Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Technology center developer seeks public hearing amid negotiations over height, fire‑safety proffers and traffic improvements
Summary
Green Energy Ventures detailed its proposed King George Technology Center and will resubmit revised proffers this week; commissioners pressed for a committed fire‑safety package, clearer traffic mitigation plans and a staff‑reviewed fiscal impact analysis before scheduling a public hearing.
Green Energy Ventures provided an updated project presentation for the King George Technology Center, a multi‑building data center and infrastructure proposal, and requested the Planning Commission’s approval to move the project toward public hearing once outstanding items are resolved.
Hobie Mitchell, managing partner for Green Energy Ventures, described the proposed site plan showing multiple two‑ and three‑story server buildings, emergency generators, rooftop HVAC screening and internal substations. Mitchell said the company is revising its proffers to address fire department needs and traffic improvements and plans to refile documentation this week.
Mitchell said the developer would contribute $2 million toward a fire truck and provide an annual contribution to public safety. “So we would contribute $2,000,000 for a fire truck… we would provide the equipment to do that to the fire marshal,” Mitchell said. He added the company will proffer traffic improvements including an accelerated warrant study and turn‑lane/curvature designs intended to minimize the number of new signals on Route 3 subject to VDOT approval.
Commissioners and consultants asked several technical questions. The applicant’s traffic consultant explained an “R‑curve” and right‑in/right‑out alternatives intended to reduce signals along Route 3; the consultants said one signal is likely warranted at the primary intersection. The applicant also requested flexibility on building height through either a project‑specific condition or a county text amendment so that rooftop screening and equipment can be accommodated while meeting fire‑safety requirements.
Commissioners repeatedly asked for a clear, staff‑reviewed fiscal impact analysis and for a plain‑language summary of any state or local tax incentives that could reduce county revenue (commissioners referenced prior concerns about state incentive programs tied to large projects). Several commissioners said they were not prepared to schedule a public hearing until staff confirmed the application was administratively complete; staff said the revised submission should be filed this week and would be reviewed for completeness.
The applicant asked the commission to place the matter on a public‑hearing calendar (March was discussed as a target). Commissioners agreed to consider it for a public hearing after staff confirms a complete submission and resolves outstanding questions about financing, public safety and traffic mitigation.
