Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-08-08
ACTIONS Board of Supervi._~o~ ;.'.==ting of Aun~ 8, 2001 AGENDA ,ri'EM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT Mcctin9 was called to Order at 6:03 p.m., by the t. Call to order. ,Z. Closed Se~--~ion: Personnel Ma[~e~-s. Certify Closed Session. Certified at 7:05 p.m., a~d reconvened ~ession. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Bonnie McCauley spoke in support of the Ivy Landfill. She said the taxpayers need to know the impact of not having a place to haul tl-~ir trash in the County. She and her husband own a small disposal business and vall be impacted by what happens at the Landfill. 7.1. ZMA-99-11 and SP-2001-006. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Starlings) (Signs#41 &42). · CANCELLED public hearings. 8. Presentation by Jay James, Assistant to Operations Manager, Eure Communications (WINA). · Mr. James informed the Board that VVINA wants to audi-stream the Board meetings to the public via their website. The Board appeared receptive to the idea, but felt there were several issues that needed to be addressed before proceeding. The Board felt that without visual capabilities and identification of who is speaking, the process could lose its value and cause the public to be frustrated and discouraged. The Board recommended Mr. James deal with staff to work out the details and then make a report back to the Board~ . ' '"' CVR 9.SP-2001-08. EpT~t;,eth M. PeW:on .Bri,qht (Tr'rton 350E) (Skin · APPROVED subject to the 12 conditions recommended by tha Planning Coi~¥~dssion. . . 10. ZMA-200t-01. R.edfle!d~- Phase 4 (Gavlon Bei.~h~ ) Signs · DEFERRED to allow staff to discuss with the applicant the following items: elimination of Lots 117 - 120 from the Application Plan and reserving 30 foot vs. 50 foot right-of-way. The Board indicated that it is not willing to forego the proffers in exgYmnge for conditions. If the staff and applicant are able to work out all the issues satisfactorily, this item can come back to Chairman. All BOS members present e~cept Mr. Also present v.=m Tom Foley, Larry Davis, Wayne and Ella Carey. Clerk; Prepare letter acknowledging her comments for signature by the Chairman. None, Coordinate fringing with Mr. James and someone from Information Services and Engineering. Clerk; Set out conditions of approval (Attachment 1) ~ M¢ct with the appl~ to re.solve the issues identirmd by the Board. the Boerd on the con-_~,e_-nt agenda. ~ 1. Blue Run A~,riculturallForestal DistricL., · ADOPTED the attached ordinance. 12. Appointments. clerk:,' Forward copy of signed ordirance to County Attorney's office for inclusion in next update of County Code; with a copy to Planning and Prepare appoidiJ-~-~ent le[~ers, update · APPOINTED Mr. Raymond L. Carey, to the Community College Board of Directors, with te,,-'n to expire June 30, 2005. tl4. F~orn the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. . In response to co--.~e~-~[s r~;~rd;ng a ie[~er from Mr. McG~ of 1 Boards and Commission boOk and notify VDOT concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working with VDOT to hold a Board public headng on September 12th. · Mr. Dorrier asked staff to look into purchasing lap top computers for Board members. · Ms. Thomas briefed Board members on the press conference she and Blake Caravati held concerning the Ivy Landfill. · Ms. Thomas mentioned visitations by our twin communities - Pacific County in September and the Italians in March. · Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition is developing with the shelter industry three work groups, that will work as subgroups to a legislative committee, that will look into the impact of growth. The Board can make suggestions of !ndividuals who might serve on these three work groups - one Is economic development/infrastructure needs and revenue needs; the second is revitalization/brown f~elds (which is where DISC appears to fit into) and the third is open space preservation/property rights. · Ms. Thomas said on the August 1st Consent Agenda, there was a letter from VDOT indicating that they were abandoning the service road concept due to financial considerations and public reactions. She thinks the Board should respond to that letter because there were valuable aspects to that concept. · Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission recently received a grant to do a regional greenway plan, They did not redo Albemarle County's plan, instead just inserted what the Board had adopted. If Board members want a copy, they can get one from the Planning District Commission. · At 9:25 p.m., the Board went into Closed Session to consider appointments to boards and commissions. · The Board reconvened into open session at 10:10 p.m. and _certified. the Closed session. ~m. The meet~med at 10:11 p.m. /ewc Attachment I - Planning Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 - Ordinance Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District Attachment 1 The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed one (1) foot above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, wi~ the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal monopole shall be painted a natural brown color; b. The diameter °f the P°le shatl not exceed thirty (30) inches at its base and eighteen (18) inches at the top; c. Guy wires shall not be permitted; d. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; e. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specif'mations set forth in the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; f. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole; h. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); i. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one (1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Tdton PCS)', sealed and dated June 4, 2001. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three (3), at the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the ,pole beyond the minimum required by the support Structure, shall be permitted. However, In no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan. developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree pml~ection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. ,N! construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for cor'~lnjction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feat of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; 10. 11. 12. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that ali light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;, The perrnittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted; The facility shall be screened from the property line located to the east with a species of shade tolerant screening trees to be approved by the Planning Department's Landscape Planner. Vegetation provided for such screening shall consist of a double staggered row of trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center; and The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of ~ facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. AUGUST 8, ;~001 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I mOVE THAT THE BOARD gO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION ;~. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VirgiNia · UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, DATE: August 2, 2001 ~: ......... ZMA299zll and SP-2001~06 Clover Lawn Village ............. At its meeting on July 24t~, the Plarming Commi~n deferred the above-referenced petitions until Septeml~. Since tl~e items were advertised for public hearing for the Board, you need to take action to cancel the public hearings. They will be readvertised for public hearing at a later date. /EWC ALEXANDRIA: (?0,3) 684-8007 BLACKSBURG: (540) 961-276'2 CHARLOTIESVILLE: [804] 971-7771 NORF©LK: 1757) 624-1454 RICHMOND: (804) 785-2003 T,ECLAIR RYAN A P~o~ss~oN~ CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW INNSBROOK CORPORATE CENTER A201 DOMINION BOULEVARD. SUITE 200 GLEN ALLEN, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE: (804) 270-0070 FACSIMILE: (804) 270-4715 E~c M. PAGE DIRECT DIAL: (804) 968-2985 DIRECT FACSIMILE: (804) 783-7682 INTERNET: epage@Ieciairryan.com FILE NUMBER: 3048.478 July 23, 2001 Sally H. Thomas Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Case No. PUE010303 Application of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative For a certificate o£pubtic convenience and ~tecessity for electric generation facilities in Louisa County Dear Ms. Thomas: On behalf of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, I am enclosing a copy of the July 12, 2001 Order of the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the above matter pursuant to the Commission's Order. Sincerely, Eric M. Page EMP/wyg Enclosure 07-27-01 AI0:46 IN COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINiA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION 010720192 AT RICHMOND, JULY 12, 2001 APPLICATION OF OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE For a certificate of public convenience and necessity for electric generation facilities in Louisa County CASE NO. PUE010303 ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING On May 17, 2001, as supplemented on June 19, 2001, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ("ODEC" or "Company"), applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing construction and operation of electric generation facilities in Louisa County. ODEC proposes to locate generation facilities on a site near the town of GordOnsville in Louisa County. A portion of the proposed site is within Albemarle County also. The proposed location is more particularly described in the public notice prescribed in ordering paragraph (13) Of this Order. The Company plans to build a combustion turbine facility that, according to the Company, will produce a summer rating of approximately 463 MW when fired by natural gas at 94°F, and 604 MW when fired by oil at 0°F. The facility is to be owned by Louisa Generation, LLC, a not-for-profit cooperative that has one member, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. According to the application, construction of the facility is to commence in early March of 2002 and commercial operation of this facility is to begin by May 1, 2003. The applicat'ion states that the proposed facility is located on a Columbia Gas of Virginia pipeline. The Company states that the interstate pipelines of both the Williams- Transco Gas Pipeline and Columbia Gas Transmission will be accessed to deliver gas to the proposed facility, and that the facility will rely primarily on the spot market to purchase natural gas to be delivered to the interstate pipeline systems. Furthermore, the Company's application states that in the event that natural gas is not available on either pipeline, the facility will have oil tanks on-site to provide back-up fuel to the turbines. ODEC applied for a certificate under the Utility Facilities Act, Chapter 10.1 (§ 56-265.1 et seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. According to the Company, the facilities would supply the electric power needs of each of its twelve distribution cooperative members, ten of which are in Virginia and one in each of Delaware and Maryland. The Commission finds that, as provided by §§ 56-265.2, 56- 580 D, and related provisions of Title 56 of the Code, this matter should be docketed. The Commission will set the application for a certificate and all other issues for hearing 2 before a hearing examiner. The Commission will direct the Company to give notice so that interested persons and agencies may comment and participate in this proceeding. We will also direct the Commission Staff to investigate the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) As provided by §§ 56-46.1, 56-265.2, 56-580 D, and related provisions of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia, this matter is docketed as Case No. PUE010303 and that all associated papers be filed therein. (2) On or before July 31, 2001, the Company may file with the Clerk any additional testimony and exhibits by which it expects to establish its case. (3) A hearing to receive evidence and comments from the public on the application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity be held on November 14, 2001, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia° (4) As provided by § 12.1-31 of the Code of Virginia and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("the Rules"), 5 VAC 5-20-120, a hearing examiner is appointed to conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission and to file a final report. 3 (5) On or before August i~, ~i, any person who expects to participate as a respondent shall file with the Clerk at the address set out in ordering paragraph (3) a notice of participation as a respondent and shall serve a copy on counsel to the Company identified in ordering paragraph (4) and on Commission Staff counsel assigned to the matter, Rebecca W. Hartz, Office of General Counsel, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 1197, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1197. As required by the Rules, 5 VAC 5-20-30, any organization, corporation, or government entity participating as a respondent must be represented by counsel. (6) Within five (5) days of receipt of a notice of participation as a respondent, the Company shall serve upon each respondent a copy of this Order, a copy of the application, and all materials now or hereafter filed with the Commission, unless these materials have already been provided. (7) On or before September 20, 2001, written comments on the Company's application may be filed with the Clerk of the Commission at State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118. Comments must refer to Case No. PUE010303. (8) On or before September 20, 2001, each respondent shall file with the Clerk the testimony and exhibits by which it expects to establish its case and shall serve a copy of the 4 testimony and exhibits on counsel to the Company and on all other parties. (9) The Commission Staff shall investigate the Company's application and, on or before October 24, 2001, shall file with the Clerk the testimony and exhibits it intends to present at the hearing and copies of any workpapers that support the recommendations made in its testimony. Copies of the testimony and exhibits shall be served on all parties. (10) On or before November 6, 2001, the Company may file with the Clerk all testimony and exhibits that it expects to offer in rebuttal to direct testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff and respondents and shall serve one copy on all parties. Additional rebuttal evidence may be presented in response to evidence which was not filed, but elicited at the hearing, provided that the need for the additional rebuttal evidence is timely addressed by motion during the hearing. (11) Discovery shall be conducted according to Part IV of the Rules. (12) Forthwith upon receipt of this Order, ODEC shall make available for inspection during regular business hours copies of its application, testimony, exhibits, this Order, and all other materials filed in this proceeding at the Company's place of business at 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. 5 (13) On or before July 30, 2001, the Company shall publish twice as display advertising (not classified) in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in Louisa County and Albemarle County the following notice: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES IN LOUISA COUNTY CASE NO. PUE010303 On May 17, 2001, as supplemented on June 19, 2001, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ("ODEC" or "Company"), applied to the State Corporation Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate electric generation facilities in Louisa County. The proposed facilities would be located approximately one and a half miles southwest of the Town of Gordonsville. The proposed site is approximately 92 acres and would be located on Klockner Road. The western side of the site is approximately 1100 feet from Virginia Route 231, and the eastern side, which runs alongside the CSX right-of-way, is approximately 2,350 feet from Red Hill Road. The western portion of the site just crosses the county line of Albemarle County. ODEC applied for a certificate under the Utility Facilities Act, Chapter 10.1 (§ 56-265.1 et seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. According to the Company, the facilities would supply the electric power needs of each of its twelve distribution cooperative members, ten of which are in Virginia and one in each of Delaware and Maryland. The Company plans to build a combustion turbine facility that according to the Company, will produce a summer rating of 'approximately 463 MW when fired by natural 6 gas at 94°F, and 604 MW when fired by oil at 0°F. The facility is to be owned by Louisa Generation, LLC, a not-for-profit cooperative that has one member, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. According to the application, construction of the facility is to commence in early March of 2002, and commercial operation of this facility is to begin by May 1, 2003. According to the Company, the proposed facility is located on a Columbia Gas of Virginia pipeline. The Company states in its application that the interstate pipelines of both the Williams-Transco Gas Pipeline and Columbia Gas Transmission will be accessed to deliver gas to the facility and that the facility will rely primarily on the spot market to purchase natural gas to be delivered to the interstate pipeline systems. Furthermore, according to the Company, in the event that natural gas is not available by either pipeline, the facility will have oil tanks on-site to provide back-up fuel to the turbines. The application may be inspected in the Commission's Document Control Center, Office of the Clerk of the Commission, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, during Commission business hours. Copies of the application may also be inspected during regular hours at the Company's place of business, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. A hearing to receive evidence and comments from the public on the application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the generation facilities will be held on November 14, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. On or before August 15, 2001, any person who expects to participate as a respondent shall file with the Clerk at the address set out above a notice of participation as a respondent, as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and ProcedUre, 5 VAC 5-20-80 B, and shall serve a copy on counsel to the Company, John A. Pirko, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, and Commission Staff counsel assigned to the matter, Rebecca W. Hartz, Office of General Counsel, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 1197, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1197. The respondent shall file and serve the notice of participation as required by the Rules, 5 VAC 5-20-140 and 5 VAC 5-20-150. Any organization, corporation, or government entity participating as a respondent must be represented by counsel as required by the Rules, 5 VAC 5-20-30. The Commission's Order for Notice and Hearing gives the complete procedural schedule and instructions on participation in this case. Any person not participating as a respondent may give oral testimony at the hearings as a public witness. These persons should arrive at the hearing location at least 15 minutes before the start of the hearing and contact the Commission's Bailiff. Individuals with disabilities who require an accommodation to participate in the hearing should contact the Commission at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date at 1-800-552-7945 (voice) or 1- 804-371-9206 (TDD) . On or before September 20, 2001, written comments on the Company's application shall be filed with the Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, 8 Virginia 23218-2118. Such comments must refer to Case No. PUE010303. A copy of the Order for Notice and Hearing may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission. The text of the Order may be viewed at the Commission's website: http://www.state.us./scc/caseinfo/orders.htm. The Rules of Practice and Procedure and other information may also be viewed on the website. OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (14) On or before July 30, 2001, the Company shall serve a copy of this Order on the chairman of the board of supervisors of Louisa County and Albemarle County, the mayor of the Town of Gordonsville, the Secretary of Natural Resources, the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, and upon the representative of every public service cooperative listed on Attachment A of this Order. Service shall be made by first- class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (15) On or before August 9, 2001, the Company shall file with the Clerk proof of the newspaper publication and proof'of service required by ordering paragraphs (13) and (14). The Clerk of the Commission shall mail an attested copy of this order to: John A. Pirko, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060; and shall deliver copies to the Commission's Divisions of Economics and Finance, Energy Regulation, and Public Utility Ac count ing. ~%=~: ~ ¢ler~ of ~e · 10 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES IN VIRGINIA A&N Electric Cooperative Mr. Vernon N. Brinkley President P.O. Box 1128 Parksley, Virginia 23421-1128 B-A-R-C Electric Cooperative Mr. Richard Weaver General Manager P.O. Box 264 Millboro, Virginia 24460-0264 Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Mr. Howard L. Scarboro General Manager P.O. Box 247 Lovingston, Virginia 22949 Community Electric Cooperative Mr. James M. Reynolds, P.E. General Manager P.O. Box 267 Windsor, Virginia 23487-0267 Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative Mr. Gerald H. Groseclose General Manager P.O. Box 265 New Castle, Virginia 24127-0265 Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative Mr. John Bowman Executive Vice President & General Manager Caller 2451 Chase City, Virginia 23924-2451 Northern Neck Electric Cooperative Mr. Charles R. Rice, Jr. President and CEO P.O. Box 288 Warsaw, Virginia 22572-0288 ATTACHMENT A Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative Mr. Stanley C. Feuerberg President and CEO P.O. Box 2710 Manassas, Virginia 20108-0875 Powell Valley Electric Cooperative Mr. Randell W. Meyers General Manager & CEO 325 Straight Creek Road P.O. Box 1528 New Tazewell, Tennessee 37879-1528 Prince George Electric Cooperative Mr. Dale Bradshaw, CEO P.O. Box 168 Waverly, Virginia 23890-0168 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Mr. Cecil E. Viverette, Jr. President P.O. Box 7388 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404-7388 Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative Mr. C. Douglas Wine President & CEO P.O. Box 236 Mt. Crawford, Virginia 22841-0236 Southside Electric Cooperative Mr. Larry Longshore President and CEO P.O. Box 7 Crewe, Virginia 23930-0007 ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN VIRGINIA Allegheny Power Mr. James D. Latimer Vice-President, State Affairs 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766 American Electric Power Mr. R. Daniel Carson, President Virginia/Tennessee Three James Center, Suite 702 1051 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Conectiv Power Delivery Mr. Mack Wathen Director, Planning, Finance and Regulation New Castle Regional Office 401 Eagle One Road P.O. Box 9239 Newark, Delaware 19714-9239 Dominion Virginia Power Mr. Robert E. Rigsby President & CO0 Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Kentucky Utilities Mr. Ronald L. Willhite Director of Rates and Regulations P.O. Box 32030 Louisville, Kentucky 40232 August2,2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 08-02-01 P1£:31 iN Michael R. Fogarty, Esquire McGuireWoods, LLP P O Box 1288 Chadottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-2001-008 Elizabeth M. Peyton Bright; Tax Map 58, Parcel 61A Dear Mr. Fogarty: 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: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed one (1) foot above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal monopole shall be painted a natural brown color; b. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty (30) inches at its base. and eighteen (18) inches at the top.; c. Guy wires shall not be permitted; d. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein: e. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; f. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be inStalled at the top of the pole; g. Prior to the ~ssuance of a building permit, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree that has been used to justify the height the monopole; h. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); i. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; Page 2 August 2, 2001 10. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001. Equipment shall b:e attached.to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three, at the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan developed by a certified arborist~ specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation Plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200).feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of [he subject facility. The pole shall be disassemb ed and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with con struction of the pole and accessory uses.shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are em ployed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane runmng though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Page 3 August 2, 2001 11. The facility shall be screened from the property line located to the east with a species of shade tolerant screening trees to be approved by the Planning Department's Landscape Planner. Vegetation provided for such screening shall con sist of a double staggered row of trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center. 12. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 8, 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 sch ed uied hearing date. The Commission also approved a request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provis~ons of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please note that this site plan waiver approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. The permittee shall provide adequate area for one parking space; 3. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the rewsed plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the fina revisions of the construction plans. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action please do not hesitate to contact me. ' Sincerely, Stephen B. Waller Planner SBW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View of balloon looking North from the intersection of State Route 250 and Tillman Road Arrow marks location of balloon Photograph taken with zoom lens Top of balloon is at 111.5 feet *Photograph taken by Planning Department Staff B GHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View of balloon looking Northeast from the Purvis Property located at 742 Tillman Road Photograph taken with zoom lens Top of balloon is at 111.5 feet Photograph taken by Planning Department Staff BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View of balloon looking North from the Purvis Property located at 742 Tillman Road Photograph taken with zoom lens Top of balloon is at 111.5 feet Photograph taken by Planning Department Staff' BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View of balloon looking North from Morgantown Road Arrow marks location of balloon Photograph taken with zoom lens Top of balloon is at 111.5 feet *Photograph taken by Planning Department Staff BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View looking North from the lease area Photograph taken from proposed pole location BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View looking South from the lease area Photograph taken from proposed pole location BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View looking East from the lease area Photograph taken from proposed pole location BRIGHT PROPERTY (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) View looking West from the lease area Photograph taken from proposed pole location STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER JUNE 26, 2001 AUGUST 8, 2001 SP 01-008 BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) Applicant's Proposal: This proposal is to install a personal wireless service facility which would implement a self- supporting metal monOpole, approximately 25 inches in diameter at its base and 10 inches at its top, and approximately one foot above the tallest tree within 25 feet. Two flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet-8 inches in height, and a lightning rod would be attached at the top of the pole which would allow the potential for the attachment of a third antenna in the future. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a brown metal cabinet, six feet - nine inches in height, placed on a 10-foot by 12-foot concrete pad (Attachment A). Petition: As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless communications coverage throughout the area the applicant, Triton PCS, Inc., maintains several facilities in the County of Albemarle (Attachment B). According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility would help to increase ~Mreless coverage along state Route 250, betw6en Ivy and CrOzet, in order to assist Triton PCS with maintaining a wireless communications system that in accordance with the requirements of it's FCC issued license, by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network. In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a new personal wireless services facility for increased coverage. The applicant's petition cites the preSence of a 104-foot tall tree that is 25 feet away from the proposed pole location and has a top elevation of 918 feet Above Sea Level (ASL) as the basis for requesting a monopole with a height of 111.5 feet tall (919 feet ASL). Planning and Zoning History,: SUB 87-100 Clay M. Peyton - The subject parcel was created from Tax Map 58/Parcel 61 with a subdivision which was approved June 26, 1987. There is no additional development history pertaining to this property. Character of the Area: The property, described as Tax Map 58/Parcel 6lA, contains approximately 5 acres, zoned Rural Areas located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Attachment C). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as being located in Rural Areas 3. The site of the proposed facility site is a 900 square feet wooded lease area, situated below and west of the ridgeline of Turner Mountain. The lease area, situated at a ground level elevation that ranges between 805 and 812feet ASL, is indicated on a topographic map in Attachment D. Access to the facility would be taken from a gravel road within a 20-foot wide private access easement that begins at the east side of Tillman Road (Route 676), approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection with'Route 250 West. The gravel driveway would extend approximately 113 feet to the east and then approximately 474 feet north over an existing dirt road, to the-lease area. With an exception of the clearing for the dirt road, the hillside and area surrounding the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush. Trees surrounding the lease area and shown on the applicant's plan submittal have surveyed top heights that range between 863 and 921 feet ASL. All of the properties adjacent to this site are zoned Rural Areas. The nearest property line to the facility site is the boundary shared with Tax Map 58/Parcel 61, a parcel which is under the same ownership as the subject property, and is approximately-108 feet west of the proposed monopote location. The nearest dwelling, located approximately 350 feet northwest of the site is alSo located on parcel 61. The nearest property line and house with separate ownership (TMP 58/53) are located approximately 128 feet and 385 feet away from the site, respectively. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staffnotes that construction of the proposed facility and its service road would not require a substantial amount of clearing. Therefore, review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan is focused mainly on the possible impacts that could result from the presence of the facility's monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless SerVice Facilities Policy provides the guidelines for siting and review of wireless facility proposals, and in accordance with the Policy visibility is considered to be the most important factor in staff's analysis. Open Space plan: This site lies within an area designated as forests on the Open Space Plan Concept Map. The Open Space Plan identifies forests as large contiguous areas, which are currently forested, have the best soilS for hard woods, and are not in sUbdivisions. Although forests are identified as major open space systems that should be protected in the'Rural Areas, staff recognizes that when existing structures are not available the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy also supports the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopole structures and ground equipment can be designed'to blend well into the natural surroundings. Because of the minimal amount of disturbance that will be required within the lease area and access easement for the service road, staff is of the opinion that the installation of this particular facility would not impose any significant impacts to the natUral state of the forests, or farmlands, of the subject parcel and the adjacent properties. Natural Resources and Cultural Assets: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets specific goals for managing those resources and preserving the environment for future use. In this chapter mountains are designated as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Staff notes that although this site is located to the Western side of Tumer's Mountain, it is located Completely below and outside of the Mountain Resource Area. 2 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: Staff analysis is focused largely on the visual impact of the proposed facility from surrounding properties and roadways. By virtue of the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities, all monopoles and related equipment are required to either be made of wood. or painted brown to blend in with the natural surroundings. Due to its proposed design and location, and balloon tests that were observed from various vantage points, staff anticipates that the forested landscape which rises between the lease area and the mountain's ridgeline would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application would be consistent with the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of Albemarle County. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: 2. 3. 4. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Waiver of the setback in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1; and, Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - waiver of the site plan requirements 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 use permits permitted hereunder. Special use perm/ts for uses as provided in this ordinan_ce may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, Based on the observation of several early balloon height tests, the applicant had determined that the monopole at its originally proposed height and location would have.been highly visible above the trees from the driveway of an adjacent parcel (Attachment E). Because the balloon was skylighted significantly from that point the applicant has amended the proposal by reducing the height of the proposed structure and adjusting its location within the confines of the lease area. Now, as a result of the dense coverage provided by existing tall trees surrounded the site as well as the backdrop provided by the mountain, visibility of the monopole would be adequately obscured from the adjacent properties. Furthermore, because this proposal would not necessitate the removal of any of the larger trees that are intended to assist in obscuring its view, it is staff's opinion that the facility would not impose any significant physical disturbance on the Subject parcel or adjacent properties. Fencing was not included in original plans for this site. However, the applicant has now revised the plans to show an 8-foot tall fence with additional plantings around the perimeter of the lease area in order to address visibility concerns that were voiced'by the owners of an adjacent parcel, east of the site. It is staff's opinion that an 8-foot tall, 30-foot by 30-foot fence located within a heavily wooded area would impose much more of a visual impact upon that property than the brown ground equipment and concrete pad, situated approximately 128 feet away would. Therefore, whereas staff's recommendation supports a provision that would require the installation of shade tolerant evergreens for vegetative screening, staff is not supportive of placing such a large screening fence, around the site. With consideration for the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed facility would not impose any substantial detriment to adjacentproperties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance includes preservation of the agricultUral and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources as intents of the Rural Areas. Uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are limited either to rural scale residential development, or those uses related to agriculture and forestal activities. Services related to those by-right activities are the uses most often allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas. However, staff also recognizeS that the presence of various utilities within the Rural Areas is not uncommon. Other examples of utilities within the area include the standard types of wooden utility poles for overhead lines that provide electrical power and conventional phone services, and although those utilities usually employ structures that are much smaller than monopotes for wireless facilities, they are most often placed in locations where they are more visible, such as road sides and large easements that pass through woOded areas. BecaUse the proposed service road would only require grading and compaction activity to stabilize and place gravel over an existing dirt road bed, no extensive disturbance would be imposed upon the natural landscape of the site. The applicant's request indicates that Triton service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other unexpected factors. Once the proposed facility has been constructed and is fully operational, the sum of regularly scheduled site visits for both facilities combined would equal two per month, this is much less than the number of. vehicular trips projected for conventional residential development. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this level of traffic utilizing a single entrance would not impose a significant increase in activity or vehicular traffic within the area. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site wireless facilities in locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding area. This facility would be located within a wooded area and accessed by extending an existing private driveway. Both of these qualities have been identified favorable approaches in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited or physical visual impacts. With the exception of a view where the top portion ofthemonopole would be visible at the same level as the tops trees of some of the taller trees surrounding the site, the proposed facility would be effectively obscured from the public roads and nearby public properties. Therefore, staff's opinion is that approval of this facility will not result in a changing in the character of the Rural Areas district. 4 and that such use will be in harmony with the p~ose and intent of this ordinance. Staff review of this request is made in consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to 1'.4, 1.4.4, !.5. In some way, all of these sections address the provision of public services. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service~ Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. The establishment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. Although wireless 'facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the goals of the wireless policy are intended to ensure that the equipment for those facilities are not responsible for diminishing the value of the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Therefore, 'it is staff's opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The Ordinance also:lists the limited deliVery of services as an iment for the Rural Areas zoning districts, and it is understood that approval of this request would act to increase the level of services that are provided in the Rural Areas. However, when wireless service facilities can be established in a manner that complies with the guidelines of the wireless policy, the anticipated increase ~n services has not be deemed to conflict with any of the agricultural, forestal or other objectives set forth for the Rural Areas district. with the uses permitted by right in the distfict~ With the exception of the limitations that would be placed on tree cutting within 200 feet of the proposed facility, approval of this request would not act to restrict uses that are allowed on the subject parcel; nor would the uses allowed by.right on any other properties within the district be impacted. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the pUblic health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent, with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication s~rvices. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilitieS on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities .comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet all of the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement adequately protects the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services 5 Currently, there are no provisions that act to prohibit the establishment of personal wireless services, and review of this request has been based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan is specific to this site alone. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal WirelesS Communication Facilities Policy provides the guidelines for siting wireless facilities within the County of~Albemarle. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this particular application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. This is the second special use permit that Triton has filed in an attempt to achieve the coverage objectives within this particular search ting. Due to concerns with visibilit3,' that were identified during the Planning Commission's review of the earlier request, the first application (SP 00-42 Triton PCS, Bailey) was deferred by the Planning Commission and later withdrawn by the applicant, upon submittal of the current application. Furthermore, staff notes that the monopole location addressed by this review and recommendation was revised since the original application was filed. So this is also the second location that the applicant has proposed on the subject parcel. 3. Waiver of the setback in accordance with Section 4.10.3. 1. Section 4.10.3. I states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted :by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure." Approval of this request would introduce a monopole that is approximately 111.5 feet tall. Although the facility is sited to meet the standard RA district setback of 25 feet from the side property line, the monopole structure would only be located approximately 102 feet from the northern property line property line shared with Tax Map 58/Parcel 61. Therefore, in accordance with the height limitations and setback re.quirements, set forth in Section 4.10.3.1, the applicant is requesting approval ora waiver which would allow the tower to be built closer to the nearest property tine. The setback provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 are intended to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards that would arise if a structure should fall. The property line from which this waiver is required is shared with a parcel that is under the same ownership as the subject parcel, and the nearest dwelling is more than 350 feet away. It is staff's opinion that approval of the requested modification would not result in undue crowding of the land or a safety hazard. Therefore, if the Commission is able to support the request for a wireless facility, in the proposed location, on the basis of its evaluation for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and the Comprehensive Plan, then approval of this modification is also appropriate. Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with Section 32.3.10, the Planning Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of personal wireless communication facilities.. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area that is normally impacted by these uses and the ability to obtain the required information through the erosion and sediment control plans and the building permits. In this case the construction of the proposed facility will require activity related to construction of the service road extension, connection of electrical utilities which are currently on site, and the placement of the monopole and ground equipment. Because of the minimal activity that is necessary for installation, staffis unable to identify any purpose that would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan that is in full compliance with the provisions of Section 32 (Site Plans). Therefore, staff recommends approval of a site plan waiver for the wireless facility proposed in SP 01-008, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; The permittee shall provide adequate area for one parking space; The permittee shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 2. 3. 4. 5. The facility would provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties; The design and siting of the facility is such that it would have a limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads; The vegetation on the side of Turner mountain would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole; and, Access to the facility will be provided by placing gravel over an existing dirt path. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: Approval of a fence around the lease area would likely increase the visibility of the facility site; and, There are existing and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff' s opinion is that while this site is located within the Rural Areas, the existing trees and terrain surrounding the site would help to reduce the visual impacts to such an extent that approval of this proposal would be consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit, subject to conditiOns. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the-Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed one (1) foot above t_he top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception ora grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal monopole shall be painted a natural brown color; b. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty (30) inches at its base, and eighteen (18) inches at the top.; c. Guy wires shall not be permitted; d. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; e. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; f. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pOle; g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree that has been used to justify the height the monopole; h. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); i. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three, at the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shah be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project oUt from the pole beyond the minimum required bY the support structure, shall be 8 o o 10. 11. 12. permitted. However, in no case shall the.antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying an), existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that Year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest pan of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of alamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. The facility shall be screened from the property line located to the east with a species of shade tolerant screening trees to be approved by the Planning Department's Landscape Planner. Vegetation provided for such screening shall consist of a double staggered row of trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. ATTACHMENTS: A - Site Information and Construction Drawings B - Application and Request for Special Use Permit C- Tax Map Location D - Topographic Map E - Applicant's Additional Information, Dated June t0 TRITON RECEIVED ~%A.NNINI3 AN~ GO~]'ViUNI'Iy D~V~LOPNENT SunCom M~mb~r of th~ AT&T Wireless Notwork BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) 777 TILLMAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 CVR-$50E 111.5' STEEL POLE LEGEND TEST BORINO Wt~RK POINT CAST tN PLACE OR~ ~qU~H£O ST(:~IE, ~ ST[EL DRAWING NDEX T 1 TITLE SHEET SP-1 S TE SURVEY Z-1 SITE PLAN Z-2 SITE DETAIL PLAN Z-3 ELEVATION & ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAILS Z 4FOUNDATION & CABLE BRIDGE DETAILS Z-5 TOWER ELEVATION Z-6 TREE HEIGHT ELEVATION PROJECT 'SUMMARY SITE NUMBER: CVR-550E PROPERTY OWNER: ELIZABETH BRIGHT SITE DATA: 'SITE DIRECTIONS FROM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, TAKE MClNTIRE RD TO ROUTE 250 BYPASS. TURN LEFT HEADING WEST ON ROUTE 250 BYPASS. PROCEED TO ROUTE 250 WEST GO PAST IVY VIRGINIA. TURN RIGHT ON ROUTE 676, TILLMAN'S ROAD. SITE IS ON RIGHT HAND SIDE ABOUT 1/2 MILE. THERE IS A RED CATTLE GATE WITH WHITE FENCING ON EITHER SIDE. SITE IS THROUGH GATE AND UP THE k. tOUNTAIN ABOUT 3OO'. VICINITY MAP T.T.V. PARTICIPANTS: SITE NAME: SITE ADDRESS:' BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) 777 TILLMAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 DEED BOOK-PAGE: 1908/125-150 ' ' TAX MAP: 58-61A CURRENT ZONING:RA APPLCANT: CONSTRUCTION CONTACT PERSON: JURISDICTION: 777 TILLMAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TRITON PCS 9211 ARBORETUM PARKWAY, SUITE. 200 RICHMOND, VA 25236 DAVID KEISER (804) 525-9500, EXT 220 ALBEMARLE COUNTY LATITUDE: N 58'-05'-56.6" (NAD 85) LONGITUDE: W 78'-37'-05.3" (NAD. 83) GROUND ELEVATION: 807.5 FT (AMSL) AMSL= ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL USGS MAP: CROZET MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: SAMUEL MILLER. ATTACHMENTtA PAGE 1 TECTONIC ~,,'"J~ ,.~. TRITON PCS. Ir,_c ~unt;om' 5372 FALLOW~AER L~NE SUIE C ROANOKE. VA 2~01~-27~8 0 SUBMITTALS 3 04-2~-01 AO(:(D ~STkNC~S TO I~$OOICES 5 6 -- BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) CVR- 550E 777 ~ILLMAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22g02 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~H~'ET 'NTt.[ TITLE SHEET 11 ATTACHMENT GRAPHIC SCALE GENERAL NOTES 1. TAX MAP PARCEL #: 5~61A 2. PROPERTY OWNER: ELIZABETH MICHIE PEYTON BRIGHT. D.B. 1908. PG~ 128 3, BEARINGS SHOWN B~SED ON THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM= (SOUTH ZONE) 4, ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE LEASE AREA ARE TRUE AND CORRECT· DIMENSIONS FROM THE LEASE AREA TO THE UNSURVEYED PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 5. HORIZONTAL DATUM - NAD 83 [2C ACCURACY) 6. VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 88 (2C ACCURACY) ?. LEASE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN F.LR.M ZONE 'C" A~ SHOWN ON COMMUNITY pANEL NO, 510006 0205 S DATED DECEMBER 16, 1980. (FLOOD ZONE DETERMINATION tS BASED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS AND DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PROPERTY WILL OR WILL NOT BE FREE FROM FLOODINGOR DAMAGE.) 8. NO SUBSUFACE INVESTIGATION PERFORMED SY RICE ASSOCIATES 9. MAGNETIC DECLINATION IS COM~UTED AND NOT OSSERVED. 10. NO WETLANDS AREAS HAVE BEEN DELINEATED II. BOUNDARIES AND AREAS OF ADJACENT PARCELS A~E BY COMPILATION, 12. THE BOUNDARIES AND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED, ~/D DO NOT REFLECI' A COMPLETE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES. 13. THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN BONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. I CERTIFY THAT THE LATITUDE OF 38'03'56.6" N AND THE LONGITUDE OF 78°37~05.4' W ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN + I - 50 FEET HORIZONTALLY AND THAT THE TOWER SITE ELEVATION OF 807.1 IS ACCURATE WITHIN + I- 20 FEET VERTICALLY. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM (COORDINATES) ARE IN TERMS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) AND ARE EXPRESSED A~EGRE$S, MINUTES AND SECONDS TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A SECOND. THE VERTI~DATUM IS IN TERMS OF THE NORT~I ~IERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 LESLIE R, BYRNSIDE. L~ LINE TABLE LINE TABLE L12N74"06'06"[ BO,40 L25N0g'53'~54'[15.0~ L24SaC~26'06'[ .30.0(: L25S0~'3~'~4*W 50.00 L25NB0'26'Q6"W 50,00 LEGEND R/S RI){) SCI' D.B. t~ ~G. 151 / ~ " ~ 20; ~:cEss'!a. PO~ERpoL[ :; [og-T. o~F GRAPHIC SCALE ( m ~,'~' ) \.I~// COMMUNICATIONS V~ J CROWN COMMUNICATIONS. lNG. J I (S40)7~5-~072 I TECTONIC ...... TRITON PCS, Inc I!~._R CE ASSOC ATES 508 TURNER ROAD SUITE O RICHMOND, VA 23225 TEL: (804) 674-9723 FAX: (804) 674-9726 " REVISIONS BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) ~R CVR-3$OE 777 TILLMAN ROAD CHARL01-TESVtLLE , VA 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SITE SURVEY PAGE 2 12 / / ELIZABETH MICHIE pEYi'ON BRIGHT 0.B, 1908. PG. 010.~ TAX MAP i~58-61 LEASE PROPOSED 12' ACCESS ROAD SEE DETAIL~) EUZABETH MICHIE PLrl'TON BRIGHT D.B. 1908. PO. 0125 TAX MAP ~58-61A 5.14 ACRES TREE ,\ BCAL SLOPE ALONG ROADWAY PRO11EC'RON FENCE JOHN & AGNES BOOKER D.B, 584, PG, 206 WOOD RAIL FENCE ~4ARY JANE DIVINE O.B. 692, PO. 0OB TAX UAP 158-52A JOHN & AGNES BOOKER O.B, 584. PG. 206 TAX MAP 158-52 ATTACHMENT~ A PAGE 3 TECTONIC ~,~= .... II TRITON t~CI$, Ir~ | ' '~------- ,-./~' LI SUBMI~A~ ~o~ [~ a ~ BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) CVR-350E 777 TILLMAN ROAD VA 22902 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SITE PLAN 7 13 IIVII,,,I] [ ~/ ~ PA ~ ~ t , LEGEND , i TECTONIC ~.~'~ TRITON PCS, Ir~ · ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,, ,, '",, 'X ~ ~,, ',, "~ ",,~.~.",, ",, " ",, '",, "',, ", ~ ", ",, "... "--.. "-.. "--.. "-.. ',,, ',,, X, ',, ',,, ',,, ],~,,, ',,, ',., ¢0 ~,,, ',,, ',,, ",,, ,, ",, ",,, '-.... '..... ".... "-.... "- ', ', ',, X , ~ ? ',,, ',, ', ,, ~ ,, ', ',, ',,, ',, ',, ', '-... ',.. . ',.. '... sm ~o~,z~ · , ,~ ,~ .~ X ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,. ,,, ~ ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, -..... ..... ..... ..... ............. ~~[~~~ ], ',. '~ ~ ~ ', ~ ',, ', ', ', , ',, ', ', ,~-o~, '., ',. '-.. '-.,. '-.. '-. ...... ~ ', '~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ', ~ ' ', ', ~, ~ ' 102' TALL Q ~4' ~ROM ~ '% %. %. "..~-' .... ~.. ,," ,' ~ ~ ", . '~ ", : ~ " ~, ',, ~os~'~uw ', ,~ o., ". ", "-. ..... ... ........... ~ ...... ~ ~iR:< A. ~OWERS / ' ,' 'I ., I , ', , ~ '~ ', x ' TO~e C~N~R ~ ~ ".. ".. ;-. ".-'" ...~ ........ , / , ~ I ~ ', .... , ', ; '. . .. ,' ,' / ,' ' ' , ' ' ', ', ~X ', ~ ~ ' / 04' ~aLC,e 25' F.Oa ".--" .--" ....... ," / , i ', ' ', ~ ', ~" ~o~ c~.~ ..... . ............ ', ,, ,, ~ ,, ~ ,, ., ,, ~1 ,,. '.. ...- ..- , , . , ~ ~ , ,. '.. '., ~',4z /',,. ,-- x; v-z~ CxC_a_~./-~ ~,~,~,~.' ', ', ", I~'.~ I~ I- I I I ,' ' ~o~.~ *~EA " '., ', ~ '.1_~ .'~~_.~--~-~~ ..~ o~ ..- ', X ,, , , , -. (.~*~ro,~s~,) . , ~~;. ~-~.-''' - .- ~ , , , ., , ~ .... . · . .- ..... I ~""'~'~ I ~ ' ', '--, %, ~2' TALL e ~; ~ROa ', ', ~ ~ ~ X~ ~.~ / X ] I ~' ." ." ' ', ', ', ~'~ . '.. ,. ,, %~~ ~.-' ~ ~.~' co.~,,,o', '., ', ,, . ' ~" ......... -.... ,.... ..,,. ,,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,, , , I ...... ".~s' o~x ".. '..~ '"~~.~,/ ..-" ..-"" ', " , ', ', %. ~' TALL 0 45'.~ROM ~...~ % '.~ .... . ~" . ~ROPOSE~ 1 1 5' HGH ~, ~, ~ ~ 4 ~Jl-OI ~1~ .... '-. ~o~ c~,~,~ '4./ ~ '~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ / S~OL~. ', ', ', ', .... ~ '- '.. '.. [ '--~ '~~ ~~~ ~J~ ./ ~SE ~L~V,~.5'C~SL~' ', ', ~ ' '"~ o., '"' -...~ '~~ /;~.,~,,., .. ,, ,, , EXIST TREE HEIGHT SCHEDULE -. / '-. . ,_ ~'-18 , ' ' ~ TREE NO TR ..... 0 - *o~,=, ,~8' j ~/ /" ,," ", ' ', '~ - · EE HEIGHT AMSL DIST. FROM POLEI '-. ..... ,,.. ,..... '-..... /' ,,,.' .., ",,, ,,,, '.,, ',,,,, ',,, , --- ' ...... ",¢o,~ "-, , . '-,, ',, ~~,~/~,' ,,,' ,,' ,, ', ~ ,,, ,, ,, ' 1. 82' 794.00 876.00 51' ~ .... ' ..... .~X,~,LL e ,=' ~0, .' ', ", ~~~~' /~F~o,~O ~' ~, ',," "", 2 69' 794 O0 865 O0 50' "', '"- TO~ ~ ~ ', ' ', I~~ ~' ~'~/ S~,,~.~ r,,c~ .... ' · · ...... - ...... , '",, '~ ~~ /-~,,'%~ O?F~', '~ ',,, ",, ',,, ~. 84' 797.00 88t.00 42' ...... '"'", '"=' 0,~ '"'~" ,"'~'/ ,"' ~ ~, ~, '~ ", ', 4. t07' 800.00 907.00 21 , ' .... '-,, S2X.**tC e ~. ~O~ ', " ', ~ 0~ ,, ' ' '" " " ' 5 1 ' ' .... "- "- '~~~¢ '/ ~ , , ', , ~ I . 800.00 907.00 32 BRIGHT -.. '-. "-. '* ~ , % ',~ 14" OAK ./ / ,' ', ~ ~ , ~ * , , .... ' .... '---, ', ~c';w"~o~' ~ ,, ~ x ,, , 7. 95 805.00 900.00 11 (TRITON PCS) ' - ..... ---- TOga C[Nma ,' ..... , ', ' , 8 1 1 .... ' ...... '-,, ',,~%s¢~%,,," /,, , , , ,, , . ' o8' so~.oo 9~2.00 ~ '. CVR-350E "' ' '~¢~;r"m'; / " " " ~ ' ' 9 96 812 O0 908 O0 2 --- % ..... ' ..... ,,-,,e~o,~ '~~./ ,," ,, ,, ', ~ ,, ', . ' . . 3 ''- ', 69' fALL' 050' FE~ ' , /' ," ,- ...... ,' ' ' ~ ~ ' X t ' ' /~ ', ........ ~,,~~~ ,,,,. , , , , ~ ,, ,, O. 104 814.00 = 918.00 25, '-, ',.u-=. ~=, ', ,, ', ~' O~K /' "' ...... " t ' ' ' ', ' 11 7 777 ~LLMAN ROAD ~ .... ~~ ..... --~ //'~, ' ' .... t . 103 816.00 919.00 3 ....... ~ ..... ,,, , ,,, ,, ",,, ',,, ~]~'~5~°~....''' ._..," ',, '~ ', t ',,-',, ,, 2. lO2' 817.o0 919.0o 44' · _. ALBEMARLE COUNTY .... . ..... --. '---,,,, ",,,, ',,,?;~ , . ; . . ,' .. "',,. ", ", ",, '~~../'.",,, ',, "~ '~ t t t t ~7. 98' 79800 896.00 45' SITE DETAIL PLAN ..... ,, ~ ', , ', ,, ', ..... ~[o[ ~. .. /' " ' ' ' ~ ' ' ~ 1 11 44 · ,. ' .... ,, '., ',, ',, '~-~" ..,, ~'~ ',, ', ,, ~, '~ ,, ~, ~ 79~.oo 9o9.oo · , -,, ,,, ,, ,, ',, ',~~ ~ ../' // '~ ',, ,, ,, ,, ~ ~ ~ ' ~¢~ ~'" " '" "', "',. '", '",. '", '",. ~/ .... ~ ..... t' "~1 ........... ~'/' ...' .// .." ', ",. ''~ ~, '~ '~ ". ~ NOTE: NO SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION 3E4 (~ ,{ o -r Z TREE NO. TREE HEIGHT AMSL DIST. FROM POLE BASE TOP 1. 82' 794.00 876.00 51' 2. 69' 794.00 865.00 50' 3. 84' 797.00 88t.00 42' 4. t07' 800.00 907.00 21' 5. 10t' 798.00 899.00 6. 107' 800.00 907.00 52' 7. 95' 805.00 900.00 11' 8. 108' 804.00 912.00 51' 9. 96' 812.00 908.00 25' t0. 104' 814.00 918.00 25' 11. 103' 816.00 919.00 3T 12. 102' 817.00 919.00 44' 13. 111' 810.00 921.00 51' 14, 94' 808.00 902,00 45' 15. 96' 805.00 901.00 47' 16. 92' 803.00 895.00 31' 17. 98' 798.00 896.00 45' 13, 11~' 796.00 909.00 44' ~. PROPOSED RRgO-17-O2DP ANTENNAS (T'~P OF 2) lOg.§'~- (ACL) 917.0':k(AMSL) ~ PROPOSED CLUSTER MOUNT ANTENNAS PROPOSED COAX CABLES ON STEEL =OLE UP TO ANTENNAS. ~ PROPOSED 1 ll,S' HIGH STEEL POLE PAINTED BROWN ~ JGHTNING RO0 AT TOP OF POLE O BASE, TAPER NG TO POINt i' CROUND LEVEL (AGL} 919,0' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (AMSL) PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE SEE DETAIL ~ ~ PROPOSED SCCS ON 10'X12' CONC PAD TO BE tiNTED EARTHTONE EL=807.5'~ (AMSL)~ ~ ~ EXPOSED ?OUNDA~ON TO / QELEVATION SCALE: NTS ' I[ANTENNA AND COAXIAL C. ABLE SCHEDULE TMA TYPE LOP B BAND .DP B BAND 114.5'::t: (AOL) STEEL POLE~ MICROFLI[CT PIPE MOUNT PART # B1852 OR EQUAL EMS MTG-010-20 MECHANICAL OOWNTILT BRACKET RRgO-17-O2DP PANEL ANTENNA ll,n OF 2) 56'xB'x2.75") NOTE: TWO COAXIAL CABLES PER ANTENNA j~PROPOSED FUTURE ANTENNA OISTANCE TO pOt[CANNOT EXCEED 12' FENCE POSTS ORANGE UV-RESISTANT HIGH-~NSILE --~ OR 2"e OAK MAY BE 4"~1 P~NE STRENGTH POLY BARRICADE FABRIC / TMA PANEL (2 EA. PER ANTENNA) MICROFLECT mi-BRACKET PART # B182B OR EQUAL NO~; ANTENNA EQUIPMENT TO BE 1 PAINTED BROWN. NOTE: TRI-BRACKET MOUNT WiTH ONLY 2 SECTORS WILL BE U'flLIZED. QTRI-BRACKET ELEVATION SCALE: NONE PANEL (2 LA, PER AN1ENNA) NOTES: PROI~CllON OF EXISI1NG VECETAIION: AT THE START OF GRADINO NVOLV~NG THE LOY/ERINQ OF EXISTING GRAOE AROUND A TREE OR STRIPPING OF TOPSOIL, A CLEAN SHARP, VER~CAL CUT SHALL SE MADE AT THE EDGE OF THE TREE SAV~ AREA AT THE SAME llME AS OTHER TREE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTION ~E TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALE.. BE NSTALLED ON THE SIDE OF THE CUt FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE TREE TRUNK AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UN~L ALL CONSTRUCTION iN THE V1CINITY OF THE TREES IS COMPLETE, NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, FILL. OR EQUIPMENT AND NO TRESPASSING SHALL BE ALLOWED WiTHIN THEBOUNOARY OFTHE PRTECTED AREA. ~ -- CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL AT A DISTANCE EDUAL TO TREE DRIP LINE OR 5', WHICHEVER IS GREATER. QTREE' PROI:ECTION FENCE DETAIL 3" 1~2A AGGREGATE COMPACTED AND ROLLED ~ 4" ~13 COURSE AGO. & 2" OF ZA COMPACTEO AND ROLLED ~ CLASS ~ CEOTEXTILE PROOF ROLL · STABILIZE ~ ~ ~ ~ 2'-0' x 12'-0' . % ~ ~EXISTING CONS~UC~ON 1. CLEAR ANO GRUB SE ~ANO ALONG ~E ACCESS 2. REYOE ALL EXIS~NG OR~ANI~ MATERIAL TO ~UITABLE ~, PLACE GEO~X~LE fABRIC O~ SU~GRAOE AN0 ~N mLACE AGGRgGA~ BASE, WIRE QWOOD SCREENING FENCE DETAIL SCAL.~: NTS QGRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE DETAIL SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT A ITECTONIC~ PAG~ G c~;",~%':2:,~%~''~' .~ c-,)~-,~ · ~ ~ Z SUBMITTALS 2 ~5-21-ol 15SUEO FOR ~INAL (ZedqING) BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) LLI CVR-550E 77'/ TILLUAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ELEVATION, ANTENNA ............. /~TTACHMENT, ERICSSON SCCS-S EQUIP BTS DOOR (TYP) ,_ J USE ERICSSON BOLT PATTERN ~MPLATE TO I/PREDRILL HOLES FOR ANCHOR BOLTS ~EQUIPMENT PAD PLAN M.[:.~/Sc^~z . BRIDGE CHANNEL AS PER TRITON PCS STANDARDS HEAD PIPE COLUMN ~.~~ CONCRETE FOUNDA'nON /~ BRIDGE CHANNEL STANOARD HANGER (TYP) ~ / /--COAXIAL ANTENNA ~2 AWG GREEN. ~' ~ / / e STRANOEO COPPER lit ~ / ~ ~ u~ [o)o~ ] / W/NUTS ~ O~RSZ[O SUPPORT 0 3'-0" O.C. MAX (~) CABLE BRIDGE GTRAPEZE CABLE RUN BOB MOUNTED TO STEEL POLE SEE DETAIL (~-~ POlgER AND TELCO CONDUITS, STUB UP~ TOP GRADE'-~ GREEN ~NSULAI~D (STANDARD} c^B~ BR,OOE GROUNB ---~ TECTONIC ~,~_..~'~ ..~. ~ MOUNT MOB TO ~. S~EL POLE /~ ~APEZE' CABLE RUN ~ / SEE DETAL ~ 5/B'eCABLE ~REAOEDBRIDGE W/ROD mo4 M~t~ ,~ ~.. s~. 1~ CABLE GR UN ~00UPLEXERS MOUN~D BRIOGE 0 0 ~ ~ /BENEA~ BRIDGE PCS. lnc 3 I/2" DIA PIPE '-0" ___ / [ , · , / ~EQUIPMENT / CONNEC~ON (~) GROUND ~lNG ~~r 1~ MOUN~NG BASE -#3'S 0 16" O.C STR PAGE 6 3'-9' (MINI R.F Z~IN~ ,..--,.. ] SU6MITTALS : I ~-:,-o, I,~ r~...~ (zo.,.~l T /W1RE MESH // TINTED EARTHTONE. [~.1,~1~9 ! SCALE / / ~-CRUSHED STONE CONTINUOUS GEQUIPMENT. FOUNDATION BRIOHT (TRITON PCS) CVR-350E BTS ~ "~ 777 ~LLIdAN ROAD BTS MOUN~NG BASE CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22g0; EXPANSION BOLTED ~ TO CONCRETE PAO~ ~a:~] ~LEVELJNO GROUT ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~ I I/ P~ W/ ~:2 SLOPE CONCRE~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EQUIPMENT PAD I / m n~PTH OF GRO"T X ~~ ~-~/2',,~. TO FOUNDATION & ~ ~ T i 4" ~PROX. · . ~ ' t' ' CABLE BRIDGE 5/ HILB ST IN SS S~EL R~K BOLTS, SHIM IF REQUIREO ~ NUU~ (MIN. 3 t/2" EMBEDMENT DEPt. ~ OF 4) Z- 4 2' LIGHTNING ROD AT TOP OF POLE. 1" BASE, TAPERING TO POINT~ iT/STEEL POLE 111.5' ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AOL) 919.0' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (AMSL) PROPOSED CLUSTER / MOUNTED ANTENNAS.~// W/TMAS PROPOSED DAPA 58010X ANTENNAS (TYP OF 2) © EL. 109.5' (AGL) PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE \ PROPOSED SCCS EQUIPMENT PAINTED BROWN ON 10'X12' CONC. PAD TO BE TINTED EARTHTONE ~ PROPOSED 8' WOOD SCREENINO FENCE --% PROPOSED 4' DIA. RHODOBENDRON -~ `% T/EXISTiNG GRADE EL. 807.5' rPROPOSED 111.5' / STEEL POLE TO BE PAINTED BROWN ~EXPOSED FOUNDATION TO BE TINTED EARTHTCNE TOWER ELEVATION SCALE: 1"=2o' NOTE: PRCPOSED POLE DIAMETER VARIES FROM APPROX. 25" AT BASE TAPERING TO APPROX. 10" AT TOP. ATTACHMENT ~I,%,~ ...... , 5un o ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~[~ NO. ~ ~ C~CK ~ Z BRIGHT . (TRITON PCS) J JCHARLOTTES~LLE, VA 22902 900 895' _885 88C 87~ 870' 865 866 _855 795 790. 26" TULIP POPLAR EL=92t' 111' TALL 15" OAK EL= 18" OAK EL=90: 24" DOUBLE TUI EL= 24" OAK ~L=816' ~ 15" OAK EL=[ 26" TULIP POP.AR EL=BIO' EL=8I EL=812' / 24" DOUBLE TULIP POPLAR i/ EL=805' 14" OAK 111.5' STEEL POLE LL ~"~:'---'" 919.0'111.5' TALLq 24" OAK /\ /t EL=918' 104' TALL tEL=909' 11,3' TALL 60" TRIPLE OAK IL16" OAK /EL=907' 107' TALL JtlEL=908' 96' TALL /18" OAK TA_L 14-" OAK TALL 18" OAK /'iLL=881' 84' TALL 22" OAK TALL 12" HICKORY TALL QVIEW LINE PLAN SCALE: 24" OAK / 16" OAK EL=B05r PROPOSED TOWER BASE EL= 14" OAK EL=~ 18" OAK EL=~ 18"OAK / - EL= 798'~' - ~796' 60" TRIPLE OAK¢ EL=800' /"~TREE HEIGHT ELEVATION 12" HICKORY EL=794' .~---EXlSTING GROUND 22" OAK )AK EL=797 4" OAK 118'' OAK EL=800' NOTE: TREE DIAMETERS SHOWN ARE TO SCALE AS MEASURED AT BASE OF TREE. TREE NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TABLE ON SHEET Z-2 PROPOSED POLE DIAMETER VARIES FROM APPROX. 25" AT BASE, TAPERtNO TO APPROX. 10" AT TOP. ATTACFiMENT PAGE 8 TECTONIC "~ - SUBMITfAI.S ] BRIGHT (TRITON PCS) CVR-,350E 777 TILLMAN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22g0; ALBEMARLE COUNTY TREE HEIGHT ELEVATION Z 6 L~J OFFICE US' IsP# ~~t~r-~ ,~ T'~,~P ,~ ~ ~ _.~ ~,7. ATTACHMENT B Application for Special Use Permit ProjectName~ao.~..~.~.~.~,~.a...n __Briqht Property (Triton PCS - CVR $50E) .. "Existing Use Residential & Agriculture Proposed. Usc Wireless Telecon'i~tonication Facitity *Zoning District t:LA *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested · 10.2.2.6. (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres lo be covered by Special Use Permit I,r. ~,s...,,~,, ,. a~u,m~s ,. ,~,) 5..144 Is this an amendment to an existing Special Usc Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with ~his application? O Yes~No 'Cl Yes~No [ContactPer$on(Whomshouldwccall/writcconcemingthisproj¢ct?): Michael R. Fcx?,--~-y. ~.=c~ McGu~reWcrx;t$ T.T[~ t Address ...,P.O. Box 1288 City .Charlottesv51~ State VA Zip_22iQ2_ [ DaytimcPhon¢( 804 ) 980-2230 Fax# (804) 980-2271 E-mail.mfo~any~m¢~ue¢~oods, com Owner of land (As listed in th~ County's r~cords): Eiizat~th M. Peyton Briqht Address 777 Tillman Road DaytimcPhon¢ ( .... 804 ) 293-8686 Fax# City ,Ch~t°ttebvill~mte VA Zip 22902 E-mai[ Applicant (Who ~ thc co,ma mnon r~prescnting? Who is m. quaaing thc special us~?): ....Triton PCS, Inc. Address 9211 Arboretum Parkway Suite 200 . City Ric~n'd State VA Zip 23236 Daytime Phone ( 804) 323-9500 Fax # .(80~,) 323-4058 E-mail Tax map and parcel 58-61A Physical Address (irassig.~) 777 Tillman . Road, Charlottesville, 'VA 22902 - FroP.. Co_ur3_~y OZi:zces .~nJ~e _M_cln~zJ_ro. PaL Locationofpr0perty(landmar~,imcrscctio.s. oroth¢0 ?~a r~x~.n-~a.~.~_ Turn /~.'~--~6ct- I~oTT~7~ -r_o 250 w, - After ,*v~, turn r±ght on TilLman Rd. (,RI. 676). S±te i$ on rivet hand sid .1/2 raz,~e. '.i'nere ,es a. ,rea ca~.~±e gaJ:e wzr2~ w'nir, e fencingon e~tner szae ~ite is Does tile owner of [his property own (or ha¥¢ any ownership interest in.) any abuRin~ property7 If yes, pleaS~ list those tax map and pan:el numbers Yes. TI~P 58-61 OFFICE USE ONLY History: ~1Spgcial Usc Perm ts: Q Vmanc~: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? ~ul-~qtcr of Authorization ~gL.Y-e~ O N o 19 · 401 McIntir¢ Road .:- Charlottesville. VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax:972-4~26 ATTACHMENT B Section 31.2.4. I of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The boa~ PAGE 2 hereby reserves unto itself-the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits lotuses 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, that the character of the district will not be o"hanged thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review'of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? ~ ='H-~r,h~,r~ . How will thc proposed special usc affect adjacent pro crt '~ P Y.. See attached How will tho proposed special usc affect the character of the district surrounding the property? See attached How is thc use in harmony with the purpose and intent of thc Zoning OrdinanceT. How is thc usc in harmony with thc uses permitted bY right in tho district? See attached What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 ortho Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? See attached How will this usc promote the public health, safety, and gencral welfare of thc community?. See attached 20 Describe your request in detail ~nd ificlude all pe~nent information~suCh as the numbe] PAGE 3 involved in the use, operati..n.~ hours, and any unique features of the Use: See attachea ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - providetwo(2) copies of each: Recorded..plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If them 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, partnership 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 purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be h ' ' submitted containing t e owner s written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen.t acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL 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 t~his application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my km lledge. 03-26-01 Signature Date Michael R. Foga.rL-y Printed Name (804) 980-2230 Daytime phone number of Signatory 2i ATTACHMENT B '~ PAGE 4 Bright Property (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property? Residential/Agricultural How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed 114.5-foot monopole will not adversely affect adjacent property, as the pole and antennas will be only 10 feet above the tallest tree in the area, and will be minimally visible, if at all, from adjacent property. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surroun ding the property? The. proposed facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, since ~t will be minimally visible, if at all, from adjacent properties, will not generate additional .traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The proposed facility is consistent with the County' s preference for monopole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide a public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community," consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How is the u se in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district? The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available at this property or by-right uses on any other property What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply to this use? ..... Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses. How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of this community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency communications, and will increase overall communication services. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use: Triton PCS, Inc. ("Triton") requests a special use permit to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Elizabeth M. Peyton Bright, identified as tax map 58, parcel 6lA. The facility would be comprised of a steel monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the necessary transmitting and receiving equipment. The pole, antennas and ground equipment would all be painted a flat, dark brown color. 22 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 5 Triton operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system, providing the most technologically advanced wireless communications throughout Southeastern United States. Triton and AT&T Digital PCS have :undertaken a joint venture to expand the AT&T digital PCS network to over 11 million people in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Triton is a member of the AT&T Digital Wireless Network, licensed to cover more than eighty percent of the United States. AT&T Digital PCS provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone. Triton has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for a 3 O-foot by 30-foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this area. The lease area is wooded and has dense vegetation that will provide effective screening of the facility. The facility will be accessed by a gravel road that will be constructed to connect the existing Bright property access road with the lease area. The location of the access was carefully designed to allow for only a minimal amount of grading and clearing to facilitate access. In addition, the lease area itself is within an existing small clearing within the wooded area to minimize the need for any tree removal for construction. The facility will emit no noise, odor or glare. Nor will it interfere with television or radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA. To develop its network, Triton has divided the Basic Trading Area region into small geographic sections ("cells"). Each "cell" site holds the equipment that provide the air interface to the subscriber units and mUst be precisely located relative to other "cells" to create a reliable communications grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (use population and building density) of the "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. Triton's FCC license requires it to operate its system in a defined service region using designated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities within the network to ensure that Triton complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. Triton carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, while meeting the goals of the community by minimizing the impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. Location of the facility on this parcel will enable Triton to construct the facility with only a minimal amount of grading and clearing. The subject parcel is zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. Included with our application is a large copy of the topographical map of the property. On this topographical map we have drawn a 2000-foot radius around the 2 23 ATTACHMENT B" PAGE 6 centerline of the proposed pole. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 5.144 acres. Mrs. Bright also owns the adjacent parcel (tax map 58, parcel 61). A surveyor has estimated the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed facility to be 108 feet. The heights, locations, base elevations,and top elevations of numerous' other trees within close proximity of the proposed pole are-shown on the enclosed plans. We are requesting a 114.5-foot pole, whichwhen adjusted in accordance with the base elevation Above-Mean-Sea-Level (AMSL) is 10 feet taller than the 108-foot tree, to enable the signal from the antenna to extend over and beyond these trees. We have conducted a visual impact analysis with a balloon to demonstrate that the facility will only be minimally visible from the Entrance Corridor and surrounding properties. Due to the topography of the lease area, this site is well-situated for a wireless telecommunications facility, as the numerous mature trees surrounding the pole will provide excellent screening for.the pole when. Viewed from State Route 250. A recent balloon test at the Bright Property revealed that the balloon was only briefly visible from a distance of approximately four tenths of a mile West ofthe proposed site when travelling in the eastbound lane of State Route 250, and likewise briefly visible from a distance of approximately three tenths of a mile to the East of the proposed site when travelling in the westbound lane of State Route' 250. The balloon was visible when passing directly in front of the proposed site. However, as the proposed pole location is sited on a steep upward grade, the natural topography provides effective backdrop, thereby mitigating the visibility from the Entrance Corridor. The proposed facility was designed to strictly comply with the County's wireless design manual. The antenna panels will be flush-mounted to the pole and will not extend above the top of the pole. The. pole will be painted flat brown and the antenna panels, equipment cabinet and cables will all be painted to match the color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted earth tone to blend in with the surrounding wooded area. The design and the siting of the facility will minimize its visibility from the road and from surrounding properties, as it will.blend in with the existing trees in the area. Once constructed, the facility Will be visited approximately one time per month for routine maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle County. As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the community by fostering increased communications, especially emergency communications. Most importantly, due to its design and precise location and siting, the facility wilI be only minimally visible, if at all, from nearby roads and residences. The applicant requests a waiver from the required setback in section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the pole to be Set back from the property lines at a distance equal to the height of the pole. Mrs. Bright oWns the impacted adjacent parcel. Finally, we request a waiver of the site plan requirement for this application, in accord with section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 24 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 3,10 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300 P.O. Box 1288 Charlottesville. VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 ¢~.www. mcguirewoods.com ~ Michael R. Fogarty Direct: 804.980.2230 McGUIREWOE)DS ATTACHMENT B PAGE 7 mfogarty@mcguirewoods.com Direct Fax: 804.980.2271 April 23, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Steven Waller Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RECEIVED Re: SP 01-08 Bright (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) Dear Steven: Enclosed for your review are revised plans for Special Use Permit application .01-08 Bdght (Tdton PCS - CVR 350E). As requested, the surveyor has revised the plans to note the location of the critical slopes, as defined in Section 4.2 of the County Zoning Ordinance, as shown on the revised site plan on page Z-1. The only area of the site that could be considered a critical slope is the shaded 110-foot section of the access road. I have also enclOsed a copy of a letter from the surveyor. As indicated in his letter, the surveyor spoke with Mr. Jeff Thomas in your engineering department and determined that a critical slope waiver was not required in this instance. Additionally, as requested the revised plans indicate the distances to the nearest on-site and off-site residences. Finally, the revised plans have been updated to reflect Mrs. Bright as the sole .owner of the adjacent parcel (TMP 58-61), and not her trustees as indicated previously. Should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above listed number. C: Dan Mahon, Design Planner, Dept. of Planning & Community Development Dale Finnochi, Crown Communications Valerie Long, Esquire 25 1~ ~ ~r~ ~i ! ~ ENGINEERING I 1::. ~ I IJl¥1t.,, CONSULTANTSRC, ATTACHMENT B PAGE 8 CORPORATE OFFICE: Mountainville. NY (800)-829-6531 Other offices throughout the United States Moorefield III 804 Moorefield Park Drive, Suite 100 Richmond. VA 23236 (804) 330-7203 FAX: (804) 330-7213 www.tectonicenginee nng.com McGUIREWOODS 310 4th Street N, E. Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ATTN: Mike Fogarty RE: 2567.350E Bright Critical Slopes April 20, 2001 Dear Mr. Fogarty, The telecommunications site known as SP 01-08 Bright (Triton PCS-CVR350E) has no slopes that require a critical slopes waiver as sPecified in theAIbemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.2. The one area of the site that has a slope steeper than 4 to I is a 110' .portion of the access roadway. I have spoken with Jeff Thomas, Civil Engineer, Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works, and he stated that neither roads nor driveways require a critical slopes waiver. Therefore, the subject access roadway to the telecommunications site does not require a critical slopes waiver. Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. Kirk A. Bowers.. P.E. Senior Civil Engineer ENGINEERS ° SURVEYORS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER~ 57 SL $C .... ,,.. \ x, SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ATTACH MENTC ~;E:CTION SECTION 58 27 6'00 SCALE IN FEET 0 600 ]200 ATTACHMENT D V " 28 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E,, Suite 300 RO. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. mcguirewoods.com Direct: 804.980.2236 ATTACHMENT E PAGE 1 rnfogarty@mcgu rewoods corn · Direct Fax: 804.980.2271 June 13, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Steven Waller Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 P:A i~'' ~, N 'JING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: SP-01-08 Bright (Triton PCS - CVR 350E) Dear Steven: Enclosed for your review are revised plans for Special Use Permit application 01-08 Bdght (Tdton PCS - CVR 350E). Pursuant to my conversations with a neighborhood property owner, Mr. Tom Purvis. who expressed concerns regarding the visibility of the proposed pole dudng a visibility test conducted on May 23, 2001, the applicant has agreed to shift the location and reduce [he height of the proposed pole to mitigate the visibility of the pole from the Purvis property. As you are aware from your own observations during yesterday's site visit, the top of the proposed pole is minimally visible, if at all, from any of the other adjacent properties and nearby roads. When visible, however minimally, the proposed pole will be effectively backdropped by the significant ridgeline to the North of the site. The only exception to this of which I am aware is the view looking North from the Purvis' yard approximately 150 feet from the intersection of the Purvis ddveway and Tillman Road. In consideration of the concerns expressed by Mr. Purvis, the applicant has relocated the proposed pole and as such, the enclosed plans reflect these changes. The new height of the proposed monopole is 111.5 feet, which is a reduction of three feet from the proposal as originally submitted. Additionally, due to the change in location, the pole is now located 25 feet from a different reference tree. The initial reference tree was the 108-foot tall oak tree shown as tree #8 on the odginal plans. However, the new reference tree is the 104-foot tall oak tree shown as tree #10 on the enclosed plans (Page Z-2). The top elevation of the proposed pole will be one foot above the top elevation of the 104-foot tall reference tree. Ordinarily, from an engineering perspective this distance above the top of the reference tree would not provide the appropriate amount of required clearance. HoWever, in this instance, due to the interference caused by the significant existing ridgeline to 29 June 13, 2001 Page 2 ATTACHMEN-~ E PAGE 2 "' the North, the one-foot clearance is acceptable as the coverage objective of this facility is to the East and West along Route 250. Therefore, the applicant was able to revise the. pole location to accommodate Mr. Purvis' concems, yet maintain the functionality of the proposed facility. Finally, as wasthe case with the initial proposal, the applicant still requires a-waiver from the setback required under section 4.10.3.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 111:5-foot pole is located 102.12 feet from the adjacent parcel which is also owned by Mrs. Bright. Should you require anything further please do not hesitate to contact me at the above listed number. Michael R. Fogart~ '(¢ C: Dale Finnochi, Crown Communications Valerie Long, Esquire \\REA\63868. l 30 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI 0 -0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Redfields ZMA 01-01 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The a Pplicant, The Redfields Development Corporation, through its agent, The Cox Company, is requesting a rezoning for Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D and Tax Map 76R1-1. If approved, the rezoning would do the following: (1) It would incorporate the Bowen Tract, Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D, 'into the Redfields Development. These two parcels total 9.4 acres and are currently zoned Residential R-1. The inclusion of the Bowen Tract will allow for approximately 14 new dwelling units in Redfields. Itwill also alleviate a conflict between Mr. Bowen's access easement and propOsed lots in Phase 4B. (2) .It would convert the previously reserved open space in Phase 4 to allow for an additional 10 large lots. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: August 8, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes · Staff Report · Executive Summary for PC on prior rezonings · Staff analysis of road interconnections to Route 29 REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: This packet contains three sections. They are provided in this packet in the following order: 1 ) the executive summary outlining two remaining issues, a road interconnection between Redfields and Route 29 and outstanding water provision problemS; 2) an analysis of open space and buffer requirements between Redfields and Sherwood Farms, given'to Planning Commission at its July 10~h meeting; and, 3) the.original staff report presented to the Commission at their June 5th, 2001 public hearing. The original staff report (Section Three of this packet) outlined the history of the subdivision and rezoning applications for Phase 4 of Redfields. It detailed the reasOns why the original subdivision application (SUB 00-2391 was split into two phases, Phase 4A and 4B. Currently, Phase 4A (SUB 01-179) is awaiting tentative final approval. Phase 4B is awaiting resolution of this rezoning request (ZMA 01-01 ) and the matter currently in front of the Board. The original staff repOrt recommended approval of the rezoning application as proposed. At the June 5t' publichearing, the Commission received numerous complaints from the residents of Sherwood Farms and Redfields Phase 3 about some of 10 large :lotS proposed in Phase 4B. The complaints centeredr on the incursion of the 10 large lots into the open space, which was shown on previously approved Redfields' Application Plans. The residents were worried that these lots would remove the open space that was either explicitly or implicitly intendeq, through Commission and/or Board rezoning approvals, to buffer Sherwood Farms from the Redfields development. The Commission directed staff to determine whether the Commission or Board made any specific commitments. Staff returned with an analysis of the prior rezoning minutes and action letters. This analysis comprises the second section of this packet. In summary the.analysis found no explicit references to the open space in Phase 4 or any requirement by Redfields to pr0vide a buffer in the area of Phase 4. staff did find an exhibit shown at one of the original public hearings, which showed the area in Phase 4 adjacent to Sherwood Farmsdes!gnated as open space. At their July 10m meeting, the Commission reasoned that this area gave the residents of Sherwood Farms an implicit guarantee that a "buffer" would be maintained. FurthermOre, they reasoned that this open space area allayed any Sherwood Farms' concerns and therefore the neighbors did not raise the request for a buffer in Phase 4 at the public hearing. Using this reasoning as a basis, the Commission recommended that Lots 117- 120 be removed from the Application Plan, A Second issue arose at the July 10~h meeting; the Commission did not want to see the future opportunity for an interconnection between Redfields and Route 29 precluded. Therefore, they recommended that sufficient right of way be provided to allow for a future interconnection. Furthermore, they asked staff to examine the feasibility of an interconnection. This executive summary (Section One of this packet) outlines the findings of Staff's brief study. This executive summary also addresSes an additional concern, which has arisen since the July 10th meeting. The concern is the provision of adequate water pressure for domestic service and fire. flow. DISCUSSION: Road Interconnection to Route 29 Staff evaluated two options for an intercon nection between Route 29 and Redfieids. Attachment A from the Engineering Department outlines the staff's findings. ,~s shown in Attachment A, there are numerous obstacles that would make the constructiOn of a connector road expensive and the environment impacts are unavoidable. A construction Cost of $1.5 million for either project is only an estimate. Finally, it is not envisioned that this road would be built in the near-term. However, based on the Engineering Department's evaluation, it appears that the re are viable options for the construction of a road that connects to Route 29, if deemed necessary in the future. The reason such a road may be desired in the future would be to provide Redfields and other nearby developments alternative access to Route 29. Additionally, an interconnection would further develop the connectivity concepts called for in the Neighborhood Model.~ Finally, since the Redfield's developer is not being asked to construct this road connection, the costs of leaving a fifty-foot right of way are minimal to the applicant (re-engineering costs and lost area for inclusion within lots). This minimal coSt idea is especially true since the right of way for a connector road would be aligned in the area reserved for the proposed private road serving Lots 119-122 (See the Application Plan for ZMA 01-01 - Attachment B). Unresolved Water Issues Unresolved water issues pose a more significant problem for staff at this time. Dating back to the original rezoning request, there has always been a question of whether adequate water pressure could be provided to Phase 3 and4 of Redfields. Phase 3 is the highest portion of Redfields. Currently, water pressure at several residences in Phase 3 barely meetS the absolute minimum water pressure of 20 psi at the water meter. Private, in-home booster pumps are required in these homes to boost the pressure to 40 psi, the minimum required pressure at the tap. A second, and potentially more significant issue, is the provision of adequate fire flow (water pressure to fire hYdrants) in these phases. In the early stages of the Phase 4 subdivision and rezoning application reviews, the applicant proposed to add an water tank in the area to boost water pressure. Two factors, opposition from Sherwood Farms residents to the tank and the dimming prospects for the Mountain Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment (a proposed, large-scale development to the south of Redfields submitted this spring), have lead the applicant to withdraw the concept of the water tank in the near-term. This has raised questions with the staff as to whether the development of Phase 4A and 4B will further impact the residents in Phase 3 of Redfields. In order to resolve staff's concern, the applicant must demonstrate to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) through a series of engineering models that it can deliver adequate. residential and fire flow pressure without the water tank. As of the writing of this report, the applicant had provided documentation to the ACSA, but the ACSA had been unable to confirm that adequate pressure provision is possible. Until the ACSA can make a determination, staff feels that recommending approval of additional lots in Phase 4B would be unwise because to the possible affects to Phase 3 which Could result from the additional homes in Phase 4B. RECOMMENDATION: As for the rezoning (ZMA 01-01 ), staff cannot support the rezoning at this time because to the unresolved water issues. If these issues can be resolved prior to the Board's public hearing, staff will be able to support the rezoning for the roasons outlined in the original staff report. ATTACHMENT A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, SeniOr Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 26 July 2001 Redfields, phase 4, access to Rt. 29. As requested by the Planning Commission, the possibility of building an access from Redfields to Rt. 29 has been briefly investigated. Please see the summary provided on the attached sheets. Two possible routes were used for the analysis, which are shown on a sketch. A short list of concerns is presented to highlight the difficulties which would be encountered with building a connecting road in this location. Some are unique to the location, such as the railroad crossing, and Moores Creek. Some would be encountered with any proposed connecting road, such as public road system improvements and concerns with through-traffic. Copy: file 2178 File: Redfields phase 4a file 2178 zma rt 29 access mem.doc Brief Study for Redfields phase 4 access to Rt. 29 25 July 2001 Concept Route 1: directly to Teal Lane railroad bridge crossing Moores Creek bridge crossing (too close for culverts) 25' high fill on Redfields side 25' high ramp and fill on Rt. 29 side Concept Route 2: to Teal Lane avoiding Moores Creek crossing railroad bridge crossing culvert crossing for tributary stream impacts to residential property, on Teal Lane or Sherwood Farms 25' ramp and fill on Rt. 29 side 25' ramp and fill on Redfields side may affect Sherwood Farms entrance. An entrance from Sherwood Farms onto the new road would be possible. Other Considerations: A similar railroad bridge (50' span, 23' clearance) built for Western Ridge in Crozet in 1992 cost approximately $500,000 (from Hunter Craig Co.) Affects to critical slopes and streams are inevitable - Grading plan and lots at the end of Cederwood Court would have to change. The grade would be going down towards the raikoad Through traffic on Redtields Road may require improvements within Redfields. Traffic impacts would have to be assessed by VDOT. Traffic calming would be called for. Traffic on the Rt. 29 entrance would also have to be assessed by VDOT. There concerns would be improvements to Teal Lane, and concerns about proximity to the Rt. 64 interchange. The possible requriements would be turn lanes on Rt. 29 and in the worst case a signal. - A route to the at-grade crossing used by Sherwood Farms would be considerably cheaper Summary Route 1 would not affect neighboring residential properties significantly bm is more expensive because of the additional Moores Creek crossing. Route 2 at first glance seems cheaper because Moores Creek is avoided, although fill to ramp over the railroad is still considerable, and taking of residential property must be considered. Traffic studies and improvements to the entrance on Rt. 29 would be necessary. Left and right mm lanes would be required at the least. Improvements to Teal Lane would be required. Improvements to Redfields Road may be required. Objections from residents would be expected. A project cost of at least 1.5 million dollars would be expected for a road and bridge project of this magnitude undertaken by the County. PROFFER FORM Original Proffer June 20, 2001 Amended Proffer August 8, 2001 (Amendment # __) Date: August 8, 2001 ZMA 2001-01 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 76-22B, 76-22D and 76R1 Parcel I 9.4 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to PRD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. o TAX MAP PARCELS 76-22B, 76-22D and 76R1 Parcel 1 72.7 Acres Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved under ZMA 89-18, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox Company, submitted January 16, 2001, last revised May 11, 2001 ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers reflects layout of the Redfields PRD as of the date of these proffers, except the area delineated within the Phases 4A and 4B on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site". Development within the 72.7 acre site, identified as Phases 4A and 4B, shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The maximum allowable residential units in the Redfields PRD shall be limited to 656. Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 125 residential units. The applicant shall provide a five (5) foot wide asphalt footpath in the right-of-way along Redfields Road between Hayrake Lane and Courtyard Drive. The alignment of this footpath shall be subject to VDOT and Albemarle County Service Authority approvals. This footpath shall be provided before or during the construction of Redfields Phase 4B. 10. The 30% open space established under ZMA 89-18, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions shall remain in effect for the entire Redfields PRD. Open space on the Application Plan for ZMA 01-001 shall be not less than approximately 27 acres of the 72.7 acres. Disturbance of open space shall be limited to installation of trails, stormwater facilities, utilities, and private roads as shown generallyon the Application Plan. The Applicant shall make every effort to minimize disturbance of critical slopes in the installation of these features. The Applicant shall retain the right to request additional disturbance of open space in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Pedestrian trails shall be constructed in the locations as shown generally on the Application Plan. The Applicant shall rough grade these trails during the public improvements for Phase 4B to the standards of a Class A trail, as indicated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Upon demand of the County, the trail running parallel to the Norfolk and Southern Railroad and labeled "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt Connector Trail" shall be reserved for dedication for public use on the final plat for phase 4B. This "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt Connector Trail" shall be fit~y (50) feet wide where possible and shall include the road on the Redfields Property running between Old Route 29 and the box culvert, which currently passes under the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. Development standards for yards, private road improvements, and shared driveways shall be as shown on the Application Plan or as modified in proffer # 10. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. Zero lot line setbacks may be applied to Phases 4A and 4B as follows: a. All such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; b. In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County Fire Official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County; c. No Structures shall encroach on any emergency access way as may be required by the Albemarle County Fire Official; d. No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the Zoning Ordinance; e. The wall ora dwelling unit located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; f. At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to 10'. 2 go As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the exception of fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall be shown of the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches. Signatures of All Owners Sight, of Att(~rney-in-Fact (A~ch Proper Power of Attorney) OR Printed Names of All Owners Printa~ Name c~ Attorney-in-Fact Date ( WHARTON, ALDHIZ£R WEAVER ATTORNEY1 AT I,,,AW HARRISONDURO~V~ Tills DEED made this 2nd day of November, 1979, by and between W. CI~LLEN SHERIVOOD and PHOIiBE IV. StIFRWOOD, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as tho Grantors, and CI, ARI~NC~ IV. BOWHN and NANCY lt. BOWPN, husband wife, hereinafter ~oferred to as tho Grantees, whoso address is 161,]-A Amherst Stroet, Charlottesville, Virginia, IV I T N E S S E T H : That for and in consideration of tho sum oE Ton and 00/lan Do'-llars ($10.00) cash in hand paid and other good' and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknow- ledged, the Gr'antors do hereby grant, bargain, sell 'and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title, subject to easements and restrictions of record, unto said Clarence If. Bowen and Nancy It. Bowen, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety with tho right o~ ,~urvivor~ht~ a.~ at common law, all that certain lot or parcel oE land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto pertaining, containing S.47 acres,. situate about 1.2S miles southwest of the city limits-of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and .being the 6.1 acres shown on plat of record of the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, in Deed Book 342, page S24, except for the off convey area of 0.6t acres hereinafter described. This conveyance is subject to the agreement with respect to the use of the farm road running along the northwest side of this property, and to a graveyard reservation, set forth -1- WHARTON, ALDHIZEFt ' WEAVER. as shown on said plat; and also to the electric line right of way to Virginia ~.lectrfc and Power Company, in Deed BoOk page 17. This conveyance 1ncludes an easement to the.present water supply from a spring which is not situated on the 5.47 acre tract hereby conveyed, ~s well as an easement on a ten foot right of way leadinK directly from the said 5.47 acre tract over the lands ~resently or formerly of Watkins to ~.S. Route 29, said 50 {eot right of way follows the course of the present old farm road; said sprin~ with ten foot right of way thereto and the 50 foot right of way from the 5.47 acre tract from Route 29 are all shown on the aforesaid plat. ~his is the same property conveyed to the GrantOrs by deed of'"Harbld D. Horris and Shirley R. Horrts, husband and wife, dated December 12, 1962 and recorded in the Clerk's .Office in Deed Book 384, page ~82, except for a narcel of 0.6~ acre conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for Interstate Route 64 by deed dated Hay 18, 1967 and recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book d35, page WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ~LEN SHE~IVOOD PIIOEBI'! W. SHEI[WflOI) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ~o(~<,wc.i~ to wit= The {oregoing instrument ~as acknowledged be~ore me thin j~_~{~ day of ~Z[d~.,~twt~_~__, 1979, by W. CtlLL~N SHE'P.I~rOOD and PHOEBE W. gHERlgOOD, husband and wt~e. ~..ly commission expires: O /~ o Notary Public VIRGIN!A: !N THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CT?CrlIm CO[;.T ~3F This deed was predated, and wt~h Certificate annexed, admitted to record on__~_~.a~~_~~ STATE TAX PLAT c~rr0a, s TAX ~SQ. o o 'rESTE: RI{EI, RV J. HhR.q.H~LL, CLERK BY ~. . -,! ,T .: !...' - : .... WATKINS Metes and Bounds of Outlet Beginning at Gate S 66° 45 W 3~' S 72° 30 W 2~2' S 8~° O0 W 61' N 70° 30 W 84~ N 65° 30 W 189~ N 83° O0 W 100' S 79° 00' W ].00~ S 54° 00' W 100 S 38° 45~ W 100 S 63° ~,5~ W 100 S 80°.-- W 62 S 62° 30; W 82 N 22° 30~ W 59 N 5° -- %,' 366' to underpass width 50' j~ SCALE 1"--_ 200* ./ .- HICKORY HILL FAHM CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA BOUNDARY CONCURS WITH CENTERLINE OF CLINTON MOUNTAIN ROAD Benjamin F. Watkins Registered Civil ~ngineer Virginia .Certificate No. 1677 Sept. 4th, 1958 WHARTON, ALDHIZ,R' AND WE:AVI'R. ATTORNEYI AT I.AW HARRI BO NB, UR~B, VA, THIS DEED made this 2nd day of November, 1979, by and between ~. CULLEN SHERWOOD and PHOEBE W. SHERWOOD, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as the Grantors, and CLARENCE 0. BOWEN and NANCY H. BOWEN, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as the Grantees, whose address is 1613-A Amherst Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, WITNESSETH : .. That for and in consideration of the. sum of Ten and 00/100 Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid and~other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknow- ledged, the Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title,' subject to easements and restrictions of record, unto said Clarence W, Bowen and Nancy H. Bowen, husband and wife, as tenants...by the entirety with' the right of survivorship as at common law,. a:!l that cer- tain tract of land with the appurtenances thereto belonging, in Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 1.477 acres, more or less, and shown and designated as 1.477 acres on a plat of William F. Roudabush, Jr. and Associates, C.L.S., dated Hatch, 1965, reco~de:d in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle : County, Virginia, in Deed Book 406, page 81. This property is conveyed subject to and together with as an appurtenance the nonexclusive easement of right of way o~er the "existing outlet over $0 foot privat'e road" as shown On the 'aforesaid plat. This' is the same property which was conveyed to the Grantors by deed of Benjamin G. Watkins and Esther K. Watkins, husband and wife, -1- by deed dated March 17, 1065,.and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 406, page 80. This property is conveyed subject to the easements and restrictions referred to in deed recorded in said Clerk's Ofqice in Deed Book 231, page 390, insofar as they may be binding on the parc61 herein conveyed. . WITNHSS the following signatures and seals. W, CULLEN SHERWOOD -- ' (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF/~ot~,~m.~ to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~A~7~,~.../,J~-' , 1.979, by W. CULLEN SHERWOOD and PIIOEBH lq, RItERWOOD, husband and wife, My commission expires: ~- ~o-,/ ' ~ Notary Public VIRGINIA: I,"l THE CLERK'S OFPICE OF TIIE CI.~Ct*IT COUW~ OP AbBEM.%RLR This deed wa.~ Rrf~ented, .and ~th~Certi'~tcat,e, annexed, adm.[tted ~o record on_.~.~~~~a LOCAL TAX ~ PL~T TOTAL -2- i PLAT SHOWING A !.477AC. TRACT TO BE ACQUIRED BY 'W. CULLEN SHERWOOD AND ADDED TO EXISTING 61AC. TRACT CitAt~LOTTESVILI. E I~AGIST~/AL DI S T I~/OT SCALE I "= 200' AL~MARLE COUNTY, VA, CERTIFIEI~ TO BE A.CORRECT AND ACCURATE SIIRVEY. - ' .... CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR WILLIAM S. ROUDABUSH, JR. & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYORS ?lan GDP CATEGORY Groce Acr~a~,~ (ac,] Residential u.r~ (DU) Residential Pen~i~y O~n Space (ac.) GDP Original (8115191) 266.09 ac. 65S DU 2,47 OU/ac. 89,4ac. &,307 ef/PU GDP Amendment Net (1/12/01)* Change 275.49 a~, ,~ 9,4 a~, S0.2 ac (0.2 ac.) PROPOSED REVISED GDP LOTS SUMMARY: Phase LOt.~ PROPOSED REVISED GDP OPEN SPACE SUMMARY: PHASE 1-A (Platted} 0,9912 AC, PHASE I-C (Place) = 4,7~30 AC PHASE 2-C (Platt~d) = 10,0203 AC. PHAOE ~-A (Plated) = 3.6&15 AC PHASE 3-1~ (Platted~ , = 23.3208 ~C. Pra~o~d PHASE 4A & 41~ 27.9 &C. Existing DIf~l~rb~d 0.5. (Ph. 1~~B} = (8.8 AC.) PHASE 2 (Remaining U.?lett~d) 2L~ AC PHASE 5 (Futur~ 5e.~;Ion, No'c Inal.) 35.7 AC. Phase l-A- , ,\ % Ex/sling La~e *2Oft 12 ft drive w/3 It clear TMp 78-23A Read · ... TaxMep76 / ' '~r~l 22.B -1.0' ~destrian Access Easement mr Home Owner's Asscc Trail Notes for Second Submission (May 11, 2001) 1. Side "frontage" setback adjoining private driveways and roa~s = 15'. 2. Private driveways to have 12' pavement width with 3' side clearance within 20' access easement. ATTACHME~ Serving Central Virginia Since 1948 August6,2001 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director Of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Wayne; Re: ZMA-200-001 Redfields Phase 4 On Wednesday night you will be considering Phase 4 of Redfields subdivision including the rezoning of an adjoining 9.4 acres which has been acquired by Redfields and the addition of 10 large lots to the original development plan. After many months of work with the Planning Staff and numerous redesigns and compromises, which included the elimination of one cul de sac, the connection of two others into a neighborhood loop road, and the proffer of a lengthy sidewalk and an easement for a greenbelt trail, we brought forward a plan which enjoyed strong staff support. We also worked closely with the Service Authority to eliminate two sewer-pumping stations and instead provide an expensive gravity solution by extending a new line several thousand feet from the Maury Creek intercepta at the Fontaine Business Park. The resulting plan was financially viable and in keeping with the previous phases of Redfields which have been developed over the last dozen years. On July 10th, however, the Planning Commission recommended several changes, which have significant financial impact and more importantly make a lie of the assurances we have made to the residences of the Redfields and Sherwood Farms communities for the last 12 years, we believe those changes were made capriciously and with less than accurate information. We ask that you reconsider their action and approve the original plan. The first change that we would like for you to consider is the elimination of lots 117 - 120. In this instance, I believe the Planning Commission was dealing with misinformation. According to the meeting minutes, they attempted to review the old records to "discern what the original approval hinged upon". Mr. Rooker stated, "there was significant concern about a buffer from the residents of Sherwood Farms". A careful review of the historical file shows that at the January 4, 1989 Planning Commission Public Hearing there was extended discussion of the future of Phase 5 (then described as Phase 6 or lot 106). This portion of the property was not then and is not now in the county's designated growth area and is not a part of this request. The only other comment was from Sherwood Farms resident Norma Diehl. She asked that there be an undisturbed buffer between I'~'th Offices Located in Charlottesz~ille · Lo~Jingsto,~ · PTttvatzrta · Orang'e · Madiso~i 500 ~'[~s~ield Road · Charlottes~,i[le. ~7~'~i~irt 22901 · 5'04) 97~-5393 · Fctx ($04~ 951-710I · ~,~'00 79?-539Y 1990 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing there was not discussion of a buffer from the residents of Sherwood Farms. Other than a few comments about Phase 5, the only other public comment was from Sherwood Farms resident Wayne Olive. He expressed concern "about the density of the proposed development and the possibility that there may someday be an access to the development from Route 29 South, through the Sherwood Farms subdivision". The only Discussion of a buffer dealt with a 20-foot buffer from the common boundary with Wintergreen Farm on the other side of the property. In fact, in response to a question fi.om Ms. Humphris, Ron Keeler of the planning staff states, "the Zoning Ordinance sets 20 feet as the minimum width for a landscaped buffer; however, the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance do not apply to buffers separating two properties developed with single family residences". It should also be pointed out that Lots 23 - 25 in Phase lB of Redfields were previously approved with no open space buffer from Sherwood Farms and no comment from Sherwood Farms residents. Mr. Rooker also stated that there was concern about building above a certain elevation. A review of the file shows that the only comment relevant to elevation was in the staff report and dealt with providing water pressure at elevations above 580 feet. The building sites on Lots 117 & 118 are approximately 566 feet, while those on lots 119 & 120 are at approximately 500 feet. It should be noted that in the adjoining phase of Redfields homes on Lots 72 - 77 are at elevations similar to the highest home sites in Phase 4, while lots 75 - 76 in Phase 3B are approximately 50 feet higher. The minutes of the July I0, 2001 Planning Commission meeting also reveal another piece of misinformation, which may have influenced the decision to eliminate lots 117 - 120. In response to a question from Mr. Thomas, Mr. Barnes of the planning staff indicated lots 117 - 118 were "30 feet from the property line and 100 feet from the nearest residence". He went on to say that "lot 119 was 50 feet from the property line". Actually, after adding the required 20-foot rear yard building setback, the building sites on lots 117 - 118 are at least 200 feet away from the nearest residences in SherWood Farms and the property line is 170 feet away. It should also be noted that one of the affected residences in Sherwood Farms is only 230 feet away from their nearest neighbor in SherWood Farms, so the building separations in dispute are not materially different from existing conditions within Sherwood Farms. Further, the building sites on lots 119 - 120 are at least 360 feet from the nearest residence in Sherwood Farms. Finally, Mr. Rieley expressed a dislike for homes on private drives in the growth area; however, similar home sites were provided and approved in two previous phases of Redfields. Due to the additional acreage and privacy they have proven to be some of our most popular home sites and provide additional choices within a relatively densely populated development within the growth area. Certainly this is better public policy than creating another two-acre home site in the rural area. In summary, while according to Mr. Keeler, there is no provision in the ordinance for a buffer between single-family residential.developments, a band of open space of between 30 - 50 'feet has been provided. In addition, the actual home sites are at least 200 feet from the nearest neighbor in Sherwood Farms. This results in a separation between residences not unlike existing conditions within Sherwood Farms. Finally, a review of the historical file shows a total of one comment, which addressed the issue of a buffer at all. For these reasons, we feel that lots 117 - 120 should be reinstated to Phase 4 of Redfields. The second provision that we would like for you to change is the requirement that Redfields preserve a right of way for access to Route 29. This request presents us with a number of difficulties, the most important of which is that for the last 12 years we have steadfastly assured the residents of Redfields and Sherwood Farms that no such thing would take place. In our earliest studies of the Redfields property, we tried to engineer our main entrance from Route 29. Engineers from Gloeckner and Osborne and The Cox Company studied the property exhaustively and concluded that there was no way to build a road from Teel Lane up over the railroad and Moore's Creek, across a significant area in excess of 25 percent slopes and onto the plateau of Redfields. They stated that the site and terrain would not permit a road that could meet VDOT requirements for curvatures and gradients. The mount of traffic that could be anticipated would require road standards that could not be met. Reluctantly, we connected to the maze of roads that led to Redfields prior to the Fifth Street Extended improvements. Redfields Road was designed as an interior connector road within the subdivision. It was not designed and extra right of way was not provided for it to become a major county artery. The safety of om' homeowners, their children, and pets would be severely compromised if such a road were ever able to be built. Over the years, in all of our discussions with the homeowners in Sherwood Farms, we have never proposed a vehicular connection. In fact, one of the advantages of the site plan before you is that it permanently closes an old 25-foot right of way that did exist from Redfields through Sherwood Farms. A review of the historical file also shows that at every public heating on the initial Redfields PRD rezoning, opposition was expressed for any connection of the Redfields and Sherwood Farms subdivisions. In our original rezoning in 1989-90 we proffered "No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms subdivision". The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Redfields PRD and that proffer. Interconnectivity is provided for the residents by access to the future Greenbelt trail system without creating a busy thoroughfare with a dangerous terminus through the middle of a residential neighborhood. The requirement that a right of way be preserved in the middle of what will soon be a built out subdivision also creates a financial hardship. It removes at least three potential home sites and seriously affects the market value of dozens more. It also negatively impacts the value of many existing homes in Redfields. For alt of these reasons we ask that you remove this onerous requirement. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please give me a call ifyou have questions or desire additional information. ~ue, IV Redfields Development Corporation Planned Res dent!al 74- Comn~un..ty Open SpaCe Tax Ma~, 78 Open SpaCe ~' Phase 3-A Pebbl P~EDFiELDS no GDP CATEGORY PROPOSED REVISED GDP LOTS SUMMARY'. ~HASE 1-A PHASE ~-D 42 :' Future Phase Five / / GDP Origma~ (8/15/9t) 266.09 656 OU 2.47 OU/ec, 89.4 ac. 8,307 ~f/PU GDP Amendment Net (t/12/01)* Change 275.4.9 ac, ~ 9,4 ac, 892 a~ (0,2 ac.) PROPOSED REVISED GDF OPEN SPACE SUMMARY: PHASE 1-A [ ~ao~¢o~) 0.9912 AC. ~HASE 1-6 (p!at~ed) = 4.7B30 AC. PHASE 2-C (Flatted) : 16.0203 AC. PHASE 2 .~ining Uno~a;~) 21,3 AC. Phase TOTAL ~a~ TOTAL Access Easeml w/3 ft clear ' ~ ' tstm~ Lake Sun~el Avenue 89.2 AC. 24 25 % x. 2~.-_~-~ ...........-;t~--' X '~ -.% ~./(30 ~ ~o~ )' ~ ~ I0' Pedestrian Access Easement for Home Owner's ASSOC Trail Notes for Second Submission (May 11, 2001) 1 Side "frontage" setback adjoining private driveways and roads = 15'. 2. ~rivate driveways to have 12' pavement w~tn with 3' si~e c~earance within 20' access easement. Wayne Cilimber~l From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Paul Shoop Wednesday, August 08, 2001 5:26 PM Wayne Cilimberg Chris Stephan; Bill Brent ZMA 2001-01 ..... Original Message ..... From: Paul Shoop <mailto:pshoop@acsanet.com> To: Wayne Cilimberg <mailto:wcilimb@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Brent <mailto:!wbrent@acsanet. com>; Chris Stephan <mailto:cstephan~acsanet.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 5:17 PM Subject: ZMA 2001-01 RE: Redfieid's Phase 4: Zoning Amendment ZMA-2001-01 Revised: Wayne: The Service Authority met with Mr. Beights, as well as Engineers representing the Debutts and Jessup properties adjoining the Redfield's tract. We are working on a regional solution to meet the future water delivery needs of that part of our jurisdictional area. Service Authority Staff looked at the to pography of our Southern service area a~nd agreed additional storage is needed. The concept of a storage tank on or near the Redfield's property was presented to the Service Authority Board of Directors on May 17th, 2001. Although we have not reviewed a specific design, this concept is supported by staff and the ACSA Board. Additional storage and an increase in pressure will be needed to support portions of Redfield's Phase 4. When constructed it will also improve service to homes in the area that currently only meet the minimum standards. When Phase 4 was initially presented to ACSA, it included a water tank. As other properties became involved, the Eng neers began looking at alternative sites. It is hoped that a site can be found with little visual impact to the existing community. Infrastructure improvements can be designed to support Redfield's Phase 4. If ZMA-2001-01 is approved, Final Site plan approval for any part of Phase 4 requiring additional pressure, will be held until such time as design of this improvements is complete. Let me know if you have any questions. Paul A Shoop, PE Director of Engineering ACSA 2 Open Space Open Spac~ Tax, ~,4ap 78 To The Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County: I am concerned about the current site plans for added units to the Redfields development. I urge that you maintain the conditions attached to the original application some years ago. These conditions included establishment of a permanent wooded buffer between Redfields and Sherwood Farms and no access through the roads of Sherwood Farms. I have also been distressed at the amount of erosion from a bulldozed cleared area slated for storm water detention that I have observed the last 2 months. This extremely steep hillside has been denuded, and the stream (which is an all year stream, NOT intermittent) empties into one of the scenic Sherwood Farm ponds. This pond, which has actively supported a healthy aquatic community, is now so filled with red clay and silt that it is in peril. I have been told that no permanent retention devices need to be installed until a later date in site plan development. This is unacceptable. The erosion and particulate run-off into our waterway and pond needs 'to be addressed immediately. Please instruct the county engineers to address this issue with the developers. Thank you each for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Norma A. Diehl August 8, 2001 Section Two Analysis of Prior Rezonings COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 July 26, 2001 Gaylon Beights P O Box 655 Ivy, VA 22945 RE: ZMA-2000-001 Redfields Phase 4 (Gaylon Beights) Tax Map 76, Parcel 22B Dear Mr. Beights: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 10, 2001, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the elimination of sites 117 through 120 and the widening of one of the right-of-ways on the west side of the property to allow for a connection to the west at some time in the future. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 8, 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. Sincerely, Michael Barnes Planner MB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .AGENDA TITLE: Redfields ZMA 01-01 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant, The Redfields Development Corporation, through its agent, The Cox Company, is requesting a rezoning for Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D and Tax Map 76R1-1. If approved, the rezoning would do the following: (1) It would incorporate the Bowen Tract, Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D, into the Redfields Development. These two parcels total 9.4 acres and are currently zoned Residential R-l. The inclusion of the Bowen Tract will allow for approximately 14 new dwelling units in Redfields. It will also alleviate a conflict between Mr. Bowen's access easement and proposed lots in Phase 4B. (2) It would convert the previously reserved open space in Phase 4 to allow for an additional 10 large lots. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: July 10, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: iTEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its June 6, 2001, the Planning Commission requested all the minutes and action letters from the previous rezonings for the Redfields Planned Residential Development (PRD). The Commission also requested the subdivision plat for lots 75 and 76 in Phase 3B of Redfields. The Commission requested these documents so that they could determine if a commitment by either the develOper or the County was made to provide a buffer in the form of open space between the Redfields and Sherwood Farms, DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the Planning Commission's request for information on the previous rezonings for the Redfields PRD, staff has provided the following attachments: ZMA 89-18 A. Minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearing - 1/4/90 B. A portion of an Application Plan shown to the Commission- 12/19/89 C. Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing - 1/17/90 D. Board of SUpervisors' Action Letter - 1/22/90 · ZMA 91-07 - E. Applicant letter to Bill Fritz explaining rezoning request - F. Minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearing - G. Planning Commission's Action Letter - H. Minutes 'from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing - I. Board of Supervisors' Actign Letter - 9/20/90 10/15/91 10/16/91 11/20/91 11/25/91 · ZMA 98-08 J. Minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearing - 5/5/98 K. Planning Commission's Action Letter - 5/14/98 L. Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing - 6/17/98 M. Board of Supervisors' Action Letter - 6/24/98 · Additional Items N: Plat for Phase 3B showing lots 75 and 76 in Phase 3B's not adjacent to a public road. O. Attachment showing the original rezoning (ZMA 89-18) overlaying the Application Plan for ZMA 01-01 - 3/11/99 - 6/29/01 In reading the preCeding documents', staff has not found many referer~ces to the open space ora buffer requirement along Redfield's boundary with Sherwood Farms. The following is a list of references that were found within the preceding documents: 1. Minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearing - 1/4/90 Paqes 10- 13. There was considerable discussion about the area shown on the application plan that was/is outside of the Development Area (Labeled as Lots 107 and 108 and/or Phase 6 on the ZMA 89-18 Application Plan/Phase 5 on more recent Application Plans). The discussion focused on whether or not Phase 6 would become permanent open space. The Planning Commission's decision was that the applicant could put a single home in this area. However, at a later date and throUgh a separate rezoning, the area could be more intensely developed. Staff stated their opposition a more intensely developed Phase 6 because it was outside of the Development Area and would be contrary to the COmprehensive Plan. Most of the citizens who spoke were also in opposition of this area being developed. Paqes 10-13. As part of the discussion on the potential development of Phase 6, the question was raised aboutthe development on the upper reaches of the slopes and whether a buffer should be created. The applicant stated that expense for utilities to serve these upper portions would preclude development with'in 100 (vertical) feet from the "top". It is unclear if there was a resolution to this question. However, in the middle of page 12, Mr. Montague stated that he did not think that they could build in "this area." The minutes note that it was unclear the area to which he was pointing, but .it may have been on the upper slopes based on the comment that he made with respect to the utilities. Page 10. Ms. Diehl, a citizen, requested a buffer between the two developments, the prohibition of (vehicle) access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms, and protection of the critical slopes along the ridges and mountain slopes. Paqe 12. Commissioner Michel agreed with Ms! Diehl's concem about the need for a buffer between the larger development (Redfields) and the smaller development (Sherwood). He also expressed that, "there was a part of this proposal which was 'not clear'" (Staff assumes Mr. Michel was referring to the open space and slope protection. 2. Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing - 1/17/90 Middle of Page 109. Mr. Cox stated that the steeper slopes and ridges would be left as open space. Bottom of Pa.qe 109. Citizens Von Storke and Stoner stated their opposition to any future development in Phase 6 (currently slated as Phase 5 on ZMA 01-01). Mr. Stoner also stated an objection to any water tower in Redfields that could be visible from Sherwood Farms. Mr. Keeier responded on Page 110 that the developer would have to go through another rezoning to develop Phase 6. 3. Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing' - 11/20/91 Middle of Page 161. A series of lots (19, 41,42, 61,62 and 99) are mentioned as having critical slopes and that these lots should be placed into open space. These lots were not in the area currently in contention Staff Comment: While there appears to be nothing written in the minutes nor in the file which refers directly to the open space area currently under consideration in Phase 4, the plan that the Commission was using at the original rezoning (ZMA 89-18) showed a Lot 105 (Attachment B). Lot 105 roughly corresponds to the drainage area adjacent to Sherwood Farms in Phase 4 where lots 117 through 120 are proposed on the Application Plan for ZMA 01-01. The notes for Lot 105 state the following: "34.05 acres, Use: Recreation/Open Space, Density: 0 dwelling units/acres, Yield: 0 dwelling unit." Lot 105 also shows a stormwater management pond in the location currently shown on SUB 00-239 and ZMA 01-01. As noted in our staff report, the Agent determined that the large lots and cul-de-sac adjacent to Sherwood Farm proposed in SUB 00-239 were inconsistent with the previous Application Plans presented to and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant was told that in order to utilize the area, which was shown as open space on the previous Application Plans, they would need to seek a rezoning. They did this in the form of the current rezoning petition (ZMA 01-01 ). It is staff's opinion that the 10 large lots proposed on ZMA 01-01 (Lots 116-125) can be installed without negatively impacting the environment through the use of private roads. It is also staff's opinion that development of the 10 large lots will retain a modest 30 to 50-foot buffer between Redfields and Sherwood. Staff also feels that the 10 lots provide for added dwelling units in the Development Area while maintaining a minimum of 30% open space. For these reasons, staff has supported ZMA 01-01. With respect to a buffer alon. g the Sherwood/Redfields boundary, staff found no specific commitment in the minutes. The discussion focused on.the phase on the opposite side of the development. The application plans for all of the previous rezonings show the area in question as open space. It could be assumed that no mention in the record was made because the residents of Sherw,o, od Farms saw the open space, shown on the ZMA 89-18 Application Plan as Lot 105 (Attachment B), as a bUffer' and did' not comment. This far removed from the original public hearings, it is impossible for staff to determine the Commission's intention or if any commi!ment was made to protect the area presently under discussion. At this point, if the Commission accepts staffs opinions on the envirOnmental impaCts of the 10 large lots, it mUst determine ifa commitment was made'to the residents of ?erwood Farms, either explicitly or implicitly, to retain the oPen space. Depending on the Commission s decisi°n, staff believes that the commission has three options before it: 1. Approve the rezon ng Application Plan as proposed. The Commission may find that, despite the claim. of a commitment, a Planned Residential Development District gives the Developer flexibility to alter, with Planning Commission approval, the original Application Plan through time to reflect changes in available information or County Policies. 2. Remove some of the large lots from the open space. The removal of a couple of lots (i.e., 117, 118 and 119) would allow the area in dispute to be left more intact (Attachment O). 3. Reject the entire rezoning proposal. RECOMMENDATION: After rereading the minutes and action letter, staff recommendation has not changed. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as proposed and acceptance of the proffers. Staff also recommends granting the Critical Slopes Waiver with the following condition: 1. All reconstructed slopes shall be at a minimum of 3:1. Finally, staff recommends the authorization of private roads and shared, private driveways as shown on the Application Plan entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox Company, submitted January 16, 2001, last revised May 11, 2001 January 4, ~ ,a~.. ZMA-89-18 Redfields Development - ~t in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 276 acres from R-l, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development, resulting in 656 lots. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 2lA, 22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49, is located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject 'to revisions, modifications and agreements. There was a brief discussion about Lot 106, which is located outside the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed the building site for this lot would be located in the rural area. Mr. Keeler added that staff felt that "one unit in that area, with open space around it, would not do any severe harm to the County's Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Keeler explained there might be some confusion about this lot because '~e're referring to 10A subdivision lots and then referring to the open space by lot numbers too. 106 is actually open space with a one-acre lot situated in that area." In response to Ms. Huckle's question about critical slope.areas, Mr. Fritz stated staff had not had time to review those areas in depth, but could "note at this time that there is significant area in critical slopes and they must have the adequate building sites required by the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about the staff report. He asked if the Commission was being asked to approve, simultaneously, the rezoning and Lots i through 104. Mr. Fritz confirmed this was accurate and added that that is often thecase with a planned devel- opment community. Mr. Keeler added that' if the application plan is comparable to a preliminary site plan and staff can "afford itthat level of review," then staff asks for administrative approval of the final plans. Mr. Michel asked staff to comment on the issue of adequate water' supply for the higher lots. Mr. Fritz explained that there are various methods of dealing with this but which method will be used hasnot yet been determined. Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to clarify the numerous sets of conditions included in the staff report, i,e. conditions of approval for the preliminary plat; revisions to the application plan; and revisions, modifications and agreements attached to ZMA-89-19, one of which requires compliance_~with the revisions to the application plan (No. 8). The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Frank Cox represented the applicant. He described the proposal at length, including the history, Significant comments included: --The appl$cant has every intent to make necessary adjustments to bring those~Scriticai slope areas into complianc~. January 4, 1990 Page 10 --The applicant has identified several sensitive areas which deserve preservation treatment, e.g. frontage along 1-64. --There will be some additional buffer along the c~mmon-bo~n~ary with the Stevenson property. --"We do notintend to develop any minlti-family dwellings that were alluded to in the staff report. We try to differentiate between attached and multi-family." --A trail system is planned in the' dedicated open areas. --The time table will be market driven and will be infive phases. The applicant would like to begin construction this summer. --There is a compelling reason to get under way because of upcoming changes in VDOT design standards which willeffect any plan not approved before~March 31. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons commented on the proposal: Mr. Ed Stevenson; Mr. Jack Stoner; Ms. Norma Diehl; Ms. Margaret Stevenson. Their concerns included: Mr. Stevenson - He felt the development would cause a drastic change in the character of this area. He expressed concern about noise and automobile pollution. He stated that though the proposed buffer along his property line is acceptable, it did not meet all his concerns. He asked that damming of the stream which crosses his property not be allowed as this would greatly impair the flow of stream across his property. (There was a brief discussion about this issue. There was some question as to exactly which stream. crossed Mr. Stevenson's property. The applicant offered to address stormwater detention in another manner if this is of concern to the Stevensons. It was decided this would be left to staff and the applicant to resolve.) Mr. Stoner - He noted there should have been a change made in the top property line as a result of his purchasing 3½ acres from Mr. Miller. He asked for clarification as to how Phase 6 relates to the rest of the development. [Mr. Fritz explained that 561 units may be approved with Phase 6 not being dedicated as open space, but if more than 561 units are approved, then Phase 6 is dedicated as ~pen space. He stressed: "No development is to occur in Phase 6" Mr. Cilimberg added: '~hat we've done is made the strongest statement that we can from a staff level as to the desire not to have any of Phase 6 developed. We can't predict what future Planning Commissions and Boards may decide, but we're going on record here as saying it is totally inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan and that we could not in any way endorse the development of Phase 6 and we see it as open space and only as open space." Mr. Keeler interjected: "Likewise, and quite honestly, the applicant is saying that 'we'd still like to keep the option." As with any other rezoning, this is subject to Change in the future and they at some future date come back in to propose development in Phase 6." M=. Cilimberg added: 'We just don't want you to feel obligated to make any statements that would seem to les January 4, 1990 Page 1I sked that the existing large trees be preserved. concern about the possibility of water storage tanks and also aboUt the adequacy of the stormwater detention. She pointedout that this area of Moore's Creek often floods, "quite dramatically." She, too, expressed concern about the status of Phase 6. She asked if it was to be open space, why could it not be labeled as such at this time? After determining that the zoning for Phase 6 was R-i, Ms. Diehl asked if a one-acre lot was __viable given the factthat 60,000 square feet is still required for a weltand septic system. (Mr. Keeter responded: "At the time the applicant originally approached Us--the subdiviSiOn of the property under the R-1 zoning--I~believesome of thelots, maybe all of the lots, but certainly some of the lots were to be serVed by public water. Sewer at that time was remote and we were not supportative of the idea of having a major subdivisionin the urban area on septic systems which is one of the reasons we encouraged consideration Of a higher densitythat would havemade the practicality of extending sewer to the property--it would have improved that isituation. During the intervening period, two other developers in the area finally buried their hatchets and got together and extended public sewer down theroad which made it more feasible to extend to this major concern had been having a major urban subdivision on septic systemsbecause atsome point in they would go on public sewer '!_~d that generally isa co~ the utility itself.) Ms. Diehl determined that the 35% noted as open space did include Phase 6. Ms. Diehl concluded her comments with a request that the final subdivision plat for "those 104 lots" be reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Margaret Stevenson - She expressed concerns about how items such. as trash and animal control would be addressed. (Mr. Rittenhouse explained thatCounty leash laws are site specific.) Regarding the issue i~raised about motorized vehicles on the trails, Mr. Keei~er noted that it would be in the developer'S best interest to prohibit the Use of such vehicles on the hiking trails and in the open space. He stated this should be included in the homeowner's documents. Mr. Percy Montaguel one of the applicants, addressed the Commission. He commented on Phase 6. He stated there is a substantial area in this section that is not-in criticalslopes. He projected, "conservatively,'' that Phase 6 was at'least ten years away. He stated that by the time that point is reached, this area may "very well be in the urban area." He stated: "Our concern is that we don't want to come in. today and bl~ck'that from any potential future development .... We also don't want to in any way mislead them in thinking that this always is going to be open space when there is the potential there for future~ development. 'So we would like to indicate now that we are reserVing the right to come back later and talk to you about future development on that spot We don'ty~tindicate that specifically as open space, but'certainly for the foreseeable future, it will be open space." January 4, 1990 Page 12 Mr. Michel stated he felt this issue was a little "nebulous." .He stated: '~hat I'm trying to do is be sure, today, that at least this (he pointed to to Phase 6 on the Plat) is never going to get touched. I don't see that on that plan over there. I understand you may want to develop; I understand you may put all your umits down below and never get into Phase 6.,. f al Mr. Montague stated that issue could be worked out with staff. He stated the study indicated a potential for 95 .units in "this" area, though "realistically, we don't think there~s space there to build that many." He added: 'We don't have any intention of building in "this" area." (Note: The area he pointed to on the plat was not clear.) Mr. Michel asked, if staff's approach on this issue "adequately protects the top." Mr. Wilkerson expressed confusion about the status of Phase 6, He had understood that it Would never be developed, but he was hearing differently from the'developer. up front with you and tellimg you that at some. time in the future they may come back and want to include some development on that property.. That would take a whole additional rezoning and hearing process just as we're going through now'. The other concern is that even if that occur~ January 4, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Cilimberg added: "Again~ that could involve some change in the future as well. It's all legislative acts. Anyone can come in and request an-amendment to current zoning. What we're saying is we want the statement now to be conSistent with the Land Use Plan and the statement is: 'Revise the notes to include Phase~ 6 as Open Space.' That's it .... If they want to market it as potential for future development, that's fine--we can't control their marketing. What. we're saying, for the approved plan that you act on tonight and the Board of Supervisors acts on, it's open space, in Phase 6 and that's it." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the issue before the Commission as follows: 'We are considering a zoning map amendment and approval of a preliminary plat for lo~s 1 - 104 and there are conditions suggested by staff that are a part of our considerations. Among those conditions is a condition that would revise the land use note to include Phase 6 as open space'-that applieS to the zoning map amendment. Also, there have been requests that the Planning Commission see the final plat for lots 1 - 104 so the public will have the opportunity to look at how critical slopes have been handled on those plats and have a chance to comment. The proposal that's before use contemplates staff approval--administrative approval--of those lo'ts. There has also been a request that we add a condition that would stipulate that no access for this development be granted through Sherwood Farms." It was decided condition No. 9 would be added as follows: No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. It was determined that the Commission would review the final plat. Therefore the following sentence was deleted from 3(c): Staff does request, administrative approval of the final subdivision plats for lots 1 thru 104~ Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant was trying to get in a position to be able to submit road plans to the Highway Department. He asked: 'Would it be satisfactory to have a condition--we want to be in a position where we can tell the Highway Departmen~ that it's appropriate for them to accept the r~ad plans. That wasone of the reasons that we requested administrative approval of the final plat .... I'm not sure that we'd go out of here tonight in a posture to be able to request the Highway Department to review these ~road plans. I would like to suggest to you that the Commission review the final plat for the issues that you're concerned about and authorize staff to approve the final plat after that review. I think that in that posture we could inform the Highway Department that the Commission has taken an action to move this subdivision along and that would put the applicant in a posture where he c~n submit the road plans ." Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about what would happen if Mr. Keeler's suggestion were followed and then the Commission made changes to the final plat after the applicant had submitted road plans. Mr. Keeler responded: "You run that risk any time there is a preliminary review-- between the preliminar~ and the final plat. Ideally, before we present a final plat, they would have all the approvals necessary for us to sign it the moment you take action. That's the way we set this double step process up." . It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that the Commission would review the individual lots for steep slopes and building site adequacy and also the issue of any above-ground storage facilities before staff approves the final plat. Mr. ~ilkerson moved that ZMA-89-19 for Redfields Development be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following revisions, modifications and agreements: Each lot shall comply with current building site provision. No driveway shall.encroach more than 50.lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. Ail roads with the exception of roads A & B and the private road to serve Lot 106 shall be built to VDOT standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A & B shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for the rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. Not more.than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase i. 5. There shall be only single family detached dwellings south ~f roads L & P. 6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A & B. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2,3 and 4 as stated in a letter dated December 3, 1989 from Cox and Company to Mr. Wayne Cilimberg. 8. Compliance with conditions of the addendum as follows: January 4, 1990 Page 15 Setbacks for single-family detached lots shall be 25 feet front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20 feet rear setback. (Note side setback may be reduced to not less than six feet in..accordance with Section 4.11.3.1). This shall be noted on the plan on page 1, note 9b. ii. Note on the plan that only single family detached units will be located south of road L. A 20 foot strip of common open space shall be provided adjacent to Tax Map 76, Parcel 49b. The open space strip shall include a landscape easement to allow for Tax Map 76, Parcel 49b to install screening trees. A 20 foot rear setback shall extend from the open space/landscape strip. iii. Revise the following notes on page one: a. Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b. b. Note 11 must delete the following "and shall conform with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) residential subdivision street design standards in effect as of the date of PRD Development Plan approval". c. Delete note 19. Staff does not support administrative approval of the final plats or site plans. d. Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open Space. e. Total number of lots is 656, not 658. iv. Remove all Preliminary Plat notes found on sheet 5a, and 9. Vo Revise the following notes on sheet ~9: a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not County standards. b. Total number of lots is 656,.not 658. vi. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer to the. Albemarle County Service Authority and not County standards as found on sheets 10, 11 and 12. 9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. The motion also included granting staff approval of the preliminary plat for lots 1-104 with the Commission to review the final plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: The Chairman welcomed the new Commissioners. There being no further business, DS the mee~i~ng.adjourned~a% 10:3~5 p.m. pRD Lot,,105 , ,. 34.05 Acre,S , Use: Rec~oation/¢pen Spaco/ Density'" 0 DUI ,A~ / Yield,~ 0 Units/ ,, / / .,'§2008,,8'F / / ? ./ .' i J ~ LOT LOT LO~· ~o: ATTACHMENT B t.17670' SF ;'81 I1 ~ 05 ~ ATTACHMENT C access. In December, 1989, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approved SP-89-85 for Taco Bell to allow a.drive-through wzndow and fast-food restaurant on the adjacent Parce~ E. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 3150 square foot bank with a drive-through window facility. The appli- cant states as justification for this request: 'The financial insti- tution is a by-right use, compatible with current zoning. The drive-through feature is in character with the surrounding land USe. Staff Comment: A drive-through window facility requires.a special use permit because of concerns of internal traffic circulation and traffic generation. In reviewing the preliminary site plan with the Engineering Department, staff opinion is that the site plan ade- quately addresses these concerns in the proposed design. It is-staff's opinion that this petition is in general harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the preliminary site plan dated December 12, 1989; 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-106, subject to the two conditions set forth in the staff's report. He said the applicant' has agreed to model landscaping on the site after the landscaping plan approved for the Taco Bell restaurant, which addressed the Board's concerns about the visi- bility of the site from Route 29 North. Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Woody Palmore, a representative of Central Fidelity Bank, addressed the Board and offered to answer any questions. There were no questions. Since no one else wished to speak concerning this special use permit, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Way to approve SP-89-106 subject to the conditions set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None.' 1. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the preliminary site plan dated December 12, 1989; 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-89-18. Redfields Development. Public hearing on a request to rezone 276 acres from R-l, Residential to PRD, Planned Resi- dential Development, resulting in 656 lots. Property located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64. Tax Map 76, Parcels 2lA, 22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2 and January 9, 1990.) Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report: "Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing residential and open space areas as follows: Gross Residential Density, 656 units 2.38du/acre 105 Single family lots on 109.34 acres 0.96du/acre 551 Cottage and attached units on 166.63 acres 3.31du/acre January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Use Acreage PercentaKe Total Residential 176.23 63% Public road right of way 13.56 5% Open Space 8].29 29% Recreation Center 4.89 2% 105 Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development Regulations requires the Commission in its recommendation to the Board to include certain findings. The remainder of the staff report will address these issues. Comprehensive Plan/Relation to Surrounding Area: Redfieids is located in Neighborhood 5. The Comprehensive PLan recommends low-density residential in this area with a range of one to four dwelling units per acre, but allows for clustering of dwellings at higher net density to maintain sensitive environmental areas. Proposed gross density of Redfields is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. Multi-family units are proposed. Site Characteristics/Relation to Surroundin~ Area: Several loam soils are present on this site, with moderate to severe limitations on development. The Soil Conservation Service has stated that 'generally the ridges will have deep, well-drained soils. The steeper side slopes will have soils very shallow to haCd rock. The majority of soils on this site are very erosive.' Areas with slopes of 25 percent or greater exist on this site. Staff has worked with'the applicant to put most areas of critical slopes into open space. Several lots, 19, 41, 42, 61, 62 and 69 have significant areas of critical slopes. Staff may recommend that these lots be enlarged or eliminated at the time of final plat review. The Engineering Department has stated that the proposed storm' sewer layout appears to be 'grossly inadequate'. Staff will require that the Engineering Department _approve drainage plans prior to Planning~_~ Commission review of the final plats. Comment has been received from the adjacent property owner. The letter requests that additional buffers be provided between Redfields and the adjacent property. The adjacent property is currently zoned R-l, Residential. Additional setbacks between similarly zoned properties have non typically been required; how- ever, staff does believe that only single-family lots should be allowed adjacent to other properties. Open Space: The applicant is proposing to place approximately 81.29 acres or approximately 29 percent of the development into open areas. These areas consists primarily of areas, with slopes of 25 percent or greater and hillocks. However, significant areas of potentially developable land are noted as open space. Staff opinion is that the proposed open space is consistent with the open space provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.7, and Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The applicant is further proposing a 4.89 acre tract as an active recreation center. This area is to be located near the entrance to the development. Transportation: External Roadways: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT), has stated that Route 631 is currently non-tolerable and that Route 781 is non-tolerable with the development approved but not yet constructed. VDot does have plans to improve the road network in this area. The applicant has included proffers which limit the number of dwelling units to 276 (the number currently allowed by right without rezoning) until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed. The original plan reviewed by VDoT included some areas that are outside of the growth area. The applicant has revised ttle plan to eliminate those areas that are January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) outside of the growth area. The applicant has submitted a traffic study which indicates that this development would result in 4907 vehicle trips per day. VDoT has stated verbally that they will require additional traffic studies in order to insure that all internal roads are designed adequately. Internal Roadways: The applicant is proposin~ to provide curb and gutter for internal roads except for roads A and B. Roads A and B would be constructed in rural cross section; staff can support this request. Roads A and B are the collector roads within the subdivi- siom and there are very few l~ts which will access these roads. This proposal is similar t6 the road network found in Forest Lakes. The Engineering Department has stated that they can support the applicant's proposal provided that access is limited as shown on the application plan. Staff will ensure that all future phases will have limited access to roads A and B. Public Utilities: A 2G-inch wmter line is located on-site. The sewer lines from this site eventually connect with the Moores Creek interceptor which is scheduled for improvement in the spring of 1990. The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated that 'the maximum elevation for providing 20 pounds per inch of water service at a flow of three gallons per minute is 580 feet' The applicant is proposing developmen~ at elevations greater than 580 feet. In order to adequately serve the development, water pumping stations and/or water storage facilities will be necessary. These facilities will be installed by the applicant only after approval from the Albemarle County Service Authority has been received and the Service Authority will determine the method of improvement. Schools: Children from this development will attend Rose Hill Elementary School, Walton Middle School and Albemarle High School. Summary: Staff opinion is that the Redfields PRD generally satis- fies the requirements as to findings by the Commission under Section 8.5,4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards roads, utilities, public facilities and services. The applicant has made several changes to the Application Plan based on staff recommendations. Approval of this rezoning does not relieve the applicant of any requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, or any other applicable law except as specifically modified or waived by the Board in this approval. Likewise, approval does not preclude the Planning Commission from exercise of its discretion in future site plan and subdivision review. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-t9 subject to the following revisions, modifications and agreements: 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. 2. Ail roads, with the exception of roads A and B and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to VDoT standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary'System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with VDoT standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of developmenC of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have beem completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4.The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1. 5. There shall be only single-family detached dwellings adjacent to Ta× Map 76, Parce~ 49B. ~~ January 17, 1990 (Regular Night. Meeting) (Page 19) Addendum to ZMA-89-18~ Redfields Development: Tile purpose of this addendum is to clarify the applicant's request and the required revisions, modifications and agreements. The applicant is proposing a total of 656 units on this site. A total of 96.9 acres or 35 percent of the site is noted on the plan~-~ as open space. Only 276 units are to be constructed until such time as Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the~ Department of Planning and Community Development. A total of 561 units may b~ approved with the dedication of-ali open space except for that shown in Phase 6. Phase 6 is not approved for development and is open space. The applicant has stated that they may seek to amend the PRD at some time in the future to allow development in Phase 6. However, the current proposal does not allow for development in Phase 6 and no development in Phase 6 can be supported at this time." "December 3, 1989 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning The County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 The Redfields Residential Community PRD Zoning Application Revision Samuel Miller District/Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Wayne: As you know, our office submitted on October 23 the Redfields residential community zoning application for a change of use from the R-1 district to the R-4 and R-10 districts. Pursuant to our meeting'this past Monday, we have attempted to incorporate the recommendations by staff addressing the initial zoning submission package. In this regard, this correspondence serves to formally ~-~ amend the Redfields zoning request to seek a PRD, Planned Residen~,~ tial Development district to overlay the entire 276-acre tract. Thus, the PRD district will substitute for the R-4 and the R-10 · districts in our current application. The significant aspects of this amended application which incorpo- rates staff recommendations and the PRD concept are as follows: 1. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656 dwellings. 2. A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14 to 2.38 units/acre, 3. A maximum neighborhood density not-to-exceed 4.0 units/acre in any given residential neighborhood or development phase. 4. A commitment not to construct more than 276 dwelling units prior to the completion of VDoT's 5th Street extension project, which is scheduled to,commence July, 1991 with an anticipated completion of November, 1992. We agree with you that the PRD zoning approach affords a greater opportunity to establish a general development plan for Redfields which is fully compatible with the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood study and subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amend- ment adoptions by the County. In this regard, I believe our ~ecom- mended PRD development plan establishes an environmentally sensitive January 17, 1990 (Regular Ni'~ht Meeting) (Page 20) land use appr6~h while adhering to the range of County planning goals for this area. Our new PRD Development Plan responds to the major directives of the original LDS study for the Miller Tract (Parcels D1 and D2): existing steep slopes and vegetation have been preserved, low density has been allocated to the westerly sector of the site, medium density has been organized near the easterly sector and close to road access, and the LDR recommendation for a 'planned unit development with mixed density' has been followed. In light of these considerations, we feel that the Redfields pro- posal is consistent with the County's visions for this sector of the Urban Area. "For your review and continued input, I am forwarding a copy ef the PDR Development Plan and pertinent conditions relating to this proposal. As additional comments and concerns arise, please keep me advised. We are deeply interested in seeking Commission action on this matter at their first meeting of the New Year and your assistance in this pursuit will be deeply appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on November 27. With warm regards, I am Yours very truly, (Signed) Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE ACIP" Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4, 1990, unanimously recoa~mended approval of Z~-89-18 subject to the following revisions, modifications and agreements: 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. 2. Ail roads with the exception of roads A and B and the private road to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Department of Transpor- tation (%rOoT) standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with VDoT standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as' the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfac- tion of the Department of Planning and Con~nunity Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1. 5. There shall be only single'family detached dwellings south of road L. . 6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B. 7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, 3, and 4 found in Attachment D. 8. Compliance with conditions of addendum. 9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Mr. Keeler suggested that the fourth proffer be deleted, since the third condition recommended by the Planning Commission states the intent of the proffer more clearly than. the proffer. Mr. Keeler said the Commission author- ized the staff to approve final plats for the lots, but the Commission re- served the right to review the final plats for areas with steep slopes and the January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) unresolved issue of whether there will be an above-ground water storage tar~k to Serve 'this property. Mr. Bowie asked what impact the proposed development would have on~ schools in the area. Mr. Keeler said the applicant anticipates that a~iI lots will have homesbuitt upon them within ten years. Over this peri~t-J~he development would result in about 125 new students at Cale Elementary School. which has been planned to hold about 200 more students than now exist in the district~ The proposed development would add 72 new students to Wa~ton Middt~ School, which would have room enough for the new students. The development would add 105 new students to either Albemarle or Western Albemarle High School, depending on how the County is redistricted. Ms. Humphris asked how the width of the 20-foot buffer was determined. · Mr. Keeler said that Dr. and Mrs. Ian Stevenson, the adjoining property owners, requested a buffer between their property and the proposed development to deter trespassers and lessen the noise. The Zoning Ordinance sets 20 feet as theminimumwidth for a landscaped buffer; however, the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance do not apply to buffers separating two properties developed with single-family residences. Mr. Bowie opened'the public hearing. Mr. Frank Cox addressed the Board and said he is representing the current owners of the Redfields property, Mr. Ben Miller and Mr. Percy Montague, III, and the contract owners, Mr. Percy Montague, IV, and Mr. GaylenB~ig~t~. Mr. Cox said the-application before the Board is the result of ten years of planning and design. He said the plan is compatible with the recently com- pleted Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood study and addresses the staff's concerns about roads, schools, drainage, wetlands and steep slopes. The development will be confined to seven or eight defined neighbor- hoods on the lower, more gently sloping areas of the property; the steeper slopes and ridges will be left as open space. Mr. Cox said he believes that the development will add between 150 to 200 new students to the schools over the next ten years, slightly less than the staff's estimate. Mr. Cox said he believes that about 60 percent of the residents of the proposed development will be families with children; about 40 percent will be "empty nesters~ families with no children. Mr. St. John pointed out that the four agreements listed in the appli- cant's letter dated December 3, 1989, are not identified as proffers. He asked if the applicant considers these four statements to be proffers. Mr. Cox said "yes". Mr. Steven Yon Storke addressed the Board and said he owns a lot in Sherwood Farms, an adjoining subdivision. He believes the Redfields property is suitable for the high density development proposed by the applicant and agrees with the Commission that the portion of property shown in Phase 6 should be left as open space. Mr. Von Storke said he hopes the Board will remember over the years why this portion of the property should be open space. Mr. Jack Stoner, who owns and lives on property adjacent to the Phase 6 portion of the Redfields property, addressed the Board. He said he supports the concept of the proposed development, but he is concerned about some of th~ details, particularly the 9§ units which the developer originally planned for! the phase 6 area. He said the developer may return to the Board with a plan for the development of this area, even though the current application cal~s for the Phase 6 property to be left as open space. He is also concerned thatj ~ water ~ow~r may be constructed within view of his property. He said mos~ the open space shown in the application is unbuildable land, so he does not think the developer is giving up much. Mr. Stoner asked that the Board insure, over a long period of time, the protection of the property shown in Phase 6. Mr. Wayne Olive, a resident of the Sherwood Farms subdivision, addressed the Board. He is concerned about the density of the proposed development and the possibility that there may someday be an access to the development from Route29 South, through the Sherwood Farms subdivision. January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) ',7 ~ Since no one el~ished to speak concerning this request for rezoning, Mr. Bowie closed 'the public hearing and placed the matter b~ore ~he Board. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the ninth condition recommended by the Commis- sion would prohibit access from the proposed development through the Sherwood Farms subdivision. He asked Mr. Keeler to address the speakers' concerns about open space. Mr. Keeler said the developer could build 561 units before declaring any portion of Phase 6 as open space.' Once the developer receives approval for anything over 561 units, he will have to dedicate the open space shown in Phase 6. If 561 or fewer units are built, and the developer d~cides he wants to build on the property shown in Phase 6, the developer will have to submit another rezoning application and go through the same process as this applica- tion. Mr. Bain said he thinks the sixth condition recommended by the Planning Commission, which limits the access of future lots to roads "A" and "B", should be more specific. Mr. Keeler referred to a memorandUm dated Decem- ber 19, 1989, from Mr. Peter Parsons of the County Engineering Department, which stated: "It is our recommendation that curb and gutter be required on all of the proposed roads. The applicant, however, is proposing curb and gutter on all roads with the exception of roads 'A' and 'B', the collector ~t~eets. While our previous recommendation remains unchanged, if a rural cross-section is allowed for the collector roads, entrances should be strictly limited as shown on the preliminary plat, and all lots should access 'inter- nal' roads only." Mr. Keeler suggested that the sixth condition be reworded as follows: "Future lots will have limited access to roads 'A' and 'B' in accordance with the Engineering Department's comments dated December 19, 1989 and found in Attachment A of the staff's report". Mr. Bain said he believes this application accords with the recommenda- tions for density in the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood study~ He also thinks the proposed development is appropriate to it~ location in the urban area of the County. Motion was then offered by Mr~ Bain and seconded by Ms. HUmphris to approve ZMA-89-18 subject to the conditions as'amended~ the addendum as recommended by thePlannimg Commission; and the proffers set forth in a letter dated December 3, 1989, to Wayne Cilimberg signed by Frank D. Cox, Jr., verbally verified by the applicant before the Board tonight, and deleting proffer #4 in said letter. The conditions as recommended are set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. 2. All roads with the exception of roads A and B mnd the private road to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with VDoT standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4.The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1. 5. There shall be only single-family detached dwellings south of January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) road L. 6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A aSd B. 7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, 3, and 4 found in Attachment D. 8. Compliance with conditions of addendum. 9. No access from Redfieids through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. lll Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation of Audit Report. Mr. Perkins, a member of the Audit Committee, presented the FY 1989 Audit Report. The accounting firm of McGladrey and Pullen conducted the audit and prepared the report, which consists of two sections: Section I, Compliance Matters, and Internal Accounting and Administrative Controls; and Section II, Financial-Statements and Supplementary Information. According to the report, the County administered each of its major federal financial system programs in compliance in all material respects with state and federal laws and regula- tions~ Nor did the evaluation of the County's internal control systems disclose any condition that McGladrey and~ Pullen believed to be a material weakness in relation to a federal financial assistance program. Mr. Perkins said the firm also prepared a letter offering constructive recommendations and comments, which staff has reviewed. Mr. Perkins .said that Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, is present to answer any questions. Mr. Perkins added that the Auditors could be present at the Board's meeting on February 14, 1990, if the Board so desires. Mr. Perkins said the Board should also meet in executive session to discuss the hiring of an auditor for the current fiscal year. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to accept the Audit Report. Roll was called and the motion carried by. the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr/-~v. NAYS: None. ~ Mr. Perkins said the auditors were asked at the pre-audit meeting to include the following statement in their report: "Even though the County has complied with all state and federal laws and conforms to generally accepted accounting principles, this does not mean that all operations were done in the most prudent and effective manner". Mr. Perkins said the auditors refused to include such a statement, since their task is not to determine the effective- ness of the County's financial statements. Mr. Perkins said he believes that the Board now has a way to determine the efficiency of the County's spending: the Fiscal Resources Advisory Committee. Mr. Perkins said the Committee has made several recommendations and he believes the Board should move to act upon them, particularly recommendations 7 through 10 on page 8 of the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee report. Recommendation #7 calls for the estab- lishment of an internal audit function; recommendation #8 suggested that budget guidauce encourage reduced spending in all areas of County government, encourage departments to return surpluses and to use zero-based budget; recommendation ~9 requested an audit of the schools budget to determine'if the growth in spending was compatible with the growth in enrollment; and recommen- dation #10 asked that the Board consider establishing a standing Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee. Mr. Bain said he cannot support acting on Mr. Perkins' recommendation tonight, sin~e this item was not on the agenda and he would like a chance to reread the Committee's report. Ms. Humphris agreed. Mr. Way. suggested that the Board hold a work session on the Committee's recommendations. It was decided to hold this work session at 3:30 P.M. on February 7, 1990. ATTACHMENT D ~-'~r ~.xT-~v,~,.,~., :. , OF A~.=m4ARL= De~t. of Planning .~ Community Deveiopmen: 40! Mctn(ire Road ~,,~no~.eswl ~. Virginia 22~0~-4~9o Z96 (804) January 22, 1990 Gaylon ~=~ 246 East High Street Char!ott==~ VA 22901 &.,,~_~'"-2~ 9 -~8~ Redfieids Development "' ' 2~B 47 and 49 Tax Dear Mr. Bei~hts: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on January 17, 1990~ unanimously approved tko above-noted re~aest to rezone 276 acres from R-I, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development, resulting in 656 lots. Property, located adjacent to She_~w-ood Farms, and bounded by Sunset Road and !-64. The Board approved Z~r~-89-18 subject to the conditions as a.~,=~.~~~ ~ and addendu~ as recommended bv~ the Planning C~:~ ..... ss=~..; as proffered in a letter maued December 3 1989, ~ ~avne Ci!imberc s ned by Frank D. Cox, ~- verba - ~'~' ~ by ~ ~ ~ befcre ve=_~ea the ~p~a~ the Board on January 17, and deleting proffer ¥4" in said letter, The ~nd~_~ns~ as recommended are set out below: Each ~e shall ~' _~_ c .... ~y with current building site ~rovisions. Nc driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slooes cf 25% or greater. Ail roads with the exception of roads A and B and the orivate road to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Deparument of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary System at time of develooment of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for rural cross secticn and placed in the Secondary SyStem at the time of deve!coment of the residential areas utilizing' those roads. Gay!on Beights Page 2 January 2~, Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Rt. 631 improvements have been ccmD!eted to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning & Community Development; The propcsed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase i; There shall be eniy single family detached dwellings south cf road L. w~~:-~= lots will have 7. ~ - ~zm~ec access to roads A and B in accordance with ~ ~ ==~n ~ng~n ..... g comments in attached memorandum (Attachment A) dated December 19, 1989; Acceptance of app!icant=s proffers ~, 2, and 3 found in Attachment D which read: A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656 dwellings; A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14 to 2.38 units/acre; and A maximum neighborhood density not to exceed 4.0 units/acre in any gzven residential neighborhood or deve!oDment ~hase. Compliance w~5~ ~ ~ of addendum as follows: revised aaplication_ plan __.~ ~cco_~an~- ~n ~ with Section $ =.5 of the Zcnzng n~'~ ~ ° is -~-~=' and shall include the '?oilowing: A Setbacks for single family detached, lots shall be 25 feet front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20 feet rear setback. (Note side setback may be reduced to not less than six feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3.1) This shall be noted on the ~lan on_~ag~ I note Db', Note on the plan that only single family detached units will be located south of road L. A '20-foot strip of co_r~on~open space shall be provided adjacent to Tax map 76, Parcel 49B. The open space strip shall include a landscape easement to allow for Tax MaD 76, Parcel 49B, to install screening trees· A 20-foot rear setback shall extend f~om the open space/landscape strip; Gayion Beigkts Page 3 January 22, 1990 3. Revise the following notes on page one: Se Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b; Note !! must delete the following :'and shall conform with Virginia Department of Transportation (V~Oz; residential subdivision street design standards in effect as of the date of PRD Development_~.O~=n approval." Delete ~u~ 19. Staff does not support administrative approval of the final plats or site mlans. Staff does request administrative approval of the final subdivision plats for Lots ! through !0~. Revise land use notes to include Phase S as Open Space; Total number of lots is 656, not 658; Remove all~_~_~.~'~m~a~v_~ ~Diat notes found on skeet 5a, and 9; Revise the following notes on sheet 9: a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not County standards; and b. Total number of lots is 656, not 658; ~o~e 2 in m-ater and sewer schematic locations must refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and nct County standards as foun~_ on sheets i0~ 11~ and~z ~ ~; No access from Redf~eids through She~ood Fa~s Subdivision. if you should have any ~aestions or conuuents regarding the above noted action, please dc not hesitate to contact me. Sincere!y~ V. Wayne/Cilimberg~-~ DirecL~ of Plan~& cw Community Development CC: Kathy Dcdson Richard Jeff Echols Frank Cox ATTACHMENT E THE COX COMPANY Planners · Landscape Architects Civil F-ng~neers · Urban Designers September 20, 1990 Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner Department of Planning and Commu:'fity Development The County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia .22901 Re: Redfields PRD Albemarle County, Virginia' Dear Bill: S',nce our last conversation regarding Redfields earlier this summer, we have proceeded with several master plan changes to the PRD which I believe will enhance'the overall project. With this correspondence, I am forwarding copies of several exhibits which repr(~sent the previously discussed modifica- tions 1o the PRD. These include: 1. A shift of the main entry intersec!7. ~q with Sunset Avenue approximately 125' to the south, for the purpose c; enhancing entrance visibility and re- ducing earthwork, drainage and other environmental impacts along the main entry road. -2. The acquisition by Redfields of approximately 0.75-acres from Dr. Stevenson (Wintergreen Land Trust) along our southerly property line to accommodate the entry road redesign, as referenced by Parcel "A" on attached plat exhibit. 3. The acquisition by Dr. Stevenson of approximately 6.0-acres from Redfields along the balance of our southerly property line as consider- ation for Parcel "A', as referenced by Parcel "B"'on attached plat ex- hibit. This creates an additional 100' buffer strip along Dr. Stevenson's tract which will now be under his ownership. Further, he has acknowl- edged in the purchase agreemen: tnat the 20' buffer strip (as per origi- nal GDP) is no longer required. 4. A consolidation of Lots 110 and ~. 11 (as per previously approved PRD general development plan) to accomplish above reference shift in the entry road. Tt)e original GDP establ,:shed a 43 SFD lot yield for Lot 110 and 24 SFD lot yield for Lot 111. The consolidation of the two lots repre- sents a net reduction of 33 units, yielding 34 residential lots in this residual 804' 295' 7131 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 &3 Mr. Bill Fritiz Re: Redfields September 20, 1990 Page Two area. This is graphically represented as Phase 1-A on the acco. mpany- lng graphic. 5. A reduction in the size and yield of Lot 109, as previously approved, to reflect (a) the transfer of the 100' strip of land to Dr. Stevenson, (b) the re- location of the main entry road (Road "A ,), (c) the incorporation of the recreation area which had been previously planned in Lot 111,and (c) the decrease in residential yield brought about by our decision to in- crease the average SFD lot size in this area. The resulting yield of 87 SFD lots represents a reduction of 24 from the previously approved 111 lots. 6. The inclusion of a smafl triangle of land in the westerly "notch" of Redfields for use as residential Jots in consideration of the "cutout' of a similarly sized parcel along the northwesterly property line of Redfields. While the conceptual benefits of all these modifications were the subject of our general discussions during the summer,.I wanted to ensure that they be docu- mented now that the land purchase agreement with Dr. Stevenson has been finalized. Pursuant to our previous discussions, it is my understanding that amendment to the GDP to reflect the ,~hift in the entry road and lotting configu- rations can be handled administratively. However, I am not clear as to whether or not the elimination of the 20' buffer strip will require Commission re- view. Please advise on this point. Subject to your advisement, we will amend and resubmit the GDP package as well as the revisions to the final road plans (as submitted April 1, 1990 to VDOT and County Engineering) to incorporate these various changes. Also, we will prepare and submit the requisite plats to accomplish the minor subdivisions re- lated to the land transfers. I deeply-appreciate your interest and assistance in helping us reach this point. With kind regards, I am Yours very truly, ~:rank D. Cox, JZ PE AI~P 1.709-Acres Existing Zoning: PRD proposed Zo~/ng: RA a/col C to be removed from Redfields PRO bans[er to adjoining property owner. \ \ I / nor residential Parc GDP to accommodate b'anslers. from original and B land .......... ~.-- E.~.rcel D-- · . ..... ::..... ::. ::'::. E~is~'~g Zoning: ~ . . ,... : .......Pro~sedZoning: P~D .-.~:~7 P~cel C to be add~ to Redfields PRO ~a ~sler _. ~... to Redlialds Development Corpcr~tion f~om . adjoining pro~ owner. / ~. /' ;~ .... // "-. · - .;. - ,..._ ,.;,',.r revised PRD zoning, .... ,~J~,in' ent~/' road to Rec PRD teaJigned to provide improved road grade z~nd reduced grading in vicinity oi sb'eam crossing. Exis~gZonJng: RI ProposedZoning: PRD parcel B Io be added to Redfields PRO v~a transfer from Wintergreen Farm Land Trust to Redfields Deve!opmant Corporation. ned with Main entrance tc a,op'oval of phase 1-A plat to achieve enhanced site access conditions and improved Inte~seclion&l ua, k: design. / \ / / / / / / \ \ \ ATTACHMENT pLANNiNG DiVISt0N \ \ \ \ \ \ / / //// (~ / / ./ / ? ? ~and Area ~nd Zonl?D._q · / 27' G31'5 Ac~es / .. ::_,. OciginaipRDAcmage: ' ,// Less PaJ'celA (PRDIoR1): '; 6'046t Aa'es ,. ,..,,-.,;.;,_~;t.~'-:'-;.-~ LessParcelC (PRDtoRA): .... AddPa~celD. (R4toPRD): ..;~i_ :~i"- i .. ~:.~....:.,:: ..: :.:~. ~,;.:.:,,::. ~u~_~c~ ~_:- ~: ~ -: ..... ' .... :+;.~:'t_~ Revis~:l PRD A~eage: ..... :....-.. .......... .-:.u~ . .':'~..'/..:u.,.:!'~.'::-.,~,,,~-'~:,.:-:.c~=~.~,- - ... : ......_. ~ao~ '. 251 ,5375 kcres -':_'.': ,': :._: :,_L:,:.-_",~J:::A-_-.. Unde~e,op~ .... - ............. / REVISION SUMMARY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REDFIELDS ALBEMARLE. COUNT VIRGINIA THE COX COMPANY 5~AL~ l' = 20O' ZMA-91-07 Redfi 'ds Development Corporatior Petiti¢ rezone 1.1 acre from RA, Rural Areas to Pk , Planne¢ ATTACHM~NTF Residential Devel6pment and to rezone 7.7551 acres from Pku to RA and R-1 and 0.76 acres from R-l, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 24B, 47, 49, 49B (part) and Tax ~ap 76N, Parcels 8B and 12, are located adjacent to Sherwood Farms and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial district. This site is located within a designated growth area and is shown as low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to agreements with the applicant. Mr. Fritz noted: "These agreements and the application plan replace the original conditions, proffers, and application plan." The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Cox. He described briefly the history of the development and how the current amendment had evolved. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.' Mr. Wilkerson noted that the proposal was of benefit to both the County and the applicant. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-91-07 for Redfields Development Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements: 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50.lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. 2. Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B, and C and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of 10-15-91 12 development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. 5. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. 6. Not more than 520 total units. 7. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C intaccordance with Engineering comments contained in a Dece~l~ber 19, 1989 memorandum. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. DB V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary ATTACHMENT G COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296~5823 October 16, 1991 Redfields Land Trust c/o Redfields Development Corporation 1 Boars Head Place P. O. Box 5347 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-91-07 Redfields Development Corporation Tax Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 49, 49B (part) and Tax Map 76N, Parcels 8B and 8D Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following agreements: Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B and C and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia 'Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Redfields Land Trust Page 2 October 16, 1991 e The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. e No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. 6. Not more than 520 total units. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989 memorandum. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 20, 1991. 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. William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcw cc: Lettie E. Neher Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins Frank Cox November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 2. 3. 4. ATTACHMENT H No animals are to be confined outside; Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive; Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday - Thursday: 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 a.m. 5:30 p.m. Friday until 9:00 a.m. Monday; There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall accept animals only-on an emergency basis; Animals shall be permitted on sit~ only during hours of operation; Industrial Waste Survey form to be submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority and approved prior to commencement of veterinary activities. Agenda ItemNo. 13. ZMA-91-07. Redfields DevelOpment Corp. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1.1 ac from RA to PRD; to rezone 7.7551 ac from PRD to iRA & R-l; to rezone 0.76 ac from R-1 to PRD (original PRD approved as ZMA-89-19). Located adjacent to Sherwood Farms & bounded by Sunset Rd & 1-64. TM76,P22A,23,24B,47,49,49B(part); TM76N,PSB&12. Samuel Miller Dist. This site is in a designated growth area shown in the Comprehensive Plan as low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per ac). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report: "PETITION: Redfields Development Corporation petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.1498 acres from IL~, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential Development, and to rezone 7.7 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development, to RA, and R-l, Residential, and 0.7566 acres from R-l, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 49, 49B (part) and Tax Map 76N, parcels 8B and SD, are located adjacent to Sherwood Farms and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, This site is located within a designated growth area and is shown as low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre). CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Phase I of Redfields is currently under development. The majority of the site is wooded. Sherwood Farms is adjacent to the west. Multi-family units exist to the east. Property to the south is a horse farm. Interstate 64 and Route 29 border the property to the north and northeast. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the bound- aries of the Redfields Development approved with ZMA-Bg-18. This amendment does not increase the level of development. This amendment is to provide for a more logicaldevelopment pattern including loca- tion of roads and distribution of lots and open space. ZMA-89-18 allowed a total of 656 dwelling units with an overall density of 2.38 'dwelling units per acre. The applicanC's current proposal reduces density to 1.95 dwelling units per acre and 520 dwelling units. In addition, the applicant has provided more information regacding the. subdivision of the property and development of the townhomes. STAFF COMMENT: The requirements of ZMA-89-18 required that a buffer be provided adjacent to Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B. Subsequently, that buffer area was added to Parcel 49B. The applicant now proposes to rezone this strip of land from PRD to R-1 which is the zoning of Parcel 49B. In addition, a strip of land was added from Parcel 49B to Redfields to allow for better road alignment. The applicant proposes to rezone this area from R-1 to PRD. The two areas proposed to be rezoned are shown as Parcel C and D. These areas are to provide for better lot configuration and basically represent a land swap. Attach- ment D (copy on file) indicates all areas to be rezoned. 158 November 20, 199t (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) The Application Plan submitted by the applicant indicates 145 single- family 16ts and 20 townhouse units. The applicant also indicates a reduction from 656 Units to 520 units. This plan was reviewed by the Site Review Committee and the applicant has revised the plan to address comments made by the Committee. The road plans have been ~ approved by the ¥irginia Department of Transportation. Staff recom~/ mends that all lots, including townhouse units shown on the applica- tion plan, be approved administratively. During the approval process staff will require modification or deletion of any lot which is unsuitable for development due to slope. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residen- tial development (1-4 dwelling units per acre). This proposal is consistent with that designation. This proposal will slightly reduce the residential build-out of this area over the original approval. Staff opinion is that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the previous approval for this development, ZMA-89-18, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore staff recommends approval subject to the following Agreements: 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent.or greater. 2. Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B and C and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (¥DoT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Trans- portation standards for rural cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units willbe constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning mnd Community Deve1¢~-~ merit. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. 5. No access from Rediields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. 6. Not more than 520 total units. 7. Futu?e lots will have limited access to Roads A, B and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989, memorandum. (NOTE: These Agreements and the Application Plan replace the original conditions, proffers and Application Plan). MY. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-91-06 subject to the Agreements set out in the staff's report. The staff recommended administrative approval of all lots shown on the lay-out provided under this Application Plan as well as administrative approval of the site plan and that the townhouse area be part of the Board's action. Mr. Bowie commented that this is a reduction of 136 units. Mr. Cilimberg replied that was correct. That was not broken down in the'proffer or in the conditions or Agreements for single-family or multiple-family. Mr. cilimberg stated that the seven Agreements along with the Application Plan would be a part of the Board's action, and would replace the original conditions, proffers, and Application Plan. A number of the original conditions on the first approval are now addressed through notes on the Application Plan, so that is why there are fewer conditions listed for approval. Meeting) 159 Mr. Cilimberg said there should be one further amendment to ~greemen~ Number Two changing the sentence from: "Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B and C and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to "to read: "T~he private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Missel, from the Cox Company, representing Redfields Development Corporation, came forward. He said Mr. Bill Barnett, who is from the Redfields Development Corporation, is also present. The Cox Cqmpany completed the master planning and zoning studies for Redfields and based on the unani- mous approval by the Planning Commission, as well as the great work done by the staff, has no further comments. Mr. Missel said the main reason for lowering the density is because of further study given to the carrying capacity of the roads. They had not studied closely the number of single- family lots. Mr. Bain asked what is meant by "all roads." Mr. Missel replied that the number of vehicle trips'per day was essentially what was looked at. Mr. Bain asked if this changes the road standards, and if once they get above a certain traffic count significant road work will be required. Mr. Missel replied that the design for the roads was based on single-family townhouse development ~J;a~a~_. Mr. Bowie asked if the reduction in units is in single-family or townhouses. Mr. Missel replied it is a mix, but primarily it is single- family. In several instances, slope constraints had an effect. Mr. Bain asked how many townhouse units and how many single-family units there will be under this new plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied that onAttachment E (copy on file) in the left hand bottom column, it shows 300 single-family detached'and 220 cottage and attached units for a total of 520. Mr. Bail~ said the development started with 867 units, was reduced to 656, and now is down to 52£ units. Mr. Cilimberg stated that initially it was anticipated that there would be development of the southwest part of the site for residential use. That part of the property became open space in the process of reviewing the plan because it was primarilY in the Rural Area designation. That is where the first loss of lots came about. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cilimberg the difference in ~he road lay-out. Mr. Cilimberg said this request came through for approval a few months before the Highway Department changed it's subdivision manual. The consultant designed the roads based on the old manual which provided for a more liberal design, i~ particular, curvatura and grade. The road was designed and approved under that old manual so the staff is using those approvals rather than going back and asking for a new review. Mr. Missel said that is correct. Mr. Cilimberg said that after the roads were approved, the applicant re-evaluated the number of units that could reasonably be built based upon th approved road plans. Based on cost considerations, the-decision was made tha less dwelling units could be justified because there was a lower cost in road construction. With no one else coming forward to address ZMA-91-07, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cilimberg if the Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended if the number of units on this property keeps being reduced. Mr. Cilimberg said this area is shown for low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan, which is one to four dwelling units per acre. Staff know that the fewer units built in the growth area, the more units will go in othe areas and it may force the growth areas to be increased elsewhere, One thin~ that cannot be controlled, obviously, is what the market demands and what th~ costs are to developers for building out their projects. There is not a floc on rezonings or densities, there is only a ceiling. Although staff encourag~ developers to build according to the plan, there is no way, other than throu~ a developer's proffer putting a floor on the density, to actually do that. Mr. Tucker stated that Redfields is at the mid-range point in density, two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Bain said he would like to have staff consider some criteria for establishing a minimum on the number of units whi~ 1 6O November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) would be allowed in the growth areas. Mr. Tucker said if this is not done, ten to fifteen years the County will have to expand the growth ~rea. Mr. Bain said he would support this but would just as soon delete Condition number 6, he does not want it limited to 520 units. ~-~ Mr. St. John asked if the statement concerning the 520 units is deletea~/ if that will cause the Highway Department to base its road standards on the build-out possible under these plans and not on a statement of what the developer intends to do. He asked if that would not thwart the developer's very purpose in getting the rezoning. Mr. St. Oohn said if this is left open-ended, the maximum build-out that could be achieved under whatever zoning is put on Redfields could be accomplished and th9 Highway Department will make them build roads. Mr. Cilimberg said that this new Application Plan indicates the number of units that will go into lots and townhouses, even with the deletion of the Agreement, this plan calls for that number of units. So 656 units would be substituted for the original number of units. Mr. Tucker asked if the Plan could be emended without going through this public hearing process and emending the ZMA. Mr. Cilimberg stated it would be left at his discretion up to that maximum number of units since this is a Planned Residential Development. Otherwise, there is no density. ' Mr. Bain said in Agreement Number 7 of the previous approval, Item 7.3 gave a maximum neighborhood density not to exceed 4.0 units an acre in any residential neighborhood or development phase. He asked if that is still applicable. Mr. Citimberg said the plan now shows the number of units ~hich will be in each phase, so it is all pinned down. Mr. Bain asked if that Plan could be incorporated as a condition, since it is not in this petition as a condition. Mr. Cilimherg stated that the Application Plan for a Planned Residential Development is automatically part of the rezoning. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris.to approve ZMA-91-07 subject to the seven Agreements approved by the Planning Commission but amending the second to read: "All roads, with the ex6eption of C and the private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one roads'A, B and ' - ,, .'_A .... ~np # 6 to read: "Not more than 656 · le-famil dwelling ............... ~ - ' nu~ ~l~g ..... i. ~ ~.h ~ number of units a roved under ZMA-89-18, Ja ~ona~ ~,~u= .......... the PP - 17, 1990. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (The Agreements, as approved, are set out in full below.) 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. 2. All roads, with the exception of roads A, B and C and the private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one, single-family dwelling, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. 5. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. 161 November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 6. Not more than 656 total units. 7. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989, memorandum. (The memorandum is set out in full as follows:) "TO: William D. Fritz, Planner From: Peter J. Parsons, Civil Engineer, Re: Redfields Revised Plat (S~B-89-205) We have reviewed the above noted preliminary plat. The following comments are based upon site review comments which do not appear to be adequately addressed: a) Additional 50 foot septic building setbacks from streams will likely be necessary, and should therefore be shown on the prelim- inary plat. b) The note regarding 30 foot drainage easements over all streams and drainage courses has not been added. c) The issue of access for lots 23A and 22D has not been addressed. d) The proposed layout of storm sewers appears grossly inadequate. e) Utility easements have not been delineated. f) The minimum design speed for road 'L' is 25 mph under current VDoT standards. It is our recommendation that curb and gutter be required on all of the proposed roads. The applicant, however, is proposing curb and gutter on all roads with the exception of roads 'A' and 'B', the collector streets. While our previous recommendation remains un- changed, if a rural cross-section is allowed for the collector roads, entrances should be strictly limited as shown on the preliminary plat, and all lots should access 'internal' roads only. Lots 19, 41, 42, 61, 62 and 99 have significant areas of critical slope which would likely be disturbed when the lots are built on. For this reason we recommend that these lots be deleted and dedicated as open space. The building site and proposed lot lines and access for the single detached dwelling unit on lot 106 should be shown on the preliminary plat to insure that disturbance of critical slopes is minimized.' Agenda Item No. 14. CPA-90-03. Public Hearing on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Land Use Plan of Hollymead Community. Request to change 175 acs W of Rt 29 & S of Rt 649 (Airport Rd) from Industrial Service to Regional Service & High Density Residential. The area is located W of Rt 29 and S & E of Rt 606 in the Hollymead Co,unity. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1991.) Mr. Tucker said the applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, has requested a deferral indefinitely, and asked that the Board defer th%s request until the February 5 meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to defer CPA-90-03 to February 5, 1992. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ATTACHMENT I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Dcvelopmem 40! Mclntire Road Charlo~¢svi te, 'V'rg~nia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 November 25, 1991 Redfie!ds Land Trust c/o Redfie!ds Development Corporation 1 Boars Head Lane P.O. Box 5347 charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: ZMA-9!-07 Redfields Development ~F~ Dear Sirs: W~J The Albemarle County Board of supervisors, _t November 20, 1991 approved the above-noted request to rezone 1.! acres from RA to PRD; to rezone 7.7551 acres from PRD to RA and R-i; to rezone 0.76 acres from R-1 to PRD (original PRD approved as ZMA-89-19)- Property is located adjacent to Sherwood Farms and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64. Tax 14ap 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 24B, 47, 49, 49B (part); Tax Map 76N, Parcels 8B and 12. Please note'that this approval is subject to the following agreements: i. Each lot shall comply with current building sine provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. 2. All roads, with the exception of roads A~ B and C and the private road to serve Phase Ii Open Space and One Single Family Dwelling, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residentia~ areas utilizing those roads. Rcads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. Redfields Land Trust November 25, 1991 Page 2 4 o Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. No access from Redfields through Sher~ood, Farms Subdivision. 6e Not more than 656 total units. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989 memorandum. I~ you should have any questions or comments re~arding the above no~ed action, please do not hesitate to c6ntact me. Sincerely, " cc: Frank Cox Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins ATTACHMENT J ZMA 98-08 Redfields - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to accept revised proffers which would allow zero lot line platting and other setback changes as an option within Phase 3 (except 3A), Phase 4 and Phase 5 of the Redfields Planned Residential Development. The property to which zero lot line platting would be available is described as Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1, and Tax Map 76R1-, Parcel 1 consisting of 165.59 acres, zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development situated in Urban Neighborhood 5 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Neighborhood Residential (3 to 6 dwellings/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended "the Board of Supervisors accept the applicant's revised proffers allowing for zero lot line and other yard modifications (proffer 8) in Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4, as outlined and depicted in Attachments C, D. and E. Since Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and its development would be subject to a separate future zoning action, staff recommends the zero lot line pattern for Phase 5 be dealt with at that time. If the Board agrees, this should be reflected in its action." Mr. Keeler explained the first 7 proffers already exist on this property. Proffer #8 "seeks to incorporate the Zoning Text Amendment language that was developed earlier this year for zero. lot Line development." He said the County Attorney's office will be making some 5-5-98 2 editorial changes to'the proffers prior to the Board headng. He called attention to two illustrations which, were on display, one showing a zero lot tine platting approach and the other showing the currently available platting approach. The zero lot line approach provides the property ownerwith a more useable-side yard. Mr. Rooker asked staff to explain proffer 8b. lin the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer....] He said he did not understand why the yard reduction would trigger this, and why the County Fire Official would be the agent who would require deed restriction disclosures. Mr. Keeler replied: "How I would read this is if a vacant :lot was sold, the deed for that lot would make it clear that the side of the house on the lot line would have no windows, and that sort of thing. It is probably intended to recite the Fire Official's requirements in the deed." Mr. Kamptner said he had raised a similar question when he reviewed the proffers, i.e. "not quite understanding what kind of guarantee was envisioned and. what was intended to be covered by the deed restrictions." He said that will be clarified before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kamptner summarized the County Attorney Office staff's comments about the proffers: #1: The first sentence duplicates what is already required by the Zoning Ordinance. It is suggested the second sentence should be clarified as to whether it would apply only if there is no reasonable alternative alignment for the driveway as provided in Sec. 4.2.2.1, last paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance, to eliminate any confusion or. argument that the. 50-foot limitation supersedes the Zoning Ordinance standard. #2: We just had a general question as to whether or not those standards were acceptable to VDOT and Engineering. We also requested that they reference a specific plan. #3 and #6: Do these proffers apply to all of the Redfields development or just this phase? When these two proffers .are read together, "there is a reference to units in #3 which apparently doesn't apply to what is proposed in all phases covered by these proffers, and then ~ has the total. It is confusing if the proffers only apply to these particular phases." #4: The proposed recreation center should be identified. #5: The meaning is uncertain. The proffer needs to be re-written in a complete sentence. #6: The proffer needs to be re,written in a complete sentence. #7: It is suggested the Engineering memo be made a part of the proffers or that its substance be included in the proffers themselves. #8: Several minor clarifications needed. Should this be part of the PRD approval, rather than a proffer? Mr. Keeler pointed out that the first seven proffers, which have been in place for some time, were not authored by this applicant. Mr. Keeler addressed some of Mr. Kamptner's cOmments: Re: #3 and #6, he said it is intended that these proffers apply to the entire development. Re: #8, he said "1 would think because we don!t have it in the Ordinance now, the full content of 8 would be a problem. If we had already adopted zero lot line, you would not see 8 (a) through (g) here." Mr. Kamptner responded: ,Right, but would that be something that would be included: in the PRD zoning application plan where the Board 5-5-98 3 is allowed to make' some changes to otherwise underlying-standards,, since what is in here you could look at it, in one way, aS being more liberal than-what is required.by the Zoning Ordinance?" Mr. Keeler asked: "You mean postured as a modification (of the PRD approval)?" Mr. Kamptner said: "The substance will be the same. It is really just the form as to where it goes." Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to explain why proffer #5 .is included. [No access from. Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.] Mr. Keeler said this proffer was requested of the residents of Sherwood Farms. Mr. Tice asked if the plans for Phase 5 will require a Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Mr. Keeler added: "The plan that is on display here, if this petition is approved; will replace the other plan that we have on file. That plan shows Phase 5 as open space, or no development. That was done because at the time there was question as to whether or-not fire protection could be provided at higher elevations." Mr. Rieley asked staff to comment on the justification for proffer 8(0, i.e. "the discrepancy between the setback for the house and the garage." [At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks' may be reduced to 20'. Garages may be set over the front setbacks bY 110'.:..] Mr. Keeler deferred to the applicant. The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Missel. His comments included the following: --Proffers 3 and 4 haVe been completed. --Regarding justification for ~/~(f), he said the developer has requested' that there be an alloWance, in this area, for the opportunity to use garages and to set them closer to the road. Presently off-street parking is provided. The 10 foot difference is to provide closer access for the garage to the street. --The applicant has no concerns about the County Attorney's comments about Changes to the proffers. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-08 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, to be perfected, as described by the Assistant County Attorney, prior to the Board hearing. (Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that his motion does not include approval of Phase 5.) [NOTE: After further discussion, proffer 8(f) was amended as described below.] Discussion: Mr. Rieley said he supports "wholeheartedly" the zero-lot line provisions, and the bulk of this proposal. However, he said he does not understand "moving the garages 10 feet closer to the road in order to get them 10 feet closer to the road." He said it is usually desirable to keep garages back farther so as not to create a street-scape of garage doors. He questioned the applicant's justification, He said he could support the reduction to 20 5-5-98 4 feet, but he felt the setback should be consistent for everything. He also expressed concern about proffer ~k5 and the fact that every subdivision wants to be separate from every other subdivision, and "cutting off all opportunity to knit these neighborhoods together into a network of streets that serve an overall transportation system." Mr. Rooker commented: "Unfortunately, the neighborhoods don't seem to share that view." Mr. Tice said he agreed with Mr. Rieley's comments, particularly those related to the garages. Mr. Rooker wondered if the applicant has some design.justification in mind. Mr. Missel .responded: "in some cases these lots are pretty tight, ... so it would allow you to use that front area for the car .... Some of the lots could benefit from having that additional area used for the garages." Mr. Tice wondered if there was any reason not to just allow the front setback to be 10 feet, with no distinction made as to whether the space is used for a garage or for an additional room for the dwelling. Mr. Rieley said: '1 don't have any difficulty at all in allowing a narrow setback. I do object to having, in the proffers, the garages, being in front of the houses." Mr. Rooker pointed out that an advantage of this proffer is that more homes will be built with garages, whereas presently they have off-street parking, it was suggested that proffer 8(f) be amended to read: "At the sole discretion of the applicant, the front setbacks may be reduced to 10 feet." (The remainder of 8(f)to be deleted.) The applicant was agreeable to this amendment. Both Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Rooker agreed to amend the motion to reflect.the change to proffer 8(f). The motion passed unanimo~'~slv ~O ATTACHMENT K -4: .~.RD OP' aU,. ERVIS,)R~. May 1'4, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DepI. of Planning & Cornrnunily Deve}opmem 401 Mclntire Road Chaflotlesvi}te, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 5823 Frank Cox 220 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-98-08 Redfields Development Corporation - CORRECTED LETTER Tax Map 76R1, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Cox: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors to apply to Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phttse 4 only and subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Please note that it was agreed that Proffer 8 (f) would be amended to read: "At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbaCks may be reduced to ten (10) feet." All other language of Proffer 8 (f) woUld be deleted Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 17, 1998. 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. Sincerely, Ronaid S. Keeter Chief of Planning RSK/jcf / cc: Ella ~arey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsev S ATTACHMENT L Agenda Item No. 9~ ZMA~98-08. Redfietds (Signs #81 & 85~ Publzc hearing on a request to accept revised p~offers which would allow zero lot line platting & other setback changes as an option w/in Phase 3 ,~excep[ Phase 4 & Phase 5 of the Redfields PRD The property to which zero lot line platting would be available is described as TM76R, P1 & TM76R1, Pl, consisting of 165.59 acres zoned PRD & situated in Urban Neighborhood 5. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood Residential [3-6 du/ac] in the Comp Plan.) Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) Mr. CilimJoerg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said allowance of zero lot line developmen5 would ~provide for creative home sitings which will enable more efficient organization of yards and exterior spaces." More specifically, ~'the option to created limited areas for zero lot line neighborhood design affords the developer the option ~o make better use of natural land forms and respect existing yard topography while providing an affordable residential product for which a demand exists." Redfields was rezoned from R-I, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development, in 1990. The development was approved for a maximum of 656 dwellings (105 single-family detached; 551 cottage and attached units). A subsequent petition removed an acre from the development. Staff recommended approval and acceptance of the applicant's revised proffers allowing for zero lot line and other yard modifications (Proffer 8) in Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4, as outlined and depicted in Attachments C, D and E (attachments on file). Since Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and its development would be subject to a separate future zoning action, staff recommended the zero lot line pattern for Phase 5 be dealt with a~ that time If the Board a~rees, this should be reflected in its action. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1998, unanimously recommended approval subject to the applicant's proffer. Proffer 8(f) would be amended ~o read '~At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet." All other language of Proffer 8(f) would be deleted. Mr. Bowerman asked the rationale for eliminating Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Phase 5 is presently open space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the open space in the original application was required by the density or was it somethin9 that was not looked at, and left to the future. Mr. Cilimberg said it is was something that was left ~o the future, not for density reasons. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be inconsistent for the Board to accept the applicant's proffer, including that section in Phase 5. Mr. Cilimber~ said it was staff's thought that they could review any proposal to develop that area with a plan of the zero 1pt line concept. If the Board wanted to include zero lo~ lines in Phase 5, they would want uo do so without any indication of promisin~ any subsequent acuion on a rezonin9 that from open space to something with developmenu potential. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any commen~s. Mr. Fred Missle, on behalf of Cox Company and representing the Development Corporation of Virginia, said he wanted to address the Phase 5 issue. When it was zoned, Phase 5 was outside of the ~rowth area. The applicant agrees that Phase 5 can be struck from the proffers as written. The applicant is nou requesuin~ any additional density for the development They- are asking for the zero lot lines to allow contiguous side yards instead of choppin~ it up into smaller lots. Under the zonmng, duplexes and townhouses are allowed in this area; this would allow for single-family detached homes and a more open street-scape, and it allows for them uo deal with a tricky topography in the areas. Ms. Thomas asked about an old p~ffer saying that there would be no access to the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. She asked if there were alternative methods of access, such as pedestrian and bike access, and if so, would this require the proffers to be amended to say that there would be no automobile access. She would like to see some access if topography allows for it. Mr. Cilimber~ replied that when it was initially proffered, it was understood that it meant vehicular access, and this intent could be clarified with an amendment. 000020 June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would have to do anything to withdraw ~ from the proffers. Mr. cilimberg said that an amendmen% would have %o be drafted, which Mr. Davis is working on. MS. Thomas mentIoned Proffer 8b and asked why the Fire Marshal is looking into deed disclosures. Mr. Cilimber9 replied that 11 is because o~/~--~ moving homes closer together and meeting fire flow requirements, tlr. Keel~j said that this lan~age is from the zoning text amendment which the Commission recommended ~o the Board, but which has been se~ aside un~it the DAIS Committee completes its work. It includes such things as requiring no fenestration (openings) in the wall. Subsequently, the language was used for the Western Ridge zero lot line proposal, where the proffer was recently accepted by both the Commission and the Board. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for comments, with no one from the public r~sing to speak, the puklic hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. ~otion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve ZMA-98-08 to apply to Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4 only subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers with the amendment to remove "and Phase 5" from Proffer 8, and Proffer 9(f) would read ~At the scle discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten ~10) feet.". Ms. Humphris noted that in th~ Commission's m~nutes, it is noted that Mr. Greg Kamptner suggested that the engineering memo be made a part of the proffers. She asked if th%s was a viable suggestion. Ms. Thomas replied that it was taken care of in the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg said ~t is included in Proffer No. ~. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) pROFFER FOR~ Date: ~-17-98 ZMA~ ~8-08 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 76-R and 76R-1 165.306 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD {Amend Setbacks} Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning, itself 9~ves rise to the need for the conditions; and {2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or ~reater. 2. All roads, with the exception oi roads A, B, and C and the private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one Single Family Dwelling, shall be built to Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation (VDoT) s~andards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of developmenn of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B, and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizin9 those roads. 3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of ~the Department of Plannin~ and Community Development. . ~ 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase~~ 1998 (Resular Nisht Meetlns} 000021 June 17, (Page 21) No vehic~a'~ access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivis ~.on. Not more than 656 total units. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B. and C in accordance with Engineering commenns contained in a December 1989 memorandum. Zero Lot Line Setbacks may be applied to Phase 3 (excluding Phase 3A) and Phase 4 an the sole discretion of the applicant and as indicated on the Revised~ PRD Development Phasin~ Plan included as part of this proffer. Regulations governmng zero lot line setbacks are as follows: Ail such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county; No structures shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County fire official; No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the zoning ordinance; The wall of the dwelling unit located within three '(3) feet of the lot line shall have no windows~ doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; At the sole discretion of the applicant, froRt setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet; As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent 5o the zero lot line property such that, with the exception of fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall be shown on the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring title Eo the proper~y. Roof overhangs may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches. Gavlon T. B~igbts Signatures of Ail Owners Gaylon T, Beiqhts, ~un¢ 17, 1~ Printed Names of All Owners Date Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-98-02. Pavilion a5 Riverbend. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amen~ section 30.3.5.2.112) of the Zoning Ordinance ~o permit safety/containment nettin9 as a use by special use permit w/in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) Mr~ Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said a property owner has applied no amend the Flood Hazard Overlay District to add safety/containment netting as a use by right within the floodway. The applicant ms cuurently applying for a' special use permit for a golf driving range adjacent to the River (this permit is Under review by ATT3 CHMENT M COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 June 24, 1998 Frank Cox 220 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 ZMA-98-08 Redfields Development Corporation Tax Map 76R1, Parcel I Dear Mr. Cox: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 17, 1998, approved the above-noted request to accept revised proffers which would allow zero lot line platting.aff~ other setback changes as an option within Phase 3 (except 3A), and Phase 4 of the Redfields PRD.. Please note that this approval is subject to the proffers dated April 23, 1998, Attachment.~ 0fthe staff report (copy attached) and outlined below: 1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. All roads, with the exception of roads A, B, and C and the private road to serve Phase II Open Space and One Single Family Dwelling, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development ofthose residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B, and C shall be constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed unlil such time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall' be constructed with Phase I. No vehicular access frOm Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Not more than 656 total units. Page 2 June 24, 1998 Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989 memorandum. Zero Lot Line Setbacks may be applied to Phase 3 (excluding Phase 3A) and Phase 4 at the sole discretion of the applicant and as indicated on the Revised PRD Development Phasing Plan included as part of this proffer. Regulations governing zero lot line setbacks are as folloWs: ao bo All such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county; No structures shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County fire official; No structures shall encroach on any utilily, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the zoning ordinance; The wall of the dwelling unit located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by lhe Virginia Uniform storewide Building Code; At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to 10'; As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the. exception offences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall be shown on the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed that water runofftrom the dweltlng placed on the lot line is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches Page 3 June 24, 1998 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning & Community Development RSK/jcf CCi Amelia McCulley Jack Keisey Redfields PRD Proffer Statements June 15, 1998 5. 6. 7. No driveway shall encroach more titan 50 linear feet on slopes of 25% or greater unless no ofl~er reasonable aligmnent alternative exists. All roads with the exception of roads A, B, and C and tim private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one Single Family Dwelling as shown on the Revised PRD Development Pimsing Plan, (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") dated June ! 1, 1998, shall be built to Virgi~fia Deparunent of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross-section, be dedicated to the County, and the applicant droll take all necessary actions to have file roads placed into the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B, and C shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for rural cross-section, be dedicated to the County, and the applicant slmll take all necessary actions to have the roads placed into the Secondary System of state-maintained roads at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. There slmll be not more titan 276 dwelling unitS constructed until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been co,mt,.pleted to the safisJ~g:jia0 of the Department of Plmufing and Community Development.,.-~ Jgt~iC/Ab~-~ ~[ '~,/2. 0 ~ The proposed recre~io~center shall be constructed ~vi~ Ptmse I as shown on the Plan. There shall beno'ficcess from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. There shall be no more than 656 total units wiflfin Redfields. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in accordance with Engineering comments.contained in a December 19, 1989 memorandum, a copy of whjuq~bis attached hereto. Zero Lot Line Setbacks may be applied to Phase 3 (exclud?g Phase 3A}~l~mse 4 aad4~Va~ 5 at file sole discretion of the applicant and as indicated on the 'Plan" included as part of this proffer. Regulations governing zero lot line setbacks are as follows: a. All such structures for wlfich separation and/or side yards are reduced sliall be constructed in accordance with the edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code that is current at the time of construction of the dwelling. b. ~ In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County lire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with file provisions of tiffs proffer, inclusive but limited to deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county; c. No structures shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County Fire Official; d. No structure shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the zoning ordinance. e. The wall of the dwelling milt located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no windows. doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; f. The minimum front setbacks shall be 10 feet. g. A perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the exception of fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. Tiffs easement shall be shown on the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring rifle to the property. Roof overhangs may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a nmximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed flint water nmoff from the dwelling place on the lot line is limited'to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent 10t a maximmn of eight (8) inches. Original Proffer Amended Proffer ('Amendment f~ PROFFER FORM Date: _~'/7' ~'~") ZMA '1~ c"}'~,~...~j,,_ Tax Map Parcel(s)~',~ "7'~g !~ 76~- ~ I ~::;~,~'Acres to be rezonecl from Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle COunty Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent hereby votuatarily proffers tim 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 rezoning itsell gives rise to the need for the conditions' and (2) such conditions have a reasonat)le relation to the rezoning requested. pi~}/re s of ^1. Own{ Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Si.g nature of Attorney-i n-Fact (Atlach Proper Power of Atlorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 20' MIN. MIN. 10'" kllH. KEDFIEL P5 [] I N CURVE & LINE TABLES (,FOR THiS SHEE~ ONLY) S 40'57~ ~ 26.21_ - ~-6°~8'' W 78.35 ~S 52'44 2z 17.70 4 05 W · 20:41 45 '24 S 75' , ,, ' '- ~~3" E 15.13 ~ 20.~1. S 53'48'24' OPEN SPACE LSee Sheet 0.99' N 50'27'11" E 202.11' LOT 75 25,018 S.F. LOT 76 23,807 S.F. OPEN sPACE ~3 (See Sheet 8) 1tl PARCEL "G" TMP 76R1-1 REDFIELDS LAND TRUST D.B, 1062, PG. 127 D.B. 1140, PG. 683 (PLAT) (Future Development) LOT 74 16.475 S.F. OPEN SPACE #3 81 1.71' (See Sheet 70.0' LOT 72 LOT 73 16,651 S,F. ,~.,,, //~ 4,.j,,- ATTACHMENT N, LOT 77 18,545 S.F. :~/ LOT 71 11,821 S.F. "' LOT 68 LOT70 % LOT6g ~!. ~o,5~os.~: 12,306 S.F. '~ 10,642 S.F. / \ NETTLE COURT SANITARY 50' SEWER LOT 78 13,642 S.F. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOT 79 12,987 S.F. Z C14 LOT 80 11,299 S.F. Exi~ing Sanitary Sewer Eoeement DB, 1739, Pg, 66 (plot) OPEN SPACE #3 ' . , ' 16 (See Sheet 8) R~F1ELD 15 $ pH~E 3-A SANFrARY SEWER EASEMENT LOT 81 I SURVEY SHOWING LOTS 68 - 81 '17 vi / // / 18 ' / - / ~ ELDS (Reduced) SHEET 6 OF 8 g ~0 g 1~3HS (peonP~l) S (3a-I I_,lQ3kl - ':::ISYHd g# ':=lOrdS N]dO ONI~OHSA..qAaRS ~ 6 '~ \ 8-- L ;qSVHd gc~ · 9g ' :]3¥d$ N':idO 9L 9~ ~[ £N~IIAIHDV,L,LV .il-3OYdS N3dO L8 'OW ~ :::lOrdS N=ldO L~ '£1,'gl, 3 ,,£:,6£J_9 S 9g'/. 6L'cjI. O0'OG ,,I~£,VE,Z. 1, OLO ,O0'OCJ 3 ,.1,1,,:£.gg N 1,~'-I /.g'gg 3 ,.£G,~O.t8 N O0'Ot £8'~9 00'0¥ .00,00.06 60 ,gt'L~ 3 .,£G,~0.6£ N £EI /..G'9G ~ ,,/.O,Z.G.GO N O0'Ot £8'~9 O0'Ot ,,00,00.06 gO ,6Z"gL 3 .,/.O,4g.Og S ~EI LG'9G ,3 ,,['~,~O.tg N O0'Ot' £g'~9 00'01, ,,00,00.06 LO ,O0'Og '4 ,,£G,~0.6£ N LEI i~/.'/.g 3 ,,[F~.['G.L£ $ L6'£t /Z'Lg O0'Og6 ,,£G,/.O..qO go ,6~'gL M ,,/O,/.G.O~ N OEI 6L'Lg~ , 3 ,,£L,~¥.~t~ $ /O'.~tL /I.'~gZ: 00'086 ,,61,,6~.9L cjO ,00'£ 3 ,,/.O,/g.Ocj S 6L'! /g'g9 3 ,.£G,[-'O.1,g N 00'0~ £g'~9 00'01, .00,00.06 1,0 ,00'09 3 ,,£g,~0.6£ N g6'1,1,1, ,'~. ,,Z.£,GE.6t N OG'~ g6'td,' 00'cj1,8 ,,00,£0_c0 £0 ,G1,'£/ 3 ,,cj1,,1,1,.LZ LG'gG 3 ..LO.Lg.gO S 00'01, £g'~9 00'01, ,.00,00.06 ~0 ~tg'gg M ,,Gt,Og.gO S 9L'1 Z.B'69 3 ,,L£,t£.gi~ S 96'~ 68'69 O0'GZ:B ,,£L,LG.1,0 LO ,~£'LB M ,,/g,OOJ£ S gL9 CIaOHO ONR~r'JG 'HO ZN3ONVJ. Ob"V $1'IIG~ V.L'13G 'ON ,~L'G[ 3 ,,1,0,0£.6£ S ~ · , , ,9t'gg M ,,[O,9G.Z.9 S ~~ (t~-Id) £L9 ~' 9L9 ~1,L9 'Od OL~I. 'El'(:] ,£/.'£g /4 ,,O£,~g.Og N ~1.'1 '"'"'~,9:0. ' 'LZ.G 'Od LLOL '8'C] ,Z6'£G M ,,LT,gg._c'9 N LL'l ~',~,~.~' ,,. IIY~d 'V HJ.3(~zn3 · .~L'g9 M ,,LL,~£~[' N OL'I '~'"~'~e- SO-IONA3~t 'N (]lAVa .-I/N '/ zn'c, ~ .- ~//';5 3 ,,£g,~O.6[' N 9'1 3 ,,LO,/.cj.oG $ - · . , ~i ' . 30 I NOIJ.O3alQ 'ON 9Z. . ~, ~L ,OS' L 6 3 ,,O~,1,G,Z~' S (A'INO J.33HS SIH.L ~0:1) S338¥1.3NI-1 ~' :lA~flO o 0,,. o .2 'x OZ. \ \ O, uewdole^ea eJmn...I) (].V-Id) £~9 'gal '01,1,1, 'B'O LEI 'gd 'E901, '8'0 &snuJ. OICV'I I.- L~J9L dlN.L .9. -13::)~tVd 3ON) JJ'IOAV'I~ 8 ITl v ,S: 1.) OWNER: REDFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION POST OFF1CE BOX 5347 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 2.) PROPERTY TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: TAX i,4AP 76R1, PARCEL 1. .3.) PRESENT ZONING: PRO AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS SET OUT IN ZMA 89-1B, ZMA 91-07, AND ZMA gB-8, ~.) THE AVERAGE LOT AREA SHOWN HEREON IS 8,796 SQUARE FEET. DRNE, AND COURTYARD COURT) CONTAIN `3.9946 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND ARE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE. · ROADS AND UTILITIES. DP. Al DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DEDICATED 50' ROAI~ RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHOWN HEREON, (REDFIELDS ROAD, NETTLE COURT, PEBBLE HILL COURT, COURTYARD NAGE EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE TWENTY FEET .(20') TO .ROPERLY D=HES. AND DRA,. GE D .NAGE. §'). E. UTIUlY AND STORMWATER _M~'iA_ GE.M..ENT ~_E~_EME...N~.,,,,A~ ST OF BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO _C.U_ SHOWN HEREON. IF AFTER CONSTRUCTION ANY UTILITY, s.) m: D~VELOpER RESE_R~_S~ D.~"~, _ T"ReOURSES ANO DRmNAG~"S'm~.C2J. RES. "~""~_~ .... U ..... 6,G ?HE mONT OF AL~ LOrn AN[ "_'~'~.;~,-,~.ORD SUCH CORRECTION. BECOMES U..ECESS OR REQU,.ES A - - ......... COUP' SE.VICE AUrORa. AND/OR STOHMWAI['.I~ M.mu'~N~~-Mr-"~' :m~.~: - ' _ ..... - MANHOLES AND ARE DEDICAI~-U lu ,n~ ~-~ -- -'R EASEMENT SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE CENTERED ON ALL SEWER UNl:.b ~"~u ~' ?3 ~ TWE~rf-FOOT (20) SANITARY Se~E 8.) A TWENTY-FOOT (20') WATERliNE -~kSEMENT SHOWN HEREbN SHALL BE CENTERED ON ALL WATERliNES, HYDRANTS,. M~'~-RS, AND VALVES AND ARE DEDICATED TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY. 9.) THE *"IRTY AND FORTY (`30' & 40') FOOT RADII'S BUILDING RESTRICTION AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE TO BE CENTERED ON FIRE HYDRANTS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 10.) OPEN SPACES 1 - .3 SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE CONVEYED TO REDF1ELDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC. ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 1999 BY AN INSTRUMENT OF RECORD. 11.) THE iMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE PROPOSED, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AS EXISTING. ' ' 76 EXCLUSNELY~AND TERMINATE ON SAiD LOTS. ACCESS TO THE AREA BEYOND LOTS 75 AND 76 SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED AT THIS POINT. THE DEPAR_'?I.E_N~i...u~' ~.~.~,,m,r,*, ~:~. ~tlCl~ IN ~ BUT EXTREME WEATHER CONDmONS. NO DRIVE-WAY SHALL ENCROACH MORE THAN FIFTY (50) LINEAL FEET ON SLOPES OF 25~.OR GREATER. EASEMENT SHALL PROVIDE REASUNABLE ACCESS BY 1`3.) BUILDING SETBACKS FOR LOTS 36 - 81 ARE AS FOLLOWS: ~'RONT SETBACK - 25 FEET REAR SETBACK - 20 FEET SIDE SETBACK - 6 FEET · 14.) ZERO LOT LINE BUILB[NG SETBAC~<S ANO GOVERNING CONDITIONS FOR LOTS 1 - `35 ARE AS FOII'OWS: ~.) SETBACKS: ~ONT SEl~ACK - 10 FEET REAR SETBACK - 25 FEET SIDE SETBACK 6 FEET, WHICH MAY BE REDUCED TO ZERO (0) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: 5.) ALL SUCH STRUCTURES FOR WHICH SEPARATION ANO/OR SIDE YARDS ARE REDUCED SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDmoN OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM ,STATEWIDE BUILDING COOE. C.) IN THE CASE OF YARD REDUCTION, THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE OFFlCb~..MAY REQUIRE SUCH GUARANTEE AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLIANCE 'WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PROFFER, INCLUSIVE OF BUT NOT UMI~ED TO, DEED RESTRICTION DISCLOSURES, AND O*"ER SUCH INSTRUMENTS ANO THE RECORDATION OF THE SAME IN *"E CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALSEMARJ-E COUNTY. D.) NO 5'TRUCTURES SHALL ENCROACH ON ANY EMERGENCY ACCESS-WAYS AS .MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY ~IRE OFFICIAL ENT NOR ANYFEATURE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. FORM STATEW DE · -- ..~ ,.,,,,-,,,,~ n R ANY OTHER 'PfPE OF OPENINGS UNLESS PERMFFFED BY THE VIRGI ' E.) NO STRUCTURES SHALL ENCROACH ON ANY UTIUTY, DRAINAGE, OR OTHER F..ASEM ""~RS O NIA iUNI IDE BUILDING CO __ ' OF ,.E S DE LOT UNE SHALL HAV~ NU wmmuu-.~, vv,., , WIDTH BETWEEN DWELLING UNITS OF SIX FEET SHALL · ~ lNG LOCATED WITHIN THREE (3) FEEl' - THE EXCEPTION OF FENCES, THE TOTAL__.. TE THE F_~EMENT ON THE ADJACENT_ F.) ,nE WALL OF A DWELL .... OF ALL DWELLINGS SUCH THAT, W_ll~__ ROPERTY ROOF OVERHANGS _~..Y_ P~E,,N, ETI~____ MENT AREA BUILDIN5 NT SHALL BE PROV OEO ALONG THE SlOE EtD TRANSFERRING 1Tl!.E TO THE P · THE LOT OF THb. uwELLING OR THE EASE · , ',flAIL MNNTENANCE F_~EME AND INCORPORATED IN EACH 0 ,- THE LOT UNE IS LIMITED TO A SIX 0 ) FOOT PERPE'~L SHOWN ON *"E FINAL PLAT DWELL NG PLACED ON G.) ( THIS EASEMENT SHALL BE ~ WATER RUNOFF FROM THE ~EFT CLEAR OF _AJ.J__ _.,S~.~CTU~R~,F~,,~ ~"~4q INCHES BUT THE ROOF SHALL BE SO DESIGNED 'FHA DISTRICT LOT A MAXIMUM 01- iw~m~ ~-rvvn t' / ' THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SIDE LOT LINE OTHERWISE REQUIRED IN THE FOOTINGS MAY PENETRATE THE EASEMENT ON THE ADJACENT LOT A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT (8") INCHES. SEE DETAIL BELOW. H.) ZERO LOT UNE PERMITS THE LOCAllON OF A DWELLING UNIT OR PORTION THEREOF ON A LOT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ONE OF THE SIDES RESTS LESS AND MAY REST DIRECTLY ON THAT SIDE LOT LINE. AT LEAST SETBACK OF NO LESS~ I THAN TEN (10') FEET. ,~5;) ..... ~n SURN~ WERE NOT RECORDED AS OF THE DATE 5Huwr~ u · ~6.) ADorlIONAL RESTRICTIONS .OF RECORD MAY APPLY. LEGEND: : Iron Rod Set (unless ot~erwiae indicated) =, Iron Rod Found (unless otherwise ;ndicoted) -- Utillty Pole =, Underground Woter Line = Over Heod Utility Line -- Droinage Easement Dedicoted to Public Use = Manhole -- Cudo Inlet = Fire Hydrant O/H : Water Line Easement ATTACHMENT N L N.-.-] ~ d O'l::t A::ICI AJ. INI"IlBIIA!O9 ~ :]NV 9NINNV'!d ~ !.OOZ fi ~ Nllf' I , .... ., C!3Ai303l:::1 em~'S uedo . (~olz) ~ ~'o..tV u~a0 am~uao..9, u! e~eqd d~lO ~,~?GI Wu. lg!a0 uo o~d e~eqd / / / / / ' e Section Thre Original Staff Report STAFF PERSON: PL.~qN~G COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: MICHAEL BARNES JUNE 5, 2001 JUNE 20, 2001 ZMA 01-01 REDFIELDS PHASE 4B REQUEST FOR A CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST FOR PRIVATE ROADS Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, The Redfields Development Corporation, through its agent, The Cox Company, is requesting a rezoning for Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D and Tax Map 76R1-1 (see vicinity map - Attachment A). if approved, the rezoning would do the following: 1. It would incorporate the Bowen Tract, Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B and 22D, into the Redfields Development. These two parcels total 9.4 acres and are currently zoned Residential R-1. The inclusion of the Bowen Tract will allow for approximately 14 new dwelling units in Redfields (see Application Plan -Attachment B). It will also alleviate a conflict between Mr. Bowen's access easement and proposed lots in'Phase 4B. 2. It would convert the previously reserved open space in Phase 4 to allow for an additional I0 large lots. The applicant is also proposing a system of trail easements in Phase 4, which will serve as the basis for recreation by Redfield's homeowners as well as a potential part of the County's greenway trail system (see - Attachment B and G). Finally, the applicant has submitted a list of proffers (Attachment L) that modify the proffers from the original rezoning. Staff's opinion is that the intent of the proffers adequately address the impacts related to this proposal. However, the proffers were received too late for County Attorney review prior to completion of the Staff Report. It' is hoped' that the County Attorney can provide comment at the PC meeting as to any necessary wording changes. Please note that the proposed water tank shown on Attachment B is not a part of the rezoning request. The Zoning Department has recently made the ruling that the water tank is a by-fight use as long as it is dedicated to the Albemarle.County Service Authority. Staff will perform a review at the site plan stage to determine whether the tank is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Petition for Rezoning: The applicant has submitted a request to rezone 9.4 acres from Residential R-t to Planned Residential District (PRD) to allow for 14 additional homes. The applicant has also requested a rezoning of part of the Redfields Open Space to Planned Residential District (PRD) to allow for 10 large lots. The property,: described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B, 22D and Tax Map 76R1 Parcel 1, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Redfields Road [Route # 1270] approximately 1 mile from the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended. The ComprehenSive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units) in Neighborhood 5. Waiver Requests,: Under Section 4.2.5, the applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver for seven Lots (68, 75, 76, 99, 100, 101,and 102) in Phase 4B. This critical slopes waiver will allow for buildable house lots on those slopes. Private Roads Under Section 14-232, subsection A (1 & 4), the applicant requests Planning Commission approval for two private roads and four shared, private driveways for the purpose of accessing the lots not directly fronting on a public street. Character of the Area: Phase 4A and 4B are the last two phases of Redfields scheduled to be developed..The Sherwood Farms Subdivision is to the west of the proposed development. The Norfolk and Southern Railroad and Moores Creek form the northwestern boundary of the site. Route 29 south and its interchange with Interstate 64 are beyond the raikoad. Interstate 64 forms the northeastern boundary. Moores Creek and the City of Charlottesville are beyond the Interstate. Finally, Redfield's Phase 3 forms the eastern and southern boundary. The area is heavily wooded and dominated by a ridgeline that runs parallel with the interstate. Two intermittent streams drain either side of this ridgeline and mn towards Moores Creek. There is a significant amount of critical slope area in these two drainage areas (see critical slopes exhibit- Attachment C). The only building is a single home on the Bowen Tract. The access for this home is an easement that crosses the Redfields property and crosses under the raikoad in a box culvert adjacent to Sherwood Farms. Zoninq and Subdivision History: The original rezoning for the Redfields Development (ZMA 89-18) rezoned 266 acres from R-1 to PRD. It allowed for the develOpment of 656 dwelling units on 266 acres. Below is a list of the pertinent proffers from that rezoning: 1. A proffered Application Plan (see ZMA 89-18 Application Plan - Attachment D); 2. Driveways no longer than 50 linear feet on critical slopes; 3. 30% open space; and; 4. No vehicular access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. The second rezoning (ZMA 91-07) permitted a boundary adjustment to allow for a more efficient use of land. A third rezoning in 1998 (ZMA 98-08) allowed the developer to reduce the setback lines to zero on a single-side lot line and 10-feet on the front setbacks in Phases 3 and 4. The land east of the raikoad track was subdivided in 1950 into four parcels. This 1950~deed expressly gave the original four properties joint right-of-way to a road access which utilized a box culvert under the railroad. The box culvert is currently on the Redfields Phase 4B property. Through time, the original four parcels evolved into Phase 4A and 4B of Redfields, the Sherwood Farms Subdivision, and the Bowen Track. Prior to the rezoning proposal, Mr. Bowen. had the strongest interest in retaining this access because the original submission for SUB 00-239 showed 12 new lots to be platted over top of his easement. This discrepancy between Mr. Bowen's ownership and Redfields' desire to plat the lots will be resolved if the rezoning is 2 approved. Redfields has placed a contract to purchase Mr. Bowen's property contingent on the passage of the rezoning. Finally, the County, as discussed below, also has interest in' exploring the possibility of using this box culvert as part of the greenway trail system at some point in the future (Proffer 7). It is important to clarify that there is a preliminary plat under consistent with current zoning consideration for Redfields Phase 4A find 4B (see preliminary plat SUB 00-239 - Attachment E). This plat is under a separate consideration outside of this rezoning. This dichotomy arises from the developer's desire to start with some portion of Phase 4. Since no significant issues are outstanding in Phase 4A, staffhas agreed to let Phase 4A move forward. This will allow the Commission and Board to resolve the.outstanding issues that have arisen in 4B (e.g. conversion of the open space for lots, upzoning the B0wen Track, critical slopes waivers; waiver for private roads, and a reduction of setbacks). If the rezoning for 4B is approved, the applicant will proceed with a subdivision of 4B in accordance with the rezoning Application Plan (Attachment B). If the rezoning is denied, the applicant will proceed with a subdivision of 4B accordance with the preliminary plat (Attachment E). In either event, the final subdivision plat of Phase 4A will essentially be the same as proposed on both the Rezoning Application Plan and the preliminary plat. By-right Uso of the Property: The Bowen Track, TMP 76-22B and 22D, is zoned R-1. It contains 9.4 acres; however, a majority of the property is critical slopes. It/is estimated that only 4 or 5 homes could be built on the site without a critical slopes waiver. Phase-4 of the original Reitfields Application Plan called for 78 single family units, 80 town_homes, and 28.4 acres of open space. The applicant can either build to this general plan or a similar variation as long as the Director of Planning agrees that the variation is in general keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved Application Plan (Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance). The Director of Planning has determined that the preliminary plat (SUB 00- 23.9 - Attachment E) is in general accord with the approved Application Plan (Attachment D). However, through this rezoning application, the applicant has requested that development be allowed in the previously proffered open space. Since it has been determined that this area was designated as open space, the applicant has no dwelling units in the open space by-right. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant feels that this rezoning provides for a better use of the Redfields property while providing an equivalent amount of open space to that which was proffered on the original Application Plan. They also feel that this rezoning should be approved since, at build,out, the total number of Units will be 212 dwelling units fewer than was proposed under the original rezoning (656). Finally, this plan allows for 10 large lots that meet a market desire and increase the density without significantly impacting the environment. As for the Bowen Tract, the applicant feels that it is an efficient use of the land and meets the goals ofinfill development. Recommendation: Staff recOmmends approval of the rezoning With acceptance of the prOffers (subject to review by the County Attorney), approval of the critical slopes waiver, and authorization for private roads and shared, private driveways. Comprehensive~Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units/acre) in Neighborhood 5. The proposal is for an additional 24 units outside the area of development called forin the ZMA 89A8 Application Plan. ZMA 89-18 proposed a density of 2.47 dwelling units/acre (656 d.u./266 acres). The current proposal calls for a 1.61 dwelling trait/acre density (444 d.u/275 acres). Bothproposals are within the density constraints called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan directly addresses the Redfie!ds area four times: 1. It identifies Redfields as a major residential development within the Neighborhood. 2. It identifies the need to extend water lines and increase storage capacity in the southern portion of the Neighborhood. The higher elevations of Redfields currently experience low water pressure. There is also a need to improve fire flow ratings in this area. Part of this goal was met with the Avon Street Extended Water Tank. 3. It calls for the construction of a greenway along Moores Creek and includes the Route 29/Interstate 64 interchange in a study area for the greenway trail system (see Attachment G). 4. It calls for the maintenance of a buffer between INTERSTATE 64 to protect the visual quality and character of the area as seen from the roadway. This staff report analyzes how effective this proposal meets these four recommendations. staffhas also analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan and with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. These principles are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows: · Pedestrian Orientation · Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths · Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks · Parks and Open Space · Neighborhood Centers · Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale · Relegated Parking · Mixture of Uses · Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability · Redevelopment · Site Planning that Respects Terrain · Clear Edges Land Use ,Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section) 4 Development shouM be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain). The original submission for Phase 4 (see first submitted preliminary plat - Attachment F) called for a 13 large lots in the area shown as open space on the original Application Plan (Attachment D). This plat also called for'extending a public road with a cul-de-sac over a series of springs and critical slopes on the southwestern comer of Phase 4. This road would have obliterated the springs and slopes. It would have also reduced the open spa'ce. The Director of Planning found that this road extension as well as the large lots were not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the original Application Plan. It was this ruling that necessitated the rezoning application before the Commission. The current rezoning application plan (Attachment B) shows three important improvements over the first preliminary plat proposal. First, the applicant has reduced the number of large lots from 13 to 10. This leaves a large percentage of open space. Secondly, the applicant has provided for a pedestrian trail system in the open space. Finally, they have removed the large, public road and replaced it with a shared, private driveway. This proposal dramatically reduces the amount of fill and protects both the springs and the critical slopes. It is important to note that the percentage and the amount of open space will remain essentially the same between the applicant's by-right development under ZMA 98-18 and ZMA 01-01 because of the addition of the Bowen Track's 9.4 acres. The applicant proffered a minimum of 30% open space in the first rezonmg (ZMA 89-18). If SUB 00-239 is approved, the applicant intends to provided 89.4 acres of open space on 266 acres (Redfields Phases 1-4) or 33.5%. IfZMA 01-01 is approved, they will have provided 89.2 acres of open space on 275 acres or 32:4%. The net difference is 0.2 acres less open space.: The average density of residential unit between SUB 00-239 and ZMA 01-01 is also essentially the same 1.57 du/ac verses 1.61 du/ac. Thus, the two plans provide an equal amount of open space. Since the development has been redesigned between the first submission of the preliminary plat (Attachment F) and the rezoning Application Plan (Attachment B) to protect the springs and the critical slopes, staff feels that this-portion of the environmental amenities have been protected: Thus, staff does not have an objection to the placement of 10 large lots from an environmental point of view. The environmental downside of this Rezoning Application Plan is the impacts on the critical slope (this is discussed further in the Critical Slopes Waiver Analysis section). Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. During the original rezoning for Redfields, the stream valley along the western edge of Phase 4 was protected as wooded open space. Currently, the residents of the adjoining Sherwood Farms Subdivision enjoy this wide, wooded buffer from the Redfields Development. It is also the buffer between the Development Area (Redfields) and the Rural Area (Sherwood Farms). Development °fPhase 4 x~ill significa~tly reduce the buffer. The Application Plan for the original rezoning (ZMA 89-18) showed lots no closer than 100 feet to Sherwood Farm (see Lots 176, 177 and 178 on Attachment D). As mentioned in the previous section, the cul-de-sac on the fn'st preliminary plat for Phase 4 would have o obliterated the headwaters of the stream. The lots at the head of this cul-de-sac would have also touched the Sherwood Farms boundary (Lots 6& 7 on Attachment F). On this ~ezoning's Application Plan (Attachment B), Lots 117 and 118 have a 30-foot buffer from the Sherwood Farms boundary. Lots 119 and 120 have a 50-foot or more buffer. Furthermore, the closest home in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision is more that 100 feet from the boundary with Redfields (Attachment E). Siaff i~ sensitive to the-concerns of the Sherwood Farms' residents. However, we note that increased residential density is a key element of growth management in the Development Area. Furthermore, if this increased development is designed to be as sensitive to the environment and, in this case, still provide a meaningful buffer, then the increased utilization of the property should be permitted. While the buffer will be significantly reduced, the woods will still offer an ample buffer between the Development Area and the Rural Area. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads. Redfields Phase 4 will be limited to the tWo existing entrances into the Redfields Development from Sunset Avenue Extended. A sense of community should be maximized byprow'ding connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilitie& 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) There are no additional vehicular intercormections possible from Redfields Phase 4. A proffer frOm the original rezoning for Redfields (ZMA 89-18) prohibiting any vehicular connection between Redfields and Sherwood Farms blocks offthe western side of the Phase. The raikoad and Interstate 64 block the northern and eastern side respectively. One internal vehicle connection is shown that the applicant has made at staff's request. This interconnection is provided between Redfields Road and Courtyard Drive in Phase 4B. The preliminary plat (Attachment E) does not show this intercormection. To facilitate the connection, Courtyard Drive will move slightly to the east. Although this change will increase the impact to the critical slopes, staff believes that this tradeoffis beneficial, and impacts can be mitigated with a stormwater management structure directly below these slopes (see Attachment C). If this rezoning is approved, the applicant is also supplying the groundwork for furore pedestrian and bicycle interconnections. An oppommity exists in three areas to connect Redfields to the greenway trail system which is proposed to mn along Moores Creek on the opposite side of Interstate 64. The first area is along Sunset Avenue Extended. This opportunity is akeady well developed. Where Sunset Avenue Extended crosses M°ores Creek, there is an abandoned bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclist to tie directly into the City's streets. There is a second connection possibility, which is in Phase 4, would follow the southern side of Moores Creek under the Interstate 64 Bridge. The third possible connection is unique and promising. It would follow the road that currently traverses under the railroad through a box culvert and connects to the Old Route 29 right-of-way. Once on Old Route 29, it is possible to follow the VDOT right-of-way under the Interstate 64 Bridge. The Virginia Department of Forestry and the Fontaine Research Park are on the opposite side of the interstate. If this connection is established, it will be quicker for residents of Phase 4 to ride their bike to work at the Research Park than it would be for them to drive there. To allow for these, connections to occur, the applicant has proffered to rough grade a system of bike trailS within Phase 4 to the Comprehensive Plan's Class A standard. The applicant has proffered to reserve the area, identified as the "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt COnnector Trail Easement," and, upon demand, turn this area.over to the County fOr a inclusion into the County's Greenway System. Because all the trails will be rough graded at the time of sewerline construction, the surface of these trails can be eaSily improved to accommodate bikes when the second or third connections to the Greenway System are developed. Until these connections and improvements occur, the trails will provide the residents of Redfields with walking trails. Finally, the applicant has proffered a paved asphalt sidewalk along Redfields Drive from Hayrake Drive to Courtyard Drive. 5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the reservatiOn of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks). Please see the previous comment. 6. Underground utilities shouM be provided in new developments. All utilities will be provided undergrotmd. 7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality shouM be provided. The applicant is providing two stormwater management facilities. The first, on the western side of the Phase, is designed to capture runoff fi'om the western half of Phase 4 and a portion of Phase 3. The second facility captures the eastern haifofPhase 4. The applicant and the Engineering Department worked on placing the facility so as to cause the least amount of disturbance to critical slopes as is possible. 8. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. {Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated Parking) The 10 large lots will not have public road frontage. Their purpose is to provide a sense of seclusion for the homeowner. The intent of thc lots in the eastern half of Phase 4 is exactly the opposite. The homes are to moved closer to the street and have a zero lot line on a single side. The effect will mimic a denser, more urban'feel that has been highly successful in Phase 3B. 9. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights shouM be used. The development will have to meet the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (4.17). lO. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopmen0 There are no buildings of historical importance on this site. Thephasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Water and sewer service is available to serve this development. 11. Phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Water is available to serve this development; however, the pressure is low. 'The applicant is working with the Albemarle County Service Authority to upgrade the system. The applicant is also working with the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide sewer. The applicant with several other adjacent property owners intends to pay for the improvements. 12. Overall development density shouM be as high a. level as is practical. The original density for the overall development was 656 dwelling units on 266 acres or 2.47 du/ac. If SUB 00-239 is approved, the density will be 1.57 du/ac (420du/266ac). If the ZMA 01-01 is approved, the density will be 1.61 du/ac (444/275 dU/ac). 13. The integrity of adjacent residential areas shouM be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. Lower density residential uses are located to the west in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. The proposed Application Plan (Attachment B) calls for a minimum of a 30-foot buffer between the large lots and the Sherwood Farms lot boundaries. 14. Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and 'avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Human Scale). The westerri half of Phase 4 mirrors the majority of Redfields. It provides for 1/3 acre lots setback from a public road. This type of development does not utilize the land at the.upper range of Neighborhood Density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The eastern half of Phase 4 does call for small dwelling units on smaller lots with zero lot lines on a single side yard. This design boosts the density and brings the units closer to the street. 15. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability with Dignity) The housing to be constructed in the eastern portion of Phase 4 is smaller and more modest than that found in the rest of Redfields except for Phase 3B. The intent of the housing is for older, "empty-nest" couples. Its reduced setbacks and small yards provide for a design not widely available in the market. The units in Phase 3B have been very popular. However, no information regarding housing prices haSbeen provided. 16. Lot design and residential layout shouM 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 proposed grading for the site results in steep slopes adjacent at the back of lots. This is a result of the roads forcing the lots to back up to the steep terrain of the stream drainages. In areas of critical slopes, the Application Plan show reconstructed slopes conceptually regraded at 2:1. However, the applicant's agent has indicated that this was a mistake on the plan and that it is not a problem to reconstruct the slopes at a 3:1 grade. Staff is inclined to believe that reconstruction at a 3:1 slope is possible because .of the amount of earthrnoving that will be required to level the center part of Phase 4. Additionally, the applicant has shown-the slopes to be reconstructed at a 3:1 slope on the rough grading plans for preliminary plat SUB 00-239. To ensure that the slopes are reconstructed in an environmentally safe and usable manner, staff recommends that all area of critical slopes should be reconstructed at a minimum of a 3:1 slope and that this should be a condition of the Critical Slopes Waiver. Other Staff Comments Analysis of the Rezoninq Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district Thc PRD district is intended to promote economical and efficient land usc, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development and creative design. A portion of this rezoning request is for the Bowcn Tract (TMP 76-22B & 22D). Upzoning these two parcels will allow for a much higher, infill density. If not rezoned, this parcel will become an isolated patch of lower zoning surrounded by the interstate, the railroad, and thc Redfields development resulting in a disjointed pattern of development. For these reasons, staff believes that the applicant's proposal to rezone these parcels is sound. The rezoning of areas currently zoned as a part of Rcdfields' open space has pros and cons when evaluated against the district's intent. Thc affirmatiVe reasons relate to increasing density in the Development Areas and providing for this increase in a manner that has the least environmental impact. The use of the private roads and shared, private driveways allows the applicant to develop steeper areas with less grading or disturbance than would be required to construct a public road, Finally, the applicant has provided for an interconnection between Courtyard Drive and Redfields Road at staff's request. We believe this advances the goals oi'intcgrating the neighborhood and increasing the ability for emergency vehicles to access the site. Public need and |ustification for the change The Neighborhood Model calls for high quality design on infill sites. The applicant appears to have achieved this goal while limiting thc environmental impacts. Next, thc applicant has agreed to an interconnection of Redfields Road and Courtyard Drive. This agreement meets an important County goal. They also have provided the groundwork for future pedestrian interconnections. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Water and Sewer- The development of Phase 4 will necessitate upgrading public water and sewer connections. The applicant and several adjacent property owners are collectively paying for the upgrading of these public utilities. Both upgrades to the public utility infrastructure will be turned over to the Albemarle County Service Authority upon completion. The upgrades to the water system will include a pump station and water tanks. They will inercasc the pressure for properties in Rcdficlds as well as other parts of thc Southern Service Area including the area currently under Comprehensive Plan Amendment consideration- Thc Mountain Valley proposal. They are need to increase pressure in Redfields. Otherwise, the developer will have to pm individual pressurizing units in each dwelling. The upgraded sewerline will run along Moores Creek. It is intended to serve Phase 4 of Redfields as well as the portion of the Growth Area around Route 29 south of its interchange with Interstate 64. This will include the $.W. Sieg Company site. Roads - Thc intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Road is dangerous (see Attachment H). VDOT has suggested upgrading the intersection as part of this rezoning. The situation has long existed and it has been viewed as a public obligation particular considering the reduction in the number of dwelling units from the original Application Plan (ZMA 89-18). Therefore, we have avoided asking the applicant for this improvement in connection with this rezoning. Stormwater management - Stormwater management plans were submitted as part of this proposal. They appear to be feasible at this conceptual stage. The Redfields Homeowners Association will own and maintain the facilities. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources No impact is expected on natural, cultural or historic resources. There was a family cemetery on the site; however, the applicant undertook a court-supervised reintemment of the graves. The applicant has also provided documentation to prove that this has been done. Antic~ated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The development does not have any foreseeable impacts on any of the adjacent properties except for the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. As outlined above in item number 2 of Comprehensive Plan Analysis, this rezoning will bring the Redfields Development closer to its boundary with Sherwood Farms. However, there will be a 30 to 50,foot wooded buffer that will be maintained as open space under control of the Redficlds Homeowners Association. This buffer will be an'addition to deep lots in Sherwood Farms. Staffbelieves no buffer is needed between identical residential uses. A 30-50 foot buffer should bc more than sufficient to protect the homeowners in Sherwood Farms. Fiscal impact to public facilities A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment J. Critical Slopes Waiver Analysis: The applicant has requested a waiver for a modification to the critical slopes requirements of Section 4.2 for Lots 68, 75, 76, 99, 100, 101, and 102. This approval of this waiver request will permit grading to create buildable homes sites on these lots (see critical slopes exhibit - Attachment C). Engineering Analysis The Engineering Department has concluded that the disturbance of these critical slopes can be managed to minimize environmental impacts (see Attachment I). There.is a siltation basin located immediately at the bottom o fall of the lots except 75 and 76. These basins will serve to control water pollution downstream. Lots 75 and 76 sit atop of a long critical slope. The disturbance will only occur in a relatively small area at the top of the' slope. The length of the wooded slope will filter out the sediments and protect the water quality. The applicant has also agreed to increase the rear yard setback so that buildings will not be allowed on any of the critical slopes on these two lots. Staff to believes that granting a critical slopes waiver for the lots listed above is justified for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has indicated that all reconstructed slopes on these lots will be at a 3:1 slope. 2. Stormwater management facilities are strategically placed. 10 The moSt significant encroachment onto critical slopes occurs on Lots 99-102. This encroachment is due, in part, to staff's request for an interconnection between Redfields Road and Courtyard Drive. The interconnection shifted the alignment of Courtyard Drive to the east forcing the building lots to encroach on the critical slopes. Staff has reconciled that goal of interconnection justifies encroachment on the slope, especially when combined with 'the controls listed in two items above. Private Road Analysis: The applicant has requested a waiver for private roads and private, shared driveways (Attachment C). There are two private roads. The first is approximately 200 linear feet and will serve 4 lots (119-122). The second is approximately 150 linear feet and will serve 3 lots (116- 118). At the terminus of this private roads, the applicant proposes to use shared driveways to serve the lots. The applicant also requests ashared driveway to serve Lots 123 and 124. Staffbelieves that these private accessways serve the following purposes and meet the General lVetfare standard for aUthorizing a private road (Section 14-232, subsection A (1 & 4)). First, the applicant has worked with staff to switch from all shared driveways to a mixture of shared driveways and private roads. This Change will provide for a consolidation of driveway curb cuts. Secondly, the private roads can be developed at a road standard below that required for a public road. Private roads serve 3 to 5 lots and require 14 feet oftravelway and 22 feet of right,of-way. The shared, private driveways serve 2 lots and require 12 feet oftravelway and 18 feet of right- of-way. Additionally, these roads have to meet a less stringent vertical sag requirement. Thus, they r~quire less-grading in steep terrain. These reduced standard allow tl~e r°ads to be more flexible and less intrusive on the environment. The private roads will also allow development of the several of large parcels and more efficient utilizationofthe land for home without necessitating increased disturbance for the road construction. Finally, the standards meet the code for access by emergency vehicles. After review, staff recommends approval of the private road requests. SUMMARY: The applicant's first submittal of preliminary.plat SUB 00-239 (Attachment F) did not match up with the open space shown on original rezoning for Redfields (ZMA 89-18 - Attachment D). Staff has worked with the applicant to settle most of the issues on SUB 00-239. In the its current state (Attachment E), the plat for SUB 00-239 does not encroach into the open space. However, the applicant has shown through the use of private roads on the Application Plan (Attachment C) that they can increase the number of lots in Phase 4 by utilizing the open space while still protecting the critical slopes, springs, and water quality to the satisfaction of the staff. Furthermore, the ZMA 01-01 Application Plan meets the proffered requirement of 30% open space from ZMA 89-18 by providing 32.4% open space. Next, ZMA 01-01 offers an additional interconnection within the Phase. Finally, the applicant has proffered to provide for the bike trails in the open space to increase the usability of the site (Proffer 7). Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. The applicant is providing a easement and rough grading for a trail system that will be tamed over to the County upon request. 2. Phase 4B in the rezomng has an increased interconnection between Redfields Road and Courtyard Lane. 11 3. The use of private roads allows for higher utilization of the land without disturbing as much of the existing natural features. Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: 1. Some of the open space areas shown on the original rezoning Application Plan (Attachment D) are being converted to houses and stormwater detention facilities. This will result in loss some natural open space RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and acceptance of the proffers. Staff also recommends granting the Critical Slopes Waiver with the following condition: 1. All reconstructed slopes shall be at a minimum of 3:l. Finally, staff recommends ,the authorization of private roads and shared, private driveways as shown on the Application Plan entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox Company, submitted January 16, 2001, last revised May 11, 2001. Attachments: A - Vicinity Map B ' Rezoning Application Plan C - Rezoning Critical Slopes Exhibit D- The Application Plan from ZMA 89-18 E - Preliminary plat for Phases 4A and 4B (SUB 00-239) F - First submitted Preliminary Plat for SUB 00-239 G- Proposed Greenway Trail System H - Intersection Map I- Engineering's critical slopes analysis J - Fiscal Impact Analysis K - Adjacent Property Owner Letter L -- Proffers 12 [/ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET 1": 600' 743.3 z ,,// ATTACHMENT A vdo?m n ?i n' I I I / / / / ~% Add/F/on of Water Storage Tank Add/t/on of F, esiden~/a/ Large Lots {3 lot~) ~ On 5/ee ~tormwater Management \ \ \ \ I/ Prival ~ P ri~ate Road ~' 130 ff~ROW) ATTACHMENT B Add/t/on of Large Lots in Former Open Area PHA~E 4 ~' 1. Add/t/on ~o ~cncral Oeve/opmen~ Plan ~.00 ./ ATTACHMENT C IPHA~E Pebb/ // \ \ // / 51 Jo, so,, 0t-70 4.00 PHASE FIVE 33.8 TOTAL, ACRES PHASE 5 OPEN SPACE ~3*S acraa PHASE 2-A PHASE 2 OPEN SPACE & I SI;O n3,1', TOTAL~ AGRES pHASING EXHIBIT Phase 3 Open Space lS.3 aoma PHASE 3 31.5 Oevel~abll Aerie Phase 4 Open SpaRe 26.3 leroe PHASE FOUR 70,5 TOTAL ACRES % % % % · % % % % % % % % UNITS % % % % % · % SINGLE FAMILY % 24 UNITS % % Phase 4 Open Spice PHASE 4 411 Developable Ae~i TOWNHOUSES 40 UNITS* SINGLE FAMILY 24 UNITS RO~D ATTACHMENT D 4 Open Spaae COMMUNITY CENTER PHASEI-C* "WATERSIDE" · r INDICATES LOTS THAT ARE TO BE SERVED BY PUMP STA. Opes Spaae: 4.8 ~ Management Area P~ 20p~ Space: 13 Phase 3 Open Space 8. b aerie SCALE: 1~ ~ 200' NOTE: PRD pREVIOUSLY APPROVED 18-15-91) REVISED PRD .DEVELOPMENT .PHASING PLAN REDFIELDS ALBEMARLE COUHTY. VIRGINIA THE COX COMPANY 220 ~ Revisions: IO.l~-n; O~ta: ~,.ZS~I4/ 2,00 ATTACItMENT E FHASE 4 ,/ Z IO of ll dP' ACtA Core,out' M~?p~n~ Ov~rl~v ~ .t~,.~- {"~ ..... f ........... [- ATTACHMENT G R'itgg' d Mountain ReServoir f //' ' ~ J : / ; 1 -. \ Monticello t River ALBEMARLE COUNTY Urban Area Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run Greenway Trails MAP 3 ~ class ATrail =~ Class B Trail --m-- Off River Trail G-1 Public Access and Facilities ~ G-2 Public Access G-3 Neighborhood Access Study Area Bridge Crossing N Scale 1" = 2800' Prepared By: Department of Plonnin(~ and cammunity DeveJooment , Office of Mopping, Graphics OhO information Resources ATTACHMENT H 8uild ! RECOMME 'N.D. ATIONs: ! / Realignment Of R[e. 875 (SOuth) with / Rte. 781 & Rte. 875 (north) / the r~odwoy up at the intersection ,,,..,.; / ~ Chariotteswil6 Virginia 22902 ATTACItMENT I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Micheal Barnes, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 17 May 2001 Redfields Phase 4, critical slope waiver The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slopes received on 24 Apr 2001 has been reviewed again with the new ZMA plans received on 15 May 2001. The critical slope areas are located in wooded hills interior to the property, areas which are proposed to become roads, lots and two stormwater basins. The Engineering Department has made the determination that the disturbance of critical slopes for the stormwater management facilities, access to the facilities, and the proposed roads does not require a waiver. Onthe plan configuration provided, there do not appear to be better reasonable alternative locations for these items. [18-4.2.2] A new analysis of the acreage and percentages of critical slope disturbances has not been provided with this submittal. The slopes under consideration are at the top of drainage ravines, which will become the rear of lots 68, 75, 76, 99, 100, 101, 102, and possibly 46-49. The rough grading plan currently under review does not appear to disturb these areas. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed: Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock', Proper construction of slopes will prevent movement of soil and rock. The intent with the lots appears to be to fill them in to allow placement of building pads, rather than to build onto the slopes themselves. Excessive stormwater mn-off, The stormsewer system shown on the site plan will prevent excessive runoff from, or on, critical slopes from the roadways. It is recommended that downspouts from roof drains be piped or managed such that they do not discharge over constructed s.lopes. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; County inspection and bonding of erosion control measures will address siltation during construction in accordance with State and County erosion control regulations. Proper vegetative stabilization will prevent long term erosion and siltation. Loss of aesthea'c resource; .These are wooded hillsides and small stream valleys within the property. Some may be visible form Rt. 64, or from Sherwood Farms subdivision. A greater travel distance of septic effluent This site will be serviced by public sewer, so septic effluent is not an issue. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the approval of the critical slope waiver. In particular to grading on the future lots, it is preferably to have these graded with the overall development, rather than relying on individual builders to grade with house construction. This improves coordination for overall drainage patterns and erosion control measures. Copy: file File: Redfields phase 4 file 2178 csw (3).doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT J MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Michael Barnes, Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner DATE: RE: May 30, 2001 ZMA 01-01 (Redfields) [Amended] Per your amended instructions, ! analyzed two separate scenarios for the properties in question. The first scenario inwlved the maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the properties. The results of these two analyses appear in the nin" attached "Budget Smnnmry: Current Zo g and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that five single family detached residences (SFD's) would be built during the course of the next year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes $6,000 Other Revenues 11,000 Total Revenues $17,000 School Expenditures ($28,000) County Govt. Expenditures (4,000) Total Expenditures ($32,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($15,000) ZMA 01-01 May 30, 2001 Page Two In terms of the annual impact that the de~i-opment of three 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 ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($12,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($12,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) County CF Debt Service ($0) Total Cry. Govt. CIP Impact ($0) Net Annual CIP Impact ($12,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $12,000 in capital costs is part of these2,000 in the estimated total armual expenditures resulting from the development of three SFD 's). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 15 SFD units on the properties. 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 $18,000 Other Revenues 34,000 Total Revenues $52,000 School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures ($'84,000) ($12,000) Total Expenditures ($96,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($44,000) ZMA 01-01 - May 30, 2001 Page Three As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital cogs, CR/M estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($29,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($29,00.0) County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) County CF Debt Service ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0) . Net Annual CIP Impact ($29,000) -Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $96,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The nnmbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 01-01, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $15,000 - $44,000 ~- -$29,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $29,000 worse off approving ZMA 01-01 than denying the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval of ZMA 01-01 would result in a net annual fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-01 should be denied, since the total mix of development taldng,place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 01-0I, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development Would likely take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well-being. SAA/saa /;15 Budget Summary -. Current Zoning (Values in $000%) REVEN12E$ PROP TAXES Residential Real Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER i Public Service Tax 2 Pers 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 1] 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 TOTALADDITIONAL EXPENSES SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT, Year => 2000 I 2 3 2001 2002 2003 $6 $6 $6 $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $6 $6 $6 $o $o $o $3 $3 $3 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $1 $1 $1 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o, $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $6 $6 $6 $o $o $o $o $o $o $1 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $12 $11 $11 4 2004 $6 $o $o $o $o 5 2005 Average Costs 6 7 8 9 10 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0' $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 $1 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $6 $o $o $o $o $o $o $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 ANNUAL REVENUES: $18 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 Operating Costs $10 $t0 $10 $10 $10 $1.0 $10 $10 $10 $10 Staff Costs $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 CF Pay*As-You-Go $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $30 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 Operating Costs $4 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Staff Costs $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 CF Pay-As-You-Go $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL, COUNTY $9 $4 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: $39 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 ]VEl' 12SCAL iMPACF Annual Cumulative ($21) ($i5) ($15) ($i5) (S153 ($153 ($35) ($15) ($15') ' ($153 ($21) ($36) ($50) ($65) ($79) ($94) ($108) ($123) ($137) ($152) ZMAOiOIO~' ~ CRIM Proprietor" ')ftware O5/30/2OO1 Page 1 Budget Summary -- Proposed Zoning Year => (Values in $O00's) 2000 REVENMES PROP TAXES Residential Rea Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER 1 Public Service Tax 2 Pers Prop Tax. Resid 3 Pers Prop Tax. Nonres 4 Mach & Tools Tax 5 Sales & Use Tax 6 Cons Util Tax-Resid 7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres 8 BPOL Taxes 9 Util Co Licenses 10 Motor Vehicle 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 ANNUAL REVENUES: EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay,As-You*Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT. Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay-As. You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, COUNTY TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $o $0 $o $o 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o .$o $o $o $2 $2 $2 $2 92 $2 $2 $2 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $1 $1 $~ $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 91 $1 $1 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $o $0 90 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 9o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $37 $55 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $30 $25 $7 929 $91 $11 $3 $15 90 $28 $120 Average Costs 9 2009 $18 90 $0 $0 $0 $18 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $2 $o $o $0 91 90 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $1 $o 90 $0 $0 $0 $34 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 NE]' FISC,~E IMPACT Annual Cumulative $30 925 $0 $29 $84 $9 93 90 90 $12 $96 $30 $30 $30 $25 $25 $25 $o $o $o $29 $29 $29 $84 $84 $84 ($65) (965) $30 $30 $30 $25 $25 $25 $0 $0 $0 $29 $29 $29 $84 984 $84 $9 . 99 $9 93 $3 $3 $9 $9 $9 $3 $3 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12, $12 $96 ' $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 $30 $25 $0 $29 $84 $9 $3 $o $o 512 $96 ($44) ($44) ($44) ($44') ($443 ($44) ($44) ($44') ($109) ($154) ($198) ($242) ' ($286) (9330) ($375~ ($419) 10 2010 $18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18 $0 $10 $0 $o $0 $2 $o $o $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $18 $1 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $34 $52 $30 $25 $0 $29 $84 $9 $3 $0 $0 512 ~,96 ($463) ZMA0101D.WK4 CRIM Proprietary Software 05/30/2001 05/30/200102:21 PM Page Albemarle Planning Commission 500 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 ATTACHMENT K RECEIVED HAY 1 8 PLANNING AND *COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To whom It May Concern: We reside at 626 Nettle Court in Redfield SubdiviSion. We are writing to the Planning Commission concerning phase IV of the purposed expansion of Redfields. Initially the developer had indicated verbally that the land behind Nettle Court would be an open space before we purchased our property. When phase IV was brought forward the developer proposed a culdesac with approximately ten homes on the site, behind Nettle Court. The developer has resUbmitted the plan with two homes on a long driveway with a third near the main road. At this time we are not in favor of any building in this open space. We feel there are many issues at stake here for our subdivision and Albemarle County. First, the springs in this area are numerous and feed an expansive ground water system. When bUilding occurs near a spring system as this the underground run off can be quite broad. The Scott Stadium grass fertilization problem is a prime example of how ecosystems can be damaged. Second, feeding off the springs is a small creek that flows into Sherwood Farms and a small pond with a poor drainage system that runs under the CSX railroad. We hope the drainage system will be improved for Sherwood Farm homeowners and the railroad. Holding ponds or lakes are not the answer, but a temporary fix to a long term flooding problem. Third, we find the lack of open space- in the phase IV plan troubling. The first three phases of Redfields included a lake with walking trail, pool With play area and hiking trails. The developer is proposing building over one hundred new units to the subdivision. Albemarle County has an opportunity to work with the developer to include green space that the homeowners association might use in the future. Redfields could be one of the first subdivisions to start to use the town center ideas that the County has proposed. Finally, we realize the cost of developing land in Albemarle County is high, but once a green space is built on it is gone forever. Thank you for any consideration you give to these ideas. ATTACHMENT L ZMA-01-001 PROFFERS REDFIELDS PHASES 4A AND. 4B June 20, 2001 TAX MAP PARCELS 76-22B, 76-22D and 76R1 Parcel 1 72.7 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Overall development shall be in general accord x~dth the Application Plan first approved under ZMA 89-I8, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox Company, submitted January 16, 2001, last revised May 11, 2001 ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers reflects layout of the Redfields PRD as of the date of these proffers, except the area delineated within the Pha~es 4A and 4B on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site". 2. Development within the 72.7 acre site, identified as Phases 4A and 4B, shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. 3. The maximum allowable residential units in the Redfields PRD shall be limited to 656. 4. Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 125 residential units. The applicant shall provide a five (5) foot wide asphalt footpath in the right-of-way along Redfields Road between Hayrake Lane and Courtyard Drive. The alignment of this footpath shall be subject to VDOT and Albemarle County Service Authority approvals. This footpath shall be provided before or during the construction of Redfields Phase 4B. The 30% open space established under ZMA 89-18, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions shall remain in effect for the entire Redfields PPD. Open space on the Application Plan for ZMA 01-001 shall be not less than approximately 27 acres of the 72.7 acres. Disturbance of open space shall be limited to installation of trails, stormwater facilities, .utilities, and private roads as shown generally on the Application Plan. The Applicant shall make every effort to minimize disturbance of critical slopes in the installation of these features. The Applicant shall retain the right to request additional disturbance of open space in accordance with Section 4.7. Pedestrian trails shall be constructed in the locations as shown generally on the Application Plan. The Applicant shall rough grade these trails during the public improvements for Phase 4B to the standards of a Class A trail, as indicated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The trail running parallel to the Norfolk and Southern Railroad and labeled "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt Connector Trail Easement" shall be reserved for dedication upon the demand of the County. This "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt Connector Trail Easement" shall be fifty (50) feet wide-where possible and shall include the road on the Redfields Property running between Old Route 29 and the box culvert which currently passes under the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. The reservation for this easement shall be noted onthe final plat for Phase 4B. 8. Development standards for yards, private road improvements, and shared driveways shall be as shown on the ApplicatiOn Plan or as modified in proffer #10. 9..Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on .slopes of 25% or greater. 10. Zero lot line setbacks may be applied to Phases 4A and 4B as follows: a. All such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; b. In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County Fire Official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County; c. No Structures Shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County Fire Official; d. No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the Zoning Ordinance; e. The wall of the dwelling unit located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; f. At the sole discretion of the applicant, fi'ont setbacks may be reduced to 10' g, As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the exception offences, a total width between dwelling units.of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall be shown of the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may penetrate, the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches. 2 6~x, t~ figS_ 2001, by: Submitted as of the~_~_ day of LEGAL ENTITY(ies) HOLDING TITLE TO THE LAND B(p~ ~S~~N~ By: SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LEGAL ENTITY HOLDING TITLE TO THE LAND) (PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE. LEGAL ENTITY HOLDING TITLE TO THE LAND) If Mr. Bowen still owns the land, he will also need to sign the proffers. ORDINANCE NO. 01-3(3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE H, 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 H, 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. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DI~SION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 17, 17A, 22, 22A, 23, 24A, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 28A, 29, 29B, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A, 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 7, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years and last reviewed on July 13, 1994, shall next be reviewed prior to July 13, 2002. (5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 0t-3(3), 8-8-01) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of five to .zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on August 8. 200I. C~erk, Board of County Supervim~-~ Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Y_ -.-- Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris . Y~ Mr. Martin (~b~ent) ......... Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas ¥ DILAArF: August 2, 2001 ORdinANCE NO. 01-3(3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE IL 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 ofthe 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. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE IL DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFIC~CE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 17, 17A, 22, 22A, 23, 24A, 26, 26A, 2o'3, 26C, 28, 29 (pa~, 29B, 31, 323_, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A, 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 7, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years and last reviewed on July t3, 1994, shah next be reviewed prior to July 13, 2002. (5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of aa 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. PerFdns Ms. Thomas Aye Nay COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 July 26, 2001 Harold E. Young, Jr Goodlow-Peters Mountain Land Trust 3816 Vineyard Road Barboursvitle, VA 22920 RE: Addition to Blue Run AgriculturaliForestai District Dear Mr~ Young: This letter is to notify you, as a property owner in the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District, that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 10, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the addition of 174.337 acres to the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on August 8, 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. Scott Clark ~ Planner SC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey 07-26-0.1 P04:02 tN STAFF PERSON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark June 18, 2001 JulY 10, 2001 TBA ADDITION TO BLUE RUN_ AGRICULTU~/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 differem conditions or period must be described in a notice to landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least ~o 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 withdrawn at the owner's discretion by filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Purpose: The purpose of an agriculturai/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the - 'S development and improvement of the Commonwealth agricultural/forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources Which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes." Factors to Consider.:_ The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when a proposed district is being considered: 1. The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; 2. The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestai lands within the district and in areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural of forestal production; 3. The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; Local development patterns and needs; The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations; The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and 7. Any other matters whichmay be relevant. ~Effects of a District. The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands and for~t; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, and wildlife ~habitat; and scemc and historic resources. The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to protect the agricultural/forestal use &the land~ In exchange, the landowner agrees not to develop the property to a "more intensive u " ' · se during the specffied 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. The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent into account the existence of such district and the u ~o any district shall takel~on no effect rposes of this chapter. The district may have adjacent development by right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands. ADDITION TO BLUE RUN DISTRICT The Blue Run District was created on June 18, 1986, and will next be reviewed by June 18, 2002. _Location: The Blue Run district is located east of Route 20, just south of the Greene County border. Acreage: The Blue Run District contains 3718 acres in 24 parcels. The proposed addition contains 174.337 acres. The owner, Mr. Young, is one of the founding members of this District. He added this acreage to his property after the district was formed; therefore, this land has not been included in the district. This application is intended to ensure that all of Mr. Young's property in this area is included in the District. _Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is in forestal use. Significant Land Not in Agricullural/Forestal Production: None. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forest _ry_.' None Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area has many large farm and forest parcels; this addition helps to protect that pattern Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Blue Run 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 Hollymead Community, which lies approximately 5 miles west. 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 is, "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, mountains,' and stream valleys. Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and ~ids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space. Soil Information: The following tables show the soil classes for parcel' 35-28: AGRICULTURAL VALUE CLASS ACREAGE 1 VALUE ASSES SMENT I 0.000 $ 460 $ 0 II 9.367 S '410 $ 3,840 III 11.435 S 310 $ 3,545 IV 54.340 $ 240 $ 13,042 V 0.000 S 180 S 0 VI 1.924 $ 150 S 289 VII I 11.187 $ 90 S 1,007 VIII 0.000 S 30 $ 0 88.253 S 21,700 FOREST VALUE CLASS ACREAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR NON-PRODUCTIVE TOTAL 0.000 0.155 19.200 0.000 19.355 270 $ 0 185 I $ 29 120 $ 2,304 100 $ 0 $ 2,300 The County has no detailed information on the acreages of soils classes for the proposed addition in parcel 35-29. Please see the attached map of soil classes; a large portion of the parcel 35-29 addition (eastmost parcel) has a large area of class II soils. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Blue Run District as proposed. Committee Recommendation:. At its meeting on June 18,2001, the Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee voted unanimously to approve the addition to the Blue Run District. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ALBE ,j ./ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy August 2, 2001 Applications for Boards and Commissions I have attached the applications you will need as you College Board of Directors on August 8. Thank you. Attachments cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis interview applicants for the Community BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM EXPIRE DATE APPLICANT/ INCUMBENT INTERVIEW, IF SCHEDULED Brown, Jr. L. Carey B. Harvey Silva 6:00 6:10 6:20 David E Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsvflh Charlotte Y. HumPh~ J,~:k Joueli COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin RP, mnna Walter E Perkins Whit~ Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 23, 2001 Mr. Jeff A. Bialy 2633-0 Hydraulic Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Bialy: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 8, 2001, and at the City Council meeting held on August 20, 2001, the Board and City Council respectively, appointed you Chairman and joint City/County representative on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee. You were appointed to complete Ms. Lisa Briskey's term, which will expire December 31, 2001. I have enclosed a roster for your convemence. On behalf of the Board, I would tike to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: James Camblos J. Blake Caravati Jeannie Cox Cole Hendrix Printed on recycled paper CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of the Mayor P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone (804) 970-3113 August 21, 2001 Mr. Jeff A. Bialy 2663-0 Hydraulic Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 D&ar Mr. Bialy: I am pleased to inform you that at its August 20th meeting, City Council appointed you to serve as the Chair and joint City/County representative on the P-d'vanna Solid Waste Committee. We appreciate your continued willingness to offer your services to the community and look forward to working with you in the future. cc: Cole Hendrix Ella CareY 08-25-0] AIO:07 IN David R Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett · COUNTf OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX I804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Whi~ Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 9, 2001 Mr. Raymond L. Carey 1600 Pepperidge Ln. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Carey: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 8, 2001, the Board appointed you to the Community College Board of Directors, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2005. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cci James Cambtos Dr. Frank Friedman Printed on recycled paper _05/15/01 WED 06:3? FAX 804 B?4 $9~4 STATE FAI~ INS County of Alliemarle Oi~e of Bo~l of Coua~ Supet'viso~ 401 Mclnti~ Rosa Maglst~zlsl District m which your home wsid~g¢ is locgmd ~001 To:. ~mbe~s, Boord of Supervisors ~ ~ ! ~ Ella Washin~ton Carey, CMC, Cl~ ~'~' Reading List for Augcrst 8, 200 I August 3, 2001 March 2 t (A), 200 I April 18, 200 I April 25, 2001 May 9, 2001 June 6, 2001 Ms. Thomas Mr. Bowerman Ms. Thomas Pa~es 28 - end- Mr. Martin Pages I-18 (end at Item 6a) ~ Mr. Bowerman /ewc CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRqlNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-2000 August 2, 2001 Ms. Sally H. Thomas, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Thomas: I am writing in response to your letter concerning the Board of Supervisors' recently passed resolution endorsing the Meadow Creek Parkway. Specifically, I wish to point out how this resolution impacts the project. 'The Cormnonwealth Transportation Board adopted the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway through Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville on April 27, 1994, and the parkway design on June 30, 1999. Since the alignment developed by your consultant is outside the previously adopted corridor, we are required to conduct another Location Public Hearing and to readdress many design issues previously completed. This additional work will require additional time and funding to complete. It is my understanding that Mohammad Mirshahi of my staffhas discussed this issue with Messrs. Bob Tucker and Carter Myers. Mohammad has suggested that the County conduct the subject public hearing provided all state regulations are followed. I concur with this approach and have asked my staffto fully support the County in order to move ahead with this important transportation project. Sincerely, Cc: Mr. D. P. Bowerman Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris Mr. C. S. Martin Mr. L. G. Dorder, Jr. Mr. W. F. Perkins C. F. Gee Acting Chief Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 08-08-01 AtO:06 IN · Page 2 August 2, 2001 Mr.H.C. Myers, 11I Mr. C. D. Nottingham Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. J. L.'Bryan Mr. C. F. Boles, 1I[ Mr. M. Mirshahi Mr. J. C. Cutdght David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Ir. Scoasville Charlotte Y. Humphri, Jack Jouett COUNTY OF AI_REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 MclnQre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Wh~e H~I Sally H. Thomas Samuel Millar July 5, 2001 Mr. Jeffrey Cutright Design and Location Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Cutright: Enclosed please find a resolution passed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors stating the Board's endorsement of specific recommendations developed by an independent consultant related to the county's section of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. With this letter and enclosed resolution, the County requests that VDOT accept the recommended alternative and proceed expeditiously with the design of this section of the parkway. On September 6, 2000, Albemarle County executed a contract with Jones & Jones to provide assistance in the analysis of the design and alignment of the County section of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway from Melbourne Road to Rio Road, to consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park, and to review the relationship of the parkway to the development of adjacent urban land. Jones & Jones has developed horizontal alignment (including spiral curvature), vertical profiles, recommendations for handling cross-sections and grading, and other design features that are consistent with the City of Charlottesville's portion of the roadway. We feel it is important that this road be consistent in design throughout its length. Jones & Jones worked closely with a staff committee and, ultimately, the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory. Committee and VDOT As alternatives and concepts.were developed and finalized. A joint work session was conducted with the staff committee and VDOT representatives from the Richmond, Culpeper and Charlottesville offices. A work session was also conducted with the Design Advisory Committee. The results of this work were presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001. On June 20, 2001, the Board approved the attached resolutions endorsing Alternative "A" as set out in the enclosed "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report - May, 2001". and stating its intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the recommendations of this report. The County believes that this recommended alternative best provides for a true parkway, that is a scenic road within a linear park. This alternative accommodates very sensitively a number of critical considerations, including design criteria developed by the Design Advisory Committee, characteristics established in the Rieley report for the City's section of the parkway, the previously proposed VDOT alignment, general AASHTO and VDOT standards, Printed on recycled paper Mr. Jeffrey Cutright July 5, 2001 Page 2 associated lands that would support the linear park encompassing the parkway and provide connection to adjacent areas, and urban development concepts for adjacent lands that will allow for a desirable interface with the linear park and parkway. In closing, I appreciate your careful consideration of this resolution and again, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, urge you to accept the recommended alternative and move forward with the design of this critical roadway. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors SH'RIc 01-005 Attachment Pc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission Ms. Karen Kilby, Chief of Location and Design, VDOT (Culpeper) Mr. Mohammed Mirshahi, Ass't. State Location & Design Engineer, VDOT, Mr. H. Carter Myers, Ill, Commonwealth Transportation Board Mr. James L. Bryan, Resident Engineer, VDOT, (Charlottesville) The Honorable Blake Caravati, Mayor, City of Charlottesville (Richmond) RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May, 2001"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and to send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001. Clerk, Board of County Supe~i/so~ A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of approximately two miles in length, with the first segment being within the Charlottesville City limits between Route 250 and Melbourne Road, and the second segment in Albemarle County between Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and WHEREAS, in September, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors contracted with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects to develop design and alignment recommendations for the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, to consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and to look at adjacent park and urban development areas along the corridor of land between Melbourne Road and Rio Road in Albemarle County, with the overall vision being the creation of a true "parkway"; and WHEREAS, Jonas & Jones led and coordinated a design team that worked in conjunction with the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Departments and the Planning Commission. The culmination of this process was the creation of a wr'~ten report providing three alternative alignments with Alternative "A" being the recommended alignment. Alternative "A" was then further refined and final recommendations for the parkway, urban development and parklands was presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed all the aitematives and aspects of the proposed project, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses Alternative "A" and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed expeditiously with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbourne Road to Rio Road, in conformance with the proposed Alternative "A" roadway alignment recommendation and concept set out in the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report- May, 2001". I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001. ALTERNATIVE A The S te Suitability Analysis suggested that the Open Rolling Uplands are ', well suited for urban development. Rather than bisect this parcel, the A ternative A alignment travels around the west edge of the proposed development area. It crosses Meadow Creek near the existing railroad culvert, where the cre~k valley has been filled to create a h~gh berm carrying the railroad tracks over the creek. Construction of a roadway bridge here would consolidate bridge disturbances to Meadow Creek in one location and would create an opportunity to improve the severely degraded creek channel below the radroad culvert. .~"~=~., ~., The Alternative A alignment allows a contiguous area of parkland and open space to be created across the wooded highland and Meadow Creek bottomland. It also crosses Meadow Creek at a point where the f'.ood plain is narrower than suggested in Alternative B. This will presumably allow Alternative A bridge to be shorter ~n length than Alternative B bridge. Visual intrusion of the bridge into proposed park areas along Meadow Creek will be less for Alternative A than for Alternative B. There are two slight disadvantages associated with Alternative A roadway alignment. First, the steep hill to the north of the proposed creek crossing would be cut through in order to keep the road at a comfortable gradient. The cut, however, would not have to appear as a scar upon the land. It would occur on a curved section of the proposed alignment and could be blended into the existing topography and re-vegetated so that il would appear as a natural landform. In addition, the view to the west from the bridge in Alternative A will be of the railroad berm. Trees planted between the bridge approaches and the Southern Railroad will help soften the severity of the berm. Urban Development Concept: The Alternative A parkway alignment skirts the edge of the urban development area, thus creating an available "critical mass" of approximately 40 contiguous acres --an area that can support a compact, walkable, mixed-use community. The Alternative A development concept concentrates commercial development on two high points on the site with lower intensity residential development extending outward from these centers. This enables uninterrupted pedestrian and vehicular circulation between the centers with major vehicular access from Rio Road at points north and south. The ravine and drawthat bisect the site allow lower intensity development (in the draw) transitioning to park and open space (in the deeper ravine). Within the development area, pedestrian-oriented streets, parks, and sq Hares will enhance walkability and connectivity between commercial, residential, and recreational areas. Pedestrian circulation linkages beyond the site would include access to CATEC, via a bridge over the parkway with possible connections to the hike/bike trails paralleling the parkway as well as access to any future transit line whether along the parkway or on the existing railroad line. Within the development area, connections to parks and open space would occur via the trail system mentioned above. Opportunities also exist to extend pedestrian linkages to the southeast through existing neighborhoods and future development areas. Pedestrian links from the development area across Rio Road would provide access to existing and potential recreation resources to the east including Pen Park and the Rivanna River. Careful attention would need to be given to providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Rio Road. By providing compact and connected development patterns, opportunities are created to maximize open space and view retention both along Rio Road as well as southward down the slopes and ravines to the Meadow Creek corridor. IVY LANDFILL STATEMENT August 7, 2001 By Blake Caravati, Mayor, City of Charlottesville Sally Thomas, Chairperson, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has refused to grant an extension for Cell #2 closure at the Ivy Landfill, meaning that unless that decision is reconsidered, on-site burial of construction and demolition debris will be discontinued as of September, 2001. Because such a closure will have serious short and long-term impacts on our community, we would like to discuss some of the consequences of that decision as well as how we are planning to respond to the resulting waste disposal needs of our citizens. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has now made arrangements for construction debris to be handled by BFI at its transfer station at Zion Crossroads since disposal at the Ivy Landfill will no longer be possible after September 1 given current conditions. Except for small pickup track loads of debris which can continue to be handled at the Ivy Landfill, Charlottesville and Albemarle County residents will be encouraged to take all their construction debris to Zion Crossroads. The Ivy Landfill will continue to accept municipal solid waste (garbage) at its transfer station at the landfill as well as maintaining its current service offerings of disposal of brush and stumps, white goods, tires and household hazardous waste. The Authority's recycling program, the Encore Shop, and the City and County's curbside/blue bag recycling programs will continue unchanged. The commitment and dedication to protect neighbors' groundwater and to continuonsly monitor environmental conditions at the landfill will continue. As has been discussed previously, the elimination of construction debris burial at the Ivy Landfill will have significant long term financial implications to our localities and will seriously affect our community's future ability to handle our local waste. Since the present burial operations at the landfill finance a number of the other Authority programs such as recycling, household hazardous waste, education, and landfill remediation efforts, we believe the City and County governments could be requested to help financially suppOrt these programs at an average cost exceeding $1 million armt~ly if these programs are to continue. Because of this, city and county officials feel obligated to discuss with DEQ the impact of its September first deadline and to make sure there are not any possible alternatives. We anticipate the Rivanna Authority will be presenting to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors a complete report on these matters in the next 60 days.