2010-03-10March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
10, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. Duane Snow and Mr. Rodney Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said that he and Ms. Mallek attended the dredging consultant’s meeting last night. It
was an informative report, but there is not a lot of detailed information yet or cost figures because that is
part of Phase 2 of the study. The consultants did a good job of presenting the options. He learned a little
about mechanical dredging as opposed to hydraulic dredging.
__________
Ms. Mallek said there has been a second and final management meeting about the Artisan Trail
grant process. The survey and the final documents are in the process of being prepared to be sent to the
Department of Housing and Community Development to work on the final award.
__________
Ms. Mallek said a group came before the Board a year ago about a local food hub. They are a
group that aggregates farm produce from over 100 farmers. She said that in their first year they
distributed produce from 30 local farms with most farmers reporting a 10 percent increase in s ales,
providing 17 public and private schools with access to locally grown fruit and vegetables and educational
materials. They helped with connections to restaurants and caterers which are local institutions. They
hosted service days and hands-on classes at their learning farm in Louisa County. They partnered with
organizations such as the Save-Our-Food Program with the State Farm Bureau and facilitated a lot of
planning with local farmers. They are also working with many local community groups, the Boys ’ and
Girls’ clubs, middle schools, etc. She said it is exciting to see what this group has accomplished in such a
short period of time.
__________
Ms. Mallek said the Board had recently discussed transit and the CTS bus service. She said
ridership for the CTS (now called Charlottesville Area Transit - CAT) in the current fiscal year has
increased 21 percent over the last year. In 2009 they had more than 2.0 million passenger boardings.
Mr. Rooker said he had a call from a news reporter today saying the City was rethinking the
symbol they use on the busses.
Ms. Mallek said that at a joint presentation about the Senior Statesman Mr. Dave Norris will make
that announcement. He said that due to a public outcry they are not “holding onto the cat” for now, but will
change the name to CAT.
Mr. Rooker said they presented this change of logo to the MPO several months ago, but no one
on the MPO liked it including the City’s representatives.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Veronica Wilson said she was present to represent IMPACT. She said 33 faith-communities
are concerned about pre-K education. If children do not read at grade level by the end of the third grade,
their chances of succeeding in school and graduating from high school are worse than that of other
children. Most likely they will earn less in their lifetimes, experience failure, depend more on public
assistance and have problems with the criminal justice system. She said access to pre-K education for
children from low-income families benefits the students, the schools and the community. She asked that
the Board make sure the level of funding remains and the focus remains on pre-K education.
__________
Ms. Jeanette McCarthy, a County resident and member of IMPACT, said that last year they voted
to: seek changes in the area of interpretative services for people with limited English proficiency with
regard to the legal system; and, to pursue access to affordable quality pre-K education for low-income, at-
risk three and four-year olds. Children beginning school with inadequate preparation are at a greater risk
of failing in school and subsequently dropping out. She said that on Monday, March 22, 2010, at
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
University Hall, IMAPCT will hold its Annual Nehemiah Action assembly at 7:00 p.m. She invited the
Board members to attend.
___________
Mr. John Martin from Free Union said he was speaking as a rural area resident. He asked the
Board to consider the Sheriff’s Hunting Enforcement Program. He lives on Catterton Road, which is a
gravel road similar to a lot of gravel roads in the rural area. When he first moved to the County about 12
years ago, there was a difficult situation with hunting in that area. After a citizen was killed in a hunting
incident, the Sheriff instituted this program and things have been better since. He thinks it is a worthwhile
program for a small cost. When he sees someone spotlighting deer on his road in the middle of the night,
if he calls 9-1-1 he does not want to think a police officer would be taken off of the street in a core area to
answer his call. He said rural area residents do not demand a lot in terms of services, but he thinks this is
a worthwhile program.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 6.1
(as noted) and 6.2 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Snow. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2009 and February 10, 2010.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of December 2, 2009 (page 34, beginning with Item #11 to page
69 ending at Item #18) and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 2, 2009 (page 69 beginning at Item No. 18 to the
end) and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of February 10, 2010, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Those not read will be moved to the next agenda.
__________
Item 6.2. Authorize County Executive to co-sign an application for a special use permit to locate
an off-premises sign for the Church of Incarnation on County property.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in 2008 the Church of the Incarnation on Hillsdale
Drive requested that the County allow it to install an off-premises sign on County property at the corner of
Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive (TMP 61Z-03-9). This property currently contains a stormwater
detention pond that in 2008 was scheduled in the CIP for an extensive upgrade. The requested sign is
likely to be in the staging area for the proposed stormwater upgrade project. However, due to a strong
VDOT recommendation for the sign installation at this location, and the County’s deferral of the
stormwater upgrade project, staff can support the sign request, provided the approval is contingent upon
the future removal of the sign by the Church at the County’s request.
During ongoing discussions between the County and the Church, County staff’s main concern
was that the proposed site for the sign would conflict with planned improvements to a major stormwater
facility. The Church is requesting use of an area 10 feet x 10 feet for an eleven square foot post mounted
sign. It is anticipated that the County will need this area for the staging, construction or modification of the
stormwater facility. After considering possible alternative locations for this sign, including the VDOT right-
of-way, the Church’s preference remains to locate the sign on the County’s property at the corner of
Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive.
The principle purpose of the sign is to redirect the primary entrance of the Church. VDOT staff
engineer Joel DeNunzio, wrote: “I evaluated both entrances and have determined that the southernmost
entrance has better sight distance and better geometry than the northern entrance. Promoting the use of
the southernmost entrance by placing a sign at that location could potentially cause fewer conflicts with
users of either entrance and will be an overall safer condition. I would recommend that the County
approve this request to move the sign to this location for safety reasons.”
Because County staff agrees that County property is the best location for the sign when
considering the safety of vehicle travel on this portion of Hillsdale Drive and because the proposed
stormwater detention pond project has been removed from the current five-year CIP, County staff
supports the conditional location of the sign. Before an off-site sign may be erected at this location:
1. The Church and the property owner (in this case, the County) must apply for and receive a
special use permit for an off-premises sign from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); and
2. The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and approve the conveyance of an
easement to the Church to authorize the placement of the sign.
The limited question before the Board at this time is whether to authorize the County Executive to
co-sign the special use permit application on behalf of the County. If the Board authorizes this special
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
permit application, and if the BZA grants a special use permit for the proposed sign, the request for
approval of the easement would come back before the Board for separate consideration. The Board need
not consider the specific terms of the easement at this time. However, staff’s recommendation will be that
the easement be contingent upon a condition that the sign shall be rem oved by the Church at any time it is
deemed necessary or convenient by the County. In addition, as required by law, the Church will have to
compensate the County for the fair market value of the easement.
There is no foreseeable budget impact for granting authorization to the County Executive to co-
sign the special use permit application on behalf of the County. Staff recommends that the Board
authorize the County Executive to co-sign the application for a special use permit for an off-premises sign
on the County property located at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to co-sign the
application for a special use permit for an off-premises sign on the County property located at the
corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive.
__________
Item 6.3. Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Carol Jennings, re: LOD-2009-008 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax
Map 7, Parcel 46 (Property of Roy & Joyce Jennings), White Hall Magisterial District, received as
information.
__________
Item 6.4. Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen, III, re: LOD-2009-012 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6 (Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust, Scottsville
Magisterial District, received as information.
__________
Item 6.5. Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen, III, re: LOD-2009-013 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6C (Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust),
Scottsville Magisterial District, received as information.
__________
Item 6.6. Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Richard G. “Lee” Rasmussen, III, re: LOD-2009-014 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6C1 (Property of Maria T. Kluge Trustee of the Featheridge Trust),
Scottsville Magisterial District, received as information.
__________
Item 6.7. Copy of letter dated February 22, 2009, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Mary B. Sheridan, Executor, Phillip L. Sheridan Estate, re: LOD-2009-019 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A & 33B (Property of Phillip L. Sheridan Estate),
White Hall Magisterial District, received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To solicit public input on the proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development for Phase 1 Sewer Project in the Oak Hill neighborhood. The proposal will
include installation of sanitary sewer to approximately 55 houses and laterals to connect the houses to the
system. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on February 22, 2010 and
March 1, 2010.)
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, said that on January 13, 2010, the Board held a public
hearing about the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) applications for the year. At
that time information was provided on eligible activities that may be funded by VCDBG, the amount of
funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with VCDBG funds and the process for
applying for funding.
Mr. White said one proposal was received from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
requesting that the County submit an application for the Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer Project. The proposed
project will consist of installation of approximately 5,000 feet of eight-inch diameter gravity sewer pipe,
manholes, and service laterals to 57 housing units. The amount of the grant requested is $712,500 which
is the maximum amount the County may request based on an average of $12,500 per unit. The ACSA will
provide $541,500 for acquisition of easements, engineering and design. In addition, ACSA has proposed
to waive connection fees for all properties. Waiving connection fees for low-to-moderate income
households is required by DHCD when CDBG funds are utilized.
Mr. White said a survey of households indicates that 52 percent of the households are low-to-
moderate income (CDBG requires that at least 51 percent of the beneficiaries meet that income category).
In addition to providing sewer services to residents of the Oak Hill neighborhood, the project would
eliminate contamination from failed onsite septic systems which is contributing to the impairment of Biscuit
Run located east of the Oak Hill neighborhood. Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) is included in the
application to cover administrative and grant management costs for the funded activity. Projects applying
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
for VCDBG generally require some level of local financial support which will be provided by ACSA for the
proposed project.
Mr. White said staff recommends that the Board adopt the project resolution but amend it to say
“up to” $712,500 because numbers have not been finalized. The project is estimated to be almost $1.3
million of which CDBG will cover about 50 percent. It is further recommended that the Board authorize the
County Executive to execute the application as well as all required certifications and assurances. He then
offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said he noticed that the County would have to put up $50,000 if the grant is awarded for
grant administration. He asked if there is $50,000 available for that expense. Mr. White said that $50,000
will come out of the grant to cover administrative costs; it is not County money.
Ms. Mallek said the local match is the ACSA’s investment.
Mr. Boyd said he had read that wrong; he didn’t know where the County would come up with
$50,000 to get the grant. Mr. White said he would not be able to make this request if the County had to
pay $50,000.
Mr. Snow asked about the failing septic systems in that area. Mr. White said he has copies of
letters from the Health Department corresponding with property owners verifying this fact. He thinks a
couple of property owners did put in other systems (not alternative systems) – at least one person put in a
pump system which they have to maintain. The lots are not large enough to hold a second septic system
if the present one fails.
Mr. Rooker said the Board tried to do this about a year ago, but could not establish the income
qualifications necessary to go forward. Mr. White said information gathering was started late last year. A
meeting was held with the residents, but it was not well attended. At that time, neither the ACSA nor the
Housing Office had the time to do door-to-door follow-up. This year the ACSA started contacting people
early, a meeting with residents was held in December, and then there was follow-up after that meeting.
They received 47 surveys from households and he just heard that 44 owners have agreed to sign
conditional contracts to hook-up to the system if the funding is made available.
Mr. Snow asked if this has cost the homeowners anything at this point. Mr. White said that low-
and moderate-income homeowners will not have to pay anything – that is a requirement of the grant. The
ACSA Board of Directors has agreed to hookup any house whether the owner is low- or moderate-income
or not, with no connection fee. A limited period of time is available to make that decision. He said the
ACSA could install the main line without this funding. The question is how many people would actually
hook to the line. There would be a sizeable investment in that sewer line, but if people did not hook to it,
the environmental issue – which is the main issue – would not be resolved.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Martin said he is a member of the ACSA Board of Directors. He urged the Supervisors
to approve this request. He said this is a win-win situation – particularly for the neighborhood. It is a win
for the watershed because it will protect Biscuit Run. It is a win for the ratepayers of the ACSA because if
this grant is awarded, they will pay less. He said that if the grant is not received, there are houses in that
subdivision that will still need “a rescue operation” to take care of the problems. There are people who are
not willing to hook to a line due to their income. The ACSA would have to spend a tremendous amount of
money on a line just for the benefit of a few people. This grant makes it very attractive for the
homeowners by being able to cover the cost for all of them. He thanked ACSA staff who had spent a
tremendous amount of time on this project, along with Mr. White.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to approve the following resolution for the County’s submission of an
application for the Oak Hill Phase I Sewer Project adding the words “up to” in the fourth whereas clause,
and to also authorize the County Executive to execute the application as well as all required certifications
and assurances.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, on-site septic systems are failing in the Oak Hill neighborhood, resulting in
on-site contamination and the impairment of Biscuit Run; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to addressing conditions causing
contamination endangering the public’s health and safety or impairing streams and waterways in
the County; and
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings on January 13, 2010, and March 10, 2010, the
County wishes to apply for up to $712,500 in Virginia Community Development Block Grant
(“VCDBG”) funds for the Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer Project (“Project”) to support the installation of
approximately 5,000 feet of eight-inch sewer line and service laterals in the Oak Hill
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority will provide additional funding of over
$500,000 and waive connection fees for the Project and will undertake the Project responsibilities,
including procurement, providing project management, and providing timely reporting to the
County under a Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, fifty-two percent (52%) of the households in Oak Hill are low- and moderate-
income; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the Project include:
Sewer service availability to 59 housing units including approximately 114
persons;
Eliminating on-site sewage contamination in the Oak Hill neighborhood; and
Reducing the impairment of Moore’s Creek caused by contamination from failing
on-site septic systems in the Oak Hill neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the County’s submission of the VCDBG application for the Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer
Project and authorizes the County Executive to execute the application and required certificates
and assurances and to take any further action required for this application.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: SP-2009-00024, Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary.
Proposal: Special use permit to renovate existing barn for wildlife sanctuary; no residential units
proposed. Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11 (a) and (c) requiring solid fencing
and that animals be confined in an enclosed building between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2 (47) Animal Shelter.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: Miller School; 1000 Samuel Miller Loop, Crozet; access off Dick Woods Road
approximately 3500 feet from the intersection of Dick Woods Road and Miller School Road (Rt.
635).
Tax Map/Parcel: TMP 07200000003200.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 22 and
March 1, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. This is a request to relocate an existing wildlife sanctuary
to the Miller School campus. The 1046.98-acre parcel that is the subject of this special use permit
application includes the old barn, an existing driveway and an area of approximately three acres
surrounding the barn for the proposed wildlife sanctuary.
Mr. Cilimberg said that factors which are favorable to the request include: the activities that will
occur there in rehabilitating orphaned and injured wildlife; approximately 50 percent of the wildlife currently
cared for at Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary is found in Albemarle County so locating the sanctuary in the
County would bring it closer to the need; locating the sanctuary in the County would also bring it closer to
the Wildlife Center of Virginia (located in Waynesboro) where more severely injured or ill animals are
treated; and, an unused structure, the barn, would be renovated and maintained. He said that no
unfavorable factors were identified. Staff and the Planning Commission both recommended approval
subject to conditions. The Commission saw eleven conditions, but the tenth condition was actually
covered by waivers granted that night, so it does not need to be included in the Board’s approval.
With no questions for staff, Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing.
The applicant was not present, and no one from the public rose to speak. Ms. Mallek then closed
the hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Snow to approve SP-2009-00024 subject to the ten
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Development of the use shall be in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled
“Rockfish Sanctuary, Inc. Concept Plan,” prepared by Jill Trischman-Marks, Landscape
Architect, and dated August 18, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Concept Plan”) as determined by
the Director of Planning and the zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept
Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development:
– Cages, chambers, and the aviary located within the three-acre site
– Structures limited to the renovated barn and the aviary
– Limit of three parking spaces
As shown on the Concept Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan that do not conflict with
the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater
than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval;
3. The hours of operation shall not begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. and shall end not later than
7:00 p.m. each day, seven (7) days per week;
4. All animals being treated must be kept within the barn or the three- (3) acre area around
the barn that is leased to the Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, as shown in Attachment C;
5. There shall be no more than two (2) employees on the site at any time;
6. There shall be no visitors to the Wildlife Sanctuary;
7. Renovation of the barn shall commence on or before twenty-four (24) months from the
date of approval by the Board of Supervisors or this special use permit shall expire;
8. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoni8ng compliance clearance
and the commencement of the special use;
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding septic systems shall
be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance
and the commencement of the special use; and
10. In order to maintain the driveway within the right-of-way on Route 637, the applicant shall
obtain a Land Use Permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: ZMA-2005-00003, UVA Research Park (Sign #18).
Proposal: Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres (parcels identified below) from RA Rural
Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots) to Planned Development Industrial Park (PD-IP), which allows industrial and
ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses, for 700,000 square feet of office
and research use and to rezone 534± acres (parcels identified below) from PD-IP to PD-IP to
amend proffers and application plan associated with ZMA-1995-04 and subsequent related ZMAs.
Proffers: Yes.
Concurrent with ZMA-2005-00003, the following proposed special use permits (SP) within UVA
Research Park PD-IP authorized by Zoning Ordinance §29.2.2.
9a. SP-2008-00015 Parking structures.
Proposed: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance §27.2.2(16), Parking
structures.
9b. SP-2008-00062 Laboratories.
Proposed: Allow laboratory uses; reference Zoning Ordinance §27.2.2(1), Laboratories,
medical or pharmaceutical.
9c. SP-2008-00063 Supporting commercial uses.
Proposed: Allow supporting commercial uses, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square
feet of floor area, reference Zoning Ordinance §27.2.2(14), Supporting commercial uses.
9d. SP-2008-00064 Hotels, motels, inns.
Proposed: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities not to exceed 190,000 square feet of
floor area under Zoning Ordinance §29.2.2(2), Hotels, motels, inns.
The following information applies to all five proposals:
Zoning Category/General Usage: PD-IP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and
ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use).
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one-third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead.
Tax Map/Parcel: Tax Map Parcels 32-18 and 32-18A (rezone from RA to PD-IP with proffers; all
SPs); 32-6A, 18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-
19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1 (rezone from PD-IP to PD-IP with amended proffers and application
plan; all SPs).
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 22 and
March 1, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request originated in 2006. Over time there have been efforts to address
various matters related to how the addition of 30± acres to the Research Park would be accommodated
through a rezoning. A public hearing was held in August, 2009 by the Planning Commission, but there
was an advertising error because of some parcel ownership changes. Those had to be addressed
through a new public hearing which was held by the Commission on February 16, 2010. The 30± acres
would be rezoned to PD-IP and added to the 525 acres currently in the park. This would allow an
additional 700,000 square feet of development in the park bringing the total to 3.7 million square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the area in question actually surrounds the property where the Hollymead Fire
Station is located. This rezoning will bring all of the parcels surrounding the fire station into the research
park. He said the Land Use Plan designates all of that area as industrial. He showed on the screen a
rendering of the basic application plan for the rezoning which is the governing plan for future development
showing building envelopes as well as areas for park ing adjacent to what is now Innovation Drive, but
which will ultimately be an extension of Lewis & Clark Drive which in the long-term will be part of Berkmar
Drive Extended.
Mr. Cilimberg said the revised proffers update the Application Plan, provide design standards
which include this new area (Area “D”), indicate maximum build-out of 3.7 million square feet, update
provisions for transportation improvements, an additional playing field, some modifications to landscape
buffering to allow disturbance for future interconnections, and a survey of a historic structure on the
property. He said the additional transportation proffers include an accommodation for future Northside
Drive interconnections (Northside Drive is actually off of this property on another property that intersects
Route 29, but ultimately could provide an additional interconnection). There is right-of-way for the future
improvement of Dickerson Road when funds are available to make those improvements. There are
clarifications regarding the improvements on Route 29 including correcting vertical curvature, right-of-way
acquisition language has been updated, there is a level of service for turning movements at intersections
and a limitation to development in Area “D” to 180,000 square feet until Lewis & Clark Drive/Innovation
Drive is interconnected through.
Mr. Rooker said that much of that is not yet built. Mr. Cilimberg said Innovation Drive was half
section construction - from there to the Lewis & Clark Drive intersection with Quail Run probably several
thousand feet still need to be built. Expectations for how levels of service at intersections on Route 29
both for the overall functioning of the intersection and the individual turning movements are specified in
the proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found no unfavorable factors to the request. They noted that the rezoning
is consistent with the Industrial Service designation. It meets the goals and objectives of the County’s
Economic Development Policy. It provides for additional interconnections to the research park. The
commitments necessary to address the transportation impacts have been provided. That was based on
submittal of a traffic study reviewed by VDOT and the County to determine how proffers needed to be
updated to address transportation impacts.
Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendation for the rezoning is for approval inclusive of the proffers
dated February 22, 2010. There are also four special use permits that are a part of the overall project and
need to be approved to allow for the parking structure(s) that m ight be developed in the future in the
research park for laboratories, medical and pharmaceuticals, for supporting commercial uses which are
allowed and for hotels, motels and inns. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the same process was used getting proffers from the University of Virginia as
was used in getting proffers for North Pointe. Mr. Cilimberg said both were subject to a traffic study that
determined the improvements needed. Initially there was a traffic study done for the original rezoning for
the UVA Research Park. There was recently a new traffic study provided in accordance with the State’s
new 527 requirements. North Pointe went through its own traffic study and the requirements based on
that study were made as part of that rezoning.
Ms. Mallek asked if the southbound lane from Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road is in the first
phase. Mr. Cilimberg said it is actually in the second phase – it comes after 1.5 million square feet of
development. He said they are at approximately 500,000 square feet now.
Mr. Rooker said this came up during approval of North Pointe. That developer wanted the UVA
Research Park to contribute toward the southbound lane on Route 29 which he will have to build when he
reaches a certain point in his development. That developer expressed some interest in having that
number lowered so UVA would contribute to that lane at 750,000 square feet of development instead of
1.5 million. It sounds to him as if Mr. Rotgin called Mr. Dorrier. He had called Mr. Rooker about the idea
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
of the University accelerating their contribution to the southbound lane on Route 29. He does not think it
was presented at the Commission meeting, it was not discussed by them (according to their minutes), and
there is no one present to represent North Pointe to argue that point, but it was raised. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant may want to speak to that point – he thinks there was a late communication to the applicant’s
representative, as well as to some Board members.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Rotgin sent an e-mail saying he supported the application, but he also said
he thought their proffer should be amended to require them to “kick in” earlier.
Mr. Snow said Mr. Rotgin called him. He thinks developers are held to one standard while UVA is
held to a different standard. Mr. Snow said he is in favor of the project, but wants the same standards
applied across the board.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Rotgin raised that with him also. He told Mr. Rotgin that the UVA Research
Park was approved in 1995, and it had a “hefty” package of proffers attached at that time. They are as
stringent as the proffers applied to any other commercial development approved in the County up until that
time. There are stipulations in those proffers on water limitation that have never been applied to any other
commercial development. There are limitations on the size of water users that they could locate in the
park without regard to whether there was water available. There were a long series of proffers applied to
the park, and he does not think there was any discrimination in favor of the University with the proffers
required, as compared to the proffers required of other developers at that time. He does not think this five
percent addition to the land in the park adds any significant additional burden that would require changes
to the proffers beyond what are being recommended.
Mr. Dorrier said this came up because roads are so expensive and the developers have carrying
costs.
Ms. Mallek said when Innovation Drive is completed (it is in the middle of this park), it will help get
people off of Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg said that was the response to the traffic study, it needed to be a
commitment because it is associated with that southern area. When it is built, it will relieve the Route 29
traffic.
Mr. Boyd said a study of light industrial land was just completed. The Board has discussed the
practice of converting light industrial land to Class A office space and whether that made sense. He
asked if this is just another example of doing the same thing. Mr. Cilimberg said the land is zoned rural
area now so it can’t be used at this time for that purpose.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as rural area. Mr. Cilimberg said it is in
the Plan as Industrial and they are requesting an industrial use. It depends on the ownership and what
they want to market in terms of potential use.
Mr. Boyd said he does not oppose the request. He is just pointing out that the Board has
discussed the practice of taking industrial land and turning it into office space. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did
not evaluate this project on the merits of providing lower cost possibilities for smaller industrial users
because it is an extension of an existing research industrial park.
Mr. Boyd mentioned erosion control. He said when the road for the fire station was built, there
was quite a bit of damage done to some houses on the property right below that road. He asked if there is
anything in this application that will insure that does not happen again - he wants to be sure that property
does not receive further damage because it is lower than the park. Mr. Cilimberg said the proffer used in
some recent rezonings concerning erosion control is not a part of these proffers. Mr. Davis said the
ordinance has been amended to incorporate most of those standards.
Mr. Mark Graham said looking at the proffers for the Biscuit Run and the Hollymead Towncenter
projects, the emphasis was on reducing the time the land is left open. Since then the Water Protection
Ordinance was amended so that is a part of ordinance requirements. Staff did not raise that as issue with
this project.
Mr. Boyd said it is a sensitive issue for the people living in Airport Acres and also any impact it
might have downstream on homeowners in Forest Lakes. He just wants to be sure the County is taking
the necessary precautions. What happened to the one family in Airport Acres was caused by placement
of a drainage pipe which basically fed right into their home. They had a couple of trees fall on their house
because they were eroded by the drainage. Will the neighborhood be secured so that does not happen
again? Mr. Graham said in some of the older subdivisions infrastructure was inadequate to begin with.
When development takes place above them, it is difficult to insure that there will not be impacts.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is anything that can be done in the way of proffers to lessen the possibility
of that happening. Mr. Graham said he believes the regulations that are in place now go a long way
toward that. Whether they will guarantee or assure there will not be any problems is a high standard.
Ms. Mallek said the applicant can speak to how they will use the wetlands and the possibility of
curtain drains, etc.
Mr. Rooker said he had a question about Proffer 6.1 having to do with the developed recreational
areas. He said that one is part of the older proffers and he asked if these old proffers have been
completed in accordance with the schedule. He has driven through the park several times and has never
noticed any playing fields, or any picnic area.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Mallek said there is a pavilion at the top of the hill which is the picnic area. Mr. Cilimberg said
there is also a gazebo. Part of this proffer is based the County requesting conveyance with monetary
considerations of the sports fields.
Mr. Rooker asked if the sports fields have been done. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know that the
County has made that request.
Mr. Rooker said there is a better system in place today for monitoring proffers than back in 1995
when this was originally approved. He wants to make certain the County follows the proffers carefully so
the things that are supposed to be done are actually done. Mr. Cilimberg said that sunset dates and times
for development activities are associated with proffers now. Mr. Tucker said he does not think a request
has been made to the applicant by the County. Staff will have to work with the Parks & Recreation
Department and the applicant, and make that request if it is timely to do so. The area will have to be
identified.
There being no further questions for staff at this time, Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing and
asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent the applicant. She said there were several
representatives of the Foundation also present: Mr. Tim Rose, CEO, Mr. Fred Missle, Director of
Development, and, Ms. Deborah VanErsel, who handles marketing and tenant issues in the park. She
said the request is to add about 30 acres of land currently zoned RA but shown in the Comprehensive
Plan as Industrial Service to the Research Park. That would equate to an additional 700,000 square feet
of available space, for a total of 3.7 million square feet in the entire park. Also, all of the proffers for the
entire park have been updated to bring them up to current standards in terms of language that has
evolved over the last 15 years since the park was originally approved.
Ms. Long said the representatives “chatted among themselves” about some of the issues Mr.
Rooker raised about the parks issue. The Foundation representatives told her there has not been a
request from the County officially, but they have been working with Mr. Dan Mahon and others in the
County’s Parks Department about land dedication and trails, etc. She said there is one picnic area and
one area has been graded for ultimate dedication to the County for a soccer field area near where the
roads and other buildings already exist. They are happy to proceed with the schedule.
Ms. Long said in answer to Mr. Boyd’s question, the land is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for industrial service, and the zoning which is requested is Planned Development-Industrial Park
which is what the existing park is zoned. These are light industrial uses carried on in the park as required
by the Zoning Ordinance although they are carried on in offices.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is an incubator. Ms. Long said some of the space is, but
representatives of the Foundation can answer that better. She said all of their park tenants have a
relationship with the University or are working toward those relationships. Many are called “an incubator
space.” A lot of them are homegrown businesses started through the University which outgrew their
space so need to have more space for their business and employees. The total park is at about 500,000
square feet now. There are presently approximately 1,100 employees in the park.
Mr. Boyd asked for a clarification about the zoning in the park. He said one un-served area in the
community is in skilled labor. Obviously this is not a place where skilled labor will be placed in the
traditional sense. It will not facilitate housing or business locations for that. His point is that this whole
labor pool is being driven out of the County because there is no place for them to locate.
Ms. Mallek asked if he was talking about scientific manufacturing, etc. That seems to fall into the
skilled labor pool and the businesses which are in the park.
Mr. Boyd said that is not the same classification he was talking about. He is talking about
plumbing, heating, carpenters, trades people.
Mr. Rooker said the only way to assure that any property owner that leases space to tenants of
the kind Mr. Boyd is talking about is to put some conditions, or proffers on the rezoning that would require
what he is talking about.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board was going to look at changing the definition of “light industrial”
to accommodate that same thing.
Ms. Mallek said the PD-IP is a different category.
Mr. Boyd said he is not opposed to this application, but he is reminding the Board members that
there is a need for true light industrial to house skilled labor in the County. He said the Board was “kicking
itself” about some other rezonings it approved where the property could have been available for that, but is
not available for that type of thing. He is not saying this is not a legitimate use for this property.
Mr. Rooker said he does not know what Mr. Boyd means by “skilled labor.” He considers the
people who work in the Research Park and the light industrial users they have to be employing skilled
labor.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Boyd said they are generally considered more of a manufacturing type of concern or a building
concern.
Mr. Rooker said they have some light industrial users in the park. If he is talking about machine
shops and those types of things, he doubts that they would be leasing to that kind of thing. He said the
County does need to change the definition if that is what the County is after.
Mr. Boyd said he won’t belabor that any more, but he wants to ask again about erosion control.
He is concerned about it and he knows that Mr. Missel is familiar with the situation.
Mr. Fred Missel, Director of Design and Development for the UVA Foundation, said he thinks
there were 10 or more meetings on site with the Garwood family. They found that both construction of the
fire station and construction of the road contributed to the erosion control issues. They were operating off
of an approved erosion control plan and an engineering plan that had been approved by the State and
also by the County. A question arose relating to adequate channel size. Location of the channel basically
day lighted into an area shown on the map as an adequate channel. However, when looking at the area
on the ground, it was passable, but not adequate. They got together with VDOT and Jack Kelsey from the
County and found there was a culvert downstream of the Garwood’s property underneath the road that
was acting as a constricting point. That culvert has since been replaced by VDOT. They have heard
nothing from the Garwoods in the last year and a half, and they understand that the problem was solved.
Mr. Missel said he understands the tree issue was unrelated to erosion. When the area was
cleared for the fire station and the road, the tall trees that had no growth on the bottom simply blew over.
They went in and cleaned them up for the Garwoods and stabilized the area including extensive
landscaping to buffer the area both from the sounds and visibility of the fire station and the roadway and to
buffer the research park from the neighborhood.
Mr. Boyd said he does not doubt what Mr. Missle is saying but he just wanted to bring it up as a
reminder that as the site is developed further, they need to be cognizant of the fact that there are other
homes below the Garwoods home that need to be protected.
Ms. Long said that on the Application Plan a required 50-foot undisturbed buffer is shown.
Nothing can ever go in that area without getting a waiver from the Planning Commission. That should
address some of the concerns expressed. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Snow said this project started back in the 90s. If this project were by a private company and it
was updating its plan, would the proffers also have to be updated. Are the same proffers being requested
of UVA as would be requested of a private company? Is everybody being held to the same standard as
far as completion and getting the work done in a timely manner?
Mr. Cilimberg said that as part of this application the proffers have been updated. He said the
Foundation is actually a private entity; they are subject to zoning because they are private. This
application would be treated as would any other private project. The transportation proffers are tied to
certain levels of development. That is a reflection of the traffic study update done recently which is now a
state requirement. VDOT reviews the study and uses the same standards they would use on any other
527-traffic study. All projects which have been approved have not been subject to that 527-study
requirement because it is a recent requirement. In the past, traffic studies were reviewed under different
expectations by VDOT. Any project coming to the County today is reviewed by VDOT under the 527
requirements, and those standards are the same for all projects.
Mr. Cilimberg said each project is different in terms of how it creates impacts. As an example,
this project creates one intersection with Route 29 - they proffered and have built some of the
requirements of the proffers for that access to Route 29. They have committed to internal connections
that will provide for the alternative road between Route 29 and Airport Road. This rezoning is primarily for
an employment-based use. If the North Pointe or Hollymead Towncenter projects were requested today
they would be reviewed under the 527 law. Both of those projects were presented to the County for a
rezoning for their land use proposals which were primarily residential and retail commercial, rather than
employment generating uses, office uses and industrial uses as in this research park. That affects traffic
generation and the kinds of improvements that are necessary to the transportation system to
accommodate that traffic. They will also be different in terms of how they impact particular roads based
on points of access. This project has one access to Route 29. Across the road, North Pointe has three
and each of those has an impact at the location of those intersections. What the County would get as
commitments through proffers for projects in the same general area may be very different based on the
impacts and the nature of the uses going into those projects.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is a flaw in the Neighborhood Model. The County is forcing developments
that are mixed use and not all commercial. In Biscuit Run and North Pointe the County was forcing that
residential piece in there. It was not that the developers wanted to do it.
Mr. Rooker said when the County went through the rezoning process for North Pointe the
applicant complained about the residential requirements. About six months ago he was talking to Chuck
Rotgin and he said he was glad they had that residential requirement because as it turned out that is what
they will develop first because the demand had completely flipped. With NGIC coming in, now they think
they will move forward with the residential part way ahead of the commercial.
Mr. Boyd said if the County had approved their application earlier they might have had that
commercial up. It went away because of the times.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Rooker said the Board could talk about the timing on that. Albemarle Place started five years
later than North Pointe and was approved long before it, and the reason for that is the way the developer
approached it. He said Old Trail applied much later and it was approved and North Pointe was still
“fiddling around.”
Mr. Boyd said to go back to Mr. Snow’s question. He asked the number used for the traffic study.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is a 527. There is a state law requiring these studies.
Mr. Boyd said it also has to do with federal election laws. He asked if that was the standard used
for Biscuit Run. Mr. Cilimberg said the 527 law went into effect in 2008, so that was after Biscuit Run had
been approved. All applications now are being reviewed under that law. Each development is different in
terms of how it internalizes or externalizes trips. Any project with a large regional retail component will
externalize a lot of trips so will create regional road impacts. For a mixed-use project the trips are more
internalized because the commercial is smaller scale and serves the area where it is developed rather
than a large regional area. It depends on the nature of the project as to how it will affect the transportation
system. If it gets people to live closer to where they work and shop that will lessen impacts on the regional
system. That is the basis for the urban development area legislation in the State Code. That legislation
tells the County as a local government of its size and with its amount of growth, that it has to have areas of
mixed use. The Board certified the Comprehensive Plan at the end of last year to recognize that law. The
idea is that trips are being reduced to some extent.
Mr. Boyd said when he meets with the homeowners association in Forest Lakes it is hard to say
the County is creating more office space or light industrial or mixed-use space and it will not have any
impact on the traffic in the area. They are not going to believe that, no matter what the VDOT studies say.
Mr. Rooker said their concern is with the traffic that will be created by retail.
Mr. Boyd said they were also concerned about the amount of traffic that will come from the
research park.
Mr. Rooker said that last year they were just as concerned about adding to the growth area further
south, and the retail attractions there.
Mr. Boyd said they do not want to add any traffic until Route 29 has six-lanes all the way past the
Airport. Everybody knows that transportation is a big issue.
Mr. Rooker said the State is not going to pay for road improvements now, and the County does
not have the money to do it, so the question is “who is going to do it?” He said infrastructure does not
take care of itself. As the County grows somebody has to take care of the infrastructure.
Ms. Mallek said she is looking forward to that 1.5 million square feet so that new southbound lane
becomes a project.
Mr. Rooker said the road system planned in the research park appears to be good and workable.
The traffic coming out of the park now is manageable and will be more so when the roads are completed.
He asked if there is a projection as to when that road connection will be made.
Mr. Boyd said there is a lot of development occurring on Route 29 North, not just the research
park, but there is the DIA facility and Briarwood subdivision, etc. That is what the people in Forest Lakes
are concerned about. The parallel roads are not being built, Lewis & Clark Drive is not being connected all
the way through, and there is nothing going on with Berkmar Drive Extended.
Mr. Rooker said the Lewis & Clark Drive connection will probably not take traffic off of Route 29
that is not internal to the research park.
Mr. Boyd said if that were connected to an extension of Berkmar Drive and some other pieces it
would make a difference.
Mr. Rooker said unless people are going into the research park, he does not think they would take
that last leg. He does not think there is enough traffic coming out of the park today to require that
connection.
Ms. Mallek said southbound traffic uses Lewis & Clark Drive now to Airport Road and then to
Earlysville Road. In the morning a lot of traffic comes off of Route 29 to the traffic circle at the Airport.
That has always been the historic traffic pattern. For the people who live in Earlysville it is a good
connection.
Mr. Rooker asked about the connection from Dick erson Road into the Hollymead Towncenter. He
said the road appears to being close to built.
Ms. Mallek said it has been like that for over a year and a half.
Mr. Tucker reminded Ms. Mallek that there is still need to open the public hearing to the public.
Mr. Davis said Ms. Mallek should make it clear that the public hearing is for the rezoning as well
as the four special use permits.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Mallek said she would read the petition numbers into the record. She then invited the public
to speak.
Mr. Wendell Wood said they sold the land to the University of Virginia in 1985 and have been
patiently waiting to see some results although they have done a good job so far. He thinks the Board
should do everything it can to support further development when there is a world-renowned University
involved. Not many communities can attract the top quality of firms that the community would like to see
located here. He still owns land adjoining this property, and he encourages the Board to do what it can to
support this request.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the petitions placed
before the Board.
Mr. Davis said he will suggest that the Board have five motions on these petitions. The first would
be on the rezoning with the proffers (shown on the screen), and then there would be a separate vote on
each of the special use permit requests.
Mr. Thomas offered motion to approve ZMA-2005-0003 inclusive of the proffers dated February
22, 2010. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER STATEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA RESEARCH PARK
Date: February 22, 2010
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park
Tax Map Parcels 32-18, 32-6A, 32-18A, 32-18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-19F1, 32-19G,
32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1
30.56 Acres to be rezoned from Rural Area (RA) to Planned Development-Industrial Park (“PDIP”)
with proffers
534± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP with amended proffers
All of the parcels identified herein are part of ZMA 2005-003 and subject to these proffers. In the
aggregate, these parcels compose the “Property,” which is described with more particularity on the
exhibits filed with the Application Plan dated July 6, 2009, prepared by Cline Design and attached
hereto as Exhibit A (the “Application Plan”).
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 32-18 and 32-18A are owned by The University of Virginia Foundation
and comprise approximately 30.56 acres identified as Tract 1 on Exhibit J of the Application Plan.
Tract 1 is rezoned from RA to PD-IP under ZMA 2005-003.
The following parcels comprise the lands that were rezoned under ZMA 95-04 to PD-IP, as amended
by ZMA 1998-27:
Parcels owned by the University of Virginia Foundation: 32-6A, 32-18B, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-
19F, 32-19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1.
Parcel owned by other entity:
TMP 32-19C, owned by 1641 Edlich Realty Co LLC
A portion of parcels 32-18 and 32-6A were also affected by ZMA 2005-002, which involved the
development for a County fire and rescue squad station. This station is located on what is now
identified as TMP 32-18B.
These proffers incorporate and modify as appropriate the proffers accepted in conjunction with ZMA
1995-04 and ZMA 2005-002 and supersede those proffers as they apply to the Property (no proffers
were associated with ZMA 1998-27). The development of the Property authorized by ZMA 2005-003
is referred to as the “Project.” For the purposes of these proffers, the University of Virginia
Foundation is referred to as the “Owner” and the “Applicant.”
The term “Road A” as referred to in these proffers also means “Lewis and Clark Drive” as referred to
in some of the exhibits.
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts
to rezone the property subject to ZMA 2005-003 to PDIP as requested, the Owner shall develop the
Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges
that the conditions are reasonable. If rezoning application ZMA 2005-003 is denied, these proffers
shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect.
I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Plans and Illustrations. ZMA 2005-003 increases the permissible square footage on the
Property to 3,700,000 square feet gross floor area. The Application Plan is a graphic
depiction of the proposed development.
II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS
Proffer II from ZMA 95-04 has been satisfied. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
Restrictions and Easements is recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia in Deed Book 1819, page 434. A Supplemental Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements is of record in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed
Book 2085, at page 696. Upon approval of ZMA 2005-003, the Applicant will record in the
aforesaid Clerk’s Office an instrument to extend the Declaration to those portions of the
Property that are not already subject to the Declaration.
III. GROSS FLOOR AREA TO BE DEVELOPED
3.1 Total Buildout. Total maximum square footage to be developed within the Project
shall not exceed 3,700,000 square feet gross floor area, excluding recycling centers,
picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), office trailers for temporary
use during construction of permanent structures, small (not to exceed 1,500 square
feet gross floor area per building) storage buildings, and structures included as
amenities within Common Areas (collectively, the “Excluded Areas”). The total gross
floor area within the Project which may be constructed in any one year shall not
exceed 200,000 square feet beginning in 1996, in addition to any accumulated
undeveloped square feet of gross floor area.
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, Tracts 1 and 2 as shown on Exhibit J, and only to t he
extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and regulations.
4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The Owner has provided an overall Stormwater
Management Plan for the Project, incorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the
Property. Applicant’s implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan includes
those modifications that comply with design and engineering standards necessary
for approval by the County during the site development plan review process for
Project development.
4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as defined in the wetlands study submitted by the Applicant
and on file with the Albemarle County Department of Community Development but
not including those wetlands in Tracts 1 and 2 as shown on Exhibit J, 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 a 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 finding that sufficient capacity exists to
support such a user. The County’s approval may include reasonable conditions
relating to water usage.
V. TRANSPORTATION
Applicant will construct new roads in accordance with the Application Plan as provided
herein.
5.1 Internal Road Network. Applicant has and shall provide vehicular access within the
Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on Exhibit L:
Internal Road Network Plan (the “Internal Road Network”). Applicant shall design,
construct, and install signs and signalization for the Internal Road Network in
accordance with minimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(“VDOT”), unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant’s request. The
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit L shall be subject to adjustment
during the subdivision plat/site plan approval process.
5.2 Road Construction Standards.
A. All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County for site plan
approval, (and other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and
the County reasonably determine are necessary for safe and convenient
access to such area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and
dedicated for public use, for acceptance into the state highway system at the
time of recordation of the final subdivision plat for each applicable area or at
the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development under a
site development plan.
B. The Owner shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases as
described in Section 5.4 herein and shown on the Application Plan. Before
issuance of certificates of occupancy, however, the Owner shall complete
that segment of road which serves the building for which a certificate of
occupancy is sought with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix
asphalt.
5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determining the
timing of road improvements set forth in Section 5.4 below:
PHASE I
Land Use (note1) Maximum
Cumulative
Build-out (note 2)
Maximum Build-out to be 635,000
accessed by Road A (all uses):
Support Commercial to 85,000 (note 2)
Maximum Build-out to be 345,000
accessed by Rt. 606 (all uses):
General Office limited to: 120,000
Support Commercial limited to: 25,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I (all uses) 980,000 (note 3)
Not more than 180,000 square feet gross floor area shall be constructed within Tract
1 and Tract 2 as shown on Exhibit J during Phase I.
PHASE II
Land Use (note 1) Maximum
Cumulative
Build-out (note 2)
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel/Conference Center: 190,000
All Other Uses: 1,268,000
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II (all uses) 1,568,000 (note 3)
PHASE III
Land Uses (note 1) Maximum
Cumulative
Build-out (note 2)
Support Commercial: 110,000
Hotel/Conference Center: 190,000
All Other Uses: 3,400,000
Maximum Total build-out, Phase III (all uses) 3,700,000 (note 3)
(1) Note: The use categories in the charts above shall have the following definitions for the
purposes of this Article V: “All Other Uses” shall mean those uses other than
Hotel/Conference Center and Support Commercial permitted within the Project as
delineated the Land Use Matrix on Exhibit K to the Application Plan. “Hotel” shall have the
definition set forth in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). “Support
Commercial” shall mean those uses listed on the “Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines”
Table, Village and Neighborhood Service Areas, Typical Primary Uses Section, in Section
9.0 of the Ordinance as well as the following uses: copy centers, florists, newsstands, pipe
and tobacco shops, barber and beauty shops and tailor shops. See the Land Use Matrix
on Exhibit K of the Application Plan.
(2) Note: Total gross floor area, in square feet.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
(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 Application Plan.
Applicant proffers that the total build-out of Hotel, Support Commercial, and All Other Uses for
any given Phase shall not exceed the gross floor area limitations shown in the charts above in
this Section 5.3.
5.4 Proffered Road Improvements. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute
for road improvements in phases. Road improvement proffers in this Section 5.4
shall not include dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All
construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the
County or VDOT obtaining required right-of-way (if such right-of-way is not owned in
fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long as Applicant is
ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers,
even though the necessary right-of-way is not available (and in the instances in
which Applicant has proffered to acquire right-of-way, and the Applicant has made
good faith efforts to acquire the land necessary for such right-of-way) Applicant shall
not be precluded from developing the approved density build-out under the
applicable zoning, unless the improvement is otherwise required by applicable
regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required below, the road
improvements described in this Section 5.4 for each applicable phase shall be
completed or bonded, or contributed for (as set forth below), before constructing
each phase’s Maximum Total Build-out as set forth in Section 5.3. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein, in addition, for property acquisition that is required for
the off-site public right of way for construction of the improvements by this Section
5.4, Applicant shall make a cash contribution or provide a letter of credit in a form
approved by the County Attorney for such purpose in the amount as deemed
necessary for the property acquisition by the County Attorney provided that such
amount shall not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the County’s appraisal
prepared for acquisition or condemnation purposes. If the cost of the right of way
acquisition exceeds the amount previously contributed above, then Applicant shall
reimburse the County all such excess costs within thirty (30) days after request by
the County. The County shall refund to the Applicant all excess contributions upon
completion of the land acquisition.
A. Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase I road proffers before the
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I (as shown in Section 5.3 above) is
constructed or earlier if (i) specified in this Section 5.4 (A), or (ii) a need is
created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study
prepared by the Applicant at its sole expense at the request of the County or
by VDOT, and as approved by VDOT. The proffered Phase I road
improvements shall be as described on Exhibit M of the Application Plan.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be permitted to construct
beyond the Total Maximum Build-out, Phase I in advance of satisfying all
Phase I road proffers, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that
the following intersections (including all turning movements) will function,
with the proposed additional building construction, with a delay that is
equivalent to or better than the following: a Level of Service (“LOS”) “C”
average at the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive (Road A) and U.S. 29,
and LOS “D” for each individual turning movement at the U.S. 29
intersection, and LOS “D” average at the following intersections (i) Route
649 and Road A, (ii) Route 606 and Quail Run, (iii) Route 606 and Route
649.
(1) Proffer 5.4(a)(1) of ZMA 95-04 has been completed.
(2) Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental
entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of
way for, design and construct two northbound left turn lanes at the
intersection of Road A (the Research Park Entrance) and U.S. 29
(one northbound turn lane has been completed as of the date of
this Proffer Statement). Applicant will also construct a westbound
turn lane into the Research Park to provide a free flowing right turn
movement for southbound vehicles turning into the Project from
U.S. 29 onto Lewis and Clark Drive. Applicant shall acquire (or
reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if
Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construct
a channelized southbound right turn lane on U.S. 29 (This has been
completed as of the date of this Proffer Statement). The Road
A/Lewis and Clark Drive exit onto U.S. 29 shall include dedication,
design and construction of two eastbound left turn lanes and two
eastbound right turn lanes (one lane in each direction has been
completed as of the date of this Proffer Statement). The entrance
at Road A/Lewis and Clark Drive at U.S. 29 also shall include
dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
(one lane has been completed as of the date of this Proffer
Statement).
(3) Proffer 5.4(a)(3) of ZMA 95-04 has been completed.
(4) Proffer 5.4(a)(4) of ZMA 95-04 has been completed.
B. Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase II road proffers before the
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II is constructed (but not before the
Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I is constructed) (as set forth in Section 5.3
above) or earlier if (i) specified in this 5.4 (B), or (ii) a need is created by
such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT
(provided however that if the site development plan review process does not
otherwise require Applicant to supply a traffic study, Applicant will provide at
least a traffic count upon the County’s request for evidence that such need
has not been created):
(1) Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a
two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649
through the Research Park Project within six months of the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
constructed after construction of the Maximum total Building-out,
Phase I (980,000 gross floor area of which up to 180,000 gross
floor area may be in Tract 1 and 2 on Exhibit J) (a portion of this
road, Lewis and Clark Drive, has been completed). Applicant shall
dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road
extending from U.S. 29 to 649 when traffic volumes within the
Project create the need for such widening.
(2) Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649
entrance: two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, one
southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through
lanes on Road A.
(3) Proffer 5.4(b)(3) of ZMA 95-04 has been completed.
(4) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for
appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road
A as improved in satisfying these Phase II road proffers, but no later
than when a need is created by the Project as determined by
VDOT.
C. Construction of improvements may proceed up to the Maximum Total Build-
out, Phase III described in Section 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) to
VDOT standards (including correcting the vertical curvature of U.S.
29) the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from
the entrance to the Research Park at Road A to Route 649. In the
alternative, if VDOT requires, and at the County’s direction,
Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and
construction costs which would otherwise be contributed by
Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29
from the entrance to the Research Park at Road A to Route 649.
(2) Before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for
improvements in excess of the Total Maximum Build-out, Phase II,
six through lanes shall have been constructed along U.S. 29
between the entrance of the Research Park at Road A and Route
649 to the satisfaction of VDOT and the County Engineer.
(3) Construction may nevertheless continue in excess of the Total
Maximum Build-out, Phase II (but in no event beyond the limitation
contained in Section 3.1) without all the road improvements having
been completed as contemplated in Section 5.4C(1) above so long
as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies
approved by VDOT that acceptable levels of service can be
maintained to the satisfaction of VDOT and the County Engineer at
the intersection U.S. 29 and Route 649, and at the intersection of
U.S. 29 and Lewis and Clark Drive/Road A. For purposes of this
subsection 5.4C(3), acceptable levels of service shall mean a LOS
“C” average, and LOS “D” for each turning movement.
D. Upon the request of the County, the Applicant shall dedicate to public use
and convey in fee simple an area within its Project necessary for
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location
shall be as designated on Exhibit M as “Right of Way Area Reserved for
Possible Future Grade Separated Interchange.” Applicant shall dedicate
such area without consideration. If the area is dedicated by one or more
subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the area to be
dedicated and bear a notation that it is dedicated for public use. If the area
has not been dedicated by subdivision plat, the Applicant shall pay the costs
of surveying the area, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing
and recording one or more deeds of dedication. 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.
E. The one hundred fifty (150) foot buffer adjacent to Dickerson Road and
shown as “150’ Buffer Area” on Exhibit K, may be reduced by up to fifty (50)
feet if the dedication of right of way is required for the widening of Dickerson
road by VDOT. If the dedication of right of way is required for the widening
of Dickerson Road, the Applicant shall dedicate, without monetary
consideration, the right of way upon written request by the County. The right
of way shall be conveyed within six (6) months following the Applicant’s
receipt of the written request. If the right of way is dedicated by one or more
subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the right of way and
bear a notation that the right of way is dedicated for public use. If the right
of way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the applicant shall pay the costs
of surveying the right of way to be dedicated, preparing one or more plats
thereof and preparing and recording one or more deeds of dedication, which
shall convey the right of way to the County in fee simple and shall be in the
form of a general warranty deed.
VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE
6.1 Developed Recreational Areas. Applicant shall develop active recreation, playing
fields and picnic areas as shown on Exhibit N: Open Space System Phasing Plan.
Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shall follow the phasing schedule
of proffered road improvements as set forth in Section 5.4 above. For example,
those open space improvements described for Phase 1 shall be completed before
construction of the Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I, as set forth in Section 5.3.
Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to the County, shall be maintained by the
Applicant or an appropriate organization. Upon request by the County, the Applicant
shall convey to the County, without monetary consideration, within six (6) months
following the Applicant’s receipt of the written request, the Sports Fields depicted on
the Exhibit N. The Applicant shall pay the costs of surveying the Sports Fields
parcel, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one or more
deeds of dedication, which shall convey the Sports Fields parcel to the County in fee
simple and shall be in the form of a general warranty deed. Sports Fields areas will
not be lighted with field or stadium lighting unless otherwise approved by the County.
6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development of areas not shown as either
development parcels or as “30.56 Acres (ZMA 05-03)” on Exhibit N: Open Space
System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are
established by plat. In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas,
including the Greenway (defined in Section 6.3 below), Buffer areas (defined in
Section 7.2 below), Open Space (shown on exhibits) and recreation areas described
in these Proffers be less than a total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use
and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions imposed by
the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the Owners
Association or to an appropriate organization. No structural improvements other
than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be
constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these
areas to Section 4.7.3 of the Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by
such ordinance.
6.3 Rivanna Greenway. Upon request of Albemarle County, the Owner shall dedicate to
the County for public use either in fee simple or as one or more easements, a
Greenway no less than one hundred (100) feet in width along the boundary of the
Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River as shown on Exhibit N: Open Space
System Phasing Plan (the “Greenway”). No structural improvements other than
pedestrian and riding trails shall be constructed, or erected within the Greenway
without the consent of the Owner. Utilities may be provided in the Greenway if, in the
opinion of the County Engineer, there is no reasonable alternative. If utilities are
allowed in the Greenway, the Owner may grant across the Greenway utility
easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for the users of the Project
and their guests and, may at its option, build pedestrian and riding trails or similar
uses of the area. Construction of pedestrian and riding trails shall conform to the
County Design Standards Manual for trails. The Owner will obtain approval from the
County Engineer for construction of any trails except primitive nature trails (Class B
Type 1 trails).
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Owner shall convey the Greenway by Deed of Gift and Easement Agreement.
The Deed shall be accompanied by a subdivision plat depicting the Greenway and
bearing a notation that the Greenway is dedicated for public use, subject to
provisions and reservations contained within the Deed. If, at the time of dedication,
the Greenway is not dedicated by an accompanying subdivision plat, the owner shall
pay the costs of surveying the Greenway, preparing the subdivision plat or other
depiction thereof acceptable to the Director of Community Development and the
County Attorney, and preparing and recording the Deed, and further provided that
the Deed is in a form approved by the County Attorney. After dedication, the
Greenway shall continue to be counted as open space for the Research Park.
6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shall not disturb the existing family cemetery
located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing
Plan. Applicant has completed a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery,
ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. The
preservation plan has been filed with the County to accompany these proffers. The
preservation plan memorializes the historical significance of this site, consistent with
the wishes of the family of those interred in the cemetery.
VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING
7.1 Landscaping. The Applicant shall landscape all Project roads in accordance with the
standards contained in the “Exhibit D, UREF’s North Fork Street Tree Master Plan”,
filed with the Albemarle County Planning Commission on November 1, 1994.
Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root
interference with such utilities.
7.2 Buffer Areas. Except as expressly provided herein in Sections 7.2 (A) and 7.2 (B),
the Owner shall not disturb the Buffer Areas (the “Buffer Areas”) as depicted on the
Application Plan, other than to: i) establish and maintain signage, fences or walls, ii)
remove underbrush, iii) plant landscaping trees for screening or (iv) construct an
interconnection along the eastern boundary between development parcels B10 and
B11 as shown on Exhibit K. The Owner shall plant additional landscaping in Buffer
Areas as reasonably required for screening.
A. Tract 2 - Disturbance within Eastern Buffer. Within Tract 2 on Exhibit J, the
fifty foot buffer on the eastern side of Tract 2 shown as “50’ Buffer Area” on
Exhibit K-4 (the “Eastern Buffer”) may be disturbed in conjunction with the
construction and maintenance of the public street shown on the Application
Plan as Lewis and Clark Drive. The land disturbing activity in the Eastern
Buffer shall be the minimum necessary as determined by the County
Engineer and reasonable construction practices to allow for the construction
and maintenance of Lewis and Clark Drive, including all sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways, and the construction and maintenance of erosion and
sediment control structures and measures, drainage facilities, and
stormwater management facilities which may be located either within or out
of the Eastern Buffer.
B. Tract 2 - Landscaping within Eastern Buffer. Any portion of the Eastern
Buffer within Tract 2 on Exhibit J that is disturbed as provided in paragraph
7.2 (A) shall be landscaped by the Applicant as provided herein within one
hundred eighty (180) days after the County’s Program Authority releases the
erosion and sediment control bond for land disturbing activity within the
Eastern Buffer. The disturbed portion of the Eastern Buffer shall be planted
in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the County in
conjunction with the road plan and profile for Lewis and Clark Drive. The
landscaping plan shall include the following: (i) an informal mix of native
species evergreens planted at least five (5) feet in height, serving as
screening trees, loosely staggered, fifteen (15) feet on-center; (ii) the same
species of screening trees shall be clustered in groups and alternate groups
of screening trees shall be provided to create a naturalistic rural landscape;
(iii) shade trees shall be interspersed among the screening trees; (iv)
clusters of ornamental trees shall be provided in groups of 3’s and 5’s; and
(v) tall shrubs shall be massed to help integrate the proposed plantings into
a naturalistic rural landscape. Approved plant species shall be obtained
from the Albemarle County Recommended Plant List and the buffer design
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of the Department
of Community Development. The minimum caliper of all shade trees
identified herein shall be two and one-half (2 ½) inches at the time of
planting. The Eastern Buffer shall be maintained by the Applicant.
VIII. FIRE STATION
8.1 Fire Station. The Applicant has leased to the County the Fire Station Parcel which is
identified as of the date of this Proffer Statement Tax Map Parcel 32-18B (the “Fire
Station Parcel”) at no cost to the County and under such other terms as are
acceptable to the County (the “Land Lease”). The Land Lease shall be for a term
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
that extends until the Applicant dedicates the Fire Station Parcel, or portion thereof,
to the County as provided in paragraph 8.5.
A. Proffer 8.1(A) of ZMA 2005-002 has been completed.
B. Proffer 8.1(B) of ZMA 2005-002 has been completed.
C. The Applicant shall provide hazardous materials training to County fire and
rescue personnel. The training program shall be approved in advance by
the Chief of the County’s Department of Fire Rescue. The training shall
consist of two (2) four (4) hour training sessions per year during the three (3)
year period beginning on the date the certificate of occupancy for the Fire
Station is issued. The training program shall pertain to biological, chemical
and radiation elements.
D. The portion of Proffer 8.1(D) of ZMA 2005-002 dealing with a septic tank
and septic drain field has been completed. The Applicant shall close and
remove the septic disposal system on the Fire Station Parcel at its sole
expense when the system is no longer required after the Fire Station Parcel
is connected to the public sewer system as provided in paragraph 8.4.
8.2 Hazardous Material. No Hazardous material, including medical wastes shall be
disposed within the Project.
8.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated to the
County pursuant to Section 5.4(b)(1) and (2), 5.4(d), 6.1, 6.3, and 8.1 is not used for
the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty
(20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be used as
open space.
8.4 Extension of Public Sewer to Fire Station. As condition of final subdivision plat or
final site plan approval for any development within Tracts 1 and 2 as depicted on
Exhibit J, or within Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-01800, other than the
final subdivision plat and final site plan creating and authorizing development of the
Fire Station described in Section 8.1, the Applicant shall design and construct at its
sole expense, or provide a sufficient bond or other form of surety to the County in an
amount sufficient to assure construction and acceptance by the appropriate
authority, a public sewer to serve the Fire Station Parcel and, in conjunction with
such construction and upon request by the developer of the Fire Station Parcel, shall
install a lateral from the public sewer that connects the Fire Station to the public
sewer. If such request is made, the developer of the Fire Station Parcel shall
reimburse the Applicant for its costs to design and install the lateral, and shall pay all
fees required for connecting the Fire Station to the public sewer system.
Reimbursement shall be made within sixty (60) days of receipt by the developer of a
request for reimbursement accompanied by documentation to support the amount
requested.
8.5 Dedication of Fire Station Parcel. Within ninety (90) days after the Fire Station
Parcel is served by the public sewer system as provided in Section 8.4, the Applicant
shall dedicate to the County in fee simple the Fire Station Parcel, less that portion no
longer needed for the septic disposal system, and less such adjoining lands within
the Fire Station Parcel determined by the County to not be needed for public use (the
“Dedication Parcel”). The size of the Dedication Parcel is estimated to be
approximately 111,021 square feet (2.55 acres) and as shown on Exhibit B to the
proffers approved with ZMA 2005-002. The Applicant shall bear the costs of
preparing the subdivision plat necessary for the dedication of the Dedication Parcel
to the County, and any other required plats or surveys, and the preparation of the
deed to convey the Dedication Parcel to the County. The Applicant shall provide
general warranties of title in the deed conveying the Dedication Parcel. Upon such
conveyance, the Land Lease described in Section 8.1 shall terminate.
8.6 Connection of Fire Station to Street; Alternate. The Applicant shall construct a street
from Lewis and Clark Drive to Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-01800
north of the Fire Station Parcel (the “Street”) and a travelway from the Street to a
connection point within the Fire Station Parcel or Dedication Parcel, as applicable,
mutually agreed to by the Applicant and the developer of the Fire Station Parcel,
which will be shown on the approved final site plan for the development of the Fire
Station (the “Connector”), as provided below:
A. The Street shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department of
Transportation standards or applicable street standards as determined by
the County Engineer, shall be designed and constructed to accommodate its
intersection with the Connector, and shall be located so that there is three
hundred (300) feet or such lesser distance, approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation, of separation on Lewis and Clark Drive
between the cross-over serving the Fire Station Parcel (the “Bay Door
Egress”) and the cross-over serving the Street to allow for the required left-
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
turn lane and taper from Lewis and Clark Drive into the Street. The Street
shall be completed for acceptance by the Virginia Department of
Transportation into the state highway system or by the County, as
applicable, before the median break allowing a direct left turn access from
the northbound lane(s) of Lewis and Clark Drive into the northern access to
the Fire Station Parcel from Lewis and Clark Drive (the “Median Break”) that
is in use as of the date of this Proffer Statement (the “Temporary Access”) is
closed.
B. The Connector shall be designed and constructed to applicable private
street standards set forth in Albemarle County’s Subdivision Ordinance and
Design Standards Manual. The Connector shall be completed for
acceptance by the County before the Median Break is closed. The
developer of the Fire Station Parcel shall close, or pay all costs to close, the
Temporary Access, including the cost of removing all unnecessary
pavement and installing landscaping in those areas consistent with the
existing landscaping along the front of the Fire Station Parcel.
IX. HISTORIC RESOURCES
Prior to approval of the first preliminary subdivision plat or preliminary site plan or an early
grading permit within Tract 1 on Exhibit J (except for the Fire Station property), th e Owner
shall provide a reconnaissance level survey performed by an architectural historian or other
qualified individual to adequately provide an archival record of the existing buildings within
Tract 1. The survey shall meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources (VDHR) and be provided on the VDHR Reconnaissance Survey Field Form.
X. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT
10.1 Project Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Department of Planning and
Community Development, or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the
development activity in the Project over the applicable period. Development activity
updates may be completed as part of the site plan review process and shall consist of a
summary spreadsheet of total gross square footage completed to date.
XI. SIGNATORY
11.1 Certificate. The undersigned owners certify that they are the only owners of the Property
which is the subject of this Proffer Statement and of ZMA 2005-03.
11.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the
“Applicant” within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding
upon, Applicant’s successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any
portion of the Property.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION
a Virginia non-stock corporation
By: __(Signed) Tim R. Rose_____________
Tim R. Rose, Chief Executive Officer
1641 EDLICH REALTY CO LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _(Signed) Brett Sarason______________
Printed Name: __Brett Sarason___________
Title: __Corporate Counsel ______________
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Thomas to approve SP-2008-00015, Parking Structures, with no
conditions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to approve SP-2008-00062, Laboratories, subject to the two
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
(Note: The conditions of approval for SP-2008-00062, Laboratories, are set out in full below.)
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the ordinance
and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance; and
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer areas
to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by the Director
of Planning.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to approve SP-2008-00063, Supporting commercial uses,
subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The condition of approval for SP-2008-00063. Supporting commercial uses, is set out in
full below.)
1. In addition to the proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area,
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at any time during
phased development.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to approve SP-2008-00064, Hotels, motels, inns, subject to
the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval for SP-2008-00064, Hotels, motels, inns, are set out in full
below.)
1. Not more than one (1) hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn
shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms; and
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall
not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total
gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed one hundred ninety
thousand (190,000) square feet.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Mark Graham to speak about the road she mentioned earlier in the
Hollymead Towncenter.
Mr. Graham said since Mr. Wood is present, he may want to comment on this situation. He said
staff is presently negotiating with him on the schedule for completion. Staff has looked at the project and
thinks it can be ready for acceptance by August or September. With the road acceptance process by
VDOT it can be ready by the end of the calendar year. Staff thinks the road could be opened and ready
for use by the beginning of September.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Wood would like to speak.
Mr. Wendell Wood said he can answer questions. He said he sold that property and now has it
back. The people who bought it - with the proffers placed on it and with the time and the way the world is
today - they lost about $30.0 million due to the proffers placed on it because they are just not feasible. He
made the mistake of posting the bond with the County for them when they could not do it.
Mr. Rooker said that bond was actually posted before the rezoning was approved.
Mr. Graham said that was done before Area “A” was rezoned.
Mr. Wood said that was part of his transaction. The bond was upgraded with Phase 2A. He said
that when it was approved, Mr. Rooker wanted the road from Harris Teeter back to Dickerson Road built
as a two-lane road; under the new conditions it is now curb, gutter, storm sewer, a different standard of
road. He put up that bond for the other party so it is his bond. Basically everything has been done on that
road for the last year and a half except the final blacktop and sidewalks. He said they have taken it back
over and need to finish the work because a Kohl’s Store is being built and it is scheduled to open October
1, 2010, and they are behind schedule. He said there is a $2.0 million bond posted, and there is about
$300,000 of work left to be completed. He said bonds are hard to get these days and are very expensive.
They have been requesting for a year to reduce the bond. He thinks the road will be open by October 1.
They would prefer that it not happen that soon because experience has shown him that mistakes occur,
and they prefer not to have to go back and dig up the road. They have everything except the final inch
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
and a half of blacktop down. They are trying to finalize how that phase will be developed; after the final
blacktop is laid if a line has to go from one side of the road to the other it has to be tunneled and that is
very expensive. They are waiting for decisions from a couple of tenants who will require a different
makeup from the approved Phase A2. He said the road is virtually completed and the bond is costing
about $50,000 a year and he thinks it could be reduced. He thinks the State of Virginia has accepted
everything they have done – they don’t accept a road for a year after it is completed.
Mr. Snow asked about the bond reduction. Mr. Graham said they actually built the road without
an approved plan and then tried to get the plan approved by VDOT. VDOT had significant concerns about
the design of the roundabout where Towncenter Drive intersects Meeting Street. They went through an
extensive design and compromise approach between the developer and VDOT. Staff was just notified the
plan was approved on February 12, 2010. It actually received a copy of the approved plan about ten days
later, so the approved plan has only been in the hands of staff for two weeks. It is just now at the point of
knowing what can be done with a bond reduction. They are close to getting a bond reduction calculated.
Mr. Rooker said the public’s responsibility is to be sure that the bond being held is at least
sufficient to complete the improvements that are not yet done.
Mr. Wood said that is what he is saying. There is a $2.0 million bond posted for about $300,000
worth of work left to do.
Mr. Graham said the bond process for reductions with public roads is changing. Until now VDOT
had the staffing to come out and do the inspections to quality the workmanship during the process and
then make an agreement with staff as to whether they felt that quality was acceptable or whether it would
have to be redone. As of about a month ago, VDOT stopped doing that. They no longer have the staffing
to do these interim inspections. At the time the road is felt to be ready for acceptance, VDOT will simply
look at it and make a determination as to whether it is acceptable or not.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County has to make its own determination. Mr. Graham said they will
have to determine how much risk they want to take and the quality of the workmanship. It is a significant
change in process that has happened in the last couple of months.
Mr. Wood said the process for what has to be done after the road is built has been in effect for a
long time. After the road is built, you must hire a private engineering firm to core drill the road to make
sure the road is built to the proper standards. An engineer has to do centerline adjustments to be sure the
road is built in the right place and that the storm drains are in the right locations and built to the size shown
on the plans. He said that information by a certified engineer has to be provided to VDOT; the State used
to do that work.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is VDOT staff that could be hired by applicants to do this inspection for
an additional fee so the County does not “put its neck in the noose?” Mr. Graham said the County
requires certifications from private engineers.
Mr. Rooker asked who estimates the cost for completion of the road. Mr. Graham said County
staff does that. Staff decides on the original bond estimate and then does the reductions based on the
work. The big question is – where is VDOT going to draw the line on acceptable work? He said nothing is
ever built perfect; that is unrealistic. It is always a judgment call on particular features of the work.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not want a road built to a standard so it is not ultimately
accepted into the state system.
Mr. Wood said VDOT has already passed this road. Mr. Graham said they have not done all of
the final inspections. They did the core borings and the centerline, but there are other issues. The
sidewalks have not been built, so there are still other things to do. Another inspection is that they run TV
cameras up the storm drains to be sure they are properly built. That has not been done. If a storm drain
has to be torn up it runs on top of the curb and gutter in the street, so all of that and the street would have
to be torn up to fix that storm sewer.
Mr. Wood said VDOT used to come out and inspect as the work progressed. He said this plan
calls for an 18-inch line to be put in, and contractors are bonded so not many would do it wrong.
Installation is a basic operation and he does not know of many that have had to be torn up. The new thing
about videoing the work costs $3.00 a foot. That costs is about one-third of the cost of the pipe, and it has
to be done twice. It has to be done when the road is requested to be taken in, and then the state does not
take the road in for one year, so he has to put up a maintenance bond and at the end of the year, they
come back and video it again in case some trash got into the pipe, so it is actually $6.00 a foot. He said
that is where “we are in this world today.” He does not think there is a problem in this town with
contractors who do it wrong because they have to tear it out.
__________
At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Thomas offered motion that the Board go into a Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider an administrative
appointment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
March 10, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
At 7:38 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Thomas that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only
public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. At 7:39 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Snow, to adjourn this meeting to March 15, 2010, at 9:00
a.m., in Room 241. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 04/07/2010
Initials: EWJ