Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800064 Legacy Document 2009-08-12pF A k °- LIRGit�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale /Elaine Echols Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: August 18, 2009 (deferred from May 19, 2009 & Not yet scheduled July 21, 2009 Owners: University 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 SP2008- 0015 - Parking Structure SP200800062- Laboratories, medical or. pharmaceutical SP200800063- Supporting Commercial Uses SP200800064- 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 (0.5 unittacre in intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North development lots); PDIP research /industrial park with up to 3 million square feet of building area permitted Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes DA (Development Area): Hollymead Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Proposal: Request to rezone approximately Comprehensive Plan Designation: 30.56 acres from RA to PDIP to be added to the Industrial Service UVA Research Park and allow an additional 700,000 square feet in the park; request to amend proffers associated with approved Research Park Character of Property: undeveloped, 1920s Use of Surrounding Properties: undeveloped, house, fires station, research park residential, research park Factor Favorable: Factor Unfavorable: 1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial Staff has found no unfavorable factors, provided Service designation of the Land Use Plan. that the one additional transportation proffer 2. The proposal meets goals and objectives of change is made. the Economic Development Policy plan. 3. The application plan provides for additional interconnections into the Research Park. 4. The applicant has provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval if an additional commitment to address transportation issues is made. /MA 200; -00) I I V A Irh Pai4 IN' 4(1 fr.1 * (T)eawd from 5i I9.W) &r0 7;,1 'ij%j 4 siai r ItLix+ii r'o- ueC 1 I STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale PLANNING COMMISSION: August 18, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not yet scheduled ZMA 05 -03 UVA RESEARCH PARK SP2008- 0015- Parking Structure SP200800062- Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical SP200800063- Supporting Commercial Uses SP200800064- Hotels, Motels, Inns Petition: PROJECT: ZMA 2005 -003 UVA Research Park (North Fork) PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000 square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04 PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP /PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32 -1813, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22131 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 RA and the second is the remainder zoned PDIP, The County's Hollymead Fire Rescue Station (Building F) is located adjacent to Innovation Drive and the existing PDIP zoned portion of the Research Park. The Rural Area zoned properties proposed for rezoning contain an existing house that dates to 1925. The site is relatively flat, with a stream and some wetlands located along the northern and western boundaries. Surrounding the site to the west is an undeveloped property zoned Light Industrial and to the east is the established Airport Acres residential subdivision zoned R1. The United States Post Office is locate across Airport Road to the south and is zoned LI, with properties to the east and west of the Post Office zoned RA. (See Attachments A & B) =I 2 Specifics of Proposal,: The applicant is proposing to expand and enlarge the Research Park by approximately 30 acres to add an additional 700,000 more square feet to the park, which if approved would allow up to 3,700,000 building e square feet total. The current application plan shows development on both a - portion of the existing PD -IP zoned land as well as the additional 30 acres. The .' _li;t bold black line on the inset to the right shows the zoning line, with property on left zoned RA and on right PDIP. (Referred to as Area D on Application Plan- 1 y Attachment D) The appearance illustrated on the Overall Concept Plan is one of an "office park ", similar to the Research Park owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. Buildings, which will likely be multi -story are proposed and ' y T I I shown as Buildings A -M on the Concept Plan and are referred to as the Gateway District on Exhibit B. Buildings A and B are oriented towards Airport Road, Buildings C -F are organized around preserved wetlands and referred to as the ' Wetland District (Exhibit C), and Buildings I -M and a parking garage are shown ZMA 2 15 -INIA INA Rcsemtlt plir . s.x i- 1 ' 8/18AP9 (I)eierrcd Irunt 5 'A 9,99 And 7i21;LNi Staff Report Fake 2 as the Research & Development District organized around a central green /amenity area. While the Concept Plan implies multi -story buildings and building footprints, the applicant would like only to be bound by the General Plan which would provide flexibility in final building location, scale, and massing. So it is possible under the General Plan for larger buildings, possibly one story, to locate within the areas shown on the General Plan for buildings, with the exception of Buildings A and B which must be two buildings and a minimum of two stories. (See insets below) b.• ; •� Exl lair _�. nvexal] r s,rcept PLus r6—t N Exhibit A - l: General 'Lin Background: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a rezoning for the North Fork Research Park on 525 adjacent acres in 1996. (ZMA 1994 -05) In addition to the PD -IP approved uses, three special use permits were granted for laboratories, supporting commercial uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A copy of the proffers is included within Attachment A. In 1998, the Board approved an amendment (ZMA 98 -27) to the district to allow setbacks to be ten feet from the internal streets within the development. ZMA 2005 -002 for the amendments related to the fire station rezoning was approved February 2006. The fire station and a total of eight buildings have been constructed to -date in the UVA Research Park, with building sizes ranging from 25,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet in size for a total completed development square footage of 491,000 square feet total. Work session January 31, 2006: A work session was held in January 2006 for the Commission to review the overall design and layout of the proposed park design submitted with ZMA 2005.003.The Commission was asked to provide guidance to both the staff and applicant on changes, if any, needed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model. Staff questions and Commission discussion are summarized below and how the applicant has addressed these matters since the work session are noted below and throughout the staff analysis in this report. The work session staff report and Commission minutes are provided as Attachment C. Should the statement below from the Land Use Plan result in a prohibition of expansion of the UVA Research Park? Develop all industrial /office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total buildable area shall not exceed 3, 000, 000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning. The Commission did not find that this statement precludes additional adjacent areas from being rezoned consistent with the Industrial Service land use designation. 7MA ,S. , . .. . , . i, FC"WISMfD -irr d Irani SriWO:uid 7;21 +(I -J: stair It4�Pon !°age 3 Is the design appropriate or should it be modified to be more in conformity with the Neighborhood Model? The Commission discussed whether the additional area to be rezoned should be more consistent with the existing Research Park or Neighborhood Model Principles. Some commissioners recommended that parking should be further relegated or structured parking provided. Overall, the Commission did not have major issues or direction for changes on layout and design elements of the proposal. Update: The revised proposal provides for a parking garage and changes have been made to the layout to further relegate parking; parking will be relegated as show on the General Plan. Is pedestrian access appropriate? Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side? The Commission recommended a sidewalk be provided on one side of Lewis & Clark Drive. An asphalt path on the other side was viewed as appropriate. Update: Proposed street sections for Area D provide for a sidewalk on the west side of Lewis & Clark (Innovation) Drive. Should streets (either public or private) rather than commercial drives with parking lots be used to, help establish a better design and traffic circulation within the site? The Commission did not directly answer this question but recommended that interconnections to adjoining properties be provided as public streets. Update: Interconnections have been provided and are intended to be public roads. Should an interconnection (or interconnections) be made to the property to the west? The Commission recommended that an interconnection be provided. Update: An interconnection to the property to the west has been provided. Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 plan be retained or should buildings front Airport Road? The Commission had no issues with the proposal for buildings 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 Road with parking relegated behind it. Should centers be created within the park? Should a center be established along Airport Road? The Commission concluded that the focal points provided in the applicants concept provided for adequate "mini- centers" within this new proposed section of the Research Park. The Commission also discussed the town center proposed within the approved park and encouraged mixing of supporting commercial uses in the "mini- centers" to further strengthen them as focal points. U The focal points have been maintained in the applicant's revised proposal. Has the applicant appropriately provided for buildings and spaces of human scale? There was some concern expressed by some commissioners and it was suggested that one way to mitigate the scale and massing issue was with landscaping. Update: Rather than make commitments to scale and massing, the applicant wishes to rely on the Design Code established for the Research Park, which already governs the rest of the Research Park. Given the unique mission of the Research Park and public /private partnerships with research functions of the University, flexibility of building size and scale is needed. A commitment has been made adjacent to the Entrance Corridor to address scale and massing, where two buildings will be provided a minimum of two stories in height. Should greater detail and commitments be provided for commercial uses or are the general special use permit requests sufficient? The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide for mixed use but did not consider the issue a major concern to be addressed. The Commission suggested mixed commercial uses would be appropriate around the focal points of the development such as first floor retail. Some Commissioner's also suggested the addition of residential units on the upper floors of buildings. Update: A special use permit to allow supporting commercial uses is part of this rezoning and if �. 'l m4_1 I I'c 8 1KIP111'�CL'dCjrnll1 1 S:1YLVJin . kWJJ t{�i5trrt 11"o 4 approved the special uses available in other areas of the Research Park will also be permitted in the new section. Since the January 2006 work session, the rezoning was deferred for some time and the applicant submitted revised plans, an updated Traffic Impact Analysis, and environmental features information in 2008. 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. This rezoning request (ZMA 2005 -003) was scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on May 19, 2009. Due to outstanding issues, the applicant requested a deferral to the July 21, 2009 meeting to submit revisions to address the following items identified in the May 19 report: • The applicant had not provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation impacts by building the Lewis & Clark Drive connection to Airport Road sooner than 980,000 square feet. • Clarifications concerning improvements to Route 29 had not been provided, including updated language on ROW acquisition, LOS standards, and clarification that correction of vertical curvature of the roadway is required. • Flexibility in final building design may result in larger single -story buildings in Area D adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. The applicant submitted revised proffers and Application Plan Exhibit A: Overall Concept Plan on July 6, 2009 to address these outstanding items related to the rezoning request. There were no changes related to the special use permits requested. Based on the resubmittal date and need to allow adequate review time, the public hearing was deferred a second time by the Commission on July 21 to August 18. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The properties are located in the Community of Hollymead and designated Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan, which includes the following recommendations: Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing, light industry, research, heavy industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service. ■ Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use. • Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial 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 N Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size EE IN (+ 5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and /or sewer availability, compatibility with adjacent uses. • Rail access may be necessary. Areas for less- intensive industrial uses may act as transitional areas between commercial and industrial areas. The proposed rezoning is consistent with these recommendations for Industrial Service properties. The mix of uses proposed includes Flex/industrial, Light Industrial, laboratories and office as the /AN1A 20- - - . _ :: eepP-iiI 1'C" w:8109 (ovi and Iruiti Sr' k9A)9 ua..- StEdf Rcptrr7 PRgt 5 primary uses proposed within the park. Supporting commercial and hotel /conference uses are proposed as secondary uses within the park. No residential uses are proposed or permitted in the PDIP zoning district. A buffer is proposed and will be maintained along the eastern property line to mitigate impacts to Airport Acres. No pedestrian interconnections are provided between the Research Park and Airport Acres, since Airport Acres was an established subdivision prior to development of the Research Park. Residential lots adjoin the Research Park and there are no common areas of open space that might enable such connections adjacent to the Research Park. Recommendations from Land Use Plan for the Community of Hollymead that apply to this rezoning- • Develop all industrial /office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total buildable area shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning. Placement of this statement in the Plan predated the rezoning of the Research Park. The language was included to stipulate the expected development of the land that at that time that would be subject to original Research Park rezoning. It was not intended to preclude additional area from being rezoned to an industrial designation, since the Land Use Plan designates more land than were subject to the Research Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current request for expansion of the Research Park is in this additional area of the Comprehensive Plan designated Industrial Service. The proposed plan provides for preservation of important environmental features along the northwestern property boundary. This was discussed at the Commission's January 2006 and the conclusion was that this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Principles of the Neighborhood Modell Staff has analyzed the revised overall design and layout of the park for conformity with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment. Pedestrian Orientation A Pedestrian Circulation Plan (Exhibit F) and Streetscape & Sidewalk Sections (Exhibit G) have been provided by the applicant. The Pedestrian Circulation Plan shows a hierarchy of primary and secondary pedestrian connections. All pedestrian connections will be concrete sidewalks with the exception of the nature trail around the preserved wetlands and along Lewis and Clark Drive. The design of Lewis and Clark Drive was established with the prior rezoning. It is an urban section with 4 lanes separated by a median with trees. It has been approved for a six -foot asphalt path on the west side of the street. As discussed in the Commission's work session, the Commission and staff support having pedestrian access along only one side of Innovation /Lewis and Clark Drive for Area D because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive abuts a 50 foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential. (Refer to Section B: Lewis & Clark Drive) There are existing sidewalks along Airport Road at the front of the property and "Gateway District ". Staff believes this principle has been met. vc *r I? O 1,F)cI chi Iruda .5, 110. WA mill -i .2 1.- siai# Report Pmgc 6 Streetscape 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. Parallel parking can also be provided in some sections of the internal road serving the park. Staff believes this principle has been met. The proposed plan provides for an interconnection to the west to the Interconnected Industrial zoned property owned by Goldleaf Trust, this is shown on Exhibit Streets and A as a Connection to Adjacent Property. Goldleaf Trust has a platted Transportation interconnection approved December 2006 that would interconnect the Networks Research Park property to the north and impact environmental resources at the location proposed with the Goldleaf Trust plat. There are no site development plans under review or approved for development of that property. At the time the property does come in with development plans, the County will request that the interconnection now be provided for in the location shown on the Research Park plans. Parks and Open Space In the portion of the park already zoned, proffers have been amended to provide for an interparcel connection to Northside Drive from the cul -de -sac street adjacent to Areas B -11 and B -10, depicted on Exhibit K. Lewis & Clark Drive is intended to provide an interconnection /parallel road to from Route 29 to Airport Road. Staff and VDOT recommended that the connection be provided sooner. The applicant has agreed to limit building square footage in the new area of the park (Area D) to 180,000 square feet unless the Lewis & Clark interconnection is made. This principle has 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 development as well as along several stream and sloped areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive from its intersection with Airport Road. There was no Commission concern at the work session with the open space along Airport Road converted to building area as the buildings are shown to establish a face to Airport Road. The buffer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The new proposal removes the open space at the entrance to the development and replaces it with buildings. Open space continues to be shown surrounding a wetland area and another open space area is provided at the rear of the development near a stream and stormwater facility. The proposal provides for two amenity areas including the preserved wetlands area adjacent to the Hollymead Fire Station and the Village Green proposed Staff believes this principle is met. �'71f ai�p�►�ti I`dkt Neighborhood The previously approved Research Park identifies a town center in the Centers middle of the development. The buildings proposed in the new section relate somewhat to the town center, although the walking distance for the closest buildings is approximately a half -mile away. The applicant has said that "the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the establishment of "centers" or gathering spots to support the Park and adjoining neighborhoods and uses." The proposal for Area D of the Research park is organized around open space focal points internally, with the preserved wetlands area in the "Wetlands District" and the open space green area in the "Research & Development District ". Staff believes this principle has been met, based on the Commission's evaluation at their work session. Buildings and The applicant is proposing the design code for the existing Research Park Spaces of Human to the new area to be added. However, the applicant wishes to preserve Scale opportunities for building height, scale, and massing that would suit a variety of uses, as shown on the General Plan. So buildings similar to those in the Fontaine Research Park may not be built. The applicant has made a commitment to break up the buildings along Airport Road and provide a minimum of two story buildings on the Entrance Corridor. No elevations or perspective drawings have been requested or provided with this rezoning request because of the commitment to design in accordance with the Research Park's design code. Front setbacks on the Overall Concept Plan appear to be at 12 feet, side setbacks are proposed at 15 feet on the application plan, and building heights are limited to 4 stories. Light Industrial buildings are permitted as one or two story buildings within the building envelopes shown on the General Plan and the applicant has provided a note on the application plan i that buildings adjacent to Airport Road will be a minimum of two stories. The applicant is requesting a modification to the setbacks of Section 26.6 to allow reduced building setbacks along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive, from 50 feet to 10 feet. Places where setbacks are most important in the proposed project are along Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. The rest of the setbacks would relate to internal driveways and parking lots. Parking lots have also been broken up into this layout and are organized, along with the buildings, around the proposed focal points within the development so there is more of a human scale created. There was no clear direction or concern from the Commission at their work session regarding this principle. The Overall Concept Plan reflects a more human scale than the General Plan. Staff recognizes the unique needs of some of the industrial uses that may locate in the Research Park and believes meeting this principle along Airport Road is sufficient. Relegated Parking Generally, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis & Clark/innovation Drive. The application plan was revised since the Commission's work session to relegate additional parking lots and to provide for some parking in a parking garage. Parking lots that are adjacent to innovation Drive (Lewis & Clark Drive) are screened or located behind the front setback of buildings. ;?A-1 "% 51 JI 14. IMI I Y { % J . . I{�nd SAP, J{Ilil,:Iru,I Ir.Ir I1j.fF11.Y1.. �I.III I" k, 1111',Y}'; A Mixture of Uses The proposed rezoning is for PDIP zoning within an area designated Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan. Commercial uses are recommended as secondary and these areas are intended to primarily provide for industrial service uses. The applicant has provided allowance for commercial uses as is currently allowed in the existing park. The applicant is requesting supporting commercial uses not to exceed 5% of total floor area and commercial uses not to exceed more than 10% of floor area at any time during phased development. Since the total square footage in the park will increase if this rezoning is approved, the total supporting commercial will also be increased within the entire Research Park. The condition of approval with the previously approved SP for supporting commercial permits up to 5% of total floor area within the Park and up to 10% of total floor area at any time during phased development. At the 2006 work session, the Commission did not ask the applicant to commit to any particular location for mixed use. Staff finds that this principle is met. Mixture of Housing No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by -right or by special Types and use in the PD -IP district. Affordabili Redevelopment This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of undeveloped land; however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for the presence of historic architectural and/or archaeological resources, County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family dwelling. The applicant has been requested to document the buildings on TMP 32 -18 prior to demolition, which is provided for in the proffers. Site Planning that The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best Respects Terrain possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1 regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shown to be impacted, in general, the proposed development respects the terrain. Based on the information provided on Exhibit I Grading & Utility Plan , there is a retaining wall shown around the perimeter of the parking near Building K. While retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. The applicant has provided a note on the application plan sheet that no individual retaining wall shall exceed 6 feet in height and if additional height is necessary, it must be terraced with each wall not to exceed 6 feet, unless a modification is granted by the Director of Planning. This principle has been met. Clear Boundaries This principle is not applicable as the property does not adjoin the Rural with the Rural Areas. Areas Ft 4:'1 k O`J {I ?.Iti.s�_'t, 1I+r.i6 L. I'r I.I +J ,u,%J dlfXCilsilr PR.L!. 9 Economic Development Policv The County's Economic Development Policy is a part of the Comprehensive Plan and was recently updated in March 2009, referred to herein as "the Plan." The Plan recognizes the importance of economic growth and vitality to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of the community, by creating a diversified economy, jobs, and workforce development opportunities. The Plan recognizes the University of Virginia and its associated entities as a main economic driver of economic vitality that can provide important resources for business and industry. The Plan recommends the County work with the University and associated entities to take advantage of opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. Supporting further development of the University's research park is clearly consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Economic Development Policy, The University's Research Park's mission is to encourage relationships with the private sector and the transfer of technology and expertise from research to the business environment. The Park is designed to support companies in a variety of businesses, from research and development, to light manufacturing and knowledge -based commerce. The proposal also meets the Economic Development Policy strategy of "Increasing diversity in business and industry which will accommodate a variety of skill /educational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners." The Research Park's current list of tenants is reaching 20 and is attached for information (Attachment F); there are approximately 1, 300 employees now associated with existing operations within the Research Park. Draft Places 29 Master Plan Conformity with the current Land Use Plan recommendations is the standard to which the applicant should be held in this rezoning. The pertinent recommendations of the draft Places 29 Master Plan are summarized here for information and provided as Attachment J. The Plan anticipates that the Research Park will continue to develop as a major employment center. The draft Places 29 Plan offers opportunity for the Research Park to include more integrated mix of residential and commercial uses and land use designations are intended to be consistent with the Research Parks approved Application Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates Area D as Urban Mixed Use, Office /R &D /Flex/Light Industrial, and the Hollymead Fire Station site as Institutional, About one third of Area D is designated as "Uptown ". The draft master plan recognizes that the "Uptown" is a long- term goal of the plan that would take many years to redevelop as envisioned, evolving over time as described below. The draft master plan currently recommends a maximum building footprint size of no greater than 25,000 for the Urban Mixed Use area in Uptown and for Office /R &D /Flex/Light Industrial uses up to a 40,000 square foot maximum building footprint size. The UVA Foundation is requesting to add 30 acres to in Area D to the existing Research park PDIP program and apply the design code that is currently in place for the rest of the park. The Foundation requests the same level of flexibility in Area D, as the rest of the park, allowing for buildings that support employment opportunities and research function of the University. The design code allows LI buildings as one -two stories and there are no restrictions on building footprint size. The applicant is willing to make a commitment to have two buildings fronting Airport Road which will be a minimum of two stories rather than one single -story building. This is provided as a note on the application plan. 1,11E.4410 CV 4 Kvw 1, P . ti . ihndw ilnlitrud I"1 5111J- -X041 The transportion component of the rezoning application is consistent with the Places 29 Transportation Network (inset to right) with one exception. The proposed road layout and proffers provide for the Lewis & Clark interconnection and for a future interconnection to Northside Drive. The road shown in green is optional but not essential to the roadway network. It is not provided by the applicant as because if built would go through environmentally sensitive areas shown for preservation on the rezoning plan. -- _-- rRaebv. Network Proposed Road -V Network Proposed Improvement or E W.g Roadway Optlo a Roadway Nan ork Addoau -- - Pb 61. Opucnal Roadway Network Adchdom ��. Pb.Jble A"6-. to Rwdway Network {Beyond 2025) Most of the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of Places 29. The portion of area D designated Urban Mixed Use (Uptown) is not totally in keeping because the suggested mix of land uses are not provided in the Uptown Area and, as previously indicated, the Foundation would like to maintain flexibility and allow for the potential for industrial uses to locate on Airport Road. Because of the uncertainty as to whether this area would ultimately be designated for Uptown, staff did not request that the applicant commit to mixed use at this location. The future Small Area plan for this area may revisit where the best location for an Uptown. Nothing precludes future long term opportunities for a greater mix of uses, as this area could evolve overtime towards the Uptown idea. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicant is requesting PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park zoning. The intent of the PDIP district as described in the Zoning Ordinance states that the district is intended to: Permit a variety of industrial uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto, which are compatible with and do not detract either from each other or from surrounding districts. It is intended that PD -IP districts may be established in areas in conformity with the comprehensive plan and having all of the following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such facilities are reasonably available Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road improved to standards approved by the county; and Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to surrounding development. In the establishment of any PD -IP district, the board of supervisors shall designate the category of uses which shall be permitted in each parcel, or part thereof, which is the subject of the application for such amendment. INIA 2W.`.` -W 11VA RC:+CCI1 "1, 1k ! - l' MV V lrwermd rmm 511 9:,+I.... Staff Rtpart hge I I The proposed PDIP application is consistent with the PDIP District as it is providing for a variety of uses including general office, flextindustrial, light industrial, laboratories including research and development, and some supporting commercial and hotel uses. The site is served by public water and sewer and primary road access with Route 29 and Airport Road. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources Environmental- Exhibit H of the Application Plan depicts natural features and wetland overlay, with preservation and conservation areas of the site shown. Staff and County Engineer have evaluated the proposed resources and impacts to them with this proposed development, including a wetlands delineation study. There are linear wetlands at the western boundary and middle of the parcel associated with a perennial stream, and 50' stream buffer requirements apply. The proposed plan disturbs approximately 0. 16 acre of palustrine (forested) wetlands to allow construction of Building J and parking lot improvements. (Attachment D - Exhibit H) All wetland impacts must be authorized by federal and state regulatory agencies, and ideally the proposed development would preserve these natural features. Assuming that federal and state agency approval were obtained, the Natural Resources Planner and County Engineer have found that impacting this area of wetlands could be reasonable if the wetland system to the southwest, along the southern property boundary were preserved the applicant has provided for a 100' stream buffer and preservation of these wetlands with their current application plan, Cultural /Historic Resources- As mentioned previously, the applicant will survey the existing building on the property and provide documentation prior to demolition. At this time the building does not appear have significant historic value. Entrance Corridor- Airport Road is an Entrance Corridor and subject to ARB review. The Design Planner has commented that it appears that the site layout as illustrated in the concept plan could meet Entrance Corridor guidelines. Detailed building information and review by the ARB for conformity with Entrance Corridor guidelines will be done at the time of site plan application. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Streets — Currently, there are two entrances to the existing Research Park. The main entrance (Lewis & Clark Drive) is located on Route 29 and the back entrance to the park from Dickerson Road. Innovation Drive has been constructed from Airport Road to serve the Hollymead Fire Station and the proposed developed of the area under consideration for rezoning to incorporate into the Research Park. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the initial request for this rezoning in February 2005. It was revised in March 31, 2008 and again in July 2008 to address County and VDQT comments. Information from this TIA is provided as Attachment E. The TIA analyzed impacts of the adding 700,000 square feet to the Research Park, beyond the 3,000,000 square feet already approved. The analysis assumed all proffered roadway improvements that were identified in the proffers approved with ZMA 1994 -005 would be in place. This included the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road, with the TIA anticipating that a significant portion of the traffic generated by the Research Park site would use this connector road and thereby reduce impact to Route 29. I % I A :kw14 -1hII I'4-A keac . R!ISAW klknvii l:f ;i't vv tiILI ll'Rep P1.1 Prom I Th f e provision o phasing for road Improvements provided on Exhibit M of the Application Plan (Attachment D) and in the updated proffers (Attachment E) as indicated in the table to the right. The original proffers also specified that two -lanes of Lewis & Clark from Route 29 to Route 649 through the Park shall be provided within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building constructed beyond 980,000 square feet. (Proffer 5.4 (b)1) At the time ZMA 1994 -005 was approved, the Comprehensive Plan did not include text or show on the Land Use Map a parallel road system along Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated since that rezoning to provide for the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive from Route 29 to Airport Road. Rezonings have been approved to the east of the Research Park (North Pointe) and south that align with Lewis & Clark Drive, to provide for an interconnecting parallel and perpendicular road system. NGIC has also been developed and expanded since the rezoning for the Research Park was approved PHASE l Land Use Max Cumulative Build -out Max Build -out to be accessed by 635,000 Road A (all uses): Support Commercial to 85,000 Max Build -out to accessed by Rt. 345,000 606 (all uses)to: General Office to 120,000 Support Commercial to 25,000 Max Total Build -out, Phase 1 (all 980,000 uses 11 Max Cumulative Build -out PHASE Land Use General office: 1,068,000 110,000 Support Commercial: Hotel: 190,000 MaxTotal Build -out, Phase II (all 1,368,000 uses PHASE III Land Uses Max Cumulative Build -out General Office: _ 3,400,000 Nupport Commercial: 110,000 Hotel: 19o,000 Max Total Build -out, Phase III 3,700,000 (3) (all uses) and has created more of an opportunity to provide for local traffic needs between NGICINorth Pointe /UVA Research Park/Hollymead on an interconnected road system alternative to Route 29. VDOT has also approved an Access Management Strategy in conjunction with the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study that shows the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road. Achieving the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive through the Research Park is now a higher priority than it was at the time of the 1995 rezoning. Staff and VDOT recommended the interconnection should be provided for sooner in the phasing of road improvements and that at a minimum, the road should be provided as a 2 -Lane Section prior to construction of more than 180,000 square feet in building area. This is approximately the amount of building area that could be achieved on the already PDIP zoned portion of Area D included with this rezoning. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and provided for this in the updated proffers. Other proffer changes were recommended to clarify proffer requirements with regard to Route 29 improvements. The 1994 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 rezonings 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 (LOS) 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 which the applicant provided for with revised proffers and Application Plan exhibit provided by the applicant on July 6, 2009. However, in the most recent evaluation of the proffers by VDOT, VDOT recommends the LOS be changed from "D" to "C." (Attachment H) VDOT's Chapter 527 regulations, which have changed since the 1994 proffers, govern traffic studies and do not use the minimum level of service criteria but change in delay. This means that when a study is reviewed, the increase in delay is looked at for each movement and has to be held unchanged if possible. Delay correlates to level of service, and it was previously the policy that in rural areas LOS of "C" or better is acceptable and in urban area a "D" or better was maintained. The area 7M CMS- MU 1IVA Ru�curch Murk PC i3f t"l (l)cJcriir.l frurrr 5r l{1;TJY anal 7 Staff Report PEWe 13 around the research park is still considered rural by VDOT and therefore the high LOS should be used for intersections with Route 29. The County Engineer concurs. The original UVA Research Park proffers were approved with a LOS D standard. With the updated proffers provided by the applicant on July 6, the LOS D standard was clarified that it is the LOS to be maintained for each turning movement and the average of the intersection. Staff now recommends that the proffers be modified to specify that LOS C average for the two intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at the intersections of Route 29 /Airport Road and Route 29 /Lewis & Clark Drive. This would bring the proffers more in line with current standards. Schools — There are no residential uses proposed with this project and no impacts to schools anticipated. Fire Rescue Police- The proposed rezoning will incorporate the Hollymead Fire Station (Station 12), application plan and proffers approved with ZMA 2005- 002. The 16,257 square foot fire station has been constructed (shown on the inset below), and is occupied/ in operation, providing fire protection and primary emergency medical response services to Hollymead and surrounding Area. The property is leased from the UVA Foundation. It is depicted as Building F on the application plans and depicted on the inset to the right. Albemarle County Fifth Street Office Building contains the County's Police Department, although police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police services recommends a response time of five minute or less 85 % of the time in the Development Areas and this is achieved through their sector /beat system. Police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to help achieve these desired response times to all police emergency calls and the nearest satellite office to the Research Park is located at Fashion Square Mall. Utilities -The Research park is served by the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer. The proposed project will require the completion of the North Fork Regional Pump Station to provide sewer capacity, which has an expected completion date of August 2010. Water is available from an existing 12" RWSA water line running along Airport Road and from a 12" ACSA water line running along Innovation Drive. (Attachment 1) Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The area requested for rezoning is located between the existing UVA Research Park and property zoned Light Industrial to the west so there are no anticipated impacts to surrounding properties with development of this site. The Application Plan maintains the minimum 50' open space buffer between Airport Acres and the east side of Innovation /Lewis & Clark Drive and in some places the actual buffer that exists is more than 50'. The proposed interparcel access to the west does not match the platted connection approved with SUB 2006 — 273 and would result in the need to request that the owner provide for the interconnection as shown on UVA Research Park application plan. This provides an interconnection in a location that avoids environmental features. The owner should be notified of these changes, so that they can plan accordingly when submitting any site plans to the County. 1-kiA !iY]l5a O3 11 VA Rcmuch Park PC VI 0L it rrcd I-ruln 5)1$ 9 kH isl SWf1'Rep rr Pala 14 PROFFERS This rezoning involves amending proffers approved with ZMA 1995 -04 and incorporating the 30 acres proposed for rezoning into a single application plan set. The revised set of proffers provided as Attachment E also 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 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 Northside Drive • Dedication of ROW for future Dickerson Rd 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.) • Reconnaisance level documentation of historic structure on property. • Section 5.4 Revise phasing to provide Lewis and Clark Connection sooner than 980,000 square feet. • 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 Clark 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 5.4b -1 so utilities, storm sewers and sidewalks /pedestrian facilities can be undisturbed when the 4 -lane construction is underway. • Section 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements -- Revise 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. Not yet provided by applicant and recently requested: Proffers be modified to specify that LOS C average for the two intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections of Route 29 /Airport Road and Route 29 /Lewis & Clark Drive SUMMARY Factors Favorable: 5. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial Service designation of the Land Use Plan. 6. The proposal meets goals and objectives of the Economic Development Policy plan. 7. The application plan provides for additional interconnections into the Research Park. Stnir ReTKw I I ti 8. The applicant has provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation impacts. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has found no factors unfavorable for this rezoning, provided that the one additional proffer change is made. Recommendation: ZMA 2005 -003 Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005 -003 rezoning and attached proffers, provided that one additional change is made to the proffers: ■ Proffers be modified to specify that LOS C average for the two intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections of Route 29 /Airport Road and Route 29 /Lewis & Clark Drive. Modification to Setbacks Staff recommends approval of the setback modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback reduction. of to allow for buildings, including those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. ATTACHMENTS: A. Location Map /Aerial B. Zoning Map C. Planning Commission work session staff report & minutes, January 31, 2006 D. Application Plan Exhibits: A. Overall Concept Plan A -1. General Plan B. Gateway District Plan C. Wetland District Plan D. Research & Development Plan E. Vehicular Circulation Plan F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan G. Streetscape & Sidewalk Sections H. Natural Features and Wetland Overlay I. Grading & Utility Plan J. Zoning Application Overlay Plan K. Overall Zoning Application Overlay Plan (K -1 through K -6) L. Internal Road Network Plan M. Off -site and Internal Road Phasing Plan N. Open Space System Phasing Plan E. Proffers dated June 24, 2009 F. UVA Research Park current tenant list G. Transportation Impact Analysis Summary Table of Site Trip Generation H. VDOT comments provided by Joel Denunzio, P.E., via e-mail dated March 4, 2009 and Charles C. Proctor, III via e-mail dated July 21, 2009 I. ACSA comments provided by Gary Whelan, dated October 9, 2008 J. Summary of Places 29 Information -UVA Research Park ,•1 ] � poll 1�.l411 i I ,�- 5 R Tdf 114w* J'( 91Rk14) 11 1.°rrc,11CtiiiiI-19II})mLi. n' Iiclkj STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Rebecca Ragsdale August 18, 2009 Not yet scheduled ZMA 05 -03 UVA RESEARCH PARK SPECIAL USE PERMITS: SP2008 -0015- Parking Structure SP200800062- Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical SP200800063- Supporting Commercial Uses SP200800064- Hotels, Motels, Inns PETITIONS PROJECT: SP2008 -0015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649) , west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18,18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO PROJECT: 2008 -00062 UVA Research Park - Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27,2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO PROJECT: 2008 -00063 UVA Research Park - Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6,01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18,18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO PROJECT: 2008 -00064 UVA Research Park - Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP /PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18,18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL Concurrent special use permit application have been submitted to allow for a parking garage, uses approved within the existing park for supporting commercial, laboratories, and hotellconference facility. The applicant has flexibility as to where the uses would be allowed in the park and land uses are governed by the Land Use Matrix of the Application Plan. Supporting commercial uses, hotel uses, and laboratories were approved along with ZMA 1994 -05 and are requested now for Area D. STAFF COMMENT Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to each of the four special use permits requested: such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, There are no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties anticipated with these uses. Provisions of the ordinance will address parking structure design and it is located internal to the research park. Buffers are provided on the application plan for any residential areas adjoining the Park and an additional buffer requirement was imposed on labs with the special use permits for the park approved in 1995 and are also recommended here, with the ability for a reduction if requested to avoid excessive buffer requirements. A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to address light, noise, radioactivity, and vibration. and that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The request is to allow these land uses within a planned research /industrial park. Considering the uses and plan of development, staff believes that the parking structure will have minimal impacts and would not change the character of the district and would provide for more of an urban character in Areas D, rather than suburban character in the rest of the Research Park. The supporting commercial, laboratories, and hotel uses are secondary to the primary uses in the park and would be consistent with the character of the district. Staff believes that the parking garage will improve the character of the district and provides an alternative to a "sea" parking that could result from a surface parking lot. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed all four requests for special use permits for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and has not identified that any conflicts would result from approval of these special use permits. with uses permitted by -right in the district, A variety of LI industrial uses and office use are allowed by -right in the Category I uses of the PDIP district. Secondary supporting uses within a PDIP are encouraged. The requested special use permits are supportive and complimentary to the land uses permitted in the Research Park. ! I t S: kI 1<­I WJ' P L .% iC.- Nlaii'f Tit;,vri l's I K with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance The additional regulations are identified below. Staff sees no issues which would prevent the regulations from being met. SP2008-0015-Parkinq Structure 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in the ordinance. Section 32.7.2A of the Zoning Ordinance also provides for the following requirements for parking structures: a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan. b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses. c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view. d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential development. e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will not routinely shine directly outside the structure. SP200800062- 1-aboratories, medical or pharmaceutical A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to address light, noise, and vibration to ensure compliance with Section 4.14. will be required with lab uses within the park. There are no additional regulations in the ordinance for supporting commercial (SP200800063) or Hotels, Motels, Inns (SP200800064) uses. And with the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community The public health safety and general welfare of the community is protected through the special user permit process, which assures that proposed uses are in the appropriate location and any impacts can be mitigated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: SP2008- 0015 - Parking Structure Staff recommends approval of SP2008 -0015- Parking Structure with no conditions of approval. SP200800062- Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. N1 :(110-11IMI i % 1 1:c--ii,.I1 0' ; I �tl tvpoF r 1144 I1 t 2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by the Director of Planning. SP200800063- Supporting Commercial Uses Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions: 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5 %) percent of total floor area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of total floor area at any time during phased development. SP200800064- Hotels, Motels, Inns Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms. 2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. 111+1111MJ,4-1 8JI I IV 1 Re rwldl!'Nk IN' H-T&W) rL%jerrcd kki In: 5?1 Al 7. 2I.4 W4 .,WII -r�UFJ I'LL �' {I z El DOY El u in, JO 1 w+ AV •'/" - - lE n ion NZ o(tb, LO 46 Ad, In N !n._ p- IF� 4i i .MP - Attachment A cc .E 0 N D Cf) Lb C*4 N DI I El I I I®® ❑ W LU Z e-4 4N M co L) r;l n � PLP — — OM -Z C'& ' 7 — L27r UJ r .4 174 E'4 e�3 Attachment B Attachment C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Work Session: ZMA 05 -03 UVA Research Park (North Fork) at Airport Road SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: ZMA 05 -03 is a request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA to PDIP. The worksession is specific to discussion and recommendations on layout and overall design. STAFF: Elaine K. Echols, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: QGtobeF 25, 200-5 January 31, 2006 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: Not yet scheduled OWNERICONTRACT 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 known 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 included 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 Park for 525 adjacent acres in 1996. 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 with Attachment B. In 1998, the Board approved an 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. DISCUSSION/FINDINGS: Staff has reviewed the overall design of the park 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 Commission to provide feedback and guidance to the staff and applicant on the appropriate design for the development. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP JANUARY 31, 2006 ZMA 05 -03 UVA RESEARCH PARK AT AIRPORT (NORTH FORK) WORKSESSION Owner /Contract Purchaser: The University of Virginia Foundation owns the property and is also the applicant. Applicant'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 shows development on both a portion of the existing PD -IP zoned land as well as the additional 30 acres. The appearance indicated is one of an "office park ", similar to the Research Park owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. A tax map showing the parcels included in the development is Attachment D. The plan of development is included as Attachment A. Petition: Request 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 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A is located 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 Road and Route 29 North. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community. 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 within the PDIP zoning district permits industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses. No residential uses are allowed. Purpose of Worksession: The worksession is designed for Planning Commission review of the overall design and Iayout of the proposed park. The Commission 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 Plan. Background: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a rezoning for the North Fork Research Park for 525 adjacent acres in 1996. 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 with Attachment B. In 1998, the Board approved an 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. Conformity with the Land Use Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan There are a number of recommendations in the Comprehensive 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, however, which should be reviewed by the Commission before the project proceeds. 2 Recommendation from Land Use Plan.: Develop all industrial /office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total buildable area shall not exceed 3, 000, 000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning. Question for Planning Commission: Should the statement above result in a prohibition of expansion of the UVA Research Park? Staff Position: Staff believes that expansion of the UVA Research Park is not prohibited by the statement in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 to the Research Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current request for expansion of the Research Park is in this additional area. Principles of the Neighborhood Model Staff has assessed the overall design and layout of the park for conformity with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment. Questions for the Commission are embedded in the table where assessment of the principle is made. Pedestrian The proposal is for a suburban style "office park" designed in three different 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 drives and along Lewis and Clark Dr. The design of Lewis and Clark Drive was established with the prior rezoning. It is an urban section with 4 lanes separated by a median with trees. It has been approved for a six -foot asphalt path on the west side of the street. 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 through the site. An "urban" development would likely have on- street bicycle lanes and sidewalks separated from the street by street- trees. If the Commission supports the existing park design and layout, a wider asphalt path would be needed. A different design which promotes closer setbacks would need concrete sidewalks. Pedestrian Staff supports the proposal to have pedestrian access along only one side of Orientation Lewis and Clark Drive because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive abuts Continued a SO foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential. The applicant has indicated that a hierarchy of paths will be used that includes asphalt, concrete, and rustic components depending on the purpose of the pathway. Staff supports use of concrete sidewalks in areas where the most foot - traffic is expected. Staff supports use of asphalt paths where pedestrian access is provided through open space or as a second way to walk safely and conveniently within the park. 1. Is the design appropriate or should it be modifaed to be more in conformity with the NM? 2. Is pedestrian access appropriate? 3. Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side? Neighborhood Accessways throughout the development are presented on the application Friendly Streets plan as commercial driveways connecting parking lots and clusters. A and Paths hierarchy of driveways is shown 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 line 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. 1. 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? Interconnected The proposed plan shows U Si.agle 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 LI is essential. 1. Should an interconnection (or interconnections) be made to the property 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 development as well as along several stream and sloped areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive from its intersection with Airport Road. The buffer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The new proposal removes the open space at the entrance to the development and replaces it with buildings. Open space continues to be shown surrounding a wetland area and another open space area is provided at the rear of the development near a stream and stormwater facility. Staff believes that the Parks and Open applicant intends to make the wetland area closer to the entrance into a Space Continued feature. This area could be improved as an employee amenity area. Staff 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 on the plan. More potential wetlands may be identified near the streams. 1. Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 plan be retained or should buildin s rontAir port 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 center in the middle of the development. The buildings proposed in the new section relate somewhat to the town center, although the walking distance for the closest buildings is approximately a half-mile away. The applicant has said that "the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the establishment of "centers" or gathering spots to support the Park and adjoining neighborhoods and uses." 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 does 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? Z Should a center 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 12 Scale feet, side setbacks are proposed at 15 feet, 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 lots. 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 would like to see a better relationship between buildings and the street in order to assess if appropriate spatial enclosure has been achieved. 1. Has the applicant appropriately provided for buildings and spaces of human scale? Relegated Parking Generally, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis and Clark Drive. No information has been provided to indicate how parking lots are to be screened, either with vegetation or using architectural treatments, from the various streets and driveways. Additional details are needed to ensure that parking is appropriately relegated. 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 for approval of some commercial uses. It is also difficult to know what commercial uses are proposed. More specific information and commitments are needed in order to assess whether this principle is being met. At a minimum, 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 commitments be provided for commercial uses or are the general special use permit requests sufficient? Mixture of Housing No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by -right or by special Types and use in the PD -IP district. Affordability Redevelopment This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of undeveloped land; however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for the presence of historic architectural and/or archaeological resources, County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family dwelling. The applicant has been requested to document the buildings on TMP 32-18 prior to demolition and if anything pertaining to historical significance is found within the project area, to let the County staff know. Site Planning that The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best Respects Terrain possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1 regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shown to be impacted, in general, the proposed development respects the terrain. Where the plan appears to have problems though is at the western perimeter where streams exist. A retaining wall of approximately 20 feet is shown on the plan. While retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. Additional environmental information is needed before this principle can be fully 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 Rural with the Rural Areas. Areas RECOMMENDATIONS The addition of 30 acres to a park of 525 acres raises questions about 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 development as a continuation of the previous form. In these instances, staff does not generally ask for changes to that form. Here, 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 park and carry this form along the Lewis and Clark Drive from Airport Road to it the first public street intersection shown on the previously approved plan. With 51 this in mind, staff concludes that the proposed development is not yet in sufficient accord with the Comprehensive Plan and especially with the Neighborhood Model. Staff asks the Commission to answer the questions in the body of this report. Staff recommends that the Commission advise both staff and the applicant on whether and how to change the plan to conform with the Comprehensive Plan so that next steps can take place. In addition to the Commission's determination on general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, staff asks that the Commission identify any additional areas for future discussion or problematic areas in need of resolution. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Application Plan dated 8/16/05 Attachment B — Proffers from ZMA 95 -04 Attachment C --- Approval letter for Setback Reduction dated May 26, 1999 Attachment D — Tax Map Attachment E -- Building Organization for Research Park dated October 05 Attachment F — Pedestrian system for Research Park dated October 05 Attachment G — Driveway hierarchy for Research Park dated October 05 Attachment H — Open Space for Research Park dated October 05 7 Site Data Table Tract 1: New PDIP Zoning Building Height Footprint Area Parking Provided A 4 stories 20,000 sf 80,000 of C 4 stories 20,000 st 80,000 sf 4. It is anticipated that Tract 1 will contain a mixture of uses D 4 stories 20,090 sf 80,000 of ' t E 4 stories 20,000 sf 80,000 sf (half) 3 stories 20,000 sf 30,000 st { J (half) 3 stories 20,000 sf 30,000 sf districts, the Foundation reserves the right to exercise the K 3 stories 20,000 sf 60,000 sf L 3 stories 20,000 sf 60,000 sf subtotal 1 600,000 sf 1,sst) Site Data Table Tract 2: Existing PDIP Zoning Building Height Footprint Area Parking Provided B 4 stories 20,000 at 80,000 sf G 2 stories 20,000 at 40,000 sf 4. It is anticipated that Tract 1 will contain a mixture of uses H 2 stories 20,000 sf 40,000 sf ' t I (half) 3 stories 20,000 sf 30,000 sif J (hat 3 stories 20,000 sf 30,000 of { Subtotal t 1 220 000 sf 675 F JAIbernarle County Firestation 1 20,000 sf _ 20,000 si Site Data Tract 1: New PDIP Zoning Site Area . ................ ....... 30.56 Acres y� Existing Zoning ................. RA Proposed Zoning .............. PDIP 1 Floor Area Ratio....... .. 0.375 l Preserved Open Space..... 6.3 Acres (23 %) Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and all 40 Site Data Tract 2: Existing PDIP Zoning y 4. It is anticipated that Tract 1 will contain a mixture of uses a Site Area ............... .. .... 27.399 ...... 27399 Acres tb Existing Zoning .................. PDIP ' t Floor Area Ratio ............... 0.184�f ( y Preserved Open Space..... 7.8 Acres (28.6 %) O Site Notes; 1 The UVA Foundation has presented, on this plan, a { conceptual scheme for development of the subject 30 acre t 1 property. In keeping with the spirit of Planned Development districts, the Foundation reserves the right to exercise the i flexibility provided by this form of zon¢ng to respond to market demands during the course of the Park's development 2. Ail proposed roads, utijitles, and other Improvements are conceptual and subject to change based on final site program, design, and engineering. 1 l 3 All proposed site development shall conform to the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and all 40 applicable state and federal regulations. f / 4. It is anticipated that Tract 1 will contain a mixture of uses j in keeping with existing by -right and Special Use Permit uses within the existing Research Park The parking takes this conceptual mix of uses into account. I // I 1 Traci\/ . t Stvrrnl�u� ter % ' M inaaemeot — lie 'N 41 P, � } 1P - Albemarle •. r Open .. 1 r eh r � ,� \x \,�•. - __ Imo. - _ , L , j r A rrrate– _Stdrr"water` ' r ,.M a "r . #ach i e � ��oer► Sp � Jr� 4 - 1Tract 2 r .- \_1 U ~i Attachment A IV I f � ! r 5 � f III I Open -Space Lewis & Clark Drive fainr 100' S0 100' 200 5. Approval of this plan results in the extension of all Special r# + 4 f� Use Permits currently in place within the adjoining UVA Preserved Wetlands ! Research park Adak M [)El 0pMr: The University of Research F'ouNDATioN[i k S Albemarle County, Virginia Exhibit D: Application Plan 0 Dewberry This plan and/or drawing Is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change Date 08 16 05 Attachment B �A pF a r.s f� ff • qr l�t rw COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (804) 2955823 June 14, 1996 Tim Rose Chief Operating Officer University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation P. O. Box 9023 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA -95 -04 - The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation Dear Mr. Rose: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 12, 1996 approved, the above - noted request to rezone approximately 525 ac from RA, PD -IP, R -1 & LI to PD -11? and to amend sewer service boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include water and sewer for the North Fork Business Park. This request includes the following special use permits: SP -95-40 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical, SP -95-41 - Supporting commercial uses; SP -95 -42 - Hotels, motels & inns. ADOPTED the attached resolution approving ZMA -95 -04 and the special use permits. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning b.. cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Ijiggins t :1G);NERAL' SHAREIBARBA RA1ZW95-04 ACT GI Attachment B RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ZMA -95 -04 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION Whereas, in accordance with Section 15.1 -431 of the Code of Virginia and Section 33 of the .Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners notified, and a hearing scheduled on ZMA 95 -04, University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, to consider the rezoning of approximately 525 acres from RA, PD -IP, R -1, and LI to PD -IP, as more particularly identified in the zoning application; and Whereas, this application and the attached proffers are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, good zoning practices, and supported by the reasons set forth in the staff report. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby approves ZMA -95 -04 with proffers, such proffers being dated March 21, 1996 and being attached hereto and made a part of this approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that included within this approval is the approval of the following special use permits with the stated conditions: Is (A) P- -40 L b r ri , conditioned upon: . Compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Building location shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development. (B) SP-95-41 SiipportinZ Com nercial Ues, conditioned upon: 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5 0/6) percent of total floor area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of total floor area at any time during phased development. f +' 'r Attachment B (C) 52-95 -42 Hotels, Motels Inns, conditioned upon: . 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not exceed two hundred Fifty (250) lodging rooms. 2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. The time limit to commence the above special uses shall be extended for so long as the application plan for ZMA -95 -04 remains valid. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 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 required for a Planned Development - Industrial Park and provision of open space is voluntarily proffered by the applicant, the open space areas shall not be govemed by Section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The approval of the special use permits with the extended time for commencing the uses shall not preclude the Board from revoking any special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in Section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 3. The terms General Office, Light Industrial and Flex Industrial as set forth in UREF, Volume 1, Part iX of the zoning application shall, in addition to Zoning Ordinance definitions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descriptions shall apply. In such case in which more 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 Iess than Fifty (50 %) percent of the floor area for a Flex Industrial use is devoted to office use, the • Page 2 of 3 Attachment B entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. This provision shall apply only for determination of maximum square footage by type of use. This provision shall not apply to calculation Sof parking requirements or other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, nor to any requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code nor to any other ordinance or regulation related to type of usage of buildings and structures. 1, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 4 to 2 on June _ 5. 1996. C7 0 ZMA95-04. Clerk, Board of County Sup 'sons Page 3 of 3 12- PROFFER STATEMENT Attachment B 1 Li. s 1 S „fir 1 X71. CFi •J�.` � . UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION 0 Final Version: March 21, 1996 40 ),3 Attachment B PROFFER STATEMENT i UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA -95 -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 1.1 (the "MicroAire 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 MicroAire Property and Motion Control Property are referred to collectively as the "Property". Applicant, UREF Research Park, Inc., MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc. and Motion Control Industries, Inc. hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board ") to the Planned Development Industrial Park ( "PD- IP"), 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 immediately 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 to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) 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 made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA- 78 -15. I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant has presented, as part of its Rezoning Application, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning action which it seeks, and to illustrate the process through which the Applicant developed its proposal. Applicant's development of the Property (also referred to herein as the "Project ") shall be in accordance with Applicant's Zoning Application Plan (the "Zoning Application Plan "), as provided in the Ordinance. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all . plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. 1.2 Plan Exhibits. These proffers shall include the following plans, which (except for the �ning Application Plan) are limited to the purpose for which they are referenced in a proffer: 1 11 1 Attachment B • Zoning Application Plan • Storrnwater Management Plan, Exhibit 4.2 • Internal Road Network Plan, Exhibit 5.1 Road Network Phasing Plan, Exhibit 5.3 • Open Space System Phasing Plan, Exhibit 6.1 II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property within six (6) months of the rezoning, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration "). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by owners within the Project. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the PD Zoning District. 2.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each development area within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines ") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape esign and a harmonious, well - balanced business community. 2.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of buildings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Project, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 2.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee on which the Applicant shall have a permanent seat unless or until the University of Virginia occupies at least one seat. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review 2 15; Attachment B Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include recommendations to users for water conservation techniques (such as low flow showers_ and toilets, water - conserving landscaping techniques, water reclamation, and water reuse). 2.5 Maintenance of Common 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: i) organize a North Fork Owners Association or such other private, area or business associations as may be necessary to address specific area or business concerns of the Project (the " Organization(s)") as non -stock organizations under the laws of Virginia for the ownership, care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such associations (the "Common Areas "); or ii) directly control such ownership, care and maintenance of Common Areas, 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 Iands, uses and facilities located therein. (c) The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. 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 Iess than twenty -five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. (e) If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Organization(s) shall not be dissolved nor shall such Organization(s) dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the 3 E Attachment B same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and maintain the Common Areas, Is 111. DENSITY 3.1 Total Buildout. Total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet, excluding recycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), 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 within Common Areas (collectively, the "Excluded Areas "). In the first year of development of the Project, from the date of the County's approval of the Applicant's rezoning, (the "Initial Year ") total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 500,000 square feet, (excluding the Excluded Areas and the total gross floor area either existing on the MicroAire Property, or as approved on the preliminary site plan for the 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, plus any accumulated undeveloped square feet of gross floor area. For the purposes of this Section 3.1, accumulated undeveloped square feet of gross floor area shall mean the sum of any square feet of gross floor area allowed but not developed in the Initial Year and the square feet of gross floor area less than 200,000 square feet not developed in each subsequent year to that date. 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 Oding trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and gulations. 4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Applicant shall implement (as part of the site development plan approvals) an overall stormwater management plan for the Project, incorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the Property and in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan, attached as Exhibit 4.2. Applicant's implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan shall include 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 by the Federal Manual for Identi in and Delineating Vegetated Wetlands, in effect on the date of these proffers, 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 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 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 of water 4 11 Attachment B 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 5.1 Internal Road - Network. Applicant shall provide vehicular access within the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 5. 1, ( "Internal Road Network "). Applicant shall design, construct, and install signs and signalization for the Internal Road Network in accordance with minimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation (WDOT "), unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the necessary modifications to previously constructed intersections to the extent that subsequent development of areas within the Project impacts such previously constructed intersections, including modification of the Internal Road Network design and signalization for such intersections. The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit 5.1 shall be subject to adjustment during the subdivision plat/site plan approval process. 11 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 recordation for each applicable area or at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development under a site development plan. (b) Applicant shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to Exhibit 5.3. 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 preserved 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 certificate of occupancy is sought with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix asphalt. The final layer of plant mix asphalt may be withheld until all sewer lines, water lines and other conduits have been placed under the pavement but will be completed to an approved VDOT pavement depth and design before the request for VDOT acceptance of the road. Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the roads within the Internal Road Network until they have been accepted into the state system for maintenance. 5 2 Attachment B 5.3 Phases of Develo ment. The following schedule shall app]y for determining the timing of road improvements set forth in 5.4 below: PH Land Use 1 Maximum Cumulative Build- out(2) Maximum Build -out to be accessed by Road A (all uses): 635,000 Support Commercial to 85,000(2) m aximum Build -out to be accessed by Rt. 606 1 uses): 345,000 General Office limited to: 120,000 Support Commercial limited to. 25,000 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase I (all uses) 980,000(3) PHA *uses)1,156 um Land Use (1) ive r 2 . LGeneral Office: 00 Commercial: 0 Hotel: 0 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase II • PHASE III r Maximum LanLU—se-U-1 Cumulative Build- out(21 General Office: 2,300,000 Support Commercial: 110,000 Hotel: 190,000 Maximum Total Build -out, Phase III all uses) 3,000,000 (3) n. Attachment B (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. (2) Note: Total gross floor area, in square feet. (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. 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 9ffered to acquire right-of-way, and the Applicant has made good faith efforts to acquire the land ercessary for such right -of -way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density build -out under the applicable zoning, unless the improvement its 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 5.3 above. (a) Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase I road proffers before the Maximum Total Build -out, Phase I (as shown in 5.3 above) is constructed or earlier if (i) specified in this 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 attached hereto. 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) Applicant shall design and construct a northbound turn lane from Route 606 onto Quail Run for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection. 7 Attachment B (2) Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for d e sign . and construct two northbound left turn lanes on U , .S. 29 at the intersection of Road A (North Fork Entrance) and U.S. 29. Applicant shall acquire (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 Iane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes and trio eastbound right turn lanes. The entrance at Road A also shall include dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes. (3) Applicant shall install, or pay for the installation of all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the improved intersection at U.S. 29 and Road A no later than completion of the two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29 (referenced in proffer 5.4(a)(2) above). If an additional road is added to such intersection to satisfy needs of other development in the County however, Applicant's signalization requirement shall not include improvements serving such additional road. (4) Provided that all construction of the turn lanes is completed within 10 years from the date of final approval of this Application, Applicant shall contribute upon completion of two left turn lanes at the intersection of U.S. 29 and Route 649, the total sum of $78,718.00 (Applicant's . "Contribution "). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant's Contribution may be used, at the County's discretion, to fund prior to completion of the project, a portion of the design and engineering costs in order to expedite the widening of Route 649 from two lanes to four lanes so long as Applicant is afforded the opportunity to participate in such design and engineering process In the event that the Contribution, after it is received by the County, is not used, within 10 years either for construction of the turn lanes, or for the design and engineering costs for Route 649 widening, then the Contribution shall be returned to the Applicant, without interest. (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 [ane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the North Fork . Project within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy ZI Attachment B for a building constructed after construction of the Maximum Total Build - out, Phase I (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. (2) Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649 entrance: -'two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, one southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through lanes on Road A. (3) Applicant shall construct at the intersection at Road A and Route 649: one westbound right turn lane on Route 649, and one eastbound left turn lane on Route 649. (4) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved 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 II): • (1) Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way) the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDOT requires, and at the County's direction, Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and construction costs which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29 for the Purpose of constructing of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Route 29 and the entrance to North Fork. Nothing contained herein however shall be deemed to be a proffer by Applicant to construct such a grade separated interchange. (2) Before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for improvements in excess of the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase II, VDOT shall have approved funding for the design and construction of the widening of U.S. 29 to six through lanes between the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. (3) Construction may nevertheless continue in excess of the Total Maximum Build -out, Phase II (but in no event beyond the limitation contained in 3.1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in (1) and (2) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies approved by VDOT that acceptable Ievels of service (LOS 0 Attachment B "D ", or better for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection) can be maintained with existing, or alternative improvements. (d) Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated on Exhibit 5.3 as "Future Right of Way Area for Grade Separated Interchange." Applicant shall dedicate such area 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 the aesthetic features of the Project's entrance. VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE 6.1 Developed 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 shall follow the phasing schedule of proffered road improvements as set forth in 5.4 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase 1 on Exhibit 6.1 shall be completed before construction of the Maximum Total 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 Organization for use by users within the Project. Applicant shall convey to the County, without consideration, the balelds depicted on Exhibit 6.1. Active recreation areas will not be lighted with field or stadium lighting. 6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development of areas not shown as development parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are Otablished by plat (and the boundaries later shown on plats may be adjusted from those depicted on xhibit 6.1). In no event 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 total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the North Fork Owners Association or to an appropriate Organization. No structural improvements other than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Rivanna Green Belt. Applicant shall reserve a 100 foot wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River ( "Green Belt "). No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails, and utilities) shall be constructed, or erected within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. Applicant may grant across the Green Belt utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River 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 remain undeveloped except for pedestrian and riding trails and to the extent necessary to accommodate utilities crossings. At such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park 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 4d riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the pplicant, at its option. El 2,113 Attachment B 6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shall not disturb the existing family cemetery located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Applicant shall complete within one year of these proffers, a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. Once completed, the * servation plan shall be filed with the County to accompany these 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 .Lhe areas surrounding the sites are developed or as necessary in order to prevent further degradation of the sites from the date of these proffers. 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. 7.2 Buffer Areas. Applicant shall not disturb the Buffer Areas as depicted on the Zoning Application Plan. other than to: i) construct signage, 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 parcel B -7 (as identified on the Zoning Application Plan) prior to commencing 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 land until the County has included such a facility in its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The five acre parcel shall be Iocated on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating an alternative parcel of land located offsite that is acceptable to the County. 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 programs, 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 3 years, beginning with the completion of the County's fire station. 8.2 Hazardous Materials. No 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 (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 County, then the property shall be used as open space. 11 Zf Attachment B IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT Q9.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Department of Planning and ommunity Development, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the development activity in the Project over the applicable period. X. SIGNATORY 10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 10.2 The Applicant. 'These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and /or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION By: � 2 Title: C V�,,—� �-�.:, �• '� c e—. 9 UREF RESEARCH PARK, INC. 0 By:✓+��� Title: ��tc Q5- t�C MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC. Title: IC AIRE SURGICQAL NSTRUMENTS, INC. By: Title: 12 Attachment B 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. • IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 9.1 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. X. SIGNATORY 10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 10.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION • By. Title: UREF RESEARCH PARK, INC. By: Title: 0 MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC. BY: . K/ � �/ .-�r� Title: t�� r ,• :... ;�tt �� MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. By:_ Title: 12 Vol/ Attachment B STATE OF CITY /COUNTY OFl! -�—r� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 day of Q, 1996' by f the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation, My commission expires: Oq- .50- j > Q Cam- [SEAL] Notary Public STATE OF V, r ' C'- CITY /COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 44'�` day of r; , 496, by �r , ' �o.,r1 n , on behalf of � � ci7__ + _fie My commission. expires: 3 1- 9 -1 �Vcl"� [SEAT.] Notary Publi 0 13 Attachment B STATE OF�h�_ CITYICOUNTY OF • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Q--t- �- 1996, by t11A 1 ffz7 GySe� �� �1 f—�[ of the University of Virginia Real ,• Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. My commission expires: 0 3U - [SEAL] Notary Public STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF �-��- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 6, by Cc_ , on behalf of UREF Research Park, Inc, My commission expires: J E� [SEAL] Notary Public 0 14 STATE OF N CITY /COUNTY OF �} - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this S-A - day of 1996, by on behalf of Motion Control Industries, Inc. My commission expires: z [SEAL] �,, _.-3- - No Public DIANE M. GALVIN Notary Public, Slate of New York No.5008517 Qualified in Onondaga County Commission Expires February 22, 19- ] U A25881( 995 DO C�NO R FRZCC. DOC 0 15 Attachment B q I r-, NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK Albem le County, Wroja Vicinity 'p G Z 13-4 IF-, L Ae B-2 F_2 Motes F-4 Project DatA Adjacent Owners `Approximate , M� trLt­ ­� i��_ —7 Metes and Bounds Land Use Legend Im W 16 —dry yob (D ZONING APPLICATION PLAN uni versifY of Virginia Real Estate Foundation br McKee/Canon Attachment B '3 D Attachment B NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK Mb arle County, Virginia 84 --X, (D DaMIT 5.3 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation OFF-SITE AND INTERNAL ROAD PHASING McKee/Carso st, NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK $ft. , Allxmarle Caa ty, Virginia `�A - f•r: 0 1 " f n h.J i 7 Notes EXI-IlBFf $.1 Un1Vel51±y Of Vlr1Ig8u 1Il Real Estate Foundatk o.wa...... rw, INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK McKee /Cars< Attachment B 9 Q / BA ROAD $ '+/ 2 LANE UNDMDED . P pu RLJRALSEC11ON' - ' ,rr r' 09'70 70' RO.IN Y!+ Lra c C r i r 13 -7 E TOAD A . LANE DLVIDEb- RURAISELMON i +� W. iccr . 1 � is Qt UAIL R 2 LANE UNDMD t. �6o a0-s^' �uF. 8.10 ADD UNUMDEDF11; ^1S}iRnL�SEC]'t6N rsJ s13-11 OAD C D RURA N � 0 1 " f n h.J i 7 Notes EXI-IlBFf $.1 Un1Vel51±y Of Vlr1Ig8u 1Il Real Estate Foundatk o.wa...... rw, INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK McKee /Cars< Attachment B 9 Attachment C i AL lfl. r" r %• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 (804) 296 -5823 May 26, 1999 John Matthews P 4 Box 5603 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA -98 -27 University of Virginia Research Park @ North Fork Tax Map 32, Parcels 413, 6, 6A and 19 Dear Mr. Matthews: { The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on May 5, 1999, unanimously approved the above -noted request to amend ZMA -95 -04 to reduce building setbacks along internal public road rights -of -way from 50 to 10 feet. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 0, V. Wayne Cilgmberg / Director of Plarwinw& Community VWC /jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Tex Weaver Steve Allshouse �13 Attachment D Albemarle County Tax Map: Scale 032 aK � a w wn zsw } {w ,M NOW This map is for display purposes only ' and shows parcels as of 17/31/5007. See Map Book Inlroduclion for adddional da OS �4 Attachment E PCO& 1�odrr�y ro 3 b Q� S Sn 3 � _ 4 Attachment F PRO& 3(O ' L � ro U O � ' 4 c Q E � E- C C CL U C? m U y i v t L ATTACHMENT G j x Lr' r Q Q x fZ m Alf m L O O z a / a Vl Q 7 tF l� K z - ILA� a ot dip N � "f J �a u T CL .� V7 fa - �. • I v) peak F 1- � ro� _LL of �Q> c� �ro :�-zz -W- - peo2� Lodary Attachment H 0 ro b v v a 5 Albemarle County Planning Commission January 31, 2006 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Jo Higgins, Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice - Chairman; Pete Craddock and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, represented David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Bill Fritz, Development Review Manager; Steve Tugwell, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Ron White, Housing Director; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning; Amelia McCulley, Zoning and Current Development Director /Zoning Administrator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Excerpt for ZMA 2005 -03: ZMA 2005 -003 UVA Research Park at Airport Road Sin #18 - Request 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 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A is located 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 Road and Route 29 North. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community. 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 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 Commission's input to provide direction to the applicant. Application has been made for ZMA -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 North 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 in 1986 as an office park plan. The applicant wants to add another 500,000 square feet to be accessed from Airport Road. It contains some of what has been approved as well as this additional 28 acres. The applicant would like 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 bring a copy of the land use map, which she passed around to show them 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 the design should reflect a new center. • The mixture of uses that are proposed. Ms. Higgins asked how much staff is capturing of what the North Fork Business Park is now. She asked if staff was justifying her discussion to the 28 acres when talking about the relationship of buildings 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 left is the area to be added to the research park. If 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 older 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 what has previously been approved in 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 on 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 on February 8 for the final rezoning action on it, which included Area D. There were a number of proffers that related to Area D. The first issue Ms. Echols noted 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 B, on page 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 an 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 Clark with buildings that are fairly well set back. This kind of thing was promoted when the original rezoning took place. But, staff does not know if this is the kind of development that they are looking 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 looking 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 looks a lot like a series of buildings and parking lots that are just sort of laid out in an office park. Staffs first question for the Commission is whether or not they think that the layout is appropriate given that this project has been over time. 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 concrete. 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 questions are: o Is the design appropriate or should it be modified to be more in conformity with the Neighborhood Model? o Is pedestrian access appropriate? o Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side? Ms. Joseph 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 Tim Rose, CEO of the University of Virginia Foundation; 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 within our community as well as outside of our community. If you include the 30 acres, the park is 562 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 hotel /conference center, which is where they mope to support commercial /retail. They have Padow's Deli 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 center area. Mr. Stoffer continued that there is another area they call a technology district. There is some flex like industrial space, 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 take 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. Stoffer 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 Park 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 PRA building at the University of Virginia Research Park. They have a set of Design Guidelines that people need to adhere to. The quality of construction is very important for the long term 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 came 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 Clark 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 was 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 Charlottesville. They felt that an asphalt pathway with the tree plantings is a nice way 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 invite 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 far 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 in with the development area. Ms. Higgins stated that she did not see any points that made it in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Edgerton stated that the Comprehensive Plan says 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 this particular point in time. Mr. Cilimberg asked to mention something because he felt that Ms. 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. What is proposed as the new area here is designated in the plan for industrial and it is outside of those 525 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. Cilimberg stated that was correct as proposed. Ms. Higgins stated that she was assuming that wording was not intended to preclude areas adjacent. Mr. Cilimberg 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 talking about the layout itself. Ms. Echols stated that was correct. Ms. Joseph asked if the layout itself was pretty much what the applicant was using in the other portion of the park. 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 the image she has about what is being 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 it is more of an urban setting and a more intensely used site. She questioned if this park 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 through there a couple of times. It is like an unoccupied space right now. But, as it develops over time 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. Stoffer'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 be 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. Ms. Higgins stated it is like 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. Mr. 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. Ms. Higgins felt that pedestrian orientation of 560 acres is a difficult thing to achieve. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Strucko if he would like to weigh in on the design elements. Mr. Strucko 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 much 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 no 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 some 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 walks 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. Mr. 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. Strucko'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 applying 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 like to see more of an 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 that he liked the asphalt because it was better to run on. Concrete is not great to run on. He asked for a conceptual statement from staff to help him 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 that 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 relationship between buildings and the streets that it would provide the opportunity for people between buildings to travel back and forth. Mr. Strucko was talking about he went into the building and then comes back into the parking lot. She would like to think that a research park 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. His 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 would be a way to move to all of these places with some ease with the lack of congestion. They know the nature of 29 as it 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 Lakes and the residential component with Hollymead Town Center and North Point. There are existing residential areas with North fines and in other neighborhoods down in that area. So 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 shifts the focus because they were not trying to create the neighborhood necessarily within the confines of the park. The park, as he understands it, is designed as an industrial 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. Mr. Cannon stated that they have to think of this in a broader context. Ms. 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. Ms. 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 out. 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 shrink in perspective. But, they have gone multi -story that makes 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 maximum build out of this parcel, or if there is a phase 2 coming in on some of those big parking lots with other buildings and parking structures. He questioned if that has been discussed. Ms. Joseph stated that they could ask the applicant. 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 us-e 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 Plan designated land use that fits this 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 Commission 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 Ms. Joseph made a good point 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 an 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 walking across huge expanses of parking lots. One of the things he had been struggling with in this conversation was why they wouldn't want some 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 count on the guy across the street or down the road. They were trying to get away from putting all the houses 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 car is sacred here. He questioned 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 many 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 forward and explain the appearance of the large mass of parking in 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 10,000 and 12,000 employees at the UVA 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. But, at a lot of locations it can't be done that way and it is more like $25,000 to $30,000 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 park 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 or ride their bikes to work. 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 with 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 commitments 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 map 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, in 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 median 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. Now whether that is private or public would ultimately be the Commission's decision if this rezoning were to be set aside for a long time. 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 make 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 conversation 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. But, it is ultimately what the Commission wants to recommend in that regard. Mr. Morris asked if this was the interconnection that they were talking about with Gold Leaf. Ms. 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 interconnection 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 flexibility about where that interconnection would occur. Therefore, he was not sure if it was going to work right beside the fire station. Mr. Morris 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 flexibility 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 accommodating and have to be much wider. She suggested that there be some compromise. Mr. Cilimberg noted that when the Commission discussed Pantops Park and the connection with Spotnap Road it became very important to them because of interconnecting different parcels that it would be a public road. In some ways that circumstance could exist here, Mr. Edgerton asked if that would be directly related to the use of this road by a fire 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 road if that could be restricted Mr. Cilimberg felt that it would not be restricted. Ms. Higgins noted that private roads are still built to a safe standard Ms. Joseph stated that someone owns private roads. Mr. Cilimberg 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 how 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 important that they make sure that they left a way to the west available in whatever they 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 road. Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Edgerton that it needs to be public simply for the maintenance and 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 access or exit, which are Airport Road, 29 South and then Dickerson Road to the rear. The adjacent property that they considered with Mr. Wood had the proposed road going directly 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 Commission. Mr. Stoffer stated that as Mr. Strucko 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. Right 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 parallel 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 part 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 VDOT does. So 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 struggle with a couple things. They are not saying that they don't think that it 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 Park. 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 Guidetines 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 why it is that we would want to do that. They understand the principles behind interconnecting streets and respect those. They would just ask the Commission to help us come up with something fair and equitable with the money that they have put into their development. They need to some way be able to protect their borders a little bit so that the tenants that do come and locate in our park, since they pay a little 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 Road location in conjunction with the fire station. She asked when that was planned to occur. Mr. Stoffer stated that he believed that it was when VOOT calls for it. They plan to put it in as soon as VDOT 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. Stoffer stated that it would be. Ms. Joseph reiterated that Mr. Stoffer had said that the roads that this will be connecting to will all be public roads even though they would maintain the trees. 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. Higgins felt that they were trying to have multiple connections to Airport Road. Mr. Morris stated that the road could go on out and catch another road to the west. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission did not require that connection, and Mr. Morris agreed. Ms. Higgins noted that topographically there were other issues. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Ms. Echols had mentioned that in the larger road system of Hollymead, which will get more clarified in Places 29, the connection that Mr. Wood's road would make to Airport Road would line up at the road coming out of Hollymead Town Center next to the post office coming 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 Hollymead 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 Road 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 previous 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 make sure that the Commission agrees. Mr. Morris, Mr. Strucko, Mr. Edgerton agreed with staff. Ms. Higgins felt that it was labeled open space previously because it was too narrow to develop. Ms. 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 walk ability Standpoint looking 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 that 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 is. Ms. Higgins stated that when she read this she felt that was an inconsistency because when they looked at Old Trail they wanted the center internal. Hollymead Town Center has a central focus. The struggle with North 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 circular thing. Ms. Higgins stated that it was not like a town center type of thing. Mr. Edgerton stated that he would like to see a center. It is hard to know what is going to be in these buildings. But, that could lend itself into a little center. Ms. Joseph stated that there were not dimensions, but it looked like it was large enough and there was green space there. It looks like there is some connection. Ms. Higgins felt that this location for a center does not share with the rest of the park. it is at the very southern most tip of the property. Even at Belvedere there was discussion on putting the center internally or to push it out to Rio Road. 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 yes, definitely. Secondly, should the center be established along Airport Road? He felt that maybe it could work. Mr. Morris noted that it might not necessarily work along Airport Road Ms. Joseph agreed Ms. Echols asked if 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 there 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 array 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 mini center and make sure that it is pedestrian accessible by everything that is out there so that people can get to it. She stated that the Commission was okay with this. 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 larger. 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 then they can't make anything compact. Mr. 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. Ms. 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. Ms. Echols stated that the Commission had already talked about relegated parking and staff has gotten the guidance on 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. Right 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 some mixture of uses. As the Commission has already decided tonight, this is 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 be 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 they 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. Strucko 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 not 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. Morris stated that they were focusing on that. Ms. 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 located. 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 be 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 same 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. What they were also saying is that there is not a need to commit to commercial uses at any particular locations. So 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 amended. If you look at the area where the old plan would be amended in conjunction with the 30 acres, it is about 50 acres. 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 both with two mini centers. Mr. Stoffer stated that he had one comment. They would love to have supporting commercial. But, what they were finding was to bring in the really nice retail, support commercial they want to have public visibility, which is puts them 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 in 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 there are 12,000 jobs in the park that would help drive that. Mr. Cilimberg 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 Airport Road to do that. Mr. Edgerton suggested that there be apartments upstairs, too. Ms. Echols stated that when they first got 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 letting them know 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 need to be doing something that is a little more sensitive to the stream and give us more detail about how they are doing it. That is going to affect the retaining wall comments in the staff report. There are two streams and one 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 got that. She felt 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 stream 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. Ms. 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 for their time tonight. In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA- 2005 -003, UVA Research Park at Airport Road to review the overall design and layout of the proposed park in relationship to the current 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 both the staff and applicant on changes, if any, needed 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 familiarize the Commission with the project and to discuss several issues that would benefit from 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 9: New PDIP Zoning Building Height Footprint Area A 3 slorias 20,000 sf 60,000 sf C 3 stories 20,000 sf 60,000 sf D 2 stories 20.000 sl 40,000 sf E 3 stories 20.000 sf 60,000 sf H (half) 3 stories 203000 st 30,000 sf 1 3 stories 20,000 s1 60,000 sf J 3 stories 20.000 sl 60,000 sf K 3 stories 20.000 s1 60,000 sf ha! 3 stories 20.000 sf 30,000 sf Subtotal 460,000 of Site Data Table Tract 2: Existing PDIP Zoning Eiullolinq Height Footprirrt Area B 1 tories 20 0 of G 3 storie 20,0000 5f 60,000 f H (half) 3 stories 200009 30.000 sf L {half) 3 stori es 20,000 sf 30,000 sf M 3 stories 20,000 sf 60,000 sf Subtotal 240,000 sf F JAlbemarle County Firestatlon 1 20.000 sf 1 20,000 sf Site Data Tract 1: New PDIP Zoning Site Area ............................ 30.56 Acres Existing Zoning .................. RA Proposed Zoning ............... PDIP Preservation Area.. ............ 3.4 Acres (11 %) Conservation Area ............. 6.4 Acres (21 %) b Site Data Tract 2: Existing PDIP Zoning c Site Area ............................ 534 Acres c Existing Zoning .................. PDIP p Open Space ....................... 200 Acres (37 %) C� 3 Site Notes (Tract 9) 1. The UVA Foundation has presented, on this plan, a conceptual scheme for development of the subject 30 I >� acre property (Tract 1 only), 2. Approval of this plan results in the extension of all , Special Use Permits currently in place within the adjoining UVA Research Park. 7 i� 3. Individual parking requirements will be determined at the site plan stage. 4. Buildings A and B as generally depicted on this Exhibit shall be 2 stories or higher. x: I Exhibit H) with Nature Trails Wetlands Property Line Dividing Tracts 9 and 2 I Mh The University of DESIGN Albemarle County, Virgini Preserved Creek 50H Resource Protection Area Preserved Wetlands Connection to Alternate Stormwater Management Facility -'.Albemarle Co" 'Firestation- Attachment D F�-- Open Space (Refer to Exhibit H) I loo sa 0 100, 200' Exhibit A: Overall Concept Plan V irgioi,na Research Park. This plan is submitted as part of the Application Plan (ZMA- 05 -03). a, Date 07/06/09 UNIVERS=qfVIRGINIA FoU DATIO Preserved Creek Tract 7 50ft Resource Protection Area Preserved Wetlands Connection to w.iis.— a -- o a � � I I� s I � i Im 9 o lav ear Exhibit A -1: General Plan The Universi ty Qf Vir i g nia Research Park. D 1516 N This plan is submitted as part of the Application Plan (ZMA- 05 -03). Albemarle County, Virginia Date 11/17/08 UNIVE� S=�fVIRGINLAI. The Gateway District The Airport Road entrance is considered to be of extreme importance to the Park. It is anticipated that this entrance will be the primary entrance to the Park since much of the local, regional and airport traffic will find it more efficient to enter the Park off of the improved Airport Road. That said, the entrance to this District must provide a clear and strong arrival or gateway. To this end, this District contains three areas 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 B: Gateway District Plan The University of Virginia Research Park D E S 16 N Albemarle County, Virginia This plan and /or drawing is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change. Date 11/17/08 UN1VEJ1LO%-XS1TYqfV1 RGI NIA FoU D _i 10N The Wetland District The progression along Lewis & Clark Drive, affords views to the left across a preserved open space area, containing a wetland and resting 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. Exhibit C: Wetland District Plan The University of Virginia Research Park, D J r I This plan and /or drawing is for illustrative purposes only and is subject Albemarle County, Virginia to change. Date 11/17/08 N FOUNDATION The Research and Development District Beyond the wetland district and County Fire Station, the Research and Development District is encountered. This District is organized around a more formal design structure to encourage pedestrian scale, clear vehicular circulation patterns and collaboration between the users of the Park. This area may potentially be used for mixed uses, to include support commercial development. Exhibit D: Research &Development District Plan The Universito f Vir inia Research Park g D 1i r I IN `i This plan and /or drawing is for illustrative purposes only and is subject Albemarle County, Virginia to change. Date 11/17/08 AdEkk MW5WqW UNIVERS=. ofVIRGINU