HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 FINAL
7:00 P.M.
APRIL 9, 1996
ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
Call to Order.
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission:
a) ZMA-95-04. The University of Virginia Peal Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a
petition to rezone approx 525 ac from RA, PD-IP, P,-1 and LI to PD-IP. The property ~s
located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between l~t 29 & Rt 606. TM32, P's 4B,6,6A,
19,19C. Rivanna Dist. The site tin the Community ofHollymeadI is recommended for
Industrial Service by the Comprehensive Plan. This request also includes the following
special nsc permits:
SP-95-40, Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical;
.SP-95-41. Supporting commercial uses;
...SP-95~42, Hotels, motels, inns.
Adjourn.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville~ Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO:
FROM:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Ron Keeler
DATE: April 9, 1996
ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
This serves as cover memo to the staff report which was presented to the Board of
Supervisors on February 7 and February 21, 1996. That report has been changed as
follows:
· PART II has'been rewritten for presentation to the Commission and to
reflect the current proposal;
· Pages IV-12 through IV-15 have been revised to incorporate change in
special use permit conditions.
Attached to this memorandum is the UREF proffer statement together with a report
requested by the Board and undertaken by the County Attorney's office and Planning
staffwhich analyzes each of the proffers as to whether or not the measure could be
required by County regulation. This report is provided in table form for ease of
review. Also, enclosed separately are other documents received at or after prior
Board consideration.
Phasing of Development; Water consumption
In prior public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board, issues related to
scale and timing of development as well as water consumption were identified and
subsequently proposed to be restricted by proffer. There are four restrictions in this
regard:
1. UREF, VDOT, and staff spent about t0 months developing a phasing
schedule related to road improvements ( PROFFER V. TRANSPORTATION).
2. The Commission was concerned as to total floor area devoted to_General
Office and also phasing of Support Commercial and Hotel (PROFFER 5.3)i -'-
3. The Commission was concerned as to water consumption (PROFFER 4.4).
4. The Board was concerned as to an annual schedule for development
(PROFFER III. DENSITY).
These proffers are independent as to their effect. All four proffers must be met at any
time during development. PROFFER V, PROFFER 5.3 and PROFFER 4.4 were
previously endorsed by the Planulng Commission. Revised PROFFERIII has been
substantially revised and has received no discussion by either the Planning
Commission or Board.
PROFFER III. DENSITY would allow buildout in about 14 years. Square footage
of building area would be cumulative with the largest increment available in the first
year (500,000 square feet) followed by 200,000 square foot increments annually after
the first year. This restriction is not a guarantee that a large-scale employer will not
locate within the Park, however, it does provide a reasonable development schedule
(The traffic study anticipated bulldout in 2015).
Perhaps the main concem as to the location of a large scale industry is the potential
immediate effects of an influx of employees and an associated population surge. The
industry would cause the surge in one of two manners- either by importing a
substantial portion of its labor force, or by exceeding the local available labor market,
luring new residents to the area for jobs.
Staff has reviewed information gathered during development of the Comprehensive
plan section on the economy as well as talked with people familiar with business
location practices. Staff has also reviewed the Virginia Department of Economic
Development (VDED) Employment and Capital Investment in Virginia: 1995 Year-
endReport. Based on information and opinion fi:om these various sources, staff
offers the following generalized comments:
1. Most large industries do not relocate the majority of the work force to a
new locale. Relocation of labor is cumbersome and expensive. Generally, large
industries look for areas where the existing available labor pool is adequate for their
needs. "Manufacturing is looking for existing resident pool- They do not lo_ok, to
import a great amount of labor." (Comp Plan- Economic Development Polic~).
2. Many industries locate with a smaller initial work force and expand over the
years. As was stated in public hearings, State Farm had a very conservative
employment when the firm located here in the 1950's. GE Fanuc located in the late
1970's and in 1995 announced an investment expansion orS 53 million and 250
added employees ( GE Fanuc has had several expansions).
3. VDED reports that 50 new manufacturing plants announced location in
Virginia in 1995. Of these, 47 plants would have an employment of 300 or fewer.
Three plants would employ fi:om 1,000 to 5,000 persons (Information is not available
as to initial employment levels). Including these three large employers, average work
force per new plants is 273 employees; excluding these three large industries provides
an average work force per new plant of 78 employees.
4. More plants expanded in 1995 than were announced for new location. One
job was created by existing plant expansion for every two jobs created by new plant
location in 1995 (VDED).
5. Correlating square footage to employment is difficult. While the 1989
Comprehensive Plan has an average of industrial plant square footage per employee
(i.e.- 271 sq. Ft.), any industrial plant can vary greatly depending on the capital
intensive versus labor intensive nature of the industry. As was discussed last year
during development of the economic development policy, modem industry is tending
to become more automated which will increase its capital intensive nature. Staff to
this point has not been able to identify any examples of "caps" to individual industrial
facility square footage in Virginia but will continue investigating.
Summary
The University Real Estate Foundation has responded to the County with four
proffers that control in one fashion or another the tuning/intensity of development.
Three proffers are easily monitored during site plan review. The proffer related to
water consumption would be ongoing and would apply to expansion/change of
process of an existing business as well as to a new use. While PROFFER [ti,
DENSITY does not preclude the possible location of a large industry or the '
expansion of an existing industry to a large scale, it does provide for an annual limit
to development.
UNIVERSITY OF Vlll. GINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Three
Phase II Development Limitations:
Maximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers:
Traffic Improvements:
Access via Route 29; Route 649 and Route 606.
1,568,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
1 t0,000 SF; Office limited to 1,068,000 SF.
Same note in Phase I applies.
· Make connection of Road A to Rte. 649 with 4
lanes by end of Phase.
· Improve Rte. 649 / Road A intersection and
signalize as warranted.
Phase III Development Limitations: All access points already operational _
Maximum Cumulative Total SF: 3,000,000 SF Total; Support Commercial lii'nited to
110,000 SF; Office limited to 2,300,000 SF.
Traffic Proffers andlmprovements: Design and construct third southbound lane on
Route 29, or at County's option use funds to support
grade separated interchange ar Road A/Route 29
enlzance. Applicant will also contribute right of way
for interchange at Road A/Rte. 29 entrance when
such interchange is built.
COUNTY OF AI BEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Larry Davis, County Attomey~-r.~
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Greg Kmnpmer, Assistant Colanty Attorney6~
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
March 27, 1996
Analysis of UREF Proffers
Attached is a table that summarizes the key elements of UREF's
proffers, identifies corresponding County authority to otherwise require what is being
proffered, and.provides comments from the Department of Planning and Community
Development and the County Attorney's Office.
In our analysis, it became apparent that the proffers fall into five general
categories: (1) those that proffer something that the County could not otherwise
require; (2) those that proffer something that the County may or may not be able to
otherwise require, depending on the circumstances: (3) those that proffer something
that the County could otherwise require; (4) those that proffer something that the
County could otherwise require, but the proffer is more restrictive: and (5) those
statements that are not actually proffers, or proffers that are negligible. We have
classified the proffers into the five categories below.
County Could Not Otherwise Require
Proffer 3: Density
· Proffer 4.3: Wetlands
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 2
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 4.4: Water Conservation
Proffer 5.3: Phases of Development
Proffer 6.1: Developed Recreational Areas
Proffer 6.2: Open Space
Proffer 6.3: Rivanna Green Belt
Proffer 6.4: Cemetery and Ice Pit Site
Proffer 8.1: Fire Station
Proffer 9.1: Project Reports
Uncertain Whether County Could Otherwise Require
Proffer 5.4(a): Phase I Road Improvements (partial)
Proffer 5.4(c): Exceeding Phase II Maximum Buildout (partial)
Proffer 5.4(d): Dedication of Land for Grade Separated Interchange
County Could Otherwise Require
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 5. i: Internal Road Network
Proffer 5.2: Road Construction Standards
Proffer 5.4(a): Phase I Road Improvements (partial)
Proffer 5.4(a): Exceeding Phase I Maximum Bnildout
Proffer 5.4 (c): Exceeding Phase II Maximum Buildout (partial)
County Could Other~vise Require. but Proffer is More Restrictive
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 2: Owners Assodation and Dedaration
Proffer 4. i: Flood Plain
Proffer 4.2: Stormwater Management Plan
Proffer 5.4(b): Phase II Road Improvements
Proffer 7.2: Buffer Areas
Not a Proffer or Proffer is Negli~ble
· Introduction
· Proffer 1.1: Plans and Illustrations
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 3
Proffer 1.2: Plan Exhibits
Proffer 7.1: Landscaping
Proffer 8.2: Hazardous Materials
Proffer 8.3: Disposition of Dedicated Land
As a final note, references in the table to "ZO" are to the Zoning
Ordinance: to "SO" are to the Subdivision Ordinance; and to "ACC" are to the
Albemarle County Code,
GICrcs
PROFFER STATEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
Final Version: March 21, 1996
PROFFER STATEMENT
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"). MicroAlre 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. i (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., MicroAlre Surgical Instnunents, 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 15.1491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance").
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 m 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 m any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code
minimurn 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 pm 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 m 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 rczoning 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
Zoning Application Plan} are limited to the purpose for which they are referenced in a proffer:
,, Zoning Application Plan
· Stormwater Management Plan, Exhibit 4.2
· Internal Road Network Plan, Extdbit 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 wilt be
that the County of Albemarle will have no fights 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 mimmum 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
design 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 iraplemented;
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
Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any
applicable destgn review by the County's AmhiteemraI 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:
The Applicant shall either: i) organize a North Fork Owners Association or such
other prtvate, area or business associations as may be necessary to address specific
area or business concerns of the Project (the "Organi?ation(s)") as non-stock
orgamzations under the laws of Virgim for the ownership, care and ma'mtenance
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.
The Organization(s), if formed, shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants,
conditions and restricflons running with the land. The Applicant or such
Organization(s) shall be responsible for the perpemauon, maintenance and function
of all Common Areas, including lands, 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 less 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 Declarafmn.
If created, the Organizatton(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 orgamzations conceived and organized under the
same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and
maintain the Common Areas.
III. 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 permanem structures, small (not to exceed 1500 gross
floor area per building) storage buildings, and srrucmres 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
Proiect 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. I, 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 lb0-year flood plain within the Project shall remain
undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and
riding trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and
regulations.
4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Applicant shall implement (as part of the site
development plan approvals) an overall smrmwarer 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 Identifl/in~ and Delineatin~
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, permanem 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 m 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
usage and must include a f'mding 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
("VDOT"), 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.
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 developmem 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.
5.3 Phases of Developmem. The following schedule shall apply for determining the timing of
road maprovements set forth in 5.4 below:
PHASE I
Land Use (1) Maximum
Ctkmulative
Build-out(2)
Maximum Build-out to be accessed by Road A
(all uses): 635,000
Support Commercial to 85,000(2)
Maximum Build-out to be accessed by Rt. 606
(all uses): 345,000
General Office rmaited to: 120,000
Support Commercial limited to: 25,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I (all uses) 980,000(3)
PHASE
Maximum
Ctmaulative
Land Use (1) Build-out (2)
General Office: 1,068,000
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel: 190,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II (all uses) 1,568,000(3)
PHASE Ill
Maximum
Cumulative
Land Use (1) Build-out(2)
General Office: 2,300,000
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel: 190,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase III (all uses) 3,000,000(3)
6
(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 Commemial" 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 Commemial use for
any given Phase shall not exceed the gross floor area limitations shown in the charts above.
5.4 Proffered Road Improvemems. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute for
road improvements in phases. Road improvement proffers in this section 5.4 shall not include
dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road
improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VDOT obtaining required right-of-way, (if
such right-of-way is not owned in fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long
as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers,
even though the necessary right-of-way is not available, (and in the instances in which Applicant has
proffered to acquire right-of-way, and the Applicant has made good faith efforts m acquire the land
necessary for such right-of-way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved
density build-out under the applicable zoning, unless the improvement is otherwise required by
applicable regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required below, the road improvements
described in this Section 5.4 for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded, or contributed
for (as set forth below), before coustmcting each phase's Maximum Total Build-om 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
(b)
(2)
Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for
acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design
and 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 m acquire) right of way for, design and construct a
channelized southbound right turn lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall
include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes
and two 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 ail 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 shah not include
improvements serving such additional road.
(4)
Provided that all construction of the mm 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 m
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 m participate in such design
and engineenng process, in the event that the Contribution, after it is
received by the County,.is not used, witlf~n t0 years either for constructign
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.
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 m
this 5.4 (b), or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a
traffic study approved by VDOT (provided however that if the site development
plan review process does not otherwise require Applicant to supply a traffic study,
Applicant will provide at least a traffic count upon the County's request for
evidence that such need has not been created):
(1)
Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a two lane
collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the North Fork
Project within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy
(c)
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 mm 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 tom lane on Route 649, and one eastbound left tom 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,
Construction of improvements may proceed up to the Maximum Total Build-out,
Phase Ill described in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have
been satisfted (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 (with'm 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 intemhange 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 levels of service (LOS
9
"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 intemhange
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 ball fields depicted on Exhibit 6.1. Active recreation areas will not be
lighted with field or stadium lighting.
6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall res~ict development of areas not shown as development
parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are
established by plat (and the boundaries later shown on plats may be adjusted from those depicted on
Exhibit 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 Rivarma 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
and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the
Applicant. at its option.
10
6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site.- Applicant shalt 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
preservation plan shall be filed with the County to accompany these proffers. The preservation plan
shall 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 the 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 shah landscape ail Project roads in accordance with the
standards contained in the "Exhibit D, UREF's North Fork Street Tree Master Plan", fried 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 landscapmg trees for screening. Applicant shall plant additiomd 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
~he County has included such a facility in its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The five acre parcel
shall be located on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may
be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating 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
the County, then the property shall be used as open space.
11
IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT
9.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Deparnnent of Planning and
Community Development, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shah outline the development
activity in the Project over the applicable period.
X. SIGNATORY
10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifigs that they are the only owners of the Property which
is the subject of this application.
10.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall mn 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
Title:
UREF RESEARCH PARK, INC.
By:
Tkle:
MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC.
By:
Title:
MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
l y:
Title:
12
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
99s, by .,
Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation.
My commismon expires:
day of
of the University of Virginia Real
[SEAL] Notary Public
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __
1995, by
My commission expires:
day of
, on behalf of UREF Research Park, Inc.
[SEAL] Notary Public
I3
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1995,
by
My commission expires:
[SE.~L]
Notary Public
day of ,
of the Motion Control Industries, Inc.
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instnanem was acknowledged before me this __
1995, by
My commission expires:
day of
, on behalf of Microaire Surgical Instruments, Inc.
[SEAL] Notary Public
U:k2588\ 1995DOC\NORFRZCC.DO C
14
same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and
maintain the Common Areas.
IH. 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 m 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 [plarmedI i~.~:~ a!~prox'cd on tl:e p,"cli:ninar) si:e
~ for the Motion Control Property). After the Initial Year, mc toul[ gross [Ioor re'ca wi!bin the
Project which may be constructed in any one year shall not exceed 200,000 square feet, plus any
square Itel ,:f 8 ross flor;r al'C:q. F..'::' thc pu:'poses of fi..'is Secfi,m 3. l, ~zccunlulalcd undeveloped square
lct'l o[ ?'~.~$ i'[;)o:' }~l'clt sbt!Ii tr~c*u: ~i~¢ st~!l o~' ;~,n.v s~It-':lrc Icc; ol I-,ross l'kmr area allowed t:tH nol
r-'cvclol':c(i '..n ibc lnitial Yc:.:r trod The squa.:'e Ikcr of gr(.'.ss 11{:o~ ~'.rcn less !hah 200,0,',)0 sqt:are feel
d:.'.x cl(:l;ad in ,:ach subsccmc;:.', year to Ik. at d:-'.!c.~.
IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER CONSERVATION
4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain
undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and
riding trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and
regulations.
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 developmem plan review process for Project development.
4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as defined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineatine
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 m 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 rewew as in the process for
Fron~:
To:
9 Ap~l, 19g~
Tom Oitvter
Albemarle County 8oa~l of Supervisors
UREF North Fork re,zoning request
My n~m~ t.~ Tt~m OIIvler ;nd I em a resident of the Sc~(~tt.,~;vlllA Di.~d~. I would like
make three t~af points,
FirSt. we WO~JId all be pleased It' major u~lvemltte$ aria the oo~m~Jl~lties th~ h0at them
~1~ have ~nsi~enfly p~u~lve, ple~ant an~ ~oper~lv~ mrationshi~. UnO,un,ely, the
goals or ms~ns~bil~ies et Io~1 governess a~ un,veeries often differ, As e r~[~ff, t~-
gown =~a~es am m~ine, ~r~er t~an the exception, 8o that the needs of Al~ma~e Cou~ ~n
r~ain pmte~ed, I ask t~t leu take whatever ~e~ are neo~a~ to all~ ongoing oversig~
~y t~e ~unty of deve~pmen~ ~ the No~h Fo~k s to.
Second, the North Fork Psl'K Inaeed does ~resent an opportunity for ereslion cf hfgh
qualityjo~ of the kind t~et are too ram in our ~ommunity, tJREF and the Unlvemity have done
their wo~ well in t~ls respect. The danger to cur County is that the resident wo~ force In our
region mig~ n~ b~ ~sble t~ fill these jo~. The ,Job crealiml tl~er~ ~night pmrT~ yet mere growth
than we already suffer from. Rightly, the County's widely aooepted new eoonomi¢ development
oolic~ s~ressea creation of jobs for existing residents.
The dek cf promoting a growt~ spurt can be mauced If 1) development of the site is
staggered over time anc~ 2) relevant job traJnin~ oppor[unJtle~ ara made available pertlc, ular~y to
Iow income residents, I ~3ommend UI~EF for its willingness now to guarantee staggered
development, However, I believe that creation of good joJ~ at the North Fork Reseamh Park
w~ll beneffi our most needy residents ( for example In the Esmont and Schuyler areas of
soutt~ern Albemarle Gounty ) Only it aaaraonat aault job trashing opportunttie$ are creates in
~onoert with the ei~e development pro¢~. I hope that job training opportunities for Iow Income
families will be provided if this s~ is developed
LaStly, let me cecall that st bulld-ouL the North Fork Par~ wlli require ~a~ 700,000
gallO~S ot w~er a oay, a major sl~ of t~ ~mmun~'s remaining un~mm~eo su~ly, We
not ju~ wave ~ through. Rather. w~ ~mHd ~k ~ it ~qmfuity ~ approve ~ o~ly after we
~nvin~ it is
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Protecting Tb.¢ Environment Is Everybody's Business
A possible starting point for ZTA amendment language:
By Right:
Establishments for uses otherwise allowed by right hereunder up to
square feet per "establishment."
By Special Permit:
Establishments for uses otherwise allowed by right or by special permit
hereunder which exceed square feet per establishment.
Any expansion of an existing establishment within one year of comp etlon
of the original establishment Which would result in a total square footage
for the establishment and expansion in excess of square feet.
Any expansion of an existing establishment commencing more that one year
after completion of an estabfishment of expansion thereof requiring a
special permit under the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs which
expansion would exceed square feet.
"Establishment" shall mean any building or group of buildings comprising
one enterprise, whether under one ownership or the ownership of related
entities·
45 Homer Street. Box 460, Warre~rot~. Virginia 22186/703-3a?-2334/Fax 349-9003
Rose Hill Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville. Virginia 22903/804-977-2033/Fax 977-630{
Median
size of
offi;:e/ind
ustry
UREF Year
1
UREF Year
2
UREF Year
3
UREF Year
4
UREF Year
5
UREF Year
5 - ALT
--~ DO 03 ~ O3 O) ~ 03 (D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avg
IND/CO
approved/
yr
UREF Year
1
UREF
2
UREF Year
3
UREF Year
4
UREF Year
5
UREF Year
5 - ALT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
'-J CO
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Ill
April 9, 1996
We have owned a home on Chris Greene Lake Road for $ years. We are concerned about the
UREF North Fork industrial Park. The citizens have asked the Planning comrmssion to be responsive
m the residents and slow down the rate of growth and expansion in :albemarle County.
I think thc county should took at the impact of universiw-sponse~ed Business Parks in other
communities, so we may better understand the possible knpac~s we may face here in :42bemarle.
Stonebridge Associates have been retained by UrREF for the North Fork Park. Stonebridge Associates
developed the- Business Park known as Forrestal C~nt~r for Princeton University in New Jers~'. I
called the management of Forrestal Center for information. Forrestal Center is 5 million sq. ft.
Altho _ugh it has existed for 20 years, most of the buildings were constructed in the mid-1980's. It is
owned by Princeton University and the tenants have long leases. The two best tenants are Merrill
Lynch (1.2 million sq. ft.) and Squib (600,000 sq. ft.).
A Princeton Realtor agreed that most of Forrestal Center was built over a few years in the mid-
[980's. He estimated that 60°/6-70% of the local housing was built in the last 15 years. He provided the
fonov ag figures.
Town
West-Windsor $76,000
Cranberry. $65. g00
Plainsboro $46,915
Median Household Income
Towrthottse, Houses Cost Range
$150,000-$600,000
$125.000-5650.000
$150,000-$400,000
,Ms. Jodie Webber (daughter of Mrs. Marjorie Webber -retired Principal of Broadus Wood
School) lived in West-Windsor from 1986 to 1994. She spoke at the Board of Supervisors public
hearing in Feb. 1996. Her real estate ~x bill on a 3-bedroom home rose from $2,380 in 1986 to
$6.119 in 1994, a tax increase of 5;3.739 in 8 years. 1X, e enclosed an interesting letter from the West-
W'mdsor-Plainsboro, N.J. School Board which shows the critical growth strains on their educational
sygrem They have had to build 6 elementary schools, 1 middle school and 1 High School in the last ten
years.
UREF is impl~Sng that 1/2 million square feet is a small compromise for all their proffers. But
what does 1/2 million sq. ft. mean to the county in terms of impact? It is almost two GE/Fanuc plants in
size. If this 1/2 million sq. ft. is all office space, then it can accommodate up to 2,000 employees and
would generate another 1.500 employees in supporting sp'm-offjobs. Using the census multipliers, just
over half of these employees will reside in the count3': approximately 1,420 new households. Using the
school multiplier factors 1,420 households brings 376 - 580 new elementary, students to our schools. If
that same I/2 million sq. ft. were all industrial space, it would generate 998 new households in the
county, and 264 -407 new elementary students. Questions ro ponder include where ~511 people live in
the county,, which schools can handle the new students from this 1/2 million additional space, and how
will these businesses/industries skew the current wage structure in Albemarle County? GE/Fanuc had a
huge xmpacr on local wages when it first opened in Pdbemarle.
Seeing some of the impact on the Princeton University area which was a small college town and
very rural just 20 years ago, t think the Planniug Commission would be wise ro decide what their vision
is for 31bemarle County. Do we want to reduce end control our rapid growth rate? Does our vision
include preventing additional sprawl along Rt. 29 North and Airport Road. the entrance corridors to our
county'?. ~Vould this 300 acres be better left as rural land considering it borders the North Fork river?.
Are the proffers adequate for the enormous burdens the UI~EF North Fork Park will place on our
counB~ I think the proffers are minimum and stilllacking. It seems Stonetnidge ,~sociates and L~REF
do not want the rezoning approval done in phases because the county will be more aware of the true
costs and would want much more substanhal proffers towards e~ernai road improvements, water and
sewer plants, etc. The lure of potential jobs luas a high cost for our county. The jobs wiil bring much
population in-migration because our local unemploment rate is so low. It is too much at one time.
I suggest the proffers need improvement in these areas.
1. Water i~uo~: U-REF has brushod a~ide our concerns about the effects on wells and underground
streams when 3 million square 1~. with parking lots & roads are built. Will the water tables fall too low
and will water be polluted? The Planning Staff states specifically that heavy_ water users have not been
excluded from the Industrial Pare There are some hoaxT users in Category 1 -Light Industri~ LnREF
did concede limiting each build~ to 125.000 gat per day- before a special permit is required. Will this
be adequate ffyou grant full development rights to UREF? I suggest the water 1/mit be reduced to a
more reasonable 60,000 gal. per day per building.
The Industrial Park will cause the Buck Mountain reservoir to be built sooner than planned. To
wurst case it, the 20 building sites (9, 125,000 gal per day equals 2.5 million o~d. ~xe new reservoir
will be a cost to the coun~ residents, not the developer.
2. Sewer: Expensive cost estimates for various sewer s3-stems and a water pumping station from the
Court .fy Service Authority. havo been presented recently. This will be another heavy cost to the residents
accelerated by the L~REF Industrial Park. ,~ you know, the Deer~ood Subdivision on ,~firport Road
has just been assessed $5.000 per home (approximate~ $250.000) by the Service Authori~. Is this
assessment really needed to pay for the nearby trailer park or UREF infrastructure costs to the
community?.
3. Road Improvements: The road study projects 27,500 vehicle trips to/from the Industrial Park. It
does not include vehicle trips by the families or on other nearby commercial properties. We should nor
repea~ the Rt. 29 mistakes and allow development without the new roads being in place first. VDOT is
concerned that the UREF phasing developments may precede the actual road improvements. ~T)OT
does not want bad intersections before the road improvements proffered are made and recommended
Phase 2 not proceed until Airport Road is widened, and the Airport Rd/Rt. 29 intersection
improvements are complete (~DOT Ltr. dated 10/10/95). Yet. the rezonhag request still portraits
UREF to start development of the next phase if the roads provide service level "D" or better.
It seems reasonable to hold UREF to a higher LOS considering this location is an entrance
corridor, serves the airpor~ and is in the growth area. The Pdver Heights developer for the NGIC site
offRt. 29 is being held to road service level "C" tbr his proffers. Therefore. it seems UP,.EF should be
asked to meet this higher road service level, as well as the VDOT concerns about Phase 2 and timing_ of
the proffered road improvements.
4. Fire Protection: The Ear~swille fire volunteers will be the closest to the site and their response time
will exceed the 5 minutes recommended by the Community Facilities plan. Fire protection is not
adequate for this location considering the possibili~ of an explosion at a medical research or
pharmaceulical lab. The HAZMat track is city-owned equipment located on Ridge St., and would be
dispa*cbed only after ci~ fire personnel have arrived on the scene and determined that it was necessary..
The aerial truck is ci~-owned, although the county has plans to purchase an aerial truck in the future.
UREF has proffered 5 acres for a fire station (which must meet their design guidelines) and to pay for
l-IAZSht classes (currently part ofFireftghter 1 training -$35 per volunteer). I suggest that L~REF
should hel~ pay for the fire station or a mack. the station should meet normal firehouse ~m~idelines- not
LTREF desi~ ~,maidelines, and UtLEF should contribute towards firefighter equipment (currently approx.
$1,500 per volunteer).
5. Hotel/Conference Center: I do not think we should okay a hotel/conference center today which will
built in 10 years. It may not be a wise decision in 10 years. There already are 3 conference centers in
the area and numerous hotels. I feel this should be approved by specnd perrait at a later date when it is
a real possibility.
6. ~: Will the Board of Supe~sors give away 20 years of control over tiffs land
project m UREF? Tlfis 3 million sq. ft.. ,m:oposal is probably the biggest office space development
since the Unb,'ersi~' itself was built. The L;~'REF Park should be reviewed & approved in phases. Just as
we don't build schools and roads until needed, we should approve the U'REF phases as they. are needed.
By gerbing total approval at once. they limit their necessity for proffers to the commurdty..had, they
face only building site rexaews, no manet wha~ the business tenant researches or produces.
We were told the Industrial Park would belong to UnREF and businesses would have long-term
leases. Yet the ,first two tenants have outright purchases. What other things intended today ~ill change
over 10 years? How will the county maintain adequate control over the land and its usage? These are
county land use decisions, and are not just "how much do we trust U-v'a and whomever they sell the
land to in the furore." We have the right and obligation to go slow and be very. concerned for all the
Albemarle residents.
Two other concerns affecting quality of tile are housing and schools. The projected population
in-mi~ anon for the Industrial Park is 6. 700 new employees. Other estimates range up to 12.000 new
employees for thc stated square footage. Neither number includes the multiplier factor for new
supporting businesses, etc. We must plan as best as possible for this additional ~owth in tandem with
the current growth rates forecast. Where will they live? The Planning Commission recmtly
recommended the growth area be expanded south of town Thc Hollymcad/Pincy Mountain CJrOWfla
area was not recommended for expansion for many reasons, including a united public outcry from
residents. Yel; thc new employees at the UREF Park will create a huge demand for housing in the
northern part of the count. I hope you wSll balance the L~REF proposal against your recent
recommendation.
The current school budget shortfall reflects all thc growth approved in the last six years. Using
the county school multiplier table 6, 700 households would add between 1,775 - 2,733 elementary
students and 677- 925 middle school students. It will require 3-5 new elementary schools and a middle
school to handle these students.
The county Planning Commission must look at all the thcts and impacts on the whole coun ,fy,
not just ensure a profit rertum for the d~:eloper,,owner. Tb..is rezothug request will create a congested
urban area unless the proffers are strengthened and expanded. A congested urban area is certainly
against the wishes of most county residents. Only the d~elopers are pushing for expanded growth in
the Rt. 29 North area from Forest Lakes South up to Piney Mountain. The local residents have often
presented their x~ion of Albemarle County at the public hearing. You, as part of the Planning
Commission, must represent all the county citizens and make the informed and hard decisions
concerning our future and quality of life.
I do not want to see .4albemarle become a smaller version of Richmond, or Fairfax, or Princeton,
New Jersey. Please consider the majori~' view of your constituents and your vision for our county. If
you choose to approve this development, I hope the county retains control & leverage over this project,
obtains more proffers for the infrastructure improvements end schools ultimately necessitated by the
Industrial Park and that road improvements be made before life is intolerable for county residents and
~sitors.
WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP
'Tax Rate Comparison ' '- ....... '-~' -' ....... :~. '
. --. -~.?~-~,-? .
· . 1990 . 1991. ~, ~,.~. ~,~;-,~.~. '.- .7_~ ~ ~,~..-~-:~-~,~ ~W--~,?--.-~.~;~
Mumc~pal $0.59 . ~0.56 ~ ~_ ~0.61:~-~
Rchool 2,19 .~2.46. ~ 2.70
Co. Ubra~ 0.11 · - 0 12..~ 0.15 ~
Please note: By law we are not allowed to change ~e due dam of August 1~. However. because ~e b~ have been d~
West ~ndsor Township h~ e~ended ~e~penalw date aher~wh~h intere~ is charged {o'Augu~ 31. 1992.
WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP
Tax Rate Comparison -~.'; ~'i~ ~':?"~ ....-.-" .~ '--.' ~ ',~-~.'~ '- ~--'~992 Tax L
.. . . ...,~. _ ~, .~..~.~.~ ,:~=-~ .......
Munic pal ~' $0.59 . $0.56 ; $0.61 ~ ~:~'~''" ' ........ "= ~ '*~' ~":' ~'' '"~ "*' "~" '~"~'~"~" .....
School '" 2.19 '? :' 2 46 ~,2.70~ ~:~-~-:~ ' ' '~:~'~;~':~*'~ ~ ~ .... '
Cou~ * ~ ~.'* 1.17'.?::' 1.13 ~.21~ -'~,:~ ........ ~. ~*."* ..... --. ,*.~,=*-~*'-'~""~ ' ....
Cn ra~ 0.11 ~ · 0.12 .~ 0.15-~.~ - ;=_=,,:-,= ,+.-,- -~
TOTAL . .' 04 $ ':~q 04.27.: ~"~4.~.~}'~ ' ~:~ ~';~ ~'~*' *~*~'*~' ' ......
. . .,-..; ...... ,,.,~-= ,¢=~ ~ ,' ~ . ....
For questions on your 1~92 tax bJ ~/ease ca/i: ,, · =,. ¢. -: ........ : .... ~ .. ~ ~, .....
Munzc/pal Taxes ...... ~ ._~ ~,~. ~.~:~ .79 ~,=~*~-.,. ~?~:.~:~;. . ·
SC~O0/ /axes ...... .'..'; ~;~.~ .'~.~ ~.-.-?= ....... . -' ~.
Please note; By ~w we aCe not allowed to change the due date of August 1~. However, because the bills ~ve been de
We~ ~ndsor Township has e~ended ~e'penalW date after which interest is charged {o August 31, 1992.
Tuesday. April 20. 1993 [
I TuesdaY. March 23. 1993 ] Polls open at Dutch Neck.]
{ : i .~tgh School ] 7:00 AM to 9:0D PM ]
[ ~:00 PM [ Maurice Hawk & Wico, i
West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional Schools April 1993
The Annual Budget Message
The budget presented for your approval in the school election
on April 20 is a maintenance budget, A/though the total
budget amount is larger than the current budget, so. too. will
be the number of students enrolled in our schools. Look at the
cost per pupil. $8,645 for this current year as compared to
88.647 in the proposed budget: this consistency in the ievel
of the cost per pupil clearly demonstrates strict cost contain-
... we must not comprorn~e the future by limiting the
education provided our young people."
a year in the life of a child. We must provide now. There are
many requirements and needs that compete for our attention
and our resources. [t is essential to maintain the proper
balance.
This is a critical year for the West Windsor-Plmnsboro School
District. Decisions made by the district and the community
will influence the direction of our schools for a long time to
come. I and the other members of the Board of Education ask
tlaat you evaluate the proposed budget in light of the quality
education system offered and its far reaching impact on the
Total community. While we are coping with the overall
problems of the economy, we must not compromise the future
by limiting the education provided our young people.
Included in the proposed 1993-94 budget are funds for:
* S318.000 for I0 trailers to house our grow'rog student
population:
· 32.5 new teaching positions:
· bilingual programs in Chinese. dapanese, and Spamsh.
mandated by the stare:
· the removal of in-ground ranks at the Maurice Hawk mad
WicoffSchools. required by stare enw. ronmental statutes, and
conversion of these buildings to gas heat:
· a much needed addition ro the library ar Maunce Hawk
School:
· S96.000 for new math text hooks for grades 4 to 6. to support
curricular development designed to bring the math program
into conformity with the National Math Standards:
· replacement lighting at the high school pool (original equip-
menr from 1973 is now cause for sertous safety concerns);
· 2.5 additional adininistratlve positions, all of which deal
with the direct delivery of sermces ro the students 'an
assmrant principal at the high school, a curriculum coordina-
tor grades K-8 and a half time assistant pr/ncipal at Wicoff
SchooB.
During this school year the district changed its health
insurance carner which resulted in a savings of $470,000.
This savings has been applied to the proposed budget result-
lng in a tax reduction. A surplus of funds in the Debt Sermce
Reserve has also been used to help offset tax increases.
It should be immediately apparent that a school district is a
unique operation. We deal with the intellectual, emotional.
and social growth of the children and at the same nme operate
a large scale business w~th some 800 employees, a large
physical plant, and many state and federal regulations. There
m an immediacy about what we do as we can never reclaim
I do not minimize the difficult circumstances: we all face them.
But I can assure you that our school district, yours and mine.
makes every effort to provide a quality education in the most
cost-effective maimer. This is our responsibility, our obllga-
uon. and we are comrnttted to it. We appreciate your support.
Lynn Thornton, President
Board of Education
ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS-
ACTUAL.AND PROJECTED
6000 sooo
*SOURCE: Dcm .og. rag~cSmd.v, Univerdg,-,~sociamsna. r. aucarional
'lann~s'~ Consultants, l~i~n. 2%w.Jexsey, Fe. bmat~. 1992.
BUDGET STATEtV[ENT 1993-94'
1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 LNCREASE OR PERCENT DF
EXPENDED BUDGETED PROPOSED DECREASE CHANGE
GENEPAL CURRENT EXPENSE
Administration $511.390 $524.700 $529.145 $4.445 0.85%
Instruction
Classroom $15,716.113 $17.285.009 $1.568.896 9.98%
Guidance $987.292 $1.090.630 $103.338 10.47%
Child Study Tram $1.145,774 $1.257.201 $111.427 9.73%
Supervisors $739.266 $775.091 $35.825 4.85 %
Library $887.597 $879,424 ($8-173) -0.92 %
Other Inst. Costs $2.825.198 $3,106.400 $281.202 9.95%
Subtotal: Instruction $19,988,440 $22,301,2,40 $24.393.755 $2.092.515 9.38%
Health Services $492.010 $544.090 $578.279 $34,189 6.28%
Transportation $2.511,935 $2.767?233 $3,086.640 $319.407 11.54%
Operation $3.511.320 $3,998.381 $4.261.701 $263.320 6.59 %
Tuition Payments $1.107.880 $1~q70,910 $1,748,472 $177.562 11.30%
Food Services $37,000 $60.0~ $20.000 ($40,000) -66.67 %
Student Activities $753,590 $815.218 $992.044 $176.826 21.69 %
Other Instr. Programs
Special Service $2.042.709 $2.325,875 $283.166 13.86%
Basic Skills $749.799 $683.647 ($66.152) -8.82 %
ESL/Bilingual $304.332 $401.368 $97.036 31.88%
Subtotal: Other Instr. Programs $2.519.882 $3.096.840 $3.410.890 $314.050 10.14%
Fixed Charges $7.165.825 $7,947.667 $7,63L714 ($315,953) -3.98 %
Subtotal: General Current Expense $38,599.272 $43.626.279 $46.652.640 $3.026-361 6.94%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Equipment $285.252 $338.709 $620,947 $282,238 83.33 %
Sites. Remodeling $2.290,696 $2,103,300 $2.213.338 $110.038 5.23 %
Subtotal: Capital Outlay $2.575.948 $2.442.009 $2.834,285 $392,276 16.06%
Subtotal: General Current Expense
and Capital Outlay
$41.175.220 $46.068.288 $49,486.925 $3.418,637 7.42%
Special Schools
Summer School $96.638 $89.700 $72.005 ($17.695) -19.73 %
Community Education $637.679 $781.700 $773.572 ($8.128) -1.04%
Vocational Education $3.621 $3.621 $0 ($3.621) -100.00%
Subtotal: Special Schools $737.938 $875,021 $845.577 /$29.444) -3.36%
State Projects $48,843 $15.785 $8.774 ($7.011) 44.42%
Federal Projects $330.926 $277.411 $277,072 ($339) -0-12 %
DEBT SERVICE $2.107.382 $2.384.070 $2,364.270 ($19.800) -0.83%
GRAND TOTAL $44.400.309 $49.620.575 $52.982.618 $3.362.043 6.78%
*The annual budgetary accounting system has undergone s~gnificant changes effective 1993/94. This comparison reflects
the new chart of accounts. Therefore. account totals for 91/92 and 92/93 are approximate. The total figures for Current
Expense, Capital Outlay, Debt Service. and Grand Total are complete and accurate for all three years.
E. A. R. L.
A Community Association
Earlysville Area Residents' League
P.O. Box 684
Yarlysville, VA 22936
April 5, 1996
Dear Commissioners and Supervisors,
We recently received this article and found it helpful in showing how
accelerated industrial growth can add to the cost of living and detract from
the quality of life in a community. We hope you will have time to read it
before the North Fork Industrial Park decision, and that it will encourage
you to use the tools you have to keep some control over the project.
Albemarle County citizens should have a say in what types of industry will
be allowed into the area after careful consideration of the impact on their
community. We encourage you to require a Special Use permit for
companies bringing in 100 employees or more. We want to avoid a "too
much, too fast" situation.
Thank you for looking out for the well-being of all citizens in the
community.
Since. rely,
Li§a Harman
E.A.R.L. President
4419 Chris Greene Lake Rd.
Charlotte.~ville. VA 2291 ]
April 4, 1996
Dear Mr. Jared Loewenstein:
Tt'~mk you for discuss'mg ~e LrREF .No~ Fork Par[ e,~:tk me ~m ~e phone hhis week. S~n::
~ be om of town on ~i 9~ i have pat ~ome elms' concerns ~n wn~ Io yea. Wi~cn ttl~ B~a,~
Su~em c~ed ~e CompreSsive P~n ~ December !994 for ~hc 300 acres e~xme~ by L~F.
~ pu~c protested. We were told b~' ~e Bo~d ~t ~e ~ ~sues ofw~ avaflabi~'. No~ Fork
~er po~OJ~fion. N~ Fork watershed issues~ sewerage, public rea&. school pop~afion effects.
pro~ctiom ~d protection o~ e~ ne~offnoo~ wo~d be ad&essed m rezomg. L-~F says i~ wi
be a good n~bar ~nd wffi qt~ve ~or exceJlent develo~ ~d ten~ He,vex,er. the cotm~~
P~g Core,sion mast look m ~ ~e face ~d ~acm on ~e whole co~', nm jusi e~m'c
~ofit remm I~ the d~,etop~/own~. ~s r~ reques~ ~ mow~ amc~, ~d create a
oo~ested ~b~ ~ea ~t Ihe w~hes of~e no~ cicero. ~y ~e developem are push~g
exp~ded ~o~ in the Rt 29 No~ ~ea ~ Fore~ Lakes South up m Pmey MoumMn. 7~e locM
rzsidm~ have often presented lhck ~ision of .Mb~,ade Co~' al thc publ~c hm~. You, as pa~ of
fl~e Pian~tg Com~ss~on. m~qt re~esem ail the coun~ ci~s and make the ~o~ed and hard
d~c~ions~ ' ~,~2m_~-~ ~ o~ ~mre and qua~~ of~e. '~.
i ~m& mc ~oumy stm~d look at ~e ~vact of umvemi~-spomored B~mess P~ ~
c~m?av~ties, so we may be~' ~de~t~nd the possible ~pacm we may face h~e ~ .~arle.
Smnebn~c Associams ~mvc been re~cd by U~F for ~e No~ Fork P~k. Smnebd~e ~sociates
d~eloped the BusL~ess Park kno~m as Fo~estal Cenwr tbr P6_nceton Un~B: in New Je~ey. !
c~ed ~c n~emzm of Fo~es~ Center fo~ ~omfion. Fo~es~ Center is 5 ~on sq.
Althou~ it h~s existed for 20 yearn most of the buitffmgs w~ contacted in the m~d-1980'~ tt
o~ncd b5 P~tce~on U~vcrsity ~d ~it~ ~nm~t~ ~mvc long l~cs. ~c ~vo ~gcst mn~rq m'c
Lynch {l.2 mllion sq. n. ~ and Souib (600.0011 so. ~.~.
k P:~cc~o~ Rcahor a~ccd tha~ most of Forzcstal Center was b~t over a few yc~s M ~c
19g0's. He ~t~mated thai 60°/,~70~ oI lhe tocal housmg was bnill ~ the lam 15 yearn. Be ,ro~ded
Median PionSel~old Income
I ownlaou.s~/Houses Cost Range
50,000-$600.000
~ i25.000-$65u.000
50.900~$40o. 000
Ms. Jo(tie We~ober (dau~_i~rer oI_Mrs. 5lagor~e Webner -relked ~ncipa~ of Broadus Wood
School) ~d kt Wes~-W~or i~om 1986 to 1994~ She spoke at ~ Bom'd oi'aupc~ors pubhc
hea~ in Feb. t 996. Her rca$ estate tax ~i on a 5-bedroom home rose ~om 52.580 in
$6.119 ~ 1994. a ~ax ~creasc ~Z' 53.739 m 8 > ~m.~. l'w ~n~los:d ~ ~t:reslmg le~cr fi-om th: W~s~-
~}mdsor-Piai~boro. N.J. 5cnoo~ Doara ~l'nch sm~ thc c~tlcal ~ow~n s~mns on thor ~ucammal
rvsmm ~cy have had te b~d 4 elementau,- scho()~. 1 ~ddlc schooI and I I-~ Sch~I
voars.
L~F [~ ~p~mg that ~ "2 m~]~on squzr~ ~zt is a s~l compromise for all thcL~ proffer. Bul
w~t does L2 ~on sq. n. mean to me co~n~- m tc~ oI ~1l~;[. B ~S 1,2 I~on
office space, then i~ c~m acco~mod~2e up ~e 2~000 ~¢loyzes and wood generate ~other L500
employees m suppo~g sp~-ofi'.lob~. Using ~k~ cena~ m~fip~crs, just over h~
~11 reside in thc count', approximateb' 1.420 new households. Using thc school muiiipiic: factors
1,420 bouseholds brings 376 * 580 new elementaD, ~mdents to our schools. Ii'that same ! '2 milhon se
ft. ~-ere all industrial space, it would generate 99§ new households in thc count:, and 264 -407 new
elementary smdcmts. Questions ~o ponder include wher~ will people live in the eounn.,, which schools
can handle thc new students from this 1/2 ,million additional space, and how will these
bt*~k~ess~,industrie~ skew th~ curr~nl wage structure m Albemarle CounW? GE ha*d a huge tin,ac! on
local wages when it first opened in Albemarle.
s~mg some of the mmac~ on the ?r:mceton University area which was a small ~;ollcge town
,-~--... ..... ,-,ra~ j '~,~.s', 'm_ o .,, ~,*rs ~o._ .~ ~;a',t; ~e P!amning Commission would be wise to decide wha! their xision
,~, ,,., .-d~emari¢ counts.. Do we want to reduce and control our rapid ~owth rate? Does our -dsmn
i~chMe ~ddition_~J ~raw~ along Rt. 29 North and Airpo~ Road. the entrance corridors to our coun.~
"~'~,,,,s, ~..,, ,hk~_.. 300 acres be better left as ~,aral 'land considering it borders the North Fork re'er? :~e the
p~oDS~r* ~deou~te _for lrbe eno._rmous burdens the [_PR~F North Fork Park wSll place on our counn~? I
think the proffers are minimum and still lacking. Stonebridge Associates and UREF do not want the
rezommr a~.~. m~,~l done m ~hases because the counw ~4ll be more aware of the true costs and would
warn much mor~ substantial proffers towm-ds ext~tra~l ~'oad improvements, water and sewer plants, e~c.
lt~c }ute of po~emialjobs has a hQ_h cost ior our counw.
~ .,~e.,: ,h, p, u ..... n,~d tmpro~emem m th~s~ re,as.
,., ~_,_~_aos: vD~_,'i ,., concerned tha~ the [?REF phasing deveiopmems ma),' precede the actual
a~c ma~c. , ~-O 1 rcc~ommcnaed Pkmsc 2 not proceed until Airport Road is ~;idene& and the Airport
.~,- .; ............ , ~ c .- phase it~ the roads pro,/de ser'dce level "D" or better, as I understand thc
£*OaU 3k,1'kl~,c J~wV~t D ~e¢llIS Yel~, di~-luull ~or th~ ioca. l resldums and au-pon tral~c to live
xwt~ The c~exeloper, for River HcigDrtts 'NG'IC) has to meet level "C" for his recent propo~a! and
...... cream? attracm.,e and liveable for al!.
:--,~. ............. -~. .............. :,,,. - .h. k. , ... of water and sewer/a~pro-,,'emen~$ for
i:}<Jz;_: and other ne~ developments, ~ he b, cerw~.od subm~s,m on .adn>or~ Road is bwn:t assesseu
.,., Fu-~. Protec~on: Fire protection m not aaequa[e for this site conhdering the possibiiity of
.~^a;~,~ ............. ,,? p~&~aceutica! taboratou' exp!o~ion. The HA53.!a* ~a::.t: is owned by .the - .~' md wi!! be
o48Da[cl'~ud ouiv after city fire t)ersonnei al'¢ oi1 the scene. The counly has plans to purciu~se mt aen~
m'~el,' hu, *ne oBJx' a~a! rrnck eleventh' ~vail~b!e i~ ctn.'-o~x~e~ I.LI~ has ~offered 5 acres lbr a fix¢
~tauon ~ vx.h/cn must meet then duse23n gtnaeune~ anO to pa5 1o, }~_~Mat classes qcurrenfly pau'[ o.r
~"~. ~. ~=n' te~. ~ ramrod_ -$3~ per voiunteer~., l suggest that UREF should help pa3' tbr the fire stanon or a
no~ b~ ,eqmr~, r~2 .... c~ ~h,~, desi~ guidelines: and L'P~EF should contribute
towards tire.qghtc~r personnel equipmem ~.MA, It r~er xolumeer
~ Water: ~:e 12-~,000 gal wmcr cap seems - ~' '~
;.. ,eU ,~g;,. A lower cap of 60.000 gallons wouId
22'.~IIJ.. vo~2 for re'-resentzm u:; on thc m. ; ,. r- -,..-
. ,anmng ~. ,om.,s~on. We alYpreciare all thc study and
eP~ort ';ou Oui mrm on behalf of Albemarle resm~nts. ]'hank you lor hearing the concerns el some
I ~uesday. ;Aprii20. lge3 I
! :,'", :,"" High:School, ,!
I 'a~OO'PM 'l [ ~.Maurice Hawk:,~Wlco, I
I :OOAM'tO :OO'PM i
West Windsor-Plainsboro Re~ion~ Schools April 1993
The Annual Budget Message
The b~dget presented for your approval in the school election
on April 20 is a maintenance budget. Although the total
budget amount is larger than the current budget, so. too. will
be the number of students enrolled in our schools. Lookat the
cost per pupil. 08.645 for this current year as compared TO
S8.647/ri the proposed budget: this consistency in the level
of the cost per pupil clearly demonsu-ates strict cost contato-
"...we must not compromise future by limiting the
education provided our young peopl "
a year in the life of a child. We must provide now. There are
many reclttlremenis and needs that compete for our attention
and our resources. It is essentisJ to maintain the proper
balance.
This is a critical year for the West Windsor-Plamsboro School
District. Decisions made by the district and t. he community
will influence the direction of our schools for a long time to
come. I and the other members of the Board of Education ask
ihat you evaluate the proposed budget in light of the quality
education system offered and its far reaching impact on the
total cornml2n/ty. While we are coping with the overall
problems of the economy, we must not compromise the future
by limiting the education provided our young people.
Included in the proposed 1993-94 budget are funds for:
· $318.000 for I0 trailers to house our growing student
population:
· 32.5 new teaching positions;
* bilingual programs in Chinese. Japanese. and Spanish.
mandated by the state:
· the removal of in-ground tanks at the Manrice Hawk and
WicoffSchools. required by state environmental statutes, and
-conversion of these buildings to gas heat:
· a much needed addition to the library, at Maurice Hawk
School:
· $ 96.000 for new math text books for grades 4 to 6, to support
curricular development designed to bring the math program
into conformity with the National Math Standards:
· replacement lighting at the high school pool (original equip-
ment from 1973 is now cause for serious safety concerns);
· 2.5 additional admimstrative positions, all of which deal
with the direct delivery of services to the students {an
assistant principal at the high school, a curriculum coordina-
tor grades K-8, and a half time assistant principal at Wicoff
School}.
During this school year the district changed Its health
insurance carrier which resulted in a savings of $470.000.
This savings has been applied to the proposed budget result-
lng in a tax reduction. A surplus of funds in the Debt Service
Reserve has also been used to help offset tax increases.
It should be immediately apparent that a school district is a
umquc operation. We deal with the intellectual, emotional,
and social growth of the children and at the same time operate
a large scale business with some 800 employees, a large
physical plant, and many state and federal regulations. There
is an immediacy about what we dc as we can never reclaim
I do not mlntmlze the difficult circumstances: we all face them.
But I can assure you that our school district, yours and mine.
makes every effort to provide a quality education in the most
cost-effective manner. This is our responsibility, our obliga-
tion, and we are committed to it. We appreciate your supporL
Lynn ThornWn. President
Board of Education
ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS-
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED
-[ I
T
0 ZOO0 ,4000
~,OURCE: Wear W'mC,~m-phL~bom School Dis~.-ic:
'50UP. C~: DemogtapMc Study. Univer~it~ A~,a~-i,am~ ~a. ;[/due. J~a'a~
?luna.s & Com;ultam$. Princeton,. Now leo. ey, Fe. bn~ lqq'~_
. . WEST~ WINDSOR TOWNSHIP
Please note: By ~w we am n~ aUo~m to ~ange ~ due d~ o~ ~August 1~ Howe~r, because ~e bil~ have been delay~
- We~ ~ndsor Td~nsh~ h~ended. ~:~:pe~lw dam aff~whJ~h inm[e~ is cha~'~Augu~ 31. 1992.
Cifiz6ns for Albemarle
April 9, 1996
I am Karen Dame, speaking on behalf of a community-wide volunteer organization,
Citizens for Albemarle.
The impact of the UI~F North Fork project on the resources of Albemarle County is
the overarching issue for this community. I would like to focus your attention for a
moment on the project's population irrrpact.
As convenient basis for discussion, let,s
look at a few calculations for 10,0'00 (10K) square feet of work space.
(That is a space the size of the cafeteria in Albemarle High School.)
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
How many employees might be expected to work in 10K sq .ft of space?
A manual used by VDoT to proiect traffic impacts (the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation manual) provides estimates of the numbers of
employees typically generated by different types of workspaces.
Qffic~ sp_ac~_~enerates 40 employees/10K sq ff.
Industrial' s~ace generates-
1.3 eaiployees/10K sq ft x 3 shifts
= 39~ e~ll~it 40 employees/10K sq ft
So, for office and/or industrial space, we're talking _40 e_mployees/10K sq ft.
2
Citizens ('or Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
To staff new industries in the North Fork Park, how many employees are apt to be
recruited from outside the community?
We have to guess, but to make the guess a realistic one, let's take the example of
North Fork's first business owner. As reported to the Board of Supervisors on
February 21, 1996, the new company brought along 33% of its workforcet and when
~tempts were unsuccessful to hire the other 67% locally, the business recruited
~e workers statewide.
So, if we were to adopt an optimistic kriew for our projections C~ased on nothing but
~hppe~, we maght assume that future businesses will hold out for at least 25% local
personnel. Using that figure, whieh is more generous than the actual experience to
date, we find that 75% of the park's employfes could end up being recruited to
Albemarle from outside the area, despite intentions to do otherwise.
@ 40 employees/101< sq ft
x 75~ irecruitment
= 3_0_ recmited_emplo~ees/lOK sq ft~
--600 recruited em loyees er 200,000 sq ft,.
=1,500 recruited employees per 500,000 sq ft,
and ultimately
9~,000 recruited_, employees for_ the 12,000.1'obs created at build-out _
~ by 3M sq ft of development.
In other words, 9_,000 new'pe, ople will be. recruited to the county in order to
~c?ate 3,000 jobs for existing residents.
3
Citizens for Al bemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesvillc, VA 22903, 961-3123
How many new households will these 9,000 recruits represent?
Even. if we say, for the sake of cautious figuring, that every recruited employee will
share' a household with another recruited emptayee, we looking at a minimum of
4,500 new households for'erh'l~loyees recruited to 3M sq ft.
Surely, we can agree that this would be.-the minimum number; ~some portion of' the
recruit5 wi_Il actnall~be sil:tgle and another portion will bring partners along with
th~-m who have not been recruited to jobs al the industrial park. (By the way, how
m_a~n_v_ ?f_those _un.reermted partners will compete with local res~den ts for existing
jobs~ in_ the communi, ry. Will there_ be a displacement, rate?, increased_ .nressure- .°n
the~lready u...nderemployed? )
4
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottc~sville, VA 22903, 961-3123
Back to the subject of population,
In their Comp Plan projections, county staff have recently cited the it_v..e_r~e
hm.._moho!,~ ~!zp in Alho-mrlo as 2._3 individuals. Using thai multiplier, our
minimum of
4~500 new household_s~recruited for 3M sq ft of new industry
x 2.3 persons per household
~_0~3_5~0.new residents from recruitment/3M sq ft
W~0ut the North Fork development, staff have nr%iocted Albemarle'n nop,l-~,m
.~r'~wt_h at 20,000 residents over the next 20'years. :Fheir projections do n~t include
th~rr~p~t-ofdoul~ling our annual volum~ com.mercial/in~lustrial expansion,
which is what this application in its pres'eht form would more than do.
As you can see, t~e new~>0rk- an e~rranl-ly profforred~ represents--at a minimum--a
5~0 % increase in population impact, 30,000 new residents instead of 20,000.
5
Citizens for Albemarlc, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
Our request is now and has been that you hold tightly the community's opportunity
to respond to the impact of this project as it unfolds. The_magnitude of the project
described in this rezoning application, or any project like it, ~impl¥ demands more
management than would be appropriate to a small-scale project.... We advocate
further deferral of the application until after proposed changes to the zoning
o~d~nance have been. ma'de. Specifically, we.~upl~'brt the proposal tor special-use
permit review for all industrial uses above a certain size. In determining the
company size that should trigger such a permit process, recall from the projections
above that new__ industry, of 25, 000 sq"ft brings 100 new employees, representing a
mi__nimnm of 50 households an.d 11~ lnd~wauals. Furthermore, a current special
permit requirement for industrial uses of priva~ water supplies in excess of 400
gallons per day should be expanded to include industrial users on public water
above a certain threshold volume. The threshold would need to be examined,
however the applicant's proposal of_~25,000 gallons per user per dav sounds very
hi,~h when one considers'that 125,000 gallons is one-half of the the total daily usage
of North Rivanna water treatment capacity at this time.
You may quibble over the population estimates we have presented above, but the
fact is they are as good as anyone can give.at this time. They may one day prove to
be have been ul~traconse..rvative or overblown, but until we can determine which
they are, you must reserve ~versight p0~brs for this mammoth venture. Perhaps
the next three businesses in. the par]~ will hire 100% ~rom local residents. That
would seem to be a development in the best interests of today's community.
However, ff those-ar.e..~_' _tech companiesL~we will need to determine whether the
local hires, have simol¥ migrated from similar jobs affhe University to higher'
p~ ~octo~ ~obs a~t the park, causing the University labs to have-f8 do thy
statewide recruiting and no net improvement in th.e employment opportu~fities fSr
/~cal ~eside .hts. -
W~his communi .ty express,~l"any support for governmental
decisions that would wittingly create an optional 50% increase in our pop-~lation
ab~v~and be¥ondwro!oction~ for the next two decades. What we do hear over and
over again that ngq~one wants our county to develop ~-~e attributes'"~'-a Fairfax
County. But the elements for that are all. built into this North Fork project as it
stands today. If several ~25,000-gallon-per-day users push our North Rivanna
Treatment facility to its current maximu.m capacity, who will pay for the new
infrastructure___ needed, to pump. from the ~outh Rivanna. plant to the North or to
improve the North R~vann.a yteid by sed~menting sand from the water before it is
treated. The costs for th~e accala~, or irffrastructure improvements, as
we~'--~'J,L._~or roads and schools,and community .services will be transferred to ~-he the
res, Klents o~ity.- Furthermore, it we are successful in diverting-the
majority of new households away from the rural areas and into designated growth
areas, then we know already that we will have..a shortfall for infrastructure
6
Citizens lbr Albemarle, PO Box 3753, Charlottcsvillc. VA 22903. 961-3123
expenses, because we know already that even/dollar of growth-areas tax money costs
mor~..~han a dollar in services. W~ know---~hese things already· ~ this large-s~2'~"~
rezonme_ becomes a piyotal moment t.n thts county s history. If we turn our lovely
Albemarle into a Fmrfax there 21,v 11 be a re~relt~ rnc,,~o,~o "omt to hke this one
where we could have kno. ~wn better and could have se[ the course differently. Let us
not make tha~-mistak~.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Dame
Citizens l'or Albcmaflc, PO Box 3751, Charlottcsvillc, VA 229(B, 961-3123
OFFICE OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION
IO8 CRESAP ROAD
P. O~ BOX 9O23
CHARLOTTESVtLLE~ VA 22906
(80Zl) 982-4848
FAX I804) 982-4852
December 19, 1995
Lake Acres Residents
Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Lake Acres Residents:
Over the .last several months, we have attempted to work closely with you to understand your
concerns regarding the development of the North Fork Business Park, and, in fact, have attempted to address
as many of those concerns as possible in the Rezoning Application, We think our conversations with you have
been- productive, and we are appreciative of your input. As you have requested, the purpose of this letter is to
discuss how we intend to address the various concerns you have presented. We request that the County
include this letter in our rezoning submission.
Following is a summary of the University of Virginia Foundation's (UVAF) intentions vis-a-vis the
concerns listed in your January 25, 1995 letter to us and those raised in our subsequent meetings:
IIVAF Rnl~-', UVAF agrees to act as a fac i:~ator to aid in the resolution of any grievances or
pcoblems related t(~ the development of North Fork Business Park, which the above listed
ne~ghbars may raise.
O
~: Per your request, contracts for land sales or leases of property at the park will
include a provision indicating that tenants are to assist in ensuring that construction traffic be
directed south of Rte. 606.
O
~it~_ A~.n~,~-~ frnm tclt~_ ROR: The Zoning Application Plan, in the Razoning Application, proposes
an internal road network to access lots along Rte. 606. Site F1A will not have direct access to
Rte. 606.
O
CoJ3~tr~mtlnn I.~T~uc.k Trnfflrt: UVAF will modify its Design Guidelines for the Park to require
construction traffic to access the site from Rte. 649 to Rte. 606. UVAF requests the
neighbor's cooperation and aid in enforcing this requirement. UVAF will also support any
request the neighbors wish to make to VDOT to prohibit truck traffic from making a right turn
from Quail Run Road onto Rte. 606 as long as such a request is rational in terms of the
County's road plans at the time of the request.
o ~[e~GOR~evlng: UVAF will not initiate a request for Rte. 606 to be paved,
FJ[~ff~r Alnng Rt~. 60~: UVAF will maintain a 150 foot buffer along the entire extent of its
property along Rte, 606. This includes Lot F1A which had only a 50 foot buffer in the
Rezoning Application. UVAF will not clear cut durable trees in the buffer but will be allowed to
maintain the buffer area (i.e. clearing underbrush and weed growth) to establish and maintain a
visually appealing buffer area.
o UseJ.ocatioxm: The Zoning App cat on P an addresses the location of uses within the Park.
Lake Acres Residents
December 19, t995
Page Two
o
,Sp_~ma_nt & Ern_~nn I~.nntrnl_ gtnrmwatpr M~na_n~rnnnt and thn Raw W~tar Intnkn: Courlty
regulations regarding erosion and sediment control regulate required practices during
construction. The Rezoning Application includes a master stormwater management plan for
the entire Park which Js above and beyond current applicable regulations for post-construction
stormwater runoff, and also addresses the Raw Water Intake drainage area. The Rezoning
Application addresses proposed use restrictions for the Park to protect the Raw Water intake.
o
Nnrth Fark R~min~s-~ Pnrk E)~_~i_nn G[~idalines: The RezorJng Application, via the North Fork
Business Park Design Guidelines, addresses street lighting, waste area screening and other
similar issues, The proposed use restrictions in the Rezoning Application address noise
concerns by the elimination of most Heavy Industrial uses.
o Pla.vin_n Field~: The recreation area/playing fields will not be lit.
o
: ~. '_ '. -: The UVA Foundation will cooperate with property owners in retaining
the original character of Rte. 506 by not initiating any requests to change the unpaved portion
north of Quail Run Road from its current status as a gravel surfaced country lane.
O
IJfilJt? lnRfallaf|nn~ UVAF will provide appropriate ground cover over areas where new
installation has occurred.
We believe that this letter, and the Rezoning Application represent UVAF's good faith efforts to
address the concerns of the Lake Acres neighbors. We are pleased that this letter meets with your
satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Tim R. Rose
Chief Operating Officer
TRR:Ip
CC:
Mr. Hovey S. Dabney
Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge
Mr. Steven W. Blaine
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Mr. Dean M. Cinkala
Mr. Ronald S, Keeler
0 1996
Albemarle Connly
Plan-~ng D~p~u'Imout
Aitn: Mr. Ron Keoler
4419 Clu'is Greene Lake Rd.
Charlot~eswille, VA 22911
~Fareh 20, 1996
D~arMr. K¢~ler:
I believe sow,-ral iss~ms are still muv~olvcd concerning tim LrlLEF North Fork
::!. lndustfial/Busine.~s Park. Some of thc Lake Acres residents are still quite worried about this
,Ifeelthescissueswillaffeetallresidentsoflhecoanty, espeeially the Noah 29 ' - :~-
were raised in our original lell~r dated Jan. 25, 1995 erin the pnblio
1.. The proposal is not phased to insure that adequate infrastructure is in plae~'before the
:'~:~ ~xt phase begins. We arc ,giving away 3 million square loot of development fights and hope it
~takes 20-30 years lo build. If tJREF gets a big tenant requiring 500,000 sq. fl., th~ Park may build
; years, not 2O years. 'n~u development must be phased by building
county has adeqoato roads,.s~hools, water'supply, and sewer svrvices h~
21:"L'he UREF.industrial Park vdll drive the developmen! in thc IIollymead/Piney
i-areas. We cab not allow dewk)pment wilhout the new roads being in pla~e first. VDOT is
concerned that the UREE phasing developments may precede the actual road improvements
: ".'.(3/DOT ltr. O~t.. 10, 1995 copied in your report to the Planniug Comn~sion). As man3
~., those roads including airport tratlie, UIU:.,F:should include the VDOT guidelines as proffbrs.
, reeonunended that Phase 2 not proceed mttil Route 649 is widened and '
to thbRoule 649l Rolite 29 intersection:. YeL LIREF proposed tho next phase" . ..
-1o begin if the roads provide sor~i~e level "D".or better. I suggest that service level "D" is :.
' un,'~:ceptable to the residents and people using the airport. The River Heights developer is being
hdd to lraffiC soo, ice level "C", and the UREF Pail4 should be hdd to fl~e same stand'a'd. ':
.'.'.:i?-~.;~;?. 3.' The possibility.of tim or explosion in a medical laboratory has not linen adequately
:.. , aadrosse, d mmv; opiniod tm.ne Jnnated 5 acres,'but the are build,ngmust meet their des 4gn
~!~iei~?i:-!~!:: ~' guiddineS.:'l hope this is chang~l in tho l'aiost pmtlbrs, and UREF wiU.aonat'~ mO,ey.tothe_.
e~$~2¢~;r:;:~:~::., bmldmg,.a truck, or firemen basra eqmpmont (appro:amatdy, $1,500 per volunteer as a Iow figure).' -
· c.~3~.;,<~e.:. ·.. 4.. Water msues and North I ork polinlmntwat~mdmd a~o still a ~ncem. lbo drinking water . .
~' 75~:~i' ' supply intake for the Noah Fork fiver is just below the stormwater dumping areas into the rivers. -
:~(:: There wilt be-car oil and l~r~zer pollution beh~g put inOa the fiw:r just belbrc it is taken out for
county drinking consumption. This iss. am must be addl'~..~d thnher by staffand UREF to protect
the lteallh of all rcsidcms and businesses who rely on safe wales:
5. Seats available in our Connty ,'-lehool System has n~wer been looked at in evaluating
duvtdopur propcrsals. Itowevx:t; with so many ne',v r,:sidcnis hl-tlfigrating for the Industrial Park,
ia~k et school capabfiay Inr new sludenls tntm~ be addressed by. tho Planning Staff. Hollymead and
Broadus Wood ,g~hools are almost at capacity, and the new elemental3, school (hopefully in the Rt.
29 North area) is not sohvduled to open until 2000. It may handle thc current growth projections,
Im~00 ne~v students. I believe this is an issue very impoaaui 1o most county residents.
Thank you lbr your time. 1 louk ibrward Io bearing Ii'om you.
TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: LEAGUE OF WOMEN ~OTERS
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996
RE: 2MA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
BUSINESS PARK
N. FORK
We are limiting our comments tonight to the one substan-
tive issue that does not seem to be adequately addressed--
water usage and its twin, sewage disposal.
We are c~ncerned that the application has no requirements
for the phasing of development of the propertF to match in-
frasDucture availability and caoacity--a requirement that the
.Planning Commission earlier had asked for.
According to the Planning C6mmission!s minutes (12/19/95),
Mr. Cilimberg addressed this question when he said,"There
is a certain level to which they can develop under current
circumstances and then under subsequent improvements and we
felt that is a phasing in and of itself".
Wa would like to know more about the what, where, and cost
of those improvements and the circumstances, because water
customers will be picking up the bill. And we do understand
that many of the improvements will be necessary because of
pressures of growth regardless of the requirements of the
N. Fork project.
For instance, while water is presently available from
the N.F. Rivanna River and Chris Greene and will be, around
2015, from Buck Mt., the N.F. water treatment plant (WTP)
is limited to two million gallons a day of finished water.
Unless major changes are made concerning the future of that
treatment plant, its 2 mgd treatment capacity limits the avail-
ability of water.
It would have been helpful to have had a review of those
"improvements", Mr. Cilimberg alluded to and under what cir-
cumstances would they become necessary. Upgrading the N. Fork
---page 2---
Treatment Plant to meet Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
provem~n~s is one, which is included in the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority's(R~¥SA) Capital Improvements Program 1995-
2015.($402,000.) Also included is $2,300,O00.for the expansion
of the S.F. Rivanna Water Treatment Plant from 8mgd to 12mgd.
Overlooked we believe, is the limitation placed ~oon
development by the capacity of the Camelot Water Treatment
plant, which is only 365,000 gpdo It will not be replaced.
An April 1995, letter from the Albermarle County Service
Authority(ACSA) to the planning staff disclosed that t~e is
still approximately 250,000 gpd available in the plant..
"This will be used on a first come, first served basis," the
letter stated.
Two alternatives have been discussed in the oast, each
with a price tag of over $7 million. Therefore, in the short
term, regardless of the amount of rm~v water available or water
treatment capacity, disposal of waste~ater may be the imme-
diate limiting factor for developmant.
So Mr. Cilimberg was probably correct. We wonder, however,
whether infrastructure will k~p pace v~th development or wilt
there come a day when we must have a moratorium because of
water shortage or lack of sewer capacity~
We have an uneasy feeling that we might have received
more helpful and complete answers, which would have lent more
certainty to all this, if we had onl~ asked the right questions!
Th~nk you
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of
Major Proffers and Zoning Application Plan Commitments
February 7, 1996
· Development limited to 3.0 million sr.
· Timing limits on when hotel and support commercial can be developed.
· Density caps on hotel, support commercial and general office.
· Undeveloped area no less than 200 acres.
· Prepare and place on property declaration of covenants and restrictions
· Master stormwater management system
· Open space system
· Limit on large water nsers of 125,000 gallons per day.
· Dedication offirestation site.
* Requirement to provide ba?~dons materials tr~inlug.
· Traffic improvements tied to development densities.
· Dedication of 100' greenway along the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
Dedication ofballfields at terms acceptable to county.
,, Creation.and implementation of apreservation plan of the historic / cemetery site.
o Land use restrictions regulated by land use matrix on the Zoning Application Plan.
· Significant buffers around the entire property with requirement to add plantings to enhance
screening.
· Commitment that UREF will maintain a seat on the Park's design review committee.
· Submission of progress reports to the County eyeD' three years.
Note: Additional detail is provided in the following attachment.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
February 7, 1996
DEMONSTRATION OF LONG TERM COMMITMENT
· Proffered to develop Covenants & Restrictions governing quality & use that run with
the land.
· Proffered that UREF maintains seat on Design Review Committee.
· Proffered Maintenance of Common Areas by UREF or a duly authorized organization,
like a homeowner's association.
· Proffered progress report to Planning. Commission every three years
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
· Total Area:
· Total Square Feet
*Proffered Maximum Support Commercial
Proffered Maximin General Office
110,000 SF
2,300,000 SF
525 Acres
3,000,000 Proffered
*Proffered Maximum (I) Hotel of lesser of 190;000 SF or 250 rooms
Note: 500,000 SF must be developed before hotel or free standing commercial may be in
service, unless County approves earlier development for hotel. In no case will snppor~
corem ercial exceed 10% of the current phase of development.
All land use locations governed by Land Use Matrix on Zoning Application Plan.
UNDEVELOPED AREAS
Rivanna Greenbelt:
Buffers At Property Edge:
Other Common Areas:
Developed Recreational Areas:
Proffered 200 acre minimum describedbelow:
· Natural state but for trails and necessary utility
connections. Includes connections to property
edges to connect with adjacent tracts.
· Conveyed to County as a gift for public use at
County's option.
May clear brush, supplemem landscaping and
provide project aignage, walls, etc. at park
entrances. Agreed to enhance visual screening
capability of Lot B-7 buffer and other buffer
areas at County's reasonable request.
· Agreed to develop open space system (trails and
picnic areas) in three phases for tenant use.
Active recreation areas available to park
residents. May be conveyed to County at terms
acceptable to the County.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Two
CEMETERY/ICE PIT PROFFER:
FIRE STATION SITE PROFFER:
HAZMAT TRAINING PROFFER:
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PROFFER:
WATER CONSERVATION
PROFFER:
Proffered to develop and implement a preservation
plan for these facilities.
Up to 5 acres of northern portion, of Lot D or some
other mutually satisfactory site. Available to County
at its option.
Provide Hazmat Training for up to 3 years, with
~raining sessions offered twice each year.
Agreed to phased development of a Regir~al Plan
which includes development of regional facilities
and BMPs and includes Raw Water Intake drainage
area.
Limited facility use to 125,000 gallons per day (ave.
.daily usage) without need for special exception
permit from County.
DEVELOPMENT PHASING PROFFERS:
Phase IDevelopment Limitations: Access by Road A at Rte. 29 and Route 606
Maximum SF(Road.dAccess): 635,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
85,000 SF.
MaximumSF(Route60(f~cccss): 345;000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
25,000 SF; Office limited t° 120,000 SF.
Traffic Proffers: A~ eompl'ete by end of Phase although VDOT can
accelerate if need shown by traffic study. Similarly,
Applicant can postpone improvements if VDOT is
satisfied that expected need is not present. These
principles apply to all traffic proffers in each phase.
Traffic Improvements: * Northbound turn lane on Route 606 to Quail
Run.
· Signalization of Route 29 ! Road A intersection
· Intersection improvements to Rte. 29 and Road
A.
· Improve Rtes. 29 / 649 intersection through
construction or $100,000 contribution whichever
is less. At County's option can redeploy
resources to expedite funding of widening Route
649.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Three
Phase II Development Limitations:
3daximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers:
Traffic Improvements:
Phase III Development Limitations:
Maximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers and Improvements:
Access via Route 29; Route 649 and Route 606.
1,568,000 SF Total; Support Commemial limited to
110,000 SF; Office limited to 1,068,000 SF.
Same note in Phase I applies.
· Make connection of Road A to Rte. 649 with 4
lanes by end of Phase.
· Improve Rte. 649 / Road A intersection and
signalize as warranted.
All access points already operational __ .
3,000,000 SF Total; Support Commercial 1]~ited to
110,000 SF; Office limited to 2,300,000 SF.
Design and construct third southbound lane on
Route 29, or at County's option use funds to support
grade separated interchange at Road A/Route 29
entrance. Applicant will also contribute right of wa3'
for interchange at Road A/Rte. 29 entrance when
such interchange is built.
P.O. Box 564
Earlysville, Virginia
22936
10 April 1996
Members of the Planning Commission
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Member of the Planning Commission:
At the February 21st meeting of the Board of Supervisors, t
voiced my deep concern regarding the proposed enlargement of
the UREF project. Please read the enclosed text of my short
statement and a subsequent letter to the Board which explain
my concerns. As my husband and I have witnessed elsewhere,
commercial and industrial development drive residential growth.
Without strong controls thoughtfully applied to all aspects
of county growth, very soon Albemarle will be a county of
continuous surburban sprawl.
Please act before it is too late.
Very sincerely,
Jodie Webber, Earlysville native
cc. Members of the Board of Supervisors
NORTH FORK
BUSINESS PARK
Albemarle County, Virginia
QUAIL
.'S.R. 606:''
'%: ROAD B ...-.
(,.... -.2 LANE UNDIVIDED
.. ' *. b,2:'
B-3
: E ROAD
A
B-2
2 LANE UNDIVIDEDF
,~0' ,P,.,Q.W.-~,
RURAL SECTION
60' tLO.W.
Notes
1. Roads "B", "C" and "D" are subject to change given
l~ke ~v.d ,qe44
EXHIBIT 5.1
INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK
University of Vh'ginia
Real Estate Foundation
McKee/Carson
PHASE I
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
A
B
C
1. 2 NORTH BOUND LEFT TURN LANES ON U.S. 29 INTO PARK
2. CHANNELIZED SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON U .S. 29
INTO PARK
3. 2 EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANES ON ROAD "A" ONTO U.S. 29
4. 2 EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANES ON ROAD "A" ONTO U .S. 29
5. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WHEN WARRANTED
6. 150'x150' RIGHT TURN AND TAPER NORTHBOUND S.R, 606
ONTO QUAIL RUN
7. PRORATA CONTRIBUTION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
FOR DUAL LEFT TURN LANES IN EACH DIRECTION AT S.R. 649/
U.S. 29 INTERSECTION AND SIGNALIZATION OR $100,000
WHICHEVER IS LESS
PHASE II
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
D
1. 2 LANE COLLECTOR ROAD FROM U.S. 29 TO S.R. 649
2. WIDEN ROAD "A" TO 4 LANES
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
E
2 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANES ON ROAD "A" ONTO S.R. 649
4. 1 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON ROAD "A" ONTO S.R. 649
5, 2 NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANES ON ROAD "A"
6. 1 WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON S.R. 649 ONTO ROAD "A"
7. 1 EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON S.R. 649 ONTO ROAD "A"
8. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WHEN WARRANTED
PHASE III
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
F
G
H
I
1. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRD SOUTHBOUND LANE ON
U.S. 29 FROM ROAD "A" TO S.R. 649; OR
2. AT COUNTY'S ELECTION., CONTRIBUTE FUNDS, ESTABLISHED
FOR WORK IN F1 ABOVE, TO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A GRADE SEPARATED INTERCHANGE; OR
3. 6 THROUGH LANES DESIGNED AND FUNDED BY VDOT ON U.S.
29 FROM ROAD "A" TO S.R. 649
4 RIGHT OF WAY RESERVED FOR A POSSIBLE FUTURE GKADE
SEPARATED INTERCHANGE
NORTH FORK
BUSINESS PARK
Albemarle County, Virginia
EXHIBIT 5.3
OFF-SITE AND INTERNAL
ROAD PHASING
University of Virgi~
Real Estate Foundation
McKee/Carso
Legend
Hike/Bike Trails - Phase 1
Paved Walks- Phase 1
Picnic Areas - Phase 1
Hike/Bike Trails - Phase 2
Paved Walks - Phase 2
Picnic Areas - Phase 2
Sports Fields/Active
Recreation Area - Phase 2
Hike/Bike Trails - Phase 3
Paved Walks - Phase 3
Picnic Areas - Phase 3
Hike/Bike Trail (when
County acquires adjacent
land)
NORTH FORK
BUSINESS PAKK
Albemarle County, Virginia
: B-2
13-3
Legend
~ Spor, sFie~s/Ac~e
EXHIBtT 6.1
OPEN SPACE SYSTEM
PHASING PLAN
University of Virgh~ia
Real Estate Foundation
McKee/Cars on
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen~
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-582.3
March 20, 1996
Tim Rose
Chief Operating Engineer
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
P. O. Box 9023
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA-95-04 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
Dear Mr. Rose:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on March 7, 1996, per your request,
referred the above-noted petition back to the Planning Commission. The Board and the
Commission are to holed a joint public hearing on the request on April 9. 1996.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Development
VWC/jcf
cc: I,~'~a~a C~ey
Amelia McCulley
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Plannin§ & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
March 22, 1996
Tim Rose, Chief Operating Engineer
University of Vkginia Real Estate Foundation
P. O. Box 9023
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
Dear Mr. Rose:
This letter is to notify you that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Albemarle
C9unty Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting on APR/L _9, 1996, 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
to review the above-noted petition described as follows:
ZMA-95-04 The Universitr of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone
approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD4P, Planned Development Industrial
Park, R-i, Residential and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial
Park. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40 -
Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-41 Supporting
commercial uses (27.2.2.14, 29.2.2.1) SP~95-42 - Hotels, motels, inns (29.2.2.2).
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A, 19 and 19C, is located south of the
North Fork Rivarma River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of
Hollymead.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or concerns about this petition or schedule, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcf
cc: l~"El~a ~-a Carcy
Amelia McCulley
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Protecting The Environment Is Ever)body's Busir~ess
A possible starting point for ZTA amendment language:
By Right:
Establishments for uses otherwise allowed by right hereunder up to
square feet per ~establishment."
By Special Permit:
Establishments for uses otherwise allowed by right or by special permit
hereunder which exceed square feet per establishment.
Any expansion of an existing establishment within one year of completion
of the original establishment Which would result in a total square footage
for the establishment and expansion in excess of square feet.
Any expansion of an existing establishment commencing mere that one year
after completion of an establishment or expansion thereof requiring a
special permit under the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs which
expansion would exceed square feet.
"Establishment" shall mean any building or group of buildings comprising
one enterprise, whether under one ownership or the ownership of related
entities.
45 Hornet Street Box 460. Warretqtorx Virginia 22186/703-347-2334/Fax 3490003
Rose Hill Drive Suite 1. Charlottesville Virgmm 22903/804-97--2033/Fax 977-630~
Median
size of
office/ind
ustry
UREF Year
1
UREF Year
2
UREF Year
3
UREF Year
4
UREF Year
5
UREF Year
5 - ALT
· ~, I'0 03 .~ 01 03 '.q (3O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 (::) 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 (:::)0 (::3 0 (:::)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avg
IND/CO
approved/
yr
UREF Year
1
UREF Year
2
UREF Year
3
UREF Year
4
UREF Year
5
UREF Year
5 - ALT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ITl
'!1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
40] M¢lntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
{804~ 296-5823
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Ron Keeler ~
DATE: April 9, 1996
ZMA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
This serves as cover memo to the staff report which was presented to the Board of
Supervisors on February 7 and February 21, 1996. That report has been changed as
follows:
· PART II has been rewritten for presentation to the Commission and to
reflect the current proposal;
· Pages IV-12 through IV-15 have been revised to incorporate change in
special use permit conditions.
Attached to this memorandum is the UREF proffer statement together with a report
requested by the Board and undertaken by the County Attorney's office and Planning
staff which analyzes each of the proffers as to whether or not the measure could be
required by County regulation. This report is provided in table form for ease of
review. Also, enclosed separately are other documents received at or after prior
Board consideration.
Phasing of Development; Water consumption
In prior public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board, issues related to
scale and timing of development as well as water consumption were identified and
subsequently proposed to be restricted by proffer. There are four restrictions in this
regard:
1. UREF, VDOT, and staff spent about 10 months developing a phasing
schedule related to road improvements ( PROFFER V. TRANSPORTATION).
2. The Commission was concerned as to total floor area devoted to General
Office and also phasing of Support Commercial and Hotel (PROFFER 5,3 ).
3. The Commission was concerned as to water consumption (PROFFER 4.4).
4, The Board was concerned as m an annual schedule for developmem
(PROFFER III. DENSITY).
These proffers are independent as to their effect. All four proffers must be met at any
time during development. PROFFER V, PROFFER 5.3 and PROFFER 4.4 were
previously endorsed by the Planning Commission. Revised PROFFER III has been
substantially revised and has received no discussion by either the Planning
Commission or Board.
PROFFER IH. DENSITY would allow buildout in about 14 years. Square footage
of building area would be cumulative with the largest increment available in the first
year (500,000 square feet) followed by 200,000 square foot increments annually after
the first year. This restriction is not a guarantee that a large-scale employer will not
locate within the Park, however, it does provide a reasonable development schedule
(The traffic study anticipated buildout in 2015).
Perhaps the main concern as to the location of a large scale industry is the potential
immediate effects of an influx of employees and an associated population sUrge. The
industry would cause the surge in one of two manners- either by importing a
substantial portion of its labor force, or by exceeding the local available labor market,
luring new residents to the area for jobs.
Staff has reviewed information gathered during development of the Comprehensive
plan section on the economy as well as talked with people familiar with business
location practices. Staff has also reviewed the Virginia Department of Economic
Development (VDED) Employment and Ca, vital Investment in Virginia: 1995 Year-
end Report. Based on information and opinion from these various sources, staff
offers the following generalized comments:
1. Most large industries do not relocate the majority of the work force to a
new locale. Relocation of labor is cumbersome and expensive. Generally, large
industries look for areas where the existing available labor pool is adequate for their
needs. "Manufacturing is looking for existing resident pool- They do not look to
import a great amount of labor." (Comp Plan- Economic Development Policy).
2. Many industries locate with a smaller initial work force and expand over the
years. As was stated in public hear'mgs, State Farm had a very conservative
employment when the firm located here in the 1950's. GE Fanuc located in the late
1970's and in 1995 announced an investment expansion of $ 53 million and 250
added employees ( GE Fanuc has had several expansions).
3. VDED reports that 50 new manufacturing plants announced location in
Virginia in 1995. Of these, 47 plants would have an employment of 300 or fewer.
Three plants would employ from 1,000 to 5,000 persons (Information is not available
as to initial employment levels). Including these three large employers, average work
force per new plants is 273 employees; excluding these three large industries provides
an average work force per new plant of 78 employees.
4. More plants expanded in 1995 than were announced for new location. One
job was created by existing plant expansion for every two jobs created by new plant
location in 1995 (VDED).
5. Correlating square footage to employment is difficult. While the 1989
Comprehensive Plan has an average of industrial plant square footage per employee
(i.e.- 271 sq. Ft.), any industrial plant can vary greatly depending on the capital
intensive versus labor intensive nature of the industry. As was discussed last year
during development of the economic development policy, modem industry is tending
to become more automated which will increase its capital intensive nature. Staff to
this point has not been able to identify any examples of "caps" to individual industrial
facility square footage in Virginia but will continue investigating.
Summary
The University Real Estate Foundation has responded to the County with four
proffers that control in one fashion or another the tuning/intensity of development.
Three proffers are easily monitored during site plan review. The proffer related to
water consumption would be ongoing and would apply to expansion/change of
process of an existing business as well as to a new use. While PROFFER III.
DEi~/SITY does not preclude the possible location of a large industry or the
expansion of an existing industry to a large scale, it does provide for an annual limit
to development.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSiNESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Three
Phase 1I Development Limitations:
Maximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers:
Traffic ]mprovements:
Phase III Development Limitations:
Maximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic ]~roffers and Improvements:
Access via Route 29; Route 649 and Route 606.
t,568,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
11¢,000 SF; Office limited to 1,068,000 SF.
Same note in Phase I applies.
· Make connection of Road A to Rte. 649 with 4
lanes by end of Phase.
· Improve Rte. 649 ' Road A intersection and
signalize as warranted.
All access points already operational
3,000,000 SF Total; Support Commercial likqited to
110,000 SF; Office limited to 2,300,000 SF.
Design and construct third southbound lane on
Route 29, or at County's option use funds to support
grade separated interchange at Road A/Route 29
entrance. Applicant will also contribute right of way
for interchange m Road A/Rte. 29 entrance when
such interchange is built.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Larry Davis, County Attorney,~-r~z
V. ~rayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Greg Kampmer, Assistant County Attorneyt~
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning ~ O
March 27, 1996
Analysis of UREF Proffers
Attached is a table that sunm~arizes the key elements of UREF's
proffers, identifies corresponding County authority to otherwise require what is being
proffered, and provides comments from the Department of Planning and Community
Development and the County Attorney's Office.
In our analysis, it became apparent that the proffers fall into five general
categories: (1) those that proffer something that the County could not othenvise
require; (2) those that proffer something that the County may or may not be able to
otherwise require, depending on the circumstances; (3) those that proffer something
that the County could otherwise require; (4) those that proffer something that the
County could otherwise require, but the proffer is more restrictive; and (5) those
statements that are not actually proffers, or proffers that are negligible. We have
classified the proffers into the five categories below.
County Could Not Otherwise Require
Proffer 3: Density
Proffer 4.3: Wetlands
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors .
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 2
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 4.4: Water Conservation
Proffer 5.3: Phases of Development
Proffer 6.1: Developed Recreational Areas
Proffer 6.2: Open Space
Proffer 6.3: Rivanna Green Belt
Proffer 6.4: Cemetery and Ice Pit Site
Proffer 8. I: Fire Station
Proffer 9.1: Project Reports
Uncertain Whether County Could Otherwise Require
Proffer 5.4(a): Phase I Road Improvements (partial)
Proffer 5.4(c): Exceeding Phase II Maximum Buildout (partial)
Proffer 5.4(d): Dedication of Land for Grade Separated Interchange
Coun .ty Could Otherwise Require
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 5.1: Intemai Road Network
Proffer 5.2: Road Construction Standards
Proffer 5.4(a): Phase I Road Improvements (partial)
Proffer 5.4(a): Exceeding Phase I Maximum Buildout
Proffer 5.4(c): Exceeding Phase II Maximum Bu'fldout (partial)
County Could Otherwise Require, but Proffer is More Restrictive
·
·
·
·
·
Proffer 2: Owners Association and Declaration
Proffer 4.1: Flood Plain
Proffer 4.2: Stormwater Management Plan
Proffer 5.4(b): Phase II Road Improvements
Proffer 7.2: Buffer Areas
Not a Proffer or Proffer is Negli~ble
· Introduction
· Proffer 1.1: Plans and Illustrations
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 3
Proffer 1.2: Plan Exhibits
Proffer 7.1: Landscaping
Proffer 8.2: Hazardous Materials
Proffer 8.3: Disposition of Dedicated Land
As a final note, references in the table to "ZO" are to the Zoning
Ordinance; to "SO" are to the Subdivision Ordinance; and to "ACC" are to the
Albemarle County Code.
GK;rcs
-' o~
::::::::::::::::::::::::
m~ N~O
~ o ~ ~ g ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PROFFER STATEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
Final Version: March 21, 1996
PROFFER STATEMENT
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 "MicmAire 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 CPD-
IP"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to
Section 15.1491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virgima, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance").
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 ro apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code
mimmum 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 pm 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
Zoning Application Plan) are limited to the purpose for which they are referenced in a proffer:
· Zoning Application Plan
· Stormwater 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 tG 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
design 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 m construction of buildings;
(ii)
Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Project, tot/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
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 m 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 ro 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 lands, 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
mamtenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying
Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify common
areas ~n a site development plan or plat.
(d)
(e)
The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less 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.
If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to control the
availabilit~ 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
same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and
maintain the Common Areas.
III. 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 permanem 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
riding trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and
regulations.
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 Identifilmg and Delineatina
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 reqmrements, 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
usage and must include a finding that sufficient capacity exists to support such a user. The County's
approval may include reasonable conditions relating m water usage.
V. TRANSPORTATION
5.1 Internal Road Netwgrk. 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 mimmum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation
("VDOT"). unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the
necessary modifications m 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 m adjustment during the subdivision
plat/site plan approval process.
5.2 Road Construction Standards.
(a)
All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County. for site plan
approval, (and other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and the
County reasonably determine are necessary for safe and convenient access to such
area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated for public use,
for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final
subdivision plat recordation for each applicable area or at the time of issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for development under a site development plan.
Co)
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 win 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
pavemem 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.
5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determining the tim'mg of
road improvements set forth in 5.4 below:
PHASE I
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)
Maximum Build-out to be accessed by Rt. 606
(all 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)
PHASE H
Maximum
Cumulative
Land Use (1) Build-out (2)
General Office: 1,068,000
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel: 190,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II (all uses) 1,568,000(3)
PHASE IH
Maximum
Cumulative
Land Use (1) Build-out(2)
General Office: 2,300,000
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel: 190,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase III (all uses) 3,000,000(3)
6
(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. HHotel" 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 heroin shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of land use types
within any Phase of development ~n 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 Improvemems. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute for
road improvements in phases. Road improvemem proffers in this section 5.4 shall not include
dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of bffsite 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 improvemem as provided in these proffers,
even though the necessary right-of-way is not available, (and in the instances in which Applicant has
proffered to acquire right-of-way, and the Applicant has made good faith efforts to acquire the land
necessary for such right-of-way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved
density build-out under the applicable zomng, unless the improvement is otherwise required by
applicable regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required beIow, 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 m 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 mm lane from Route 606
onto Quail Run for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection.
7
(b)
(2)
Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acqmring governmental emity for
acquisition costs, if Applicant Is unable to acquire) right of way for, design
and construct two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29 at the intersection
of Road A (North Pork 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 lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall
include dedication, design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes
and two 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 mad.
(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 mrn 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 ro 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.
Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase II mad 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 Pro!ect a two lane
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
8
(c)
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.
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 Ate 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 improvemems 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
~n (1) and (2) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through
traffic studies approved by VDOT that acceptable levels of service (LOS
"D", or better for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection) can be maintained
with existing, or alternative improvements.
(d)
Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a
grade separated intemhange. 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 m
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 ball fields 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
pamels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are
established by plat (and the boundaries later shown on plats may be adjusted from those depicted on
Exhibit 6.1). In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Green Bek
(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 m 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 improvemems (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
opuon, 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
and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the
Applicant, at its option.
10
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
preservation plan shall be filed with the County to accompany these proffers. The preservation plan
shall 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 the 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 Pork 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 constmctiun of improvements on parcel B-7. The
purpose of planting additional trees in this area will be to provide screening to adjoining residences.
VIH. 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 ftre 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 located 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 fzre 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
k 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.
11
IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT
9. ! 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 mn with the Property and each reference ro 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:
MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC.
By:
Title:
MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
By:
Title:
12
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __
1995, by ,
Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation.
My cormmission expires:
day of
of the University of Virginia Real
ISEAL] Notary Public
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi~ __
1995, by
My commission expires:
· day of
· on behalf of UREF Research Park, Inc.
[SEAL] Notary Public
13
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __
1995,
by
My commission expires:
[SEAL] Notary Public
day of ,
of the Motion Control Industries, Inc.
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1995, by
My commission expires:
day of
, on behalf of Microaire Surgical Instruments, Inc.
[SEAL] Notary Public
U:~2588\1995DOC%NORFRZCC.DOC
14
Albemarle Cmmly
Pl~aming D~parmlent
,4lin: Mr. Ron Koeler
4419 Chi'is Greene lake Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
March 20, 1996
I)uat- Mr. Koelm-:
I believe several issues are still unresolved concerning file UILEF North Fork
Industrial/Business Park. Some of the Lake Acres residents are still qnite worried about this
proposal. But. I feel lhe`se` issues will alTect all residents of the county, especially the North 29
residents. These issues were raised in our original letter dated Jan. 25, 1995 or in the pnblic
hearings.
1. The proposal is no~ phased minsnre that adequate infrastrucl~re is in place before the
ncxl phase begins. We m'e ,giving away 3 milliou square l?oot of dcvcloplneut rights and hope it
take`s 20-30 years lo bnild. If {JREF gets a big tenant requiring 50f),00t) sq. fl., tile Park may build
out in 5 years, nol 20 years. The dcvc, lopment must be phased by building size totals to ensure the
comuy has adequate roads, schools, waler supply, and sewe`r services in place to handle this growth.
2. Thc UREF Industrial Park will drive Ihe dcvck)pmcnt in the Ilollymcad/Piney Mountain
areas. We eau not allow developmeut wilbotl! the sew roads being in place first. VDOT is
concerned that the UREF phasing developments may precede the actual road improvements
(VDOT Itt. Oct. 10, 1995 copied in your report m the Planning Commission}. As maoy people uso
these roads including airport traffic, URF~ should include lhe VDOT guidelines as proffers.
VDOT strongly reconwaended that Please 2 not proceed until Route 649 is widened and
improvements made to the Roole 649/Ronte 29 intersection. Yet, 1 FRFF proposed the next phase
to begin if the roads pro~ide service level "D" or better. I suggest that service level "D" is
unacceptable to the residents and people using the airport. The River Heights developer is being
bold to ~raffic ser,4ce level "C", and the UREF Park should be held to the same standard.
3. Tbe possibility et'fire or explosion in a medical laboratory has riel been adequately
addressed in my opinkm. I~EF has donated 5 acres, but life fig building musl meet their design
guidelines. I hope this is change~l m the lalcsl proltbrs, sod I IREF will donate money to the
hifilding, a truck, m' firemen basic equipment (appro~mately, $1,500 per voluot~r as a low figure).
4. Water issu~ and North Fm'k poltuliowwatorstmd are still a concern. 'fho drink'mg water
supply intake tbr the North Fork river is just below the stormwater dumping areas into the rivers.
There; will bc cat' oil at~d li;rtitiz~:l poiiutiou be`lng put inlx~ the river just belbre` it is laken out
courtly drinking consumption. This issue must be addressed 14~lher by stall-' and [JREF to prolrect
thc health of all rcsidems and bushxesses who rely on safe` watch
5. Seats available in our t 'mmty School S}~lem has never been looked at in evaluating
dcve`J, opcr proposals, lIo~vcver, s~illt si, mat,y ac~ rzsidcnt~ ixv-t,dgt-ating for Ihe Industi/al Park,
lack el:school capability tb'r new students must be addressed by Ihe Planning Staff. Hollymead and
Broadus Wood Schools are, ahnosl at cat)acity, and file uclv elementary school (hopefully in the Rt.
29 Ngrth as'ca) is not scheduled Io ope`n until 201){). It may handle the` currenl growlh projections,
bu~700 new students. I believe lhis is an issue very important tt3 most county residents.
l'haok you li)r your time`. I k)ok li)rwat'd Io hearing lix)m
?
/
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEAGUE OF WOME~ ~OTERS
FEBRUARY 21, 1996
2MA-95-04 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATIO~ N.
BUSINESS PARK
FORK
We are limiting our comments tonight to the one substan-
tive issue that does not seem to be adequately addressed--
water usage and its twin, sewage disposal.
We are c~ncerned that the application has no requirements
for the phasing of development of the propert~ to match in-
fras~ucture availability and caoacity--a requirement that the
Planning Commission earlier had asked for.
According to the Planning C~mmission~s minutes (12/19/95),
Mr. Cilimberg addressed this question when he said,"There
is a certain level to which they can develop under current
circumstances and then under subsequent improvements and we
felt that is a phasing in and of itself".
We would like to know more about the what, where, and cost
of those improvements and the circumstances, because water
customers will be picking up the bill. And we do understand
that many of the improvements will be necessary because of
pressures of growth regardless of the requirements of the
N. Fork project.
For instance, while water is presently available from
the N.F. Rivanna River and Chris Greene and will be, around
2015, from Buck Mt., the N.F. water treatment plant (WTP)
is limited to two million gallons a day of finished water.
Unless major changes are made concerning the future of that
treatment plant, its 2 mgd treatment capacity limits the avail-
ability of water.
It would have been helpful to have had a review of those
"improvements", Mr. Cilimberg alluded to and under what cir-
cumstances would they become necessary. Upgrading the N. Fork
~--page 2---
Treatment Plant to meet Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) !m-
provemer~ts is one, which is included in the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority's(RWSA) Capital Improvements Program 1995-
2015($402,000.) Also included is $2,300,OO0. for the expansion
of the S.F. Rivanna Water Treatment Plant from 8mgd to t2mgd.
Overlooked we believe, is the limitation placed uoon
development by the capacity of the Camelot Water Treatment
plant, which is only 365,000 gpd. It will not be replaced.
An April 1995, letter from the Albermarle County Service
Authority(ACSA) to the planning staff disclosed that there is
still approximately 250,000 gpd available in the plant..
"This will be used on a first come, first served basis," the
letter stated.
Two alternatives have been discussed in the oast, each
with a price tag of over $7 million. Therefore, in the short
term, regardless of the amount of r~w water available or water
treatment capacity, disposal of waste~ater may be the imme-
diate limiting factor for developmant.
So Mr. Cilimberg was probably correct. We wonder, however,
whether infrastructure will k~p pace v~th development or will
there come a day when we must have a moratorium because of
water shortage or lack of sewer capacity?
We have an uneasy feeling that we might have received
more helpful and complete answers, which would have lent more
certainty to all this, if we had onl~ asked the riEht questions!
Thank you
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of
Major Proffers and Zoning Application Plan Commitments
February 7. 1996
· Development limited to 3.0 million sE
· Timing limits on when hotel and support commemial can be developed.
· Density caps on hotel, support commercial and general office.
· Undeveloped area no less than 200 acres.
· Prepare and place on property declaration of covenants and restrictions
· Master stormwater management system
· Open space system
· Limit on large water users of 125,000 gallons per day.
· Dedication of firestation site.
· Requirement to provide hazardous materials training.
· Traffic improvements tied to development densities.
· Dedication of 100' greenway along the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
· Dedication of ballfields at terms acceptable to county.
· Creation and implementation of a preservation plan of the historic cemetery site.
· Land use restrictions regulated by land use matrix on the Zoning Application Plan.
· Significant buffers around the entire property with requirement to add plantings to enhance
screening.
· Commitment that UREF will maintain a seat on the Park's design review committee.
· Submission of progress reports to the County every three years.
Note: Additional detail is provided in the following attachment.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
February 7. 1996
DEMONSTRATION OF LONG TERM COMMITMENT
· Proffered to develop Covenants & Restrictions governing quality. & use that run with
the land.
· Proffered that UREF maintains seat on Design Review Committee,
· Proffered Maintenance of Common Areas by UREF or 'a duly authorized organization.
like a homeow~ner's association.
· Proffered progress report to Planning Commission every three years
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
· Total Area:
· Total Square Feet
*Proffered Max/mum Support Commercial
Proffered Maximum General Office
110,000 SF
2,300,000 SF
525 Acres
3.000.000 Proffered
*Proffered Maximum ( 1 ) Hotel of lesser of 190,000 SF or 250 rooms
Note: 500,000 SF must be developed before hotel or flee standing commercial may be in
service, unless County approves earlier development for hotel In un case will support
commercial exceed 10% of the current phase of development.
All land use locations governed by Land Use Matrix on Zoning Application Plan.
UNDEVELOPED AREAS
Rivarma Greenbelt:
Buffers At Property Edge:
Other Common Areas:
Developed Recreational Areas:
Proffered 200 acre minimum described below:
· Natural state bul for trails and necessary utility
connections. Includes connecnons to property
edges to connect with adjacent tracts.
· Conveyed to County as a gift for public use at
County's option.
May clear brush, supplement landscaping and
provide project signage, walls, etc. at park
entrances. Agreed to enhance visual screening
capability of Lot B-7 buffer and other buffer
areas at County's reasonable request.
· Agreed to develop open space system (trails and
picnic areas) in three phases for tenant use.
Active recreation areas available to park
residents. May be conveyed to County at terms
acceptable to the County.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Two
CEMETERY/ICE PIT PROFFER:
FIRE STATION SITE PROFFER:
HAZMAT TR~MNING PROFFER:
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PROFFER:
WATER CONSERVATION
PROFFER:
Proffered ro develop and implement a preservation
plan for these facilities.
Up ro 5 acres of northern portion of Lot D or some
other mutually satisfactory site. Available to County,
ar its option.
Provide Hazrnat Training for up ro 3 years, with
training sessions offered twice each year
Agreed to phased developmem of a Regional Plan
which includes developmem of regional facilities
and BMPs and includes Raw Water Intake drainage
area.
Limited facility use to 125,000 gallons per day (ave.
daily usage) without need for special exception
permit from County.
DEVELOPMENT PHASING PROFFERS:
Phase 1 Development Limitations:
Maximum SF /Road A Access):
Maximum SF ~Route 606 Accessj :
Traffic Proffers:
Traffic Improvements:
Access by Road A at Rte. 29 and Route 606
635,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
85.000 SF.
345,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
25,000 SF; Office limited to 120,000 SF.
Ail complete by end of Phase although VDOT can
accelerate if need shown by traffic study. Similarly,
Applicant can postpone improvements if VDOT is
satisfied that expected need is not present. These
principles apply to all traffic proffers in each phase.
· Northbound mm lane on Route 606 to Quail
Run.
Signalization of Route 29 / Road A intersection
· Intersection improvements to Rte. 29 and Road
A.
· Improve Rtes. 29 649 intersection through
construction or $ t 00,000 conU/bution whichever
is less. At County's option can redeploy
resources to expedite funding of widening Route
649.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
NORTII FORK BUSINESS PARK
Summary of Proffers/Zoning Application Plan
Page Three
Phase H Development Limitations:
Maximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers:
Traffic Improvements:
Phase III Development Limitations:
3daximum Cumulative Total SF:
Traffic Proffers and Improvements:
Access via Route 29: Route 649 and Route 606.
1.568,000 SF Total; Support Commercial limited to
li 0,000 SF: Office limited m 1.068.000 SF.
Same note in Phase [ applies.
· Make connection of Road A to Rte. 649 with 4
lanes by end of Phase.
· Improve Rte. 649 Road A intersection and
signalize as warranted.
All access points already operational
3,000,000 SF Total: Suppor~ Commercial limited to
1 i0,000 SF; Office limited to 2~300.000 SF.
Design and construct third southbound lane on
Route 29, or at County's option use funds To suppor~
grade separated interchange ar Road A/Route 29
entrance. Applicant will also contribute right of way
for interchange at Road A/Rte. 29 entrance when
such interchange is built.
Environmental 29 12-passenger vans {about 340 people)
15 HOV parking spaces
Educational
Junior Achievement
Book Buddies
Educational Programs
Educational Support Policy
50 volunteers in Project Business
15 volunteers
free to area schools
one paid day off per year
Financial Impact
payroll
local taxes
local car dealers
$44 mi~on
$367,049
$2.8mfl~on
Financial Contributions
United Way $63,626
Day of Caring Volunteers: 42
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging
Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Piedmont Virginia Commtmity College
Virginia Foundation for Independen Colleges
Various local non-profit organizations
$10,000
$7,50O
$5, OO0
$3,000
$24,925
Apdl 9, 199~6
& PLIED SCIENCE
DEFARTMENT OF MECHANICAL. AEROSPACE
AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
University of Virtonia
Thornton Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442
804/924--7421 FAX: 804/982-2037
TDD: 804/982-HEAR
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I would like to outline my role as a professor and department chairman who will have a relationship with
Morion Control Industries and MicroAire Surgical Instruments - the brake pad R & D and surgical
instrument firms which will locate at the North Fork Business Park.
As a department chair, I continuously am looking for means to improve the academic and research efforts
of my department. Ventures with forward-looking aggressive companies like Motion Control and
MicroAire are very important to our program for at least four reasons.
Positive relationships with companies allow us to enhance and expand our graduate programs.
Our relarionships with companies like Motion Control and MicmAire wilt assist us ih the
recrnitmea~t and retention of world class faculty in that there ,[viii be a natural path for
collabemfive research efforts.
As State and Federal funds continue to dwindle, relationships with companies like Motion
Control and MicmAireo will take on much more financial significance to our educational system.
Most importantly, industries like these will have a posirive impact on our academic programs.
This year our department initiated a new cooperative education program in which our
undergraduate students have opportunities to gain "real-world" industrial experience while at
UVa. Motion Control has indicated that they will join this effort. Such local industries thus can
supplement our classroom education.
Moreover, we at the University can help the local industries. For example, the Engineering School's work
in composite materials and other topics applies directly to Motion Control's desire to create a better
product.
Overall, the research park will allow ns to have the kind of enhanced relationship with the private sector
which only can oc.c. ur by having such industries in the University's hackyard. The University's two largest
regional comperitors in Engineering are Virginia Tech and North Carolina State, both very fine
Universities. Both ofthese locations have large ve~j successful and growing research parks, with only
positive effects to the Universities and communities. (One should note that Research Triangle Park, NC is
one of the largest and much larger than could be supported in Albemarle). If the University is to maintain
its world-class standing, it will have to improve its relations with the ptivate sector,
Chair. Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Hanning Commission
From: League of Women Voters
Re:
ZMA-95-04 University Real Estate Foundation North Fork Business Park
The League of Women Voters has consistently advocated citizen involvement in the
legislative process and for the sustainable allocation and stewardship of our natural resources.
We commend thc University Real Estate Foundation for its sincere effort to work with the
community, which has resulted in proffers that reflect responses to public concerns.
However, there remains one issue that, it may seem, we continue to harp upon - the impact of
this project and others in the North Fork Rivauna Service Area on the infrastructure necessary
for water supply and sewage treatment and disposal for the whole Charlottesville/Albemarle
County urban area~
One of the proffers, "Proffer 4.4 Water Conservation", proposes thata use which will require
more than 125,000 Gallons Per Day average daily ¢ousumpfion must obtain a special use
permit which the County may issue ff it finds suftieient capacity exists. A major problem is
that the proffer does not address the cumulative water usage by companies that use less than
125,000 GPD. According to this proffer, it appears that it will be County responsibility to
determine whether sufficient capacity exists not only for the North Fork Business Park and
for others in the North Rivanna service area, but also for all the development in the entire
urban area.
While the Density Proffer (Proffer 5) provides a development schedule, based on
transportation needs, as far as we can tell, there exists no requirement for the phasing of the
development to match water and sewer infrastructure gapa¢ity, providing that ixzfi~tructure is
the responsibility of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA). The RWSA and ACSA must treat the combination of the
South Fork Rivanna and North Fork Pdvauna systems as a single water supply for both the
city and the county urban area. The South Rivanna system (Observatory and South Rivauna
water treatment plants) currently serves the urban area up to Airport Road. North Fork
Rivarma serves properties north to G.E. and Piney Mountain. When the North Fork supplies
become limited (under 2 MGD) a pumping station on the South Rivamia will be necessary to
supplement the North Rivanna system. These upgrades will be at the Service Authority's
:..a non-.partisan organization We~Cicatear to the.promotion of inforraeW a~ active j~artici, pation of citlzens in ~?overnment.'
expense as will be the costs of providing puiitping and a gravity sewer system to Moore's
Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant when capacity of the Camelot sewage treatment plant is
reached. These expensive improvements are ultimately paid for by ACSA customers.
By 2015, the safe yield of the combined systems will be only 15.8 MGD, down from today's
19.2 MGD. Sedimentation will cause the South Rivauna's safe yield to decrease from today's
11.8 MGD to 8.4 MGD in 2015.
Demand in 2015, according to RWSA's consultants Black and Veatch, will be about 14.6
MGD, necessitating that Buck Mountain be "operational" by 2012. We should note that the
"demand" figures represent only "average daily demand", not the peak demand on which
utilities size their facilities. For instance, average daily demand today is about 11.5 MGD but
peak demand has reached as much as 14 MGD. Authorities will tell you that during half-time
of TV football games, the demand for water surges. To provide for peak flow, local utilities
provide not only extra storage capacity but may very possibly move up the date for Buck
Mountain. RWSA says that the earliest would be 2003, based on seven years lead time.
According to the staff report, the Density Proffer would allow build out of the business park
sometime around 2010 - 2015. University Real Estate Foundation has estimated water usage
of between 400,000 to g00,000 GPD. Current North Fork demand is about 250,000 GPD. The
projected build out occurs about the time that the supply for the North Fork Rivanna area and
the whole urban system is down to the 15.8 MGD capacity mentioned earlier. Meanwhile,
demand will be rising not only in the North Fork Rivauna area but also in the growing
development south of the city.
The County's Master Water and Sewer Study, Table 4, P. 17, summarizes the projected
demand for water and sewer services for the North Rivanna, South Rivauna and Observatory
Water Treatment Plants and the Camelot and Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Although their figures are estimates, they are based on current growth and development
patterns. We believe they show that until Buck Mountain is operational, there will be a period
within the next 10 - 12 years when there may be a scramble to get in line for water service,
particularly since the ACSA has a first-come first-serve policy. Of course, Chris Greene Lake
may yield more than Black and Veatch predicts, or the Conservation Plan, which the
community must put in place to satisfy regulatory requirements, may decrease demand.
Certainly these variables will give us more time.
However, there was one factor in all this that Black and Veatch did not know about: that is
the time it takes the city and the ACSA to argue over share of the costs each pays. There are
some of us who remember that it took months of sometimes acrimonious debate before the
two could agree on how they would share the cost of buying the land for Buck Mountain.
Faced with a 26 rm~lion dollar price tag for Buck Mountain alone, the cost of the
infrastructure necessary for growth may take more than a bit of quiet discussion.
The County will have the responsibility to make sure that development does not exceed the
ability of the RWSA and ACSA to provide the infrastructure necessary for development, not
only in this area. but in all areas that share the utilities' water and sewer services.
Citiz6ns for Albemarle
April 9, 1996
I am Karen Dame, speaking on behalf of a community-wide volunteer organization,
Citizens for Albemarle.
The impact of the UREF North Fork project on the resources of Albemarle County is
the overarching issue for this community. 'I would like to focus your attention for a
moment on the projecgs population impact.
As convenient basis for discussion, legs
look at a few calculations forl0f00,0 (10K) square feet of work
space.
(That is a space the size of the cafeteria in Albemarle High School.
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
How many employees might be expected to work in 10K sq ft of space?
A manual used by VDoT to project traffic impacts (the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation manual) provides esti. mat'es of the numbers of
employees typically generated by different types of workspaces.
Office_ _ space._ generates. 40 emvlovees[lOK sa ft .
Industrial' s'phce generates
13 en~Pl0Yees/10K sq ft
x 3 shifts
= 39~ e-~ll~t 40 employees[lOK sq ft
So, for office and/or industrial spa~e, we're talking 40 employees/10K sq ft.
2
Citizens for AIbemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
To staff new industries in the North Fork Park, how m~ny employees are apt to be
recruited from otttside the community?
We have to guess, but to make the guess a realistic one, let's take the example of
North Fork's first business owner. As reported to the Board of Supervisors on
February 21, 1996, the new compan_v brought alon~ 33% of its workfo.rce, and when
attempts were tmsu~cessf,1 to hire the other 67% locally, the business recruited.
thb~e workers statewide.
So, if we were to adopt an optimistic View for our projections ~_ased on nothing but
~, we might assume that future businesses will hold out for-at least 25?0 local --
personnel. Using that figure, which is more generous than the actual experience to
date, we find that 75% of the park's employ.ees could end up being recruited to
Albemarle from outside the area, despite. .~ntentions to do otherwise.
@ 40 employees/10K sq ft
x 75%'~recruitment
= 30 recruited employees/10K sq ft
----600 recruited'employees per 200,000 sq
rec _ited em. ployees per 500,000 sq
and ultimately
_9~,000 re_cmited employees for the 12,00_0 jobs created at build-out _
~ by 3M sq ft of development.
In other words, ~9,000 new~people w.ill be, recruited to the county_ in order to
~create 3,000 jobs for existing residents.
3
citiz~ens £orAlbemarlc, PO Box 3751. Chafloltes~illc, VA 22903.961-3123
How many new households will these 9,000 recruits represent?
Even. if we say, for the sake of cautibus figuring, that'every recruited employee will
shar~ a household with another recruited employee, we looking at a minimum of
4,50fl new households for'efi~'loyees recruited to 3Msq ft.
Surely, we can agree that this would be-the minimum number;.ksome portion of' the
recruits will act,ally b.e sir~gle and another portion will bring partners along with
th'h'h~m whohave not be~n r~_ruited to jobs at the industrial park. (By the way, how
manv_~___ of. those unrecruited partners., will compete with. local .residents' for existm.'~'~''
jobs in the communily. Will the_re be a displacement rate? in~c_creased pressure on
th~ already "un..derem~loyed?") ' '
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Chark)ttesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
Back to the subject of population,
In their Comp Plan projections, county staff have recently cited the _average
ht2~oh.~__o~. ~i,~o in A lhornnsqo ~5_2.3 individuals. Using that multiplier, our
mini.mum of
4~500 new households~recmited for 3M sq ft of new industry
x 2.3 persons per household
= ?,350 new residents from recruitment/3M sq ft
~_ut the North Fork development, staff have nmleeted Albemarlo'~ pnp,l~6tm
gro~w-~t -at 20,000~esidents over the ne~ct 20'years. :Fh~ir projections do not include'
ihe iml~a~c~t-of-clo~-~ling our annual volume commercial ~industrial expansion,
which is what this application in its pr~s'ent form. would more than do.
As you can see, th__e new park: a~ e, rr~mly profforred, represents--at a minimurn-a
5~0.% increase in population impact, 30,000 new residents instead of 20,000.
5
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 22903, 961-3123
Our request is now and has been that you hold tightly the commtmity's opportunity
to respond to the impact of this project as it unfolds. Themagnitude of the project
described in this rezoning application, or any project like it, simply demands more
ma~nagement than would be aooropriate to a small-scale project. We advocate
further deterral of't~'applica~i~)n until after proposed ~hanges to the zoning
(~rdinance have been made. Specifically, we.support the proposal tot specaal-use
permit review for all industrial uses abox, e a certain size. In determining the
company size that should trigger such a permit process, recall from the projections
above, that new industry of 25, 000 sq ft brings 100 new employees,, representing .a
mi_._uimum of 50 households aBd 11~ md_~yTdual_sc Furthermore, a current special
permit requirement for industrial uses of private water supplies in excess of 400
gallons per day should be expanded to include industrial users on public water
above a certain threshold volume. The threshold would need to be examined,
however tl3e applicant% p. roposal of~1~25;000 gallons per user per day sounds very
hi,~,h when one considers that 125,000 gallons is one-half of the the total daily usage
of North Rivanna water treatment capacity at this time.
You may quibble over the population estimates we have presented above, but the
fact is they are as good as anyone can give.at this time. They may one day prove to
be have been ultraconservative_ _. or overbl0~n~ but until we can determine which
they are, oy.9_E must reserve Oversight po~ers' for this mammoth venture. PErhaps
the next three businesses in. the parl~ will hire 100% from local residents. That
would seem to be a development in the best interests of today's community.
However, !f those,_ar~' _tech comp_ani~si~we will need_ to determine whether the
local hires, have simply migrated from similar jobs .at the Uniyersity to higz_her-
pa..v~ng priv__gte ~eotor jobs at the park. causing the Universi _ty labs to have to do the
statewide recruiting and no net improvement in the employmenl opportunities ~_or
local residents.
We__~v_e not_heard this community exp_ ress,e, eF'any support for governmental
d?isions that would wittingly create an optional 50% increase in our pop-~lation
abbve~and beyond, pro,ieetion~ for the next two decades. What we do hear over and
over again that on~q~ne wants our county to develo~ ~e attributes o'~a Fairfax
County. But the el~m~hts for that are all built int(~ this North Fork project as it
stands today. If several 125,000~gallon-per-day users push our North Rivanna
Treatment facility to its cuFrent maximum capacity, who will pay for the new
i~nfras_tmcture needed to pump from the ~outh Rivanna plant tc~ the North or to
improve the North Rivannayieid by secl~menting san~l from the water before it is
h'_eated. The costs for these ~'o,,~,~t. ed ,~ods_Lofor infrastructure impr~)vements,' ~s
we~-e~as f~or road~ and schools,and community services will be transferred to ~he the
res~he com_.txlll.~ity. Furthermore, it ~e arS'successful in dix, erting the
majority of new households away from the rural areas and into designated growth
areas, then we know already that we will have. a shortfall for infrastructure
6
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesvillc, VA 22903, 961-3123
expenses, because we know already that every dollar of growth-areas taxmoney costs
more~han a dollar in services. W_e know-----these things already. ~ tiffs large-s~-~Eh~
rezonine becomes a pivotal~moment in this county's history. If we turn our lovel~
Albemarle ~nto a Fmrfax, there will b~lo point to, like thru one,
where we could have known better and could have set the course differently. Let us
not make that"~mistake. .. -
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Dame
7
Citizens for Albemarle, PO Box 3751, Charlottesville, VA 229(B, 961-3123
April 9, 1996
& APPLIED SCIENCE
DEPARTME~ Ot~MECI-MNICAL, AE~RO. SPAC£
AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING'
University of Virg/nia
Thornton Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442
804/924-7421 FAX: 804/982-2037
TDD: 80~a982-HEAR
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I would like to outline my role as a professor and department chairman who Will have a relationship with
Motion Control Industries and MicmAlro Surgical Instruments -- the brake pad R & D and surgical
instrument firms which will locate at the North Fork Business Park.
As a department chair, I continuously am looking for means to improve the academic and research efforts
of my department Ventures with fonvard-looking aggressive companies like Motion Controt and
MicroAira are very important to our program for at least foul' reasons.
Positive mlatiouships with companies allow us to enhance and expand our graduate programs.
Our relationships with companies like Motion Control and MicmAixe will assist us ih the
recruitment and retention of world class faculty in that there will be a natural path for
collaborative research efforts.
As State and Federal funds continue to dwindle, relationships with companies like Motion
Control and MicroAire. will take on much more financial significance to our educational system.
Most importantly, indnstri~s like these will have a positive impact on our academic programs.
This year our department initiated a new cooperative education program in which our
undergraduate students have opportunities to gain "real-world" industrial experience while at
UVa. Motion Control has indicated that they will join this effort. Such local industries thus can
supplement our classroom education.
Moreover, we at the University can help the local industries. For example, the Engineering School's work
in composite materials and other topics applies directly to Motion Control's desire to create a better
product.
Overall, the research park will allow ns to have the kind of enhanced relationship with the private sector
which only can ~.~ by having such industries in the Uhivei~ity's backyard. The University's two largest
regional competitors in Engineenng are Virginia Tech and North Carolina State, both very fine
Universities. Both of these locations have large x;e~y successful and growing research parks, with only
positive effects to the Universities and communities. (One should note that Research Triangle Park. NC is
one of the largest and much larger than could be supported in Albemarle). If the University is to maintain
its world-class standing, it will have to improve its relations with the private sector.
Chair, Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia
To:
Alb~marl¢ County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
From: League of Women Voters
Re: ZMA-95-04 University Real Estate Foundation North Fork Business Park
The League of Women Voters has consistently advocated citizen involvement in the
legislative process and for the sustainable allocation and stewardship of our natural resources.
We commend the University Real Estate Foundation for its sincere effort to work with the
community, which has resulted in proffers that reflect responses to public concerns.
However, there rvmaius one issue that, it may seem, we continue to b~p upon - the impact of
this project and others in the North Fork Rivauna Service Area on the infrastructure necessary
for water supply and sewage treatment and disposal for the whole Charlottesville/Albemarle
County urban area.
One of the proffers, "Proffer 4.4 Water Conservation", proposes that a use wMch will require
more than 125,000 Gallons Per Day average daffy consumption must obtain a special use
permit which the County may issue if it finds sufficient capacity exists. A major problem is
that thc proffer docs not addrcas thc cumulafivc water usage by companies that usc less than
125,000 GPD. According to this proffer, it appears that it will be County responsibility to
determine whether suffioient capacity exists not only for the North Fo~k Business Park and
for others in the North Rivanna service area~ but also for all the development inthe entire
urban area.
While the Density Proffer (tYoffer 5) provides a development schedule, based on
transportation needs, as far as we can tell, there exists no requirement for the phasing of the
development to match water and sewer infrastructure capacity. Providing that infrastruoture is
the responsibility of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA). The RWSA and ACSA must treat the combination of the
South Fork Rivanna and North Fork Rivarma systems as a single water supply for both the
city and the county urban area. The South Rivauna system (Observatory and South Rivanna
water treatment plants) currently serves the urban area up to Airport Road. North Fork
Rivanna serves properties north to G.E. and Piney Mountain. When the North Fork supplies
become limited (under 2 MGD) a pumping station on the South Rivaana will be necessary to
supplement the North Rivauna system. These upgrades will be at the Service Authority's
non:partisan organization c&t~icatec~ to the.promotion of tnforrnecf ancf active.parttc~ation of citizens tn government.'
expense as will be the costs of providing pumping and a gravity sewer system to Moore's
Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant when capacity of thc Camelot sewage treatment plant is
reached. These expensive improvements are ultimately paid for by ACSA customers.
By 2015, the safe yield of the combined systems will be only 15.8 MGD, down fxom today's
19.2 MGD. Sedimentation will cause the South Rivauna's safe yield to decrease from today's
11.$ MOD to 8.4 MGD in 2015.
Demand in 2015, acxording to RWSA's consultants Black and Veatch, will be about 14.6
MGD, necessitating that Buck Moun~4.n be ~operafional' by 2012. We should note that thc
"demand" figures represent only "average daily demand", not thc peak demand on which
utilities size their facilities. For instance, average daily demand today is about 11.5 MOD but
peak demand has reached as much as 14 MGD. Authorities will tell you that during half-time
of TV football games, the demand for water surges. To provide for peak flow, local utilities
provide not only extra storage capacity .but may very possibly move up the date for Buck
Mountain. RWSA says that the earliest would be 2003, based on seven years lead lime.
According to the staff report, the Density Proffer would allow build out of the business park
sometime around 2010 - 20t5. University Real Estate Foundation has estimated water usage
of between 400,000 to 800,000 GPD. Current North Fork demand is about 250,000 GPD. The
projected build out occurs about the lime that the supply for the North Fork Rivauna area and
the whole urban system is down to thc 15.8 MGD capacity m~nfioned earlier. Meanwhile,
demand will be rising not only in the North Fork Rivanna area but also in the growing
development south of the city.
The County's Master Water and Sewer Study, Table 4, P. 17, summarizes the projected
demand for water and sewer services for the North Rivatma, South Rivanna and Observatory
Water Treatment Plants and the Camelot and Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Although their figures are estimates, they are based on current growth and development
patlerrts. We believe they show that until Buck Mountain is operational, there will be a period
within the next 10 - 12 years when there may be a scramble to get in tine for water service,
particularly since the ACSA has a first-come first-serve policy. Of course, Chris Greene Lake
may yield more thaffBlack and Yeatch predicts, or the Conservation Plan, which the
community must put in place to satisfy regulatory requirements, may decrease demand.
Certainly these variables will give us more time.
However, there was one factor in all this that Black and Veatch did not know about: that is
the time it takes the city and the ACSA to argue over share of the costs each pays. There are
some of us who remember that it took months of sometimes acrimonious debate before the
two could agree on how they would share the cost of buying the land for Buck Mountain.
Faced with a 26 million dollar price tag for Buck Mountain alone, the cost of the
infi~tmcture necessary for growth may take more than a bit of quiet discussion.
The County will have the responsibility to make sure that development does not exceed the
ability of thc RWSA and ACSA to provide thc infi'astrucmre necessary for development, not
only in this area. but in all areas that share the utilities' water and sewer services.
4419 Clu~ C~==n= Lake
ChartottesMtle. VA 2291
April 4. 1996
Dcar Nfl'. Jared Loewenstein:
Thank you for discussing the UP._EF No~& Fork Park x~dth me on thc phone this wzck. S;,n::
will be out of town on Aprii 9th. i have put some of roy concerns m wmm~ to you. When titc Bu,,~,
Supc~4sors changed the Comprehensive Plan in December !994 fee ~: 300 acres oxx,'ned l~..- LT~F.
d~c public protested. We were told by the Board that the ~ issues of water availability. North Fork
~,~ po!lution. Nomh Fork watershed iss2es, sewerage, public roadk school population effects, fire
protection, and protection o£ exisnng ne'~m_,hborhoods would be addressed at rezmmg. UiULF says k
be a good nei_~bor and will qtrh:e lbr excellen1 development and tenants. However. the county
Plaeming Commission must look at ~ the facts and impacts on the whole cotmty, nol just easm'c a
~om remm mr the deYeloper,'owner. This rezonmg request will snowball quickb, and cream a
congested urban area against the wishes of the northern citizens. Ouly the developers are pus~ for
expanded ~owth in the Rt 29 North area fi-om Forest Lakes South up to Pin~., Mountain. The local
residents have often presented their vi.sion of .Albemarle County a! thc public hearing. You. as pa~ of
the Plamfing Comnussion. mum represem all the coun~ citizens and make the informed and hard
decisions concemino~ our ~ture and qualily ofli~e. -'-
t think m~ coum? snoaid look at mc Unpact of univcrsi _ty-sponsored Business Parks in othcr
c,mmu~fies, so we m~, better understand the possible impacts we ma5' face here in Albemarle.
Stonebridge Associates have ix:eh retained by UREF for the North Fork Park. Smnebridge Associates
d~.~eeloped the Bus{ness Park knorm as Forrestal Center for PrLnceton UniversiW in New Jersey. !
called the auamgc~rnem of ForrestaI Center £ot informauon. Forrestal Cen~r is $ million sq. ft.
Althou~_Jl it has existed for 20 years most of the buitdin~ were constructed in the mid- 19RO's I! is
or, ned by Pt4atce~on Utfivcm~ty and [i't~ tcnan~ tmvc long leases. Thc w;o largest tenant~ arc Merrill
1.ouch ~ t .2 million so. ll ~ aha South {6011.0110 so. I1. ).
.', NSncettm Realtor agreed t~ rm~s[ of Yorrcslal Comer was built over a few 5.,'ears k, the
[gg0's. He eslimated that 60%,-7oo~a et the local houmng was buill ~n the lam 15 years, l:le ,~rovided tht
Median MousehotO Income
Jownhouse~ Houses Cosl Rang~
$I 50.000-$600,000
~i25.000-$650.000
.'S!
Ms. Jodie WeOber ~ 0au~q~aer of 5'Irs. MaDor~e Wehner -retired p~5_~ci..nal of Broadus Wood
Schooll Iix, ed itl West-WIndsor 1?om 1986 to, 15~4. She spoke m thc Board of Supm'~isors pubiic
hearth, in Feb. 1996 Her rem estate tax bill on a 3-~edroom home rose Irom .~2.380 m 198o to
S6.119 in 1904. a mx increa.~ of 53.739/a g } ~ar~. rye ~at~los~d mt interes*drtg letter from th~
Vv'indsor-Plainsboro. N..t. ~cncu>~ rSoatu v~'mch suo~.~ tttc entreat growth streams on thmr educattonal
:?stem They have had to build 4 elementac,- schools. I middle school and I Hig. h School in lhe l~st t
years.
UP, EF ks impb'~g thru I '2 :n, ilizn square tSzt is a small compromise for all l~eir preffcm.
what do~s L2 million sq. rt. me, an m me county l~i terms oI nnpacu' 1~ tins i, L IItiiiioII ~]. let. i$
office space, then it can accommodate up ~e 2.{!00 ~.~mp!o?.,ees: an~ would genmmt¢ anothe,- !~500
employees in supponin~ $pin-ofi'jobs~ Using tb,~ cenau:~ muhipiiers, just over itaii oi these empioy~e~
will reside in the counts', approximately 1.420 new households. Us/ne thc scho(~i nntkiplic~ i-acter_~
1 _420 hou~seholds brings 376 - 580 new elememary students to our schools. If that same ! "2 million so
ft. were all industrial space, it would generate 998 new households in the counB:, and 264 -407 ne~.
et~n~'nmrv students. Questions to ponder include where wilt people live in the count', which schools
can handtc thc new students from this 1 2 million additional space, and how will these
bu~ine~,'*e~,industrivs skew the currem wage strucn,u-e m Albemarle Courtly? GE had a huge imt~acl on
local wages when it first opened in Albemarle.
.b,:cmg some of thc imDacl on ~he [*,'ii,teton Umversiry area which was a small college town and
~. ....... j ....... . ...... ~_, . ~mk the P!a.~ ,n/ag Commission would be x~Sse to decide what thdr xision
,.. l~ur Aibemm'k CounB', Do we want to reduce and control our rapid ~owth rate? Does our vtsien
~n-hl,ae....nclAilia"nl, ..... .. qDrawl..~. ~nlrma~ ~- ~t.. .... 'm North and .Mrport Road. the enlrance con'idors to our co~B'?,.
v~ eom Itu~ .~Ou ac~. be o.,.t~, left as rural land considering it borciers the Noah Fork river? Are the
rvrnL~,~r< edeon,~*e for the eno _rm_ou? burdens ..the I_.~F North Fork Park ~Mll place on our counW? t
think the proffers are minimum and still lackhg. Stonelxidge .~ssociates and L'P,_EF do not want the
rezomm~ armrm:al done in ~hases because the counls.' ~4ll be more aware of the tree costs and would
warn much more substantial proffers tow,a'ds extenml road knprovernents, water and sewer plants, e~c.
ltm lure of m~tenu'al jobs has a hi..mh cost tm' om' county.
pr,~.~,,, ne~d improvement in these areas.
,., ~,)_a6,~_: 'v'iS, ,, ~,~ ,~oncerned tha~ the URE. F phasin~d deveiopmem~ ma.~ precede the actual
...... ,a; .... ,-,x,,'.. ..... *- '~ 'l~-~.r~.T 4-.~.q ~, ~-~ ~- l.,,,.1 ' t,-. ~,,',.- ' ~.~ ~, r, 3rl ' - ~.~ g
;a v nmac. ','O~)'l rccmranonaed Pl'msc 2 not proceed tmfil Awport Road is widene& and the Ah'pon
........... ,-mI ...... m ............................ ..-2 .....s.fi~ permits [rP~EF to
.~... ............ r.. o.' m;: ne'.';: pi~asc if ~e roa'~.- pro~Ade smMce kvet D or beuer, as I understand thc
r. uau .~:r~.-¢ Le'~o~ D seems ver~. dillicuh for the local residents and anpon traI'flc to "
for River Hmo_bm {NG-tC) has ro meet level . for his recent proposal and
,~ ...... ~ ............ ~ul~ o ..... d ~o the higi~c~ ~c, ,~,~ lcxd C a~s ~e~ to cusurc that t~.~;
~.~', ,~mams aurac£ix:e and liveable for al!.
, L*~erWood sltbdt',;IsloB on
· :14//[: arid om~r new developments. T[l~ '" ' ' ' ' Mn)cfi Road is I'~cmg 2ss~s~tt
o, t-,,n~',. [.~:._ [,...,~,~ ..... ,eOt the c,, ',.,, x .t,,...:,~ ..... .... ; ...... ~ c'~.::' '~ r' - h~,,~; ........ ,, ,,-.,,.u~'"h (j~.c,~,.,.-
iraller nal'a CT tile n~d IO orm~ [ll. lllt[~.~ tt~ L..l(J.'~l , '~'i~ Oilier nel_9_hDors i'm BlU,,e~l to tile
.... i:u'~ }'rot¢cuon: Fire protection ts not aaequate for tins site considenng th~ possibiiitv el a
dis~acn~d otfiv after eiB' fire oerso~mei are on the scm~e. The counB' has plans m pm'chase ail aen~
nn;c.~c bet? m:~ ri'nh' ne.no! ralck CU~eBTiY avaJlab}e is c?-ow'aeo UREI:' has nmilfered a ac. res .for a five
-~,uon t whicn must meet thch' des~t guideiinc~} and to pa5 Imt L ~.~,.lat etass~s ,,.urrenli3 pa
~-""~';,~ .... m.~ 'i_ raining -$35 per vohimeer.~ i sue~c~_, that 1. ~I~_'F shoutd help pay. for the fire slatirm or a
:. :~;,,, ,,,~ ;,,, ,,~., ,houI~ no, be r~quirr, d to: ,mu,~? theh' desio~ guidelines: and ITREY should contribute
towards nrefightcr personnel eqmpmem C;! 5® per volunteer)
' ' Water: ~ n~ ~.~, ..... gal water zap hc~ms '~'crx hig,5. A lower cap of 60.000 gallons x;ould
r~c mor~ suitaDic considering our water Sliualion 11~ tile ~./~)unt'~.
'm'a";- .. o,. fo~, -e,*~ ....... ~ u:~ en thz Planmng Cornnnssion. V& alg~reciate all thc studa' and
enort you pu~ ~orii~ on t)ehalf of .Mbemarlc resiaenls, t'hant~ you lot hearing the concerns el some
The Annual Budget Message
The budget presented for your approval in the school election
on April 20 is a maintenance budget. Although the total
budget amount is larger than the current budget, so. too, wfl]
b e the number of students enrolled tn our school~. Look at the
cost per pupil. $8.645 for this cun'etu year as compared to
$8.647 in the proposed budget: this consistency in the level
of the cost per pupil clearly demonstrates strict cost contain-
ment.
"...we must compromise tb2 future by limiting
education provided our young peop[e."
a year in the life of a child. We must provide now. There ar~
many requirements and needs that compete for our attention
and our resources. It is essential to maintain the proper
balance,
This is a critical year for the West Windsor-Plainsbero School
District. Decis/oils made by the district and the community
will influence the direction of our schools for a long time to
come. ! and the other members of the Board of Education ask
that you evaluate the proposed budget in light of the quality
education system offered and its far reaching impact on the
total community. While we are coping with the overall
problems of the economy, we must not compromise the future
by limiting the education provided our young people.
Included in the proposed 1993-94 budget are fmads for:
* S318.000 for 10 t. rafters to house our growing student
population;
* 32.5 new teaching positions:
* bilingual programs tn Chinese, Japanese. and Spa~lsh~
mandated by the state:
· the removal of in-ground tanks at the Maurice Hawk and
WicoffSchools. required by state environmental statutes, and
.conversion of these buildings to gas heat;
· a much needed addition to the library at Maurice Hawk
School;
· $ 96.000 for new math text books for grades 4 to 6, w support
curricular development designed to bring the math program
into conforrnl .ty with the National Math Standards:
· replacement lighting at the high school pool Ioriginalequip-
ment from 1973 is now cause for serious salety concernsl;
· 2.5 additional administrative positions, all of which deal
with the direct delivery of services to the students {an
assistant principal at the high school, a curriculum coordina-
tor grades K-8. and a half time assistant principal at Wicoff
School].
During this school year the dist~ct changed its health
insurance carrier which resulted in a savings of $470.000.
This savings bas been applied to the proposed budget result-
lng in a tax reduction. A surplus of funds in the Debt Service
Reserve has also been used to help offset tax increases.
It should be immediately apparent that a school district is a
unique operation. We deal with the intellectual, emotional,
and social growth of the children and at the same time operate
a large scale business with some 800 employees, a large
physicalplant, andmanysrate and federalregulations. There
is an immediacy about what we do as we can never reclaim
I do not minimize the difficult circumstances; we all face them.
,But I can assure you that our school district, yours and mine.
makes every effort to provide a quality education in the most
cost-effective manner. This is our responsibility, our obliga-
tion, and we are committed to it. We appreciate your support,
Lynn Thornton, President
Board of Education
ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS-
ACTUAl. AND PROJECTED
SOURCE: Wes! Wimlsot-P als/minim School
WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP
, ax Rate Compans~, ~~: ~.;~.~:;~.~...-: 5~ ~-;~?-;' .... :'.... ~' : 1992 Tax Le~
~- ,:- ,.~ -* 2.19.>~=~ 2.46 .... ~*~-~.~ ...... . . .~ ~
Please note: ~ law we are ~t allowed w change the due dam o~ Augu~ I~, Hoover, e~use ~ .bd~ ~ve been d~ay
We~ ~n~or T~n~i~' ~ emen~ ~e';penalW date a~'which imere~ is ch~ged W Augu~ 31. ~992.
BLUE RIDGE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER
PUBLIC HEARING GROWTH AREA EXPANSION AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT
4/17/96
Growth area expension end infi]l development is a complex endeavor when you try to
provide the correct balence in order to achieve the County's goals. In addition, public sentiment
ranges fi:om the no-growth advocates to those that favor moderate expension.
I'ra sure you have. as I do, mares of data and material as a result of the extensive staff
work end public input that guided the Planning Commission toward its final product. Rather then
deal with all facets of this issue, I would I/ke to~ instead, briefly support our position with some
critical salient facts.
About six years ago, the B.O.S, reviewed some disturb'rog data. A majority of
development was taking place in the rural areas --- sprawl. The Board (five of you were on that
board) decided that remedial measures were necessary to protect the fatal areas from sprawl and
to channel new development, both residential and commerW~al, where k would be served by
necessary infrastmctare -- water, sewer, roads. You added about 5,000 acres to the existing
growth area contiguous to the urban ring men attempt to direct growth into the proper niche.
What were the resalts? Your plan was successfol. You enacted good public policy. The
data charting building permits show a dramatic shift: with over 75% now occalrring in the growth
area. You recently- spent $25,000 on a survey of County residents. The survey showed that over
90% support the Growth Management policy you adopted. The planning staff originally
recommended about the same acreage for the next five years as they did in 1989. That has since
been reduced to only 1,800 acres in the south port/on of the urban ring by the Planning
Commission.
Why change? Why, in 1996, with concrete evidence of good public policy to protect the
rural areas, would you change directions? We believe the basic plen presented to you by the
Planning Comm/ssion is flawed.
The major emphasis is on en i,fil! policy that we believe has very good merit. However,
k will fail without regalatmy changes in the subdivision end zoning ordinences that preclude
increased densities in the growth areas.
Some impediments that preclude higher densities end infill development are as follows:
*R.O.W. for roads = 50'.
*Cul-de-sacs - 50' R.O,W. and 40' radius.
*Lots must front on public roads.
*Comer lots - extra width- fiont both roads.
*Side lot lines at right angles.
*Lots shall not be peenliarly shaped.
*S~xeet grades no more than 10%.
*Open space reqm.rements.
*Critical slope restrictions.
*Why require au open space percentage at all in the growth areas when
topography and storm water management rcqtfiremcms usually provide it?
There are many other examples that could be used. Builders and developers, however,
must plan their projects using current regulations. Changes m the subdivision and zoning
ordinances will take a year or more to implement Immediate work must be done to have any
effect on this Comprehensive Plan period.
Also, the thrust toward increos/ng densities in the growth area ignores the marketplace.
The only way to increase densities in any dramatic fashion, assuming current regulations, is
through attached housing. What the County desires and what people want is diametrically
opposed. Current demand is 75% singie-fam/ly detached housing. The key question is - how do
you separate the issue of increased densities in the growth area t~om the environment in which
people want to live?
The nexz question to be asked is- how much land is available in large enough tracts in the
growth areas at realistic prices to make development economically feasible?
Let me give yon an example of marealisfic pricing in the growth area A forty-acre tract
recently was made available for $1,000,000 or $25.000/acre. One half is unusable because of
topography, so the price is really $50,000 per acre. Now, the acreage is further depleted by
requirements for open space, R.O,W., critical slopes end storm water management. There is no
way a project could be brought to market, let alone increase densities or affect affordable housing,
at these prices.
tnfil! development should not be viewed as a means to eliminate growth area expansion
all together. A balanced plan with immediate changes tc create a meaningful infill policy and
moderate expans/on of the growth areas seems to be good public policy.
You are also undoubtedly aware that over 18.000 lots have been subdivided in the feral
area and another 50,000 parcels have by-right development potential. It is just as easy or easier to
ha/Id in the rtual areas.
W:~thout the proper number of g~owth area acres added near tl~ urban frog and served by
infrastructure, yon could be encouraging suburban sprawl. There is no magic number to handle
the 21.000 population increase over the next fifteen years; but it certainly should be more than _Just
the areas to the south which, itseli5 has development problems. The most/mportant question to
bear in mind is not what effects decisions like these will have on the region now, but rather, how it
will impact the next ten to fifteen years.
You recently showed wisdom, contrary to some public opinion, when you finally
approved the Meadowcreek Parkway, It was a sound decision based on the logic of expansion of
the northern part of Albemarle County. We encourage ~mm.ediate regulatory changes to the
Sabdivision and Zoning Ordinances to support infill development and the addition of the proper
number of acres in the growth area to prevent rmal sprawl.
You have a tough call to make. I would ask each of you to err on the side of logic and
reason and not succumb to one-dimensional arguments. I'm asking that yon do what yon feel to
b~ ~¢ correct thing -- even in the face of some public pressure tc~ preserve tim status qao. F~r the
most part, the public is not here tonight. Protect their interests the way you see it as elected
officials.
Respectfully Subrnitted
April 17, 1996
Robert F. Watson
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
BLUE RIDGE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER
PUBLIC HEARING GROWTH AREA EXPANSION AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT
4/17/96
Growth area expansion and infill development is a complex endeavor when you try to
provide the correct balance in order to achieve the County's goals. In addition, public sentiment
ranges from the no-growth advocates to those that favor moderate expansmn.
I'm sure you have. as I do, re~m~ of data and material as a msalt of the extensive staff
work and public input that guided the planning Commission toward its final product. Rather than
deal with all facets of this issue, I would like to, instead, briefly support our position with some
critical salient facts.
About six years ago, the B.O.S. reviewed some disturbing data. A majority of
development was taking place in the rural areas -- sprawl. The Board (five of you were on that
board~ decided that remedial measures were necessary to protect the rural areas from sprawl and
re channel new development, both residential and commercial, where it would be served by
necessmy infrastructure -- water, sawer, roads. You added about 5,000 acres to the existing
growth area contiguous to the urban ring in an attempt to direct growth into the proper niche.
Wlmt were the results? Your plan was successful. You enacted good public policy. The
data cha~ng building permits show a dramatic shift with over 75% now oceunSng in the growth
area. You recently spent $25,000 on a survey of County residents. The survey showed that over
90% support the Growth Management policy you adopted. The planning staff originally
recommended about the same acreage for the next five years as they did in 1989. That has since
been reduced to only 1,800 acres in the south portion of the urban ring by the planning
Commission.
Why change? Why, in 1996, with concrete evidence of good public policy to protect the
rural areas_ would you change directions? We believe the basic plan presented to you by the
Planning Commission is flawed.
The major emphasis is on an inftll policy that we believe has very good merit. However,
it will fail without regulatory changes in the subdivision and zoning ordinances that preclude
increased densities in the growth areas.
Some impediments that preclude higher densities and infill development are as follows:
*R.O.W. for roads = 50'.
*Cul-de-sacs - 50' R.O.W. and 40' radius.
*Lots must from on public roads.
*Comer lots - extra width- front both roads.
*Side lot lines at right angles.
*Lots shall no/be peculiarly shaped.
*Street grades no more than 10%.
*Open space requirements.
*Critical slope restrictions.
*Why reqmre an open space percentage at all in the growth areas when
topography and storm water management requirements usually provide it?
There are many other examples that could be used. Builders and developers, however,
must plan their projects using current regulations. Changes m the subdivision and zoning
ordinances will take a year or more to implement. Immediate work must be done to have any
effect on tkis Comprehensive Plan period.
Also, the thrust toward increasing densities in the growth area ~gUores the marketplace.
The only way to increase densities in any dramatic fashion, assuming current regulations, is
through attached housing. What the County desires and what people want is diametrically
opposed. Current demand is 75% single-f~mily detached housing. The key question is - how do
you separate the issue of increased densities in the growth area from the environment in which
people want to live?
The next question to be asked is -.how much land is available in large enough tracts in the
growth areas at realistic prices to make development economically feasible?
Let me give you en example of unrealistic pricing in the growth area. A forty-acre tract
recently was made available for $1,0013,000 or $25,000/acre. One half is unusable because of
topography, so the price is really $50,000 per acre. Now, the acreage is further depleted by
requirements for open space, R.O.W., critical slopes and storm water management. There is no
way a project could be brought to market, let alone increase densities or affect affordable housing,
at these prices.
lnfill development should not be viewed as a means to eliminate growth area expension
all together. A balanced plan with immediate changes to erea~e a meaningful infill policy and
moderate expansion of the growth areas seems to be good public policy.
You are also undoubtedly aware that over 18,000 lots have been subdivided in the rmyal
area and another 50,000 parcels have by-right development potential. It is just as easy or eas~er to
build in the rural areas.
Without the proper number of growth area acres addcd near the urban ,Srg and se~-ved by
infrustmcture, you could be encouraging suburban sprawl. There is no magic number to handle
the 21,000 population increase over the next fifteen years; but it ccrtainly should be more than just
the areas to the south which, itself; has development problems. The most important quesuon to
bear in mind is not what effects decisions like these will have on the region now, but rather, how it
will impact the next ten to fif~ean years.
You recently showed wisdom, contrary to some public opiniom when you finally
approved the Meadowereek Parkway. It was a sound decision based on the logic of expansion of
the northern part of Albemarle Coumy. We encourage immediate ragulatow changes to the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to support infill development and the addition of the proper
number of acres in the growth area to prevent nn-al sprawl.
You have a tough call to make. I would ask each of you to err on the side of logic and
reason and not succumb to one-dimensional arguments. I'm asking that you do what you feel to
be tho correct thing -cyan in ~ face of some pul>lie pressure to p~setve ~he status quo. For the
most parr, the public is not here tonight. Protect their interests the way you see it as elected
officials.
Respectfully Submitted
April 17, 1996
Robert F. Watson
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
BLUE RIDGE HOME BtlH,DERS ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER
PUBLIC HEARING GROWTH AREA EXPANSION AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT
4/17/96
Growth area expansion and infill development is a complex endeavor when you try. to
provide the correct balance in order to achieve the County's goals. In addition, public sentiment
ranges from the no-growth advocates to those that favor moderate expansion.
I'm sure you have, as I do, reams of data and material as a result of the extensive staff
work and public input that guided the Planning Commission toward its final product. Rather than
deal with all facets of this issue, I would like to, instead, briefly support our position with some
critical salient facts.
About six years ago, the B.O.S. reviewed some disturbing dam. A majority of
development was taking place in the rural areas -- sprawl. The Board (five of you were on that
board) decided that remedial measures were necessary to protect the rural areas t~om sprawl and
to channel new development, both residential and commercial, where it would be served by
necessary infimtmcture -- water, sewer, roads. You added about 5,000 acres to the existing
growth area contiguous to the urban ring in an attempt to direct growth into the proper niche.
What were the results? Your plan was successful. You enacted good public policy. The
data charting building p~units show a dramatic shif~ with over 75% now occUmng in the growth
area, You recently spem $25,000 on a survey of County residents. The survey showed that over
90% support the Growth Management policy you adopted. The planning staff originally
recommended about the same acreage for the next five years as they did in 1989. That has since
been reduced to only 1.800 acres in the south portion of the urban ring by the Planning
Commission.
Why change? Why, in 1996, with concrete evidence of good public policy to protect the
mral areas, would you change directions? We believe the basic plan presented to you by the
Planning Comm. issiort is flawed.
The major emphasis is on an in'ill policy that we believe has very good merit. However,
it will fail without regulato~ changes in the subdivision and zoning ordinances that preclude
increased densities in the growth areas.
Some impediments that preclude higher densities and infill development are as follows:
*R.O.W. for roads = 50'.
*Cul-de-sacs ~ 50' R.O.W. and40' radius.
*Lots must front on public roads.
*Comer lots - extra width- front both roads.
*Side lot lines at right angles.
*Lots shall not be peculiarly shaped.
*Street grades no more than 10%.
*Open spacc requirements.
*Critical slope restrictions.
*Why require an open space percentage at all in the growth areas when
topography and storm water management requirements ~asually provide it?
There are many other examples that could be used. Builders and developers, however,
must plan their prqiects using currem regulations. Changes to the subdivision and zoning
ordinances will take a year or more to implement. Immediate work musl be done to have any
effect on this Comprehensive Plan period.
Also, the thrust toward increasing densities in the growth area ignores the marketplace.
The only way to increase densities in any dramatic fashion, assuming current regulations, is
through attached housing. What the County desires and what people want is diametrically
opposed. Current demand is 75% single-family detached housing. The key question is - how do
you separate the issue of increased densities in the growth area from the environment in which
people want to live?
The next question to be asked is - how much land is available in large enough wac'ts in the
growth areas at realistic prices to make development economically feasible?
Let me give you an example of unrealistic pricing in the growth area. A forty-acre tract
recently was made available for $1,000,000 or $25,000/acre. One half is unusable because of
topography, so the price is really $50,000 per acre, Now, the acreage is further depleted by
requirements for open space, R.O.W,, critical slopes and storm water management. There is nc/
way a project could be brought to market, let alone increase densities or affect affordable housing,
at these prices.
Infill development should not be viewed as a means m eliminate growth area expansion
all together. A balanced plan with immediate changes to create a meaningful infill policy and
moderate expansion of the growth areas seams to be good public policy.,
You are also undoubtedly aware that over 18,000 lots have been subdivided in the rural
area and another 50,000 parcels have by-right development potential. It is just as easy or easier to
build in the rural areas.
~ Withont the proper number of growth area acres added near the 'arbau rag rind served
infrastructure, you could be encouraging suburban sprawl. There is no magic number to handle
the 2t,000 population increase over the next fifteen years; but it certainly should be more than just
the areas to the south which, itself, has development problems. The most important question to
bear in mind is not what effects decisions like these will have on the region now, but rather, how it
will impact the next ten to fifteen years.
You recently showed wisdom, conuary to some public opinion, when you finally
approved the Meadowcreek Parkway. It was a sound decision based on the logic of expansion of
the northern parr of Albemarle County. We encomage immediate regulatory changes m the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances m support infill development and the addition of the proper
number of acres in the growth area ro prevent rural sprawl.
You have a tough call to make. I would ask each of you ~o err on the side of logic and
reason and not succumb to one-dimensional arguments. I'm asking that you do what you feel to
be lhe correct thing -- even ia th~ fac~ o£ some public pressure ~o preserve the status quo. For the
most pm't, the public is not here tonight. Protect their interests the vcay you see it as elected
officials.
Respectfully Submitted
April 17, 1996
Robert F. Watson
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
Rt. 1, Box 23A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
April 17, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Charlotte Humphris
chair, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Ms. Humphris:
We write as homeowners to express our opposition to the
proposed redesignation of the land west and east of Route 631 as
a growth area. This land is of exceptional historical value. In
the mid-19th Century, it comprised the Tudor Grove farm, the
boyhood home of Colonel John Mosby, the "Grey Ghost" of the
Confederacy. After the War, Tudor Grove was the home of Colonel
Lucius Northrup, close friend of Jefferson Davis and Confederate
Commissary General.
The area has changed little since Mosby's youth. Route
631 is still a two-lane country road, popular with cyclists.
Indeed, in 1991, Route 631 was chosen as part of the course for
the Tour du Trump, now the Tour DuPont, one of the world's great
cycling events.
Albemarle County, of course, has numerous country
roads. None, however, is in such close proximity to the city of
Charlottesville, and none provides direct access to a county park
-- Walnut Creek -- itself designed as a place to escape the city.
For this reason alone, the county should safeguard the road.
Redesignation as a growth area would attract developers
and encourage the widening of Route 631, increasing traffic and
effectively eliminating the psychic benefits Route 631 presently
provides the residents of Albemarle County. In our own case, the
loss would be more immediate. Road widening and increased
traffic would deprive our home, built at the turn of the century
by Northrup's son on the site of a grove of ancient oak trees
just south of the Tudor Grove house, of all of its present
privacy and much of its economic value.
We realize that based on current projections the county
will continue to grow. We believe, however, that the public
interest would be better served by placing the burden on
developers to prove the case for expansion, rather than inviting
such expansion by creating new designated growth areas.
Retaining the present plan will not deprive the county -- i.e.,
the public -- of its power to direct growth through the review of
rezoning applications.~ But it will signal prospective
developers that the county continues to adhere to the vision of
its founders, that this place -- of spectacular natural beauty --
should not be forsaken by its custodians, but rather preserved
and cherished as a peaceful and civilized counterpoint to its
troubled and overdeveloped peers.
Sincerely,
Lindsay G. Robertson
Madeline J. Robertson
Eliza W. Robertson
1. In fact, it will preserve that power, because under current
law, if this land were redesignated for growth, the county would
effectively relinquish its right to reject any rezoning
application in the area consistent with that redesignation. In
effect, the county would tie its own hands with regard to future
rezoning applications. It is difficult to see just what benefit
the public would receive in exchange.
Rt. 1, Box 23A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
April 17, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Charlotte Humphris
Chair, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Ms. Humphris:
We write as homeowners to express our opposition to the
proposed redesignation of the land west and east of Route 631 as
a grow%h area. This land is of exceptional historical value. In
the mid-19th Century, it comprised the Tudor Grove farm, the
boyhood home of Colonel John Mosby, the "Grey Ghost" of the
Confederacy. After the War, Tudor Grove was the home of Colonel
Lucius Northrup, close friend of Jefferson Davis and Confederate
Commissary General.
The area has changed little since Mosby's youth. Route
631 is still a two-lane country road, popular with cyclists.
Indeed, in 1991, Route 631 was chosen as part of the course for
the Tour du Trump, now the Tour DuPont, one of the world's g~eat
cycling events.
Albemarle County, of course, has numerous country
roads. None, however, is in such close proximity to the city of
Charlottesville, and none provides direct access to a county park
-- Walnut Creek -- itself designed as a place to escape the city.
For this reason alone, the county should safeguard the road.
Redesignation as a growth area would attract developers
and encourage the widening of Route 631, increasing traffic and
effectively eliminating the psychic benefits Route 631 presently
provides the residents of Albemarle County. In our own case, the
loss would be more immediate. Road widening and increased
traffic would deprive our home, built at the turn of the century
by Northrup's son on the site of a grove of ancient oak trees
just south of the Tudor Grove house, of all of its present
privacy and much of its economic value.
We realize that based on current projections the county
will continue to grow. We believe, however, that the public
interest would be better served by placing the burden on
developers to prove the case for expansion, rather than inviting
such expansion by creating new designated growth areas.
Retaining the present plan will not deprive the county -- i.e.,
the public -- of its power to direct growth through the review of
rezoning applications.1 But it will signal prospective
developers that the county continues to adhere to the vision of
its founders, that this place -~ of spectacular natural beauty --
should not be forsaken by its custodians, but rather preserved
and cherished as a peaceful and civilized counterpoint to its
troubled and overdeveloped peers.
Sincerely,
Lindsay G. Robertson
Madeline J. Robertson
Eliza W. Robertson
1. In fact, it will preserve that power, because under current
law, if this land were redesignated for growth, the county would
effectively relinquish its right to reject any rezoning
application in the area consistent with that redesignation. In
effect, the county would tie its own hands with regard to future
rezoning applications. It is difficult to see just what benefit
the public would receive in exchange.