HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-20 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of June 20, 2001
June 25.2001
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
tl. Call to order.
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
5.1 SP-2001-05. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #49). APPROVED
w/14 conditions, including a revision to condition #2a.
5.2 Resolution to Request an ABC Board Investigation of the
Foxfield Races. DEFERRED to allow staff to meet w/Foxfield
officials, VDOT, student representatives, etc.
5.3 Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2001-2002 Capital
Improvements BUdget and Resolution of Official Intent for use of
vPSA Bond Proceeds. ADOPTED both Resolutions.
5.4 Adopt Resolution Endorsing Meadow Creek Parkway and
Resolution of Intent to Amend Comprehensive Plan. ADOPTED
both Resolutions.
5.5 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17.
Water Protection, pertaining to persons holding certificates of
competence overseeing land disturbing activity. SET PUBLIC
HEARING for 7/11/01.
6. Public Hearing: Albemarle County's 2001-02 Annual Plan for the
administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program. APPROVED Annual Plan and submission to HUD.
AUTHORIZED County Executive to. sign Certification of
Comp liance.
7. Public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the
ASSIGNMENT
was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members, Bob
Tucker, Larry Davis, and Wayne Cilimberg present.
Clerk: Laurie Bentley.
~ne.
~rk: List conditions (Attachment A).
County Executive staff: Set up meeting with
Foxfield officials and bring recommendations back
to the Board.
Clerk: Forward signed resolutions (Attachment B)
to Melvin Breeden, copies to Robert Walters, and
Katie Bullard.
Management Analyst: Notify affected department
heads.
Planning staff: Forward signed resolution
endorsing Meadow Creek Parkway (Attachment
C) w/cover letter under Chairman's signature, to
VDOT.
Clerk: Attach resolutions (Attachments C and D).
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
County Executive: Sign Certification of
Compliance. Send original to Ron White, copy to
Clerk.
Housing staff: Send Certification to HUD.
staff: Advise applicant.
Albemarle County Se rvice Authority for sewer service to Barbara
Harris. AMENDED ACSA jurisdictional area to provide sewer
service to TM62,P26 (the 1.97 ac parcel).
8. SP-2001-009. Crossroads Waldorf School Early Learning Center
(Sign #79). APPROVED wi4 conditions.
9. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #98). REFERRED back to
;lerk: List conditions (Attachment A).
Planning staff and Planning Commission: Address
Planning Commission.
10. SP-1999-59. Young America (Sign #95). REFERRED back to
Planning Commission.
11. ZMA-00-10. Avemore (Signs #85&86). APPROVED subject to
proffers.
12. SP-2000-69. Avemore (Signs #27&60). APPROVED wi1
raised by the Board.
staff and Planning Commission: Address
uestions raised by the Board.
Clerk: List proffers (Attachment A).
Clerk: List condition (Attachment A).
condition.
13. SP-2000-70. Avemore (Sig ns #87&99). APPROVED wi1
condition.
14. Extend the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
APPROVED adoption of the appropriate section of the
Ordinance. Additionally, APPROVED motion to require Planning
Clerk: List condition (Attachment A).
Clerk: Forward signed ordinance (Attachment E)
to County Attorney's office.
staff: Draft letter for Chairman's approval.
staff to send, under Chairman's signature, thank you letters to all
persons placing and/or keeping property in A/F districts.
15. Extend the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. APPROVED
adoption of the appropriate section of the Ordinance.
16. Extend the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District.
APPROVED adoption of the appropriate section of the
Ordinance.
18. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
· DESIGNATED Juan Wade as proxy representing the Board for
JAUNT's Annua stockholders' meeting.
· Referring to the Preallocation Hearing to be held in Culpeper,
Ms. Humphds recommended that, instead of reading a long,
drawn-out letter to the CTB, Ms. Thomas instead focus on
several crucial transportation items. CONSENSUS for
Ms. Thomas to do so.
In the future, prepare letters addressed to all
persons placing and/or keeping property in A/F
districts.
Clerk: Forward signed ordinance to County
Attorney's office.
Clerk: Forward signed ordinance to County
Attorney's office.
Clerk: Forward signed proxy form to Donna
Shaunesey, copy to Juan Wade.
None.
20. ADJOURNED to 5:00 p.m., July 11,2001. Clerk: Advertise meeting.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001/02 Capital Improvement Program
Service Resolution of Appropriation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
and Debt
AGEN DA DATE:
June 20, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Request approval of the FY2001/02 Capital Improvement
Program and Debt Service Resolution of Appropriation
and Resolution of Official Intent for Use of VPSA Bond
Proceeds.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden, Ms. Bullard
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
CHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The FY2002/02 Capital Improvement Budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 18, 2001 in
the amount of $29,693,000, $7,965,000 to the General Government Capital Improvement Fund, $21,428 to the
School Division Capital Improvement Fund and $300,000 to the Stormwater Fund. In addition to the Capital
Improvement Program, this resolution also includes the appropriation of funds to both the School and General
Government Debt Service Funds.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution totals $43,840,971 and includes the following:
General Government Capital. Improve ment Program Fund $12,022,188
This includes $7,965,000 in approved projects, plus $4,057,188 in Capital Reserve funds to be used for future
capital projects and debt service over the next five years. The final reserve reflects a reduction of $118,000
approved by the Board in April for Simpson Park and an $80,000 transfer of funds from the Capital Fund into
the General Government Debt Service Fund to provide additional funds for 800 MHz debt service, if needed.
School Division Capital Improvement Program Fund $21,428
The only change from the adopted School Capital Improvement Program budget is the transfer of $675,000
from the Southern Elementary School project and $200,000 from the Maintenance account into the Northern
Elementary School project to cover the projected shortfall. This transfer was approved by both the School
Board and Board of Supervisors at the June 6th meeting.
Stormwater Fund
There have been no changes to the approved~Stormwater Fund allocation.
$300,000
Debt Service $10,090,783
School Division debt service reflects $8.5 million for Capital Improvement Program projects, $272,656 for debt
service on the PREP facility, which is 100% reimbursed by fees, and $295,925 on the School's VRS debt
service payment. School Divisions were given the option to pay mandated COLA increases through .annual
debt payments. The final payment is due in FY03.
General Government debt service totals $990,202, which includes $948,000 in debt service for the 800MHz
radio system project and $42,202 for the Monticello Fire Rescue Station.
06-14-01 ^11:28 lbi
AGENDA TITLE: FY2001/02 Capital Improvement program and Debt Service Resolution of Appropriation
AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Appropriation for the FY2001-02 Capital Improvement
Program and FY2001-02 Debt Service funds. Also recommended for approval, is the attached Resolution of
Official Intent to use VPSA bond proceeds for school capital projects.
01.134
2
Paragraph Five
PARKS AND RECREATION
$ 802,00o
1, County Athletic Field Development
2, Cmzet Park Athletic Field Development
3, Paramount Theater
4. parks & Rec Maintenance/Replacement Projects
5. PVCC FacilEy Renovation
6. Recreation Facilities Project
7. Rivanna Gmenway Access and Path
8. School Athlet Field Irrigation
9. Scottsville Community Center Improvements
10. Simpson Park
11. Towe Park Lower Field Irrigation
$ 228,O00
131,000
33,000
60,000
93,000
50,000
25,000
77,0O0
44,000
1,2,0oo
$ 803,0O0
Paragraph Six
'ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMEN'r~
$ t,ooo,ooo
1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Paragraph SeVen
UTIMTY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Keene Landfill Closure
$ 100,0O0
Paragraph Eight
CAPITAL RESERVE
$ 4,057,188
1. Capi~ Reserve
$4,057,188
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$12,011,188
To be provided as follows:
General Government CIP Fund Balance
School Debt Service Reserve
General Government Debt Service Reserve1,690,000
City Re'm~bursements
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
Borrowed Funds-FEe/Rescue Station
Interest Income
Tourism Funds
Transfer from General Fund
$1,982,000
1,785,000
8,000
44,000
465,0O0
100,000
658,000
,5,290,,188
$12,022,188
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROV~ FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$12,022,188
SECTION II - SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL iMI~OVi~/~NT$ FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL iMPROYEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) $21 ~428,000
1. Administrative Technology
2. Brownsville Additions
3. Budey Addition/Renovations
4. Crozet tc~tchen
5. Insb'uctional Technology
6. Jouett Addition/Renovation
7. New Northern Elementary School
8. New Southern Elementary School
9. School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$ 70,000
240,000
6,995,000
65,00O
396,000
315,000
10,544,000
1,225,000
!,578,000
$21,428,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$21,428,000
To be provided as follows:
School CIP Fund Balance
Interest Eamed
State Construction Funds
VPSA Bonds
Total SCHOOL DNISK)N CAPITAL IMPRO~S FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 546,000
150,000
400,000
20.332.000
$21,428,000
$2t,428,000
SECTION III - STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORMWATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein speolfied to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
STORMWATER PROJECTS
1. Stormwater Control Program
$ 30~,~
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 300,000
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund
$ 300,000
Total STORII~I~ATER CAPITAJ. IMPROVE~.NTS FUll)
resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 300,000
SECTION IV: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby am appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and
the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
SCHOOL DMSION DEBT SERVICE FUND
$ 9,t00,581
1. Debt Service Payments - School Division
2. Debt Service Payments - PREP
3. VRS Early Retirement
$8,532,000
272,656
295,925
$9,100,581
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 9,100,581
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
$8,832,OO0
295,925
272,656.
$9,100,581
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources
available for f'~cal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 9,100,581
Paragraph Two
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
1. 600 MHz Debt Service Payment
2. Fire/Rescue Budding Debt Service Payment
$ 948,000
42,20,2.
$ 990,202
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fd Transfer)
Revenue from E-gl1 Surcharge
$ 910,202
S0.000
$ 990,202
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 990,202
990,2O2
SUf
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for f'~cal year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Fees and Surcharges
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$9,738,127
352.656
$10,090,783
$10,090,783
$10,090,783
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTtONED IN
SECTIONS i - ~V IN THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
RECAPITULATION:
Section I - General Government Improvements Fund
Section l! - $choo! Division Capita! Improvements Fund
Section !!1 - Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund
Section IV - Debt Service
$12,022,188
21,428,000
300,000
10,090,78~
$43,S40,971
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$43,840,971
BE IT FU~ ORD,NNED that the Directm' of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from
one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in ex=ess of, the
appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION V
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, It and I!1 are appropriated
upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions here~ before set forth in conrrection with said terms
and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk ~ the Board of
Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby des'[gnated as author'=ed signators for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualif'~,ations in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum,
conditional and proportionate appropriations-the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in fu~l
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
ava~able dudng the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise the saiQ.ap, pmpr~tions shall be deemed to be. payable in such proportion, as the totai..sum Of
all ma!~_~d revenue ~the reSPective.funds is to the ~1 amount of revenue .e~ated to be available in the_
said [~7,al year by the B~rd of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Super,,isors included in its
estima~ of revenue for the finencing of the fund budget as submilted to the Board of SL~pew~ors may not
be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisation to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required, and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance, The Purchasing Agent
shatl be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any mason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisom.
Any obliga__~_ ns.incurred contrary to the purchasir~ o[ocedures pr~ in the Albemarle County
P. urch~"~l ,~Z=nual .shall not be considered 0bl~dtons of. Me County, and the Director of Finance shall not
issue any warrants in Iravment of such. obligations,.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments,
bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees
for expense on ~nt of the use of such officers and employees of their personal at.~nobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for
its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense a~nts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
L Ella W.. Carey, do hereby certify that the forego~g wr~ng is a true, correct copy of a resolution
adopt~ by the Board of Suers of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 20,
2001.
Clerk, Board of ~
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to
undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A attached
hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as
hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not
to exceed $20,332,000 (the "Bonds").
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for
costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent"
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
I, Ella W. Carey, due hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held
on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, B;ard of Supervisors//
./
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
t~oun y ), certifies as follows:
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held
on June 20, 2001, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular
meetings, at which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris;
Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; and Sally H. Thomas
ABSENT: None.
o
A resolution entitlted "Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures for
Various Public Improvements with Proceeds of Bonds", was adopted 'by a majority of all
members of the Board by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes
of the meeting as shown below:
MEMBER
VOTE
Dax;id P. Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Attached hereto is a true, correct and complete copy of such resolution as adopted at such
meeting.
The foregoing resolution has nor been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in
full force and effect on the date hereof.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, this 20~' day of June, 2001.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of~
Albemarle County, Virgini~/'
(SEAL)
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2001102
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
Brownsville Additions
Burley Addition/Renovations
Jouett Addition/Re novations
Northern Area Elementary
Southern Area Elementary
Maintenance/Replacement
Amount
$240,000
$6,995,000
$315,000
$10,544,000
$1,225,O00
$1,013,000
$20,332,000
Attachment C
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of
approximately two miles in length, with the first segment being within the Charlottesville City limits
between Route 250 and Melbourne Road, and the second segment in Albemarle County between
Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors contracted
with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects to develop design and alignment
recommendations for the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, to consider the
parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and to look at adjacent park and urban
development areas along the corridor of land between Melbourne Road and Rio Road in
Albemarle County, with the overall vision being the creation of a true "parkway"; and
WHEREAS, Jones & Jones led and coordinated a design team that worked in
conjunction with the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Departments and the Planning
Commission. The culmination of this process was the creation of a written report providing three
alternative alignments with Alternative "A" being the recommended alignment. Alternative "A" was
then further refined and final recommendations for the parkway, urban development and
parklands was presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed all the alternatives and
aspects of the proposed project, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses
Alternative "A" and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed expeditiously
with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbourne Road to Rio Road, in
conformance with the proposed Alternative '.'A" roadway alignment recommendation and concept
set out in the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report - May, 2001".
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6
to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Attachment D
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report,
dated May, 2001"; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests the Albemarle County
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan, and to send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest
possible date.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a
vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Attachment F
ORDINANCE NO. 01-3(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWlDE
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II,
Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-215
Sec. 3-216
Sec. 3-227
Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
High Mowing Agricultural and Foresta District
Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 15, 15A, 17, 18, 19, 22,
22A, 30 (part); tax map 136, parcel 9B. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not
more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to
June 29, 201 t.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District"
consists of the following described properties: Tax map 85, parcels 33B, 39, 39A1, 39H,
4lA, 41Al. This district, created on January 16, I991 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to January 16, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(t); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District"
consists of the following described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85, 85A;
tax map 122, parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72;
tax map 129, parcels 3, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134,
parcels 3, 19; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior
to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6
to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Dorrier x
Mr. Humphris x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Aye Nay
X
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
I4.
15.
16.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Consent Agenda (on next page).
Public Heating: Albemarle Countfs 2001-02 Annual Plan for the administration of the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for sewer service to Barbara Harris.
SP-2001-009. Crossroads Waldorf School Early Learning Center {Sign #79). Public
hearing to' allow private ~ school w/upto'85'students. ZndPUD. TM61X2,P4B. Loc on Four
Seasons Dr, approx V4 ml from intersec of Four Seasons Dr & Hydraulic Rd. Contains 2.314
acs. Rio DisL
ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #98). Public hearing on a request for a Zoning Map
Amendment of approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Znd LI & HC. TM76MI,P1;TM76,P55A
&TM76,P55C. Loc on approx 9.099 acs on E side of 5th St Ext just N of intersec w/I.64.
Scottsville Dist. (Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5
in the Comp Plan.) Scottsville Dist~
SP-1999-59. Young America (Sign #95). Public-hearingon a request to approve approx 4.0
acs of approx 12.987 acs for grading in floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moore's
Creelc Znd LI & HC. Portions of TM76M 1 ,P 1 ;TM76, P55A&TM76,P55C. Loc on E side of
5th St Ext just N of its intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist.
ZMA-00-10. Ave. more (Signs #85&86). Public hearing on a request to rezone 27.46 acs
from R- 10 to R- 15 to allow mixed use of-406 d/us, retail uses & offices.-Loc on Fontana Dr
approx 1/10 mi from intersec of Rt 20 &Fontana Dr. TM78~P58I&TM78B,Pls2A,2B,4B,3-
1 &4-1. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density residential, recom for 6-34
du/ac in Neighborhood 3 Pantops Development Area.) Rivanna Dist.
SP-2000-69. Avemore (Signs #27&60). Public Hearing to allow professional offices in
residential development (description in item # 11).
SP-2000-70. Avemore (Signs #87&9.9). Public hearing to allow retail stores & shops in
residential development (description in item # I 1).
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3.227 to extend the
Totier Creek Agricultural~orestal District upon the 10-year review of the districL Znd RA.
Includes properties described as TMI2I,Ps7,72C, 85&85A;TM122,Ps5,&5A;TM128,PIsI3,
14A, 14B, 14C,14D,27 ~29~30&72;TMt29,Ps3,4~4A~6,6A, 7A,TD&9;TM 130,Ps 1,4&5A;TM134,
Ps3≶TM135,P7, I0&l I. Loc generally S of Keene, S & E of Esmont & W of Scottsville.
Comprises a total of 7789.622 acs.
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3-215 to extend the
Hatton. Agricultur.al/Forestal District upon the 10-year review of the district. Znd RPu
Includes properties described as TM 135,Psi 3,15,15A, 17,18,19~22, 22A&22C;TM136,P9B&
19B. Loc generally W of Scottsville, N of CSX Railway, along Rts 627,726&625. Comprises a
total of 645..158 acs.
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3-216 to extend the
High Mowing Agricttttural/Fores~al District upon.the tO.year-review oF thedistrict, ZndlL&
Includes properties described as TM85J)s33B,39,39A1,39H, 4IA&41A1. Loc generally S of
Batesville, along Rts 693 & 694,- Comprises a total of 622.44 acs.
17.
18.
19.
20.
20.
Approval of Minutes: March 7, March 19(A), March'21 (A) and April 4, 2001.
From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Closed Sessiom Personnel'Matters..
Certify Closed Session.
AdjoUrn to July 1 t, 2001, 6:00 p.m.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 SP-2001-05. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #49) - conditions of approval (deferred from June 6,
2001).
5.2 Resolution to Request an ABC Board Investigation of the Foxfield Races.
5.3 Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Budget and
Resolution of Offidal Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
5.4 Adopt Resolution Endorsing Meadow Creek Parkway and Resolution of Intent to Amend
Comprehensive Plan.
5.5 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17, Water Protection, pertaining to
persons holding certificates of competence overseeing land disturbing activity.
FORINFORMATION:
5.6
5.7
5.8
Draft copy of minutes from Planning Commission meeting of May 22 and May 29, 2001.
2000 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Third Quarter Report for JAUNT Services in Albemarle County for FY 200 I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
o
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
t&
19.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Consent Agenda (on next page).
Public Hearing: Albemarle County's 2001-02 Annual Plan for the administration of the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public hearing to amend the iurisdictional area boUndaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for sewer service to Barbara Harris.
SP-2001-009. Crossroads Waldorf School Eaxly Learning Center (Sign #79). Public
hearing to allow private school w/up to 85 students. Znd PUD. TM61X2,P4B. Loc on Four
Seasons Dr, approx 1/4 ml from intersec of Four Seasons Dr & Hydraulic Rd. Contains 2.314
acs, Rio Dist.
ZMA-1999-13, Young America (Sign #98). Public hearing on a request for a Zoning Map
Amendment of approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Znd LI & HC. TM76M1 ,P 1 ;TM76,P55A
&TM76,P55C. Loc on approx 9.099 acs on E side of 5th St Ext iust N of intersec w/I-64.
Scottsville Dist. (Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5
in the Comp Plan.) Scomsville Dist.
SP-!999-59, Young America. (Sign #95). Public hearing on a request to approve approx 4.0
acs of approx 12.987 acs for grading in floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moore's
Creek Znd LI &HC. Portions ofTM76MI,P1;TM76, P55A&TM76,P55C. Loc on E side of
5th St Ext iust N of its intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist.
ZMA-O0d0. Avemore {Signs #85&86). Public hearing on a request to rezone 27.46 acs
from R-10 to R- 15 to allow mixed use of 406 d/us, retail uses & offices. Loc on Fontana Dr
approx 1/10 ml from int_ersec of Rt 20 & Fontana Dr. TM78,P58I&TM78B,Pls2A,2B,4B,3-
l&4-1. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density residential, recom for 6-34
du/ac in Neighborhood 3 Pantops Development Area.) Rivanna Dist.
SP-2000-69. Avemore (Signs #27&60). Public Hearing to allow professional offices in
residential development (description in item # 11 ).
SP-2000-70. Avemore. (Signs #87&99). Public hearing to allow retail stores & shops in
residential development (description in item # 11 ).
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3-227 to extend the
Totier Creek AgriculturaJ/Fores .t~l District upon the 10-year review of the district. Znd R~
Includes properties described as TM121,Ps7,72C, 85&85&TMt22,Ps5,&SA;TMt28,Pls13,
14A, 14B, 14C, 14D,27,29 ~30&72;TM129 ,Ps3,4,4A,5,6,6A, 7A,7D&9;TM 130,Ps 1,4&5& TM 134,
Ps3&l 9;TM135,PT,10kI t. Loc generally S of Keene, S & E of Esmont & W of Scottsville.
Comprises a total of 7789.622 acs.
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3-215 to extend the
Hatton Agricultural/Foresta! Dis.tri .ct upon the I0-year review of the district Znd
Includes properties described as TM 135 ,Ps 13,15,15A, 17,18,19,22, 2ZA& 22C;TM 136,P9B&
19B. Loc generally W of Scottsville, N of CSX Railway, along Rts 627,726&625. Comprises a
total of 645.158 acs.
Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code §3-216 to extend the
High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District up6n the lO-year review of the district, Znd
Includes properties described as TM85,Ps33B,39;39AI,39H, 4 IA&41Al. Loc generally S of
Batesville, along Rts 693 & 694. Comprises a total of 622.44 acs.
Approval of Minutes: March 7, March 19(A), March 21 (A) and April 4, 2001,
From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Adiourn to July 11, 2001, 6:00 p.m.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 SP-2001,05. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #49) - conditions of approval (deferred from June 6,
2ool).
5.2 Resolution to Request an ABC Board Investigation of the Foxfield Races.
5.3 Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Budget and
Resolution of Offidal Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
5.4 Adopt Resolution Endorsing Meadow Creek Parkway and Resolution of Intent to Amend
Comprehensive Plan.
5.5 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17, Water Protection, pertaining to
persons holding certificates of competence overseeing land disturbing activity.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.6 Draft copy of minutes from Planning Commission meeting of May 22 and May 29, 2001.
5.7 2000 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
NOTE: THE JULY 5,2001 BOARD MEETiNG HAS BEEN
CANCELLED
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDAtTITLE: SP-01-05 (Triton PCS) AGENI)A DATE: June 20, 2001
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for special use ITEM NUMBS:
permit to allow a 69 foot high wireless telecommunications CONSENT AGENDA: Yes
pole in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6. The property, ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
described as Tax Map 62 Paree191, contains 3.01 acres, and is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Stony Point ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Road [Route 20]. The property is zoned Rural Areas. REVIEWED BY: VWC
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Margaret Doherty
PROPOSAL:
The proposal is for the installation ora personal wireless service facility, to increase wireless coverage along
Route 20, north of Charlottesville, in order to assist Triton PCS with maintaining a wireless communications
system in accordance with the requirements of it's FCC issued license, by preventing the occurrence of a"gap"
in the network. The facility will be located within a 30-foot by 30-foot lease area on TMP 62-91.
Development of the lease area would include a self-supporting steel monopole, painted dark brown, reaching
69 feet high. Three flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet in height, and a lightning rod would be attached
at the top of the pole. AH ground-based equipment would be contained within a brown metal cabinet, six feet-
nine inches in heig~, to be placed on a 10' by 12' concrete pad. Access to the lease area will be from a 12'
wide approximately 200' long gravel drive proposed in an existing narrow clearing.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to reconanend approval of the special use permit with conditions, as
desert'bed in the attached letter. A public hearing before the Board of Supervisors was held on June 6, 2001.
The Board directed staff to revise the proposed conditions of approval, which follow.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the proposal consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Staffrecommends approval
of the special use permit, with the following conditions:
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication ACt, staff requests consensus direction from
the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staffto return to the Board with a
written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
As shown on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), the top of the monopoIe shall not
exceed a total height of 69 feet, nor shad it exceed a top elevation of 558.5 feet, as measured Above
Sea Level (ASL), nor shall it ever be more than 9 feet taller than the tallest tree within 75 feet of the
monopole, whichever is less. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod~
shall be located above the top of the pole.
o
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The wooden pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No fighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number
nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole
shall be brown or earthtone in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the
latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS);
e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-
inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole;
f. W~dfin one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); and
g. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use
permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit.
The facility shall be located as shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS).
Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton
PCS);
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole
beyond the minimum required by the support strmcture, shall be pern~exL However, in no case
shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, spec'flying tree
protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Community Development for approval All construction or installations associated with the pole and
eqm'pment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this
tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of
the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access, A special use permit amendment shall be required for any
future tree removal within t-he two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for
wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of
that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless
telecommunication service provider.
No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper
than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County
Engineer are employed.
2
I0.
tl.
12.
13.
14.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fiflly
shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of
the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a lttminaire is a complete
lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distr~ute the light, to
position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall
not be required.
Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minirml grading necessary to
improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the facility require
provision of greater access h~rovements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after
installation is completed.
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community
Development. Prior to the issuance ora building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff
shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been
addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans.
No trees or significant vegetation shall be removed from the area bounded by the new access easement
from Route 20 to the tower site, the utility easement across parcels 89 and 91, the westernmost botmdary
of parcel 91, and property lines of parcels 89 and 91 along Route 20. The area subject to this condition is
shown on pages SP-2 and Z-2 of the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS).
The trimming, cutting or removal ofthe 88-foot tall tree located 585 feet from the monopole, as identified
on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), is prohibited. Any occurrence that destroys or
reduces the height or volume of the tree shall constitute grounds for the Board of Supervisors to void the
special use permit if it determines that the change in condition of the tree requires a modification of the
facility to mitigate its visibility.
Laurie Bentley
From:
Sent:,
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Larry Davis
Monday, June 18, 2001 4:27 PM
Wayne Cilimberg; Bob Tucker
Margaret Doherty; Ella Carey; Laurie Bentley
RE: aP-01-05 (Triton PCS)
Wayne:
I do not recall the Board agreeing to a steel pole. ! think your recollection is correct.
Larry W. Davis
Albemarle County Attorney
NOTICE: THIS EM. AH, IS CONFID~ AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECIPIENT. DO
NOT SHARE OR FORWARD THIS E-MAn, WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH ~ COUNTY ATTORNEY.
--Original Message----
From: Wayne Cilimberg
aer~ Monday, June 18, 2001 4:24 PM
To: Larry Davis: Bob Tucker
Cc: Margare~ ~ Ella Carny;, Laurie Bentley
Subje¢~ FW: SPq)I-05 (Triton PCS)
l talked to Margaret Doherty regarding this and she (and the applicant) thought the Board wanted to go back to the
applicant's original proposal (which she indicates was for a steel pole). I did not recall that and instead thought the
Board preferred a wood pole, but did not want to condition the diameter. I may not be recalling this correctly, but
thought one of you might. For your information, the applicant originally asked for a steel pole, the staff
recommended a steel pole, and the Planning Commission changed it to a wood pole in its recommendation to the
Board, I have touched base with Laurie Bentley and she does not have in her notes any intention by the Board to
have a change to a steel pole. The Board may need to pull this from the consent agenda to discuss Wednesday
night,
~O~gina Message.--
From: Chark~e Humphris
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 3:04 PM
To: Margare~ Doherty
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg
Subj., SP-01-05 (Triton PCS)
Margaret - I thought we had a wooden pole, but in the conditions in the Executive Summary for approval on the BoS
Consent Agenda for June 20, condition 2.a. has a steel pole. Please let me knOW which is correct. Thanks,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP-01-05 (Triton PCS)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
AGENDA DATE:
June 20,1002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Request for special use permit to allow a 69 foot high
wireless telecommunications pole in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6. The property, described as Tax Map 62
Parcel 91, contains 3.01 acres, and is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District on Stony Point Road [Route
20]. The property is zoned Rural Areas.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Ms. Doherty
ACTION: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
REVIEWED B '
PROPOSAL:
The proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility to increase wireless coverage along Route 20, north
of Charlottesville, in order to assist Triton PCS with maintaining a wireless communications system in accordance with the
requirements of it's FCC issued license, by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network. The facility wil be located
within a 30-foot by 30-foot lease area on TMP 62-91. Development of the lease area would include a self-supporting steel
monopole, painted dark brown, reaching 69 feet high. Three flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet in height, and a
lightning rod would be attached at the top of the pole. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a brown metal
cabinet, six feet-nine inches in height, to be placed on a 10' by 12' concrete pad. Access to the lease area will be from a
12' wide approximately 200' long gravel drive proposed in an existing narrow clearing.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the special use permit with conditions, as described in
the attached letter. A public hearing before the Board of Supervisors was held on June 6, 2001. The Board directed staff
to revise the proposed conditions of approval, which follow.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the proposal consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Staff recommends approval of the special
use permit, with the following conditions:
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board
regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the
Board's consideration and action.)
As shown on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total
height of 69 feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 558.5 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), nor shall
it ever be more than 9 feet taller than the tallest tree within 75 feet of the monopole, whichever is less. No antennas
or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole.
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The steel pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9)
herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be brown
or earthtone in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the latest revised plans entitled
Jensen (Triton PCS);
1 06-14-01 P0.3:28 IN
AGENDA TITLE: SP-01-05 (Triton PCS)
AGENDA DATE: June 20, 1002
10.
11.
12.
A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter
at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole;
Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in
elevation above sea-level (ASL); and
The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without
prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit.
The facility shall be located as shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS).
Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS);
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the
minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project
out from the pole more than 12 inches.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles
or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement
and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All
construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction
or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be
required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year.
The report shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service
provider.
No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1
unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such
that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shiel ding part
of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps
together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to
the power supply.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be
required.
Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the
travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access
improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed.
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans
to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the
construction plans.
AGENDA TITLE: SP-01-05 (Triton PCS)
AGENDA DATE: June 20, 1002
13.
14.
No trees or significant vegetation shall be removed from the area bounded by the new access easement frOm Route
20 to the tower site, the utility easement across parcels 89 and 91, the westernmost boundary of parcel 91, and
property lines of parcels 89 and 91 along Route 20. The area subject to this condition is shown on pages SP-2 and
Z-2 of the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS).
The trimming, cutting or removal of the 88-foot tall tree located 585 feet from the monopole, as identified on the latest
revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), is prohibited. Any occurrence that destroys or reduces the height or volume
of the tree shall constitute grounds for the Board of Supervisors to void the special use permit if it determines that the
change in condition of the tree requires a modification of the facility to mitigate its visibility.
01.132
3
~T~OM ~ =~< NO. : F~]~. 14 L~001 03:0~PM Pl
$0~-977-6607
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
c/o Clerk of the Board
(Hand-Delivered)
LAW OFFICES J, BENJAMIN DICK
421 PARK ST. SUITE # 2
Charlottesville, Virginia :~2902
Confidential
Fax 804-977-6619
June 20, 2001
RE: Proposed Resolution for "Investigation" of the Foxfield Races
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This communication will remain confidential to express Foxfield's
authorized views by its Board of Directors. It is addressed directly to you
individually as elected representatives and as a duly constituted
governing Board.
The Foxfield Racing Association (hereinafter "Foxfield') is in
receipt of a proposed Board Resolution (ATTACHED) indicating a
recorded vote is to be made on the same at this evening's Board meeting,
It is my understanding that the same has been set on the "consent
agenda". (Hereinafter "Foxfield'.)
First, I have read the resolution and for and on behaff of Foxfleld I
question the legality of such a harmful resolution, that Foxfield has had
mo notice by law of thi~ intended public body's action that will be
tremendously detrimental to its economic interests, and that the Board
has not had the benefit of any communiW or Foxfleld input.
Regretfully, Foxfield must further object to Supervisor Charlotxe
Hurnphries news addresses made repeatedly on WINA radio on the
Nancy King show, as a public off. iai elected, making adverse Publicly
......... 06-20-0] P04:14 IN
worded condemnations of Foxfleld.
These corem ents have fueled the fire, caused our phones to ring off
the hooks, and defend Foxfield's non-response as we were given no
opportunity to do so on WINA nor before this Board. This sort of
conduct threatens our liberty and freedom interests as a fair and
democratic society open to freedom of dialogue and speech. Our local
hero, Thomas Jefferson, certainly would object to this kind of unfair
treatment
Purely by happenstance, this document was retrieved and shown to
Forfleld June 18, 2001 after hearing public comment from Board ~-
member Charlotte Humphrles on public radio station WINA during the
Nancy King radio show. Supporters of Foxfield made alarming calls
announcing private and public comments of Charlotte Humphries as
being extremely detrimental ~o Foxfield's le~timate and lawful interests.
I ask that you be~r with us and simply consider a more reasonable
and helpful alternative than the one proposed by Mrs. HumPhries,
Foxfield is and will continue to be a community asset generating one of
the finest equine event~ in Virginia, assisting local charities, promoting
substantial revenues for businessses and tax dollars to this government,
and preserving a beautiful open space in western Albemarle County.
This resolution, in our opinion, as intended, for the purpose it expresses,
will greatly harm the community interest and participation that Foxfield
affords all who come to her race day events.
Foxfield and the community of its staunch supporters believe this
Board possesses a more fair and open arena to address all concerns
expressed by Mrs, Humphries or any other person as to problems that
this event has seen with students, traffic, and the use of alcohol
beverages. They submit this Board has not received all the information
and what information that you have received may well be biased and
prejudicial to what is by many observers, and responsible people, an
otherwise overall and positive eq~dne event. .~
Foxfield therefore requests that due process be allowed to'occur.
Perhaps a Board supported and appointed local study group who can
assess the situsOon fairly and report back to you should accomplish a
more fair and positive nppr(r~¢h. All concerned, through this
Ill E?~&qllltli Illll Ill llilllrITIflt'l~lla, 1trill tkean kofl ~lka, e ~ ,~,..= ~.~ ju~i
~ p~vai] by ~j~ f~ ~formed and wor~ag ~et~r ~ ~medy any
major con~
Foxfield therefore requests that this remedy be conSidered and
that this resolution be withdrawn to allow a more thorough and more fair
process to evolve.
In final words ]( submit, 99% of those who attend Foxfleld
thoroughly and lawfully enjoy ~he day corn plyin~ with tM letter of the
law. Foxfield can not control individuals on public roadz who' have been
reported breaking various law~. One answer to that sitmation is greater
police patrol and police control. Our tax dollars certainly support that
effort two days out of the year. Foxfield is al~o considering new traffic
control patterns to be studied with the County Police and other
approaches to cope with the few who would ruin the day for aH others.
To ask the A]~2J Commission to "investigate" the Foxfield Races
for purposes of suspending or revoklnz its lawful license places that state
agency,, that has worked with Foxfield and local law enforcement for
years, in a very awkward position to come down and deal with a local
body politick and local citizens' situation. ~ process will pit good
citizen~ and organizations against one and the other. Such an exercise
will be counter-productive and perhaps futile. We should address this
matter directly and within our Charlottesville-Albemarle community for
the good of the community.
Foxfield, for the reason~ above stated, therofore request the old
sclmot teacher's admonition to a student sitting atop the new school yard
sliding board be here presented to the Board: "Please think before you
jump," We call upon your good will, wisdom, and common sense to not
thus proceed with approval of this resolution.
I remain for and on behalf of Foxfield,
Respectfully,
J. BENJAMIN DICK
FROM : FAX NO. : .Feb. 14 E~O1 03:05PM P'~
CC;
~o~rd of Director~
OF COUNSEL
Jun ~8 'OZ Z]:55 P.O~
R~$OLUT/ON TO REQUEST AN A~C BOARD IAWESTIGATION
OF TItE FOXI~IELD RACES
WItE~, the Albemarle County Board of 8uper~sor~ has received coraplaints
concerning the abuae of thc usc of alcoholic b~verages at the Foxfield Rac~s held on April 29, 200 I
In AIbe.mar[~. County; and
WHE~, the Foxfi¢ld Raei~ Association opera£e¢ the Foxfield Raoes and has b¢ea
grant~ ma alcohoI/e beverage Hcense by ~e Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 0aerea~er, "ABC
Board") perm.itt:hag Se con,umption of Iawf-ul/y acquired alcoholio beverages on the lxem~.qes by
patrons of t_he ~v~; mad
WI~REA$, tile ABC Beard has the authority to suspend or revoke ~y I/cerise if it has
reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances set forth ha § 4.1-225 of the Code of
Virginia have occurred dur/~ the Fox/~ield Races event; and
V~:tJEREAS, the complai~t~ received by the Board of Superri~ors regarding the Foxfetd
Race~ and th~ alcoholic beverage use abu~os observed by officers of the AJb~m~le County Police
Depam'nent and the Albemarle County Sheriff's O~ce at the Foxfi~ld Races appear :o violste ~e
standards ofth~ ,aBC Board for conduct a/lowed by ~n ABC Board license; and
WHEREAS, t~e Code of Virginia do~s nm perm/t a county to adopt any ~rd~ance or
resolution which regulates or prohfb/ts thc posscssion~ sal~, handling, transportation, dr/nk~g, use, or
dispensing ofakohoEc beverages; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes ~at the alcoholic beverago use abuses' alleged at the
Foxfield Races are a ~erious danger to ~e public health and safer~ of the citizens of the Count7 of
Albemarle and the Commonwealth of Virginia. '
NOW, TI{EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ~at the Al~marle Cotmry Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the ABC Board conduct an immolate and thorough investigation of
the Foxfie!d Races held by' the Foxfi¢Id Racing Association/n Albemarle County and take all
reasonable stel~ re cnfcrrc¢ the stmadards of the ABC Board for events eomrolled by an alcoholic
beverage license re el/n-dm, ate alcoholic beverage use abuses which endanger tho public heaI~
~fet-y.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing w~iting is a true, correct copy cfa
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of AIbemarle County by vote of to as
recorded below, a~ a meeting held on ~,
'V
Mr. B owerman
Mr. Dottier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
51r. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supe~isors
Post-~ Fax Note 7671 Pat, ~//~,- I, ol' ~.
OoJOe~:. Co.
RESOLUTION TO REQUEST AN ABC BOARD INVESTIGATION
OF THE FOXFIELD RACES
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has received complaints
concerning the abuse of the use of alcoholic beverages at the Foxfield Races held on April 29, 2001
in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Foxfield Racing Association operates the Foxfield Races and has been
granted an alcoholic beverage license by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (hereafter, "ABC
Board") permitting the consumption of lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises by
patrons of the event; and
WHEREAS, the ABC Board has the authority to suspend or revoke any license if it has
reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances set forth in § 4.1-225 of the Code of
Virginia have occurred during the Foxfield Races event; and
WHEREAS, the complaints received by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Foxfield
Races and the alcoholic beverage use abuses observed by officers of the Albemarle County Police
Department and the Albemarle County Sheriff's Office at the Foxfield Races appear to violate the
standards of the ABC Board for conduct allowed by an ABC Board license; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia does not permit a county to adopt any ordinance or
resolution which regulates or prohibits the possession, sale, handling, transportation, drinking, use, or
dispensing of alcoholic beverages; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the alcoholic beverage use abuses alleged at the
Foxfield Races are a serious danger to the public health and safety of the citizens of the County of
Albemarle and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the ABC Board conduct an immediate and thorough investigation of
the Foxfield Races held by the Foxfield Racing Association in Albemarle County and take all
reasonable steps to enforce the standards of the ABC Board for events controlled by an alcoholic
beverage license to eliminate alcoholic beverage use abuses which endanger the public health and
safety.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to
recorded below, at a meeting held on -
, as
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Domer
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
.Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
06-14-01
A11:40
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001/02 Capital Improvement Program
Service Resolution of Appropriation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
and Debt
AGENDA DATE:
June 20, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Request approval of the FY2001/02 Capital Improvement
Program and Debt Service Resolution of Appropriation
and Resolution of Official Intent for Use of VPSA Bond
Proceeds.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden, Ms. Bullard
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
The FY2002/02 Capital Improvement Budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 18, 2001 in
the amount of $29,693,000, $7,965,000 to the General Government Capital Improvement Fund, $21,428 to the
School Division Capital Improvement Fund and $300,000 to the Stormwater Fund. In addition to the Capital
Improvement Program, this resolution also includes the appropriation of funds to both the School and General
Government Debt Service Funds.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution totals $43,840,971 and includes the following:
Ge neral Government Capital Improvement Program Fund $12,022,188
This includes $7,965,000 in approved projects, plus $4,057,188 in Capital Reserve funds to be used for future
capital projects and debt service over the next five years. The final reserve reflects a reduction of $118,000
approved by the Board in April for Simpson Park and an $80,000 transfer of funds from the Capital Fund into
the General Government Debt Service Fund to provide additional funds for 800 MHz debt service, if needed.
School Division Capital Improvement Program Fund $21,428
The only change from the adopted School Capital Improvement Program budget is the transfer of $675,000
from the Southern Elementary School project and $200,000 from the Maintenance account into the Northern
Elementary School project to cover the projected shortfall. This transfer was approved by both the School
Board and Board of Supervisors at the June 6th meeting.
Stormwater Fund
There have been no changes to the approved Stormwater Fund allocation.
$300,000
Debt Service $10,090,783
School Division debt service reflects $8.5 million for Capital Improvement Program projects, $272,656 for debt
service on the PREP facility, which is 100% reimbursed by fees, and $295,925 on the School's VRS debt
service payment. School Divisions were given the option to pay mandated COLA increases through annual
debt payments. The final payment is due in FY03.
General Government debt service totals $990,202, which includes $948,000 in debt service for the 800MHz
radio system project and $42,202 for the Monticello Fire Rescue Station.
06-14-01 Al1:28 IN
AGENDA TITLE: FY2001/02 Capital Improvement Program and Debt Service Resolution of Appropriation
AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Appropriation for the FY2001-02 Capital Improvement
Program and FY2001-02 Debt Service funds. Also recommended for approval, is the attached Resolution of
Official Intent to use VPSA bond proceeds for school capital projects.
01.134
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND DEBT SERVICE
FUND for the f~cal year ending June 30, 2002; to prescribe the pro~sos, terms, conditions and provisions
w~ respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all resolutions wholly in conflict
wEh this resolution and all resolutions inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAJNED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA:
SECTION ! - GENERAL GOVERN~T CAPITAL BJfPRO~$ FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
ADMBIISTRATION AND COURTS
$1,630,000
1. County Computer Upgrade
2. County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects
3. Court Facilities Renovation/Expansion
4. Court Square Maintenarme/Reptacement Projects
5. Court Square Enhancements
5. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$ 220,000
500,000
565,000
80,000
250,000
,!5,~000
$1,630,000
Paragraph Two
FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1. Fire/Rescue Training Center/Police Firing Range
2. Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund
3. Police Video Cameras for Patrol
4. Transport Vehicles for Arrest
$ 10,000
2,765,0OO
83,000
40,0,00
$2,898,000
Paragraph Three
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program
2. Revenue Sharing Road Projects
3. Sidewalk Construction Program
4. Transportation Planning & Improvement Program
5. Street Lamp Program
$ 406~000
500,000
410,000
100,000
40.000
$1,456,000
Paragraph Four
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
1. CALAS Facility
2, Region Ten Facilities
$ 28,000
, ,50,000
$ 78,000
Paragraph Five
PARKS AND RECREATION
1. County Athletic Field Development
2, Cmzet Park Athletic Field Development
3. Paramount Theater
4. Parks & Rec Maintenance/Replacement Projects
5. PVCC Facility Renovation
6. Recreation Facilities Project
7. RE, anna Greenway Access and Path
8. School Athlet Field Irrigation
9. Scottsville Community Center Improvements
10. Simpson Park
11. Towe Park Lower Field IrrigaUon
$ 228,000
131,000
33,000
60,000
93,000
50,000
25,000
77,000
44,000
5O,0OO
12.0OO
$ 803,0O0
Paragraph Six
ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
$1,000,0OO
Paragraph Seven
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Keene Landrdl Closure
$ 100,000
PamgraphEig~
CAPITAl_RESERVE
1. Capilal Reserve
$4,057,188
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
General Govemment CIP Fund Balance
School Debt Service Reserve
General Government Debt Service Reservel,6oo,000
City Reimbursements
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
Borrowed Funds-Fire/Rescue Station
Interest Income
Tourism Funds
Transfer from General Fund
$1,982,000
1,785,000
8,000
44,000
465,OO0
100,000
658,000
,5,290,188
$t2,022,188
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for f;~cal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 803,000
$1,000,000
$ too,OOO
$ 4,057,188
$12,011,188
$t2,022,188
SECTION !! - SCHOOL DNISION CAPITAL IA~=ROVEMENT$ FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
$Zl,428,000
1. Administrative Technology
2. Brownsville Additions
3. Burley Addition/Renovations
4. Crozet Kitchen
5. instruclional Technology
6. Joueff Addition/Renovation
7. New Northern Elementary School
8. New Southern Elementary School
9. School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$ 70,000
240,000
6,995,000
65,000
396,000
315,000
10,544,000
1,225,000
1,5.78,000
$2t,428,000
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DNISION CAPITN. IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$21,428,000
To be provided as follows:
School CIP Fund Balance
Interest Eamed
State Construction Funds
VPSA Bonds
$ 546,0O0
150,000
400,0OO
20,332,000
$21,428,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAJ. BIIPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$21,428,000
SECTION III - STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORMWATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the f~al year ending June 30, 2002:
1. Stormwater Control Program
Paragraph One
STORMWATER PROJECTS
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund
300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,0OO
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL INIPRO~S FUND
resou~ available For fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 300,000
SECTION IV: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and
the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
SCHOOL DMSION DEBT SERVICE FUND
$ 9,100,581
1. Debt Service Payments - School D~=ion
2. Debt Service Payments - PREP
3. VRS Early Retirement
$8,532,000
272,656
29..5,,925
$9,100,581
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for f~,cal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 9,t00,581
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
$8,832,000
295,925
272,656
$9,100,581
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 9,100,581
Paragraph Two
GENERAJ. GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
1. 600 MHz Debt Service Payment
2. Fire/Rescue Bugding Debt Service Payment
$ 948,000
42,202
$ 990,202
SUW, ARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for f=~cal year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fd Transfer-)
Revenue from E-911 Surcharge
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
$ 9~0,202
80,0O0
$ 990,202
$ 990,202
99O,202
$ 990,202
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for f'scat year ending June 30, 2002:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Fees and Surcharges
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE resources
available for f'~cal year ending June 30, 2002:
$9,738,127
352.656
$10,090,783
$10,090,783
$10,090,783
TOTAL APPROPRIATION~ MENTIONED BI
SECTIONS i - IV IN THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL ~ ENDING J~JNE 30, 2002
RECAPITU ,LA ~TION:
Section I - General Government Improvements Fund
Section Il - School D'r~ision Capital improvements Fund
Section III ~ Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund
Section IV - Debt Service
$12,022,188
21,428,000
300,000
10,090,783
$43,840,971
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$43,840,971
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Direct~ of Finance is hereby author'~zed to transfer monies from
one fund to anofl~r, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION V
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections 1, it and I!1 are appropriated
upon the p~Jovisos, terms, condilions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection wiih saki terms
and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualir~tions in this resolution contained, alt appropriations am declared to be maximum,
conditional and proportionate appropria0ons-the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
available during the f~scal year for which the appropriations am made are suff~ient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such propo ,trion as,the total sum of
alt realized revenue of the respect, e.funds is to the total amount of revenue estimal~ to be available .in the
saki f=cal Year by the Board. of. Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its
estim~ of revenue for the financing of the ~nd budge~ es submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not
be expended by the said agency under the contro~ of the Boerd of Supervisors wr~eut the cor~sent of ~
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, n, or may any of these agencies or boards make expend~dres
wh~'h will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any deparlment, bureau, agency, er indbiduai under the dEect con~ of ff~e Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, n~ requ~ for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required, and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such compef~ive bids on the basis of specir~.ation furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
in the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obi' ~afions .incurred .contrary to the purchasi~ PrOcedures prescribed.in ~ .Alb~marie County
PurchasingManual. shall not be considered 0bli,qatio .ns of.the County~ and the Director of. Finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obli~lations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or alt County departments,
bm'ea,Js, or agencies un~ler the contra! of the Board of Supen/isers to any of their officers and employees
for e~pense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their pemonai automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for
its employees and shall be subject to change from t'~e to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
J, Ella W. Carey, do hereby cerlify that the foregoi~ wrrdng is a tree, correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular mee~g hem on Jure 20,
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to
undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A attached
hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as
hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not
to exceed $20,332,000 (the "Bonds").
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for
costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent"
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 prOmulgated under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
I, Ella W. Carey, due hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held
on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors ~
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2001/02
Description
Amount
1
2
3
4
5
6
Brownsville Additions
Burley Addition/Renovations
Jouett Addition/Renovations
Northern Area Elementary
Southern Area Elementary
Maintenance/Replacement
$240,000
$6,995,000
$315,OOO
$10,544, O00
$1,225,OOO
$1,013,000
$20,332,000
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of
approxi~, ly two miles in length, with the fa'st segment being within the Charlottesville City limits
between Route 250 and Melboume Road, end the second segment in Albemarle County between
Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors contracted
with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects to develop design and alignment
recommendations for the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, to consider the
parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and to look at adjacent park and urban
development areas along the corridor of land between Melbourne Road and Rio Road in
Albemarle County, with the overall vision being the creation of a true "parkway"; and
WHEREAS, Jones & Jones led and coordinated a design team that worked in
conjunction with the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Depadmen~ and the Planning
Commission. The culmination of this process was the creation of a written report providing three
alternative alignments with Alternative "A" being the recommended alignment. Alternative "A" was
then further refined and final recommendations for the parkway, urban development and
parklands was presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed all the alternatives and
aspects of the proposed project, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses
Alternative "A" and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed expeditiously
with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbourne Road to Rio Road, in
conformance with the proposed Alternative "A" roadway alignment recommendation and concept
set out in the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report - May, 2001".
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6
to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supe~i~',~rs
RESOLUTION OFINTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does
hereby/adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
to incorporate the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May, 2001"; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests the Albemarle County Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and to send
its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Carny, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to O, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County suPe~i~ ~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend Chapter 17, Water Protection,
pertaining to persons holding certificates of
competence overseeing land disturbing activity
SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule proposed ordinance for public hearing and
authorize Clerk to advertise proposed ordinance
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Davis, Kelsey
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
June 20,2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
/
During its 2001 session, the General Assembly amended the erosion and sediment control enabling legislation to require
that, effective July 1, 2001, all land disturbing projects requiring an erosion and sediment control plan be overseen by a
person holding a certificate of competence. The proposed ordinance would implement this new requirement.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance would amend Albemarle County Code §§ 17-203, 17-205 and 17-211 to require that each erosion
and sediment control plan submitted by an owner, and each agreement in lieu of a plan, identify a person holding a
certificate of competence, and to require that the certificate holder be in charge of and responsible for carrying out land
disturbing activity under the plan or agreement. The certificate holder may be anyone from the owner's project or
development team. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (the "DCR") is currently developing a
program to educate and certify persons for this program. Licensed professional engineers, land surveyors, architects,
landscape architects and other persons holding other certificates issued by the DCR are considered by the DCR to be
certified for this program. Requiring a certificate holder to be responsible for carrying out land disturbing activity will not
change the owner's ultimate responsibility for all land disturbing activity on his or her property. A copy of the proposed
ordinance is attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors to advertise the proposed ordinance for public hearing on July 11,2001.
01.128
06-14-01 All:?~ I~,
Draft: 06/01/01
ORDINANCE NO, 01-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, ARTICLE I,
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 17, Water Protection, Article I, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-203
Sec. 17-205
Sec. 17-211
Erosion and sediment control plan.
Agreement in lieu of a plan.
Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment control plan.
Except as provided in section 17-205, each owner subject to this article shall submit to
the program authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as provided
herein:
A. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form provided
by the program authority, the fee required by section 17-209, an erosion and sediment control
plan that satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (B) and (C), and a certification stating that all
requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
B. The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil
erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem reasonably
adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity, and a
statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to assure that the land
disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this article. The plan shall be in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook, including the criteria, techniques and
methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of Title 4 of the Virginia Administrative Code. The plan
shall identify the person holding a certificate of competence, as described in Virginia Code
§ 10.1-561, who shall be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land disturbing
activity.
C. The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary
for a complete review of the plan.
D. In lieu of paragraphs (A), (B) and (C), if the land disturbing activity involves land
also under the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the owner
may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation Board.
notify the program authority of such plan approval by such board.
Draft: 06/01/01
The owner shall
E. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction
work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a plan shall
be the responsibility of the owner.
(§ 19.3-11, 2-11-98; § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6,
10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code
1988, §§ 7-3, 7-4, 19.3-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference-Va. Code § 10.1-563.
Sec. 17-205 Agreement in lieu of a plan.
A. If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a
single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a plan for
the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided:
1. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not
part of a division of land; or
2. The single family dwelling unit is located within a residential development
or division of land, and the individual lots are being developed by different property owners; or
3. The single family dwelling unit is located w/thin a division of land which
no longer has an active erosion and sediment control plan; and
4. The agreement in lieu of a plan identifies the person holding a certificate
of competence, as described in Virginia Code § 10.1-561, who shall be in charge of and
responsible for carryfi'ng out the land disturbing activity.
B. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to
paragraph (A)(1), (2) or (3), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration the
potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land disturbing activity,
and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay district.
C. Except as provided in sections 17-203 and 17-204, ali other references in this
article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a plan, and
the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities and remedies set
forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of a plan was an erosion and sediment
control plan.
(§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92;
§ 19.3-13, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-563.
2
Draft: 06/01/01
Sec. 17-211 Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, each
owner shall:
1. comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when
performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activities to correct an
erosion impact area;
2. maintain and repair all erosion and' sediment control structures and systems to
ensure continued performance of their intended function; n~g
3. comply with all requirements of this article,; and
4. have a person holding a certificate of competence, as described in Virginia Code
§ 10.1-561, in charge of and responsible for carryfi'ng out the land disturbing activiW.
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference-Va. Code § 10.1-566.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Aye Nay
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Draft: 06/01/01
FAX (804) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
TTD (804) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator ~6-r~ 13-1'
June 14, 2001
2000 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Please find the attached 2000 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
information from the five preceding years is included to provide context.
· ,~e number of appeals (five) in 2000 remained the same as the number in 1999.
three of the appeals were for a determination of use and two were appeals
determination of violation.
Summary
In 2000,
from a
The number of variances in 2000 decreased by one, from 39 in 1999 to 38 in 2000.
Setback variances, mostly for structures, signs, parking, and towers, increased the most.
Setback variances for towers (9) were frequent and will be addressed with future ordinanCe
amendments. Frequent setback variances for additions to existing nonconforming houses
have been reduced as a result of ordinance amendments to address this.
Od-~4-O? P04:~O IN
2000 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
INTRODUCTION
This report includes summarized information for the past five years (1996-2000), in addition
to the year 2000 annual report.
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2-2308}. This report is a
brief outline of the past and pending activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the Circuit
Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year 2000 were:
Member
Term Expiration
Max C. Kennedy
Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 1998 for a five year term - May 23, 2003
Richard Cogan
Vice-Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - May 23, 2002
George Bailey
Secretary
Reappointed May 23, 2000 for a five year term - May 23, 2005
William Rennolds
Reappointed May 23, 1996 for a five year term - May 23, 2001
Resigned February, 2000
Randy Rinehart
Appointed March, 2000 to replace William Rennolds to
complete his five year term - May 23, 2001
Da vid Bass
Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - May 23, 2002
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals, when
the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time.
The Board operates with a set of by-laws. In addition, there is a procedure statement
relating to filing and processing applications.
2000 Annual Report
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
Page Two
~-~/. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Department of Building Code and Zoning
Services, specifically within the Zoning cost center. Funding for Board salaries in the year
2000 is consistent with prior years and was a total of $3,700. They are each reimbursed for
mileage traveled to the meeting and $45 per meeting (a mid-year increase from $35 per
meeting).
Staff to the Board includes the Director of B.uilding Code and Zoning Services (Zoning
Administrator), Manager of Zoning Administration and the Chief of Zoning Administration
(Deputy Zoning Administrator). Support staff includes the Office Associate IV and the
Office Associate 111.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The number of actions considered by the Board during 2000 and each of the previous four
years is shown by category in the following table:
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTIONS 1996 2000
VARIANCE
TYPE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
S ETBAC K 7 14 25 21 15
TOWER
SETBACK 9
SIGNAGE 2 5 2 4 5
MISC. 9 3 5 8 3
(VOID)
SEPTIC 2 I 0 1 1
RESERVE
APPEALS 3 8 8 5 5
YEARLY 23 31 40 39 38
TOTALS
2000 Annual Report
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
Page Three
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 13 meetings in 2000. The prior years' summaries are as
follows:
2000 13 meetings
1999 13 meetings
1998 13 meetings
1997 13 meetings
1996 11 meetings
A History_ of Appeals Is As Follows:
2000
2
3
Determination of violation
Determination of use
1999
2
3
Determination of violation
Determination of use
1998
2
5
1
Determination of violation
Determination of use
void
1997
1
3
2
1
1
Parking on Rt. 6
Deferred (2 lighting & 1 height wall signage)
Determination of violation
Signage
Parcel subject to EC Regulations
VI. IMPACT ON REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A prior change to the State Code increased the number of appeals by legislating that the
zoning administrator's decision if not appealed in a timely fashion (within thirty days), is final
and unappealable. A later Code amendment further legislates that after sixty days, a
decision may not be changed or reversed by the administrator or other administrative officer
unless the decision was improperly obtained. Many appeals result from official
determinations of zoning violation resulting from enforcement action.
A wholesale revision to the sign regulations in 1992 decreased the overall number of sign
variances. However, some sign variance requests, such as height of wall signs, have
recurred. A recent amendment to the sign regulations will largely eliminate wall sign height
variances.
JRUNT
JAUNT, Inc.
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
June 12, 2001
Dear Bob,
We are pleased to submit our Third Quarter Report for JAUNT services for FY01.
The foll0wjng .is.a summary of statistics for services in Albemarle County:
JnlzMar Estimhted Actual Actual Estimated Actual Actual
"- ~'""' ~ ";':~-rip~ ~' ~: Trips Trips Hours Hours Hours
FY01 FY01 FY00 FY01 FY01 FY00
Agency 113,233 14,462 12,937 5,263 5,409 5,221
Urban Public 15,789 16,398 15,606 6,241 6,724 6,227
Rural Public 15,639 15,126 15,492 7,840 7,243 7,896
JABA/ADC 5,038 4,437 4,579 1,918 1,631 1,894
Night/Wknd 903 1,967 814 451 929 407
29 North 2,556 3,132 2,543 2,594 2,498 2,581
Total 53,158 55,522 51,971 24,3074 24,434
Based on current financial and service information, we do not anticipate a budget
shortfall at this time.
24,226
Donna Shaunesey
:E~ecutive DirectOr
CC:
Juandieg6Wade
Clifford Bu~ TM
Carolyn Fowler
Phone: (804) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Operations (804) 296-6174 · Fax: (804) 296-4269 · www. avenue.org/]aunt
Moving Central Virginians For Over 25 Years
FLUVANNA COUNTY
QUARTERLY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY: JAUNT, Inc.
Period Ending: March 30th, 2001
WORKLOAD MEASURES (Past Three Quarters)
Agency Trips: 1,080
Intracounty: 1,634
Midday to Ch'ville (new): 129
Commuter Tri ps: 5,263
Agency Hours: 606
Intracounty Hours: 682
Midday to Ch'ville: 107
Commuter Route Hours: 1~629
NARRATIVE RE PORT:
The intracounty service on Tuesdays and Wednesdays that is run in conjunction
with taking the seniors to the Fork Union Center continues to be very successful.
We are carrying people to the grocery store, the bank, the library, social
services, and other personal errands.
The commuter routes in Fluvanna are JAUNT's most successful routes. There
are some seats available, however, and we are working to make sure all the
buses are full.
Ridership on the new service to Charlottesville aimed primarily at getting people
to medical appointments has really taken off, thanks in part to the County's
efforts to publicize the service in Issues and Answers.
The Welfare Reform transportation continues to be successful. Currently one
Fluvanna resident is using the service, and our services continue to be available
when new clients need rides to work, or when current clients have car trouble or
other problems with transportation.
We continue to provide Medicaid transportation to county residents at no charge
to the county or passengers. We do anticipate some changes to this program in
the next month, however.
Overall, we anticipate completing the year within budget.
Submitted by:
Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing on Albemarle County's
Administering Housing Choice Vouchers
SUBJ ECT/PRO POSAL/REQUEST:
Annual Plan for
AGENDA DATE:
June 20, 2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan for FY01 beginning
July 1, 2001
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. Roxanne White, Mr. Ron White
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHME. NTS: Ye~,,/Prop~n
REVIEWED BY: // . .,,~,
~.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan
for administering public housing assistance programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes
Albemarle County subject to this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted
each year. Prior to submission, the plan must be reviewed by a Resident Advisory Board for comment and in put. After receipt
of this input, the final plan is presented for adoption at a Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The initial 5-year Plan was submitted to HUD in January 2001. HUD approved the Plan with the condition that all required
public notices and public hearings would take place prior to submission of the year two Annual Plan. In March 2001 an
Executive Summary of the initial Plan was mailed to a representative group of tenants who were asked to be members of a
Resident Advisory Board and to comment on the Plan. Comments were received and are addressed in the submission of the
FY2001-02 Annual Plan. The Albemarle County Housing Committee reviewed the Plan at their June 13, 2001 meeting with
no policy changes being recommended at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annual Plan and submission to HUD. Subsequent to the public hearing, staff
requests that the Board authorizes the County Executive to sign the attached Certification of ComPliance.
01.135
06-14-01 Al]:30 IN
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans
and Related Regulations
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA Plan
Acting On behalf of the Board of Commi~ioners 'of the Public Homing Agency (PI-IA) listed
below, as its Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners,
I approve the submi~ion of the ~y-eae-P~e~ad-Armuat Plan for PHA fiscal year begi~'nning
7 / I/,0 J herdnaiter referred to as the Plan of which this document is a part and make the
following certifications and agreements with the Depatuttent of Housing Development (HUD) in
connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof.'
1. The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any plan
incorporating such strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located. _
2. The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is consistent
with the applicable Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the preparation of an
Analysis of Impediments t0 Fair Housing Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and a description of the
manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan.
3. The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which represents
the residents assisted by the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing the Plan, and
considered the recommendations of the Board or Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The PHA has included in the
Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a
description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these recommendations.
4. The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hearing available for public
inspection at least 45 days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be held and
conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.
5. The PI-IA will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair
Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
6. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs,
identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those impediments in a
reasonable fashion in view of the resources available and work with local jurisdictions to implement any
of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the PHA's involvement
and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
7. For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
· The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's MTCS in an accurate, complete and timely
manner (as specified in PIH Notice 99-2);
· The system of site-hased waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the selection
of the development in which to reside, including basic information about available sites; and an
estimate of the period of time the applicant would likely have to wait to be admitted to units of
different sizes and types at each site;
· Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement agreement or be
inconsistent with a pending complaint brought by HUD;
· The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent with
affirmatively furthering fair housing;
· The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is consistent with
civil rights laws and certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7(eX1).
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations
12/99
Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housi~,g
8. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the
Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
9. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and
Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the Physically
Handicapped.
10. The.PHA will comply with the requirements ofseetion 3 ofthe Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, Employment Oppommities for Low- or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its implementing
regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
ll. The PNA has submitted with the Plan a certification with regard to a drug free workplace required by 24
. CFR Part 24, Subpart F.
12. The PHA has submitted with the Plan a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on
lobbying required by 24 CFR Part 87, together with disclosure forms if reqnired by this Part, and with
restrictions on payments to influence Federal Transactions, in accordance with the Byrd Amendment
and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
13. For PHA Plan that includes a PHDEP Plan as specified in 24 CFR 761.21: The PHI)EP Plan is consistent
with and conforms to the "Plan Requirements" and ~Grantee Performance Requirements" as specified in
24 CFR 761.21 and 761.23 respectively and the PI-IA will maintain and have available for
review/inspection (at all times), records or documentation of the following: -
· Baseline law enforcement services for public housing developments assisted under the PHDEP
plan;
· Consortium agreement/s between the PHAs participating in the consortium and a copy of the
payment agreement between the consortium and HUD (applicable only to PHAs participating in a
consortium as specified under 24 CFR 761.15);
· Partnership agreements (indicating specific leveraged support) with agencies/organizations
providing funding, services or other in-kind resources for PI-IDEP-funded activities;
· Coordination with other law enforcement efforts;
· Written agreement(s) with local law enforcement agencies (receiving any PHDEP funds); and
· All crime statistics and other relevant data (including Part I and specified Part II crimes) that
establish need for the public housing sites assisted under the PHDEP Plan.
14. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of. 1970 and implementing regulations at 49 CFR
Part 24 as applicable.
15. The PI-IA will take appropriate affmnative action to award contracts to minority and women's business
enterprises under 24 CFR 5,105(a).
16. The PI-IA will provide HUD or the responsible entity any documentation that the Department needs to
carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities in
accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.
17. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage rate
requirements under section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act.
18. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to determine
compliance with program requirements.
19. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and 24 CFR Part 35.
20. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A=87 (Cost
Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian
Tribal Governments.).
21. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent with
its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the regulations
and included in its PIan.
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations
12/99
Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all locations that
the PHA Plan is available for public inspection. All required supporting documents have been made
available for public inspection along with the Plan and attachments at the primary business office of the
PHA and at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in its PHA Plan and will continue to be
made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
County of Albemarle VA036
PHA Name PHA Number
Si~ated by PI-IA Board Chak or other authonz, u ~m ~,,~,.~
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations
12/99
Page 3 of 3
U.S. Department of Housing and urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
PHA PLAN S
Annual Plan for Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2001
Note: This report was scanned under Social Service Reports
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Barbara Harris -- Request to amend Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider amending the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide sewer service to
Tax Map 60A, Parcel 26 (1.97 acre which is a portion of
the parcel currently designated as Parcel 26).
AGENDA DATE:
June 20,2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer service to a 1.97 acre parcel located on the north
side of Barracks Road, just east of, and adjacent to, the Barracks Market (Attachment A - applicant's request, Attachment
B -location map). The property is located within the designated Rural Area and is within the Jurisdictional Area for water
service only (Attachment C). The applicant is requesting sewer service because the Health Department has determined
that there is not an adequate location for a septic system on the site. Almost the entire property has been subject to
substantial fill activity in the past (1960's or 1970's) and the existing soils and topography of the site are inadequate to
support a septic system (Attachment D). The Health Department inspector has indicated to staff that in evaluating the site,
consideration was given to the possibility of locating septic fields on adjacent properties. It was the Health Department
official's opinion that there was not a viable alternative site on the adjacent parcels. The primary concern with this option
is that the surrounding parcels are also very small in size, and locating additional septic systems on those parcels could
compromise the ability of those parcels to sustain viable septic field systems in the future.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the
provision of water and sewer service to the Rural Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
"Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
"Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)."
Existing sewer lines are adjacent to the property. The sewer line serves the Old Salem apartments and the Huntwood
townhouse development, both of which are located very near this site. This parcel is currently undeveloped. Therefore,
there is no current health or safety issue. The issue with this request is that the property cannot be developed for
residential use unless public sewer service is provided to the site.
Staff opinion is that, in this particular case, providing sewer service to this parcel is not inconsistent with the intent of the
policy for provision of service to the Rural Area. The primary purpose of the policy is to discourage the extension of
service into areas not intended for development and to avoid consuming the capacity of the public system in serving such
areas. In this particular location, most of the surrounding properties are already provided water and sewer service.
Furthermore, this parcel is 1.9 acres in size and cannot be further subdivided or developed under current zoning.
Therefore, provision of sewer service would not result in the extension of lines into previously unserved areas and would
not serve to potentially support more inten sire developed beyond the one dwelling unit on the property.
06-14-01 Al1:28 IN
AGENDA TITLE: Barbara Harris -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2001
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amending the ACSA jurisdictional area to provide sewer service to Tax Map 62,
Parcel 26 (1.97-acre parcel).
NOTE: This 1.97-acre parcel has not been recognized as a separate parcel on the County's current tax maps. The maps
are to be corrected to reflect the existence of the parcel. However, at this time there is no separate parcel number to refer
to for this parcel. The Zoning Department and Real Estate Office have determined that the 1.97 acre parcel is an existing,
separate parcel.
CC:
Bill Brent
Barbara Harris
01.130
BARBARA L. HARRIS - 1~ 316-B WILLOW DRIVE- CHARLO FrESVILLE, VA 229024944 - (804) 984-1360
Date: May 24, 2001
ATTACHMENT A
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors - PAGE !
Subject: Restriction on connection to county sewer system for Parcels 9-25, 9-25A, 9-
26 & 9-28 located on Barracks Road (Route 654) (Attachment A, new plat)
On March 26, 2001, I spoke with Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration for Albemarle County, regarding a vadance to place a manufactured
home on Parcel 9-28 owned by my mother, Louise Harris. After checking into the
results of a similar action ! had begun but cancelled in 1999, Mr. Shepherd told me
that the vadance was not necessary. On 3/28/01, he sent to me by FAX a Tax Map on
which he had written: "Parcel 28 L.V. Harris 1.444 acres RA zoning currently vacant A
DWELLING CAN BE BUILT ON THIS PARCEL, SUBJECT TO APPROVED
BUILDING PERMIT." (Attachment B, Tax Map)
I was advised by the County Engineering Department that we could tap into the
County water line, but that a septic system would be required. On Wednesday, May
23, Mr. Jeff Loth, Environmental Health Specialist for Thomas Jefferson District, came
to the home site, but was unable to find a suitable area for the necessary drain fields
(Attachment C, report). We learned that the decision to allow access to the County
sewer line would be made by the Board of Supervisors--a process that, I am told,
could .take until nearly mid-July even' if begun immediately.
The fact that the sewer line runs on land that belonged to the subject Parcels pdor to
acts of eminent domain of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Attachments D & E, State
Highway Plat Book pages,), and dwellings on all sides of these parcels are on the
sewer lines makes this restriction all the more questiona ble and confusing. I have
included all of the above parcels acquired by my grandfather, Henry Harris, as shown
in Deed Book 611, page 417 (Attachment F), because all are included in the subject
restriction.
Our initial intent in seeking to place a home on this property at this time was to provide
care for my mother, now aged 94 and living on the property. The residence would also
provide needed living space for other family members, nearly all of whom are over 65
years of age.
Since our current rental agreement terminates on June 30th and month-to-month
leases are not accepted by our lessor, having to move furniture to storage and find
quarters for myself and my husband for 3 or 4 weeks (provided the hearing would
result in our ultimate move into our new home before the end of July), poses a severe
hardship on our finances as well as our mental and physical health. All this, while Palm
Harbor Homes' awaits the OK for delivery to our site.
Thus, this plea for waiver of the headng process on this matter if it is at all possible.
RECEIVED
Barbara L. Harris
MAY 2 ~- 2001
PLANNING AND
GO~MUNiTv DEVELOPNIEN'r
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2
Parcel (9)-22
Parcel (9)-26
.....Parcel (9)-27
Parcel (g)-30
Louise & James Harris '-
D. B. 611-417
/
1.9 70 acres
D. B. 661-417
proposed
ho~s~?catioo
I
15
49.95'
stream
NBS'O4'20"W
I
ParcelI (9)-25A
Ethel
· '1237-628
D.B,
/
Parcel/(~)-25
Ethal/Maupin .
D. B.J 630-602
I
Parcel (9)-24
James Morris
D. B. 1397-718
PLAT SHOP/IN6 BOUNDRY SURVEY OF
TAX 3,!AP 60A PARCEL (9)-28
THE LOUISE, & JAMES. HARRIS
PROPERTY
,lACK JOUETT fi]STRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: I" = lO0' DATE: MAY 20, 2001
60A 0026. dwg
LUM'S IMND SURVEYS, INC.
P.O, BOX 154 PALMYRA, VA. 22963-0154 100 0
PHONE: (804) 589-8395
GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET
100 200
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
4
2~
QHESSIAN HILLS SECTION 5 D.B. 4001~.277 ~
· - D~& 405 Pg. 103 .
Q HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 6 DI~. 417, Pg. 159
QHESsIAN HILLS SECTION 7 D.B. 622,Pg. 565-568
UNIVERSITY COMMONS D.B. 770, R:J, 338-347
Q [MEADOW CREEK)
D.B. 272, Pg.8
QKNOLLWOOD
ADDITION
dACK JOUETT
RIO
HESSIAN HILLS -SEC. I
D.B. 316, Pg.254
HESSIAN - SEC. 2
HILLS
D,B.327, P~. 317
~ HESSIAN NILLS -- SEC. 3
Sg~'n~'VlSEO ~T "~ D.B :570, Pg-145-- D.B.379 Pg.365
/.~ 'HESSIAN HI LLS -- SEC. 4
AND
~,s'~.,o'r SECTION
60-a~ .?
~,EVISED: 8110/$3, 11114184, 11112/86, 8/11/98, 3114101
MARLE COUNTY
ATTACHMENT C
/
/
Q ACREAGES ~"~"T~E
QHESSIAN HILLS SECTION 5DB-4OOP~-2T?D.B. 4OSP;.iO.~
HESSIAN ~LLS sECTION 6 OR. 417, P~ 159
HESSIAN HILLS sECTION 7 O.B. 62Z, P~565-568
D. B. 7.70, ~. 338-347
(MEADOW CREEK)
~ KNOLLWOOD
~ AoDiTION
JACK JOUETT AND
C q ARLOTTE SVILL. E DISTRICT
HESSIAN HILLS-SEC-I
D.B. 516,
HESSIAN HILLS - SEC.
D.B.3ZT, P~-
~ HESSIAN HILLS -- SEC. 3. --
~HESSIAN HILLS--SEC-4
O.B.378, ~107
SECTION
60-A
ATTACHMENT D
PAGE 1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the
State Department of Health
Office of Environmental Health
Phone (804) 972-6259
FAX (804) 972-4310
Thomas Jefferson Health Dixtrict
1138 Rose Hill Drive
P. O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
ALBEMARLE -- CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA)
GREENE COUNTY (STANARDSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
NELSON COUNTY (LOVlNGSTON)
May 24, 2001
Louise Harris and Barbara Harris
1316B Willow Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Sewage Disposal System Application
Location:
North side of Rt. 654 (Garth Rd.), .15 mile west of Rt. 656 (Georgetown Rd.)
Albemarle County, Virginia
Tax Map #60A-28
Health Department 1D#: i 0 I-00-0313
Dear Misses Harris,
Your application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit fried on May 14, 2001 with
the Albemarle County Health Department has been evaluated in accordance with the
requirements contained in the Code of Virginia, Section 32.1-163, the Sewage Handling and
Disposal Regulations, and current agency policy and procedures for processing applications for
on-site sewage disposal systems.
Based on the information filed with your application and the site evaluation conducted by the
Departments representatives, your application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit
for the above referenced location is denied for a conventional sewage disposal system in the areas
investigated by the health department. The Department's findings and reasons for denial, in the
areas examined, are set forth in items A and B:
A. Insufficient area of acceptable soil for required drainfield, and Reserve Area.
B. Unacceptable landscape position required for dminfield installation.
The entire lot essentially consists of one large swale which, over the years, has undergone
extensive manipulation via cut-and-fflI operations. The swale is still obvious, however its bottom
has been filled to the degree that it is now a rather flat landscape. The sides of the swale, which
are consistently concave-shaped, have been terraced by cutting suface soil out and pushing it
downhill to create a fiat grade some 8' to 10' higher in elevation than the filled, fiat bottom of the
ATTACHMENT D
swale.
PAGE 2
What it all boils down to is that the entire shape of the lot acts to concentrate and funnel surface
water m-off, and we are prohibited from installing dminfields in such areas. Furthermore,
dminfields .require natural, original soils, which are generally not available at the ground surface
on your property.
In accordance with the Virginia Administrative Process Act, Title 9, Chapter I.l:l and Section
32.1-164.1 of the Code of Virginia, this letter is to further inform'you of your right to appeal from
the decision of the Department, which is specified in this letter.
If you desire to pursue your right to appeal in which you may at your discretion be represented by
counsel, the first step in the appeal process is to submit to. Susan L. McLeod, M.D., M.P.H., P.O.
Box 7546, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906, Phone (804) 972-6219, a written request detailing and
outlining all the facts and such data or information which forms the basis for you appeal within
30 days of receipt of this letter.
If this office may be of further service to you regarding your application, please let us know.
Sincerely, ~, /
William (Jeff)~Loth, IV
Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning_&__C_o~mun_i. tg(__De~v_e!_o_pment
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 40t2
May 31, 2001
John R. Diver
1924 Stony Point Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE:
SP-2001-009 Crossroads Waldorf School Early Learning Center
Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B
Dear Mr. Diver:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 29, 2001, by a vote of 6-0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Please
school
Maximum enrollment will be 85 students.
Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend.
The site shall not be used as a school after August 15, 2004.
Any additional outdoor lighting shall be shield or arranged to reflect light away from
adjoining residential areas.
note that the applicant is required to receive zoning clearance before the use as a
commences.
Please be ~advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 20, 2001. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do. not
hesitate to contact me.
Planner
Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse
Bob Ball
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
MICHAEL BARNES
MAY 29, 2001
JUNE 20, 2001
SP 01-09 THE CROSSROADS WALDORF SCHOOL - EARLY LEARNING CENTER
IN FOUR SEASONS
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant, Thc Crossroads Waldorf School, is proposing to utilize the former ACAC Facility
in the Four Seasons Development for an Early Learning Center (see Attachment A and B). Thc
Early Learning Center will operate a temporary school for children ranging from infants/
toddlers to kindergartners. They, initially, envision approximately 55 students; however, they
have requested a maximum limit of 85 to cover future enrollment. They have proposed hours of
operation between 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with occasional uses in thc evening and over thc
weekend. Classes will not be held during the summer. Finally, they have anticipated that they
will have acquired or built a new facility by thc summer of 2004. Thus, the Special Use Permit
Conditions stipulate that this permit will expire in August 2004.
Petition for Special Use Permit:
Request for a special use permit to allow for a private school with up to 85 students under
Section. 20.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Private School. The property, described
as Tax Map 61X2 Parcel 4B contains 2.314 acres, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District
on Four Seasons Drive Road, approximately one-quarter mile from intersection of Four Seasons
Drive and Hydraulic Road. The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Urban Density Residential use in Development
Area One.
Character of the Area:
The site is located within the Four Seasons development, which includes patio homes,
townhomes and apartments. The building intended for use by the Waldorf School was formerly
the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club (ACAC) fitness club. The Charlottesville Catholic School
occupies the facility, but will be moving out this summer. The tennis courts and pool surround
the building, which are still operated by ACAC. There is a regional stormwater management
pond located nearby.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant is looking for a temporary space-needs solution. They have occupied St. Paul's
Church for 16 years. However, the Church needs the space and has terminated their lease. They
need a space in the near-term. They hope to find a new, permanent space within three years.
Finally, since this building is currently used as a school and that school is moving to a new
home, they will simply be extending this type of use in this location.
Recommendation:
Staff believes that the proposed use is in keeping with the Special Use Permit for the
Charlottesville Catholic School that is set to expire. Furthermore, the proposed use will be less
intensive than that of the Catholic School. Therefore, staff recommends approval with
conditions.
06-0'1-01 P01:IO IN
Zoninq and Subdivision History:
The original rezoning for the Four Seasons Development was approved in 1969. The clubhouse
was constructed in 1975. Two special use permits, SP 80-23 and SP 81-31, were approved for a
day care at this site, with a maximum enrollment of 175 children. The approval for the day care
has expired. In 1984, the owner filed a rezomng application (ZMA 84-09) for condominiums
and townhomes. The Planning Commission denied the project and the petition was withdrawn
prior to public heating by the Board. In 1985, another rezoning application (ZMA 85-15) was
submitted. It requested permission to expand the clubhouse by 25,500 square feet to allow for
the recreational facilities in place today.
This space eventually became the ACAC facility. After ACAC moved out, the vacant building
was converted into the Charlottesville. Catholic School. A rezoning application (ZMA 98-04)
was approved in May 1998 to allow for day-care by-right and private schools by special use
permit. The rezoning also contained proffers which restricted the commercial (C-I) and
commercial offices (C-O) activities permitted (see Attachment C). The special use permit (SP
98-01) that accompanied ZMA 98-04 placed the following conditions on the school.
A maximum enrollment of 180 students.
Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6'.'00 p.m. provided that occasional school-
related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.
~ Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001.
The latest zoning action occurred with SP 00-10. This special use permit increased the
enrollment to 220 students.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the Four Seasons Development or this facility
in its recommendations. The area is designated by the Plan as Urban Density Residential. A
private school would be in keeping with a residential area.
Staff has also analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive
Plan and with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. These principles are identified
below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Parks and Open Space
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
o
o
Land Use Standards for Designated Development~:~eas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section)
1. Development shouM be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
Since the applicant is not altering the exterior of the complex, no environmental, open space,
etc. impacts are envisioned.
Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
The proposal will not affect the buffers currently in place.
Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
No impacts are envisioned to the road system.
A sense ofcommunityshouM be maximized byproviding connections between developments;
such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space
area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to
schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks)
Although there is a possibility of an interconnection behind the school, the development
proposal does not include making any physical improvements to the site. Staffbelieves that
leaving the site in its current form is appropriate.
Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the
reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes (Pedestrian AcceSs and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks).
The site is currently built-out. The project proposes nothing that will either improve or
detract from the transportation networks.
Underground utilities shouM be provided in new developments.
This item is not applicable to the project.
Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality shOUM be provided.
There will be no exterior improvements to the facility. The ratio of impervious cover will
not change.
Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated
Parking)
There will be no exterior improvements to the facility. Thus, there is no possibility, at this
time, to improve the orientation of the project to the main road running through the
development.
Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights shouM be used.
There is a condition recommended in this report that should take care of this concern. The
conditions states that, "Any additional outdoor lighting shall be shield or arranged to reflect
light away from adjoining residential areas."
o
o
10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than
Abandonment)
There are no buildings of historic importance in the Four Seasons development.
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. 'Special use permits_for uses ~s provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a_finding by the Board of Supervisors that ~such use will not be of substantial detriment to.
ad[acent proper_ty,
T~e current use by the Charlottesville Catholic School has not impacted the neighborhood. The
proposed Early Learning Center will have a quarter of the student body. Any impacts, such as
noise or traffic, should be significantly less than that of the CathOlic School.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This reconfigured use should have minimum to no impact on the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The location of schools within residential neighborhoods is an excellent means for developing a
community's sense of place.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,.
This should not impact any other uses in the district. ACAC will continue to operate the pool
and the tennis courts adjacent to the facility. This school should have no impacts on ACAC's
business because the school will be closed during ACAC's busiest time - the summer.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance,.
There are no conflicts envisioned with the regulations of Section 5.0.
and with the public health, sa_fe~_ and general welfare..
This project will not negatively impact the public health, safety or general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The building is currently used as a school.
2. The Catholic School has had no complaints. The impacts from this proposed school
should be even less than the Catholic School because the student body will be
significantly smaller.
There are no unfavorable factors related to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the Crossroads Waldorf School with the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment will be 85 students.
2. Normal hours of operation fo.r the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with occasional
uses in the evenings and weekend.
4
3. The site shall not be used as a school after August 1', 2004.
4. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be shield or arranged to reflect light away from
adjoining residential areas.
Please not that the applicant is required to receive zoning clearance before the use as a school
commences.
Attachments:
A - Vicinity Map
B - The portion of the building to be utilized by the Waldorf School
C - ZMA 98-04 proffers which restricted the allowed uses.
TOTAL EXISTING PARKING ' 1~)9 SPACES
NEW PARKING LAYOUT:
EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN · 99 SPACES
NEW PARKING LAYOUT · 69 SPACES -
TOTAL PAR KING PROVIOED · · 168 SPACES
\
ATTACHMENT A
COURT
LAKE~V'I E.W DRIVE
~ISTfNG ~
PARCEL 4C
Z.S2 AC.
WATTAGE
~OPOSED- 3 ADDIT~IONAL ~HOW[RS, 2 AODITIONAL SINKS.
RE'VISED LAND USES:
PAVED ~S 62,140 ~
LAND USE SUMMARY
OUILDING COVEN lop4q4 ~
ExISTIHG
t : [ - ' :,
I
t -
' '~ ~ S
rEIGHT OK
4A
US[ ~SID£X~M. ;
~ I TOWNHOMES
I
PANCE~ 61 Xt2)'e
CONEAST lAYINGS lANE
ZONE· PUD · ~m~ ~1
USg: VACANT 7 ~VIDP.~
I
0~4 ~ O.P ~
NO CH&~E 2.2
SITE pAVED AREAS I 8~OO'
C~AY COU '
EXISTING
VEGETATIO
DLrV~LJ3Pb~M T
ACAC
PROJECT NO. 92-C
Project Title
SITE PL/~
AMENDMEN
Sheet Title
~;:ale' I' · 40'
I~a t e' T -I(~ 91
~ N~:
· ~heet NO:
6
MARCH 25, 2001
ACAC'S FOUR SEASONS FACILITY
CROSSROADS WALDORF SCHOOL EARLY LEARING CENTER
1ST FLOOR PLAN
--" Fa~ulty
Work
Area
ATTACHMENT C
AMENDED PROFFERS FOR ZMA-98-04
The commercial (C-l) and commercial office (CO) by-right uses permitted on this parcel
shall be limited to the following:
Commercial
{}22.2.1 .b.8
§22.2.1.b. 12
§22.2.1.b. 13
{}22.2.1.b. 17
{}22.2.1 .b. 18
§22.2.1 .b. 19
{}22.2.1 .b.24
Health Spas.
Libraries, Museums.
Nurseries, Day Care Centers; provided that the nursery or day care
center is only an accessory use.
Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower
Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters
and Related Facilities for Distribution of LOcal Service and Owned
and Operated by a Public Utility.
WaterDistribution and Sewage Collection Lines, PUmping Stations
and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
Public Uses and Buildings including Temporary or Mobile
Facilities such as Schools, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds m~d Roads
Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies;
Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines,
Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or
Operated by the P,.ivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Temporary Construction Uses.
Indoor Athletic Facilities.
Commercial Office
{}23.2.1.5
{}23.2.1.7
Libraries, Museums.
Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication FaCilities excluding Tower
Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters
and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned
and Operated by a Public Utility.
{}23.2.1.9
§23.2.1.12
Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Lines, Pumping Stations
and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County
Service Aufl~ority.
-Public--Uses-and~Buitdings including_Temporary_or ~_~ile
Facilities such as Schools, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds mid Roads
Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies;
Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines,
TrcaUnent Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or
Operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Temporary Construction Uses.
Daycare, Child or Nursery Facility; provided that the nursery, or
day care center is only an accessory use.
ATLANTIC COAST ATHLETIC CLUB
By:
!
Phil Wcndel, President
9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young
America/Morris Creek Yacht Club
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests a
zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow
for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are
located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light
Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way.
The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76MI-
Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street
Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This
property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is
designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in
Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00
acres for grading in the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its
confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1,
TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise
approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light
Industrial), HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning,
respectively.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
June 20, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: U~L,/(~.~
ITEM NUMBERS:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
,CKGROUND: During the initial review of the Special Use Permit and Rezoning applications, the staff generated fiscal
impact analysis was not performed, and it was not available to the Planning Commission during their review. During the
public hearing, the applicant provided to the Planning Commission a fiscal impact analysis that he had performed.
Attached please find a fiscal analysis performed by County Staff after the Commission's hearing that compares the
applicant's analysis to figures generated by the County's Fiscal Impact Model (Attachment A).
Secondly, in light of concern express by both staff and Planning Commissioners during the Commission's review of the
proposal, the applicant submitted a revised Concept Plan and cover memo (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION: A fiscal impact analysis performed by both the applicant and staff shows a revenue benefit to the County if
this project were to be approved and built (Attachment A). While positive revenue generation for the County was seen as
a mitigating issue by some of the Commissioners, it appears that the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial
was based on the outstanding design issues, unresolved environmental im pacts and traffic concerns raised in the staff
report.
The applicant's revised Concept Plan has not been submitted to the County as either a proffered plan or a site plan. Thus,
it has not gone through the County's Site Review Process and its merits have not been evaluated. It does appear that the
applicant has attempted to satisfy two of the staff's concerns. The plan shows an on-site detention basin and reduction of
the fill so that it is outside of the waterward 50 feet of the 100-foot stream protection buffer. Again, staff has not reviewed
the feasibility of these two additions. The plan and the proposal still have several outstanding issues yet to be resolved.
Some of these issues are:
The lack of a mitigation plan for impact to the stream buffer;
The lack of a sufficient traffic study;
Undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor; and,
Greenway Trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan are ignored.
~ previously mentioned, the Concept Plan has not been proffered. Without a proffered plan, the Board cannot be
~,~sured that the proposal, even in its present state, will be built as proposed.
Finally, the Engineering Department has identified two items that have not been provided on the Concept Plan - the 100-
foot stream buffer and a mitigation plan (See memo - Attachment C). The Engineering Department also recommended six
conditions, which should be considered, if the Board decides to take action on the Special Use Permit (Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not feel the additional information noted above changes its recommendation as outlined
in the attached staff report, nor the Planning Commissions recommendation for denial. It would be preferable that the ZMA
and SP be deferred to allow issues raised in the staff report and by the Planning Commission to be further addressed.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Michael Barnes, Planner
Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner
June 13, 2001
SP-99-59 (Young America)
Bob Smith contacted me earlier this momh regarding this proposed development which, apparently,
the Planning Commission rejected on May 22, 2001. He supplied me with the follo'Mng i~fformation
regarding the revenues that the project, would generate for the County:
Projected Real Estate Values and Taxes
3.5 acres (152,000 sq. ft.) @$10.00 per sq. ft.
=> $1,520,000 ~ $0.76 per $100 of value =
7,000 sq. ft. building (a proposed restaurant) ~$100.00 per sq. ft.
=> $700,000 ~$0.76 per $100 of value =
5,000 sq. ft. building (a proposed convenience store) ~$100.00
per sq. ft.
=> $500,000 ~.$0.76 per $100 of value =
Other Improvements (Gas Pumps, etc.)
=> $200,000 ~0.76 per $100 of value =
Tax Revenue
$11,552
$5,320
" 0
$~,80
$i,520
SP 99-59
June 13, 2001
Page Two
Projected Meals Tax & Sales Tax
Major Restaurant -- $3,000,000 in sales ~4% of sales revenue =
Smaller Restaurant - $1,500,000 in sales ~4% of sales revenue =
Retail Sales -- $6,500,000 in sales @1% of sales revenue =
Tax Revenue
$120,000
$60,000
$65,000
Potential Taxes to the County
$267,192
I have looked at these figures and have a number of observations. (1) Based on a conversation I had
recently with Richard Wood, of our assessor's office, Mr. Smith's estimated assessed values of the
improved 3.5 acres of land, 7,000 sq. ft. building, and 5,000 sq. ft. building are plausible. (2) Mr.
Smith failed to take into account the County's revenue sharing agreement with the City of
Charlottesville. For every $0.72 that Albemarle collects in real estate taxes, the County gives the City
$0.10, so the net real property tax rate per $100 of assessed value is $0.62 rather than $0.72. As a
result ofthis oversight, the annual net real property tax revenue to the County would be $10,032 for
the improved 3.5 acres, $4,620 for the 7,000 sq. ft. building, $3,300 for the 5,000 sq. ft. building, and
$1,320 for the other improvements, assuming that these other improvements are taxed at the real
property rate. (3) According to data I found on the Internet regarding convenience store, restaurant,
and gas station sales, Mr. Smith's estimates of the sales tax revenue that would result from the
proposed development seem high, but still fall within the range of plausibility. (4) Mr. Smith's
analysis of the fiscal impact of this project fails to acknowledge other revenues that would be
associated, directly and indirectly, with this proposed development. I ran an analysis of the site plan
through the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) and got the following figures. Note: the
model treated the 7,000 square foot restaurant and 5,000 square foot convenience store as being
12,000 square feet of retail space. This assumption results from the fact that CRIM acknowledges
only four broad categories of non-residential construction (retail, taxable office, industrial, and
institutional) when estimating the net fiscal impact of development. Other than the tax revenues
mentioned above, CRIM projected the following annual income streams:
Residential Real Property Tax
Personal Property Tax (Residential)
Personal Property Tax (Non-Resid.)
Consolidated Utility Tax (Non-Resid.)
BPOL Taxes
State Aid to Schools
$2,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
14,000
2,000
Subtotal
$23,000
SP 99-59
June 13, 2001
Page Three
At first glance, revenues such as residential real property, residential personal property, and state aid
to schools might-seem odd, given the non-residential nature of the project. These income streams,
however, result from CRIM's estimate that the proposed development would generate 15 new jobs
and, by extension, 2 new Albemarle households and 1 new.pupil in the County's school district.
(5) Mr. Smith's analysis of the fiscal impact of the proposed development fails to take into account
the County's expenditures that would be associated with this project. CRIM estimated the following
costs associated with the proposed development:
School Operating Costs
School Capital Costs
County Operating Costs
County Capital Costs
($4,000)
0
(4,000)
0
Subtotal ($8,000)
Note that CRIM rounds numbers to the nearest thousand dollars. School and County capital costs
likely would be greater than zero but, because of rounding, these categories have zero values. Given
the specific available information about this project, the annual net fiscal impact associated with the
proposed development can be summarized as follows:
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Personal Property Taxes
Other Tax Revenues
$21,272
245,000
4,000
$17,000
Subtotal
$287,272
Expenditures
School Operating Costs
School Capital Costs
County Operating Costs
County Capital Costs
($4,000)
0
(4,000)
0
Subtotal
($8,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $279,272
SP 99-59
June 13, 2001
Page Four
I should mention that the two parcels of presently vacant land involved in SP 99-59 generate a net
total of approximately $1,424 in real estate property taxes. If we assume that the developer would
bear all costs involved with flood hazard mitigation and if we also assume, as does CRIM, that
the public expenditure associated with a vacant non-agricultural parcel of land is zero, then
the differential net annual fiscal impact of approving SP 99-59 is $279,272 - $1,424 = $277,848.
This figure means that, in afiscal sense, the County of Albemarle would be $277,848 better off
approving SP 99-59 than rejecting the site plan.
Note: Although my analysis suggests that approval of SP 99-59 would result in a net annual fiscal
benefit to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that SP 99-59 should be approved.
When deciding whether or not to approve a site plan or zomg change, the County of Albemarle
takes into consideration a number of issues other than just a project's fiscal impact. These issues
include, but are not necessarily limited to, transportation impacts and environmental well-being.
SAA/saa
P.O. Box 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
(804) 978-2050
Robert T. Smith
Commercial & Industrial
Real Estate Brokerage
Consulting
ATTACHMENT B
May 31, 2001
Mr. Michael Barnes, Planning Dept.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Engineering Dept.
Dear Michael & Jack,
Enclosed for your review is a ammended copy of our" Conceptional
Preliminary Site Plan" with a few of the Planning & Engineering
staff concerns addressed. While this plan does not address all the
comments of the Planning Commission it does indicate that we are
aware of what the issues must be complied with when and if we
submit a final site plan for a formal review of all the areas that
must be addressed.
We plan to move forward with a hearing on June 20th before the BOS.
We appreciate the attention and interest both of you and all the
staff people have given us on this rather complicated submission.
Thank you!
Very ~ru~ yours,
cc; Robert Tucker
Dale Ludwig
Wayne Cilimberg
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Michael Barnes, Planner
Jack M. Kelsey, PE - Acting Director of Engineering & Public Wo
14 June 2001
SP 99-59 Young America
The revised concept plan, for SP 99-59 Young America, addressed some of the comments
provided in my e-mail dated 15 May 2001. Items that were not addressed are:
1. The 100 foot stream buffers on Moores Creek and Biscuit Run must be delineated (measured
from the top of the streambank) and labeled.
Along Moores Creek the proposed fill encroaches 50 ft. to 75 ft. into the stream buffer. Code
17-321 may allow encroachment into the landward 50 ft. of the buffer, provided a mitigation
plan is provided in accordance with 17-322. The fill slope must be revised such that the
encroachment does not extend beyond the landward 50 feet. The Engineering Department is
concerned that the options for mitigation within the developed portion of the site and the
remaining floodplain are limited. Therefore, the plan must include conceptual mitigation
measures.
We support your recOmmendation for deferral until these items are addressed. However, should
the Board of Supervisors decide to approve the special use permit, we recommend the following
the "conditions of approval" be considered:
A. Applicant shall revise the fill slope such that the buffer encroachment along Moores Creek
does not extend beyond the landward 50 feet.
B. Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan in accordance
with 17-322.
C. Applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Engineering Department for design
measures to effectively protect the fill slope from erosion in accordance with 18-30.3.06.1.
D. No fill shall be placed within the floodway (18.30.3.6.1-2c.).
SP 99-59 Young America
14 June, 2001
Page 2 of 2
mo
Applicant shall submit and obtain Engineering Department approval of as-built grading
plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, showing the final grades of the fill and
property boundaries (FEMA requirement).
Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department certification that the fill was
compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable with the Standard Procter Test
method issued by the ASTM Standard D-698 or an acceptable equivalent method (FEMA
requirement).
Go
Upon completion of the fill, density testing, and as-built grading plans, the applicant shall file
with FEMA for a floodplain map revision. The applicant shall copy the Engineering
Department on all correspondence regarding the floodplain map revision.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
JK~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
___401_ Mcln~ir_e__Road~R.oom218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
May 24, 200~
Robert T. Smith
P O Box 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE:
ZMA-99-13 Young America and SP-99-59 Young America
Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Al:~emarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 2001, by a vote of 3-1,
recommended denial of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is
scheduled to review the above-noted petitions at its June 20th meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Planner
MB~cf
Cc: Ella Carey
05-24-0~ '04:21 IN
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
ZMA 99-13 YOUNG AMERICA
SP 99-59 FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN
MICHAEL BARNES
MAY 22, 2001
JUNE 20, 2001
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant, Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc., thro.ugh its agent, Robert T. Smith, is seeking to
rezone a portion of TMP 76M1-1 (the portion west of Biscuit Run, which is currently zoned
Light Industrial (LI)) and an abandoned, unzoned right-of-way (the old Fifth Street Extended
roadway (Old Rt. 631)) to Highway Commercial (HC). The applicant also owns TMP 76-55A
which would be combined with the other properties for futUre development (see Tax Map -
Attachment A).
Concurrent with~ the rezoning, the applicant also requests permission to fill the floodplain at the
confluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. If permitted, the fill would be on TMP 76M1-1,
TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way (See hatched area on Attachment B).
Both the rezoning and the fill in the floodplain would allow for uses roughly defined as a "sit-
down restaurant" and a "convenience store" (See Concept Plan - Attaclunent C).
Petition for Rezoninq and Special Use Permit:
The applicant requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC
(Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI
(Light Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described
as portions of Tax Map 76MI-Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended
just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood
5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00 acres for grading in the floodplain
of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76MI-1, TMP 76-
55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI
(Light Industrial),HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning, respectively.
Character of the Area:
The site is located on Fifth Street Extended at the County/City :border. It is also the confluence
of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. The majority TMP 76-55A is in the floodplain. All of TMP
76M1-1 is in the floodplain, except the part that is across Biscuit Run, which contains critical
slopes.
Interstate 64 and the Holiday Inn form the southern boundary of the site. The Christian Aid
building (the former Virginia Power office) is across Fifth Street. The Waffle House is across
Moores (.~reek in the City. Finally, the undeveloped land owned by Brass, Inc., which is zoned
Light Industrial (LI) is to the west of the property. The 1-64 interchange is apprOximately 600
feet from the proposed entrance for this site.
Zoning and Subdivision History:
There is no rezoning history related to this site. The property was subdivided sometime prior to
1968 according to Subdivision File 878. The Holiday Inn South was constructed on the adjacent
pamel TMP 76-55C under Site Plan File 173.
By-right Use of the Property:
TMP 76-55A is zoned HC. Its by-fight uses are limited to the area outside of the floodplain.
Actual acreage outside of the floodplain is unknown.
TMP 76M1-1 is zoned LI. Actual aoreage outside of the floodplain is also unknown. Its by-
fight uses also limited on the eastern portion of the property due to the presence of critical slopes.
Staffhas been working with the applicant to assess the development potential of the property but
has been unable to complete its assessment due to the need for additional information.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant's request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on their desire to lease or sell a
developable site to an unspecified user(s). While a conceptual plan for a restaurant and
convenience store was submitted for review by the Site Review Committee, the plan was not
proffered nor is it under review as a preliminary site plan. In short, this is a speculative venture.
In order to defme the potential of the site to a potential client, the applicant must be able to
define the maximum footprint available. To achieve this maximum footprint, the applicant needs
to know the maximum area of floodway fi'inge that the County will permit to be filled.
The applicant argues that the Dewberry and Davis studies have defined the maximum area for
the fill. Using these studies as their basis, they feel that the County should approve their request
to fill. Furthermore, they maintain that the engineering and planning costs necessary to define
other potential development impacts (e.g. traffic, environmental, visual, etc.) are only justifiable
after they have been granted a rezoning and special use permit for fill and have a potential tenant
or'buyer for the property (see Concept Plan - Attachment C).
Recommendation:
Due to the lack of specific information available for this review, staff cannot recommend
approval of the Special Use Permit or the rezoning at this time.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as both Regional Service and Industrial Service.
Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. TMP 76-55 is Highway
Commercial, and TMP 76M1-1 is Light Industrial. A change in zoning for TMP 76M1-1 would
be inconsistent with the Plan's designation of Industrial Service; however, because of the
peculiarities of the properties, staff believes rezoning a portion of the property as a part of a
complete, well-developed proposal should be considered.
The reason staff believes a rezoning may be appropriate based on the following logic. Staff
recognizes that Biscuit Run forms a natural dividing line. It bisects TMP 76M1-1 leaving the
western side (the portion proposed to be rezoned) too small to have a significant industrial
purpose. Bridging Biscuit Run to connect both sides of TMP 76M1-1 would be costly. As a
result, the western portion of TMP 76M1-1 seems to logically fit with TMP 76-55 and its
Highway Commercial uses. In staff's opinion, the eastern portion should remain Light Industrial
2
as the applicant has proposed. This would enable it to be incorporated into the Brass, Inc parcel
which is also zoned Light Industrial. Please note that this analysis of the possible rezoning
outcomes does not take into account the floodplain issue. If the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors determine that filling the floodplain is not proper, then there is no real reason to
change the zoning at this time.
The Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy directly addresses Fifth
Street north of the interchange. This property is directly affected by this policy. The Policy
recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service business, which primarily rely
on the interstate traveler. The rezoning proposal seems to fall into the latter category. The
Policy also recommends that highway-oriented business be clustered with common access point.
On the surface, the proposal's use of the Holiday Inn's existing entrance seems to meet this
recommendation also. However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT's and staff's
concerns related to traffic, internal circulation and off-site improvements that this proposal might
necessitate. Finally, the Policy recommends that "[The] maintenance of functional and aesthetic
integrity should be emphasized in the review of application for development. Such review
should occur in the early stages of the development process (i.e. rezoning petition, special use
permit application, etc) and should address such matters as: control of access .... , landscaping and
buffering, setback, lighting, building mass and height and orientation in regard to aesthetic
concerns." The applicant has not sufficiently addressed these matters.
Finally, staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive
Plan. For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staffmakes
note of the relationship of development proposals with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood
Model that were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles
are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan.
The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Parks and Open Space
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of HoUSing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section}
1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
The proposal does not respect the potential for greenways in the area, as proposed in.the
Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment E). As conceptually proposed, the convenience store
and a portion of the fill are within their propOsed 50-foot greenway bUffer. Development of
3
the site would make the construction of a pathway through this section difficult. Finally, the
development has not proposed any improvements to the section of the greenway within their
site. Please note that the County usually attempts to garner a 100-foot easement for its
greenways.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, violates Section 17-321 of the Water Protection Ordinance.
This section allows for limited disturbance within the landward 50 feet of the 100-foot stream
buffer. This plan proposes placing a building and fill within the waterward 50 feet. Even if
the submitted plan could be modified to remove the disturbance outside the waterward 50
feet, the applicant has not propbsed a mitigation plan for the disturbance in the landward 50
feet, as required by Section 17-322 of the Water Protection Ordinance.
2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
There are no residential subdivisions in close proximity.
3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
The applicant needs address the potential impacts to Fifth Street through completion of a
traffic study.
4. A sense of community should be maximized by providing cOnnections between developments;
such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space
area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to
schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks)
The site contains two important sections of the proposed greenway trail. The first runs along
Moores Creek. The second runs along Biscuit Run south and connects with the Foxcroft and
Mill Creek Subdivisions. The development has proposed no improvements to these sections
of the greenway on their site~ Improvements could have been provided in the form of a Class
A trail or rehabilitating the bridge which crosses Biscuit Run at the confluence (see
Attachment E).
5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the
reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks).
Since the site is so close to the 1-64 interchange and contains both steep slopes and
floodplain, street interconnections to parcels either across Moores Creek or Biscuit Run are
not recommended for this site.
6. Underground utilities shouM be provided in new developments:
The question of underground utilities was not discussed. However, they could bc provided
easily on this site.
7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality shouM be provided.
The proposed site design does not minimize the impervious cover. An inefficient layout of
parking creates large expanses of asphalt. The applicant did not proposed a means for
treating water quality. From the layout, it can be inferred that the intent was to use the
remainder of the floodplain for water, quality Best Management Practices. Sections of the
Water Protection Ordinance limit the use of Best Management Practices in the floodplain.
4
8. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of I-Iuman Scale; Relegated
Parking)
The proposed plan places the fuel canopies directly adjacent to Fifth Street Extended. The
buildings are placed at the back of the site and as far away from the road as possible. It is
also difficult to assess the visual impacts that this development could have when seen from
the 1-64 Bridge over Biscuit Run. The applicant did not address the impact concerns to the
Entrance Corridor raised by the Design Planner. Therefore, the plan has not yet been
submitted to the Architectural Review Board for comment.
9. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used.
The applicant did not provide information on hghting; however, any proposed lighting will
need to meet the County's Lighting Ordinance requirements.
10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than
Abandonmen0
There are no buildings on the site. Only an old bridge crossing Biscuit Run.
Specific standards for commercial development in the Land Use Plan also apply to this site.
These standards are as follows:
1. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities
and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural
Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. (Clear Edges)
This rezoning is proposed for Neighborhood 5 which is part of the Urban Area
2. Highway-oriented commercial development should be located in clusters with common
access points. Highway-oriented commercial development not located in such clusters
should utilize service roads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of
intersections on higher volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated for
commercial development should not be less than three acres and should be of reasonable
topography to allow unified access.
The proposed rezoning is for a "clustered" development that is served by a single point of
access. Questions of how the traffic generated by uses at this location remain unanswered.
3. Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be
accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by traffic analysis.
A traffic analysis has been performed. Staff and VDOT have raised concerns with this
analysis. To date, those concerns have not been resolved.
4. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in
accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed
as transitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial
areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas
should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects
should be adequately addressed at rezoning.
There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity. The area is characterized by office
and commercial uses.
5. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be
encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infill of existing
o
commercial areas. (Mixture of Uses and Centers)
The project does not propose a mixed-use component. Due to the proximity to the interstate
and the size of the site relative to the floodway, the possibilities for mixed-use are limited.
Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to
support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical telephone,
natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a
commercial rezoning request.
Utilities are adequate to support this proposal.
STAFF COMMENT:
Analysis of the Rezonina
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zonin~
The purpose and intent of the HC Zoning District is to permit development of highway
related commercial uses. The proposal meets the intent of both HC zoning and the Interstate
Interchange Policy
Public need and |ustification for the chan=e
The public need for the rezoning is not immediately obvious. There are already several gas
stations and restaurants in the area. However, an argument might be made that this rezoning
serves to make better use of the land in the Development Areas.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer service is available to the property.
Roads - The traffic impact of this site are not yet understood. The applicant has been
requested to provide additional information for staff analysis.
Stormwater management - Stormwater management plans were not submitted as part
of this proposal. It remains a question if the conceptual plan can provide stormwater
treatment without utilizing the floodway.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
No impact is expected on cultural and historic resources. With regard to impacts on natural
areas, the impacts to the stream buffers have not been addressed. At present, no impact is
anticipated to the critical slopes on the eastern side of Biscuit Run.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of
this site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads.
Analysis of Special Use Permit
The amount of floodplain~ on this site makes it difficult to develop. When a property is in the
1 The one hundred-year floodplain is the entire area subject to a one hundred-year flood. In Albemarle, all areas
subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred-year flood as defined on the FEMA flood insurance maps
determine the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
one hundred-year floodplain, the construction of buildings is prohibited. However, under a
special use permit, fill can be placed in the part of the floodplain named the floodway fringe2.
The fill enables the building to be raised above the floodplain and thus escape the building
prohibition. The ability to perform this fill is based on an engineering study that determines the
limits of floodplain, the limit of the floodway3 and the one hundred-year flood' elevation. This
study also needs to define the impacts to upstream and downstream proPerties.
Floodplain studies, performed by Dewberry and Davis, delineated portions of the two properties
which are either outside the floodplain, in the floodway fringe, or in floodway (Please see the
Engineering Comments below for a full discussion of the Dewberry and Davis Study). A small
portion of TMP 76-55A adjacent to Fifhh Street is outside of the floodplain. The remainder is in
the floodway fringe. A portion of TMP 76M1-1 On the west side of Biscuit Run is in the
floodway fringe. The rest is in the floodway. The portion ofTMP 76M1~1 to the east of Biscuit
Run is out of the floodplain.
Under this determination made by Dewberry and Davis, Which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has accept-ed, the applicant could fill the part of the floodway
fringe which has hatch marks (see Attachment B), if approved by Albemarle County. The
Dewberry and Davis study asserts that the fill in this area will not increase the 100-year flood
elevation. If the flood elevation is not increased, the rule set forth County zoning regulations,
then the CoUnty may permit the fill by approving the Special Use Permit, provided that all
remaining portions of Section 30.3.6.1 and 31.2.4.1 are met.
Enqineerinq Department Analysis (Section 30.3 of the Zoninq Ordinance (Flood
Hazard OVerlay District)):
Engineering has reviewed the conceptual plan, hydraulic models, cross-sections and
documentation submitted, by the applicant, in support of the request for filling in the
floodplain of the Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Their comments are as follows:
Floodplain Analysis
1. The floodplain analysis demonstrates that the area of the proposed fill is an area of
"ineffective flow". This is primarily due to the its location between the two intersecting
streams and the effects of the flow constriction caused by the Interstate 64 and the Fifth
Street bridge abutments. As a result the analysis was able to demonstrate that the
proposed fill in:the floodplain had insignificant onsite impact (0.02 ft. increase) to the
100 year storm water surface elevation and no impact to upstream or downstream
properties.
Conceptual Plan
2. The label on the bold line, shown following the bottom of the proposed slope, needs to be
corrected. This represents the "Floodway Line as taken from the Dewberry & Davis
Study".
2 The floodway fringe is defined as those portions of land within the Flood Hazard Overlay District subject to
inundation by the one hundred-year flood, but lying outside the floodway.
3 The floodway is defined as that portion of the Flood Hazard Overlay District that is required to carry and discharge
the waters of the one hundred year flood without increasing the water surface elevation at any point more than one
(1) foot above existing conditions.
3. The 100-foot stream buffers must be shown and labeled along Moores Creek and Biscuit
Run in accordance with Section 17-317 of the Code.
4. The portion of the proposed fill adjacent to Moores Creek encroaches, and in some areas
eliminates, the stream buffer. Encroachment within the landward 50 feet of the buffer
may be authorized pursuant to Section 17-321, provided a mitigation plan is submitted in
accordance with Section 17-322. The plan must be revised to keep the land disturbing
activity within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer and a mitigation concept is
proposed.
5. This development will be required to provide onsite stormwater management and
conceptual facilities will need to be provided on the concept plan. Please note that
stormwater management facilities will not be allowed within the limits of the floodway.
Conclusion
Before the Engineering Department can fmalize their recommendation regarding the
approval/denial of this application and generate conditions of approval for consideration,
comments//3, 4 and 5 will need to be addressed and information submitted to the
Engineering Department.
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
The Board qf Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use perm its
permitted hereunder. Special use permits_for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a_finding by the Board o_f Supervisors that such use will not be o_f substantial detriment to
adjacent proper~_ ,
As a result of the DeWberry and Davis study, the Engineering Department has determined that
filling the defined portion of the floodplain will not have an adverse impact to adjacent
properties. However, outstanding questions related to stormwater management, greenway trails,
and visual impacts remain as unresolved potential impacts to surrounding properties and/or the
community.
that the character Of the district will not be changed thereby,
Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this
site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
With the many outstanding concerns raised by staff remaining to be answered, it is difficult to
assess if use of the site can fit harmoniously into the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and
Neighborhood.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The adjoining use is a hotel. If designed properly, the site could mesh well with the adjoining
use and any other uses that would be permitted in this district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 qf this ordinance,
Again, the applicant' has not defined the use. Therefore, it is difficult to judge potential conflicts
8
with Section 5.0.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Engineering Department has determined that filling the de£med portion of the floodplain
will not have an adverse impact to adjacent properties. Still, the undefined nature of the project
makes any determination of impacts to this criterion difficult.
SUMMARY:
The applicant has chosen to bring the Rezoning and Special Use Permit request in front of the
Planning Commission without answering many of the questions that staffhas raised (see letter
from the applicant's agent, Attachment D). The applicant's responses to this point have been
mainly aimed at answering Engineering's concerns related to the fill.
Staff, however, still believes that other impacts are of equal importance as the engineering
concerns related to fill. The applicant has failed to show how they will mitigate the traffic
impact from the site, mitigate disturbance within the 100-foot stream buffer, mitigate stormwater
runoff, mitigate the visual impact to the Entrance Corridor road, meet the Comprehensive Plan's
Interstate Interchange Development Policy, etc. Finally, the Engineering Staff still has several
unanswered questions about the fill in the floodplain.
Staff is somewhat sympathetic to the circular argument within which the applicant finds
themselves (i.e. the applicant cannot fred a tenant or buyer until they have determined the
amount of permitted fill and they cannot demonstrate mitigation of the development and fill until
they have found a tenant or buyer). However, this is a circular argument created by the applicant
and not the County. If the applicant would bring a complete proposal to the County, the County
could then evaluate all impacts to the site and surrounding properties. Until staffhas a clear
understanding of the potential impacts, staff cannot recommend approval.
Staff has pointed out these issues to the applicant, but the applicant desires a determination from
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on whether fill in the floodplain at this
location will be permitted. The applicant has put aside staff's request for more information
related to the future intent of the site until they have received this determination from the
Commission and the Board.
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. The applicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood
elevation.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess if filling the
floodplain is a worthy activity.
2. The lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess the project's
impact on a wide variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental, and greenway
impacts, etc.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff cannot recommend approval at this time because the applicant has failed to define .solutions
to a wide range of potential impacts. Permitting the fill to occur before these impacts can be
assessed could lead to irreparable impacts to the floodplain. Staff believes that the applicant
9
should more fully develop their proposal before the Commission and the Board consider the
applicant's request to rezone TMP 76M1-1 and provide a Special Use Permit for fill on TMP
76M1-1 and TMP 76-55A.
Attachments:
A - Tax Map
B - Fill Proposal
C - Application Plan
D - Applicant Letter to Staff
E - Comprehensive Plan's Greenway Recommendations for the Area
10
ALBEMARLE COUNTY. ATTACI-I1V~NT A
\
/ \
........... SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 76M(I)
11
_)
t4ETAL DiSK ON S.E. CORNER OF HEAg"ALL / /., / cd /~' ~//. ,~/ ~, ~
STAMPED ALBEMARLE CDUNTY BENCHNARK J6 / / ~ ~ / ~/ ~ ~ J
~ ~ / ~': ' GENERAL
I~ ,.':--, CONCEPTIONAL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
P.O. Box 7120-
Robert T. Smith
Commercial & Industrial
Real Estate Brokerage
Consulting
ATTACHMENT D
Charlottesville, VA 22906
(804) 978-2050
Mr. Michael D. Barnes, Planner
Dept. of Planning
County Office Building
April 9, 2001
Hand Delivered!
Dear Michael;
re: Morris Creek Yatch~ Club, Inc.
As regards our application for a Special Use Permit and an
application for Rezoning the property on 5th St. Extended. Let me
address some of the items covered in your letter of April 2, 2001
regarding the Review of our applications.
1. Back in September of 2000 I had a meeting with David Bennish
regarding if we needed an amendment to the Comp Plan and David at
that meeting informed me that because of the size of the land taken
out of the Industrial Use and because it was not usable in its
present status an amendment to the Comp Plan was not going to be
required.
2. We have had the Engineering Firm of Dewberry & Davis provide to
Jack Kelsey the necessary information to determine if we can in
fact fill in the Flood Plain. I assume that we can meet the
Counties requirements for this problem and that Jack will be able
to confirm this prior to our meeting with the Planning Commission.
3. As regards the other information that the various departments
have requested we do not feel that w.e should be required to provide
this information at this time. All of the requirements, as
outlined by the departments, will have to be met when we have the
Special Use permit and the Rezoning approvals in place. The "Site
Plan" submitted is a conceptual one and until we know that in fact
we can develop the property this is very unnecessary as we do not
have contractual users at this time. We have tried on the
conceptual plan to assume the highest type of users.
Please put us on the agenda for the 1st Planning Commission meeting
scheduled so that we can explain to the commission the problems of
tring to meet the items the Staff has brought forward at this time.
Ve/~truT~y°urs' ~__...'~ //
cc. Dale Ludwig
Jack Kelsey
Bob Tucker
ATTACHMENT E
/
agg~d.
ottntam
Rdservoir
/
f
I
I
I
'-.%
' t'
\...... / \
4
) x., ., ', ' ,
[?
#
e
%
x-';.r,F'
/
Monticello
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Urban Area
Moore's! Creek and Biscuit Run
Greenw~ay Trails MAP 3
Rivanna
River
O
O
O
\-- I ·
'N
'
~lass A Trail
I~lass B Trail
Off River Trail
G-1 Public Access and Facilities
G-2 Public Access
G-3 Neighborhood Access
,Study Area
Bridge Crossing
Prepared By:
Department of Planning ahd Community Development · Office of Mapping. Graphics and Informal=
N
Scale1"= 2800'
15
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fag (804) 972 - 4012
June 8,2001
Mike Fenner
The Cox Company
220 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
ZMA-00-10 Avemore; SP-00-69 Avemore and SP-00-70 Avemore
Tax Map 78B. Parcels 2A, 2B, 4B, 3-1 and 4-1
Dear Mr. Fenner:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 5, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
· ZMA-O0-10 Avemore- Recommended approval subject to proffers
· SP-00-69 Avemore - Recommended approval subject to the following condition:
1. The professional office uses shall be limited, in combination with the retail stores and shops
uses allowed in SP 00-70, to not exceed 20,000 square feet.
· SP-O0-70 Avemore - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
For the purposes of this Special Use Permit, Retai stores and shops shall be defined as the
commercial uses listed below:
a The following retail sales and service establishments:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
3. Department store.
4 Drug store, pharmacy.
5. Florist.
6. Food and grocery stores including .such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk
dispensary and wine and cheese shops.
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service).
Page 2
June 8, 2001
8. Hardware store.
9. Musical instruments.
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
11. Optical goods.
12. Photographic goods.
13. Visual and audio appliances.
14. Sporting goods.
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b. The following services and public establishments:
1. Barber, beauty shops.
2. Churches, cemeteries
3. Funeral homes.
4. Health spas.
5. Indoor theaters.
6. Laundries. dry cleaners.
7. Libraries, museums.
8. Nurseries. day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
9. Eating establishments.
10. Tailor, seamstress.
11. Medical center.
12. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
13. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95)
The Commission also approved a waiver request, in accordance with Section 4.12.6.5(c), for
angled and curvilinear parking as well as a waiver request in accordance with Section 4.12.6.2
for one-way circulation.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 20, 2001. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Michael Barnes
Planner
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve AIIshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
MICHAEL BARNES
JUNE .5, 2001
JUNE 20, 2001
ZMA 00-10 AVEMORE
SP 00-69 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN R-15
SP 00-70 RETAIL USES IN R-15
~S, NGLED PARKING AUTHORIZATION
~2URVILINAR PARKING AUTHORIZATION
~)NE-WAY CIRCULATION AUTHORIZATION
[PRIVATE ROAD AUTHORIZATION
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant, Kobert Houser Homes, through their consultant, The Cox Company, has proposed
to rezone 27.46 acres from R-10 with proffers to R-15 with proffers. The project proposes 406
dwelling traits consisting of 360 apartments and 46 townhomes.
Two special use permits are also included in this revi. ew. They both relate to two (2), 10,000
square foot buildings adjacent to Fontana Drive. One special use Permit request is for
professional offices; the second is for retail shops. At this time, the precise office and retail uses
are undecided.
Finally, the applicant has submitted a list of proffers. The proffers and the proffered Application
Plan are attached to the staff report as Attachment A and B, respectively.
Petition for Rezoninq and Special Use Permits:
The rezoning petition requests a change from (previously proffered) R-10 residential and office
development to (proffered) R-15 residential, office, and retail development. As proposed the
proffered plan would allow 406 dwelling units on 27.46 acres. Special use permit request SP 00-
69 would allow for professional offices in an R- 15 district in accordance with Zoning Ordinance
Section 18.2.2(11). Special use permit request SP 00-70 would allow for a single floor retail
stores and shops not to exceeding 4;000 square feet in an R-15 district in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance Section 18.2.2(12). Both special use permit petitions apply to the properties,
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 58I and Tax Map 78 B, Parcels 3-1 and 4-1.
The proposals are for the properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 581 and Tax Map 78 B,
Parcels 2A, 2B, 4B; 3-1 and 4-1, located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Fontana Drive
approximately 1/10 mile from the intersection of Route 20 and Fontana Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban'Density Residential, recommended for 6-
34 dwelling units per acre, in the Pantops Development Area (Neighborhood 3).
Waiver Requests:
Angled and Curvilinear Parking Authorization
Under Section 4.12.6.5(c), the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission authorize
the use of angled and curvilinear parking within the Avemore Development.
One-Way Circulation Authorization
Under Section 4.12.6.2, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission authorize the
use of one-way circulation within the Avemore Development.
06-14-01 P12:5'} IN
Private Roads
Under Section 14-232, subsection A (1 & 4), the applicant requests Planning Commission
approval for a private road connecting Avemore to Olympia Drive through the Fontana
Subdivision.
Character of the Area:
The proposed project is located to the east of Route 20 North (Stoney Point Road) approximately
1 mile from the Route 250/Route 20 intersection (see Attachment D- Vicinity Map): The
property currently contains the old Garnet Day School, which was formerly the old Wilton Farm.
Presently, the house is empty and the site is overgrown. Trees fringe the upper portion of the
site.
In relation to surrounding properties, the site is situated on the northern side of an unnamed
drainage that originates near Westminster Canterbury and the Ashcroft Subdivision: It drains
across Route 20 to the Rivanna River (see Attachment E - Tax Map). The entire site slopes up
from thi~mall stream. The Wilton Farms Apartment Complex is located below the project, but
on the same side of the drainage (Tax Map Parcel #8B). The Fontana Subdivision flanks the
northern/uphill side of the site. Avemore's proposed entrance is offFontana Drive directly
across from the entrance to the Frost M°ntessori School. The Virginia Land Company owns
most of the land between Route 250 and the unnamed drainage (#9, 10, 10A, 12 & 12B)
including the White HOuse Motel (#10) and the undeveloped South Luxor parcels (#12 & 12B).
Dr. Hurt also retains control of the undeveloped North Luxor property north of Fontana (#57).
Zoning and Subdivision History:
These properties have a long and complicated zoning history. The original block of land was the
Wilton Farm. It was bought by Phillip Sansone and through time has been developed into the
Wilton Farm Apartments, the duplexes along Wilton Farm Drive, and the properties under
consideration in:this rezoning.
The process of breaking apart the original farm beganin 1988. Dr. Sansone requested to rezone
the farm (a total of 45 acres) from R-1 to RI0 through ZMA 88-12. Accompanying this rezoning
application was a special use permit request for the Garnet Day School in the old farmhouse.
The Board denied the request to rezOne the entire track and instead agreed to grant the special
use permit for the School and rezone the 15 acres around the school to R-10 without a proffered
plan of development. The now defunct school and its property comprise a portion of the area
currently under consideration.
The second maj or rezoning on the old farm property was ZMA 89-24, which approved another
portion of the property for rezoning from R-1 to R-10. This rezoning contained the original
application for the Wilton Farm Apartments and had a proffered plan that included two phases.
The first phase became the 156 apartments currently on the site (SDP 91-77). The second phase
of 76 apartments was never built. Instead, the second phase was divided into two projects. The
first project, under ZMA 94-07, SUB 94-71, ZMA 98-22, and SUB 98-22, became the duplexes
that line Wilton Farms Drive. The second project, under ZMA 94-07, SUB 97-19 and SUB 99-
113, proposed up to 11 lots with duplexes on the lots. This second project was never completed.
The land for this second project is now a portion of the area currently under consideration.
The third portion of the site currently under consideration is TMP 78-581. This section is the
portion of the old farm that was split off during the original application for the Wilton Farm
Apartments. Under ZMA 94-15, the Board approved a rezoning from R-1 to R-10 with a
proffered plan showing 19 lots with duplexes. The applicant submitted a subdivision
application, but it was withdrawn and the project was never completed.
By-ri.clht Use of the Property:
Thc properties under consideration are all zoned R-10. The portion that contained the Garnet
Day School is 15 acres and does not have a proffered plan of development on it. Its development
potential is 150 units. The portion that was originally the second phase apartment proposal has a
proffered plan, from ZMA 94-07, that shows 11 lots for duplexes. Its development potential is 22
dwelling units. The final portion, rezoned under 94-15, proposed 38 dwelling units. Therefore,
the development potential for the three properties is 210 dwelling units - 150 apartments and 60
duplexes. Under the bonus provisions of the ordinance, the apartments could be increased by
thirty percent if the affordable housing requirements were met. This would allow for 195
apartment. Thus, the'total by-right potential could riSe to 255.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant has stated his intent to build a high-quality, mostly brick fagade development with
amenities. He feels that this concel;
Apartment Complex and Fontana S
mixed-use development that incorp,
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and
approval of the Special Use Permits
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designate,.
t will provide a nice transition between the Wilton Farms
abdivision. The applicant also believes that this project is a
)rates several aspects of the Neighborhood Model.
recommends approval of the rezoning with proffers and
with conditions.
this area as Urba~ Density (6-34 dwelling units/acre). The
proposal is for 406 units on 27.1 acres or 15 units/acre. This is well within the constraints of the
density called for in the Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that the Neighborhood Three Study "serve as a guide for
development in the Neighborhood." The Study calls for medium density (5-10 dwelling
units/acre) in' the project area and high density (11-34 dwelling units/acre) along Elks Drive and
at Westminster Canterbury. Staff believes that this project can accommodate a density higher
density than that called for in the Neighborhood Three Study without compromising the intent of
the study. Other than the density recommendations, the Neighborhood Three Study does not
address this portion of the Pantops Neighborhood directly.
The Comprehensive Plan makes several indirect recommendations for this property. The first
states that development should be sensitive to both the Entrance Corridor requirements and the
Monticello viewshed. The project is within the Entrance Corridor and has received an initial
review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB unanimously voted to recommend
to the Planning Commission that it had no objection to the Special Permits or the Zoning Map
Amendment, but it withheld comment regarding the conceptual development plan for this site
because there was not enough information to make a judgement on the visual impact of the
proposal. The project is not within the Monticello viewshed. The second recom_rnendation from
the Comprehensive Plan suggests extending water service into the northern section of the
Neighborhood. The Fontana Subdivision was approved after the adoption of this Comprehensive
Plan. There is both adequate water and sewer to serve the proposed project.
Finally, staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other Sections of the Comprehensive
Plan and with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. These principles are identified
below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Parks andOpen Space
· Neighborhood Centers
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standardspp: 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section)
1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
Environmental features consist of rolling terrain and a small, intermittent stream. The
development provides three developed green space areas. Proffer C-1 outlines a "Village
Green" which can provide residents of the townhomes with a usable, public gathering space.
The developer has also offered, in Proffer C-2 and C-3, to provide for three tot lots and a
community clubhouse (Attachment A). The applicant has not fully defined what, if any,
amenities will be provided in the open space surrounding the pond between the townhomes
and the apartments nor the area between the development and Fontana (see Attachment B)
2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisiOns.
The prOffer offers a forty fOot undisturbed bUffer between Avemore and the Fontana
Neighborhood. This buffer currently has a substantial number of trees and shrubs. The
developer has also offered to the Fontana Homeowner's Association that he will augment the
entire length of the Avemore/Fontana border with additional plantings.
3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
The question with this project is how to increase access for the development rather than limit
it. Section 32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "For a development of fifty (50) or
more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential
units to two (2) public streets connections." The Avemore proposal has only one entrance on
to a public road - Fontana Drive. Wilton Farm Drive fails to meet the second entrance
requirement because it is a private road. Additionally, VDOT and the Engineering
Department have expressed concern about significantly increasing the traffic on Wilion
Farms Drive with Avemore's traffic because the distance between it and Route 20 is too
small to handle more than a couple of cars at a time. Thus, the developer has sought to
provide an additional access point to meet the requirements of Section 32.7.:2.4.
The developer and the County have arrived at a solution that piggybacks on the access
solution roi: Fontana. Fontana was allowed a single entrance on to a public road (Route 20)
with other roads stubbing out on toDr. Hurt's South Luxor parcels. The intent is for the
Fontana traffic to have an additional point of access to Route 250 when Dr. Hurt develops his
properties. The second point of access for Avemore will tie into one of the extensions for
Fontana -- Olympia Drive (see Attachment D & (Proffer E).
It is important to point out that the connection between Avemore requires the participation of
several actors. The first is the Fontana Homeowner's Association (HOA). After the
proposed road leaves the Avemore property, it is proposed to cross the Fontana HOA's
property. The Fontana HOA has stated their support for the road interconnectiOn for two
major reasons (see HOA letter - Attachment F). First, the connection redirects a portion of
the Avemore traffic away from Fontana Drive and towards Route 250. Secondly, in
exchange for the right-of-way for the connector road, the Avemore developer will remove an
unsightly stormwater management basin from the Fontana Open space and treat the Fontana
stormwater in a regional basin that the Avemore Developer is proffering to build (Proffer D).
The second actor is Dr. Hurt. The connector road must tie into Olympia Drive if and when it
is extended to Route 250. The extension is entirely on Dr. Hurt's properties. Dn Hurt has
shown this connection in schematic plans for his properties; however, nothing has been
finalized at this time. It is staffs intent to use the site plan and subdivision processes to
encourage the extension of Olympia Drive through Dr. Hurt's property. It is staffs intent
that when Olympia Extended is built, the connector between Olympia Drive Extended
Avemore will be .completed (see Connector-Road Exhibit - Attachment D).
,4 sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments;
such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space
area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and ~cce~s to
schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks)
The proposed private connector road between Avemore and Olympia Drive. provides for
vehicular and pedestrian connections for Avemore's residents to Fontana and Dr. Hurt's
properties (Attachment D)i The developer has also signaled his willingness to extend
pedestrian access across the regional storrnwater management structure if a connection is
made on Dr.: Hurt's side~ The developer has also proposed that Fontana and Avemore share a
common foot trail between the two developments on the Avemore property. The developer
is proffering a concrete sidewalk from Avemore's entrance down to Route 20 (Proffer F)2 He
has also proffered 5-foot asphalt sidewalks and trails within the development (Proffer G.)
Finally, there is a proffer for right-of-way for a sidewalk along the eastern side of Route 20
on the properties that he controls (Proffer H)i
Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the
reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks).
The sidewalk in the right-of-way along Route 20 will not be built in the near term (Proffer
H). This right-of-way is dedicated so that when and if Route 20 is widened there will be
additional room for sidewalks.
The connection between Avemore and Olympia Drive will not be completed until Olympia
Drive is extended.: However, the developer has proffered to acquire and reserve adequate
right-of-way for this connector road prior to site plan approval (Proffer E).
Finally, the developer has proffered to provide either fifty percent or $50,000 (which ever is
less) towards a light at the intersection of Route 20 and Fontana Drive. If this light is
constructed through funding from another source, these funds wilt be directed towards other
improvement in the Route 20 corridor (Proffer K).
Underground utilities should be provided in new developments.
All utilities in the development will be underground.
Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided.
There are two options for managing stonnwater runoff from the Avemore Development. The
first is entirely on-site using the on-site detention basin shown on the Application Plan and
underground detention (see Attachment B).
The second option is intertwined with the com~ector road between Avemore and Olympia
Drive. The Fontana Homeowners Association is willing to give the developer the right-of-
way for the connector road in exchange for the removal of an unsightly detention basin in the
Fontana Subdivision and a landscaped buffer between the subdivision and the connector
road. The Fontana basin detention requirements would then be captured in a regional basin,
which is proposed on the edge of Avemore's and Dr. Hurt's properties (Attachment D). This
regional basin would then capture and meet the water quality requirements for the future
development of ail the undeveloped properties above it. This capture area would, of course,
include a portion of Avemore draining towards the regional basin. Any other any areas of
Avemore not draining to the regional basin would be treated by a smaller version of the basin
shown on the Application Plan. This area gained by the reduction would be converted into
open space (Proffer D).
Finally, it is important to note that, under the regional detention option, the applicant will not
be required to meet the stormwater runoff quantity requirements. To meet these
requirements, the proposed detention basis would have to be significantly larger. Waiving
this requirement is mitigated by two factors. First, the Westminster Basin was designed to
over detain flow. Thus, it will offset the increased flow from the AvemOre Project.
Secondly, the Avemore project is close to the Rivanna River. State Law states that if the
receiving channel already accepts a flow from a very large watershed, then the water quantity
detention requirements do not have to be met.
Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated
Parking)
The commercial buildings will have a street entrance and a faCade facing Fontana Drive.
They will also have all parking behind the commercial building and sidewalks connecting the
6
buildings to the Fontana. Unfortunately, the buildings cannot be closer to Fontana Drive
because the property line does not abut the road. However, their orientation is towards the
entrance on to Fontana Drive off Route 20 and Fontana Drive itself. :Concept drawings have
shown the extra area between the buildings and the road as a usable pedestrian area (see
Attachment G).
9. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used.
The development will have to meet the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
(4.17).
10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment)
The Wilton farmhouse was identified in the Neighborhood Three Study as one of the older
homes in the Neighborhood. The historic significance of the home is unlmown; however, the
Garnet Day School altered the interior of the home. Under this proposal the home would be
removed.
11. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and
capacity.
Water and sewer service is available to serve this deVelopment.
12. Overall development density should be as high a 'level as is practical.
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Urban DensitY (6 to 34 units per acre): At 15
dwelling units per acre, the development is in the middle of the range. The 20,000 square
feet of professional office and commercial use adds diversity to the site.
13. The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering,
screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses.
In this mixed-use development, the abilitY to meet this objective is difficult. Furthermore,
the proposed office and commercial uses are not necessarily incompatible. The applicant has
work to integrate the design of the uses into the architecture of the site and to place the
parking away from the main public road - Fontana Drive (Attachment G).
14. Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and
avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Human Scale)
The development attempts to incorporate the principles of New Urbanism, Avemore
Boulevard is kept narrow with street trees and traffic circles. While the amenities are not
central to the development, green space is provided throughout the development. The
townhome "village green" is intended to be community open space (Attachment H). Finally,
the commercial and office buildings are intended to be a pedestrian destination for the entire
neighborhood. (Attachment G).
15. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability
with Dignity)
The applicant has indicated that the apartments would rent from $600 for the small
apartments over the garages and continue up from this point.
16. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects
topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or
counteract those features. (Site Planning that Respects Terrain)
The plan calls for the buildings to .be "stair-stepped" down the slope. As the buildings move
down the slope, they gain height. This strategy allows the project to gain density without
blocking the majority of vistas that residents of Fontana enjoy.. The plan also uses the
"Garrets," the apartment/garage combinations, as retaining stmc. tures. This architectural
technique reduces the need for large, visually unpleasing retaimng walls.
The plan might benefit more from following the contours; however, to do so would cause the
applicant to lose .the long, narrow theme of the Avemore Boulevard entrance that they feel is
important to their project.
Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential
Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses; Residential Development Design, pp. 22-23)
In rezoning deliberations, the county shouM be mindful of the intent to encourage infill
development, contain most future growth within the designated Development Areas, and avoid
rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential
rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density ranges
should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments.
The proposed development is in the middle of the density range. It matches the density of
Wilton Farms Apartment and it significantly increases the residential density when compared to
the Fontana Subdivision.
Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas should be accomplished using buffering,
screening, and ph~vsical separation of adjacent nonresidential uses. (Mix of Uses) [Note: The
Neighborhood Model suggests that a major separation of residential and nonresidential uses is
not mandatory. Architectural and landscape features can and should be used to achieve
compatibility.]
The applicant is using the office buildings to screen the dwellings from Route 20 and Fontana
Drive
For larger developments, layout and design shouM provide for varying building orie~ttation and
setback, dwelling unit type, fafade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space
shouM be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas
within the larger developments. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger
developments. {Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale)
The proffer exhibits B-F show a variety of building designs and fafade treatments. Green space
is spread through out the site. Because of their size and number, the apartment building might
dominate the appearance of the site. The applicant should be encouraged to vary the look of the
apartments slightly while remaining constant to the architectural theme of the development;
Specific standards for commercial development in the Land Use Plan also apply to this site.
These standards are as follows:
A. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities
and the Urban Area. Only limited sUpporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural
Areas shouM be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. (Clear Edges)
This rezoning is proposed in the Pantops Neighborhood (Neighborhood 3) that is part of the
Urban Area.
B. Highway-oriented commercial development should be located in clusters with common
access points. Highway-oriented commercial development not located in subh clusters
should utilize service roads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of
Co
intersections on higher volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated~for
commercial development should not be less than three acres and shouM be of reasonable
topography to allow unified access.
The office/commercial building facade treatments and relegated parking limit the potential
for a "strip" appearance.
Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more shouM be
accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by traj~c analysis.
The applicant performed a traffic analysis. VDOT and the County staffhad significant
reservations about several assumptions'and methodologies used. Instead of re-analyzing the
report, the developer agreed to provide for several essential off-site improvements (Proffer E,
~,H, &K).
Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in
accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed
as transitional areas between residential development and heavier cOmmercial or industrial
areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas
should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects
should be adequately addressed at rezoning.
The development is proposing to use a mixture of office and commercial between the bulk of
the residential deVelopment and Route 20 and Fontana Drive, This acts as a buffer for the
residential units. With the addition of an architectural design that provides for a unifying.
theme, the office/commercial building blends into the project and provides a destination for
its residents.
E. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be
encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infill of existing
commercial areas. (Mixture of Uses and Centers)
The proposal:provides a good, general development concept for a mixed-use, infill project.
F. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and faCilities are adequate to
support suc~ uses. Upgrading and extenSion of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone,
natural gas systems, and community faCilities should be considered in review of a
commercial rezoning request.
Utilities are adequate to support this proposal.
Other Staff Comments
Analysis of the Rezoning
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district
The Intent Section of the R-15 district lists three goals: A) Provision for a compact, high
density develOpment; B) Provision of a variety of housing types; and, C) Provision of
locational, environmental and developmental amenities.
Staff believes that the density proposed in this development is consistent with the district's
first intent for higher density. The use of the garage apartment, townhomes and apartment
provides a variety of housing types. It would be preferable to have a system, of
homeownership included in the development to increase a sense of place. However, the
applica~t feels that the development will be better nm as a managed, rental facility. Finally,
the applicant has also provided open space with amenities as well as a clubhouse for the
residents.
Public need and |ustifieation for the chance
The Comprehensive Plan calls for high density on this property. It is wedged between the
Wilton Farm Apartments and the single-family houses of Fontana. This development works
to meet the goal of higher density while being sensitive in its layout to the two different
existing housing types.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Water and seWer service is available to the property.
Roads - The Route 20 corridor currently experiences a significant amount of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic. This project will increase the traffic on Route 20. Staff has
identified three main areas of improvement along Route 20. They are a traffic light at
the Fontana Drive/Route 20 intersection, a sidewalk along Route 20 between Fontana
Drive and Route 250, and improvements to the Route 20/250 intersection.
The applicant has proffered fifty percent of the light or $50,000 (which ever is lesser)
towards the traffic light or other improvements in the Route 20 corridor (Proffer K).
The developer of Fontana is required through the subdivision plat to install a traffic
signal when the Fontana Drive/Route 20 intersection reaches a Level of Service (LOS)
olD and meets traffic warrants. A preliminary investigatiOn by VDOT shows that the
intersection currently does not meet warrants, but estimates that the intersection is
quickly approaching a LOS D. County and VDOT staff estimate that the increasing
traffic from Fontana will soon justify the light. At that time, Fontana Developer will be
required to install or bond for the light before either the next phase's final plat is
approved or before the Fontana roads are accepted into the State Highway System.
Public Transportation -The scale of the project and its close proximity to the Wilton
Farms Apartment Complex, which already is served by the bus system, make this
project an ideal candidate for inclusion within the public transportation system. The
possibility of providing public transport and a bus stop will be investigated at the site
plan stage.
Stormwater management - Stormwater management plans were submitted as part of
this proposal. Both the regional detention option and the on-site option appear to be
feasible at this conceptual stage.
Fiscal Analysis - A fiscal analysis has been performed and is included as Attachment I.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
No impact is expected on natural, cultural or historic resources.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surronndin~ properties
The developer has worked to meet the concerns of the Fontana residents. By augmenting the
buffer along the border with Fontana, providing for the connector road to Olympia Drive, and
removing the detention basin on the Fontana property, the developer has met many of their
concerns. Since the development will mirror the density and housing type of Wilton Farms
Apartments, no impact on this development is envisioned.
10
Staff remains concerned about the setbacks between the duplexes along Wilton Farms Drive
and the backside of the proposed townhomes. The developer has mitigated the setback issue
for now by removing several of the offending townhOmes/~om this Application Plan
(Attachment B). The developer currently owns most of the duplexes along Wilton Farms
Drive. It is his stated intent to purchase the remaining duplexes and to incorporate them into
a revised Application Plan if and when this rezoning is passed. At the time of that
amendment to the Application Plan, he will demonstrate how all of the townhomes can be
installed and setbacks between the townhomes and the duplexes can be satisfied.
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zonin~
Ordinance:
.The Board qf Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding bY the Board qf Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent properS_,
The special uses proposed for the offices and retail uses. They would be in two buildings
totaling 20,000 square feet. The retail uses are designed to provide small scale goods and
services to the residential community. There are retail uses that could have a detrimental impact
of the adjoining properties. Staffis recommending conditions to the special use permit, which
prohibit.any potentially detrimental uses. In order to get permission for a use outside not on the
defined list within the proffers, the applicant would have to seek an amendment to these Special
Use Permits. Finally, they are limited by the Zoning Ordinance to 4,000 square feet of
commercial space on a single floor. This size limitation should act as a self-selecting
mechanism, which will limit larger, more intrusive uses.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The office and commercial uses flame the entrance way into the neighborhood and not detract ~
from it. Staff believes that these uses will complement the neighborhood and Character of the
di strict.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent qf this ordinance,
The office and commercial uses are designed to complement the residential part of the
development..They follow the architecture theme of the other buildings and provide a pedestrian
destination for residents of the neighborhood.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The Neighborhood Model call for the integration of commercial and office uses with residential
uses at a limited scale. If anything, staff would like to see a better mixture of uses through out
the development instead of simply restricting them to the front.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 o_f this ordinance,
These Special Use Permits are not regulated under Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
and with the public health, sa_feW and general welfare.
This project is in general accord with efforts to promote public health, safety and general welfare
because the applicant has made an effort to limit potential impacts that the development could
have on surround development, s (e.g., traffic).
11
Waiver Requests:
Angled and Curvilinear Parking Authorization
Under Section 4.12.6.5(c), the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission authorized
the use of angled and curvilinear parking within the Avemore Development. The Engineering
Department has found no problems with either the angled or curvilinear parking on this
generalized plan. The Planning Department believes that the angled parking adds to the
boulevard feel of the entrance and the curvilinear park provides no problems.
One-Way Circulation Authorization
Under Section 4.12.6.2, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission authorize the
use of one-way circulation within the Avemore Development. Staff believe that the one-way
circulation along Avemore Boulevard will not pose a significant hazard and adds to the
boulevard feel of the entrance. Staff recommends that the one-way circulation pattern be limited
to Avemore Boulevard exclusively.
Private Roads
Under Section 14-232, subsection A (1 & 4), the applicant requests Planning Commission
approval for a private road connecting Avemore to Olympia Drive through the Fontana
Subdivision. Staff has encouraged this interconnection and recommends approval.
Section 32.7.2.4 states that "For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably
direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public streets
connections." The Avemore proposal has only one entrance on to a public road ~ Fontana Drive.
Wilton Farm Drive fails to meet the second entrance requirement because it is a private road.
Thus, the developer, at staff's suggesti°n, has sought an additional access point to meet the
requirements of Section 32.7.2.4. This access shOuld be a private road for two reasons. First, the
developer can construct a more modest road that is more in keeping with an entrance to a
development than would an entrance into a public road. Second, if the connector road remains
private, the developer can place speed bumps in the road to discourage cut through traffic. The
speed bumps would not be allowed in a Public road.
It is important to point out again that this private road connection between Avemore requires the
participation of several actors. The Fontana HOA has stated their support for the road
interconnection because it meets several of their needs (i.e. removal of an unsightly basin and
diversion of a portion of Avemore's traffic) (see HOA letter- Attachment F). The second actor
is Dr. Hurt. The connector road must tie into Olympia Drive if and when it is extended. The
extension is entirely on Dr. Hurt's properties. Dr. Hurt has shown this connection in schematic
plans for his properties. It is staff's intent to use the site plan and subdix~ision processes to
encourage the extenSion of Olympia Drive on to Dr. Hurt's property; however, there are no
definite plans for the extension at this time. If Olympia Extended is built, the connection
between it and Avemore will be completed (see Connector Road Exhibit - Attachment D and
Proffer K).
SUMMARY:
The applicant has proposed rezoning 27.1 acres from R-10 with proffers to R-15 with proffers.
The proffered plan calls for 360 apartments, 46 townhomes and two office/commercial
buildings. The applicant has met most of the staff's concerns and staff recommends for approval
of the project.
12
Staff has identified the following factors that. are favorable to this request:
1. The plan provides for increase interparcel interconnections.
2. The plan provides for regional detention of stormwater nmoff. This provides for better
long-term maintenance.
3. The plan provides for a mixed-use deVelopment with amenities.
4. The developer has worked to offset the imPact to the adjacent properties through proffers
for traffic improvements.
5. The developer is providing off-site improvements such as sidewalks, money towards a
traffic hght or other improvements along Route 20, and the connector road to Olympia
Drive.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. The plan, under the regional detention proposal, detains only for stormwater quality
control because the site does not easily accommodate the ability to detain the water
quality volume. The stormwater quantity impacts are mitigated because the site is so
close to the Rivanna River and the Westminster Basin is over compensating for flow in
this small drainage.
2. The plan does not provide for a centralized recreational amenity; however, the applicant
is providing for open space and amenities around the periphery.
3. The plan does not place the commercial buildings as close to Fontana Drive as staff
would like to see; however, staff recognizes that the location of the property hnes keeps
the building farther back.
The office and commercial uses allowed under the Special Use Permits are undefined at
this time. However, staff believes that the conditions of the Special Use Permits will
limit the most objectionable uses in a residential area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning (ZMA 00-10) and the proffers as proposed.
Staff also recommends approval of the Special Use Permit (SP 00-69) for professional
offices allowed under Section'l 8.2.2 (11) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance with
the following condition:
1. The professional office uses shall be limited, in combination with the retail stores and
shops uses allowed in SP 00-70, to not exceed 20,000 square feet.
Staff also recommends the Special Use Permit (SP 00-70) for retail stores and shops on a
single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of the district, with a gross floor
area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet, which is allowed under Section 18.2.2
(12) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions:
1. For the purposes of this Special Use Permit, Retail stores and shops shall be defined
as the commercial uses listed below:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
13
2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
3. Department store.
4. Drug store, pharmacy.
5. Florist.
'6. Food and grocerY stores including such specialty shops as: bakery, candy, milk
dispensary and wine and cheese shops.
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service).
8. Hardware store.
9. Musical instruments.
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
11. Optical goods.
12. Photographic goods.
13. Visual and audio appliances.
14. Sporting goods.
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b. The following services and public establishments:
1. Barber, beauty shops.
2. Churches, cemeteries.
3. Funeral homes.
4. Health spas.
5. Indoor theaters.
6. Laundries, dry cleaners.
7. Libraries, museums.
8. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
9. Eating establishments.
10. Tailor, seamstress.
11. Medical center.
12. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
13. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95)
Staff also recommends the authorization of the angled and curvilinear parking, the
authorization of one-way circulation on Avemore Boulevard only, and the authorization for a
private road to connect the Avemore Development to the extension of Olympia Drive.
Attachments:
A - Proffers
B Application Plan
C - Proffer Exhibits
D - Connector Road and Regional Stormwater Pond Exhibit
E - Tax Map
F - Fontana Homeowner Association's Letter
G - Conceptual Drawings for the Commercial Area
H - Conceptual Drawings for the Village Green Area
I - Fiscal Analysis
14
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment #
Date: June 19, 2001
ZMA ~0-10
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s):TM78,Parcel 581, and TM 78 B, Parcels 2A, 2B, 4B, 3-1, and 4-1
27.46 Acres to be rezoned from R-10 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)See attached "Avemore Proffers" A through K, on pages 1-4.
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of Owners
- /- . P ]q.
I~te
Avernore Proffers
The applicant's objective with this development is to provide a compact, high-density residential
development with a variety of housing types and environmental and developmental amenities.
Facilities for appropriate and complementary professional and retail services will be located
within the development. With design features such as sidewalks, a central green, a community
clubhouse, walking trails and preservation of open space, the development is intended to be
sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site and to the surrounding areas, to provide an
improved level of amenities, and to promote economical and efficient land use and appropriate
and harmonious physical development, in order to accomplish a design in keeping with the goals
and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The development will be a premier
residential community and will reflect the applicant's commkment to providing high quality and
attractive architectural design.
In connection with the applicant's rezoning application, the following proffers are made:
The Conceptual Development Plan dated March 28, 2001, last revised May 10, 2001 (the
"Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, is proffered. All improvements shown on the Plan
will be installed upon completion of all phases of construction. The character of the
development will be in general accord with the form and character that is suggested by
and is compatible with the proposed building elevations attached as the exhibits listed
below. Modifications to the elevations shown on the attached exhibits which are either
suggested by or required by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board will be
deemed to be in "general accord."
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
"Shops," dated 12-15-00
"Apartments," dated 12-15-00
"Garages," dated 12-I 5-00
"Townhomes," dated 12-15-00
"Clubhouse," dated 12-15-00
Commercial buildings will have two (2) street facades (each with at least one street-level
entrance), facing both Fontana Drive and the development.
In satisfaction of the recreation facility requirements set forth in Section 4.16 of the
County Zoning Ordinance and in order to better meet the needs of the residents of
Avemore, the following amenities are proffered:
(i)
The Village Green will be surrounded by a hedge. Large variety trees, 2.5 inches
in caliper or larger and of a species common to the area, will be located every 40
feet on center between the hedge and the travelway surrounding the Village
Green. There will be access points to the Village Green at each of the four
Page t of 4
comers, each of which will consist of one (1) gateway flanked by two (2) brick
comers. The hedge will be at least 24" high at planting, and the gates and brick
comers will be approximately 32" high. At least three (3) benches will be
provided in the Village Green. The Village Green improvements will be built in
conjunction with the construction of the townhouse section phase of the
development.
(2)
In addition to the Village Green, outdoor recreation facilities will consist of at
least three (3) tot lots to be placed in the approximate locations shown on the Plan
[reference 4.16.2].
(3)
The community clubhouse will contain an outdoor swimming pool, indoor fitness
center, communky room, business center, and leasing and management office for
the development. At least two outdoor (2) picnic table and at least two (2)
outdoor grills will be provided in the area adjacent to the creek behind the
clubhouse.
The Director of Planning may determine that substitutions of recreation facilities are in
general accord with this proffer and in satisfaction of the minimum requirements of
Section 4.16.2.1.
The applicant agrees to participate in the development of a regional SWM/BMP facility
in lieu of any requirement that it develop on-site SWM/BMP facilities for the Avemore
development.
(1)
The regional SWM/BMP facility will be designed and sized to provide a standing
pool with a water quality volume equal to approximately 92, 100 cubic feet at the
approximate location shown on the Plan.
(2)
The regional SWM/BMP facility meeting the above design requirements shall
fulfill the Avemore development's requirement for stormwater quantity and
quality for all portions of the development draining to the facility. Any portion
not draining to the facility will have to meet the stormwater quantity and quality
requirements by means of a separate stormwater management plan.
(3)
The regional SWM/BMP facility will be constructed by the applicant, at its initial
expense, during the first phase of Avemore construction, and will be completed
prior to the issuance of permits for additional phases.
(4)
The engineering design of the regional SWM/BMP facility will be subject to final
engineering and site plan approval by Albemarle County's Department of
Engineering. The Department of Engineering will have the right to reduce the
design parameters outlined in this Item D if hydrology characteristics, hydraulic
Page 2 of 4
Fo
engineering, geotechnical engineering or topographic conditions dictate a
modified design.
(5)
The proffer set forth in this Item D is contingent on the availability of contiguous
off-site property and the cooperation of the owners of such off-site property in
providing the necessary dedication of such property for the purposes of
construction and maintenance of the SWM/BMP facility. The off-site land will
be dedicated under terms satisfactory to the applicant and the County prior to
issuance of a grading permit for Avemore.
(6)
In the event that the applicant determines that the regional SWM/BMP facility is
not feasible under the terms and conditions outlined in this Item D, the applicant
in its sole discretion shall have the right to construct on-site SWM/BMP
improvements to satisfy County water quality and water quantity requirements.
In such event, the proffers set forth in this Item D shall be null and void.
Applicant will acquire sufficient right-of-way, as determined by the County of Albemarle
Engineer, for a private, urban cross-section connector road that will be constructed to
VDOT Mountainous Terrain Standards. Such right-of-way will commence at the round-
about/parking area at the northeastern comer of the development, in the general area
shown on the Plan as "Reserved for Private Street Connection (24' Pavement
Maximum)," and will terminate at Olympia Drive. This right-of-way will be platted prior
to approval of a site plan for the Avemore development.
In COnjunction with the construction of the phase closest to the area shown on the Plan as
"Reserved for Private Street Connection," the applicant will either construct the
connector road or bond with the County for the construction of the connector road. This
bond will be held until the completion of the connector road; provided, however, that if
Olympia Drive is not extended to a point where the connector road can be completed
within 15 years, the bond will be returned to the applicant, with interest.
Upon construction or widening of Fontana Drive, the applicant will construct a four foot
(4') wide, concrete sidewalk along Fontana Drive, between Avemore Boulevard and State
Route 20.
Internal walking paths will be five feet (5') wide and will be paved in asphalt.
Prior to site plan approval for phase 1 of Avemore, the applicant will dedicate to public
use an eight foot (8) wide right-of-way for the construction, maintenance and repair of a
sidewalk across Wilton Lots 16A, 16B, 17-1, 17-2 and 17-3, along the common boundary
of such lots with State Route 20.
The applicant will provide sufficient right-of-way in the area between Wilton Farm Road
and State Route 20 necessary to facilitate the construction of a second leti-tum lane ~om
Page 3 of 4
Fontana Drive onto State Route 20, provided that such right-of-way will not create a
zoning violation for any existing improvements along the path of such new right-of-way.
This right-of-way will be provided at the time the Avemore road plan is approved by
Albemarle County.
The Open Space shown on the plan along the shared common boundary with lots 1
through 10, Fontana, Phase 1, will consist of (i) a forty foot (40') buffer which will not be
disturbed during construction and (ii) a seventy foot (70') building set back.
The applicant will contribute the lesser of(i) 50% of the cost of installing a traffic signal
at the intersection of Fontana Drive and State Route 20 or (ii) $50,000, such sum to be
applied only to the cost of installing such traffic signal If the County obtains full
funding for such traffic signal from other sources and the applicant is not required to
contribute toward the cost of such signal, the applicant agrees that its contribution may be
applied instead toward the portion of the Ronte 20 improvement project in the area
between Fontana Drive and U.S. Route 250. Such payment will be made by the applicant
at the later to occur of (x) the installation of such traffic signal (or installation of the
Route 20 improvements, as the case may be) or (y) the issuance of the first building
permit for the Avemore development.
Page 4 of 4
AVE
MORE
ATTACHMENT B
O0
O0
The Shop~ at Avem~
[3 [3
I'1 ['1
F~nta~,a i:~tlaee :1,
Open Space
.!i7[ '~: "'{'
Wilton
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ATTACtlMENT C
I
~II~E Et.~vATI~N
= IL
2_/
ATTACHMENT C
, ,i
N
AVEMORE
200 400 600
FEET
8OO
1000
/emore_sit
ATTACIIMENT !)
~)IDI II.,lVATION
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT E
Anton S. Gardner
1608 Merano Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
804 24,5-92,55 .(phone/fax)
April 23, 2001
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNI~
COMMUNITY I'JEVELOPMENT
Mr. Robert Hauser
Stonehaus Development
114 Whitewood Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Bob:
Thanks for meeting with me over the past several weeks to discuss the
Avemore development. ~ Ithink that our discussions have'been productive and I
have shared the information with the Board of Directors of the Fontana Owners
Association, inc. (FOAl). Thanks also for following up on the traffic light
information. I hope that we can get a mom-definitive reading of existing
commitments.
The Board met last Thursday and authorized me to communicate several
things to you on its behalf, as outlined below.
1. We have the strongest interest in a traffic light as Soon as possible at
the intersection of Fontana Drive and Route 20. We do not want to
enter into the controversy of who should pay for it, but we are
convinced that it should be completed concurrent with Phase I of the
Avemore project.
2. We also support the creation of another entrance/exit to the Avemore
project on its east side adjacent to the Fontana development. We are
willing to enter into an agreement with Stonehaus to grant an
easement for a road that would connect with Olympia Drive in
exchange for a restoration of the current storm detention area in
accordance with mutually satisfactory plans. We would expect the
restoration of our property tobe completed, at ther earliest possible
time. We WOuld expect that the road WOuld be built only when there
was a connector built from Olympia Drive to Route 250. Until then, the
improvements should be secured by a bond or otherwise acceptable
method. .
3. We are willing to grant an expanded easement for the entrance/exit
onto Fontana Drive at Avemore Boulevard. In exchange we WOuld
expect that the FOAl property fronting Fontana Drive would be
landscaped with a buffer according to a plan that is mutually
acceptable. Also, Stonehaus would agree that neither the easement
area nor any other FOAl property would be used as a staging or
storage area prior to or during the development process and that all
storage and staging WOuld be confined to the property of the Avemore
site.
Z7
4. We request that the no.build line be extended to at least 70 feet from
the Avemore property line, end even further, if that is practical. We
appreciate your modification of the design to move the garages further
down the hill end hope that this enables the larger no build line.
5. We endorse the 40 foot no disturb line from the-Avemore property line
and would appreciate it if could be extended further. It is our
understanding that Stoneheus will clear out the dead trees, rubble and
such within that no disturb line and will remove the water tank that is
close to the Fontana developmenL We would also like to discuss
saving some bees that appear to lie beyond the40 foot line.
6. We appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions for the planting
of trees to create an additional buffer between the Fontana and
Avemom developments on the north and east side of Avemore. We
understand that you have said that you would agree to-such plantings
where there was a need to create a fuller buffm than already exists.
7. You have mentioned that you will provide a sidewalk from the Avernore
entrance along the Fontane Drive side of Avemom down to Route 20.
We would be pleased to discuss :its location in relation to our adjacent
8. We continue to be concerned about the lighting effects of the
development on our view shed. I will follow-up subsequently with more
information on this subject in order to diminish the 'halo' effect of the
development.
9. Regarding architecture, we do support having the Architectural Review
Board review the site plans, in addition, we am drafting language that
might provide comfort to us regarding the character of the development
and that could be incorporated into a proffer. I will send this to you
under separate cover.
I am still working on the question of ownership of the land to the east of
the FOAl property, I will contact you when I have this.
The FOAl anticipates a constructive relationship with Stonehaus in the
development of your property. It appears that we have the basis for a fruitful and
mutually beneficial set of agreements. Ilook forward to hearing your response to
this letter.
Sincerely,
Anton S. Gardner,
Member, Board of Directors,
FOAl
CC:
members, Board of Directors, FOAl
Michael Bames, Albermarle County
( )UNTY OF ALBEMAI E
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT I
TO: Michael Barnes, Planner
FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner
DATE:
RE:
May 3O, 2001
ZMA 00-10 (Avemore) [Second Amendment]
Per your second set ofamended instructions, I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in
question. The first scenario involved the maximum development that could take place under existing
zoning, while the second scenario involved the proposed development of this piece of land. The
results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary -- Current Zoning" and
"Budget Summary -- Proposed Zoning" documents.
In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that 255 dwelling units, including 195 multifamily (MF)
units and 60 single family attached residences/townhouses (SFA/TWs), would be built, during the
course of five years, with roughly equal numbers of units constructed in each year.~ CRIM estimates
that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning
would result in the following annual net fiscal impact:
Fiscal Impact - Current Zoning
Property Taxes
Other Revenues
$163,000
359,000
Total Revenues
$522,000
School Expenditures ($697,000)
County Govt. Expenditures (157,000)
Total Expenditures
($854,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($332,000)
ZMA 00-10
May 3O, 2001
Page Two
In terms of the annual impact that the development of 195 MF's and 60 SFA/TH's would have on the
County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result:
CIP Impact - Current Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
Schools CF Debt Service ($227,000)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($227,000)
County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CIP Impact ($227,000)
Note that these CIP figures are included tn the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page.
(The $227, 000 m capital costs is part of the $~54,000 m the estimated total annual expenditures
resulting from the development of 195 3/ZF's and 60 SF~TI-I's). These CIP numbers are presented
separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with such
development.
The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 360 multi-family/apartmem
(MF) units, 46 SFA/TH's, 4,000 square feet of retail space, and 16,000 square feet of taxable office
space on the property. I assumed the residential development would be completed in roughly equal
increments during the free year build-out, whereas the non-residential construction would take place
all in year one. CKIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the following net annual
fiscal impact:
Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Development
Property Taxes
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Net Annual Fiscal Impact
$266,0OO
625,000
$891,000
($1,128,000)
(269,000)
($1,397,000)
($506,000)
ZMA 00.10
May 30, 2001
Page Three
As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM
estimated the following outcome:
CIP Impact - Proposed Development
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
SChools CF Debt Service ($375,000)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($375,000)
County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CIP Impact ($375,000)
Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $1,397,000 shown on the
previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs.
The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves
ZMA 00-10, the d/fferent/a/net annual fiscal impact would be $532,000 - $506,000 = -$174,000.
This number means that, annually, the County wo .uld be $174,000 worse off approving ZMA
00-10 than denying the proposal.
Note: (1) Although my analysis suggests that approval of ZMA 00-10 would result in a net annual
fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 00-10 should be
denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might
generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 00-10, the growth that
is assumed to be associated with this proposed developmem would likely take place somewhere else
in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle
takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues
include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and
environmental well-being
SAA/saa
Budget Summary -- Current Zoning
(Values in $O00's)
REVENIIES
PROP
TAXES
Residential Real
Nonresidential Real
Res Personal Prop
Nonres Personal Prop
Other (Agricultural)
Year =>
2000
Subtotal: Property Taxes
OTHER
I Public Service Tax
2 Pers Prop TaxResid
3 Pers Prop Tax. Nonres
4 Mach& Tools Tax
5 Sales & Use Tax
6 Cons Util Tax, Resid
7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres
8 BPOL Taxes
9 Util Co Licenses
10 Motor Vehicle Licenses
11 Permits & Fees
12 Fines& Forfeitures
]3 Charges for Services
14 State Aid
15 Categorical Aid · Federal
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax
17 Delinquent RE/Pealties
18 State Aid to Schools
19 Meals Tax
20 ANNUAL REVENUES
21 SF Detached
22 SF Attached/TH
23 Multifamily
24 Mobile Homes
Subtotal: Other Revenues
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
EXPENSES
SCHOOLS
COUNTY GOVT.,
ANNUAL REVENUES:
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay. As.You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay-As-You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL. COUNTY
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS:
FISCAL IMPACF
Annual
Cumulative
1
2001
2
2002
$33 $65
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$33 $65
$0 $1
$26 $53
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$6 $13
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $1
$2 $4
$0 $0
$0 $1
$0 $0
$3 $6
$o $o
$0 $1
$2 $3
$27 $54
$3 $6
$o $o
$o $o
$2 $2
$4
$o $o
$77 $149
.Average Costs
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$98 $130 $163 $163 $163 $163 $163 $163
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$98 $130 $163 $163 $163 $163 $163 $163
$1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$79 $105 $132 $132 $132 $132 $132 $132
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$19 $25 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$6 $9 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $2 $2 -$2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$9 $12 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$5 $6 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
$81 $109 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136
$9 $13 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $4 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$221 $292 $364 $359 $359 $359 $359 $359
$110 $214
$45 $91
$42 $89
$11 $11
$44 $94
$143 $286
$30 $54
$8 $16
$37 $37
$0 $0
~75 ~1o6
$218 $392
$318 $423 $527 $521 $521 $521 $521 $521
$136 $182 $22Z $227 $227 $227 $227 $22~
$143 $190 $243 $243 $243 $243 $243 $243
$10 $11 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$138 $188 $227 $227 $227 $227 $227 $227
$428 $571 $708 $697 $697 $697 $697 $697
$77 $101 $124 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117
$24 $31 $39 $39 $39 $39 $39 $39
$37 $37 $36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o
$137 $169 . ~200 _$157 _ $157 ...... ~!57 _~[~Z .... ~.~L
$565 $740 $908 $853 $853 $853 $853 $853
($108) ($178)
($108) TS 286)
($247) ($318) ($3813
($533) ~$851) ($1,~2) ($1,563) ($1 ;~-~---~$ 2,~j "~-'~{~,~'"
ZMAOOIOD,WF _)
CRIM Proprietary .'~re 05/30/200]
05130/200103:42
Page I
Budget Summary -- Proposed Zoning
Year =>
(Values in $O00's) 2000
REVENIJES
PROP ResiOential Real
TAXES Nonresidential Real
Res Personal Prop
Nonres Personal Prop
Other (Agricultural)
Subtotal: Property Taxes
OTHER I Public Service Tax
2 Pets Prop Tax,Resid
3 Pers Prop Tax-Nonres
4 Mach & Tools Tax
5 Sales & Use Tax
6 Cons Util Tax*Resid
7 Cons Util Tax. Nonres
8 BPOL Taxes
9 Util Co Licenses
10 Motor Vehicle L~censes
11 Permits & Fees
12 Fines & Forfeitures
13 Charges for Services
14 State Aid
15 Categorical Aid - Federal
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax
17 Delinquent RE/Pealties
18 State Aid to Schools
19 Meals Tax
20 ANNUAL REVENUES
2] SF Detached
22 SF Attached/TH
23 Multifamily
24 Mobile Homes
SUbtotal: Other Revenues
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
SCHOOLS
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay. As-You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL. SCHOOLS
COUNTY GOVT..
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay. As-You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL, COUNTY
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS:
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Annual
Cumulative
1
2001
$67
$8
$0
$0
$0
$75
$1
$54
$16
$o
$9
$13
$8
$5
$1
$4
$0
$1
$o
$6
$o
$1
$5
$59
$9
$0
$2
$2
$8
$0
$205
$280
Average Costs
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$115 $162 $210 $257 $257 $257 $257 $257 $257
$8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$123 $171 $218 $266 $266 $266 $266 $266 $266
$2 $3 $3 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
$94 $134 $174 $214 $214 $214 $214 $2t4 $214
$16 $]6 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9
$23 $32 $42 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52
$8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
$5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5
$2 $3 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
$8 $11 $14 $~8 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18
$0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$1 $2 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$10 $15 $19 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24
$1 $1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$2 $3 $3 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
$7 $9 $12 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14
$99 $138 $178 $218 $218 $218 $218 $218 $218
$14 $19 $24 $28 $28' $28 $28 $28 $28
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $7 $7 $7 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$309 $417 $525 $632 $625 $625 $625 $625 $625
$432 $587 $743 $898 $890 $890 $890 $890 $890
$98 $165
$102 $175
$23 $16
$99 $171
$323 $528
$69 $102
$23 *$35
$94 $56
$0 $0
$186 $193
$509 $721
$232 $299 $366 $366 $366 $366 $366 $366
$244 $321 $387 $387 $387 $387 $387 $387
$16 $16 $16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$237 $302 $375 $375 $375 $375 $375 $375
$730 $938 $1,144 $1,128 $1,128 $1,128 $1,128 $1 128
$137 $173 $208 $198 $198 $198 $198 $198
$47 $59 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71
$56 $56 $56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o
.$2~0 $287 ~3_~5 $269 .... $269 ..... ___~§~ ~6~9 .......... 3269
$970 $1.226 $1,479 $1,396 $1,396 $1,396 $1,396 $1,396
($229) C$289) (S382) (S483) ($581) ($506) ( S 50 Q)_ ____(.$_5._Q~ _ ($_50_6_)
($~29) ($5i'~) ~$901) ($1,384) ($1,965) ($2,~-~,§7~
05/30/20010345 PM
Page I
C.~ ZMAOOIOBWK4 CRIM Proprietary Software05/30/2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Totier Creek/Hatton/High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal
District Review
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
An additional withdrawal request has been received since
the recommendations for renewal were forwarded by the
Planning Commission. Also, several parcels not listed in the
staff report are being removed from the Ordinance; these
parcels were withd fawn from the districts in the past, but
were not deleted from the Ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Clark
AGENDA DATE:
June 20, 2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
As stated in the attached staff report, the Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee and the Planning Commission have voted to
extend these three Districts for 10 years each. After the Plannning Commission meeting, the County received a letter from Kenneth
L. and Margaret F. Davis, the owners of Shidand Farm. They requested the withdrawal of their property (Tax Map 130, Parcel 4)
from the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. This parcel encompasses 173.12 acres. After this withdrawal, the Totier Creek
district will total 6,834.663 acres.
The Ordinance sections prepared by the County Attomey's office for this review strike out the numbers of several parcels that are
not listed in the staff report as being withdrawn. This is a housekeeping matter; several parcels that were withdrawn from these
districts in the past had not yet been removed from the Ordinance. We are removing them now so that the Code will be accurate
and up-to-date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the appropriate sections of the Ordinance as presented by the County Attorney's o£ficc.~
01.133
06-14-01 Al1:28 IN
1
ORDINANCE NO. 01-3(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-215
Sec. 3-216
Sec. 3-227
Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District
Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 15, 15A, 17, 18, 19, 22,-22A, 30
(part); tax map 136, parcel 9B. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years
and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 0t-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 85, parcels 33B, 39, 39A1, 39H, 4lA, 41Al. This
district, created on January 16, 1991 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20,
2001, shall next be reviewed prior to January 16, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(0; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map I22, parcels 5,
5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 5, 6,
6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19; tax map 135, parcels 7,
10, 11. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on
June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001.
Clerk, ~cmrd of C(~unty Supe~sors
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Dorrier
Mr. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay I
X
X
X
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of' Planning & Community Deyelopment
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
May 24, 2001
BRADLEY, RALPH L OR JACQUELINE M
COLEMAN, PAUL M
COLEMAN, PAUL M OR VIRGINIA R
DAVIS, KENNETH L OR MARGARET F M
HAECKEL GERALD B & JOANNE D HAECKEL TRS
HENSCHEL, DIETER OR SUSAN
JACKSON, KATHLEEN B
JOHNSON, FLOYD E ESTATE & ANNE H
JWK PROPERTIES INC
LAYNE. JOHN H
LIBERTY CORNER FARM LLC
MARSHALL. ROBERT E,
MEDICA, ADOLPH J OR HELEN K
MORRIS, JOHN L JR
PLAIN DEALING' LAND TRUST
SECOND SCHAFFT LAND TRUST
WHITE DIAMOND LTD
WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA INC
RE: Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to notify you. as a property owner in the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. that the
the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8.2001, unanimously recommended
continuation of the Totier Creek Agricultur_al/Forestal District for a term of ten years.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on June
20, 2001,7':00 p.m., Meeting Room #241. Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
SC/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
05-24-01 P04:02 tN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
May 24, 2001
BILLIES, JOHN C OR DENISE DAVIES
MCDANIEL, JAMES C JR OR NANCY S
MORRILL, ANNE
MORRILL, PIERSON SCOTT, DANIEL D MORRILL, ELIZABETH M PETERS
RILEY, ROBIN E OR ANNE
SCHMICK, JEFFREY C OR CHRISTIE L
RE: Review.of the Hatton Agriculturai/Forestal District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to notify you, as a property owner in the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District, that the
the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 2001, unanimously recommended
continuation of the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District for a term of ten years.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on June 20,
2001, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Planner
SC/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
May 24, 2001
BROWN HAMILTON F TRUSTEE
BROWN, HOLMES C
I~ROWN, HOLMES M TRUSTEE
TASHJIAN-BROWN, JAMES EMERSON
RE: Review of the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to notify you, as a property owner in the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District, that the
the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 2001, unanimously recommended
continuation of the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District for a term of ten years
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on June
20, 2001, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Planner
SC/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Staff Person:
Advisory Committee:
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Scott Clark
April 2, 2001
May 8, 2001
June 20, 2001
Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District
Review of the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District
Review of the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate, modify, or
continue the district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the next
review of the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when the
district was created. Any such different conditions or period must be described in a notice to
landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of the
ordinarice continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall continue as
originally constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review (10 years) as were
established when the district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner's discretion by
filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board acts to continue,
modify, or terminate the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage
the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands for the
production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and protect
agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open
space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when
a proposed district is being considered:
The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent
thereto;
The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestal lands within the district
and in areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural of forestal production;
The nature and extent of land uses other than active fanning or forestry within the district and
in areas adjacent thereto;
4. Local development patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations;
The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal
uses; and
7. Any other matters which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands
and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, and wildlife
habitat; and scenic and historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictionS on
public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to
protect the agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees not to
develop the property to a "more intensive use" during the specified number of years 'the district
is in' effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value assessment,
a district designation may not provide any additional real estate tax deductions. Land in
a district is protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
o
The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning
decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to any
district shall take into account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter."
The district may have no effect on adjacent development by right, but could restrict proposed
rezonings or uses by special use permit which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent
agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan
map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the
district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near
future, and that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses.
Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not
anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Review of the Totier Creek AgriculturalfForestal District
The Totier Creek district was created on June 29, 1983.
Location:. The district is generally located south of Keene, south and east of Esmont, and west of
Scottsville.
Acreage: The district currently includes 7,789.62 acres. However, Mr. Paul Coleman, owner of C-
Stock Farm, has requested to remove the following parcels:-
Parcel Acreage Date Use Use Use Use Use
' Added Value Value Value Value Value
Acres , Acres Acres Acres Acres
(Ag) (For) 0loft) (NQ) (Open)
12900-00-00-00400 613.56 6/29/83 195 415.56 0 3
12900-00-00-004A0 21 11/26/9 12 8 1
0
Mr. John Layne has also requested the withdrawal of the following parcel:
Acres (Ag) Acres (For) Acres (Ho Acres.(NQ) Acres
(Open)
13000-00-00-00500 147.277 147.277 0i 0 0 0
With these withdrawals, the district will total 7007.783 acres.
Time period: The time period for the District is ten years. The review date is June 29, 2001.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: The maj or land uses in the District are agriculture and forestry;
a small area is devoted to horticulture.
Si~ificant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: After the withdrawal, only 1.3% of the land
in the district will not be agricultural, forestal, or horticultural uses.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: After the withdrawal, there will be 20 dwellings in the
district, or one per 358 acres.
Local Development Pattern and Needs: The majority of the parcels in the District are large farms.
Esmont lies just north of the western section of the District.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The District is designated as Rural Area by the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, rural Areas. The nearest major developed areas are Scottsville,
1.5 miles to the east, and Neighborhoods 4 and 5, 8.25 miles north.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, and stream valleys. Ronte
6, which is a designated Entrance Corridor, passes through the district near Esmont.
3
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the Coumy
and aids in the protection of ground water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space.
Note: The Wildlife Foundation of Virginia (WFV) has submitted a letter describing their goals for the
nine parcels listed in the table below. These parcels, totaling 1,910.35 acres, are under a Virginia
Outdoors Foundation conservation easement. They were owned by the late Thomas H. Forrer, who
willed the land to WFV at his death in 1997. The letter states that "[t]he Foundation wishes
emphatically to continue in the district for another ten years," and that they plan to open the land for
public recreation (basing their plan on the Ivy Creek Natural Area) and occasional hunting. See the
attached letter for more information.
Parcel I Acres
12800000001300 1439.495
128000000014A0 5.001
128000000014B0 20.000
128000000014C0 32.221
128000000014D0 25.000
12800000002700 710.268
12800000002900 430.950
12800000003000 237.300
12800000007200 10.730
Staff Recommendation: This District protects a large contiguous area of farms and forests. Staff
recommends continuation of the Toiler Creek District for a ten-year period.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on April 9, 2001, the
committee unanimously voted to recommend continuation of the Totier Creek district for 10 years.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend a 1 O-year renewal for the Toiler Creek District.
4
Review of the Hatton AgriculturaFForestal District
The Hatton district was created on June 29, 1983.
Location: The district is generally located west of Scottsville, north of the CSX Railway, along routes
627, 726, and 625.
Acreage: The District includes 645.16 acres. Jeffrey and Christie Schmick have requested by-right
withdrawal of their Parcel 136-19B (see table below). After the withdrawal, the District will include
641.419 acres.
Acres (Ag) Acres (For) Acres
(Hort)
13600-00-00-019B0~ 3.741 6/29/83 01 ~ 0
Use Value Use IDwellings
Acres ONQ) Value I
Acres [
(Open) I
3.741 ~ 0:
Time Period: The time period for review is ten years; the review date is June 29, 2001.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Nearly the entire district is used for agriculture and forestry. Of
the total of 645 acres, 411 are used for agriculture and 201 for forestry.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: A total of 33.45 acres are listed as "non-
qualifying" for use-value taxation.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are 5 dwellings in the district., or one per 129
acres.
Local Development Pattern and Needs: The majority of the. land in the district and its surroundings is
inlarge rural parcels, although a few smaller residential parcels lie near the eastern and western edges.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The entire district is designated as a Rural Area by the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, and stream valleys.
Environmerxtal Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County
and aids in the protection of ground water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the Hatton district for ten-year period.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on April 9, 2001, the
committee unanimously voted to recommend continuation of the Hatton district for 10 years.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend the Hatton District for a 1 O-year renewal.
Review of the High Mowing AgricultUral/Forestal District
The High Mowing district was created on January 16, 1991.
Location: The district is generally tocated south of Batesville, along routes 693 and 694.
Acreage: The district includes a total of 622.44 acres.
Time Period: The district is reviewed on a ten-year time period. The review date was January 16, 2001.
A_~icultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is used for agriculture and forestry.
Sig-nificant Land Not in A~a-icultural/Forestal Production: Only one percent of the land in the district is
not used for agriculture and forestry.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are two dwellings in the district.
Local Development Pattern and Needs: The district is made up of large farm and forest parcels. The
surrounding are a mix of large farms and smaller residential parcels. Batesville lies just to the north.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: This area is designated as Rural Area by the
Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The Open Space Plan maps show that this area has important farms, forests, and stream valleys. The
district is within the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir. Batesville is a designated
historic district.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County
and aids in the protection of ground water, Wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space. The district
also assists in the protection of the rural surroundings of the Batesville historic district.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the High Mowing district for a ten-year
period.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on April 9, 2001, the
committee unanimously voted to recommend continuation.of the High Mowing district for 10 years.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend the High Mowing District for a 10-year renewal.
120
Review of the Totier Creek
A,q ricultural/Forestal District
It2
/ 94
/
/ ×
!
/
468
/' /
68
129
SGOTTSVILLE DISTRIGT
748
72
7ZO
SECTION 121
Review of the Totier Creek
A.q ricultu rallForestal District
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
/
\
.i
/
/
)
/
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
/
SECTIC 8
Review of tile Totiar Creek
A_clricultu ral/Forestal District
ALBEMA~L,E. COUNTY
90
I08
H3
20
23
SGALE N FEET
SCOTTSVILLE
DISTRICT
SECTION
128
9
Review of the Totier Creek
A,q riculturailForestal District
ALBEMARLE
cOUNTY
~28
135
$COTTSVlLLE
DISTRICT
SECTION
129
10
A
129
~ Review. of the. Totier. Creek
"
LgB
/
/
)UNTY
~6W
\ 24
35AI
39
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 130
ii
Review of the Totier Creek
~,q riculturallForestal District
~8
2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
127
22
15
/
61A
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION
'12
Review of the Toiler Creek
A.qriculturallForest~! Distfi'&t'.
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
/-
~O:L~NG
SPRING
20
.... SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTIL 13
Review of the Totier Creek
A.qricultu ral/Forestal District
ALBEMARLE
129
6
COUNTY
:50
jAM
12
19
Rt 726
15
OU NT¥
14B
14
· ,.~ SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 135
C-STOCK FARM
8761 Langhor'rte ROad
Scottsville, Virginia 24590
Phone (804) 286-2423
March 9, 2001
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we respectfully request that our property be withdrawn from the Totier Creek
Agricultural/Forestal District.
This property is identified on Tax Map 129, Parcel 4A.
Sinc?rel~ /,~ /
Paul M. & Virginia R. Coleman
PMC,VRC/Im
PAUL & VIR~II~IA COLEMA~I
C-SmOCK FARM
8761 Lcmghm~ne Road
Scottsville, Virginia 24590
Phone (804) 286-2423
March 9, 2001
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Cou~tyl of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that I respectfully request that my property be withdrawn from the Totier Creek
Agricultural/Forestal District.
This property is identified on Tax Map 129, Parcel 4.
Sincer~
Paul M. Coleman
PMC/Im
Kenneth L. Davis
Margaret F. M. Davis
"$hirland'
~'712/~xnghorne Road
8cottsville~ Virg~ia 24590-3878
~: 804-286-40~4
F~: 804-28~-40~
~Mai~ kennet~mindsp~n~. COrn
May 23, 2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE; Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District
Sirs:
This letter'is to notify you that we wish to withdraw our property, Tax Parcd #
13000-00-00-00400 ("Shirland Farm"), located on Langhome Road (St.
Rt.#626) from the District.
We are sending this written request, as our response to your letter of May 15,
2001, stating that our decision to withdraw must be made in writing, prior to
the Board's review on June 20, 2001.
We thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
05-25-01 A08:4t IN
· ro: Members, Board of Supervisors ~\
From: EJla Washington Carey, CMC, C~(~ M[MORA"'DUM
SUbject: Readin,z, fist ~orJune 20, 2001 "
Date: June 12, 2001
March 7, 2001
March 19(A), 200 I
March 21 (A), 200 I
Alii 4, 2001
Mr. Pert~ns
Mr. Dorrler
Ms. Thomas
pages I- 19 - Ms. Humphris
Pages 20i- end - Mr. Matin
/ewc
March 7 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) ~/;~.O/(J / .
(Page 16)
green, or open space. The burden for doing that is on the county level. With the kind of growth being
experienced in Albemarle and the neighboring counties, there is not the financial or planning resources to
put in place an effective program. This area will end up looking like central New Jersey or central Florida,
parts of Long Island, New York, or eastern Maryland.
Mr. Erwin said this is the second publication put out by Citizens for Albemarle. The first was in
1996 and was titled "Protecting Our Biological Heritage." It was basically a citizen's guide for how to
protect green spaces. It was intended to introduce the notion of bio-diversity, why it is important to protect,
and what people can do to be more effective. He said this new publication gives a more sophisticated
approach. It is hoped that this will set up some guidelines for the planning committee which will take a
long-term comprehensive land use approach so that natural resources and historic preservation can be
preserved in the County. The document contains some ambitious language. There is the notion of setting
aside 20 to 30 percent open space which can be a combination of well-managed forests, farm lands,
parks, etc. They hope this represents an approach the planners can use to set up criteria that are
defendable and quantifiable.
Mr. Erwin said CFA promises a third document which will be Step 2, which is the trickier part of
implementation and management of such areas once they are established. He offered to answer any
questions.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to say how valuable the work is that citizen groups do for the
County. These are things the County does not have the people power to do. She said this could be a
valuable planning tool, and she hopes the Planning staff will use it.
Mr. Erwin said Mr. Olivier has been very effective in this work by sitting down with planning staff
and getting this started. They hope that relationship continues.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Erwin thanke~
Olivier who pushed the idea hard.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any fl
County's planning process. Mr. Erwin sai(
and formally. Once the committee is estat
could be part of such a committee and ha~
series of task forces set up with or without
important part is to keep the lines of corem
with County regulations.
Mr. Olivier said the most immediate
the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke with a
sessions will begin soon. They also made ~
to present some of their ideas on how the d
negative in terms of their needs.
Mr. Perkins said there are a couple
says "The forest under story, especially on.,
saying that over 50 percent of th¢j~n_ ountain
Moun. tain laurel indicate~s_ poor ~6~l.~'On the
popular sites on the eas~ Mr.
misstatement. He said that to a forester mo~
statement. In another statement, it talks abc
He asked the definition of commercial specie
could be game species. Mr. Perkins said he
He said there is a correlation between deer ~
the deer population. The report makes refer<
U.S." He asked how an old field habitat can
said that is an interesting point. He said that
land. it probably reached a peak at an earlie~
farming on land surfaces. Part of the difficult
rural areas should be in. There is a whole sl~
or private properties which also contain habit
preserves. The quail is one of the ticklish on,
Mr. Perkins said there is a mention o'
He disagrees with that statement. There are 1
is the way to establish the old field conditions.
the Board for initiating the committee, but it actually was Mr.
'mai way that there can be. input from the committee in the
there are a number of ways they could interact both informally
lished at the County level, one or more of the citizen groups
active involvement in that manner. Also there could be a
people from the plann ng committee being a part. The
mication open to be sure the recommendations they provide fit
opportunity will be the update of the Rural Areas section of
member of planning staff last week and was told that work
~ request to this Board asking that they be given an opportunity
fferent open space resources interrelate both positive and
of statements in the report he would like to highlight. One
,loped land, is primarily dominated by mountain laurel." This is
slopes are in mountain laurel. He said that is not true.
)ther hand, Albemarle County has some of the best yellow
Bowerman left the room ~.) He thinks that is a., ¢(~p, ~
retain laurel is kind of a ~~
ut breeding grounds for threatened or commercial species.
s. Mr. Erwin said commercial may not be the best term, it
thinks of commercial species as being chickens, cows, etc.
nd things they eat. Some plants have been lost because of
;nce on Page 10 to old field' habitats, "one of the rarest in the
)e created when there is first a need for a field. Mr. Olivier
quail were relatively rare prior to the clear ng of a lot of forest
· point in the h story of this County when there was rougher
, facing everybody right now is the question of what state the
~ctrum which ranges from commercial forest areas to farms
~t for flora and fauna, and some areas which might be nature
,s because it is a game species and its number has declined.
clear cutting saying it will cause all of the soil to wash off.
Jmes when a stand of timber needs to be clear cut, and that
Mr. Olivier said one of the things the ookle[ is intended to do is to help identify biological data
independent of people in terms of eco-systems, etc. Then they try to bring in social, economic and other
factors into some sort of orderly process. They recognized that there are a whole series of biological
insults from a.n economic interest. All of this has to be woven together in some kind of rational and sound
itsWaY'thinkingHe thinkSabouta openg°°d spaces.Pr°cess is set out in the booklet, and is something the County needs to bring into
JAUNT, Inc.
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Charlottesville City Manager
County Administrators of Albemarle, Louisa, Fluvanna,
and Nelson Counties
Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director
June 13, 2001
JAUNT stockholders' meeting and appointment of proxies
JAUNT will hold its annual stockholders' meeting to formally approve
appointment of Board members on Wednesday, July. 11th, 2000 at 9:45 AM in
the JAUNT Conference Room. We need your govermng body to appoint a
proxy to vote its shares at this meeting. Your proxy may be the City
ManagedCounty Administrator or one of your appointed Board members. Also
you may appoint the proxy for only this meeting, or, to simplify matters, for the
length of his/her term of office (if a Board member).
All localities will need to appoint new proxies except the City of Charlottesville.
The City appointed Linda Peacock proxy as long as she continues to serve on
the JAUNT Board. Other localities appointed their proxies only for the date of
last year's meeting or through early July 2000.
Enclosed is a form to be returned to JAUNT officially designating the proxy. Also
enclosed is a list of JAUNT Board members with their terms of office.
Thank you for your assistance with this procedure.
Enclosures
Phone: (804) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Operations (804) 296-6174 · Fax: (804) 296-4269 · www. avenue.org/jaunt
Moving Central Virginians For Over 25 Years
PROXY
The undersigned hereby appoints Juandieqo Wade with power of
substitution, proxy to act and vote all shares of the undersigned at the annual
meeting of the shareholders of JAUNT, Inc., a Virginia Public Service
Corporation, on Wednesday, the 11th of July, 2001 and at any adjournments
thereof, upon the election of directors, and, in his or her discretion, upon such
other matters as may properly come before such meetings.
This proxy shall be valid until 9/30/02
City or County of