HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600113 Staff Report 2006-11-28 (2)1L/j,
IRGINZP
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: UVA Research Park Town Staff: Patrick Lawrence
Center Three & Four — Lighting Waiver (SDP
06 -113)
Planning Commission Public Hearing:Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 28, 2006 N/A
Owners: UVA Foundation Applicant: UVA Foundation
Acreage: 477.67 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 32, Parcel 6A By -right use: PDIP (Planned Development
Location: On the south side of Lewis and Industrial Park)
Clark Drive approximately 1/2 miles west of
the intersection with U.S. Route 29
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA — X RA
Proposals:Comp. Plan Designation: This area is
1. Request for waiver of Sec. 4.17,shown as Industrial in the Hollymead
Outdoor Lighting in order to allow a Community.
light that is not a "full cut -off
luminaire ".
2. Request for waiver to Sec. 4.2.3.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth -
disturbing activity on critical slopes.
3. Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning
Commission to waive this restriction.
Character of Property: Proposed location Use of Surrounding Properties: UVA
for UVA Town Center Three and Four.Research Park (formerly known as North
Fork Research Park), UVA Town Center One
Factors Favorable:Factors Unfavorable:
1. This waiver will allow a more uniform 1. The light fixture does not meet the
theme" for the lighting for the overall definition of "full cutoff luminaire ".
area of this project within the Town
Center District of UVA Research Park,
which is a Planned District.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of Section 4.17.4.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
AGENDA TITLE
PROPERTY OWNER
APPLICANT:
Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner
January 9, 2007
SDP 2006 -113
UVA Foundation
UVA Foundation — Todd Marshall (Contact)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This area is shown as Industrial in the Hollymead Community.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
UVA Research Park (formerly known as North Fork Research Park - ZMA 95 -004) includes a town center
segment that is to be developed in phases. Town Center One was approved in 1999 (SDP 99 -115), and Town
Center Two was approved in 2000 (SDP 00 -070) with amendments in 2002 (SDP 02 -110) and 2005 (SDP 05-
102). Town Center Three and Four are currently under review (SDP 06-113). All four of these buildings will
be in close proximity to one another (see Attachment B). A light fixture in use in Town Center One was
approved as part of the site plan for that project. The light met the definition of "full cut -off optics" that was
included in the Zoning Ordinance at that time. Since then, that definition has been removed from the Zoning
Ordinance (ZTA 01 -014). The current ordinance requires all lights to be "full cut -off luminaire ". The
previously approved light does not meet the requirements as a "full cut -off luminaire ". The lights in Town
Center One were approved under the previous definition and have been installed. However, because of the
change in ordinance, the same type of light cannot be approved in the other phases. The applicant wishes to
have a uniform light throughout the Town Center area. Thus, rather than replace or retrofit lights previously
installed with Town Center One, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the ordinance requirements in order to
continue to use this light in Town Center Two (Attachment C).
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Section 4.17.4(a) requires that:
4.17.4 STANDARDS
The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminaire:
a. E.rcept as pt•ovided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor h.tmittaire subject to these outdoor lighting regttlatiotts
shall be a,fidl cutofflumittaire. (Amended 10- 17 -01)
The applicant has requested a waiver from this section in order to allow the use of the same type of light
previously approved with Town Center One. As shown in the illustration on the next page, the proposed fixture
also shown in detail on the sheet labeled "Town Center Two — Original Approve Fixture" in Attachment D) has
a light source with a bulb at the end of a socket extender. This allows the bulb to be recessed within the cap and
segmented reflector of the lantern. Light generated by this bulb is generally directed downward both within and
outside of the lantern fixture. However, light will also be reflected by the base of the lamp. Thus, some
percentage of the light generated within the lantern will be directed out of the fixture at an angle above a
horizontal plane. By definition, this means that the fixture itself is not downward directional, and so does meet
the definition of "full cut -off luminaire" as listed in the ordinance:
4. 17.3 Definitions
The term "full cutoff luminaire " means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted
by the fixture, either directly or indirectly, from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane.
6 1 iN1AL
d 10; -d LAD
Pr" MT' CHAPLES'TON GREEN
RLFLL': fC1k
s. aF_it.1:.. 1'_ X f C. t. i ; iF
IWli;IDE 1 iXTt1C.'
t-,iNT; CHA; .i
Section 4.17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance allows any of the standards of Section 4.17.4(a) to be modified by the
Planning Commission.
REVIEW OF SECTION 4.17.5
4.17.5 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Any standard of section 4.17.4.a may be modified or waived in an individual case, as provided herein:
Amended 10 -17 -01)
a. The commission may modify or naive any standard set fbrth in section 4.17.4.a in an individual case, and the
connnssion may impose conditions on such a modification or waiver tia'hich it deems appropriate to further the
purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations, in either of the_following circumstances: (Amended 10- 17 -01)
1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forA the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy
the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an equivalent degree.
Discussion —
The applicant has proposed an alternative that would otherwise satisfy the outdoor lighting regulations. The
amended "gooseneck" style of lights (shown in Attachment D) meet the requirements of the Ordinance and have
been approved. However, the applicant wishes to have a uniform theme for the lighting throughout the Town
Center area. Thus, this waiver will allow the previously installed lights from another section to be extended
through this section as well. Because the project is within a planned district, the unifonnity of lighting may be
considered to have been anticipated by the developer. Given the lantern style of light, there is no practical way
to retrofit the existing lights in a way that would meet ordinance requirements. The light source is generally
concealed already — the reflectance within the fixture itself is the source of the upward lighting. Eliminating all
reflectance is likely impossible with this style of fixture.
3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the required criteria. The review has resulted in mixed
findings for and against approval of the waiver:
Factors favorable to approval:
1. This waiver will allow a more uniform "theme" for the lighting for the overall area of this project.
Factors unfavorable to approval:
1. The light fixture does not meet the definition of "full cutoff luminaire ".
Generally staff finds that this request is inconsistent with the criteria of Section 4.17.5 for granting a modification.
Therefore, staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of Section 4.17.4.
Attachments:
A - Location Map
B - Application Plan Reduction
C - Applicant's Request and Justification
D - Cut - sheets of Various Light Types
CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the preliminary plat can be approved by the
Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning
aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity
on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant
has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment C), and staff has analyzed this request to
address the provisions of the ordinance.
Critical slopes cover approximately 34.9 acres, or 24 percent, of the 142.01 acres included in this request. This
request is to disturb 6.46 acres, or 18.5 percent, of these critical slopes. The critical slopes in the area of this
request do not appear to be man -made. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the
concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns
have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the
Section of the Ordinance each pertains to.
The Open Space Plan is the primary tool used by staff to identify aesthetic resources. The maps in the Open
Space Plan include inventory maps which show all resources. The composite map indicates those resources that
are of the highest significance or are part of a system forming a significant resource, such as a strearn valley or
mountain range. The Open Space Plan shows "slopes > 25 % "" on this property on the "Inventory Map 1"'.
However, they are not reflected on the "Composite Map ". This property is represented as part of an important
wooded area though. Based on the content of the Open Space Plan, staff opinion is that the critical slopes on
this site do not represent a significant resource. However, other aesthetic resources related to the wooded area
are represented
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Current Development Eny_ineeriny, staff:
The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new construction
proposed on TMP 78 -57 was received on 10 October 2006. These critical slopes are part of the Southwest
Mountains across from Darden Towe Park and next to the Fontana and Ashcroft Subdivisions. They are shown
on the preliminary plat, rev. date 09 October 2006, Sheet C -4, 4 of 10.
0
The preliminary plat consists of areas located in R -1 and RA zoning. The applicant states that this request
concerns only the R -1 section of the property.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope area within TMP 78 -57 appears to be natural slopes. The critical slope disturbances are in the
form of subdivision construction; single family residences, driveways, streets, stormwater facilities, and water
and sanitary sewer lines.
Areas Acres
Total site in Lake Ridge 143.48
Critical slopes 34.9 Approx. 24% of site area
Critical slopes disturbed 6.46 Approx. 18.5% of critical
slopes will be disturbed
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
1. "movement of soil and rock ": The applicant will need to provide an erosion and sediment control
plan for controlling the movement of soil and rock involved with the proposed construction. A
conceptual overall grading plan has been provided by the applicant to ensure that perimeter and
interior erosion and sediment control measures will be designed, built, and inspected effectively.
However, the plan does not show the required perimeter basins and traps that will be required. These
required E &SC measures will significantly decrease the amount of proposed "tree preservation area"
currently show on the preliminary plat.
2. "excessive stormwater run- off ": The applicant has provided information concerning how the
stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage and stormwater management plan proposed for
this subdivision. The stormwater management concepts are not finalized and are expected to change.
The applicant has now proposed curb and gutter and pipe systems to convey the onsite drainage to
the SWM facilities.
3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water ": There is an existing intermittent stream
located along the western property line. This area of critical slope disturbance is recognized as being
imperative to providing access to the subdivision. The applicant will need to demonstrate proposed
means or methods of preventing siltation occurring where the road will cross the intermittent stream.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": This site is visible from many areas in Charlottesville, but most
notably, Route 20 North, Darden Towe Park, and portions of the Fontana and Ashcroft Subdivisions.
It is noted that the applicant has requested an increase in density for "maintenance of existing
wooded areas ". The applicant has shown a "Tree Preservation Area" on the preliminary plat.
However, as shown on the conceptual overlot grading plan, implementing the required stormwater
management and erosion control plans, it is expected that large portions of the tree preservation areas
in the ravines will not be preserved.
5. "septic effluent ": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site is
accessible to the public sanitary sewer system.
This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No areas
of this site are located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Map 51003CO287D & 295D
dated 04 February 2005.
Based on the above review, there are engineering concerns about the disturbance of the critical slopes. These
issues will be addressed with an overall grading plan, with adequate perimeter erosion control provisions and
Wi
curb and gutter in conjunction with a pipe system to convey storm runoff.
Engineering recommends approval to the request, with the following concerns:
The provided conceptual overlot grading plan does not show the required disturbed area needed for
the required E &SC basins. The basins are listed by verbiage on the concept plan. The overlot
grading is to minimize disturbance of critical slopes. This has not occurred with this plat submittal.
The same amount of critical slopes is being disturbed with the overlot grading plan as before. The
Commission needs to decide if the bonus waiver would still apply if the proposed tree preservation
area would decrease by 20% to construct the needed E &SC and SWM facilities.
The land shown on the preliminary plat as RA and PRD and Residue is not included in this approval.
It is noted that the bonus density computation and final number of lots are still to be decided based on expected
disturbances and final agreement with regard to the tree preservation areas.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the r evietir process and cs iter - ia for grarztirag a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding
cornnaents by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section
4.2.5(b) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
Strict application of the requirements ofsection 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the developer
would satisfv the purposes ofsection 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
This parcel is relatively visible from adjoining developments. In addition, there are a large number of
proposed critical slopes disturbances. Further, although these slopes are not part of a system, as
identified on the Critical Resources Map in the Open Space Plan, the area is identified as an "important
wooded area ". Staff finds that a strict application of the requirements set forth in Section 4.2 would
forward the purposes of this chapter and otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare.
2. Dare to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the propertv or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements ofsection 4.2 would
o. fectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or tii , aiver shall not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or
be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. However, some significant
redesign would be necessary, which may result in reduction of scale of the project.
3. Granting such modification or in would serve a public purpose of grcater import than would be
served by strict application ofsection 4.2. (Added I 1- 15 -89)
This property is primarily in the Development Areas, and represents a low density residential
development in an area designated on the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential. As such,
a change in zoning on the property would more effectively provide for the level of development
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
2
RECOMMENDATION Staff is not able to find that the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b) have been met.
Although the design avoids many of the steepest slopes and includes areas of tree preservation, the plan shows
significant grading throughout that will result in disturbance of 18.5% of the critical slopes on site and
fragmentation of the remaining trees areas. Thus, staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of
a waiver of Section 4.2.3.
If the Commission concludes that the findings in the previous section have been met and therefore approves the
requested waiver, staff recommends the following conditions:
If installation of erosion and sediment control measures necessitates disturbance of additional areas of
critical slopes or results in reduction of tree preservation area below 20 %, the preliminary plan and
waiver must be resubmitted for review and approval by Planning Commission.
The land shown on the preliminary plat as PRD and Residue is not included in this approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Location/Detail Maps
C. Applicant's Request and Justification
D. Open Space Map
E. Excerpt from Review by Allan Shuck, Engineer
F. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner
G. Proffers — ZMA 94 -06
H. Comments from Elaine Echols — Principal Planner, Development Areas
L Illustrated path map provided by applicant
7
IRGINa
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: UVA Research Park Town Staff: Patrick Lawrence
Center Three & Four — Lighting Waiver &
Critical Slopes Exemption (SDP 06 -113)
Planning Commission Public Hearing:Board of Supervisors Hearing:
February 13, 2007 N/A
Owners: UVA Foundation A licant: UVA Foundation
Acreage: 477.67 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 32, Parcel 6A By -right use: PDIP (Planned Development
Location: On the south side of Lewis and Industrial Park)
Clark Drive approximately 1/2 mile west of the
intersection with U.S. Route 29
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA — X RA
Proposals:Comp. Plan Designation:
1. Request for waiver of Sec. 4.17. 4 (a),This area is shown as Industrial in the
Outdoor Lighting in order to allow a light Hollymead Community.
that is not a "full cut -off luminaire ".
2. Modification of 4.2.3.2 to allow activity on
critical slopes.
Character of Property: Proposed location Use of Surrounding Properties: UVA
for UVA Town Center Three and Four Research Park (formerly known as North
adjacent to UVA Town Center One and Two.Fork Research Park)
Factors Favorable:Factors Unfavorable:
See Report See Report
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff is not able to recommend approval to a modification of Section 4.17.4 (Lighting).
2. Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
r,.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
AGENDA TITLE
PROPERTY OWNER
APPLICANT
Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner
February 13, 2007
SDP 2006 -113 UVA Research Park Town Center 3 and 4
UVA Foundation
Same
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This area is shown as Industrial in the Hollymead Community.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
UVA Research Park (formerly known as North Fork Research Park - ZMA 95 -004) includes a town center area that is
to be developed in phases. Town Center One was approved in 1999 (SDP 99 -115), and Town Center Two was
approved in 2000 (SDP 00 -070) with amendments in 2002 (SDP 02 -110) and 2005 (SDP 05 -102). Town Centers will
be in close proximity to one another (see Attachment B). A light fixture in use in Town Center One was approved as
part of the site plan for that project. The light met the definition of "full cut -off optics" that was included in the Zoning
Ordinance at that time. Since then, that definition has been removed from the Zoning Ordinance (ZTA 01 -014). The
current ordinance requires all lights to be "full cut -off luminaire ". The previously approved light does not meet the
requirements as a "full cut -off luminaire ". The lights in Town Center One were approved under the previous definition
and have been installed. However, because of the change in ordinance, the same type of light cannot be approved in the
other phases. The applicant wishes to have a uniform type of lighting fixture throughout the Town Center area. Thus,
rather than replace or retrofit lights previously installed with Town Center One, the applicant is requesting a waiver of
the ordinance requirements again, based upon redesign of the lighting fixture in order to continue to use this type of
light in Town Center Three and Four. The applicant has made a formal written request and provided substantial design
amendment. A similar lantern style fixture was proposed for Town Center Two. That fixture was reviewed and denied
by the Planning Commission at their November 28, 2006 meeting. Since then, the applicant has provided substantial
changes to the design.
In addition, the applicant requests final site plan approval to provide for two additional office structures as shown on
the previously approved Master Plan. The applicant seeks relief from the critical slopes requirement found in Section
4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant indicates that some disturbance of critical slopes is necessary to minimize
overall grading and earthwork for the entire site and the overall area to be disturbed is relatively small.
LIGHTING WAIVER
4.17.4 STANDARDS
The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminaire:
a. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations shall
be a,f i11 cutoff luminaire. (,Amended 10- 17 -01)
The applicant has requested a waiver from this section in order to allow the use of a similar type of light to those
previously approved with Town Center One. As shown in the illustration on the next page, the proposed fixture
design allows the bulb to be recessed within the cap and segmented reflector of the lantern. Light generated by this
bulb is generally directed downward both within and outside the lighting fixture. However, light will also be
reflected by the base of the lamp. Thus, some percentage of the light generated by the lantern will be directed out of
the fixture at an angle above a horizontal plane. By definition, this means that the fixture itself is not downward
directional, and so does not meet the definition of "full cut off luminaire" as listed by the ordinance.
2
A waiver request was reviewed at the November 28, 2006 Planning Commission for a similar type of lamp. At that
time, it was noted that in regard to the existing lights installed on the campus:
Given the lantern style of light, there is no practical way to retrofit the existing lights in a way that
would meet ordinance requirements. The light source is generally concealed already — the reflectance
within the fixture itself is the source of the upward lighting. Eliminating all reflectance is likely
impossible with this fixture.
Since that time the applicant has redesigned the fixture in an attempt to address this issue, as presented below. On
January 9, 2007 the applicant submitted manufacturer's shop drawings and photometric reports detailing a new design.
The changes, which include placing the bulb in the upper part of the fixture, enclosing the lighting box with a flat glass
lens, and removing the glass from the sides of the lantern structure [see diagram below], bring the design closer to the
definition of "full cut -off luminaire." Previous designs were non - compliant to the "full cut -off" criteria. The proposed
fixture more closely approaches compliance and retains consistency with the "look" of the previously approved (Town
Center One) lighting fixtures. Please see detail of the January 9 revised [proposed] fixture below. The applicant states,
The proposed fixture more closely satisfies the full cut -off luminaire criteria by isolating the light source within the
cap and the effect of the lamp is casting a shadow downwards rather than a reflection upwards." Shop drawings and
photometric reports are included.
V
S
ALL
r, i INT- -, LACK
Current fixture design
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the required criteria. The review has resulted in mixed findings
for and against approval of the waiver:
Factors favorable to approval:
1. This waiver will allow a more uniform "theme" for the lighting for the overall development.
Factors unfavorable to approval:
1. The light fixture does not precisely meet the definition of "full cutoff luminaire ".
Generally, staff finds that this request is minimally inconsistent with the criteria of Section 4.17.5 for granting a
modification. There remains some percentage of light reflected upward and not in strict compliance with the Ordinance.
Therefore, staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of Section 4.17.4.
CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the final site plan can be approved. The request
for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations.
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b)
allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. On January 19, 2007, the applicant submitted a request and
justification for the waiver of land disturbance on critical slopes and staff has analyzed this request to address the
provisions of the ordinance.
The Open Space Plan is the primary tool used by staff to identify aesthetic resources. The maps in the Open Space Plan
include inventory maps which show all resources. The composite map indicates those resources that are of the highest
significance or are part of a system forming a significant resource, such as a stream valley or mountain range. The
Open Space Plan shows "slopes > 25 %" on this property on the "Inventory Map F. "Inventory map 2" indicates
wooded areas in this vicinity. However, the wooded areas are not reflected on the "Composite Map" as being
important wooded areas." This property is not represented as part of an " important wooded area
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed by Engineering. The engineering analysis of the request
follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
There are 3240 sq feet (0.07 acres) of proposed critical slope disturbance that are not reflected in previously
approved critical slope waivers nor are they the result of manmade disturbance from a previously approved site
plan. About 2000 sq feet (0.05 acres) will be disturbed for erosion control treasures, and the remaining disturbance
about 0.02 acres) will become part of a parking lot.
The project area (area of disturbance) is approximately 9.3 acres, and is part of parcel TMP 32 -6A which is 478
acres. Therefore, only the project area has been analyzed for critical slope areas.
Areas Acres
Project Area 9.3 acres approximately
Critical slopes 0.07 0.8% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 0.07 1 100% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative
locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
1. "movement of soil and rock": Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization
will prevent any movement of soil.
2. "excessive storm mater racnoff ": Storm water runoff will either remain the same once the site is permanently
stabilized (erosion and sediment control area) or be collected into curb inlets and storm water pipes to an
existing detention facility (parking area).
3. "siltation ": Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
4
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": Part of the slopes will be the location of erosion control measures and can be
restored to the original state once the site has been permanently stabilized. The other area will become part
of a parking lot.
5. "septic effluent ": This site is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no planning or engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the
critical slopes as shown.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criter•ia granting a waiver of Section 4?.3. The preceding
comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4?.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b)
here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the developer would
satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
This parcel is relatively visible from future phases of this development, yet not readily visible from surrounding
development and travel ways. In addition, there are a small number of proposed critical slopes disturbances.
Further, although these slopes are part of a system, as identified on the Critical Resources Map in the Open
Space Plan, the area is identified as an "important wooded area" the master plan for this area has previously
been approved (North Fork Research Park - ZMA 95 -004), which anticipated the development of this area.
Staff finds that a strict application of the requirements set forth in Section 4.2 would not forward the purposes
of this chapter and otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties. Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the
orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or
Added 11- 15 -89)
Denial of this waiver would not unreasonably restrict the use of the property. Some redesign would be
necessary. However, given the relatively small area of critical slopes involved in the waiver, the reductionin
scope would not be significant.
3. Granting such modification or N , aiver would serve a public purpose ofgreater import than would be served by
strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- I5 -89)
This site is in the Planned Development Industrial Park zoning district, and represents use in an area designated
in the Comprehensive Plan as Industrial in the Hollymead Community. As such, a change in zoning on the
property has more effectively provided for the level of development recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and does not recommend approval of the lighting waiver
5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location/Detail Maps
B. Application Plan Reduction
C. Waiver Request for Lighting Waiver
D. Shop Drawings and Photometric Report
E. Determination of the Chief of Zoning of "full cut -off luminaire"
F. Waiver Request for Critical Slopes Waiver
G. Engineering Report for Critical Slopes
H. Planning Commission Report for November 28, 2006 (minutes of that meting are not yet available)
G
0 19 utu
20 r 26
191 d
3 I 32 -41 32 -4J y20 -19
32 -1
1 J c Poo esR °ti
192
32 - UVA Research Park, Towncenter Office Buildings (3 &4) -
j \ Final Site Development Plan i
2A SDP2006 -00113
Tax Map 32, Parcel 6A `y ^`; 329
44Q w
4
8 ` 4R 32
8 p y \ 59S4 \ ! \ 1
7 94 5F \ \
It
8 2
M10
II
J CK ` t 'ecf A7A S 32 -5A1
96.9E r 9F -
22K1-,,9/G / 19G
fi..1 9ti 19E (`A k 1 2
9J1.
19A Z22BTm 22K I 33 -15
9 J 79@ `
j '32 -10 32 -1001 )
32 -10C 32 -1003 90 3: I19D \,_ 7 - .p 22H ( ,
32 -10D 32 -1003 / 7
32 -10E 32 -1004 ` ^ r /" -
32 -10' 32 -1005 19B 9, r \ l / . 2211
32 -10G `32-1006 /' --, -, ,r:: !- - 22J._
32 -101 32 -1007 --
32 -10J 32 -1008 ' 9C 6A / rLG "122L'7f - 22F ice: / a32 -10P 32 -1009 `- 1 " 2205 ^ C2312- 32 -1010 /9D1 p - 22E/ /
32 -10U 32 -1017 / ~.:_ , \`
r- ^ 14 ^
32 -1ox 32 -1012 ` _\ J 176"__ _- , 32 -23
9E 22 ' ZD <,
32 -10Y 32 -1013 _ ea - f . - j
32 -10Z 32 -1014
32 -10BB ) I 22N
32 -10DD .% 1 ^ J 24U' F^,
32 - 1oEE — 17 21q L \ rr \ ', i
32 -2001 \
17E3 \ 18 j S -` \9i 2yi YY
32 -2002 m 21
32 -2003 r 032 -2004
291
32 -2005 T 2 e 4
Q -. — RLT111 20
2 32 -2006 4 ^ Q \ - ,. „ .20q 1.% 29J J —?
6
32 -2007 v c_-I,, 2pq? 32 -24
32 -2008 f cRtV °p0 2961129Aen ^
32 -2009 ! .P 't 64932 -2010 :1!'RP0Rf 9 9 "32-2011 y 0 k[2- By -
32-2012 9 41 D2 4ia
32 -2013 9C I, t" —r / ", 4 --
32- 2014'.
606 49J 24Yr.
41D \41H1`'b/ ^
0 X— ces24B
35 ?s ..
49K 46
unl a, fa,a 29D ktoot t
33 ry \ SA m
57, y "j
50 i' 436 ® m 47 2
37 aai.h \: `sae 6G N
o 55 % ' _ q, 32 43 32 ? SCC g;h ( / t / 44 I v54 , /- / .. m - k 830 83442G
32 -53 i g - e \
c
ou, q
A naa 04
Scale Albemarle County
TaxTax Map: -
7
0 800 1,600 2,400
Feet
1. Note
o
s
ws pa a of121andsh Attachment Aroparcelsao/ 12/1/7005
See Map Book Introduction for additional details
0W
W
Patrick Lawrence
From: Eric Woolley [ericwoolley @thecoxcompany.biz]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:54 PM
To: Patrick Lawrence
Subject: SDP - 2006 -0113: UVA Research Park Town Centers
Patrick-
I would like to formally restate our position concerning the proposed site lights for the
UVA Research Park: Town Centers Three and Four. We believe that the previously submitted
information provided by the lighting manufacturer indicates that the light is inconsistent
with the criteria of Section 4.17. Per staff review, the light is not "full- cutoff." We
do not agree, therefore, we request that the planning commission hear our request for
modification outlined in the code section 4.17.5. a` our meeting scheduled for February
13, 2007.
Eric Woolley, PE
Project Engineer
The Cox Company
ph: (434) 295.7131
fan: (434) 295.7540
ericwoolley @thecox:company.biz
www.coxcompany.com
i
Attachment C
JHN- 9 -P007 14:20 FROM:COX CO. & KIRK HUCHE 434 - 295 -7540 T0:9724012 P:1/5
7 F7 - f ---, f - N. rPJ7
THE COX COMPANY
Planner-, • i.andscaoe Arrhi'ects
evil = nginee.7 • Urban Designers
To=' Mr. Patrick Lawrence From: Eric Woolley, PE
Company: County of Albemarle Via: Fax (434) 972 -4012
Re: Town Centers 3 and 4 Pages: 5 (inc. cover)
Subject: Final Site Plan Date: 11912007
Attached Items: • Outdoor lighting fixture
Patrick:
I have attached copies of the lighting fixture detail and photometric report for your use. Please let me
know if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Woolley, PE
Project Civil Engineer
CC: Todd Marshall, UVA Foundation
Pat Morgan, illumination Concepts
File
414 . 95
2 0 Easy High Street
Charlcttesvillc,Vir;7ini,3 22902
Attachment D
JHN -9 -2007 14:20 FROM:COX CO. e KIRK HUGHE 434 -295 -7540 TO:9724012
173S', ,4renth Avenue
t:r' nrinci :,srr C;4 ?1778
R'er: w'rtiu• ela -!i ortln,s;. ccm
I - rr:c.ti. ;nJv'¢ela- ligizttn},.cOnr
1GJ ac'7
F .
x$54 L4c -54
l
MT
Luminaire
OPTroxv
STATE OF VA
9 7 T1 (;,[-
r _.a -• Hfl7 -1011, 1v0, 11-5
Z
13.tf_L1.Si;
KCIF
I (Njctal Maiid -
i 1 RPS iHtgh Pressure Sodium)
1 }nL'SCh'G: EF,f,C?Tc7C /111 WARRAI ITY:
FL (CornPnet Fuorc cent)
FLS (i'uisc Start)
VOLTA 6E
r?YSoFlt_12 M0,'o8,24nind: (uiti-T")
j
Base Fcrcci.vn7
i • F -- /t
148 - (MerS um
I' V107ILl 136- 0-0111.7)
poncnC shag; be U.L. Listcd.
OPTICS:
2 PG ST 3LASSLMiZ,
LtifRRGT rj PG ST5iG:IiPGHQR
DIFFCrSEK
lCG - (Bcc clod Cloa Gx Asa)
C-11 IN ^a7r
I OG},- Zbpai Glue.)
NO I.F' i _FGL • {Frostui G3acd)
f CAC - (C1cwAcrwlic)
4 PAC - (r`rosted A -k)
071fER (Plcax Specify)
ga,r,sT r435'ftom c'•GZfJBES:
C1r_nr Acrylic
C i cnr 'Ao i yc atbo r+atc
OpRi Pol
Po COAT FfJVUrlfS:
A c`rr&R.la,',L 001.9 - Q SETS 141"1''1 (,Midoigbt}, }DS (Dar's
enr?: rras \SAi•I3L+1G7C
WN (WhiE4 YL(Village Gmcnj
rl "R CNAWV - .rd Rse.,ctL Y (GM, v
Pryvr'Cattr<7ueS A•r-nwf."G (11)91* CITcn), or
3 .,natz- 91)'11: rpn.t•r22t,.i'l 5T£DNl (Specify)
JP7,k
Jf..SSk
O '
Fin ?.3
w,IMCE
1115
BALI
MH
l
MT
caf.oR
S73)
OPTroxv
STATE OF VA
4)PT,o,,,;S:
SEE END OF CAT.- LOG
j <:. `ory ... «r.'.<'td .v' .'1'l+n ?rte ,r' - . -, r; J °f:4: E'd': 'a`fir ...lN 'x':4i:.....,.v. i.)r, '.51' Vin..: ;>`4'r..,4'IJ.'1 ) ,
f f
II Y
KCIF
1 }nL'SCh'G: EF,f,C?Tc7C /111 WARRAI ITY:
CttrrZML pait.'m.S,icecre';o
itiana
i he Li55d iv n architecrura. Ball= arc 13;3h powu Fac. 1 -Year Manufacn-rrx'sfdcstcncdfimadeoffor (HPF). Seckcts arc Afcd. net yrry othv Afalcrratr, ,.i <:
co. ^•l aJut»toum cocrnston mstcicjt i or Mogc1 Bacc 4rV Ratcd.
1111 ri . 1 i
f T FSTTNG. }Ccr, Brets. $L't Y:!zt J't
This gmduct and all its cortr 1 AxllravA c.SLtoA ;laEfa
poncnC shag; be U.L. Listcd.
I CaU Toll Frcc: 1 4234,56 :
4 T'uY' }- -626- 965 -
Attachment D `
JHN -9 -2007 14 :20 FROM :COX CO. L KIRK HUCHE 434 - 295 -7540 70:9724012
Photometric Report
CATALOG NUM 13ER: DK5934
FILENAME; DK5934.IES
I ESNA: LM -69 -2006
DATE) 20- NIAR -01
TEST]ASL2581
MANUFAC) ELA LIGHTING
LUMCAT]DK5934
LUMINA[RE]HORIZONTAL LAMP WITH CLEAR FLAT LENS.
LAN1P]ONE 150 -WATT CLEAR E -23.5 HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, HORIZONTAL POSITION
70.0 %
70.0 %( 0.0% 1
442 %( 25.9%
16000
1 1
CIRCULAR
1.27 (Feet) 1
150
1
SUMMARY DATA PLANE & CONE DIAGRAM
EFFICIENCY (Total):
EFFICIENCY (Down / Up):
EFFICIENCY (StMet ( House):
LUMENSILAMP:
NO. OF LAMPS:
LUMINOUS OPENING:
Diameter:
INPUT WATTS:
ISO - ILLUMINANCE DIAGRAM (fo)
P:3 /
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
Max plane at H = 56.4 Max cone at V = 70
MAX CANDLEPOWER: 7918
Mounting
Height Multiplier
10 1 ,850
15 0.822
20 0.462
25 0.296
30 0.206
35 0.151
40 0.116
45 0.091
50 OA74
owma
Max plane at H = 56.4 Max cone at V = 70
MAX CANDLEPOWER: 7918
Mounting
Height Multiplier
10 1 ,850
15 0.822
20 0.462
25 0.296
30 0.206
35 0.151
40 0.116
45 0.091
50 OA74
Point of max candela
Mounting Height = 13.6 Feet_ Each box represents one mounting height
Mcndsy, January 08. 2007 "MicuityBrands,.Photometric Viewer +
u
Attachment ll
a TO :971-4012 F:4
JAt`I- 9 -2Ct ; 14:20 FROM: CO. CO. KIRK RUCHE 434- 1-_5 -754 - -- __ -- -
Photometric Report
CATALOG NUMBER: DK5934
FILENAME: OK5934.IES
CANDELA TABLE
vertical Horizonlai Angles
And 9 S 15 25 5 5 55 x6.4 65 75 5 90
0 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474
2.5 3314 3314 3354 3384 3403 3443 3483 3503 3532 3562 3602 3612
5 3294 3294 3344 3423 3453 3503 3552 3572 3642 3711 3810 3860
7.5 3334 3344 3423 3503 3532 3562 3642 3661 3751 3860 3969 3999
10 3413 3423 3532 3562 3582 3622 3731 3731 3820 3919 4019 4048
12.5 3513 3523 3652 3671 3691 3751 3840 3860 3%9 4039 4138 4177
15 3592_3622 3751 3810 3900 3919 3969 3989 4108 4306 4336 4336
17.5 3711 3751 3830 3959 4039 4029 4108 4128 4277 4574 4475 4376
20 3711 3751 3870 4029 4058 4029 4058 4068 4336 4604 4326 4148
22.5 3671 3731 3830 4019 3979 3860 3900 3929 4267 4535 4177 3880
25 3562 3622 3701 3820 3721 3661 3731 3781 4148 4406 4009 3652
27.5 3374 3443 3562 3671 3423 3453 3532 3572 3890 4168 3552 3294
30 323G 3255 3503 3433 3225 3265 3245 3235 3592 3870 3205 2947
32,5 3096 3126 3523 3195 3136 3066 3056 3056 3195 3542 2848 2639
35 3036 3066 3602 3076 3046 2917 2977 3026 3036 3374 2630 2431
37,5 30 -6 3106 3622 3026 2907 2838 3046 3056 3056 3175 2600 2381
40 2977 3046 3592 2947 2709 2788 3036 3016 3056 2967 2560 2342
42.5 2759 2897 3473 2768 2471 2778 2977 2967 3007 2798 2431 2362
45 2659 2878 3304 2560 2451 2759 2937 2937 2997 2729 2441 2352
47.5 2501 2808 2987 2391 2441 2699 2907 2897 2907 2630 2441 2342
50 2421 2838 2639 2352 2421 2659 2997 2977 2788 2570 2421 2302
52.5 2024 2312 2223 2461 2461 2759 3255 3205 2798 2550 2401 2302
55 1687 1746 1885 2610 2878 3056 3681 3602 2937 2550 2421 2332
57,5 1330 1399 1657 2689 3453 3473 4207 4257 3433 2669 2550 2421
60 1151 1121 1478 2639 3364 3741 4683 4693 3681 2957 2719 2570
62.5 913 913 1300 2114 2699 3721 5140 5120 4118 3284 3225 2967
65 794 794 1052 1250 1786 3771 5795 5775 4783 3820 3612 3185
67.5 714 714 804 953 1617 3830 6827 6966 5785 4237 3810 3096
70 4A6 536 655 764 1250 3294 T740 7918 6043 3900 4485 3612
72.5 139 189 218 248 496 2362 6489 6489 5507 2796 3989 3007
75 00 69 79 119 149 843 3007 2927 2560 1131 1171 843
77.5 40 40 40 50 60 159 427 318 347 169 198 149
80 40 30 40 40 40 40 69 50 69 50 50 50
82.5 2 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 40 20 20
85 2-10 0 0 10 10 20 10 20 20 20 20
87.5 0 10 0 0 0 10 20 10 20 20 20 20
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Attachment D
JHN -9 -2007 14:20 FRON:COX CO. & KIRK HUCHE 434 - 295 -7540 TO:9724012
Vertical Horizontal Angles
gnq!F 2-2 -105 119 125 135 _145 15.5 165 17 180
0 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474 3474
2 5 3602 3671 3721 3731 3771 3761 3790 3771 3761 3751
5 3900 3969 3989 3999 3989 4009 4048 4029 3969 3929
7,5 4014 4058 4068 4068 4039 4039 4058 3989 3929 3890
10 4068 4058 4029 3969 3890 3870 3850 3781 3691 3671
12.5 4158 4058 3959 3830 3711 3652 3602 3523 3413 3413
15 4316 4058 3890 3721 3523 3413 3334 3245 3145 3136
17.5 4277 3910 3691 3503 3344 3225 3135 3036 2957 2897
20 3949 3552 3334 3185 3106 3026 2937 2838 2808 2739
22.5 3592 3175 3026 2927 2897 2848 2759 2549 2639 2580
25 3334 2977 2808 2719 2669 2689 2580 2481 2471 2381
27,5 3046 2788 2669 2590 2491 2510 2441 2302 2272 2203
30 2768 2649 2520 2461 2372 2342 2282 2163 2084 1985
32.5 2560 2491 2381 2332 2233 2223 2163 2074 1925 1846
35 2391 2282 2272 2233 2133 2104 2064 2004 1846 1786
37.5 2302 2183 2143 2133 2084 1985 2014 1915 1756 1707
40 2243 2163 2074 2014 1965 1895 1865 1826 1677 1607
42.5 2223 2153 2044 1955 1856 1897 1756 1745 1627 1568
45 2233 2143 2014 1895 1776 1637 1548 1746 1568 1528
47.5 2233 2133 2014 1865 1727 1598 1439 1578 1508 1429
50 2193 2104 2004 1665 1697 1558 1379 1469 1439 1349
52.5 2183 2074 2004 1856 1677 1538 1359 1359 1340 1250
55 2163 2054 1935 1826 1687 1498 1359 1250 1220 1151
57.5 2243 2014 1885 1776 1627 1419 1359 1151 1131 1072
60 2272 1975 1816 1697 1568 1310 1379 1052 1032 972
62.5 2322 1905 1697 1578 1478 1220 1250 923 873 834
65 7.441 1409 1101 1012 1042 834 724 576 566 556
67.5 1985 655 437 397 496 367 308 278 308 278
70 2292 496 327 288 316 278 179 208 228 198
72.5 1717 347 238 198 198 179 129 169 179 159
75 447 218 159 129 119 99 79 119 119 119
77.5 139 109 79 79 69 69 50 79 89 79
80 50 40 40 40 40 50 30 60 60 60
82.5 40 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20
85 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 10 20 20
87.5 20 20 20 20 10 10 0 10 20 20
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monday, January 08, 2007 Cu
Photometric Viewer
Attachment D I6
Page 1 of 1
Patrick Lawrence
From: Bill Fritz
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:35 AM
To: Patrick Lawrence
Subject: Town Centers 3 and 4
I have looked at the lighting fixtures for Town Centers 3 and 4. The fixtures are not full cutoff luminaires as
defined 4.17.3. This is because some light will be reflected by the base of the fixture. I believe this same finding
was made during the review of Town Centers 1 and 2 and that these lights are the same as the ones proposed by
the applicant for that project. Further, previously the applicant requested a modification from the Planning
Commission which was denied. If you or the applicant have any other questions please let me know.
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Zoning
Albemarle County
434 - 296 -5832 ext 3242
Attachment E i
2/5/2007
i
THE COX COMPANY
Planners • Landscape Architects
Civil Engineers • Urban Desgners
January 19, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Patrick Lawrence
County of Albemarle, Virginia
From: Mr. Eric Woolley, PE
The Cox Company
Regarding: SDP 2006 -113 — Final Site Plan
University of Virginia Research Park: Town Centers Three and Four
Request for waiver of Critical Slope disturbance
With this memo, I am responding to the comments that were directed to our office following
the review of our final site plan for the Town Center of the UVA Research Park. The
comments were received in written format and dated January 3, 2007. Comment number
6 indicates that three small areas of the planned improvements are outside of the areas of
the previously approved waiver for disturbance. These three areas combine for a total of
3,240 square -feet.
Wavier for Critical Slopes:
6. With the submission of the accompanying Plan, the applicant seeks the Planning
Commission's relief from the critical slopes restrictions found in Section 4.2.5 of the
County's Zoning Ordinance. Given the site's proximity to existing improvements for
the Research Park, we have sought to minimize overall grading and earthwork for
this property while still achieving the goals of the plan. It is important to keep in
mind that Town Centers Three and Four are an integral part of the original approved
Master Plan for the UVA Research Park.
As indicated by the plan, the land disturbance of critical slopes impacts a very small
percentage of the property's total land area. From a siting and grading standpoint, I
believe that the Town Center development can be undertaken and managed in such
a way as to (a) provide for the safe and orderly development of the park, (b) satisfy
sound environmental engineering principles, (c) offer attractive siting opportunities
for the master planned improvements, and (d) maintain the overall integrity and
design intent of the Park's infrastructure and travelway design. In summary, based
134•295•7131
Attachment F220EastHighStreet
Char!c- ttesv !le Virginia 22902
Memorandum
Re: UVA Research Park: Town Centers 3 & 4 (SDP 2006 -113)
To Mr. Patrick Lawrence
Ja nuary 19, 2007
Page: 2
on our analysis of the property's topography, soils, and overall configuration, it is my
professional opinion that construction within the minor areas of the critical slopes will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as well as other
considerations related the County's zoning ordinance.
I hope that this response has satisfied the criteria for approval of a waiver to the critical
slope disturbance. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Eric W. Woolley,
Project Engine
Cc: Todd Marshall, Project Manager, UVA Foundation
File
Attachment F
Ai
IRGINP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Pat Lawrence, Current Development planning and zoning review
From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review
Date: 25 Jan 2007
Subject: UVA Research Park, Office Buildings 3 & 4 (WP0200600087) critical slope waiver request
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed by Engineering. The engineering analysis of the request
follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
There are 3240 sq feet (0.07 acres) of proposed critical slope disturbance which is not part of previously
approved critical slope waiver or manmade disturbance from a previously approved site plan. About 2000 sq
feet (0.05 acres) will be disturbed for erosion control measures, and the remaining disturbance (about 0.02
acres) will become part of a parking lot.
The project area (area of disturbance) is approximately 9.3 acres, and is part of parcel TMP 32 -6A which is
478 acres. Therefore, only the project area has been analyzed for critical slope areas.
Areas Acres
Project Area 9.3 acres approximately
Critical slopes 0.07 0.8% of site
Critical sl disturbed 0.07 1 100% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative
locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of
soil.
excessive stormwater runoff'
Stormwater runoff will be either remain the same once the site is permanently stabilized (erosion and
sediment control area) or be collected into curb inlets and stormwater pipes to an existing detention facility
parking area).
siltation"
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization
and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
loss of aesthetic resource"
Part of the slopes will be the location of erosion control measures and can be restored to its original state
once the site has been permanently stabilized. The other area will become part of a parking lot.
septic effluent"
This site is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical
slopes as shown.
Attachment G
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 28, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Second
Floor, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members
attending were Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock, Marcia
Joseph, Chairman and Bill Edgerton. Absent was Calvin Morris, Vice - Chairman. Julia
Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for
David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Rebecca
Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being none, the meeting moved on to the next item.
Mr. Cannon arrived at 6:05 p.m.
Regular Items:
SDP 2006 -087 Town Center Two at UVA Research Park — Site Plan Waiver:
Request for a lighting waiver in association with the construction of previously approved
83,000 gross square foot office building on 33.260 acres zoned PD -IP (Planned
Development Industrial Park) and AIA (Airport Impact Area). This waiver would allow
the use of a light fixture that does not meet the definition of "full cut -off The property,
described as Tax Map 32 - Parcel 6A is located in the Rio Magisterial District on the
south side of Lewis and Clark Drive approximately 1/2 miles west of the intersection
with U.S. Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial
Service in the Hollymead Community. (David Pennock)
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to deny the applicant's request for
SDP - 2006 -087, Town Center Two at UVA Research Park — Site Plan Waiver.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SDP - 2006 -087, Town Center Two at UVA Research Park — Site
Plan Waiver was denied.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 28, 2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO +
Attachment H
r '•. Wi r
Mfr+ ^c • • / / `
I
1
Cam_; J i
zz
Ml
G
s i=Tz lia`r r'I,lrFnr
w e
r
jjjlllLlllll { { {///AJr ....'```
i F / F o Ir
tt
I
I ,I
i
o I '. I I
II
n II `
h- UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK
I I I m _ m c„
z p' _ j = r
m ?' 1 O D rn y ors =< oi3
W j TOWN CENTERS 111 & IV
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
J -jltij II
i
W
I of
UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK
DZm TOWN CENTERS 111 IV
I, ='E d S E gl S e 4 I u YLt iP - I'i8 9II5Y's' ff,6 c sG VIII 8 }3
II
I
I
i
W
I of
UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK
DZm TOWN CENTERS 111 IV
I, ='E d S E gl S e 4 I u YLt iP - I'i8 9II5Y's' ff,6 c sG VIII 8 }3
I
UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK
DZm TOWN CENTERS 111 IV
Gl COUNTY OF ALBFMARLE, VIRGINIA
sm
firRfig
a UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK r --r=a»F,d j
lk
i
MR4k
I
T
4
S•
A
fill
TOWN CENTERS It/ & IV
J
K
a UNIVERSITY OF VA. RESEARCH PARK r --r=a»F,d jT
4
S•
L TOWN CENTERS It/ & IV
JCOUNTYOFALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA