservation techniques (such as low flow showers and toilets, water-conserving landscaping techniques, water reclamation, and water reuse). V. TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Internal Road Network. Applicant shall provide vehicular access within-the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 5.1, ("Internal Road Network"). Applicant shall design, construct, and install signs and signalization for the Internal Road Network in accordance with minimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the necessary modifications to previously constructed intersections to the extent that subsequent development of areas within the Project impacts such previously constructed intersections, including modification of the Internal Road Network design and signalization for such intersections. The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit 5.1 shall be subject to adjustment during the subdivision plat/site plan approval process. Page 4 of 13 • 5.2 Road Construction Standards. (a) All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County for site plan approval, (and other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and the County reasonably determine are necessary for safe and efficient access to such area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated for public use, for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final subdivision plat recordation for each applicable area. (b) Applicant shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to Exhibit 5.3. Applicant shall construct to VDOT standards a relevant portion of a road phase within six (6) months of the issuance of certificates of occupancy for three (3) users along such relevant portion of a road phase. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, the proffer to construct roads to VDOT standards shall not require completion of construction of such roads before the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy for a building served by that relevant portion of road so long as adequate bonds are in place. Before issuance of certificates of occupancy, however • Applicant shall complete a relevant road phase with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix asphalt. The final layer of plant mix asphalt will be withheld until all sewer lines, water lines and other conduits have been placed under the pavement but will be completed to an approved VDOT pavement depth and design before the request for VDOT acceptance of the road. Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the roads within the Internal Road Network until they have been accepted into the state system for maintenance. 5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determining the timing of road improvements set forth in 5.4 below: PHASE I Land Use (1) ITE Code (2) Cumulative Density-(3) - Maximum Density to be accessed by Road A (all uses): 635,000 General Office limited to 550,000 (3) 710 Support Commercial to 85,000 810 Maximum Density to be accessed by Rt. 606 (all uses): 345,000 General Office limited to: 120,000 710 Support Commercial limited to: 25,000 810 Maximum Total Density through Phase I 980,000(4) Page 5 of 13 • PHASE II Maximum Cumulative Land Use (1) ITE Code (2) Density (3) General Office: , 710 1,068,000 Support Commercial: 820 110,000 Hotel: 310 190,000 Light Industrial 110 -0- Maximum Total Density through Phase II 1,568,000(4) PHASE III Maximum Cumulative Land Use (1) ITE Code (2) Density (3) General Office: 710 2,300,000 Support Commercial: 820 110,000 Hotel: 310 190,000 Light Industrial 110 -0- Maximum Total Density through Phase III 3,000,000(4) . (1) Note: The use categories_above shall have the following definitions for - the purposes of this Article V: "General Office" shall mean business and professional office uses as contemplated in the Zoning Application Plan. "Support Commercial" shall mean primary commercial uses recommended by the Ordinance for village and neighborhood service areas and which provide convenience to occupants within the Project. Support Commercial shall include but not be limited to: day care centers, convenience centers, bank branches, copy centers and dry cleaners. Any commercial use not included in any of the other defined categories shall be included in the Support Commercial category. "Hotel" shall have the definition set forth in the Ordinance. "Light Industrial" shall mean all those uses Page 6 of 13 permitted by right in the LI Zoning District, excluding: i) those LI uses contained in the definitions of the foregoing categories, and ii) fire and rescue stations. (2) Note: The land use category definitions are intended to correspond to definitions contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 5th Edition, wherever possible. The code references above relate to the categories from the Handbook. (3) Note: Gross square footage. (4) Note: The land use classifications listed above are provided for the purpose of projecting vehicle trip generation as relates to Project development. Nothing contained herein shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of land use types within any Phase of development in accordance with the Project Zoning Application Plan; however the total density of General Office or Support Commercial use for any given Phase shall not exceed the amounts shown above. 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements. Applicant shall design and construct offsite road mprovements in phases. Offsite road improvement proffers shall not include dedication of.land unless xpressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VDOT obtaining required right-of-way, (if such right-of-way is not owned in fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers, even though the necessary right-of-way is not available, Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density levels under the applicable zoning. Unless an earlier time is required below, road improvements for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded, or contributed for (as set forth below), before issuance of certificates of occupancy for the building densities ceilings set forth in 5.3 above. _ (a) Applicant shall construct the following Phase I road improvements before achieving the total Phase I Density (as defined in 5.3 above) or earlier if (i) specified below, or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic analysis approved by VDOT. In general, the Phase I road improvements shall be as described on Exhibit 5.3 attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be permitted to develop beyond the total Phase I Density in advance of completing construction of the Phase I road improvements, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that the following intersections will function, with the proposed additional densities, at a Level of Service "D" (LOS D) or better: (i) Route 649 and Road A, (ii) Route 606 and Quail Run, (iii) Route 606 and Route 649, and (iv) Road A and U.S. 29. Page 7 of 13 (1) Applicant shall design and construct a northbound turn lane from Route 606 onto Quail Run for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection. (2) Applicant shall acquire (if necessary) right of way for, design and construct two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29 at the intersection of Road A (North Fork Entrance) and U.S. 29. Applicant shall acquire right of way for, design and construct a channelized southbound right turn lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound right turn lanes. The entrance at Road A also shall include dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes. (3) Applicant shall install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the improved intersection at U.S. 29 and Road A no later than completion of the two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29. If an additional road is added to such intersection to satisfy needs of other development in the County however, Applicant's signalization requirement shall not include improvements serving such additional road. (4) Provided that the work is completed within 10 years from the date of final approval of this Application, Applicant shall contribute upon completion (i) a Prorata Contribution (as hereinafter defined) to the cost of design and construction of two left turn lanes in each direction at the intersection of U.S. 29 and Route 649, including signalization, or (ii) $100,000.00, whichever sum is less. Applicant shall conduct a traffic count on U.S. 29, at the intersection of Route 649 within 90 days of request for its Prorata Contribution. The _Applicant's Prorata Contribution shall be determined by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the vehicle trips per day through the intersection and attributable to the North Fork project (North Fork Traffic) and the denominator of which is the total vehicle trips per day through the intersection multiplied times the total of design and construction,costs, as follows: North Fork Traffic X Design and ' Prorata Total Traffic Construction Cost Contribution Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant's Prorata Contribution may be used, at the County's discretion, to fund a portion of the design and engineering costs in order to expedite the widening of Route 649 from two lanes to four lanes so long as Applicant is afforded the opportunity to participate in such design and engineering process. (b) Applicant shall design and construct the following Phase II roadway improvements before achieving the total Phase II Density (but not before achieving the total Phase I Page 8 of 13 Density) (as set forth in 5.3 above) or earlier if (i) specified below, or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic analysis approved by VDOT: (1) Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the North Fork Project within six months of the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any building density within Phase II. Applicant shall dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to 649 when traffic volumes create the need for such widening. ' (2) Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649 entrance: two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, one southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through lanes on Road A. (3) Applicant shall construct at the intersection at Road A and Route 649: one westbound right turn lane on Route 649, and one eastbound left turn lane on Route 649. (4) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved within • the Phase II Density, but no later than when a need is created by Applicant's development, as demonstrated by a traffic analysis approved by VDOT. (c) Applicant may develop the Project through the total Phase III Density defined in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have occurred (but such conditions shall not be viewed as conditions for achieving Phases I and II Densities): (1) Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way) the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDOT requires, and at the County's direction, Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to-the design and construction costs which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29 for the purpose of constructing of a grade separated'interchange at the intersection of Route 29 and the entrance to North Fork. Nothing contained herein however shall be deemed to be a proffer by Applicant to construct such a grade separated interchange. (2) Before the issuance of the first occupancy permit for development beyond the total Phase II Density, VDOT shall have approved funding for the design and construction of the widening of U.S. 29 to six through lanes between the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. Page 9 of 13 (3) Applicant may nevertheless continue development beyond the total Phase II Density (but in no event beyond the limitation contained in 3.1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in (1) and (2) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies that acceptable levels of service (LOS "D", or better for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection) can be maintained with existing, or alternative improvements. (d) Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated on Exhibit 5.3 as "Future Right of Way Area for Grade Separated Interchange." Applicant shall dedicate such area when the interchange is to be constructed; provided however, that Applicant's obligation to dedicate shall be conditioned upon other adjoining landowners (with land that is necessary for such interchange) contributing their prorata share of land for such interchange, as needed. VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE. 6.1 Developed Recreational Areas. Applicant shall develop active recreation and picnic areas as indicated on the attached Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1). Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shall follow the phasing schedule of offsite road improvements as set forth in 5.3 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase 1 on Exhibit 6.1 shall be completed before achieving Phase I Density as set forth in 5.3. Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to `he County, shall be maintained by the Applicant or an appropriate Organization for use by users within the 'roject. At the request of the County, Applicant shall convey in fee simple to the County the ball fields depicted on Exhibit 6.1. If conveyed, the ball fields shall be placed under the jurisdiction and maintenance of the County Department of Parks and Recreation (so long as no capital outlay for such conveyance is required). Active recreation areas will not be lighted with stadium lighting without County approval. 6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development of areas not shown_as development parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment during the Project buildout. In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Green Belt (defined below), Buffer areas (defined below), and recreation areas described in these,Proffers be less than a total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the North Fork Owners Association or to an appropriate Organization. No structural improvements other than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Rivanna Green Belt. Applicant shall reserve a 100 foot wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River ("Green Belt"). No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails, and utilities) shall be constructed, or erected within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. Applicant may grant across the Green Belt utility easements, and access easements Page 10 of 13 • to the Rivanna River for the users within the Project and their guests, and may at its option, build edestrian and riding trails or similar uses of the area. The Green Belt shall remain in its natural state except for pedestrian and riding trails and to the extent necessary to accommodate utilities crossings. At such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park and upon a request by the County, Applicant shall convey the Green Belt to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities, and pedestrian and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the owner of the property. In the absence of such maintenance, the County at its option may maintain the Green Belt. 6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shall not disturb the existing family cemetery located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Applicant shall develop within one year, a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. The preservation plan shall memorialize the historical significance of this site, consistent with the wishes of the family of those interred in the cemetery. The plan shall be implemented as the area surrounding the site is developed. VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING 7.1 Landscaping. The Applicant shall landscape the streets in accordance with the standards contained in the "Street Tree Master Plan" for Phase I, dated . Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root interference with such utilities. • 7.2 Buffer Areas. Applicant shall not disturb the Buffer Areas as depicted on the Zoning ,pplication Plan, other than to: i) construct signage, fences or walls, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping for additional screening, at Applicant's option. VIII. FIRE STATION 8.1 Fire Station. Applicant shall dedicate at County's request, up to a maximum of five acres for the purpose of construction by the County of a fire and emergency response facility: The five acre parcel shall be located on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating an alternative parcel of land located offsite that is acceptable to the County. Applicant's proffer to dedicate a site for the County's fire station is conditioned upon the design of the fire station meeting the Project's Design Guidelines. Applicant shall contribute funds for hazardous materials training for County fire personnel. Applicant's contribution of funds shall be limited to funding for up to 2 sessions a year for 3 years, beginning with the completion of the County's fire station. IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 9.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the County Planning Office every 3 years. The report shall outline the development activity in the Project over the applicable period. Page 11 of 13 X. SIGNATORY 10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the only legal title owners of record of the Property which is the subject of this application. 10.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. • UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION By: Title: MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. By: Title: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by , of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. My commission expires: [SEAL] Notary Public Page 12 of 13 ;TATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by , on behalf of MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc. My commission expires: 0 [SEAL] Notary Public T:\2588\1995 DOC\NORFREZM.DOC Page 12 of 13 �nY AI/t t.1.11% I P. /Rt:I NWs COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission FROM: Ronald S. Keeler DATE: December 19, 1995 RE: LAKE ACRES (RTE.606) RESIDENTS CONCERNS Received after drafting of the original staff report were letters between UREF and Lake acres residents (attached). In their original letter of January 25, 1995 the Lake acres residents requested that agreements between UREF and Lake acres be incorporated into the rezoning. Staff opinion is that 6 of the 12 stipulations of the UREF letter of November 22, 1995 are appropriate for,inclusion into the rezoning. All six stipulations are included in UREF's•proffered plans and/or text or may be"required by County regulation: _ - -- Site access from Rte. 606; • - -- Buffer along Rte. 606; -- Use locations; --Sediment & erosion control, stormwater management and raw water intake; -- Playing fields -- Utility installation. The University of Virginia Foundation P.O. Box 9023 Telephone (804) 982-4848 108 Cresap Road FAX (804) 982-4852 Charlottesville, VA 22906 December 11 , 1995 TO: Ron Keeler FROM: Tim Ros X -- 1 ` SUBJECT: North Fork Attached is a revised letter to the Lake Acres Residents. Per a request from that group, the letter has been revised to indicate it is addressed to the "Lake Acres Residents," not the "Route 606 Neighbors." Also per a request from the Lake Acres Residents, please include this letter as a part of our zoning submission. Thank you for your assistance. TRR:tr cc: Peggy Sacuto Dean Cinkala RECFN ED • DEC 1 21995 Planning Dept Amii iI0"No airworm IiiIjliuIiI OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAP ROAD P. O. Box 9023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 • (804) 982-4848 • FAX (804) 982-4852 December 11, 1995 Lake Acres Residents Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Lake Acres Residents: Over the last several months, we have attempted to work closely with you to understand your concerns regarding the development of the North Fork Business Park, and, in fact, have attempted to address as many of those concerns as possible in the Rezoning Application. We think our conversations with you have been productive, and we are appreciative of your input. As you have requested, the purpose of this letter is to discuss how we intend to address the various concerns you have presented. Following is a summary of the University of Virginia Foundation's (UVAF) intentions vis-a-vis the concerns listed in your January 25, 1995 letter to us and those raised in our subsequent meetings: o L VAERo[e: UVAF agrees to act as a facilitator to aid in the resolution of any grievances or problems related to the development of North Fork Business Park, which the above listed neighbors may raise. o Land_.Cnntrarts: Per your request, contracts for land sales or leases of property at the park will include a provision indicating that tenants are to assist in ensuring that construction traffic be directed south of Rte. 606. o SiteAccess_fmm Rt'e. 606: The Zoning Application Plan, in the Rezoning Application,-proposes • an internal road network to access lots along-Rte. 606. Site F1 A will not have direct access to Rte. 606. . o ConstructionLTruckTraffic: UVAF will modify its Design Guidelines for the Park to require construction traffic to access the site from Rte. 649 to Rte. 606. UVAF requests the neighbor's cooperation and aid in enforcing this requirement. UVAF will also support any request the neighbors wish to make to VDOT to prohibit truck traffic from making a right turn from Quail Run Road onto Rte. 606 as long as such a request is rational in terms of the County's road plans at the time of the request. o Rta_ 606 Paving: UVAF will not initiate a request for Rte. 606 to be paved. o BufferAlmng Rte6606: UVAF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along the entire extent of its property along Rte. 606. This includes Lot F1 A which had only a 50 foot buffer in the Rezoning Application. UVAF will not clear cut durable trees in the buffer but will be allowed to maintain the buffer area (i.e. clearing underbrush and weed growth) to establish and maintain a visually appealing buffer area. o Use_Locations: The Zoning Application Plan addresses the location of uses within the Park. Lake Acres Residents December 11, 1995 Page Two o Sediment & Ernsinn Cnntrnl, Stnrmwater_Management and the Raw Water lntaka: County regulations regarding erosion and sediment control regulate required practices during construction. The Rezoning Application includes a master stormwater management plan for the entire Park which is above and beyond current applicable regulations for post-construction stormwater runoff, and also addresses the Raw Water Intake drainage area. The Rezoning Application addresses proposed use restrictions for the Park to protect the Raw Water intake. o North Enrk 6usinpss Park Dnsign_Guidelines: The Rezoning Application, via the North Fork Business Park Design Guidelines, addresses street lighting, waste area screening and other similar issues. The proposed use restrictions in the Rezoning Application address noise concerns by the elimination of most Heavy Industrial uses. o P_layingfields: The recreation area/playing fields will not be lit. o Rte_ 606 Rightnf_Way: The UVA Foundation will cooperate with property owners in retaining the original character of Rte. 606 by not initiating any requests to change the unpaved portion north of Quail Run Road from its current status as a gravel surfaced country lane. o lliilityJnstallation: UVAF will provide appropriate ground cover over areas where new installation has occurred. We believe that this letter, and the Rezoning Application represent UVAF's good faith efforts to address the concerns of the Lake Acres neighbors. We are pleased that this letter meets with your satisfaction. Sincerely, AA. p 'z J Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer TRR:lp cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Mr. Steven W. Blaine Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Mr. Ronald S. Keeler =Io\� OFFICE OF THE _ UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAP ROAD P. O. BOX 9023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22908 • (804) 982-4848 2 �g4� ' • FAX (804) 982-4852 November22, 1995 Route 606 Neighbors Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Route 606 Neighbors: Over the last several months, we have attempted to work closely with you to understand your concerns regarding the development of the North Fork Business Park, and, in fact, have attempted to address as many of those concerns as possible in the Rezoning Application. We think our conversations with you have been productive, and we are appreciative of your input. As you have requested, the purpose of this letter is to discuss how we intend to address the various concerns you have presented. Following is a summary of the University of Virginia Foundation's (UVAF) intentions vis-a-vis the concerns listed in your January 25, 1995 letter to us and those raised in our subsequent meetings: o UVAF Role: UVAF agrees to act as a facilitator to aid in the resolution of any grievances or problems related to the development of North Fork Business Park, which the above listed neighbors may raise. o land Confronts. Per your request, contracts for land sales or leases of property at the park will include a provision indicating that tenants are to assist in ensuring that construction traffic be directed south of Rte. 606. o Site Access from Rte SOS: The Zoning Application Plan, in the Rezoning Application, proposes - an internal road network to access lots along-Rte. 606. Site FlA'will not have direct access to Rte. 606. - o Cnnstriictinn /Truck Traffic: UVAF will modify its Design Guidelines for the Park to require construction traffic to access the site from Rte. 649 to Rte. 606. UVAF requests the neighbor's cooperation and aid in enforcing this requirement. UVAF will also support any request the neighbors wish to make to VDOT to prohibit truck traffic from making a right turn from Quail Run Road onto Rte. 606 as long as such a request is rational in terms of the County's road plans at the time of the request. o Rte_ Rf1R Paving: UVAF will not initiate a request for Rte. 606 to be paved. i o Buffer Along Rte ROR: UVAF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along the entire extent of its property along Rte. 606. This includes Lot F1A which had only a 50 foot buffer in the Rezoning Application. UVAF will not clear cut durable trees in the buffer but will be allowed to maintain the buffer area (i.e. clearing underbrush and weed growth) to establish and maintain a visually appealing buffer area. o Use Lncatinns: The Zoning Application Plan addresses the location of uses within the Park. Route 606 Neighbors November 22, 1995 Page Two o Sediment &Erasion f'nntrnl, Stnrmwater Management and the Raw Water intake: County regulations regarding erosion and sediment control regulate required practices during construction. The Rezoning Application includes a master stormwater management plan for the entire Park which is above and beyond current applicable regulations for post-construction stormwater runoff, and also addresses the Raw Water Intake drainage area. The Rezoning Application addresses proposed use restrictions for the Park to protect the Raw Water intake. o North Fork Business Park f)esign Guidelines: The Rezoning Application, via the North Fork Business Park Design Guidelines, addresses street lighting, waste area screening and other similar issues. The proposed use restrictions in the Rezoning Application address noise concerns by the elimination of most Heavy Industrial uses. Playing Fields: The recreation area/playing fields will not be lit. o Rte_ 606 Right of Way: The UVA Foundation will cooperate with property owners in retaining the original character of Rte. 606 by not initiating any requests to change the unpaved portion north of Quail Run Road from its current status as a gravel surfaced country lane. o Utility Installation: UVAF will provide appropriate ground cover over areas where new installation has occurred. We believe that this letter, and the Rezoning Application represent UVAF's good faith efforts to address the concerns of the Rte. 606 neighbors. We are pleased that this letter meets with your satisfaction. Sincerelyy,, Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer TRR:lp cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney - Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Mr. Steven W. Blaine Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Mr. Ronald S. Keeler t/ �/0-'111111 I"i OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAP ROAD P. O. BOX 9023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2290d • (804) 982.4848 • FAX (804) 982.4882 • i S December 8, 1995 Mr. Ron Keeler Department of Planning County of Albemarle 401 Mclntlre Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ron; Attached is a letter from Peggy Sacuto, I hope that you can share it with the Planning Commis .on, I talked with John Secuto last week and Peggy Sacuto this week -- both indicated that sornepns fro/ their neighborhood would speak to the Planning Commission to indicate the good faith efforts anpl coopo ` tive spirit that we have had in working together. Sincerely, • Tim R. Rose • Chief Operating Officer 7AR:Ip i Attachment cc: Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Ms, Ellen 0. Miller I;a„L, , 8 1995 Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge i' { 'd Z0 :0I S66I 'SO'ZI NOIltiONfOd bffl WO?Jd /(0) 4392 Dicke son Rc d • Charlottes ilia, A 21.901 November 1 , 199' Mr. Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer University of Virginia Foundation Charlottesville, VA 22906 • Dear Tim: in January , Lake Acres residents (residing on Route 606 facin. I vA ,)17( •c•rty And on Chris Greene Lake Rd. ) presented a letter to the UVA Foundat on dol.` i.ling our major concerns about the North Fork Park and requesting a w itton trraomont. from the Foundation which would assure satisfactory solutions t.l r.hes, I I,coi1lo+ns. 3 As you know, most of our concerns have had to do with (1) protection thc' environment - water quality and supply; chemical emissions and ollut. '. l.s; surface run-offs and floodings; etc. , (2) protection of our neighborhoo s' pr ; ;icy and rural atmosphere; (3) protection from traffic hazards and c ru est l.n. A primary concern has been the maintenance of Route 606, which funs 1t.i •ng tho entire western boundary of the Park, as it presently exists -- 4 rura } gr,tvr?1 road with little through traffic. To this end, we have insisted tt:a4 rio .0 I r.ss he allowed directly from 606 into the Park, except for the one major existing r,u. ; -- Quail Run- at the very Southwestern border of the Park. This has bean a d ftiuu1i negotiating point because it will mean an extra access roadway from the con r.t,l i.. l.erior road will have to be built by the Foundation. We give credit to UVAifur at nowtect3ing the importance of this major point and agreeing to the "no ae.ciss" pr ..viston. As rural residents, we of course will always be essentially opposed tc. `.tny commercial/industrial development on nearby rural land. But we ;wish t •• acknowledge our appreciation to the UVA Foundation for coming together with ,us , i;c':uinely listening to our concerns and attempting as far as you felt -pos, ihl.: . ; o provide for positive corrective ways of addressing the problems . We pa ticul.. ' ly want to acknowledge, Tim, your sincere efforts and open-minded approach iriurinl ; ur• months Of seriuus face-to-face discussions., We must add chat we feel our efforts - and y ours - to a certail exLoc i havo just begun. As you are acutely aware, zdning' plans are just that - plans o, ;ipaper • and it will take a good deal of effort to bring about this large me�I;er of }1►usin'_is enterprise and residential equanimity to Albemarle County. We il,l tic' r:ve::- vigilant and we ask that you, the County _Planning Commission awl the i •ard of Supervisors also be. Toward this goal, we are encouraged by the fact that the UVA l'ot,ndaLi.o. has n3reed to "act as a facilitator to aid in the resolution of any grievarc.oe or iprobic.ms related to the development of North Fork Business Park, which tle . . . .rt ighbor'i may raise.." With that promise, we are optimistic that Lake Acre Neil;hhor:•:lare on the brink of a Long-term, mutually-beneficial association with the Poundac on during the upcoming years of active development of the North Fork Property. 1 1 Sincerely yours, ' d:.4.4\sc24„, _ ,C Peg nd John Sacuto, Me )et's 0 the Lake Acres Steering kC,o nutter' t Z 'd 20:0T S66T '80 'ZT NOI1t1aNIlOd run WO21d i //'?-c,fl2%,eit 7 (..:-- PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL /i 2g -95 I'„0,,,,, t Ilk lint nunment.l) Er ervhoclv' 13uome.>> `4.0. m Aram maim En1 Ir STATEMENT REGARDING ZMA-95-04 . UREF NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK Noveinb6r 28, 1995 The Piedmont Environmental Council agrees with the staff that this application is not ready for action by the Planning Commission. The Need for Industrial Land The Staff analysis of the need for the expansion of the Hollymead Growth Area to include the northern 300 acres of this site was based in significant part upon its • analysis of the availability of industrial sites in the County. The staff conclusion from this analysis was that expanding the area available for industrial development was justified. In fact the zoning application plan and .proffers presented by the applicant represent a significant reduction of the amount of land on this tract which can be devoted to industrial use. Industrial use accounts for only 13% of the total 3 million square feet of uses proposed by the Applicant. General office development comprises 77% of the site, or 2.3 million square feet. No analysis has been provided justifying a reduction of land available for industrial use and expansion of land available for office use. While the PEC, may not agree that an expansion of either industrial or office uses is justified, at least the Commission and Board should have the benefit of an analysis of the need for the primary use actually proposed by the Applicant so that consideration can .be directed at the extent to which the Application reflects the intention.of the . County in expanding the growth area in this location. Response to Comprehensive Plan Recommendations A comparison of the zoning application plan, proffers, and Comprehensive Plan recommendations adopted in conjunction with the expansion of the Hollymead Growth Area reveals that most of these recommendations have not been addressed by the Application. In undertaking this comparison it is important to remember that of all of the hundreds of pages included in the Application, only the zoning application, zoning application plan and proffers, consisting of one map, 13 notes, and 12 pages will be binding on the Applicant if the Application is approved as presented. Significant differences between Plan recommendations and the Application are in the areas of water and sewer capacity, which clearly fall short of the demand which will be generated at build-out by the uses allowed in the Application. .i=, IL,,inrt ',ttrLI, it,,,, 4h0, A\ ,uIYtuUn, An:;ttht.1221SOi 03-347-2334/Ftaa 349-g0O3 ( III I<, hill I)11%1., ',unv• I, ( Ilitil,qtk•\illl, \'trptnt,t .129O3'SO-1.0 -2O33/Fax 97.030r Although the Application does address issues relating to environmentally sensitive land and the need for buffers and open space discussed in the Plan recommendations, the proffers allow the Applicant sufficient flexibility with respect to these matters to make the proffers essentially meaningless. For example, the boundaries of development parcels define the application plan's open space boundaries, however in proffer 6.2 the Applicant reserves the right to adjust these boundaries without limitation during Project build-out. There is no guarantee of any specific amount of undisturbed open space in the Application. These are just two of the significant differences between this Application and the Plan's recommendations. Zoning Proffers In most cases the proffers either bind the Applicant to do those things which the County and other government agencies already have the authority to require, or they are actually "reverse proffers," proffers which reduce the County's authority to deal with the property in the future. It is significant that the proffers do not provide that they do not supersede County authority with respect to development standards which may be more stringent than the proffers. It is also significant that the proffers expressly state that unless specifically provided otherwise in the proffers themselves, all of the numerous plans and illustrations submitted with the Application "shall be deemed illustrative only." In other words they are meaningless in terms of guarantees of future performance. • An example of a reverse proffer is proffer 3.1. While this proffer does limit the Project to 3 million square feet it adds a proviso which prohibits the County in the future from applying zoning or other regulatory changes to the property which would reduce the Applicant's "intended development potential." Not only does this substantially restrict the County's existing governmental authority with respect to the property-if accepted by the County it would probably constitute an illegal delegation of legislative authority. Proffers regarding stormwater management and water conservation basically agree to do what the County can already require of the Applicant. The critical transportation proffers, which supposedly respond to the potential 27,545 vehicles projected to be generated at build-out, are complex and it is unclear to us whether they provide any meaningful commitment by the Applicant to bear its pro- rata cost of road improvements needed to handle this traffic. In at least some cases road improvements are to be predicated upon the presentation by VDoT of a "compelling case" based upon "reasonable" traffic analyses. The "compelling case" standard is a new and higher standard than has been applied before and its ramifications are unknown. Who is to be the judge of this case, and of the reasonableness of the,analyses is not stated. c 7 • While the phasing upon which the schedule of proffered improvements is based is stated in the proffers, under the proffers the Applicant retains the right to change the mix of uses allowed within each phase. It is unclear how traffic projections can be made unless both the density and the mix of actual uses proposed in each phase are known. The zoning application plan required by the Zoning Ordinance to be submitted as part of a PD-IP rezoning is inadequate as a prediction of the future use of the property due to the repeated provision in the notes to the plan that it is conceptual only, which we read as meaning that it is not to be binding upon the Applicant. It,is not clear whether such a plan even complies with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. County Responsibility Any rezoning embodies a County agreement to the uses allowed by right within the zone. Site plan and subdivision plat review cannot alter that initial agreement. While zoning is always subject to change, where proffers such as those embodied in this Application are involved state law prohibits future zoning changes unless there has been a change in circumstances relating to the property substantially affecting the public health, safety and welfare. This is a very difficult standard to meet (and as indicated above proffer 3.1 attempts to eliminate even this minimal County power). In other words, once this rezoning is completed the County has, to a degree not found in a typical rezoning, relinquished its authority over the future use of the land. In this case the relinquishment of authority is over the future use of 3 million square feet of office, commercial, and industrial uses. PEC has recently suggested that the public interest would best be served by allowing only a small amount of square footage of office, industrial or commercial square footage by right while permitting larger projects by special permit only. Such an approach would better insure that the quality and scale of future development is consistent with the character of the County. The PEC feels that approval of the present Application by the Countyrwohld be- fundamentally inconsistent with the public interest, particularly given the nature of -. the zoning application plan and proffers in this case. The County has no assurance of the quality or magnitude of the future uses which may occupy this site. No clear idea of where the employees will come from, no idea of the effect on the taxpayer, the environment, or generally speaking the character or quality of life in the County. If the County is lucky, the users will be small and County based, employing local citizens, training those in need of better jobs, with owners who live here and have a stake in the community. But we believe that the future of the County should depend upon more than luck. It should depend upon a careful balancing of private and public interests. Private prerogatives to use property balanced by the public's right to determine how the its investment in infrastructure and services and community resources upon which those private prerogatives depend will be used. Granting this Application would concede far too much of the public's right in favor of private prerogatives. � p I"H'iiI OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION P. O. Box 9023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 • (804) 982-4848 • FAX (804) 982-4852 December 8, 1995 Albemarle County Planning Commission Charlottesville, Virginia Ladies and Gentlemen: At the November 28, 1995 Public Hearing of item number ZMA 95-04, the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) presented a three page letter to the Planning Commission titled "Statement Regarding ZMA 95-04, UREF North Fork Business Park" dated November 28, 1995. This letter presented several concerns about our application to which we would now like to respond. Following is a point by point response to the PEC's letter: Issue: The PEC states that our current application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because our current Zoning Application Plan (ZAP) "represents a significant reduction in the amount of land which can be developed as industrial use and that industrial use accounts for only 13% of the total." Responses: This, in fact, is not correct. A review of the land use matrix on the ZAP, which describes where allowed uses may be developed, clearly shows that light industrial development can occur on 220 of the 275 developable acres. This represents 80% of . the developable land at North Fork. In addition, those areas where light industrial is not allowed 'are- the result of -requests by the \Planning Staff and the Lake, Acres neighbors who specifically asked that we do not allow light industrial on lots B7, B 1, and A. We gladly respected this request and modified the land use matrix to reflect this limitation. Lastly, as the Planning Staff stated in the Summary and Recommendations section of its report to the Planning Commission, "The proposed schedule of land use is consistent with representations made during review of CPA-94-01." We agree. Issue: The PEC states that "of the hundreds of pages included in the Application, only the zoning application plan-and proffers, consisting of one map, 13 notes, and 12 pages will be binding on the Applicant if the Application is approved as presented." Response: As we stated at the Public Hearing, our goal all along has been to share with the County, and with any interested party, as much information as possible regarding our intentions for the development of North Fork. We have believed, and continue to believe that this openness is important so that the County, and other interested parties, Albemarle County Planning Commission December 8, 1995 Page 2 can fully understand our intentions for this Park and comment on those plans. In fact, our detailed Application has allowed us to work with the Lake Acres neighbors to identify areas of concern and then modify the plans to address those concerns. We think this has been an effective methodology and would not expect to be penalized for being open and detailed about our plans. We also believe that the submitted proffers are responsive to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations and are significant commitments. The applicant has proffered millions of dollars of improvements including a master stormwater management system, an open space system, off-site transportation improvements, a firestation site, hazardous materials training, preservation of the cemetery / historic site, a greenway along the North Fork of the Rivanna River as well as foregone revenue by limiting development to only 3.0 million square feet which is a fraction of the potential of this land. Lastly, we do not believe that it is appropriate to proffer every detail of an application plan. Such a policy would be unwise, impractical and cumbersome. Rather, our • approach has been to identify those seminal issues which are key to providing the County with assurances about the development and proffer those items. This, we believe is a much more practical and realistic approach. Issue: The PEC states that "Significant differences between the (Comprehensive) Plan recommendations and the Application are in the areas of water and sewer capacity, which clearly fall short of demand which will be generated at build-out by the uses allowed in Application." Response: The Albemarle County Service Authority, which is the local export and authority on the subject of water and sewer capacity, has clearly stated, as we have documented in our Application, that "the availability of public facilities is not a limiting factor in this proposal (UREF's Rezoning Application)." In addition to this fact, it is also important to remember that this Application has committed to cap development at 3.0 million square feet which is millions of square feet less than the by-right development potential of the southern 225 acres alone and only 500,000 square feet more than the realistic potential of the southern half. This 500,000 square foot increment represents only a 0.1 mgd increase in demand. Issue: The PEC has noted that there is variability in the amount of open space which ultimately will remain as open space given desired flexibility in development parcel boundaries. Albemarle County Planning Commission December 8, 1995 • Page 3 Response: We agree that the proffers, as drafted, offer too much flexibility and therefore we have revised the proffers to commit to maintaining a minimum of 200 acres of "off development parcel" undeveloped land. In addition, our proffers also reference the Park's Design Guidelines which require 30% "green space" on every development parcel which equals over 80 acres. • Issue: The PEC has stated that "It is significant that the proffers do not provide that they do not supersede County authority with respect to development standards which may be more stringent than the proffers." Response: While our proffers did not address this, our Zoning Application Plan clearly stated in Note No. 3 that"All proposed site development shall conform to the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and all applicable State and Federal standards and regulations." We have subsequently also modified our proffers to include a statement reiterating this concept. Issue: The PEC raised concern about language in section 3.1 of the proffers which attempted to protect the applicant's approved development potential. Response: Given the PEC's concerns, we have eliminated this language. Issue: The PEC has stated that the stormwater management proffers `-`basically agree to do what the County can already make us do." Response: This is not correct. We have confirmed again with the County that the North Fork Business Park property is outside of the defined stormwater management jurisdictional area and, as such, the proposed master stormwater management system is indeed a proffer and not something the County could require of the applicant. Issue: The PEC has suggested that by using the words "compelling case" in the proffers in regard to justifying transportation improvements, we have created a higher standard by which such improvements must be justified. Response: Despite the fact that VDOT has agreed to this language, we have removed the word "compelling"from our proffers in this instance to address the PEC's concerns. Albemarle County Planning Commission December 8, 1995 Page 4 Issue: The PEC has expressed concern over the applicant's right to change the mix of uses within each phase and has also stated that "It is unclear how traffic projections can be made unless both density and mix of actual uses proposed in each phase are known." Response: In our many months of negotiations -with VDOT this exact issue was discussed and thoroughly addressed. Essentially, our traffic,analysis assumes, the highest traffic generation mix, based on various restrictions on allowed densities of the different uses. Simply stated, all of the traffic projections and proffers are based on the highest traffic generation mix allowed in each Phase. Therefore any alteration in the mix will decrease traffic volumes. We effectively projected traffic and proffered transportation improvements based on a worst case scenario as a price to maintain use flexibility. Issue: The PEC has suggested that our Zoning Application Plan (ZAP) "is inadequate for a prediction of the future use of the property due to the repeated provision in the notes to the plan that it is conceptual only..." and further that"It is not clear whether such a plan even complies with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance." Response: Our Zoning Application is a very detailed document which shows a plethora of information about the proposed development. We have noted that the roads, utilities, and other improvements are conceptual and subject to final site program, design and engineering. This is reasonable. In addition, Section 8.5.1 (j) of the County's Zoning Ordinance uses the words "general" and "preliminary" when describing various aspects of the plan. It is clear from this language used-that the application plan is not meant to be a final, detailed plan. After careful review of the PEC's letter, we believe that we have taken proper action to-address'valid issues that have been raised. Hopefully this letter,through clarification and further explanation of our application, has also addressed satisfactorily other issues the PEC raised. We appreciate the PEC's interest in this application and feel strongly that the North Fork Business Park will be a positive contribution to the entire community. The University of Virginia is fully committed to this project and believes that the North Fork Business Park will be a key strategic piece to ensuring the University's health and long-term success. Sincerely, Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer, University of Virginia Foundation cc: Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Ms. Ellen G. Miller Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Mr. Ronald S. Keeler