Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600005 Other Zoning Map Amendment 2016-03-16 Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner Planning Division Albemarle Co. Department of Community Development Cc: Ann Mallek, White Hall District Rep., Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors Dave Stoner, Crozet Community Advisory Council Dan Mahon,Albemarle Co. Outdoor Recreation Supervisor The Crozet residents whose names are listed below urge the County Planning office to require that the Eastern Avenue Road extension between Westhall and Foothill Crossing include a culvert for the Crozet Connector Trail in addition to the culvert for the creek. The trail culvert should be of sufficient height for pedestrians and cyclists to pass through. The rationale for this request is to allow access along the greenway without requiring users to climb to the elevation of the proposed road. This popular trail is currently used by the public for running,biking, and walking by both adults and children. A disruption in the continuity of the trail experience would have a negative impact on the enjoyment and recreational benefit of this Crozet amenity, not to mention the safety aspect of requiring the public to cross what may prove to be a well-used road. There is also a concern that the use of a ramp to connect the current trail grade to the road grade above will not be universally accessible and will therefore exclude a significant group of potential users. The Connector Trail is consistent with The Crozet Master Plan which promotes connected neighborhoods and walkability. It is also a community asset that is being promoted by developers in their advertising. Feedback from the public tells us there is significant support for our request. Respectfully submitted, Joe Abbate&Colleen Carew, Highlands Barb Franko,Highlands Tony Alimenti, Old Trail Michael Gallagher,Old Trail Bryan&Eric Alves,Western Ridge Jennie&Kevin Geiger,Westhall John&Michelle Anderson,Grayrock&Crozet Stephen Goadhouse,Parkside Village Running Lisa Goehler&Ron Gaykema,Jarman's Gap Joel Barredo,Westhall Estates Linda C. Bell,Highlands Thomas M. Guterbock,Western Ridge Billie&Phil Best,Western Ridge B. Diane Hamer,Baywick Circle Kristine&Jamie Bourque,Foxchase Tom&Jan Harrison,Highlands Cynthia Bowers,MD Elizabeth Herlevsen,Brookwood Pamela Cairns,Foothill Crossing Sarah Johnson&Patrick MacPherson,Westhall Clover Carroll,Grayrock Todd&Laura Johnson,Westhall Amalia&Dale Castle,Western Ridge Beth&Jon Kagarise,Westhall Nana Corley, Crozet Ave. Steve&Teri Kostiw,Foothill Crossing Mary Craig,Highlands Sandra L.Landry, Sugar Hollow Tom& Susan DeBolt, Old Trail Bryan&Sarah Lewis,Western Ridge Deborah&Howard Day,Wickham Pond Gene Locke,Jarman's Gap Estates Murielle and Stephan de Wekker,Westhall Craig Marshall,Western Ridge Bob Dombrowe,Old Trail Chris&Jessica Maslaney,Western Ridge Gigi Elliott,Western Ridge Charlotte Mason, Stonegate Jessica, Bill, &Hazel Mauzy,Highlands Linda McNeil&Rosie Smith, St. George Ave. Shawn and Cohen Miller,Westhall Tern&David Miyamoto,Highlands Debbi Meslar-Little&Jack Little,Yancey Mills Kevin M. Murray&family,Western Ridge Thedra Nichols, Grayrock Adriane Neumeister,Highlands John O'Connor&Diane Morse,Westhall Helen Payne,Burch's Creek Rd. Janet&Pat Phillips,Western Ridge Ben Plummer, Crozet Jamie&Carl Reisch, Westhall Wayne Riddle,Old Trail Dr. &Mrs. Bradley Rodgers, Greenwood Steve Rosinski, Wickham Pond Erin Rothman, Parkside Village Stephen&Angela Rutherford, Westhall Jaclyn&Joe Shaffer,Westhall Richard Simon, Western Ridge Ignacio&Alejandra Simon-Cadiz, Western Ridge Elizabeth Simpson,Haden Lane John C. Smith, Old Trail Teri &David Stipe, Parkside Village Bob Sullivan,Meriwether Hills Tim F.J.Tolson,Emerald Ridge Francesca Toscani,Western Ridge David&Lisa Tungate,Westhall Jamie,Jeff, Sydney,& Sam Waldbillig, Western Ridge Christine Walters,Westhall Stephanie Weaver&Tony Lagana, Westhall Meg&David West,Jarman's Gap Rd Nathaniel and Kathryn West, Westhall Beth White,McCauley St. Alicia Williams,Laurel Hills Amy Yancey,Old Trail 20160316 CCAC Notes Friday, March 18, 2016 10:33 AM Applicant presentation Applicant proposing to rezone to R-6 to allow up to 210 dwellings Proposing to construct portions Eastern Connector Road and east west thoroughfare(Main Street) Questions/comments • Why are you increasing the density when it is already what is allowed by Comp Plan? o Current zoning is much lower than comp Plan recommendations.Comp Plan recommends 3-6 du/ac and 6-12 du/ac on this property.Current zoning is R-1 which only allows up to 1 du/ac. • The existing plan does not say R-1 is a bad zoning for this area. • Concern of adding more homes before infrastructure is available.Connection should be made first. Park Ridge Drive is currently the only way out of this area and now adding more traffic on that street. • The applicant should use a phased approach until the Eastern Connector is complete.The phasing should be tied to the rate of development and infrastructure should be complete before constructing the houses o Applicant response-developer is proffering to construct the entire portion of the roadways (Eastern Connector and Main Street)that they control prior to the first CO. • Crossing of the greenway to the South of this parcel should be a tunnel/culvert.The grade is very steep here and would be dangerous to have pedestrians crossing what will be a very busy road. Foothill Page 1 CROZE _DMMUNITY ADVISORY COI...J./ITTEE March 16, 2016 The CCAC held its regular monthly meeting on March 16. Representatives from Riverbend Mgt. updated the CCAC regarding rezoning activities for a parcel of land that is west of the current Foothill Crossings construction. This is designated as Phase VI on the Foothill Crossing plan. Riverbend proposed the rezoning last year—changing it from R1 (lower density)to R6 (higher density). The R6 designation allows Riverbend to build potentially 200 units. Steve,Teri, and Maynard attended the meeting. The discussion focused on the transportation infrastructure. Here's an extract of the Twitter record, with notes: • Phase development to road infrastructure that's built, so don't overwhelm one road out. (Note. The reference is to Park Ridge, currently the only road out.) • 200 units is max build out for these properties. This private developer contributing major portion of transportation here. (Note. The developer would provide ONLY the streets required to access the proposed rezoned parcel at this time.) • Resident concerned that infrastructure not coming first, being bolted on. More housing with still only western exit (Note. The reference may have been to a Western Ridge exit, not an exit to the west.) • Walking access to Crozet Park. Bike lanes on Eastern Ave. Central community space. Only develop connector on their property. (Note. The reference here is to the so-called "Eastern Connector Road"envisioned in the Master Plan to run North-South between Routes 240 and 250.) Steve was the one who pointed out that infrastructure is not being built in—before the new housing units—but will be "bolted on" afterwards. The development is not being synchronized properly. A crucial consideration here is the Eastern Connector Road. The developer is committing to building some of the central section of this proposed 240-250 connection. But it was made clear in the meeting that there are no definitive plans(County responsibility) to complete either the most northerly portion, with its (expensive) railroad crossing, or the most southerly portion, with its(expensive)stream crossing. These are the connections to 240 and 250 respectively. Of course, without these connections to 240 and 250, all the traffic created by the new housing developments will funnel through the only existing exit route to the East: Park Ridge Dr. The new housing developments include the next phases of Foothill Crossing low-density housing (i.e. Phases IV and V), the proposed high-density Foothill Crossing division (Phase VI), plus Westlake. But once the road connections to the Crozet Park area are made,then Charlottesville-bound traffic from that area will also use Park Ridge, thereby avoiding downtown Crozet. All this traffic will funnel through Park Ridge Dr. All these points were met with sober attention in the meeting last night. Certainly the developer's representatives didn't deny them, and Ann Mallek acknowledged them directly. In this sense, it was a "good hearing." But the rezoning request from the developer still stands. We encourage you to stay informed and participate in future discussions. The planning process is the time that we can maximize influence on the Planners. , Crozet Community Advisory Committee— Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Meadows, Crozet,Virginia CCAC members present: Dave Stoner (Acting Chair), Phil Best, John Savage, Lisa Marshall, Brenda Plantz, George Barlow, Beth Bassett, Leslie Burns, Kim Guenther, Jon McKeon, Alice Lucan, Susan Munson,Ann Mallek(Board of Supervisors), Jennie More(Planning Commission) CCAC members absent: Kim Connolly, Mary Gallo Public attendees: Paul Grady, Ann Dessertine, Brian Day, Robin Luecke, Mike Vonn, Mike Marshall, Tom Loach, Keith Lancaster, Charlie Armstrong, Maynard K. Davis, Valerie Long, Ashley Davies, Keith Zackrisson, Bevin Boisvert, James Thacker, Bernice Thacker Chair Dave Stoner called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Agenda Review (Dave Stoner — CCAC chair): Dave Stoner summarized the agenda. Jennie More asked that a discussion regarding whether it is appropriate to support development at a higher density in one area if a lower density is used elsewhere. This topic would be discussed at the end of the meeting. Jeff Stone, manager of direct sales at Starr Hill Brewery, spoke with the CCAC about an upcoming event at the brewery. He said that Starr Hill was founded in 1999 on Main Street in Charlottesville, and moved to Crozet in 2006. Their whole operation takes place here in the community, and they see many visitors. Starr Hill is now the 135th largest craft brewer in the United States. Because they have many ties to the music industry through their ownership group, they have been planning a musical festival for beer styles, focused on India pale ales (IPAs). IPAs are a big part of their business and comprise 65% of the craft beer community. So they have zoning clearance for the first year, with the festival to be held June 25, from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the back of the hangar park parking lot across the street from the tap room. They expect between 1,500 and 2,000 people, and will be selling only Starr Hill beers but will have sample beers from other breweries. There will be several different musical groups all day. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff at jeff@starrhill.com or call the brewery at 823- 5671. Mr. Stone said that the County and ABC are supportive, and the Albemarle County Police and Fire and Rescue are on board with the festival. Parking will be handled by an expert parking contractor. This Saturday Starr Hill will host a St. Patrick's Day festival, to include pipes and drums and the UVA Irish dance team. The event will also feature Ken Farmer (an Antiques Road Show appraiser and County resident), who will play Irish and mountain drinking music. There will be a chef throw down as well, with several chefs competing, and featuring Rock Barn pork and a vegetarian option. They will also be releasing a foreign export stout that day. Tickets are $17.00. 2. Approval of Minutes from the February 17, 2016 meeting: Subject to any corrections communicated to the secretary within the one week from today, John Savage moved to approve the February 17, 2016 minutes, seconded by Beth Bassett, and the February 17, 2016 minutes were approved by vote of the CCAC. 1 3. Public Meeting/Project Update — West Glenn Project and Powells Creek Stream Crossing SUP (Keith Lancaster and Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development): Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Armstrong gave the CCAC an update from their presentation on the West Glenn project at the December meeting. The owner, West Glenn LLC, has done more surveying and engineering work and they wanted to report on their findings. In January they applied for a special use permit (SUP) for the project. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Lancaster reminded the CCAC that the Cling Lane neighborhood had originally been given a restricted SUP for 30 units because of the single entrance to Cling Lane across Powell's Creek, using a double 12' x 8' box culvert. The number of homes in the neighborhood must be restricted until a second connection to Orchard Drive is made, and this SUP application proposes the second point of crossing, which would allow adding 18.13 acres to the development. The land is zoned R-6, which would allow up to 108 units; they are now projecting 75 units. They have had to shift some of the features and lot lines because of stream side buffers. The SUP application is for the stream crossing only. There is an existing dam on the creek (used in years past for mixing chemicals for local orchards) that creates a small (approximately 40' x 40') pond with about four feet of elevation change. The Clean Water Act requires mitigation for the impacts caused by the bridge construction and so the developer proposes to do so by removing the dam and restoring the creek, which would allow the creek to revert to its natural state. The new proposed bridge would be located in a pinch point in the flood plain and would be a double 12' x 8' box culvert like the existing bridge. The bridge would provide a minimum of about one foot of freeboard at the crossing, so that the 100 year floodplain will not overtop the road. They removed the area of floodplain to determine density, which came out to 81 units. The development will include open space. In designing the location of the new entrance into Orchard Drive, they moved the entrance so that headlights will not shine into the house that is opposite the entrance. The location is currently flagged. The developer is proposing pedestrian trail easement access from the property to Jarmans Gap Road. The Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) owns the adjoining parcel, which is being divided and this access would go across one of those parcels. A question was raised about the road connection back over to Cling Lane and whether there could be two accesses there, but there is an existing house lot that makes the development property too narrow at this point to do a second access to Cling. The cul de sac will be lost, but this is because projects are designed for connectivity, and it was noted that cul de sacs are shown as potential streets into neighboring parcels. They would prefer to have two functional entrances, but it could be possible to get a waiver from VDOT that would allow one entrance to be used only for fire and rescue access for emergencies. It was noted that the new homes will cause 500 to 750 car passes per day being added. The development currently has 31 townhouses and 44 single family homes, but this is only a conceptual plan for the crossing and could change because the property has not yet been subdivided. Several Cling Lane residents expressed surprise that there were homes proposed between their lots and the creek because they had thought that the southern lines of their properties were in the floodplain. Some had been told that the land could never be built upon. One resident noted that Powell's Creek feeds into Lickinghole Creek, where the water quality is only fair, and the proposed development will adversely affect water quality. Mr. Armstrong noted that the stormwater rules are now much more stringent than they were when the original development was put in. 2 West Glenn owns to the creek on its side of crossing, and PHA owns to creek on its side. Paul Grady suggested a retaining wall (rather than a steep slope) near the crossing, and Mike Marshall asked about the County engineer's report on crossing plan. It was noted that there is some discrepancy between the County GIS system and the flood plain map, and they will research this and confirm which is correct. They do not see any significant design issues. Rachel Falkenstein, the County planner for the project, will send information to Dave Stoner, and Ann Mallek said that she would be watching for the correct GIS definition of critical slopes, and will ask that it be field checked. It will probably be necessary to update FEMA's flood map when this is confirmed. Leslie asked about stream restoration, and Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Lancaster said that they will reforest part of the stream pursuant to a mitigation plan, and the flood plain will be open space and wooded. They said that they will only take down trees for utility corridors. They were asked what happens if they do not get the SUP, and they responded that this would send them back to the drawing board because of the limitation on development using the first crossing. It was also noted that it is very steep coming off of Orchard Lane at the new proposed entrance. The entrance could be softened and reduce the pitch, but doing so makes it wider, and more trees would have to be removed to do it. They could reforest, but that takes some time. Mr. Armstrong said that they could build a retaining wall to lessen the disturbed area, but in his experience most people don't like those as much. From the creek to the road surface is about 10 feet and there was some discussion of how high above the creek the houses will be. County Natural Resources Manager David Hannah has looked at the mitigation proposal, but not the subdivision plan. It was noted that most of the road is on another party's land(PHA, which has the same goals) and they need this cooperation to make it work. The other developer gets more floodplain area to boost its density for an apartment development. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Lancaster have received staff comments and hope to turn around the plan by first of month. They can defer going to the Planning Commission if they haven't responded to staff comments. If they are able to address the comments, it will nonetheless take about a month to get to the PC. The County will notify all adjoining (i.e. the parcels must touch) landowners of the PC meeting. The PC makes its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and then there is another month of turnaround. The site plan process would probably start in the summer, likely resulting in some tweaking of house and street locations, and so it would likely be late summer to fall before they submit the application for subdivision. Tom Loach suggested inviting PHA to the next meeting to see what their plans are for their part of the property in question. Mr. Armstrong said that they would get engineer comments and send these out. It was noted by a neighbor that the loss of trees will make the neighborhood hotter in the summer. Ann Mallek noted that the idea of the growth area is to consolidate services and deliver them, and also said that there have been problems in the past about tree areas and utilities and so the developer needs to protect the forest as best it can. They said that there is an existing sewer line crossing the creek and they hope to use that as much as possible for other utilities. Water lines will be located in the road, and the dry utilities will run along road, so they hope not to have any utility cuts. It was noted that the Albemarle County Service Authority has cut a large number of trees in a nearby pipeline easement, but this action was unrelated to this project. Mike Marshall noted that these will be 75 units in walking distance to downtown, and said that dense development closer to downtown is consistent with the Master Plan. 3 4. Public Meeting—Foothills Crossing Project ZMA (Valerie Long and Asfigrfir4s, Williams Mullen, Scott Collins, Engines): Ms. Long and Ms. Davies (an attorney and a planner, respectively) gave a presentation of the proposed Foothills Crossing rezoning. Riverbend Management (the developer of Foothills) is the contract purchaser of the property, which will be an extension of the Foothills subdivision. Rather than develop the land by-right, they hope to rezone a portion of it from R-1 to R-6, and will continue to help with road connections. Alan Taylor, a principal of Riverbend, could not be here tonight. Ms. Long noted that the zoning of this particular tract is a patchwork and the zoning lines do not always match the lot lines. One point of this property touches a point of Crozet Park, and the tract is the last piece to establish a connection between these neighborhoods. The land includes part of the proposed Route 240/250 connector, and Park Ridge Drive becomes the connector to downtown Crozet. The reason for the rezoning is that some parts of the overall project are by-right development in the R-1 zone, and another part of the property is zoned R-6. They want to bring 38 acres into R-6. The property is comprised of five parcels and the majority of the property is neighborhood density, 3-6 units per acre, and some is urban, at 6-12 units per acre. The proposal is to rezone to R-6, and they will use the Eastern Avenue connector as the break point for the zoning, with R-1 on the west side, R-6 on the east. Essentially the zoning had not caught up with the Master Plan and this change will make the land comply with the Master Plan. All the R-1 land to the east of the connector is not compliant. Ms. Long and Ms. Davies said that the project will include a central meeting space for the Foothills neighborhood. Questions were raised about a plan for the connector and how all the connections will work. Ms. Long said that there is still one owner near Lickinghole Creek who is not on board yet for a road, and there are some pieces that the County will have to pick up. The southern portion of the connector is a high priority(3rd) for the County but is not yet funded. However, as projects develop, the connector project will become a higher priority. The northern portion of the connector will cross a property being remediated for pollution problems (former Acme Visible Records site), and will also have to cross the railroad. A comment was made that although there is ongoing building, and we have conceptual plan, we continue to kick this issue down the road. We are building in the interior, but have no plan for the exterior. It was noted that this project will provide more exits for Westlake and other neighborhoods and will disperse traffic in Crozet. The R-6 maximum will be around 210 houses. Why not phase this project with infrastructure? Here a private developer is building a lot of the infrastructure for the area, by constructing this portion of the connector road. It was noted that Foothills Crossing was developed by right and was intended to be part of the road network, and the developer has volunteered to provide infrastructure by building part of the public road. Tom Loach said that infrastructure should be tied to development so that existing infrastructure is not overwhelmed. Should the developer be required to build Park Ridge Drive to downtown? Ms. Davies and Ms. Long said that development will move into this R-6 area from the west and the east, and this process will create the connection. Plats are at the County now to do the R-1 development to the west of this property. This rezoning includes a small parcel near Route 240, demonstrating the need to piece together these parcels with different zonings. The zoning area lines are skewed and create challenges when they start putting in roads and lots. For instance a 3.24 acre portion 4 of a Light Industrial tract along Route 240 is cut off by a stream from the rest of the LI land along Route 240, making it undevelopable in its current configuration. So that piece of "landlocked" LI land is included in this rezoning too and will be incorporated into the development (although it is mostly stream buffer). There is also a small piece of R-2 land being rezoned to R-6. Because this is a rezoning, Board of Supervisors approval is needed. They expect to have staff comments on April 1, and can either resubmit or go to the Planning Commission. The PC has a hearing and then makes a recommendation to the BOS. Phil Best suggested that the Eastern Avenue bridge over the creek include a culvert for the trail so that the trail does not have to be rerouted up to the street and back down. If developed by right, the R-1 land could have 35 units and in R-6 the maximum would be 210 units. It was noted that the Beam Company owns the Acme site and should be ready to sell the land by the end of 2016. The Riverbend parcel is planned to have a public space in the interior for people to meet (the Master Plan requires a civic space). At this point, they are not sure of the form of the space, but it could simply be green space for the community, or a pavilion or playground. There will not be a swimming pool because the Crozet pool is nearby and these are a burden for homeowner associations. Most homes will be single family detached, but a small section will be villas (single family attached), similar to the cottages at Old Trail. There is a draft proffer statement which they will send to Dave Stoner. 5. Items not listed on the agenda: a. Tom Loach commented that the Crozet Master Plan update was to be done in 2015 and is now past due. Jennie and Ann noted that other County master plans are further behind in their initial development than Crozet and have been prioritized ahead of an update for Crozet. Realistically, the Crozet update likely will be in 2018 or 2019. Ann said that she would like to see more community reassessment before we go into a Master Plan update anyway, because such information would help inform the update and we would build from there. Tom recommended that the County perform a build-out analysis and see where we are in terms of the projected population of 12,198 at full build-out. What about infrastructure? Dave noted that more developers will be bringing in new projects, and there are older projects that could yet be constructed too, so we need to think about poising for the next Master Plan round. Tom said that the Crozet Community Association survey that Tim Tolson oversaw was very useful to him on the Planning Commission because he could point to it as where the community stood on many issues. Perhaps such a survey should be done again. Leslie agreed that such information would be important to have in hand and also said that we need a way to gather and curate information about the area in terms of its historic property uses. Such information could help us plan for land uses for the future and maintain the quality of life that brought people here. Mike Marshall noted that the issue is always over the density of development, and that if we get above a certain density the culture of the place is lost. If we allow wrong density,then we lose what is great about Crozet. Lisa noted that R-6 zoning seems to be the fallback now for neighborhoods, rather than something less dense. A concern was raised that the Planning Department staff may be advising Planning Commissioners that adding density in certain areas in reaction to unplanned lower density in others is an acceptable trade-off Mike noted that there are now several developments moving 5 forward at maximum density. The CCAC wondered whether this was a position staff was taking for the Adelaide project or a strategy overall. Dave asked whether the CCAC wanted to give Ann its thoughts on the question. Should the CCAC reach out to other advisory councils on this and other matters? Tom recommended that the CCAC invite other Community Advisory Committee chairs to come to our meeting and talk about issues that affect all of us. It was noted that Emily Kilroy has scheduled meeting of CAC chairs next week, but the agenda was not yet known. Ann noted that Crozet is a bit of a drive for some of the other CACs and it may be better for Dave or other members of the CCAC to go to their meetings, but at a minimum the chairs should get together and start the discussion. It was noted that the transferable density issue has been around for some time and has benefited developers. Lisa Marshall made a motion, seconded by John Savage, as follows: The Crozet Community Advisory Committee respectfully requests that Ann Mallek advise the Albemarle County Planning Department that the CCAC does not believe that density should be transferable in a manner inconsistent with the Master Plan, and that development by right in one area that is inconsistent with the Master Plan should not serve as a justification for more dense development in areas not designated for such use. The shifting of such density to a new development should not be seen as a positive factor in evaluating the new development. The CCAC approved the resolution unanimously. b. The CCAC then discussed the impact of denser development on our infrastructure, particularly roads and schools, and that such dense development should not be proposed without clearly taking those issues into consideration. It was recommended that this issue be considered in light of Tom's recommendation that a build-out analysis be prepared. The analysis should look at development that has already occurred and projects that are approved but not yet built, and also quantify the status of affordable housing units in Crozet (defined as 80% of average median income, around $200,000). Transportation needs are also tied to higher density development. Phil Best made a motion, seconded by Beth Bassett, as follows: The Crozet Community Advisory Committee requests that the County Planning Department prepare a build-out analysis for the Crozet Master Plan area, which analysis will include housing stock in projects that currently exist and projects that have been approved but not yet begun. The analysis should also include an assessment of the status of affordable housing units in the Master Plan area, both existing and approved but not built. The CCAC approved the resolution unanimously. c. Phil Best then commented that he felt that our schools are too large now, and the trend should be toward smaller schools. Brownsville Elementary, recently expanded, is now near capacity. It was recommended that the CCAC include our School Board representatives (David Oberg, White Hall District, and Jonno Alcaro, at-large, both of whom live in the area) in CCAC announcements and invite them to our meetings. Beth said that she can reach out to them. Given the nexus between schools and development, the CCAC believes that we should raise the awareness as to growth that is coming. 6 d. Following up on Gerald Gatobu's (County Transportation Planner) visit last month, and his request that we give him our priority road projects, the CCAC discussed transportation priorities on our area. Is this only the Lickinghole Creek bridge for the 240/250 connector? It was noted that at the moment it is not clear where the bridge would go. It was also noted that smaller projects have a better chance to be funded in certain categories in the new state process. It was further noted that our area is not as high a priority on the statewide list as other areas with greater needs, but ours is a busy place with lots of growth. Several Crozet projects in the County's transportation plan have been completed, but Eastern Avenue is still undone and should remain a priority. The Lickinghole Creek bridge and the railroad crossing are two significant unfunded components. Phil noted that Mr. Gatobu said that the state likes to see some investment in projects and a portion of Eastern Avenue has been built, and so there is some investment there. Phil Best also thinks something needs to be done about Three Notch'd Road because it has no shoulders (but does have deep ditches along it) and sees considerable bicycle and foot traffic. He said that improvements should be made from the Acme site to Highlands. Kim Guenther noted that Route 250 at Harris Teeter is another key project area. Apparently a traffic circle has been mentioned for that location, but Ann noted that the traffic island and improved crossing are in the budget and she hopes that a more expensive option (like a traffic circle) will not prevent the planned improvements from being made. John Savage said that the Route 151/Route 250 intersection is another issue, and several ideas (including a traffic circle) have been floated for that one. The CCAC decided to ask Dave Stoner to send a consensus email to Gerald Gatobu listing our priorities as Eastern Avenue, Route 240 improvements, and the Radford Lane/Harris Teeter crossing issues. 6. CCAC 2016 officer nominations and elections (John Savage): March is the end of the year for the CCAC and some members are term limited out, and others aren't renewing. If you are eligible, and want to renew, submit your application to the County soon. Elections for officers were then held and it was noted that all current members can vote. John Savage had served as the nominating committee and had received two nominations for a one year term: Dave Stoner as Chair, and Mary Gallo as Vice Chair. No nominations from the floor were received and Phil Best moved to close nominations. No secretary was nominated but Leslie Burns said that she would act as secretary for a couple of months until a permanent secretary comes forward. Dave and Mary were unanimously elected to the positions to which they were nominated. 7. Announcements: To be safe, Emily will provide public notice for the DCI meetings as CCAC meetings. Applications for open CCAC seats must be submitted by March 22 https://www.albemarle.org/boards/ 7 DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, development on certain properties in the Crozet Growth Area has proceeded on a "by-right" basis at a density less than that recommended by the Crozet Master Plan; WHEREAS, the Crozet Community Advisory Committee ("CCAC") is concerned that the Albemarle County Planning Department may recommend approval of proposed development projects at higher densities in areas proposed in the Master Plan for lower, or a range of densities,because of such prior by-right development; and WHEREAS, the CCAC believes that the interests of the community are best served by continuing to adhere to the goals as set out in the 2010 Crozet Master Plan regardless of such prior by-right development, and accordingly it is hereby unanimously RESOLVED, that the Crozet Community Advisory Committee respectfully requests that Ann Mallek advise the Albemarle County Planning Department that the CCAC does not believe that density should be "transferable" in a manner inconsistent with the Master Plan, and that development by-right in one area that is inconsistent with the Master Plan should not serve as a justification for more dense development in other areas. The shifting of such density to a new development should not be seen as a positive factor in evaluating the new development. I, David Stoner, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of the resolution unanimously adopted by the Crozet Community Advisory Committee at its regular monthly meeting held March 16, 2016 by a motion made by Lisa Marshall and seconded by John Savage. CCAC Members present: David Stoner, Acting Chair; George W. Barlow, III, Secretary; Beth Bassett; Phil Best; Leslie Burns; Kim Guenther; Alice Lucan; Alice Marshall; John McKeon; Susan Munson; and Brenda Plantz. Agit— David Stoner, Acting Chair RESOLUTION REQUESTING BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS WHEREAS, the Crozet Community Advisory Committee ("CCAC") is concerned about the impact that existing and proposed development projects will have on the schools, roads and other infrastructure in the western portion of Albemarle County; WHEREAS,the 2010 Master Plan projected population of 12,000 in Crozet in 2030; WHEREAS, the CCAC desires to have an understanding of the current state of affordable housing in Crozet as more development projects are proposed; and WHEREAS, the CCAC believes that it can better understand the impact of proposed development projects on Crozet and its citizens if the CCAC has a build-out analysis of existing and approved projects, and accordingly it is hereby unanimously RESOLVED, that the Crozet Community Advisory Committee requests that the County Planning Department prepare a build-out analysis for the Crozet Master Plan area, which analysis will include housing stock in projects that currently exist and projects that have been approved but not yet begun. The analysis should also include an assessment of the status of affordable housing units in the Master Plan area, both existing and approved but not built. Finally, the analysis should compare current build-out and resulting population estimates against projections in the Crozet Master Plan. I, David Stoner, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of the resolution unanimously adopted by the Crozet Community Advisory Committee at its regular monthly meeting held March 16, 2016 by a motion made by Lisa Marshall and seconded by John Savage. CCAC Members present: David Stoner, Acting Chair; George W. Barlow, III, Secretary; Beth Bassett; Phil Best; Leslie Burns; Kim Guenther; Alice Lucan; Alice Marshall; John McKeon; Susan Munson; and Brenda Plantz. 04d(et— David Stoner, Acting Chair I 1 i 6 i.l 1 l i 1 i i i y�-1 �' UAW WWII On MR i -- -,- •, - - _ — ---- ___ r ya_ "ter t '1 i� I . I 7 r -7— . . v �j�; 'yO - . :; i i _ 1 r / `"' ❑ ❑ O I , � N --"/.746114 _, ,_ M o ---i.. -,, E o 7r+1 ro Qs9 � ..._. r 1 JI.. 0 - Al - Z - � , . � I U I:____,,,-„,.,_, 7,,,,,," i 4.-, . . ) L.., �; - ��// ,/i, !i L< I it_` // r, , /r L / 1.� / , v i�� 1,° ,,,,,,__ ,,, , „. .. i ,1 ____ o i __, ,...„... i ..,, /-- , I � . , i i , _ / I \ \ 1 1 ` _. v. ___ ....„...„...._. ... , _ ,. _ _ _ ..... _ _ _ .111I � / /._:...;_.,,,„„ ,,,, , __, _ _ __ \\ , , , --/ ,,____ , .. .., _...,,, ,__„ . ,......,,,.... , _ .... , \y\ v/--•• \,!iii7.' sS Pik. ; //\ ._ l `y. '.*AN .,I/ '! '� ' • �\ A \' 4 �� ,/ , ,v \ III i" 7 /� - �� _ tr ____.\ ,_,„„.6.,.__..., _ _ g p , . • vw, ,,--- -,::.).\•••-„:. .• I. 7 \ \ re-IPI. IS -4., •.- ... :_ A ;, , , ge , 1 _/,..- v vQ to j mq 1 ,_ _w ' c , Y / s< i ; / ,\' \ '` / '-j- J III 1_ \ �' 1 E-- ��p J I 1 € a�se� 11 -411~46, i 1 7- - - N 'V \ / ,/ l .a ► l — 1— i A _ _ I ' 1 4p1p,6{i6 I 1 —/ l~ l ' " 16' I N t / ' L/ 1 ,,,,.„,__ _, _ _._ i _ i _i ,__ _, / , / . , , ... ,, / �~� �( , f sxxa �' xua Y 9 YPP J. 1 -� - _ YS e/` c, // 1 i , / /// : a / II ( ' G \_ — . 0 i , _ ......, , .... I I 4; i F. , , I ''. ; / ti PI 1 ��i ill' ' r �-- — � i E; i �g \ 0 1 % A\ : 1 -_poi I, 1 I" — / I I ;t L t 1 i Mgr r _i ,, ,,,,i,, 1 ": . p ' --� $„, ... ----\ -.. ,. l l i l 1 i a l i i 1 1 1 `. '� • • , >: �# .ram_ 1 -S 4- �r, �r ' fi-M141: ' -1* 1 . • ' : . , 4 ....t. . to . ' 44'&7_7,_ , - ,, IFI'f-- s -r jos- - , . ,, •-ii_-,'••_ ,i.. .-__. ., • .14, ..,elii. 4,11-4v, 7 1 e•• It- I 'I" 4,..t," ....1k1/41114 .t it . , . .... 4/51‘.fitlit • ‘i}:-4.1141:,.. 4 •• S•t 1 r - , _ - -♦ _ • • dor. ; :M1.11.. A. fir-• • + �..+ + ` _ Irlir 'or , • 11..- . . 1,...•4 4,: g -.:1 S.:1;51 '-'4; .... V e‘i*C,"'''S:4" V _ 'y 'tir Y - _.. - ' •�Y y, • •1 TY yr" ` ✓ • r .. L. s. �r ig*IP rt.. -r, -,..3. 4 1..... . ;- �` _�• .;" Wit? * ,f. • '. ....' t Connector Trailheao c, • •t* 14 ft ��.,.; ffff��f#g#!!# _ a. - ti ,I„ -- � Y t _' r_ :Yt - y+- .�_- R -4,-44'---.. ir - 1 t 1 k,.-• ag 14 ,b, • 11 - a iitr., 1 , ,r r IP df! ` i� r v r tll' � 1+� Y ^��rh # v •1 • s } % •• • : ' �. .c J`y',► .�. y '' it �• + a • 4. . p ra --4.1' .f �' 'ilp ,,,ly._,ems_ s. +�• ••1, sigifr - - _ `. ' A ��„}l•�' �i►7 •,1 li •Jr�. Y.� • Ne • • � •r Sri -rail ' � �;• 14 -,• •4. . � • • . '. • • ..* iiiit APP. .4.,,,,, •� �• • 'r ? .�� ■MOON ♦ • s r 4f, 7 ,*A r - " 1 .fie • ' , '1 Relationship of Proposed New Units from Adelaide with Projected Population and Crozet Capacity Several residents of Crozet asked how new units from this proposed development might affect the population capacity of the Crozet Development Area. As indicated in the Crozet Master Plan, full buildout,the Crozet Development Area would provide population capacity of approximately 18,000. This capacity estimate does not assume a timeline for growth, so whether Crozet grows to 18,000 by 2040, 2050, or even later is not known. However, during the 2010 Crozet Master Plan update, staff provided some unofficial projections of future growth as seen below: POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2000—2030 BASED ON PAST GROWTH RATES Projection from Historic Population Growth for Crozet Year Low* High** 2010 5,560 5,640 2020 8,390 9,818 2025 10,061 12,650 2030 12,065 16,299 * Annual growth rate of 4.2%to yr 2020; growth rate of 3.7% from 2021-2030 (observed 1990-1999) ** Annual growth rate of 5.7% to yr 2020; growth rate of 5.2% from 2021-2030 (observed 2000—2009) Projection from Growth Trends as seen in Building Permits for Crozet Year Low*** High**** 2020 6,812 8,986 2030 8,164 12,305 *** Projection—average number of residential building permits observed from1994 to 2003 (55 permits/year) **** Projection—average number of residential building permits observed from 2004 to 2008 (136 permits/year) These projections were intended to give an idea of the potential future rate of growth. A current in-house population estimate for Crozet is 6,854. This figure is based on 2,753 dwellings at a persons/unit multiplier of 2.49. (There were 2,192 dwellings in 2010.) If one were to project growth at a steady rate from 2010 to 2020 based on an average of 93.5 new units per year at 2.49 persons/unit, a population of 7,786 might be expected in 2020. As seen above, 7,786 is within the projected range from 2009. County projections are not considered official projections of population since Albemarle County uses the Virginia Employment Commission projections as its official projections. Based on current estimates, though, it appears that the rate of growth is well within the unofficial projections used in 2009. Administrative Guidelines November 2014 EXAMPLES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MEET THE 5,000 VEHICLES PER DAY TRIP GENERATION THRESHOLD ITE Trip Generation Land Use Code E or R W or S Size or Number of Units Light Industrial 110 Equation Weekday 690,000 sq.ft. Single Family, Detached 210 Equation Weekday 555 du Equation Saturday 520 du Apartment 220 Equation Weekday 820 du Equation Saturday 670 du Condo/Townhouse 230 Equation Weekday 1060 du Residential PUD 270 Equation Weekday 650 du Hotel 310 Equation Saturday 560 rooms High School 530 Rate Weekday 2950 Students Hospital 610 Rate Weekday 425 Beds General Office Building 710 Equation Weekday 560,000 sq.ft. Business Park 770 Equation Weekday 400,000 sq.ft. Home Improvement Superstore 862 Rate Weekday 170,000 sq.ft. Gas Station w/Cony. Mkt. 945 Rate Weekday 32 pumps Pharmacy w/o Drive-Thru 880 Rate Weekday 56,000 sq.ft. NOTE: These estimates have been rounded and are not official thresholds. They are offered as examples only. The calculations may differ based on the specific land use code of the ITE Trip Generation that is applied. Du—dwelling unit; Sq. ft—square feet Source: TripGen by Trafficware software and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition. 24 Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections from Fall 2015 (Including Pre-K Students) Current PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS CAPACITY CONFLICTS SCHOOL Building Enrollment #of Trailers Capacity 9/30/2015 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 AGNOR-HURT** 566 534 562 572 575 577 594 591 591 602 605 615 32 4 (6) (9) (11) (28) (25) (25) (36) (39) (49) 0 BAKER-BUTLER* 636 599 604 623 634 640 622 634 634 633 626 613 37 32 13 2 (4) 14 2 2 3 10 23 0 BROADUS WOOD 380 274 258 270 258 260 256 263 263 246 243 240 106 122 110 122 120 124 117 117 134 137 140 0 BROWNSVILLE** 744 734 729 764 748 753 731 738 738 729 734 736 10 15 (20) (4) (9) 13 6 6 15 10 8 0 1 CALE*** 694 701 699 719 706 710 687 688 688 687 697 699 (7) (5) (25) (12) (16) 7 6 6 7 (3) (5) 2 CROZET 350 335 339 348 347 332 332 335 335 344 350 355 15 11 2 3 18 18 15 15 6 0 (5) 0 GREER*** 578 607 643 655 681 673 660 658 658 665 664 672 (29) (65) (77) (103) (95) (82) (80) (80) (87) (86) (94) 2 a HOLLYMEAD** 494 477 486 488 485 480 476 484 484 484 481 478 17 8 6 9 14 18 10 10 10 13 16 2 a _ _ F m MERIWETHER 407 434 435 434 431 434 430 432 432 430 432 433 (27) (28) (27) (24) (27) (23) (25) (25) (23) (25) (26) 4 it m 44 MURRAY* 296 256 254 259 259 250 258 250 250 261 268 284 40 42 37 37 46 38 46 46 35 28 12 1 RED HILL* 178 162 164 159 162 164 156 160 160 160 159 159 16 14 19 16 14 22 18 18 18 19 19 4 SCOTTSVILLE* 178 196 188 193 199 195 197 196 196 197 197 199 (18) (10) (15) (21) (17) (19) (18) (18) (19) (19) (21) 2 STONE ROBINSON*** 540 413 412 429 422 430 422 423 423 415 418 419 127 128 111 118 110 118 117 117 125 122 121 0 STONY POINT* 244 261 248 271 270 273 271 276 276 257 253 251 (17) (4) (27) (26) (29) (27) (32) (32) (13) (9) (7) 4 WOODBROOK** 338 356 355 353 363 352 345 347 347 350 348 347 (18) (17) (15) . (25) (14) (7) (9) (9) (12) (10) (9) 3 YANCEY 136 118 124 119 122 120 121 120 120 117 116 118 18 12 17 14 16 15 16 16 19 20 18 2 Subtotal 6791 6,457 6,500 6,656 6,662 6,643 6,558 6,595 6,595 6,577 6,591 6,618 302 259 103 97 116 201 164 164 182 168 141 29 -^BURLEY 716 551 595 571 608 607 665 650 620 589 560 571 165 121 145 108 109 51 66 96 127 156 145 0 HENLEY 949 819 845 838 877 886 937 918 922 918 939 957 130 104 111 72 63 12 31 27 31 10 (8) 0 1.1 JOUETT 733 597 584 588 591 631 664 662 628 590 589 595 136 149 145 142 102 69 71 105 143 144 138 0 0 0 E SUTHERLAND 737 602 607 598 583 606 635 607 623 650 704 708 135 130 139 154 131 102 130 114 87 33 29 0 WALTON 534 331 324 346 335 324 322 319 297 295 291 300 203 210 188 199 210 212 215 237 239 243 234 0 Subtotal 3669 2,900 2,955 2,941 2,994 3,054 3,223 3,156 3,090 3,042 3,083 3,131 769 714 728 675 615 446 513 579 627 586 538 0 ALBEMARLE' 1819 1933 1960 1990 2001 2005 2014 2055 2083 2153 2149 2120 (114) (141) (171) (182) (186) (195) (236) (264) (334) (330) (301) 0 MONTICELLO 1236 1,141 1,132 1,100 1,082 1,079 1,053 1,085 1,107 1,109 1,122 1,096 95 104 136 154 157 183 151 129 127 114 140 0 x V_ = WESTERN ALBEMARLE 1088 1,073 1,060 1,080 1,083 1,122 1,107 1,152 1,188 1,198 1,231 1,201 15 28 8 5 (34) (19) (64) (100) (110) (143) (113) 5 Subtotal 4143 4,147 4,152 4,170 4,166 4,206 4,174 4,292 4,378 4,460 4,502 4,417 (4) (9) (27) (23) (63) (31) (149) (235) (317) (359) (274) 5 TOTAL 14,603 13,504 13,607 13,767 13,822 13,903 13,955 14,043 14,063 14,079 14,176 14,166 1,067 964 804 749 668 616 528 508 492 395 405 34 *=#of pre-k classrooms 'Murray High School is not reflected in this chart.The program currently has a target enrollment of 110 students. It utilizes 12 classrooms&the gym in the building. 'Excludes Post-High Students Long Range Planning Advisory Committee 2015/16 12/10/2015 Eastern Connector Road Proffer Costs Rio Mills Connector for VDOT$/Unit Cost Basis Quantity Unit $/unit Total Engineering 840 If $ 535.71 $ 450,000 Right of Way (61ft wide RW x 840ft long) 51,240 sf $ 5.85 $ 300,000 Construction 840 If $ 2,380.95 $ 2,000,000 Total $ 2,750,000 roffer Calculation for Eastern Connector at Foothill Crossing Quantity Unit $/unit Total Engineering 1680 If $ 535.71 Right of Way (61ft wide RW x 1680ft long) 102,480 sf $ 5.85 Construction (Road Way Typical) 1680 If $ 2,380.95 $ 3,999,996 Total $ 3,999,996 /001600 Foothill Crossing Connector Road Budget Atslactition Management 8/5/15 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Sub-Total Survey and Stakeout(Surveyor) 1 20,000.00 20,000 Mobilization/General Conditions/Temp Facilities(Contractor) 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 Light Clearing and Grubbing 5 acres 5,000.00 25,310 Medium Clearing and Grubbing 0 acres 9,000.00 0 E&S,Temp Seed,and Tree Protection(12 acres) Tree Fence and Safety Fence 3300 If 4.00 13,200 New SWM Basin 1 ea 10,000.00 10,000 Rip Rap Inflow/Outflow Protection(w/Fabric) 100 cy 65.00 6,500 Gabbion Forebay Dam 1 ea 8,450.00 8,450 Concrete End Walls(24"diameter) 3 ea 1,500.00 4,500 Stabalized Construction Entrance 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000 Wash Rack 1 ea 2,500.00 2,500 Check Dams 300 If 5.00 1,500 Silt Fence 3300 If 4.00 13,200 Inlet Protection at DI's 15 ea 500.00 7,500 EC-2 Matting 1 Is 5,000.00 5,000 Permanent Seed(Hydroseed) 5 acres 1,500.00 7,500 Earthwork Topsoil Stripping/Stockpile 8296 cy 3.00 24,889 Topsoil Respread/Fine Grading 7112 cy 6.00 42,671 Rock Blasting(10%cut) 4000 cy 15.00 60,000 Mass Cut/Fill(Assumption)1600ft long,140 wide,5 deep 40833 cy 5.50 224,583 Export and Stockpile(onsite for crossing) 16000 cy 3.00 48,000 Structural Fill at Creek Crossing(16000cy)2801ong24deep,210 wide 16000 cy 7.00 112,000 Stormwater Control Connector Road Culvert(96"RCP outlet 180ft) 180 If 320.00 57,600 Coffer Dam and Temporary Pumping(Licking Hole) 1 Is 25,000.00 25,000 Dewatering Device for New SWM Facility(36"riser) 1 ea 12,000.00 12,000 Trash Rack 1 ea 1,000.00 1,000 Storm Water Drop Inlets/Structures 17 ea 5,500.00 93,500 VDOT UD-4(4")(Both Sides) 3150 If 10.00 31,500 24"Diameter RCP 150 If 75.00 11,250 18"Diameter RCP 1650 If 60.00 99,000 15"RCP 150 If 65.00 9,750 Sanitary Sewer Sanitary MH(48"diameter) 0 ea 3,300.00 0 Sanitary Lines(8"SDR 35)(9ft deep) 0 If 40.00 0 Sanitary Lines(8"CL 50 DIP)(9ft deep) 0 If 60.00 0 Sanitary Lateral 4"w/Wye and Cleanout 0 If 15.00 0 Domestic Water Hydrants 3 ea 2,900.00 8,700 Domestic 8"D.I.P.(4 ft deep) 1575 If 70.00 110,250 1"Copper Laterals(to Property Line) 0 If 15.00 0 Water Meter Box 0 ea 300.00 0 Water Valves 8" 4 ea 1,600.00 6,400 Water Valves 6" 0 ea 1,450.00 0 8"x8"Tees 2 ea 350.00 700 8"x6"Tees 3 ea 300.00 900 Road Way,Curb and Gutter,Sidewalk Asphalt(2"Top Coat) 5600 square yd 12.50 70,000 Asphalt(6"Base Coat) 4468 square yd 38.00 169,784 Base Aggregate(9 inches deep) 4468 square yd 10.00 44,680 CG-6 Curb and Gutter 3150 If 20.00 63,000 Sidewalk(5ft wide by 3150ft long) 15750 square ft 5.00 78,750 ADA sidewalk ramp 4 ea 500.00 2,000 Guardrail 560 If 32.00 17,920 Landscaping Tree Plantings(2.5"caliper)(1 per 22ft) 72 ea 350.00 25,057 Miscellaneous Striping/Signage 1 10,000.00 10,000 Sub-Total Hard Costs 1,621,044 Contingency 10% 162,104 „Total Hardjosts with Contingency 1,783,148 Soft Costs Materials Testing and Inspections(3rd Party) 1 ea 25,000.00 25,000 CM Management(Owner) 1 ea 35,000.00 35,000 Engineering Design(Professional Engineer) 1 ea 60,000.00 60,000 As-Built Surveys 1 Is 10,000.00 10,000 Video Inspection 1 Is 10,000.00 10,000 Bond Fees 0.03 percent 1,783,148 53,494 Financing and Interest Costs 0.05 percent 1,783,148 89,157 Total Connector Road Costs to Developer(No pedestrian tunnels or trails) 2,065,800 ACite6i —frt) 600 000 Value of voad �Y,an �001506 Valise �� �Po� s °° � odono �Ql� � y g��� Can 11 v 4� tV 20° a0 0 l n-�� � , b 31I3011d�d Nlfld OV01i UOL03NN07�� , H�a~� ,,IVA aH 5 gJSq OVO)i 110.03NN00 SIlIHl003 e rl 141" x .' 1 __ 81/2111V$P-206ZZ VA'311IAS3UO1,1VH3-)1311rIS'133ee1S113Ht V000t 1! MIA .° "� °"°"" "'" 9NItIB3NIEN2 SNI11OD Es SNOISIA3N Qeeeaeasaaasaaaaasaseset.esee---_-; i i II I II I I a, 9LL.. 6: 6. VI E II i t 1ix gi39 8 asIa= sa3q 9a `\, i17; _ —L ". \ - _._"/ / 59 iiqq 5ills61 iygqqa33qi113311-` , '•! I , — -- t ay9";'. �gm�8 si�i���3Iiglla�msas �'� �/ 111.. O - i ' f �1 / _- _ems}{_ x... i / �. 1011 � sue, F 5 x� / } + 41� \\ _� i ! ' 1 11' waa� •4'+�� , o'� 1 pIIJv1 �— �AV � � �'I , 1'11 1 o' 1 hl w�l 1� \ I\\ 1 1�' 1 \ + `� \ Ihl l \l�'iI\\ \ 1 ` \I / \`I I\ \ 1��. \ 1\\I\ \d11 \ t -- il\1111.1i 1 1 \ $}I I\d1 1 \ .. •• i' ! a• I \ \ � I J t I r . - D0.NE 16a�- - - ...,,c...,,.____\ \ „ g I `J_ �..pow-- worier ef� r /' .`� I Iy�Oww 1111 y� ' \ 1— ; \���' �- - vw 21 -).____7_.:_-,,,--4____ _ ____i______i;_._ __.____j I\/\.!kv*. ,... . It. _, , i 0114 - ,`(--.-----'e\-- 1 12-:7... -," 'l lili ,f-/---....-,-,..--,.---,—•c-A, ,„. ,.,„ ,- ...--.....-...__--1.. ' , ' ilt_,I /7 ,<---,-9v-- 1g* r— , 1 u v-.00,---.‘s . //0 ;----i , --M-1 / i `ice r-- . I- � .��.<_r---�1 " �" / - �~ t; '' 1a sue._ ' , \ p 1/yA 1 Wit/ / - - . -.1 — 7— T 1� Act /'/l% I i/ iJ�1 , mie1 l ',' I ji\i1o/i r) I i/' f ' 1 i ry f "' I / 1 --t-1-"1 arl'71 ;,wee', \ \ I \ ` 1 i. —rY� 11 rlll 'a.\,, \ \ .,' 1 {\1iY t ._ _ SpIl\ /Jr� I� YI `L /Y��, \ t ,\,,,,\ \`. O'i 1 L/I I\.. .v .___,—A— \'‘‘,\\ , \\I , , -7.7‘.....-:-,,,r-T r., \\:........,' 1----- ....,..--",' 1 . _ . \\\` Ns\ \\*Ik/ \i r ''.41:I It 1st '...Mr - it ,_op , „ _ A , \ \, ..., „,.. „ , \\ E ........) '\ \\\ ---''�_\•o,\` ) g�t!PI\ ) 1\I\\`\a\I I. - , ,---I- ---_ i!1 I� !I ��a _ ' \\ \\\4.,Q _� / v ``�"`�`�/'i� i it 111 lI i j i i> da i; � �1 ¢ !II q� `c ` woo " ''''11 ``���P\� '\ �/• 11 / T ,~ i li ee a°g! iti*-zit° --- -t g Ed 9gK C h$ Dgt{ ' ' '‘\ ——''' i /2/1 1' -—7 ---\ •••444,4...,.:,-,,44N, _i L , I 4_, ,.. I ;, - r y H _ --1 ,; ,i = - -- m I1 yj / r- __- JBf\ / , ; ! - ! \ 11 , 1 / " ' '',w lA� '/`_. i 1; 1 ji '/ _...--- _ -- ---- - - -- --- __ �\\ 1 ! ^fin