Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-07-11
DRAFT - COMMENTS FOR VDOT PREALLOCATION HEARING, JULY 17, 2001 On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I appreciate this opportunity to bring the county's transportation priorities to the attention of the Virginia Department of Transportation. While our complete list of priorities is outlined in our written report, I would like to take this oppommity to highlight for you those projects which we feel are most pressing and critical to the safe and efficient functioning of our community's transportation systems. As we strive towards our goat of meeting the increasing demands of a growing and diversifying population while protecting those community attributes that create our character and sense of place, our transportation systems become much more than just infras~c~e projects. In many cases they are defining elements of our land use strategies, and therefore must reflect the values, goals and vision our community has defined for itself now and well into the future. The projects we bring before you not only enhance the smooth flow of vehicular traffic but also promote our goal of encouraging alternative transportation modes including pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as the possibilities of mass transit to meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our rapidly urbanizing county. We continue to strongly support those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study (CHART) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to the Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, we recommend construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the County asks that this section be designed in accordance with the County's design and alignment 1 0 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JULY 17, 2001 PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTy pRIORITIES (July 1,7, 2001) The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub- allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Su,rface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Projects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. 1) Undertake those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study-CHART (adopted May 24, 2001) projects eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The Parkway should be developed as follows: A) The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the County asks that this section be designed in accord with the County's design and alignment recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001 (Attachment A). This endorsed design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is intended to replace Mclntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link Mclntire Park to the Rivanna Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area along Rio Road. B) Planning and design of the second phase of Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the county. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is not possible to constmct this project within a reasonable timefiame solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. The Commonwealth TranSportation Board previously decided to eliminate funding of the Route 29 interchanges in the primary plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to be re-established in the plan, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the tenth consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed. These projects include the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. Also, the County supports m-establishing funding for design and construction of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr. and Rio Rd., with consideration for alternative design concepts not previously considered. 2) Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to Mill Creek Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from Monticello High School and has recently experienced several accidents with fatalities. While this has historically been a project lower on the County's priority list, its priority has greatly increased due to these recent events. 3) The County has followed the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. Regarding the Corridor Study: A) The County feels that it is imperative that access management be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersectio~ The County has recently approved amendments to its Comprehensive Plan regarding the transportation system in this area that reflect this principle. The County requests that Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations which emphasize a more complete urban roadway system serving this emerging urban community (Attachment B). B) The County appreciates efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County has recently 2 provided VDOT and CTB a resolution regarding this study which repeats the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study (Attachment C). 5) The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study. Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and the Comprehensive Plan urban roadway system recommendations between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that could be built in conjunction with the anticipated Route 29 improvement project. The Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision furore development tobe served by a transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets and supports walking and biking and comprehensively links all land use in this area. There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250: A) Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by the joint I. vy Road Design Study conducted by the City, County and University of Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lewis. Mountain Neighborhood/UniversiW Heights (Area B) Study. The City's plan now calls for changing the scope of this project to three (3) lanes (rather than four (4) lanes with a median as recommended in the Ivy_ Road Design Study) with bike and pedestrian treatment and landscaping. Any plans for the improvement of this section of Route 250 West need to be coordinated between the City, County and University. B) The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special character of this scenic by-way. C) VDOT has completed a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County line. This study's findings have been presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors awaits the final study recommendations from VDOT. 8) Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force. 9) Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. 10) Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road construction into mass transit to accomplish this. Safety_ ImprovemenU: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walk'ways along various primary mutes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 3) Route 20 South from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 4) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and 5) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass. Of these, the walkn~ays along Route 20 North are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development in that area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to this service. There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road as currently constructed. 2) Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250. 3) improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. Of particular concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves industrial track traffic and has poor sight distance. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study. 4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet. 5) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large tracks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the furore. VDOT is considering undertaking an origin-destination study regarding truck traffic on these routes as requested by the County. Restriction of through track traffic is still considered by the County to be potentially the most effective measure. Enhancement Projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: I) Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North. 2) Pedestrian streetscape improvements along Rt. 240 in Crozet. 3) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and ~drport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc. 4) Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation access project at Monticello. 5) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the CiW of Charlottesville .and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991). 6) 7) 8) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system. Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project. Removal of non-conforming billboards. National Highway System (NHS) The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Roac[ The County continues to monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are pan of the NHS (additional information is provided under Standard Projects #3). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quali~ Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Year 2002 Legislative Proposals SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Legislative Proposals to Submit to VACo STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Spencer, Blount AGENDA DATE: July 11, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: × ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: No ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: / Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has requested that the County submit legislative proposals that we would like to have addressed in VACo's 2002 Legislative Program. The following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration and will be transmitted to VACo for discussion in their summer steering committee sessions. DISCUSSION: Staff plans to ask VACo to include the following items in their 2002 legislative program: State Fundinq for Education - Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality (S.O.Q.s) and increase percentage of state funding for programs to assist localities to successfully meet the requirements of the S.O.Ls. Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state fully fund CSA mandates. Growth Manaqement - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth management tools and to provide statewide funding for the Purchase of Development Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program. Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Continue to request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas. Virginia Ret rement System (VRS) - Request that the state reimburse school systems for VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by the current SOQs' regulations. Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail service from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links to communities along the way. Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) standards - Request legislation that would direct VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate and distinct classifications and standards for urban streets in the secondary road system, as well as standards associated with amenities such as the location of utilities, sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees. 0'/-03-01 P12:50 IN AGENDA TITLE: Year 2002 Legislative Proposals July 11, 2001 Page 2 Local control of firearms in the Workplace - The County supports continual local authorization regarding the regulation of firearms in the workplace which enable localities to adopt ordinances, resolutions, and administrative rules regarding the use of firearms in the workplace. Substitution of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) funds for general funds - Request the state does not use TANF monies to fund the Healthy Family Program, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the CSA Trust Fund Program as localities cannot use federal TANF funds as match for other federally-funded prevention programs. The state's use of TANF funding for these programs would reduce or eliminate a Iocality's ability to obtain certain federally-funded prevention service programs and could erode the state's TANF emergency reserve fund. VACo plans to complete the first drafts of their 2002 Legislative Program by mid-August. Should the County identify additional legislative issues that we would like to have considered, the County can submit additional proposals to VACo later in the summer or in the fall. VACo's Legislative Program and Policy Statements will not be finalized until November 2001. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the Board's review and comment pdor to communicating our legislative proposals to VACo. 01.142 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Youth Summit 2001 SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request County sponsorship for the Youth Summit scheduled for July 21, 2001 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: July 11, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes Three organizations, Region Ten, MACAA and the Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM) have joined together to organize Youth Summit 2001 for area youth. The purpose of the summit, scheduled for July 21, 2001, is to provide interactive workshops that will help educate local teens and guide them forward into the future. The collaboration is requesting support from the County, along with the City, local businesses, churches and area non-profit organizations. A summary of the Summit 2001 program and their budget is attached for the Board's review. DISCUSSION: The group is estimating an $18,000 budget for the Youth Summit 2001 event, the largest expense being $8,000 for a speaker. They currently estimate a $6,000 shortfall toward their fundraising goal. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board is inclined to support the efforts of these youth for Youth Summit, 2001, staff recommends a $500 contribution, an amount that is consistent with other donors, i.e., Region Ten, Sprint, MACAA, etc. If ap proved, an appropriation for that amount will be included in the August l~t FY2002 budget amendment. 01.141 07-03-01 P02:43 IN Charlottesville Abundant Life Family Cente~. 750 D Prospect Avenue · P.O. Box 3482 · Charlottesville, VA 22903 Tel: 804/970-2016 or 804/970-2077 · email: abundantlife@cstone.net · www. cstone.net/~abundant June 15, 2001 Sally Thomas Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville VA Dear Ms. Thomas: Attached is a sponsorship package for the 2nd Annual Charlottesville-Albemarle Youth Summit 2001 The Summit Steering Committee would like for the county Board of Supervisors to consider supporting this summit. Any amount would be helpful, but our current shortfall is about $6,000.00. Thank you for considering this proposal and I would love to answer any questions. Please call me at 970-2016 or email at rydellpOcstone.net. Sincerely, CALM Executive Director 06-15-01 P02:29 IN 2nd'Annual Charlottesville-Albemarle Youth Summit 2001 Sponsorship Support Package Region Ten Bernard Haynes 800 Preston Avenue Charlottesville VA 22903 (804) 972-1763 Table of Contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. .3 ORGANIZATIONAL SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3 COLLABORATION ............................................................................................................................. 3 PRODUCTION AND SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 3/4 SPECIAL INVITED CELEBRITY GUESTS ........................................................................................ 4 YOUTH SUMBI[T WORKSHOPS ........................................................................................................ 4 VIOLENCE PREVENTION ...................................................................................................................... 4 SUBSTANCE & ALCOHOL ABUSE ...................................................................................................... i-4 TEEN PREGNANCY .................................................................................................................. 4 RACISM ................................................................................................................................................... 4 POST HIGH SCHOOL/COLLEGE EDUCATION .................................................................................... 4 CAREER GOALS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 ENTREPRENEURSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 4 MARKETING .......................................................................................................................................... S MARKETING STRATEGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 PROMOTIONAL STRATEGY .................................................................................................................. 5 DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY ................................................................................................................... 5 LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................. 5 CONSULTING MANAGEMENT TEAM ................................................................................................... 5 FINANCRS ................................................................................................................................................ S PROJECTED BUDGET ............................................................................................................................. 5 ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTED ............................................................................................................ 5 SPONSORSHIP PACKAGR$ .................................................................................................................. 6 PLATINUM ............................................................................................................................................... 6 GOLD ...................................... , ................................................................................................................. 6 SILVER ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 -2- Organizational Summary Region Ten is an agency of the city and county which provides valuable social experiences for the increasing population of public, private, and home-schooled youth. Our programs are designed to educate and explore the life issues our children face everyday and offer real-life solutions to likely situations. We are striving toward building sound futures for youth throhgh interactive workshops designed to educate teens and guide them forward into the future. The Youth Summit 2001 is an event that is committed to developing the potential of tomorrow's leaders and identifying possible resolutions to the issues discussed. Youth in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community are actively engaged in the planning and implementation phases of the Summit. Collaboration In addition to Region Ten being the sponsoring agency, we are collaborating with Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), and Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM). Each of the three planning organizations have their own distinct missions which reinforce the focus on youth development, responsive programming, and civic engagement. Region Ten's Prevention Outreach: Child and Adolescent Prevention Services program intends to prevent substance abuse among youth. MACAA's Project Discovery program ensures that youth who are at high-risk of dropping out of school not only graduate from high school, but enter and succeed in post-secondary education. CALM, a faith- based organization, aims to provide Christian-based programming that will help youth and adults grow vocationally, academically, and spiritually. Situation Analysis Local and regional planning and advisory boards, schools and local organizations regularly make decisions which affect the lives of the youth in our community. By relying on data collected by adults, planning and advisory boards and educational and human service practitioners are often in the position of making decisions based on estimations of what youth want or need. Conversely, many youth express their sense that local decision-makers have no interest in their opinions or that their opinions have no influence on the decisions made by these government and agency leaders. Others feel a separation from the Charlottesville/Albemarle community, as though decisions made by the local planning and advisory boards have no effect on their day-to-day lives or that these decisions are not made with the experience of their peers in mind. Meanwhile, when young people are asked about their community concerns, insightful comments and ideas burst forth. The Youth Summit 2001 is designed to reintroduce youth to their community's government and resources, and, for a day--July 21, 2001--to seat local decision-makers and practitioners at these people's tables. Production and Services Youth Summit 2001 is an innovative one-day youth summit scheduled to take place on Saturday, July 21, 2001 from 9:00am to 6:00pm. Youth from the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle will be invited free of charge and provided two meals. We estimate 350 - 450 youth to attend. The highlight of the event is the keynote speaker: someone well-known among youth who will fulfill two purposes: 1) provide an entertaining yet meaningful and personal talk on one or more of the day's themes and a reflection on the importance of youth voice in the community, and 2) draw a large and diverse group of youth to the summit by means of the speaker's popularity (see next page). During the summit, youth will sign up to attend two breakout sessions; each session discussing one of these seven topics (see "Youth Summit Workshops"), will have four to six panelists--half youth, half aduks. -3- production and services Con't- The Youth Summit Planning Group have specified that.the adult panelists shall consist of adults from the community who have personal experience--having incurred this experience as a young person--regarding the topic at hand. This is to ensure that youth are not "talked to" by adults claiming expertise in these areas, but that these issues are "shared with" by adults who can validate their experiences. In the final segment of the summit, the four discussion workshops will be summarized and will discuss solutions that could feasibly be carried out by the local governments or human service agencies. In addition, the summit will provide display tables for local agencies and organizations who provide programs for youth. Special Invited Celebrity Guests The list of celebrity guests currently under consideration includes sports figures Dion Sanders, Venus and/or Serena Williams, Randell Cunningham, and Kobe Bryant; and actors/musicians Will Smith, Usher, Kirk Franklin, Hezekia Walker, Keenan & Kel, Countless Vauglm, and Raven Simone. Currently, we are in serious negotiations with Keisha Knight Pullinam, a.k.a. "Rudy Huxtable" from the Cosby Show. YOUTH SUMMIT WORKSHOPS Discussion Workshops: Violence Prevention The number of arrests for violent juvenile crime among city youth remained virtually unchanged from 1993 - 1997, while the same statistic among the county youth has been slowly increasing over the same time period. Experts will discuss tools and techniques aimed to help youth avoid trouble before it starts. Substance & Alcohol Abuse In both city and county a significant increase in alcohol related arrests was reported between 1997 and 1998. Experts will discuss myths and provide information about the use and consequences of alcohol and substance abuse. Teen Pregnancy Births to teens under seventeen remained constant in both the city and county while a slight decrease was reported in sexually transmitted diseases among twelve to seventeen year olds. Prevention of teen pregnancy, abstinence, and safer sex will be discussed. In addition, teen parents will be provided with information about local resources. Racism The Youth Planning Committee has designated the promotion of unity among Charlottesville and Albemarle youth as key to the summit promoting racial harmony through public education and healthy activities. Educational Workshops: Post High School/College Education College and University recruiters will speak with attendees regarding choosing a program or college that is right for them and college admission requirements. Career Goals Employment recruiters will discuss what you need to know to land the best.job: cover letters, resume writing tips, interview techniques, and internship programs. Specific vocational options will be explored as well as where training can be obtained in these fields. Entrepreneurship Teaching our future leaders what it takes to be an entrepreneur: how to start their own business, develop a business plan, set goals, follow through and explore local resources that may assist them in pursuing a business venture. -4- Marketing Marketing Strategy A variety of private businesses, non-profit organizations, and civic organizations, churches in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area will be approached to support this event. This Youth Summit is designed to formulate change. While accurately identifying local youth needs as expressed by youth is .significant in itself, targeting feasible resolutions to these needs gives purpose and credence to this discussion. Current 8th thru 12th grade youth will be informed about the event and pre-registration forms will be solicited. Promotional Strategy Our team of experts will design a promotional campaign that will start eight weeks prior to the event. Implementation of public relations and advertisements will start three weeks out via newspapers, radio, and television to maximize the campaign strategy. Our celebrity guest speaker will do radio drops as well as call-ins 3 to 6 times during the course of the campaign. Distribution Strategy Our street team will saturate the market by distributing 10,000 flyers and posters throughout the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. All schools, youth organizations and recreation centers will be provided with promotional material. Distribution will start five weeks prior to July 21, 2001. Location The Youth Summit 2001 will be held at the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center and Charlottesville High Sch6ol. Projected Budget Finances For the period between March 2001 and August 2001, we estimate a projected budget of $18,000: $1,500 for the event space, $4,000 for food (two meals for 350 youth), $8,000 for the speaker (including speaker's fee, booking fee, transportation, lodging, and food), $3,000 for promotion and printing, and $1,500 for other summit materials. Committed Organizations (as of June, 2001) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation ............................. $2,500 Charlottesville Weed & Seed Network .................................................. $5,000 MACAA ........................................................................................................ $500 City of Charlottesville's Quality Community Council ............................ $1,000 Region Ten .................................................................................................... $500 Sprint ...................................................................................... $500 Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority ........................ $500 Growing Youth Ministries ........................................................... $500 Youth Contribution ................................................................... $276 Sponsorship Packages PLATINUM PACKAGE Includes: 1. Exclusivity, only sponsor in your product class 2. High Visible Signage 3. One (1) full-page ad in program 4. Radio advertisement with company tags 5. Company name on all flyers & posters 6. Direct mail with coupon opportunities 7. Product sampling 8. All press releases 9. Prize drawing Sponsorship Cost ................................................... $7,500 GOLD PACKAGE I. High Visible Signage 2. One (1) half-page ad in program 3. Radio advertisemem with company tags 4. Company name on all flyers & posters 5. Direct mail with coupon opportunities 6. All press releases Sponsorship Cost ............................................. $5,000 SILVER PACKAGE 1. High Visible Signage 2. One (1) hal£-page ad in program 3. Direct mail with coupon opportunities Sponsorship Cost .............................................. $3,000 Businesses that are interested in sponsoring Youth Summit 2001 or have questions, should contact Rydell Payne at (804) 970-2016 or rydellp~cstone.net. -6- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Progress Report on the Acquisition of Conservation Easements IACE) Program SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request approval to move ACE application deadline to August 1st from original deadline of July 1st, 2001 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: July 11,2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: "Progress Report" and "Flow Chart/Procedure for the Purchase of Development Rights" REVIEWED BY: d~ The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received eleven (11 ) applications for it's initial January 1't, 2001 deadline. Per the County ordinance, properties were then ranked by a series of objective criteria including open space resources, threat of conversion to developed use, natural, cultural and scenic resources, and County fund leveraging from outside sources. At its April 4th meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the final ranking priority list provided by staff and approved the appraisal of the top 5-6 properties. Since that meeting, the Finance Department circulated an RFP to obtain cost estimates for appraising the selected properties. Once the quote requests were received, they were reviewed by the Appraisal Review Committee and the Finance Department. Following this review, the firm The Appraisal Group was selected to conduct the appraisals. DISCUSSION: Though the ACE ordinance anticipates a closing date on or around July 1~ for the purchase of development rights and easement acquisitions (for the first round of applications), the ACE Committee and staff now believe that the timeline originally anticipated is not realistic. Delays in various aspects of the appraisal process have pushed the likely closing date for the acquistion to October. As a result of these unexpected delays and the attention needed to pursue completion of the appraisals, the schedule for advertisement of the next round of applications also needs to be amended slightly. In addition to these unexpected delays, the committee also believes that since many in the farming community are busy throughout June, it is unlikely they could effectively respond to and make application by a July 1st deadline. Therefore, the ACE Committee has determined that in order to provide adequate time to fully advertise the ACE Program and draw greater attention and response from the farming community, the next application deadline should be moved to August 1't, 2001. Because of the language in the ordinance as it is currently written, this change requires Board approval. As a result of implementing the first year of the ACE program, the Committee and staff believe that a number of changes need to be considered. Recommendations on changes to the program which set more realistic expectations and address other issues will be provided to the Board within the next two months. Amendments to the program after the first year of actual experience should help to ensure a more effective program in the future. Based on the current status of the application process, staff anticipates the following timeline to complete the purchase of the first round of conservation easements: early September - completion of appraisals, appraisals are reviewed and confirmed by the Appraisal Review Committee early October - Board of Supervisors receives appraisals and authorizes acquisition RECOMMENDATION: Request approval to move ACE application deadline to August 1~t from original deadline of July 1st, 2001 01.140 07-05-01 P04:15 tN Proflress Report - ACE Applications For Year 2000 Thus far, the processing of the year 2000 ACE applications has met with few extraordinary surprises. The only major hurdle to closing on properties by July 1st (as anticipated in the ACE ordinance) has been a delay in advertising for and selecting an appraiser. Once quote estimates were received in late May, each bid/quote request was carefully reviewed so a selection could be justified on the basis of merit and bid amount (most of the estimates were within a fairly tight range ($9,900-15,000), however, the quality and experience of the individual appraisers vaded considerably). Based on the final review, the Appraisal Group was selected to conduct the appraisals. Commencement of the appraisals should begin anytime now (the County is awaiting return of a fully executed contract). As contemplated in the Request for Proposal, it will take sixty (60) days to complete the appraisals - one month longer than anticipated in the ordinance. Upon completion of the appraisals, the Appraisal Review Committee "shall review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the Board of Supervisors". This exercise should add another month to the process. Finally, since no estimate of time was given in the ordinance for the actual "Purchase of Conservation Easements" (Sec.A.l-111 ), an unknown exists that could further delay the closing date. Among other things, this phase of the acquisition process includes: an invitation to offer to sell; offer to sell; acceptance by BOS; and establishment of easement and deed recordation. As a result of both known and potential delays, it now appears October/November is a more realistic date for closing on the properties and establishing easements on them. At its April 19th meeting, the ACE Committee recommended setting the next deadline for applications to the ACE Program to August 1st instead of July 1`t. Since the Committee felt July 1st is a busy time for the farming community, August 1,t would likely draw greater attention and response. Though the Committee had hoped to use the success of the first round of applicants to promote and publicize the ACE program (with expected closings on or around July l't), the effectiveness of this date has been minimized by the various delays. Lastly, an August 1`t deadline would allow ACE another full month to advertise/promote the program. Flow Chart/Procedure for the Purchase of Development Rights Action (time to complete) Receipt of ACE Applications Staff submits ranking hst to ACE Committee (6 weeks) ACE Committee provides ranking to BOS who recommends parcels for appraisal (1 month) Completion of appraisals (2 months) Appraisals reviewed by Appraisal Review Committee and sent to BOS for approval(1 month) BOS makes offer to purchase, allow applicants time to respond, close on selected properties/record deed (though undetermined, probably 6 weeks) Ordinance Deadline Proposed Deadline July 1 August 1 August 1 September 1 September 1 October 15 October 1 December 15 November 1 January 15 ??? March 1 Anticipated time to complete process from start to finish: Seven (7) months COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting S U B J E CT/P RO P O SA L/RE Q U EST: AGENDA DATE: July 11, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: No The County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 1999/2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. This is the sixth consecutive year the County has received this award. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. 01.143 JULY [] Mission [] Essential Tasks Assessment Construction Maintenance Planning & Traffic Engineering lSslles Mission The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains roads~ provides transportation expertise and regulatory authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are: · focused on public safety · fiscally and environmentally responsible · supportive of alternative transportation means ' d · supportive of ne~ghborhoo and regional development 2 ESSENTIAL TASKS TASK I~L4INTAIN SECONDARY & PRII~kRY ROADS ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, guardrail, signs, patrols o ROADWAY: grade, pave patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES o 1VL4JNTAIN EQUIPMENT Legend: Greem 90-100% Excellent §0-90% Good, room for improvement ~¢d: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standa~s - Storm damage & clean up - Accomplished tasks as scheduled; also applied calcium to gravel rds - Completed new bridge on Rt 683 - All PMs & repairs on schedule 3 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK ASSESSMENT (see legend below) 2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o Administer Six Year Plan o Monitor ROW activities o Manage PE activities o Administer contracts o Inspect and monitor projects Legend: ( ~ce~: 90-100% Exce{leat 80-90% Good, room for improvemea t Re~: 70-80% Needs improvement B{ack: gelo~¢ rainimam standards REMARKS - Vacant ARE (constr) - 29 bridge 4 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 3. CONDUCT PLANqNING ACTIVITIES o Issue and review permits o Review site plans and rezoning requests o Conduct studies and advise ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS - One vacant staff position - Always w/in 45 day legal limit - Albemarle Towne Center (Sperry) traffic study incomplete o Inspect and monitor subdivisions Legeatl: Gr~: 9OqOO% Excellent 80-90% Good, room for improveraent Red: 70-80% Needs [mprovemeat Black: Below minimum standaeds 5 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS o Request and advise on signals & signs o Request and advise on studies & data o Assist with design Legend: Grg~,~: 90-100% Excellent 80-9(t% Good, room for improvement Red: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below m~nimum standards - Timeliness - NGIC signal installed - Earlysville Rd study completed - Old Brook Road- waiting for part 6 CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1 O0 ~~ ~jeet on ~UNE~~Y ~ SE~ OCt NO~ DEc 60~-002-1 B~4 Bdd~e Rep a~m ant __ Se~noJe Trail ~m~nts: go~ qualtb'. ~sign cha~es in rei~o~ng steel and uti]ty tem~' -- 80 ~ ' ' ~ht Js~ne mBmement ~~~ ~~ .... 12 Seminole Trail ~mmets: *~3& proceding of 1 ~heduJe. . D~et~ Ridge Rd. ~(8~ Work Is proeedJng m ~hedule ~t~ mini~t customr ~mplaJn~. ~ ~ ~ 85 ~ rE. el Bad Improemet bbk Woods Road ~mmmt~J W~rk i~ preceding m ~e~uje ~th mint~ cu~o~r em~ plaJ'n~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9-0 ~- , I J rave oa Impro~meflt ~ ~ com~nt~: ~ j~ J~ B~gin in Augu~t~ ' ~ ~ ~ 0 Wyant L~ne O5~metS: Road ~¢~ is cs~plete. LJnd~y Rad ~'~(~ Wo~ iS to begin in ~(~er. '" : ~ ~ ~ 0 Jnters~te64 ~m~nt~: GO~8~UaJJ~. Inc~a~d 'ares ofdetert~ionenc~ntemdredtlngin ....... 60 Primaries and -~'~: ~Od quatJ~ ~o~ ism ~heduJewit~ minimal cu~onler ~mplain~. ~ ~~~~ ~ 40 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE YANCEY MILLS HQ JUNE Rts 636,691,758,637,751,635, 692,710,690,796,1620,1621,1622, 708,688,633,F177,1631 692 698,633,634,758,611,684 748,824,688,689,698,758 Long arm on 250, 635, 240 As scheduled Storm cleanup (brush/debris) Daylight signs; helped with 683 bridge; Pitman Tree Crew on ]I64 JULY Continue to mow sec routes GR mow 250,240,635,29 Patch on secondaries Machine gravel roads Trench on 693 Long arm on secondaries Per schedule Daylight signs Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE FREE UNqON HQ Finished sec, hard surface roads Contractors mowing primary Guardrail mowing 601 601,810, 665; Hickory Ridge Subd Machined 672,673,668,671,662, 661,764; shoulders on 250W Cleaned storm drains 29, 601; replaced pipe Rt 810 (emergency) As scheduled Storm cleanup (brush/debris) Repaired sink hole Rt 1575 Good housekeeping at HQ JULY Cont mowing sec rds/contract & secondary gravel roads GR mowing secondary,private Patch 657,1080,1081 (Lee Boy) Repair shoulders & drains West Park Drive, Rt 1406 Replace pipe 766 Per schedule Spot improvement 667 Daylight signs-sec/private Litter patrol 9 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone MAINTENANCE BOYD TAVERN' HQ JUNE 648, 600, 686, 648,783, 640, 615~ 639, 646, 608, 645, GR 250 780, 616, 875, 877, 781 640, 600, 784, 646, 647,645,608 JLILY GR w/boom axe: 250, 20, 53, 231, 22 600, 22,231 Where needed, shoulder repair Routes 22, 250, 53, 231 Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Per schedule Storm repair Routes 640, 747; Tree cleanup from 2 storms Rts 649, 621,612, 780, 740 20, 250, 600; Open pipe/clean ditches 600, 640, 616, Key West Subd. As scheduled Dead animal pickup all systems 10 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE KEENE HQ JUNE Rts 602,800,630,717,719,712,692, 708,631,795,715,618; ROW 625 Rts 715, 719 Rts 71%722,723,737,812~725,770, 753,735~724,703,712,708 Per schedule Clean up storm damage Rts 631, 708,712,813,633,697 JULY Rts 722,723,712,728,795, 713,704,714~737 (gravel roads) Skin patch Rts 712,622,633 Slope hank ~ 773/622 int. Shoulders Rt 6 Replace pipes Rts 706,712,631 Open pipe/ditch Iht Rt 6&627 As scheduled 11 MAINTENANCE STANARDSVILLE HQ Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other JUNE Finished mowing all secondary; Assisted Boyd Tavern w/sec Plant mix patching for surf trmt Replaced stone on Route 642 Completed all due PMs Animal/litter control; dead tree removed Route 29 JULY Long arm mower on primary & secondary- guardrail Plant mkx Rt 663, Lee Boy Ditching on secondaries; replace pipe Rts 603, 610 Daily PM & when due on equip. Sidewalk repair in Stanardsville; animal/litter patrol 12 PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Albemarle Towne Center (Sperry)- initial traffic study incomplete Earlysville Road (Route 743)- report received Old Brook and Rio Road (signal) - awaiting part from manufacturer Route 29/641 Carrsbrook Drive and Westmoreland Road speed studies Routes 606/743 Airport Expmqsion Road Relocation Analysis 13 ISSUES None 14 CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-2000 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER To.' June 21, 2001 Executive Officers of the Localities Boards of Supervisors of Counties other than .~lington and Henfieo City Council of the City of Suffolk Subject: Impact of new laws affecting the secondary system of state highways Effective July 1,2001 I would like to provide you with a brief synopsis of changes m state law that affect the secondary system of state highways, beginning July 1, 2001. VDOT's resident engineer or an appropriate designee should be able to assist you in determining any impacts these changes may have on specific requests in your locality. Very truly yours, State Secondar3., Roads Engineer Attachment CC: District Administrators Resident Engineers 07'02~0I~ P01:58 /~ WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Synopsis of New Law Affectin~ the Secondary System of State Highways July 1~ 2001 Bill: HB1645 Description: Changed the date for road addition eligibility under §33.1-72.1 of the Code of Virginia. (Note: Does not affect new subdivision streets built to VDOT standards. ) VDOT Comment: Bill: HB 2018 Description: VDOT Comment: Bill: HB2049 Description: VDOT Comment: Bill: HB2045 Description: VDOT Comment: Effective July 1, 2001, streets eligible for rural addition and improvement at public expense will include those streets "... shown on a plat which was recorded or otherwise opened to public use prior to July 1, ~ n?,~g 1990, at which time it was open to and used by motor vehicles, and which, for any r ° · eason, has not been taken into the secondary system of state highways and _se .ryes at least three families per mile." This change only affects eligible counties. (i.e. those meeting the definition of §33.1-72.1.B of the Code, provided the Department has approved the County's subdivision ordinance and new streets are constructed accordingly.) Repeals the sunset provision of the pave in place provisions of §33.1-70.01. This chang,e, continues indefinitely those procedures the Department uses to evaluate if pave-in-place" criteria arb appropriate for certain prOjects paving existing non-hard surface roads for the first time. Provides a mechanism under which a County may resume additional or all responsibilities for the secondary system of state highways within the County, pursuant to terms of agreement with VDOT. A committee chaired by Mr. Andy Bailey, .Assistant Commissioner Operations, is handling all related matters. Requires Counties to reimburse VDOT for the costs incurred to date on certain projects cancelled by a county after July 1, 2001. Prior to July 1, 2001, cities could be held liable for all or a portion of costs incurred by the Department on highway projects that a city cancelled. This legislation puts counties on an equal basis with cities. After the CTB has adopted the location and design of a project included in a six-year or other transportation improvement plan adopted by a County, if the County cancels the project after July 1, 2001, the Department must be reimbursed for all costs incurred between the date the project was initiated and the date it was cancelled for planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, demolition, relocation, and construction of projects. However, the CTB may waive any part or the entire amount to be reimbursed. Further, revenue from such a reimbursement must be deposited into the county's secondary allocation to the extent that secondary road funds allocatedpursuant to § 33.1-23.4 were expended on such costs. This provision does not apply to unpaved road improvement projects when less than 100 percent of the right-of-way is available for donation. Walter $. Kucharski, Auditor Auditor of Public Accounts P.O. Box 1295 Richmond, Virginia 23218 April 20, 2001 The Honorable Shelby Marshall Clerk of the Circuit Court County of Albemarle Board County of Albemarle We have audited the cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle for the period October 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000. Our primary objectives were to test the accuracy of financial transactions recorded on the Court's financial management system; evaluate the Court's internal controls; and test its compliance w/th significant state laws, regulations, and policies. However, our audit was more limited than would be necessary to provide assurance on the internal controls or on overall compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The results of our tests found the Court properly stated, in all material respects, the amounts recorded and reported in the financial management system; no material weaknesses in the internal controls; and no instances of noncompliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. We acknowledge the cooperation extended to us during this engagement. AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS WJK:whb cc; The Honorable Edward L. Hogshire, Chief Judge Sally H. Thomas, County Executive Don Lucido, Director of Technical Assistance Supreme Court of Virginia Martin Watts, Court Analyst Supreme Court of Virginia 07-02-0t P0t:58 IN James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road. Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-3000 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 http://www.deq.state.va.us June 29, 2001 Dennis H. Treacy Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0086584, Glenmore STP Dear Ms. Thomas: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, I am enclosing a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please give me a call at (540) 574-7802. Sincerely, Norma C. Job Environmental Engineer Senior Enclosure cc: Permit Processing File T 'J.,.5,79..478,~61' ~ ui~-UZ_Ol PO2:00 PUBLIC NOTICE REISSUANCE OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS AND STATE CERTZFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by ne~vspaper) The State Water Control Board has under consideration the reissuance of the -following Permit and State Certificate: Permit No.: VA0086584 Permittee Name and Address: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, PO Box 18, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Facility Name and Location: Glenmore STP, 2.5 miles southeast of US Rte 250/State Rte 729 intersection, Shadwell. Discharge Description: Existing Municipal discharge resulting from the operation of a wastewater treatment facility; Discharge Flow: 0.381 MGD; 10utfall. Receiving Stream: Rivanna River; Stream Mile: 31.35; Basin: James (Middle); Subbasin: N/A; Section: 10; Class: 11I; Special Standards: SR-5. On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to reissue the permit subject to certain conditions. This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of limiting the following parameters: pH 6.0 su min, 9.0 su max; BOD5 45 mg/L max; Suspended Solids 45 m~dT, max; Fecal Coliform 200 N/100mL avg; Dissolved Oxygen 5..0 mg/L min. Sludge from this facility will be hauled to Moores Creek STP for further treatment and disposal. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board. All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting Norma C. Job at the Department of Envir0nmental Quality (DEQ), Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801; 'Telephone No. (540) 574-7802; e-mail ncjob~deq.state.va.us. Persons may comment in writing or by e-mail to DEQ on the proposed permit action and may request a public hearing within 30 days from the date of the first notice. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. Address comments to the contact person listed above. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer, the facility name and VPDES permit number, and a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for the comments. Requests for a public hearing shall state the reason why a he~ing is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. DEQ may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. Following the comment period, the Board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit action. This determination will become effective unless DEQ grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. Albemarle County Service Serving · Conserving July 2, 2001 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing for your information a copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the budget. Ve~?,,u~/yours~ J.V)t; Brent Executive Director JWB/slrb Enclosure cc: Robert W. Tucker, County Executive Ella Carey, Clerk 0'7-03-01 AlO:50 IN 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel (804) 977-4511 · Fax (804) 979-0698 www. acsanet.com COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Foster Central Sewage System Expansion SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approve expansion of central sewage system as required in conditions of approval of original (1999) permit. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kelsey, Hirschman, Bowler AGENDA DATE: June 11, 2001 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: BACKGROUND: ACTION: ATFACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: On March 17, 1999 the applicant, Mr. Donald Foster, received approval for a Central Sewage System in order to allow rouse of the former COoper Industries Facility (Executive Summary attached). The septic system approved in 1999 is in use. The only condition of the 1999 approval was that any future expansion of the sewage facilities (beyond the approved 120 worker capacity) would require a new approval of the Central Sewer Permit. The applicant now wishes to increase system capacity to serve an additional 300 people. He is requesting approval for the expansion. DISCUSSION: Thero are three buildings served by the Central Sewage System- a Doctor's office, warehouse, and commercial office space. According to Mr. Foster, no expansion of or addition to the existing buildings is proposed. The existing drain field is designed to treat 1200 gallons per day. The proposed expansion would add three additional drain fields treating up to 1,000 gallons per day each. The total capacity of the Central Sewage System (four drain fields) would be 4,200 gallons per day. Mr. William (Jeff) Loth of the Thomas Jefferson Health District has reported that conditions at the site are "desirable for drainfields." Mr. Loth has approved the necessary septic permit and provided a plan for the expanded system (attached). He describes the volume of waste as equivalent to about eight three to four bedroom houses but with a "1 ighter" waste stream. The waste stream is lighter because there will be little cooking, dishwashing, or laundry washing at the site relative to a residential use. The faCility is located near Earlysville and in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. While extra vigilance is required in reviewing any proposal in the reservoir watershed, this activity can be viewed as a reuse of an existing property using an improved waste treatment system. (The Cooper Industry facility supported as many as 950 workers and treated waste in an antiquated sewage package plant. The package plant has been removed.) According, to Mr. Loth, no special treatment measures or restrictions are necessary to protect the reservoir from the proposed septic system. However, an attempt to further expand (beyond the current proposal) might push the system into the category of a "mass drain field" requiring strict scrutiny from both the Health District and the County in order to protect the reservoir. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the central sewage system expansion with the following condition: Approval is for the proposed septic system capacity of 420 total users per day (4200 gallons per day), as designed by the Health Department. Future expansions must be re-approved by the Board. 01.138 07-03-01 P~2:50 IN 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 District 1138 Rose Hill Drive P. O. Box 7546 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 ALBEMARLE- CHARLOTTESVILLE FLUVANNA COUNTY {PALMYRA) GREENE COUNTY (STANARDSVlLLE) LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA) NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON) March 27, 2001 Mr. David Hirschman Water Resources Manager Albemarle County Engineering Department 401 Maclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: Septic System Expansion for Former Cooper Industries Facility Dear Mr. Hirschman, Donald Foster applied for a permit on February 14, 2001 to expand the existing subsurface sewage disposal system at the referenced site to serve an additional 300 persons. In the design of septic systems for office building, Health Depamnent regulations allow a design range of 10 -15 gallons of sewage to be generated per employee per day, therefore my m/ss/on was to find suitable soils and a drainfield design capable of handling a m/n/mm of 3;000 gallons per day (GPD) of sewage. I should point out that it'is standard practice for us to start with the 10 GPD estimate per employee, only moving towards the 15 GPD figure when conditions exist such as high anticipated walk-in traffic, specific high.water usage activities, etc. None of these are foreseen here. On February 27, 2001, I met with an employee of Mr. Foster at the site and investigated an area of undisturbed ground near the existing septic system that currently serves the doctor's office and warehouse space in hopes of deciding where we could potentially install a subsurface sewage disposal system. We checked the topography, of the area and found it to be gently sloping (3% grade or less) and slightly convex in shape. Upon walking the perimeter of the area, we found no creeks, springs, wells, or other environmental receptors within 100 feet of any part of the site we ultimately designated. Finally, I evaluated the soils through a series of 8 backhoe pits, which indicated a fairly uniform soil cover of the site consisting of approximately 7 inches 'of topsoil underlain by approximately 47 inches of red micaceous clay loam, which in mm is underlain by atleast thirty inches ofmicaceous, saprolitic silt loam, a very well- drained soil that is desirable for drainfields. In deciding upon the exact size of the drainfield to be installed, the estimated rate at which the particular site's soils will absorb water (45 - 50 minutes per inch in this case) is faciored into the estimated daily sewage flow from the facility. The square footage of drainfield trench bottom required to absorb all of that sewage can then be calculated. In the attached permit (101-01-0090), I have split the anticipated maximum sewage flow of 3,000 GPD into 3 separate drainfield areas, each of which is designed to handle 1,000 GPD, and each of which has a 100% reserve area for any future repairs. The reason for the 3-way split is to avoid a "mass drainfield" situation, in which water-mounding and nitrate-loading in the subsurface become factors. In closing, I would like to point out that the drainfield system I have proposed for this potential office facility has been designed according to and meets apphcable state and county regulations, including the requirement of a 100% reserve area for any possible future repairs. With the care and maintenance that is prescribed for any subsurface sewage disposal system, this system should be more than adequate for Mr. Foster's proposed uses of this site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 972-6259. I look forward to heating from you. Sincerely, Willihm (Jeffi Loth, IV Environmental Health Specialist, Senior pc Donald Foster %Cater Suo01y and/or Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit Page I Commonwealth of Virginia Health De~artrnent Department of Health Identification Number: 101-01-0090 ALBEMARLE CO. HEALTH DEPARTMENT Tax Map Number: 31-21A-404 General Information BP#: Water Supply System: Sewage Disposal System: EXPANDED Based on the application for a sewage disposal system construction permit filed in accordance with Section 2. t3 E, of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations and/or Section 2.13 of the Private Well Regulations a construction permit is hereby issued to: Owner: 4F, LLC Telephone: 804-973-8426 A~ent: DONNIE FOSTER Address: 395 REAS FORD ROAD, EARLYSVILLE, VA 22936 For a Type H Sewage Disposal System or Well to be constructed on/at SOUTH OF RT 660, 1.2 MILE WEST OF RT 743 Sec/Bk Lot Actual or estimated water use 3000 god DESIGN NOTES: SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION RESULTS. Water supply, EXISTING WELL EHS DATE Building Sewer: I.D. PVCScheduIe40, /~- or equivalent. Slope 1.25" per I Oft(min.) Other Septic Tank: Capacity: 6000 Gals.(min.) Other Inlet-outlet structure: PVC Schedule 40, 4" tees or equivalent. Other Pump and pump station: YES describe and show design if yes: Building Sewer: Satisfactory yes. no EHS DATE J Pretreatment unit: Satisfactory yes._ __ I EHS DATE no [ Inlet-outlet structure: Satisfactory yes no ] EHS DATE Pomp & pump station: Satisfactory yes.._ no _ EHS DATE Gravity mains: Y' or larger I.D., min. 6 fall per 100 ft., 1500 lb. crash strength or equivalent. Other Conveyance method: Satisfactory yes EHS DATE no Distribution Box: Precast concrete with 25 ports. Other Distribution box: Satisfactory yes EHS DATE no Header lines: Material: 4" I.D. 1500 lb. crush strength plastic or equivalent from distribution box to 2 ft into absomtion trench. Slope 2" min. Other Header lines: Satisfactory yes.__ __ EHS DATE no Percolation lines: Gravity 4" plastic 1000 lb. per foot bearing load or equiv. slope 2" - 4" (min. max.) per 100ft Other Percolation lines: Satisfactory yes E, HS DATE no Absorption trenches: Sq ft. required: 7200 depth from ground surface to bottom of trench 66": aggregate size .5-1.5": Trench bottom slope 2-4"/100 ft center to center spacin~ 09 FT: Trench width 36" Depth of aggregate 13": Trench length '100 ft: Number of trenches 24: I Absorption trenches: Satisfactory yes__ '1 I -EHS DATE I no Date Approved by: Environmental Health Specialists CHS202A Pa~e Number2 o, 3 Health Department Identification Number ~ Schematic drawing of sewage disposal and/or water supply system and topographic features. Show the lot lines.of the building site, sketch of property showing any topographic features which may impact on the design of the well or sewage disposal system, including existing and/or proposed structures and sewage disposal systems and wells within 200 feet. The schematic drawing of the well site or ares and/or sewage disposal system shall show sewer lines, pretreatmenl unit, pump station, conveyance system, and subsu#ace soil absorption system, reserve area, etc. When a nonpublic drinking water supply is to be permitted, show all sources of pollution within 200 feet. [] The information required above has been drawn on the attached copy of the sketch submitted with the application. EXISTING DRAINFIELD PERMIT #t 01-99-001 h)d, ....... · 100% RESERVE AREA 100' EXISTING BUILDING VIEW~ INSTALL NEW 4 WAY TRIBUTION BOX, WITH ONE OUTLET FEEDING EACH OF THE FOUR DRAINFIELDS SHOWN.(3 NEW & EXISTING #101-00-0019) USE EXISTING PUMP SET-UP AS SHOWN ON PERMIT #101-00-0019. SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY AND PUMP DOSAGE WILL NOT CHANGE UNTIL AVERAGE DAILY WATER USAGE INCREASES BEYOND CAPACITY OF EXISTING. EACH DRAINFIELD: - 8 TRENCHES - 100' LONG EACH - 3' WIDE EACH - 66" DEEP EACH - 9' CENTERS - INSTALL ON CONTOUR! LEGEND DI~NFIELD ............. This sewage disposal system and/or water supply is to be constructed as specified by this permit. This sewage disposal system and/or well construction permit is null and void if (a) conditions are changed from those shown en the application {b) conditions are changed from those shown on the construction permit. No part of any installation shall be covered or used until inspected, corrections made if necessary, and approved, by the local health department or unless expressly authorized by the local health depL Any part of any installation which has been covered prior to approval shall be uncovered, if necessary, upon the direction of the Depad~nent. Date: ~_/"~ 7'./~_~o / Issued by: Date: Reviewed by: Environmental Health Specialist lThis Construction Permit Valid until SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 Environmeptal Health Supervisor ._ HEALTH DEPT NO: TAX MAP: · ~[- F-,//l' ~(_")q/ PAGE SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION PERaMITS See Page 2 For Design Drawing. Drawing is Not To Scale Permit is void if the house location interferes with the prot~osed well or drain field/reserve locations. Follow all OSHA requirem~'nts. Minimum separation between drain field/reserve area(s) and well sites is I00 feet from Class IIIC wells and 50 feet from Class IIIB wells. This distance increases by 25 feet for e,~ery 5 percent slope for wells doxva slope of any source o£contamination (house site, drain field/reserve area, etc.) · It is the owner's responsibility to ensure that the well and septic system is on' the property and does~not interfere with utilities and easements. · ltealth Department's Operation Permit and Well Inspection Report are required prior to occupancy. · All septic and well contractors must have a current license with the Virginia Department of Conunerce. · It is illegal to put either well or septic system into tree without final health department approval. · Septic and Well Contractors shonld be provided with a copy ofpermit before any construction begins. · '~'ell and all water lines shall be disinfected prior to water sampling. · Dry holes, must be permanently abandoned in accordance with the Private Weil Regulations by a certified well driller. · Basement (floor is below staTace of ground)?~ YES (~ Walkout: YES N~ · Fixtures in Basement? YES N(~ Lift Pump Required? YES ~ · Is septic tank location in a place ofsuspected high water table? YES NO Il'yes, please refer to tank manufacturer's instracfions on placing tanks in saturated areas. · Pump is required when the ground smfface over the drain field trenches is at a higher elevation than any plumbing fixture or the sewer line leaving the house. · Do not disturb the drain field or reserve area(s). · No buried utility service shall be closer than 10 feet to any part of this system. · Do not install.drain field systems during periods ofwet weather or wet soil. · It'is recommended that all trees be removed from the drain field area and all hydr0philic trees withha 10 feet of the drain field area blUST be removed. · Place untreated building paper or approved material over the trench gravel. · The maximum'soil cover over septic and pump tanks and distribution boxes is 18 inches to 24 inches. · All tanks shall be watertight · Final grade of drain field shall be crowned to divert surface water and prevent ponding. · Roofdrains, l~asdment sump discharges (non3sewage), floor drains, footing drains, discharge from water treatment systems, etc., being connected to this system is PR. OIIIBITED! Divert these awe7 from drain field. · Keep structures and driveways olTdrain field/reserve are.~ (s). It shall be the responsibility o[' the owner or any subseqncnt owner to maintain, repair or replace (requires a pemfi0 any sewage disposal system that ceases to operate in a sanitary manner. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depa~ment of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE -'_XECUTIVE OFFICE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: ffRobert W. Tucker V. Wayne Cilimberg June 27, 2001 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan, Earl Septic System Expansion The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meetin1 vOte, found the expansion of the existing central septic syste in Compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. A c 'sville Business park Central on June 26, 2001, by unanimous n for the Earlysville Business Park >py of the staff report is attached. CC: Donnie Foster Stephen Bowler Staff Person: Planning Commission: David Benish June 26, 2001 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Va. Code 15.2- 2232) - EarlysVille Business Park Expansion of Existing Central Sewage System Location: The site is located on the east side of Rae's Ford Road (Route 660), approximately one mile south of the intersection Route Rae's Ford Road and Earlysville Road (Route 743). The 27.6-acre property, described as Tax Map 31, parcel 2 lA is located in the Rio Magisterial District (Attachment A). The site is Zoned LI, Light Industrial and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the South Fork Rivanna water supply watershed. History: The Planning Commission, on March 2, 1999, found the current central septic system in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan with thecondition that the existing wastewater plant would no longer be in service after the septic field became operable. That condition has been met. The applicant, with the assistance of the Health Deparunent, has removed the plant. The prior staff report and Commission minutes from that meeting are attached (Attachments B and C). Proposal: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing central septic system to allow the system to fully accommodate utilization of the existing buildings on site. The initial septic system installed accommodated 120 users (employees per day). The proposed expansion would increase the capacity by 300 employees, to 420. This request is not associated with any proposed building expansions. The applicant has indicated that when the initial application was made for the central septic system it was not sized adequately to accommodate full use of the existing buildings (Attachment D). If the Commission £mds this proposal in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The Board of Supervisors must review and approve the expansion of the central system. Attached is the staff report from the County Department of Engineering and Public Works, which provides an analysis and recommendation regarding the proposed system expansion (Attachment E). This report is not subject to Commission review and recommendation, but is provided for .your information. Character of the Site/Area: The site is the Old Cooper Industries manufacturing facility, which produced primarily circuit breaker systems. There are three main buildings, the administrative office building, a research and development building, and the plant facility, consisting of over 200,000 square feet of floor area. The vast majority of the floor space ~s located in the plant building (the office building consists of approximately 18,000 square feet). There are other smaller storage and accessory structures on site. The general area is rural in character. Portions of the Panorama Agriculmral-Forestal District and Jacob's Run Agricultural-Forestal District are located approximately one-half mile from this site. Several rural residential subdivisions are also located near this site, including Graemont (just to the north of the site), Mallard Lake (.5 miles~south) and other scattered rural residential development. The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is located appm'ximately two miles to the south of the plant. Staff Comment: The Commission has already 'found that a central septic system serving 120 users is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In the prior review, staffnoted that while not entirely consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding new central systems, the proposal was not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources. The central sewage system was a replacement to an old central sewage plant. While the expansion proposed will upgrade the capacity, of the system from 120 users to 420, but the capacity of the proposed system is still well below the capacity of the old treatment plant it replaced. The existing central septic system has a treatment capacity of 1,200 gallons per day. The expanded system will have a treatment capacity of 4,200 gallons per day. The old treatment plant had a capacity of 25,000 gallons per day Furthermore, the central septic system can only be used for domestic waste, while the old treatment facility could have been used for some industrial waste treatment. In terms of consistency with land use policy, the growth management policy discourages development within the Rural Area and water supply watersheds. However, this facility was built in the 1970's and predates the implementation of such policies. The property is currently zoned LI, and the existing development constitutes a significant capital investment on the property. While the central septic system expansion proposal would allow more use of the site (in terms of employment) than permitted with the existing system, the ultimate use of the site is still significantly less than what could have occurred with old central sewage plant. Recommendation: Staff opinion is that this request, although not entirely consistent with the principles and recommendations noted above, is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan statements is to discourage the use of new central systems that support and encourage new development, which may not have occurred without the use of a central system. The proposed system expansion does not facilitate an intensification of the use of the buildings or property beyond what could have been provided with the original sewage treatment plant the septic system replaced. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the condition that the central septic system is to serve existing on-site facilities only. 2 ALBEMARL,E 19 COUNTY ATTACHMENT A 45C . 3C 58 ZtK ~ AGR~CJL-Ui}At. & F-,~.RESTAL WHITE HALL AND SECTION RIO DISTRICTS 3 STAFF PERSON: DAVID BENISll PLANNING COMMISSION: MARCll 2, 1999 Re~'iew of Compliance with the Comprehensive plan (Virl~inia Code 15.2 2232 Review) - Foster Central Sewage and Well System at former Coopt I_oduslries ,S, He in Earlysville Loeation~ The site is located on the east side of Route 660, approximately one mile south of the intersection of Route 660 and Route 743. The 27,6 acre property is described as Tax Map 3 I, Parcel 21A and is located in the Rio Magisterial District (Attachment A). The site is zoned L[, Light Industrial and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the South Fork Rivanna River watersupply watershed _Pronosall As per Section 15.2 - 2232 of the Code of Virginia, The Plannin8 Commission must review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a proposal to install a central sewage system and water system intended to serve new uses within the old Cooper Industries plant and administrative offices. The applicant wishes to replace the existin8 package treatment plant with a septic system and continue the use of the existing well system and have it approved as a central system. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review is required because the new sewage system is technologically different from the existing package treatment plant and because both water and sewer systems will now serve three or more users. The applicant plans to convert the facility to a doctors' offices and leased warehousing space. If the Commission finds this proposal in compliance with the plan, the Board of Supervisors must review sad approve the central systems. Attached is the staffreport from the County Department ofEngineerin8 and Public Works, which provides an analysis and recommendation regarding the proposed systems (Attachment B). This report is not subject to Commission review and recommendation, but is provided for your information. Character of the Si{~/Ar~~ The site is the Old Cooper Industries manufacturing facility, which produced primarily circuit breaker systems. There are three main buildings, the administrative office building a research and development building, and the plant facility, consisting of over 200,000 square feet of floor area The vast majority of the floor space is located in the plant building (the office building consists of approximately 18,000 square feet). There are other smaller storage and accessory structures on site The general area is rural in character. Portions of the Panorama AgriculturaI-Forestal District and Jacob's Run AgriculturaI-Forestal District are located approximately one-half mile from this site. Several rural residential subdivisions are also located near this site, including Graemont (just to the north 0fthe site}, Mallard Lake (.5 miles south) and other scattered rural residential development. The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is located approximately two miles to the south of the plant. Staff Commen~ The purpose of this review is to evaluate thc consistency with the Compr~:hcnsive Plan of using central utility systems in this location, and that is the focus ofstatt's com~. ents and recommendations. The current zoning (L1, Light Industrial) has been in i~lace since the facility was constructed in the 1970's. The proposed uses for the buildings/site me consistent with the uses permitted within the LI Districl. ' l The Land Use Plan includes the following general principles and recomn~endationa for the use of central water and sewer systems in the Rural Area. General Principles (p. 109): · Serve Urban Areas, Communities and }'iilages with public water *nd sewer. Prohibit private central water atwl/or sewer facilities ~,ithitt CounO, Devel~ ~pment Areas. · Discourage the utilization of central water arid/or sewer systems, or the extension of public sewer into the Rural Area except itt cases where public he~ Ith and safe~y are at issue, Rural development will be served by individual water cord ~ eptic systems, only, Recommendations ('pp. 122 attd 124): · New central sewer systems itt the RuralArea shall be strongly di2 ~ouraged except to address health and safety problems · '4nynewsystemapprovedmustmeetACSAstandardsandnotres ~entialdensitiesto increase beyond that density achievable under itglividual on-site tcilities (pp. 122 atld 124). Staffopinion is that this request, although not entirely consistent with th~ principlqs and recommendations noted above, is not contraq; to the Plan's overriding i~ ent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area am its associated resources. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan statements is to discern lee the use of new central systems that support and encourage new development, which ma not have occurred without the use of a central system. Although the proposed facilities are t :chnically classified as new central systems, they are actually either an existing system (well syst ;m) or a replacement to an existing system that serves a developed property. The proposed systen ~s do not facilitate, an intensification of the use of the buildings or property. In fact, the propo,, ~d central septic system has less capacity than the 25,000 8aliens per day treatment plant it will re ,lace, and could serve to limit some possible future uses. Regarding the impact on the South Fork Rivanna reservoir watershed, the ~ngineering Department's staffrepon noted that "an effective and well maintained SCl: ti.c system of this scale is likely to provide better protection to the reservoir than the existing plan Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 ATTACHMENT C Mr. Stouffer explained that the lights were approved and ordered before the ordinance, but the foundation made the decision to send them back and have them retrofitted to meet the ordinance to be consistent with the rest of the park. He said for safety reasons, the lights have to be there, but said he empathized with residents who were used to fields with no lights. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Stouffer confirmed that the lights are full cut-off Mr. Rooker said, "I assume the situation would be substantially worse were it not for the lighting ordinance." Mr. Rieley said, "I think there were some good points made, but on the issue of the setback, it doesn't change my feeling that this is a substantial move in the right direction." Mr. Rooker asked about the screening between the lake subdivision and the industrial property, and asked staff to comment. Mr. Keeler said the rezoning review was very detailed along Route 606, and for this particular site there is language in the proffers that requires special landscaping treatment. He stated that UREF proposed, in addition to the tree planting, an earth & berm, which has been approved and constructed. Mr. Keeler said there has been planting on the earth & berm and the trees are there. Regarding the "cheap buffer," Mr. Keeler said the trees are red cedar, which were chosen because they grow faster than some other trees. "There on our approved landscape list .... the selection of the plant material is [up] to the applicant, unless it's specified by the ARB .... within the park, we are looking for consistent landscaping provisions, and you'll see in the proffers again - there are proffers here for architectural controls which also call for consistency in landscaping treatment internal to the park." Regarding the height of the trees, Mr. Keeler said, "Part of the landscaper's jargon is to describe trees in growth ranges, which is not necessarily descriptive of what you're going to see." He added that he will provide that information to the Board for their review. Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to take a look at the screening between the industrial property and subdivi sion that was mentioned to determine if there is anything that could be done to improve it. "The people in that subdivision were used to living in a rural area, and we've substantially changed the character of the adjoining property. I think that in an effort to continue to be a good neighbor, it would be helpful to look at that." Mr. Rieley agreed. "It may be that red cedar is indeed a pretty slow-growing tree, and it might go a long way toward good will to add some faster-growing trees along that area. It's clearly a sensitive area." MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded recommendation of approval of ZMA 98-27 as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Resular Item: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan - Foster/Cooper Industries Central Septic & Well System Proposal to establish central septic and well system to serve the old Cooper Industries site located in Earlysville. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 2lA is located on the east side of Route 660 on the Rio Magisterial District. The site is zoned LI, Light Industrial and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive PI an. The site is located within the South Fork Rivanna River watersupply watershed. $ 89 ATTACHMENT C Mr. Keeler presented the report, which was prepared by Mr. Benish. Mr. Keeler explained that the Planning Commission must review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a proposal to install a central sewage system and central water system intended to serve new uses within the old Cooper Industries plant and administrative offices. He said the applicant wishes to replace the existing package -.se~age4a:eatmentpl~a septic .system and to continue to use the_ex~ing well system and to have it approved as a central system. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan review is required because the new sewage system is technologically different from the existing treatment plant, and because both water and sewer systems will now serve three or more users. Mr. Keeler said the Cooper site contains three main building: the administrative office building, a research and development building, and a plant facility consisting of over 200,000 square feet of floor area. The vast majority of the floor area is located in the plant building; the office portion is approximately 18,000 square feet. Mr. Keeler referenced Mr. Benish's report, citing the Land Use Plan's general principles and recommendations for the use of central water and sewer systems in the Rural Area. He said that staff'opinion is that this request, "although not entirely consistent with these principles and recommendations, is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources." Mr. Keeler concluded, "Basically what's being proposed here is to replace an existing package sewage treatment plant that has a capacity of 25,000 gallons a day and was constructed over 30 years ago with a conventional septic system of a large scale, which is a preferred method of sewage disposal in Rural Areas. The capacity of the new system would be much less than that of the existing plant, about 1,200 gallons a day. "While' it's not clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it's an improvement over what exists now and what could conceivably continue." The report stated that staff' recommends, that the Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Mr. Finley's question about the capacity of the system, Mr. Keeler said the system as it's being designed, can accommodate 120 workers. Mr. Finley asked if the existing treatment plant would be removed. Mr. Keeler said that could be made a condition. The applicant, Donald W. Foster, addressed the Commission. Mr. Finley asked what the property would be used for. Mr. Foster replied that the facility would primarily be used for warehousing and office space, explaining that there is 260,000 square feet of space, which he is trying to lease to individuals who fall under the Light Industrial category. He said he is not trying to do any manufacturing on-site. Regarding the wastewater treatment plant, Mr. Foster said he purchased the property from Cooper Industries, which owns the plant. He said the plant is under an order from the EPA, and it is Cooper's responsibility to take care of the facility. Mr. Foster explained that the EPA order states Cooper can clean the plant and leave it in place, or remove the plant from the premises. In response to Mr. Rieley's question about the arrangement, Mr. Foster confirmed that he owns the property, but Cooper owns the wastewater treatment plant on the property; they are under an order from the EPA and DEQ, and are required to maintain the contamination of the property "for the rest of their lives." Mr. Thomas asked about the increase in employees from 50 to 120 and the capacity of the system. Mr. Foster explained that one of the buildings is going to be a doctor's office with 10-12 full time employees and 50-60 visitors per day. He said that they took the doctor's present water bills and 90 ATTACI~MENT C calculated the total number of people per day in the office, then added the number of employees in the other offices at the Cooper site to arrive at a total of 120. Mr. Rooker asked if the Health Department certified the maximum amount of people to be 'served by the treatment plant. Mr. Keeler said that the flow to the plant will depend on the types of uses that locate there~Ermnot-surethat-placingan-actuaLnumber_of employees_is_as __meaning~A to the Health Department as taking a look at each use that subsequently locates in the building." Steven Boiler of County Engineering, addressed the Commission. He indicated that he talked to Jeff Loth of the Health Department, who actually does the design of the system for the applicant, and he stated that the system is design-capable for 120 people per day, assuming some but not all of the doctor's office patients use the facilities. Mr: Rooker asked if Mr. Loth certifies the system for a certain level of use. Mr. Boiler said he designs the system for a certain capacity, and there is an understanding with the applicant what it is sized for. Mr. Boller said it is written into the executive summary which will go before the Board of Supervisors as only being permitted for 120 people. Mr. Rooker commented that there is previous contamination on the site stating, "My concern is to make _ertmn that we don t add to that problem by approwng something that two years from now or three years fi~om now the use is way beyond the existing design of the system. Are there mechanisms in place t~) make certain that doesn't happen. Mr. Boller said his understanding from DEQ, which is in charge of the consent order on the groundwater contamination, is that there are two treatment systems in question: an industrial wastewater treatment system and a sewage treatment system on site. He said the consent order applies to the industrial treatment issue with a pump and treat system; the separate issue is the sewage treatment system - which initially was designed to accommodate 950 employees and probably would not function properly with just 120 people per day. Mr. Finley asked about the specifics of the septic system. Mr. Boiler said that it is a big septic field, and Mr. Loth agrees that it is very good soil, and an excellent site for the field. Mr. Thomas noted the benefits that the wastewater would not be dumped into the South Rivanna River anymore. Mr. Foster said the reason he had the new system designed as such is he is unsure how many employees will be on premises. "We picked out a five-acre area, and are only going to use % of an acre for the field and the reserve area. So I do have five acres if there is more employees on the premises, then I can come back, and ask you, 'can I' enlarge the septic area?'" Mr. Foster said he has done all of the well drilling and groundwater monitoring of the property for the past ten years. "It's great soil for a septic system .... I actually overdesigned the system - we talked about 120 people, and Jeff[Loth] and I actually think it would handle 150 people, but I wanted to be on the upscale of putting in too much drainfield to make sure that I didn't have any problems with it." Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner about the dual ownership and lingering package plant. "It sounds as if it's impossible for us to make a condition that it be removed because the applicant doesn't own it. Is there a way that we can assure that, if we're essentially substituting what our staff believes is a superior system for an inferior one, that we not end up with two in the future." 91 ATTACHMENT C Mr. Kamptner said, "You could probably come up with a condition that would prohibit any uses on this propen'y from using the current packing plant for sewage treatment, and that should effectively cut it off from it being used for any uses." Mr. Rooker asked, "Once the septic field is operable, the existing wastewater plant will no longer be ~that accompli~hat weare~lM_ng_about?' _He exp_ressed concern that the plant might be brought back on-line. - ..... Mr. Foster said the wastewater treatment plant has been decontaminated, and is sitting on the premises. "Once I take ownership, I'm going to try to speak with the DEQ, the EPA and Cooper Industries. I want to remove that from the premises. It's quite a task to do so when you're talking about taking out three 75,000 gallon steel tanks, but I do want it off the premises. It has been decontaminated - it's sitting there, and it's just going to require a lot of acetylene and oxygen to get rid of it..." Mr. Finley asked if the groundwater is still being monitored. Mr. Foster confirmed that 42 wells are still being monitored. Mr. Foster said he has to have permission from the EPA to remove the package plant, but that's what he wants to do. Mr. Thomas asked, "How can you buy a piece of property and the loan company O.K. it if it's contaminated and has all these well s all over?" Mr. Foster explained, "This piece of property does not have soil contamination...we're dealing with underground water contamination, and it's confined to one specific area on the piece of property, and they [EPA] have been monitoring the situation for 10 years. The EPA is involved in it and is here on an annual basis; the DEQ also is involved in the monitoring of this groundwater situation." Mr. Foster added that the situation has improved greatly, with 4 out of 42 wells with contamination. He confirmed that the wells have to stay in place until the EPA says there is no level of contamination that they are concerned about; they have 19 years left on their consent order, but Mr. Foster is anticipating that it may be over within 10 years. Mr. Foster added, "Once this property is closed - in about 2 ½ to 3 weeks - I think it' s going to be a big plus for me to remove this from the premises. And I also think I'm going to be paid to remove it from the premises." He said there will be a letter at the Board meeting from the DEQ stating that a septic system on the property will help clean up the existing contamination problems. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the condition that the existing wastewater plant will no longer be in service after the septic field becomes operable. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-65 Snow's Business Park (Sign #91} The applicant proposes to establish contractor's outdoor storage and display on Tax Map 90, Parcel 35X. This property consists of approximately 5.7 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Outdoor storage and display in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Outdoor storage and display in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District requires a special use permit m accord with the provisions of Section 30.6.3.2B of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street) opposite Mill Creek South in the Scottsville Magisterial District The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, which explained that the applicant is proposing to use some existing fenced areas in the front portion of the property for storage of materials for various contractors. As part 92 4F, LLC. 395 REA'S FORD ROAD EARLYSVlLLE, VIRGINIA 22936 ATTA ~C. DMENT D RECEIVED April 24, 2001 DAVID BENISH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 Eadysville Business Park Rems Ford Road Dear Sirs: With the assistance of the Virginia Health Department, we have removed the 30,000 gallon waste water treatment plant at the Earlysville Business Park on Reas Ford Road and axe currently using a central septic We are in negotations with a potential tenant for part of the 50,000 square foot office space available at our facility. During these negotations, it was determined that we do not have enough dminfield with the septic system to meet our needs. When I made the initial application to go to a cenWal septic system I did not allow for the requirem~ of th'is office space. We have contacted the Virginia Health Department; they in fact confinn~ our findings, have redesigned au enhanced system, and issued a permit for im~llafion. Your review ofthi.q information is greatly appreciated. Thank you -- Donald W Foster 9 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 01 Budget Amendment Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on Proposed FY01 Budget Amendments in the amount of $2,266,367.21 and approval of Appropriation #20040, 20071, 20072, 20073, 20074, 20075, 20076, and 20077 for various school and local government programs and grants. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 11, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or the County's adopted operating budget. DISCUSSION: This proposed FY01 Budget Amendment totals $2,266,367.21. The chart below breaks out the estimated revenues and expenditures for the amendment in the General, School, Tax Reserve and Capital Improvement Funds. ESTIMATED REVENUE General Fund/Other Funds Local Revenues Local Grant Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue $ 84,450.16 177,707.00 6,083.50 271,552.66 $ 539,793.32 Education Funds Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Transfer from School Fund Fund Balances Education Funds Estimated Revenue 6,748.14 17,639.60 1 O, 166.75 7,500.00 10,514.45 $ 52,568.94 Tax Reserve Fund Investment Earnings Fund Balance Tax Reserve Fund Estimated Revenue $ 69,761.47 1,190,979.38 $1,260,740.85 0'7-03-07 P02 :,~ ~ ~ ~ Capital Improvement Fund - General Government Local Revenue Fund Balance Capital Fund Estimated Revenue TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $ 401,500.00 11,764.10 $ 413,264.10 $2,266,367.21 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Operating Fund Public Safety Human Development General Operating Expenditures Education Operating Fund Tax Reserve Fund Capital Improvement Fund - Gen. Govt. TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES $ 20,350.32 519,443.00 $ 539,793.32 $ 52,568.94 $1,260,740.85 $ 413,264.10 $2,266,367.21 This budget amendment consists of eight appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. A detailed descri ption of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Subsequent to the public hearing, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors amend the FY01 Budget in the amount.of $2,266,367.21, and approve Appropriation #20040, 20071, 20072, 20073, 20074, 20075, 20076, and 20077 as detailed on the appropriation forms. 01.136 APPROPRIATION #20040 Appropriations Attachment A $519,443.00 United Way Child Care Program The United Way Childcare Scholarship Program helps Iow and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality childcare for children, especially "at risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost. A 1992 agreement between Albemarle, Charlottesville, and the Virginia Department of Social Services approved United Way to administer the pool funds. Albemarle County serves as fiscal agent and therefore, is required to appropriate the total program funds. The 2000/2001 program will expend $495,893 for direct scholarship fees and $23,550 in administrative fees. The pool is funded by $267,461 in federal funds; $101,226 by the City of Charlottesville; $74,275 by the County of Albemarle and $76,481 by the United Way. The Albemarle local match was approved in the 2000/01 operating budget and requires no additional funds. APPROPRIATION #20071 $3,167.00 EMS Development Block Grant The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to purchase an Automated External Defibrillator. The purchase is funded by a $1,583.50 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a $1,583.50 local match that will be funded from current operations. There are no additional local funds required. APPROPRIATION #20072 $8,183.32 Bulletproof Vest Grant The Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance has recently started a program to subsidize the purchase of bulletproof vests. The County Police, Sheriff, and Regional Jail have applied for an received approval to purchase bulletproof vests with reimbursement at 50%. The Bureau of Justice Assistance grant is $4,091.66. The Police Department's local match of $2,577.75, Sheriff's Department's local match of $937.81, and the Regional Jail's local match of $4,667.76 will be funded from current operations. APPROPRIATION #20073 $9,000.00 EMS Development Block Grant The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to purchase 3 additional Automated External Defibrillators. The purchase is funded by a $4,500 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a $4,500.00 local match that will be funded from current operations. There are no additional local funds required. APPROPRIATION #20074 $18,252.96 Donations Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1,500.00. This donation will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff. Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Litton Industries. This donation is to be used for the science department at Burley Middle School. Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Litton Industries. This donation will be used to purchase instructional books on tape. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $15.36 from the Target School Fund- Raising Program. Target designated their favorite school to receive donations equal to 1% of purchases made when shopping at Target or on-line. Through the School Fund Raising Program, Target has donated more than $27 million to eligible K-12 schools across the country. This donation is to be used to purchase educational materials for the school. Special Education The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandate that special education and related services are provided to all eligible students including those who are incarcerated. The Albemarle County Schools will provide compulsory special education to eligible inmates housed in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. The Virginia Department of Education will reimburse the school division for the cost associated with these services. Purchase of Laptop COmputers Re-appropriation of $24,000 from the School Board Reserve to purchase laptop computers for School Board Members. APPROPRIATION #20075 $34,315.98 Donation Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $274.78 from the Giant/Super G Bonus Bucks Program. This donation is to be used to purchase educational materials for the schools. Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant has a fund balance of $10,514.45. appropriated for FY00-01 to help cover expenditures for the grant. It is requested that these funds be Title VI Grant Title VI Grant was not fully expended in FY99-00. The grant carryover amount of $6,937.15 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY00-01. These funds will help pay for teacher salaries. Adult Basic Education Program The Adult Basic Education Program;~'which-provides. educational opportunities.to .adults and assist them in preparing for the General Equivalency Diploma exam has received additional revenue in the amount of $294.00 from book sales to their students. These funds will pay for instructional materials. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. The School Division received additional revenues in the amount of $1,664.00 in tuition fees for English as a Second Language class. These funds will be used to help pay for teacher salaries. Eisenhower Grant The Eisenhower Grant was not fully expended in FY99-00. The grant carryover amount of $3,229.60 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY00-01. These funds will be used to provide professional development activities in mathematics and reading. The Project Return II Grant services both local students and students in Nelson County. Since mileage has increased significantly for both teachers, it is requested that $7,500 be transferred from the Extended Learning Time funds to the Project Return II account so remaining expenditures can be adequately covered. In addition, State funding for Project Return II was increased by $3,902.00 from the odginal budget amount of $43,599.00 APPROPRIATION #20076 $1,260,740.85 Transfer from 2000 Tax Reserve to 2001 First-Half Real Estate Tax Revenue The FY 2001 budget was adopted in April 2000 based on a $0.76 real property tax rate for calendar year 2000. At that time, it was anticipated that the rate would generate generated an approximate $1.2 million dollars of unbudgeted revenue in FY 2000 because of the collection of taxes based on the higher than budgeted tax rate for the first half of calendar year 2000. The board directed that the unbudgeted revenue dollars be reserved in a separate account. To return the unbudgeted revenue, the first half 2001 Real Estate Tax rate was reduced to $0.72 using the $1.2 million dollar reserve to offset the reduction in real estate tax collections for the first half of 2001. The actual unbudgeted revenue generated from the 2000 first half collection was $1,190,979.38. Investment income was eamed on this revenue in the amount of $69,761.47. The actual FY2001 revenue reduction was $1,350,892.34, exceeding the unbudgeted revenue and investment earnings by $90,151.49. APPROPRIATION #20077 $413,264,10 KIMCO, INC. Land Acquisition In December 2000, the County of Albemarle purchased property from KIMCO, Inc. A portion of the purchase price of the property, $401,500.00, was in the form of a charitable contribution from KIMCO, Inc. to the County of Albemarle. The County's audit firm, Robinson Farmer Cox Associates, has reviewed this transaction and requires the County to recognize the full purchase price of the land inclusive of the charitable contribution. Expenses relating to this land acquisition, including recordation costs, survey and appraisal fees totaled $11,764.10. 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 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and consider adopting the ordinance amending Chapter 17. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kelsey AGENDA DATE: July 11,2001 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: 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: Staff recommends the adoption of the attached ordinance after holding the required public hearing. 01.139 07-03-01 P02:43 IN 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. 1%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 identi~ 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' g 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 Draft: 06/01/01 Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such board. 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 within 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, all 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. 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; ~nd 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 carrying out the land disturbing activity. (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. Dorfier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay 07-03-01 P03:37 IN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£ Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 ]une 25, 2001 Cheryl Borgman 92 Bull Pine Road Alton, VA 22920 RE: SP 2001-010 Alton Farm Market Tax Map 69, Parcel 13 Dear Ms. Borgman: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on 3une 19, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Sales shall not occur in areas labeled "no public access" in the sketch-plan packet title "Schematic of Afton Farm Property," dated 21 May 2001 and signed bY Cheryl Borgman Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on 3u1¥ :!.1, 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 at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3325. Planner SMC/blb Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Amelia McCulley Ludwig Kuttner ]ack Kelsey Plants Unlimited, Inc. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark June 20, 2001 July 11, 2001 SP 01-010 AFTON FARM MARKET SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Request for special use pen~ait to allow on-farm sales in accordance with Section 10.2,2.45 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for farm sales. The applicant, who is now leasing the property, intends to purchase the property and run a cooperative that will sell plants, foods, flowers, etc. produced on the farm, or grown elsewhere locally and prepared on this property. There is already an approved wayside stand on the property. Because ofthe variety of products eventually to be sold on the site, and the desire to make use of existing structures on the site, the applicant is requesting that the limitation to one sales structure (see 18-5.1.35 (a) & (b)) be waived, and that the arrangement shown on the attached sketch plan be approved. LOCATION AND DESCRIP.TION OF PROPERTY The property, described as Tax Map 69 Parcel 13, contains 11.51 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Route 151, approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 and Route 637. HISTORY A wayside stand on this site was administratively approved in 1985. On November 12, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a site-plan waiver for this site, allowing the applicant to build a greenhouse larger than the 600-square-foot limitation placed on wayside stands by 18- 5.1.i9 (a). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. The Open Space Plan identifies Route 151 as an Entrance Corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP 01-010 with conditions. STAFF COMMENT {Special Use Permit) Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of 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 of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The farm sales use will not be significantly different in character from the existing wayside stand use, as far as impacts on adjacent property are concerned. The sales area is surrounded by property under the same ownership. that the character of the district will.not be changed thereby, The area is largely agricultural, and this use will maintain that character. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, One purpose of the RA zoning district is "preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities." This use will provide further economic viability for farmland, and provide a sales outlet for locally-produced agricultural goods. with the u~es permitted by right in the district, This use is directly related to the agricultural activities permitted by fight in the district. with additional regulations provided in. Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, 5.1.35 FARM SALES One (1)farm sales structure may be established per farm. In addition to displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm, it may include companion items not produced on the premises, but intended to be used with the agricultural or horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. The farm sales structure shall not be established until the agricultural or horticultural produce growing area has been established and is in production. Such growing area shall be reestablished on an annual basis. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement, in order to accommodate a variety of activities (open-air sales, indoor sales, flower sales, and sales of such prepared, packaged foods' as baked goods and canned local produce). There are several existing structures on the property, but most are used for production work and/or storage. Those proposed to be open for public use are: Existing Sales Structure: This shedhke structure provides an indoor sales area. Greenhouses: Two greenhouses and a simple shade-house are intended to be open for display of plants for sale. Farmhouse: Portions of the first floor only of this existing house (essentially an entry room and a sitting room) would be open for food sales and cut-flower sales, The rest of the house, including the entire upper floor, would be for employee and volunteer use only. b. The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. Greenhouses shall not be counted as part of the 2 total retail sales area, unless one is designated as the farm sales structure. At all times, at least fifty (50) percent of ,the retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural produce only. In this case, the area of sales includes several structures. Staff recommends that the area limitation be waived, and that this permit be conditioned to require that the applicant use only those sales areas shown on the sketch plan. The applicant understands the requirements regarding products to be sold on the property. A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with section 32.4.1 shall be submitted along with, and become a part of, the special use permit application. The plan shall include the area of the farm sales structure, parking and entrance. The plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access from and to the public road adequacy of delineation of parking, and general information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site: Based on the submitted information, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site development plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site development plan would not forward the purposes of this ordtnance or otherwise serve the public interest. No such use shall be established without Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial access to the site. The sketch plan is attached (Attachment B). Staff finds that requiring a site plan would not further the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, given the scale and character of the use, and recommends that the Board waive the site-plan requirement. The staff report for the 1991 site-plan waiver states that "rt]he Virginia Department of Transportation has stated the existing entrance is adequate to serve any additional traffic which may be generated by this request." In their comments on the current application, VDOT stated that "[t]he entrance should be paved within the right of way. Otherwise, the existing entrance appears to meet minimum commercial standards." ~¢~aile the increased sales area could lead to some increased traffic on the Site, the: change from wayside stand to farm sales should not generate significant new traffic impacts. Staff finds that requiring paving of a graveled entrance that -,vas earlier found to be satisfactory would not further the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission waive that portion of 5.1.35(c) that requires commercial access approval. The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any adjoining property not under the same ownership. The farm sales structure shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary structure. The parking area shall not be located closer than ten IlO)feet to any public or private street right-of-way. 3 The structures are surrounded by property under the same ownership, and are set well back from the road. e. Farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture or other like items, shall not be offered for sale. This regulation requires no action prior to approval. f All farm sales structures shall~meet all applicable requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building. Code. (Added 10-11-95) The County Building Official has approved this proposed use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. This use is not expected to create public health or safety impacts. Traffic levels are not expected to increase Significantly over those generated by the existing wayside stand. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. This use helps to achieve the County's goals for farm protection by providing an outlet for local produce. 2. This use provides additional economic viability for an existing farm and orchard. 3. Permitting farm sales on the site of a long-established wayside stand will create fewer impacts than permitting constrUction of a new site. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The application requests waivers of the County's limitations on number of structures in use and area of sales operations. However, no new structures are to be built, and approval of this application would allow the continued use of several existing rural structures. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Planning Department recommends approval SP 01-010 with the following condition: 1. Sales shall not occur in areas labeled "no public access" in the sketch-plan packet titled "Schematic of Afton Farm Property," dated 21 May 2001 and signed by Cheryl Borgman. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Sketch Plan 4 53 / 3o / ATTACHMENT A 52 ? SP-2001-010 Alton Farm Market (Siqn #65)- / 50 50A FEET $$ WHITE HALL DISTRICT 30 SECTION 69 _ 5 ATTACHMENT B AFT'ON FAR~ ,ftARKET ~264 ~..it'ze~. Shop Pood, At=ton, VA 22~Z0 te1:540-4§6-6554 £o.x:540-4§6-8478 ~mail : at%rr~arm~cston~, r~r 21 May 2001 SCHEMATIC OF AFTON FARM PROPERTY SP-2001-010 page 1 of 6 Included: 1. Plat of entire property 2. Plat of parcel under consideration 3. Schematic of Existing Nursery layout 4. Schematic of proposed house use 5. Schematic submitted by Whitney Critzer in 1992 Thank yo/~u Cheryl Borgman Farm Manager 6 THE LUDWIG KUTTNER PROPERTY AND OF THE JOHN R. BAKER PROPERTY. THE PRESENT USE LINE IS ALpNG THE EXISTING FENCE SHOWN HEREON. 2. PARCEL Y LINE OF Tt S. L. KEY, .3. NO PREVlC IS AN AREA BETWEEN THE CENTERLINE OF STATE ROUTE 637 AND THE BOUNDARY tE FOX HORN FARM, INC. PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON AN UNRECORDED PLAT BY DATED dUNE 6, 1994. MAP 69 f ACCORDIN( TO SURVEYS OF RECORD OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. . BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. THERE IS NO INTENT OF THIS PLAT TO COMBINE EXISTING PARCELS OF LAND. JS SURVEY COULD BE FOUND TO PROPERTY SHOWN AS ALBEMARLE COUNTY TAX ARCEL II. BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ALONG THESE LINES WERE SURVEYED T.M. 69-6 (ALB. CO.) FOX HORN FARM, INC. D.B. 737L4713 (ALB. CO.) D.B. 237-258 DESC, D.B. 161-:~68 PLAT UNRECORDED PLiAT BY S. L. KEY DATED JUNE 6, 1994 -'13 (ALB. CO.) 41 (NELSON CO.) ~LLAT (ALB. CO.) T.M. 69 D.B, D.B. 161-368 IRON -~ FOUND STONE N59o 75' FOUND 665:01' 49. IRON FOUND S07°35'57"E 50.; S02°44'59"W 51.01 SI2°12'34"W 55.05' S28°59'55"W 53.39' S39°I2'41"W 78 S27°39'00"W 40.tl S02°34'31"W 4 S21°11'45"E 22.62 S39°12'36"E 32.4; S54°11'43"E 35.74 S60°36'22"E 44.52 to, ; T.M. 69- II (ALB. CO.) D.B. 1522-458 ! IRON [ SET / 294.50' 27"W {D.B. 413-594 & D.B. 416L20) ~' HIGHWAy MONUMENT T.M. 69-6 (ALB. CO.) FOX HORN FARM, INC. D.B. 737-473 (ALB. CCi D.B. 125-212 RLAT UNRECORDED PLAT BY S. L KEY DATED JUNE 6¢ 1994 S29038'39"E 80.18' 27 54 40 E 55.76' S20"17'35"E 40.95' S10°58'58"E 821.70' SI2°46'35"E 114.24' SI 39 57 E 101.57' SI1°47'34"E 22.50' . "'""'"""~ GRAVEL DRIVE ~S02°53'33"E 116.58' PARCEL Y i o.60 AC. I S06°45'22"W 175.12' ~RY LINE ACCORDING TO UNRECORDED PLAT BY S. I.. KEY, DATED )'55"W 21.86' ]JUNE 6~ 1994 '~N65°36'36"W 8,28', 'STONE FOUND S52'o42'50,,W 223.07' T,M. 69-12 (ALB. CO.) SHEILD B. & ASHTON R. CRITZER D.B, 285-436 D.B. 161-369 PLAT IRON SET S36°22'00"E 259.05' IRON ;ET S66°39, ,73.20 HIGHWAY 4 50. ~1' MONUMENT 9) 19 -_'~-. TI ,5'1'7 lis PLAT PLAT SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 93:23 ACRES THE PROPERTY OF LUDWIG KUTTNER ALSO PARCELS W, X & Y LOCATED ON STATE ROUTES 151 & 637 NEAR AFTON ALBEMARLE & NELSON COUNTIES, VIRGINIA SCALE: I" = 200' DATE: 04-24-96 FOR LUDWIG KUTTNER ROGER W, RAY & ASSOC., INC. 1717-2B ALLIED STREET ITl Z ii M 6tz b,O.9t~'$=Et " ' ,EO'~II =O ,9F'8~i~ ='~ ,~o'z6~)l =~ ,,oo,G i, i:t~ ! ,£1'6t~Z OJ NO~II £g'£6 --./ i 6G1-09'- 'i3'O NI 9NI(]~JOOO~/ 3NI-1 3,,o0,gEot~LS 0G1-£8 '13'(] NI 9NIO~JOOO't/ 3NI9 AiH~/ONFIO1 I3S NO~JI / / / - NO~II / ~661 '9 3NFIP (331~'(] \ A3>I 'q 'S AB' lt/qd (13(3~IOD3~INFI'~ I'OD NOSq3N) gSg-G£ '8'Q ('OD 'Sql/) £ ]..tz- )--£ Z. '8'C] '3NI 'I~I~R/'I gNl~l~ XOJ 3NId C]V3Q ,,gl 08'1781 snoon 13S NO~II QNCIO_-I 3did (]NFID_-I 3did: \ 0 3,,ZI,~,7. o£1N (~ Ogl-£8-"S'O NI IW!d O~1 9NICIklOO'D'~/ 3Nlq Akrt/C]NROBJ 'Ok/ Z?_'O M ,~9'001 /M,,00,97_.o ~'ZN l~-ld OZg'-Igl Z££z-ggl ~lqN'g':8 "~ N.~OP ('03 NOS-13N) t;,gl(.~ £ 'IAI'L '~gN 6g1-09 '8'a NI 1~/"1d 01j IClklOg'D'g' 3Nlq A~/CINFIOBJ 06'0 "133kl~/d 3-111/~ I = ,,I :-:I-I~C)S d'gl/~ AIINIOIA dOHS Sa3Zll~O ~-'~'5. THERE IS NO INTENT OF THIS PLAT TO COMBII I' ATTACHMENT B T.M.. 69-6 (ALB. CO.) FOX HORN FARM, INC. D.B. 7:57-473 (ALB~_CO.) D.B. 2~7--258-DES-C. D.a. 161-368 PLAT UNRECORDED PLAT BY S. L. KEY DATED JUNE 6, 1994 STONE FOUND DN ' FOUND / ~ T.M. 69-13 (ALB. CO.) ~.'~'~ T.M. 69- ,t D.R. 37~-55~. (NELSON CO.) ~,,~ D.B. ; D.B. t61-368 PLAT (ALB. C~.) , ,,, / / ,' R/W) (D.B. 413-594 & 0.8. 416-20)M( AT'~CHMENT B ATTACHMENT B - ?~e 7 ( July 6, 2001 Katurah Roell Advance Mills land Trust 195 Riverbend Drive Charlotteville, VA 22911 RE: CORRECTION SP-2001-013 Tanager Woods and SUB-2001-078 Tanager Woods Tax Map 19, Parcels 13M. 18, 19, 31 and 31C Dear Mr. Roell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 26. 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: SP-2001-013 Tanager Woods: Subdivision and subsequent development of the subject property shall be as shown on plans entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development, dated May 8. 2001. This shall include, but is not limited to, stream and lake buffering, undisturbed buffers, and building sites and road locations; The location of structures, other than accessory structures, shall be restricted to within the building sites shown on the plan entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development, dated May 8, 2001; Prior to demolition, the existing houses on Lot 7 and the preservation tract and their associated outbuildings should be fully documented in photographs (black and white, and color). A full written description of the architecture and the history of the house and property should be prepared. The description should be accompanied by a sketch of the property showing the location of the house in relation to its outbuildings and original property lines. The historical information should detail the connections between the house/property and the nearby cemetery; and Upon analysis of the historic information gathered in condition number three, staff shall designate which sites shall .have an historical marker to be placed on site, with staff's advise as to location and design. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on July 11, 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. Page 2 July 3, 2001 The Commission also took the following action: SU B-200'1-078 Tanager Woods: 1. Engineering Department review and approval of the following: a. A stream buffer mitigation plan for the driveways to lots 23 and 24. b. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. c. A Completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. d. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must incluae water quality, and detention routings for the lyr and 50yr storms. e. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. f. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. [14-512, 14-304, Policy] 2. Health Department approval of the suitability of soils for septic systems. Documented work shall be submitted in AOSE format through the county planning department for our rewew. 3. Board of Supervisors approval of the Special Use Permit (SP-01-13). If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to co ntact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Senior Planner MD/jcf Ccz Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Margaret Doherty June 26, 2001 July 18, 2001 TANAGER WOODS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT (SP-01-13 & SUB-01-78) Applicant's proposal: The applicant proposes to combine five parcels (Tax Map 19 Parcels 13M, 18, 19, 31 and 31C) into a rural preservation development of 26 lots (1 existing house lot remains on Parcel 13M, located adjacent to the cluster, 24 new clustered development lots and 1 preservation tract). The number of development lots is determined by the number of division rights associated with each parcel. A chart shoWing how the calculation is completed is provided as Attachment B. The development lots range from 2.09 acres to 21.19 acres. The preservation tract is 77.69 acres. The applicant's intent is to cluster the development lots into a smaller area close to Route 664, to reduce the amount of roads and utility extensions and preserve a large tract for agricultural and/or forestal uses. Please note that Parcel 13M is included in the proposal strictly because the owner of that parcel asked the applicant to sell him an acre, from Parcel 31, to create a buffer from the development. It has no bearing on the proposal except that it must be included in the rural preservation development pursuant to Section 10.3.3.3.c, below. Pro|ect Description: Request for special use permit and preliminary plat approval to create 25 lots on 193.63 acres, as part of a Rural Preservation Development. The property is zoned RA, Rural Area. The subject property, described as Tax Map 19 Parcels 13M, 18, 19, 31, and 31C is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the south side of Buffalo River Road [Route #664] approximately .15 miles west of the intersection of Route 664 and Route 604. Pursuant to Section 14-218.2 the commission, when acting on this matter, shall, also review and approve the preliminary plat. DISCUSSION Staff's analysis is broken into two parts: 1) Review of Section 10.3, the intent, design standards and special provisions for rural preservation developments; and 2) Review of Section 5.2, the special use permit criteria for rural preservation developments o~'more than 20 development lots. Section 10.3,3.2 Rural Preservation Development Intent and Design Standards The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation development shah be reviewed for: Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; Water supply protection; and/or c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources More specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the commission: Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Depat;tment of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service; As shown on Attachment C, prime, locally important, and unique soils are distributed across the subject property. The clustered development plan proposed by the applicant reduces the impact on these soils, the impact of which would be more widespread with conventional development. Staff finds that it is not "reasonably practical" to completely avoid these soils, and that the RPD option will significantly reduce the impacts of this development on high- quality soils. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water supply impoundments; FEMA's floodplain maps show that there is no designated 100-year floodplain on these parcels. While several of the development lots include critical slopes, the applicant has chosen building sites that avoid these .areas. However, there are no restrictions that require the applicant to use the sites shown on the plan. The indicated building sites are located to 'avoid stream buffers. Therefore, staff recommends that use of the indicated sites be a condition of the special use permit. Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel; Two historic houses have been identified on the site, one on the preservation tract and one on Lot 7. There are also two outbuildings and a cemetery on the preservation tract. The plan further identifies a headstone on Lot 15 (which is identified as a "stone marker believed to be grave of Cox infant"). The house on Lot 7 is designated for demolition.' This house has not been surveyed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, but it is in poor condition. Given the condition of the house, restoration or adaptive use appears to be expensive and unlikely. Prior to demolition, the hoUse and its associated outbuildings should be fully documented in photographs (black and white, and color). A full written description of the architecture and the history of the house and property should be prepared. The description should be accompanied by a sketch of the property showing the location of the house in relation to its outbuildings and original property lines. A copy of this information should be maintained in the County's files. The house on the preservation tract was surveyed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in 1980, although the survey records are minimal.. The original owner may have been Lee Watts and the house was likely constructed between 1880 and 1920. The house was judged to be in poor condition in 1980 and the situation has not changed. The cemetery is associated with the Watts family. The submittal materials indicate no plans for the house on the preservation tract. If plans exist, they should be clarified. Given the condition, restoration or adaptive use of this house also appears to be difficult and unlikely. If the plan is to demolish the house or to allow the house to stand as is (with gradual deterioration the result), the documentation described for the house on Lot 7 should also be completed for this house and its outbuildings and property. The historical information should detail the connections between the house/property and the nearby cemetery. Appropriate provisions should be made for the maintenance of the cemetery and the headstone. The erection of'an historical marker to commemorate the significance of these structures, the families who built them, and the surrounding area may be appropriate. Once the histories and descriptions of the properties are completed, an assessment of the need for such a marker can be determined. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots; Attachment D shows that the applicant's development plan includes one 77.69-adre parcel designated as a rural preservation tract. No portion of this tract intrudes between any development lots. ho All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the code of Albemarle. Please see note #13 on the plan, which restricts access to internal roadways within the subdivision. Noting stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural preservation development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development as set forth herein above and that the public purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development The applicant provided a schematic of a by-right (conventional) development for the commission's use in reviewing the rural preservation development. Please see sheets 5, 6, and 7 of the applicant'S submittal. Section 10.3.3.3 Special Provisions In addition to design standards as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, the following special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development: The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall be the same as may' be achievable pursuant to section 10. 3.1 'and section 10. 3.2 and .other applicable law. Each rural preservation tract shall count as one (1) lOt. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to a conservation, open space or other 'similar easement which restricts development on the parcel, the total number of lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the number available for conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed easement or easements; The total number of lots available for rural preservation development, 26, does not exceed ' the number available for conventional development. Please see Attachment B, which shows the calculation for determining compliance with this provision. There are no conservation, open space or other similar easements, which restrict development on the subject parcels. Section 10.3.3.3. a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than twenty (20) development lots; except that the board of supervisors may authorize more than twenty (20) development lots by issuance of a special use permit pursuant to section 10.5.2; The applicant hereby requests 25 development lots by special use permit pursuant to section 10.5.2. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied io the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the commission from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this proyision; provided that, in either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable; The subject property includes all parcels in their entirety as they existed on December 10, 1980: The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway 'necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres; The proposal is in compliance with this provision. Please see staff's calculations on Attachment B. Approx. imately, 70% of the development lots are smaller than 5 acres, 20% are between 6 and 10 acres, one is 12 acres and another, Lot 23, is 21.19. The orientation and size of lots 23 and 24 is the result of a compromise reached between staff and the applicant. In order to access lots 23 and 24 a driveway is extended over a dam which creates a lake on one side of it. Originally, the applicant proposed a road in this location to three development lots. Staff recommended that all the development lots be on the north side of the stream, thereby eliminating the need for the road and dam, increasing the size of the preservation tract and significantly reducing the size of lots. The applicant propOsed a compromise which eliminated one of the development lots across the stream, thereby reducing the road standard to what amounts to a shared and increasing the size of the preservation tract. Staff finds this to be an acceptable solution. No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The commission may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3. c, as the case may be; The proposal includes one preservation tract. f. No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted by the commission at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development lot. No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, the director of planning and community development shall.serve as agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement. The proposed preservation tract is 77.69 acres. A sample perpetual easement has been provided to the applicant, and the process :explained. Section 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit Section 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for: More lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment; and/or (Added 11-8-89) b. More development lots than permitted under section 10.3.3.3. b. (Added 11-8-89) The proposal includes 25 development lots, and therefore utilizes this provision The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this ordinance. With reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Forestry. relation to its United States Department of The property totalS 193.63 acres, which is well over the commonly cited minimum of 40 acres for forestal viability in Virginia. The site has a wide variety of topography, from relatively shallow slopes to steeps hillsides and stream valleys. The majority of the land is in forest cover, and the rest is in pasture. See number 2 below for details on soil productivity. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shah be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. Attachment E shows that the majority of the land in these parcels has a productivity class of II or III. Class II is generally the highest productivity class found in the County (there is very little Class ! soil in Albemarle). Again, as these soils are distributed evenly across the parcels, it is not practical to require this RPD to avoid them entirely. The clustered development plan will protect a large area of productive soils that would not be protected by conventional development. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. Parcel 31 has a small house that was occupied within the last year. About seven years ago, the property was timbered. In recent history, the property was mainly used for grazing cattle. Parcel 18 (propos. ed preservation tract) was vacated over 40 years ago. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a pi'operty shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50)percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers that detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Staff has calculated that 73 percent of the land within one mile of the border of these parcels is in an agricultural area. This meets the above, definition of"agricultural or forestal area." Locating the proposed development lots close to.Route 664, near other rural subdivisions, is compatible with existing development patterns. The preservation of 77.69 acres, next to the Agricultural/Forestal District and a farm is compatible with the agricultural and forestal area. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers, which detract from the cohesiveness of an area, shall be considered. 6 Staff's calculations show that only 8 percent of the land within one mile of the border of these properties is in developed rural areas. Therefore the area does not meet this definition of "developed rural area." The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; This site is not w/thin a one-mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) This site is not within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) This site is not within one-half mile roadway distance of a village. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. The proposed development meets the by-right provisions of the rural areas district, which is presumed as pan of the yearly update of the capital improvements programming in regards to increased provision of services. The addition of 24 new single family homes will not create an undue burden on the service providers. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (A mended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; Co Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable roa& Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. The propOsal was sent to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The recommend that a 100 foot taper lane be installed at the access to Route 664 and that development lots only have access to an internal street. The access has been secured with a note on the plan and the taper improvement is listed as a condition of approval recommended by staff. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or parti'ally within the boundaries for the water shed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: This site is within the boundaries for the Chris Green Lake water shed. There are two streams running through the subject property, which feed the reservoir. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; The majority of the site is in forest cover, which has the lowest rate of runoff. Approximately one quarter of the site is in pasture, which has somewhat higher runoff rates, depending on slope and soil type. The proposed development will create an acceptable amount of runoff, as it will be much less than conventional development. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to delineate several areas of undisturbed buffer, as folloWs: 1) For 100 feet, along the eastern border of the property where it abuts the Agricultural/Forestal District; 2) For 100 feet from the waterline of the lake; 3) For 100 feet on either side of the stream which runs along the rear of Lots 6-10; 4) From the stream buffer, for the remainder of the parcel, on lots 7, 8, and 9; and 5) For 100 feet along the eastern property line of Lot 23. Please see Attachment D. These buffers are in excess of what is normally required. bo The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; The applicant has calculated that 2:4 acres will be removed or disturbed for roads, and 3.3 acres for the lake and dam. An additional 2.75 acres will be disturbed for construction of the homes. The applicant also states, see Attachment F, that 58% of the property will be protected 'in the preservation tract, stream buffer area, and the undisturbed buffer adjacent the Agficultural/Forestal District. Staff has worked with the applicant to create the additional buffer areas described in a., above, which reduces the disturbance to an acceptable level. c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; The applicant has proposed 1.48 acres of paved cover. The total impervious cover will include the footprint of the 24 proposed houses (25 if one is built on the preservation tract) and any paved driveways or parking areas. For example, if each house had a total of 2,500 square feet of footprint and driveway, the total impervious cover would.be 2.86 acres. This is an acceptably low amount of impervious cover, and considerably lower amount than would be the result of conventional development. The proximity of any paved' (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; One stream crossing is proposed to be upgraded. Otherwise, all structures ~nd drainfields will be required to stay out of the 100-foot stream buffers required by Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code. Additionally, the applicant has proposed an undisturbed buffer on the steep slope' above the stream that flows through the development. A stream buffer mitigation plan will also be required with the final plat for the driveways to lots 23 and 24. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; Attachment B shows that most soils on these parcels are rated "moderate" for septic- field limitations. Those soils with severe limitations are located either along streams (where development cannot occur) or elsewhere on the preservation tract. The majority of the land is rated "slight" for erodibility. The only exceptions are along the creek south of the development lots, and in one area on the preservation tract. (See Attachment B.) The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; Given the large area of this project, a variety of slopes are involved; calculating the length and Percentage of all these slopes is not practical. Critical slopes have been crosshatched on the preliminary plat. Staff finds that the applicant has made a strong effort to keep construction areas away from critical slopes. The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; Construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2001 and homebuilding should be completed by the end of 2003. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; The applicant has cut an area of approximately 500 by 50 feet "for surveying and preliminary site studies." Portions of the land for the main subdivision road have been marked and cleared. This involved clearing trees near the entrance' and along the route to lots 12-22. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require'periodic inspection and/or maintenance; Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred-year or more intense storm. After consulting with the Water Resources Manager, staff finds that the requirements of Chapter 17 can be met without devices as described above. However, the pond 9 shown on the plan (which is not required for runoff control) will require inspection and maintenance to prevent failure and to deal with siltation. Section 3-202 Agricultural/Forestal Districts Consideration qf district in taking certain actions. The county shall consider the existence ora district and the purposes of this chapter and Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia in its comprehensive plan, ordinances, land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to the district. The proposed development is adjacent to TMP 19-25, which is included in the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District. Please see the results of that meeting as Attachment G. Staff believes these concerns are satisfied with the conditions of approval as proposed and existing erosion/sediment control ordinances. However, we will confer with the Engineering Department staff and report back to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds the special use permit Proposal in compliance with the provisions of section 10.3, the intent, design standards and special provisions for rural preservation developments, and the provisions of section 5.2, the special use permit criteria for rural preservation developments of more than 20 development lots. With the conditions of approval as listed below, staff recornniends approval of Special Use Permit #SP-01-13, Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development. Recommended conditions of approval of SP-01-13: Subdivision and subsequent development e f the subject property shall be as shown on plans entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development, dated May 8, 2001. This shall inclUde, but is not limited to, stream and lake buffering, undisturbed buffers, and building sites and road locations. ' The location of structures, other than accessory structures, shall be restricted to within the building sites shown on the plan entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Tanager Woods Rural PreservatiOn Development, dated May 8, 2001. Prior to demolition, the existing houses on Lot 7 and the preservation tract and their associated outbuildings shoUld be fully documented in photographs (black and white, and color). A full written description of the architecture and the history of the house and property should be prepared. The description should be accompanied by a sketch of the property showing the location of the house in relation to its outbuildings and original property lines. The historical information should detail the connections between the house/property and the nearby cemetery, Upon review of this material, staff shall determine appropriate provisions for the maintenance of the cemetery and the headstone. 10 Staff finds the preliminary plat proposal in compliance with the provisions of Section 14.. Staff recommends approval of SUB,01-78, with the following conditions: Recommended conditions of approval of SUB-01-78: 1. Engineering Department review and approvai of the following: A stream buffer mitigation plan for the driveways to lots 23 and 24. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. A .stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. [14-512, 14-304, Policy] Health Department approval of the suitability of soils for septic systems. Documented .work shall be submitted in AOSE format through the county planning department for our review. 3. Board of Supervisors approval of the Special Use Permit (SP-01-13). A revised plat to 'include the Special Use Permit number and all Board of Supervisor conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Tax Map and Parcel Sheet Attachment B: Calculation for Rural Preservation Development Attachment C: Soils Map Attachment D: Applicant's Proposal Attachment E: Soils Productivity Class Map Attachment F: Applicant's letter regarding land disturbance Attachment G: Results of Agricultural/Forestal District Committee Meeting 11 lO \ ./ 664 12A ATTACHMENT A JO'eD $2A ' ~-" "- s~E 2o- 6~ 2g o "/,'/ 29C ZO ~.~I~.~,GRECjLTURAL & FORESTAL D!S?rlICT SUB-01-78 Tana er Woods // '--...~ WHITE HALL z7m SECTION 19 ~-~ 12 ATTACHMENT B Calculation for Minimum and Maximum acreages and number of lots in Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development Start with the total number of development rights. This number may be obtained from the Department of Planning and Com'muni~ Development. Take the total number of development rights and multiply by 2. This equals the minimum development ri~t acreage. Take the total acreage of the parcel proposed for division and subtract the minimum development right acreage. This equals the acreage available for 21 acre parcels. Take the acreage available for 21 acre parcels'and divide by 21. This equals the number of 21 acre parcels permitted. Add the number of development rights (from step one) and the number of 21 acre parcels (from step 4). This equals the maximum number of lots that can be created from an existing parcel. Repeat steps t throu~ 5 for each parent parcel separately and calculate the maximum number of lots that can be created. Take the maximum number of parcels (from step 6) and subtract the number of preservation tracts proposed. (The minimum number of preservation tracts is one.) This will determine the maximum number of deve[opment lots. Take the maxLmum number of'development lots and multiply bv 6. This equals the maximum acreage that ma,,' oe devoted to development lots and roads. Take the total acreage and subtract the maximum acreage that mav be devoted to development lots and roads. This determines' the minimum area in the preservation tract(s). Minimum acreage for any preservation tract is 40 acres. For purposes of this exercise drop all numbers after decimal points and do not round numbers. STEPS 1. Total div. rights 2. Min. div. right ac. 3. Ac. for 21 ac. parcels 4, Ct of 21 ac. Parcels 5. Maximum # of lots 6, Same as 5 7, Max. Ct of Devpt. Eot.~ 8. Max. ac. for lots and:roads 9.. Min. ac. for preserv, tract. PARCELS 13m 18 19 31 31c 1 5 5 5 5 2 10 10 10 10 1:48 10.95 61..95 78.15 2.58 0 0 2 3 0 1 5 7 8 5 1 5 7 8 5 Tanager Woods 25 25 150 115.94 43.63 77.69 13 27~' 56B' ATTACHMENT C U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 9~ lq- ]¢//~/3(~,7/c .36C 005 ooo FEE- 5~ ~c · _ County of Albemar' -:. Department of Buildir -'-Code and ATTACHMENT D I -'- :- - -. -APPlication forSpecial Use Permit l~ject Name (how s~ould we. mf~r to 1bls application?) Existing. Use - *Zoning District (*staff will assist you with these items) -" : ,-- . ! -~ ,, 7-:" Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? Proposed Use *Zoning Ordinance Section number requited' Cl Yes[~o Ill'esi2 No Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): Address /qY /~[,.,e r~.-d ~r City I Daytime Phone ( ) ~ ~ 3 ~ 5' ~77 Fax # (z..~,jfl~ State //~ Zip '~ 2'::)I] l 7_~'~£- ?y/© E-mail I Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): Aaq.~o- ~;l~-f' /.aar'~/ T(~)-~ ]~ Address [q5 ~i~,r(~.e.,~ [O r ~ City ~/-~,,'.[l~ State~ Zip 2-2'7/] [DaytimePhone( ) '~-~?l~/ Fax# ~,~25)° E-mail Applicant (who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting the special use?): Address Jq5 /~iw_cts~ ~r, City ~-~,;1t¢ State~/~ ZipZg?tt Daytime Phone ( ) ~-~[~l Fax~ ~g-3ff~O - E-mail Tax map and parcel Physical Address (if assigned) Location of property (landmarks. intersecuons, or other) !Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? those tax map and pareel number['a iq. - 3 ~ .) ¥O .fi "~O -6A If yes, piease list History: Special Use Permits: Variances: ~ ZMAs and Proffers: .ID Letter of Auihorization Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? CI Yes CI No 40! Mclntire Road -:' Charlottesville. VA 22902 -;' Voice: 296-5832 '~' Fax: 972-4126 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue' al1 special use permits permitted hereunder., Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial .d..e.thment to adj~i~'n't Propert~;;'tl:i~t:tli~ ~haracter of the 'district will .not be changed thereby and that Such use will be in harmony wid~ d~c purpose and intent of this · ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in'the district, with additioi/al regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and g~ri~i:~ 'W~Ifar6.~:' ~: '- ' . ~'"':~J'f ~":~1 ~ ' '\ . '" .... .~. :. - -..~ - -.. - ~.~.,. The items which ~foll°w will be reviewed by.' the 'at~f iff ,their.analysis.of ye/lit'request.' Piease c0mpldte this form and'proi;ide additional information which win"~i~i~a cbUnty in irs reVieW If you need assistance filling out these items, Staff is aVa]iable. · .... '"" '~' "-'"';::" What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? ~ ~ ~ How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? ~, ~,r'2~F'o~ ~ HOW will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? / How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in th~ district? [ 1 What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?. 'l¥.o,'t t eL,-,,<* Describe your ..reques~ !n det and include all pertinent information .h as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operatia~,' h.o. urs, and any unique feiltiires'0~= the use: Tt~t, ~ " . ' · ~2 y p p y quesrea mr the rezonin=. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership !nformation - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the nm'ne of a corporation, partnership .or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted :.ertifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scose of the agency. OPTION,aX., ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my ~nowled~e. . , -Signature Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signato~ SH£ET ,2 OF 2 R - 295.8d' R - 252. 16' R ~ 860.~0' ~.~A C ~ 00,06' C - 66. ;4' C ~ 366.52" c-BRO - s 61'25'14' E c-oHO - S 76'31'51" E C-OR~ - S 71'45"~ E '~ '~, tax Mop Porcel: 19 - DEED ~D PROPER~ INFOR~IION Plot' OB 99 PG ~98, Potion ot Lo~ 3 c~. Ea~*~m~nt~. R~MdcUon~: IRS DB 303 PG 564, ~SPCO ~ ~ :IN ooJSJb'GPfiS, voTM~1~I ~ ~'' .; DB 758 PC 276, Commonwealth Or /OF~ ~o~ NOTE' UT/tITlES oTHER T,~N ltl05e CHESTNUT GROVE SO ~'~' ' PLANTED ??fl. 08' STONE IRF IRS ~ fOUND S 58'59'29" I N 59'0J"J4' w DAVID C. BLANKEN}~AKER INCORPORATED ~49 PAS'rURE ~E, ~AIII)SVII~. VA PLAT SHOWING Bt ARY SURVEY TRACTS 1 & 2 MARY FRANCES SttlFFLETT ESTATE STATE ROUTE 664 RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUGUST 27, 1997 /OF LEGEND., IPF ............... Iron P~e Found /O5 .......... Iron 4~od IRF .............. Iron Rod Found O lO0 200 40o SC,-~LE IN FEET PLANTED STONE -- 14y2.60" FOUN / ~ '~.~ [ . parcel A' ~ th'It 77' AR~ OF PObSIBLE C~IM BY ODtER5 A~ D~ERMINCD BY P~r or N 58'57'44' W162&25" - S RECORD ~D ~IDENCff FOUND [ 1J. 48' AXLE S ZONE fOUND ~LED FOR NOT FOUND sbo~n an Flood Rat, Inuu ~taps by U. $. Dapt. o! Nou$in9 and Urban Dawlopmont i~i$ ~u~ ho~ bw~n pr~ ~r Wdbw~ ShEflwtt ond ~l~on MornS. Co-fx~utor~, ~ Franc~ Shfffl~tt NOIE: U[ILITI~'S O~H~R TI~N TrIOdE StlOWN ~O ~Sl~ ~Y EXIS~ ~'~ FOUND Il ~ O~ o- . CORNER IRS ON LINE NOS'I2'OO'E ~ ,10.,1: 2fl. OO'~ENC~POSr 14 I. I O' icl P~d IR~ ,~ CORNER N IE42'OI' E I AXLE ?OUND IRS~ IRS '08'~ I ~S LEGEND: lpg. .......... Iron Pipe found IRS ............ Iron Rod Set IRF ............ Iron Rod Found 0 100 200 .,~00 Tel Ped....Telwphone PodeMcd PP ............ Power Pole ..... Fence SCALE IN FEET Tax Map Parco/s: 19- I~, OB 239 PG 042, 19 OB 272 PG 4~7, 19 - 31C · 19 - Plot: O~ 99 PG 39~, Po~,~n of Lot 3 ~1 ~ Easements, R~tHctioas' DB JoJ PO 554. ~PCO IN~ ~/ '~ ~o,, DB 372 PC 245. ~PCO NN I099.84" 20' ~LE Lo~ 3 / / --~ ~ Tax ~ap Purcats: 19 - 19 Tox,opParca/,:,9-,~ ~' DEEO Ownwm: ~a~ Fmnc~s 5hiffl~tt H*irs By dohr (NOT INCLUDED IN 71.671 AC) ~ -~ DB 208 PO g2 ~ ~,, PO 2,~ / COURSES "A' - "E U ~6'~995' I¢240.00' U 45'59'~5" iii 9.58' W 2~'44'J5" W Ii. 40' P~T SHOWING BOUNDARY SURV~ LOTS 5 ~ 4 ~Y FR~CES SHIFF~ HEIRS ~P ESTATE ~ ~ATE KOU~ 665 ?~ mF ~ RIV~ MAGI~ER~ DISTRICT , ALBE~LE COUNW, VIROIN~ ' ~ ~5~5 ~ INCORPO~TED . sroneFOU~o ~ / ?8 ~ STnrrT ';*-? ..... (~o4) 985 ~oo PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR TANAGER WOODS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT TM 19 PARCELS 18, 19, 31, 31C DB 1989 PAGE 151 RIVANNA DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SITE DATA DEVELOPER: HURT NVESTMENT COMPANY P.O, BOX 814-7 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 ATTN.: KATURAH ROELL ZONING: RA - RUR~= AREA DISTRICT MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: WHITEHALL SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: RtVANNA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: AERIAL SURVEY BY LOUISA AIR SURVEYS PAVING SPECIFICATIONS: ROADWAYS: 8" - #21A AGGREGATE BASE MATERIA= 2" - SM 9.5A SURFACE MATERIAL CURRENT USE: VACANT PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS: 26 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: 0.13 LAND USE SCHEDULE: PRE-DEVELOPMENT Y. POST-DEVELOPMENT PAVED: 0 AC 0 t.48 AC OPEN: 195.65 AC 100 192.15 AC TOTAL: 195.65 AC 100 195.65 AC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL ACREAGE RIGHTS TM 19-13M 2.48 AC 1 TM 19-18 20,95 AC 5 TM 19-19 71.70 AC 5+2 (21 AC) TM 19-31 88.15 AC 5+5 (21 AC) TM 19-51C 12.58 AC 5 TOTAL 195.86 AC 26 AREA OF PROPOSED LOTS 114.88 AC AREA OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 2.89 AC AREA OF RURAL PRESERVA~ON TRACT 78,09 AC TOTAL AREA 195.86 AC GENERAL NOTES CURVE TABLE The cna regulotions isted/described herein are imposed pursuont [o No RAO rAN ARS DELTA CHORD 2ss. ed' 4,.,~5' 8,?r vmo" 8.71' the Albemane County Zonin ] Ordinance in effect-this dote, and are cC~ z52,18' `]).~e' 66.~' 15'04'17" 88.14.' Date Date I 663 ~, 604 664--~ '~.,/6 665~~-74'3 Eortysvill e"~ 74.3 % 99 lO0 not restrictive covenants running with the land one their dppeorence on this plat is not intendeo to impose them os such. 1. Source of title: TMP 19-18 Advonced Mills Lend Trtst II DB 1989-15' TMP 19-19 Advanced Mills Lend Trust II DB 1989-151 TMP 19-51 Advonced Mills Land Trust Il DB 1989-151 TMP 19-51C Advancee Mills Lamd Trust II DB 1989-151 2. These oorcels ore net in o flood ploin. 5. These porcels ore in o ~eter supply protection oreo. 4. These parcels ore zoned RA. 5. There ore no Development Rights remaining with Tract A. 6. All oroeer~y corners ore monumentea with iron rods unless noted otherwise. 7. The minimum building setbacks Der Albemnrle County Subdivision Ordinonce ore: 75' from external public rood easements. 25' from internal oublic/private roods, 25' from side properb, lines, and 55' from rear property line. 8. The seetic setbock is 100' from eli s~redms, 9, This lot end the residue ocredge each have e Building Site 'n accordance with Section 4.2.1 of the Al§e'merle County Subdivision Ordinonce. Building sites for eoch lot are'shown on me :lot. I0. Only one dwelling unit ~er parcel, 11. Tonager Woods Drive and Tanager Woods Court shall De public FOQQS, 12, PHvote reads ~o lots 5, 17, 23 end 24 shall orovide reosonome eccessDy motor vehicle os required by Section 14-514 of the Abemane County Subdivision Ordinance. 1,3, Access to oil lots shell be from bterne roadways one none she have access from Route 664 CH.SEARIN~ S76'59'19"E C5 860.50' 45.82' 9L55'8'05'46" §/,SfSSY'28'35"E C4 860.50' 140,12' 277.80' 18'29'48' 278.59' ssg'I0'48"E C5 50.00'48.52' 77,04' 8816'35' 69.84' S12'00'27"E CB 50.00'4.1.31 69.13' 7912'48" 6~ 75' NZl'4.4'15"E 07 50.00'50.07' 78.61' S0'04'44" 70.76' S~7"10'~ 2"W C8 245.00' 58.1¢114.12' 26'4f16" 113.09' N71~8'O3"W C9 245.00' 8t.72' 157,76' 36"33'38" 155.05' S7104'29'W cio 24SOO'100.08' 19o.02' 44'26'15' I85.2s' S36'24'`]3"W ¢1 245.00' 75.87' t47.15' 3¢'24'42' 144.95' SO`]'00'56"E O12 25.CO'S.58'15.~0' 41'56'30' 17.89' S00'44'58"W C15 80.00'22. 72' 42.65' 48'52'54" 41 51S02'45'05"[ C14 50.~0'181 79' 711.42' 127'40 38' 89.76' NBg"O0'tg"E 615 50.00'58.52' 86,37' 98'58'28' 76.03' N2499'13"W C16 25.0Q'15.58' 24.89' 57'02'08' 2,].87' N45'lT25"W C77 195.00' 52].`]0' 47,~.01' I38'5S'5'~-' 365,28' N52'41'OS"E C18 50.00'46,28' 74..68' 85'`]4'35" 67,g5' S15'~0'08"E C19 475.00' 17.86' 3569'4.'1S'20" ,~5,89' S29'SS'40"W C20 475.O0' ' 0. OO' 0.00'0'0~'00" 0.00'Ngo'00'0D"E C21 475.O0' 950 '183,69' 22'~9'27" 182.55' S21'54'I7"E C22 25.00'TL18'2L0Y 48'11'2`]' 20.41' S5104'42"E 625 50,00'3L95'56,85' 65'08'58" 53.84' S48'35'55'E C24 50,00'38.25' 62.7`]' 71"52'58' 58.70' S19'55'0*2"W C26 50,GO' 37,99' ~4.97' 74'2109' 60.50' N22'01'13"W C27 25.00' H.18'21.0Y48'11'25" 20,41' NQS*53'lS'W C28525.00' ~3,65' 67.21'120'06"67.18' N29"lS'58"W C29525.00' g,~.52' 185.08' 20'12'00' 184.14-' N15'32'55"W DRAWING INDEX ! of 7 COVER SHEET of 7 RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION PLAN of 7 RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION PLAN ~ of 7 RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION PLAN 5 of 7 BY-RIGHT SUBDIVISION PLAN 6 of 7 BY-RIGHT SUBDIVISION PLAN 7 of 7 BY-R GHT SUBDIVISION PLAN LEGEND Power Pole 500 Existing Elevetbn/Contour Slopes Greeter Than 25% [500] Prooosed Elevotion/rCon(our APPROVALS Atbem(:rle County Planning Commision Designated Agent for Albemarle County Board of Supervisors OWNERS APPROVAL The division of the land descrined is with the free consent of and ir accoraance with the desires of the undersigned owner, trustees, or probietors. Any reference to future potential developmem is to be deemed as theoretical on y. All statements affixed to this clot are true and correct to the best of my know~edge, ADVANCED MILLS LAND TRUST P.O. BOX 8147 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 STATEMENT OF TITLE The rand shown Nas obtained ey Advance Mills LAnd Trust as recorded tn Deec Book ~989 Page 15 aha to the best of my ~nowledge meets all the requirements regarding the D/attic] of subdivisions. tVICINJofY MAP SCALE To wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged oefore me this .... day of __ · Chestnut Grove Subdivision DB 604-263 Zoned: RA ] TM /Alan T, Use: RFsidential ~ DB 172 I- ~ 84 Zoned: P~l Chestnut Crove Subdivision DB 604-263 Zoned: P~ Use: Residential ~.~4l Aa. / L~ / '2,,' / Chestnut Stove ~ ~.._~... ~:.~ ~ Subdiv~n Section 2 Lot 9 Use: Re~denh~ / I~ x'-x ,..'~- / Zmed: ~ ' ' N~'x' ,-' Chestnut Crove Subdw~on Sect~ 2 Lot 11 DB 604-263 gone& ~ ~60'[4'02'E452.39' / / N FRAYS MOUNTAIN ROAD (ST. ROUTE 664) (50' R~gnt of Wo)*~ D~ 758-276) / · i ,ffOT t6 .' i /2:~69 Ac 'J ~0T'22 t 3.674' Ac 500 Srqht Oistonce 120O' TO Fit 663 '//,. ,yh LOT 11 '"~. 2.8~ 'A'e,:./ LOT I .'tOT. 9 6.970 AC pP~IIINId~Y SUBDM$10N PLMt$ FOR TANAGER FOODS RU~L ~RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT RU~L PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION PLAN SYRgT 2 OF ? ~Tg: ~CH 21, 2001 ~V: ~g 9. 200f ~V~NA ~NGIN~RRIN~ · SUR~NC, PLO P.O. B~ 780~, C~S~ VA 22906 p: 80~.58~.8395 F: 8~,984.8883 \ TMP 19-31E Filbert N, & Shirley P. Shifftett DB 693-320 DB 693-322, Plat Zoned: RA ~.Use: Residential ~ TMP 19-318 Michael Filli~ms DB 611-065 DB 637-446, Plat, Zoned: PA Use: Residentio2 LOT,8 6:970, Ac ~"' TMP 19-31D / _.."~- Feltman N.& N. Madeline . iF[ DB 676-030 ~r. I, . -" OB 676-032, Pla~ ,~( ~ I .-" Zoned: ~ Use: / b ~ I~ / '~/ ·., 19-25 J. Huckle DB 772-367 DH 304-076. Plat Zoned: PA Use: Residential District __ FOUND 21 , ~::.' .... ~ j,: , '.~. .- ---'~..~,,.'. .- ,. .'...~ ~' ~c,~,N,s,,,~.~,t'.'-.~,,':.. ':".:.*~'. ' ..~:.. , : ..~5 ,..>:.::.~. :':"'..'~:4.¢.: ..... .,~ ..~..,::/ / ~ z / / ~ ~ .~ ,~, ~ - z,~. , . ~.. -~ . ~ · ~ . -~ ... ., ~ N ,..(~...: ........ ~-~ t ' ~, -- ,' - :, , ~ ~'~-:~:'~">~ '- · -. -,' --< ",~ / -.--= ' .- ~..' ~ :v ,, · ~~ ~?~ .... --. __, .......... · , ---- . ....... .- , . ~ .. . I · '~ ~ ' / / ' .... ,' : · / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .. ~ . / , . . , , · ~ · .% ..~ ., ... .. .... -: ..... ~ ..... ~l .i I ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ '.... ",, , '~ )f ~ ' '- ~ ~ ~ .,:.' .' / ' ....... · ....e, - ' ..:~-:::. ..... -~< · .~ ..... , - ~ ..... / , ~ / ~ ~' ' ~ ' ' '" ~ ' ~ ' / / ~ ~ '~ ::" ..... ~ ~ % , ~-1/ i , ' L~~',~ .... .,' .~,'- ~ . ( ~.~'~ ', ~,~' , . .' ..... . ,' /,/-. - ':~ ........ .,-,.: - ' '-~ "' L . '--' ' ' .-- ' " ~.'" '- ' ~:') ' ' %%'. .:.. -~-%___ ~"-' Z¢~y~- ~ .... , ... '1~~ I ~ ~¢~-~ / . % ~. ·~ ' '""~,:' .... ~ ~~~%~~~~.~ , / ' , ~ ~ t DB 304-074 Plat I ~ J ~ J / j~a"~or210 - . -; ' · -~;' . ~ ~'.. ' ~ ~ ' ~ .. ' . . ~ ~ ::5:~Z'-'.c:~' .7-.:u, ~. ~<~. ..<~ ,.. ..'., >,7 ¢...- / ''~- ....... ~ '--.. ~ ''. / ,' .~:. x - ~. '' , ~,- ..... , ..... . · ~ . ~. . , .N , ,, . ..... ...~----- . %,.",% ~ - ' x · ' g , .', 'N '~;~]" ....... /// ~ N ~ / .':' .: -..,.. .... ..... . ,.- , - ,.,~.~,.,.:;)x: .., .~:..~':?.' . ' '.. . " '~d ......... ~ .. "' ;'" :t ' · ' '~"~' ~ ' "~":7~%')' '?' ;" ' ' '"' ' ---~ ' ~ "' ~ ~ ' ~''% ~o~s; ' :.',:'~". ' ¥/~ ~ --.. "" ~ .- "~.'. ':'.:. _% %~ ~ ":~1 K~ ~ : 2 1 T~ioal Pa,lng See[ion - Public ~/ ~~~' ~ r~::"::' ...~-' '-. ~ -"z; / . '' · '- ' ~.' ~ ~I-~, '. t) · ~ "'- '' ¢ ' ' · ' ' ' ~" %""~-~ ' ~~,./:(. - .~ .... .-_, .,. ....... ._~_% .... ._., . /., ~ >,::; .:.' ,. b:.-::._....-. . ........ >__..: .... -..,.~. . ~ , ~ ' ~ '. ~ ", · ' · - '"-,. ........ :~- -.'-' ........ . .,x''.,) ,'. ~. · ~ " ~ ' ' [ '-,x .- ~:.~..~ _ · -.X . - ~....N~-.. gm . . x ~.~ . , ,.x -- · - ~ -, ,. · ~ - - ......... ~.~... -~ ~ . T~P I~-24 · · * . x'',,,:~...> ' . '.'~_~ ' - .:" '. ' ' ~ '~'.. '. ...... .~'-.'-.~'..~' ' ' · , ~ · } ~ x .-.:.~...~ .... "- .... ~ '. '. ,', ,: ~ ~ -' -- .x .... '.,.'~t. ~.. '. Km*t ~. Roberts . ' ', ~ , "' ~ ,' ' ~'',-,',%'. - .- / - % ," . . ~_:~- ..-- ....... -.. ~'-,N(t, un ~o-¢ee · ' ,N ."" , ', . ~ .... .".~L' ". / '- ~ ~ , -- ' '- .......... '-'4%' .; ' · . , ,.,. , , · ~.. ~ · ..,,- -~.,- , · . ~ . ~..- . ..... -.. · .... ~ ,~ DB 69:229 P[~ ' -~ ' "X', ".', ¥' '.",~3 '- '-.' ~;'-."'" / --- ~,'!," '~:_':.-..LL:::-': .~."."'t'"~;¥ Zo~e~: ~ ~'~'~ ~t '" ' ~""" C' '.. · ., ' -'. '¢(' ~--' '__:." ~::-' . ..... ", ~' ',~¢~,, , · . -'"'~'~ , . .,',.".~'.~% · ' "' : J .'-k' .... "--'..-...-': ....... ' '. /;~ i "%~'~ ~ , ', ~''' '- - "---" ~ ' ~ ' ........ .'-- - ......... /:/~/~' ! · 22 25' Strip ^l~g '~ TMP 19-18A Ol~e 3c Mar~ L. Morris DB 342-329 DB 339-342-344 Plat DB 385-362 Desc. ' Use: Resid~t~ \ Shifflett, Lawson DB 420-192, 194 Plat Use: Re~t~J ?RELIJlI~tJRY SUBDIFI$ION PL4N$ FOR TANAGER ~OODS RU~L PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT RU~L PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION $XSE~ 4 OF 7 ~E: ~RCH ~f, 2001 ~ ~Y 9, 2001 P.O. ~OX 7803, ¢~O~g. FA 22908 p: ~04.58g.8395 P: ~04.984.8863 100 0 100 TMP 19-12A Olhe ~ Ma~ L. Morr~s DB 342-329 DB 339-342-344 Pla~ DB 385-362 Desc. Zoned: RA Use: Residential TMP 19-20C Vada M. Roberts DB 651-60-62, P[at DB 410-95. Plat Zone& [/se: Residential I ""-.. I ~4TCltLIN£ $i'U~T 2 i/ .. [I l! \ / t - · . c.,-:=.':. :." .r // r'-,,,., TMV - 19 20B K~it g. & Rober~s'~ DB 871-474 DB 3~9-147 319-148, P~at Zone& Use: TMP 19-24 Kermit E. Roberts DB 650-560 DB 276-344 DB 69-729, Plat Zoned: &4 Use: Agricultural 23 A~ N~ Fw~r,4 DB 604-263 Zoned: RA ] TM Use: Residential ~1I Alan T. Zoned`' P~ · ~ Use: Chestnut Grove "~'-._1 FRAYS MOUNTAIN ROAD ($~ 8OUT~ 664) (rio' Right of ~ygy, 08 758-276) Subdivision DB 604-263 Zone& t~ Use: Residential 77,39' S'# / Chestnut Er~ve Subdi~s~ Section 2 Lot DB 604-263 Zoned; RA Use: Res~ent~z~ Chestnut Crave Subdivision Section 2 Lot lO DB 604- 263 Zoned: RA Chestnut Grove S~bdivis~on Use: Re~dent~al Sectien 2 Lot 11 ~ DB 604-263 Us: Re~den~al .... 22 ,,',' . . / /, ,,/ 7 ..."'?'L 19-31 MATC. SrI~NE SHEET 6 PR~I~¥INM~T SEBMVlSION PLCq$ FOR TANAGER FOODS RU~L PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT BY-RI6HT SUBDIVISION SHEET ~ OF ? DATg: ~CE 21. 200t RgE ~y 9. 200t ~ANNA ENCINEgRING a SUR~NC, P.O. BOX 7~03, C~O~E~, VA 2290~ P: ao4.589.a395 F: NOTS; ?ot~ lengt~ of ~¢~ in i~l-Rt~ht Subdi~m~ ~ 0,500, TMP 19-31E Filbert N. · Shirley P Shifflett DB 693-320 DB 693-322, Pl¢t Zoned: RA _~. Use: Residential ' - Fellman N.& N. Madeline DB 676-030 DB 676-032, Pla~ Zone& ~ Use: Re~dent~.-'/ TMP 19-31B Michael Filliams DB 61 !-065 DB 637-446, Plat, Zone& RA Use: Residential By-Right Subcliv~on of Parcel 31 Lot Area ~ 22.30 2 23.05 8 5.67 21 3.52 22 28.68 23 2.01 24 2.OO 25 2.12 x 1.oo Total 88.15 -..~ TMP 19-25 John Z Huckle - 'DB 772-367 DB 304-076, Plat ~ Zoned.. PA Use: Residential District v FOUND 24 TANAGER ~OOVS RU~L PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT gH~T 8 OF ~ DA?~: ~X ~t~ 2001 ~K' ~AY g, 200~ ~NA ~NGINEE~NG · ~UR~NG PLC _) 25 TMP 19-18A Ollie & Mary £. Morris DB 342-3£9 DB 339-342-344 Plat DB 385-362 Desc. Use: 17 16 ' z. 77 A~qS & Zelia ' Shifflett, Lawson DB 420-192, 194 Plat a.99' ~ Zone& RA Use: Residential By-Right By-Right Subdivision Subdiv~ion of Parcel 18 of Parcel ~9 PRgIdMINXRY SUBDIIq$10N PIAEE FOR Lot ATe~ Lot Area r~ ~ ~s e~cr~ ~s. ~s. · s~. ~ s~c 15 5.81 9 24.92 T~ACER FOODS RU~L PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~6 2.77 I0 6.25 17 6.~4 11 ~,27 BY-RICHT SUBDIVISION p~y 18 3.30 12 2,76 sar~t ~ or ~ ~r: ~ca z~. 2oot ~- ~r ~. ~oot 19 2.75 13 2.60 P: ~o,.~as.ss~ ~: eo*.~e~.sa~3 20 27.14 t~-sz~ Total 71,70 Totat 20.95 TMP 19-12A Ollie & Mary £, Morris DB 342-329 DB 339-342-344 Plat DB 385-362 Desc. Zoned: RA Use: Residential TM~ 19-20C Vada M. Roberts DB 651-60-62, Plat DB 410-95. Plat Zoned: RA Use: Residential TMP 19-20d Kermit E. & Roberts'.. DB 871-474 DB 319-147 DB 319-148, Plat Zoned: RA 3.27 Acres .¸.9 TMP 19-24 Kermit E. Roberts DB 650-560 DB 276-34~t DB 69-7.29, Plat Zone& RA Use: Agricultural 26 ATTACHMENT E C. W. HURT CONTRACTORS. L.L.C. ~OST O~C~ SOX S~4* C~ma3TrESVILL~, Vit~nxat~ 22906 AREA CODE 804 TELEPHONE 9798181 FAX 296-3510 Scott Clark Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Rd., Room 213 Charlottesville, Va. 229024596 June 14, 2001 RE: Tanager Woods RPD Dear Mr. Clark: In response to the Memo dated May 24, 2001, I hope these responses are sufficient, if you need further explanation please let me know as soon as possible~ · Enclosed with this letter is a layout showing the disturbed areas, this area is defined by. the fifty-foot rip, bt-of-Way for the proposed road and the area of the future_ lake. k~ is a lxt~ximately 3.2 acres and we have obtained a permit from The area of the la P~- ~ --. .o,~ imnaundment Less than half of the ' " for mis w,,,,~t .... er- · , the Army Corps of Engineers .... .- :-~., .-~otUre proposed road is in wooded areas and me omance is upC- v'-' ' · 2.4 acres will be disturbed within the right-of-way and 3.3 acres will be disturbed wkhin the lake and the dam. An average of 5000 square feet Will be disturbed during the construction of any house and driveway per lot. Barely .03% of the total . property will be disturbed fc~r tM road and an additional 2.75 acres.or .014% will be disturbed for residential improvements. That is a total of ,044% of the total acreage of the property that is to be disturbed. There is a total of 112 acres in the preservation parcel, stream buffer and Ag/Forestal buffer or 58% of the property. protected and conserved. · We anticipated starting construction of the development some time the fall of 2001 and the homes to be completed by the end of 2003. · Approximately an area of 500' by 50' has been cut for surveying and preliminary_ site studies. hope these responses have answered anY of your questions. Sincerely, Katurah Roell ATTACHMENT F U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ...j// 14C'36C 36C 2 O05 000 FEET 5B 36C 37C3 28 .aTTACHMENT G MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Agricultural/Forestal District Committee DATE: June 18, 2001 RE: Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development The Agricultural/Forestal District Committee met on ~Iune 18, 2001. The proposed Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development is located adjacent the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District. The committee has reviewed the proposal and has thc following recommended conditions of approval: 1. Thc pond shall be constructed prior to the commencement of any road or house- lot construction, in order to catch silt from at least some of the' development. 2. The development shall have adequate erosion control measures to prevent water- quality impacts during the construction phase; and 3. An adequate bond shall be posted to ensure that these erosion-control measures are installed and maintained properly. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 2.96 - 5823 Fax {804) 972 - 4012 3une 25, 2001 Keith Bourne 2111 Berkmar Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP 2001-014 BB&T (Pantops) -Tax Map 78, Parcel 61 Dear Hr. Bourne: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on 3une 19, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: The permit-tee shall continue to provide the unobstructed by-pass lane, in order to allow the unobstructed passage of vehicles around the drive-through lanes. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at th6ir meeting on 3uly ~.~., 200~.. 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 (804) 206-5823 ext. 3385. Sincerely, ~aller Planner SBW/blb Cc: Ella Carey .lack Kelsey Amelia McCulley · ~e,~e AIIshouse One Valley Bank 3immy Sanderson STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER JUNE 19, 2001 JULY 11, 2001 SP 01-014 BB&T PANTOPS Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to repla6e an existing automated teller machine (ATM) that was installed without approval of a special use permit. The new ATM would be installed below the existing canopy, in the same lane as the one which is being replaced. Although this proposal will require some structural changes in creation of the new-pad for the taller ATM unit, no changes to the travelway or the size of the canopy are necessary. The Site Review Committee has reviewed a proposal for a minor site plan amendment and has no additional comments. Petition: The applicant's request is for a special use permit to allow the installation of a drive-up, automated teller machine [Sections 25A.2.2, 22.2.2.10 and 24.2.2.13 Of the Zoning Ordinance], at an existing bank (Attachment A). The property, described as Tax Map 78 - Parcel 61, contains approximately 0.997 acre, zoned PD-MC (Planned Development-Mixed Commercial). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for Office/Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 (Attachment B). Planning and Zoning History SDP 79-049 National Bank and Trust Pantops - The original site plan allowing construction of the bank using the building that is currently occupied by BB&T Pantops was approved on December 5, 1979 (Attachment C). Because this site plan pre-dates the adoption of Sections 25A.2.2, 22.2.2.10 and 24.2.2.13 (the applicable regulations regarding a special use permit approvals to allow drive-through windows), the existing canopy for BB&T is considered to be a nonconforming stmcture. Although use of the non-conforming canopy as a drive-through structure has gone on continuously since construction of the bank, Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance only allows administrative approval for alterations to nonconforming structures under certain circumstances. This includes routine repairs and maintenance, and repairs or reconstruction to correct unsafe conditions or damages that result fi.om factors that are beyond the control of the owner ora nonconforming structure. Staff notes that although the existing ATM at this site was approved and installed by Jefferson National Bank in 1995 with a building permit only (BP 96~115AC), it has been determined that the structural alterations required for the installation of a 24-hour ATM under the nonconforming structure cannot be considered among the changes that would be customarily allowed through administrative review. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit a petition for a special use permit. Character of the Area: This parcel is located on the west side of State Farm Boulevard (State Route 1117), approximately 1/4 mile from the intersection with State Route 250 East. The site is adjacent to Guaranty Bank, and located across State Farm Boulevard from the new Pantops branch of the University of Virginia Community Credit Union, currently under construction. Both of those banks were apprOved with special use permits that allowed drive-through windows and ATMs. All other adjacent parcels are similarly zoned for commercial uses. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Office/Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. Banks are a listed use in Office/Regional Service Areas and this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive P1an as an accessory to that use. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: ' Due to concerns regarding access and circulation configurations, combined with the resultant high traffic volumes, drive-through windows are allowed by special use permit only. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special u~e permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as 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 adjacent property, Slight traffic increases are often associated with 24-hour' automated.teller machines because of the increased the capacity for banks to serve regular customers with memberships, as well as those without memberships, even outside of normal business hours. However, staff recognizes that although the original plan wu approved with six (6) drive-through stalls, only five of those stalls are being utilized by the current occupant. This property has existed as a hank use, under the ownership of various parties, for more than twenty years, and a. drive-through ATM has been in use since 1995. Therefore, staff f'mds that the changes proposed in this request would not impose any objectionable impacts upon the adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The proposed site is located within an active commercial district and this bank is consistent with other' uses ihat are in place within the district, several of which have been established after the original bank began operating. 2 and that such use will be in harmony with' the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request for compliance of Section 1.4, Section 1.5, and Section 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and finds no conflict. with the uses permitted by fight in the district, Staffhas identified that the proposed drive-through is accessory to a by-right use and is in harmony with other by right uses located within this primarily commercial district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 that specifically address banks with drive-' through teller windows and like facilities. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The review of the minor site plan amendment is made to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are met with any proposal for physical changes on the site. Because there are existing. commercial entrances that allow adequate ingress and egress to this site, staff has identified no potential safety concerns that would arise fi:om the approval of this special use-permit. The Site Review Committee has determined that the ffaffle configurations and travelways for the existing drive-through lanes were designed and constructed adequately to allow the safe passage of vehicles internal to the site. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The bank .drive-through area has an existing by-pass lane. No changes are proposed for the approved traffic configuration. Approval of this special use permit would have the effect of bringing the bank's canopy structure and drive-through services into conformance with current zoning regulations. No significant increases in traffic are anticipated as a result of this request. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: The opportunity for 24-hour banking service provide by automated teller machines are often considered to be a standard function of banks and similar institutions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Ordinance and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 01-014 with the following condition: - 3 1. The permittee shall continue to provide the unobstructed by-pass lane, in order to allow the unobstructed passage of vehicles around the drive-through lanes. A~FTACHMENTS: A - Application and Request for Special Use Permit B - Tax Map C - Site Plan Section Showing Building and Canopy 4 Use Permit ............. . ..APp-lii:atiO .......o.. ..Special ...... ~' -. :. ,:~-~:~-~ -%,~_~i,~.~<J~:~.~:~,~-, ,, ..,..--, .,.* .- . ~ -...- . , .";,:-~..,-' .-': :'. . :. ;~-~_ --o -' :':" ' ". . :: :.< :1~;~;-~,:;~:~.,..-~.,~,- ¢ ¢~-,-T-, P--,,-'4-,£.~ --' -.. '." ,;~- :..-:-?':; i".l-:~.~i.~j:.;,~:-"::-~-"',.~';,'-:.~}~.',-: .--.;,-~ -'. ,~'-:' --~?, '-:--- . ..... .-/ · · -'-, ,':~-:-'. .... -: ........ ~-,. i' :., .~ --'. ..... .... .. '-- --..,-.- . ': '-:'?::: -;:-~. ! :r~.~-...~:-.'-e,"-:: ,'~ ~-:'::-~ ':.':,.:? -.'.-,- "...' ~"' :'.-' ':-':.":-',. · ." :.: :'.': , ': '. >' ,",'.:< :':'": -' '-' " · I*E~-nting Use ~--~. k ' ' ' Proposed Use {]~t_. ~o k -,~t.tr~;q -. Z'- :.-;%:". % .-' .-' .. -. - : · -,' ' .- · '- , - - ':"'*:'~'~" '" '.'"' i":~,~-:g'': .~':' ' : : ' : "' · ' ,' .... ~'. ': ' 'i" ..... ' ..... : ' :?'"' · Zomng District"::'-: '. · *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested ('staff will assist y.ou with these itc=) ' - .... ':' ,'9 t~ ~ ./" . :.:-..- ..... Number o[ acres to b~ covered by Spe'cial Use Permit o~a poruo, a,.,,n m ~.~ o. p~o · 7- lz this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are'you submitting a site development plan with this application? .. Q Ye~o Jl~YesCl No IContactPer$oniWhomshouidwecalUwdt~congmingthi~proj~¢t?): }~ ~. ;4- I... g ~ ~_ Daytime Phone ~ ) F~ g. E-mail .... AT'F~CHMENT A .... - PAGE 2 hereby reserves..unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for u~"~'provided in this ordinance may be .issued upon a f'mding by the board of superv;~ that such use Will' not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that'the character of the dis~ -. ordixian~;::~ith th~ ~eS Permitted bY'right in the district, with additional regulations provided in seCtion -. :' ~: ...... ' '- 5.0 6f'~-'~i~h~ce; and with the p~blic health, safety and general Welfa/e)~:~ ~.-:: :'::,-."':'.' ~:,~ .....:~2:'::?~ ' - ~' ' '".*..-.~?'~ :--'' ' '5 ',. ~V." .' - ' · ' ' . '.-:"The item~ which follow Will be reVieWed by the Staff in mei/ analysis Of your request: ?le.as,.' e '~ this form'and [;g¢i~tg ~/~i~i'tifi~al'[nformation which Will assist the c6~nty in its revieW'Of you~ reqiiest. ff you need assistance filling out these items, st/ff is available." ':' ' ' ~'-': ' :'. - What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property .~ How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? '4~"//q-' How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by hght in the district? "'"' ' ' Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent ~ormafion such as. thehumors' PAGEm 3~rsons involved in the use, operating hoUrs, and any uniqge~features'..~., ~ of the. use: ,rr ,cm mmTs m q'Uim).- proV!ae t.w°(2)' c0pi of,ach: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for.the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat BoOk and page number. Note: If you are requesting a.special use permit only for a portion of the proPerty, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat. or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the proPerty is in the name of any .type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract pumhaser, a document acceptable to the County must be. submitt6d containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptabl-e to'the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.. · .~- .. .!' ... ._ - . - ...- ~.. : - OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: .... "' ~':'~'"' : ....... ~ ......... ...... '~'"~:.~'" :)':':'-'!:- ". ~ -:, '-i; ';~ .;-"~ '"' :' - ' · ...- ' :...-T .- .:. . ..5' :-'"-";"~', .... "?-:- ' ' i::' ':~'!," .:'": ' ".,'~--:-" -:'""' :'";-: ...... :::,, .... ' '. ~ . ?i ~3.:;'. ' .." Dr~Wih:~:~':''':' ''~ ' SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE OF BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMP~ --AT~'ACHMENT A PAGE 4 I, JERONE C. lqERRING, as Secretary of the Bank DO R-EREBY CERTIFY that: Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Bylaws of Branch Banking and Trust Company. Said ~/x~.erpt is in.full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this/3 day of March, 2001. (Bank Seal) NORTH CAKOLINA CO~Y This 1'50~ day of March, 2001, personally came before me, ~.ov,-~nr, C. ~'~,\~ , Notary Public for said County and State, Jerone C. Herring, who, being by me duly sworn, says he is the Secretary of Branch Banking and Trust Company, a North Carolina banking corporation, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument 'is the corporate seal of said company, and that said writing was signed and sealed by him in behalf of said corporation by its authority duly given. And the said Secretary acknowledged the said writing to be the act and deed of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal, this the [ %4.k. day of March, 2001. My Commission Expires: Notary pUblic G:\CRAVEN'O.00 idocs\by-law Certification.doc 8 Exhibit A ---ATTACHMENT A PAGE 5 Section 6. Execution of Instruments. All agreemems, indentures, mortgages, deeds, conveyances, transfers, certificates, declarations, receipts, discharges, releases, satisfactions, --S~ttl~m-efits~-petifi0nsT-~chedules;-accounts;-affidavits;~ bonds,- amdertakings? proxies, -and-other instruments or documents may be signed, executed, acknowledged, verified, delivered, or accepted in behalf of the Corporation by the Chairman of the Board, orthe President, or any Vice President Or Assistant Vice President, or the Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and if in connection with the .exercise of fiduciary powers of the Corporation, by any of said officers or by any Trust Officer provided, however, (i) that where required, any such instruments shall be attested by one of said officers other than the officer executing such instruments, and (ii) any such instruments may also be executed, acknowledged, verified, delivered, or accepted in behalf of the Corporation in such other manner and by such other Officers as the Board of Directors may from time to time direct. (Amended 3/18/86) G:\CRAVEN~200 ldocs\by-law Cerlification.doc 9 A-T:T-ACHMENT A PAGE 6 INCUMBENCY CERTIHCATE I hereby certify that I am the Assistant Secretary of Branch Bartldng and Trust ~_~) Company(the-"CompanyD~and that-I~am familiar with-the-Company:s-records-of-appointment ............ of officers; and that, I hereby certify that the below named persons hold the offices designated below in the Company as of the date hereof: OFFICE HOLDER OFFICE Earl Proctor Senior Vice President In wimess whereof, I have set my hand as Assistant Secretary of the Company and the seal of the company, this the 14'" day of March, 2001. David Craven, Assistant Secretary (SEAL OF COMPANY) G:\CRAVEN\FORMS\INCMCART.DOC Exterior Remote ?ITM~. ~ 7ding Model 100 GENERAL NOTES: Building lo be painted BB&T gey with BB~.T bL~gundy decorative ~lpes, Palnled areas lo have a medium sllppleflnlsh, '~Envetope" lo be white vinyl. BBSff24 Io be palnled while with a smcx~th llnlsh. BB&T24 graphics lo be centered left Io right on the'bullcllng. Standard nelwolk logo panels, Network Iogos Io be full colal vinyl clle-culs, SIDE ViEW FRONT VIEW APPROACH VIEW A~rACHMENT A .. PAGE 8 r.,:::.; $ [';'1 r,'.c£0 5 5 t~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CER TIFICAT ION - PLA NN IN0 COMMIq~ION BOARD OF SUPERVI$OR~ I 'OWNER S APPROVAL ~ ' " ' '" ' ~ITY"OF CHA~LOTT[~VILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VICI'NITY SKETCH P:LA N NING COMMISSION STATEOF VIRGIfl!A , TO. WiT / C~AIRM~ ~'~ OAY .... % A I ~ : ~cc~.~s~uc~r ro ~anu ezra. accno~s ~ ~ ?.~ 'Fu)~ ~ SOUth pontoP~ * ~ ~ ~ .~ O. 997 Acre ~ ~ ~ ~ couu/ss/o~ ~ ~ ~ PARCEL tO : '~'~ P L A T 5 H 0 W I N G LOT I , P A N T O P S AL B E M,~ R L ~ COUNTY , V I R ~ I N I A J une t Z , I 9 7 9 B. AUBR E Y HUFFMA N ~ AS S O C I AT E S , LTD. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING ond LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTESVILLE , VlRGINI A --ATTACHMENT A i PAGE 9 THIS DEED is made as of this lgth day of February; 19~8, between ~ tr4~l ZBL2~&L arid ~ ~ ~ - ~ V2~31Z&, ('Grantee") whose address ts 2120 LaflqhorneRoad~.Lynchbu=~;-Virginia 24505. MITNESSETH= For the consideration of the sum oE ?eh Dollars ($10.00), cash tn hand pa.td by Grantee to Grantor, and othe= valuable constde=at£on, Ihs receipt and suf~iciency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant and convey with SPECIAL ~J~ANTY OF TITLE unto Grantee, the followin~ described property (the "Property"): All that certain lot or parcel of land, together'with the improvements thereon, located on the south side of U. S. Route 250, east of Charlottesville, on State Boulevard, in &Zbemarle County, Vi=g~nLa, aho~m and described as Lot 1, containing 0~997 ac=e, on a plat o~ S. Aubrey Huf~uan and Associates, Ltd., dated ~une ~979, captioned 'Plat Showing Lot ! of Pentopa,' of record in the Clerk's Of~ce of the C£rcuit Court of Albendrle Court=y, Virgin£a~ ~n Deed Book 681, page And being the sm property conveyed to National Bank and Trust C~ny, by Deed ~r~m Charles Un. Hurt and S~uart F. Ca.lie, as ?rustees ;or the South PentopS Land Trust, end recorded in Deed Book 683~ page 708, in the Clerk's O~fice o~ the 'Circuit Cou~t 0£ Albmarle County, Vl~ginLa. Jef£e=son Hational Be~k became successo~ bY m~rger to National Bank and Trust ¢oePany. A_%-TACHMENT A PAGE 10 B: 16';6 0t 26 Th£s conveyance is made sub~ect to all easements, condtCions, restrictions and ~ese£vat~ons atfect~ng the ~:operty hereby conveyed. l~ MITI~ESS MHEitEOF, Grantor has caused th£e Deed to be executed by an o~f~ce= o~ Grantor, duly authorized.. Title:~ ~I40HWF2~LTH OF VIRGINIA City of Ch&rloCtesvilIe ) day~.. ~ Ban' - ~- ~-" -' ''"~4a~i°n'~~,,~-,,v ------------- on ~haI~ o~ ~he ~nk. STJ~IK PL&T LOCAL TAX LO~tL TAI 14 $ m ATTACHMENT B 22A MONTICELLO 23 ' .: ALBEMARLE 62 COUNTY SP 01-014 BB&T PANTOPS 20¥ 22 $OOTTSVILLE AND RIVANNA ' DISTRICTS 49 28B / SECTION 78 ~P 01-014 BB&T PANTOPS BUILDING AND CANOPY ~? ;ed ATM Stall Location VA,~ AL-L. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Develop ment 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 ~804~ 296 - 5823 Fax (804~ 972 - 4012 June 25, 200~ Ron Humbert Toys R Us Corporation 590 Branchlands BLVD Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP 2001-0:!.6 Toys R Us Outdoor Displays --' Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 12 Dear Mr. Humbert: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, ' at its meeting on 3une 19r 200~.~. una'nimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. The display shall be limited to the paved area of the fifteen parking spaces located at the southeastern corner of the parking lot. 2. The height of the items being displayed shall be limited to 10'. 3. Revise the current site plan to reflect these conditions. 4, No additional lighting shall be introduced to the site for the purpose of illuminating this display. 5. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the dates of March 1st through September 30th. 6. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB. for the site plan. 7. The area between the display area and the Branchlands Boulevard right-of-way shall be landscaped in a manner, approved by the County"s design planner, so that the. display items are screened from view from the Entrance Corridor and Branchlands Boulevard. Ron Hubert Page 2 -luly .25, 2001 Please I~e advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review'this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on 3uly 11, 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 (804) 296-5823 ext. 3338. Sincerely, , Daniel A. Hahon Landscape Planner DAN/bib Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley .tack' Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Toys "R" Us Corporation STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Dan Mahon June 19, 2001 July 11, 2001 SP-2001-016 TOYS R US OUTDOOR DISPLAY Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to display playground equipment to include swing sets, play houses and climbing apparatus in a 2,430 square foot area currently occupied by fifteen parking spaces at the south side of the parcel along Branchlands Boulevard. Currently, where a total of two hundred and fifty five parking spaces are required, the site provides two hundred and seventy including six for disabled visitors. A.temporary fence constructed from concrete block and timber will surround the display area. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow outdoor display of merchandise in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor display in the Entrance Corridor. The property is described as Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 12. It is located in the Rio Magisterial District at 590 Branchlands Blvd, on the NE comer of the intersection of Route 29 North and Branchlands Blvd. The property is zoned PUD Planned Unit Development, and EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in Neighborhood-2. Character of the Area: The immediate area is developed with a variety of businesses. The parcel across Branchlands Blvd. to the south is occupied by a Food Lion store The Old Country Buffet restaurant is adjacent to the site to the north. Across Route 29 is a Waffle House and a commercial shopping center. Traffic on this section of Route 29 is heavy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.6.3.2.b. Based on the Architectural Review Board's recommendation on this proposal, SP 99-27 is recommended for approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: June 12, 1991: ARB F (SDP) 91-25: ARB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 46,021 square foot building on 6.83 acres. April 20, 2001: No: V-2001-115: Violation notice fo; outdoor display without a special use permit issued by the Department of Zoning. June 4, 2001: ARB P (SDP) 2001-18: The Board unanimously expressed no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit and approved a final Certificate o.f Appropriateness for the site plan amendment, both subiect to the following conditions: 1.' The height of displayed items shall not exceed the height of the slope along Branchlands Blvd. 2. Items shall be displayed only in the area indicated for display shown on the plan. 3. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the months of March through September. Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Community Servme in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends community-scale commercial, professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services in this service designation. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Bbard of 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 of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, It is anticipated that the 'outdoor display ofplaygr0und equipment in the location proposed by the applicant will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed site is 15 ft. below the grade of Route 29, 10 feet below Branchlands BOUlevard and approximately 300 feet. to the east of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Due to the existing leafy decidUous trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the site, the proposed display area has limited visibility from beyond the site during the spnng and summer months. Als0, the combination of topography and distance helps relieve the impact that this display would have on the EC and adjacent properties. The current unapproved display is set up in a much more visible location than what is being proposed. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, It is not .anticipated that the proposed use will change the character of the district, due to the commercial activity on nearby properties and the general commercial character of the area. The potential impact of the use on the character of the district has been addressed by the ARB. The ~3~d3 has expressed no objection to the use, with conditions, based on the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The conditions of ARB approval are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this special use permit. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the EC Overlay District. With the incorporation of the recommendations of the ARB, this use would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance by minimizing visibility and limiting the duration of the use. with the uses permitted by right in the district, It is not anticipated that the proposed display will restrict permitted uses on adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing outdoor display. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. It is not anticipated that the proposed use will impact the public health, safety, or welfare. On-site vehicle circulation will remain unchanged. SUMMARY: This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display in the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request, Their~action, which is included as Attachment F, expressed no objection to'the proposed use, subject to conditions. Staff opimon is that the expanded use will have minimal impact on the district, if the ARB's conditions are satisfied. Consequently, staff finds that with the ARB's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-2001-016 subject to conditions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2001-016 subject to the following conditions. 1. Th; display shall be limited to the paved area of the fifteen parking spaces located at the southeastern comer of the parking lot. 2. The height of items being displayed shall be limited to 9'. 3. Revise thc current site plan to reflect these conditions. 4. No additional lighting shall be introduced to the site for the purpose of illuminating this display. 5. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the dates of March 1st through September 30t~. 6. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C- Violation Letter D- Applicants Letter E - Architectural Review Board Staff Report F - Architectural Review Board Action Letter G - Site Plan H - Photos of Display BUCK MTN, &, HARLOTTEE 1167- Albemarle ATTACHMENT A/ / TO RUCKERSVILLE s~ iii ~, ,~ TO PALMYRA ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B \® 2 4 QCHAPEL HILLS GREENBRIEr HEIGHTS SECTION QBRANCHLAND QBRANCHLAND RETIREMENT VILLAGE B RANCHLAND CONDOMINIUMS ~:1¢ 4 D.B.560-S26 D.B. 797/272 D.B. 895 / 3,63-374 · ~ BROOKMILL CONDOMINIUMS . L-I thru9 D.B. 889/612-625 L- I0-16 D.B. 945/454-458 L- 17-2;5 D.B. IO00/359-:566 L- 24-42 See~lndividual Plats L- 43-7fi ~'eelndividual Plots Q BRANCHLANDS PHASE 4 D.B. 1019/607 ~=_ __o ...... ~, RIO DISTRICT SECTION 61Z X (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Cede and Zonin~ Services 401 Mdntim Road, Room 227 Chartotte.s~ille, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 ATTACHMENT C TrD [804) 972-4012 NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION Date Notice of Determination is given: April 20, 2001 No: V-2001-115 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7099 3400 0007 0945 0342 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7099 3400 0007 0945 031 t Toys "R" Us Inc. Toys "R" Us 225 Summit Avenue 590_Branchlands Blvd. Montvale, NJ 07645 Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Property: 061Z0-03-00-01200 Tax Map and Parcel Number Toys "R" Us Inc. Owner of Record You are hereby notified that, after an investigation of the 'above-described property, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the following constitutes a violation;of section 36.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance: Outdoor display of assembled swingsets, bicycles and assorted merchandi se on the above listed parcel. Section 30.6.3.2 By Special Use Permit b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an EC street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall be exempt from this provision. (Amended 9-9-92) Section 36.1: "Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions 0fthis ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any conditional rezomng, issuance of a special use permit or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land which is conducted, operated or maintained contrary to.any of the provisions of this ordinance or any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful. The zoning administrator may initiate inl'unction, mandamus, abatement, criminal warrant or any other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such erection or use in violation of any provision of this ordinance." Page 2 V-2001-115 April .2.0, .2001 You are hereby ordered to cease and desist from the above-described use or activity immediately. Your failure to-comply with this order may result in legal action being taken against you. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is specified above. If you have any questions, please contact John Jones at 804-296-5832. Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator County 'of A~lbemarle, Virginia Cc: Reading File V-2001-115 V-2001-[ 15 Toys "R" Us doc. ATTACHMENT D To whom it may concern 4/23/01 Toys R Us is asking permission for a special use permit to use 15 parking spaces to display Swing sets and Plastic Houses and Gyms. The spaces are located along Branchlands Ave. on the southeast comer of the parking lot. The area is hi-lighted on the Site plan showing exactly where we would like to pm them. Currently we have them displayed along the fi.om and side of the building facing Food Lion. Our plan will put these in a less visible location to the 29 corridor due to the embankment and landscaping that will actually block most from the vision of those-traveling onRt 29. We also plan on blocking these spaces off with some Landscaping timbers supported by cinder blocks which will be approximately 30" high. A picture is attached fi.om another Toys RUs store which has done the same. I hope you find this plan more appealing to the existing location and provide us with the oppommity to continue to display these for sale to our famiIies in the community. Sincerely, Ron Humbert- Store Director Toys R Us- Charlottesville, Va 804-973-4406 ATTACHMENT E 'ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT APPLICATION NAME: TOYS R US OUTDOOR DISPLAY APPLICATION TYPE: PRE~ SPECIAL USE PERMIT Project # ARB-P(SDP)-2001-18 Location NE comer of the intersection of Route 29 North with Branchlands Blvd. Parcel Identification Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 3' Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Magisterial District Rio Proposal Preliminary review of a plan to display playground equipment at an existing retail site on Route'29 North ARB Meeting Date June 4, 2001 Staff Contact Dan Mahon PROJECT mSTORY June 12, 1991: ARB F (SDP) 91-25: ARB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 46,021 sf. building on 6.83 acres. A previously approved site plan with a revision date of 5/16/91, shows landscaping along the south and west sides of the site. (The preliminary review was held April 17, 1991) Currently playground equipment is being displayed without a Special Use Permit along the front and around the southern side of the building. This application is a result of efforts by the Albemarle County Zoning Department to bring all EC sites into compliance regarding outdoor storage and display. PROJECT DETAILS The Applicant proposes to establish the outdoor display of playground equipment to include, swing sets, play houses and climbing apparatus in a 2,430 sr. area currently occupied by fourteen parking spaces at the south side of the parcel along Branchlands Boulevard. A temporary fence will surround the display area. ANALYSIS Site Development, Layout and Grading: The site has already been developed. Access is from Branchlands Blvd. Parking is located between the 29 North EC and the front of the building. The proposed display area is situated on the south east corner of the site between the building and the EC. Site Visibility: This location is 15 ft. below the grade of Route 29 and approximately 300 ft. to the east of ARB 6/4/01 Toys "R" US Outdoor Display Preliminary - Page 1 Route 29. Due to the existing leafy deciduous trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the site the display area has limited visibility from the EC during the spring and summer months. Also, the combination of topography and distance help relieve the impact that this display would have on the EC. The current display ....... is s~t up in-a-mueh-morewisibtetocatlon than-what-is being-proposed-. .................... ' .... Context: The site is in an area of commercial development and is adjacent to Food lion and County Buffet. Landscaping: The existing landscaping appears to meet current ARB guidelines and corresponds 'to the plan previously approved. However, there are a couple of shrubs that are in decline and may need to be replaced. Accessory Structures and Equipment: The proposed fence will be assembled from timber and cinderblock. This fence will have a temporary appearance. Lighting: No new~ hghting is proposed. Signs: None are proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the ARB express no objection to the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1) The height of displayed items shall not exceed the height of the slope along Branchlands Blvd. 2) Items shall be displayed only in the area indicated for display shown on the plan. 3) The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the months of April through September. ARB 6/4/01 Toys "R" US Outdoor Display Preliminary - Page 2 l0 ATTACHMENT F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE · D_cp_~_.menLo f P1 _an_ning_~ Co_m_m_.u~ nity_Dev_eJQprn.e_nt-- 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 June 6,2001 Ron Humbart 590 Branchlands BIvd Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ARB-P(SDP)-200'I-18 Toys R Us; Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel ~2 Dear Mr. Humbart: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, June 4, 2001. The Board unanimously expressed no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit and approved a final Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan amendment, both subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of displayed items shall not exceed the height of the slope along Branchlands Blvd. 2. Items shall be displayed only in tr~e area indicated for display shown on the plan. 3. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the months of March through September. Please include the above-noted comments as notes on the site plan and submit a copy of the revised plan for the file at your earliest convenience. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, / Dan Mahon Landscape Planne~' OM/jcf Cc: File Il PERFORATED PM C. UND~RDR 1 Z88 I1 I , I I I I ]'% ;RADING IN 9. & [35[o 8'5'8' 5 B"f II 355' 33,3' _~..EEVE & G.~'I'E.¥.A~.VE WATER M£'II-.R TO BE $1ZL~D~B¥.--A..C~$.A. 5° 05' I0" BRANOHLANDS BOUL~VARD~ ATTACHMENT H COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Elaine Echols, Principal Planner ~/~ ~ ZMA 01-002 Western Ridge Phase 5C July 6, 2001 Please fred the attached proffers for Western Ridge Phase 5C. They have been approved by the County Attorney's office. Two original signatures are being provided and will be available before the public hearing on Wednesday. Sent by: Campbell Copy Centep 540 432 6530; 07/05/01 12:38PM;#747; Page 2/2 Original Proffer X PROFFER FORM Date: July 5. 2001 ZMA # 94-14 and 014)02 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 56E-Al and 56-93D 26.5 Acres to be rez0ned from RA to PRD and .297 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to PRD Pursuant m Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, thc owner(s), or its duly authori'~d agent, hereby voluntarily proffem the conditions listed below which dali be applied to thc property, if rezone& These conditions ate proffered as a part of the requested rezoning ami it is agreed that: (1) thc rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditkms have a reasonable relation to thc rezoning request. Development of the parcels shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled "Western Ridge Section 5C, Preliminary Plat (ZMA 20014)02 Application Plan) dated February 8, 2001 taxi last rm&sed June 4, 2001. No grading or removal of trees greater than six inches in diamaer at six inches above the ground, except for dead or diseased rrccs, shall occur on thc critical slopes areas shown on the Application Plan, except R)r grading and tree removal necessary for the construction of Lake Tree Lane. This proffer shall also be 8et forth in the covenants recorded for this subdivision~ A 5-foot wide pedestrian pa& consisting of 4 inches of 2l-B stone base material and 2 inche~ o£ SMA-2 asphalt shall be installed in the right-of-way for Lake Tree Lane on both sides ofthe road along the frrmtage of all lots in Western Ridge Phase 5C completed before release of the performance bond. The trail shall b~ conveyed to and nmintained by the We. stem Ridge Homeowner's Association. A Class A or Class B Wail, as described in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (see attached pages), shall be constructed for pedestrian access to the future Lickinghole Creek Greenway. If a Class A trail is used, it shall be a maximum of 5 feet wide and consist of 4 inches of 2lB ston~ bm material and 2 inch~ of SMA-2 asphalt If a Class B Wail is used. it shall have a graded width of 4 - 5 feet and have a surface of stone dust or other material approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. The owner shall have the discmt/on to choose a 'Class A or Class B trail. Boardwalks, rolling dips, and other devices approved by thc Director of Planning and Community Development shall be used, where necessary, to cross swales, ravines, or environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, as determined by the Director of P!..amfing and Community Development. The trail sl~all be inslalled,~,the open space that abuts Phase 5B and Lots 17 & 18 as shown on the Application Plan. If necessary to achieve walkable grades and prevenl erosion and sedimentation, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development, changes to the boundaries of Lots 17 and 18 and the open space shall be made. The wail shall be shown on and bonded with the first final plat for Western Ridge Phase 5C. The Wail shall be completed before release of the performance bond. The trail shall be conveyed to and mninta~ne4t by the We$11lm Ridge Itomeowneds Association. Recrmfional anumiti~,, for the development shall include use of the clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts in the existing Western Ridge deve~p.~nt. By not .later than December 31, 2001, Keyes Development Company, Inc. shall provide to the County an off-site improvement contribut/on of $5,000.00 for a proposed stoplight located at the cnlrance to Western Ridge or the construction of a Route 240-250 Connector Road 0o be determined by the County). Should the stoplight or connector mad not be installed within the next 10 calantDr years from the approved proffer date, it shall be reaSmdcd to Keyes Development Company, Inc. iHigidands West L.P. Printed Nanm of Owner b,,. Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact Signature f~ Hlt, lon A. Keyes E.T.S. '~2ot2. Date Date Albemarle County Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Greenway Plan Trail Classifications The trails in the greenway system should adhere to one of the following types. Class A - these trails may be either designed as 1 ) an eight foot wide paved surface with a center stripe and a dual lane or, 2) an eight foot wide compacted crushed-stone trail. Both these trail types will require public access opportunity from trail to stream edge/bank and be ADA and bicycle accessible (see drawing]. CJass B - no surfacing, minimum clearance (4 to 5 feet wide) - thirty feet wide public access ("primitive" trail, similar to those found in places such as Ivy Creek Natural Area, Crab Tree Falls, Humpback Rock, and portions of the Appalachian Trail). This trail will require public access opportunity from the trail to the stream bank (see drawing). It is the intent of the County that the majority of the trails within the greenway system be primitive in nature (Class B), except in those areas where ADA and bicycle accessibility is desired (Class A). A "primitive" type trail is the least expensive to construct and maintain. This type of trail minimizes impervious surface, which helps reduce runoff concerns. Therefore, most trails in the greenway system will be class B in nature. Class A type trails will be located primarily in and near parks and major activity areas. See foflowing pages for trail, cross-sections. 171 Albemarle County Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Class A Trail Cross-section t72 Albemarl~ County Natural R~sources and Cultural Assets Class B Trail Cross-section 173 07-03-0~ P03:37 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (8041 972 - 4012 June 22, 2001 Bruce Keyes Keyes Development Company P O Box 7363 Faiffax Station, VA 22039 RE: ZI~IA 2001-002 Western Ridge, Phase 5C SUB 2001-066 Western Ridge, Phase 5C Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Keys: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2001, unanimously recommended approval with proffers as may be modified after County Attorney before the Board of Supervisors meeting. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on July 11, 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 at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3252. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AiCP Principal Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley 3ack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Helen A. Keyes, etals STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP JUNE 19, 2001· JULY 11, 2001 ZMA 2001-002 WESTERN RIDGE PHASE 5C PRD SUB 2001-089-WESTERN RIDGE PHASE 5C PRELIMINARY PLAT Applicant's Proposal: Keyes Development, Inc. and Craig Development Inc. are proposing to rezone properties adjacent to the Western Ridge subdivision from RA and R-4 Residential with proffers to PRD. The Application Plan is also a proposed preliminary plat for this property (See Attachment A). The Keyes family owns approximately 26.5 acres. The Keyes plan to convey this land to Hunter Craig, Inc. to be p-art of Western Ridge, if the rezoning is - approved. Approximately 0.3 acres is a portion of open space that was platted as a part of Western Ridge Phase 4B. This land is proposed to be added to two residential lots in the proposed development. Proffers are provided with this rezoning proposal which proffer the application plan, no disturbance of critical slopes, recreational amenities, pedestrian paths, and $5,000 for off-site improvements. (See Attachment B.)' The proffers generally reflect discussions with the staff, but need further refinement. Petition for Rezoning: The request is to rezone 26.85 acres from RA -Rural Area and R-4 Residential with proffers to Planning Residential Development-PRD to allow residential uses. The property is described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 93D, and a portion of Tax Map 56E Parcel lA, which is also described as a parcel Y intended .as Open Space on recorded plat Western Ridge Phase 5B. The property is located in the White Hall Magisterial District off Lake Tree Lane [Route # 1251 ]. The site is adjacent to the C&O Railroad. (See Attachments C & D.) The Comprehensive Plan d~signates this property as neighborhood density, 3-6 d/u per acre in the Crozet Community. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is a residential subdivision and very low-density residential development. The land is rolling with some wooded areas. The C&O Railroad bound it to the north and the Lickinghole Basin to the south. Zoning and Subdivision History: Tax Map 56 Parcel 93D, owned by the Keyes family, was subdivided in 1992 when the land for the Lickinghole Basin was acquired by the County. There is no other history on this property. Ta~ Map 56E Parcel lA was subdivided as Western Ridge Phase 5 B and this area was shown as 0.17 acres of open space. It is zoned R- 4 with proffers. The Westem Ridge deVelopment originally was rezoned from RA, R-l, and LI to R-4 Residential in 1995. A Proffered plan of development was provided. Specifics on the Proposal: The proposed development would extend the Western.Ridge development east along a knoll. Approximately 18 acres would be preserved as open space extending down critical slopes to a stream and to the Lickinghole Basin. The lots are proposed for single family detached homes and range in size from 0.30 acres to 0..65 acres. A pedestrian path is proposed along both sides of the rural cross-section street and a path to the 1 I~ickinghole Basin is also proffered. The prelimifi~ plat is proffered as the Application Plan. The proffers do not reflect the latest revision to the Application Plan and will need to be corrected. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has stated, "The land is currently landlocked from the primary parcel. Rezomng it to a PRD allows it to be developed around the natural characteristics of the site and provide the most efficient use of the Property. As proposed, the project allows one-quarter acre lots that back to wooded common space. With only 4.5 acres being developable, the remaining 22.5 acres will be provided as common space to enhance the benefits of the local community." [Since this narrative was provided the applicant has reduced open space to 18.48, acres but proffered to prohibit disturbance of the critical slopes.] By-right Use of the Property: If develOped by right, the property theoretically could yield 4 dwelling units. Although there are 26 acres of land associated with this rezoning, critical slopes, the shape of the property, and its proximity to the Lickinghole Basin; a tributary to the Lickinghole Basin, and the railroad track make additional development very difficult if not impossible. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval should the proffers be modified as necessary to adequately address identified issues. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre in Community of Crozet. Steep slopes, wooded areas, wetlands, and stream valleys are shown on the County's Open Space Plan. Specific recommendations for this community relevant to this rezoning include: · Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Community Study to serve as a guide for development in this community. The Crozet Community Study recommends the following: · Employ'innovative housing design and site planning techniques in housing development that minimizes the amount of impervious surfaces. The proposed housing is conventional and no known innovative housing styles or techniques are anticipated. · Provide open space andprotect natural features. Open space and natural features are protected on this Site through the boundaries of the development and proffers to not disturb critical slopes. The proffers will need to be more explicit that no waivers for critical slope disturbance for building sites will be requested. · Provide neighborhood activity centers within convenient walking distance to new housing. No neighborhood activity centers are provided; however, paths to the anticipated greenway along the Lickinghole Creek are provided as is access to the Western Ridge clubhouse. · Sidewalks should be located in areas of dense residential development. Staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Neighborhood Model. 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 Boundaries with the Rural Areas Land lJse Standards for Designated Devel.opment Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) Development shouM be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain) Environmental features on the property include locally important stream valleys and adjacent critical slopes, streams, wooded areas, and wetlands as shown on the County's Open Space Plan. The applicant is avoiding all sensitive areas except wooded areas by proffering development only on the lots shown on the Application Plan and by proffering that the critical slopes will not be disturbed. Most but not all of the wooded areas are to remain wooded in undisturbed open space. Trees will need to be removed at the entry to the development. Limiting access points should minimize the impact of development on major roads. The property does not abut any maj or roads. A sense of community should 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) The property is accessed from Lake Tree Lane which would be extended an additional 800 feet, A pedestrian path is proposed along both sides of this road. Another pedestrian path is proposed to connect to the proposed greenway along Lickinghole Basin. Staff and the applicant have had much discussion on the location of the pedestrian path to Lickinghole Basin. Although the proffer indicates that the specific location is shown on the Application Plan, it is not shown there. Staffmust work with the applicant to either tie down the location on the Application Plan or, through the proffers, provide that it be located during the final plat process. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments. Underground utilities are required. 3 Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. Lickinghole Basin provides for water quality measures in this area. 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 preliminary plat indicates that buildings will be oriented to the public street. Existing houses in nearby sections of the Western Ridge subdivision use a conventional form with garages and parking located in the front of the houses. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. No information on lighting is provided; site illumination is generally not provided with single-family residential development. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused (Redevelopment) No historic buildings exist on the property. No other opportunities for redevelopment exist. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Water and sewer service is available to serve this development. O~erall development density should be as high a level as is practical Proposed ranges in the Land Use Plan are 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. Gross density of the site is 1.5 dwellings per acre; however, net density is 2.5 dwellings per acre. Additional dwellings could be added to the developable part of the project, but the applicant desired that the lots more closely resemble lot size of the adjacent section of Western Ridge. The integrity of adjacent residential areas shouM be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. No need for screening and separation exists since all of the uses are residential. 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 Preliminary Plat provided with this development continues a low-density residential development form, similar to that approved for prior phases of Western Ridge. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability) No information is provided regarding design of the development in a way that reduces housing costs. 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 lot design shown on the preliminary plat continues a pattern of low-density single ~family homes on cul-de-sacs in the area. In many cases, interconnections of roads are essential for achieving the Cotmty's transportation and emergency access goals. In this instance the use of the cul-de-sac is the most appropriate to achieve a rational use of the land. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses; Residential Development Design, pp. 22- 2S) In rezoning deliberations, the county should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within the designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development p~essure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use densiO: ranges should be favored even if the dens. ity exceeds that of surrounding developments, This development proposes low-density housing. Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas should be accomplished using buffering, screening, and physical separation of adjacent nonresidential uses. (Mixture of Uses) if developed as shown on the preliminary plat, the uses will be single family residential. As such, no buffering needs are identifie& For larger developments, layout and design should provide for varying building orientation and setback, dwelling unit type, faqade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space should be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborho5d ardas within the larger developments. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments: (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Parks and Open Space) This development is proposed as a PRD'even though it contains a single building type.. Staff believes that the PRD is an appropriate zomng classification for the development. STAFF COMMENT Relationship betweenr the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The proposed district is PRD Planned Residential Development. The intent of the PRD is to: · encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and towa/d impact on the surrounding area in land development · promote economical and efficient land use · provide an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design · provide flexibility and a variety of development opportunities for residential purposes' · use open space for recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, provide buffering between dissimilar uses and preserve agricultural activity The proposed PRD encourages sensitivity towards the natural characteristics of the site and promotes an economical and efficient land use. It provides pedestrian amenities as well as ~the amenities of another part of the Western Ridge development. It does not provide a variety of development types, but it does use open space to provide for protection of areas sensitive to development. Public need and justification for the change -- The rezoning would allow for development of more units than the by-right zoning would allow and meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that way. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation - Access is provided from Lake Tree Lane. According to VDOT, this road will have to be upgraded to support the additional development. VDOT also suggested that the applicant proffer his proportionate share ora signal at the intersection of Park Ridge Drive and Route 240. Early in the project's review, concerns were raised by staff regarding the addition of units in a development with a single entrance from Route 240 without a second means of access. Staff reviewed previous subdivisions and found that accommodation had been made for the extension of Clearfields Lane into the Route 240 - 250 Connector Road. The applicant has proffered $5000 towards the traffic signal suggested by VDOT. This proffer contains a 2-year sunset clause. Staff believes that it would be more appropriate to make the money available for either the Route 240- 250 Connector Road or a traffic signal and that the sunset clause extend for I0 years from the date of acceptance of the proffer. For pedestrian access, the applicant has proffered an asphalt path along both sides of Lake Tree Lane. This asphalt path will need to connect into the asphalt path for previous sections of Western Ridge Phase 5. In both sections of Western Ridge Phase 5, a pedestrian easement was platted along Lake Tree Court. An asphalt path was to have been built with Phases 5A and 5B and it was to have been bonded with the road plans. It was not bonded with the road plans and has not been built. Once it is built, by the developer of Phases 5A and 5B, the pedestrian path in Phase 5C will connect Phase C to the clubhouse and tennis courts. It will also provide for access to the Lickinghole Basin Greenway. Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site; however, the site is not within the County's jurisdictional area for service. The Board of Supervisors will need to approve ajuri.sdictional area adjustment to accommodate this development. Since the site is within the Development Area boundaries, there are no issues which would preclude the inclusion of the land within the jurisdictional area boundaries. Schools - Children from this development would attend Brownsville Elementary School, Henley Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School. A total of 8 children would be added to the schools. Stormwater Management - No detention facilities are required with this development since it drains into a floodplain and drainageway away from existing and proposed residences. Fiscal impact to public facilities - A fiscal impact analysis is prOvided as Attachment E. As with virtually all residential developments, the fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated by the development to pay for services. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impacts are anticipated on any County natural, cultural or historic resources. Preliminary Plat Issues - Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat submitted with this rezoning. It has changed slightly from the last review by Zoning and Engineering, but the Planning Department staff with the exception of the change in lOt lines has noted no significant issues for Lots 16 and 17. Lots 16 and t7 have been enlarged and open space adjacent to them has been reduced. These changes may impact the location of the recreational trail to the Lickinghole Greenway. For that reason, minor modifications to these lots may be needed to keep the recreational trail in the open space rather than on the individual lots. Regarding approval of the preliminary plat, staff recommends that administrative approval be provided when the plat conforms with preliminary plat requirements including any Zoning and Engineering requirements and when the recreational trail is located outside of any residential lots. SUMMARY The proposed rezoning of 26.85 acres added to the Western Ridge development is a logical extension of the development. There is no public road access to the parcel and no other public road extensions are available to provide for its development. The applicant has provided amenities within this section of the development and provided for off-site proffers to help off-set the impacts of the development. Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The rezoning would increase the density of the development over the existing zoning from 4 lots to 18 lots. 2. Pedestrian access is provided along public roads. 3. Amenities will be provided from the adjoining development. 4. No development will occur on any of the steep slopes, wetlands, or near streams. Staffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The proffer relating to the provision of the traffic signal has too short a sunset period 7 because VDOT does not know when if or when a signal will actually be installed. 2. Lake Tree L-ane provides for the sole means of access from Route 240 to the eastern portion of Western Ridge. A second means of access is not provided nor is a contribution to the building o£the road interconnection for the Route 24-250 Connector Road. 3. Density is not in keeping with the recommended density range shown in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proffers have missing information and are not consistent with the Application Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION The proffers currently offered are not sufficient to address the impacts of this development. With the foilowing modifications, though, staff could recommend approval of the rezoning. 1. Make reference the most current revision of the Application Plan in the proffers. 2. Clarify the proffer relating to disturbance of the critical slopes to include a prohibition of waivers to disturb the critical slopes. 3. Show the location of the recreational trail on the Application Plan or provide a written description of its location, construction, and maintenance standard in the proffers. Make sure the recreational trail is walkable and in the open space rather than on any individual lots. - 4. Expand the proffer related to the traffic improvements to allow for application of the $5000 to building the Route 240-250 Connector Road as well as for a signal. Clarify when the $5000 contribution will take place. 5. Increase the sunset date for the $5000 contribution and remove references to interest bearing accounts. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat once it meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements as applied by the Planning, Zoning, and Engineering Departments. Staff also recommends expansion of the jurisdictional area boundary to include this property. ATTACHMENTS: A - Reduced copy of Preliminary Plat dated June 4, 2001 B -Proffers dated June 20,2001 with signature of June 5, 2001 C -- Tax Parcel Map D - Location Map E - Fiscal Impact Analysis GRAPHIC SCALE I 'r =50 0 50 100 150 ~'~ G;~APHIC SCAL~ ] =200' OPEN SPACE -.... ~'~I~ I op*s E "--.L'%.... o .o ,. .o % . I /f?/ ,." ?-.- E _~ "... ~.. ~ ~. '~ ,,.;'~ ' t .~. ~-"7" 'x %~-- '-"~=' ...... " ., ~ .................. ..~.- ..~.- ::7' ;/ VICINITY MAP I = 2,]00' WHITE HALL DISTRICT lOllED RA, PRD PROPOSED ZIAA 2001-002) PROPOSED USE: SINGLE EAhILL¥ DETATCHED SETBACKS FRONT SIDE REAR: 20 TOPOGRAPHY: LOUSIA AEqI~!. SURVEYS BOUNDARY: SL KEY, [NC, 25% SLCPES ARE SHOWN AS C~&DED AREAS BE ICHMARK: NAIL IN COMC PAD 80' WEST OF RR BRIDGE 532 17 SEC 5B LOT 41 MH-1A4 522.7AB) ALL ROADS ARE TO BE PUBL[F JOE S~TE IS !N THE JURISOICTTU!IAL AREA LOTS IS LOT AREA ac) 7Ag OPEN SPACE tac 18.48 - -- ROADS /ac 0.89 TOTAL [ac 26.56 - OWNEPS HELEN a kEYES 4~80 CA~RHILL ..ANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, vA 22903 JERCME ~ KEkE~, JR 79,25 OERBfSHiRE LANE )WNERS 338 WESl RI,3 RD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY A PRO-RATA CONTRIBUTION TO THE L[CKINGHOL~ CREES REOZON&L B&SIq PFOPERT¥ LIES IN THE LZCK~NGI40. S C~EEi PEG~DNAL SEBINENTATION ~AS~N DRAINAGE AqEA, ILl> .:- ~ ~ IP-I~, t ~1 !x /[/ ATTACHMENT A 9 Date: Sun~ 20, 2001 ZMA # 94-14 and 01-002 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) PROFFER FORM 56E-A1 and 56-93D Original Proffer Amended Proffer X (Amendment # 1 ATTACHMENT B 26.5 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD and .297 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to PRD Pursamnt 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, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need for the conditions", and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezonmg request. 1. Development of the parcel shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled ~Westem Ridge Section 5C, Preliminary, Plat (ZMA 2001-002 Application Plan" dated May 22, 2001. 2. Them shall be no disturbance of critical slopes on the lots propOsed for development~ 3. A 5-foot wide asphalt path shall be installed for pedestxian recreational use in the r.o.w, for Lake Tree Lane on beth sides of the road beginning at lot .land ending at lot 18. 4. Recreational amenities for the development shall include use of the clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts in the existing Western Ridge development The owner will provide a 5-foot wide asphalt trail built to County standards for pedestrian recreational use as well as access to the property boundary and the greenway along Lickinghole Creek generally in the location shown on the application pla~ The trail shall be conveyed to and maintained by the Western Ridge Homeowner's Associafior~ Future property owners shall not be permitted to disturb critical slopes and the Homeowner's Association shall become responsible for enforcement of said requiremenL The owner will provide an off-site improvement contribution of $5,000.00 for a proposed stoplight located at the entrance to Western Ridge. The contn'bution shall be placed in a separate interest bearing account Should the stoplight not be installed within the next two calendar years from the approved proffer date, the contribution plus accrued interest shall be payable to Keyes Development Company, Inc. ~ignatures of Owner for Highl~ands West L.P. Primed' Name of Owner ame of Attorney-in-Fact Date Date l0 94 99A ,'., iSC STRICT 113 69 ~00 SECTION ..,' ( 46C 6O 30& 6O ATTACHMENT C ~ 7O '77 5~ 4'58 4,'7' SAMUEL MILLER A'~O~ WHITE HALL DISTRICT ATTACHMENT D .... . .... .-- ~.: -- !:.. .... '~- ' ":: ........ " iC':: " '" ...... ,~. ~:. j~. : ~ ~--L . >i .......... ! ~' Z ;:.'.~'.,.-. .... ~ -- .~ ..... '~":':::.i ........ ' ~' '~:' z .... " ... / ; ,,.~. , -.-. .- ,.. ] ; .-~ :: :::. _~_ - .- -~.....- ....~,~ .... ...... ~ - 1:5 , 'C1 .' .-...' ...... --...-.: ..... -,..'.~-,. . ~. r-,-",.. ' ........ .... ',".' :. ":::::' .,:-::::-' '"-- '. Ii!: .?! .,' . .-.,... ; . ........ .-, .,.. , ~ ', . . . .. , ~. -.. , /~ ' " ' ' ',_ ~, '-, ~. "· ' ', . ........ "~ ! !";.,...,'..-. ', ,,: ...... :. ~, , ~ ...../. ' .......... :.;~.':: _ ', : ,~ .. ,. : , ,. '.., ,..:'..:;..., ,, '. ...,., .... ~,.._~ -~ ....... ~- ~, ,. ~ . . ~. , ..,, ~ ,, ..... ....... [ . :- , .~ , . , , .- ..- ,~., .. -,x. '"'~': >'"'"' ' ...... .... ............... "' .... = ........' ........ ~'" '"' ' "' "' ""~' ........ ~:';': ........... '"' ....... '"'"' ' F~ ~'~ i~..~.~:::.-'~.:z:~s i ' '_~.~-~---_... : , ~ .... " . . ..... . , ', . ~ ' , , '- ............... '-.. '., . ' --:,;.. ........... :.-. ....~.~_,...-.--,_.,, , ~ ..-- ~' , . ................. ..: ......... ., I" '~ "."G?.':::~,?:::-.,.'..-.:';:'-:'::':'L '...'/' '~ ', .... -U '1 __~ ..' .-'" ..... .. ,:-..."_,"" ",. ',~..","' '- "". ~.'"' ~ "..'=. ~ / ' \ "-'..-;?,'::.;"':-"L ' ' '. ' .' -': ..... ~';' q- ' ~" .' -' ...... ' ' '"" ,-%" ¥", ' · ", .... . "" .......... :. .' ' I." ~ '.'"-:,:% " J ; ". ' -.- ~ ~/ ' ' ' ~ · ....... '~' / ' k"-",' ',, -. ' ' ' , , ' '- I '., ~'.'., ;,,. ~ '~ .. o , ~ .., ., ~ = ' ..-- ,. ...... ~. i.- _; -,~:,',. -, · ........ · . ,,~ ',, . .. / - '!'..".i,",."-. '~ .......... ,.,' ~ ..... , ~ ': / '" ~ '-.. .'.- ........ .' '2,v' ..... .-'";,',' ..' ..... ,,...'...'.".". .'"" . :. . I. · i "\"','~ ..... -~' ,." / . ~': : " ~")'il ' ~ ,,' ." ', :: '~;,':.F' -" '. ', '-it"" "--. 'C'.'~" '" . ..-' ., - z / ,..,,...... ...... .,; .... ,, ........ ,.!,.,.. . , .... ...,.....,..... ....... . .' ~' ,,-".,' :::::-' ':'; '",' E-', ~:'.", -" .,~ ........ '-, 'i: = I ........ ...... , .... , .. ... ~=~ , . ~. ,. :~ ,~. ~, '...~ ' , , . · ', · .,_.~' -,. ., / ~ ' ' , .... ' ~'~.-'... - ~,\,~.,. : I r~ ; II.,~, ' ............ .-- '' ',," L ';"' ~",' ,¥ ~'~.' '. · '.-, -, · ' ' ~ . . /,", ' "' '. ', ".~ ':'" ..... .\\\\ ' ' -----~ ..... !, :1."-"~ ...... - ........... ' - , ' ' ..... -:' " ' , "- ~ ' - ~ \. ': ' ' ', ': "' ', ~..-,~' .... 'i i ~1~--.. '' ' .... . ".'"'.." , :i ~'.'- .......... '- ', '~' ", ',",:.: . '...- t ' ".. : ' ' '',' .' 12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner June 7, 2001 ZMA 01-02 (Western Ridge) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the. properties in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes involved the new development that ,, for the properties. The remits of these two analyses appear in the attached Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. in the case ofthe first scenario, i asmmed th~_fo..ur, sin · , . d rin the course of the next year. C.t~.. estm}. ' ' ~'--,* ;,, ~he ~;l~°wi~~ net annual be built, u g . · ~-~'-~fino Zomn~ would xesutt ...... of development that could take ptace tma~x .zap_-= -- ~ fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures · County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures $5,000 9,0O0 $14,000 ($20,000) 0,000) ($23,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($9,000) ZMA 01-02 June 7, 2001 pag4 Two In terms of the annual impact that the development of four SFD's would have on the County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result: CIP Impact -- Current Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact (so) ($11,000) ($11,ooo) (so) ($o) ($o) ($11,ooo) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the evio j (The $11,000 in capital costs is part of the $~ aaa ~ ,a ......... ~. , uspage. -- j .... uuu tit tlrt~esnmatect total anmtal expenditures resulting from the development of four SFD 'sd. 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 eighteen SFD units. I assumed the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues $21,000 41,000 Total Revenues $62,000 School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($103,000) ($14,ooo) ($117,000) ($55,ooo) 14 ZMA 01-02 June 7, 200t ...: Page Three As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated' the follOwing outcome: CH' Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay.As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay_As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cry. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CH' Impact ($0) ($34,000) ($34,000) ($0) ($0) ($o) ($34,o0o) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $117,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capit~ costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 01-03, the d/fferent~a/net annual fmcal impact would be $9,000 - $55,000 = -$46,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $46,000 worse off approving ZMA 01-02 than denying the proposal. I should point out that the negative $9,000 net fiscal impact figure associated .with existing zoning and the negative $55,000 net fiscal impact number generated by the proposed zoning are somewhat · ' ions the construction offour.and-a-halffunes the inconsistent. ~T~,.e proposed development, env~s. ~'~-- zoning out, ..... cun,,~,~,~,-' .... ~,, CRIME estimates that the be built unaer exas~m~ ~, number of SFD s that could net fiscal impact better than six times that produced as the proposed development would generate a result of by-fight construction. In an average cost model, this result is inconsistent since costs and revenues are assumed to be linear. The reason for this inconsistency has to do with rounding errors in CR1M The model tends to round figures to the nearest $1,000. In the ease where CRIM analyzes very small numbers of dwelling units, or square footage of non-residential space, this rounding feature of the spreadsheet likely misrepresents the net fiscal impact of development. In the presentbe $55,000/4.Sease' a logically consistent= $12,222 or estimate.s12,000 of the net annual fiscal impact of by-right development would _ = -$43,000. rounded. The differential net annual fiscal impact, then, would be $12,000 $55,000 ZMA 01-02 June 7, 2001 Page Four Notes: ( 1 ) Although my analysis suggests that approval ofZMA 01-02 would result in a net annual fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-02 d~m~ed,~s~_~ the totalmix of development taking place in AP, .... ,_ ,, . . . should be · ~ ~a~ a revenue-neutral, outcome;. (2'~, If AJbern,~rl-,,~ uuesaA- not"Y~ ,.uul~ ~ounty m any g~ven year might !s assumed to be associated w~th this prot>osed dev,~ ..... app.r.o..ve ~ 01-02, the growth that tn the County;, and (3) When deciding ~- ,.,~,v,,~m would/ikely take place somewhere else whether or not to approve a proposed developmem, 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 $O00's) REI/ENI/E$ PROP TAXES Year => 2000 1 2001 2 2002 Average Costs 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Residential Real $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 Nonresidential Real $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Res Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nonres Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (Agricultural) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal: Property Taxes $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 OTHER $5 I Public Service Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Pers Prop Tax-Resid $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 3 Pers Prop Tax-Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 Mach& Tools Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Sales & Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Cons Util Tax. Resid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0' $0 $0 8 BPOL Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 Util Co Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10 Motor Vehicle Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Permits & Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Fines & Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Charges for Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 15 Categorical Aid- Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 18 State Aid to Schools $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 19 Meals Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 ANNUAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23. SF Detached $3. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 SF Attached/TH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Multifamily $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 24 Mobile Homes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 Subtotal: Other Revenues TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: $15 $14 $14 $14 $ t 4 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 Staff Costs $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $! $1 $1 $1 $1 CF Pay-As.You.Go $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $1t $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $22 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 COUNTY GOVT, Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay. As. You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, COUNTY TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: NET H$CAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative $3 $3. $4 $o $8 $30 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $1 $! $1 $1 $t $1 $1 $1 $1 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o Sd $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 ($15) ($3.5) ($9) ($9) ($9~ ($9~ ($93 ($9~ ($9) ($9~ ($9~ ($24) ($33) ($42) ($51) ($60) ($69) ($78) ($87~ ($96) 3102A.WK4 CRIM Proprietary Software 06/07/2001 06/07/200109:30 AM Page I Budget Summary -- Proposed Zoning Year => (Values in $O00's) 2000 R~ET~NIJ~$ PROP TAXES Residential Real Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER ! PubticService Tax 2 Pets Prop Tax-Resid 3 Pets 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 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 21 SF Detached 22 SF Attached/TH 23 Multifamily 24 Mobile Homes Subtotal: Other Revenues TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXEENSE$ SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT. TOTAL ADDITIONAL ^NNUALREVENUES: Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay. As. You*Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL. SCHOC LS Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay. As-You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL COUNTY ANNUAL COSTS: 1 2 3 4 2001 2002 2003 2004 $21 $21 $21 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21 $21 $21 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 $12 $12 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $21 $21 $21 $21 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $45 $41 $41 $41 $66 $62 $62 $62 NET r-ISCAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative Average Costs 5 6 7 8 9 10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 '$21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12- $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $! $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o S[ $[ $1 $1 $1 $21 $21 $21 $2! $21 $21 $1 $1. $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 $41 $41 $41 $41 $41 $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $36 $36 $36 $36 $33 $33 $33 $33 $8 $0 $0 $0 $34 $34 $34 $34 $111 $103 $103 $103 $13 $11 $11 $11 $4 $4 $4 $4 $17 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $34 $14 $14 $14 $146 $118 $118 $118 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $103 $103 $103 $103 $103 $103 $11 Sll $11 $11 $11 $11 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $118 $118 $118 $118 $118 $118 ($80) ($55) ($55~ ('$55) ($80) ($[35) ($190) ($245) ($55~ ($55') ($553 ($55~ ~ ($55~ ($55~ ($301~ '~-($356) ' ($411) ($466) ($521~ ($577) ,.,% ~ ZMAOIO2BAA ~ CRIM Proprietary ' ~are 06/07/2001 06/07/200109:3~3 ~) Page 1 July 3, 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Communi~ Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 ~ 4012 Mildred V. Goolsby Kennedy 733 Dick Woods road Afton, VA 22920 RE: Addition to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District, Tax Map 70, Parcel 40 Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2001, unani.mously recommended approval of the addition of 40.12 acres to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on July 11, 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/jcl Cc: Ella Carey STAFF PERSON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark May 30, 2001 June 19, 2001 July 11, 2001 ADDITION TO BATESVILLE 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 ordinance 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 withdrawnat the ownerz s.discretion,by filing a written notice with the Board o£Supervisors: at, any time before the Board acts to continue,modify, or terminate the district. Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal districtis "to conserve and protect andto 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 andforestat lands as valued natural and ecolo.gical':res'ourc~es .whieh:'provideessential. 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: 1. 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; 6. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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 nmsance 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. ADDITION TO BATESVIIJ.E DISTRICT: The Batesville District was created on May 2, 1990. The District was last reviewed on April 19. 2000. Location: The Batesville District is located near Batesville. Acreage:. The Batesville District contains 672.28 acres in 21 parcels. The proposed addition contains 40.12 acres in one parcel. (This was incorrectly reported earlier as 50.12 acres.) See Attachment A for the location of the addition. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is in forestal use. Si,~nificant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: There is one acre excluded from land-use taxation for a dwelling. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: None Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Batesville area has many forested parcels, as well as farms (usually pasture), as well as some residential use. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Batesville District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area to this proposed addition is the Crozet Community, which is approximately five miles north-northeast of the property. A relevant Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A relevant strategy ~s, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter) The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, and stream valleys. Environmental Benefits:. Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space. Soil Information:. Before 10 acres were divided from the parcel, the addition had the following soil qualities for forestry: FOREST VALUE CLASS ACREAGE VALUE I AS S E S SMENT EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR NON-PRODUCTIVE 28.374 3.218 17.528 0.000 49.120 27o I 185 1 $ 595 120 I $ 2,103 I $ 0 $ 10,400 TOTAL A current re-assessment of the 40.12-acre parcel is not yet available. See Attachment B for the property's USDA soil-productivity classes. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Batesville District as proposed. Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee Recommendation: At their meeting on June 18, 2001, the Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee unanimously recommended approval of the addition of Tax Map 70 Parcel 40 to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. P1 anning Commission Recommendation: On June 19, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this addition to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. ORDINANCE NO. 01-3( ) 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. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 70, parcels 40~ 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010. (Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-01) 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 Ms. Dorrier Mr. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of tlie Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. /~~ Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: July 6, 2001 RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/CommissiOns. Please note that you will not conduct interviews for the Historic Preservation Committee; they will be held at the August day meeting. Thank you. Attachments cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM EXPIRE DATE APPUCANTI INCUMBENT INTERVIEW, IF SCHEDULED Ellora Young Arthur Brown Raymond L. Carey William B, Harvey Henry A. Silva Fred W, recommends the appointment of Ashley G. Young) Amy M. Schoolcraft Ashley G. Young County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/~'"MMiTTEEtaO (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Committee Albemarle County Service Authority Applicant's Name Robert C. Larsen Full Home Address 5600 Fitzgerald Road Magisterial Dismct in which your home residence is located Crozet Employer Health Services Foundation Business Address 141 Ednam Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 Occupation/Title Director Home Phone (4340823-7191 Phone (434)979-9355 Date of Employment S ' pouse s Name Carla Years Resident in Albemarle County l0 Previous Residence 13341 Sussex Drive Santa Ana, CA 92667 Educ~raduati~ Number of Chi/dren one _ Bachelor of Science, San Jose State University, 'School of Engineering (Aeronautics) 10/7/1991 Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Gmupa Current member of Crozet United Methodist Church, past member of Rotary Club, IHRSA, Amer. College of Sports Med. with Recruitment/Retention for Fire/Rescue, board member and past chair of American Heart Assoc. active with Red Cross. Prior California affiliation with foster children nroeram. Bi z Brothem/Sisters. Red Cross and Oranee County Fire Authority. ~ Serve on this Board/Comm/ssion/Cojmnitte_e_ Interest in multiple outcomes to our community with our utilization of natural resources as well as our capacity to process its by products. Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road CharloResville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMI~ON/~~E (Please type or print.) Boa~d/Commission/Commitme, g, ~ ~ '~;0VI* {o Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~ .. ~ [ 0 & ¢- ~ CA, Employer On'rd {//Of- ~c.~ 50tO61 Phone Business Address ~0 l~g-¢, ~4dw(,( Years Resident in Albemarle County / ~ L,~ (5 .' Previous Residence W ~.~ t6t. cJ, r kqU,3[< Education 0Devees and Graduation Dates). ]'~ ~- 5cJ~c0o ~ Memberships in Framm-l_ Business. Church and/or Social Groups Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other A.cfivifies or Interests .a<_x~O.-~ff,-X~ Date of Employment Spouse's Name Number of Children ~_ 9b 06-08-0i AIO:2g IN 06/20/2001 15:08 FAX 804 977 7749 :~onna ltoy CO.ANY: State Forester's Office ~ 001/001 I-~mel:'Ix,ne (8~) 823-6425 22901 Forestry lg85, I~-~ July 2001 D~:e ofgrnploym~ · l~V/ $i~use'~ iXhme N/A 0 PEC TEL:804-977-6506 Ma~ 14'01 14:09 No.O0$ P.02 County of Albemarle APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/ODMMISSlON/COMMITTEI~ (Pku~ ~ or p~t.) ,~o,,,,, '--'~- ~,-- .:.. -- Year~ Resident in Al~rnarle County Social Gm.ups Piedmont Environmental Council Prornoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural ecot~orny, natural resources, history and beauty April 17, 2001 Ms. Sally Thomas Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 RE: Albemarle County Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Dear Madame Chairman: I have enjoyed the privilege of my appointment to and service on the County's Fiscal Advisory Committee. Due to personal reasons, I would like at this time to ask the Board to appoint Jeff Werner, the PEC's Charlottesville Albemarle Land-Use Field Officer, in my place. For the past year, Jeff has sat in on all scheduled Advisory Committee meetings and has heartily and knowledgeably participated in all discussions. I know that you have known Jeff for some time and are well aware of his academic and professional credentials. In brief, he holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry & Wood Sciences from West Virginia University ('85) and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning with the Certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia's School of Architecture ('98). Between 1985 and 1996, he worked in the construction industry, the last 3 years spent as a self-employed construction manager on large-scale residential projects. After he received his graduate degree, he worked for the University of Virginia's Facilities Management where his work focused on projects in and around the Academical Village. Jeff has been with the PEC as our local Field Officer since September 1999. He is married with two small children and resides in downtown Charlottesville. He is involved in the community as the assistant coach for the boys lacrosse team at Albemarle High School. In the time that I have known Jeff, he has consistently proven that he is a steadfast advocate of the PEC's goals and objectives while also being fair- and open-minded and holistic in his review of issues and debates that challenge our positions. It is my sincere belief that Jeff will not only offer to the committee a valuable perspective but also a balanced and honest representation of not just of the PEC's vision but also of the community in general. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 981-0704. Very truly yours, Peter Hallo~k P.O. Box 460 · Warrenton. Virginia · 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 111 I Rose Hill Drive ° Suite One · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-977-6306 PEC TEL:$04-977-6506 H~y ~'0~ 14:10 No.O0$ P,04 Jeffrey B. Werner 212 Wine SWeet Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 (804) 293-4839 Summary. Project resting,r-with 11 years of professional experience in construction project management and a Masters in Urban Planning with a C~rtificate in Historic Preservation, Education The University of Virginia, School of Architeemre~ Charlottesville, Va. Master o£Urban and l~nvironmental Planning with Historic Preservation Certificate, May 199S * Student Body Rc.'presentalive to the University Master Planning Council, '97?98 · Co-author of 1998 Vi~,inia Chapter of the American Planning Association award-winning paper · Research Assistant to Plam~ing Dept. Chair evaluating residential/rowth in Albemarle County West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va. Bachelor of Science in Forestry and Wood Sciences, 1985 Consultina Experience Adaptive Reuse Spring 1997 I lircd as consultant by Albamarl© County Department of Engineering. Project report evaluated potential adaptive reuse o1' thc old school building in Cro:,et, Virginia. Construction Project Management 6/94 - 5/96 M_mmged full scope of project for clients: estimated project costs, developed schedules, solved problems, managed labor, reviewed progress and quality with owner and architect on regular basis, conducted final walk-through. Constructed lwo custom homes in Arlington, VA. · 14,000 square foot private residence with $1.7 million construction cost budget. · 11,000 squar~ foot private residence with $2.7 million construction cost budget. Emolovment Exuerience The Piedmont Environmental Council 9/99 - present Land-Use Field Officer for Charlottesville-Albemarle Represent and promote thc PEC's policies and objectives at the local level. Primary organizational objective is to promotc, preserve and protoct tho rural areas of Virginia's Piedmont Region. Usc contractor/constn~ction cxpcricnce coupled with urban planning and preservation training to develop and support local land-use policies in both the rural and urban areas that support tho PECks objectives. Thc University of Virginia Facilities Management 5/98 - 9/99 Project Manager for CapJ~! Programs/Facilities Planing & Construction Coordinating the planning, dcsign and complcQon ofassiglled Capital Outlay Projects at thc University, Primary function is to provkk coordination for all parties involved in the development, design, management and project activity from inception to close-out. Currently coordinating the design and installation of new electrical and fir~ alarm systems for all Student Rooms in tho Academical Village. Other projects include infrastructure and utility projects as well as building renovations and new construction. PEC TEL .' 804-977-6506 Ha9 14'01 14:11 No.O0~ P,05 Jeff Werner/2 The Academical Village at the University of Virginia Summer 1997 Graduate Student Intern Assisted J. Murray Howard, Architect and Curator of the Acade~nioal Village and Univcrdty field orows on three projects:/]elective demolition and examination of tho suspended Pavilion balconies. Slate roofing over rooms between Pavilions II and IV. Reconstruction of thc damaged balcony at Pavilion I. Dell Corporation 11/93 - 5/94 Estimator/Project Manager/Preservation Technician Assisted owner of historic preservation/restoration consulting firmwith assessment and reporting of ~xisting conditions, devclopment of repair or maintenance plans, and coordination and ©stimating of work. Key projects: National Airport, Washington, D.C.: Examination of'original surfaces for possible restoration National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.: Examination of ceremonial gates, main Rotunda Room E.W. Airman Building Contractors, Inc. 10/87 - 11/93 Estimator/Project Manager Managed full scope of r~sidential and commercial construction projects fi-om request for proposal to punchlist. Work included numerous restoration projects in Georgetown and Old 'l'ova~ Alexandria. Herndon Lumber and Millwork, Inc. 5/85 - 10/87 Project Manager/Draftsman Managed design and production ofmillwork, cabinetwork and wood doors and wiJ~dows. Key projects: U.S. Capitol Building, Washington D.C.: Window Restoration 'of the West Central Front. U.S. Pension Building, Washington, D.C.: Window Restoration Professional Association Aceomnlishme~t~ Virginia Chapter of thc Arm,xican Planning Association - 1999 Conference Steering Committee · Proposed, coordinated and moderated acssion, "Institutional Development and Localilies: Room.for Cooperation." With four guest speakers represcuQng th~ University, the University Real Estate Foundation, thc County o£Albemarle and academia, the development of thc University of Virgi~a's North ForLs Business Park was discussed and debated. Membershins/Activltie_, Aracrican Planning As.'mciation Assistant Coach, Boy's Varsity Lacrosse - Albemarle High School PEC TEL:804-977-6506 Hag 14'01 14:12 No.O05 P.06 Jeffrey B. Werncr Masters in Urban Planning with Historic Preservation Certificate The Uliversfty of Virginia . Selected Relevant Academic Papers Individual Short Papers and Memos The Paramount Theater. Charlottesville: Information and Critical Analysis Report Neighborhood Conservation Districts: Deet.~ions for Charlottesville California Office of ttistori¢ Preservation: Briefing of 1995 State Program Overview and Response to the NP$ National Performance Review Individual Reports Our/tuto Trip: The ~rnergenc. e and Abandonment of Automobile Dealerships in an Urban Setting Sustainable Development and the Role of Private and Public Influence: ~gho Takes the Lead? Contentporary Problems in Planning T~eory: Solutions Through Reliance Upon Interaction With and Involvement of the Community Market dnalysis: [Development of theJ Fautconer Tract, County of d lbemarle, Virginia Reviewing Public Private Partnerships in Real Estate Development From Conceptualizing North Grounds (Collaborative) l'Y, mmett Street as a Boulevard Bringing Tourism to North Grounds The Relocation of Scott Stadium and University Hall and the Establishment cfa Minor League Baseball Facility at the North Grounds Site. Collaborative Works The Old Pc?ton Pontiac Dealership: Potentials for Renovations and Reuse* (* Winner of 1998 VAPA First Place Award for Best Student Project.) Adaptive Reuse of the Old Crozet Elementary School Conceptualizing North Grounds Beyond the Facade of Design Control Districts /lnalysis of the Development of the North Grounds: Housing Four Seasons Neighborhood and Vicinity: Analysis of Accessibility Graduate Studies Co~Irsework Planning Information and Analysis Community History Workshop Urban Theory and Public Policy Lcs~l Aspccts of Pl~ Planning Theory and Practice Land Development Methods of Planning Analysis Adaptive Reuse Commtmity Public Hi story Tools for Public/Private Parmership Consorvation of Buildings Pregrvation of Ieffersoniau Architecture Preservation Planning Historical Archeology D©~ign Approaches to Exi. stil~g Sites American Architecture l~cservation Theory and Practice County of Albemarle Office of Board of C~unty Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Committee iB-~' '~ ~Jfi ~il~-~-fi~r~ ~ik~J~iJ~li'i4~ i~0~l~rE! i ! i ! i ! ! i i i i ! i i i i i i ! ! ! i Applicant's Name '..A~t. :.~:.U. giBi~?~..~,..~ B.g.O...WN..,i~..:iiiiii!iiiii!i!ii!!iiii!!iiii!iiiiii Home Phone ~ Magisterial District in which your home residence is located .m.' 0..D..Ig...Ti~l...C~r. i i i i i Employer COM~'LI~.¥iDBO:g~RVlCF,~:fEORI~mRI:Y. COMI~L:OO~,~::.. Phone :434sr~8 21;46 Occupation/Title :¥mEo PRODUCl~Ot~W.~I:R/(COMDIx~-CR~iT ~}: :-:-:'- Date of Employment .... 5/'1~200~3~c '-' i' v.,97 Years Rmident in ~bemarie County ~'~~~~ Spouse'sN~me ~~0~~ P~ous Residence T~; ~~uT: ...................................... Numar of ChOSen FO~::::::::::: Education (De~e~ and Graduation Dat~ ~ B~ ~ ~ ~k~ ~W~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~E~T ~: :PROG~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::::::::::::: :: ::::. Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups ~.D.'~T~!~ !~'.o.'~ i2~i.¢lt(;t{.', ! ~V,~: ~&~.b.~-' :,i :CZ-!ARL~:F-g2ALI~ ~IONAL~R:OF:COMM;ER~ff,;VID;EOMp~I~fft II,~.:::::::::::::::::::::: .... ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::: ::::::::: :::: .... Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests ~0b~ .1~..'~g~..'~..~..°~....I~...c.0~ Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commissinn/Committee :~.~ILIZED :FVU6 RESOURCES .WtffLff 3.~G:CO~:r-~.GIt AT :I~il~F.]~ILD~; :A~.ACHED:~ ~; L~FIER:FROI~. P~GION TI~ ~1:0::::::::::: The information providj~d on this application will be released to the public upon request. /:::),~., ::::::::::::::::::::: Signature -- Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclnfire Road CharlotteSVille, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) ~96-5800 :r gion n 't commun g s rvic s board Char/otleav~e Susan B. Germtt C~r;d Sitvermea-3o~n,,ton Petm' L. Sheras, PhD A~thur B. 8town, J~. [:)wight T. CoNey, PsyD Louise Stephen Wuneh Paul Belair Ne/son Ju#ana Frosch James R. Peterson, ACSW Exect#iv~ ~'recfor Caruso Brown, D/rector Admk~tr~ave Se~wces Downing R. Miller, M.S. Director Su~samce Ao~=qc~on Se'vices Davi~l T. Moody, M.D. Medical O~rector John J. Pezzoli, Director Mental Health Ser~'ces Ann M. White. MEd, Director Mema~ Retardation Serwces 800 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903-4420 Telephone: {8G4) g72-1800 TDO: {804) 970-1299 Fax: Administration [804) 970-2104 ~ Raco,"~s [~04) 972-1864 www. avenue.org/m~o nten E-matk ~'np O regtonten.org Substance Addicfior~ Services 401 Fot~rttt Street NW Chaflottesvii~e, VA 22903 Tetephone: (804) g72-182g FAX: (804) 970-1253 Mental Retar~tton Servh~es Meaoowcreek Center 2000 Micifie IDdve Charlottesville, VA 22901 Tetephone: {804) g70-1495 FAX: t804) 970-149~, Junel7,2~l Mr. Arthur B. "A.B." Brown, Jr. 540 Manor Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear A.B.: I am writing to summarize thc quality and extent of your outstanding service on thc Region Ten Community Services Board, and thc companion nonprofit organization, the Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. As of June 30 you will have completed three 3oyear terms on the Region Ten Board, from 1992 to 2001, and chairman (and president of Region Ten, Inc.) from 1997 to 1999 during which time you also chaired the Executive Committee, and you have served on that committee continuously prior to 1997 until the present. Before that you chaired the board's Personnel Committee and led that committee to become a very strong and positive force to deal with complex organizational and personnel policy issues. Especially considering the magnitude of the Region Ten organization (now with an annual budget of $17 million, 550 staff, and serving 4,000 clients each year), early on you recognized the need to enhance the visibility of Region Ten in order to maintaha and strengthen community support. You developed a plan for increasing public awareness and fund raising, the first and most dramatic element of which was the implementation of the Region Ten Annual Softball Extravaganza, which ever)' summer--this July will be the eighth annual event--brings together the media, elected officials and other local and state political figures to "play ball for Region Ten." You have continuously stayed close to the 40 programs operated by Region Ten throughout the six jurisdiction area with frequent program visits, and with an emphasis on the student programs for high risk youth and the 24-hour emergency services. You have also visited related state facilities including Western State Hospital in Staunton and the Central Virginia Training Center in Lynchburg. During your leadership on the Executive Committee and as chairman of the board, you stabilized Region Ten's operations and assured its future by moving from the leasing of facilities to the development and ownership of program and residential facilities. Region Ten now owns six major facilities and four residential programs thanks to your leadership~ Providing Mental Health. Mental Retarc[et~on. and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Mr. Arthur B. "A.B." Brown, Jr. June 17, 2001 Page 2 Your efforts have also extended to the state level with your extensive participation in the Virginia Association of Community Services Boards and serving as first vice chairman of the Association. In addition you have testified before the State Finance Committee and joint legislative budget hearings regarding the budget needs of community-based services. Everything described above only represents a small portion of your overall contribution to Region Ten, because it is the unwavering day-to-day interest and support you have demonstrated that is both the most difficult to articulate but also the most decisive for organizational success. Thank you for everything you have done to strengthen and expand services for persons with mental disabilities. You have truly made a lasting difference in the quality of life not only for persons with disabilities, but for everyone in our community who now have the opportunity to see the potential of all citizens around them. Executive Director ..06/18/01 06:37 FAX 804 STATE FAR~ INS County of Allie~m, le ~ 001 Return M: Cle~ lk)m-d 401 biclntin~ Road County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Cha_rlottesviJ_le, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Commktee Community College Board of Directors Applicant's Name William B. Harvey Full Home Address 2721 Timberlake Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Home Phone 804-293-6518 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Samuel Miller Employer American Health Lawyers Association Business Address 2721 Timbelake Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Phone 804-293-8373 Occupation/Tide Manager of Non~Dues Publications and Acquisitions Editor Years Resident in Albemarle County 18 Previous Residence Virginia Beach, Virginia Date of Employment Spouse's Name Margaret J. Harvey Number of Children [2/2/1997 Education i~T)e~ees and Graduation Dates) Juris Doctor 1982; Bacheolor of Arts in History 1976 Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups Virginia State Bar; American Bar Association; Phi Delta Phi; Beta Theta Pi Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Acthfdes or Interests JABA Advisory Council; Coalition for a Responsible School Board; Albemarle County Democratic Chair; 7th Congressional Dis~'ict Democratic Committee; State Democratic Central Committee. Reason(s) for Wishing ro Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee My commitment to quality public education at all levels and a desire to protect and enhance this valuable community resource. 2l~'~ormation prow on thlsJapplication will be released to the public upon request. Signature ~ Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 06_2~/_01 P01:50 1N County of Albemarle Office o£ Board o£ County Supervisom 401 McIntive Road Chadottesvine, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type Or print.) Board/Com~ssion/Commi~e C. o r,-, ~ ~ ,-, t'~ '~ c.. ~ I [ ,. 5 ~ Magisterial District in which your home residence is located I~'~NrO-~ g ~ Home Phone Business Address 0 ccupahon/Tide Years Resident in Albemarle County I Previous Residence ~01~$ ~,, 0. c~ Education 0D%m'ees and Graduation Dates) Date of Employment Spouse's Name ~ ~t~e[ Number of Children Memberships in Fraterna! Business, Chumh and/or Social Groups ~-W Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on rhi8 Board/Commission/Committee The in[orgaation provided on thins application will be released to the public upon request. Signadre(, t Return to: Clerk, Board of County'Superriso~s Albemarle County 401 Melntite Road Charlottesville, VA_ 229024596 FAX: ¢O4) 296-S800 05-11-01 P04:39 County of Albemarle Office of Boaxd of County Supervisors 401 McIntixe Road Charlottesm'lle, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITYEE (Please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee L" : -- -"- :': ' ' ' - ' "' - ' Applicant's Name Fred W Hud on_ a04/ q73-g~- Home Phone Full Home Address P.O. Box ~ion- vir inia 2294Q Ma~stefiaI District in which your home residence is located White Hall Employer Phone Business Address Occupation/Tide Executive a r fo ' · . . Date of Employment 1970-1998 Yea~ Resident ~ Albemarle Coun~ _ 6 years Spgu~e's Name Betty pre~ousResidence 168. MacPherson St.: Toronto r On~arq~ p~n~da Number Of Children 2 BA University of Colorado Boulder COXO. ±~oo_ 1969 JD- Washin o ' ' ' Memberships ha Fraternal, B-~qness, Church and/or Social Crroup~s ~ombe.r of tke Texas. Bar Association; ~'ellow, Life Management Institute 06-0q-01 P01:28 IN Public. Civic a.d Ch~ri~hle Offi¢o ~ncl/O~; Other Aci~vifies oe lntore~;~ Vice-Chair, Albe~n~rle Dom~ Party; 7th Con~£essional District Demo. Committee Reason(s) 'for .Wl.qhln~ to Sexwe on tl~ Board/Con~-.~ssion/Ccm~.h~ .... I feel that with my ,investment experience that I can make a contribution to th - _ i~ .: '_- · -:. The inform.tim provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. Return to: Clerk. Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX~ (804) 296-5800 Date 6 June, 2001 County of Albemarle 401 MeIa~-e ~ APPLICATION TO SP_~VE ON Full~omeAckkcss. P~eviom l~ide~c . .- ".' · '"' Spou.~'s N~me County of Albemarle 401 M~atim Raad Charloff. esvf~. VA 2290~--4596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C~, ~/~. ~ Senior DepUty Clerk June 27, 2001 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through October 31, 2001. Because there is no day meeting during July, I contacted Ms. Thomas regarding the new vacancies, and she advised me to advertise the one for the Architectural Review Board. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES ~ APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT? 1 application (Perkins) sent on 2/2/01,David T, Paulson 8/13/00 8/12/01 or No 1 application sent under separate cover 8/12/02 (see on 7/6/01, note to left) (Note: Since this position has been vacant so long, the term will expire in August, Therefore, I would suggest the Board appoint the new member to serve the remainder of this term and a full term to follow (expiration date to be 8/13/02,) ~ ~ Advertised twice; redd no Margaret Borwhat 9/30/00 9/29/03 No applications, 1 application (Perkins) sent on 2/2/01,Daniel Montgomery 12/13/00 12/13/02 No Readvertised; rec'd no new applications, 4 applications sent under separate Clark C, Jackson 6/30/01 6/30/05 Not eligible cover on 7/6/01. Advertised', rec'd no applications. J Walter LeVer n.a ' 6/3/01 6/3/04 ~ No ~ 3 interviews to be held on 8/1/01, Jeffrey L, Hantman Resigned 4/4/01 N/A N/A Cynthia Mar!e C0nte Resigned 4/4/0t N/A NtA,,, ' .... Robert L; ~lf ~ , Resigned 4/4/01 ~ N/A N/A Readvertised; 1 application sent under Tim Tigner 8/1/0t 8/1/04 No seParate cover on 7/6/01. ~ ......... WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT? Advertised; 1 application sent Peter G, Hallock 7t8/02 Resigned' under ~eparate cove[ on 7/6/01, r. Charles Trachta, Jr. 1/19/03 R~lgned under separate cover on 7/6/0t. ~ Mr, Kinder sewed the last 6 months o~ Mark D. Kindl~ 6/30101 6/30/~ NIA Gunter's te~, and ~e Commission now asks that you appoint him to a full te~ (SECOND REQUEST) 2 applications ~nt under separate Happy Darcus (youth 6/30~1 6130103 (Graduated) cover on 716101, along with member) .... ~'~e~is~; applications due Frank Kessler 11-14-02 Resigned L. Briskey resigned, so we need to Lisa Briskey 12-31-01 Resigned fill her slot, Additionally,' since she was the Chair, the committee recommends appointing Ct~ rep, Jeff Bialy, as the new Chair. Note: Whomever you appoint as Chair will also sewe on the RSWA, (See RSWA - CAC.) Lisa Briskey Se~es by virtue Resigned of being the Citizens Adviso~ Commiff~ Chair '!'o: Members, Board of Supervisors ,~ ~ / Fr, m: ~1o Washin~on Car~y, CMC, C~.~~ Subj,'t:. Reading fist for July I I, 2001 '~ IJJ~t~ July 6, 2001 March 21(A), 2001 April 4, 2001 April 18, 2001 April 25, 2001 May 2, 2001 Mo/9, 2001 May 16, 200t Ms. Thomas Pages 20- end- Mr. Matin Mr. Bowerman Ms. Thomas Ms. Humphtis Pages 1-27- Mr. Pertdns Pages 28- end- Mr. Martin Mr. Dorrier /ewc