HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Other 1995-12-19 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.
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.
Mr. Keeler summarized the status of the application: "Staff 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
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.
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."
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
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 wordsmitting 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 ar of 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
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.Imhoff 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 F c.
Protecting Thr Em iromnent Is Et'er'bod-'s Business IZ'm 19Arlach A7Vel9f-)2
11. /Q2 - -94-
EnElir
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
Summary
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
d with
this
proposal,
nearly 8,600
new households may be formed in the County. The Applicant'sc impact
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.
•
45 Horner Street, 13m 460, Warrenton, Viiginia 221S(i 70 -347-2334/Fa\ 149-0003
„ II r,_ ,t i r'I„,I„I�, -.,.III V'ninni,i 21_0(r),804-077.70i /Fav 07 -6 06
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-
, /ii i
-/9-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
rY�&.,y i..�
overall quality of life for our residents without placing, great 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
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.
2
/ J� �
/ J �
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.tmxmaix$aixx
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
I those not living here. After you deemed that the entire 525 acres would be zoned
etx PD-IP, we dedided that it was in our best intereste to work directly with
\ UVAF and began a series ofmeetiiig a year ago.1 They were very open to our comments
and have-met-air concerns with an Agreement Letter,These are some of the major points
,,We had asked: Tkhey have agreed to:
falThat the UVA Foundation Being a "faciliatator" to aid in resolving
flY be available to Lake Acres (l i any problems oe-‘)(I e va N"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 months, as the zoning plan showed no
access from the internal road network. UV,
9f has finally and kindly agreed to eliminate
that exception.
-4-iThat a 150 foot buffer will be The original zoning plan required only a
maintained along the entire (��50-foot buffer. Thi d lt'16.
extent of the western boundary /?-/".i leio 150-foot)with the additional provision
along Route 606. that no durable trees will be cut) and that
durable trees will be planted where there
are none at this time.
lie asked that Route 606 not be IUVAF has agreed notfto initiate paging of
---paved so that through traffic would #/ 606 with VDOT; thas agreed to cooperate
' not be encouraged. We also asked that with us in approaching VDOT about limiting
construction traffic and truck traffic truck teraffic on 606 and has mod. ied its
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 7,111 is testricting usage to General Office
606 be limited to those activities which Jot along the western boundary with the
would not detract from the rural atmos- exception of €ixtlxx c Lot B-7 which can b
phere and would not endanger wildlife, Flex/Industrial. As you know, they have
pollute the Rivanna, flood 606, or impact institutepd a Stormwater Management System
our well systems. and Design Guidelines for street lighting,
waste area screening, etc.which they assure
us will take care of most of our concerns.
.) We asked that Playing fields not be tlit. WWe have been assured that there will be `
no stadium lights installed in the park.
LQ LC:,"/�G I/i
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 is
to be nota4rized and will be recorded with the County. Wirt have just a couple of
additional words of caution: As you are, we are worried about the enormity of this
undertaking. We feelfwith the University Foundation 'guiding it, it is in good hands.
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 y ou 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 is 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 in
this development. It's so easy to do: a little change here; a slight variance there -
and pretty soon you have lost many of the protections for the environment and for
our residents. ftxtaakaxtax 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 'Eor sale signs -- all marked zoned
industrial. There will be an avalanche, we predict. You have your work cut out for
you - we'll be rooting for y'ou -- and looking over your shoulder, too./ i-7 ' h ,Y`-
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
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.
CHAR_L/ALB AIRPORT TEL No .804-974-7476 nin P ni
Post-,r Fax n ATTACHMENT T- 2
To
C.o./Dept.
Phone N
i
AIRPORT
Charlottesville/Albemarle
sudai
January 24, 1996
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Department of Planning&
Community 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 respectfully request
that Albemarle County apply to the Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT)for Airport
Access Road Funds to support the accelerated construction of improvements to 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
201 AnwAn I nnn n►,e.�..«ea.au., uw -,.,,,...
CHARL/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 Airport 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,
tileifeA
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
Jim Givens, VDOT
Steve McNeely, Virginia Department of Aviation
CHARL/ALB AIRPORT TEL No .804-974-7476 Jan 25 ,96 16 : 45 No .010 P .03
oir
•
COMMONWEALTH o f VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 (AST BROAD STRUT
OAVID A. GEHR RICHMOND,23219.1939
UWWSsd:IN(R (� JAMES S.GIVENS 7, 1995 aTA1t SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER
Mr. Steven R. McNeely
Virginia Department of Aviation
S702 Gulfstream Road
Sandston, Virginia 23150
Dear Steve;
After our meeting at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport I agreed to look into
past experience with the allocation of Airport Access funds and let you know how it
might apply to improving Route 649, As could be expected, there is nothing in writing
that provides any firm policy guidance regarding multiple allocations to the same project.
In two instances, Lonesome Pine and Tazewell, there have been two allocations to
the same access project. Lonesome Pine's allocations were seven years apart because of
environmental considerations that had to be addressed between the initial funding and the
road project's construction. 'lumen received its allocations two years apart. Both were
new airports with expensive road access requirements, and tat factor was probably
weighed heavily in the decision to "double-fund"the projects.
This office is amenable to the idea of allocating Airport Access funds to a single
Route 649 project in two consecutive years, but no more than that. The amount of access
funding could be S1,200,000 (S900,000 state and S300,000 local match) under the
proposed change in the cap. Right of way and utility costs would still have to be borne
by the county or from whatever other sources could be tapped. Likewise, the rest of the
construction cost would have to come from regular secondary funds or creative fund-
raising. If Airport Access funding is used, I would require that the regular secondary road
funding already in Albemarle.County's six-year plan remain in the plan until the project
is completed.
•
I will be glad to discuss this further with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
J es S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
ATTACHMENT T- 3
STONEB �IDGE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald S. Keeler, Albemarle County Planning Department
FROM: Dean M. Cinkala, Stonebridge Associates, Inc. �.
DATE: January 29, 1996
SUBJECT: North Fork Rezoning
cc: Tim Rose, UVAF
Ellen Miller, SAI
Enclosed please find eight (8) sets of Rezoning Applications and Appendices as you
requested for distribution to the Board of Supervisors. I have also included, for
your use, three (3) sets of full scale plans of the Zoning Application Plan and the
Stormwater Management and BMP's Plan (which is now attached to the Proffers).
As I indicated to you, we will forward you the final proffers once both you and
Greg Kamptner indicate that they are in an acceptable form.
You also asked that if I made any changes to the Zoning Application text that I
inform you of those changes. I have made only a few changes and they were
made to update the application as a result of modifications made during the
Planning Commission review of the Application. These changes include:
• Section IX, page 18, language has been added reflecting the proffer to
maintain a minimum of 200 acres of open space.
• Section IX, page 19, language has been added reflecting the proffer to
create and implement a preservation plan for the historic site.
• Section XI, removed SWM and BMP's Plan which is now attached to
proffers.
• Section XIII, page 26, language has been added reflecting the
commitment on water users greater than 125,000 gallons per day.
Please call me when you have a time for our worksession on February 7, 1996.
Also, if you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to
call.
STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC
480o Montgomery Lane Suite 875•Bethesda,Maryland 20814-5332
Telephone 301 913.9610 Fax 301 913 9615
STAFF REPORT FORMAT
The staff report is presented in four parts:
PART I provides introductory information found in other reports as well as brief description of
the Application Plan.
PART II contains a summary of the analysis together with Planning Commission
recommendations for modifications to zoning provisions as allowed under planned development
procedures.
PART III is a description of the zoning history of the property. This section also compares the
current PD-IP 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