HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Staff Report 1996-02-07 STAFF REPORT:
ZMA-95-04 - UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE
FOUNDATION
"III y?
'; r
I'/RGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
- Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5823
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler
DATE: February 7, 1996
RE: ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
FEBRUARY 7, 1996 WORK SESSION
This serves as cover to the revised staff report and other documents related to the North Fork
Business Park rezoning petition First as to the staff report, due to the volume of material
submitted by the applicant and staff and an intention to not overwhelm the Board with materials
related to matters resolved by the Planning Commission, UREF, Lake Acres residents, Site
Review Committee and staff, the staffs report, in uncommon manner, has been revised for Board
review. The result is a modest reduction in report length and paraphrasing in the report of the
Planning Commission's recommendations Attached to this transmittal are the Planning
Commission minutes and action letter of December 19, 1995 together with written comments
received from the public at that meeting (Attachment T-1)
Also attached, please find correspondence related to possible acceleration of funding for
improvements to Airport Road (Rte. 649) It is recommended that this correspondence by
reviewed by the County Attorney's office in relation to proffers for Rte 649 improvements as
submitted by UREF (Attachment T-2).
Finally, please find as Attachment T-3 a memorandum describing changes to UREF's Zoning
Application text since the Planning Commission hearing These changes are intended to be in
accord with Planning Commission action.
These materials are submitted to you separately from the staffs report since they were either
received at or subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing As stated earlier, the staff
report has been revised to reflect issues deemed to be resolved as well as recommendations by the
Planning Commission in order to provide a more concise and comprehensible presentation.
•
ATTACHMENT T j
.,Ii III it
�m
17RCIN‘P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 21, 1995
Tim Rose
Chief Operating Engineer
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
• P. O. Box 9023
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA-95-04 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
Dear Mr. Rose:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 19, 1995, by a vote of
5-2, recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. This
recommendation for approval is as presented in the staff report with the acceptance of the
applicant's proffers and with the understanding that any changes to the proffers will be editorial in
nature, and if any more substantive changes are made prior to the Board's hearing, those items
will be made clear to the Board. The motion also supported the following:
- The requirement for a special permit for any use whose water usage is in excess of
125,000 gallons per day;
The acceptance of the Application Plan, Road Phasing Plan, Open Space Plan and its
related Phasing Plan; and the Stormwater Management Plan;
- The two additional "errata" pages, one defining"support commercial" and the other
discouraging traffic on Rt. 606 in response to the Lake Acres residents's concerns;
- Staff's four recommended modifications.
Page 2
December 21, 1995
The Planning Commission also took the following actions:
SP-95-40 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical- Recommended approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with § 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. Building separation shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from perimeter buffer
areas to adjoining properties.
tSP-95-41 Supporting commercial uses - Recommended approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor
area(exclusive of hotel/conference use), total floor area devoted to supporting
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) of total floor area at any time during
phased development.
SP-95-42 hotel, motel, inn - Recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall he permitted not to exceed two
hundred filly (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may he provided by individual
occupants) shall not he required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the
hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall
not exceed 190,000 square feet.
The above-noted petitions will be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors review once proffers
are finalized in accordance with the Planning Commission's action.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcf
cc: Ella Carey Steve Blaine .lo I liggins Amelia McCulley
ZMA-9.5-04 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone
approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial
Park, and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. This
request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40- Laboratories,
Medical or Pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29:2.2.1); SP-95-41 Supporting Commercial Uses
(27.2.2.14; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-42 - Hotels, Motels, Inns (29.2.2.2). Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6 6A, 19 and 19C, is located south of the North Fork
Rivanna River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from
November 28, 1995 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Dotson explained that though he is a tenured faculty member of the University of
Virginia, the nature of his employment is such that it does not prevent him from
participating in the review of this request in a fair and objective manner.
I
I
S
I
12-19-95 8
Mr. Andersen noted that he, too, is an employee of the University and a non-voting
member of the Commission. He said he would not participate in the discussion.
of the application: "Staff
Mr. Keeler summarized the statuspp opinion is that there are still
unresolved issues with the proffers which are primarily editorial and language issues.
We believe those can be addressed before the petition goes to the Board of
Supervisors." Mr. Keeler also said that staff had received a letter satisfactorily
addressing four of the five issues listed in staffs memo dated December 19th--(1)
' Disposal of hazardous wastes [Proffer 2.2(c)]; (2) Water usage [Proffer 4.4]; (3) Right-
of-way dedication for grade separated interchange [Proffer 5:4]; and (4) Dedication of
fire station site v. Compliance with design guidelines.
Regarding the fifth issue--"The meaning of 'convey' as questioned by the County
Attorney."--Mr. Keeler explained: "Conveyance in proffer 6.1 (dealing with active
recreation and the ball fields) will be fee simple conveyance at terms acceptable to the
County. Conveyance in proffer 6.3 (dealing with the greenway along the North Fork
Rivanna River) will be fee simple conveyance as a gift."
On the issue of water usage, Mr. Keeler explained: "While we have proposed one way
to restrict water use, since the Planning Staff does not know exactly how water use
should be restricted, we would hope that you can recommend approval subject to the
applicant working with the County representatives to arrive at an acceptable
mechanism for restricting water consumption. UREF's initial proffer in this regard was
that any use which would use more than 125,000 gpd would require a special use
permit. The County Attorney's office raised the question of what will occur if there are
several uses which meet, but do not exceed, that limit." Mr. Keeler explained further:
"Overall there would still be a cap, but the aggregate effect right now is unknown
because the number of uses within the park is unknown." Mr. Keeler suggested
different approaches might be to (1) direct attention to water consumption by individual
uses; or (2) Set a cap on the park itself.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a
prepared statement which compared the applicant's rezoning application to the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations which were adopted in 1994 in response to
UREF's request for an amendment to accommodate this project. Her statement is
made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.
Mr. Robert Kroner, representing the Economic Development Division of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, read a statement supporting the
request. His statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B.
12-19-95 9
Mr. John Sacuto, representing the Steering Committee for Lake Acres, read a
statement which described discussions which have taken place with the applicant. His p
statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment C.
Mr. Fred Lamp, President of Micro Aire, expressed support for the proposal.
There was no further public comment.
The applicant's representatives, Leonard Sandridge, Ellen Miller, and Dean Sincala,
responded to public comments and to Commission questions. Their comments
included the following:
--Proffers related to the floodplain and greenbelt open space have been revised
to limit improvements in those areas. All that can be placed in those areas are utilities
and trails.
--The proffers will be revised to reflect the addition of supplemental plantings to
buffers, where appropriate, so that screening will be improved.
--The sidewalk will be extended from Rt. 649 to the last development parcel and
the open space exhibit will be modified to reflect this change.
--VDOT and County staff have determined the applicant's proffers to be
acceptable and they have also determined the applicant's proffers satisfactorily address
the needs for Rt. 649, "needs which will be necessary whether UREF develops this site
or not." The applicant has agreed to "devote money, at the county's election, to help
accelerate the time schedule for Rt. 649, improvements that are now slated for
construction in 2001."
--In reference to the temporary modular buildings, referred to in proffer 3.1, "we
have eliminated this term from that section of the proffers."
--The applicant has agreed to the Planning staffs recommendation that support
commercial will not exceed 10% of the development of any given phase.
--A note has been added to the Application Plan stating that "no free-standing
support commercial, except the Day Care Center, will be built before 500,000 square
feet of development exists."
--Regarding the timing of the construction of the Hotel center, the language in
the Application Plan has been amended "so that it is clear that the County makes that
decision, not the University Real Estate Foundation or the University."
--The conceptual land use plan has been amended to show all 6 land uses and
that has been submitted to the Planning staff.
--The applicant has "proffered and committed to provide project reports to the
County not less than every three years."
--The applicant has proffered that either the University of Virginia Foundation or
the University of Virginia will retain a seat on the Design Review Committee.
--The notes to the Zoning Application Plan have been modified to clarify that all
use locations must comply with the land use chart.
1
12-19-95 10
--To address neighbors' concerns, the applicant "has committed to access all of
the lots within the site through the internal road network and not through Rt. 606, except
for the existing Quail Run Road, which was not in question."
--To address neighbors' concerns, the applicant has agreed to plant more
durable trees in the buffer zone.
--The applicant has proffered to develop and implement a preservation plan for
both the cemetery and ice pit site.
--The applicant has proffered to provide hazardous materials training to fire
personnel (as it has provided for the City and the County in the past).
--Proffers have been revised to state clearly that a minimum of 200 acres in open
space, in addition to the open space on the development parcels, will be maintained.
--The applicant feels the concerns of the PEC have been addressed (as
explained in applicant's letter dated December 8,1995).
--UREF has attempted, and will continue that attempt, to use land lease in every
instance possible. Though that was not the case in the first land transaction, UREF
does have a right of first refusal on that parcel.
--The proffers provide two options for the management of the open space--either
directly by the UREF management, or formation of an organization which will include
tenants in the Park who will participate in the management. UREF will have an on-
going role and has committed to maintaining a seat on the Design Review Committee.
The Commission discussed at some length the issue of water usage. Mr. Keeler
suggested two possible approaches--either define a type of approach without a specific
number or consider the number that has been proposed by the applicant (a special
permit required for any use greater than 125,000 gpd). Mr. Sincala explained how the
125,000 figure had been arrived at. The estimated total usage for the entire park is
500,000 to 700,000 gpd. He said the applicant had not been asked to place a total cap
on the project and he was unaware that such a restriction has ever been placed on any
other development in the community. He said: "If you're going to put a limit on the
capacity we can use, then I assume you are going to offer to reserve that capacity for
the North Fork project." Staff confirmed the ACSA envisioned no problems with
providing 500,000 to 700,000 gpd for the research park. Ms. Imhoff said she was
concerned about the potential impact to the remaining water capacity for the Piney Mt.
community. She asked if there were any obligations to provide water to any of the
other properties in the area which are already zoned for development. Mr. Keeler
explained: "The Service Authority comments emphasize that the North Fork system is
already physically connected to the urban system and it is just a matter of turning a
valve. So the Hollymead area is not necessarily limited by what comes out of the North
Fork and Chris Green Lake." Ms. Huckle thought there should be a cap placed on the
usage. She said it is conceivable that all parcels could develop at the 125,000
• maximum, for a total close to 1 1/2 million. Mr. Sincala pointed out that the property
which has already been zoned already accounts for most of the water usage. The
incremental demand for this rezoning is between 100,000 to 200,000 gpd. For
12-19-95 11
comparison purposes, Mr. Keeler pointed out that if this property were to be developed
residentially at 4 units/acre, with 3-bedroom dwellings, the water usage would be
\./
945,000 gpd. So this proposal is "below the low density urban residential." Mr.
Nitchmann thought the requiring a special permit for any use exceeding 125,000 gpd
offers a safeguard. He said staff and the applicant will have additional time to consider
whether there is a better measurement before the Board hearing. He said he relied on
staff and the applicant to address this issue. Mr. Blue agreed. Mr. Dotson said he
thought this was a "creative and useful response" to a community concern.
Referring to the residential comparison made by Mr. Keeler, Mr. Dotson wondered if the
same logic could be applied to square footage in terms of a use which could potentially
generate a large amount of traffic. Ms. Miller questioned whether "'small 'has lesser
externalities on a road system for the reason that when you have 'large' you have
employers that can do things like staggered work hours, flex time," etc., which permit
the kind of techniques that work for reducing traffic. She said she would resist applying +
the same logic because she questioned whether counting the size of a user would
serve either the applicant or the County well.
Ms. Imhoff thought Mr. Dotson was suggesting that a use exceeding a certain square
footage would require a special permit. She did not think he was suggesting that there
be a cap on square footage.
Ms. Miller pointed out that traffic issues are addressed through the site review process.
Ms. Imhoff acknowledged the accuracy of the statement but noted that site plans and
subdivisions do not come before the Commission for review unless they are appealed.
Ms. Imhoff said having a special permit tied to a certain square footage would give her
a greater "comfort level" for the County. Neither Commissioner Dotson or Imhoff had
any square footage in mind.
Ms. Huckle asked why the applicant feels a Service Level D is acceptable for the traffic.
Mr. Tom Flynn (one of the applicant's representatives) responded: "A level of service D
is a commonly used and accepted standard for traffic analysis and that is the standard
VDOT has asked us to use. It is considered an acceptable level of delay at a signalized
intersection of 25 to 35 seconds at the rush hour times."
Mr. Dotson concluded from the applicant's response: "So the answer to the question is
the applicant would not be interested in attempting to apply the same logic to a kickout
based on some large square footage basis, something we might call the Motorola
provision." Mr. Sincala responded: "Yes sir, that's correct. We already have a
development cap of 3,000, 000 square feet and the water cap also provides another
sense of cap to size of user."
I
12-19-95 12
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out there are other provisions in the site plan process which
control the size of the user, e.g. the amount of parking available. Mr. Nitchmann
complimented the staff and the applicant on the work done over the past months which
has resulted in a proposal which is "coming together nicely." He thought the few
remaining issues could be addressed prior to the Board hearing. He thought this was a
"win/win" situation for the applicant and the community.
Returning to the issue of water usage, Ms. Imhoff thought it would be in the County's
best interests to have an ultimate cap on the water usage because of the question of
the cumulative impact. She thought that should be decided upon before the item is
sent on to the Board.
Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "Though I enthusiastically support this
concept, I feel there is a need to structure it so that it will be a mutually beneficial use
and a model for other commercial and industrial developments. If there is ambiguous
wording causing unintended consequences, it would be a disaster, both for the
community and the University. There are still too many unanswered questions in this
application. For this to be a successful project all these points need to be understood
by the County, the public and the future tenants. Just today I received long reports on
further clarifications which are needed. It is hard for the Planning Commission to
thoughtfully address these points on such short notice and UREF apparently has not
responded to all these legal concerns yet. We've always been told that the time to
make our concerns known is at the time of the rezoning. If we approve this today we
have no guarantee that all these loose ends will be resolved satisfactorily.
Furthermore, we've worked this long on this project so surely a few more weeks won't
be fatal. If the new Commission is given a polished, concise document to review, it
shouldn't take long. They would avoid the long study of reams of paper that we have
read so far. I would like to suggest that this be deferred until these few items in Mr.
Kamptner's report, and so on, have been ironed out to the satisfaction of UREF and the
County."
Mr. Blue said he thought a deferral would be a "completely irresponsible action by this
Commission." He thought deferring action to a new Commission would be unfair to the
new Commissioners, to the applicant and to the public. He explained that he was not
suggesting that a request be approved without the necessary safeguards, but he
thought those safeguards exist and the few remaining issues can be worked out by the
County attorney and the applicant's attorneys prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that Mr. Kamptner's report was 19 pages long. Mr. Kamptner
commented: "I met with UREF attorneys today and we worked through the proffers."
He said he and Mr. Davis, the County Attorney, "are comfortable that the overwhelming
I
12-19-95 13
majority of the comments we had are simply to clarify what's in the proffers." He said:
"I think that between UREF and staff, they understand what they want to say, but we
were looking at these proffers in terms of who is going to have to apply them 10 to 15
years from now. We think the wordsrpitting of the language can be worked out between
now and the time it goes to the Board."
Mr. Dotson noted that sometimes there may be an honest difference of opinion which
might not be realized until an effort is made to clarify the language. In those instances,
more time can be useful. He said he feels there is an obligation to "get it all clear
before it is finally approved," He concluded: 'If it is just wordsmitting, I feel that could
be done between here at the Board. If there are substantive issues, perhaps those
need to be resolved here." He asked if staff feels there are nt;substantive issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said the only substantive issue which has not been addressed by the
applicant is that of the water usage and the Commission needs to give direction as to
how that should be dealt with. The other four issues identified in the staff report (and
listed at the beginning of the transcription of this item) have been addressed by the
applicant and those items will have to be addressed by definitive written proffers prior to
the Board hearing. He said all the clarity called for by the County Attorney's office, and
all those things which the applicant has proffered to do, must be specifically addressed
to the satisfaction of the County Attorney, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Staff prior to the item being scheduled for Board review.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the lack of phasing for the project has raised any staff concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The phasing issue jumped out at us with the transportation
concerns. Because there are transportation improvements with this that are associated
with how this builds out, we felt that, in effect, there is a phasing plan. There is a
certain level to which they can develop under current circumstances and then under
subsequent improvements and we felt that is a phasing, in and of itself. I also think the
water usage per use--125,000 gallons--is, in effect, going to have some influence on
size of building or numbers of employees in buildings. That, too, will have some effect
on how this gets built out. We're not too concerned with that part of this because we
can deal with very specific traffic proffers. ... So what it comes down to with us is the
overall water usage and whether or not you feel you or the Board needs to address
that."
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not have the expertise to set a cap on usage for the entire
project. He thought staff would be able to gather more information from the ACSA, if
more information is available, before the Board hearing.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Jenkins seconded, that ZMA-95-04 for the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval, subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers with
12-19-95 14
changes made to reflect the County Attorney's comments and with the understanding
11, that any changes to the proffers will be editorial in nature, and if any more substantive
changes are made prior to the Board hearing, those changes will be made clear to the
Board. The motion also supported the following:
--The requirement for a special permit for any use whose average daily water
usage is in excess of 125,000 gallons/day.
--The acceptance of the applicant's Application Plan, Road Phasing Plan, Open
Space Plan and related Phasing Plan, and Stormwater Management Plan.
--The 2 additional errata pages, one defining Support Commercial and the other
discouraging traffic on Rt. 606 in response to the Lake Acres residents' concerns.
--Staffs four recommended modifications.
Discussion:
Referring to the schedule of land uses, Mr. Dotson asked "Would the applicant be
willing to include some stipulation that more than 50% of the use--meaning
'predominantly'--would be industrial?" He felt this would give more assurance that this
is the type of project the supporters and promoters of this and the economic
development policy saw as in the community's best interest." Mr. Sincala asked that
Mr. Keeler respond to this question by stating how the application is consistent with the
Comp Plan Amendment application. Mr. Keeler responded: "I reviewed the Board
minutes of December 7, 1994, and UREF --and this is a direct quote from those
minutes--told the Planning staff that 2.3 million square feet will be categorized as Office.
400,000 square feet will be categorized as Light Industrial and 300,000 square feet will
be in Support Retail, with possibly 1/2 being a hotel. So it is clear in the minutes that
was a representation made to the Board at the time of the CPA and their current
schedule is almost identical to that, the only difference being the hotel is more than 1/2
the support commercial. Also, in some of the work papers on it, the term
industrial/office was used. I understood, from looking at the minutes, that it was always
talked about as being a good mix of uses." Mr. Sincala added: "The 2.3 million square
feet number, rather than being viewed as a ceiling, has been interpreted immediately by
everyone as something we are going to build to. If we were to apply the same logic,
we'd say the ceiling on light industrial is 3 million. What we've done, in order to perform
our traffic analysis, we had to define a mix of uses. We took the most intensive mix to
try to be conservative on projections and have said 'those will be our caps, we won't
exceed those.' Any mix that respects those caps that's different will be a lower traffic
generator. ... The kind of user we're looking at, much of their space, traditionally, would
be viewed as general office space but they do in fact do assembly and light industrial
kind of work in their facility. ... I think we've been consistent in our representations
throughout and I think, frankly, the generic office space is consistent with the kind of
user we'll have at North Fork."
12-19-95 15
Mr. Dotson asked: "So you are not interested in stipulating that it will be predominantly
industrial?" Mr. Sincala replied: "No."
Ms. Imhoff explained that her reservations were not because she did not feel this will be
a good project. Rather, she said she could not support sending something forward until
every issue has been nailed down.
Ms. Huckle agreed. She felt it was "irresponsible to approve something with so many -
strings that have not been tied down." She felt approval at this time will diminish the
incentive for the County and applicant to reach agreement on some of this items.
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed with Ms. Huckle. He again stated he felt the applicant and
the staff can address any remaining issues prior to the Board hearing.
The motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff casting the dissenting
votes.
The Commission then took action on the three special permits.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms.lmhoff seconded, that SP-95-40 (related to
Laboratories) for UREF be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Compliance with 4.14 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Building separation not to be less than 30 feet from the perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr.Jenkins seconded, that SP-95-42 (related to Hotel
Conference Center) for UREF be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel or inn shall be permitted, not to exceed 250 lodging
rooms.
2. Conference facilities other than those as may be provided by individual occupants
shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn.
3. Total gross floor area of the conference and lodging facilities shall not exceed
190,000 square feet.
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 17, a. Le
Protecting The Ent tromnent I, Eienbod: I3nsiness
f#S14 ". ITO AlVe/,-/2960---4
QIElir a 9
Comparison of
THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION'S NORTH
FORK APPLICATION AND PROFFERS
with
RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE
HOLLYMEADE GROWTH AREA RESPONSIVE TO THE NORTH FORK
APPLICATION
Sumniary
Out of fourteen specifically relevant Comprehensive Plan recommendations adopted
in 1994 in response to the Foundation's request for an amendment to accomodate the
North Fork project, the North Fork rezoning Application implements only four. These
four recommendations are only partially implemented by the rezoning proposal.
Except in the barest sense that the Application proposes a non-residential use in a
location for which non-residential use is recommended in the Plan, this proposal is not
in compliance with the most fundamental of the recommendations adopted in
response to this proposal.
Analysis
Comprehensive Plan provisions are in bold:
Ensure evaluation of future land use proposals under the fiscal impact
model prior to rezoning approvals.
No fiscal impact modeling of the proposed project has been undertaken.
However, fiscal impact is a major factor because the proposed 3 million square feet of
uses which would be permitted by the rezoning could result in nearly 8,600 new
households being formed in the County' .
' Three million square feet of office or light industrial uses could accommodate 12,000 new
employees. Census data indicates that for every new "basic" job 0.75 "spin off" jobs will be
created. Thus, at buildout this proposal could create directly or indirectly 21,000 new jobs in
the area. Census data indicates that just over 51% of the jobs available in Albemarle are
occupied by Albemarle residents The Census data also shows that the rate of household
formation per job in the County is 0.797. Taking into account the traditionally low
unemployment rates in Albemarle which mean that most new jobs will be filled by inmigrants,
or will be filled by those moving from existing jobs in the County thereby causing vacancies in
existing jobs which will be filled by inmigrants, and using these 1990 statistics suggests that
from the potential 21,000 new jobs which may be associated with this proposal, nearly 8,600
new households may be formed in the County. The Applicant's traffic impact analysis supports the
proposition that a substantial percentage of persons employed in the Project will live in Albemarle as It
projects nearly 80% of all traffic generated from the Property will travel to the south, east, or west.
1101n,1 tiii,.rt, I1 ,, 1((l, \V,iiuninn, \'u;tini.i ??Itih 317-23i-1/F:IN 1-I9'1)00
Appropriate planning/phasing of the development to match
service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established.
Neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers submitted require any phasing of
development of the Property. Although UREF has indicated.that it may limit uses
allowed by right to those using less than 125,000 gallons of water per day, that
represents between 20% and 40% of water available from the North Rivanna plant.
Nothing in the Application would bind the Applicant with respect to the cumulative
amount of water from several facilities using less than 125,000 gallons per day.
According to the Application, total daily water usage at build out would range from
495,000 gallons per day to 705,000 gallons per day.
Provide linkages between neighborhoods within the Hollymead Community
(including non-residential areas) through the use of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, linear parks, roads and transit systems. The emphasis is on linkage
between development areas, not just within each development.
With the exception of roads which will be taken into the State Highway System, none
of the pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the Project are proposed to be open to the
public at large.
The stream valley along the North Fork Rivanna forms a northern boundary
of the Community, and should be developed as a greenway for passive
recreation.
Proffers do provide for the eventual establishment and dedication to the County of a
100-foot strip along that portion of the North Fork Rivanna within the Property as a
greenway. It is not known the extent to which a 100-foot strip may constitute a
viable "greenway" as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake area by
prohibiting any development or creation of impervious surfaces within this
area which endangers water quantity and quality.
Neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers provide for such protection.
Although the Zoning Application Plan shows a considerable amount of open space
along the North Fork, notes to that Plan specifically state that the Plan is conceptual
and that Applicant reserves ". . . the flexibility provided by this form of zoning to
respond to market demands during the course of the Park's development." The
Proffers pertaining to open space expressly provide that boundaries of open space
may be adjusted during Project build out. In other words, there is no guarantee as to
exactly what areas of the Property will be left in open space, except that a minimum
of 200 acres shall remain in open space.
-2-
All industrial/office areas should be substantially buffered from residential
areas. This is accomplished through the planting of new vegetation and
preservation of existing vegetation. For the area now referred to as the
North Fork Research Park, provide a 50' buffer around the perimeter.
Neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers guarantee such buffers.
Although the Zoning Application Plan expressed a clear intent to establish a 150-foot
buffer along Route 606, and 50-foot buffer around the remaining perimeter, the Notes,
as discussed above; make these buffers conceptual only. Furthermore, Proffers allow
fences, signs, and walls, without limitation, to be established in the buffer areas.
Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters
development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through
the provision of open space.
For reasons noted above, there is no guarantee in the Zoning Application Plan or
Proffers that open space will be configured insuring such clustering or protection.
For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit
development of the area to 525 acres (297 acres added as a 1994
amendment). Total buildable area shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet.
The Proffers do limit total built area to 3,000,000 square feet. However, the Staff
Report and analysis of the need for the addition of 500,000 square feet of non-
residential space in the Hollymeade area as represented by the Comprehensive Plan
amendment was predicated upon a shortage of suitable land for industrial use. The
Plan amendment itself(see next bold faced paragraph) contemplates that the North
Fork Research Park will be for industrial use.
Nothing in the Zoning Application Plan or Proffers requires any light industrial to be
developed on the Property. Furthermore, while there is no indication of any shortage
in the Comprehensive Plan of general office space, this Application would allow an
addition of 2,300,000 square feet of office space' . To this significant extent, the
proposal is inconsistent with one of the major premises upon which the
Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to have been based.
Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to an overall
plan of development under the appropriate planned development zoning.
Neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers contain any guaranteed overall
plan of development. Although the Proffers express an intent to develop covenants
2 Although it is possible under the Zoning Application Plan and Proffers for 18 of the 20
development parcels depicted on the Zoning Application Plan to be developed with light
industrial uses, it is also possible under the terms of these documents for all 20 parcels to be
devoted to general office use up to a total of 2.3 million square feet over 76% of the allowable
buildable area, at the Applicant's complete discretion.
-3-
which will insure the coordinated development of the Property, no covenants insuring
coordinated development are proffered, and the Proffers expressly preclude the
County from enforcing any covenants which may be developed in the future by the
Applicant.
Provide a plan to address historic features located in the area now referred
to as the North Fork Research Park to retain historic context and continuity.
Other than a guarantee that a cemetery existing on the Property will not be
disturbed, neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers provide any inventory
of historic resources on the Property or any plan to protect such resources.
Large employers should work with the Albemarle County Housing
Committee to determine what employee housing assistance programs can be
implemented.
There is nothing in either the Zoning Application Plan or Proffers which is responsive
to this important recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Target opportunities for employees at the lower income level and employees
hired locally.
There is nothing in either the Zoning Application Plan or Proffers which is responsive
to this important recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which
increases traffic on Route 649 (Airport Road), Route 606 (Dickerson Road)
and Route 29.
The Proffers do contain extensive provisions for the phasing of road improvements.
However, the Proffers appear to undercut existing County authority with respect to
the timing of construction of road improvements necessitated by the Project.
[Improvements] will include the construction of interchanges at Route 29
and Route 649 and Route 29 and the northernmost access point to the area
now referred to as the North Fork Research Park and development east of
Route 29. Necessary improvements should be accomplished by fair share
contributions from new development.
Neither the Zoning Application Plan nor the Proffers provide for the construction of
these interchanges. However, the Proffers do provide for substantial improvements
at the northern entrance to the Property (referred to as "Road A"). The Proffers limit
the Applicant's responsibility for improvements to the intersection of Route 29 and
Route 649 to $100,000, regardless of the pro-rata cost of improvements necessitated
by the Project. No interchange is provided for.
-4-
7 /// AJ .3
-/ -y3
Good evening. My name is Robert Kroner. I am an attorney practicing with the firm of Gilliam,
Scott & Kroner, I am a resident of Albemarle County and I am here tonight in my capacity as
the Vice Chairman of the Economic Development Division of the Charlottesville and Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber of Commerce is strongly supportive of the type of planned development project
undertaken by the University Real Estate Foundation at its North Fork Park. We have appeared
before the Planning Commission on other occasions in support of moving this project along.
Over the past several years, our chamber of commerce has sought to capitalize on appropriate
economic development opportunities within our trade area. The mission statement of our
Chamber is very simple -- we are dedicated to promoting business and enhancing the quality of
life in our community. We believe that the proposed development at North Fork dovetails
extremely well with both facets of our mission. This is a project which presents to the citizens
of our community new economic opportunities, with a particular emphasis on clean, high-tech
businesses.
The recent MicroAire involvement at North Fork is a good case in point. In addition to
providing direct, high-quality jobs for our citizens, and offering the prospect of increased local
hiring, MicroAire has provided opportunities for local merchants and service providers. We
anticipate that Motion Control will likewise provide positive employment opportunities for our
citizenry. These are exactly the kinds of employers we need -- ones that provide jobs with decent
salaries and benefits, that work in partnership with the University and local businesses, that create
business opportunities for area merchants and service-providers, and that enhance the local tax
base. In short, these are employers that create a synergy within our community that enhances the
overall quality of life for our residents without placin 'eat demands on our existing
infrastructure.
We at the Chamber of Commerce are pleased with the efforts of the Real Estate Foundation to
listen to, and address, the concerns of its neighbors near the North Fork Park. We believe that
0
this is a thoughtfully planned project, that it is consistent with both the needs and desires of the
people of our community, and we welcome this project to our community.
111
I
i
•
t;a �' 1 ti, lf"f ►i111, 7) ' �'� ) .L�"
e.
15 re fu n 139 a (�-c�� o, ((/A 2 RV/l
ph ; 973 D7/97
Want to commend Tim Rose, Dean Cinkala and Ron Keeler for providing a very amenable
and open two-way communication system in trying to work out some of the detailed
agreements which we felt were necessary.Yaxmaixtaixx
As you know, for six years now, the nearsby residents of Lake Acres have opposed
the Industrial/Business Park proposed by UVA. We have been primarily concerned
about maintaining the privacy and rural atmosphere and natural environment which
is why we purchased our homes here. Also, very concerned about our Road leading
to our homes - Route 606 - which is narrow, unpaved and has very low usage from
those not living here. After you deemed that the entire 525 acres would be zoned
rfx PD-IP, we dedided that it was in our best interests to work directly with
\ UVAF and began a series of mee_t.ings a ear ago..;lThey were very open to our comments
u
and have-met-Mir concerns with an Agreement Letter,These are some of the major points
; We had asked: Tkhey have agreed to:
L That the UVA Foundation /J Being a "faciliatator" to aid in resolving
I/i be available to Lake Acres ( 1 any problems oe-eji,evara.%s,
neighbors to help resolve
any grievances which might
come up about the Park
and its tenants
*'No sites along the western UVAF has included this provision in their
bouddary of the Park be )zoning request. This includes no external
accessed from Route 606) except access to Lot FlA - which we disputed for
by the existing one at Quail Run Rkd. many monthslas the zoning plan showed no
access from the internal road network. UV,
yt has finally and kindly agreed to eliminate
that exception.
"''That a 150 foot buffer will be .)The original zoning plan required only a
maintained along the entire ( 50-foot buffer. Thi d i'Vi
extent of the western boundary f-t'-j(' o 150-foot)with the additional provision
along Route 606. that no durable trees will be cut) and that
1/
durable trees will be planted where there
are none at this time.
`sae asked that Route 696 not be UVAF has agreed notfto initiate paging of
--paved so that through traffic would (If/ 606 with VDOT; Chas agreed to cooperate
' • not be encouraged. We also asked that with us in approaching VDOT about limitint
construction traffic and truck traffic truck teraffic on 606 and has mod. ied it:
not be allowed on Rte 606. Design Guidelines to restrict all onstruc
traffic to exiting mostly on Route 29 and
only southbound on ;606 from Quail Run Rd.
That usage for the parcels bordering UVA is restricting usage to General Uffic(
606 be limited to those activities which J2.y) along the western boundary) with the
' - would not detract from the rural atmos- exception of 8txNxz;ly Lot B-7 which can 1
phere and would not endanger wildlife, Flex/Indutrial. As you know, they have
pollute the Rivanna, flood 606, or impact instituted a Stormwater Management Systei
our well systems. and Design Guidelines for street lighting
waste area screening, etc.which they assur(
us will take care of most of our concerns
-I') We asked that Playing fields not be slit. 0.)We have been assured that there will be
Personally, as members of the Steering Committee my wife Peg and I believe we have a
good solid agreement that has been reached through many frank discussions with the
Foundation and their representatives. And I understand that the agreement letter i
to be nota4rized and will be recorded with the County. Wire have just a couple of
additional words of caution: As ,you are, we are worried about the enormity of this
undertaking. We feelt'w`ith the University Foundation 'guiding it, it is in good han
And we think you have been wise in perusing the zoning application and proffers very
carefully before approving it. "The proof of the pudding is always in the eating" and
I am sure that you people as well as Lake Acres residents and the environmental
community will want to be always observant and alert to the actual progression of
this development.
We believe that UVAF's heart in in the right place, but sometimes in the interest
of getting tenants and owners, little changes are made and little modifications may
be demanded by the proppective occupants. We would like to urge you to tot allow
erosion and whittling away of all the precautions you have so diligently required
this development. It's so easy to do: a little change here; a slight variance theic and pretty soon you have lost many of the protections for the environment and for
It our residents. fxXfmokxxxnx It appears to be a very tight plan at this time --
please keep it that way. And that goes for the rest of the Hollymead growth area.
This Park is going to encourage development all around. Please hold it all to the
same high standards y ou are requiring of U VA! Already in the last two weeks, we
have seen within the airport adjacent area, three for sale'isigns -- all marked zone
industrial. There will be an avalanche, we predict. You have your work cut out fo..
you - we'll be rooting for y'ou -- and looking over your shoulder, too.' 7-7%"' t` ;Y
- i
I
•
12-19-95
16
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP-95-41 (related to
Support Commercial) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following condition:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed 5% of the total floor area exclusive of
1 the hotel conference use, the total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses
shall not exceed 10% of the total floor area at any time during phase development.
The motion passed unanimously.
Noting that this had been a very complicated matter to deal with, Mr. Blue urged the
•
County Attorney, staff and the applicant to present this item to the Board in a clear and
understandable fashion.
The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m.
•
•
•
•
CHARL/ALB AIRPORT TEL No .804-974-7476 lan �� .Gh l � : n� �ln non a ni
Post-It*Fax INLATTACHMENT T- 2
To
rll
GoJDept.
III Phone k
AIRPORT
Charlottesville/Albemarle )
January 24, 1996
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Department of Planning&
Conununity Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: State Route 649
Application for Airport Access Road Funds
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
I am writing on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority to respectfullyrequest 1
that Albemarle County apply to the Virginia Department of Transportation r q
rport
Access Road Funds to support the accelerated construction of improvements Route 649,
It is our understanding that this project is already included in the Albemarle County Six Year
Road Plan; however, given other urban roadway projects in the plan, Route 649 improvements
are not slated for construction until after the year 2001. The Airport Authority has learned that
the Virginia Transportation Board has adopted modifications to the Virginia Airport Access Road
program. As the result of these changes, VDOT has indicated via the attached letter that
$900,000 is available to support this project at this time.
We further understand that because of this additional aid being made available, Route 649
improvements can be accelerated in the County's Six Year Plan void of deferring or delaying
other County priorities. Moreover, since the first $300,000 annual Airport Access Road Fund
allocation does not require any local matching funds, engineering design work can be
implemented as soon as VDOT funds are designated for this project,
The Airport Authority is willing to offer the County and VDOT the services of Delta Airport
Consultants, Inc. to design this project. The Airport Authority has a five year contract with Delta
to provide engineering design services through a 1994 public procurement process. Delta is quite
familiar with VDOT, County and airport policies, procedures and requirements and is available to
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
CHRRL/ALB AIRPORT TEL No . 804-974-7476 Jan 25 , 96 16 :45 No . 010 P .02
Mr. Cilimberg
Page 2
January 24, 1996
commence work on this project immediately. It is suggested that if both the County and VDOT
concur with our recommendation to utilize Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., a memorandum of
agreement be executed by all parties authorizing the use of this firm and delineating terms and
conditions for payment of fees for services rendered.
In closing, the Airpon Authority is quite pleased to learn that Airport Access Road Funds are
available to support this needed project and respectfully requests that Albemarle County endorse
this plan by applying to VDOT for these resources and authorizing project implementation. As I
am sure you are aware, it will benefit the Airport, County and the citizens of Albemarle and
environs to have improvements made to Route 649 as soon as possible.
If you should have any questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate to contact Bryan
Elliott at 973-8342. Thank you for your time and consideration with this matter.
Sincerely yours,
<Lk treat..
William J. Kehoe
Chairman
pc' Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Airport Authority Board
Gary B. O'Connell, Airport Authority Board
Bryan Elliott, Executive Director
Angela Tucker, VDOT
Jun Givens, VDOT
Steve McNeely, Virginia Department of Aviation
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) I,
(Page 25)
is like. It has an office component, an administrative component, a warehouse
component, and an industrial component. In their mind, the 2.3 million square
feet does not represent all office space.
Mrs. Thomas asked what type of uses will go into the general office
space. Mr. Sincolin said what they would like to have is an office park which
would offer an opportunity to have corporate headquarters on one spot on the
property, and research facilities on another part of the property.
Ms. Ellen Miller said research institute would also fall into the office
category. UREF knows what it wants, which is a mix of opportunities. It is
not looking for a large office park. One thing that is important to note when
talking about pure industrial uses and the character of this land is that some
of the sites are topographically not suited for pure, large industrial uses.
One of the reasons UREF realized a mix of uses is needed is because there are
limited sites within this property which the market would see as pure indus-
trial.
Mrs. Humphris said in order to be a "good neighbor" in the park, a use
would need to not be a heavy water user. She would like for that to be
something that is important in the County's requirements.
Mrs. Thomas asked when the Board will see a utilities master plan. Mr.
Cilimberg said he did not know. Staff has done all the analysis of systems
currently in use, and the staff's report on UREF pulls information from that
report on capacities, and it identifies alternative systems which have been
identified by the service authorities. A plan cannot be finalized until the
land use plan that will guide it is in place. Staff talked to the Planning
Commission last night about extending the utilities plan for fifty years into
the future, but be believes it will have to be completed with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. It is scheduled for work sessions in April, 1995.
Mrs. Thomas said the Planning Commission talked extensively about the 78
acres that are above the intake of the North Fork. She appreciates all of
their dialogue about whether to use the word "development", and if some earth
moving should be allowed in order to get the watershed management system
working right. She would be unhappy about having direct use and drainage off
of land into that intake given what the Board has been told about how con-
strained water resources will be in the future.
Mr. Bowerman said he was thinking about where those parcels drain, and
would like to hear a discussion of the policy regarding that issue. Mr.
Cilimberg said in this case there is no water impoundment. This area of
drainage to the North Fork intake is not under the runoff control ordinance.
The Engineering Department has indicated that the dynamics of an intake versus
a reservoir are very different, so they do not see what is done with drainage
as being critical to this location. It is how the mitigating effects of the
runoff are dealt with.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Planning Commission dealt with this ques-
tion. Mr. Benish said that under the Hollymead profile, the following
language was added: "Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake
area by prohibiting any development or creation of impervious surfaces within
this area which endangers water quantity and quality."
Mr. Bowerman asked if this implies that there could be some development
if the runoff were actually directed further downstream. Mrs. Humphris asked
about Best Management Practices and use of facilities, and whether maintenance
will be left to the individual user of the property, purchaser/lessor. Mr.
Benish said these are to be private facilities managed by UREF. They are not
intended to be public, but will be facilities maintained by the developer.
Ms. Miller said they discussed designing a regional, overall stormwater
management plan so some of the stormwater management would not be on a site-
by-site basis, but in all cases the stormwater facilities are to be private
and privately maintained.
Mr. Perkins asked what the Board will do with this petition now. Mr.
tucker said it is scheduled for a public hearing at next week's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Work Session: FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000
Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Ms. Roxanne White said in October, 1994 the Board of Supervisors
approved Financial Management Policies which set guidelines for Capital
Improvement Program funding for maintenance and replacement projects, as well
as target limits for indebtedness and debt service levels. Using those
policies, the recommended CIP has been coordinated with the operating budget
to a greater degree than in prior years. Summaries of all General Government
—and School Division projects show associated operating costs that will be
reflected in future operating budgets. Proposed Debt Service levels stay
within the County's debt service guidelines.
Me. White said there is an attempt to fund a significant portion of
capital improvements on a cash basis in this CIP, and incrementally increase
'he percentage of its capital improvements financed by current revenues.
♦here is also an increased transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the
CIP; an additional $940,000 in FY 1995-96, $200,000 in FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-
`39, and $500,000 in FY 1999-2000, for a total of $12.6 million over the five-
rear period. For FY 1994-95, the percentage of General Fund revenues trans-
;erred to the CIP was 1.83 percent; for FY 1995-96, the percentage will he 2.a
STAFF REPORT FORMAT
The staff report is presented in four parts:
PART 1 provides introductory information found in other reports as well as brief description of
the Application Plan
PART 11 contains a summary of the analysis together with Planning Commission
recommendations for modifications to zoning provisions as allowed under planned development
procedures.
PART Ill is a description of the zoning history of the property. This section also compares the
current PD-lP zoning to the proposed PD-IP zoning.
PART IV provides analysis of the UREF proposal under the review criteria set forth for planned
developments. This section also contains most of the report attachments from various agencies
which participated in review of this petition as well as other relevant information. Topical analysis
includes:
--- Comprehensive Plan- Specific Recommendations
--- Physical Characteristics of the Site
--- Relation to Surrounding Areas
--- Public Utilities
--- Public Facilities/ Services
--- Relation to Existing Public Roads
--- Uses by Special Use Permit
I
STAFF: RONALD KEELER
REVISED: FEBRUARY 7, 1996
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FEBRUARY 21, 1996
ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION NORTH FORK
BUSINESS PARK
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF)
owns 525 acres of land, known as North Fork, which is bounded on the north by the North Fork
of the Rivanna River, on the east by Route 29, on the south by Route 649 and on the west by
Route 606. This property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District of Albemarle County and
is part of the Hollymead Growth Area as defined in Albemarle County's 1989-2010
Comprehensive Plan.
Of the 525 acres, the southern 225 acres is currently zoned PD-IP with a small portion zoned LI;
and the northern 300 acres is zoned RA. The property has access to Routes 29, 649, and 606 and
is currently served by public water and sewer service. All other essential utilities required to
develop this parcel are easily accessible. UREF requests rezoning from RA to PD-IP
(Category 1) for the northern 300 acres of the North Fork property and to bring the entire
525 acres under new proffers which would replace prior zoning approvals. Previously,
UREF requested that there be a text amendment to PD-IP Category 1 uses to allow
"hoteUconference centers" as a special use permit use (ZTA-95-02 UREF). This request
was approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1995 and the Board of Supervisors
on June 28, 1995. UREF also request special use permit approval for hoteUconference
center, supporting commercial uses and laboratories (medical and pharmaceutical).
PETITION: Petition to rezone approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned
Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial
Park. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40 - Laboratories,
medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-41 Supporting commercial uses
(27.2.2.14, 29.2.2.1); SP-95-42 - Hotels, motels, inns (29.2.2.2). Property, described as Tax Map
32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A, 19, and 19C, is located south of the North Fork Rivanna River between
Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial
Service in the Community of Hollymead.
ZONING APPLICATION PLAN: The proffered zoning Application Plan proposes a
maximum gross floor area of 3,000,000 square feet of building area accommodated on 20 sites.
These sites, ranging in area from 5.65 acres to 35.19 acres, may be developed with multiple
buildings. Sites A, B-1, and B-4 situated along Rte. 606 would be restricted to general office
development while all other sites would have two to six categories of use available. (See Land
Use Matrix on Application Plan. See also UREF, Vol 1, Section IX). All development sites
would be served by an internal road system except Site F 1 A which would have direct access to
Rte. 606 and no internal access to North Fork Park.
This in response to concern as to a variety of employment varieties and opportunities:
TABLE 1
DEVELOPMENT USE TOTAL FLOOR AREA
General Office 2,300,000 square feet (maximum)
Support Commercial 110,000 square feet (maximum)'
Hotel/Conference 190,000 square feet
Light Industrial 400,000 square feet
TOTAL 3,000,000 SQUARE FEET
TABLE II
LAND USE ACREAGE % OF SITE AREA
Development Sites 275 acres 52.4%
Road right-of-way 33 acres 6.2%
Open Space 217 acres 41.4%
TOTAL 525 ACRES 100%
'UREF reserves right for 5°/a of total 3.0 million square feet less area devoted to
hotel/motel.
1-2
Open space is not required in the PD-IP designation, however, over 40 % of the site is proposed
as open space area(See also staff discussion under"Physical Characteristics"of the Land).
Roadways, as a percentage of total development, have been reduced by most sites fronting on the
three major internal roads.
I-3
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. The seven bus stops shown on the Application Plan should be viewed as general locations
only. Bus stops should be provided in locations adequate to provide access to the
majority of employees
3. The Application Plan provides adequate distance buffering from adjoining properties.
Separation of Site B-5 from Rte. 29N right-of-way (an Entrance Corridor roadway) is 100
feet.
Part III. PD-IP 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 proposal.
(NOTE: 300,000 square feet would be devoted to support commercial/hotel and
conference center, features not provided in the current zoning)
2. No heavy industrial designation is proposed under the current request, while 24
developable 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.
Il-1
•
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.
5. Dedication of a site for fire/rescue purposes is proffered by the applicant. Dedication of a
greenway area along the North Fork Rivanna River and active rereation area is also
proposed.
6. Internal roads would be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT)standards and dedicated to public use.
7. This development alone does not warrant a grade separated interchange at U S. Rte 29N
However, roadway improvement proffers provide for dedication of right-of-way together
with capital contribution should other development in the area warrant reconsideration of
treatment at this intersection Other improvements include contribution to improvement of
the Rte. 29N/Rte. 649 intersection. VDOT has reviewed these proffers and stated that the
extent of the contributions appear reasonable.
8. Development limitations as to- phasing related to traffic generation, maximum water
consumption by individual uses; and phasing of building development have been
addressed by proffers. These proffers combined with other written proffers and
proffered plans are suitable to insure development consistent with the guarantees,
dedications, contributions and the like envisioned by section 8.5 4 (c) of the zoning
ordinance. All property owners within the development are signatory to the proffers
guaranteeing `evidence of unified control' as required by section 8.5.4 (c) of the zoning
ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION,
Section 8.5.4 of the zoning ordinance requires the Planning Commission to"prepare its
recommendations to the board of supervisors" and" specifically, recommendations of the
commission shall include finding as to(NOTE' These criteria are also addressed in UREF, Vol I,
Part IV):
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of:
relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to
surrounding area;
.1.
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services;
c. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other
instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and
d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based
on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that
the public purposes or PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied at least to
an equivalent degree by such modifications.
Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as
proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval."
Staff has provided the Planning Commission with analysis for findings required under section
8.5.4 (a) and (b)under PART IV of this report. The analysis is summarized in PART I1 of this
report. As to section 8.5.4 (c), staff opinion is that the written proffers and proffered plans satisfy
the requirements of that section. As to modifications permitted under section 8.5.4 (d), staff
opinion is that all recommended modifications satisfy regulatory requirement to an equivalent
degree, provide guidance for future zoning interpretation, and allow the flexibility by creating
zoning regulation consistent with the vision of a planned development in a particular case.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors:
1. The Planning Commission recommends approval of ZMA-95-04 University Real Estate
Foundation- North Fork Business Park subject to the written proffers and proffered
plans as submitted by the applicant.
2. The Planning Commission recommends that the special use permit requests with
conditions as recommended by staff satisfy the criteria setforth in section 31.2.4.1 of the
zoning ordinance:
a) SP-95-40 Laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical- The Planning Commission
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with section 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the zoning
ordinance;
2 Building location shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas
to adjoining properties not located within the development.
B) SP-95-41 Supporting Commercial Uses- The Planning Commission recommends
approval subject to the following condition:
1. In addition to the proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of the total floor
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at any time during
phased development.
SP-95-42 Hotel, motel, inn- The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to
the following conditions.
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, inn shall
not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants)
shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but
total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square
feet.
3. The planned development provisions permit the Board's action to"include specific
modifications of PD [Planned Development] or general regulations as provided in section
8.5.4 as recommended by the commission."(Section 8.5.5). In this case, the Planning
Commission recommends the following modifications-
a) Uses and treatment of"open space" shall be as defined in and governed by the proffers
of this petition Since"open space" is not required for a Planned Development- Industrial
Park and provision of open space is voluntary by the applicant, the open space areas shall
not be governed by section 4.7 of the zoning ordinance.
b). 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
c) As to special use permit approval as may be required under proffer 4.4, such review
and any conditions imposed thereunder shall be limited solely to issues of water usage
d). The terms General Office, Light Industrial and Flex Industrial as set forth in 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 between the
zoning ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descriptions shall apply. In such case in
which more than fifty (50%) percent of the floor area for a Ilex/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 Ilex/Industrial use is devoted
to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. This provision
shall apply only for determination of compliance to the development schedule for
determination of maximum square footage by type of use. This provision shall not apply to
calculation of parking requirements or other requirements of the zoning ordinance, nor to
any requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code nor to any other ordinance or
regulation related to type of usage of buildings and structures.
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE SERVICE AREAS
This section of the report will address the general appropriateness of the site for Industrial/Office
Service Areas designation under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted in December,
1994. The Comprehensive Plan provides guideline for establishment of Industrial Service Areas
and Office Service Areas, but no guidelines exist for combination of Industrial/Office Service
Areas as was provided under CPA-94-01. (Detailed guidelines adopted under
CPA-94-01 will be addressed later in this report).
During review of ZTA-95-02 (to allow hotels, motels, and inns within PD-IP by special use
permit), some concern was expressed concern as to whether or not this represented departure
from CPA-94-01. Staff quotes from the Board of Supervisors minutes of December 7, 1994 for
CPA-94-01:
UREF "told the Planning staff that about 2.3 million square feet would be categorized as
office, 400,000 square feet would be categorized as light industrial, and 300,000 square
feet would be in support/retail with one-half of that possibly being a hotel."
Staff opinion is that the current rezoning proposal is in general consistency with representations
made by the applicant during Board of Supervisors review of CPA-94-01.
EXISTING PIS-IP ZONING OF PROPERTY
In early 1978, the Board entertained a rezoning petition (MA-78-03) for about 293 acres from a
rural (A-1) to a light industrial (M-1) designation. While zoning analysis was favorable to
industrial usage, staff commented that such significant acreage should be addressed through a
planned development approach.
The Board upon request of the applicant rezoned about 42 acres to M-1 (light industrial)to
accommodate two immediate users. Action on the remaining 251 acres was tabled and staff was
directed to develop a planned district for industrial uses (PID). Later in the year,the PID
regulations were adopted and the applicant successfully obtained PID zoning on about 217 acres
(A free standing parcel of about 34 acres was not recommended for rezoning by staff as it bore
no cohesive relation to the remainder of the property). While the PID zone contained no open
space requirement, about 93.5 acres of open space were shown:
III-1
TABLE III
LAND USE ACREAGE
Light Industrial 85 acres
Heavy Industrial 24 acres
Roads 15 acres
Open Space 98.5 acres
TOTAL 217.5 acres
In 1987, UREF acquired the entire tract which contained the PD-IP zoning and rural zoning as
well as some of the property initially zoned Light Industrial. In 1989, UREF pursued a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate all holdings into the 1-Iollymead Community
within a proposed build out of up to 4,000,000 square feet. In 1994, the Comprehensive Plan
was amended to expand Ilollymead.
Comparing existing to proposed zoning:
• 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 proposal.
(NOTE: 300,000 square feet would be devoted to support commercial/hotel, features not
provided in the current zoning).
• No heavy industrial designation is proposed under the current request, while 24
developable 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.
• Condition #7 of original approval which required a master street tree plan has been met in
order to accommodate the MicroAire development under existing zoning (Attachment
III). Staff recommends that unless an equivalent or superior plan is presented, the
approved master street tree plan be carried over to this petition.
11I-2
ATTACHMENT III-1
vN�� OF ALB -A,
q
GP Aye' A "> �41.•k%•
0
tI ti��7 .
Planning Department
804/296-5823
414 EAST MARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
ROBERT W. TUCKER. JR. RONALD S. KEELER
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
November 17, 1978
DONALD A. GASTON
SENIOR PLANNER
N. MASON CAPERTON
Wendell W. Wood ►LANNEII
North Rivanna 1st, 2nd and 3rd Land Trust
Post Office Box 5548 '
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Re: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION
ZMA-78-15
Dear Mr. Wood:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting November 15, 1978,
approved your request for ZMA-78-15 with the following conditions:
1. Delete Parcel M;
2. Approval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individual uses ( exclusive of
accessory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities ) ;
3. Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L with appurtenant open
space;
4. Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category I; Paroles I and J are
to be Category II;
5. Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the proposed
taxiway on Parcels A, I, and J;
6. Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning Commission
at the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of specific uses;
7. No final plan approval shall be given until a master street-tree plan has been
approved by the Planning Commission;
8. Buffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than
50 feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the Synthesis of
Environmental Factors map. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do
not provide adequate buffering, additional plantings shall be required by the staff.
Such plantings shall consist of 6'-8' white pines 15' on-center; provided the
applicant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent
or better;
9. On Parcel F, no more than 25% of the land area in slopes of 15% or greater shall be
graded ( This area is identified as "sensitive slope-areas" on the Synthesis of
Environmental Factors map ) ; public roads are not included in this condition;
ATTACHMENT III-
Mr. Wendell W. Wood Page 2 November 17, 1978
10. All uses are to be served by public water and public sewer;
11. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than
400' from a major structure. No waterline serving a fire hydrant shall be of
less than 8" diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi: shall be
provided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state
or local fire officials;
12. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water
and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
13. County Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for
parking areas;
14. Grading permit approval;
15. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval, of entrances to existinc
roads to include improved sight distance, full channelization for right turn
deceleration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necssary;
16. Virginia Department of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads; internal
roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength; •
17. Full frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60' right-of-way and
improvement of the existing road to 24' of pavement width with adequate shoulders;
18. Building coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive
areas as outlined in the Airport Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F;
19. Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, height, and performance standards by
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle Cot
Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
Sincerely,
Jane Gloeckner
Planning Department
]g/
cc: File
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Section 8.5.3 of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY requires an
applicant "to meet with the planning staff and other qualified officials to review the Application
Plan and original proposal prior to submittal" in order to "assist in bringing the application" into
conformity with various planning and zoning regulations and policies. The ordinance also
provides that "at such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request
of the applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of
supervisors."
At this time, under section 8.5.4 of the zoning ordinance, the UREF North Fork Business Park
petition is forwarded to the Planning Commission which "shall proceed to prepare its
recommendations to the board of supervisors," and "specifically, recommendations of the
commission shall include finding as to (NOTE: These criteria are also addressed in UREF, Vol 1,
Part VI):
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of:
relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to
surrounding area;
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services;
c. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other
instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and
d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case,
based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by
demonstration that the public purposes or PD or general regulations as applied would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications.
Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as
proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval."
RELATION TO TILE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Board of Supervisors, on December 14, 1994, approved CPA-94-1, adding the northern 300
acres of the UREF property to the I lollymead Community with a designation of Industrial
Service. This section of the report will analyze the proposed rezoning for compliance with
specific provisions of the Comprehensive Plan text for Hollymead (for adopted amendment, see
UREF Volume 2, Appendix B).
IV-1
•
1. *Ilollymead's purpose is to provide a mixed use community that allows people to live in
close proximity to their work place and shopping and service areas. A wide variety of
housing types. services and jobs are anticipated. Community-wide automobile
dependence should be reduced by encouraging transit-oriented development and
providing a full range of pedestrian/bicycle community elements such as walkways and
bikepaths that connect residential areas to transit nodes and to employment
shopping/service areas.
*Provide linkages between neighborhoods within the Hollymead Community (including
non-residential areas) through the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, linear parks,
roads and transit alternatives. The emphasis is on linkage between development areas,
not just within each development.
*Development of alternative modes of transportation to serve the Hollymead Community,
particularly large employment generating areas, This may he accomplished through
partnership between developers of large employment generating areas and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Comment: Internal support commercial uses are proposed which are intended to provide
convenience/service to employees and reduce workday traffic from leaving the property.
No residential development is proposed (residential development of this area was not
called for in the Comprehensive Plan amendment), however, residential areas are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan for I lollymead to the east of this area. A system of
pedestrian ways adjacent to roadways and hiking/bike trails remote from roadways and
along the North Fork Rivanna River with possible external connections are provided.
Internal bus stops will be included in the road plans. The University of Virginia is a
member of the MPO Technical Committee and it is recommended that UREF's
participation be through the University.
2. *Phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which increases traffic
on Route 649 (Airport Road), Route 606 (Dickerson Road) and Route 29. This will
include the constniction of interchanges at Route 29 and Route 649 and Route 29 and the
northern most access point to the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park
and development east of Route 29. Necessary improvements should he accomplished by
fair share contributions from new development.
*Limitation of access points on Route 29 North to joint entrances, frontage roads. and
side streets.
*Incorporating into the design of area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park
project a possible connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway if Alternative "Wi" is
selected as the preferred alignment,
*Reservation of adequate and useable right-of-way for the location of the Meadow Creek
parkway and/orassociated collector roads in areas of new development
•
UREF has based its phasing plan of development on issues of road improvement. This
will be addressed in more depth later in this report, however, UREF has made financial
agreement to off-site improvements. As to limitation of access, only one point of access
is proposed to U.S. Rte. 29N.
Regarding Alternative "W 1" of the Meadow Creek Parkway, no decisions have been
made since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in December, 1994. UREF
has limited frontage on Rte. 649.
3— *Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters
development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision
of open space, For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit
development of the area to 525 acres (297 acres added as a 1994 amendment). Total
buildable area shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire
industrial area shall he pursuant to an overall plan of development under the appropriate
planned development zoning.
As is discussed elsewhere this report, these recommendations have been satisfactorily
addressed.
4. *All industrial/office areas should he substantially buffered from residential areas. This
is accomplished through the planting of new vegetation and preservation of existing
vegetation. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, provide a 50'
buffer around the perimeter,
*Provide new landscaping with development song Route 29 North.
*Development plans along Route 29 North are to he sensitive to its status as an entry
corridor to the Community and the Urban Area.
Buffering along Rte. 606 has been increased to 150 feet with a 50 foot buffer elsewhere
adjacent to rural or residential zoning. Conceptual plans for entrance enhancement at Rte.
29N are included in the applicant's proposal. Except for entry improvements land within
100 feet of Rte. 29 right-of-way is shown as open space.
5. *Ensure evaluation of future land use proposals under the fiscal impact model prior to
rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning phasing of the development to match
service/infrastructure availability and capacity should he encouraged,
On May 11, 1995, the Fiscal Impact Committee suggested that recommendation be made
to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that the North Fork project not be
subjected to the fiscal impact model in the rezoning process. No other recommendation
has been received from the committee since that date (See AttachmentlV-1).
iV-3
6. *Preserve the stream valleys and their tributary drainage way, plus adjacent areas of
steeply sloping terrain, as an open space network. This network is designed to tie into
future residential development areas in Hollymead. The stream valley along the North
Fork Rivanna forms a northern boundary of the Community, and should be developed as
a greenway for passive recreation,
*Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake area by prohibiting any
development or creation of impervious surfaces within this area which endangers water
quantity and quality,
*Provide a plan to address historic features located in the area now referred to as the
North Fork Research Park to retain historic context and continuity.
As will be seen under comments on Physical Characteristics of the Site which follow and
comments from the County Engineering Department, these matters have been adequately
addressed.
7. *Encourage a full range of housing types and costs within the 1-Iollymead Community.
Large employers should work with the Albemarle County Housing Committee to
determine what employee housing assistance programs can be implemented, Target
opportunities for employees at the lower income level and employees hired locally
UREF has stated a commitment "to acting as a liaison between employers at North Fork,
the Virginia Housing Authority (VI IA) and the Albemarle Ilousing Committee to
facilitate ways in which the various parties can work together to make housing more
affordable for the employees of North Fork," (See UREF Volume 1, Section XIX).
In general, actions of the University of Virginia and UREF can have dramatic effect upon
housing issues. The University has membership on the Albemarle County Housing
Committee. As with issues related to the MPO, UREF participation on the Albemarle
Housing Committee through current UVA representation is strongly encouraged.
IV-4
Staff opinion is that North Fork rezoning proposal substantially complies with the
detailed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan under CPA-94-1. In addition to the
Comprehensive Plan, this project is subject to several other plans and regulatory
measures. North Fork substantially complies with the following plans and individual site
development plans will comply with the following regulations:
PLANS/POLICIES
-Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
-Albemarle County Open Space Plan
-Albemarle County Pedestrian Obstacle Study
-Charlottesville-Albemarle Bicycle Plan
-Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport-Master Plan
-U.S. Rte. 29N Corridor Study (1979)
-Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan
REGULATIONS
-EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District
-FI I Flood Hazard Overlay District
-AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District
-Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance
-Wetlands Requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
-Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
-Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance
-Critical Slopes
-Stormwater Management
-Tree Canopy/Landscaping/Buffering
-4.14 Performance Standards
THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND FOR PD-IP DESIGNATION
Throughout the CPA process, the applicant maintained that the increased acreage would allow
more sensitive development of the property. Under current zoning, a floor area ratio (FAR) of
0.26 is achievable while an FAR of 0.13 is proposed. (NOTE: Building foot print is likely to be
less). PD-IP regulations permit an FAR of 0.70.
In approaching the physical design of North Fork Business Park areas to be incorporated into
open space were identified first by mapping of such factors as: floodplain; critical slope; soils
IV-5
I
I
suitability; wetlands; surface hydrology; existing vegetation; historic structures; and site
elevations. External constraints to development were integrated into the mapping process
:protection of adjoining properties; Entrance Corridor Overlay District; transportation; and
airport impact. For visual review, please see maps in UREF Volume I entitled: I
-Elevations -Vegetation
-Surface Drainage -View Analysis
-Soils -Constraints
-Slope -Building Suitability
In addition a preliminary wetlands assessment was conducted by the applicant and the following
state/federal agencies were contacted regarding threatened/endangered species and other
environmental concerns (UREF, Volume 2-E & G):
-Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
-Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
-Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Natural Heritage
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The University of Virginia School of Architecture performed site investigations of a cemetery
and building ruins (UREF Volume 2-F). These features are incorporated into a 6+acre area of
open space adjacent to Rte. 606. The applicant's proffers include provision to complete a
preservation plan within one year and to submit the plan to accompany the proffers (Proffer 6.4).
To summarize issues related to the physical characteristics of the site:
• The increased acreage combined with proffered maximum floor area result n over 40% of
the site in open space. The applicants proposed design guidelines would require 3%of
each development site to be in open space. The result would be a total of 300 acres or
57% of the project in open space.
• Open space is not required under PD-IP zoning regulation. Some open space would be
"managed" by removal of undesirable vegetation and other practices. These areas have
been distinguished from other areas of limited disturbance (i.e.- buffers, flood plain) in
the plans and written proffers.
• Environmentally sensitive areas are restricted from development except for roads,
utilities, open space amenities and the like. Less than '/2 acre of wetlands would be
disturbed due to road construction.
• I listoric features would be incorporated into the open space. "It is UREF's intention to
work with the university of Virginia's Department of Architecture to create a preservation
plan that respects the cemetery and restores key components of the homestead where
I V-6
•
feasible" (UREF, Volume 1, Section IX). As stated earlier, the proffers address this matter
(Proffer 6.4).
CONCERNS OF LAKE ACRES RESIDENTS (A/K/A RTE. 606 NEIGHBORS)
During public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, residents in the Rte. 606 area
expressed many concerns about the proposed North Fork Business Park. In January, 1995 staff
received copy of a letter from Lake Acres to UREF which proposed inclusion of agreements
between Lake Acres and UREF as "specific provisions in the final rezoning agreement between
the County of Albemarle and the University's Foundation" (Attachment IV-13-14). The original
Lake Acres proposal contained 12 items.
During the intervening time, UREF has had continued interaction with the Lake Acres residents
(Attachment IV-4-12). Staff has endeavored to address Lake Acres concerns with UREF and
VDOT through physical design measures:
1. UREF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along its entire frontage on Rte. 606. This is a
modification of the Application Plan which shows a 50 foot buffer for Sites B-8 and
F-l A.
2. Sites A, 13-1, and B-4 would be limited to general office uses. Site B-7 would be limited
to general office and flex/industrial uses, while Sites B-8 and F-1 A are proposed for
general office, Ilex/industrial, industrial, and laboratory uses.
3. Regarding stormwater and erosion concerns, in addition to applicable County regulation,
UREF has developed a master stormwater management plan, proffered to be
implemented in phases.
4. UREF has agreed to amend its proffers to include prohibition of lighting of the recreation
area/playing fields in the open space area between sites B-4 and B-7 (Staff recommends
that this not be deemed to be a prohibition to appropriate security and street lighting).
5. VDOT has agreed to staff recommendation that bridge weight limitation signage be
placed at the Quail Run/Rte. 606 intersection. While this would not prohibit truck traffic
on Rte. 606 north of Quail Run, it would be a forewarning to responsible truck drivers.
6. VDOT has agreed to delete recommendation that a dedicated right turn lane be
constructed from Quail Run onto Rte. 606. Such a feature could entreat general traffic to
travel north on Rte. 606.
7. UREF has changed its plan to delete direct access from Site F-1 A to Rte., 606. All
development sites will be accessed only by the internal road system with no direct access
to external roadways
RELATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES
An issue which received significant attention during review of this and some other
Comprehensive Plan amendments in this area was the adequacy of public water and public
sewerage systems to support the proposed development. At that time, it was established that
neither the North Fork water supply nor the Camelot wastewater treatment plant have available
capacity to service anticipated build-out of the northern Hollymead Community and Piney
Mountain Village. This is the case regardless of the outcome of this rezoning petition.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has stated that "utility upgrades in the
northern urban area will be provided to meet the demands of the growth area." Additionally,
ACSA has stated in regard to this rezoning petition that"In general, the availability of public
utilities is not a limiting factor in this proposal." (Attachment IV-16).
The northern portion of the property is not within ACSA jurisdictional area for public water and
sewer service. In June, 1995 the Board of Supervisors agreed to hold public hearing for
expansion of ACSA jurisdictional area simultaneously with review of this rezoning petition
(Attachment IV-17). No recommendation as to jurisdictional area amendment is required from
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC WATER
Water service is available from a 14 inch line located on-site. Based on redesign of roadway
location and building sites, this line would be relocated in certain areas. Water line relocation
would be UREF's expense.
Water treatment is provided at the North Fork Rivanna River water treatment plant with storage
facilities on Piney Mountain. While the treatment plant has a rated capacity of 2.0 MGD, only
about 0.8 MGD can be withdrawn from the North Fork Rivanna River. Available capacity
without system modification is inadequate to serve the Northern Hollymead Community and
Piney Mountain Village regardless of the outcome of this petition.
The ACSA has stated that additional supply to the service area"can be provided either by
utilizing Chris Greene Lake as a raw water source or by subsidizing the northern Hollymead area
from the South Rivanna plant" (Attachment IV-16). Of concern during CPA review was whether
or not Chris Greene Lake would need to be abandoned as a recreational facility if employed as a
supplementary water supply. From various study and correspondence, Chris Greene would not
need to be abandoned as a swimming/recreation facility to he utilized as a water supply
impoundment (Attachment IV-21-27).
An issue which arose during CPA review, but not included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan
text was limiting or excluding "heavy water users." UREF has commented that "it would be
IV-8
imprudent to set, arbitrarily, a threshold for water usage by tenants of North Fork and thereby
reduce potential tenants of the Park" (UREF, Vol 1, Section XIII D.) UREF argues that the
proposed rezoning would eliminate PD-IP Category II uses (i.e. - I-I1, Heavy Industrial uses) and
that action would adequately address the issue. Staff agrees that there are several III uses which
utilize significant water volumes, however, there are also Category I (i.e. - LI, Light Industrial
uses) which can consume significant amounts of water.
Regarding the issue of heavy water usage, staff offers the following:
1. UREF has provided water consumption estimates and the ACSA has stated that "we have
no reason to take exception to (UREF's} buildout projection of 500,000 - 700,000 gpd
water demand" (Attachment IV-16).
2. If the UREF estimate is accurate, then by Virginia Department of I lealth standards,
development of the property as proposed would be comparable to development under a
low-density residential scenario (i.e - less than 3 dwellings per acre - 3 bedroom).
3. Under existing zoning, about 550,000 square feet of building area could be devoted to I-Il
use, many of which could be termed heavy water users. The rezoning petition would
extinguish heavy industrial uses and increase total floor area by 500,000 square feet(of
which 300,000 square feet could be devoted to hotel/conference and support commercial
uses). The majority of floor area is proposed to be devoted to general office uses,
requiring domestic water service.
4. Staff commented to the Planning Commission that"due to the deletion of Category II
combined with general office as predominant use, UREF's overall proposal substantially
addresses the issue of extensive water consumption. This does not mean that individual
`I Leavy water users' have been excluded from the development (Attachment IV-20)." In
response to the concern of individual water users, UREF proposed a water usage
limitation which was acceptable to the Planning Commission (Proffer 4.4).
PUBLIC SEWER
Sewerage service is available through an on-site sewer line and pump station to the Camelot
wastewater treatment plant. Available capacity at the Camelot plant is about 250,000 gpd which
is inadequate to serve the northern I lollymead Community and Piney Mountain Village,
regardless of the outcome of this petition.
The Albemarle County Service Authority is under contractual agreement with UREF and others
to provide increased capacity. That agreement aside, the Service Authority has stated that
"When plant capacity is reached we anticipate providing pumping and gravity sewer system
improvements to meet the demand of this growing urban area. Theses off-site improvements
would become an Authority expense. All on-site utility work will be UREF's project expense"
(Attachment IV-16).
IV-9
Among other things, on-site improvements would include any industrial pretreatment necessary
to protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and treatment capacity. The Albemarle
County Service Authority/ Rivanna Water acid Sewer Authority will require an industrial
discharge permit for any use involving non-domestic discharge during review of individual site
development plans.
RELATION TO PUBLIC FACILITIES
Police -The UREF proposal lies within the Police Department Sector C response area.
Sixty-three percent of all police calls originate from the Route 29 North Corridor. It is expected
that a new police sector will he created along the Roue 29 North corridor over the next couple of
years due to the volume of calls. This will result in the needed hiring of additional officers to
patrol the sector.
Fire and Rescue - The UREF site would be primarily served by the Earlysville station with
secondary service provided by the Seminole Trail Fire Department. The Charlottesville Fire
Department would respond one engine company from the Route 250 By-Pass Company with a
minimum of three fire fighters. Response from the Earlysville station and City station would be
in excess of the 5 minute response recommended in the Community Facilities plan.
Currently, aerial truck service is provided only by the City if the required staffing is available
and the truck is not needed in the City. The City aerial truck or other specialized city equipment
such as the I IAZMAT would respond from the Charlottesville station on Ridge Street only after
City personnel have arrived on the scene and determine that this special equipment was needed
on scene. The Crozet fire station houses an aerial truck; however, response time for this aerial is
in excess of 30 minutes.
The Community Facilities Plan recommends the location of new fire station in the 1-lollymead
area. Also, the Community Facilities Plan states that with construction of multi-story buildings,
large commercial complexes, residential development and industrial parks, an additional County
aerial truck service may be warranted. The County is currently setting aside funds in the Capital
Improvements Program for the construction of a new fire station and purchase of an aerial truck.
In response to issues related to provision of emergency services (police, fire, rescue), UREF has
proffered a site for a fire and emergency response facility together with contribution to a
personnel training program in hazardous materials (Proffer VIII).
Recreation: UREF proposes to develop recreational facilities in open space areas, primarily for
usage of Park employees., but also to provide pathway/bike trail integration to the greater
Community. The 6+ acre open space site adjacent to Rte. 606 would be developed with
ballfields. UREF has proffered to convey those facilities to the County upon request and upon
terms acceptable to the County (Proffer 6.1). UREF has also proposed to gift area along the
North Fork Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenbelt (proffer 6.3).
IV-10
RELATION TO EXISTING PUBLIC ROADS
Background: From the outset staff anticipated that traffic issues would be among the more
difficult issues to resolve. Upon staff recommendation, UREF submitted Traffic Impact Study
prior to rezoning petition. Since that time, VDOT, UREF and staff have had several meetings to
discuss various scenarios. Basically, the objective was to ensure a development schedule which
would not unduly overburden the road network at any time. To address this matter UREF has
designed its phasing of development directly and solely upon transportation considerations.
UREF has proffered this development phasing plan together with proffers for financial
participation to off-site road improvements. However, UREF believes it unwise to limit
development schedule based upon schedule of VDOT improvements due to uncertainties of
funding, priority changes, and other factors beyond UREF's control which could literally idle the
project for an unspecified period of time. Likewise, financial contribution aside, VDOT remains
concerned that development may precede actual road improvement (Attachment IV 26-27).
Traffic Generation: VDOT has accepted the.revised Traffic Impact Study dated June 7, 1995.
Written verification from VDOT together with entering of the study into the County record
would be appropriate for future reference. The executive summary is included as Attachment
IV-28-31.
While total floor area under the proposed rezoning would increase by twenty (20%) percent, the
Traffic Impact Study shows a sixty-six (66%) percent increase in external traffic volume. This is •
because the UREF Traffic Impact Study does not propose any traffic "discount" to external
roadways from the hotel/conference or support commercial uses which account for vast majority
of increased traffic. That is to say, the study assumes that j11 patronage to the hotel/conference
and support commercial areas is external from the development. The UREF Traffic Impact
Study also assumes a 20 year build-out and should be considered as a "worst case" scenario.
Points of Access: The Application Plan proposes the entire development to be served by an
internal road network with three connections to existing public roads. Each of these intersections
are characterized by differing problems which UREF, VDOT and staff has attempted to address.
A capsule summary follows:
• Quail Run at Rte. 606: A major concern of Lake Acres residents is increased traffic on
Rte. 606 north of Quail Run Road. The Lake Acres residents recognize that the gravel
portion of Rte. 606 will likely he paved/realigned at some future date, but do not want
that
eventuality accelerated by traffic from North Fork Business Park. The following
comments are offered:
1. In April 1995, staff met with VDOT to develop reasonable traffic figures for Rte.
•
IV-11
•
•
606 north of Qual Run. It was determined that the MINUTP model is not
appropriate to site specific application. Historical traffic counts were reviewed and
practical assumptions were made.
2. Traffic counts on this section of Rte. 606 in 1974 were 78 vehicle trips per day
(vtpd) increasing to 170 vtpd in 1994. During that period the County approved
General Electric, North Pines subdivision and Briarwood PRD,all of which have
direct access to Rte. 606. An annual "background" traffic increase of 2-3%was
recommended.
3. The UREF Traffic Impact Study assigns one(1%) percent of total traffic to Rte.
606 north of Quail Run. At time of build-out(2015)traffic on Rte. 606 would be
about 530 vtpd under proposed zoning compared to 420 vtpd under existing
zoning.
4. Measures to deter traffic from North Fork Park are discussed earlier under Concerns
of Lake Acres Residents (pp. IV-7)
• Rte. 649 Entrance would further burden Airport Road which as been scheduled for
improvement (completion September 2001). UREF and the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport are investigating options to accelerate design/construction of this improvement
(Attachment IV-32). Access to Rte. 649 would also exacerbate the need to improve the
Rte. 29/649 intersection . (Rte. 29 from South Fork Rivanna River to Rte. 649
programmed for six-lane completion by August, 2001).
• Rte. 29 Entrance would accommodate traffic volumes which, at ultimate build-out, may or
may not occasion the need for a graded separated interchange. If the Towers property on
the east of Rte. 29 developers to its full potential and has access by this same crossover,
there is no dispute that a grade separated interchange will be justified.
Regarding UREF traffic (and not Towers) the controlling factor is left turn volume from
Rte. 29 NBL into the property during the a.m. peak hour. UREF projects an a.m. peak hour
volume of 988 left turns, whereas, VDOT stated a volume of 1,000 left turns would drop
the Rte. 29 preferred movement below LOS D and require grade separation. That is to say,
the red signal time for Rte. 29 traffic to accommodate left turning movements would
exceed acceptable levels as established by VDOT.
IV-12
Initially UREF proposed a "continuous flow intersection" which would establish two
signalized intersections intended to segregate various turning movements, allow several
movements to occur simultaneously and thereby reduce signal phasing and red signal time
to Rte. 29N traffic. One such intersection exists in the U.S. and has promise for "T"
intersection application. However, utility for a four-legged intersection is unknown and
the design was considered experimental (Cost $1.1 million excluding right-of-way
acquisition/utility relocation).
UREF also submitted design for a Rte. 29 NBL grade-separated ramp to accommodate
left turning movements in a continuous manner. This feature would also reduce signal
phasing and red signal time to Rte. 29 traffic (Cost over $2 million excluding right-of-way
acquisition/utility relocation).
In summary comment on this petition VDoT has stated that (Attachment IV-27A):
"The developer is not responsible for constructing a grade separated intersection.
However, the North Fork development will eventually generate enough traffic to
warrant the construction of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 form Road
A's entrance to Rte. 649. Consequently, the developer will be responsible for the
cost of this improvement... Also, it is understood that under the direction of the
VDOT and the county, these funds may be applied to the construction of an
interchange."
UREF's proffers reflect these comments from VDOT (Proffer 5.4(c) & (d)].
PROPOSED USES ALLOWABLE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
UREF has requested three categories of uses by special use permit, all of which are intended to be
provided under appropriate circumstance within areas shown for combination of Industrial
Service Area and Office Service Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Under § 29.2.2 of the PD-IP
provisions"no separate [special use permit] application shall be required for any use included on
the approved application plan."
$P-95-40 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2,2.1) are appropriate uses within
Industrial/Office Service Areas and integral to UREF's intent to accommodate uses related to and
supportive of major efforts of the University of Virginia as exemplified by the MicroAire facility.
UREF has stated that "this use will allow for advanced laboratory based research and
development to occur in the Park and will be consistent with the correlating definitions found in
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.0, page 15.1" (See UREF Vol. 1, p.
l 5)Review of Anderson's American Law of Zoning(3rd, 1986) shows a change in treatment for
"research laboratories:"
Research laboratories have been seeking space in the suburbs. While these establishments
usually are related to a profit-making corporation and are commercial uses, many of them
present few problems to their neighbors. They generate a volume of traffic which varies in
relation to their staffs and their need to receive deliveries of materials, and they require
parking space, but commonly they produce little of the noise, litter, dust, or glare which
are usually associated with commercial and industrial uses. Research laboratories cannot
always operate in industrial neighborhoods, and commercial surroundings may interfere
with their activities. Thus, one kind of research may require the use of precision
instruments which cannot be used in a place subject to excessive vibration Another type
may be adversely affected by noise and air pollution
Anderson continues to state that "an increasing number of municipalities are anticipating the need
for space to accommodate research laboratories, and are meeting it with a `floating zone' for
planned research office districts."
Under County definition, neither medical nor pharmaceutical laboratory are confined purely to
scientific investigation as may be anticipated by the term"research laboratory."
Laboratory. Medical: A building or part thereof devoted to bacteriological, biological, x-ray,
pathological and similar analytical or diagnostic services to medical doctors or dentists including
incidental pharmaceutics; and production, fitting, and or/sale of optical or prosthetic appliances.
Laboratory. Pharmaceutical; A building or part thereof devoted to the testing, analysis and/or
compounding of drugs and chemicals for ethical medicine or surgery, not involving sale directly to
the public
UREF proposes that all sites except A, B-1, B-4, and B-7 be made available for potential
laboratory location. Given buffers from adjoining properties together with additional setbacks
imposed by UREF's Design Guidelines, staff recommends this special use permit is approvable
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with § 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Building location shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties not located within the development.
SP-95-42 Hotel, motel, inn (29.2.2.2l is intended to be allowed in Office Service and, as result of
recent amendment, Industrial Service areas of adequate scale to support such use. UREF has
stated that "a hotel/conference facility is planned for North Fork to support the lodging and
meeting/conference needs primarily of the tenants of the Park" (UREF, Vol 1, p15) Staff opinion
is that North Fork Business Park is such scale that detailed justification is unwarranted. UREF
proposes that all sites except Sites A, B-1, B-4, B-7, B-8, and F 1 A, be made available for hotel
location. At time of zoning text amendment, concern was expressed as to location adjacent to
U.S. Route 29 N. Staff would note that site B-5 is proposed to be separated from Route 29 by a
150 foot open space buffer and access to the site is proposed over 1000 feet from Route 29. Staff
recommends this special use permit is approvable subject to the following conditions:
IV-14
•
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel,motel or inn shall not exceed two hudred fifty (250)lodging rooms;
)
2. Confer
ence facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual hotel 1cupa ts)thall
l
not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as
gro
ss floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet.
• 1 are described by the applicant to possibly include uses
-95-41 �pnortin 7 ommerc,a center, & dry cleaner. Staff opinion is that
such as but not limited to: day care, branch bank, copy
otherg
Uses permitt
uses mayinclude newsstand, restaurant, health club, and rug store.the C-1 Commerc d
likely
assupporting commercial uses would
zloning ordinance permitted by right
zone, as modified by §9.4.3 ofthe
UREF proposes that except for sites A, B-1>
B_4 B-7, g_g, F_1 A and B-5, supporting
commercial uses be made available to all sites within North t Forkfo owing Business Park. Staff
recommends
recommends this special use permit approvable subject to
five
AO percent of total floor area
1.
In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed rea devoted d to supporting commercial
(exclusive of hoteUconference use), total floor development.
uses shall not exceed ten (10%) of total floor area at any time during phased
1V-15
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL•'E ATTACHMENT I
zogi A. .1\ RECEIVED
Ili,- ff. MAY i61995
MEMORANDUM Planning Dept.
TO: Fiscal Impact Committee
FROM: Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Executive`
DATE: May 15, 1995
RE: Fiscal Impact Update/Next Meeting
Attached for your information are brief minutes of the last Fiscal Impact Committee meeting on
May 11. The next committee meeting has been set for Thursday, June 1 from 2:00 to 5:00 in
the 4th floor conference room, at which time the committee will again be able to see the model
demonstrated using their own development scenarios.
You will see in the notes that the members who were present at the meeting were concerned with
using the North Fork project to initiate and validate the fiscal impact model, particularly since
the committee itself does not feel comfortable with the model at this time. From this discussion,
the group suggested that the Fiscal Impact Committee make a recommendation to both the
Planning Commision and the Board of Supervisors that the North Fork project not be required to
use the fiscal impact model in its approval process. If any members are strongly opposed to the
committee taking this action, please let me know.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions on either the previous or the upcoming
meeting.
•
RWW/rww
ATTACHMENT IV-2
FISCAL IMPACT COMMITTEE
May 11, 1995
Notes from May 11 Meeting
Attending: Charlotte Humphris, Tim Lindstrom, Chuck Rotgin, Michael Semanik, Dennis
Rooker
Absent: Peter Hallock, Forrest Marshall, Ellen Anderson, Bill Nichtman, Bruce Dotson, Jay
McNeeley, Bob Tucker
Staff: Roxanne White, Wayne Cilimberg, Anne Gulati, Bill Fritz
Guests: Joe Ullman, Dean Cinkala
The meeting opened with a discussion of the material submitted by Wayne Cilimberg and Linda
Hollis on the derivation of the enrollment projections used in the model. Wayne Cilimberg noted
that a new Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service report indicated an 8% private school
enrollment projection for Albemarle for grades 1-8. Chuck Rotgin also stated that he had talked
to the major private schools and confirmed that total enrollment for Albemarle children was
approximately 800 students. From these numbers, the committee expressed satisfaction with
using 10%of total enrollment for the private school enrollment factor.
Related to the school enrollment, Tim Lindstrom expressed concern that the model's pupil
generation factor is lower than the average student generation rate that is derived by
taking the average of the other county rates in the survey, and that the impact of this difference is
significant when calculating the fiscal impact of school growth over 10 or 20 years. Mr.
Lindstrom stated that he was not uncomfortable with the model's generation factor at this point,
but that it is important to recognize the magnitude of the impact from even slight changes in the
pupil generation factors. Mr. Lindstrom also indicated that he would like to revisit the school
multipliers after further study of the material.
The second major concern from committee members was using the North Fork project for the
initial demonstration and validation of the fiscal impact model. The consensus of the group was
that the North Fork project is too controversial and emotionally charged and that using it to
introduce the fiscal impact model to the community would be destructive to the credibility of the
model itself. The committee felt that the model needs to be tried out on other development
scenarios and smaller projects in order to validate its results and to understand the important
impact factors through sensitivity analyses of the data. For these reasons, it was suggested that
the Fiscal Impact Committee recommend to both the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors that the North Fork project not be required to use the fiscal impact model for its
review. Other members of the committee will be notified of the group's recommendation and
asked for their comments.
The next issue of discussion centered around several questions on Ms. Hollis's April 28 letter,
which was sent out to the committee in the last packet. The questions related to her statements on
the lower cumulative costs for the middle schools when debt financed, the operating costs
incurred in year 1 in the Average Cost model and the breakdown of the elements included in the
ATTACHMENT IV
pay-as-you go category for school capital projects. Ms. White was asked to clarify these issues
with Linda Hollis.
Following these discussions, the committee saw a demonstration of the model based on a
"made-up" residential development scenario. Committee members agreed that for future
demonstrations, they would like to see a development scenario that more closely reflected the
current reality in Albemarle County,and more specifically one that would take the actual
development mix for 1994-95 and replicate it for the first year development scenario.
• After viewing the model, the committee agreed that one of the model's major uses will be to
do sensitivity analyses of the projects to determine the important factors, or combination of
factors, that need to be considered in development projects. Chuck Rotgin stated that he felt
that the model was going to be more beneficial for long term trend analysis and budgeting
rather than for determining the impact of a particular development project. Mr. Lindstrom felt
that the model will also be effective in analyzing specific projects, since the indicators and
multipliers can be adjusted to reflect the characteristics of similar projects done in the past, i.e.
changing enrollment multipliers for the specific type of residential development.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the committee decided the following:
• The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 1 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the 41h
floor conference room;
• Ms. White will solicit the full committee's opinion on using the North Fork project
for the initial fiscal impact model test;
• Ms. White will clarify questions on Ms. Hollis's letter;
• Staff will address questions raised by the committee during the demonstration that
concerned specific model calculations;
• Staff will send a blank input sheet out to committee members prior to the next
meeting for developing their own parameters, multipliers and development scenarios
for the model.
ATTACHMENT IV-4
4392 Dickerson Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
October 23, 1995
Hr. Tim R. Rose
Chief Operating Officer
University of Virginia Foundation
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Dear Hr. Rose:
Thank you for your letter of October 12, 1995 regarding remaining concerns involving
the North Fork Park as expressed in our letter of July 19, 1995. With the inclusion
of the additional changes to your Hay 20, 1995 Draft that you ,are now offering, we
feel that the Foundation has expressed a spirit of cooperation 'and is taking positive
action to fulfill the needs and desires of Lake Acres residents to .maintain the area's
rural atmosphere and natural environment.
There appears to be just one major disagreement which we must still acknowledge but
which should not preclude our acceptance of your letter. Regarding Lot F1A, we are
still opposed to allowing any exception to your original plan which shows just three
roadways into the Park: one from Route 29; one from Airport Road; and the existing
Quail Run Road from Route 606.
As you know, our most fundamental concern in originally opposing the development of an
industrial park on the rurally-zoned north half of the University property was to
protect the privacy and rural character of our neighborhood. We have been adamant
that no other roadways should be allowed from Route 606 except as described above.
Therefore, we are unable to accept any of your alternative options listed in your
October 12 letter if, as it appears, each of them would require an additional roadway
from Route 606.
We understand that your letter of agreement will mean that the University Foundation
will expect to maintain an active, long-term mutually-beneficial association with
its Lake Acre neighbors during the upcoming years of active development of the North
Fork Park.
Tim, we wish to commend you for your direct, in-depth, cooperative approach over the
last ten or eleven months during which we have exchanged views and communicated -- by
letter, telephone and in person. Thank you for your respectful, open-minded and intel-
ligent approach to our concerns. We look forward to receiving the Foundation's letter
of agreement and to an ongoing mutually-agreeable relationship in the coming years.
Sincerely y urs,
:1)9
UC 1 2 4 1995 4
47.11:7___ CitAAAd.
14/,
Steering Committee COA0-e
Lake Acre eighbors
Copy: Ron Keeler
Planning Department
Albemarle County
ATTACHMENT IV-5
- uLi 2 3 1995
0
OFFICE OF THE 't"'"1I `-"a =
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION
108 CRESAP ROAD
P. O. Box 9023
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906
• (804) 982-4848
• FAX (804) 982-4852
October 20, 1995
•
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ron:
I have shared a proposed letter with the Route 606 neighborhood regarding North
Fork. We want to ensure that we are covering the areas which they think are important.
Since this letter is not being requested by the County, nor is it a requisite component of
the rezoning process, we presume that the review of our package is not being held up
until you receive the letter. Should our understanding on this issue not be correct,
please let us know immediately. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim R. Rose
Chief Operating Officer
TRR:Ip
cc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg/
Mr. Dean M. Cinkala t
Mr. Bruce B. Stouffer
ATTACHMENT IV-6
STONEBIIDGE
VIA FACSIMILE& HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
•
June 20, 1995
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Dept. of Planning
&Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Enclosed please find two studies which we performed for the Rte. 606 Neighborhood group. The first study is
a Solar Study showing the potential shade impact of development along Rte. 606 and the second is an Access
Study for Lot FIA onto Rte. 606. Please feel free to check with the neighbors, but I believe that both of these
studies served to alleviate the neighbors' concerns about the potential"shade impact" of development and Lot
F I A access onto Rte.606.
On a separate issue, based on your questions regarding certain proposed use locations reflected in the Use
Chart which I forwarded to you several weeks ago, I offer the following. Regarding light industrial (LI) uses
on FIA and B8,to my knowledge the Rte.606 neighbors have never raised this as a concern to us. In fact, use
location has never been the focus of discussion with the neighbors. Rather,the focus has been on development
buffers, access to Rte. 606, traffic, etc. Further, I believe LI makes sense on these lots given their proximity to
existing LI uses on Quail Run.
Regarding our desires to have the right to put a hotel on B5, we want to emphasize that this site is only one of
several sites where the hotel ultimately could be accommodated. While a hotel may be developed on B5, it
would not have direct access to Rte. 29 and would not be developed directly adjacent to Rte. 29 given the
existing vegetation and the fifty foot buffer at the front of the site. We believe that B5 is a unique site for a
hotel because it offers us the opportunity to inwardly focus the hotel toward Park users while also giving it
visibility to Rte. 29 which any significant hotel operator will likely demand.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues and please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Dean M. Cinkala
Attachments •
cc: Tim Rose, UVAF
Ellen Miller, SAl
Robert McKee, M/C
Steve Blaine,MWBB
$'I UNl III(I1)1,1 ASSO( inns, INC.
ATTACHMENT IV-7
NORTH FORK
BUSINESS PARK
•
Albemarle County, Virginia
l(S). SOLAR STUDY
ii.
1 L.��j•r L.M.1,1/Q4' Gm..Mw••F.IIa
I I 1 1 .:' • Itrtrttrllla�
✓w1/4. �rrrrr
3 , .'i _ �r 103 00 00
. ....• a;`ti' k.% l4epreJ Mr.
. • L'; '•` University of Virginia
��//_- ` `+��c'% '\t �J ' Real Estate Foundation
�•�. j 4�� 7 �,k. e. , Qlarlullcsville,Vugmia
4; '1�, %( ;,\ \tt Prepared by:
1 S tOA WI.
r` , a� , , ! McKee/Carson
•+ a4'r.'. �.. c' .- i.• Environmental 1'lalulen•Landscape Anbuects•Engineers
•v ...0.W'Li;.•ff�� I. ', Charlottesville.Virginia
•�,; w�V+ if .0- • 416,
i • _,.. May 1995
•
`��i le' :. �.rtill'(4 \ rh..•Mb•1 m.M.nr.wM d w Jan.ly
.o pray+. 1•• MoR•y
•• ,.A * � �, \ \agoo•ling-om du•u.�•N.iroosern:s1..Juu.•lawn I•r...l\• 2` X \ wiWn,tw Is0 b.Jla along SIale IIwM.0.have
v. r'':.' `t wr bran nfl..*on Ow plan. .
' . \ \I " 4* V. 14' •-•./OVAis \
---\ 1 ,:. , -. 7— !ASV'I ii--4'4 I ' 1 • '
trl� .•"• a!, l 1
......eii.. ..3. —,-....‘ \O.', ‘ . \ .. , .
1 rk gljo ' ‘ .
i:..clv. .a c,I, dr--.....,;.,' ,.. it • \ . .‘ ....
•
I 0., ,A I..i D•..1 ..lit.yr.b.:,..r Ef•TraT -.. •
\.:1....ifili‘s1;:-..11% .' .1 g. ..1
_I :i+ ��;��•'e+� emu. 1+:�.L1� (y:7/\j•
A L
•
ATTACHMENT IV 8
NORTH FORK ' '
•
•
BUSINESS PARK . .
. ..;
Albemarle County, Virginia
(1) , . • - ,.
._. ..
. .. . . ...
, , ..,- '''' .... i
..
, • 35.1
• PARCEL F-1A ACCESS .: - -
scale:1'.200' Contour Interval-l0'
r.17M=Mi • 1 .
•
/
o . 200 400 800 •
/ • I . •
Prepared for: I '�y%
University of Virginia �=_ i ;
Real Estate Foundation �-� I '
``� - -
Charlottesville,Virginia - �� •
Prepared by: /� �� ;,• 1
'1cKee/Carson i B_4
•vironmental Planners • Landscape Architects•Engineers v � • �—
:lottesville,Virginia • p g /y 8.48 acres /,_ ..
y hv�s -� ,� ;� C
i ' '� � 7,18 acres
n ci V --0:I ' y .y 1 ,
,c)' -7...""1' \ 0 c--, c ,-.
:e.,,y. . .., ,,,--,..--....,
p �e�a. 0 5.65 goes - —'"��._
( I - - •
tzt). _
. .--\- ' 7.. .`e80%,,h 4 I ./r\ \ ----)
1'O /. 'LNG
30'sIDE '• —8
s� CK l! <- .
--7' 1
4� a 1.07aues-__/ ri
l'',,., _ _ .,
. $1r•fer /
k-- .
''r )• ,(, \ '�✓�• I , _ 33.26 acres
it
i.
N, i' 70-03 Y • / .---J f
-A_____ /r -,-<,,,,, , •. .. L _ '' -17----71,...y.--....:—J ----,_I .' 1 \ , '
**--- 0) • , / /---...., ,i,/, . i
I1 „, :1-----/ / ,...... 1 , %
\._ • . �i / •
/1 /
---)! x / I ` ; ' �\.
ATTACHMENT IV-9
STON E1 IQpGE
VIA FACSIMILE •
May 19, 1995
•
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Dept. of Planning and Community
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road •
Charlottesville, VA 22902 •
Re: North Fork Rezoning Application -Various Issues
Dear Ron: •
Enclosed please find the following:
• a copy of the draft letter to the Route 606 neighbors; and
• a masterplan for North Fork reflecting how we propose use designations be applied to
the Zoning Application Plan pursuant to our discussions and mutual understanding of
acceptable uses on various sites.
While these are provided for your information, they are also provided for your review to assure
that our understanding of the direction we are moving in is consistent with the Planning Staff's.
Regarding the letter to the Route 606 neighbors, we will present this draft to members of the
neighborhood group on May 23, 1995. From our perspective, this letter represents UREF's
intentions vis a vis the various issues with which the neighbors are concerned. Once you are
prepared to present your staff report to the planning commission, the final version of this letter
could be submitted as an exhibit to the Planning Stalls report.
Regarding the conceptual land use plan and use chart, we submit this as our understanding of the
various uses which would be appropriate or acceptable on the various lots within the North Fork
development. Given the County's approach of modifying the LI zoning text to include Hotel as a
special permit use, we understand that we will need to show special permit uses specifically on'
our Zoning Application Plan. In addition, we understand that there are areas of concern to the
County where certain use restrictions are desired (e.g. no support commercial along Rte. 606 or
Rte. 29) and this plan should reflect those concerns. I do want to make clear though that while
• we are committing to certain primary uses on sites, we are retaining our right to put secondary
uses on those sites as the ordinance allows. Please review this and make sure it is compatible
S I ONE RRIN(,E ASSOCIAI ES, INC
ATTACHMENT IV-10
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
May 19, 1995
Page 2
with our discussions. Please also note that we understand that there still is the necessary task of
coming up with a methodology to create mutually acceptable definitions for these various uses
which we will undertake once we gain your concurrence on this "Use Plan". •
Please call me with your thoughts on these materials.
Best Regards,
Dean M. Cinkala
cc: Tim R. Rose
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Steven W. Blaine
Ellen G. Miller
ATTACHMENT IV-11
STONEBI�IDGE
May XX, 1995 0� n
Route 606 Neighbors
Albemarle County, Virginia •
Dear Neighbors (List all 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 are in receipt of your January 25,
1995 correspondence outlining these concerns and have met with you twice to discuss these concerns
and our plans for the Park. 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:
• UVAF Role: UVAI? 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.
• Site Access from Ric. 6116: "I'lie Zoning Application Plan, in the Rezoning Application,
proposes an internal road network to access lots along Rte. 606. The only exception to this
is Lot F I A which will be accessed directly from Rte. 606. If Rte. 606 is upgraded from its
current status then this access issue will be re-addressed.
• Construction / 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 Rte. 606 remains in its existing
condition (i.e. a two-lane, unpaved road).
• Rte. 606 Paving: UVAF will not initiate a request for Rte. 606 to be paved.
• Buffer Along Rte. 606: UVAF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along the entire extent of its
property along Rte. 606. This includes Lot F I 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.
• Use Locations: The Zoning Application,Plan addresses the location of uses within the
Park.
• Sediment & Erosion Control, Stormwater 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
S T o N E h Il 11)(,L ASSOCIATES. I N C.
gAoo Mruugonierp I ant Suite 1175 Bethesda,Mar viand xoflr.7 5)12
ATTACHMENT IV-12
Route 606 Neighbors D May XX, 1995 ;,j LA
EF rff
Page Two
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..
Also the Rezoning Application addresses proposed use restrictions for the Park to protect
the Raw Water intake.
• North Fork Business Park Design Guidelines: The Rezoning Application, via the North
Fork Business Park Design Guidelines, address 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.
;'•�� Rte. 606 Right of Way: If Rte. 606 is required to be widened due to traffic caused by
North Fork Business Park then UVAF will dedicate right of way along Rte. 606 for such
widening provided the lots are still undeveloped and that the 150 foot setback will not be
reset off of the new property line.
• Utility Installation: UVAF will provide appropriate ground cover over areas where new
utility 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 hope that this letter meets with your satisfaction.
Best Regards,
Tim R. Rose
Chief Operating Officer
cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney
Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Mr. Dean M. Cinkala
Mr. Steven W. Blaine
ATTACHMENT IV-13
4392 Dickerson Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
January 25, 1995
University of Virginia Foundation
108 Cresap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Attention: Mr. Tim R. Rose, Chief Operating Officer
Dear Tim:
We our appreciation to you and .Dean .Cinkala for meeting wish
us wish wo expressyour current plans for the industr�a1
us last week. it was helpful to hear of �
Business Park. We believe that it may be possible to arrive at a mutual unde standing
regarding
the University's goals and our desires as property owners in this
essentially rural' area.
We were heartened to learn that the 1sythedrark's its oneighboringtresidents to oand�,
a basic "good neighbor policy with regard to
its surrounding environment. To this end, we are requesting that:
visions
ed in the
al
(;:) The following listed speci�ico rAlbemarlebandnthedUniversityf snFoundationg.
agreement between the County n contracts, leases,
(b) These provisions be included in all written agreements,
deeds, etc. , between the University, its development and management companies
and the Park's tenants, lessees and/or parcel purchasers in establishing
usage of the North Fork property. over these "good neighbor"
(c) The University and its Foundation maintain purview provisions and the Foundation be the officially-
designated representative for
receiving and resolving any problems or grievances which residential neighbors
may have concerning the Park.
REQUESTED PROVISIONS FOR NORTH FORK PROPERTY REZONING AGREEMENT:
1 . That there be no other access or roadway allowedntnathe e.606 boundary of the Park
property other than the planned Quail
2. That no semi trucks, manufacturer' s trucks, transport trucks, construction
vehicles or heavy vehicles of any kind be allowed to travel north or south on 606
between Quail Run Road and the north end of the Industrial Business Park.
3. That no paving of the gravel portion of Route 606 be allowed.
4. That there be a 150-foot buffer zone along the 606 boundary of the Part:. Where
theyshall be left standing with no clear-cutting
there are existing trees, leasing
allowed. Where there are no trees, durable trees shall be planted in a P
landscape.
"Support Commercial" parcel (C) be relocated to an interior space.
5. That the property owners,
This adjustment will avoid conflict with residential p p Y
will
alleviate burdensome additional traffic on 606 and will better serve those
using the Park.
6. That strict anti-pollution measures for clean water, air and land he built into
land
th
phase as well as long-term agreements with and/ortenantsro streamsld
purchaserse toicn 2lluticn of around and well waters,e u insure tart
does not occur; that herm_ul air ?ollutiaa n3 irritslts from manufacturing any,
emissions , burning, or other usa;;es inside or
•
ATTACHMENT IV-14
University of Virginia Foundation 2 2
outside the buildings does not occur; that harmful run-offs from hard-surfacing
for buildings and parking lots does not happen; that no construction be allowed
which would adversely affect the Rivanna Intake-Impact Area which runs north and
south along the Western Ridge; that no activity be allowed which would endanger
the health or well-being of humans, birds and wildlife, trees, etc.
7. That night lighting shall be of a recessed, shielded and diffused nature to avoid
discomfort and disturbance to property owners. Other provisions shall include:
regulation of noise levels; containment of equipment, vehicles and factory
supplies in maintenance buildings; containment of trash, waste and other unsightly
materials in appropriate receptacles. Playing fields shall not be equipped with
night lighting.
8. That the construction of buildings should be below road grade as in the recently-
built Hollymead Middle School.
9. That during any of the construction phases of the Park, no construction vehicles
or support vehicles be allowed usage of Route 606 between Quail Run Road and
the north end of the Park.
10. if it is absolutely essential that Route• 606 be widened for safety purposes, that
the additional required footage shall all be taken from the North Fork Park property.
Buffer footage would begin at the point of the revised Park boundary.
•
11 . That proper drainage, grading and sewers be installed during construction to insure
606 property owners against flooding damage during heavy rainstorms.
12. That advance underground placement of sewer lines, utilities, etc. , be immediately
covered with sod or appropriate ground cover.
Tim, we would appreciate your careful perusal of these Requested Provisions. Will
you please route them around to the appropriate Foundation and University officials.
We firmly believe that in agreeing to carry out these provisions, the University will
not only signify their intentions that the North Fork Park will be a "good neighbor,"
but will be joining with us in a common goal of protecting and preserving our
naturally beautiful rural environment so cherished by all Charlottesville and
Albemarle citizens. •
Sincerely yours,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY NEIGHBORS E. RESIDENTS
Copy:
1/Albemarle County Planning Commission l
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors \
Albemarle CountyPlanning p
Department "
,44_ 1 ) i"1 1C 4Couto-t. a &LA/J(1
LL.l9-4-mot JC l i '
, ---?
/-,,79) 77-y
v ` ,rr,� err Y�_c Y�Th
72-p-Pic --gv-vd
12:,.„.,osvn, -,.
, 1rAI
-/---_.
-KV ___________y-s
,_________:_ ,- 4 ) :-. \r ,. r.
-evt.1 -,T--)
�� 1 . _ _____ ____ .
.{- c
J 74*
1 ., 4C 7, jt-r/)"1 "-)11q__, 6
. mil , 0 .'7' ,, 61 7-'
-A141• r Ai / // 1 (-7-#1vYrr 'g illrtrZ
:1 ‘'/i )'"" /
.--ree."27 ,/,1( 2 l' ,/, ,,y 0/09-0-Krivpit,
51.-AI 1N3WH3V11V
ATTACHMENT IV-16
COUNTY SERVICEALBEMARLEAUTHORITY_ FAX P 0 BOX 1009 168 SPOINAP RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 • (804) 977-4511 F (804) 979-0698
April 17, 1995
Mr. Ron Keeler RECEIVED
Planning Department APR 1 71995
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Planning pep ,
t.
Re: Rezoning Application - North Fork Business Park '
1
Dear Ron:
We have reviewed the rezoning application from the University
of Virginia Real Estate Foundation for the North Fork property. In
general, the availability of public utilities is not a limiting
factor in this proposal .
We have no reason to take exception to their buildout
projection of 500, 000-700, 000 gpd water demand. Supply can be
provided either by utilizing Chris Greene Lake as a raw water
source or by subsidizing the northern Hollymead area from the South
Rivanna plant. We treat the combination of the North and South
Rivanna systems as a single urban supply. South Rivanna currently
serves the urban area to Airport Road and North Rivanna serves
properties north to G.E. and Piney Mountain. A pumping station on
the South Rivanna system would be necessary to supplement the North
Rivanna system when its raw water supply becomes limited. This
upgrade, as well as any treatment plant improvements, would be an
Authority expense. All onsite water system improvements will be
entirely UREF's expense.
There is approximately 250, 000 gpd still available in the
Camelot wastewater treatment plant. This will be used on a first
come - first served basis. When plant capacity is reached we
anticipate providing pumping and gravity sewer system improvements
to meet the demand of this growing urban area. These offsite
improvements would become an Authority expense. All onsite utility
work will be UREF's project expense.
Utility upgrades in the northern urban area will be provided
to meet the demands of the growth area. The UREF property, if
approved, will become a component of a larger study as the water
and sewer systems approach their respective capacity.
If you have any additional questions, feel free to call. If
you want our attendance at the Commission meeting let me know.
Sincerel , ad , tv
Paul A. Sho p, P.E.
• Director of Engineering
PAS:dmg
ATTACHMENT IV-1-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Amend Albemarle County Service Authority(ACSA) June 7, 1995
Jurisdiction to include all land of the proposed North Fork
Business Park. ACTION: INFORMATION:
•
SUBJEGT/PROPOSAUREOUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
UREF request expansion of water and sewer jurisdictional area ACTION: X INFORMATION:
to include land added to Hollymead Community under CPA-94-
1.
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S1: REVIEWED BY:
Messrs. Cilimberg,Keeler
BACKGROUND:
In December 1994, about 300 acres were added to the IIollymead Community with a designation for industrial/office service
development. UREF subsequently filed rezoning petition from RA,Rural Area to PD-IP,Planned Development-Industrial Park for
these 300 acres.
DISCUSSION:
Public water and sewer services are appropriate within designated Growth Areas. Of UREF's 525 acre property,water and sewer
service from ACSA is currently limited to about 225 acres
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set public hearing on this request for the same date and following action on the rezoning petition.
There is currently no Board date set for the rezoning petition's review,therefore the date for public hearing of this jurisdictional area
request will need to be set later.
RECEIVED
UREF-ACS.SUM JUN 51995
95.089
ATTACHMENT IV-18
:o
OFFICE OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION
108 CRESAP ROAD (, 11 If�� (5 1--)
P. O. Box 9023 1 •`.1 :r:.-_'n !?O W. IS Il
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 I �$ i1
• FAX (8041 982-4852 May 22, 1995 ' I i MAY. 2 3 1994
1 •
• 1D OF SUPER'JF;,;,
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Revision to the Albemarle County Service Authority Service Jurisdiction
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On February 27, 1995, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
(UREF) submitted a rezoning application for the northern 300 acres of its 525 acres
North Fork property. This application requested that this 300 acre parcel be rezoned
from RA to PD-IP so that it is consistent with the southern 225 acres which is already
zoned PD-IP.
As is described in detail in the rezoning application, it is UREF's goal to
develop the North Fork Business Park on its North Fork property. This Park will
create an environment where private industry and various University entities can.
create mutually beneficial partnerships to advance research and development efforts
to the benefit of both parties.
In order for the North Fork Business Park to be viable, the entire 525 acres•
must be included into the Albemarle County Service Authority's (ACSA's) service
jurisdiction for water and sewer service. Currently, only the southern 225 acres is
included in the ACSA's service jurisdiction. Please consider this letter UREF's formal
request that the ACSA service jurisdiction be modified to include UREF's entire 525
acre North Fork property. We would like this request to be considered concurrently
with the rezoning application for the North Fork Business Park.
As you consider this request please consider the following:
•
♦ the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recent
modification to the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan which
now includes the northern 300 acres in the Hollymead
Growth Area as industrial service land;
ATTACHMENT IV-19
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
May 22, 1995
Page 2
♦ UREF has created a define masterplan for the property
. delineating a mix of proposed uses; and,
- ♦ the entire 525 acres can easily be served by extensions of
existing ACSA water and sewer lines that run through the
property.
As you review this request, we would be pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss it in detail with you.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Tim R. Rose
Chief Operating Officer
TRR:ov
cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney
Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge
Mr. William T. Brent
Mr. Steven W. Blaine
Mr. Dean M. Cinkala
Ms. Ellen G. Miller
Mr. Robert B. McKee
ATTACHMENT IV-2
AL3EVARLE COU \TY SERVICE ATHORITY
V EMO RECEIVED
To: Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning MAR 2 1995
FROM : Peter C. Gorham, Civil. Engineer II Pl8nn�n� Dept,
DATE March 29 , 1995
RE : ZMA-9504 & ZTA 95-02 - The Univ. of Va. Real Estate Foundation
We have reviewed the rezoning application for UREF's
North Fork property and offer the following comments:
(1) Water Capacity - Appendix I of the rezoning
application summarizes water and sewer availability
correspondence from 1994 . Water service is available through
a 14" waterline located onsite. If demand in the Hollymead
growth area approaches the North Rivanna plant capacity,
additional supply from Chris Greene Lake or the South Rivanna
plant will be required.
(2) Water Pressure - We have no basis for evaluating the
prediction of a pressure problem in the North Fork property.
There are currently no pressure problems with any of our
existing customers on the North Rivanna system. If an in-
depth evaluation of the development's infrastructure reveals
a problem exists, it will need to be corrected with onsite
facilities.
(3) Sanitary Sewerage - Sewer service is available
through an onsite sewer line and pump station. Pumping and
treatment capacities may be exceeded at project buildout.
Onsite sewer improvements shall be provided by the project.
Treatment capacity can be provided by offsite infrastructure
improvements. The Service Authority has an agreement with
UREF and others addressing the issue of future sewer capacity
for this project. The Service Authority is not prepared at
this time to state any preference for any alternative to
increase sewerage treatment capacity for the Hollymead growth
area.
(4 ) Restrictions on Large Water Users - Although most
heavy industrial uses have been eliminated from the park, the
definition for the proposed Category III uses still contains
some "large water users. "
PCG:dmg
ATTACHMENT IV-21
f=rJ�E• a uwF4
ti
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
n\E P. 0. BOX IS • CI-IARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22002-0018 • (804) 1277-2970
•
J►011(Sv
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS n
FROM: EUGENE K. PO 1TER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1���k
SUBJECT: UPDATE OF URBAN RAW WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATE: JULY 18, 1995
Attached are several items relative to the use of Chris Greene Lake for supplemental
releases to support a 2.0 MGD capacity at the North Fork Rivanna WTP:_
The chemical analysis indicates that with the exception of four metals,all currently regulated
drinking water parameters are below method detection limits. Further, all other tested
organic compounds were below method detection levels. Of the four metals detected, two
were at the lowest detection levels and two were well below current standards. There is no
evidence based on these findings to question the quality of Chris Greene Lake water relative
• to water supply needs.
The other enclosure accounts for the full capacity of the North Fork Rivanna WTP on the
project schedule. The anticipated seven year extension is not fully realized because of on-
going loss of capacity in South Rivanna Reservoir. A more realistic projection is 3 - 5 years.
Black & Veatch is in the process of amending the report language to incorporate the use
of Chris Greene Lake, but I do not anticipate any significant changes in the recommended
project schedule.
EKP/1db
ATTACHMENT IV-22
BLACK & VEATCH •
16310 McnIgamery Vilicce Aveiuc.Su.le 530.Ge.ii ersb,rg, N.cry and 20E79,(301) 6L0-1123,Fax:(301;921.26t2
•
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority B&V Project 24972
Urban Raw Water Management Plan B&V File C
June 22, 1995
Mr. Eugene K. Potter, Acting Executive Diredtor
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 18
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0018
Subject: Chris Greene Lake Drawdown
Dear Mr. Potter:
Our evaluation of the North Fork Rivanna water system and river flows concluded
that upstream releases from Chris Greene Lake could increase the safe yield of the
system above the 1 mgd recognized by the state. Since Chris Greene Lake is a
multipurpose reservoir that provides recreational benefits to the region, you requested
us to examine the extent of reservoir pool drawdown that could be expected from
water supply augmentation.
Since the maximum design capacity of the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant is
2 mgd, we set 2 mgd as the target withdrawal from the river. The river flow record
created from USGS data (1943 to 1991) is used to predict the need for releases from
Chris Greene Lake.
We find that the model is able to predict reservoir drawdown which correlates to a
2.1 mgd yield with no minimum instream flowby requirements. For the drought
experienced from August through November 1977, which includes the lowest flows
recorded on the North Fork Rivanna River, the model predicts the Chris Greene
Lake pool to drop by a maximum of one foot.
The data indicate that a drawdown of less than one foot would have been
experienced during October 1953, October 1954, and September 1966 had a 2,lmgd
river withdrawal been required. Monthly data for the remainder of the period, from
January 1943 to January 1991, show Chris Greene Lake at its full pool elevation of
423 ft.
ATTACHMENT IV-2
Mr. Eugene Potter, Acting Executive Director Page 2
B&V Project 24972
The computer model can compute drawdowns and river flows much more precisely
than can be reasonably expected under real operating conditions. However, we
predict that the recreational use of Chris Greene Lake would not be measurably
affected by water supply releases needed for a 2 mgd withdrawal at the North
Rivanna intake.
•
Please advise if we can provide any further information relative to this issue. We arc
pleased to be able to assist the Authority with these issues.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
Pamela P. Kenel, P.E.
Project Manager
UN - 27.6 - 95 FRI 1 2 : 22 O W P — l_ EX I NGTOrr r
ATTACHMENT IV-2 4
l4�I. - ;
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
131 WALKER STREET
pONALD I�. STERN. M.O.. MP.H. Office of Water Programs LEXINGTON. VIROINIA 244�7t31i
Acting Stets Holm CommlS�gnor p}{ONE (7031 63
2431
Engineering Field Office FAX (703) a°' 2 '
Environmental i
June 23, 1995•
SUBJECT: Albemarle County
Water - North Rivanna WTP
Mr. Eugene K. Potter, P.E.
Acting Executive Director
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
P.Q. Box 18 •
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-0018
Dear Mr. Potter:
response to your letter dated June 8, 1995 concerning continued
This is .in Pn supplemental releases to
recreational use of Chris Greene Lake
aFork Rivanna River.afYouretter also transmittedof the
augment low stream flow in the
safe yield analysis titled "Technical Memorandum for as prepared ebY Black & Veatch.
a
North Fork Rivanna Water System" dated May 1995,
anna WTP is currently permitted for a maximum design Capacity
apar at the ake ofn 1 .0
The North Riv of the North Fork Rivan a
MGD limited by the 1 Q30 safe yield currently permitted and operated, is capable of treating a
The WTP, as
location.maximum of 2.0 MGD limited by the 4.0 gpm\ft2 filtration rate. The technical
e
memorandum P an umprepared by Black & Veatch indicated that the reliable safeL yield
rof the
North Fork Rivanna River with supplemental releases f
u on assumed minimum flowby and drawdown
from 1 .9 MGD to 4.5 MGD depending P releases will allow the
pool elevation in Chris Greene Lake. As such, supplemental
North
Rivanna WTP to be operated at or near its treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD.
ene Lake
P sed upon the fact that there is no direct intake in-stream Chris
travelGre before reaching the
nd that any
suBpplemental
�,pplemental release will have nearly a mile o
G
•
P in take, this Department has no objection to the c ntinul re use
of Chris
This reeve
Lake for recreational purposes during the needed supp
n
to
will require an amendment to your current Waterorks)Op ratio a Permit
nd increase
cimum
the permitted design capacity. minim
The issues of w
r
ssed
w pool ool elevation within Chris Greene Lake should
beadidn eo the inpe order that
d
a now
a now safe yield of the river - lake system can be incorporated
-7 - 95 FRI I 1 2 : 2 -� O W P - LEX I NGT ON FO
N - _ 3 ATTACHMENT IVi 2
2 June 23, 1995
Mr. Eugene K. Pottet
SUBJECT: Albemarle County
Water - North Rivanna WTP
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
* 1' 013U1-----irr--,
James W. Moore, III, P.E.
District Engineer
JWM/bt cc Albemarle County Executive - Attn: Mr. Robert Tucker
Albemarle County Engineer's Office - Attn:- D v dS Hershman
McLeod
Albemarle County Health Department
VDH - Richmond Central
II
ATTACHMENT IV-2
4.
OCT 1 71995
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA0 01'1 Dc
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O.BOX 671
RAY D. PETHTEL CULPEPER,22701 DONALD R.ASKEW
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
COMMISSIONER
MEMORANDUM
•
•
•
TO: Ronald S. Reeler, Albemarle County
FROM: Wanda Moore, VDOT J� � " •
DATE: October 10, 1995
SUBJECT: North Fork Business Park, Albemarle County
VDOT has reviewed the proposed road improvements for North Fork
Business Park and offers the following:
Phase I: VDOT will agree to the development and
infrastructure improvements associated with access off of
Route 29 . Traffic will dictate that Road A be four-laned when
volumes reach approximately 8 , 000 ADT.
The Route 649/ Route 29 intersection is still a major concern.
It is not desirable for the operation of this intersection to
break down before improvements are made. When construction
does occur, the fair share cost of improvements to this
intersection offered by the applicant is acceptable.
VDOT is agreeable to allowing additional development beyond
this phase providing a traffic impact study is presented
demonstrating that the road network functions at acceptable
levels of service.
Phase 2 : VDOT strongly recommends that Phase 2 does not
proceed until Route 649 is widened and improvements to the
Route 649/ Route 29 intersection are complete.
As noted earlier, when traffic volumes reach 8 , 000 ADT on an
internal road, a four- lane facility is recommended. Based on
the submitted traffic impact study, it is anticipated that the
internal connection between Route 29 and Route 649 will
require a four-lane divided facility at the beginning of this
Phase.
ATTACHMENT IV-
Page 2
October 10, 1995
Phase 3: The submitted traffic impact study shows that an
additional southbound through lane on Route 29 will
accommodate future volumes resulting from North Fork
development. While this development alone does not warrant an
interchange, a grade separated intersection at Road A and
Route 29 will better serve the overall future transportation
network of the County and will be warranted as various sites
build-out. Now is the time for Albemarle County, VDOT,
and area developers to work cooperatively to provide for this
future need. A start will be for the County and VDOT to begin
including a grade separated intersection in all long- range
plans for this area and requesting right-of-way reservations
from affected developers.
Since the latest Traffic Impact Study submitted by Wilbur Smith and
Associates will serve as an overall guide for development and will
be referred to in subsequent reviews, VDOT may request additional
traffic studies if development proceeds significantly different
than planned (i.e. developing beyond Phase 1 or Phase 2 densities) .
As a final note, whenever possible, future plans for this
development should incorporate recommendations of the Route 29
Corridor Study.
cc: Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer
Bill Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer
Irma Von Kutzleben, Assistant Traffic Engineer
Bill Guiher, Transportation Planning Engineer
,yy} ATTACHMENT IV-27 A
4..
t•
std:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O.BOX 671
RAY D. PETHTEL CULPEPER,22701 DONALD R.ASKEW
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald Keeler, Albemarle County
FROM: Wanda Moore, VDOT
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: North Fork Business Park, Albemarle County
Follow- Up to October 10, 1995 Memorandum
In order to clarify my October 10, 1995 Memorandum, the
following is offered:
1. The "latest traffic study" mentioned in the last
paragraph of the memo refers to the June 7, 1995, revised
Traffic Impact Study- North Fork Business Park prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates. This document will serve as the
approved study.
2 . The developer is not responsible for constructing a grade
separated intersection. However, the North Fork development
will eventually generate enough traffic to warrant the
construction of a third southbound through lane on U. S. 29
from Road A's entrance to Route 649 . Consequently, the
developer will be responsible for the cost of this
improvement. The estimated cost of construction excluding
costs for design, utilities, and right-of-way is $2 , 025, 000.
(This figure is derived based on a distance of 1. 5 miles from
Road A to Route 649) . Please be advise that this is only a
preliminary estimate and is subject to change upon final
design. Also, it is understood that under the direction of
VDOT and the county, these funds may be applied to the
construction of an interchange.
I hope this information clears up any lingering issues
regarding this development. Should you have further questions,
please call.
cc: Angela Tucker
Bill Mills
Irma Von Kutzleben
TRANSPORTATION FOR TI IE 21ST CENTURY
ATTACHMENT IV
Traffic Impact Study
North Fork Business Park
Albemarle County, Virginia
Prepared for:
The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
Prepared by:
!//\\\
N1111111111111
t`\�%
it: \AS16\ - .:::,..,
PssOOEs
June 7, 1995
ATTACHMENT IV-29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
North Fork Business Park, owned by the University of Virginia Real
Esta en Foundation,he ort is
currently being planned in Albemarle County, Virginia. The property
is locatedst
quadrant of the Rt. 29/Rt. 649 intersection, between Rt. 606 and the Rt 29 corridor. North Fork
will consist of general office, light industrial, research and development, support commercial and
hotel land uses.
In working with Albemarle County and VDOT (Culpeper District), it was agreed that the year
2015 should be used for the full buildout year for purposes of this traffic analysis. To
determine
the impact of North Fork at full development on the adjacent roadway network,
Wilbur Associates performed this traffic impact study. The report includes recommended roadway
improvements necessary to accommodate the normal traffic growth in the area, as well as the
projected traffic that will be generated by District, he projected local background rth Fork at certin years of the htraffa was adevelonalyzed
pment.
At the request of the VDOT Culpeper
with the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway - Western Alignment.
Site and Planned Development Characteristics
It is anticipated that North Fork, at full development, will have three direct access locations-
at Rt. 29 to the east, Rt. 649 to the south and Rt. 606 to the west. The internal site circulation
is via three interconnected roads:
1. An extension of Quail Run from Rt. 606 to a "T" intersection;
2. Road A which runs from Rt. 29 to the extension of Quail Run; and
3. Road B which runs from the extension of Quail Run to Rt. 649.
At full development, North Fork will consist of 2,300,000 square feet of general office,
400,000 square feet of light-industrial and support
on the North Fork
rl consisting
Maste�Pla f o 0it 0�
square feet of support retail and a 250-room hotel
anticipated that at full development, North F vehicle
Study,tthe majority of this
y. Based
on population census data from the Charlottesville Transportation
traffic was distributed to the south theon Rt. on Rt.)606h 21r perclender of the site t from the northton IRt 29,
c was
distributed as follows: 1 percent fromnorth
5 percent from the east on Rt. 649 and 6 percent from the south on Rt. 606.
Based on the above distribution, the anticipated site traffic was derived to determine the
impact of North Fork on the existing roadway network at various phases of development: 2005,
2010 and 2015. It is assumed that the following features will be in place by 2005:
1. Rt. 649 is planned as a 4-lane facility, consistent with the County and areawide plans to
upgrade access between Charlottesville Airport and Rt. 29.
ATTACHMENT IV-30
2. Rt. 29 is planned as a 6-lane facility between Rt9 29 dfunctions the uas alvhigh qanna uality
ver,
consistent with ongoing regional plans to ensure
transportation corridor. Its intersection with Rt. 649 is assumed to have dual left-turn lanes
on all four approaches.
3. At the County's direction, it is assumed that the Meadowcreek Parkway (western
alignment) will not align with the North Fork entranceanc at Rt.ek 649.
The Vaure background
volumes on Rt. 649 do, however, reflect the
oped
4. Volumes are shown for a 21.7 acre parcel on Qthisitraffic is assumed to usel Run assumed to be eRtl 606 and
light industrial by 2005. Seventy-nine ofpercent network
the remaining 21% is assumed to use North °rk's from1ChrsaGreedne Lake to
29 to the north. Projected cut-through traffic bythe
since daily volumes will be less than 10 vehicles based upon data provided
County.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that:
1. Phase I development will occur along Road "A" and Quail Run; both "cul-de-sacs" with
no connection to each;
2. Phase II will include a roadway connection between
29 and "A"
and and Quail Run, thereby
permitting travel through the site between Routes
" to Route 649,
3. Phase III (and full development) will include the compa alcclon essoo any of Road Bhree entrances:
thereby permitting circulation throughout the site and
Routes 29, 649 and 606.
Local background traffic (annual average daily traffic volumes) and year 2015 with the
eadowcreek Parkway was obtained from the VDOT combined ulpeper District
t and
he Albemarle County aff c
MVDOT) anc
respectively. Site plus local background traffic were (provided by
demand. It should be noted that recently havedresudltedsn backgroundting traffic d traffic projections different
further refinement of traffic assumptions (December 14, 1994).
from the previously submitted traffic study
Recommended Roadwa Im rovements apparent that
To accommodate future background traffic and North Forth site traffic, it is mary of the
major access at several key locations is essential. The following at critical locations. Thesebare more fule is a lly explained
proposed buildout roadway improvements
in the report.
ii
ATTACHMENT IV-31
RECOMMENDED ROAD GEOMETRICS AT FULL BUILDOUT
•
W/MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY-Western Alignment
Intersection Required to Support Background (Figure 8) Required to Support Background & Site(Figure 8)
Rt. 649/Rt. 29 o 4-lane, Rt 649 0 4-lane, Rt. 649
o 6-lane, Rt 29 0 6-lane, Rt.29
o Dual left-turn, o Dual left-turn,
all approaches all approaches
o Channelized o Channelized
nght-turn, SB Rt.29 nght-tum, SB Rt. 29
& EB Rt. 649 & EB Rt 649
o Upgrade Signal o Upgrade Signal
o An upgraded intersection to accommodate full
site development in 2015.
Rt.649/Rd. B o Not Applicable o 4-lane, Rt.649
(Year 2015 Only) o Dual left-turn, SB Rd. B
o Channelized
nght-tum,WB Rt. 649
o Right-turn lane, SB Rd. B
o Left-turn lane, EB Rt. 649
o Add Signal
649/Rt 606 o Dual left-turn,WB Rt.649 o Dual left-turn,WB Rt. 649
o Single lane for left,through&right-turns, o Single lane for left, through&nght-tums,
EB Rt 649 EB RI 649
o Right-turn lane, NB Rt. 606 o Right-turn lane, NB Rt. 606
&WB Rt. 649 &WBRt. 649
o Add Signal o Add Signal
Quail Run/Rt. 606 o Single lane for through&right-turns, o Single lane for through&nght-turns,
NB Rt 606 NB Rt 606
o Single lane for throught& left-turns,- o Single lane for throught&left-turns,
SB Rt 606 SB Rt 606
o Right-turn lane,WB Quail Run
o Left-turn lane,WB Quail Run
Road A/Rt. 29 o Not Applicable o 2-lane NB Rt 29&3-lane SB Rt 29.
o Channelrzed •
nght-tum, SB Rt 29
o Dual left-turn, EB Rd.A
&NB RI 29
o Dual nght-turn, EB Rd.A
CHARL/ALB AIRPORT TEL No .804-974-7476 Sep 21.� A6440.4
Post-It•Fax Note 767t pate pa` tit► 1
To Intl
eth 11L1e c-tJJ From B p ,o
,ail Co./Dept. Co. L�
Phone f Phone
Fax Y Fax
AIRPORT
Charlottesville/Albemarle (Nit
VIA FACSIMILE
MEMORANDUM •
•
TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Albemarle County
Department of Planning & Community Development
FROM: Bryan O. Elliott, Executive Direct
DATE: September 21, 1995
•
RE: Route 649
Thank you for agreeing to meet tomorrow to review the proposed modifications to VDOTs
Industrial/Airport Access Road Fund Programs.
Steve McNeely will be in town for a meeting on an airport project and has agreed to brief us
on the proposed changes in both funding programs. As you know, these changes are slated to
be considered by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in October. Since Steve has
served on the VDOT task force studying these programs, I believe he can provide a great deal
of insight on the proposed changes and eligibility of Route 649. Please note that I have also
invited Bruce Stouffer of the University of Virginia Foundation (UVAF). Given the
proximity of the North Fork Research Park to 649, I believe UVAF would benefit from this
briefing as well.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to meet on this matter and we look forward to seeing
you tomorrow afternoon in your office between 3:30 and 3:45 pm.
DISTRIBUTION LIST:
Steve McNeely, Virginta Department of Aviation "
Bruce Stouffer, University of Virginia Foundation
• — 09-1 B-1995 139:021411 FRCMI S I U11tbk 1 DUE HSSUI.I H I Eb I ts 1bU49 72=1U35--' I'.U 1
t - ATTACHMENT IV-33
STONEBIQPGE
i
.
l; _
Fax '�t 'ov6r: Sheet i i 5
I
: :t
DATE , Sepitember 18, 1995 TIME: 8:27 AM •
TO: : Ronald S I Keeler, ACPD boy7 9 2 . 110 3S
FROf' ; Dean M. Cinkala PHONE: 301.913.96101
!; ' Stohebridge Associates, Inc. FAX: 301.913.9615
•
RE: North Fork
It : I
CC: ' •
Numblr of.p4ges including cover sheet:. 2
I
Message:: ;Please
see attached cost estimate of adding dual left;turn lanes on all appy-oaches
'i ' ' ;of the Rtes. 29 / 649 intersection. Please note this includes only designs and .
1 ' !construction costs and is a conceptual estimate which is subject to change given
' 'final engineering plans for said improvements.
I
t
i i
Post-It'"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Not pages ► d. ___,
I
To 1 /iltvi4 4�(rre_ F.oi�',..,r, Q f Y= 1 ex,
• Co. n U r l Co.Mkt,...)kt, C
Dept.•
Pbo N
II F�t�R�' (j��) /� I� Fax N /i1 ��
•
� ()1
It / 'J
: li ' .
•
l I
I. t I
THE INFO' RMATION•CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL AND
IS INTEI•ibED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED
II
. II
d'
M
I
TABLE I -
z
;;; W Preliminary Estimate:for Adding-Dual:L-eftTurns at all-Apprflaehes-of-the_Rtes.29-1-649-Intersection -
2
I
I
I .
ITEM # DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT ($1
Q LS. LS. LS. $5,600
r I Construction Surveying
4 1•" 2 Clearing &Grubbing ._ A.G. 0.4 $2,500 $1,400 -
•
i i— C.Y. 1,000 $5 $7,000
-, Q 3 Regular Excavation
4 A.sphalt Pavement (12' Lane) TONS 1,000 $30 $42,000
5 Asphalt Shoulder (3' Shoulder) TONS 400 $35 • $19,600 ,
6 Stone (Agg. Base Course) TONS 2.000 $10 $28.000
7 Drainage, Inlets, Culverts,U.D. LS. Li LS. $4,200LS. LS. $1,400
8 Incidentals, CG-7, GR, Etc. L.S.
9 SWM and Erosion &Sediment Control LS. LS. LS. $14,000
n
10 Roadside Development LS. LS. LS. $2.800 l I Maintenance of Traffic
LS. LS. LS. $7,000
? 12 Traffic Signal Modification LS. LS. LS. $70,000
13 Signs & Pavement Markings LS. LS. LS. $2.800
$205,800
n Subtosal
z $20,580
-.,-i 14 Mobilization at 10% of Total
15 Des. & Engineering at 15% of Total $30,870
V S I.950
4 TOTAL:16 Contingencies at 20% of Total $
$ 1.4TOTAL: -- -
8,700
Estimate prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. . Please note that this estimate is preliminary and subject to change given final design and engineering plans.
3
T — = ..___..- _ .. .— _--.. — — --
r+
I
-4
I
ATTACHMENT IV-35
STONEBIkJDGE
May 16, 1995
Ms. Wanda Moore
Transportation Planner
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 671
Culpeper, VA 22701
Dear Wanda:
Enclosed please find two sets of plans showing the schematic layouts of both a'Continuous Flow Intersection
(CFI) and Grade Separated Intersection (GSI) at the entrance to the proposed North Fork Business Park. We
commissioned Wilbur-Smith Associates to study these two alternatives to better understand both right of way
and construction cost implications of each option. As you know, Wilbur-Smith analyzed, in its traffic analysis
of the North Fork Business Park, traffic conditions with a CFI and also with a GSI.
The results of Wilbur-Smith's efforts to date are very clear. Namely, a CFI is a much more desirable alternative
to a GSI because it requires less right of way, is less costly from a construction cost perspective and provides
acceptable levels of service at buildout for the entrance to the North Fork Business Park. Specifically, as you
an see on the attached illustrations, a CFI requires approximately 3.5 acres of additional right of way while a
3SI would require 11.3 acres of right of way and a CFI costs approximately $1.1 million while a GSI would
cost over $2.0 million (not including right of way acquisition costs). We believe that these are very good
reasons to consider and ultimately accept a CFI for the entrance to the North Fork Business Park.
While we understand that the CFI has not been used by VDOT to date, it is a concept that is gaining wider and
wider acceptance. Specifically, as Tom Flynn of Wilbur-Smith noted in our phone conversation, CFI's are
being used in the Northeast in urban areas and are functioning effectively at similar intersections. Tom is
attempting to gather more information about existing CFI's and will forward it to you for VDOT's
consideration.
We thank you for your consideration of this option and would be pleased to discuss this in more detail with you
if you wish.
Best regards,
Dean M. Cinkala
Enclosures
-c: Ron Keeler / Tom Flynn (w/out encl.)
Juan Wade ✓ Steve Blaine (w/out encl.)
Tim Rose (w/out encl.) Bob McKee (w/out encl.)
STON E BRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
„J i - --1M__.7NF :- IA II SH%mil ..WIC.. . . -
VI
1. ASSUMES THAT V.D.O.T. WILL EVENTUALLY WIDEN RTE. 29 TO THE OUTSIDE RATHER THAN IN THE MEDIAN AND WILL
ZREQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO BUY THIS R.O.W. ALONG LENGTH OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
,,.... -::.— .•:.a.•kr,,:.,.�:,.;.,,„r T>:--:- �:�;.,
2 '2.?UTIClTIESLNOT:CONSIDEREp.II4.THIS`ESTIMA
.T '•;',-eft,)nL;-,x Pr... :
- ;::�...:.._?.t..r. .,. ;;r;:,—.--t-r l:
, .:. 3 "ESTIMATERE AS CO OR rSiSvG MMIT 'ONMMet ! S E
_-
Q
~Q ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST (AS COLORED)
$ 925,440
BRIDGE � = 40,000
WALLS _ 130,000
GRADING = 39,000
DRAINAGE = 225,650
PAVING � •
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC = 123,750_ 30,000
STRIPING-PERM. SIGNS = z3,00 ._ r r'
SIGNALS 95.760
INCIDENTALS (G.R., ER. CONT. SEED, ETC.) $
SUB-TOTAL =
1,669,600
20% CONT. = 333.920
TOTAL-ESTIMATED = $ 2,003,520
;'E`.••
APPROX. ADDITIONAL R.O.W. REQ'D - RTE. 29
RIGHT-OF WAY (OFF-SITE) = 7.3 ACRES
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ON-SITE) = 4.0 ACRES
TOTAL = 11.3 ACRES
NOTE: RIGHT-OF-WAY AREAS DO NOT REFLECT THE LOSS OF ACCESS OR
AREAS OF IMPAIRED ACCESS. THE CROSS OVER TO THESOUTH ON
RTE. 29 WILL BE IMPACTED.