Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200500003 Staff Report 2009-05-14COUNTY F ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale /Elalne Echols Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Fearing: May 19, 2009 Not yet scheduled Owners: Uriiversily of Virginia Foundation Applicant: University of Virginia Foundations, represented by Richard Carter Acreage; 30 acres to be rezoned to PDIP added Special Use Permit: to the 525 acre research park P 00 -001 - Parking Structure P00800062- Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical P200 000 w upporting Commercial Uses SP 200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns TMP: 32 Parcels 18, 18a Existing Zoning and By -right use: Location: North side of Airport Road (Route RA Rural Areas, agricultural, forestal, and fishery 649) approximately one third of a mile from the uses; residential density (4.5 unitlaere in intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North development Cots): PDIP researchAnduslrial park with up to 3 million square feet of building area permitted Conditions: Yes Magisterial District: Rio DA {Development Area }: Follyrnead Requested# of Dwelling Units, NA Proposal: Request to rezone approximately Comprehensive Plan Designation: 30.66 acres from RA to PDIP to be added to the Industrial Service UVA Research Park and allow are additional 700,000 square feet in the park, request to amend proffers associated with approved Research Park Character of Property: undeveloped, 1 920s Use of Surrounding Properties: undeveloped. house, fires station, research park residential, research park Factor Favorable: Factor Unfavorable, 1. Rezoning is consistent with the 1. The applicant has not provided for requested Industrial Service designation of the commitments to mitigate transportation impacts Land Use Plan. by building the Lewis & Clark Drive connection to . The proposal meets goals and Airport Road sooner than 980,000 square feet. objectives of the Economic Development 2. Clarifications concerning improvements to Policy plan. Route 29 have not been providing, including 3. The application plan provides for updated language an ROW acquisition, LOS additional interconnections into the standards, and clarification that correction of Research Park. vertical curvature of the roadway is required. 3. Flexibility in final building design may result in larger single -story buildings in Area D adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is unable to recommend approval because recommended commitments have not been provided to address transportation issues. STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale PLANNING COMMISSION- Maur 19, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not yet scheduled MA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK P 008 -0015- Parking Structure SP 008000 2- Laboaratories, medical or pharmaceutical SP 00800063- Supporting t ammercial lases SP200800064- Hotels, Motels, Inns Petition PROJECT: ZMA 2005 -003 UVA Research Park (North Fork) PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately 0. 56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0. unitlacre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), For 700,000 square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to he rezoned From PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and application plan associated with MA 1995 -04 PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY. Industrial Service- warehousing. light industry. heavy industry. research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6-01-34 unitslacre )- ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 49) approxlm tely one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Commu ni ty of Hollyrnead. TAX M PIPAR EL; Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 16a, and a portion of OA requested to be rezoned from FAA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32 -188, 19F, 19F1. 19C. 1 9H . 19H1, 191--12, I 9J. 2281 and 22132 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; Rio Characteristics of the Site & Surrounding Area The property proposed for rezoning consists of two parts, one is the 30-56 acres to be added to the park zoned FAA and the second is the remainder zoned PDIP. The Counter's Holl mead Fire Fescue Station (Building F) is located adjacent to In nova Lion Drive and the existing PDIP zoned portion of the Research Park. The Rural Area zoned properties proposed for rezoning contain an existing house that dates to 1925. The site is relatively flat, with a stream and some wetlands located along the northern and western boundaries. Surrounding the site to the west is an undeveloped property zoned Light Industrial and to the east is the established Airport Acres residential subdivision zoned R1. The United States Past Office Is locate across Airport Road to the south and is zoned LI, with properties to the east and west of the Post Office zoned FAA, (See Attachments A & B) Specifics of Proposal; The applicant is proposing to expand a approximately 30 acres to add an additional 700,000 more sclut approved would allow up to 3,700,000 building square feet total development on both a portion of the existing HD -1P zoned lane 1 #� The bald black line on the inset to the right shows the zoning lir~ 'E and on right PDIP. (Referred tc as Area D on Application Plan-) ,, + 1 Y •tjrt ' Y +- r i i i Y; Y• Y � i ter, �' ,:► M The appearance illustrated on the Overall Concept Plan is one Research Park owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. ,.4.4,,_, i - � and shown as Buildings A-M on the Concept Flan and are referred to as the Gateway District on Exhibit B_ Buildings A and B are oriented towards Airport Road, Buildings -1` are organized around preserved wetlands and referred to as the Wetland District (Exhibit ), and Buildings I -M and a parking garage are shown as the Research & Development District organized around a central gre nlamenity area. While the Concept Plan implies multi -story buildings and buil'ding footprints, the applicant would like only to be bound by the General Plan which would provide flexibility in final building location, scale, and massing. So it is possible under the General Plan for larger buildings, possibly one story, to locate within the areas shown on the General Plan for bUildin s. (See insets below) r'.L. - ; � �� dM1Ytl r�1 ' V� l FW ."6="- 0 IE -,Wbit A- I - Geneni PlAn Background: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a rezoning for the North Fork Research Park on 525 adjacent acres in 1 990. ( MA 1994-05) In addition to the PD -IP approved uses, three special use permits were granted for laboratories, supporting commercial uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A copy of the proffers is included within Attachment A. In 1998, the Board approved are amendment ( MA 98-27) to the district to allow setbacks to be ten feet from the internal streets within the development. ZMA 2005-002 for the amendments related to the fire station rezoning was approved February 2006. The fire station and a total of eight buildings have been constructed to -date in the UVA Research Park, with building sizes ranging from 25,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet in size for a total completed development square footage of 491,000 square feet total. Work session January 1, 2006: A work session was held in January 2006 for the Commission to review the overall design and layout of the proposed park design submitted with ZMA 2005.003.The Commission was asked to provide guidance to both the staff and applicant on changes, if any, needed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model. Staff questions and Commission discussion are summarized below and how the applicant has addressed these matters since the work session are noted below and throughout the staff analysis in this report. The work session staff report and Commission minutes are provided as Attachment C. Should the statement below from the Land Use Plan result In a prohibition of expansion of the UVA Research Park? Develop all industrraf oMce areas in a h ighly sensitive manner that clusters develeproerit in s odable areas and protects env ronmental fealures through the provision of open space. For Me area now referred to as the North Fork Roseerch Park, lirnif development to 525 acres. Totaf buildabfe area shall not e ceed 3,000, 000 square reef_ Development of the entire industrial area shalf be pursuant to ari ovenall planned development order appropriate plarined development zoaing. The Cam mission did not find that this statement precludes additional adjacent areas from being rezoned consistent with the Industrial Service land use designation, Is the design appropriate or should it be n?odifred to be mare h7 conforBiity with the Neighborhood Model? The Commission discussed whether the additional area to he rezoned should be more consistent with the existing Research Park or Neighborhood Model Principles, Some commissioners recommended that parking should be further relegated or structured parking provided_ Overall, the Commission did rkot have major issues or direction For oranges an layout and design elements of the proposal_ U.. pdate. The revised proposal provides for a parking garage and changes have been made to 1:he iayout to further relegate parking, parking will be relegated as show on the General Plan. Is pedestrian access appropriate? Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both sides of Lewis aad Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side? The Commission recommended a sidewalk be provided on one side of Lewis & Oaf k Drive. Are asphalt path on the other side was viewed as appropriate. Update= Proposed street sections for Area D provide for a sidewalk on the west side of Lewis & Clark (Innovation) Drive. Should streets (either public or private) rather than commercial drives with parking lots be used to. help establish a better- design and traffic circulation within the site? The Cc mmission did nol directly answer this guest ion but recommended that in tefcannectiorls to adjoining properties be provided as public streets. Update. interconnections have been provided and are intended to be public roads- Should an interconnection for interconnections) be made to the property to the west? The Commission recommended that an interconnec #ion be provided. Update: An interconnection to the property to the west has been provided. Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 plan be retained or should buildings front Airport Road The Commission had no issues with the proposal for buildings within previously approved open space, provided that the buffer to the east was maintained, Update. The proposed plan maintains the buffer to the east and buildings fronting Airport Road. The General Plan maintains a building envelope adjacent to Airport load with parking relegated behind it. Should centers be created within the park? Should a center be establr'shed along Airport Road? The Commission concluded that the focal points provided in the applicants concept provided for adequate "mini- centers" within this new proposed section of the Research Park, The Commission also discussed the town center proposed within the approved park and encouraged mixing of supporting commercial uses its the "mini - centers" to further strengthen them as focal points. Update: The focal points have been maintained in the applicant's revised proposal. Has the appfi ant appropriat lyr provided for buildings and spaces of hum an scale? There was some concern expressed by some commissioners and it was suggested that one way to rrItigate the scale and massing issue was with landscaping. U c: Rather than make commitments to scale and massing, the applicant wishes to rely on the Design Code established For the Research Park, which already governs the rest of the Research Park_ Given the unique mission of the Research Dark and public/private partnerships with research functions of the University, flexibility of building size and scale is needed- Should greater detail and commitments be provided for commercial Rises or are the general special use permit requests sufficient The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide for mixed use but did not consider the issue a major concern to be addressed. The Commission suggested mixed commercial uses would be appropriate around the focal points of the development such as firsk floor retail. Some Commissioner's also suggested the addition of residential units on the upper floors of buildings, Update: A special use permit to allow supporting commercial uses is part of this rezoning. Other chancres to the plan: Since the January 2006 work session, the rezoning was deferred for some time and the applicant submitted reprised plans, an updated Traffic Impact Analysis, and environmental features information in 2008. Staff reviewed and provided comment on these submittals, resulting in the Application Plan that is brought before the Commission for public hearing at this time. The applicant has made changes to respond to comments from Commission's January 2006 work session as noted above and to provide for preservation of environmental Features along the western property line. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The properties are located in the Community of Hollymead and designated Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan, which includes the following recommendations, Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing, light industry, research. heavy industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Se rvIce. • Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use. ■ Residential uses may be appropfiate in the Industrial Service designation if such uses are compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service uses. ■ Care should be taken to insure that the impacts of the Industrial Service uses, including traffic, noise, odors. and vibrations will not affect residential uses. Where residential uses are provided, both vehicular and IRP T pedestrian interconnections are expected to nearby + industrial areas- ACRE Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size EE W (+ 5 acres), art erial road accessibility, crater and /or sewer avail a bill ity. compatibility with adjacent uses_ ■ Flail access may be necessary. Areas for less - intensive industrial uses may act as transitional areas between commercial and industrial areas. The proposed rezoning is consistent with these recommendations for Industrial Service properties. The mix of uses proposed includes Flexllndustrial, Light Industrial, laboratories and office as the primary uses proposed within the park. Supporting commercial and hotel /conference uses are proposed as seconder} uses within the park. No residentiai uses are proposed or permitted in the PDIP zoning district, A buffer is proposed and will be maintained along the eastern property line to mitigate impacts to Airport Acres. No pedestrian interconnections are provided between the Research Park and Airport Acres, since Airport Acres was an established subdivision prior to development of the Research Parts with residential lots adjoining the research park and no common areas of open space that might enable such connections. Recommendations from Land Use Plan for the Community of Holly mead that apply to this rezoning: Develop all industrialloffice 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 arch Park. limit development to 525 acres, Total buildable area shalt not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning. Placement of this statement in the Plan predated the rezoning of the Research Park_ The language was included to stipulate the expected development of the land that at that time that would be subject to original Research Pafk rezoning. It was not intended to preclude additional area from being rezoned to an industrial designation, since the Land Use Plan designates more land than were subject to the Research Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current request for expansion of the Research Park is in this additional area of the Comprehensive Plan designated Industrial Service. The proposed plan provides for preservation of important environmental features along the northwestern property boundary_ This was discussed at the Commission's January 2000 and the conclusion was that this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan_ Principles of the Neighborhood Model Staff has analyzed the revised overall design and layout of the park for conformity with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment. Pedestrian A Pedestrian Circulation Plan (Exhibit P) and Streetscape & Sidewalk Orientation Sections {Exhjbit ) have been provided by the applicant. The Pedestrian Circulation Plan shows a hierarchy of primary and secondary pedestrian connections. All pedestrian connections will be concrete sidewalks with the exception of the nature trail around the preserved wetlands and along Lewis and Clark Drive. The design of Lewis and Clark Drive was established Frith the prior rezoning. It is an urban section with 4 lames separated by a median with trees. It has been approved for a six -foot asphalt path on the west side of the street_ As discussed in the Commission's work session, the Commission and staff support having pedestrian access along only one side of Innovation/Le is and Clark Drive for Area D because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive abuts a 50 foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential. (Defer to Section B: Lens & Clark Drive) There are existing sidewalks along Airport Road at the front of the property and "Gateway District ". Staff believes this principle has been met_ treetscape and sidewalk sections have been provided on Exhibit G. Neighborhood Planting strips are proposed on all road sections between the sidewalk and Friendly Streets roadway. At the time site plans are submitted, more area than shown may and Paths need to be provided to accommodate planting strips. Paralkel parking can also he provided in some sections of the internal road serving the park. Staff believes this principle has been Piet. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks The proposed plan provides for an interconnection to the west to the Industrial zoned property owned by oldleaf Trust, this is shown on Exhibit as a Connection to Adjacent Property, Goldleaf Trust has a platted interconnection approved December 2006 that would interconnect the Research Parr property to the north and impact environmental resources at the location proposed with the Goldleaf Trust plat. There are no site development plans under review or approved for development of that property. At the time the property does come in with development plans. the County will request that the interconnection now be provided for in the location shown on the Research Parr plans. In the portion of the parr already zoned, proffers have been amended to ..provide for are inter arcel connection to Northside Drive from the cul -de -sac Parks and Open Space Neighborhood Centers Buildings and Spaces of Huffman Scale street adjacent to Areas 8 -11 and B -10, depicted on Exhibit K. Lewis and Clark Drive is intended to provide an interconnectionfparailei road to from Route 29 to Airport Road. Based on the original research park rezoning, it is not required to connect until Phase II of building within the park. Staff and VD OT have recommended that the connection be provided sooner.This issue is discussed in more detail lamer in this report. Clue to the outstanding issue related to phasing of the Lewis & Clark Drive interconnection between Airport Road and Route 29, staff finds that this principle has not been met_ Natural Features and Wetland Overlay are shown on Exhibit H. The original rezoning for the Research Park provided open space at the entrance to this developrnen# as well as along several strearn and sloped areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive from its intersection with Airport Road. There was no Commission concern at the work session with the open space along Airport Road converted to building area as the buildings are shown to establish a face to Airport Road. The buffer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The new proposal removes the open space at the entrance tc the development and replaces It with buildings. Open space continues to be shown surrounding a wetland area and another open space area is provided at the rear of the development near a stream and stormwater facility- The proposal provides for two amenity areas including the preserved wetlands area adjacent to the Hollymead Fire Station and the Village Greer? proposed Staff believes this princVie is met_ The previously approved Research Park identifies a town center In the middle of the development. The buildings proposed in the new section relate somewhat to the town center, although the walking distance for the closest buildings is approximately a half -mile away. The applicant has said that "the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the establishment of "centers ". or gathering spots to support the Parr and adjoining neighborhoods and uses." The proposal for Area D of the Research parr is organized around open space focal points internally, with the preserved wetlands area in the "Wetlands District" and the open space green area in the "Research & Development District ". Staff believes this principle has been met. based on the Commission's evaluation at their work session. _ The buildings appear to be similar to buildings at the Fontaine Research Park in scale and architecture as represented on the Concept Plan - (Fontaine is about a 54 acre research parr.) The applicant is proposing to apply to the new acreage a design code prepared for the existing Research Park. However, the applicant wishes to preserve opportunities for building height, scale, and massing that would suit a variety of uses, as shown on the General Plan. Relegated Parking Mixture of Uses Front setbacks on the Overall Concept Plan appear to be at 12 feet, side setbacks are proposed at 15 feet on the application plan, and building heights are limited to 4 stories. Light Industrial buildings are permitted as one or two story buildings within the building envelopes shown on the General Plan- The applicant is requesting a modification to the setbacks of Section 26,6 to allow reduced building setbacks along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive, from 50 feet to 10 Feet. Places where setbacks are most important in the proposed project are along Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. The rest of the setbacks would relate to internal driveways and parking lots. Parking lots have also been broken up into this layout and are organized, along with the buildings, around the proposed focal points within the development so there is more of a human scale created. There was no clear direction or concern from the Commission at their work session regarding this principle, The Overall Concept Plan reflects a more human scale than the General Plan and staff does not believe this principle has been adequately met. Generally, parking is relegated from Airport Road and fronn Lewis larklInnovation Drive. The application plan was revised sine the Commission's work session to relegate additional parking lots and to provide for some parking in a parking garage. Parking lots that are adjacent to Innovation Drive (Lewis & Clark Drive) are screened or located behind the front setback of buildin s. _ The proposed rezoning is for PDIP zoning within an area designated Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan. Expectations for mixed use in these areas are that commercial uses are recommended as secondary uses and that these areas would primarily provide for industrial service uses. The applicant has provided allowance for commercial uses as is currently allowed in the existing parr. The applicant is requesting supporting commercial uses not to exceed % of total floor area and commercial uses not to exceed more than 1 010 of floor area at any time during phased development- Since the total square Footage in the park will increase if this rezoning is approved, the total supporting commercial will also be increased within the entire Research Park. The condition of approval with the previously approved SP for supporting commercial permits up to % of total floor area within the Park and up to 10% of total floor area at any time during phased development- Staff finds that this principle is met, Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability Redevelopment Site Planning that Respects Terrain Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by -right or by special use in the PD -IP district, This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of undeveloped land: however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for the presence of historic architectural andlor archaeological resources, County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family dwelling. The applicant has been requested to document the buildings on TMP 32-18 prior to demolition, which is_povided for in the roffer . The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of :1 regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shown to be impacted, in general, the proposed development respects the terrain. Based on the information provided on Exlhiblt I Grading & Utility Plan , there is a retaining wall shown around the perimeter of the parking near Building K. While retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tail and expansive. The applicant has provided a note on the application plan sheet that no individual retaining wall shall exceed 6 feet in height and if additional height is necessary, it must be terraced with each wall not to exceed 6 feet, unless a modification is granted by the Director of Planning, This principle has been met. This principle is not applicable as the property does not adjoin the mural Areas. Economic Development Polic�r The County's Economic Development Policy is a part of the Comprehensive Plan and was recently updated in March 2009, referred to herein as "the Plan." The Plan recognizes the importance of economic growth and vitality to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of the community, by creating a diversified economy, jobs, and workforce development opportunities_ The Plan recognizes the University of Virginia and its associated entities as a main economic driver of econowic vitality that can provide important resources for business and industry. The Plan recommends the County work with the University and associated entities to take advantage of opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. Supporting further development of the University's research park is clearly consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Economic Development Policy. The University's Research Park's mission is to encourage relationships with the private sector and the transfer of technology and expertise from research to the business environment. The Park is designed to support companies in a variety of businesses, from research and development, to light manufacturing and knowledge-based commerce_ The proposal also rneets the Economic Development Policy strategy of "Increasing diversity in business and industry which will accommodate a variety of skillieducational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners. " The Research arch Park's current list of tenants is reaching 20 and is attached for information (Attachment F); there are approximately 1, 390 employees now associated with existing operations within the Research Park. Draft Places 29 Master Plan Although not yet adopted by the County, the recommendations from the draft Plac s 9 luster Plan are included for information- The County's recommendations appear in three different areas in [he draft Plan. The fiat is on the Future Land Use Map and the text describing the expectations for the Uptown and the UVA Research Park. The second is in the Land Use Tables. The last area is reflected in the Transportation Networks. The Future Land Use Map shows the area as Urban Mixed Use (in the Uptown area), Office R&D/Flex, and Semi- Public Open pacelFloodplain /Stream Buffers over the remainder of the area owned by the University of Virginia Foundation. The plan anticipates that the University of Virginia Research Parke will continue to develop as a major employment center. The Places 29 plan offers the opportunity for the University of Virginia Research Park to include a more integrated amount of residential and commercial uses. Land uses in the Research Park shown an the Future Land Use Map were intended to be consistent with the University of Virginia Foundation's long -term, conceplLIal site plan- Eventually. enhanced transil service to the area will be available, once [he necessary ridership levels in the larger Hollymead area have been reached- The draft Places 29 Future Land Use Map and land use designations are below. 4lt+b+JEV merle AJrPort Urban Mixed Ilse. This designation its used both inside and outside of the Centers- In Centers and in the Uptown, it includes a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial, and office uses, atong with some institutional and opera space uses- The types of retail and services, as well as dwelling unit types, vary depending upon the type of Center and the land uses in the area around the Center (see Land Use Table LU1 ): Primary uses. cammrinity and regional retail, commercial service, office, and other ernployment generators, with a mix of residential types. At least two different types of dwelling units are recommender. a onclaq uses; office /R&Dlflex (where appropriate), with open space and institutional uses that are essenlial to place- making within Centers. Imo' NORTH Offi eiRe ear h Development (R & D) }Flex. - +v�rm"rt�r.Yw «.711 iti �.iY. 4+c�� •`"'^*M=M�*b :- a This designation allows a range of employment i w F" ■ �.�.1u.r......r,w 0 IW� `��� generating uses and is applied to (lie majority of _,. the nonret2ail employment areas within the Places9 area to create Employment Neighborhoods. The designation is used in the areas around Centers (see Land Use Table LU ). Primary uses= office and officelresearch & development (F D)Jflex. Secondary uses; retail, commercial, and light manufacturing uses that are associated with [he primary uses in the area, and opera space and institutional uses The area shown on the proposed application plan is mostly designated as Urban Mixed Usel Uptown. Development of the full Uptown as envisioned will tame many years. It will likely evolve over time. lal1, RemrI Pap: 10 beginning as a smaller Center and intensifying as the market supports. Only one Uptown is recommended in the Northern Development Areas. The Uptown will provide an urban experience that is similar to Downtown Charlottesville; an environment that is more compact, pedestrian - friendly, and features active public spaces. The Uptown will complement the economic and employment opportunities generated by the nearby Charlottesville - Albemarle Airport and the University cf Virginian Research Park. Care has been taken in locating the Uptown and in defining its allowed uses and physical characteristics, so that it can thrive and become the urban heart of the Northern Development Areas. Found on page 4 -15 of the Draft Plan. the Uptown area is described as a potential destination with " a broad mix of commercial, residential, and employment uses. The Uptown is expected to be a vibrant new urban center similar to a traditional downtown and intended to serve the needs of marry people in a relatively small area,. -The portion of the Uptown owned by the University of Virg nla Foundation is intended to serve as an employment area that includes partions of the Research Parr, while the other portion of the Uptown is anchorad by restaurant and entertainment u es.....The ability to walk to urban services and entertainment from the earnpus -lire setting of the Research Park should make it are even more attractive location for knowledge -based businesses." The Uptown is expected to have retail commercial uses as primary uses and Office R & D as secondary uses. Staff had thought this designation was consistent with the original submittal of the rezoning where the layout of buildings appeared to be similar to the Fontaine Research Parr. As the rezoning for the (North Fork) Research Park has been further fleshed out, it is clear that the designation in Places 219 and the desires of the University Foundation are not totally in sync. The Foundation believes that the uses proposed for the turban Mixed Use area shown on the plan are not bread enough to cover their potential light industrial uses in that area. It appears the Foundation would prefer to have Office/ Office R&D Flex shown in this area. Recent discussions with the University of Virginia Foundation staff have also indicated differences between the proposed rezoning and the Land Use Designation Tables from Chapter 4 of Places 2g. The Land Use Tables indicate the recommended uses within centers and recommended uses around centers, A single building footprint is recommended at no greater than 20,000 square fleet for ffice /Fi DlFlex in the Uptown shown on Table LU1. On Table LU2 Land Use Designations in the Areas around Centers, the recommendation for light manufacturing /storage and distribution is no greater than 20% of the full development with a maximurn single building footprint of no greater than 20,000 square feet and a maximum single business size of 40,000 square feet. These restrictions are not proposed by the Foundation nor desired by the Foundation. The University Foundation has indicated it wants to be able to respond more easily to potential partners in research, which may not need or grant multi -story buildings lire the Fontaine Feearch Parr. While staff agrees with the need for flexibility in providing for buildings that support employment opportunities and the research function of the University, staff notes that the Neighborhood Model. would suggest multi -story buildings rather than large footprint single story buildings. From a design standpoint, the Commission should consider whether the area under review for rezoning shOLIld reflect more of the Neighborhood Model in terms of design or more of a traditional industrial park. decision on the desired design aspects will inform the Places 20 Plan in terms of building heights and massing. At a minirnum, staff would like to see a commitment to provide multi -story buildings along the Airport Road portion of the Research Park and at the corner of Innovation Drive. Such a commitment would be more in beeping with expectations for Entrance Corridors. The transportation component of the rezoning application more closely resembles the draft Places29 Transportation Network than the land use element. With one exception, the proposed road layout and proffers for a future connection to Northside Drive incorporate the roads indicated can the Transportation Network Map found in Chapter on page 4-23. The road shown in green is shown as a desired interconnection: however, if provided, it would be built through environmentally sensitive areas shown for preservation on the rezoning plan. The Function of the road in green, though, is preserved with the provision of an interconnection to the west through arson Rd. E�lur� Rwd*�ry Qgl�u7�{p�Qwaryi+#aswgiL the portion of land being added to the parr (See Page 6 for Interconnections discussion.) Staff notes that the Places29 Master Plan is still in review and that the tong term vision for the area may need further work. Staff suggests that the full discussion of the vision for the University Research Park take place during review of Places2g Flan. Staff notes that conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, as is currently exists including the Neighborhood Model is the standard to which the applicant should be held in this rezoningr unless the rezoning follows adoption of the Places 29 Master flan. "�°I"°I" Ire summary. the proposed rezoning is FIV." ophrw Rd" r+, wAaap�F generally in keeping with the __. FbSPAtW , ,o,,, ,,, ,.,r transportation element of the draft Places 29 flan. The proposed rezoning D is not totally in keeping with the Places 9 Future Land Use Map and associated recommendations in the text and 'fables of the Plan_ These issues will be important in the Places 29 discussions to take place in upcoming worksessions of the Commission. STAFF COMMENT ela#ronship between the app frcation and the purpose anal intent of the re ques red zoning district The applicant is requesting PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park zoning_ The intent of the PDIP district as described in the Zoning Ordinance states that the district is in #ended to: Permit a variety of industrial uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto, which are compatible with and do not detract either from each other or from surrou nding districts. It is intended than PD- IP districts may be established in areas in conformity with the comprehensive plan and having all of the following characteristics; Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such Facilities are reasonably available Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary read improved to standards approved by the county; and Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability For intended uses with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to surrounding l It 19 '09 development. Ire the establishment of any PD -IP district, the board of supervisors shall designate the category of uses which shall be permitted in each parcel, or part thereof, which is the subject of the application for such amendment. The proposed PDIP application is consistent with the PDIP District as it is providing for a variety of uses including general office, flex /industrial, light industrial, laboratories including research and development, and some supporting commercial and hotel uses. The site is served by public water and sewer and primary road access with Route 29 and Airport Toad. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources Envlronniental- Exhibit H of the Application Plan depicts natural features and wetland overlay, with preservation and conservation areas of the site shown. Staff and County Engineer have evaluated the proposed resources and f'rnpacts to them with this proposed development, including a wetlands delireation study. There are linear wetlands at the western boundary and middle of the parcel associated with a perennial stream, and 0° stream buffer requirements apply, The proposed plan disturbs approximately 0. 16 acre of palustrine (forested) wetlands to allow construction of Building J and parking lot improvements. (Attachment D - Exhibit H) All wetland impacts must be authorized by federal and state regulatory agencies, and ideally the proposed development would preserve these natural features. Assuming that federal and state agency approval were obtained. the Natural Resources Planner and County Engineer have found that impacting this area of wetlands could be reasonable if the wetland system to the sou thwest, along the southern property boundary were preserved the applicant has provided for a 100' stream buffer and preservation of these wetlands with their current application plan. Cultural/Historic Resources- As mentioned previously, the applicant will survey the existing buiiding an the property and provide documentation prior to demolition_ At this time the building does not appear have significant historic value. Entrance Corridor- Airport Road is an Entrance Corridor and subject to ARB review. The Design Planner has commented that it appears that the site layout as illustrated in the concept ,clan could meet Entrance Corridor guidelines. There is insufficient information available at this time to determine if the building design meets the guidelines. Building information is typically provided at the time of site plan review. Anticipated impact on public facilities acrd s ervroe Streets — Currently. there are two entrances to the existing Research Park_ The main entrance (Lewis & Clark Drive) is located on Route 20 and the back entrance to the park from Dickerson Road- Innovation~ Drive has been constructed frorn Airport Road to serve the Hollymead Fire Station and the proposed developed of the area under consideration for rezoning to incorporate into the Research Park. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the initial request for this rezoning in February 2005. It was reprised in March 31, 2008 and again to address County and VDDT comments_ Information from this TIA is provided as Attachment E. The TIA analyzed impacts of the adding 700,000 square feet to the Research Park, beyond the 3,000,000 square feet already approved. The analysis assumed all proffered roadway improvements that were identified in the proffers approved with ZMA 1994 -005 would be in place_ This included the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road, with the TIA anticipating that a significant portion of the traffic generated by the Research Parr site would use this connector road and thereby reduce impact to Route 29. The provision of phasing for road improvements is shown on the tables below. The original proffers also specified that two -ianes of Lewis & Clark from Route 29 to Route 649 through the Park shall be provided within sic months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building constructed beyond 980,000 square feet. (Proffer 5.4 (b)1) The proffers as they exist WOUld allow the Research Park to potentially build -out almost 500,000 square feet of additional development in Area D and continue to develop other areas of the Research Parts that are served by Lewis & Clark before making the interconnection. tM TItKI■[TION 2IptFI8T ■411 JIT9 A 1. 11 PM! kMJ% Q #) r T !'LWIi LAMM CY-j 411 �- D%T* IPA= WM IPARC # ! lip q -rN'X "12P'.W11141AN" fvf Inalp'A'VA 1114%25 I MAPVK3n,'WALVIr xw -alO MW CI a 14F V K - mw &7A CrMn7J1a77TyarMMWw^wcCP -w Le'�A *. PW rufAL LE" MK 4 LAF1M *d tAQF Wc,MON VT I& M Id! P 04 th%#tt. %n N ftkVParP4 %A& A 1 Ma M r •F .W k" Y VamuVENNUM Rd+1h 1W rv0VV*#r%FTa a 1 7 LoM f OLit7KA - OAO +71M1 1S A 7QjkA MM L 1M4117E7-1 R�hACk'A' 4�i LAR�.�r llyirty i•iC'YSOM 1}4! #A1 slit) -iTi i # Yj1,1j MFV1WD1Cr..Kj 1u" LA" ON XURa W Lva 01LIL 80 4 7U(IgM;-- KW F114R"XJddtAJ,14 QPL 1010'x' a i jVtf Not- VtiRNl„Aj&C to &mreaMrcmn -it, *. 1 L*aTjCP,'Imni Sf- TUnkLk%t ONLL or ots"If.UAbw tutu- 041A0%Lh %[h11P 4Ls V 1### bmw -.V TOIL K wk C4r 4 A 4 LU6M 1 x L=t is 46 ti K IRM 1 L ftJ%LR U 14ft"It -0 14)g 1h'kM( tN IF' AN iO THE 71~*.y A 0"APCMW1 It1S MN M 1 F 11 1900.I r U4r-IM IYlMa°W +.= SUMMD W C7 041 kk # 1+ pprU lM ALAA s1 A to 36 1. --+4 PHASE I Land t_sc N-fxx Cumulative Build -ont Max Build -taut to VY. accessed hy Bond A (all uses). Supp -m commercial to 85,000 635,000 Max Build -out to accessed by Kt. 606 (all uses )to: (general Office to 120,000 upport .1]11 me -rcial to 25.000 345,000 NI., rotaI 130141 -nut, Phasc I (ail uses 11311,11110 PHASE It LarW t.se Max Cumulative Build -out Gmer -11 Olrpv : Support {'r1mm =ial 1,1168,000 _ 1 l ()'mi] I �3{1*IHlll Hoicl: lriax'L'utui Utti Id- out, Phaii e 111(a11 uses 1,368,000 PHAF, 111 Ltind Uses Nlax Cumulative Build -out (imurul Ot'ticc- 1,400,001) Support Commercial: I U,WO Hotel: 1 9I1.{ X) N11IN Total fi111ld- 11111. Phase 111 (all uses) 3,700,000 (3) At the tlrne ZMA 1994 -005 was approved, the Cornprehensi ve Plan did not include text or show on the Land Use Map a parallel road system along Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated since that rezoning to provide for the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive from Route 29 to Airport Road_ Feonings have been approved to the east of the Research Park (North Pointe and south that align with Lewis &, Clark Drive, to provide for an interconnecting parallel and perpendicular road system. NGIC has also been developed and expanded since the rezoning for the Research Park was approved and has created more of an opportunity to provide for local traffic needs between N I /North PointeIUVA Research Park/Hollymead on are interconnected road System alternative to Route 29. VDOT has also approved an Access Management Strategy in conjunction with the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Studer that shows the connection of Lewis Clary Drive to Airport road_ Achieving the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive through the Research Park is now a higher priority than it was at the time of the 1995 rezoning. Staff believes the interconnection Should be provided for sooner in the phasing of road improvements. VD OT comments are provided as Attachment G and recomrnend that development should be restricted from developing until the internal connection of Lewis & Clark to Innovation Drive through the park is made. Although the TIA did not address the timing of the completion of the Lewis & Clark to Airport goad connection, staff believes that at a minimum, the road should be provided a s a -Lane I , I',5 .'1rtl4 hw' L?f *'115. +j1 {7 ~11)14 fLr ino I' -.jgc 14 Section prior to construction of more than 180,000 square feet in building area. This i approximately the amount of building area that could be achieved on the already PDIP zoned portion of Area D included with this rezoning- Other proffer changes were recommended to clarify proffer requirements with regard to Route 29 improvements. The 1 994 proffers do not specify that corrections to the vertical curvature of route 29 are necessary to make the required road improvements. Proffers recently approved with re zonings that require road improvements to Route 29 have specified that the correction of the vertical curvature is part of those improvements. Also, it was recommended that the Level of Service (LOB) language in the proffers be updated to specify that a LOS D for all turning movements at intersections is the standard when the applicant provides required traffic studies per the proffers. Schools - There are no residential uses proposed with this project and no impacts to schools anticipated - Firer Fescue, Police- The proposed rezoning will incorporate the Hollyrnead Fire Station (Station 12), application plan and proffers approved with ZMA 2005 -002. The 16,257 square feat fire station has been constructed (shown on the inset below), and is occupiedl in operation, providing fire protection and primary emergency medical response services to Hollyrnead and surrounding Area - The property is leased from the UVA Foundation, It is depicted as Building F on the application plans and depicted on the inset to the right. Albemarle County Fifth Street Office Building contains the County's Police Department, although police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police services recommences a response time of five minute or less 8 % of the time in the Development Areas and this is achieved through their sectorlbeat systern- Police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to help achieve these desired response times to all police emergency calls and the nearest satellite office to the Research Park is located at Fashion Square Mall. Utilities -The Research arch park is seared by the Albernarle County Service Authority for water and sewer. The proposed project will require the completion of the North Fork regional Pump Station to provide sewer capacity, which has an expected com pletion date of August 2010. Water is available From an existing 12" RWSA water line running along Airport Road and from a 12" AC SA water line running along Innovation Drive- Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The area requested for rezoning is located between the existing UVA Research Park and property zoned Light Industrial to the west so there are no anticipated impacts to surrounding properties with development of this site. The Application Plan maintains the rninirnum 50' open space buffer between Airport Acres and the east side of Innovation /Lewis & Clark Drive and in some places the actual buffer that exists is more than 0'. The proposed interparcel access to the west does not match the plaited connection approved With SUB 2000 - 273 and would result in the need to request that the owner provide for the interconnection as shown on UVA Research Park application plan. This provides an interconnection Z M A ?{k15.03 1. V A Re�uimh I ark P taly IUT. m Page 15 in a location that avoids environmental features. The owner should be notified of these changes, so that they can plan accordingly when submitting any site plans to the County. PROFFER This rezoning involves amending proffers approved with ZMA 1995 -04 and incorporating the 30 acres proposed for rezoning into a single application plan set. The revised set of proffers provided as Attachment E also Incorporate the proffers associated with ZMA 2005 -02 for the fire station. Recent proffer language and formatting has been used to update the proffers. Substantive proffer issues are addressed below as either provided or not provided. There are also other technical changes/edits changes/edits needed to the proffers that are not listed here, Substantive proffer changes that have been recommended and provided by the applicant include: ■ Allow for a maximum development within the park of 3,700,000 square feet of building area to reflect the added 700,000 requested, Interconnection provision to Iorthside Drive Dedication of ROW for future Dickerson Fed widening and improvements Provision to allow an additional playing field in the recreation proffers, as requested by Parks & Recreation Department. (Although minor revisions are needed to those proffers for them to be acceptable.) Reconnaisaince level documentation of historic structure on property. Changes recommended and not proffered by the applicant include: Section 5.4 Revise phasing to provide Lewis and Clark Connection sooner than 980,000 square feet. VD OT HAS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING MMENT REGARDING THIS; • Development should be restricted from developing on the southern section of the research park that accesses Route 649 until the internal connection is constructed, Lewis and dark Dr., to at least two lanes continuous between Route 29 and Route 649. The development should build the outer most 2 lanes of the connector road that is described In section .4b -1 so utilities, storm sewers and sidewalks/pedestrian facilities can be undlslurbed when the 4 -lane construction is underway. Section 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements --- Reprise to use recent standard proffer language regarding acquisition of ROW Update proffers to clarify that required improvements to Route 29 must include correction of vertical curvature of the roadway. Update LOS standards to be maintained to specify that the LOS standard applies to all turning movements at the intersections. SUMMARY Factors Favorable: 1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial Service designation of the Land Use Plan. 2_ The proposal meets goals and objectives of the Economic Development Policy plan. . The application plan provides for additional interconnections into the Research Park. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The applicant has not provided For requested commitments to mitigate transportation impacts by building the Lewis & Clary Drive connection to Airport Road sooner than 980,000 square feet. Clarifications concerning improvements to Route 29 have not been providing, including updated language on ROW acquisition, LOS standards, and clarification that correction of vertical curvature of the roadway is required. 3. Flexibility in final building design may result in larger single -story buildings in Area D adjacent to the Entrance Corridor_ Recommendation: ZMA 2005 -003 Staff is Lanabie to recommend approval because recommended commitments have not been provided to mitigate transportation impacts. Modification to Setbacks Staff recommends approval of the setback modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback reduction. of to aIlow for buildings, including those exceeding 36 feet in height, to be reduced from 60 feet to 10 feet along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clary Drive. ATTACHMENT A. Location MaplAerial S. Zoning Map C. Planning Commission work session staff report & minutes. January 31, 2006 D. Application Plan Exhibits-, A. Overall Concept Flan A -1 _ General Plan B_ Gateway District Plan C. Wetland District Plan D. Research earch Development Plan E. Vehicular Circulation Plan P. Pedestrian Circulation Plan , Streetscape & Sidewalk Sections Ft_ Natural Features and Wetland Overlay I. Grading & Utility Plan J. Zoning Application Overlay Plan K. Overall Zoning Application Overlay Plan (K -1 thrOLIgh -6) L, Internal Road Netwofk Plan M. Off -site and Internal Toad Phasing Plan I_ Open Space System Phasing Plan E. Proffers dated March 16, 2009 F. UVA Research Park current tenant list G. Transportation Impact Analysis Sum mary Table of Site Trip Generation H. VDDT comments provided by Joel Denunzio, P.E., via e-mail dated March 4, 2009 TAFI" PEFSN: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Rebecca Ragsdale May 19, 2009 Not yet scheduled MA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK SPECIAL. USE PERMITS: SP2008-0015-Parking Structure SP208062- Laboratories, rrtedicaf or pharmaceutical SP200800063- Supporting Commercial Uses P2008000 4- Hotels, Motels, Inns PETITIONS PROJECT: SP2008 -0015 ( Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (forrrrerlyr Forth Fork Research Park} PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Deveiopment Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary comrnercral and service uses (no residential use) SECTION- 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND U E0EN IT`S: industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heaver industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (8.41 -34 unitslacre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Roan (Route 649) . west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile From the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North_ TAX IVIAPIPARCELS. Tax Mats 32 Parcels 18,18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: ICT: Rio PROJECT: 2008 -00062 UVA Research Park - Laboratories, rnedical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with A 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: ED: Allow laboratory rises in association with the UVA Research Parts ZONING CATEGORYIGENERAL USAGE- PCIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION_ 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. OOMPIREHENSi' E PLAN LAND USElDEN IT`S: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, offico uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 unit lacre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR. Yes LOCATION: Forth side of Airport Road (Route 649 ), west of Innovation Drive approximately -ore third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS. Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DI TF ICT: RIO PROJECT: 2008-00063 UVA Research Park - Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED- Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park. not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area_ ZONIN ATE ORYI ENERAL USAGE. PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses {no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industriai Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses. regional scale research. limited production and markeMg activities, supporting comr- riercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 unitsiacre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: Nor h side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TA} MAPIPARCELS. Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; RIO PROJECT: 2008 -00464 UVA Research Park - Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Parr not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING OATEOORYiGENERAL USAGE- PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 29,2.2(2) Hotels. motels, inns (reference 9.4.2) COMPREHENSIVE PL N LAND USE/DENSITY. Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6,01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR- - Yes LOCATION; North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. RIO SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL TAY, MAPIPARCELS. Tax Map 32 Parcels Concurrent special use permit application have been submitted to allow for a parking garage, uses approved within the existing park for supporting commercial, laboratories, and hotel /conference facility. The applicant has flexibility as to where the uses would be allowed in the parr and land uses are governed by the Land Use Matrix of the Application Plan_ Supporting commercial uses, hotel uses. and laboratories were approved along with ZMA 1994 -05 and are requested now for Area D. STAFF COMMENT Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to each of the four special use permits requested: such use will riot be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, There are no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties anticipated with these uses_ Provisions of the ordinance will address parking structure design and it its located internal to the research park. Buffers are provided on the application plan for any residential areas adjoining the Park and an additional buffer requirement was imposed on labs with the special use permits for the parr approved in 1995 and are also recommended here, with the ability for a reduction if requested to avoid excessive buffer requirements. A certified eng ineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to address light, noise, radioactivity, and vibration. and that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The request is to allow these land uses within a planned researchAndustrial park. Considering the uses and plan of development, staff believes that the parking structure will have minimal impacts and would not change the character of the district and would provide for more of are urban character in Areas D, rather than suburban character in the rest of the Research earch Park. The supporting commercial, laboratories, and holel uses are secondary to the primary uses in the parr and would be consistent with the character of the district_ Staff believes that the parking garage will improve the character of the district and provides an alternative to a "sea" parking that could result from a surface parking lot. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed all four requests for special use permits for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and has not identified that any conflicts would result from approval of these special use permits. with uses permitted by-right in the district, A variety of Ll industrial uses and office use are allowed b - right in the Category 1 uses of the P D I P district. Secondary supporting uses within a PDIP are encouraged. The requested special use permits are supportive and co plirnentary to the land uses permitted in the Research Park. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance The additional regulations are identified below. Staff sees no issues which would prevent the regulations from betng met. P2008 -001 - Parking Structure 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in the ordinance. Section 32.7.2A of the Zoning Ordinance also provides for the following requirements for parking structures: a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan. b. The developer shall subrnit drawings, photographs or other visual rnateriais showing the proposed parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses, c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building skull be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view, d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential development. e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will not routinely shine directly outside the structure. P g0 0OU6 - LaboraEtodes, medical or pharmaceutical certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to address light, noise, and vibration to ensure compliance with Section 4.14. will be required wit# tab uses within the park. There are no additional regulations in the ordinance for supporting commercial (SP2 080008 ) or Hotels, Motels, Inns ( P200800064) uses. And with the p ub lic heaIth, safety, and general welfare of the cornmunity The public health safety and general welfare of the community is protected through the special user permit process, which assures that proposed uses are in the appropriate location and any impacts can be mitigated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P 00 -00 #5- Parking Struclure Staff recommends approval of P 008 -001 - Parking Structure with no conditions of approval, P2008000 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions- 1 - Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the ordinance and a Certified Engineers Deport is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. . Laboratory buildings scull not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by the Director of Planning. P 0080006 - Supporting Commercial Uses Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions; 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed fire (5%) percent of total floor area, commercial uses shall not exceed tern (10%) percent of total floor area at any time during phased development. SP 200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions; 1- No more than one hotel, motel, or Inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall no exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms. . Conference facilities (other than those as maybe provided by individual occupants) skull 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. ,�z 5 ❑l ! 101 1 I■■ C1 C9 ■■■ Z2 t 7� a rk r~' F so + a kF "l AW ri AW ca CR L do �-- .{ , J + oo 416 4L Mme..; • # 4k, CZq # V74 AAA 'r -- y r ,Y -f 13-a y ,i1' .�+ � W _b F -Lib qN Dix I war {�} �F iF war r CD as ONE ■■■ ■ENEM ■■ ; N El I I I I ION'' El '7 �Ao-�r A o Ag'? 4 *� a� U7e*a C%4 U6 eN r4 �14 C4 r� Po N CY no L vz rl- ..l C"} N eri r ry [Q4j �- {+{ C3 � CIA r ' fi•} i±l ' I r•]�_ r � LO C4 -W, ' �v ate-, cn r*I p rep C4 rq e7 CV 0 e'*e C7 cn 4o C%l CV n. 1 C C? N f O 07 F- r ry C4 i C4 �} I } G Y* N 91% 0 c n IL �y r7 ■• 1 a dA im W 1 cn CQ a) Y 03 4 r � L f•� in od -� uj ill -T*r`..� T. *o ° r 'f tu " c—,r New JV m ' ! { 1 +Y7 �- i3 1 {y ` 1 rN P. cq� y.9. - .Y � {r.�. u. � .. cy w .A �! r•9 7 w`7 rr, 'W*,{ r`e I - Attach m en t C COUNTY OF AL EMA LE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Work Session: ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (North Fork) at Airport Road S U BJ E Tf P PALIREQ EST: ZMA 05-03 is a request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA to PD1P. The worksession is specific to discussion and recommendations on layout and overall design. STIFF: Elaine K. Echols, AI P PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Or.t ber4S. 2505 January 31, 2005 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: Not yet scheduled OWNEI I O TRA T PURCHASER- The University of Virginia Foundation owns the property and is also the applicant. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to expand the Research Park {formerly }mown as the North Fork). The proposal includes 500,000 additional square feet for research, office. and other university related industrial activities which are allowed under the PD -IP zoning_ The application plan is includes! as Attachment A. The applicant is aware that the rezoning application includes portions of currently zoned land which will need to be included in the application. BACKGROUND: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a rezoning for the North Fork Research Parr for 525 adjacent acres in 1996. In addition to the PD -11P approved uses, three special use permits were granted for laboratories, supporting commercial uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A copy of the proffers •1s included with Altachment B. In 1998, the Board approved are amendment to the district to allow setbacks to be ten feet from the internal streets within the development. A copy of the approval letter is included as Attachment C . D1 S C U SS 10 NIFINDIN S: Staff has reviewed the overall design of the parr and believes that modifications are necessary in order to be in conformity with the Neighborhood Model. The applicant believes that the park is appropriate as presented_ The purpose of this worksession is to gain feedback from the Commission relative to conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION.; Staff asks the Com mission to provide feedback and guidance to the staff and applicant on the appropriate design for the development. STAUPERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION-. ELAINE K. ECH(L ,,firC? JANUARY 31, 2006 MA 05 -03 U A RESEARCH PARIS AT AIRPORT (NORTH FORK) WORKSESSION Owner /Contract Purchaser: The University of Virginia Foundation okk ms the property and is also the applicant. AnWicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to expand and enlarge the Research Park by approximately 30 acres and by building 500,000 more square feet than is currently approved. The current application plan shoves development on bath a portion of the existing Pik -IP zoned land as weII as the add itiona [ 30 acres. The appearance indicated is one of an "office park ", similar to the Research 1-1 ark owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. A [ax reap showing the parcels included in the dev'eIopment is Attachment D. The p] an of d eve] opment is included as Attachment A. Petition: E cquest to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park for 500,000 square feet of office and research use. The property, described as Tax Map Parcels 18, 18a. and a portion of 6A is Ideated in the Rio Magisterial District on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Rand and Route 29 Forth. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor (EQ Overlay District. The Comprehensive Play designates these Iands as Industrial Service ire the 1- lollyme -ad Cornmunhy. General usage for Industrial Service is warehousing, light industry, research, heavy industry, office parks, supportive commercial and service and residential if compatible (density is not specified) General usage with in the P D I P Zoning district permits industrial and ancillarvr commercial and .service uses. No residential uses are allowed. W 11urpose of Woricsession* The workscssion is designed for Planrt ng Commission review of the overall design and layout of the proposed park. The Coinniission is asked to provide guidance to both the staff and applicant on changes, .if any, needed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Flan. BacicEround: The University of Virginia Deal E sta te Idoundalion applied ror and was granted ar rezoning for the North Fork Research Dark for 525 adjacent acres in 1996. in addition to the PD -lP approved uses, three special ease permits we re granted for labor '(xtWies, SUpporting commerciitI uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A cop y of the pruff'ers is included with Attachment B. In 1998, the 13 a rd approved an a cndment to the district to allow setbacks to be ten feet froth the internal streets within the development. A. stogy of the approval later is included as Attachment C. Cornformity ,will the Land Use Re onimendations in the Comprehensive Ilan There are a number of rcconimcndations in the CompTchensive Plan for which analysis cannot }yet take place. As additional information is provided by the applicant, the rest of the assessment will be possible. There is one statement, hovvev r. which should be reviewed by the Commission before the proj ec I proeeed s. 1) Recommendation from Land Use flan: Devedop all industriallq ce areas in a high{ sensitive manner that clusters de velopraent in suilabie areas and protects en vironorertial features through the pr•ov ision of open space. For the area now referred to as Me Xorih Fork Research Park. limit development to 52.E acres. Total buildable area shall not exceed 3, 000. 000 square ft et. De e. lopm nt oJ_the enrtre indusrrial area shall be pursuant icy err: overall planned development under appropr iaie planned devc,lop eni zoning. Question for Plairnhig C'ornrrdssion Should the statement above result in a prohibition of expansion of the U A Research Park? Staff Posi titan: Staff believes that expansion of the UVA Research lark is not prohibited by the statement iii tlic C om prelic n s 2 ve Plan. PIacemeni of this statcine tit in the PIan predated the rezoning of the Research Park. The langUage was included to stipulate the expected development of (he lard that at that time that would be subject to that rezoning. It was not intended to preclude additional area From being rezoned to an industrial designation, since the Land Use Plan designates more land than that subject io the l es aTc:h Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current request for expansion of the Research Dark is in this additional area. Principles of the !Neighborhood Model Staff has assessed the overall design and layout of the park for c;onfonnity with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment. Queslions for the Commission are embedded in the table where assessment of the principle is made. Pedestrian The proposal is for a suburban style -'o fri ce park" de si gned in three diBerent Orientation `:clusters' with parking lots located to the sides of and behind buildings. (See Attachment E.) Pedestrian paths are highlighted on Attachment F. The paths demonstrate that pedestrian access is intended between buildings in the park and along portions of the drive s and along Lewi s and t` Iatrk Dr. Tbc design of Lewis and Clark Drive was established with the prior rezoning. It is an urban wction with 4 lanes separated by a median with trees. Tt has been approved for a six -root asphalt path on the west side of the street. This path would not meet current standards for either a sidewalk or multi- purpose (bicycle and pedestrian) use. Staff believes that either a concrete sidewalk or a wider multi - purpose asphalt path would be appropriate along Lewis and Clark. depending on the setbacks of buildings on Lewis and Clark and the ability to provide bicycle access 1hr0Ligh the site. An "urban" development would likely have on- street bicycle lanes and sidewalks separated from the street by UCet- trees. if the C ommi ssi on supports the existing park design and layout, a vw+ider asphalt path would be needed. A different deign which promotes ctoser setbacks would need concrete sidewalks. 3 Pedestrian Staff supports the pr posa] to have p destrian access along only one side of Orientation Lewis and Clark Drive because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive abuts Continued a 50 foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential. The applicant has indicated that a hierarchy of paths wilt be used that includes asphalt, concrete, and rustic components nts depending on the purpose of the pathway. Staff supports use of concrete sidewalks in {areas where the r USL foot- traffic i s e petit d. Staff supporti use of asphalt paths where pedestrian access is provided through open space or as a second way to walk safel y and conveniently within the park. 1. pro/ rirry�{+te or shoufel it be rr�orli r# to be more in GIs ■t1��ey}ry�esig���yFya . Is pedestrian access appropriate? 3. Sir ouId a concrete sidei+vd% be provided on carte or berth sides o Leafs an d Cla rk rather tha it an a s halt path on orre side? cighborhood Acces ways throughout the development are prusented on the application Frienclly Streets plan as corn mcrcial driveways connecting parking lots and clusters. A and Paths hierarchy of driveways is shove on Attachment G. Streets are not really proposed. The primary driveways would not have perpendicular parking adjacent to them. the secondary drives would. Trees appear to lute all of the driveways within the development. Staff does not believe this principle has been met and recommends that a redesign which includes streets as well as commercial driveways is more appropriate than the design shown. I. Shou id streets (either publlc or private) rather than commer'c'ial drives ilh parking lots be used to help esiablly t a befter design and traffic circ ulation with ht Me site? Interconnected The proposed plan shows a single street and no interconnections to Streets and adjoining parcels. A series of public and private streets (streets for the park Transportation itself ) may be most appropriate. The applicant has said that, "connections Networks to adjoining parcels and street systems do not reasonably relate to this project." However, staff believes that a public or private street connection to the adjoining property to the west, which is zoned U is essential. 1. Shuald tin interconnection (or interconnections ) be nrarle to the ro er a to the west? Parks and Open Open space is shown on Attachment H. The original rezoning for the Space Research Park provided open space at the entrance to this dcvelopment as well a..s along several stream and sloped areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the cast side of l .e is and Clark Drive From its intersection with Airport Road.. The bulTer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The new proposal removes the open space at the entrance to the development and replaces it with buildings. Open space continues to be show -n surrounding a vw edand area and another open space area is provided at the rear of the develo p meet near a strcarn and stornnwater fa iIi ty. Staff be I i eves that the 4 Parts and Open applicant intends to make the wetland area closer to the entranee into a Space C O[Itirtued feature. This area could be unproved as an ernployec amenit y area. The buildings appear to be similar to buildings at the Fontaine Research Park in scale and architecture. While the scale of the buildings at the Fontaine Park is not overwhelming, the location is critical in creating, spaces of human scale. Staff wo uld like to see a better relationship between bu i Id i ngs and the street in order to assess if appropriate spatial enclosure has been achieved. 1. Has the applicant appropriately pro rlded or bu ddings acrd spaceks of human ,kale? Delegated Parking erieraliy, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis and Clark Drive, No information has been provided to indicate how parking lets are to be screened, either with vegetation or using architectural treatments, from the various streets and driveways. Additional details are needed to ensure that narking- is annronriately relegated. 5 Taff is not concerned that open space along Airport Road would be converted to building area as the buildings are shown to establish a face to Airport Road. More information, though, is needed on the environmental features of the site before this principle can be fully assessed. Two streams traverse the property at the Northwestern part of the site. Wetlands are known to exist in an area shown can the plan. More potential wetlands may he identified near the streams. 1. Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 tan be retained or should bu ldh s front Airport Road? Neighborhood As previously stated in the section on "pedestrian orientation "'. the layout of Centers the park doesn't establish a "place`. or "place" to which the surrounding streets and buildings relate. The previously approved Research Park identifies a town c:c:nwr in the middle cif the development. The buildings propo cd in the new section relate somewhat to the tow -n ccntcr, although the walking distance for the closest buildings is approximately a half -mile away. The applicant has said that "the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the establishment of "centers'} or gathering spots to support the Park and adjoining neighborhoods and uses." A different design could help to create a walkable center closer to Airport Road. It is also possible that the buildings along Airport road could create a new center. The existing design sloes not really create centers but the applicant could use the commercial uses being requested by special use permit to help define such areas and provide destinations. 1. Should centers be created within the park? . Should a curter be established along Airport Road? Buildings and The applicant is proposing to apply to the new acreage a design code Spaces of Human prepared for the existing Research Park. Front setbacks are proposed at 1 Scale feet, side sctbacks are proposed at 15 Ccct, and building heights are limited to 4 stories. Places where setbacks are most important in the proposed project are along Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. The rest of the setbacks would relate to internal driveways and parking Ic #s. The buildings appear to be similar to buildings at the Fontaine Research Park in scale and architecture. While the scale of the buildings at the Fontaine Park is not overwhelming, the location is critical in creating, spaces of human scale. Staff wo uld like to see a better relationship between bu i Id i ngs and the street in order to assess if appropriate spatial enclosure has been achieved. 1. Has the applicant appropriately pro rlded or bu ddings acrd spaceks of human ,kale? Delegated Parking erieraliy, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis and Clark Drive, No information has been provided to indicate how parking lets are to be screened, either with vegetation or using architectural treatments, from the various streets and driveways. Additional details are needed to ensure that narking- is annronriately relegated. 5 Mixture of Uses It is difficult to know or tell how commercial uses would be integrated into this development. even though a request is made fur approval of some commercial uses. It is also difflicult to know what commercial rcial uses are proposed. More specific information and commitments are needed in order to assess whether this principle is being met. At a inimut . the ratio of commercial and laboratory to the industrial/research use is needed. Staff believes that a range of commercial uses should also be provided. 1. Should greater detail and comrr itmenis he pro v ded for co mercaial uses or are lite general special use eTnzir requests sri i`cienl? Mixture of Housing No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by -right or b y special Types and use in the PD-1P district. A iordabilit-, edeveloprnenl This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of undeveloped lard; however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia Department of'Historic resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for the presence of historic arc:hilectural and or archaeological resources, Count' Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family d we] Iing. 'r he applicant has been requested to docurnenI the buildings on TMP 32 -1 prior to demolition and if anything pertaining to historical i nificance is found within the prqject area, to let the County staff know. Site Planning that The Neighborhood Model rccorninends that d velopmeni conform as best Respects Terrain possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanse of 2:1 regraded stapes are to be avoided. Lat e retaining Nvalls should likewise be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shaven to be impacted, in general, the proposed developmcnt respects the terrain. Where the plan appears to have problems though is at the western perimeter where streams exist. A retaining wall of approximately 20 feet is sho m on the plan. W hile retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. Additional environmental infonnation is needed before this principle can be fuII y assessed. To date. the applicant has been requested to look fOr ways to grade the site in such a way that tall and expansive retaining walls or expanses of 2:1 slopes are avoided. Clear Boundaries This principle Is not applicable as the property does not adjoin the I urul with the Rural .Areas. Areas RECOMMENDATIONS The addition of 0 acres to a park of 525 acres raises questions abort the desired character of the new section of the park. It is common for staff to view the addition of small acreage to a larger dcvcloptmcnt as a continuation of tlxc previous form. In these instances, staff does not generally ask for changes to that form. lfere, the 30 acre addition would be joined to another 27 acres which has access from Airport Road. Staff believes it possible and appropriate to establish a more urban character for this section of the perk and carry this form along the Lewis and Clark Drive from Airport Toad to it the first public street intcrsection shown on the previously approved plan. With this in mind, staff concludes that the proposed development is not yet in sufficient accord with the Comprehensive flan and especially with the Neighborhood Model. Staffasks the Commission to answer the questions in the body oft -his repurt. Staff recommends that the Commission advise both staff and the applicant on whether and how to charge the plan to conform with the Comprehensive Plan so that next steps can take place. In addition to the C om m i ssi on's determination on general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, Stu rrasks that the Commission identify any additional areas for future discussion or problematic areas in need of resolution. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Application Plan dated 8116105 Attachment B Proffers from ZMA 95 -04 Attachment C - Approval letter for Setback Reduction stated May 26, 1999 Attachment D -Tax Neap Attachment E -- Buil ding Organization Cur Research Park dated October 0 Attachment F - Pedestrian system for Research Park elated October 0 Attachment G - D ri veway hierarchy for 1 escarch Paris dated October 0 Attachment 1.1 - Open Space for Research Park darted October 05 7 DO cr r V � V' IL Y P " +' 0 cr Id Y G f'2 9 F-- z P-04 * m O C y �rt 7 S S G Ch CD ci zt hMA ; CD f �k Ji PAZ CU CD A� :7 X-1 V r� O �-4 'T Fsi FA m � 444 a m �m s� a m g Eq 8 v ck O m q� fu o es f:l l art RoO d � 3 m �N ID crx w c4 LM tp ' o U3 J?!: ! z 0 w � 119 S } o G o D pp� pqG tkLxxn AI ti F _f 3 b ra J — m 0 n w 3 W f Y Y::: # 11111161IF1 pp�pp ppOpp ppQpp pq4pq pp4pp ppOp O 0 4 0 0 0 0 O Aa All a- ex x V O r i D ra iJ n 0 n �a Id 0 • y Attachment B COUNTY OF ALBE ARLE Dept. of Planning & Corns-aunily Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virsinia 22902-4596 (804) 2%.5823 June 14, 1996 Tim Rose Chief Operating Officer University of Virgitua steal Estate Foundadon P. 0. Box 9023 huloties ille, VA 22903 RE: MA- -G4 - The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation [dear Mi. Rose: The AI ben 1arle C owiLy Board of Supervisors, at its meeting oil June 12; 1996, approved. the above -notcd request to rezone ap proxirnz tel y 525 ac from RA, PD -IP, R -1 & Ll to PD-1P and to amend sc yr service boundaries of tixe A]bemarle Counly Service Authority to include water alid sewer far the North Fork Business Park, This request includes the following special use perrnils= P -95-40 - Laboratodes, tnedical or pharmaceutical; SP -95-41 - Supporting commercial uses; P -95-42 - Hotels, nictels & inns. AD 0 FEED xhe attached resolution approving Z MA-95 -04 and the special use perrtlits. If you should have any questions or comments re ar&g the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact Mme, sincerely, Ronald S. Feeler Chief of Planning W%Mlb c . Amelia McCulley Jo Biggins T:1c M4ERAVS1lARE1B ,4Rf3AItA\Zh4A95-04le i • • Attachment B RESOLUTION TO A I)PROVE t�iTIVERSIT F Vll11I REAL E � -- STATE FOI)NDATION Whereas, in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Vi �nia and Section f the Al ear are County Zoning Ordinance, a public hea�-in was adverb adjoining property (5ivners notified, and a hearing scheduled on Zip 9 {0 , University Of Vir rua Real l�state foundation, University to consider the rezoning of approximately 5 25 acres from PA. P -IP, R -I, and LI to I'LL -1P, as more Particularly identified in the zortin application; and Whereas, this application and the attached proffers are consistent wiLh the Comprehensive Plan, good zoning practices, and supported by tie reasons set forth ill the staff report. Now, 'Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby approves ZNIA-95-04 with proffers, suer roffers being part dated March 2I, 1996 and being attached hereto and made a art of this approval. P BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that included within this approval is the approval of the following special use permits with the stated conditions: () f'- - �" Criu, conditioned upon: I - Compliance Nvith Section 4.14 PerforM&nCe Standards of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Building location shall not be less than thirty ( 0) ,feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development. ent. {B 5-E125}4 1 tirt nr7, , iai Vwe- , conditioned upon., 1 In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five ( %) percent of total floor area, cornmercial uses shall not exceed ten I0 %) percent of total floor area at any time during phased development_ rr Attachment B Motels. Inns, conditioned Ripon: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be pem- Litted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not exceed two hundred Fifty (2.50) lodging roorn5. . Conference facilities other than those as may be provided by individual occu pants) shall not be required to to cat e internal to nor an the same site as the hotel/Motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging aired can ference facilities shall tot exceed 190,000 square Feet. The time limit to commence the above special uses shall be extended for so long as the application plan for A -95- re a.ins valid. E iT FURTHER R LVED, that there are no modifications pursuant to § 8.5.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, but the following findings are stated for purposes of clarification; 1. Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined in and governed by the proffers. Since 'open space" is not rewired for a Planned Developrnent - Industrial Bark and provision of open space is vo Iunt.aFi.lr proffered by the applicant, the open space areas shall not be governed by Section 4.7 of dhe Zoning Ordinance. The approval of the special use permits with the extended time for commencing the uses shall not preclude the Board frorn revoking any special use pout for wilM noncompliance, as set forth in Section 3 1.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordi narn cc. . The terms General Officc, Light Industrial and Rex lndus al as set forth in UREF, Volume 1, Part LX of the zoning application shall, in addition to Zoning Ordinance deft Lions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descriptions shat[ apply. In such case in which more that fifty (50%) percent of the floor area for a Flex Industrial use is developed 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 Ra Ndustrial use is devoted to office use, the Page 2 of I • • Attachment e c"tire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industfial. This provision Shall apply only for determination of maximum square footage by type of use, This provi S ion shall not ap p ly LO calculat ion of parking requirements or other requircmenLs of the ozl Ordinance, nor Lo any requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Cade nor to any other ordinance or regulation related to 'Type of usage of buildings and structures. 1, Ella W. Cagey, do here-by certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolurion duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors off'Albemarle County bY Grote of, to 2 on June 5. 1 996, 40 ZMA95-04. Page 3 of Clerk, Hoard of County Sup -sors 12 Attachment B I, Attachment B PROFFER STATEMENT UNIVERSITY F VIRGINIA DEAL ESTATE FOUNDATION REZONING AI PIA ATI N: Z A- .5 -04 . - Final Version: March 21, 1996 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), through its wholly - owned subsidiary, UREF Research Park, Inc. is the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA- 95 -04 as Tax Map Reference 32. Parcels 4B, 6A, 6, 18 and 19, less and except Parcels F-2 and B9.1 described herein (the "UREF Property"). MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc. is the fee simple owner of Parcel F-2, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit I.I (the `MieroA.ire Property "). Motion Control Industries, Inc. is the fee simple owner of Parcel B9.1, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1.1 (the "Motion Control Property"'). The UREF Property, the Mi roAire Property and Motion Conlrol Property are referred to collectively as Elie "Property ". Applicant, UREF Research Park, 111c., MicroAlre Surgical Instruments, Inc. and Motion Control Industries, Inc. hereby voluntarHy proffer that if the Property is rezoned bY the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board ") to the Planned Development Industrial Park "PI - IP " , development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.1 #491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code "), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). 0 If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall inuxtediatly be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted W authorize any person to apply lesser standards loan those contained in any: (i) state, statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (H) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance, except as permitted by the regulations of the PD Zoning District. These proffers shall. supersede all other proffers =de prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applivan( in ZI M - T8 -15. I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. LLU TRATI 1.1 flans and Illustrations. Applicant has presenied, as part of its Rezoning Application, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principAy to provide justification for the rezoning action which it seeks, and to illustrate the process through which the Applicant developed its proposal. Applicant's dey lopsment of the Property {also referred to herein as the "Project ") small be in accordance with Applicant's Zoning Application Plan (the "Zoning Application Plan"), as provided in the Ordinance. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all Plans and illustrations submitted as part of Appl'icant's rezoning application shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. 1-2 Plan Exhibits. These proffers shall include Elie following plans, which except for the ping Application Plan) are limited to the perpose fOr which they are referenced in a proffer, F."VirM 1777MM. • Zoning Application Plan • torn water Management Plan, Exhibit 4. • Wernarl Road Nelwork Plan, Exhibit .1 • Road Network Phasing Plan, Exhibit 5.3 • Open Space System, Phasing Plant, Exhibit 6.1 IL OWNR R ASSOCIATION .4,jN D DECLARATION LARATION CIr' COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declaration , The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Noperty withiri six m riths of the rezoning, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration' ).� The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and developmenE of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall sct €Ordi covenants. conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by owners within the Project. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that Lhe County of Albemarle will have no rights of obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not he interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, as allowed by the regulations on e PD Zoning District. De�Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each development area within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective developmment areas (the ' "Design Guidelines ") will ensure high quality architectural and lands F eve esign and a harmonious, well-balanced business Community. P . Fie €l Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: i) Types of materials to be used ill construction of buildings; {iii Required setbacks front properties adjacent to the Project, ]Wbuilding ratios, height restrictions, and viii) Types of Materials to be used and standards for landscaping. .4 Design Guideline The Design Guidelines also shall. a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain hour such standards are implemented; b Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee on which the Applicant shall have a permanent seat unless or until the University of Virginia occupies at Ieast one seat. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design l evic IS Attachment B Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any i applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); c Provide all outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Comrnitlee in connection with design and g construction within the Prolcct; and (d ) Include recommendations to users for water conservation techniques (such as low flow showers and toilets, water- conserving landscaping techniques, waEcr reclama(ion. and water reuse). .5 Maintenance of C'o rn n Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining all Common areas within the Project, inclUding the following: • a The Applicant shall either: 0 organize a North Fork Owners Association or such other private, area or business associations as may be necessary to address specific area or business concerns of the Project (the "Organization(s)") as non -stock Organizations under the laws of Virginia for the ownership, care and maintenance of all such lands and irnprovetnents owned or entrusted to such associations (ibe "Conirtion Areas "); or 4 directly control such ownership, care and rnainiena.nce of Common Areas, unless or until a public body or a governmental agency assumes control and /or ownership of such COMMon Areas. (b) The Organization(s). if formed, shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas, including lands, uses and facilities looted thereirt. {c} The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify common areas in a site development plan or plat, d The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty -five ( years and shall be automatically extended for succcsssve periods of twenty -five ( gears unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. fie} If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to cnT11r01 the availability of [he facilities and Land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Organization(s) shall not be dissolved nor shall such Organization(s) dispose of ar►y Corrunon Area space, by sale or otherwise, o eept to successor organizatiorns conceived and organized under the 3 i65�. Attachment 6 samc standards and principles set forth herein for the (fir anization maintain the Common Areas. s} to own and . ill. DENSiTY 3.1 1 tal I3uildout. Total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 3.0W,000 square feet, excluding relycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station office trailers for temporary use during construction of permanent structures, small {not to exceed 1500 gross floor area per building} storage- buildings, and structures included as amenities withi« Gammon Areas (collectively, the "Excluded Areas"). In the first year of derreIopment of Ehr Project, from the date of tree aunt 's approval of the Applicant's rezoning, (the "Initial Year" total gross floor area witltill the Project shall not exceed OD,000 square feet, excluding the Excluded Areas and the total rocs floc r area either existing on the icroAire Property, or as approved on the preliminary situ plan for (Ile Motion Control Property)- After the Initial Year, the total gross floor area within the Project which may be constructed in any one year shall not exceed 200,000 square feet, vju airy accumulated undeveloped square feet of gross. floor area. For the purposes of this Section 3. 1. accumulated undeveloped square feet: of gross flog area shall mean the sum of any square feet of grass floor area allowed but not developed in the Initial Year and the square fcCt Of gross floor area less than 200,000 square feet not developed in each subsequent year to that date. W. STOR-MWATER MANAGEMENT AND ' ATEATE R CONSERVATION 4.1 Flood plain. The area of the 100 -year flood plain within the Project shalt remain undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and edestrian and ding trails, and only to the a tent such exceptions are permitted by County Ordinance and gulations. . Ste water Mona ernent [an. The Applicant shall implement (as part of the site development plan approvals) an overall storrnwater management plan for the Project, incorporating applicable drainage sheds on the Property and in accordance with the Storm water Management Plan, attached as Exhibit 4.2. Applicant's implementation of the Stormwater Management flan shall include those modifications that comply with design and engineering standards necessary fora approval b County during the site development plan review process for Project development. Pp tyre 4.3 etlands. Wetlands, as defined by the Federal l amual cgr Identifying artd I --lineatin e crated wetlands, in effect on the date of these proffers, shall not be disturbed for the installarion and use of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking the trails, ae�ccept other uses approed by the County after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local Permits any approvals. p and 4. V ter o nervation. Nu single industrial or commercial user which proposes a use that will require more than 125,000 gallons per day (average daily consumption) of potable water shall be constructed without obtaining County approval. The County shall consider whether to approve such a user through the same Procedures as required in an application far special use permit (including th same notice requirements, public hearings, and Planning Commission review as in they process � c onsi�ierin a special use permit. The out�t 's a T °C PProval shall be limited solely to issues of water S1 Attachment B usage and must include a finding that sufficient capacity exists to support such a user. The Counter's ,ipproval may include reasonable conditions relating to water usage. 0 V. TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Internal 1 oad, ctwork. Applicant shall provide vehicular access within the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 5.1, ( "Internal Road l ctwork "). Applicant shall de&ign,- construct, and install signs and si nalization for the Internal load Network in accordance with rninimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation " I T" , unless VD OT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the necessary modifications co previously constructed intersections to the extent that subsequent development of areas within the Project impacts such previously constructed 'intersections, including modification of the Internal Roane Network design and signalization for such iWersectiorts. The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit 5.1 shall be subject to adjustment during the subdivision platisite plant approval process. • 5.2 Road_ Construction Standards. r4a All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County for site plan approval, (anti ether Internal Road Network improvemclIts which VD OT and the County reasonably deter -mine are necessary for safe and convenient access to such area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated for public use, for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final subdivision plat recordation for each applicable area or at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development wider a site development P lan. b) Applicant shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to Exhibit .. The proffer to construct roads to VDOT standards shall not require completion of construction of such roads, or segments thereof, before the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy for a building served by that road, or segment thereof, so long as adequate bonds are In place and so long as the Zoning Administrator determines that safe and convenient access to public roads is presented in accordance with Section 31.2.3 of the Ordinance. Before issuance of certificates of occupancy, however Applicant shall complete that segment of road which serves the building for which a certif"icace of occupancy is sought with at least the base and one (1 ) layer of plant mix asphalt, The final layer of plant rnix asphalt may be withheld until all sewer lines, water lines and ocher conduits have been placed under the pavement but will be completed to an approved VDOT pavement depth and design before the request for VDOT acceptance of the road, Applicant shall be respomible for the maintenance of the roads within the Internal Road Network until they have been accepted into the state system for maintenance. �9 Attachment B 53 Pllases of Cevclo rng�y . Tf�c folloin sel�edule shall apply �� road irr �rovei eats set forth in .4 below: PP �' r determining the timi�1 of is MASB l C Land s Maximum uinuiaaye lu i itl -oil V2 Maximum Build -out to be accessed by Road A Support COmmercial to 85,C)00(2) ,10 Maximum Build -out to be aCce sed by t. 606 {all uses }: 345,000 General Office limited to: 120,W0 Support Commercial limited to: 25,000 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase I (all t1ses) 980.0 00(3) TIASE 11 Maximum Land Use 1 urnulwive Fit ;ltd -au� General office: .�r00� iIPPO rC rmnurcial: o tel 190.000 Maximurn Total Build -out, phase II (all uses) 00 (3) E III Maximum Land Use t Cumulative RuDd ut 2 enoral Office: Support COmmercial. 110,0()0 Hotel: 190,000 Maximum Focal Build -out, Phase III (all uses) 3,M), 000(3) r.1 Attachment B (I) Nate: 1-he Ilse categories in the chails above shall leave the following definitions for the purposes of this Article : "General Office" shall mean Nusiness and professional office uses as contemplated in the Zoning Application Plan and Zoning Application text. "Motel'" shall have the definition set Fortli in the Ordinance. "Support Commercial " shall nican those uses listed on the "Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines" Table, Village and Neighborhood Service Areas, Typical Primary Uses Secdorj, in Section 9.0 of the Ordinance a well as (lie following uses: copy centers., florists, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, barber and beauty shops and [ailor shops. () Note: 'Total gross floor area, in square feet. Note: Nothing cantained herein shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of la :td use types within arty Phase of development in accordance with the Project Zoning Application Plan. Applicant proffers that the total build -out of Hotel, Genera[ Office and Support Commercial use for any given Phase shall not exceed the gross Boor area limitations shown in the charts above. .4 Proffered Road Im rovemtnts. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute for road improvements in phases. Road improvement proffers in this section 5.4 shall not include dedication of lard unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VD OT obtaining required righl -of -way, if such right- of-way is not owned in Fee simple by Applicant). unless expressly provided hereirx, So long as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers, even though the necessary right -of -way is not available, (and in the instances in which Applicant has Weessary ffered to acquire right -of- -gray, and the Applicant has made good faith cfforts to acquire the land for such right -of -way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density build -out urger the applicable zoning, unless the improvement is other -vise required by applicable regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required below, the road improvement described to this Section 5.4 for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded, or contributed for (as set forth below), before constructing each phase's Maximum imum Total .Build -out as set forth in 5.3 above. (a) Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase I road proffers _before the Maximum Total Bui[d -out, Phase I s shown in 5.3 above) is constructed or earlier if (i specified in this 5.4 (a), or h a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT. In general, the proffered Phase I road improvements shall be as described on Exhibit 53 attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be perrrtitted to construct beyond the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase I in advance of satisf ing all Phase I road proffers, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that the folIo in intersections will function, with the proposed additional building construction, at a L,cvel of Service "D " (LOS D ) or better: (i) Route 649 and Road A, ii route 606 and Quail Run, (iii) Route 606 and Route 649, and (iv) Road A and U.S. 29. I Applicant shall design and construct a northbound turn lane from Route 606 onto Quail Run for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection. 7 ZD Attachment B ) Applicant shall acquire (Or reiniburse the acquiring govcrnmewal entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construct two northbound left Wm lanes Dn U.S. 29 at the intersection of Roast A North Fork Entrance) and U.S. 29. Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is linable to acquire) right of ways for, design and construct a channelized southbound right Eum lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall include dedication, design afid constructions of two eastbound left turn lanes and trio eastbound right turn lanes. The entrance at Road A also shall include dcdication. design and construction of two westbound through lanes. ( Applicant shall install, or pay For the installation of all traffic signals Necessary for appropriate trZffir: control at the improved intersection at U.S. 9 and road A no later than completion of the two northbound left Eurn lanes on U.S. 29 (referenced in proffer 5-4(a)(2) above). If an additional road is ridded to such intersection to satisfy needs of other development in the County however, Applicant's signalization requirement shoal not include improvements serving such additional road. (4) Provided that all carxstruction of the turn lanes is c0mplemd within I0 }rears from the date of final approval of this Application, Applicant shall contribute upon completion of two left turn lanes at (he intersection of U.S. 9 and Route 649, the total sum of $78,718.00 (Applicant's "Contribution") - NOtwithstandin the foregoing, the Applicant's Contribution may be used, at the County's discretion to fund completion of the project, a Portion of the design and engineering �ocosts in order tQ expedite the widening of Route 649 from two lanes to four lames so long as Applicant is afforded the opportunity to participate in such design and engineering process. In the event that the Contribution, after it is received by the County, is not used, within IO years either for construction Of the turn lanes, or for the design and engineering costs for Route 649 widening, them the Contribution shall be returned to the ApplicanE, without interest, b) Applicant slIali satisfy the following Phase II toad proffers before the Maximum imum Total Build -out, Phase If is constructed (bait not before the Maximum Total Build. out, Phase I is constructcd) (as set forth in 5.3 above) or earlier if W specified in (his 5.4 (b), or (H) a need is created bY such development and is demonstrated b y a traffio study approved by VDDT (prodded 110wev r that if the site development plan mview process does not otherwise require Applicant to supply a traffic; study, Applicant will provide at least a traffic count upon the County's request for evidence that such need has not been created ): Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a two lane collector road extending frorn U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the Forth Fork Project within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of Occupancy M 2i Attachment for a building constructed after construction of the Maximum Total Build - out, Phase 1 (980,000 gross floor area), Applicant shall dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to 649 when traffic volumes within the Project create the need for such widening. Applicant shall design, dedicate and eonstnict at the route 649 entrance: - -trio southbound left rum lanes on Road A, one southbound right turn large on Road t and two northbound ( hrough lanes on Road A- (3) Applicant shall construct at the intersection at Road A and Route 649. one westbound right turn Ianc on Rowe 641, and one eastbound left turn lane pn Route 649. (4 ) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved in satisfying these Phase II road proffers, but no later than when a need is created by the Project. c Construction of improvements may proceed up to the Maximum Total Build -out, Phase III described in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have been satisfied {but such conditions shall not be conditions for constructing the Maximum 'Total Build -out for Phases I and I1 }; 1 Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way) the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDOT requites, and at the County's direction, Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and construction casts which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane On US. 2 for the purpose of constructing of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Route 29 and the entrance to Forth Fork. Nothing contained herein however shall be deemed to be a proffer by Applicant to construct such a grade separated interchange. { } Before the issuance of the fiat certif care of occupancy for improvements in excess of the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase II, VD OT shall have approved funding for the design and construction of the widening of U.S. 29 to sic through lanes between the entrance to North Fork at Read A to Route 649. 3 Construction may nevertheless continue in excess of the Total Nftximum Build -out, Phase II (but in no evert beyond the limitation contained in 3. 1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in 1 and (2) above so long as Applicant can dernonstrate to VD OT through traffic studies approved by VDOT that acceptable levels of service (LOS 22, Attachment B , 11} or Fetter for U.S. and Rome 649 intersection) can be maintained with existing, or alterriauve improveritcrlts. (d) Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary For construction of a 49 grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated oil Exhibit 5.3 as "Future Right of Way Area for Gracie Separated [nterchange.4' Applicant shall dedicate such area without consideration. and when the interchange is to be constructed. It is Applicant's desire to participate in the design for such interchange so that Applicant may preserve Sloe aesthetic features of the Project's entrance. I- RE, CREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE A Develo ed Recreational Areas. Applicant shall develop active recreation and picnic areas as shown On the attached Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1). Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shah follow the phasing schedule of proffered road improvements as set forth in .4 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase I on Exhibit 6.1 shall be completed before construction of the Maximum Taal Build -out, Phase I, as set forth in 5.3. Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to the County, shall be maintained by the Applicant or an appropriate Organizaiian for use by users Within the Project. Applicant shall convey to the County, without consideration, the ball fields depicted on Exhibit 6. 1. Active recreation areas will not be lighted with field or stadium lighting. 6.2 0 ell Space. Applicant shall restrict developmenE of areas not shown as development parcels can thn, Open. Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are Oxhibit tablished b plat {and the boundaries later #ion on plats may be adjusted from those depicted on 6. 1). In rto even# will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Green Belt (defined in 6.3 below), Buffer areas (defined in 7. 2 below), and recreation areas described in these Proffers be less than a try €al of 200 acres. These areas shall ht: for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the rL-Strictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the North Fork Owners Association or to an appropriate Organization. No structural improvements ocher than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be corn tructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Rivanna Green Belt. Applicant shall reserve a 100 foot wide area along Elie boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River ( "Greed Belt"). No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails* and utilities) shall be constructed, or erected Within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. Applicant may grant across the Green Belt utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna Diver For the users within the Project and their guests, and may at its option. build pedestrian and riding trails or similar uses of the area. The Green Belt shall remaia undeveloped except for pedestrian and riding trails and to the extent necessary to accorunodatc utili ties crossings, At such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park within the Green Belt, and upon a request by the County, Applicant shall convey the Green Belt to the County without consideration, provided the uses allowed for utilities, and pedestrian 0d riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by tltie pplicant, at its option. 10 23 Attachment B 6.4 erneter and_Ice Pik Site. Applicant shall not disturb the exiting family+ cemetery located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Applicant shall complete within one year Of these proffers, a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and foriner homestead site into the development of the Project, Once completed, the *servation plan shall be filed with the County to accompany zlIeSe proffers. The preservation plan all memorialize the historical significance of this site, consistent with the wishes of the family of those interred in the cemetery, The plan shall include a strategy for preserving these sites. The plan shall be implemented as .Lhc areas surrounding the sites are developed or as necessary in order to prevent further degradation of the sites from the date of these proffers. 11. LANDSCAPING API 1D BUFFERING 7. l Landscaping'. The Applicant shall landscape all Project roads in accordance wi h tl. standards contained in the "Exhibit D, URBF's forth Fork Street Tree Faster Plan ", filed with tine Albemarle County Planning Conunission on November 1, 1994. Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root interference with such utilities. 7.2 Buffer Areas. Applicant shall not disturb the Buffer Areas as depicted on the Zoning Application Plan, other than to: i construct signa e, fences or walls, ii} remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. Applicant shall plant additional landscaping in Buffer Areas as reasonably required for screening. Applicant shall plant durable trees on panel B -7 (as identified on the Zoning Application Flan) prior to con- mcncing construction of improvements on parcel B -7. The purpose of planting additional trees in this area will be to provide screening to adjoining residences. . VIII. FIRE STATION 8.1 Fire Station. Applicant shall dedicate to the County, at County,s request, up to a MaXimum of five acres for the purpose of construction by the County of a fire and emergency response facility; provided however. that Applicant shall not be required to dedicate such lard until the Counter has included such a facility in its Capital Improvement Flan ( iP). The five acre parcel shall be located on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating are alternative parcel of land located offsite that is acceptable to the County. So that the Project's design integrity, as contemplated in Applicant's Design Guidelines, may be maintained it is Applicant's desire that it be consulted on the exterior design of the fire station if it will located within the Project. Applicant shall contribute funds for, or provide directly through its own pro rams, hazardous materials training for County fire and emergency personnel. Applicant's contribution of funds shall be limited to funding for up to 2 sessions a year for years, beginning with the cOmPietiort of the County's fire station. 8.2 Haz ardous Materials. Hazardous materials, including medical wastes shall be disposed within the Project. - 8.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated to the County pursuant to proffers 5-4(b)(1) and (), .4(d), 6.1, 6.3, and 8.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty Q years of receipt of the property by e County, then the property shall be used as open space, 24 Attachment B IX, PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT .1 Project Rm rr. Applicant shall submit a report to the Department of Planning and Immunity Development, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the d velopmenc activity in the Project over the applicable period. X. SIGNATORY ATOI Y 10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the oily owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 10. The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developers) of the Property or any portion of the Property. • • UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA READ. ESTATE FOUNDATION By: �.�� DI ET~ RESEARCH H PAI , INC. Title: MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, IN . L, Title: I ROAI E SUR I AL STRJMENTS, INC. 13Y: Title: 'gel 1 �- 1�--) Attachment B it is proffered, wi(h such use being; undertakelY within Ewenty (0) years of receip[ of 117e Property by the County, Chen the property shall be used as open space. 0 IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT .l Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Department of Planning and Community Developmcnt, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the development activity in the Projecr over the applicable period. X. SIGNATORY 10.1 ertiticar , The undersigned certifies that dicy are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application, 1G.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run wish the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. • UNIVERSITY Ola VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION By: 'Titre: UREF RESEARCH PARK, INC- By: Title- MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC. By: Title: MICROAIRF, SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS. INC. B: 49 Title: 1 2(0 Attachment B { STATE OF �. --•--— CITY/COUNTY OF ,. 0 The foregoing g Instrument was acknowledged before the tws day of 19136, by =l, :�� 4 -the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. MY cornaiission expires: Gq - � Y t �-} - $ (SEAL] Notary Public STATE OF CITY]COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was at: no [ed ed before me this day of ` � f i c- a, v, S# r i+{ y 4 L?-L b G i , on behalf Of � e ��c , k + My commission expires: [S A LJ F- I L A Not I'bli 1 r� Attachment B } STATE OF ,r__LA11 TY/COUNTY OF k ? The foregoing h strument was acknowledged before me this - day of 1996, by e = ' .- *- -,. • of [Ile Um er i[} of Virginia Real % Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. my Commission expires: ' Ll - 3C) - [SEAL] Notary Public STATE OF CITY/CC)UNTY of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day, of � 6, by ►i- ... , on behalf of UREF Research Parr, Inc. My commission expires: u - [SEAL] r � Notary Public 14 f 2,0 . STATF OF 4t Yom+ 4 . ITYICOUNT F -:; - , . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before rile [I, is day of 1996, by ' , . „ - on behalf of Motion COnfrOt Industries. Inc. MY carrullission expires- [SEAL] • Notary Pubi C. SWC of New York No. 5008517 Oualified in Onondaga County COMMIss,ort ExpPres February 22. 1 -i� u.US$ 6%199SWCINOkFRzcc -DOC • No Public 15 Attachment B 2q i r a Or NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK AkbrmmrlrCounty, VirgLniJJ ti'it -.n:k� Miap w.a. FI9 as f Lf :1SY• JA ' t y�kwa rwr - VM++ r +r- i Fes' ff _ Ad}`ac =t owners r woo 'IL sew � t{ ff #i WA pr9mrnate r NYE ilwfrrr..Y.s � ` f ;1 PEEL iMr Vie ll�. �.,yy Land Use NLZLr •y..i.y�..a„ LN v BMW P.MLrM ZONING APPUCAnON PLAN PM"P- University of Vlrgini� Real Estate Cotu�rdation j�fir �r R. --r" rt ��X hha �� ns Attachment 8 3L, r woo 'IL sew � t{ ff #i WA pr9mrnate r NYE ilwfrrr..Y.s � ` f ;1 PEEL iMr Vie ll�. �.,yy Land Use NLZLr •y..i.y�..a„ LN v BMW P.MLrM ZONING APPUCAnON PLAN PM"P- University of Vlrgini� Real Estate Cotu�rdation j�fir �r R. --r" rt ��X hha �� ns Attachment 8 3L, NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK AAMMWIL Coudy,V&.3in1r f i Attachment 8 ' # LLji J •` .ti .4 WFLA" a rre[� *ir�14>r irr�4�FypM7i IL UYAa'=1OMb KkffMtd an Mn&ffT%MW LAMV43ri # WM F. J 7 LNrMtbTpLV7 rya1 L-MRP- RLAL!'ArgKM,#* + i RA9TkwLIDLYJRTT LL500n YLk-a'pl 113# i Tt+R!'L >ri' LLLTITY�I1fA�aNitG ■ L Od.tiW L42WTl 00 TART 3RAME[ROWIAM UMLSQumnm L T 7RR4TI.0ff*MPIR1110 4W �AM ¢wi4MkT1Os AMOV LLLY7 MW L"M KULM paYLMMOAT1i4NM VAL OWN" wF�`7Cd11�TFI.lp4 lOa *LY#4o#*■tIr *6 v 4 1 I.Yd=w7m P&D II Lm halt w T �4R~411CAa'A'TOfLAII� I w 4 L FIr LK #low IFL"q -1 MT't■ _ > J PMUTMN i WUWTW M1 LAedaOry Lfl40 •A• WM hMo + } T4h�plhrTTkw� LmMod 0"FA'n%MILA f i11OYTJILGI{Iri77�b1oiLtM:LO1 YS+8 `�' L I IITLAIIlL18bs*ff t &W S+RC1►Law b lu bM40'A' 7. LpAL7a11I#YlT�171w LArLLfiIILl+r d11L7R1Ld'w' IL *x+llcao�dLl+tfl4t+LRwlm ! + FKNLM JFail] 4! :MT A 1IIIYF1 !MIL1r+ LAM Ll l "M piow !]FC `h- tO +A +X: J! KM 14M Me r. HURL 10 Tltt UL. rhf"LJNIPAJLT CrACm 4SUjAATT0L%PMCAAW.L05 hHINd LDi'!' +• TOIL • I + oa11 CO wA•AMA PA I"wffA A IOWkLIL'I ML CAAM 40 44TW siMM00NU #rguija bBIT 5.3 �?niveE6.iS}� of Vl�i.f17�L Real Fstwe Foundation OFF-SM AND E9TEMAL cbwwm- &4V.V . ROAD PHASING M 1 =awn j NORTH FOB • . , . {. z BUSINESS PARK l � Akenvck Caunly. Virginia A *' - RVitt V . NAY ri 3 LAJO, LRmrvlbm # RiIR�Ay�L�SyEL'iS03w 0 O 7 KO -W. Y4iF U.■ • f „ a +� iLIJYb DL47➢tiD� + Ln QUAIL RAJ �LANE LWDF MER T2 a RL�7AL9PCT�GN�y,y��.i��} �� *x �v.• � 60' JL0.W, AD , } i JRALSECrWN rar.. , "� OIr D U UNMED AURALMMON * (0 9.0 W f F� 4 ' r - + } �+ ows Attachment B !—!Wr I c IBIT 5 -1 Ur iversity of Vagina Rte! Wabe F4undadon =RNAL ROAD NETWORK lNtE{eeJ Canoa 9 2 ttacht1` enl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planting & Corrimu xity DDe Gt)pmenr 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VErginia 22902 - 96 l> 4j 296 5823 May 26, 1999 John ManEhews P 0 Box 5603 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE; ZMA-98-2 7 'Un ive rs ity of Virginia Researeh Park rah North Fork Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A and 19 Dear Mr. Matthews- -Me Albemarle Count Board of uper ISOr , at its meeting 01IuLay 5, 1990, unai imousiv approved the above -noted request to amend ZMA -954)4 to reduce building setbacks along intcmal public road rights -of- -way from 50 to 10 feet. If'you should have a:ny questions or comments regarding the above•notcd acuoiL please do not hesitate ro contact me. incerely. I V. Wayne C' berg Director of ��aEtnir 81C Community V C /jcf Cc; Amelia McCuI1ev Jack Kelsey Tex Weaver Steve Allshouse lopment 33 Attachment D 020 _ 021 IN GREENE f ZMA, 200 5t0010 03 UVA RESEARCH P4 K a AlRP0RT'ROAD - ~-a `. 1•. }= TAX. MAP 32, PARCEL 18 • 184L a i 4, ' ,• fir,. i .� aw .,3 1 SEE 31B 1 r i fIM + f T ?" SEE 311. - 5 -70C mac- +� Ar 324W N I' .305 32AW 3Y -10'1 . JU„ AIL" 46 Ar� •� � ' r " -SEE 32C� ohm +' {i A* SrE 32F! F Ij P alt I SEA 45B4 Part , 5+ SSE `2L-, EEr46 Part y �•- J. j'y J 0 � 5L � 046 D47 Tax Map, smia Albemarle County -`' r, �ofrTM ,sm�cfsfc.�'arp�+'�csesar�v . u�d snalw orrwa � �� � r�607, " I Attachment E r � CL ML ar •E ch .5 4-9 y LU s { N. , k t - C G} ro LZ iX. An u �f� icy y4 1i�' CL ' U. r � CL ML ar •E ch .5 4-9 y LU s Attachment F LO ti o 4 Q " a y i > UL r � r*a Al tk Od � Y 5 ro ry a # . Q LZ D S U u N 5 4 4 � C7 J PLO& Jl�c��fi�r 3m 1 5 'y W J I y� } LZ 4 C t Y� LF1 � j Z a LL C 1 1�• c O w •Z Q C �t ATTACHMENT ;rffi 'Twr - O k ii4- P tik t.� i.0 a Fa sfr� 0 Z 0. 1 1 r, w I � r � -;l k CL VIt � ;rffi 'Twr - O k ii4- P tik t.� i.0 a Fa sfr� 0 Z 0. 1 1 r, w I � r � -;l 2 LL R \ n } m % 2 Iq \ \ � � 0 , . , � � o � R/ A �y a0 Attachment Ln Q � a. z ll � o 2 / $ _ � 7 _ � � k � o � ■ k � k .�� : 3� I Albemarle County Planning Commission January 31, 2006 The Albemarle Counter Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, .January 31, 2006, at 6;00 p_rn„ at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Jo Higgins, Eric trucko, ,ion Cannon, Calvin Morris, slice- Chairman; Pate Craddock and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Julie Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, represented David J Neuman, FAIR, Architect for University of Virginia Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg. Planning Director; Bill Fritz, Development Review Manager; Steve Tugwell, Senior planner; Elalne Echols, Principal Planner; Ron White, Housing Director, John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning; Amelia McCulley, Zoning and Current Development Director/ Zoning Administrator and Greg l• arnptner, ❑eputy County Attorney. Excerpt for ZM A 2005.03: MA 2006 -003 UVA research Park at Airport Road (Sian 9181, - Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Parr for 500,000 square feet of office and research use_ The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A is located in the Frio Magisterial Distract on the north side of Airport Road (Route 64 9) approximately cne third of a mile from the intersection of airport Road and Route 29 Barth. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Industrial Service in the Hallyrnead Community. General usage for Industrial Service is warehousing, fight industry, research, heavy industry. office parks, supportive commercial and service and residential if compatible (density is not specified). General usage within the PDIP zoning district permits industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses. No residential Uses are allowed. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols summarized the staff report. • This rezoning request was brought to the Commission for a work session because there were a lot of issues that relate to this particular proposal that staff feels are important for the Commission to have some weigh in on before the applicant proceeds to the next step Staff needs the omission's input to provide direction to the applicant, • Application has been made for MA-2005.003 to rezone approximately 28 acres of land that is adjacent to the already approved North Fork Research Park_ The rezoning plan for the Forth Fork Research Park is posted on the board. The areas highlighted in orange are the approved developments or buildings existing on the site About 3 million square feet was proposed with that rezoning. The applicant has constructed about 350.000 square feet to date. That number was is in the application. The plan is fairly conventional. It was approved back irl 1986 as an office park plan_ The applicant want to add another 500,000 square feet to be accessed from Airport Road. It contains sorre of what has been approved as well as this additional 28 acres. The applicant would tike to do It generally in the same way that the previous approval was done_ That is something that staff wanted to bring to the Commission's attention In general, the uses meet what is on the land use plan. The Commission asked staff to bang a copy of the land use map, which she passed around to show therm the location of the Industrial Service Area. This area is shown as Industrial Service on the County's Land Use Plan. There are specific things that staff would like to draw to the Commission's attention, as listed below • Staff Is concerned about some of the design elements because there are some things that might need to be brought up to date • The relationship of buildings to the street • Pedestrian access as it also relates to the streets and the overall design Also there are some other questions about the pedestrian access. • The streets themselves and the interconnections. • Changes to the originally approved open space. • Whether or not tote design should reflect a new center. • The mixture of uses that are proposed. Ms. Higgins asked how much staff its capturing of what the North Fork Business Park is now_ She asked it staff was justifying her discussion to the 28 acres when talking about the relationship of buitdings to streets and that sort of thing. She asked if they are proposing to change the zoning in the existing park. Ms. Echols stated that the applicant was not requesting a zoning change in the overall park. She pointed out on the map that the area on the right of those two parcels is already approved for the research park. The area on the loft is the area to be added to the research park. It they look at the boundary lines on the design over on the far left panel. they will see that it covers both of those areas So there is a reason for a portion of the already approved park to be reviewed in part because they are showing building development where open space was previously approved. So the applicant has to modify the alder plan in that area in order to be able to accommodate what they want to do there. The answer to the big question is no that they were not talking about the redesign of the entire park. But, what they are talking about are changes to hart has previously been approved lrt the area adjacent to the rezoning. She asked to talk a little bit more about Area D because the Commission has recently seen Area D with the fire station rezoning that they made a recommendation an about two weeks ago for approval to the Board. So there is a real small area in this rezoning that is going to the Board of Supervisors an February 8 for the final rezoning action on it, which inctuded Area D. There were a number of proffers that related to Area D The first issue Ms. Echols naked comes under the principle of pedestrian orientation for the Neighborhood Model When staff looked at the new proposal for the development what they saw was a fairly conventional office park very similar to what has been previously developed on the Fontaine Research Park. When staff looked at that and thought about the Neighborhood Model they saw something different than they are now promoting. If you go to Attachment Br on pave 35 there are three distinctly planning areas that the applicant wants to use. It is a little hard to pick that out on the plan on the board and so staff asked the applicant to identify it further. The applicant has divided it up into three general sections. There is are area that relates to Airport Road- There is a middle area that surrounds wetlands Then there is a further northern area that has a face to the street of Lewis and Durk with buildings that are fairly well set back_ This kind of thing was promoted when the original rezoning took plane. But, staff does no# know it this is the kind of development that they are looping for as much anymore_ But, there is a very legitimate question to be raised here about an existing development and adding more area to that existing development_ She asked if it was okay for it to develop in a similar fashion to what was previously approved. Or should they be looping for something that is a little more in keeping with the Neighborhood Model in laying out streets. either public or private, and having a face to the street for the buildings rather than what loops a lot like a series of buildings and parking lots that are just sort of laid out in an office park. Btafr's first question for the Commission is whether or not they think that the layout is appropriate given that this project has been over tithe. Ms. Echols continued that the second thing is the pedestrian access issue_ If the layout were a little different with a series of streets she felt that they would have sidewalks that worked well with the development itself The next page of the attachment, on page 36, shows the general pedestrian access system_ Along the drives there are some concrete sidewalks proposed_ Along Lewis and Clark there is an asphalt path proposed. That is what was previously approved with Lewis and Clark. Throughout the development they are looking at a series of sidewalks and paths. Staff would like the Commission to discuss whether or not they think the asphalt path along Lewis and Clark is still appropriate or whether or not it should go to ooncrete The plans are already being drawn up. But, the road is not under construction. if there is a desire to see this change she felt that now is probably the time to ask for that. Staff did not bring this up in the fire station rezoning because they knew it would be available for discussion at this point. Therefore the questioins are: c Is the design appropriate or should it he modified to be more in conformity with the Neighborhood Model? o Is pedestrian access appropriate? c Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side? BAs. Josephs asked if the applicant wanted to do an overall presentation to get the Commission oriented, When the Commission goes through these issues item by item they would like to have the applicant's input on those, too_ Bruce Stoffer. Director of Real Estate Development of the University of Virginia Foundation, stated that Tire Rose, CEO of the University of Virginia f=oundation; Fred Missel and Todd Marshall, Project Managers of the University of Virginia Foundation; and Valerie Long, their legal council, were present. He asked to quickly go over a few things for everyone_ The University of Virginia Research Park is their fourth name for their park. The reason for their name is their association with the University and they wanted to make that very clear to the people w&in our community as well as outside of our community if you include the 30 acres, the park is 502 acres As Ms. Echols stated, they are zoned for 3 million square feet of development. They have 320,000 square feet built to date. They have an 84,000 square foot office building under construction. The rezoning happened in 1996 and they were doing roughly 35,000 to 40,000 square feet per year. What they call the heart of their community is the town center district. In the town center they have a hotellconference center, which is where they hope to support core merciallretail. They have Pado 's Ceti out there right now, which is the only support commercial that they could get out there at this point. Obviously, there needs to be a lot of people before they can make a business successful. They are trying to get more support: commercial all of the time. This is their heart where they very much hope to have an urban environment. They will have concrete pavers and sidewalks going down both sides of the town centef area Mr. Stoffer continued that them is another area they call a technology district. There is some flex like industrial spare, which is for start up companies and companies that don't need to have a class A► office space image, but are in a technology business. There is a light industrial district_ The rest of the districts are yet to be determined. But, they have a plan as the park builds up. It is a large development It has been happening over a lot of time. So right now their goals are a little bit separated, but that is by design because of the different uses. With the 30 acre parcel in question, they would like to incorporate that in to the rest of our planning. Some folks have said that they are not at 10 percent build out and why are they asking for additional density at this point. The purpose of this is that they did acquire this property after the initial rezoning. They have already had some prospects that the County actually participated with us in trying to recruit who very much wanted to be located in this area_ But, they had to tell them that it was not available because it was not zoned appropriately. What they are trying to do is to tape a large flat piece of land that is highly desirable because it is close to airport Road and be able to start planning and working with this parcel. ,also, as Ms. Echols mentioned, the fire station will be built in this area. It is going to cost the University between a million and a million and a half dollars to put in infrastructure for the road back into the fire station The fire station was going on their property so we needed to do it. They are pleased to do it. They are hoping that they can work with that large investment and try to have this rezoning so that they can recruit some of the dollars that they are going to spend for that. Mr_ Btoffer asked to address the orientation and some of the issues that Ms. Echols brought up He noted that one of the design features that they have at the University of Virginia Office Parts is that they actually want to have the buildings sort of flush and center. They have two parks already. One is the park at Fontaine_ The other is the PRAM building at the University of Virginia Research Parr. They have a set of Design Guidelines that people need to adhere to. The quality of construction is very important for the long terra as well as the visibility_ Everyone will have to adhere to their Design Guidelines. So they would like to show off their buildings. It seemed to make sense to break up the three areas Originally they did not have the Smith property, So instead of having this as open space, they thought that a good planning principle was to put some signature buildings up front. As people come into the Charlottesville area one of the impressions that they will have is that this is really a quality development. Those will be buildings that all of us will be very proud of Next. Mr Stoffer continued that they carne to the wetlands area_ They wanted to preserve the wetlands. Therefore, they decided to try to make it a feature. As they made it a feature it made sense to try to put some buildings around it so the people could enjoy the wetlands. On the third part of the parcel, they would like to have buildings up along Lewis and Clary Drive, which was why they put the fire station in this location. But, then if you bring the buildings out it creates a huge parking lot in the middle. What they tried to do ► as bring some relationship between these six buildings. The thought would be that these six buildings could be research buildings where they could share services that other types of research buildings have_ They don't know the exact mix of uses out there, but the market will help us determine that. But they feel it will be the same uses that they presently have in the park, such as high technology and some research. They would also like to have a Support commercial component. They feel like creating a center within this area may not be the most prudent thing to do since they have their own town center just up the road and Hollymead Town Center is just this way. But, they think it makes a lot of sense to try to get a sandwich shop and some other support amenities to be part of this package. They are trying to hide the parking as much as they can. They do have primary access ways into the parcel. They feel that the asphalt sidewalk that they presently have in the park, which is larger than standard, is used a lot by their tenants. They are very happy with it. When they designed Lewis and Clark Drive there was a lot of discussion. It was suggested that Lewis and Clark Drive should be like a rural parkway, It should have that feel as you drive along that you are not in downtown Chadottesville. They felt that an asphalt pathway with the tree plantings is a nice wain to continue that. They feel as they get into the process and become more urban that it makes a lot of sense to have concrete sidewalks_ Ms_ Joseph asked that the Commission discuss what Ms. Echols has proposed item` by item if they have any questions, the Commission will inmate the applicant back up to make comments. The first question is whether this request is appropriate as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. The language limited it to certain acreage. uses and sizes, which actually comes from the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Morris felt that it is extremely appropriate as tar as the Comprehensive Plan The one thing that he really likes about this is that industrial land has been changed to residential in many cases and here is a chance to get some land back. He felt that the proposed use Fits right i:n with the development area, Ms Higgins stated that she did not see any points that made it in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan_ [fir. Edgerton stated that the Comprehensive Plan sags 5 5 acres per million square feet, Ms .Joseph stated that they felt at this point in time that it is appropriate. But, she felt that it still was not appropriate because that is very specific to the acreage and the square footage. The applicant is asking for both. But, the Land Use Plan also designates this as industrial The Commission needs to decide whether it is appropriate at tins particular point in time. Mr. CHImberg asked to mention something because he Felt that Js_ Echols tried to speak to this in her position statement under the question The 3 million square feet was specifically associated with the 525 acres that were subject to an amendment to the plan back in the 90's. that is proposed as the new area here is designated in the plan for industrial and it is outside of those 625 acres_ So where staff sits it seems that it is consistent because It was not part of the restricted square footage area,. Mr. Strucko stated that it was an additional 30 acres and an additional 500,000 square feet. Mr, G111mberg stated that was correct as proposed Ms. Higgins stated that she was assurring that wording was not intended to preclude areas adjacent. Mr. C ilirnberg stated that was why it was 525 acres. Ms Joseph noted that if they all agree on that. then that is fine_ She suggested that they go on to the next question. Mr Cannon stated that the language was ambiguous But, if the Land Use Plan elsewhere indicates, as he takes it that it does, that the additional 30 acres is within an area contemplated for industrial service then he felt more comfortable He asked if that was the case_ Ms, Joseph stated that was correct_ She noted that staff specifically requested design elements. She asked if staff was tafking about the layout itself_ s. Echols stated that was correct_ Ms. Joseph asked if the layout itself was pretty much what the applicant was using Mn the other portion of the parr. Ms, Echols stated that she felt so in part because the old plan does not give specifics in terms of where the features are going and the buildings and streets would be located. She felt that the best guidance with what the applicant has given us Is what Fontaine Research Park looks like. That is tine image she has about what is bung proposed here_ Ms. ,Joseph asked if the Commission has any comments on that Ms_ Higgins stated that it was somewhat clear that there was a whole different focus, At Fontaine A is more of an urban setting and a more intensely used site She questioned if this parr was suppose to be consistent with the Neighborhood {Model or with the original 525 acres. This plan is a lot more specific than the original rezoning plan, which was why she asked the question It appears that they are not because they are only considering this parcel_ She has always been impressed that the land area or the mass, even though there is a lot of square footage involved, that it is a lot of vertical multi-story that is being treated from an Entrance Corridor perception and the University in their experience with planning has approached this as a parkway design with a pathway. She has driven throt,gh them a couple of Mmes. It is like an unoccupied space right now But, as it develops over bme she felt that with the proximity of the buildings in such a Large area that they can't gather them all together because it would be a mass of parking. Ms. Joseph asked if this was something that she could support_ Ms. Higgins stated that based on Mr toffer's presentation she felt that a lot of thought has gone into the three zones and why the buildings are located that way, She asked if this is potentially going to he the concept plan that they approach with the rezoning. Ms. Joseph stated that it was. Ms. Higgins stated that she could not say that she disagreed because she could see their focus The asphalt pathways are very well located in the existing research park Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any reason the Sidewalks could not be concrete and be wide and winding. _ Higgins stated it its lice a rural parkway and it was a part of the County where they were not putting the buildings close_ They are not doing the Neighborhood Model_ The question is whether, they are going to impose the Neighborhood Model on these 28 acres that is not imposed on the rest of it. In other words. does this have to be consistent with the County s Neighborhood Model or can it be consistent with the University's grand plan. Mr_ Edgerton asked what our Comprehensive Plan says Ms. Higgins stated that it says that everything that comes before us has to be exactly the Neighborhood Model Ir. Edgerton agreed that was exactly what it says. Ms_ Higgins stated that she did not believe that in all cases_ Mr, Strucko noted that was the twelve principles Nis Higgins felt that pedestrian orientation of 560 acres is a difficult thing to achieve s. Joseph asked Mr. Strucko if he would like to weigh 01 on the design elements. Mr. Btrucko stated that he saw too much building dispersion. He believed that the intention of the Development initiative Steering Committee and the Neighborhood Model was for a more compact development that utilized the space very efficiently and preserved as mach of the open space around the property as much as possible. But, he was not ready to condemn what he was seeing here_ He understands the need for the parking for the intended uses that are outlined for this particular development The Neighborhood Model itself can't apply to this because there is na residential component here But, certainly there are elements or principles that they can apply that are more of a custom style of development with relegated parking and starve open space, BUt, he has to disclose that his employer is a tenant of the Fontaine Avenue Research Park and he does not use the sidewalks. He walls from the parking lot to the front door. So he was not sure what the constant walk ability gains you here other than a recreational use exercise during the middle of the day But, he was anxious to hear more_ When he looks at that it is very spread out It is an intensity of use here, and he was curious to see more- M r Morris stated that this is a continuation of the current research park. He sees that as important as the Neighborhood Model and possibly even more so. Mr. Strucko stated that in the DISC work, which he recalls very clearly, they understood that there were going to be uses in other areas that don't fit a mixed use development when there is residential and commercial. An industrial use was a big example, Mr Edgerton agreed with Mr. trucko's comments. He understands the University's desire to continue the traditional office park experience, but frankly he thinks the Neighborhood Model is the whole reason for them app$y #ing those principles through the Comprehensive Plan_ He would like to see more effort made to apply some of those principles The relegated parking_ especially in the section in the back, should be looked at. There is a tremendous amount of parking that dominates towards the north. He understands the argument of trying to develop some sort of relationship with those buildings, but there would be other ways to do that besides just acres and acres of surface parking. He would life to see more of are effort to address as many of the principles of the Neighborhood Model that would be appropriate for this sort of activity_ He did not see much effort here to do that. Mr. Cannon stated #hat he liked the asphalt because it was better to run cn. Cc ncreke is not great to run on He asked for a conceptual statement from staff to heap htm to be able to orient around the real' issue here It sounds as if there is a pull between the Neighborhood Model as something they want to happen and a set of design principles treat animated the original concept, which are still present at least to some degree in this new component. Ms_ Echols stated that the Neighborhood Model is trying to create a place with unique characteristics to it that people want to be in, work in, feels comfortable to be in and also fills the needs of the community. She felt that if this were redesigned more around streets and less around driveways and if there was more of a relattonship between buildings and the streets that it would provide the opportunity for people between buildings to traveil back and forth. fir. StrucKo was talking about he event into the building and them comes back into the parking lot. She would like to think that a research parr could have some interactive parts to it where you have people who are going from building to building and are potentially working together on things and relating to one another Mr. Strucko stated that he taking a larger view by looking at the region around this industrial park Hts view of the Neighborhood Model was a sense of self sustainability in the region, which was a place to live. work and recreation_ There was also a place for schools. There world be a way to move to all of these places with some ease with the lacy of congestion. They know the nature of 29 as i; exists now. There is hardly a lot they can do with what has already been established But, the virtue of this that he sees is that here are potential employment centers He already knows what is around them There are intense residential uses in both Forest Laces and the residential component with Hollymead Town Center and North Pont There are existing restdential areas with North Pines and in other neighborhoods down in that area Bo possibly if he lived in one of these residential areas and worked in the research park he could potentially walk to work, The potential he sees here is that this could be an employment center that could potentially alleviate travel on 29 with commuters heading towards Charlottesville and that people could cross 29 instead of traveling along it. That is where he was seeing some encouragement in the location of this development with respect to what is already there. He Felt that was sort of the Neighborhood Model in abstract Mr. Cannon stated that kinds of shrifts the focus because they were not trying to create the neighborhood necessarily within the confines of the park. The parr, as he understands it. is designed as an tndustnal commercial area There is going to be a hotel there But, there is not going to be a lot of residential. Ms. Joseph pointed out that there was no residential. Ms. Higgins stated that the park was basically between the two town centers. !r Cannon stated that they have to think of this in a broader context. Nis. Higgins stated that the other concept that may be an explanation was that they were looking at a flat plan But_ if you look at it more dimensional these buildings as shown in the pictures and From the footprints would emulate and then you would see these broad acres of parking. To support that footprint of three or four stories of office space you need acres and acres of parking. There is no place to make the cars more compact. IVIS. Joseph suggested that there may be holding patterns for some structured parking at some future time when something else is built out there Ms. Higgins stated that regarding the limitations of the square footage that the applicant could increase the square footage by the time they build it gut. She questioned how they could better relegate the parking because there are acres of parking and those buildings are tall. If those buildings were spread out, those buildings would shank in perspective. But, they have gone multi -story that maces it more compact. The only other alternative is to put parking underneath the buildings. With the area that they have after protecting the wetland, she had no problem with the orientation and the way they are connected She felt that they were talking about a lot of square Footage and maybe the proportion of this was not shown clearly in the pictures. Mr Craddock felt that the County should have gotten more land for the fire station. He agreed with Mr. Edgerton that there was too much parking With the Critical mass of six building right there it looks like a parking structure similar to the new over in Staunton would look really nice in there_ He questioned if this is the maxkmum build out of this parcel. or if there is a phase coming in on some of those big parking lots with other buildings and parking structures. He questioned if that has been discussed, IRAs ,Joseph stated that they could ask the appticant She looked at it and thought that they were trying to use some of the principles of the Neighborhood Model There are a lot of street trees pedestrian connections and open ways that made It possible to make some connections to the adjacent properties_ They did line up the buildings and put the parking behind. They did line up the roadways There are an awful lot of trees within that parking lot if that is the kind of things that they expect to see if this represents that. Therefore, she felt that they have made an effort to make a sense of place by that this roundabout in the center of the top part of those six buildings So there is some attempt at trying to use some of the twelve principles_ but not all of them_ But. again, they were not dealing with a residential component here_ It is industrial and this access comes all the way through The fact that they are actually looking at a Comprehensive Phan designated land use that fits tnis category instead of someone trying to put it into residential was positive_ Also_ the applicant's plan speaks to all of those things that the omrnwss;on has spoken to in the past, particularly how close this is to the airport and the major transportation connections. Therefore. she was really not having a problem with the design elements in this Mr. Edgerton stated that Aft. Joseph made a good paint that there are elements in here that are sensitive to some of the pedestrian scale_ Although, the buildings are larger than what they would consider to be pedestrian scaled buildings This is still a proposal that is totally focused on the automobile being the driver The Neighborhood Model stroke is a way of getting away from the automobile being the driver in all of our community, Therefore, he would like to see more of are effort to try to create friendly pedestrian spaces_ He felt that they have worked out pedestrian linkages through the sea of automobiles. He would like to see some effort to try to get people out of their cars and get them to using this space comfortably without having to get into cars or waiking across huge expanses of parking lots One of the things he had been struggling VAth in this conversation was why they wouldn't want Borne mixed use here. The idea of that being taken care of over in North Point or in Hollymead residential section reminded him of their previous conversations with those projects that spoke rather directly to the fact that you can't COLInt on the guar across the street or down the road They were trying to get away from putting all the louses over there and all the businesses over here This is what they are trying to get away from. They are trying to give people the opportunity for a better way of developing This is still of the old school, The oar is sacred here. He gUestioned whether the parking was really relegated. Conceptually it is a very nice Job as long as you forget about trying to get people out of their cars. There is no effort to try to get people out of their cars. Ms. Higgins pointed out that this was not a local employment center because marry people drive from other areas to work in the research park. The draw here is potentially for a national draw due to the airport's location. She asked the applicant to come fonvard and explain the appearance of the large mass of parking ire context with the buildings She asked how many jobs this would create and how Far people would drive from Mr. Stoffer stated that as far as employment opportunities they feel that it will be between 10.004 and 1 ,ODO employees at the IJVA Research Park once It is built out_ There is no way to tell about the parking because research space takes 2 parking spaces per 1.000 Some office spaces need 5 spaces per 1,000. They have actually tried to use the Neighborhood Model principles- They have tried to build out as much density on this site as they can so they don't have a continuous sprawl out. They are trying to get the density compact. To build structured parking it takes $12,000 to $15,000 per space lout, at a lot of locations it can't be done that way and it is more lire $25,000 to 530,000 per space. They have to be able to charge about $500,000 an acre minimal to be able to justify doing structured parking- So structured parking is certainly a possibility here, but not for an awful long time because the economics just don't allow it For 500.000 square feet they have parking for 3 per 1,000 square feet. They estimate that it will be part office, which may be 4 per 1,000 square feet. Usually what they have in parr research is 2 per 1,000 square feet. So they have averaged it as 3 per 1,000 square feet, which around 1 ,500 jobs. He noted that the parking area really depends on the uses They have been working with the County, particularly John Shepherd, on how much parking is appropriate. They have a lot of shared parking opportunities. They do get a lot of people from Other counties. There are not a lot of people who walk ar ride their bikes to wort. The paths are meant to be an amenity for people to use to jog and walk on. As part of their proffers they plan to have athletic fields. They want to create a special environment. It is going to take some time. On page 36. it shows their pedestrian connections. Granted they don't go to the extent that maybe they could. They would agree to work with Ms. Echols on that {also. they would be happy+ to try to identify the street more clearly. It is hard to plan For this amount of acreage in the future because they don't know who their users will be They don't know the actual size of the buildings, but the 20,000 square foot footprint seems to be the most economical size to build in today's market place. The market will help determine the number of stories in the buildings. But, it will be of a quality that they all will be proud of They have tried to bring the buildings up along the streets. They are happy to continue working w[th staff to do it the best that they can. They would like some flexibility with a note to be able to make some adjustments because they can't predict what the market is going to require They are committed to try to do the best planning that they can do. Ms. Echols felt that they have already discussed the neighborhood streets and paths With the application plan staff is looking for oommitrnents to the infrastructure where streets and drives are going to be basically out of the buildings- Staff would have an expectation when this comes back to the Commission for public hearing that they have those fairly well identified and that they would remain in place. The interconnection is an interesting item to bring up at this point_ When the Commission saw the proffers for the fire station they saw a proffer that proffered to have a public street that would go from Lewis and Clark west towards the west of tax wrap 32, parcel 18. There seems to have been a misunderstanding at the Foundation level about what that meant- So the proffers have changed between what the Commission has seen and what is now going to the Board of Supervisors to reflect an opportunity for either a public or a private street at that particular location. There has been a lot of internal staff discussion on that particular change. But iri the end staff is comfortable with the Commission dealing with the issue of whether it should be public or private and connect all the way west through the rezoning The proffers have been modified and it would be in the Commission's hands to approve a private street if that is what ultimately is desired. If this rezoning does not progress and the other rezoning is approved with the proffers that are there right now, they would pretend like this thing goes away- So the fire station is built and the mediart is put in the road and the roads are rearranged so that there has to be something that goes west from this parcel for the fire station driveway to connect into- No whether that is private or public would ultimately be the Commission's decision if this rezoning were to be set aside for a long tune. She did not think that it was going to be. But. she was trying to demonstrate that there was a protection in there for that decision to be made at a future date. Staff hopes that the Commission will consider whether or not it should be public or private with this particular rezoning and male a decision along those lines. The issue here is whether or not it should be a public or a private street and then connect all the way over to the other property - That is where she is headed with this. She felt that they were protected by the change in the proffer and she wanted to make the Commission aware of it. But. the ultimate issue is as you go west are you connecting to something. And, if so, what is the quality of the street. The Commission had quite a long oonversation earlier this evening on interconnections. She felt that there was some value in it being a public street rather than a private street because of all of the other arrangements that have to be made. Brit. it is ultimately what the orr mis!>-ren wants to recommend in that regard. Cllr. Morris asked if this was the interconnection that they were talking about with Gold Leaf. BAs. Echols stated that was correct Mr. Edgerton noted that was not shown on this plan MS Joseph stated that the question was if the street as depicted is appropriate as a design element and making the commitment to infrastructure has to deal with this public road aspect Ms Echols stated that the question was whether interconnections should be made to the properties to the west and should it be public or private or if the Commission cares about that. Mr. Edgerton felt that an rnterconnection should be made and it should be public so that there is no question about access. Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr_ Edgerton Mr, Edgerton stated that his only question was the location His recollection was when they were discussing this with Mr. Wood was that he had a particular client that he was trying to support He recalled that they had left some flexibiiity about where that interconnection would occur Therefore. he was not sure if it was going to work right beside the fire station Mr. Morns asked that the Commission invite the applicant to discuss the interconnection. Ms Higgins stated that it also has to be recognized as flexibility that over time they will have to adapt to development that has occurred on their boundary. And if there is a shifting of some sort that it works both ways. Obviously, a public street connection through this property bisects it and creates separate parcels_ She felt that was something that they need to address and integrate into their design Mr Strucko asked in this case what the distinction was between public and private Ms Joseph stated that it was maintenance and design standards. Mr_ Edgerton noted that it also included the access Ms_ Higgins pointed out that as a private road in a commercial travel way there would be more ftexibility with on street parking and with the design dealing with infrastructure. There are a lot of problems out there with the Neighborhood Model trying to be implemented with state roads. It is much easier to implement with private roads. State roads are sometimes not as accarrtmodating and have to be much wider She suggested that there be some compromise Mr ilimberg noted that when the Commission discussed Pantops Park and the connection with potnap Road it became very important to them because of interconnecting different parcels that it would be a public road In some wags that circumstance could exist here_ ter Edgerton asked if that would be directly related to the use of Ih +s road by a I•ire truck trying to get to a fire west of this property. Mr Cilimberg stated that it would, Mr. Edgerton asked if it was a private roast if that could be re Iricted Mr. Olimberg felt that it would not be restricted MS, Higgins noted that private roads are still built to a safe standard. 1s. Joseph staked that someone owns private roads. Mr Cifirnberg stated that stated that there would be stipulations for the interconnection to be available to that traffic. But, he felt that it becomes a question of ham much more difficult it is to accommodate what becomes public traffic across multiple parcels Mr. Edgerton stated that he heard loud and clear in the need for the fire station in this particular region of the County that it was importarnt that they make sure that they left a way to the west available in whatever #hey do on this property. What they are looking at right now has no interconnectivity. In fact, it has a storm water management facility proposed right at the terminus of that fire station read. 1r_ Morris agreed with Mr Edgerton that it needs to be public simply for the maintenance an(I so forth. But, staff needs to sit down with this applicant and Mr Wood and ask what they are going to do He recalled that Mr. Wood's proposed road does not keep going Ms- Higgins stated that it was somewhat governed by who gets there first with a plan. She suggested that this applicant confirm that he would accommodate. Mr- Morris stated that if the road was going to be constructed that it be where it is suppose to be. Mr. Strucko, stated that the existing development has three points of amass or exit, which are Airport Road, 29 South and then Dickerson load to the rear_ The adjacent property that they considered with Mr. Wood had the proposed road going difectiy west and then immediately south and Airport Road is the only point of entrance. Therefore, an emergency response would eventually end up on Airport Road with a western access. If there is something blocking that Airport Road entrance there is a second alternative Mr_ Morris agreed that was the way that he recalled it_ Ms. Joseph asked the applicant to address the Dommissian Mr. Stoffer stated that as Mr. Btrucko stated they have an entrance on 29 South with a cross over and an entrance on Dickerson Road. That is phase one infrastructure. Phase two takes the road out to the entrance on Airport Road They are going to be building this infrastructure into the fire station_ Fight now this is a public street. They have an interconnected boulevard, which they built as a spine off of that. That is a private street because they are allowed to do paraltet parking and can have the street a little bit closer That offers a little more flexibility. They also have Discovery Drive going into the technology district_ That is also a private street to provide more flexibility for the developer_ They have a park of all of their tenants' common area and maintenance fees to help pay for the entrance. They have a little bit higher standards for landscaping than VD OT does. Bo they have an agreement with VDOT that they can landscape the road and they receive money from their tenants to pay for that. As they look at the interconnecting street up to Mr. Wood's parcel above their property they straggle with a couple things. They are not saying that they don't think that ft is a good idea. But, from a planning standpoint they do think that it is probably a good idea. But, from a business point of view it makes it a little more difficult for them. They would really like the Commission's discussion and input on this. They don't just allow any company to come to the Research Parr. They need to have some kind of relationship with the University of Virginia. They try to build buildings that are a little bit higher standard than normal, They also try to landscape things a little different than others, If they have an interconnecting parcel street to other parcels that allows folks to market their's as being part of ours because someone can go right into their property. But, yet none of their tenants have the same Design ri. Guidelines as our tenants_ Their tenants are not paying for the landscaping of our roads and our entrances. But, yet they are having access to all of that. From this perspective it is more of a challenge for us to understand whey it is that we would want to do that_ They understand the principles behind interconnecting streets and respect those. They would just ask the ommission to help us come up with something fair and equitable with the money that they have put into their development. They need to some dray be able to protect their borders a little bat so that the tenants that do come and locate in our park, since they pay a fettle bit more than elsewhere because of the amenities, to feel that their investment will be worthwhile. Ms, Higgins asked if there was a signalized intersection planned for the Airport load location in conjunction with the fire station. She asked when that was planned to occur Mr, Staffer stated that he believed that it was when VDOT calls for it. They plan to put it in as soon as VOLT would allow them to and it would make sense in order to keep things safe for their tenants. They have not had this specific conversation with the fire department. But, they would be pleased to accommodate their needs and mission. Ms Higgins asked if there entrance off of Airport Road was going to ultimately be a four lane divided road with a median so if someone breaks down that it would not preclude someone being able to have two lanes going in direction. Mr. Sloffer stated that it would be. Ms. Joseph reiterated that fir. Staffer had said that the roads that this will be connecting to will all be public roads even though they would maintain the gees, Ms. Joseph stated that it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the road should be public. Ms. Higgins stated that she appreciated the statement about what this involves. The applicant had asked for input, She suggested that at that border there was always the potential on either side in creating a stone wall with a lighted entrance through the park whether it was from a side road or whatever. They cannot overlook the interconnectivity need She appreciated that the scale, the character and the architectural requirements on this development do really set it to a standard than what it will' connect to potentially. But, no one has any control over that_ Mr_ Morris asked staff to take a look at this with both of the folks involved because there is no sense on having this interconnecting road that leads back to Airport Road. Ms. Higgiris felt that they were trying to have multiple connections to Airport Road. Mr. Morris stated that the read could go are out and catch another road to the west 1r Cihrnberg pointed out that the Commission did not require that connection. and Mr. Morris agreed _ Higgins noted that topographically there were other issues. Mir Cilirnberg stated that _ Echols had mentioned that in the larger road Sys #em of Hollyrnead, which will get more clarified in Places 29. the connection that Mr. food's road would make to Airport Road would line up at the road corning out of Hollymead Town Center next to the post office corning into Airport Road. So in a sense it was creating more circulation with more parallel street opportunities by going west and then south. Mr, Strucko supported a public road because of the fire station and the fact that it provided an interconnection to Hollyrmead "town Center to the south of Airport Road. He felt that it should be interconnected to the adjacent property as well Ms, Echols stated that the next was the open space issue. A lot of the open space that was established on the first plan revolved around the expectation that along Airport Toad there would be a rural appearance as well as trying to protect the wetlands. They are now dealing with a more urban environment. Staff does not see any problem in recommending that the open space on the prevwous plan be replaced with the buildings that are shown lining Airport Road and especially the corner that is made between ,airport Road and Lewis and Clark- Staff thinks that is a very positive aspect, but wanted to male sure that the Commission agrees_ Mr Morris, Mr Strucko. Mr Edgerton agreed with staff. 9s Higgins felt that it was labeled open space previously because it was too narrow to develop. . Joseph stated that the consensus of the Commission was to agree with staff on the open space issue Ms. Echols stated that there had been a little bit of discussion about the neighborhood centers_ Staff wondered whether from a wally ability standpoint looping at it more as a place or destination that you could get to on foot if there ought to be something more centrally located_ Staff wonders if there should be sort of new center that is created on Airport Road tfrat the buildings that front Airport Road might be able to relate to that had more of a commercial aspect to it and a pedestrian destination. Staff also thought about the center that is already in the approved development that has some commercial and sort of the town center idea But, that location is a bit of a far walk from this particular area to get to their town centers. She asked if the Commission wanted to suggest that the applicant do something more to create a center or leave it as it i. 1s. Higgins stated that when she fend this she felt that was an inconsistency because when they looked at Old Trail they wanted the center internal Hollyrmead Town Center has a central focus, The struggle with Forth Point was that the developer wanted to bring it to the major road, but everyone wanted to focus it inwards Now the question is whether they want to push it closer to Airport road. She was okay with it because of the amount and mass of people and if they want to create a center towards the middle that they would not want to push it out on Airport Road Ms Joseph stated that there was sort of a mini center that they have given here with a boulevard and a little circuJar thing. Ms. Higgins stated that it was not like a town center type of tiring. Mr- Edgerton stated that he would like to see a center. It is hard to know what is going tc be in these buildings. But, that could lend itself into a tittle center- Ms Joseph stated that there were not dimensions. but it looked life it was large enough and there was green space there. it looks like there is Borne connection- Ms Higgins feft that Ns location for a center does not share with the rest of the park- It is at the very southern most tip of ttie property Even at Belvedere there was discussion on putting the center internally or to push it out to Rio Toad It was always to give something to whole development_ Mr. Edgerton felt that Ms. Joseph was not talking about out at Airport Road_ but in the northern section_ There were two questions asked in the staff report. First, should centers be created within the park? He felt that the answer to that is fires_ definitely_ Secondly, should the center be established aiong Airport Road? He felt that maybe it could work Mr Morns noted that it might not necessarily work along Airport Road- Ms. Joseph agreed. Ms Echols asked it the Commission was saying that they want a more fully developed center inside the property with something a little more that lists what uses would be them or are they okay with that evolving. Mr. Morris stated that he was okay with it simply evolving simply because they don't know who the tenants are at this particular time. Mr. Cannon stated that it was very difficult to force this as something that would actually work without knowing what the army of tenants is going to be. They would want to push towards that and facilitate it with as much additional pedestrian friendly infrastructure that could be provided It seems hard to try to force that. Ms_ .Joseph suggested that they focus on this accessible by everything that is out there so ommission was okay with this_ mini center and make sure that it is pedestrian that people can get to it. She stated that the Ms Echols stated that they were now in the building and spaces of human scale The Commission has already commented on that a little tonight concerning the scaling and massing of some of the buildings. She asked if the Commission wanted to say anything further on that issue. Ms Higgins asked if there was any expectation that in the architectural standards for the University Park that a lot of this is not going to be addressed. The buildings that she has seen are multi -story and fairly compact. They talk about 20,000 square foot being the most optimal Footprint. She supported relying on the University's control on that because she felt that they were one of the most stringent architectural types. Ms. Joseph stated that it was not at a neighborhood scale_ It is lamer. She asked if they were going to spread the buildings out, Ms. Higgins stated that it was industrial She felt that with the kind of users that they have if they don't go vertical their they caret make anything compact #r Edgerton felt that the buildings were too big. Mr Morris_ Mr. Craddock and Mr_ Strucko were fine with it. Mr. Cannon stated that if the original intent was that there would be dense development that big buildings would accomplish that. He was not sure how to deal with large amount of automobiles beyond a mass transit system. Ads. Joseph suggested that one way they could bring down the scale of the buildings is through the landscaping that is required_ She felt that was one way this could be dealt with Us- Echols stated that the Commission had already talked about relegated parking and staff has gotten the guidance an that one. The next issue is the mixture of use_ On page 9 in attachment B, it indicates that with the original rezoning there were three special use permits that were approved_ The three special use permits were laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical, which obviously this is geared towards Supporting commercial use are hotels, motels and inns. light now the way the application is put together the applicant wants those same uses to be available throughout the rest_ In most of our rezonings that the County reviews today they ask for a little more commitment to particular places or at least to some uses and sorne mixture of uses- As the Commission has already decided tonight, this �s a little difference from many of the ones that they have done- So staff wants to call that to the Commission's attention and wonder if they want more specificity, or if they want any locations for these uses, or if they are generally supportive that they are available and can he put anywhere in the park. MS Joseph asked if anyone had any comments on the commercial uses or the mix of uses and where they might be more appropriate in this area or whether it should be just flexible and the can use their 10 percent commercial where ever they think is appropriate Mr, Edgerton stated that he would like to see the commercial use in this little mini center that they were talking about_ Mr. Btrucko stated that it would be the supporting commercial uses Mr, Edgerton agreed that it was the supporting commercial uses and it ought to be a way to work that in there- But, he did riot think there was a way to be specific right now on the commercial uses Ms Joseph suggested that they focus on the mini center and look to see where that development occurred. Ms Higgins noted that they had just said that the mini center might not be the center- But. they all agreed that it might not be the center, but it could evolve. Mr, Morns stated that they were focusing on that. s, Joseph felt that they all agreed that it should remain as a mini Center with a green space, Ms. Higgins noted that they all did not agree to that. She felt that they said that it could be a center. but they don't know what the uses are and may be the center is more centrally looted. What if these buildings tended to be purely technological and they put in the mini center She thought they said that it was going to evolve and they were not going to restrict it or label it. But, if they are suggesting that they are labeling it she was not sure. Mr. Edgerton} stated that the question was whether there should he a mini center in this rezoning, His answer to that was yes. Ms. Joseph stated that if it was not there then what they were suggesting was where ever it is that is where the commercial should be clustered Mr. Morris suggested that it not be restricted to just one center- If that area in #3 where all the beautiful green space is works, then wonderful. Then the .game thing around that beautiful water area in section 2 and would facilitate the people in section 1. Ms. Joseph stated that it should be clustered. Ms. Echols stated what she heard was that they don't believe that there is a need to make a commitment for a center at a particular location- ► hat they were also sabring is that there is not a reed to commR to commercial ruses at any particular locations Sc what they are asking for is the ability to put something anywhere and that works for you. Ms. Joseph stated that she was not sure if that is what they were saying- Ms- Higgins noted that the 28 acres was all that was before the Commission, Ms, Echols stated the answer was yes and no. They have more than 28 acres that is being considered with the other part of D. it is about 50 acres more or less with both sides. The area to be added to the industrial park is 28 or 30 acres. The acreage that is under rezoning for the fire station has not really been removed yet. So it is about 30 acres If that is removed, it goes down to about 28 acres. But, the old plan has to be arnanded. It you look at the area where the old Plan would be amended in conjunction with the 30 acres, it is about 50 ages Mr. Edgerton felt that what he heard previously was that most of the folks wanted a center in this area and they wanted any commercial space to be worked into that center Mr Morris and Ms. Joseph agreed. Ms- Echols stated that it was in the 50 acres, but they were not particular about where within the 50 acres it needs to be. Ms, Joseph felt what they had all agreed to was that the center could be around the wetlands, So they were going to let the applicant decide where that was. Mr_ Morris stated that it could be both Ms Joseph agreed that it could be bath with two mini centers 1r. Stoffer stated that he had one comment_ They would loge to have supporting commercial, But. what they were finding was to bring irr the really nice retail, support commercial they want to have public visibility, which is puts there out on Airport Road or Route 29. That is where the bigger restaurants were going to be. They don't necessarily want to do that because of the architectural aspects of having the signage, etc, So to try to recruit folks to be within a mini center fn practicality they were struggling to find people to do that_ They agree with the Commission, but the practicality is that it just does not give them enough visibility so that they get a lot of drive by traffic_ They would appreciate any type of input by the Commission on how to make it happen, Ms- Higgins felt that when them are 12,000 jobs in the park that would help drive that Mr C11imberg stated that what he also heard them say} was that if the choice were made in the design to orient more than one building along Airport Road and a first floor retail wanted to go there that the Commission was okay with that. Mr_ Edgerton and Mr_ Morris agreed, Mr Cilimberg stated that was a way may be to address both the needs of the park and some of the retailer's need for exposure. It just takes a little bit of design orientation towards AirpcTt Road to do that. Mr. Edgerton suggested that there be apartments upstairs, too Ms, Echols stated that when they first gat this plan it was hard to see where the environmental features are of the property because they were covered with buildings and parking lots Staff has provided comments to the applicant lefting them }snow that they need to expose the streams at least on the plans so that they can see where they are. Also, along the edges of the property they creed to be doing something that is a little more sensitive to the stream and give us more detail about haw they are doing it. That is going to affect the retaining wall comments in the staff report. There are two streams and orre is less defined than the other. Staff needs to see the streams and see what it is that they are doing with it to be able to assess that before they can move to the next step_ She felt that the applicant gat that She feat that would then relate to the retaining wall comments, which will change what will happen to the edges. Ms, Joseph stated that they would also like to see where the critical slopes are located so that concept is addressed during this stage_ Ms_ Echols agreed that would be necessary if there were critical slopes that were going to be impacted. She did not think that there are any critical slopes in this particular section But, they do know there are some streams and strewn valleys that staff needs to know where they are located. She asked if there was anything else that the Commission wanted to discuss_ Ms. Joseph asked if there were any written reports available. Ms- Echols stated that there were no written reports_ All of the reports have been verbal reports that have been taken over the years_ The site plans are carrying the notes about how much square footage is being developed and the timing of that. She pulled one site plan, but it did not have anything about the water on it. She noted that they would need to make sure that they are keeping track of those things in the site plan_ s. Joseph asked Mr Stoffer if there was anything else that they would like to be discussed at this point Mr Stoffer stated that he did not, but just wanted to thank the planning Commission far their tune tonight to umrna _ the Planning Commission held a work session on MA- 2005 -00, {JAI Research Parr at Airport Road to review the overall design and layout of the proposed park in relationship to the ourrent application to add approximately 30 acres of land that is adjacent to the already approved Northfork Research Park. Staff asked the Commission to provide guidance and feedback to bath the staff and applicant on changes, if any, neet#ed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the rest of the Comprehensive plan before the applicant moves to the next step. In order to farriiiarize the Commission with the project and to discuss several issues that world benefit frorn advance input prior to the public hearing, staff presented the proposal with the applicant's input and answered questions The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff and the applicant and provided feedback on the rezoning proposal and preliminary discussion topics_ Site Data Table Tract 7: New PDJP Zoning i1161wA �N 9M h■i IM 1 chars 204664 0D.M It C f ■Larl■a aD,8G9 ■r 48.0m 1W p ■6■'I■a .4.094 H Z4,0l4 it 6 1 *rorl�s 70004 J 0*.Wa It H01Q 7 ■enrra ■-Q944 P1 ]D,0g4 of I 1iii 70994ir 40.0" It J 1 SINN= 20 OM Y 6o-.640 Mf K 7 ■eorw• 74904 J 04.049 V L IniFrZ 4 Crofts 200441! 39000 at 46DAM of Site Data Table Tract : Existing MP Zoning ewltl�n h■i IM d c P�hr L rRitl� Al Yw W alai 7 ■■M," 7 Moon 3 ■eD01" ! i1tl�MM i1wMw — 74 794 a 20 74C 0 'd DEC U : J 0.'C 43 . ].CnC Y 4P,4G4„r :0.800 ■! V Boa ■r 70.409 ■+ 10.009 ■r I WOW OF IF N UM Y I "Ao 40 Site Data Tract T; Nov POW Zoning � Site Area . 30.56 Akre% Lxmbn9 ZorarP,] ......... .. . . .. IAA Proposed Zanung—........ ,, F'01P Prmarvalran Are. ........ 3.4 Acres (I I%) r Cufmrvotion Area ..... .. 6.4 Aves (21%) + 2F aJ Site Data Tract 2: Existing PDJP Zoning o 91e Area ... ... ..... ..Y........... 534AUeS t r r._ E)G5iIn 4r71 - s QPen Utica ....................... 2UU P aft (377x) A�' } Site Notes (Tract ij � 1 The IU VA Foundaiin has presented on Ihm Cam, aI CWDE 4aal s&vne for i3@Nd "1Pnl or Item sobW 3d acre P6-OP" rTr6CI 1 Only} 2. Approval ar bill clan 4afu1L4 nt rho axwr"n or 0 ' - - Spec+al Uaa Permlie "rrent6 In Pl#oa Y4 hNn" adja mnq r UVA Ramarch Paek_ 3. Indntidual parkiryj irequiremrents will he ds'Finnined al V Ina ilto ow stagy_ i fq r l f. l - pen pace (Refer to Exhibit H) with Nature Trails Wetlands Property Lire Dilviding Tracts I and 2� Preserved Creek 50ft Resource Protecifon Area Preserved Wetlands Connection to AdIfto �± s k , _ 0• sop r - fFT`� # Ito .0 f -4 Mul fr -Level Parking Garage AIfemato Stormweter 1l+lenagernerat Facility Open Space (Refer to Exhibit H), or 1, r %k 4' _ r4 � AT'PAC"MEN`I' O ... ,q— Opel? space Ti t i �Reler to Exhibit Hl Stormwater Albemarle County Management F restatiarr Facili Open Space to E.hibit H) Exhibit A:' er ll Concept Plan Exhib The UniversitViii "a Research Park This plan is submitted as part of the ApplMcation Flan ( ZMA- 05 -03). 0 1 Albemarle County, Virginia Date 0,1o2109 UNIVERSITYe/-VIRGINIA IF u DATIOr r L-x-hibit A -1: General Ilan The UniverLiV of Vir 'nia Research Park U W MVERSI GINI his plan s sub tied as part aft c AppIicatian Can ( Z�, A- 05 -03). Albemarle County, Virginia Date 11117108 FOUNDATION The Gateway Dr 's #roC( The Airport Road entrance is considered to be of extreme impodance to the Park, It is anticipated that this entrance will be the pnmary entrance to the Park since much of the local, regional and airport traffic will Find It more efficient to enter the Part€ off of the improved Airport Toad. That said. the entrance to this District most provide a clear and strong arrival or gateway_ To this end, th ;s District wn ains three afeas which are both distinct in design form, while also being integrated in function and the articulation of structures. It is envisioned that this District will house buildings arranged to create a gateway or arrival sequence. The scale of the structures is in keeping with providing a strong arrival sequence while also being representative of the remainder of the Park. Exhibit ; Gateway District Plan The U of Virp*nia Research Park. � I'1� VG I 1 TI Tlris ula i � andlor �rawirrg is for illustrative purposes or��y and i� UM subject Albemarle C L� .T, Vffglnia to change. Date I1117 /08 FoUND TION? V The Webrarrd Dfs(HO The progression along Lewis & Clark Dave, affords views to the left across a preserved open space area. containing a wetland and resling amenity for area pedestrians and Park users_ Buildings have been arranged around the open space accentuating views from the buildings. Parking has been kept in bound to resolve or eliminate the potential for contaminates to enter the wetlands_ L:xhibit C: Wetland District Plan The University L2 f Virginia Research Park. 0 This plan and/or drawing is for illustrative purposes only and is subject Albemarle County, Virginia to change. Date 11/17/08 UNIVERS=ofVIRGINIA FOUNDATION The Research and Development District Beyond the wetlarnd district an y# Cou My Fire Station, the Research and Oevebpment District is encountered, This District is organized around a more fortnaI design structure to encourage pedestrian sca #e, clear vehicular circulation patterns and coliaboration between the users of the Parr. ThFs area may poterntiaily be used for mixed uses. to include support commercial development. Exhibit D: Research &Development District Plan The University of Virginia Research Park DESIGN Albemarle County, Virginia This plar4 and/or drawing i5 for Illustrative purposes only and is subject to change_ Date 11117108 !gins UNIVER-S=�-VIRGIMA FoDIo of 'PPWa *••* t I A W Vehkufar Circulation Vehicular circulation is arranged to create a clear hierarchy of movement, whip also routing traffic efficiently between buildings. An interconnecting street is envisioned to facilitate connections to adjoining property users. 1 i *` �.0 -" Exhibit E: Vehicular Circulation Plan The University of Virginia research Park. * This plan is subrnitted as part of the Application Plan ( ZMA•05 -03 ). D[S16N � ll rle County, Virginia Date 11117148 Amk UNIVERS=6fVIRGINIA FOUNDATION I }r �a 0 f, I 0 J' .' ft—VI —•• 14 ti r � I �- �'•� -� I .y � is � � ^�'" � ' *� r: _ _ —Lewis 8 Clark Drive Legend ` Primary Pedestrian Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian connections are integrated throughout the Park. Sidewalks connect buildings and districts and facilitate iriteradion between open space and practical access to parking- A regional pathway runs parallet to Levis and Cla rk Drive and connects the remainder of the Park, including pedestrian amenities already planned throughout the Park, The U Pedestrian Connecfions Notes: I Rp d*rrmery anti &ecoreaary Connediorn ywah rr me Fork Ic he oonraete erdewalka. vnlh Ire umquv) pt IM PamarV PedeslriW Corthed*" funning pwallel to L"qa F� Clary Ony a acid MLB Nature Trap amurb Inc iasuphrig werianna. 2 The ftrnxvy Peae%ina' Gcnne-'icn rhal rakwa prow to Low% a� Gran Urge 16 so be a Sr Axtip!s�a�r;.�,CI �era�a A Tyre 1. Low M ain-enar,ae PLdq- ttriTr� Path jhfi Alter ode! Cpurny aasgrI SLanpar¢a Mankrar 1i ! ersity connections Secondary Pedestrian connections Exhibit F: Pedestrian Circulation Plan of Vironia Research Park This plan is submitted as part of The Application Plan ( Z A -05 -03). Daze 02102109 DESIGN Albemarle Count}', Virginia Adolk IM�40 11111 is UN1vERsrTYofViRGiNu FOUNDATION L � Om Wary Travel large I Plant W 91rip hh on- Street PaMpq and S' Si�awrg�j� Section A One Way Street Wth Parking voflava Green One Way Travel Lana Mrh On' $tram! PaWng Plbrrdny Sfrip and �' $ipresralJl Y . C r r TWO Outbound Landscaped Me(lp &ri Am Inbound Travef Sidewalk Travel Lames # ernes i Section S. Lewis The Universityr of ► f 6 Streetscape Section Key Map Two Travef tan v5 1 1 Rar dnor SLAP Planting Strip and and 3' Sidewa•1 k S' Sideway Section C. TwD Way Street # i r Exhibit G: Streetscape &Sidewalk Sections V"Igl"la Research Park. 16 N alb 1r1c County Virginia rni5 plan [5 submit Eed as part of t e Application Plan � 7A+IA- 45 -03 }. Date 11/17108 UNlVER,,Sfl-Y0fvlRGlNM FouNDTI a ' Conservallon Area ra FA'} Preservation Area Preserved Creek Tract soft Resource Profec[ron Area Preserved Wetrands - 10oft Stream Buffef�? \\I' - 'Lewig $ dart+[ ;gay awl- edan d. III\ 100€t stream BUffer _1\w •.�. �' � .�,. � -. - .yam Preservation Area Conservation Area MpE%MEPME� �f OD Exhibit H: Natural Features and Wetland Overlay The University f VirgLnia Research Park 6 N Albemarle iy, Virm'a This plan is submitted as dart o�the AppEication Plan (ZMA- 05-t33 ), Date TW7/08 UNIVERSITYofVIRGINIA FOUNDATION Preserved Creek 'Tact 50ft Resource Protection Area Preserved Wetlands Sanitary Sewer Line (Typical) Water Line (Typjcap Grading Notes. I. Ho #,dmoual ratainang wiA 9faon mem 9 feet e, heigm arnq rf acomsnal IWgnd la r+eoeysary q Shaft tas; VIW* IN"M tWaoed 10laMIng wahs wt,em each wan 3haW nos exceed 9 fm in noght unless a modiDeation is vanwd by Ina DIFectur of Plagwg. The University of Virgi 0 E 51 E N Albemarle County, Virginia Alternate Stormwater Management Facility Possible Stour waters Water Quvhly Pond Facfli ty Wetlands j F� S f r A ` Exhibit I: Gracing & Utilit Elan LiaRes ears% I a r k- This plan l5 subrnftted as part of the Application Plata { ZlUiA- 05-031. UNIVE.Lx,=� VI_R_G_ INIA Date 02102 /09 1701JNDATION f i # i f Cn lot• +f; f t #7 4 v Preserved Creek ract i 50ft Resource Protection Area Preserved Wedands 7 CP 7 Exhib T s� 5 r� r �m r. +aQ xfr ` 1k. + it : Zoning Apphcation overlay I Ia n The zM UM*Versi f VirgL*nia Research Park. UMVERS=qfV1RG1N1A 0 [ � 16 N Albemarle �� Virginia 1��5 plan is sub�lit#ed �5 ���# of the Application Plan ( F�+1A-45 -43), Date T1117/08 FOUNDATION OUNDATION I I Feet Sheet 13 The University o Virginia Research 'ark. E l H A Ibe iarle C. oun y, Virgiruia It Y ' a r t Exhibit K: Overall Zoning Apph ation Overlay Flan NUM This plan is subrnmed as part of the Application Plan ZMIti•05-03 }• UNIVERS=ofVIRGINIA ;}ate 0210 }109 FOUNDATION moo soo � �00000 a000000i �000000 ®��OQ �o�000 I I Feet Sheet 13 The University o Virginia Research 'ark. E l H A Ibe iarle C. oun y, Virgiruia It Y ' a r t Exhibit K: Overall Zoning Apph ation Overlay Flan NUM This plan is subrnmed as part of the Application Plan ZMIti•05-03 }• UNIVERS=ofVIRGINIA ;}ate 0210 }109 FOUNDATION 4 o�MIN �0000��s rn�ra •o.s•�s �� vol� 5. '''c r y 4r ti �p r F . i� t t UVA RATS E},, D V a Er , 1 f. '{ r u 'ti Exhibit K -1: Zo nin The i r i o it i I� application Overlay Plan 81111« - UNIVERSITYofVIRGINIA 0 6 N Albemarle County, Virginia ihZs plan is submitted as par[ of the A�rlkatao n Flan iTt�A- 45-031, Date WroaM F CCU Ni]A'I"L O + t f k k i s 32 4F -. 0 14k. I 0 R I .., 3 ` 11� (-% B ! "! CP its ci y'_ ' + \�'—' k� '''Y s 1 1'll' • _ .`ter J @ Sheef K-$ � r f i .._axe, r 4 A� P a Exhibit K -2: Zoning MI T Un' i � fir i i � � ark Application Overlay Plan 8111111 UNwFRsrrycVMGI O[J16N Albemarle i This plan ks whmmed as RAfT off the App4cacKruk Plan (ZMA45ik31. Date 0,2102 M9 FOUNDATION I a* i - t4 ` _ _ 1 ' f * T-6 f+5 ' .� 5� ;a /� 5 4 Z. r k° t kyl ILI ka vv. Ir . f J. pk �� � { ¢ • f y k # ■ • elf 7 � Jy'� ti • s * ` a * + 1 77 MM" doom Exhibit k--3. Zoning ... IM _ The Universi r o Vi �i is Research Pay* Ap} fi ti � l r Pl r� AMR NIVER I VIVID 0 [ I E N Albemarle County, V is ThGf plan r� suhmttt�d as ryaat of the Appia[ation Plan �T�L4 -OS2m w Oaleo214��9 FOUNDATION y 4A eb m'9) see Sheol -I �,rde M13 - ! - y IP tz IF ip-opll- cs . -7 ME %�-'-: . K E E The U niversity of Virginia Research Park 0 E5 I6N Albemarle Count}; Virginia IRMA=® o�oo s�roroomr mom■�soo o�000 �Im■o�oo� moo�oo r�mrl o ono m�QO �o #Y - �r a Exhibit KA Zonm' A h ati n � rl Ilan -- - � UNIVERS=Y'VIRGINTLA This plan Is submjttc as Part of the Appliratloo Plan � A -0"11, Dale OVUM FOUNDATION j ; } - _ li r;0 el C + • + _ t f *• * F f' ?�; -. 'vim, +� _ - _ y �30 % - [ ou cc Au IL q } _ v ■ . l - _ -- S. Rotit Exhibit K-5-. Zoning The University of Virginia Research Dark Application Overlay Plan 0 16 N Albemarle C u nry, gini This planlssubmit# edaspar #oftheAp�licationP�aDaie4�0 1M F UNDA -ri N y r' .. _ =`'rte' �r �',A,. -' .'•� - . �, , -;E :.: `-� �r tJ`J .a _:rte = �' _ • �' . T in y 'r w - • ,,+ ':,fir , ,- - Y *r �, - - - - ;.. •'.:, M9 :,,:.ter r__ _- � . _ _. _•' Wiz.: -.. •` -r-�- �' � '� �• ),Ute 2 '.rie" S The University of Virginia Research Park � E S 1,6 N Albemarle County, Virginia +oc s. o Boa x, Exhibit K -6: Zoning ASUL Application Overlay Plan 101111 . JNIVERSTI' rF�' IR INIA This plan is submitted as part of the Application Plan (ZMA- 05 -03). �-+ Date 02/02/09 FOUNDATION Cie V� u7 i cd r4 O lc� I Pt ID O O tic O V) Chi ty rM. IL4 ui R cL • a, bjO O T�l I < jig E z z Chi ty rM. IL4 ui R cL • a, bjO O T�l I 6e I oi �y g Q �, < ":?sow �p�,- ..._j .�'�. �, _ —at > ri C3 CL co cn N cC 4-j > 0. CL O (U 4�1 4s ez o DO C) 0 IL I i 0 co cn N cC 4-j > 0. CL O (U 4�1 Attachment E Date: March 16, 2009 ZMA- 2005 -003 (ZMA 95 -04) UVA Research Park Tax Map Parcels 32 -18 (portion), -6A, I8A, 18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J. 22B 1 and 22B2 30.56 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PDIP 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP with amended proffers THESE PROFFERS ARE INTENDED TO APPLY TO ALL OF THE RESEARCH PARK AND INCORPORATE THE TWO PREVIOUS APPROVED PROFFERS. (ZMA 05 -02 and the original proffers approved with ZMA 95 -04. Tax Map parcel Numbers32- 18(portion) and 32 -18A comprising approximately 30.56 acres are subject to rezoning application ZMA2005 -002 and to this Proffer Statement. Additionally, these proffers also apply to property which was the subject of ZMA 95 -04 ( "the Property ") TMP 4s 6A, 18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22131 and 22B2. The Property is described with more particularity on the exhibits filed with the Application Plan hereafter referred to as "the Project ", the Application Plan dated November 17, 2008 and attached hereto as Exhibit A. The owner of the property subject to ZMA2005 -002 is The University of Virginia Foundation ( "the Owner ", also sometimes referred to as "the Applicant "). The term "Road A" as referred to in these proffers also means "Lewis and Clark Drive as referred to in some of the exhibits. The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the property subject to ZMA 2005 -002 to PDIP as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2 -2303 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable. If rezoning application ZMA 2005 -002 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect. I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Plans and Illustrations. ZMA 2005 -002 increases the permissible square footage on the Property to 3,700,000 square feet gross floor area. The Application Plan is a graphic depiction of the proposed development. The Owner has filed an Application Plan that is an Exhibit to these proffers. II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Proffer 11 from ZMA 95 -04 has been satisfied. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1819, page 434. The property that is the subject of 2005 -002 will be made subject to the restrictions upon approval of the rezoning. III. GROSS FLOOR AREA TO BE DELIVERED 3.1 Total Buildout. Total maximum square footage to be developed within the Project shall not exceed 3,700,000 square feet gross floor area, excluding recycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), office trailers for temporary use during construction of permanent structures, small (not to exceed 1,500 square feet gross floor area per building) storage buildings, and structures included as amenities within Common Areas (collectively, the "Excluded Areas "). . IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER CONSERVATION 4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100 -year flood plain within the Project shall remain undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and riding trails, Area D on Exhibit K, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and regulations. 4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Owner has provided an overall Stormwater Management Plan for the Project, incorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the Property. Applicant's implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan includes those modifications that comply with design and engineering standards necessary for approval by the County during the site development plan review process for Project development. 4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as defined in the wetlands study submitted herein, except those in Area D as defined on Exhibit K, shall not be disturbed in the Project except for the installation and use of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking trails, or any other uses approved by the County after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local permits and approvals. 4.4 Water Conservation. No single industrial or commercial user which proposes a use that will require more that 125,000 gallons per day (average daily consumption) or potable water shall be constructed without obtaining County approval. The County shall consider whether to approve such a user through the same procedures as required in an application for special use permit (including the same notice requirements, public hearings, and Planning Commission review as in the process for considering a special use permit). The County's approval shall be limited solely to issues 2 of water usage and must include a finding that sufficient capacity exists to support such a user. The County's approval may include reasonable conditions relating to water usage. V. TRANSPORTATION Applicant will construct new roads in accordance with the Application Plan as provided herein. 5.1 Internal Road Network. Applicant has and shall provide vehicular access within the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on Exhibit K: Overall Zoning Application Overlay Plan and the sheets attached to it, ( "Internal Road Network"'). Applicant shall design, construct, and install signs and signalization for the Internal Road Network in accordance with minimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT "), unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit K shall be subject to adjustment during the subdivision plat /site plan approval process. 5.2 Road Construction Standards. (a) All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County for site plan approval, (and other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and the County reasonably determine are necessary for safe and convenient access to such area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated for public use, for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final subdivision plat for each applicable area or at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development under a site development plan. (b) The Owner shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to exhibit 5.3 and the Application Plan. Before issuance of certificates of occupancy, however, the Owner shall complete that segment of road which serves the building for which a certificate of occupancy is sought with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix asphalt. 5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determining the timing of road improvements set forth in 5.4 below: Land Use (1) 3 PHASE I Maximum Cumulative Build -out 2 Maximum Build -out to be 635,000 accessed by Road A (all uses): Support Commercial to 85,000(2) Maximum Build -out to be 345,000 accessed by Rt. 606 (all uses): General Office limited to: 120,000 Support Commercial limited to: 25,000 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase I (all uses) 980,000(3) PHA4F TT Land Use (1) Maximum Cumulative Build -out (2) General Office: 1,068,000 Support Commercial: 110,000 Hotel: 190,000 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase II (all uses) 1,368,000 (3) PHASE III Land Uses (1) Maximum Cumulative Build -out (2) General Office: 3,400,000 Support Commercial: 110,000 Hotel: 190,000 Maximum Total build -out, Phase III (all uses) 3,700,000 (3) (1) Note: The use categories in the charts above shall have the following definitions for the purposes of this Article V: "General Office" shall mean business and professional office uses as contemplated in the Zoning Application Plan and Zoning Application text. "Hotel" shall have the definition set forth in the Ordinance. "Support Commercial" shall mean those uses listed on the "Non- Residential Land Use Guidelines" Table, Village and Neighborhood Service Areas, Typical Primary Uses Section, in Section 9.0 of the Ordinance as well as the following uses: copy centers, florists, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, barber and beauty shops and tailor shops. See land use matrix attached to Exhibit K. (2) Note: Total gross floor area, in square feet. 4 (3) Note: Nothing contained herein shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of land use types within any Phase of development in accordance with the Project Zoning Application Plan and the Application Plan. Applicant proffers that the total build -out of Hotel; General Office and Support Commercial use for any given Phase shall not exceed the gross floor area limitations shown in the charts above. 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute for road improvements in phases. Road improvement proffers in this Section 5.4 shall not include dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VDOT obtaining required right -of -way, (if such right -of -way is not owned in fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers, even though the necessary right -of -way is not available, (and in the instances in which Applicant has proffered to acquire right- of-way, and the Applicant has made good faith efforts to acquire the land necessary for such right - of -way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density build -out under the applicable zoning, unless the improvement is otherwise required by applicable regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required below, the road improvements described in this Section 5.4 for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded. or contributed for (as set forth below), before constructing each phase's Maximum Total Build -out as set forth in Section 5.3. (a) Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase I road proffers before the Maximum Total Build -out, Phase I (as shown in Section 5.3 above) is constructed or earlier if (i) specified in this Section 5.4 (a), or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT. In general, the proffered Phase I road improvements shall be as described on Exhibit 5.3 and the Application Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be permitted to construct beyond the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase I in advance of satisfying all Phase I road proffers, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that the following intersections will function, with the proposed additional building construction, at a Level of Service "D" (LOS D) or better;(i) Route 649 and Road A, (ii) Route 606 and Quail Run, (iii) Route 606 and Route 649, and (iv) Road A and U.S. 29. (1) Proffer 5.4(a)(1) of ZMA 95 -04 has been completed. (2) Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construction I of two northbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Road A (the Research Park Entrance) and U.S. 29 (One northbound turn lane has been completed). Applicant will also construct a westbound Lewis and Clark Lane into the Research Park to provide free flowing right turn movement southbound vehicles turning into the site. Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construct a channelized southbound right turn lane on U.S. 29 (This has been completed). The Road A exit shall include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound right turn lanes (One lane in each direction has been completed). The entrance at Road A also shall include dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes. (One lane has been completed) (3) Proffer 5.4(a)(3) of ZMA 95 -04 has been completed. (4) Proffer 5.4(a)(4) of ZMA 95 -04 has been completed. (b) Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase II road proffers before the Maximum Total Build -out, Phase II is constructed (but not before the Maximum Total Build -out; Phase I is constructed) (as set forth in 5.3 above) or earlier if (i) specified in this 5.4 (b), or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT (provided however that if the site development plan review process does not otherwise require Applicant to supply a traffic study, Applicant will provide at least a traffic count upon the County's request for evidence that such need has not been created): (1) Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the Research Park Project within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building constructed after construction of the Maximum total Building -out, Phase 1 (980,000 gross floor area) (a portion of this has been completed). Applicant shall dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to 649 when traffic volumes within the Project create the need for such widening. (2) Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649 entrance: two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, 6 one southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through lanes on Road A. (3) Proffer 5.4(b)(3) of ZMA 95 -04 has been completed. (4) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved in satisfying these Phase 1I road proffers, but no later than when a need is created by the Project. (e} Construction of improvements may proceed up to the Maximum total Build -out, Phase III described in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have been satisfied (but such conditions shall not be conditions for constructing the Maximum Total Build - out for Phases 1 and II): (1) Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way) to VDOT standards the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to the Research Park at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDOT requires, and at the County's direction, Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and construction costs which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29. (2) Construction may nevertheless continue in excess of the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase 11 (but in no event beyond the limitation contained in Section 3.1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in (1) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies approved by VDOT that acceptable levels of service (LOS "D ", or better) for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection and the intersection of U.S. 29 and Lewis and Clark Drive (Road A) can be maintained to the satisfaction of VDOT and the County Engineer. (d) Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated on Exhibit 5.3 as "Future Right of Way Area for Grade Separated Interchange." Applicant shall dedicate such area without consideration, and when the interchange is to be constructed. It is Applicant's desire to 7 participate in the design for such interchange so that Applicant may preserve the aesthetic features of the Project's entrance. (e) The one hundred fifty (150) foot buffer adjacent to Dickerson Road, as shown on the Application Plan may be reduced by up to fifty (50) feet and right -of -way dedication made to accommodate widening of Dickerson Road by VDOT. VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE 6.1 Developed Recreational Areas. Applicant shall develop active recreation, playing fields and picnic areas as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan previously filed. Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shall follow the phasing schedule of proffered road improvements as set forth in Section 5.4 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase 1 shall be completed before construction of the Maximum Total Build -out, Phase 1, as set forth in Section 5.3. Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to the County, shall be maintained by the Applicant or an appropriate organization. Applicant shall convey to the County, without consideration, the ball fields depicted on the plan. Active recreation areas will not be lighted with field or stadium lighting unless otherwise approved by the County. Applicant reserves the right to add an additional playing fields within the "Open Space" shown on Exhibit K -2 at such time as Applicant perceives a need for such expansion. 62 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development of areas not shown as development parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are established by plat. In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Greenway (defined in Section 6.3 below), Buffer areas (defined in Section 7.2 below), Open Space (shown on exhibits) and recreation areas described in these Proffers be less than a total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the Owners Association or to an appropriate organization. No structural improvements other than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Rivanna Greenway. Upon request of Albemarle County, the Owner shall dedicate to the County for public use either in fee simple or as one or more easements, a Greenway no less than one hundred (100) feet in width along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivarma. River as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. No structural improvements other than pedestrian and riding trails shall be constructed, or erected within the Greenway without the consent of the Owner. Utilities may be provided in the Greenway if, in the opinion of the County Engineer, there is no reasonable alternative. If utilities are allowed in the Greenway, the Owner may grant across the Greenway utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for the users of the Project and their guests and, may at its option, build pedestrian and riding trails or similar uses of the area. Construction of pedestrian and riding trails shall conform to the County Design Standards Manual for trails. The Owner will obtain approval from the County Engineer for construction of any trails except primitive nature trails (Class B Type 1 trails). The Owner shall convey the Greenway by Deed of Gift and Easement Agreement. The Deed Shall be accompanied by a subdivision plat depicting the Greenway Trail Area and bearing a notation that the Greenway Trail Area is dedicated for public use, subject to provisions and reservations contained within the Deed. If, at the time of dedication, the Greenway is not dedicated by an accompanying subdivision plat, the owner shall pay the costs of surveying the Greenway, preparing the subdivision plat or other depiction thereof acceptable to the Director of Community Development and the County Attorney, and preparing and recording the Deed, and further provided that the Deed is in a form approved by the County Attorney. After dedication, the Greenway shall continue to be counted as open space for the Research Park. 6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shall not disturb the existing family cemetery located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Applicant has completed a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. The preservation plan has been filed with the County to accompany these proffers. The preservation plan memorializes the historical significance of this site, consistent with the wishes of the family of those intein-ed in the cemetery. VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING 7.1 Landscaping. The Applicant shall landscape all Project roads in accordance with the standards contained in the "Exhibit D, UREF's North Fork Street Tree Master Plan ", filed with the Albemarle County Planning Commission on November 1, 1994. Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root interference with such utilities. PROFFERS FOR 7.2 AND VIII WERE AMENDED IN ZMA 2005 — 002 AS SET FORTH HEREIN 7.2 Buffer Areas. The Owner shall not disturb the Buffer Areas (the "Buffer Areas ") as depicted on the Zoning Application Plan, other than to: i) establish and maintain signage, fences or walls, ii) remove underbrush, ill) plant landscaping trees for screening or (iv) construct an interconnection along the eastern boundary between B 10 9 and B 11. The Owner shall plant additional landscaping in Buffer Areas as reasonably required for screening. A. Parcel D; Disturbance within Eastern Buffer. Within Parcel D, the buffer on the eastern side of the parcel from Airport Road to a point one hundred (100) feet north of the parcel (the "Eastern Buffer ") depicted on the plan entitled "Application Plan Amendment to ZMA 95 — 04 Parcel D Enlargement showing Area for County Fire Station 12," (the "Application Plan Amendment ") prepared by DJG, Inc., dated January 26, 2006, filed as Exhibit A, depicting the "Fire Station Parcel" and the "Fire Station ", may be disturbed in conjunction with the construction and maintenance of the public street shown on the Zoning Application Plan identified as Lewis and Clark Drive. The land disturbing activity in the Eastern Buffer shall be the minimum necessary as determined by the County Engineer and reasonable construction practices to allow for the construction and maintenance of Lewis and Clark Drive, including all sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, and the construction and maintenance of erosion and sediment control structures and measures, drainage facilities, and stormwater management facilities which may be located either within or without the Eastern Buffer. B. Parcel D, Landscaping within Eastern Buffer. Any portion of the Eastern Buffer within Parcel D that is disturbed as provided in paragraph 7.2 (A) shall be landscaped by the Applicant as provided herein within one hundred eighty (180) days after the County's Program Authority releases the erosion and sediment control bond for land disturbing activity within the Eastern Buffer. The disturbed portion of the Eastern Buffer shall be planted in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the County in conjunction with the road plan and profile for Lewis and Clark Drive. The landscaping plan shall include the following: (i) an informal mix of native species evergreens planted at least five (5) feet in height, serving as screening trees, loosely staggered, fifteen (15) feet on- center; (ii) the same species of screening trees shall be clustered in groups and alternate groups of screening trees shall be provided to create a naturalistic rural landscape; (iii) shade trees shall be interspersed among the screening trees; (iv) clusters of ornamental trees shall be provided in groups of 3's and 5's; and (v) tall shrubs shall be massed to help integrate the proposed plantings into a naturalistic rural landscape. Approved plant species shall be obtained from the Albemarle County Recommended Plant List and the buffer design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of the Department of Community Development. The minimum caliper of all shade trees identified herein shall be two and one -half (2 1/2) inches at the time of planting. The Eastern Buffer shall be maintained by the Applicant. VIII. FIRE STATION 8.1 Fire Station. Within ninety (90) days after request by the County, the Applicant shall lease to the County the Fire Station Parcel shown as "Albemarle County Firestation" on Exhibit A and grant all temporary easements as provided herein, at no cost to the County and under such other terms as are acceptable to the County (the "Land Lease "). This has been completed. The Land Lease shall be for a term that extends until the Applicant dedicates the Fire Station Parcel, or portion thereof, to the County as 10 provided in paragraph 8.5. The Applicant shall bear the costs of a survey to establish the boundaries of the Fire Station Parcel, required subdivision plat(s), and the preparation of the Land Lease. A. Proffer 8.1(A) of ZMA 2005 -002 has been completed. B. Proffer 8.14(B) of ZMA 2005 -002 has been completed. C. The Applicant shall provide hazardous materials training to County fire and rescue personnel. The training program shall be approved in advance by the Chief of the County's Department of Fire Rescue. The training shall consist of two (2) four (4) hour training sessions per year during the three (3) year period beginning on the date the certificate of occupancy for the Fire Station is issued. The training program shall pertain to biological, chemical and radiation elements. D. The portion of this proffer dealing with a septic tank and septic drainfield has been completed. The Applicant shall close and remove the septic disposal system on the Fire Station Parcel at its sole expense when the system is no longer required after the Fire Station Parcel is connected to the public sewer system as provided in paragraph 8.4. 8.2 Hazardous Material. No Hazardous material, including medical wastes shall be disposed within the Project. 8.3 Disposition of Dedicated Propert y. In the event any of the property dedicated to the County pursuant to proffers 5.4(b)(1) and (2), 5.4(d), 6.1, 6.3, and 8.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be used as open space. 8.4 Extension of Public Sewer to Fire Station. As condition of final subdivision plat or final site plan approval for any development within Parcel D (as depicted on the Zoning Application Plan) or within Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200- 00-00- 01800, other than the final subdivision plat and final site plan creating and authorizing development of the Fire Station described in paragraph 8.1, the Applicant shall design and construct at its sole expense, or provide a sufficient bond or other form of surety to the County in an amount sufficient to assure construction and acceptance by the appropriate authority, a public sewer to serve the Fire Station Parcel and, in conjunction with such construction and upon request by the developer of the Fire Station Parcel, shall install a lateral from the public sewer that connects the Fire Station to the public sewer. If such request is made, the developer of the Fire Station Parcel shall reimburse the Applicant for its costs to design and install the lateral, and shall pay all fees required for connecting the Fire Station to the public sewer system. Reimbursement shall be made within sixty (60) days of receipt by the developer of a request for reimbursement accompanied by documentation to support the amount requested. 11 8.5 Dedication of Fire Station Parcel. Within ninety (90) days after the Fire Station Parcel is served by the public sewer system as provided in paragraph 8.4, the Applicant shall dedicate to the County in fee simple the Fire Station Parcel, less that portion no longer needed for the septic disposal system, and less such adjoining lands within the Fire Station Parcel determined by the County to not be needed for public use (the "Dedication Parcel "). The approximate boundaries of the Dedication Parcel are shown on Exhibit B. The Applicant shall bear the costs of preparing Exhibit B and any other required plats or surveys, and the preparation of the deed to convey the Dedication Parcel to the County. The Applicant shall provide general warranties of title in the deed conveying the Dedication Parcel. Upon such conveyance, the Land Lease described in paragraph 8.1 shall terminate. 8.6 Connection of Fire Station to Street; Alternate. The Applicant shall construct a street from Lewis and Clark Drive to Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200 -00- 00 -01800 north of the Fire Station Parcel (the "Street ") and a travelway front the Street to a connection point within the Fire Station Parcel or Dedication Parcel, as applicable, mutually agreed to by the Applicant and the developer of the Fire Station Parcel, which will be shown on the approved final site plan for the development of the Fire Station (the "Connector "), as provided below; A. The Street shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards or applicable street standards as determined by the County Engineer, shall be designed and constructed to accommodate its intersection with the Comiector, and shall be located so that there is three hundred (300) feet or such lesser distance, approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, of separation on Lewis and Clark Drive between the cross -over serving the Fire Station Parcel (the "Bay Door Egress ") and the cross -over serving the Street to allow for the required left -turn lane and taper from Lewis and Clark Drive into the Street. The Street shall be completed for acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation into the state highway system or by the County, as applicable, before the median break allowing a direct left turn access from the northbound lane(s) of Lewis and Clark Drive into the northern access to the Fire Station Parcel from Lewis and Clark Drive (the "Median Break ") shown and identified on Exhibit A as the "Temp. Access" (the "Temp. Access ") is closed. B. The Connector shall be designed and constructed to applicable private street standards set forth in Albemarle County's Subdivision Ordinance and Design Standards Manual. The Connector shall be completed for acceptance by the County before the Median Break is closed. The developer of the Fire Station Parcel shall close, or pay all costs to close, the Temporary Access, including the cost of removing all unnecessary pavement and installing landscaping in those areas consistent with the existing landscaping along the front of the Fire Station Parcel. IX. HISTORIC RESOURCES Prior to approval of the first preliminary subdivision plat or preliminary site plan or an early grading permit, except for the Fire Station property, the Owner shall provide a reconnaissance level survey performed by an architectural historian or other qualified individual to adequately 12 provide an archival record of the existing buildings. The survey shall meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and be provided on the VDHR Reconnaissance Survey Field Foini, X. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 10.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Department of Planning and Community Development, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the development activity in the Project over the applicable period. Development activity updates may be completed as part of the site plan review process and shall consist of a summary spreadsheet of total gross square footage completed to date. XI. SIGNATORY 11.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 11.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and /or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION By: _ Title: STATE OF CITY /COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009, by , the Foundation. My Commission Expires: [SEAL] of the University of Virginia Foundation on behalf of 13 Notary Public MOTION CONTROL INDUSTERIES, INC. By: Title: STATE OF CITY /COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2009, by , corporation. My Commission Expires: [SEAL] STATE OF CITY /COUNTY OF day of of Motion Control Industries, Inc., on behalf of the Notary Public MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. By: _ Title: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2009, by _, of Microaire Surgical Instruments, Inc., on behalf of the corporation. My Commission expires: [SEAL] 14 Notary Public day of BIOTAGE, LLC By: Title: STATE OF CITY /COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009, by , of Biotage, LLC, on behalf of the limited liability company. My Commission expires: [SEAL] 15 Notary Public University of Virginia Research Park Tenant List: Year Business Operations Attachment F MicroAire Surgical Instruments 1995 R &D and headquarters facility for surgical instruments manufacturer. Carlisle Industries (Motion Control) 1990 R &D and sales facility for industrial brake pad manufacturer. PRA International, Inc. 1999 Regional headquarters for full- service contract clinical research organization. Southern Health 2000 Headquarters for Coventry-owned health maintenance organization. (HMO) ANGLE Technology 2001 U.S. headquarters for international consulting firm. Battelle Memorial Institute 2001 Charlottesville office for international research and development company, Biotage U.S. headquarters facility - supplier of purification - separation systems and consumables for the 2002 pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and specialty chemical industries - leader in the field of Liquid Chromatography products and services. Adenosine Therapeutics R &D facility for a global biotechnology company focusing Group 2002 on novel pharmaceutical products that target adenosine receptor subtypes. Pinnacle Pharmaceuticals 2002 R &D and HQ facility for pharmaceutical products. Northrop A global aerospace and defense company and the Grumman 2003 world's largest shipbuilder. UVA CARE Clinic 2005 Center for Addiction Research and Education UVA CRCRH 2005 Center for Research in Contraceptive and reproductive Health A McLean, VA based firm specializing in software Pragmatics 2005 engineering, systems engineering, information assurance, program management and planning and network operations and management. SAIC 2007 A systems, solutions and technical services company, to defense and intelligence agencies. Booz Allen A global consulting firm, helping government and Hamilton 2007 commercial clients in the areas of strategy, operations, organization and change, and information technology. A locally based firm focusing on the delivery of high - Eiden Systems 2007 quality IT consulting, project and staffing services to Corporation Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and Commercial clients. CACI Enterprise 2007 A global consulting firm, providing IT and network Solutions, Inc. solutions to the federal government. A commercial telecommuncations research, development, test, integration and support services Delta Bridge, Inc. 2008 company for international and domestic clients, including governmant and nongovernmental organizations. A technical services and design company offering Neoventus Design product development services including hardward Group 2008 specification and design, firmware and embedded software development and advanced algorithm development, testing, and implementation. I_' l ,ti. ;''�..ti,iT .: i,.l., t i! .. : 1 11 i 11[L.e. L': 1,N .'\I I Attachment G Traffic Impact Assessment University of Virginia Research Park SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This Traffic Impact Analysis for the University of Virginia Foundation studied four existing intersections external to the UVA Research Park site and one future intersection (Lewis & Clark Drive and Airport Road & Meeting Street). Levels of service for each of these intersections were analyzed for the existing and the projected future conditions to assess the potential impacts on these intersections under the current zoning for the property as well as for the proposed zoning. The Airport Road / US Rte. 29 / Proffit Road intersection is currently failing and operating at LOS =F. Each of the other intersections studied, except for the Lewis & Clark Drive / US Rte. 29 intersection is projected to operate at or above a level of service "D" through the ultimate build -out year resulting from the proposed zoning (3.7 million square feet), assuming that proposed traffic signal and/or lane improvements are implemented. There are, however, a few individual approaches at key intersections that are anticipated to operate below acceptable levels of service (E or F). The Lewis & Clark Drive / US Rte. 29 intersection is expected to operate at LOS =E for the peak AM period and LOS =F for the PM peak period. Several approaches are expected to operate slightly better under the proposed zoning due to the land use mix. Significant roadway improvements to the existing system were undertaken in the TIA models in order to test these results. Right of way limitations, grading, utility or other issues may prevent some of the improvements from being practical. Based on our examination of prior studies, we agree with many of the recommendations that were previously suggested for this area including those described in the 1994 Wilbur Smith and Associates TIA for the site and the 2002 Holiymead Multi -Use Development TIA by Ramey Kemp and Associates. In fact, many of the improvements recommended in the 1994 study have been implemented. Last year, an analysis of the 2007 traffic indicated that the Lewis & Clark Drive intersection with US Rte. 29 was operating below LOS =D. A signal warrants analysis was performed and found to be needed. In accordance with proffer 5.4.a(3), new traffic signal will be placed at the US Rte.29 / Lewis & Clark Drive intersection this summer. The Cox Company Page 22 Table W UVA Research Park Site Trip Generation Per ITE Year 2015 Total 3, 000,000 28,955 Hotel assumed to be 150,000 SF, average 83% occupancy rate Land Use Land Use Land Use (Additional 700,000 SF only) Density Unit 1994 Land Use (Approved Zoning - 3,000,000 SF) Density Unit Code (ITE) Rate ADT Future Research & Development- 175,000 SF 760 equation 1,596 Future Office Park 525,000 SF Light Industrial 400,000 SF 110 equation 2,886 General Office 2,300,000 SF 710 equation 14,918 Support Commercial 150,000 SF 820 equation 8,839 Hotel! Conference Center" 300 Rooms 310 equation 2,312 Total 3, 000,000 28,955 Hotel assumed to be 150,000 SF, average 83% occupancy rate ' Future Hotel / Conference Center assumed to he 190,000 SF Land Use Land Use Land Use (Additional 700,000 SF only) Density Unit Code (ITE) Rate ADT Unit Code (ITE) Rate ADT Future Research & Development- 175,000 SF 760 equation 1,596 Future Office Park 525,000 SF 750 equation 5,880 SF Total 700,000 equation 7,476 ' Future Hotel / Conference Center assumed to he 190,000 SF Land Use Land Use (Total including add'I 700K SF) Density Unit Code (ITE) Rate ADT Existing Development (Jun 2006) 434,500 SF 760 equation 3,364 Future Office Park 635,000 SF 750 equation 7,026 Future Research & Development` 2,440,500 SF 760 equation 13,849 Future Support Commercial 110,000 SF incl. it 750 above Future Hotel ! Conference Center — 190 Rooms 310 equation 1,327 Future Fire Station estimate NIA N,A NIA 50 Total 3,700,000 25,616 ' Future Hotel / Conference Center assumed to he 190,000 SF Traffic Impact Assessment University of Virginia Research Park This improvement will serve to alleviate traffic delays only for current levels of development. Several additional improvements were tested in order to achieve the results herein for build -out development according to the current and proposed zoning scenarios. f=igure 12 in Appendix A illustrates these improvements which include: Airport Road — Lewis and Clark Drive Intersection • New traffic signal - see proffer 5.4.b(4) • Left Turn lane (Hollymead Town Center access) for the westbound approach - see proffer 5.4.b(3) • Two Left Turn lanes and a Through (Hollymead TC access) lane for the southbound approach- see proffer 5.4.b(2) • Right Turn lane for the eastbound approach for access to Hollymead Town Center- see proffer 5.4.b(3) • New LT, RT and 2 Through lanes for the northbound approach (Meeting Street) to serve Hollymead Town Center U.S. Route 29 — Lewis and Clark Drive Intersection • Additional Left Turn and Right Turn lanes for the eastbound approach - see proffer 5.4.x(2) • Additional Left Turn lane for the northbound approach - see proffer 5.4.a(2) • Additional Through lane for the southbound approach to extend to Airport Road • Additional Westbound Lewis & Clark lane into UVA Research Park to provide free flowing right turn movement for southbound vehicles turning into the site The Cox Company Page 23 Attachment H From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel . Den unzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:13 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale; Proctor, Charles C. Subject: RE: ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park Proffers Rebecca, I just spoke to Chuck and we reviewed the proffers and have the following comments: This development should be restricted from developing on the southern section of the development that accesses Route 649 until the internal connection, Lewis and Clark Dr. of at least two lanes is continuous between Route 29 and Route 649. The development should build the outer most 2 lanes of the connector road that is described in section 5.4b -1 so utilities, storm sewers and sidewalks /pedestrian facilities can be undisturbed when the 4 -lane construction is underway. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 -293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunLio @vdot.virginia.gov