Albemarle County Planning Commission

January 17, 2006


The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Pete Craddock and Marcia Joseph, Chairman.  Jo Higgins and Jon Cannon were absent.  Pete Craddock arrived at 6:37p.m.  Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, represented David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. 


Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Bill Fritz, Development Review Manager; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Steve Tugwell, Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.


Call to Order and Establish Quorum:


Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.


ZMA 2005-002 County Fire Station at UVA Research Park (Signs #22,23,24,44,70)

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 1.16 acres from RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PDIP (with proffers) - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use), and rezone 477.67 acres from PDIP to PDIP (with amended proffers).  The 1.16 acre piece of land would be added to the UVA Research Park.  The property is also located in the EC Entrance Corridor which is an overlay zone to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access.


EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).

LOCATION: The lands proposed for rezoning are a portion of Tax Map and Parcel 32-18 and Tax Map and Parcel 32-6A located on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approx. one half mile west of the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North, and more particularly described as follows: (1) the lands to be rezoned from RA to PDIP are a portion of Tax Map 32 Parcel 18 comprised of a 1.16 acre triangular-shaped piece of land beginning at a point along Tax Map 32 Parcel 18's shared boundary with Tax Map 32 Parcel 6A at a point that is 888 feet north of Tax Map 32 Parcel 18's southern boundary line at Airport Road, thence 168 feet N 59º 48' 41" W, thence 600 feet N 30º 11' 19" E, thence 623.1 feet S 07º 52' 53" W, back to the starting point (hereinafter "Parcel A"); (2) the lands to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP (with amended proffers) are Tax Map 32 Parcel 6A, a 477.67 acre piece of land, a portion of which abuts and is east of Parcel A. 


STAFF PERSON:  Elaine Echols



Ms. Echols stated that when they last left off with this particular rezoning the Commission had reviewed it for the County Fire Station for 1.6 acres and then modifying some proffers that related to the North Fork Research, which required that the legal ad have the rezoning was a lot bigger than that.  But, the bottom line was that it was just adding a little over an acre to the park.  That is what the rezoning is about.  The Commission was generally in favor of it. They were generally in favor of the recommendations in the staff report.  There were a number outstanding issues that you wanted to see resolved.  Staff has noted those in the current staff report and can report on those right now.  The Commission also asked some questions by email about the status of different things, which she was glad to talk about tonight if they have any additional questions on it.  What she would like to do is concentrate on where they are right now.  Since the Commission got their staff report staff has seen another set of proffers, which is in front of them.  It resolves all of the outstanding issues with two exceptions.  Those two exceptions are about the driveway separation and whether or not it would be 250 or 300 feet.  Also, the timing of when the sewer would be installed.  In negotiations today the County and the applicant have come up with some acceptable language so that the sewer would be extended in conjunction with the improvements for the site development plan or subdivision plat.  So they feel that they are protected in that regard.  Also, additional wording would be added to the proffers that are in front of the Commission or may be modified to reflect that the driveway separation would be 300 feet or less with VDOT’s approval.  Staff understands that the applicant intends to change the proffers in front of them to address those last two items.


One other thing has come up since the last time, which is in the staff report.  At the last meeting the applicant said that the Service Authority, Pete Gorman in particular, thought that use of a septic system was appropriate at this particular location.  Staff does not think that he was aware of what had preceded this particular issue at the Service Authority.  Staff received an email from Bill Brent explaining that the Service Authority has purchased sewer capacity to be used at this particular location and he strongly recommended that the fire station be connected to public sewer because of the expenditure in reserving sewer capacity.  So he recommended that to us.  Staff does not know if that changes the Commission’s recommendation with regards to the use of the septic system or sewer.  But, staff wanted the Commission to have that information and reconsider it.  If The Commission is still comfortable with the use of a septic system and with the changes that have been made to the proffers that the Commission has not reviewed, but staff has reviewed, plus these other two; then staff can recommend approval. That is a lot to ask the Commission to do without looking at proffers, but Mr. Kamptner is very familiar with the details of the proffers and between the two of them and Tom Foley they should be able to answer any of their questions.


Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols.


Mr. Edgerton asked which proffer describes the separation of drive ways.


Mr. Kamptner stated proffer 8.6.a on page 4.


Ms. Echols stated that the Commission asked for a copy of the original rezoning plan, which was the original rezoning for the research park. This plan behind Mr. Morris is a proposal that is in right now to expand the park by another 30 acres.  Part of that area would be part of this fire station.  On that plan, which the Commission has not reviewed yet, there is an interconnecting road which is where the black arrow is.  The other black connection shown is generally what would happen. Staff is recommending that an interconnecting public street go to the west. There is a street shown on that plan and staff is still talking about how far it connects to the west.  But, that is generally the location. Then the fire station would hook into it. 


Ms. Joseph assumed that they would still maintain this entrance.


Ms. Echols stated that was correct.


Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Echols.  There being none, she opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.


Valerie Long, attorney for the University of Virginia Foundation, stated that also present this evening is Bruce Stouffer and Fred Missel from UVA Foundation.  The Foundation is technically the applicant for this rezoning by nature of the fact that they are the owners of the property.  But, this is really a county application for the fire station.  They have been working very closely throughout this process with representatives from the county staff, fire station and fire department to ensure that the plan is workable for everyone.  They have been working closely with Mr. Kamptner and others on the proffers. They would certainly be happy to address any questions as they relate to the Foundation.  But, they at this point will turn things over to Mr. Foley to speak more on the specifics of the fire station unless anyone has specific questions that she can address.


Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive for Public Safety and Community Development, stated that the last time that they talked about this the applicant and really the county requested the deferral.  They wanted to bring to the Commission proffers that had been worked out and clarified. At that time they did not have major issues.  They wanted to make sure that they worked through any clarifications that were necessary.  He would turn what has been going on clarification rather than negotiation because there are really no substantial differences of intent.  They just needed to get the language straight in the proffers.  The items that are included in the staff report is issues that are all resolved.  They are actually resolved based on the county’s language. Mr. Kamptner met and discussed these with the applicant and worked through the language that was acceptable to the county and also met their needs.  And that was more clarification than it was negotiation.  The attorneys just had to work the language out.  That is where they are on this.  The information that the Commission received on the proffers, which had UREF’s comments, were really the things that got worked out.  He did not think there was anything significantly different than what they did receive.  Mr. Kamptner has done the extra work of putting it in the proffer form and getting it basically final.  The only issues that remain and were discussed today were to clarify that if the distance of the new connector road does not need to be as much as 300 feet based on VDOT’s requirements, that the county would not require it to be 300 feet in the proffers.  He considered that to be a clarification and really an understanding that they all had, which was it would be the minimum distance that it needed to be.  The reason that is important is because they have committed to the connecting road from the new road off of Lewis and Clark back over to the fire station. So there is no need for that to be a further distance from the fire station than is necessary.  So that was really clarified.  The only other issue they had was that they had interpreted the proffer to say that they would have to actually construct the sewer line before we had actually approved the plan for any other development on parcel D.  That was really not the intent.  What they typically do is require that there be a bond so that the sewer line will get built.  They certainly agree with that.  So it was really a matter of clarifying the language there. 


Ms. Joseph asked when the bond would be posted.


Mr. Foley stated that at the time the plan was approved as part of the agreement.


Ms. Joseph asked if it was this plan or the first site plan that comes besides this one within area D.


Mr. Foley stated yes, the second one within area D.


Mr. Kamptner stated that it would be for tax map/parcel 32-18, which was the adjoining land.


Mr. Foley stated that in layman terms that as soon as they develop anything else on that parcel besides this fire station the county wants them to be obligated to hook us up to sewer.  So all they are saying is that as soon as they develop anything else that when you get the plan approval you have to commit to a bond that will ensure that sewer line is built to the fire station.  That is going to be assured with a minor adjustment to the proffers that Mr. Kamptner has done.  They thought that we wanted them to construct it before the plan was even approved.  That was really a misunderstanding.  So the issues have been resolved.  They are in agreement that this is a very positive thing to move forward on.  There has been a question about whether the sewer should be connected as a part of the fire station rather than having temporary sewer. He felt that for the reasons that they discussed at the last meeting, which are documented in their minutes, they think that because this is an essential public facility and because there is such a great distance between the fire station and the gravity sewer line with no plans for development in that whole area it makes a lot more sense both from a planning perspective and in also for getting this fire station to be able to move forward that a temporary sewer line be allowed in this case. He did not think that sets a precedent for other private development.  They are talking about an essential public facility here.  It is also an area from the planning perspective that has just not been planned yet.  So to put a sewer line and require that way ahead of the development he did not think would work well from a planning perspective either.  Those are the reasons that they would request that the Commission approve this with the changes that Ms. Echols has talked about and the clarifications so that the project can move forward.  If there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them.  Mr. Kamptner is prepared to talk to the Commission about how he has finalized the language on these issues and so forth.  He felt that it was in keeping with what the county would want in terms of good clear proffers so that there are no questions in the future.


Ms. Joseph asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Foley. 


Mr. Kamptner stated to clarify Ms. Joseph’s last question about the triggering of the site plan or subdivision plat.  It is either parcel 32-18, which is the adjoining parcel or parcel D.


Ms. Joseph stated that it has some connection to the original rezoning.


Mr. Edgerton asked who is going to build the fire station.


Mr. Foley stated that the county is going to build the fire station.  The University of Virginia Foundation is going to build the road.  They have already worked on a coordinating schedule to ensure that those work together. The proffers address temporary easements for construction and so forth so that those can work together.  They can begin the station construction while they are doing some of the road work and so forth.


Mr. Edgerton asked who would be paying for the septic field and/or sewer depending on that determination.


Mr. Foley stated that the University of Virginia Foundation will pay for all of the cost of the temporary sewer, the connections and everything related to that temporary solution.


Mr. Edgerton stated that if they were to take Mr. Brent’s recommendation and mandate that the sewer be connected at this time, then that would be a burden on the Foundation.


Mr. Foley stated that he would have to ask Mr. Kamptner for clarification. But, yes to get the sewer to the site would be their obligation.  Any of the costs from the property line to the fire station would have always have been our obligation. 


Mr. Edgerton stated that is correct.


Mr. Foley stated that when the temporary sewer solution is abandoned, which will be at their costs, we would pay for the cost to get the sewer from the property line to the station just as they would have under the subdivision process.


Mr. Edgerton stated that he wanted to make sure that he knew who was doing what and who was responsible. 


Ms. Joseph asked if there was anyone else present who would like to speak to this item.  There being none, she closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.


Mr. Edgerton stated that he did not support setting precedence that are going to cause problems, but the beneficiaries of this fire station going in now is going to be the community and not the developer.  He felt that the trigger that has been worked into the proffers if any further development occurs by the applicant that they will have to extend the sewer line.  But, he felt that the benefit to the community of having this fire station operable using a temporary septic system makes sense.  He did not believe that it could be used against the county as far as a precedent because other applicants or developers are not necessarily working for the benefit of the community.


Mr. Morris stated that they were dealing with public safety here.


Mr. Strucko stated that it was a high growth area.  There is a lot happening up in that area.  He was the former president of the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company.  They worked with the county for literally years trying to work out response times and responsibilities for that area.  Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Edgerton’s comments.


Ms. Joseph felt that one of the things that Mr. Foley said also was intriguing is that they have not looked at this.  This is not an approved plan here. So they don’t know exactly what route that sewer line should follow at this point in time. They are not quite sure what is going to happen here.  So she felt that is a valid point at this point in time.  Because this area is in such high growth they need this fire station.


Mr. Strucko asked if there is a public water connection. 


Ms. Joseph stated that there public water available.


Mr. Strucko stated that they were talking about the sewer, but asked if there is no concern over the water.


Mr. Foley stated no, that they were committing to the water connection with the project.


Mr. Strucko stated that from last week his concern with the location of these connector roads was because he knew that fire response would benefit greatly if there were multiple access points or multiple points of getting to locations.  So the adequacy of the connector road was important to him from last week’s conversation with the adjoining parcel that they had. He saw one definite point, which was Lewis and Clark Drive, and then another one that would go west.


Mr. Edgerton stated that the black line was a suggestion, but again all that has been determined is the alignment of Lewis and Clark Drive.


Mr. Strucko stated that the response time was the major concern and one of the justifications for constructing this fire station at this location.  The response time is a function of access. If moving around and in and out of roads would just simply add to that.  He asked just to make that point.


Mr. Craddock arrived at 6:37 p.m. 


Ms. Joseph stated that she really did not like seeing proffers come on the table the night of the meeting.  However, since this is a county project and you are working for the county then she is going to be very trusting and assume that they are all right.


Mr. Craddock asked if it was on the same amount of land.


Ms. Joseph stated that it was 1.6 acres.  They were still giving back and not keeping the extra acreage.


Motion:  Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Strucco seconded, to approve ZMA-2005-002, County Fire Station at UVA Research Park with the revised proffers presented at the meeting and with the two changes described by staff.

  1. Additional wording would be added to the proffers that the driveway separation would be 300 feet or less with VDOT’s approval.
  2. The timing of the installation of the sewer would be extended in conjunction with the improvements for the site development plan or subdivision plat.


The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Commissioners Higgins and Cannon were absent.)


Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA 2005-002, County Fire Station at UVA Research Park, would go to the Board of Supervisors on February 8 with a recommendation for approval.  (Attachment – Proffer Form – Amended dated January 17, 2006)


Return to PC actions letter